logo
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
RETURN TO ARTICLES ASAPPREVContaminants in Aqua...Contaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial EnvironmentsNEXT

Pesticides and Pesticide Degradates in Groundwater Used for Public Supply across the United States: Occurrence and Human-Health Context

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Publication Date (Web):December 14, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05793
This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2020 by American Chemical Society
Authors ChoiceACS AuthorChoice
with CC-BY-NC-ND license
Article Views
303
Altmetric
-
Citations
-
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

PDF (3 MB) OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
Supporting Info (2)»

Abstract

This is the first assessment of groundwater from public-supply wells across the United States to analyze for >100 pesticide degradates and to provide human-health context for degradates without benchmarks. Samples from 1204 wells in aquifers representing 70% of the volume pumped for drinking supply were analyzed for 109 pesticides (active ingredients) and 116 degradates. Among the 41% of wells where pesticide compounds were detected, nearly two-thirds contained compound mixtures and three-quarters contained degradates. Atrazine, hexazinone, prometon, tebuthiuron, four atrazine degradates, and one metolachlor degradate were each detected in >5% of wells. Detection frequencies were largest for aquifers with more shallow, unconfined wells producing modern-age groundwater. To screen for potential human-health concerns, benchmark quotients (BQs) were calculated by dividing concentrations by the human-health benchmark, when available. For degradates without benchmarks, estimated values (estimated benchmark quotients (BQE)) were first calculated by assuming equimolar toxicity to the most toxic parent; final analysis excluded degradates with likely overestimated toxicity. Six pesticide compounds and 1.6% of wells had concentrations approaching levels of potential concern (individual or summed BQ or BQE values >0.1), and none exceeded these levels (values >1). Therefore, although pesticide compounds occurred frequently, concentrations were low, even accounting for mixtures and degradates without benchmarks.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Multiple pesticides, some of which are known to pose a risk to human health above certain levels of exposure,(1−7) have been detected in groundwater, including in drinking-water aquifers,(8−13) but relatively little is known about the occurrence and human-health relevance of pesticide degradates, defined to include compounds resulting from any biotic or abiotic transformation of pesticides,(14) whether toxic or nontoxic. Based on 2005–2012 estimates, the annual usage of conventional pesticides in the United States, excluding biological and antimicrobial pesticides, is about 400–450 million kg. Agricultural usage exceeds other applications, accounting for about 90% of herbicides, 85% of fungicides, and 60% of insecticides applied.(15) Herbicides are the most commonly used type of pesticide, totaling 62% of pesticide usage for agriculture. The five most used agricultural herbicides in 1992–2017 in the United States were glyphosate, atrazine, metolachlor-(S), 2,4-D, and acetochlor.(16)
The dominant factors controlling the distribution of pesticides and pesticide degradates in the Nation’s groundwater resources are well established, as described in a publication synthesizing findings from multiple studies.(8) In areas where pesticides are applied, recharge from rainfall or irrigation drives transport to groundwater, with susceptibility being higher where soils are more permeable. Detected pesticides generally have high persistence and low tendency to sorb to soils and sediments. Shallow, more recently recharged groundwater tends to have more pesticide contamination than deeper, older groundwater. Also, subsurface drainage systems in agricultural areas can divert shallow groundwater to surface water, thus leading to lesser contamination in deeper groundwater. Pesticide degradates are often detected more frequently and at higher concentrations than their parents due to high transformation rates and because long travel times, common from source to the depth zone used for public supply, support environmental transformation. Compound mixtures are common.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has assessed the potential human-health risk associated with the occurrence of individual pesticides (i.e., active ingredients) in drinking water, establishing enforceable primary drinking-water standards—maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs—for 18 pesticides(1) and nonenforceable screening levels—human-health benchmarks for pesticides, or HHBPs—for 394 pesticides that do not have MCLs.(2) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed nonenforceable screening levels—health-based screening levels, or HBSLs—for 30 pesticides and 7 degradates that do not have MCLs or HHBPs.(3) As reflected in the range of benchmark concentration values (0.002–30 000 μg/L), pesticide compounds vary widely with respect to types of human-health effects and potential degree of toxicity.
As indicated by EPA resources,(4−7) human-health toxicity information is much more commonly available for the more than 400 pesticides recently used in the United States than for their degradates. Data on the human-health effects of pesticide mixtures also are relatively uncommon, even though the importance of understanding the potential effects of mixtures, particularly for environmentally relevant concentrations, is well recognized.(17−27) EPA cumulative risk assessments(28) provide evaluations of cumulative exposure and risk for certain compounds sharing a common mechanism of toxicity.
Relatively few studies have characterized the occurrence of pesticide degradates in groundwater at regional or national rather than local scales, including in other countries.(29−31) Most regional or national investigations in the United States were conducted between 1991 and 2001 using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and (or) high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), providing detection limits (DLs) of typically 1–100 ng/L.(8−13,32−43) These have included studies of shallow groundwater and of depths used for public supply.
Studies of shallow groundwater,(32−34) sometimes in combination with deeper groundwater from domestic and public-supply wells,(8,35−37) have generally detected degradates at rates and concentrations equal to or greater than those for parent compounds. In five occurrence studies,(8,32−35) evaluating up to > 80 pesticide compounds and 9 degradates, atrazine was the most commonly detected pesticide and its degradate deethylatrazine (DEA) was detected with similar frequency. In one of those studies,(35) conducted at a national scale, atrazine and DEA were each detected in about 30% of 2,460 wells, with the maximum concentration for atrazine being 4,200 ng/L. Five of the six most frequently detected compounds for shallow wells studied in midwestern states were herbicide degradates.(32,33)
Regional and national studies of groundwater used for drinking supply across the United States have shown similar results. The national studies evaluated 75 pesticides and 8 degradates in up to 904 public-supply wells(9,26) and about 2,000 domestic and (or) other supply wells.(10,11) Atrazine and DEA were the most frequently detected pesticide compounds, commonly in the same samples and at concentrations of a few ng/L to a few hundred ng/L; atrazine was also the most frequently detected pesticide in a 2020 study across the western United States.(44) Results for smaller subsets of public-supply wells sampled for up to 150 pesticide compounds, including as many as 40 degradates, indicate that degradates of other herbicides are common in at least some regions.(12,13,38−43) However, most of these studies included only selected degradates of a small number of pesticides, and none attempted to quantify potential human-health risk for detected degradates that lack benchmarks.
This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the occurrence of pesticides and their degradates in raw (untreated) groundwater used for public supply across the United States. Samples were collected from 1,204 sites in 23 principal aquifers (PAs)(45) (Table S1) providing groundwater used for drinking by an estimated 73 million people. The samples were analyzed for 109 pesticides and 116 degradates (of >50 pesticides) using direct aqueous-injection liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), providing low DLs of generally 1–50 ng/L. This is the first national study to include degradates without human-health benchmarks in a process to screen concentrations of individual compounds and mixtures of compounds for potential human-health concerns. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the occurrence of pesticides and their degradates in groundwater used for drinking supply at the scale of principal aquifers and the Nation and (2) assess the potential relevance of detections of all compounds and compound mixtures in a human-health context.

Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Study Design

The 1199 wells and 5 springs (collectively referred to as “wells”) sampled for this study by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project during 2013–2018 (Table S2) are all sources of public drinking supply. Based on location and depth information, wells were assigned to corresponding principal aquifers (PAs), which are regionally extensive aquifers or aquifer systems that have the potential to be used for drinking water.(45) The wells are in 23 PAs covering more than 5 million km2 in 46 states (Figure 1), together supplying about 70% of the groundwater pumped from PAs for public supply in 2015.(46) For sampling, PAs were grouped into 19 principal aquifer surveys (PASs; Table S1), which are nationally consistent studies designed to assess the quality of the groundwater resource used for public supply across an entire PA.(47) PASs utilize a spatially distributed, randomized approach for well selection that uses equal-area grids, with one well randomly selected for sampling within each grid cell; therefore, a given percentage of wells equates to the same percentage of PAS area (for example, the presence of a compound in 1% of wells equates to its presence in about 1% of aquifer area).(48) The few cases where deviations from the standard study approach resulted in sampling of additional wells and use of cell declustering for PAS analysis are detailed in Section S1 of the Supporting Information (SI). In each PAS, the dataset includes one sample from between 19 and 111 wells (median = 59), with well depths ranging from less than 10–1300 m (median of about 125 m).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Number of pesticide compounds detected at each of 1204 wells sampled in 19 NAWQA principal aquifer surveys (PASs), 2013–2018, indicating where the sum of benchmark quotients (BQEsum) from tier 2 screening of concentrations of pesticide compounds, including degradates without benchmarks, exceeds 0.1 (well symbols outlined in red).

