2013 California DPR Pesticide Levels Air - Network - Report - Draft - 0713

DRAFT July 2013
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation
AIR MONITORING NETWORK RESULTS FOR 2012 Volume 2

July 2013
By
Edgar Vidrio, Environmental Monitoring Branch Pamela Wofford, Environmental Monitoring Branch Randy Segawa, Environmental Monitoring Branch Jay Schreider, Ph.D., Medical Toxicology Branch Report ##
Department of Pesticide Regulation 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
DRAFT July 2013

SUMMARY In February 2011, DPR implemented a multi-year statewide air monitoring network for measuring pesticides in various agricultural communities. This new pesticide Air Monitoring Network (AMN) is the first multi-year air monitoring study conducted by DPR. The goals of the AMN are to provide data that assists in assessing potential health risks, developing measures to mitigate risks, and nd measuring the effectiveness of regulatory requirements. This report is the 2 volume of this study and contains AMN results from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. DPR monitored a total of 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products in three communities. Pesticides monitored in the AMN were selected based primarily on potential health risk. Higherrisk pesticides were prioritized and targeted for monitoring. Higher-risk pesticides were identified based on higher use, higher volatility, and higher toxicity. DPR evaluated 226 communities in California as candidates for inclusion in the network. DPR selected one site each in Salinas (Monterey County), Shafter (Kern County), and Ripon (San Joaquin County) for the AMN based on pesticide use, demographic data, and availability of other exposure and health data. One 24-hour sample was collected each week at each of the three sites. The starting day varied each week with the actual dates being randomly selected. Sampling start times were left to the discretion of the field sampling personnel, but they always started anywhere from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 pm. No state or federal agency has established health standards for pesticides in air. Therefore, DPR developed health screening levels for the monitored pesticides to place the results in a health-based context. The health screening level is the calculated air concentration based on a chemical's toxicity that is used to evaluate the possible health effects of exposure to the chemical. Although screening levels are not regulatory standards, they can be used to evaluate air monitoring results and determine if a more detailed assessment is warranted. Overall, 94.5 % of the 6,002 analyses (number of samples times the number of chemicals analyzed) resulted in no detectable concentrations. Only 331 (5.5%) of the analyses had detectable (trace or quantifiable) concentrations, and 1.3% of the analyses had quantifiable concentrations. Quantifiable detections refer to concentrations above the LOQ for their respective pesticide. Fourteen of the 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR were not detected. Of the 33 pesticide and 5 breakdown products included in the AMN, 24 were detected in at least one sample. However, all air concentrations were low relative to the screening levels. None of the pesticides exceeded their screening levels for any of the exposure periods, indicating low health risk to the people in these communities. Nine of the 11 pesticides (including three breakdown products) detected at quantifiable concentrations in the AMN were either fumigants (1,3dichloropropene, carbon disulfide, methyl bromide, and MITC) or organophosphate insecticides (chlorpyrifos + OA, DDVP, diazinon OA, and malathion OA). Diuron and EPTC were also detected at quantifiable concentrations.
DRAFT July 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the DPRs Air Program sampling crewClarice Ando, Shifang Fan, Parakrama Gurusinghe, Jessica Mullane, Fabio Sartori, Jing Tao, and Atac Tuliand DPRs West Sacramento crew for sample handling and equipment assistance: Sue Peoples, Roger Sava, Michelle Massaro, and Jesse Ybarra. We also would like to thank all of the members of the Pesticide Registration and Evaluation CommitteeAnn Prichard, Lynn Baker, Anna Fan, David Ting, Brian Larimore, Syed Ali, Jodi Pontureri, Valerie Mitchell, David Luscher, Rebecca Sisco, Stella McMillin, Amalia Neidhardt, Martha Harnly, Tom Ineichen, Patti TenBrook, Dave Whitmer, and Barry Wilsonfor their scientific input. We also would like to thank California Department of Food and Agricultures analytical laboratory personnel Elaine Wong, Stephen Siegel, Jane White, and Jean Hsufor their hard work. We also would like to thank the Air Resources Boards monitoring and laboratory staff and the Quality Assurance team members. Special thanks to the Salinas Airport staff and to the cities of Shafter and Ripon. Finally, we would like to thank the Agricultural Commissioners of Monterey, San Joaquin, and Kern counties for their cooperation.
