David A. Alvarez 20201014 tabular digital data Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/P96MF8SX Legacy and emerging contaminants were measured in streams and rivers in the District of Columbia and the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia of the Chesapeake Bay watershed between 2005 and 2013. Passive sampling devices, SPMDs and POCIS, were used to sample these waterbodies, providing a time-integrated concentration of contaminants that are potentially bioavailable to native fishes. This data set is a compilation of data from eight separate studies, all focused on determining the potential exposure of organic chemicals to fish which may be responsible for instances of fish kills and intersex that were observed in these waterbodies. Data was collected to support fish health studies within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 20050916 20130523 ground condition Complete None planned -80.6418 -77.1517 40.8138 37.7243 USGS Thesaurus surface water quality dissolved contaminants contamination and pollution water chemistry ISO 19115 Topic Category biota None passive samplers surface water legacy contaminants emerging contaminants USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:5f85a84d82cebef40f14c52b Geographic Names Information System Chesapeake Bay basin None. Please see 'Distribution Info' for details. None. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. David Alvarez U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center Supervisory Research Chemist mailing and physical

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia MO 65201 US 573-875-5399 dalvarez@usgs.gov US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, USGS Environmental Health Mission Area Alvarez, David A. Cranor, Walter L. Perkins, Stephanie D. Clark, Randal C. Smith, Steven B. 20080501 Journal of Environmental Quality vol. 37, issue 3 n/a Wiley https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0463 Foreman, William T. Gray, James L. ReVello, Rhiannon C. Lindley, Chris E. Losche, Scott A. Barber, Larry B. 2012 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/5b9/ Alvarez, David A. 2010 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm1d4/ Alvarez, David A. Cranor, Walter L. Perkins, Stephanie D. Schroeder, Vickie L. Werner, Stephen L. Furlong, Edward T. Holmes, John 2008 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1093/ Furlong, Edward T. Werner, Stephen L. Anderson, Bruce D. Cahill, Jeffery D. 2008 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org10.3133/tm5B5 M.T. Meyer E.A. Lee G.M. Ferrell J.E. Bumgarner Jerry Varns 2007 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20075021 Zaugg, Steven D. Smith, Steven G. Schroeder, Michael P. Barber, Larry B. Burkhardt, Mark R. 2007 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri014186/ Instrument calibrations, positive and negative control checks, data review Values fall within expected ranges, data were checked for transcription errors, duplicates and omissions The data are complete as described in the abstract no positional accuracy checks were completed no positional accuracy checks were completed SPMD-PAH Methodology A single SPMD from each site was extracted using a two-stage dialytic process into hexane. The extracts were further treated by successive clean-up and fractionation steps to remove interferences. These steps included size exclusion chromatography followed by acidic/basic/netural reactive Silica Gel gravity-flow column chromatography (Alvarez et al., 2008). The PAHs were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in selected ion mode. Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). SPMD water calculator version 5.1 was utilized 2013 SPMD-OC-PCB-PBDE Methodology A single SPMD from each site was extracted using a two-stage dialytic process into hexane. The extracts were further treated by successive clean-up and fractionation steps to remove interferences and to separate the PCBs from the OC pesticides and PBDEs. These steps included size exclusion chromatography, followed by Florisil® and Silica Gel gravity-flow column chromatography (Alvarez et al., 2008). The PCB and pesticide/PBDE fractions from the Silica Gel were analyzed by gas chromatography with electron capture detection. Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). SPMD water calculator version 5.1 was utilized 2013 LC8092 Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using methanol. Extracts were shipped to the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory where they were analyzed using lab code 8092 (Foreman et al, 2012). This involved cleanup of the extracts using Florisil® followed by derivatization using MSTFA. The analysis of the extracts by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 POCIS-Hormones Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using a methanol. The extracts were derivatized with bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide+1% trimethylchlorosilane (Alvarez et al., 2008a). The derivatized samples were cleaned up using miniature silica gel columns then analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in selected-ion mode. Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 POCIS-CUP Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using a methanol. The extracts underwent size-exclusion chromatographic and Florisil® cleanup. The extracts were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in selected-ion mode (Alvarez et al 2008). Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 LC8068 Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using a mixture of dichloromethane:methyl-tert-butyl ether (80:20 v:v). Extracts were shipped to the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory where they were analyzed using lab code 8068 (Zaugg et al., 2007). This involved the analysis of the extracts by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 POCIS-WI Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using a mixture of dichloromethane:methyl-tert-butyl ether (80:20 v:v). The extracts were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in full-scan mode (Alvarez et al 2008). Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 LC8069 Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using methanol. Extracts were shipped to the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory where they were analyzed using lab code 8069 (Furlong et al., 2008). This involved the analysis of the extracts by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 LCAB Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted using methanol. Extracts were shipped to the USGS Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory where they were analyzed using lab code LCAB (Meyer et al, 2007). This involved the analysis of the extracts by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Analytical results were transformed into time-weighted average water concentration estimates using chemical uptake models as described by Alvarez (2010). 