Morace, Jennifer L.
Norman, Julia E.
Qian, Yaorong
Corbin, Mark C.
Nowell, Lisa H.
VanMetre, Peter C.
Button, Daniel T.
Mahler, Barbara J.
20200113
Pesticides in Daily and Weekly Water Samples from the NAWQA Midwest and Southeast Stream Quality Assessments (2013-2014)
tab-delimited text files
Portland, OR
U.S. Geological Survey
https://doi.org/10.5066/P9N2A3LS
Norman, Julia E.
Mahler, Barbara J.
Nowell, Lisa H.
Van Metre, Peter C.
Sandstrom, Mark W.
Corbin, Mark A.
Qian, Yaorong
Pankow, James F.
Luo, Wentai
Fitzgerald, Nicholas B.
Asher, William E.
McWhirter, Kevin J.
2020
Daily stream samples reveal highly complex pesticide occurrence and potential toxicity to aquatic life
Journal article
Science of the Total Environment
Elsevier
These datasets are one component of the multistressor studies conducted in Midwest streams in 2013 (MSQA) and in Southeast streams in 2014 (SESQA) by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Project. High-frequency small-volume autosamplers were deployed at 7 sites each in MSQA and SESQA that collected daily and weekly composite water samples, which were analyzed for 225 pesticides and pesticide degradates. Five of the MSQA autosampler sites were in agricultural watersheds and two in urban watersheds, whereas all seven SESQA autosampler sites were in urban watersheds. The daily and weekly composite samples were compared with results from traditional discrete water samples collected weekly at the sites. Mixtures of pesticides were present in most samples and the Pesticide Toxicity Index (PTI) and acute invertebrate benchmarks were used to evaluate the potential for acute invertebrate toxicity of mixtures. This Data Release provides concentration data for pesticide compounds in environmental weekly and daily composite water samples, pesticide analyte information, summaries of quality control data, and PTI scores, in support of the journal article “Daily-composite stream samples reveal highly complex pesticide occurrence and potential toxicity to aquatic life,” by Norman, J.E., Mahler, B.J., Nowell, L.H., Van Metre, P.C., Sandstrom, M.W., Corbin, M.A., Qian, Y., Pankow, J.F., Luo, W., Fitzgerald, N.B., Asher, W.E., and McWhirter, K.J.
The objectives of this study were 1) to compare pesticide occurrence as indicated by daily composite sampling to that indicated by weekly composite and weekly discrete sampling, and 2) to compare potential acute invertebrate toxicity, as evaluated by comparison to established toxicity benchmarks and thresholds, determined from daily composite samples to that determined from weekly composite and discrete samples.
This data release includes 5 data files and a data dictionary that defines the variables in those data files (Tables 2-6): (1) site characteristics; (2) pesticide concentrations in daily and weekly composite samples analyzed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Analytical Chemistry Laboratory; (3) pesticide concentrations in discrete weekly samples analyzed at the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Laboratory; (4) analyte information and benchmark values; (5) summary of quality control spike recovery data.
Datafiles are in tab-delimited text format. If the text files are opened in Excel, select "text" as the column data format for the following columns: SITE_NO, USGS_PARM_CD, TIME, DB_NO, RECORD, PARM_CD, CASRN. Not following this approach for the SITE_NO column, for example, will result in incorrect sampling site identification numbers.
References cited in metadata are:
Nakagaki, N., Qi, S.L., and Baker, N.T., 2016, Selected Environmental Characteristics of Sampled Sites, Watersheds, and Riparian Zones for the U.S. Geological Survey Midwest Stream Quality Assessment: U.S. Geological Survey data release, http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F77W699S.
Norman, J.E., Mahler, B.J., Nowell, L.H., Van Metre, P.C., Sandstrom, M.W., Corbin, M.A., Qian, Y., Pankow, J.F., Luo, W., Fitzgerald, N.B., Asher, W.E., and McWhirter, K.J., 2020, Daily stream samples reveal highly complex pesticide occurrence and potential toxicity to aquatic life: Science of the Total Environment (in review).