ii
DRAFT July 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. vi Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 Site Locations .............................................................................................................................. 1 Pesticides Monitored ................................................................................................................... 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................................................................................................... 4 Air Sampling Equipment and Methods ........................................................................................ 4 Sampling Procedure .................................................................................................................... 5 Quality Control Methods .............................................................................................................. 5 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................... 6 Health Evaluation Methods ......................................................................................................... 8 AIR MONITORING RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 9 Results for All Pesticidies and Communities Combined ............................................................. 9 Results for Salinas .................................................................................................................... 24 Results for Shafter..................................................................................................................... 28 Results for Ripon ....................................................................................................................... 31 Cummulative Exposure Estimates ............................................................................................ 35 Cancer Risk Estimates .............................................................................................................. 40 Uncertainty of Air Concentrations - Treatment of ND and Trace Samples .............................. 40 AIR MONITORING NETWORK TREND ANALYSIS...................................................................... 41 Comparison to Other Monitoring ............................................................................................... 44 DATA VALIDATION/QUALITY ASSURANCE ................................................................................ 45 Data Review .............................................................................................................................. 45 Quality Control Results.............................................................................................................. 45 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 48 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDICES
iii
DRAFT July 2013

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of the three sampling station locations ...................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Highest one-day (acute) concentrations detected in all three sampling locations ..........16 Figure 3. Highest one-day (acute) concentrations detected for the aggregate of cis- and trans-1,3dichloropropene in all three sampling locations ............................................................... 18 Figure 4. Rolling 4-week average (subchronic) concentrations detected for the three monitoring locations ........................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5. Rolling 4-week average (subchronic) concentrations detected for the aggregate of cisand trans-1,3-dichloropropene in all three sampling locations ........................................22
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Target analytes in multi-pesticide residue analysis with XAD-4 resin ................................ 3 Table 2. Target analytes in canister residue analysis ...................................................................... 4 Table 3. Quantitation limits for Air Monitoring Network samples ...................................................... 7 Table 4. Percentage of positive samples per chemical .................................................................. 10 Table 5. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Salinas, California .................11 Table 6. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Shafter, California .................12 Table 7. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Ripon, California ...................13 Table 8. Detections of monitored chemicals by location ................................................................ 14 Table 9. Highest one-day concentration for chemicals monitored .................................................15 Table 10. The highest of rolling 4-week air concentrations, subchronic screening levels, and % of the subchronic screening level ....................................................................................... 19 Table 11. The average concentration for all chemicals from samples collected from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 ................................................................................. 23 Table 12. Overall air concentrations relative to the screening levels for chemicals with quantifiable concentrations, excluding acrolein.. ............................................................................... 24 Table 13. Highest 1-day concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, California. ..............25 Table 14. Highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, California. .26 Table 15. Overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, California. ...........27 Table 16. Highest 1-day concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, California. ...............28 Table 17. Highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, California. .29 Table 18. Overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, California ............30 Table 19. Highest 1-day concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, California ..................32 Table 20. Highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, California ....33 Table 21. Overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, California ...............34 Table 22. Summary of organophosphate cumulative exposure .....................................................35
