Occurrence of Herbicide Degradation Products
Introduction
Our understanding of the potential effects
of herbicides on humans and ecosystems is incomplete because in
most studies herbicide degradation products (degradates) are ignored.
Analytical methods for herbicide degradates are either difficult,
expensive, or unavailable. Some degradates are as toxic as their
parent compound, but little information is available on degradate
occurrence or toxicity. A few recent studies have indicated that
herbicide degradates are prevalent in ground water, surface water,
and precipitation in the Midwestern U.S. For example, in a study
of herbicides occurrence in Iowa municipal wells, 9 of the 10 most
frequently detected compounds were herbicide degradates.
Objectives and Methods
In 1989, 1990, 1994, and 1995 post-application
water samples were collected at 52 sites on Midwestern rivers. All
samples were collected by USGS in glass or Teflon sampling bottles
using a depth integrating sampler from three or more verticals.
Samples were analyzed for herbicide degradation products by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), or solid-phase extraction
and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In 1998, two samples were
collected at 75 Midwestern surface-water sites (streams, large rivers,
and reservoirs), and one sample was collected at 25 wells. Surface-water
samples were collected during post-application runoff events. These
samples were analyzed for 10 herbicide degradates using GC/MS and
high performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS).
Discussion and Results
The concentrations of one cyanazine and two
atrazine degradates in post-application runoff samples collected
from 52 Midwestern streams are shown on figs. 1-3. The median cyanazine-amide
concentration was significantly less in 1998 than in 1994 or 1995.
The median deethylatrazine and deisopropylatrazine concentrations
were also less in 1998 than in previous years, but the differences
were not large.
![Figure 1 showing Cyanazine-amide concentrations in post-application runoff samples from Midwestern Rivers](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108173750im_/http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/images/cyamboxsm.gif)
Figure 1. Cyanazine-amide concentrations in post-application
runoff samples from Midwestern Rivers. (Click on image for
a larger version)
|
![Figure 2 showing Deethylatrazine concentrations in post-application runoff samples from Midwestern Rivers](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108173750im_/http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/images/deaboxsm.gif)
Figure 2. Deethylatrazine concentrations in post-application
runoff samples from Midwestern Rivers. (Click on image for
a larger version)
|
![Figure 3 showing Deisopropylatrazine concentrations in post-application runoff samples from Midwestern Rivers](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108173750im_/http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/images/diaboxsm.gif)
Figure 3. Deisopropylatrazine concentrations in post-application
runoff samples from Midwestern Rivers. (Click on image for
a larger version)
|
|
The herbicide degradate concentrations from surface-water and ground-water
samples in 1998 are shown on figs. 4 and 5. In surface water, herbicide
degradates occurred frequently, at similar concentrations as the
parent compounds. Herbicide degradates occurred less frequently
in ground water than in surface water, but detection frequencies
and concentrations were often greater than those of the parent compounds.
Over 850 pesticide active ingredients are registered
for use in the United States and the number of common pesticide
degradation products is unknown. Only a few pesticide parent compounds
and degradation products are routinely analyzed for. It is likely
that some of the observed changes in herbicide use and concentration
are a result of shifts to other compounds. Hence, a more complete
set of analytes including pesticide degradates is needed to better
determine potential effects of herbicides on humans and ecosystems.
![Figure 4 showing boxplots of herbicide degradate concentrations from 154 surface water samples, 1998](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108173750im_/http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/images/degswboxsm.gif)
Figure 4. Boxplots of herbicide degradate concentrations
from 154 surface water samples, 1998. (Click on image for
a larger version)
|
![Figure 5 showing boxplots of herbicide degradate concentrations from 25 ground water samples, 1998](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108173750im_/http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/images/deggwboxsm.gif)
Figure 5. Boxplots of herbicide degradate concentrations
from 25 ground water samples, 1998. (Click on image for a
larger version)
|
References:
Larson, S.J.; Capel, P.D.; Majewski, M.S., Pesticides in Surface
Water: Distribution, trends, and governing factors. Ann Arbor Press,
Inc., Chelsa, MI, 1997.
Kolpin, D.W.; Thurman, E.M.; Linhart, S.M., Arch. Contam. Toxicol.
1998, 35:385-390.
Thurman, E.M.; Meyer, M.T.; Mills, M.S.; Zimmerman, L.R.; Perry,
C.A., Environ. Sci. Technol. 1994, 28:2267-2277.
Kalkhoff, S.J.; Kolpin, D.W.; Thurman, E.M.; Ferrer, I.; Barcelo,
D., Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32:1738-1740.
Goolsby, D.A.; Thurman, E.M.; Pomes, M.L.; Meyer, M.T.; Battaglin,
W.A., Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31:1325-1333.
Thurman, E.M.; Meyer, M.T.; Pomes, M.L.; Perry, C.E.; Schwab,
A.P., Anal. Chem. 1990, 62:2043-2048.
Aga, D.S.; Thurman, E.M.; Pomes, M.L., Anal. Chem. 1994, 66:1495-1499.
Scribner, E.A.; Goolsby, D.A.; Thurman, E.M.; Battaglin, W.A.,
U.S. Geol. Surv. OFR 98-181, 1998.
Meyer, M.T.; Mills, M.S.; Thurman, E.M., J. Chromotogr. 1993,
629:55-59.
|