Sample Collection

Raw samples were collected at or near the wellhead, prior to any treatment or blending, in accordance with USGS procedures.(49,50) Samples were collected using a Teflon sampling line and filtered through a 0.7 μm baked glass-fiber filter. Samples for pesticides were collected in 20-mL amber glass bottles and were shipped on ice overnight to the USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, Colorado, for analysis. Groundwater samples also were analyzed for about 300 additional constituents and isotopes.(51−55)

Laboratory Analysis

The NWQL’s analytical method for pesticides and pesticide degradates, detailed in Section S2.2, uses direct aqueous-injection LC-MS/MS to determine 225 compounds in water, representing a broad range of uses (including herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) and chemical classes (including acetanilides, triazines, and acids).(56) The compounds include 109 pesticides and 116 pesticide degradates (Table S3), hereafter referred to as “pesticides.” The method and instrumentation used for this study are suitable for a wide range of compounds and provide improved sensitivity and selectivity over previous GC/MS and HPLC methods,(56) with a reduction in DLs of an order of magnitude being common for several classes of compounds. The LC-MS/MS method includes the majority of pesticide compounds prioritized by the USGS on the basis of factors including potential persistence and toxicity,(57) although this method cannot analyze for some commonly used pesticides, including glyphosate (considered to be of low toxicity and unlikely to move to groundwater(58)) and fumigants.
The DL (Table S3) is the lowest concentration that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero (false-positive risk ≤1%). Despite an increase in false-positive risk below the DL, concentrations that meet identification and relevant quality-control criteria are reported down to a value typically set at about 10% of the DL. To minimize false-negative risk, the reporting limit (RL) typically is set at 2 times the DL.(56) When an analyte is not detected or does not meet qualitative criteria and is below the RL, it typically is reported as “<” the RL. However, some results are reported as less than a raised reporting level (RRL) because of issues resulting in uncertainty in the identification or quantification of the pesticide.(59)

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality-control samples associated with this study have been previously published and evaluated.(59−61) Conclusions regarding potential contamination and measurement bias are briefly summarized here and in Section S3. Field blanks and laboratory set blanks (LBs) were used to examine potential sources of contamination; detections in LBs prompted some censoring (see the Data Preparation Steps section). Laboratory reagent-water spikes indicated acceptable bias for all pesticides (median recovery 70–108%), although median recoveries below 90% indicate a small to moderate bias low for 30 compounds. For field matrix spikes, 19 pesticides had median recoveries below 70%, indicating that degradation and (or) matrix effects could contribute to a substantial bias low, possibly resulting in underreporting of occurrence and (or) concentrations; didealkylatrazine (CAAT) and 2-hydroxy-6-ethylamino-4-amino-s-triazine (OEAT) had median recoveries of 150 and 167%, respectively, indicating a potential bias high and possible overreporting of concentrations in groundwater.

Data Preparation Steps

Three steps, discussed further in Section S4 and a USGS publication,(61) were conducted to prepare the dataset for analysis. First, data affected by field or laboratory error, such as exceedance of the holding time, were removed from the dataset. Second, nondetections reported with an RRL greater than a certain magnitude were excluded from the dataset because of an increase in the potential for false-negative results; the resulting increases in calculated detection frequencies for compounds with many RRL exclusions are addressed in the Results and Discussion section. Third, to reduce the risk of false positives resulting from laboratory contamination, study reporting levels were calculated for pesticides that were detected in LBs, as described in the SI; only quantified results greater than or equal to this level were retained as detections. The final pesticide results used for this study are available in a USGS data release.(60)

Screening Approach for Potential Relevance to Human Health

Individual compounds and mixtures of compounds detected at single wells were screened for potential relevance to human-health by comparison with benchmarks. A tiered approach was developed to incorporate degradate compounds without benchmarks into the screening process. For the 107 pesticides and 12 degradates with existing benchmarks (Table S3), the screening process is the same as that used in previous NAWQA groundwater studies.(9,26) That is, a benchmark quotient (BQ) is calculated as the ratio of the concentration of the compound in groundwater to the benchmark—MCL, HHBP, or HBSL—for that compound, using the lowest available value when a range exists within a benchmark type (Section S5). All benchmark types incorporate an uncertainty factor of typically 2 orders of magnitude or more, either built into the underlying toxicity values (for chronic noncancer effects) or represented as risk ranges (for cancer effects).
A BQ > 1 indicates the concentration exceeds the benchmark (i.e., the concentration is of potential human-health concern) and a BQ > 0.1 indicates the concentration exceeds 10% of the benchmark (i.e., the concentration is approaching a level of potential human-health concern). For wells with multiple detected compounds, the sum of all individual BQs (BQsum = ∑BQ) is calculated and is also evaluated relative to the thresholds of 1 and 0.1 to provide a measure of potential human-health concern resulting from the mixture. This process conservatively assumes that simple dose additivity generally applies, although multiple compounds do not necessarily have the same mode of action.(17,18,20−27) Because response addition may be more appropriate than dose addition to assess combined cancer risk,(17,27) when BQsum > 0.1, the current study identifies any contributing compounds with benchmarks based on potential carcinogenicity rather than chronic noncancer effects.
For the 104 degradates without benchmarks, the screening process has two tiers. Tier 1 makes the generally conservative (protective) assumption that degradates have equimolar toxicity to the most toxic potential parent compound (i.e., the parent with the lowest benchmark), with the exceptions of desethylhydroxyatrazine (OIAT) and OEAT, which were assumed to have equimolar toxicity to 2-hydroxyatrazine (OIET) rather than to atrazine based on their toxicological endpoints.(62) For each degradate, an estimated benchmark quotient (BQE) is determined as followswhere Cdeg is the degradate concentration, MW is the molecular weight of the parent or degradate, and Bparent is the benchmark value of the parent. At single wells, BQE values are summed along with BQs to obtain a BQEsum.
Tier 2 screening is carried out only for degradates that have BQE values >0.1 or that contribute substantially to BQEsum values >0.1 in tier 1 screening. In this refined second screening tier, toxicity information available from EPA documents (such as reregistration eligibility decisions and human-health risk assessments)(6) is used to place each degradate in one of three categories regarding the assumption of equimolar toxicity to the parent: (1) the assumption is likely reasonable, (2) the assumption likely results in an overestimate of toxicity, or (3) validity of the assumption is unknown. The degradate is retained in the refined assessment if it is reasonable to assume that the degradate has comparable toxicity to the parent (1, above), or if information on the toxicity of the degradate is generally unavailable (3, above). The pesticide degradate is removed from the refined assessment if the toxicity information indicates that the equimolar assumption overestimates toxicity (i.e., the toxicity of the degradate is less than the toxicity of the parent; 2, above).
This screening approach has known limitations. It assesses contributions to toxicity from only the 225 pesticide compounds included in laboratory analysis and does not consider other pesticides or contaminant classes. Also, concentrations of up to 19 pesticides may have been underestimated due to low recovery bias (see the Quality Assurance and Quality Control section). For degradates with little or no toxicity information, equimolar toxicity to the parent has been assumed and could potentially overestimate or underestimate potential human-health effects. Although studies of toxicity in aquatic life and (or) mammals have indicated that most degradates are about as toxic or less toxic than their parents, some degradates (perhaps about 30%) can be more toxic.(8,39,63,64) Finally, this approach does not address the potential for synergistic or antagonistic effects between parents and degradates or between compounds from different chemical classes (for example, triazine, carbamate, organophosphate) in a mixture; toxicity is most likely to be additive (as assumed in this study) for pesticides within the same class that have similar structures and a common mode of action, whereas pesticides from different classes can have varied effects.(8)

Ancillary Datasets

In the Results and Discussion section, general patterns of pesticide occurrence among PASs are discussed in relation to previously identified explanatory factors for pesticide occurrence in drinking-water aquifers (statistical analysis of relations of occurrence to these factors across PASs is discussed in Section S7.4). The explanatory factors include well depth, aquifer type (confined or unconfined), lithology, groundwater age classification, and land use (Table S2). Well depth and aquifer type were retrieved from the USGS National Water Information Systems database (https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN). General lithology was assigned based on the primary lithology of the PAS to which the well was assigned.(45) A tritium age classification of modern (recharged in 1953 or later), premodern (recharged prior to 1953), or mixed was assigned for each sample in accordance with a published classification system.(65) The 30-m National Land Cover Database for 2016(66) was used to assign percentages of major land-use types (agricultural, urban, or natural) across the entire area of each PAS. This study does not specifically examine processes affecting transformation of parent compounds to degradates.

Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Occurrence of Pesticide Compounds and Mixtures

At least one pesticide compound was detected at 491 of the 1204 wells (41%) (Figure 1), with reported concentrations ranging from about 0.02 to 17 500 ng/L.(60) The area-weighted detection frequency (i.e., areal proportion with detections(67)) across all PASs was 46%, as calculated by applying cell declustering to account for deviations from the standard sampling design that occasionally resulted in two or three wells within an individual grid cell and applying area weighting to account for the differing contributions of individual PAS sampling grids to the total aquifer area sampled (Section S7.1). These results are consistent with the 2010 USGS NAWQA study of 904 public-supply wells, which detected at least one pesticide at 41% of wells;(9) however, results from that study are not fully comparable because it included only eight degradates, had higher DLs for several compounds, and studied wells that were clustered in targeted areas.
Degradates were commonly observed in the current study, as were mixtures of pesticide compounds. Nearly three-quarters of wells with at least one detection had detections of degradates, and 23% had detections of degradates without detections of any pesticide active ingredients. The five pesticide compounds with the largest maximum concentrations (1450–17 500 ng/L; Table S3) are degradates—specifically of 4-hydroxychlorothalonil, alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor. Degradates that were not included in the analysis of samples for the 2010 study(9) were found at 27% of all sampled wells and were the only pesticide compound(s) detected at 7.3% of sampled wells. Two or more compounds were detected at 63% of wells with at least one detection, and 6 or more compounds (maximum 27 compounds) were detected at 24% of these wells.
The areal proportion with detections differed substantially by PAS (range 12–100%) (Figure 2 and Table S4 [PASs grouped by lithology]); the average number of compounds detected, weighted for multiple wells per cell as needed, showed a similar pattern (range <0.2–9). Given the typical characteristics of the sampled PAS areas, their relative detection frequencies are generally consistent with previously established explanatory factors for pesticide distribution, including well depth, aquifer type, groundwater age, land use, and (to a lesser degree) lithology (see Section S7.4 for results of statistical tests).(8,9)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Areal proportion and average number of detections for each NAWQA principal aquifer survey, grouped by lithology. The number at the top of each blue bar indicates the rank of the areal proportion among all 19 principal aquifer surveys.

Among the six carbonate PASs are the two PASs with the highest areal proportions (≥72.9%)—the Biscayne and Valley and Ridge and Piedmont and Blue Ridge (VRPBR)—but also two of the five PASs with the lowest areal proportions (≤20.3%)—the Basin and Range carbonates and Ozark Plateaus. The Biscayne and VRPBR PASs have generally shallow wells (medians <80 m) that are predominantly unconfined or mixed and produce modern water, and these PASs have <50% undeveloped land (Table S1); also, the presence of karst features has shown a relation with higher pesticide detection frequency in the Valley and Ridge aquifers.(68) In contrast, the Basin and Range carbonates and Ozark Plateaus have generally deep wells (medians >148 m), many of which are confined (leading to a reasonable expectation of less connection to activities at the land surface) and produce water of mixed or premodern age; also, these PASs have ≥58% undeveloped land. Among carbonate PASs, the areal proportions for the Floridan and Edwards-Trinity PASs are intermediate and are most similar to previous results for carbonate aquifers.(9) The Edwards-Trinity aquifer system includes the predominantly carbonate Edwards aquifer (areal proportion of 32%) and the predominantly sandstone Edwards-Trinity (25%) and Trinity (21%) aquifers.
After the Biscayne and VRPBR PASs, two western unconsolidated/semiconsolidated PASs (the Stream Valley and High Plains) and the Glacial PAS, all located in the intensely agricultural midwestern United States, have the next highest areal proportions (58.4–64.3%), consistent with relatively high detection frequencies previously observed by NAWQA for similar lithologies.(9) All three of these PASs have generally shallow wells (medians <77 m) that are mostly or predominantly unconfined, with two-thirds or more of them producing water of modern or mixed age. By contrast, the Rio Grande, which has the third lowest areal proportion, has 93% undeveloped land, along with the deepest wells (median 181 m) among the western PASs, produces mostly premodern water. The Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers have an intermediate areal proportion among western PASs (37.2%), with somewhat higher percentages of wells producing mixed-age water than the Rio Grande, despite similar well depths, degrees of confinement, and land use.
Of the two metamorphic/igneous PASs, the Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline aquifers have a higher areal proportion (53.6%) than the Columbia Plateau basaltic aquifer (35.6%). Wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge are generally shallower (median 108 m compared with 142 m) and much more likely to produce modern water; also, some layers of the Columbia Plateau basalt can act as confining layers.(69) Of the two interior sandstone PASs, the areal proportion for the Colorado Plateau (12.1%) is the lowest of any PAS and more consistent with previous NAWQA results(9) than that of the Cambrian–Ordovician (39.5%). Because wells in the Cambrian–Ordovician typically are deeper (median 267 m compared with 147 m), with more common confinement and production of premodern water, this difference in the rate of detection likely is driven by much greater pesticide loading on the predominantly agricultural land (73%) overlying the Cambrian–Ordovician relative to the Colorado Plateaus (2% agricultural land). The four coastal silicate PASs all have relatively low areal proportions (18.2–30.5%) and average number of compounds detected (<0.9), consistent with wells in these PASs being quite deep (median 155 m) and confined, producing predominantly premodern water.
A total of 128 pesticide compounds—60 pesticides and 68 degradates—were detected in groundwater from at least one well. Ten pesticides (all herbicides) and 11 degradates (all of herbicides) were each detected in groundwater from at least 2% of all wells (Figure 3). The four most commonly detected herbicides were atrazine (11%), hexazinone (7.8%), prometon (6.4%), and tebuthiuron (6.0%), with reported concentrations ranging from tenths to tens or hundreds of ng/L. Previous NAWQA studies of public-supply wells or various well types list atrazine, simazine, and metolachlor among the four most commonly detected herbicides,(8,9,12,13) along with the noncrop herbicides prometon or tebuthiuron (hexazinone was not commonly included in these studies). In contrast, the current study detected bromacil and bentazon—both of which were discontinued for some uses in the 1980s or 1990s—more commonly than metolachlor and simazine, which were detected at lower rates than in the previous studies. The detection of propazine at >2% of wells despite relatively low use(16) might be partially related to its presence as an impurity in some atrazine formulations.(70) Dieldrin, an insecticide that was the eighth most commonly detected compound in the 2010 study (3.1%),(9) was not included in the current study, which showed propoxur to be the most commonly detected insecticide (1.8%) and metalaxyl to be the mostly commonly detected fungicide (0.7%).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Detection frequency of pesticide compounds detected in groundwater from at least 2% of sampled wells. An asterisk indicates a compound that generally was not included in previous NAWQA groundwater studies. Colored text identifies degradates and, when present, their corresponding parent (in bold text).

The atrazine degradates CAAT (14.4%) and DEA (14.3%) and the metolachlor degradate metolachlor sulfonic acid (SA) (11.4%) were detected more often than atrazine and far more often than metolachlor (Figure 3). [If nondetections with high RRLs had not been excluded, the detection frequency for CAAT, a poorly performing compound under the analytical method, would be 7.6%—a lower bound (with an increased risk of false-negative error) that would make it the fifth most frequently detected compound; no other compound in Figure 3 would decrease in detection frequency by more than 0.9% or change rank by more than one place.] Also among the 10 most frequently detected compounds were the atrazine degradates OIET (7.1%), OIAT (6.2%), and deisopropylatrazine (DIA, 4.6%). These degradates plus dechlorometolachlor were detected more frequently than metolachlor and simazine, with tebuthiuron transformation product 108 additionally being more common than simazine. Also detected at more than 2% of wells were the degradates demethyl hexazinone B, hydroxymetolachlor, and alachlor SA, even though alachlor use has declined steeply since the introduction of acetochlor in 1994(16) and alachlor was detected in groundwater from only three wells in the current study. Of the 11 degradates in Figure 3, only DEA was commonly included in previous NAWQA studies.
An atrazine degradate (CAAT, DEA, or OIET) was the most commonly detected pesticide compound among all wells in each of 9 PASs (Table S4); metolachlor or one of its degradates (hydroxymetolachlor or metolachlor SA) was most common in four other PASs. The prevalence of these compounds is consistent with atrazine and metolachlor being the second and third most commonly used agricultural pesticides, respectively, in 2012,(15) in addition to having noncrop uses and (along with several of their degradates) being at least moderately mobile and persistent in the environment.(62,71) Hexazinone, also mobile and persistent,(72) was the most commonly detected compound in the Floridan PAS (nine wells) and the Coastal Lowlands PAS (three wells), where it has agricultural in addition to noncrop uses.(16) The noncrop herbicide prometon was the most commonly detected compound in the Edwards-Trinity (eight wells), despite restrictions on its use in Texas.(73) The carbamate insecticide propoxur, used in a variety of applications and considered highly mobile and moderately persistent,(74) was the most commonly detected compound in the Colorado Plateaus and Ozarks Plateaus but was detected at only three wells in each.
Of the 20 most common mixtures of two or three pesticide compounds detected among the 1204 sampling wells (Section S7.3), 17 consisted only of atrazine, atrazine degradates, and (or) metolachlor SA, with hexazinone or prometon included in three mixtures (Figure S3). Illustrating the prevalence of some degradates and their importance to groundwater assessments, atrazine was detected without any of its degradates at only 12 wells, whereas one or more of its degradates were detected without atrazine at 127 wells; both atrazine and its degradate(s) were detected at 115 wells. Metolachlor also was detected without any of its degradates at only 12 wells, whereas one or more of its degradates were detected without metolachlor at 121 wells; both metolachlor and its degradate(s) were detected at 30 wells.