iv
DRAFT July 2013

Table 23. Highest one-day concentration of organophosphates monitored in Salinas, California 35 Table 24. Highest 4-week rolling concentration of organophosphates monitored in Salinas, California ........................................................................................................................ 36 Table 25. Overall average concentration of organophosphates monitored in Salinas, California .36 Table 26. Highest one-day concentration of organophosphates monitored in Shafter, California .37 Table 27. Highest 4-week rolling concentration of organophosphates monitored in Shafter, California ........................................................................................................................ 37 Table 28. Overall average concentration of organophosphates monitored in Shafter, California .38 Table 29. Highest one-day concentration of organophosphates monitored in Ripon, California ...38 Table 30. Highest 4-week rolling concentration of organophosphates monitored in Ripon, California ........................................................................................................................ 39 Table 31. Overall average concentration of organophosphates monitored in Ripon, California ....39 Table 32. Minimum, standard, and maximum cancer risk estimates for 1,3-D. .............................41 Table 33. Minimum, standard, and maximum highest 4-week rolling average concentrations and overall average concentrations for pesticides with at least one quantifiable detection. 41 Table 34. Comparison of the highest 24-hour concentrations for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in either 2011 or 2012 for all three AMN sampling locations. 42 Table 35. Comparison of the highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in either 2011 or 2012 for all three AMN sampling locations. 43 Table 36. Comparison of the overall average concentrations for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in either 2011 or 2012 for all three AMN sampling locations. 43 Table 37. Highest 24-hour concentrations of the pesticides monitored in Salinas, Shafter, and Ripon from 2011 and 2012 compared to previous DPR/ARB and PANNA monitoring studies in California. ....................................................................................................... 44 Table 38. Average results for quality control/quality assurance samples ......................................46 Table 39. Results for duplicate sample pairs ................................................................................. 47
DRAFT July 2013

GLOSSARY
Acute exposure: Short-term exposure. Acute toxicity can be defined as the toxicity manifested within a relatively short time interval. Acute exposure can be as short as a few minutes or as long as a few days, but is generally not longer than one day. In animal toxicity studies, exposure is usually for 24 hours or less. ARB: California Air Resources Board, part of Cal/EPA Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency. The Department of Pesticide Regulation is one of five boards and departments within Cal/EPA. Chronic exposure: Long-term exposure. Chronic exposure is generally for a significant portion of an animal or human lifetime. Exposure may be through repeated single doses or may be continuous. Co-located sampler: A second sampler located within 1 meter of the primary sampler. Concentration: The amount of a chemical (by weight) in a given volume of air. Concentrations in air can be expressed in units of volume or weight. In this report, pesticide concentrations are expressed as nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m). Detected: Pertains to a chemical that is found in a sample above the method detection limit (see MDL). Detection limit: see MDL (method detection limit) DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation Duplicate sample: Same as a primary sample, but it is obtained on a co-located sampler as a replicate. Exposure: Contact with a chemical. Common routes of exposure are dermal (skin), oral (by mouth) and inhalation (breathing). Field spiked sample: A sample with a known amount of chemical spiked onto the sample media which is placed next to primary sample and undergoes the same air flow and run time conditions. The field spiked sample, compared to the primary sample, provides some information about any change in the ability to recover the analyte during air sampling. FQPA: U.S. Food Quality Protection Act Health screening level: The calculated air concentration based on a chemical's toxicity that is used to evaluate the possible health effects of exposure to the chemical. Although not a regulatory standard, screening levels can be used in the process of evaluating the air monitoring results. A measured air concentration that is below the screening level for a given pesticide generally would not undergo further evaluation but should not automatically be considered safe and could undergo further evaluation. A measured concentration that is above the screening level would not necessarily indicate a health concern but would indicate the need for a further and more refined evaluation. Different screening levels are determined for different exposure periods, i.e., acute, subchronic, and chronic. HI: Hazard index. The sum of all hazard quotients (HQs). It is used to estimate the potential health risk for non-cancer effects from exposure to several chemicals for a given time period (acute, subchronic, chronic). That is, HI = HQ1 + HQ2 + HQ3 +
