Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 71, Issue 6, pp 2779–2795 | Cite as

Factors affecting the movement and persistence of nitrate and pesticides in the surficial and upper Floridan aquifers in two agricultural areas in the southeastern United States

  • B. G. Katz
  • M. P. Berndt
  • C. A. Crandall
Original Article

Abstract

Differences in the degree of confinement, redox conditions, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) are the main factors that control the persistence of nitrate and pesticides in the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) and overlying surficial aquifer beneath two agricultural areas in the southeastern US. Groundwater samples were collected multiple times from 66 wells during 1993–2007 in a study area in southwestern Georgia (ACFB) and from 48 wells in 1997–98 and 2007–08 in a study area in South Carolina (SANT) as part of the US Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program. In the ACFB study area, where karst features are prevalent, elevated nitrate-N concentrations in the oxic unconfined UFA (median 2.5 mg/L) were significantly (p = 0.03) higher than those in the overlying oxic surficial aquifer (median 1.5 mg/L). Concentrations of atrazine and deethylatrazine (DEA; the most frequently detected pesticide and degradate) were higher in more recent groundwater samples from the ACFB study area than in samples collected prior to 2000. Conversely, in the SANT study area, nitrate-N concentrations in the UFA were mostly <0.06 mg/L, resulting from anoxic conditions and elevated DOC concentrations that favored denitrification. Although most parts of the partially confined UFA in the SANT study area were anoxic or had mixed redox conditions, water from 28 % of the sampled wells was oxic and had low DOC concentrations. Based on the groundwater age information, nitrate concentrations reflect historic fertilizer N usage in both the study areas, but with a lag time of about 15–20 years. Simulated responses to future management scenarios of fertilizer N inputs indicated that elevated nitrate-N concentrations would likely persist in oxic parts of the surficial aquifer and UFA for decades even with substantial decreases in fertilizer N inputs over the next 40 years.