Screening of Concentrations for Potential Human-Health Concerns

Individual Compounds

Of detected pesticide compounds with benchmarks, none had a BQ > 1 (Table S3). Four compounds (atrazine, alachlor, diuron, and CAAT) had a BQ > 0.1 at a total of five wells (0.4%) (Table 1) distributed among four PASs in midwestern and eastern parts of the United States (Table S4); adjusting for potential bias high for reported CAAT concentrations did not affect these results.
Table 1. Individual Pesticide Compounds (cmpds) and Number (no.) of Wells With a Benchmark Quotient (BQ), Initial Estimated Benchmark Quotient (BQE) from Tier 1 Screening, or Final BQE from Tier 2 Screening >1 or 0.1
 TIER 1: cmpds (no. wells) withFINAL/TIER 2: cmpds (no. wells) with
 BQ or BQE > 1BQ or BQE > 0.1BQ or BQE > 1BQ or BQE > 0.1
compounds with a benchmark alachlor (1) alachlor (1)
 atrazine (1) atrazine (1)
 diuron (1) diuron (1)
  didealkylatrazine/CAAT (2) didealkylatrazine/CAAT (2)
degradates without a benchmarkalachlor SA (1 well)b4-hydroxychlorothalonil (1)a 4-hydroxychlorothalonil (1)a
 deethylatrazine/DEA (3)a deethylatrazine/DEA (3)a
 fipronil amide (1)b  
 alachlor OA (2)b  
 alachlor SA (18)b  
 hydroxyalachlor (1)b  
  pyrimidinol (1)b  
totals1 cmpd (1 well)11 cmpds (27 wells)c0 cmpds (0 wells)6 cmpds (8 wells)c
a

Compound likely has similar toxicity to the parent and so was retained in tier 2 analysis and included in final totals.

b

Compound likely has substantially lower toxicity than the parent and so was dropped in tier 2 analysis and not included in final totals.

c

Some wells had multiple compounds with BQ or BQE > 0.1.

Under tier 1 screening, one degradate without a benchmark—alachlor SA—had a BQE > 1 (Table 1), occurring in modern groundwater from a 35 m well in the Stream Valley PAS. Seven degradates without benchmarks had a BQE > 0.1: alachlor SA (18 wells), alachlor oxanilic acid (OA; 2 wells), and hydroxyalachlor (1 well), mostly in the Glacial and Cambrian–Ordovician PASs; DEA (3 wells), all in the High Plains PAS; and fipronil amide, 4-hydroxychlorothalonil, and pyrimidinol (1 well each). The totals from tier 1 screening indicated that 11 individual compounds had a BQ or BQE > 0.1 at 27 wells.
The BQE exceedances from tier 1 triggered a tier 2 screening evaluation. EPA has indicated concerns about exposure to alachlor SA and OA,(75) which are mobile and persistent, as supported by the results of the current study. However, all three alachlor degradates were dropped from tier 2 analysis because available data indicate that they are much less toxic than alachlor (Table 1).(76) Fipronil amide was dropped because it is not indicated by EPA to be a fipronil degradate of toxicological concern(77) and is not included in drinking-water exposure assessments.(78) Pyrimidinol (a diazinon degradate) was dropped because of evidence that it is essentially nontoxic.(79) In contrast, DEA was retained because atrazine and its chlorinated degradates are considered to be equivalent in toxicity, with a shared neuroendocrine effect.(62) The degradate 4-hydroxychlorothalonil also was retained and has actually been shown to be more toxic to mammals than its parent chlorothalonil.(80) As a result, BQE values for 4-hydroxychlorothalonil could be underestimated, and it may be useful to note that six wells (all in the Biscayne PAS) had BQE > 0.01 for this degradate. The final totals from tier 2 screening indicate that six individual compounds have a BQ or BQE > 0.1 at eight wells.

Individual Wells With Mixtures

The BQsum values for pesticide compounds with benchmarks did not exceed 1 for any wells. Only the same five wells with individual BQs > 0.1 had BQsums > 0.1.
Under tier 1 screening, three wells (in the Cambrian–Ordovician, Glacial, and Stream Valley PASs) had BQEsums >1 (Table S2), primarily due to contributions from alachlor SA and (or) alachlor OA. Forty wells had BQEsums >0.1, 33 of which had contributions primarily from alachlor, alachlor SA, alachlor OA, atrazine, CAAT, and (or) DEA. Most of these 33 wells are in the Cambrian–Ordovician, Glacial, High Plains, or Stream Valley PAS. The remaining seven wells with BQEsums >0.1 are in five PASs and have contributions primarily from 4-hydroxychlorothalonil, diuron, fipronil amide, or pyrimidinol.
After excluding degradates with likely overestimated toxicity (as described in the previous section), final tier 2 screening totals indicate that no wells have BQEsum >1 and 19 wells have BQEsums >0.1 (red-outlined well symbols in Figure 1). Atrazine and (or) its chlorinated degradates account for the BQEsum exceeding 0.1 at 16 of these wells, in the Cambrian–Ordovician, Glacial, High Plains, Stream Valley, and VRPBR (two to six wells each) PASs (Figure S2). At the other three wells, the BQEsum exceeds 0.1 based on contributions from 4-hydroxychlorothalonil (Biscayne PAS), alachlor (Southeastern Coastal Plain PAS), or diuron (Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline PAS) alone. Alachlor and diuron are considered likely human carcinogens, at least at high doses, whereas the other compounds contributing substantially to BQEsums >0.1 are evaluated based on chronic noncancer effects.
Atrazine and its chlorinated degradates were the largest contributors to BQEsums >0.1, but the maximum sum of their concentrations at any well was 4.3 μg/L, which is more than 2 orders of magnitude below even the most protective 4-day drinking-water level of comparison (DWLOC) of 700 μg/L for infants established by the EPA in a cumulative risk assessment for these compounds that includes dietary (food and drinking water) and residential exposures.(62) The sum of the concentrations of the total chlorinated triazines, adding propazine and simazine to the above calculation, also does not exceed 4.3 μg/L and is more than 2 orders of magnitude below the most protective 4-day DWLOC for these compounds of 610 μg/L for dietary exposure for infants and of 580 μg/L for dietary and residential exposures for children 1–2 years old.(81)
Some aquifers are more vulnerable to anthropogenic contamination than others, and although the areal proportion with pesticide detections at any concentration is one indicator of this, BQEsum is a potential alternative indicator that emphasizes concentrations that might be considered substantial for some purposes. BQEsum >0.01 was selected here to indicate greater vulnerability. More than half of wells in the Biscayne PAS had BQEsum >0.01 (largely as a result of contributions from 4-hydroxychlorothalonil or diuron), whereas about 21–32% of wells in the High Plains, Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline, Stream Valley, and VRPBR carbonate PASs had BQEsum >0.01 (Table S4). These five PASs also were among the six with the highest areal proportion and average number of detections per well (Figure 2).

Implications

This is the first systematic assessment of raw groundwater used for public drinking supply across the United States to include and provide human-health context for a large number of pesticide degradates. Findings indicate that although the occurrence of pesticide compounds (including compound mixtures and degradates not typically included in previous studies) is common, concentrations for only a small number of compounds and wells approach levels of potential human-health concern, and none exceed these levels. It should be noted, however, that the laboratory method could not quantify every type of pesticide. Compared with considering only compounds with benchmarks, adding degradates without benchmarks to the screening process for potential human-health concerns resulted in small increases in the final number of individual compounds with BQ or BQE > 0.1, from 4 (at five wells) to 6 (at eight wells). Similarly, the final number of wells with compound mixtures having BQsum or BQEsum >0.1 rose slightly, from 5 (0.4%) to 19 (1.6%). Atrazine and its chlorinated degradates were the primary contributors to BQEsums >0.1, occurring mainly in the midwestern United States. In this same area, results of initial screening indicated that alachlor SA also might approach levels of concern at several wells, but subsequent screening showed that the initial assumption of equimolar toxicity to alachlor likely overestimated potential health effects of this degradate. Other commonly detected compounds that did not contribute substantially to BQEsums because their concentrations were well below their respective benchmarks included the herbicides metolachlor, hexazinone, prometon, tebuthiuron, and (or) their degradates. This screening process can be refined as future studies address the current lack of detailed toxicological information for many degradates and compound mixtures. However, based on currently available knowledge, this tiered screening process provides reasonable confidence that degradates without benchmarks are unlikely to substantially increase the potential for human-health concerns associated with the occurrence of pesticide compounds in groundwater used for public supply.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c05793.