vi
DRAFT July 2013

HQ: Hazard quotient. The HQ is the ratio of an exposure level for a chemical (measured air concentration of a pesticide) to a reference concentration for the chemical (screening level for that pesticide) over the same time period. An HQ less than 1 is generally considered to be health protective. Air Concentration Detected (ng/m ) ---------------------------------------------3 Screening Level (ng/m )
3
Hazard Quotient =
LOQ: Limit of Quantitation. Similar to method detection limit (MDL), the LOQ is the smallest amount of the chemical that can be reliably measured. Samples with concentrations above the minimum detection limit but below the LOQ can be identified as containing a trace amount but the concentration cannot be measured reliably. When calculating average concentrations or other statistics, DPR assumes that samples with a trace concentration have a concentration at the midpoint between the MDL and the LOQ. As with the MDL, the LOQ is a characteristic of both the method and the chemical. Different methods can have different LOQs limits for the same chemical. The same method can have different LOQs for different chemicals. Matrix: the substance in the sampling tubes, such as XAD resin or charcoal which traps and removes organic compounds from the atmosphere during sampling MDL: Method detection limit. The MDL is the smallest amount of the chemical that can be identified (although not necessarily quantified) in a sample with the method employed. If nothing is detected, the sample may contain none of the chemical or may have a concentration less than the MDL. In either instance, the sample is designated as containing no detectable amount. When calculating average concentrations or other statistics, DPR assumes that samples with no detectable amount have a concentration of one-half the MDL. The MDL is a characteristic of both the method and the chemical. That is, different methods can have different MDLs for the same chemical. Similarly, one method can have different MDLs for different chemicals. (See also LOQ, limit of quantitation) MLD: Monitoring and Laboratory Division. The MLD is the monitoring and laboratory division of the California Air Resources Board. Staff from MLD audited the Air Monitoring Network at the petition of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Monitored chemical: Refers to a chemical that was sampled for in the air and analyzed for to determine its possible air concentrations. Air sampling apparatus can consist of pumps and sampling tubes or vacuum canisters. Pumps draw air over sampling tubes containing absorptive media which trap chemicals from the air. The media is then chemically analyzed in the laboratory to determine if the monitored chemical was in the air. Vacuum canisters are air-tight metal containers which utilize a starting vacuum to draw air inside during the monitoring period. The air in the canisters is then subjected to chemical analysis in the laboratory to determine if the monitored chemical was in the air. In this study, air sampling periods were 24 hours long. ND: None detected. This is the concentration below the method detection limit (MDL). OA: Oxygen analog, also known as oxon. This is the breakdown product from certain organophosphate pesticides. Oxygen analogs usually are more toxic than the parent compound. QA: Quality assurance team QAS: Quality Assurance Section of ARB QC: quality control Primary sample: Sample collected in the field to measure pesticide air concentrations.
vii
DRAFT July 2013

PUR: Pesticide use report. All agricultural pesticide use in California is required to be reported to the County Agricultural Commissioners. DPR collects these pesticide use reports; it evaluates and annually publishes the data. RCD: Risk characterization document. DPRs human health risk assessment for a pesticide is presented in the RCD. The RCD explains the results of the risk assessment and assembles, critiques, and interprets all pertinent scientific data on a chemicals toxicology, human experience, and exposure. RED: Reregistration eligibility document. Reregistration is U.S. EPAs reevaluation and relicensing of existing pesticides originally registered prior to current scientific and regulatory standards. U.S. EPAs human health risk assessment for a pesticide is presented as part of its RED. Risk: Risk is the probability that a toxic effect (adverse health effect) will result from a given exposure to a chemical. It is a function of both the inherent toxicity of the chemical as well as the exposure to the chemical. SOP: Standard operating procedure. It is a document describing the materials and methods used for various monitoring tasks. Sorbent cartridge: A Teflon cartridge filled with a measured amount of trapping media and sealed. The tube is attached to an air pump and ambient air is drawn through the trapping media in the tube. Subchronic exposure: A medium time interval of exposure to a chemical. Subchronic exposure is longer than acute exposure, but shorter than chronic exposure. Subchronic exposure may be through repeated single doses or may be continuous. See acute exposure, chronic exposure. Trace: see Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) Trip blank sample: A clean sample cartridge capped and stored on dry ice with the rest of the samples collected from the monitoring site. The purpose is to determine if handling conditions in the field, sample transporting, or storage procedures may have contaminated the samples. U.S. EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VOC: volatile organic compound