Nowell, L.H., Norman, J.E., Moran, P.W., Martin, J.M., and Stone, W.W., 2014, Pesticide Toxicity Index—A tool for assessing potential toxicity of pesticide mixtures to freshwater aquatic organisms: Science of the Total Environment, vol. 476-477, p. 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.088.
Qian Y. 2015, U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Water Sample Analysis Using Direct-Aqueous Injection Technique with Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fort Meade, MD.
Sandstrom, M.W., Kanagy, L.K., Anderson, C.A., Kanagy, C.J., 2015, Determination of pesticides and pesticide degradates in filtered water by direct aqueous-injection liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, chap. B11, 54 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/tm5B11.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018, Aquatic Life Benchmarks and Ecological Risk Assessments for Registered Pesticides. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk. Accessed December 10, 2018.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, National Water Information System (NWIS), accessed November 25, 2019, at http://water.usgs.gov/nwis. (U.S. Water Data for the Nation, http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN).
20130506
20140613
ground condition
None planned
-100.011651
-77.340217
45.445459
32.309021
USGS Thesaurus
surface water
pesticide
insecticide
fungicide
herbicide
pesticide degradate
water quality
mixtures
NAWQA
National Water Quality Assessment
daily sampling
USGS Metadata Identifier
USGS:5d30ff77e4b01d82ce84ab36
Oregon GEO Place Keywords
United States
Ohio
Indiana
Kentucky
Illinois
Wisconsin
Missouri
Iowa
Minnesota
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
Corn Belt
Piedmont ecoregion
Alabama
southern Appalachian Mountains
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia
Tennessee
stream
surface water
Oregon GEO Temporal Keywords
Spring
Summer
April
May
June
July
August
2013
2014
None. Please see 'Distribution Information' for details. Acknowledgment of the U.S. Geological Survey would be appreciated in products derived from these data.
The user should read and fully understand the metadata prior to data use. This dataset should be used with knowledge of the data and potential limitations.
Lisa Nowell
U.S. Geological Survey
Research Chemist
mailing and physical
6000 J Street, Placer Hall
Sacramento
CA
95819
USA
916-278-3096
lhnowell@usgs.gov
USGS National Water Quality Program (NWQP), National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project, Regional Stream Quality Assessment (RSQA) and USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Accuracy of the liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) analytical method used is described in detail in Sandstrom and others (2015) and Qian (2015). The accuracy of this particular dataset was evaluated on the basis of the following quality control (QC) samples: laboratory blanks and spikes, the addition of isotopically labelled pesticide surrogates to all samples, and field blanks and paired replicates. The results of the QC analyses are discussed and interpreted in the journal article and online supporting information.
No formal logical accuracy tests were conducted
Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details.
No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted
No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted
Nakagaki, N., Qi, S.L., and Baker, N.T.
2016
Selected Environmental Characteristics of Sampled Sites, Watersheds, and Riparian Zones for the U.S. Geological Survey Midwest Stream Quality Assessment
Tabular Digital Data
Sacramento, CA
U.S. Geological Survey
http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F77W699S
online
19820101
20131231
publication date
MSQA and SESQA characteristics
This dataset was the source of site location information and watershed area.
U.S. Geological Survey
20190601
USGS Water Data for the Nation
database
Reston, VA
U.S. Geological Survey
http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN
Online data
20130506
20140613
publication date
NWIS
This database was the source of pesticide concentration data in discrete environmental samples.
Qian, Yaorong
2015
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Water Sample Analysis Using Direct-Aqueous Injection Technique with Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)
Tabular Digital Data
Fort Meade, MD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-region-3s-laboratory-and-field-services-epas-environmental-science-center
Database
20130506
20140613
publication date
EPA Data
This database was the source of the pesticide concentration data for the daily and weekly composite samples collected by the autosamplers.