Keywords

Nitrate Pesticides Groundwater Upper Floridan aquifer Karst 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research study was funded by the National Water-Quality Assessment Program of the US Geological Survey. The authors thank the many landowners who gave us permission to collect water samples on their property and the many USGS employees involved in sample collection. The authors also thank J. Tesoriero, P. McMahon, and two anonymous reviewers for critically reviewing and improving earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Alexander RB, Smith RA (1990) County level estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use in the United States, 1945 to 1985. US Geological Survey Open File Report 90-130, p 12Google Scholar
  2. Aucott WR, Davis ME, Speiran GK (1987) Geohydrologic framework of the coastal plain aquifers of South Carolina. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4271, 7 sheetsGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbash JE (2003) The geochemistry of pesticides. In: Sherwood-Lollar B et al (eds) Treatise on geochemistry, environmental geochemistry, vol 9. Elsevier Pergamon, London, pp 541–577Google Scholar
  4. Barbash JE, Resek EA (1996) Pesticides in ground water: distribution trends and governing factors. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  5. Battaglin WA, Goolsby DA (1994) Spatial data in geographic information system format on agricultural chemical use, land use, and cropping practices in the United States. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4176Google Scholar
  6. Berndt MP, Crandall CA (2009) Factors affecting water quality in domestic wells in the Upper Floridan aquifer, southeastern United States, 1998–2005. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5147Google Scholar
  7. Burow KR, Shelton JL, Dubrovsky NM (2008) Regional nitrate and pesticide trends in ground water in the eastern San Joaquin Valley, California. J Env Qual 37:S249–S263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burow KR, Nolan BT, Rupert MG, Dubrovsky NM (2010) Nitrate in groundwater of the United States, 1991–2003. Env Sci Technol 44:4988–4997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busenberg E, Plummer LN (1992) Use of chlorofluoromethanes (CCl3F and CCl2F2) as hydrologic tracers and age-dating tools: example—the alluvium and terrace system of central Oklahoma. Water Resour Res 28:2257–2283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bush PW, Johnston RH (1988) Ground water hydraulics, regional flow, and ground-water development of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-CGoogle Scholar
  11. Crandall CA (2007) Hydrogeologic setting and ground-water flow simulations of the northern Tampa Bay regional study area, Florida. In: Paschke SS (ed) Hydrogeologic settings and ground-water flow simulations for regional studies of the transport of anthropogenic and natural contaminants to public-supply wells—studies begun in 2001. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1737-AGoogle Scholar
  12. Crandall CA, Berndt MP (1996) Water quality of surficial aquifers in the Georgia-Florida coastal plain. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Rep 95-4269Google Scholar
  13. Dalton MS, Frick DA (2008) Fate and transport of pesticides in the ground water systems of southwest Georgia, 1993–2005. J Environ Qual 37:S-264–S-272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denver JM, Tesoriero AJ, Barbaro JR (2010) Trends and transformation of nutrients and pesticides in a coastal plain aquifer system, United States. J Environ Qual 39:154–167Google Scholar
  15. Dubrovsky NM, Burow KR, Clark GM et al (2010) The quality of our Nation’s waters—nutrients in the Nation’s streams and groundwater, 1992–2004. US Geological Survey Circular 1350Google Scholar
  16. Fishman MJ, Friedman LC (1989) Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments. US Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Ch. A4, Book 5Google Scholar
  17. Fogg GE, LaBolle EM (2006) Motivation of synthesis, with an example on groundwater quality sustainability. Water Resour Res 42:W03S05. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004372
  18. Frick EA, Hippe DJ, Buell GR et al (1998) Water quality in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, 1992–95. US Geological Survey Circular 1164Google Scholar
  19. Gilliom RJ, Barbash JE, Crawford CG et al (2006) The quality of our Nation’s waters—pesticides in the Nation’s streams and ground water, 1992–2001. US Geological Survey Circular 1291Google Scholar
  20. Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005, The US Geological Survey modular ground-water model—the ground-water flow process. US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A16Google Scholar
  21. Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, The US Geological Survey modular groundwater model—user guide to modularization concepts and the groundwater flow process. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92Google Scholar
  22. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources. US Geological Survey Techniques in Water Resources Investigations, book 4, chap A3Google Scholar
  23. Huddleston PR (1988) A revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the coastal plain of Georgia: The Miocene through Holocene. Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 104Google Scholar
  24. Hughes WB, Abrahemsen TA, Maluk TL et al (2000) Water quality in the Santee River Basin and coastal drainages, North and South Carolina, 1995–98. US Geological Survey Circular 1206Google Scholar
  25. Katz BG (1992) Hydrochemistry of the Upper Floridan aquifer. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4196Google Scholar
  26. Katz BG, Crandall CA, Metz PA et al (2007) Chemical characteristics, water sources and pathways, and age distribution of ground water in the contributing recharge area of a public-supply well near Tampa, Florida, 2002–05. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5139Google Scholar
  27. Katz BG, McBride WS, Hunt AG et al (2009) Assessing vulnerability of a public supply well in a karstic aquifer to contamination using ground-water age measurements and geochemical indicators. Ground Water 47(3):438–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koterba MT, Wilde FD, Lapham WW (1995) Ground-water-data collection and documentation of water-quality samples and related data. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 95-399Google Scholar
  29. Lapham WW, Wilde FD, Koterba MT (1995) Ground-water data collection protocols and procedures for the National Water Quality Assessment Program: Selection, installation, and documentation of wells, and collection of related data. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 95-398Google Scholar
  30. Lindsey BD, Rupert MG (2012) Methods for evaluating temporal groundwater quality data and results of decadal-scale changes in chloride, dissolved solids, and nitrate concentrations in groundwater in the United States, 1998-2010. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5049Google Scholar