viii
DRAFT July 2013
INTRODUCTION Background
The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is the public agency responsible for protecting California and its residents from adverse health effects caused by the use of pesticides. On February 2011, as part of DPRs mandate for continuous evaluation of currently registered pesticides, DPR implemented a multi-year statewide air monitoring network for measuring pesticides in various agricultural communities. This new pesticide Air Monitoring Network (AMN) is the first long-term air monitoring study conducted by DPR. Past and current studies by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and DPR for the toxic air contaminant program usually consist of monitoring for a few weeks for individual pesticides. This produced data that was used to estimate seasonal pesticide exposures and local concentrations. However, since long-term data was not previously available, to estimate concentrations associated with annual and lifetime exposures, DPR would extrapolate the short-term concentrations detected. AMN results provide the needed results to more accurately estimate chronic pesticide exposures. The goals of the AMN are to provide data that assists in assessing potential health risks, developing measures to mitigate risks, and measuring the effectiveness of regulatory requirements. The AMN includes these scientific objectives: 1) Identify common pesticides in air and determine seasonal, annual, and multiple-year concentrations. 2) Compare concentrations to subchronic and chronic health screening levels. 3) Track trends in air concentrations over time. 4) Estimate cumulative exposure to multiple pesticides with common modes of action. 5) Attempt to correlate concentrations with use and weather patterns. As part of the monitoring station selection process for the AMN, DPR evaluated and prioritized 226 communities in California as candidates for inclusion in the network. The 226 communities were prioritized based on pesticide use (both local and regional), demographic data (including: communities with higher populations of children, persons over 65, and number of persons living in close proximity to farms and agricultural areas with high pesticide use), and availability of other exposure and health data. DPR also considered other factors, including air sampling feasibility, weather patterns, and the potential for collaboration with other projects focused on environmental health (Segawa, 2010). Salinas (Monterey County), Shafter (Kern County), and Ripon (San Joaquin County) were selected as the sampling locations for the air network. As described in AMNs Volume 1 report (DPR, 2013), it was previously determined that representative sampling could be obtained from one 24-hour air sample each week from each community selected. The air samples collected were analyzed for 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products. This is the 2 volume of AMN result data. The report contains AMN results from all three sites starting from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.
nd
Site Locations (Figure 1)

Ripon Ripon is a small city (4.2 square miles in area) located approximately 20 miles south of Stockton in San Joaquin County. The elevation is 69 feet, with approximately 13.8 inches of precipitation annually. Average temperatures during summer range from 60 to 94 and 47 to 62 F during winter. Based on US Census data, the estimated population in 2010 was 14,297, of which 28.8% was below 18 years of age and 11.8% was 65 years or older. Almond orchards, grapes and field crops are the major crops surrounding the community. The monitoring site is located in an open area behind the Police Station on N. Wilma Ave near the western side of the middle of the city.
DRAFT July 2013

Shafter Shafter is a small city (18 square miles in area) located approximately located 18 miles west-northwest of Bakersfield in Kern County. The elevation is 351 feet, with approximately 7 inches of precipitation annually. Average temperatures range from 59 to 99 F in the summer and 35 to 64 F in winter. In 2010, the population was 16,988 of which 36.0% was below 18 years of age and 6.6% was above 65 years of age. The major crops in the immediate area around Shafter are almonds, grapes, and alfalfa some field crops. The monitoring site is located near a city well adjacent to Shafter High School in the northeastern edge of the city. Salinas Salinas is located in Monterey County approximately 15 miles north-east of Monterey and encompasses a total area of 19 square miles. In 2010, Salinas had a population of 150,441 of which 31.4% was below 18 years of age and 7.4% was above 65. The average rainfall is approximately 14.5 inches. Average temperatures range from 51 to 72 F in the summer and 40 to 52 F in winter. Heavy morning fog often occurs during summer months. Salinas is surrounded mainly by strawberries, lettuce and other field crops. The monitoring site is located at the Salinas Airport in the south-eastern section of the City.
