Frederick J. Spitz Heather A. Heckathorn Joshua J. Rosen Kaitlin M. Bowen Jessica M. Trevino 20250224 tabular digital data Denver, CO U.S. Geological Survey Spitz, F.J., Heckathorn, H.A., Rosen, J.J., Bowen, K.M., and Trevino, J.M., 2025, Cyanotoxin concentrations in extracts from Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATT) samplers and other water-quality data collected from the Salem River, New Jersey, July-October, 2020: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P1UOSRNB. https://doi.org/10.5066/P1UOSRNB Andrea Cecile Jaegge Keith Bouma-Gregson Thomas D. Byl Kurt D. Carpenter Victoria Christensen Rebecca Michelle Gorney Jennifer L. Graham Heather A. Heckathorn Hayley T. Olds Pamela A. Reilly Joshua J. Rosen Michael D.W. Stouder 2026 publication n/a US Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20255093 This data release presents cyanotoxin and multiparameter water-quality sonde data collected from July-October 2020, at eleven sites in the Salem River, New Jersey. Data-collection sites included seven flowing and four impounded reaches of the main stem Salem River. Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATT) samplers were deployed at 11 sampling locations during the study period and retrieved after 1-15 days. Discrete grab samples also were collected at each sampling location during SPATT deployment and retrieval. Physicochemical measurements were collected in-situ with a multiparameter water-quality sonde when the SPATT samplers were deployed and retrieved and include measurements of water temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity. Because of analytical expenses, discrete cyanotoxin samples were analyzed at only 10 of the 11 discrete sampling locations, and toxin results from these analyses informed selection of only 4 of the 11 SPATT sampling locations for additional analyses. SPATT sampler extracts and discrete-grab samples were analyzed for four cyanotoxins (anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, microcystin, saxitoxin) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). These data were collected as part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Next Generation Water Observing System (NGWOS) study of the Delaware River Basin by the New Jersey Water Science Center (NJWSC) to 1) evaluate the efficacy of SPATT samplers under a range of field conditions, 2) explore the utility of SPATT samplers in furthering the understanding of cyanotoxin occurrence and persistence, and 3) evaluate optimal deployment times. Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATT) samplers are passive and time-integrative, potentially capturing ephemeral cyanotoxin events that can be missed by traditional discrete sample collection. SPATT samplers only adsorb cyanotoxins that are dissolved in water and do not represent total cyanotoxin concentrations. Results from the Salem study can help address knowledge gaps and best practices about the use of SPATT samplers to detect cyanotoxins, such as optimal deployment time and environmental factors affecting sorption of cyanotoxins. Tables were generated in Microsoft Excel and should be imported as comma-delimited text (.csv) files to maintain the integrity of values (no loss of leading or trailing zeros). 20200710 20201015 ground condition Complete None planned -75.5770 -75.1602 39.7494 39.5263 ISO 19115 Topic Category biota inlandWaters health environment USGS Thesaurus water quality water sampling surface water quality grab sampling None cyanobacteria cyanotoxins Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking SPATT Harmful Algal Bloom HAB anatoxin-a cylindrospermopsin microcystin saxitoxin Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ELISA sampling water samples surface water passive sampler sonde USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:65f4b43ad34ebfb8e1679c9f Geographic Names Information System New Jersey Salem River Memorial Lake Salem Canal Milltown Daretown Daretown Lake Woodstown Deepwater Slabtown Courses Landing East Lake Pole Tavern Salem River Reservoir None Salem River Basin Fox Mill Lake Avis Mill Pond Delaware River Basin None. Please see Distribution section of metadata for details. None. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata to understand appropriate use and limitations. The reader should note all value qualifier codes and relatively low concentrations associated with the cyanotoxin samples. Variations in deployment times, water velocities, and other factors preclude direct comparisons between discrete water samples and SPATT samplers. Therefore, extract concentrations should be considered qualitative (presence or absence) or, at best, semi-quantitative. Heather A. Heckathorn U.S. Geological Survey, Northeast Region Hydrologist/Water-Quality Specialist mailing and physical

3450 Princeton Pike, Suite 110

