Spatiotemporal Trends Analysis of Pyrethroid Sediment Concentrations Spanning 10 Years in a Residential Creek in California

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
  • Ronald D. Anderson
  • William D. Killen
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess temporal and spatial trends for eight pyrethroids monitored in sediment spanning 10 years from 2006 to 2015 in a residential stream in California (Pleasant Grove Creek). The timeframe for this study included sampling 3 years during a somewhat normal non-drought period (2006–2008) and 3 years during a severe drought period (2013–2015). Regression analysis of pyrethroid concentrations in Pleasant Grove Creek for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 using ½ the detection limit for nondetected concentrations showed statistically significant declining trends for cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, permethrin, and total pyrethoids. Additional trends analysis of the Pleasant Grove Creek pyrethroid data using only measured concentrations, without nondetected values, showed similar statistically significant declining trends for cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, permethrin, and total pyrethroids. Spatial trends analysis for the specific creek sites showed that six of the eight pyrethroids had a greater number of sites with statistically significant declining concentrations. Possible reasons for reduced pyrethroid concentrations in the stream bed in Pleasant Grove Creek during this 10-year period are label changes in 2012 that reduced residential use and lack of precipitation during the later severe drought years of 2013–2015.

Keywords

Total Organic Carbon Cypermethrin Deltamethrin Impervious Surface Bifenthrin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Pyrethroid Working Group for supporting this study. ABC Laboratories is acknowledged for pyrethroid analysis. Alpha Analytical Laboratory is acknowledged for TOC analysis.

References

  1. Aquatic Science Center (2012) The pulse of the delta: monitoring and managing water quality in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta. Rethinking water quality monitoring. Contribution 630. Aquatic Science Center, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson PC, Jones RL, Harbourt CM, Hendley P, Goodwin G, Sliz BA (2014) Major transport mechanisms of pyrethroids in residential settings and effects of mitigation measures. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hall LW Jr, Anderson RD (2012) Historical trends analysis of 2004 to 2009 toxicity and pesticide data for Califonnia’s Central Valley. J Environ Sci Health A 47:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hall LW Jr, Anderson RD, Killen WD (2012a) Mapping the spatial extent of depositional areas in agricultural, urban and residential California streams: implications for pyrethroid toxicity. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 18:368–392Google Scholar
  5. Hall LW Jr, Killen WD, Anderson RD (2012b) Mapping of depositional and non-depositional areas in Pleasant Grove Creek with concurrent pyrethroid and benthic macroinvertebrate assessments in 2012. Final report prepared for the Pyrethroid Working Group prepared by the University of Maryland, Wye Research and Education Center, QueenstownGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall LW Jr, Anderson RD, Killen WD, Alden RW (2014a) A summary of case studies designed to determine the influence of multiple stressors on benthic communities in urban California streams. In: Jones RL, Shamim M, Jackson SH (eds) Describing the behavior and effects of pesticides in urban and agricultural settings. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 135–152Google Scholar
  7. Hall LW Jr, Killen WD, Anderson RD, Alden RW (2014b) An assessment of benthic communities with concurrent physical habitat, pyrethroids, and metals analysis in Pleasant Grove Creek in 2014. Progress Report for the Pyrethroid Working Group prepared by the University of Maryland, Wye Research and Education Center, QueenstownGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirsch RM, Slack JR, Smith RA (1982) Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resour Res 18:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howitt RD, MacEwan D, Medellin-Azuara J, Lund J, Sumner D (2015) Economic analysis of the 2015 drought for California agriculture. Report. University of California at Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, ERA Economics, UC Agricultural Issues Center, DavisGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones RL, Davidson PC, Harbourt CM, Hendley P (2014) Factors affecting residential runoff transport of pyrethroids. In: Jones RL, Shamim M, Jackson SH (eds) Describing the behavior and effects of pesticides in urban and agricultural settings. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 13–25Google Scholar
  11. Karickofff SW, Brown DS, Scott TA (1979) Sorption of hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res 13:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laskowski DA (2002) Physical and chemical properties of pyrethroids. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 174:49–170Google Scholar
  13. Luo Y (2014) Review of modeling approaches for pesticide washoff from impervious surfaces. In: Jones RM, Shamim M, Jackson SH (eds) Describing the behavior and effects of pesticides in urban and agricultural settings. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 65–68Google Scholar
  14. Northern California Water Association Newsletter (2015) NCWA week in review. Sacramento, 24 Aug 2015Google Scholar
  15. Puckett M (2002) Quality assurance management plan for the state of California’s surface water ambient monitoring program. Report prepared for California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  16. Reed RL (2006) Laboratory validation: validation of the residue analytical method: residue analytical for the determination of residues of bifenthrin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin in sediment. Final Report. Protocol No. MLI-06-02. Morse Labs Project No. ML06-1286-PWG, Morse Laboratories, Inc., SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  17. Shamim MT, Hoffmann MD, Melendez J, Ruhman MA (2008) Ecological risk characterization for synthetic pyrethroids. In: Gan J, Spurlock F, Hendley P, Weston D (eds) Synthetic pyrethroids: occurrence and behavior in aquatic environments. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 257–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siegler K, Phillips BM, Anderson BS, Voorhees JP, Tjeertdema RS (2015) Temporal and spatial trends in sediment contaminants associated with toxicity in California watersheds. Environ Pollut 206:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spurlock F, Lee M (2008) Synthetic pyrethroid use patterns, properties, and environmental effects. In: Gan J, Spurlock F, Hendley P, Weston D (eds) Synthetic pyrethroids: occurrence and behavior in aquatic environments. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2004) SW-846, method 9060A: total organic carbon report. U.S. EPA Office of Water, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Weston DP, Holmes RW, You J, Lydy MJ (2005) Aquatic toxicity due to residential use of pyrethroid insecticides. Environ Sci Technol 39:9778–9784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weston DP, Holmes RW, Lydy MJ (2009) Residential runoff as a source of pyrethroid pesticides to urban creeks. Environ Pollut 157:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
    • 1
  • Ronald D. Anderson
    • 1
  • William D. Killen
    • 1
  1. 1.Wye Research and Education CenterUniversity of MarylandQueenstownUSA

Personalised recommendations