  • Additional information on particular topics as noted in the text, with figures (PDF)

  • Data tables as noted in the text (XLSX)

Terms & Conditions

Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Kenneth Belitz - U.S. Geological Survey, 10 Bearfoot Road, Northborough, Massachusetts 01532, United States
    • Bruce D. Lindsey - U.S. Geological Survey, 215 Limekiln Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-7180-4319
    • Patricia L. Toccalino - U.S. Geological Survey, 911 Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1066-1702
    • Lisa H. Nowell - U.S. Geological Survey, 6000 J Street, Placer Hall, Sacramento, California 95819, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5417-7264
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through the contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the current version of the manuscript.

  • Notes

    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This work was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment Project. The study would not have been possible without the dedication of numerous USGS field crews and the generous assistance of participating well owners and operators. We also appreciate the contributions of Mark Sandstrom and other USGS National Water Quality Laboratory personnel, who analyzed samples and assisted in quality-control evaluations; Delicia Beaty, who compiled and examined Quality Systems Branch performance data; Tyler Johnson, who processed ancillary data; and reviewers of this article. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Abbreviations
BQ

benchmark quotient

BQE

estimated benchmark quotient

CAAT

didealkylatrazine

DEA

deethylatrazine

DIA

deisopropylatrazine

DL

detection limit

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

LB

laboratory set blank

NAWQA

National Water-Quality Assessment

NWQL

National Water-Quality Laboratory

OA

oxanilic acid

OEAT

2-hyroxy-6-ethylamino-4-amino-s-triazine

OIAT

desethylhydroxyatrazine

OIET

hydroxyatrazine

PAS

principal aquifer survey

RL

reporting limit

SA

sulfonic acid

μg/L

micrograms per liter

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

VRPBR

Valley and Ridge and Piedmont and Blue Ridge

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 81 other publications.