Lawrenceville NJ 08648 US 609-771-3900 609-771-3915 haheck@usgs.gov This project was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Next Generation Water Observing System (NGWOS) Program Delaware River Basin and supported by the USGS New Jersey and New York Water Science Centers. Environment as of metadata creation: Microsoft Windows 11 Enterprise, Version 23H2, Build 22631.3880, 64-bit operating system. Jessica M. Trevino Jennifer L. Graham Guy M. Foster Sabina R. Gifford Joshua J. Rosen James F. Coles Charles W. Culbertson Heather A. Heckathorn John D. Jastram Hayley T. Olds William B. Schill Erin A. Stelzer 2024 digital tabular data Denver, CO U.S. Geological Survey Trevino, J.M., Graham, J.L., Foster, G.M., Gifford, S.R., Rosen, J.J., Coles, J.F., Culbertson, C.W., Heckathorn, H.A., Jastram, J.D., Olds, H.T., Schill, W.B., and Stelzer, E.A., 2024, Cyanobacteria, cyanotoxin, cyanotoxin synthetase gene, and other water-quality data collected from five river basins in the North Atlantic Appalachian Region, August through September, 2020: U.S. Geological Survey data release, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.5066/P94LAHHM. https://doi.org/10.5066/P94LAHHM Replicate SPATT samplers were deployed and retrieved to assess data variability stemming from sample collection. The replicates also provided an evaluation of laboratory precision and repeatability. Seven replicate samples were collected from four stations using SPATT samplers. Nineteen percent of all SPATT samples were replicates. No replicates were collected during grab sampling. The data user should note all value qualifier codes and relatively low measured cyanotoxin concentrations. Variations in deployment times, water velocities, and other factors preclude direct comparisons between discrete water samples and SPATT samplers. Therefore, extract concentrations should be considered qualitative (presence or absence) or, at best, semi-quantitative. No formal logical accuracy tests were conducted, but data were checked for consistency and numerical errors. Dataset is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record for additional details. No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted. No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted. Jenny Q. Lane C. Meiling Roddam Gregg W. Langlois Raphael M. Kudela 2010 publication Limnology and Oceanography: Methods vol. 8, issue 11 Hoboken, New Jersey Wiley-Blackwell Lane, J.Q., Roddam, C.M., Langlois, G.W., and Kudela, R.M., 2010, Application of Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATT) for field detection of the hydrophilic phycotoxins domoic acid and saxitoxin in coastal California: Limnology and Oceanography Methods, v. 8, no. 11, pg. 645-660, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.0645. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.0645 Digital and/or Hardcopy 20080715 20091201 ground conditions Lane and others, 2010 Methods for deploying and using SPATT samplers Raphael M. Kudela 2011 publication Harmful Algae vol. 11 Amsterdam, Netherlands Elsevier BV Kudela, R.M., 2011, Characterization and deployment of Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATT) resin for monitoring of microcystins in fresh and saltwater: Harmful Algae, v. 11, pg. 117-125, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.08.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.08.006 Digital and/or Hardcopy 20090830 20110102 ground conditions Kudela, 2011 Methods for deploying and using SPATT samplers Gold Standard Diagnostics 2024 Version 5 User guide Horsham, PA Gold Standard Diagnostics Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024, ABRAXIS® Microcystins-ADDA ELISA microtiter plate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the congener-independent determination of microcystins and nodularins in water samples (5th ed.): Gold Standard Diagnostics User guide, accessed January 9, 2025, at https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17778/ug-21-052-rev-05-abraxis-microcystins-adda-elisa_520011.pdf. https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17778/ug-21-052-rev-05-abraxis-microcystins-adda-elisa_520011.pdf Digital and/or Hardcopy 20241227 publication date Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024a ELISA method for microcystin and nodularins Alan Zaffiro Laura Rosenblum Steven C. Wendelken 2016 publication Cincinnati, OH U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Zaffiro, A., Rosenblum, L., and Wendelken, S.C., 2016, Method 546: Determination of total microcystins and nodularins in drinking water and ambient water by ADDA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/method-546-determination-total-microcystins-and-nodularins-drinking-water-and. https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/method-546-determination-total-microcystins-and-nodularins-drinking-water-and Digital and/or Hardcopy 201609 publication date USEPA, 2016 Description of USEPA methods used in the USGS New York Science Center Soil and Low-Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory, Troy, NY for total microcystin and nodularin analyses. Gold Standard Diagnostics 2024 Version 4 User guide Horsham, PA Gold Standard Diagnostics Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024 ABRAXIS® Saxitoxin (PSP) ELISA microtiter plate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the determination of saxitoxin (PSP) in water and contaminated samples (4th ed.): Gold Standard Diagnostics User guide, accessed January 9, 2025, at https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17764/ug-21-081-rev-04-abraxis-saxitoxin-elisa_52255b.pdf https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17764/ug-21-081-rev-04-abraxis-saxitoxin-elisa_52255b.pdf Digital and/or Hardcopy 20241211 publication date Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024b ELISA method for saxitoxin Gold Standard Diagnostics 2024 Version 3 User guide Horsham, PA Gold Standard Diagnostics Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024, ABRAXIS® Anatoxin-a ELISA microtiter plate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the determination of anatoxin-a in water and contaminated samples (3rd ed.): Gold Standard Diagnostics User guide, accessed January 9, 2025, at https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17751/ug-21-057-rev-03-abraxis-anatoxin-a-elisa_520060.pdf https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17751/ug-21-057-rev-03-abraxis-anatoxin-a-elisa_520060.pdf Digital and/or Hardcopy 20241211 publication date Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024c ELISA method for anatoxin-a Gold Standard Diagnostics 2024 Version 3 User guide Horsham, PA Gold Standard Diagnostics Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024, ABRAXIS® Cylindrospermopsin ELISA microtiter plate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the determination of cylindrospermopsin in water and contaminated samples (3rd ed.): Gold Standard Diagnostics User guide, accessed January 9, 2025, at https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17753/ug-21-059-rev-03-abraxis-cylindrospermopsin-elisa_522011.pdf https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.us/media/17753/ug-21-059-rev-03-abraxis-cylindrospermopsin-elisa_522011.pdf Digital and/or Hardcopy 20241211 publication date Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024d ELISA method for cylindrospermopsin Bradley J. Austin Brian E. Haggard 2022 publication Agricultural & Environmental Letters vol. 7, issue 1 Hoboken, NJ John Wiley and Sons Inc Austin, B.J., and Haggard, B.E., 2022, Measurable microcystin in Ozark streams was rare during summer 2018 baseflow conditions: Agricultural and Environmental Letters, v. 7, no. 1, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20069. https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20069 Digital and/or Hardcopy 201805 201810 ground conditions Austin and Haggard, 2022 Precedent for publishing raw uncensored cyanotoxin values as measured by ELISA Lincoln MacKenzie Veronica Beuzenberg Patrick Holland Paul McNabb Andy Selwood 2004 publication Toxicon vol. 44, issue 8 Amsterdam, Netherlands Elsevier MacKenzie, L., Beuzenberg, V., Holland, P., McNabb, P., and Selwood, A., 2004, Solid phase adsorption toxin tracking (SPATT), a new monitoring tool that simulates the biotoxin contamination of filter feeding bivalves: Toxicon, v. 44, no. 8, p. 901-918, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.08.020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.08.020 Digital and/or Hardcopy 20020403 20030514 ground conditions MacKenzie and others, 2004 Description of techniques that involve the passive adsorption of biotoxins onto porous synthetic resin (SPATT samplers) and their subsequent extraction and analysis Xingqiang Wu Bangding Xiao Renhui Li Chunbo Wang Jiantuan Huang Zhi Wang 2011 publication Environmental Science & Technology vol. 45, issue 7 Washington, DC American Chemical Society Wu, X., Xiao, B., Li, R., Wang, C., Huang, J., and Wang, Z., 2011, Mechanisms and factors affecting sorption of microcystins onto natural sediments: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 45, no. 7, p. 2641–2647, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1021/es103729m. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103729m Digital and/or Hardcopy 20110225 publication date Wu and others, 2011 Description of the sorption and desorption properties of microcystins and different factors affecting how cyanotoxins may bind to resin during deployment Zita Zendong Samuel Bertrand Christine Herrenknecht Eric Abadie Cécile Jauzein Rodolphe Lemée Jérémie Gouriou Zouther Amzil Philipp Hess 2016 publication Environmental Science & Technology vol. 50, issue 16 Washington, DC American Chemical Society Zendong, Z., Bertrand, S., Herrenknecht, C., Abadie, E., Jauzein, C., Lemée, R., Gouriou, J., Amzil, Z., and Hess, P., 2016, Passive sampling and high resolution mass spectrometry for chemical profiling of French coastal areas with a focus on marine biotoxins: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 50, n. 16, p. 8522-8529, accessed October 18, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02081. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02081 Digital and/or Hardcopy 20160727 publication date Zendong and others, 2016 Description of approach used for spatial and temporal differentiation of marine environmental chemical profiles using SPATTs Kendra Negrey Meredith Howard Jayme Smith Raphael Kudela David Caron 2019 publication protocols.io NA London, UK Springer Nature Negrey, K., Howard, M., Smith, J., Kudela, R., and Caron, D., 2019, Standard operating procedure for Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Testing (SPATT) assemblage and extraction of HAB toxins: protocols.io, accessed October 31, 2024, at http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.xkpfkvn. http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.xkpfkvn Digital and/or Hardcopy 20190130 publication date Negrey and others, 2019 Standard operating procedure for the extraction of HAB toxins from SPATT samplers. U.S. Geological Survey 2024 publication Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations book 9, Chap. A1-A10 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A0-A10, accessed January 31, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/twri09. https://doi.org/10.3133/twri09 Digital and/or Hardcopy 2024 ground condition USGS, variously dated Method for calibrating multi-parameter water quality sonde SPATT ASSEMBLY Prior to going into the field, SPATT samplers were assembled at the NJWSC (Lane and others, 2010; Kudela, 2011) using an analytical balance, DiaionTM HP20 Synthetic Adsorbent Resin, 100-micron Nitex nylon mesh, and a heat sealer (using the ‘teabag sachet’ sampler design). Three grams (g) of resin was used in each sampler. The SPATT samplers were activated by soaking in methanol in a fume hood for a minimum of 24 hours, then rinsed with deionized (DIW) water, and placed into a beaker of fresh DIW. Water temperature in the beaker was compared with that of only DIW to determine if there was residual methanol in the SPATT sampler. SPATT samplers were stored in DIW to avoid drying out and remained in storage in a laboratory refrigerator at 4 degrees Celsius until deployment. Lane and others, 2010 Kudela, 2011 2020 FIELD DEPLOY AND SAMPLE COLLECTION Discrete-grab water-quality samples were collected at each of 11 sampling locations, and SPATT samplers were deployed at sites located along the Salem River in New Jersey from July-October 2020. SPATT samplers were transported on ice to sites where a minimum of 2 SPATT samplers were deployed at a minimum depth of 0.5 meters under the water surface. The SPATT samplers were attached to a permanent structure with zip ties to secure them in case of increased water velocity. SPATT samplers were deployed for 1-15 days. In-situ physicochemical measurements and discrete-grab samples for the analysis of cyanotoxins were collected on the dates and at the locations where the SPATT samplers were deployed and retrieved. Discrete-grab samples were collected in a 1-liter, clear high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle a minimum of 0.5 meters below the water surface, placed on ice in a dark cooler, and stored in the freezer until shipment to the laboratory. Standard USGS techniques and methods were used to calibrate a multiparameter water-quality sonde on sample collection dates (USGS, variously dated). In-situ physicochemical parameters were measured using multi-parameter water-quality sondes for water temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity. USGS, variously dated 2020 RETRIEVE AND SHIP SAMPLES After 1-15 days in the field, SPATT samplers were retrieved. Silt and debris were rinsed from SPATT samplers using native water. SPATT samplers were placed in individual storage bags and transported in ice chests to be stored in the NJWSC laboratory freezer at negative 20 degrees Celsius. SPATT samplers were then shipped on dry ice to the USGS New York Water Science Center (NYWSC) Soil and Low Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory, in Troy, NY for extraction. SPATT samplers were stored in a freezer at negative 20 degrees Celsius once received by the laboratory. Discrete-grab samples for the analysis of total cyanotoxin concentrations were stored in the NJWSC laboratory freezer at negative 20 degrees Celsius then shipped overnight on dry ice to the USGS NYWSC Soil and Low Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory. Sample aliquots for cyanotoxin analysis were transferred to 250 milliliter (mL) amber glass jars; the aliquot for microcystin/cylindrospermopsin analysis had no preservative added, while the aliquot for anatoxin-a/saxitoxin analysis had a preservative added and the pH adjusted downward to between pH 5 and 7 (Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024b and 2024c). Both amber glass jars were then frozen until analysis. Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024b Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024c 2020-2021 METHODS AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS Total cyanotoxin concentrations (anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, microcystins/nodularins, saxitoxin) in discrete water samples were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) at the NYWSC Soil and Low Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory in Troy, NY. Water samples for all analyses were prepared by the method described in EPA Method 546 (freeze-thaw lysing followed by filtration) (USEPA, 2016). The microcystins/nodularins assay was performed using kit instructions and EPA Method 546 (USEPA, 2016; Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024a). The anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, and saxitoxin assays were performed using kit instructions, as well as the quality control requirements of EPA Method 546 (USEPA, 2016; Gold Standard Diagnostics 2024b, 2024c, 2024d). Method reporting limits (MRL) are as follows: anatoxin-a, 0.3 micrograms per liter (ug/L), cylindrospermopsin, 0.10 ug/L, microcystins/nodularins, 0.3 ug/L, and saxitoxin, 0.04 ug/L. Method detection limits (MDL) are as follows: anatoxin-a, 0.15 ug/L, cylindrospermopsin, 0.05 ug/L, microcystins/nodularins, 0.15 ug/L, and saxitoxin, 0.02 ug/L. Cyanotoxin results from discrete samples informed selection of 37 SPATT samplers for analyses. (These 37 SPATT samplers came from 4 of the 11 sampling locations). Currently (2025) no standard USGS method exists for the extraction of cyanotoxins from SPATT samplers. The extraction method used in the Salem River study is based on the Negrey and others (2019) method, adapted from Kudela (2011) and Lane and others (2010). Cyanotoxin extraction from the SPATT sampler resin was performed by the USGS NYWSC Soil and Low Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory, in Troy, NY using an organic solvent (50 percent methanol and 50 percent deionized water, hereafter 50 percent MeOH) to desorb organic compounds from the resin (Lane and others, 2010; MacKenzie and others, 2004; Zendong and others, 2016). Each SPATT sampler was disassembled, and the resin transferred to a 250 mL glass beaker. A total of 24 mL of 50 percent MeOH was used to rinse the nylon mesh and remove any resin beads stuck to the mesh; the rinsate was directed into the same glass beaker as the resin beads. The resin beads and rinsate were then transferred to a disposable polypropylene chromatography column, and the rinsate was eluted from the column into a glass vial using gravity flow, and if necessary, light vacuum pressure (-15 inHg or weaker). Ten mL of MeOH were then added to the column to desorb additional toxins from the resin; this MeOH was eluted from the column as described above. This process was repeated twice, for a total volume of 30 mL of MeOH. Contents of the glass vial were then transferred to a 250 mL glass beaker and allowed to evaporate overnight in a fume hood. The next morning, the remaining liquid in the beaker (generally about half the original volume of 54 mL) was transferred to a 20 mL amber glass vial and placed in a laboratory oven at 105 degrees Celsius to evaporate the remaining liquid; vials were removed from the oven just before they reached dryness. After vials had cooled to room temperature, the extracts were reconstituted in a 98 percent organic-free deionized water and 2 percent methanol matrix (total volume of 4.5 mL) and vortexed for 30 seconds to mix. The 2 percent methanol level was used because this level is just below the methanol tolerance (2.5 percent) of the most methanol-sensitive assay (anatoxin-a). The extract was then split evenly between two 4-mL amber glass vials, with 2.25 mL in each vial. One of the vials had 0.25 mL of anatoxin-a/saxitoxin preservative added to it as per instructions from the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) kit manufacturer (Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024b, 2024c). An extraction blank was also prepared each day an extraction was performed; the blank consisted of 50 percent MeOH processed through the same steps as a SPATT sample, but with no resin beads in the beaker or extraction column. Note that the desorption properties of each cyanotoxin may be affected by other compounds, organic matter for example (Wu and others, 2011), that may bind to the resin during deployment, making desorption characteristics somewhat dependent on the deployment site. SPATT extracts were analyzed using kit instructions (Gold Standard Diagnostics 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d). The extraction blank(s) that were prepared with the SPATT extracts being analyzed in each batch also were analyzed to check for contamination in the prep process. In addition, the Low-CV (Low Calibration Verification) and QCS (Quality Control Sample) quality controls described in EPA Method 546 (USEPA, 2016) also were used during the analysis of SPATT samples to verify accuracy of the calibration curve at the MRL (Low-CV) and to verify the accuracy of the calibration curve using a standard independent of those used to prepare the calibration curve (QCS) (USEPA, 2016). SPATT extract concentrations, in micrograms/liter, for microcystins/nodularins were multiplied by the dilution factor and the final volume of the extract in liters (0.0045) to obtain the total mass of toxin in the extract in micrograms. This value was then converted to nanograms