Transcript No Slide Title

Volunteer Monitoring of
Atrazine in
Wisconsin Lakes
Paula E. Allen, Ph.D., PG
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
2811 Agriculture Drive
P. O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708-8911
[email protected]
Overview
General Introduction
 Study Objectives and Design
 Volunteer Involvement
 Preliminary Results
 Future Directions

Atrazine and
Metabolites






High water solubility
Volatile
High mobility
High leaching potential
Persistent in water
Most studied pesticide
US pesticide use (1964-95)
million pounds)
600
500
400
300
200
1964
1974
1984
1994
Wisconsin Agriculture
 primarily applied to corn




Wisconsin is a major corn producing state
16 million farm acres
3.4 million corn acres
1.8 million lbs atrazine applied
Used on road rights-of-way until 1990
Wisconsin
Water
Resources
 15,000 lakes.
 12,600 rivers and streams
Rock Lake
 12% corn acres planted near water annually
 50% of each Wisconsin watershed on
average used for agriculture
Why Interest in Atrazine?
 Ubiquitous in the Environment
 No surface water standards.
 No formal monitoring of lakes or lake sediments.
 Inadequate monitoring of streams that flow into
lakes.
 Endocrine disruption.
 Affects at low concentrations (0.1 µg/L or ppb).
 EPA draft water quality criteria (12 µg/L)
 Proxy for similar pesticides.
ATRAZINE WISCONSIN’S
ENVIRONMENT
0.1-0.4 µg/L
0.3-10 µg/L
6ng-12µg/L
0-84 µg/L
PREVIOUS SAMPLING
Rock Lake, Kenosha Co., 2001
WHEN?
 Spring and Late Summer
 2001-2003
WHAT?
 Atrazine by EPA Method 8670
RaPID© Assay
Highest where agriculture occurs in riparian areas
Range = ND to 0.7 µg/L Median = 0.1 µg/L
Bottom water concentrations>Surface water concentrations
Study Objectives and Design
a.
b.




Survey of larger number of lakes to fill
major knowledge gap.
Look specifically at agricultural impacts.
Self-help lakes planned for sampling in 2005
Lakes across an agricultural land use
gradient (< 15%, 15-50, 51-75, >75)
< 100 acres; >21 feet deep
Single basin lakes
Agricultural Land Use Intensity
Wisconsin Agriculture Statistics Service 2005
Study Stages










Collaborate with DNR to involve volunteer lake monitors
in sampling effort
Identify lakes for sampling
Reserve test kits
Contact volunteers and identify final lake/participant
list
Response from volunteers
Coordinate kit dissemination with State Hygiene Lab
Late summer sampling window (August and September)
Obtain results from state lab
Analyze data (lake characteristics, land use intensity)
Result letters to participants
105
120
66
100
51
80
60
40
20
0
CON
T
ACT
S
'YES
MAD
' PAR
E
RET
URN
S
TICIP
ANT
S
We contacted 11% of sites planned for sampling
105
120
66
100
51
80
60
40
20
0
CON
T
ACT
S
'YES
MAD
' PAR
E
62.8%
RET
URN
S
TICIP
ANT
S
105
120
66
100
51
80
60
40
20
0
CON
T
ACT
S
'YES
MAD
' PAR
E
RET
URN
S
TICIP
ANT
S
48.6%
Frequency Distribution of
Atrazine Concentrations
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
39
6
5
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Atrazine (ug/L)
0.4
Preliminary Results
13 Aug – 22 Sept 2005
Atrazine
50
40
30
20
10
0
 Detects in over 90% of
the lakes sampled
 Less than 10% of the
lakes were atrazine free
 No detects over the
drinking water standard
of 3 µg/L but highest
concentration (0.4 µg/L)
is probably
 Less than 2% over the
PAL
 No detects over
proposed Water Quality
Criteria of 12 µg/L
NO
D ET
D
D
D ET
DET ETEC
ECT ETEC
ECT
TS
T
ECT
S>
S
S
PAL > 0.1 >12
ug/
0u
L
g/L
Acknowledgements
WALT HALLEN, ALYSON & PAUL KAPOLNEK, JERRY
KOPSTEIN, RICHARD RUDOLPH, GAIL NORDLOF,
DONNA SEFTON, BEVERLY RAWLINGS, RICHARD
LATHROP, JIM AND CHARLOTTE BARR, DENNIS
VANDER WERFF, ERNIE AND GAYLE CHIODO, STEVE
SHEETS, HOWARD LANG, JAMES BRAKKEN, KEN
RICHTER, LUCY HARR, RETA & BRUCE NAGLE, JOE
MCDANIEL, GEORGE WISDOM, JOHN SELAK, TONI
PONTAR, JOHN VOLLRATH, RICK BJODSTRUP, TOM
ARNISON, TONI PONTAR, JERRY KABELOWSKY,
JANA CHARVAT, DORIS RUSCH , HUGH GILGENBACH,
JUDY WAGNER, SUE & CHRIS DEMENT, TOM HINKES,
JACK NEUHAUSER, AL DEPIES, PAUL PITRE, JIM
GRUMBECK, DON HASSLER, STEVE, TRACEY, KIM,
CHLOE & PAT MAYER, ROBERT HANNEMAN,
MARIETTE NOWAK, BOB BURFORD, BLAKE PLUEMER,
ROD ANDREASEN, CAROL ALCOE, DORIS RUSCH, JEN
FILBERT, TIM ASPLUND
Study Stages








Collaborate with DNR to involve volunteer lake monitors
in sampling effort
Identify lakes for sampling
Reserve test kits
Contact volunteers and identify final lake/participant
list
Response from volunteers
Coordinate kit dissemination with State Hygiene Lab
Late summer sampling window (August and September)
Obtain results from state lab
Analyze data (lake characteristics, land use intensity)
Result letters to participants
Wisconsin Lakes
Recent Projects
Media
Sample
Date
Maximum Triazine Levels
USGS
(Scribner et al 1996; OpenFile Report 96-393)
10 WI sites including
Madison Area Lakes
Atrazine, DEA and
DIA by GC/MS
1992-1993
Monthly
3/92 – 2/93
0.68 ug/L
(Lake Mendota, Dane Co.)
SE Wisconsin Lakes (Allen)
13 Lakes
RaPid TZ Assays
April-May
2002
0.3 ug/L
(Rock Lake, Kenosha Co.)
Aug-Sept
2002
0.6 ug/L
(Hooker Lake, Kenosha Co.)
July 2002
3.0 ug/L
(Stratton Lake, Waupaca Co.)
Portage County Lakes
(Turyk and Markham, per.
comm)
29 Lakes
RaPid TZ Assays
USGS
Solomon et al 1996
(reference. from
Graymore et al 2001)
Midwestern
Reservoirs
GC/MS
11.9 ug/L
EPA/USGS
Great Lakes
60 ng/L Lake Michigan
6 ng/L Isle Royale Lakes
Volunteer Response to
Participation Requests
105
120
66
100
51
80
60
40
20
0
CON
T
ACT
S
'YES
MAD
' PAR
E
RET
URN
S
TICIP
ANT
S
Impacts of Atrazine on Aquatic Ecosystems
(Graymore et al. 2001)












Inhibits photosynthesis.
Sensitivity to exposure varies with species
Decreases biomass and abundance.
Modifies normal seasonal succession of organisms.
Decreases reproduction, fecundity and growth.
Decreases diversity.
Changes dominance
Modifies predator/prey ratios and guild structures.
Modifies ecosystem function.
Alters organism behavior.
Causes deformities.
Promotes habitat losses.
Impacts of Atrazine on Aquatic Ecosystems
(Graymore et al 2001)
Different taxa and species within taxa vary in their
sensitivity to chronic and acute exposure and may
be affected both directly and indirectly by exposure.









Inhibits photosynthesis.
Decreases biomass and abundance.
Modifies normal seasonal succession of organisms.
Decreases reproduction, fecundity and growth.
Modifies community structure (decreases diversity, changes
dominance, modifies predator/prey ratios and guild
structures).
Modifies ecosystem function.
Alters organism behavior.
Causes deformities.
Promotes habitat losses.
Why the Current Interest ?
 Hayes et al 2001.
– Implicated atrazine in amphibian declines.
– Affects apparent at low concentrations (0.1 ppb).
 Graymore et al 2001.
– Other ecosystem level problems caused at ecologically relevant
doses.
 Ubiquitous in the environment (surface water, groundwater, soil and
air).
 No surface water quality criteria or standards (proposed 12 ug/L).
 EPA reviewing re-registration eligibility (IRED) for atrazine because of
potential endocrine disruption.
 Toxicology data not based on mixtures which can have significant
environmental impacts.
 Atrazine is a proxy for other pesticides that can tell us about
movement and fate of pesticides in the environment.
 No state or federal surface water standards.
 EPA draft WQC of 12 ug/L is higher than levels reported to have
significant affects on ecosystem structure and function.
Why the Current Interest ?
•
Ubiquitous in the Environment
• No surface water standards.
• No formal monitoring of lakes or lake sediments.
• Inadequate monitoring.
• Endocrine Disruption.
• Affects at low concentrations (0.1 ppb).
• EPA draft water quality criteria (12 µg/L)