Sandstrom, M.W., Kanagy, L.K., Anderson, C.A., and Kanagy, C.J
2015
Determination of pesticides and pesticide degradates in filtered water by direct aqueous-injection liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
report/tables
Denver, CO
U.S. Geological Survey
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/tm5B11
online
20130506
20140613
publication date
SH2437 Info
This report provided information about the pesticide analytes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs
20190930
Aquatic Life Benchmarks and Ecological Risk Assessments for Registered Pesticides
tabular data
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk
online
20180101
20190930
publication date
Benchmarks
This data set provided aquatic-toxicity data for comparing pesticide concentrations.
Daily and weekly composite samples were collected by autosamplers at 14 sites, and then analyzed for pesticide concentrations by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Analytical Chemistry Laboratory in Fort Meade, MD. Discrete weekly samples were collected at the same sites, and then analyzed for pesticide concentrations by LC-MS/MS at the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, CO. The data from the USGS lab were then recensored using the method detection limits from the USEPA lab so that the data could be compared.
2019
Spike recovery was calculated as the actual concentration (Cmeasured) divided by the expected concentration (Cexpected), where Cmeasured equals the difference between the concentration measured in the spike sample minus the concentration in the paired environmental sample, and Cexpected is the spike injection volume (milliliters) times the concentration in the spike solution (nanograms per milliliter), divided by the volume of the sample (liters). These spike recoveries were calculated for autosampler matrix spikes and discrete matrix spikes. The relative percent difference (RPD) between the median values for these spike recoveries were calculated for each compound. The RPD is calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the median for the autosampler matrix spike recovery and the median for the discrete matrix spike recovery, divided by the average of the two medians.
2019
SITE_NO
Point
Table1_Data_Dictionary
Data dictionary containing the variable names, definitions, and data sources for column headers in Tables 2-6.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Program (NWQP), National Water Quality Assessment Project (NAWQA), Midwest Stream Quality Assessment (MSQA) and Southeast Stream Quality Assessment (SESQA)
Table 1. Data dictionary for variables in Tables 2-6
For each variable (column headers in Tables 2-6): the variable and enumerated values are defined. Information is provided on TABLE_NO, VARIABLE_NAME, VARIABLE_DESCRIPTION, SOURCE_DATA, REFERENCE
Authority listed in the columns, SOURCE_DATA and REFERENCE
For each variable in Tables 2-6, this table lists the Table in which the variable appears, the name of the variable, its definition, source, and cited reference.
Table2_Sites
Site information for sites where autosamplers were deployed, Midwest and Southeast Stream Quality Assessments, 2013-14
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Program (NWQP), National Water Quality Assessment Project (NAWQA), Regional Stream Quality Assessment Study
Table 2. Site information, columns 1-7
Site identifiers, site location information and watershed area. Column header definitions are in Table 1. The 7 column headers are: RSQA_STUDY, SITE_NO, SHORT_NAME, STATION_NAME, LATITUDE, LONGITUDE, WATERSHED_AREA.
Regional Stream Quality Assessment (RSQA) Project database; Nakagaki and others (2016). U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System (NWIS) database; U.S. Geological Survey (2019). Table 1 lists data source for individual column headers in Table 2.
Site information corresponds to column headers, which are defined in Table 1.
Table3_EPA_daily&weekly_composites
Concentrations measured in daily and weekly composite samples analyzed at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, Midwest and Southeast Stream Quality Assessments, 2013-14
For analytical method information, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
Table 3. Concentrations measured in daily and weekly composite samples, columns 1-15
Concentrations of pesticides analyzed and associated parameter and method information. Column header definitions are in Table 1. The 15 column headers are: RSQA_STUDY, SITE_NO, SHORT_NAME, START_DATE, END_DATE, MEDIUM, SAMPLE_TYPE, VIAL, COMPOSITE, USGS_METHOD, USGS_PARM_CD, EPA_COMPOUND, REMARK, RESULT, QUALIFIER.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
Analyte information and concentrations correspond to column headings, which are defined in Table 1.