by multiplying by 1000. The mass of toxin, in nanograms, was then divided by the number of grams of resin used (3 g) to obtain nanogram of toxin per gram of resin (ng toxin/g resin). The ng toxin/g resin value was then divided by the deployment time in days to obtain nanogram of toxin per gram of resin per day (ng toxin/g resin/day). For anatoxin-a and saxitoxin, the same calculation was used, but an additional dilution factor of 1.111 is included in the first multiplication step to account for the dilution of the extract by the preservative added. The analytical results include raw cyanotoxin values which were not censored if below the MRL or MDL. Qualifier codes are still noted in the dataset if the uncensored values fall below or between the MRL and MDL. In some cases, SPATT extracts needed to be diluted, and these dilution factors also are used in the final calculated values and are shown in Table4_SPATTCyanotoxinConc.csv table in this data release. Discrete-grab samples for cyanotoxins required no dilution. The uncensored values are considered to have meaningful information for the purpose of comparing traditional cyanotoxin sample collection and analysis methods to the SPATT samplers approach (Austin and Haggard, 2022). USEPA, 2016 Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024a Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024b Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024c Gold Standard Diagnostics, 2024d Austin and Haggard, 2022 Negrey and others, 2019 Kudela, 2011 Lane and others, 2010 MacKenzie and others, 2004 Zendong and others, 2016 Wu and others, 2011 2021-2024 Table1_StationList.csv Comma delimited text file (csv) containing the station names, identification numbers, latitude, longitude, and information indicating if field parameters, discrete-grab sample cyanotoxins, and SPATT sampler cyanotoxins were collected for each station for the Salem River study. U.S. Geological Survey USGS_station_number U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) number identifier assigned to station, preceded by 'USGS--' to maintain the integrity of value. U.S. Geological Survey USGS number identifier assigned to station USGS_station_name USGS name assigned to station U.S. Geological Survey USGS name assigned to station Latitude_dd Latitude of station location, in decimal degrees. Datum NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 U.S. Geological Survey 39.60288889 39.68166667 Decimal degrees Longitude_dd Longitude of station location, in decimal degrees. Datum NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 U.S. Geological Survey -75.49138889 -75.23788889 Decimal degrees Physicochemical_field_measurements Field indicating whether physicochemical field measurements were collected at station location. U.S. Geological Survey Yes Data were collected U.S. Geological Survey Discrete_grab_cyanotoxins Field indicating whether cyanotoxins were collected at station location U.S. Geological Survey -- No data collected U.S. Geological Survey Yes Data were collected U.S. Geological Survey SPATT_passive_sampler_cyanotoxins Field indicating whether SPATT sampler data was collected at station location U.S. Geological Survey -- No data collected U.S. Geological Survey Yes Data were collected U.S. Geological Survey Table2_SondeData.csv Comma-delimited text file (csv) containing measurements collected from the multiparameter water-quality sonde used in the field for water temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity for the Salem River study. U.S. Geological Survey USGS_station_number U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) number identifier assigned to station, preceded by 'USGS--' to maintain the integrity of value. U.S. Geological Survey USGS number identifier assigned to station USGS_station_name USGS name assigned to station U.S. Geological Survey USGS name assigned to station Sample_date_yyyymmdd Date sample was collected U.S. Geological Survey 20200711 20201015 Date; yyyy, year; mm, month; dd, day Sample_time_hhmm Time sample was collected, in Eastern Daylight Time U.S. Geological Survey 0850 1630 Time; hh, military-hour; mm, minute Quality_control Sample type U.S. Geological Survey Environmental An environmental sample is the portion of a media such as water, sediment, or tissue collected from a site during a specific date and time or a range of dates for analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Water_temperature_degrees_Celsius Temperature of water at sampling location U.S. Geological Survey 14.61 31.70 Degrees Celsius pH_standard_units pH of water at sampling location U.S. Geological Survey 5.25 8.93 Standard units Dissolved_oxygen_mg_per_L Dissolved oxygen concentration in water at sampling location U.S. Geological Survey -- No data collected U.S. Geological Survey 0.74 16.29 Milligrams per liter Specific_conductance_uS_per_cm_at_25C Specific conductance of water at sampling location U.S. Geological Survey 129 290 Microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius Turbidity_FNU Turbidity of water at sampling location U.S. Geological