  31. Lindsey BD, Berndt MP, Katz BG, et al. (2009) Factors affecting water quality in selected carbonate aquifers in the United States, 1993–2005. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5240Google Scholar
  32. Lindsey BD, Katz BG, Berndt MP et al (2010) Relations between sinkhole density and anthropogenic contaminants in selected carbonate aquifers in the eastern United States. Environ Earth Sci 60(5):1073–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ludin A, Weppernig R, Bonisch G, Schlosser P (1998) Mass spectrometric measurement of helium isotopes and tritium. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York, Technical Report 98-06Google Scholar
  34. Maupin MA, Barber NL (2005) Estimated withdrawals from principal aquifers in the United States, 2000. US Geological Survey Circular 1279Google Scholar
  35. McMahon PB, Chapelle FH (2008) Redox processes and water quality of selected principal aquifer systems. Ground Water 46(2):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller JA (1986) Hydrogeologic framework of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-BGoogle Scholar
  37. Musgrove M, Banner JL (2004) Controls on the spatial and temporal variability of vadose dripwater geochemistry—Edwards aquifer, central Texas. Geochim et Cosmochim Acta 68:1007–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Musgrove M, Fahlquist, Houston NA et al (2010) Geochemical evolution processes and water-quality observations based on results of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program in the San Antonio segment of the Edwards aquifer, 1996–2006. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5129Google Scholar
  39. Nakagaki N, Wolock DM (2005) Estimation of agricultural pesticide use in drainage basins using land cover maps and county pesticide data. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1188Google Scholar
  40. Nolan BT (1999) Nitrate behavior in ground waters of the southeastern USA. J Environ Qual 28(5):1518–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nolan BT, Hitt KJ, Ruddy BC (2002) Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the conterminous United States. Environ Sci Technol 36:2138–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patton CJ, Kryskalla JR (2011) Colorimetric determination of nitrate plus nitrite in water by enzymatic reduction, automated discrete analyzer methods: US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, chap B8Google Scholar
  43. Pollack DW (1994) User’s guide for MODPATH/MODPATH -PLOT, v 3: a particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW: the USGS finite-difference groundwater flow model. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-464Google Scholar
  44. Poreda RJ, Cerling TE, Solomon DK (1988) Tritium and helium isotopes as hydrologic tracers in a shallow unconfined aquifer. J Hydrol 103:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Price CV, Nakagaki N, Hitt KJ, Clawges RM (2007) Enhanced historical land-use and land-cover data sets of the US Geological Survey. US Geological Survey Data Series 240 [digital data]. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2006/240/. Accessed Dec 2009
  46. Puckett LJ, Hughes WB (2005) Transport and fate of nitrate and pesticides: hydrogeology and riparian zone processes. J Environ Qual 34:2278–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Puckett LJ, Tesoriero AJ, Dubrovsky NM (2011) Nitrogen contamination of surficial aquifers—a growing legacy. Environ Sci Technol 45(3):839–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reuber EJ (2001) Shallow ground-water quality in an agricultural area of the lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina, 1997. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-377Google Scholar
  49. Ruddy BC, Lorenz DL, Mueller DK (2006) County-level estimates of nutrient inputs to the land surface of the conterminous United States, 1982–2001. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5012. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa-only/nuts/data/inputs/. Accessed 29 Sep 2010
  50. Schlosser P, Stute M, Sonntag C, Munnich KO (1989) Tritiogenic 3He in shallow ground water. Earth Planet Sci Lett 94:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sprinkle C (1989) Geochemistry of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-IGoogle Scholar
  52. US Geological Survey (1999) National land cover data (NLCD) [digital data]. http://eros.usgs.gov/#/Find_Data/Products_and_Data_Available/Land_Cover_Products. Accessed 12 Dec 2009
  53. US Geological Survey (2006) National field manual for the collection of water-quality data. US Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources investigations, book 9, chap A1–A9. http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. Accessed 23 Mar 2010
  54. Tesoriero AJ, Puckett LJ (2011) Redox reaction rates in shallow aquifers. Water Resour Res 47:W12522. doi: 10.1029/2011WR010471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tesoriero AJ, Spruill TB, Eimers JL (2004) Geochemistry of shallow ground water in coastal plain environments in the southeastern United States: implications for aquifer susceptibility. Appl Geochem 19:1471–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tesoriero AJ, Spruill TB, Mew HE et al (2005) Nitrogen transport and transformations in a coastal plain watershed: influence of geomorphology on flow paths and residence times. Water Resour Res 41:W02008. doi: 10.1029/2003WR0029531-15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tesoriero AJ, Saad DA, Burow KR et al (2007) Linking ground-water age and chemistry data along flow paths: implications for trends and transformations of nitrate and pesticides. J Contam Hydrol 94:139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. US Bureau of the Census (1990) Cartographic boundary files—1990 census block group [digital data]. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bg1990.html. Accessed 14 Feb 2003
  59. US Bureau of the Census (1991) Census of population and housing, 1990—Public Law (PL) 94–171. US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. US Bureau of the Census (1992) Census of population and housing—summary tape file 3A. US Bureau of the Census, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. US Bureau of the Census (2001) Cartographic boundary files—2000 census block group [digital data]. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bg2000.html. Accessed 15 Aug 2002
  62. Welch HL, Green CT, Coupe RH (2011) The fate and transport of nitrate in shallow groundwater in northwestern Mississippi. Hydrogeol J 19(6):1239–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zaugg SD, Sandstrom MW, Smith SG, Fehlberg KM (1995) Methods of analysis by the US Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—determination of pesticides in water by C-18 solid-phase extraction and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected-ion monitoring. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Geological SurveyTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations