Pyrethroid Pesticides in Municipal Wastewater: A Baseline Survey of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Facilities in California in 2013

Markle, James C.; Buuren, Beverly H. van; Moran, Kelly D.; Barefoot, Aldos C.

doi:10.1021/bk-2014-1168.ch008

Cited by 11 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous DtD assessments were conducted with permethrin and deltamethrin (USEPA (45) and USEPA (50), respectively) and are shown in Table 16 along with the monitored concentrations in effluent summarized in Table 15. With permethrin, the predicted concentrations in POTW effluent is 0.09 ppb, which is an order of magnitude above the median concentration measured in California POTWs by Markle et al (55) However, it is about 2X below the maximum concentration detected in California POTW effluent (0.17 ppb). With deltamethrin, the predicted concentration (0.0004 ppb) is comparable to the median and maximum measured concentrations (0.0003 and 0.001 ppb, respectively).…”

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Importantly, the timing of effluent samples was adjusted to account for the retention time of the wastewater in the plant. This facilitates more accurate estimation of % removal efficiency compared to the previous study by Markle et al (55) Weston et al (56) also sampled three POTW wastewater interceptors during the course of this study, one of which (City interceptor) received both municipal sewage and storm water runoff while the other two (Folsom and Laguna interceptors) received only municipal sewage.…”

Section: Sacramento Potwmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In another comprehensive state-wide survey, Markle et al (55) sampled 31 POTWs in California for the presence of eight pyrethroids in influent, effluent, and/or biosolids. This effort was conducted by the Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG), a consortium of registrants representing eight pyrethroids, in response to pyrethroid re-evaluation activities by both the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the USEPA.…”

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also of interest to evaluate the removal of pyrethroids by POTW treatment, since this information can help inform modeling approaches for estimating pyrethroid loadings from POTWs. Influent and effluent data from Markle et al (55) were used to calculate percent removal of pyrethroids using the following equation:…”

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is noted that the study by Markle et al (55) was not specifically designed to estimate % removal efficiency of pyrethroids because samples were taken concurrently from influent and effluent without regard to the retention time of treated water in the POTW. Therefore, differences between concentrations of pyrethroid in influent and effluent may reflect, not only partitioning and degradation processes associated with wastewater treatment, but also variation in pesticide loadings over time.…”

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments of Urban Pesticide Uses

Shamim

Melendez

Sappington

et al. 2014

ACS Symposium Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Sacramento Potwmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: California Potwsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments of Urban Pesticide Uses

Shamim

Melendez

Sappington

et al. 2014

ACS Symposium Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Passage of fiproles and imidacloprid from urban pest control uses through wastewater treatment plants in northern California, USA

Sadaria

Sutton

Moran³

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban pest control insecticides-specifically fipronil and its 4 major degradates (fipronil sulfone, sulfide, desulfinyl, and amide), as well as imidacloprid-were monitored during drought conditions in 8 San Francisco Bay (San Francisco, CA, USA) wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). In influent and effluent, ubiquitous detections were obtained in units of ng/L for fipronil (13-88 ng/L), fipronil sulfone (1-28 ng/L), fipronil sulfide (1-5 ng/L), and imidacloprid (58-306 ng/L). Partitioning was also investigated; in influent, 100% of imidacloprid and 62 ± 9% of total fiproles (fipronil and degradates) were present in the dissolved state, with the balance being bound to filter-removable particulates. Targeted insecticides persisted during wastewater treatment, regardless of treatment technology utilized (imidacloprid: 93 ± 17%; total fiproles: 65 ± 11% remaining), with partitioning into sludge (3.7-151.1 μg/kg dry wt as fipronil) accounting for minor losses of total fiproles entering WWTPs. The load of total fiproles was fairly consistent across the facilities but fiprole speciation varied. This first regional study on fiprole and imidacloprid occurrences in raw and treated California sewage revealed ubiquity and marked persistence to conventional treatment of both phenylpyrazole and neonicotinoid compounds. Flea and tick control agents for pets are identified as potential sources of pesticides in sewage meriting further investigation and inclusion in chemical-specific risk assessments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1473-1482. © 2016 SETAC.

show abstract

Water Quality Impairments Due to Aquatic Life Pesticide Toxicity: Prevention and Mitigation in California, USA

Moran¹,

Anderson

Phillips

et al. 2020

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of pesticides to protect water quality remains a significant global challenge. Historically, despite regulatory frameworks intended to prevent, minimize, and manage off‐site movement of pesticides, multiple generations of pesticide active ingredients have created a seemingly unending cycle of pesticide water pollution in both agricultural and urban watersheds. In California, the most populous and most agricultural US state, pesticide and water quality regulators realized in the 1990s that working independently of each other was not an effective approach to address pesticide water pollution. Over the years, these California agencies have developed a joint vision and have continued to develop a unified approach that has the potential to minimize pesticide risks to aquatic life through a combination of prevention, monitoring, and management actions, while maintaining pesticide availability for effective pest control. Key elements of the current California pesticide/water quality effort include: 1) pesticide and toxicity monitoring, coupled with watershed modeling, to maximize information obtained from monitoring; 2) predictive fate and exposure modeling to identify potential risks to aquatic life for new pesticide products when used as allowed by the label or to identify effective mitigation measures; and 3) management approaches tailored to the different pesticide uses, discharge sources, physical environments, and regulatory environments that exist for agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and municipal wastewater. Lessons from this effort may inform pesticide management elsewhere in the world as well as other chemical regulatory programs, such as the recently reformed US Toxic Substances Control Act and California's Safer Consumer Products regulatory program. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:953–966. © 2020 SETAC

show abstract

Pyrethroid Pesticides in Municipal Wastewater: A Baseline Survey of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Facilities in California in 2013

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments of Urban Pesticide Uses

Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments of Urban Pesticide Uses

Passage of fiproles and imidacloprid from urban pest control uses through wastewater treatment plants in northern California, USA

Water Quality Impairments Due to Aquatic Life Pesticide Toxicity: Prevention and Mitigation in California, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About