  1. 1
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations (accessed March 20, 2020).
  2. 2
    Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=HHBP:home (accessed March 20, 2020).
  3. 3
    Norman, J. E.; Toccalino, P. L.; Morman, S. A. Health-Based Screening Levels for Evaluating Water-Quality Data; U.S. Geological Survey Web Page; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018. https://water.usgs.gov/water-resources/hbsl/ (accessed Aug 18, 2020).
  4. 4
    Integrated Risk Information System; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/iris (accessed March 20, 2020).
  5. 5
    Drinking Water Contaminant Human Health Effects Information; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-contaminant-human-health-effects-information (accessed March 20, 2020).
  6. 6
    Pesticide Chemical Search; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=chemicalsearch:1 (accessed March 20, 2020).
  7. 7
    Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential Annual Cancer Report 2018; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. http://npic.orst.edu/chemicals_evaluated.pdf (accessed March 20, 2020).
  8. 8
    Gilliom, R. J.; Barbash, J. E.; Crawford, C. G.; Hamilton, P. A.; Martin, J. D.; Nakagaki, N.; Nowell, L. H.; Scott, J. C.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Thelin, G. P.; Wolock, D. M. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001; Circular 1291; U.S. Geological Survey, 2006.
  9. 9
    Toccalino, P. L.; Norman, J. E.; Hitt, K. J. Quality of Source Water from Public-Supply Wells in the United States, 1993–2007; Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5024; U.S. Geological Survey, 2010.
  10. 10
    Squillace, P. J.; Scott, J. C.; Moran, M. J.; Nolan, B. T.; Kolpin, D. W. VOCs, pesticides, nitrate, and their mixtures in groundwater used for drinking water in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 19231930,  DOI: 10.1021/es015591n
  11. 11
    DeSimone, L. A. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004; Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5227; U.S. Geological Survey, 2009.
  12. 12
    Hopple, J. A.; Delzer, G. C.; Kingsbury, J. A. Anthropogenic Organic Compounds in Source Water of Selected Community Water Systems That Use Groundwater, 2002–05; Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5200; U.S. Geological Survey, 2009.
  13. 13
    DeSimone, L. A.; McMahon, P. B.; Rosen, M. R. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010; Circular 1360; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.
  14. 14
    Fenner, K.; Canonica, S.; Wackett, L. P.; Elsner, M. Evaluating pesticide degradation in the environment: Blind spots and emerging opportunities. Science 2013, 341, 752758,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1236281
  15. 15
    Atwood, D.; Paisley-Jones, C. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2008–2012 Market Estimates; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/pesticides-industry-sales-usage-2016_0.pdf (accessed March 19, 2020).
  16. 16
    Wieben, C. M. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use by Major Crop or Crop Group for States of the Conterminous United States, 1992–2017, ver. 2.0, May 2020; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.
  17. 17
    Simmons, J. E. Chemical mixtures: Challenge for toxicology and risk assessment. Toxicology 1995, 105, 111119,  DOI: 10.1016/0300-483X(95)03205-T
  18. 18
    Carpenter, D. O.; Arcaro, K.; Spink, D. C. Understanding the human health effects of mixtures. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 2542,  DOI: 10.1289/ehp.02110s125
  19. 19
    Suk, W. A.; Olden, K.; Yang, R. S. H. Chemical mixtures research: Significance and future perspectives. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 891892,  DOI: 10.1289/ehp.110-1241268
  20. 20
    Kortenkamp, A.; Faust, M.; Scholze, M.; Backhaus, T. Low-level exposure to multiple chemicals: Reason for human health concerns?. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 106114,  DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9358
  21. 21
    Teuschler, L. K. Deciding which chemical mixtures risk assessment methods work best for what mixtures. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2007, 223, 139147,  DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2006.07.010
  22. 22
    Ryker, S. J.; Small, M. J. Combining occurrence and toxicity information to identify priorities for drinking-water mixture research. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 653666,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.00985.x
  23. 23
    Kortenkamp, A.; Faust, M. State of the Art Report on Mixture Toxicity, Final Report: Executive Summary; School of Pharmacy, University of London: London, U.K., 2009.
  24. 24
    Meek, M. E.; Boobis, A. R.; Crofton, K. M.; Heinemeyer, G.; Van Raaij, M.; Vickers, C. Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: A WHO/IPCS framework. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 60, S1S14,  DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.03.010
  25. 25
    Price, P. S.; Han, X. Maximum cumulative ratio (MCR) as a tool for assessing the value of performing a cumulative risk assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 22122225,  DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8062212
  26. 26
    Toccalino, P. L.; Norman, J. E.; Scott, J. C. Chemical mixtures in untreated water from public-supply wells in the U.S.—Occurrence, composition, and potential toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 431, 262270,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.05.044
  27. 27
    Framework for Assessing Health Impacts of Multiple Chemicals and Other Stressors (Update); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, D.C., 2018. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/ip-ga/ipga.pdf (accessed April 23, 2020).
  28. 28
    Cumulative Assessment of Risk from Pesticides; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides (accessed March 20, 2020).
  29. 29
    Manamsa, K.; Crane, E.; Stuart, M.; Talbot, J.; Lapworth, D.; Hart, A. A national-scale assessment of micro-organic contaminants in groundwater of England and Wales. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 712726,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.017
  30. 30
    Kiefer, K.; Muller, A.; Singer, H.; Hollender, J. New relevant pesticide transformation products in groundwater detected using target and suspect screening for agricultural and urban micropollutants with LC-HRMS. Water Res. 2019, 165, 114972  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.114972
  31. 31
    Close, M. E.; Humphries, B.; Northcott, G. Outcomes of the first combined national survey of pesticides and emerging organic contaminants (EOCs) in groundwater in New Zealand 2018. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 754, 142005  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142005
  32. 32
    Kolpin, D. W.; Goolsby, D. A.; Thurman, M. E. Pesticides in near-surface aquifers: an assessment using highly sensitive analytical methods and tritium. J. Environ. Qual. 1995, 24, 11251132,  DOI: 10.2134/jeq1995.00472425002400060011x
  33. 33
    Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Goolsby, D. A. Occurrence of selected pesticides and their metabolites in near-surface aquifers of the midwestern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 30, 335340,  DOI: 10.1021/es950462q
  34. 34
    Kolpin, D. W.; Barbash, J. E.; Gilliom, R. J. Occurrence of pesticides in shallow groundwater of the United States: Initial results from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32, 558566,  DOI: 10.1021/es970412g
  35. 35
    Kolpin, D. W.; Barbash, J. E.; Gilliom, R. J. Pesticides in groundwater of the United States, 1992-96. Ground Water 2000, 38, 858863,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00684.x
  36. 36
    Bexfield, L. M. Decadal-scale changes of pesticides in ground water of the United States, 1993-2003. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, S-226S-239,  DOI: 10.2134/jeq2007.0054
  37. 37
    Toccalino, P. L.; Gilliom, R. J.; Lindsey, B. D.; Rupert, M. G. Pesticides in groundwater of the United States: Decadal-scale changes, 1993-2011. Groundwater 2014, 52, 112125,  DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12176
  38. 38
    Kolpin, D. W.; Kalkhoff, S. J.; Goosby, D. A.; Sneck-Fahrer, D. A.; Thurman, M. E. Occurrence of selected herbicides and herbicide degradation products in Iowa’s ground water, 1995. Ground Water 1997, 35, 679688,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1997.tb00134.x
  39. 39
    Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Linhart, S. M. The environmental occurrence of herbicides: The importance of degradates in ground water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1998, 35, 385390,  DOI: 10.1007/s002449900392
  40. 40
    Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Linhart, S. M. Finding minimal herbicide concentrations in ground water? Try looking for their degradates. Sci. Total Environ. 2000, 248, 115122,  DOI: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00535-5
  41. 41
    Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Linhart, S. M. Occurrence of cyanazine compounds in groundwater: Degradates more prevalent than the parent compound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 12171222,  DOI: 10.1021/es001520x
  42. 42
    Kolpin, D. W.; Schnoebelen, D. J.; Thurman, E. M. Degradates provide insight to spatial and temporal trends of herbicides in ground water. Ground Water 2004, 42, 601608,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02628.x
  43. 43
    Hladik, M. L.; Bouwer, E. J.; Roberts, A. L. Neutral chloroacetamide herbicide degradates and related compounds in Midwestern United States drinking water sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 390, 155165,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.042
  44. 44
    Rosecrans, C. Z.; Musgrove, M. Water Quality of Groundwater Used for Public Supply in Principal Aquifers of the United States; Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5078; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
  45. 45
    U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated. Map of the Principal Aquifers of the United States; U.S. Geological Survey. https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquifer/map.html (accessed May 7, 2020).
  46. 46
    Lovelace, J. K.; Nielsen, M. G.; Read, A. L.; Murphy, C. J.; Maupin, M. A. Estimated Groundwater Withdrawals from Principal Aquifers in the United States, 2015; Circular 1464; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
  47. 47
    Burow, K. R.; Belitz, K. Groundwater Studies: Principal Aquifer Surveys; Fact Sheet 2014-3024; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.
  48. 48
    Belitz, K.; Jurgens, B.; Landon, M. K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. Estimation of aquifer scale proportion using equal area grids: Assessment of regional scale groundwater quality. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, W11550  DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009321
  49. 49
    Koterba, M. T.; Wilde, F. D.; Lapham, W. W. Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program—Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data; Open-File Report 95-399; U.S. Geological Survey, 1995.
  50. 50
    U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data; Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations; Book 9, Chapters A1–A9. http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/ (accessed Dec 21, 2018).
  51. 51
    Arnold, T. L.; DeSimone, L. A.; Bexfield, L. M.; Lindsey, B. D.; Barlow, J. R.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Musgrove, M.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Belitz, K. Groundwater Quality Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2016.
  52. 52
    Arnold, T. L.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Lindsey, B. D.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Barlow, J. R.; DeSimone, L. A.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Ayotte, J. D.; Fleming, B. J.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2014 and Select Quality-Control Data from May 2012 through December 2014; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2017.
  53. 53
    Arnold, T. L.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Lindsey, B. D.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2015, and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013–2014; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018.
  54. 54
    Arnold, T. L.; Sharpe, J. B.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Erickson, M. L.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Degnan, J. R.; Tesoriero, A. J.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2016, and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013 to 2015; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
  55. 55
    Bexfield, L. M.; Toccalino, P. L.; Belitz, K.; Foreman, W. T.; Furlong, E. T. Environmental and Quality-Control Data Collected by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Project for Hormones and Pharmaceuticals in Groundwater Used as a Source of Drinking Water across the United States, 2013–15; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.
  56. 56
    Sandstrom, M. W.; Kanagy, L. K.; Anderson, C. A.; Kanagy, C. J. Determination of Pesticides and Pesticide Degradates in Filtered Water by Direct Aqueous-Injection Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry; Techniques and Methods; U.S. Geological Survey: 2015; Book 5, Chapter B11.
  57. 57
    Norman, J. E.; Kuivila, K. M.; Nowell, L. H. Prioritizing Pesticide Compounds for Analytical Methods Development; Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5045; U.S. Geological Survey, 2012. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5045/pdf/sir20125045.pdf (accessed Oct 19, 2020).
  58. 58
    Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Glyphosate; EPA 738-R-93-014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1993. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf (accessed Aug 20, 2020).
  59. 59
    Shoda, M. E.; Nowell, L. H.; Stone, W. W.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Bexfield, L. M. Data Analysis Considerations for Pesticides Determined by National Water Quality Laboratory Schedule 2437; Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5007; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018.
  60. 60
    Bexfield, L. M.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Beaty, D. Field, Laboratory, and Third-Party Data for Assessment of the Quality of Pesticide Results Reported by the National Water Quality Laboratory for Groundwater Samples Collected by the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, 2013-18; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
  61. 61
    Bexfield, L. M.; Belitz, K.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Beaty, D.; Medalie, L.; Lindsey, B. D.; Nowell, L. H. Quality of Pesticide Data for Groundwater Analyzed for the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, 2013–18; Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5072; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
  62. 62
    Atrazine Human Health Risk Assessment; EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1159; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2013. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1159 (accessed May 8, 2020).
  63. 63
    Sinclair, C. J.; Boxall, A. B. Assessing the ecotoxicity of pesticide transformation products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 46174625,  DOI: 10.1021/es030038m
  64. 64
    Boxall, A. B.; Sinclair, C. J.; Fenner, K.; Kolpin, D.; Maund, S. J. When synthetic chemicals degrade in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 369A375A,  DOI: 10.1021/es040624v
  65. 65
    Lindsey, B. D.; Jurgens, B. C.; Belitz, K. Tritium as an Indicator of Modern, Mixed, and Premodern Groundwater Age; Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5090; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.
  66. 66
    Jin, S.; Homer, C. G.; Yang, L.; Danielson, P.; Dewitz, J.; Li, C.; Zhu, Z.; Xian, G.; Howard, D. Overall methodology design for the United States National Land Cover Database 2016 products. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2971  DOI: 10.3390/rs11242971
  67. 67
    Belitz, K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. D. Metrics for assessing the quality of groundwater used for public supply, CA, USA: Equivalent-population and area. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 83308338,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00265
  68. 68
    Lindsey, B. D.; Katz, B. G.; Berndt, M. P.; Ardis, A. F.; Skach, K. A. Relations between sinkhole density and anthropogenic contaminants in selected carbonate aquifers in the eastern United States. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 60, 10731090,  DOI: 10.1007/s12665-009-0252-9
  69. 69
    Rupert, M. G.; Hunt, C. D.; Skinner, K. D.; Frans, L. M.; Maher, B. J. Groundwater Quality in the Columbia Plateau and Snake River Plain Basin-Fill and Basaltic-Rock Aquifers and the Hawaiian Volcanic-Rock Aquifers, Washington, Idaho, and Hawaii, 1993–2005; Circular 1359; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1359/ (accessed Oct 6, 2017).
  70. 70
    Nowell, L. H.; Moran, P. W.; Schmidt, T. S.; Norman, J. E.; Nakagaki, N.; Shoda, M. E.; Mahler, B. J.; Van Metre, P. C.; Stone, W. W.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Hladik, M. L. Complex mixtures of dissolves pesticides show potential aquatic toxicity in a synoptic study of Midwestern U.S. streams. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 14691488,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.156
  71. 71
    Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Metolachlor; EPA 738-R-95-006; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1995. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0001.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
  72. 72
    R.E.D. Facts: Hexazinone; EPA 738-F-94-019; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1994. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0266fact.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
  73. 73
    Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Prometon; EPA 738-R-08-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2008. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/prometon-red.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
  74. 74
    Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Propoxur; EPA 738-R-97-009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1997. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/2555red.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
  75. 75
    Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Alachlor; EPA 738-R-98-020; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1998. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0063.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
  76. 76
    Potential Risks of Alachlor Use to Federally Threatened California Reg-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2009. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/endanger/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/alachlor/analysis.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
  77. 77
    Fipronil: Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Assessment and Characterization for Section 18 Registration of in-Furrow Applications to Rutabaga and Turnips; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2005. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-129121_31-Aug-05_a.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
  78. 78
    Fipronil Human Health Risk Assessment; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0448-0076; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2011. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0448-0076 (accessed June 30, 2020).
  79. 79
    Biological Evaluation for Diazinon ESA Assessment: Exposure Characterization for Diazinon; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2016; Chapter 3. https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/biological-evaluation-chapters-diazinon-esa-assessment#chapter3 (accessed May 11, 2020).
  80. 80
    Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Chlorothalonil; EPA 738-R-99-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1999. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0097red.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
  81. 81
    Triazine Cumulative Human Health Risk Assessment; EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2013. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160 (accessed May 12, 2020).

Cited By


This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

    • Abstract

      Figure 1

      Figure 1. Number of pesticide compounds detected at each of 1204 wells sampled in 19 NAWQA principal aquifer surveys (PASs), 2013–2018, indicating where the sum of benchmark quotients (BQEsum) from tier 2 screening of concentrations of pesticide compounds, including degradates without benchmarks, exceeds 0.1 (well symbols outlined in red).

      Figure 2

      Figure 2. Areal proportion and average number of detections for each NAWQA principal aquifer survey, grouped by lithology. The number at the top of each blue bar indicates the rank of the areal proportion among all 19 principal aquifer surveys.

      Figure 3

      Figure 3. Detection frequency of pesticide compounds detected in groundwater from at least 2% of sampled wells. An asterisk indicates a compound that generally was not included in previous NAWQA groundwater studies. Colored text identifies degradates and, when present, their corresponding parent (in bold text).

    • References

      ARTICLE SECTIONS
      Jump To

      This article references 81 other publications.

      1. 1
        National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations (accessed March 20, 2020).
      2. 2
        Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=HHBP:home (accessed March 20, 2020).
      3. 3
        Norman, J. E.; Toccalino, P. L.; Morman, S. A. Health-Based Screening Levels for Evaluating Water-Quality Data; U.S. Geological Survey Web Page; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018. https://water.usgs.gov/water-resources/hbsl/ (accessed Aug 18, 2020).
      4. 4
        Integrated Risk Information System; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/iris (accessed March 20, 2020).
      5. 5
        Drinking Water Contaminant Human Health Effects Information; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-contaminant-human-health-effects-information (accessed March 20, 2020).
      6. 6
        Pesticide Chemical Search; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=chemicalsearch:1 (accessed March 20, 2020).
      7. 7
        Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential Annual Cancer Report 2018; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. http://npic.orst.edu/chemicals_evaluated.pdf (accessed March 20, 2020).
      8. 8
        Gilliom, R. J.; Barbash, J. E.; Crawford, C. G.; Hamilton, P. A.; Martin, J. D.; Nakagaki, N.; Nowell, L. H.; Scott, J. C.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Thelin, G. P.; Wolock, D. M. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001; Circular 1291; U.S. Geological Survey, 2006.
      9. 9
        Toccalino, P. L.; Norman, J. E.; Hitt, K. J. Quality of Source Water from Public-Supply Wells in the United States, 1993–2007; Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5024; U.S. Geological Survey, 2010.
      10. 10
        Squillace, P. J.; Scott, J. C.; Moran, M. J.; Nolan, B. T.; Kolpin, D. W. VOCs, pesticides, nitrate, and their mixtures in groundwater used for drinking water in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 19231930,  DOI: 10.1021/es015591n
      11. 11
        DeSimone, L. A. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004; Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5227; U.S. Geological Survey, 2009.
      12. 12
        Hopple, J. A.; Delzer, G. C.; Kingsbury, J. A. Anthropogenic Organic Compounds in Source Water of Selected Community Water Systems That Use Groundwater, 2002–05; Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5200; U.S. Geological Survey, 2009.
      13. 13
        DeSimone, L. A.; McMahon, P. B.; Rosen, M. R. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010; Circular 1360; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.
      14. 14
        Fenner, K.; Canonica, S.; Wackett, L. P.; Elsner, M. Evaluating pesticide degradation in the environment: Blind spots and emerging opportunities. Science 2013, 341, 752758,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1236281
      15. 15
        Atwood, D.; Paisley-Jones, C. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2008–2012 Market Estimates; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/pesticides-industry-sales-usage-2016_0.pdf (accessed March 19, 2020).
      16. 16
        Wieben, C. M. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use by Major Crop or Crop Group for States of the Conterminous United States, 1992–2017, ver. 2.0, May 2020; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.
      17. 17
        Simmons, J. E. Chemical mixtures: Challenge for toxicology and risk assessment. Toxicology 1995, 105, 111119,  DOI: 10.1016/0300-483X(95)03205-T
      18. 18
        Carpenter, D. O.; Arcaro, K.; Spink, D. C. Understanding the human health effects of mixtures. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 2542,  DOI: 10.1289/ehp.02110s125
      19. 19
        Suk, W. A.; Olden, K.; Yang, R. S. H. Chemical mixtures research: Significance and future perspectives. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 891892,  DOI: 10.1289/ehp.110-1241268
      20. 20
        Kortenkamp, A.; Faust, M.; Scholze, M.; Backhaus, T. Low-level exposure to multiple chemicals: Reason for human health concerns?. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 106114,  DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9358
      21. 21
        Teuschler, L. K. Deciding which chemical mixtures risk assessment methods work best for what mixtures. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2007, 223, 139147,  DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2006.07.010
      22. 22
        Ryker, S. J.; Small, M. J. Combining occurrence and toxicity information to identify priorities for drinking-water mixture research. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 653666,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.00985.x
      23. 23
        Kortenkamp, A.; Faust, M. State of the Art Report on Mixture Toxicity, Final Report: Executive Summary; School of Pharmacy, University of London: London, U.K., 2009.
      24. 24
        Meek, M. E.; Boobis, A. R.; Crofton, K. M.; Heinemeyer, G.; Van Raaij, M.; Vickers, C. Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: A WHO/IPCS framework. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 60, S1S14,  DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.03.010
      25. 25
        Price, P. S.; Han, X. Maximum cumulative ratio (MCR) as a tool for assessing the value of performing a cumulative risk assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 22122225,  DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8062212
      26. 26
        Toccalino, P. L.; Norman, J. E.; Scott, J. C. Chemical mixtures in untreated water from public-supply wells in the U.S.—Occurrence, composition, and potential toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 431, 262270,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.05.044
      27. 27
        Framework for Assessing Health Impacts of Multiple Chemicals and Other Stressors (Update); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, D.C., 2018. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/ip-ga/ipga.pdf (accessed April 23, 2020).
      28. 28
        Cumulative Assessment of Risk from Pesticides; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides (accessed March 20, 2020).
      29. 29
        Manamsa, K.; Crane, E.; Stuart, M.; Talbot, J.; Lapworth, D.; Hart, A. A national-scale assessment of micro-organic contaminants in groundwater of England and Wales. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 712726,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.017
      30. 30
        Kiefer, K.; Muller, A.; Singer, H.; Hollender, J. New relevant pesticide transformation products in groundwater detected using target and suspect screening for agricultural and urban micropollutants with LC-HRMS. Water Res. 2019, 165, 114972  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.114972
      31. 31
        Close, M. E.; Humphries, B.; Northcott, G. Outcomes of the first combined national survey of pesticides and emerging organic contaminants (EOCs) in groundwater in New Zealand 2018. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 754, 142005  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142005
      32. 32
        Kolpin, D. W.; Goolsby, D. A.; Thurman, M. E. Pesticides in near-surface aquifers: an assessment using highly sensitive analytical methods and tritium. J. Environ. Qual. 1995, 24, 11251132,  DOI: 10.2134/jeq1995.00472425002400060011x
      33. 33
        Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Goolsby, D. A. Occurrence of selected pesticides and their metabolites in near-surface aquifers of the midwestern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 30, 335340,  DOI: 10.1021/es950462q
      34. 34
        Kolpin, D. W.; Barbash, J. E.; Gilliom, R. J. Occurrence of pesticides in shallow groundwater of the United States: Initial results from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32, 558566,  DOI: 10.1021/es970412g
      35. 35
        Kolpin, D. W.; Barbash, J. E.; Gilliom, R. J. Pesticides in groundwater of the United States, 1992-96. Ground Water 2000, 38, 858863,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00684.x
      36. 36
        Bexfield, L. M. Decadal-scale changes of pesticides in ground water of the United States, 1993-2003. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, S-226S-239,  DOI: 10.2134/jeq2007.0054
      37. 37
        Toccalino, P. L.; Gilliom, R. J.; Lindsey, B. D.; Rupert, M. G. Pesticides in groundwater of the United States: Decadal-scale changes, 1993-2011. Groundwater 2014, 52, 112125,  DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12176
      38. 38
        Kolpin, D. W.; Kalkhoff, S. J.; Goosby, D. A.; Sneck-Fahrer, D. A.; Thurman, M. E. Occurrence of selected herbicides and herbicide degradation products in Iowa’s ground water, 1995. Ground Water 1997, 35, 679688,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1997.tb00134.x
      39. 39
        Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Linhart, S. M. The environmental occurrence of herbicides: The importance of degradates in ground water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1998, 35, 385390,  DOI: 10.1007/s002449900392
      40. 40
        Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Linhart, S. M. Finding minimal herbicide concentrations in ground water? Try looking for their degradates. Sci. Total Environ. 2000, 248, 115122,  DOI: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00535-5
      41. 41
        Kolpin, D. W.; Thurman, M. E.; Linhart, S. M. Occurrence of cyanazine compounds in groundwater: Degradates more prevalent than the parent compound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 12171222,  DOI: 10.1021/es001520x
      42. 42
        Kolpin, D. W.; Schnoebelen, D. J.; Thurman, E. M. Degradates provide insight to spatial and temporal trends of herbicides in ground water. Ground Water 2004, 42, 601608,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02628.x
      43. 43
        Hladik, M. L.; Bouwer, E. J.; Roberts, A. L. Neutral chloroacetamide herbicide degradates and related compounds in Midwestern United States drinking water sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 390, 155165,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.042
      44. 44
        Rosecrans, C. Z.; Musgrove, M. Water Quality of Groundwater Used for Public Supply in Principal Aquifers of the United States; Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5078; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