Survey -- No data collected U.S. Geological Survey 1.0 56.9 Formazin Nephelometric Units Table3_DiscreteCyanotoxinConc.csv Comma delimited text file (csv) of cyanotoxin concentrations for discrete-grab samples analyzed by the USGS New York Water Science Center Soil and Low Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory, Troy, NY, for the Salem River study. U.S. Geological Survey USGS_station_number U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) number identifier assigned to station, preceded by 'USGS--' to maintain the integrity of value. U.S. Geological Survey USGS number identifier assigned to station USGS_station_name USGS name assigned to station U.S. Geological Survey USGS name assigned to station Sample_date_yyyymmdd Date sample was collected U.S. Geological Survey 20200711 20201015 Date; yyyy, year; mm, month; dd, day Sample_time_hhmm Time sample was collected, in Eastern Daylight Time U.S. Geological Survey 0850 1630 Time; hh, military-hour; mm, minute Quality_control Sample type U.S. Geological Survey Environmental An environmental sample is the portion of a media such as water, sediment, tissue, collected from a site during a specific date and time or a range of dates for analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Total_anatoxin_a_ug_per_L Total anatoxin-a concentrations measured in the discrete-grab sample U.S. Geological Survey 0 2.23 Micrograms per liter Total_anatoxin_a_qualifier_codes Total anatoxin-a qualifier codes U.S. Geological Survey < Below method reporting limit of 0.30 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey $ Incorrect sample container U.S. Geological Survey w Estimated value U.S. Geological Survey @ Holding time exceeded U.S. Geological Survey + Improper preservation U.S. Geological Survey n Below method reporting limit of 0.30 micrograms per liter but above detection limit of 0.15 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey Total_anatoxin_a_dilution_factor Total anatoxin-a dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey Final volume of the dilution divided by sample volume diluted. All dilution factors are equal to 1. Total_cylindrospermopsin_ug_per_L Cylindrospermopsin concentrations measured in the discrete-grab sample U.S. Geological Survey 0 0.061 Micrograms per liter Total_cylindrospermopsin_qualifier_codes Total cylindrospermopsin qualifier codes U.S. Geological Survey < Below method reporting limit of 0.10 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey $ Incorrect sample container U.S. Geological Survey @ Holding time exceeded U.S. Geological Survey n Below method reporting limit of 0.10 micrograms per liter but above detection limit of 0.05 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey Total_cylindrospermopsin_dilution_factor Total cylindrospermopsin dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey Final volume of the dilution divided by sample volume diluted. All dilution factors are equal to 1. Total_microcystin_ug_per_L Total microcystin concentrations measured in the discrete-grab sample U.S. Geological Survey 0 3.024 Micrograms per liter Total_microcystin_qualifier_codes Total microcystin qualifier codes U.S. Geological Survey < Below method reporting limit of 0.30 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey $ Incorrect sample container U.S. Geological Survey @ Holding time exceeded U.S. Geological Survey n Below method reporting limit of 0.30 micrograms per liter but above detection limit of 0.15 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey Total_microcystin_dilution_factor Total microcystin dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey Final volume of the dilution divided by sample volume diluted. All dilution factors are equal to 1. Total_saxitoxin_ug_per_L Total saxitoxin concentrations measured in the discrete-grab sample U.S. Geological Survey 0 0.123 Micrograms per liter Total_saxitoxin_qualifier_codes Total saxitoxin qualifier codes U.S. Geological Survey < Below method reporting limit of 0.04 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey $ Incorrect sample container U.S. Geological Survey w Estimated value U.S. Geological Survey @ Holding time exceeded U.S. Geological Survey + Improper preservation U.S. Geological Survey n Below method reporting limit of 0.04 micrograms per liter but above detection limit of 0.02 micrograms per liter U.S. Geological Survey i Possible matrix interference U.S. Geological Survey Total_saxitoxin_dilution_factor Total saxitoxin dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey Final volume of the dilution divided by sample volume diluted. All dilution factors are equal to 1. Table4_SPATTCyanotoxinConc.csv Comma delimited text file (csv) of cyanotoxin concentrations measured in SPATT sampler extracts analyzed by the USGS New York Water Science Center Soil and Low Ionic Strength Water Quality Laboratory, Troy, NY, for the Salem River study. U.S. Geological Survey USGS_station_number U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) number identifier assigned to station, preceded by 'USGS--' to maintain the integrity of value. U.S. Geological Survey USGS number identifier assigned to station USGS_station_name USGS name assigned to station U.S. Geological Survey USGS name assigned to station SPATT_type SPATT sampler design U.S. Geological Survey Teabag_sachet Type of SPATT sampler deployed in the field U.S. Geological Survey Date_deployed_yyyymmdd Date SPATT sampler was deployed at each location U.S. Geological Survey 20200710 20201008 Date; yyyy, year; mm, month; dd, day Time_deployed_hhmm Time SPATT sampler was deployed in the field, in Eastern Daylight Time U.S. Geological Survey -- Not available U.S. Geological Survey 0900 1400 Time; hh, military-hour; mm, minute Date_retrieved_yyyymmdd Date SPATT sampler was retrieved from the field U.S. Geological Survey 20200711 20201015 Date; yyyy, year; mm, month; dd, day Time_retrieved_hhmm Time SPATT sampler was retrieved from the field, in Eastern Daylight Time U.S. Geological Survey 0850 1341 Time; hh, military-hour; mm, minute Deployed_days Duration, in days, SPATT sampler was deployed in the field U.S. Geological Survey 1 15 days Quality_control Sample type U.S. Geological Survey Environmental An environmental sample is the portion of a media such as water, sediment, or tissue collected from a site during a specific date and time or a range of dates for analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Replicate Quality control sample, collected as a sequential replicate. Sequential replicates are samples of environmental water collected consecutively (one after the other) from the same sampling site and that are subjected to identical laboratory analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Cylindrospermopsin_ng_per_g_resin_per_d Cylindrospermopsin concentrations from SPATT extract for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey 0.038 0.558 Nanograms per gram of resin per day Cylindrospermopsin_qualifier_codes Qualifier codes for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey -- No qualifier code applies to this data point U.S. Geological Survey E Estimated result U.S. Geological Survey Cylindrospermopsin_dilution_factor Cylindrospermopsin dilution factor. Final volume of the dilution divided by sample volume diluted. U.S. Geological Survey 1 2 Dimensionless Microcystin_ng_per_g_resin_per_d Microcystin concentrations from SPATT extract for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey 695 30.930 Nanograms per gram of resin per day Microcystin_qualifier_codes Qualifier codes for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey -- No qualifier code applies to this data point U.S. Geological Survey E Estimated result U.S. Geological Survey Microcystin_dilution_factor Microcystin dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey 5 200 Dimensionless Saxitoxin_ng_per_g_resin_per_d Saxitoxin concentrations from SPATT extract for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey 0.004 1.726 Nanograms per gram of resin per day Saxitoxin_qualifier_codes Qualifier codes for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey -- No qualifier code applies to this data point U.S. Geological Survey E Estimated result U.S. Geological Survey Saxitoxin_dilution_factor Saxitoxin dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey 1 100 Dimensionless Anatoxin_a_ng_per_g_resin_per_d Anatoxin-a concentrations from SPATT extract for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey 0.323 6.204 Nanograms per gram of resin per day Anatoxin_a_qualifier_codes Qualifier codes for ELISA analysis U.S. Geological Survey -- No qualifier code applies to this data point U.S. Geological Survey E Estimated result U.S. Geological Survey Anatoxin_a_dilution_factor Anatoxin-a dilution factor U.S. Geological Survey 1 20 Dimensionless The entity and attribute information provided here describes the comma-separated values (CSV) files associated with the dataset. Please review the detailed descriptions that are provided (the individual attribute descriptions) for information on the values that appear as field entries of the dataset. The entity and attribute information were generated by the individual and/or agency identified as the originator of the dataset. Please review the rest of the metadata record for additional details and information. U.S. Geological Survey GS ScienceBase 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 USGS, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The USGS or the U.S. Government shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Users of the data are advised to read all metadata and associated documentation to understand appropriate use and data limitations. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Digital Data none 0.04 https://doi.org/10.5066/P1UOSRNB No fees are applicable for obtaining the dataset. 20260414 GS-W-NJ DataRelease New Jersey Water Science Center Data release manager mailing and physical

3450 Princeton Pike, Suite 110

Lawrenceville NJ 08648 United States 609-771-3900 609-771-3915 gs-w-nj_datarelease@usgs.gov FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998