Table4_USGS_weekly_discrete
Concentrations measured in discrete samples analyzed at the U.S. Geological Survery's National Water Quality Laboratory, Midwest and Southeast Stream Quality Assessments, 2013-14
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, and USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project, Regional Stream Quality Assessment Study
Table 4. Concentrations measured in discrete samples, columns 1-17
Concentrations of pesticides analyzed and associated parameter and method information. Column header definitions are in Table 1. The 17 column headers are: RSQA_STUDY, SITE_NO, SHORT_NAME, DATE, TIME, MEDIUM, SAMPLE_TYPE, DB_NO, NWIS_HOST, RECORD, PARM_CD, EPA_COMPOUND, REMARK, RESULT, EPA_MDL, REMAK_CENSEPA, RESULT_CENSEPA
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, and USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project, Regional Stream Quality Assessment Study
Analyte information and concentrations correspond to column headings, which are defined in Table 1.
Table5_Analyte_Info
Analyte information for autosampler and discrete pesticide samples, including method detection limits, method information, and aquatic-life benchmark values
For analytical method information, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Analytical Chemistry Laboratory; for pesticide class and use group information, USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project; for aquatic-life benchmarks, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Table 5. Analyte information for autosampler and discrete pesticide samples and aquatic-life benchmark values, columns 1-20
Information on analytical method and sensitivity, pesticide use group and chemical class, and aquatic-life benchmarks. Column header definitions are in Table 1. The 20 column headers are: ANALYTE, CASRN, EPA_COMPOUND, EPA_METHOD, EPA_MDL_MSQA, EPA_MDL_SESQA, USGS_PARM_CD, USGS_PARMNAME, USGS_LABCODE, USGS_IRL, USGS_RLDQC, USE_GROUP, PESTICIDE_CLASS, PARENT_DEGRADATE, PARENT_COMPOUND, EPA_AFB, EPA_AIB, EPA_ANVPB, CLADOCERAN_STC, BENTHIC_INVERTEBRATE_STC
For analytical method information, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Analytical Chemistry Laboratory; for pesticide class and use group information, USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project; for aquatic-life benchmarks, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Analyte information and benchmark values correspond to column headings, which are defined in Table 1.
Table6_QA_Info
Summary of spike recoveries from the U.S. Geolgoical Survey National Water Quality Laboratory for samples collected by the autosampler and the associated discrete field matrix-spike samples collected at Sope Creek and Proctor Creek, Southesast Stream Quality Assessment, 2014
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory; and USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project, Regional Stream Quality Assessment Study
Table 6.Summary of spike recoveries from autosampler and discrete field matrix-spike samples, columns 1-1
Percent spike recovery values for autosampler and discrete spike samples. Column header definitions are in Table 1. The 14 column headers are: ANALYTE, CASRN, PARM_CD, USE_GROUP, PARENT_COMPOUND, AUTO_SPIKE_NUMBER, AUTO_SPIKE_MIN_RECOVERY, AUTO_SPIKE_MEDIAN_RECOVERY, AUTO_SPIKE_MAX_RECOVERY, DISC_SPIKE_NUMBER, DISC_SPIKE_MIN_RECOVERY, DISC_SPIKE_MEDIAN_RECOVERY, DISC_SPIKE_MAX_RECOVERY, DISC_MEDIAN_RPD
Producer defined
Spike recovery information corresponds to column headers, which are defined in Table 1
ScienceBase
U.S. Geological Survey - ScienceBase
mailing and physical
Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302
Denver
CO
80225
USA
1-888-275-8747
sciencebase@usgs.gov
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also contains copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner whenever applicable. The data have been approved for release and publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the data have been subjected to rigorous review and are substantially complete, the USGS reserves the right to revise the data pursuant to further analysis and review. Furthermore, the data are released on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from authorized or unauthorized use. Although the data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The U.S. Geological Survey shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Users of this data are advised to read all metadata and associated documentation thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations.
20200827
Jennifer Morace
U.S. Geological Survey
mailing and physical
2130 SW Fifth Ave
Portland
OR
97201
USA
503-251-3229
jlmorace@usgs.gov
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
FGDC-STD-001-1998