2013 POCIS-YES Methodology A single POCIS from each site was extracted with methanol prior to being tested for total estrogenicity with the YES assay (Alvarez et al., 2008). Approximatley 2.5% of each sample was seriallity diluted across a 96-well plate to which tranfected yeast cells, growth media, and a chromophore was added. The plates were incubated for three days afterwhich they were analyzed by a spectrophotometer. The appearance of a red color in the cells indicates the presence of estrogenic chemicals in the sample. 2013 Sites.txt Text (txt) file containing data regarding site name, state, geolocation. Producer Defined CERC ID A textual identifier for the sample, assigned by CERC Laboratory, ties the sample to the sampling location described in entity Q Producer Defined A textual identifier for the sample, assigned by CERC Laboratory, ties the sample to the sampling location described in entity Q State Two digit state code for the state (United States) where the sample was collected Producer Defined Two digit state code for the state (United States) where the sample was collected Name A literal value representing the common term used to identify the location where the passive sampler was deployed Producer Defined A literal value representing the common term used to identify the location where the passive sampler was deployed Station_ID A shorthand numeric identifier representing the United States Geological Survey National Water Information System site identifier for the sampling location Producer Defined A shorthand alphanumeric identifier representing the United States Geological Survey National Water Information System site identifier for the sampling location NA The attribute is not applicable Producer defined Lat Geographic coordinate that specifies the north–south position of a point on the Earth's surface. Reported in decimal degrees Producer Defined 37.7243 40.813778 Decimal degrees Lon Geographic coordinate that specifies the east-west position of a point on the Earth's surface. Reported in decimal degrees Producer Defined -80.641847 -74.841425 Decimal degrees Start_Date A representation of time in which the smallest unit of measure is a day. The value is expressed in YYYYMMDD. It represents the date upon which the passive sampler was deployed at the sample location. Producer Defined A representation of time in which the smallest unit of measure is a day. The value is expressed in YYYYMMDD. It represents the date upon which the passive sampler was deployed at the sample location. ND No data Producer defined End_Date A representation of time in which the smallest unit of measure is a day. The value is expressed in YYYYMMDD. It represents the date upon which the passive sampler was removed from the sample location. Producer Defined A representation of time in which the smallest unit of measure is a day. The value is expressed in YYYYMMDD. It represents the date upon which the passive sampler was removed from the sample location. ND No data Producer defined Deploy_Days The number of 24 hour days that had elapsed since the passive sampler was deployed at the time that it was collected Producer Defined The number of 24 hour days that had elapsed since the passive sampler was deployed at the time that it was collected ND No data Producer defined Contaminants summary data.txt Text (txt) file containing analysis methods and concentration of legacy and emerging contaminants in water samples collected using passive samplers Producer Defined Method A textual identifier for the methods used to analyze the sample. See process steps for details. Producer Defined A textual identifier for the methods used to analyze the sample. See process steps for details. CERC ID A textual identifier for the sample, assigned by CERC Laboratory, ties the sample to the sampling location described in entity SITES Producer Defined A textual identifier for the sample, assigned by CERC Laboratory, ties the sample to the sampling location described in entity SITES Analyte Name of the chemical analyzed in the sample Producer Defined Name of the chemical analyzed in the sample CASRN Chemical Abstracts Service registry number for the ANALYTE Producer Defined Chemical Abstracts Service registry number for the ANALYTE NA The attribute is not applicable Producer defined Result The analytical result, concentration of the ANALYTE in the sample Producer Defined NA The attribute is not applicable Producer defined 0.001 51000.0 See UNITS RQual1 Qualifier 1 for the RESULT value Producer Defined NA The attribute is not applicable Producer defined LT Less than the method detection limit Producer defined E Estimated value greater than the method detection limit but less than the method quantitation limit or reporting limit Producer defined LP Low recovery of the photolysis marker indicating possible loss of chemical due to photolysis during the field deployment Producer defined LR Little or no recovery of isotope or analyte spiked into sample Producer defined RQual2 Qualifier 2 for the RESULT value Producer Defined NA The attribute is not applicable Producer defined LP Low recovery of the photolysis marker indicating possible loss of chemical due to photolysis during the field deployment Producer defined Units The units of measure for the RESULT Producer Defined ng/L Nanograms per liter Producer defined pg/L Picograms per liter Producer defined Rep_Limit The smallest measured concentration of a chemical that may be reliably reported using a given analytical method Producer Defined LR Little or no recovery of isotope or analyte spiked into sample Producer defined 0 34000 See UNITS Rate Kinetics parameter describing the rate at which a chemical is sampled by POCIS reported in liters per day (L/d) Producer Defined NA The attribute is not applicable Producer defined 0.005 1.34 Liters per day GS ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 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. 20201014 CERC Data Managers U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Reserach Center mailing and physical

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia MO 65201 USA 573-875-5399 gs-mw-cerc_data_manager@usgs.gov Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998