      45. 45
        U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated. Map of the Principal Aquifers of the United States; U.S. Geological Survey. https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquifer/map.html (accessed May 7, 2020).
      46. 46
        Lovelace, J. K.; Nielsen, M. G.; Read, A. L.; Murphy, C. J.; Maupin, M. A. Estimated Groundwater Withdrawals from Principal Aquifers in the United States, 2015; Circular 1464; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
      47. 47
        Burow, K. R.; Belitz, K. Groundwater Studies: Principal Aquifer Surveys; Fact Sheet 2014-3024; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014.
      48. 48
        Belitz, K.; Jurgens, B.; Landon, M. K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. Estimation of aquifer scale proportion using equal area grids: Assessment of regional scale groundwater quality. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, W11550  DOI: 10.1029/2010WR009321
      49. 49
        Koterba, M. T.; Wilde, F. D.; Lapham, W. W. Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program—Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data; Open-File Report 95-399; U.S. Geological Survey, 1995.
      50. 50
        U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data; Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations; Book 9, Chapters A1–A9. http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/ (accessed Dec 21, 2018).
      51. 51
        Arnold, T. L.; DeSimone, L. A.; Bexfield, L. M.; Lindsey, B. D.; Barlow, J. R.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Musgrove, M.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Belitz, K. Groundwater Quality Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2016.
      52. 52
        Arnold, T. L.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Lindsey, B. D.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Barlow, J. R.; DeSimone, L. A.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Ayotte, J. D.; Fleming, B. J.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2014 and Select Quality-Control Data from May 2012 through December 2014; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2017.
      53. 53
        Arnold, T. L.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Stackelberg, P. E.; Lindsey, B. D.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2015, and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013–2014; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018.
      54. 54
        Arnold, T. L.; Sharpe, J. B.; Bexfield, L. M.; Musgrove, M.; Erickson, M. L.; Kingsbury, J. A.; Degnan, J. R.; Tesoriero, A. J.; Kulongoski, J. T.; Belitz, K. Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2016, and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013 to 2015; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
      55. 55
        Bexfield, L. M.; Toccalino, P. L.; Belitz, K.; Foreman, W. T.; Furlong, E. T. Environmental and Quality-Control Data Collected by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Project for Hormones and Pharmaceuticals in Groundwater Used as a Source of Drinking Water across the United States, 2013–15; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.
      56. 56
        Sandstrom, M. W.; Kanagy, L. K.; Anderson, C. A.; Kanagy, C. J. Determination of Pesticides and Pesticide Degradates in Filtered Water by Direct Aqueous-Injection Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry; Techniques and Methods; U.S. Geological Survey: 2015; Book 5, Chapter B11.
      57. 57
        Norman, J. E.; Kuivila, K. M.; Nowell, L. H. Prioritizing Pesticide Compounds for Analytical Methods Development; Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5045; U.S. Geological Survey, 2012. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5045/pdf/sir20125045.pdf (accessed Oct 19, 2020).
      58. 58
        Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Glyphosate; EPA 738-R-93-014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1993. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf (accessed Aug 20, 2020).
      59. 59
        Shoda, M. E.; Nowell, L. H.; Stone, W. W.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Bexfield, L. M. Data Analysis Considerations for Pesticides Determined by National Water Quality Laboratory Schedule 2437; Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5007; U.S. Geological Survey, 2018.
      60. 60
        Bexfield, L. M.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Beaty, D. Field, Laboratory, and Third-Party Data for Assessment of the Quality of Pesticide Results Reported by the National Water Quality Laboratory for Groundwater Samples Collected by the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, 2013-18; data release; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
      61. 61
        Bexfield, L. M.; Belitz, K.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Beaty, D.; Medalie, L.; Lindsey, B. D.; Nowell, L. H. Quality of Pesticide Data for Groundwater Analyzed for the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, 2013–18; Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5072; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020.
      62. 62
        Atrazine Human Health Risk Assessment; EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1159; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2013. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1159 (accessed May 8, 2020).
      63. 63
        Sinclair, C. J.; Boxall, A. B. Assessing the ecotoxicity of pesticide transformation products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 46174625,  DOI: 10.1021/es030038m
      64. 64
        Boxall, A. B.; Sinclair, C. J.; Fenner, K.; Kolpin, D.; Maund, S. J. When synthetic chemicals degrade in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 369A375A,  DOI: 10.1021/es040624v
      65. 65
        Lindsey, B. D.; Jurgens, B. C.; Belitz, K. Tritium as an Indicator of Modern, Mixed, and Premodern Groundwater Age; Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5090; U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.
      66. 66
        Jin, S.; Homer, C. G.; Yang, L.; Danielson, P.; Dewitz, J.; Li, C.; Zhu, Z.; Xian, G.; Howard, D. Overall methodology design for the United States National Land Cover Database 2016 products. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2971  DOI: 10.3390/rs11242971
      67. 67
        Belitz, K.; Fram, M. S.; Johnson, T. D. Metrics for assessing the quality of groundwater used for public supply, CA, USA: Equivalent-population and area. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 83308338,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00265
      68. 68
        Lindsey, B. D.; Katz, B. G.; Berndt, M. P.; Ardis, A. F.; Skach, K. A. Relations between sinkhole density and anthropogenic contaminants in selected carbonate aquifers in the eastern United States. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 60, 10731090,  DOI: 10.1007/s12665-009-0252-9
      69. 69
        Rupert, M. G.; Hunt, C. D.; Skinner, K. D.; Frans, L. M.; Maher, B. J. Groundwater Quality in the Columbia Plateau and Snake River Plain Basin-Fill and Basaltic-Rock Aquifers and the Hawaiian Volcanic-Rock Aquifers, Washington, Idaho, and Hawaii, 1993–2005; Circular 1359; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1359/ (accessed Oct 6, 2017).
      70. 70
        Nowell, L. H.; Moran, P. W.; Schmidt, T. S.; Norman, J. E.; Nakagaki, N.; Shoda, M. E.; Mahler, B. J.; Van Metre, P. C.; Stone, W. W.; Sandstrom, M. W.; Hladik, M. L. Complex mixtures of dissolves pesticides show potential aquatic toxicity in a synoptic study of Midwestern U.S. streams. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 14691488,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.156
      71. 71
        Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Metolachlor; EPA 738-R-95-006; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1995. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0001.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
      72. 72
        R.E.D. Facts: Hexazinone; EPA 738-F-94-019; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1994. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0266fact.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
      73. 73
        Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Prometon; EPA 738-R-08-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2008. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/prometon-red.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
      74. 74
        Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Propoxur; EPA 738-R-97-009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1997. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/2555red.pdf (accessed May 8, 2020).
      75. 75
        Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Alachlor; EPA 738-R-98-020; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1998. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0063.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
      76. 76
        Potential Risks of Alachlor Use to Federally Threatened California Reg-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2009. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/endanger/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/alachlor/analysis.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
      77. 77
        Fipronil: Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Assessment and Characterization for Section 18 Registration of in-Furrow Applications to Rutabaga and Turnips; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2005. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-129121_31-Aug-05_a.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
      78. 78
        Fipronil Human Health Risk Assessment; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0448-0076; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2011. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0448-0076 (accessed June 30, 2020).
      79. 79
        Biological Evaluation for Diazinon ESA Assessment: Exposure Characterization for Diazinon; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2016; Chapter 3. https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/biological-evaluation-chapters-diazinon-esa-assessment#chapter3 (accessed May 11, 2020).
      80. 80
        Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Chlorothalonil; EPA 738-R-99-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1999. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/0097red.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).
      81. 81
        Triazine Cumulative Human Health Risk Assessment; EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 2013. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160 (accessed May 12, 2020).
    • Supporting Information

      Supporting Information

      ARTICLE SECTIONS
      Jump To

      The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c05793.

      • Additional information on particular topics as noted in the text, with figures (PDF)

      • Data tables as noted in the text (XLSX)


      Terms & Conditions

      Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

    STEP 1:
    Click to create an ACS ID

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    OOPS

    You have to login with your ACS ID befor you can login with your Mendeley account.

    MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
    Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

    This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

    CONTINUE