Figure 1. Map of the three sampling station locations.
DRAFT July 2013
Pesticides Monitored
DPR monitored a total of 33 and 5 pesticide breakdown products. Pesticides included in AMN monitoring were selected based primarily on potential health risk. Higher-risk pesticides have higher priority for monitoring. Pesticides were selected based on criteria described on the AMNs Volume 1 report (DPR, 2013) Multi-Pesticide Residue Analysis Multi-pesticide residue analysis using XAD-4 resin as the solid phase trapping medium were performed by CDFA laboratory using GC-MS and LC-MS methods as described in method EMONSM-05-002 (CDFA, 2008). Analysis includes a variety of fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, and defoliants. The breakdown products of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dimethoate, endosulfan and malathion were also included in the multi-residue analysis method. Table 1 lists the target analytes in multipesticide residue analysis with XAD-4 resin. Table 1. Target analytes in multi-pesticide residue analysis with XAD-4 resin.
Pesticide Acephate Bensulide Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos Oxygen Analog Chlorthal-dimethyl Cypermethrin Diazinon Diazinon Oxygen Analog Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate Oxygen Analog Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion Oxygen Analog Methidathion Metolachlor (S-metolachlor) Naled as dichlorvos (DDVP) Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton-methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributylphosphorotrithioate Trifluralin Product Name Orthene Prefar Bravo Dursban Dacthal Demon Various names Kelthan Cygon Karmex Thiodan Eptam Rovral Various names Supracide Dual Dibrom, Vapona Solicam Surflan Metasystox-R Goal Ambush Imidan Omite Princep DEF Treflan Insecticide Herbicide Insecticide Herbicide Herbicide Insecticide Herbicide Insecticide Insecticide Insecticide Herbicide Defoliant Herbicide Organophosphate Chloracetanilide Organophosphate Pyridazinone Dinitroaniline Organophosphate Diphenyl ether Pyrethroid Organophosphate Organosulfite Triazine Organophosphate Dinitroaniline Herbicide Fungicide Insecticide Carbamate Dicarboximide Organophosphate Herbicide Insecticide Urea Organochlorine Insecticide Insecticide Organochlorine Organophosphate Herbicide Insecticide Insecticide Phthalate Pyrethroid Organophosphate Pesticide Group Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Insecticide Chemical Class Organophosphate Organophosphate Chloronitrile Organophosphate
DRAFT July 2013
Volatile Organic Compound Analysis Air canisters were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 2 using a volatile organic compound (VOC) using GC-MS in a method similar to U.S. EPAs Method TO-15. The SOP describing the details of the procedure is EMON-SM-05-002 (CDFA, 2008). MITC Samples collected on SKC Inc coconut charcoal sample tubes were analyzed for residues of MITC by GC-MS as described in analytical method EMON-SM41.9 (CDFA, 2004). MITC extraction from the sorbent medium involves using carbon disulfide in ethyl acetate with subsequent analysis using Gas Chromatography-Nitrogen Phosphorous Detector (GC-NPD). Chloropicrin SKC Inc XAD-4 sample tubes were analyzed for residues of chloropicrin by Gas ChromatographyElectron Capture Detector (GC-ECD) as described in CDFA Method: EM16.0 (CDFA, 1999). Each tube was desorbed in hexane and analyzed by gas chromatograph equipped with GC-ECD. Table 2. Target analytes in canister residue analysis.
Pesticide 1,3-dichloropropene Methyl Bromide carbon disulfide Methyl iodide MITC Chloropicrin Enzone Midas Vapam, K-Pam, Dazomet Product Name Telone, Inline Pesticide Group Fumigant Fumigant Fumigant Fumigant Fumigant Fumigant Halogenated organic Chemical Class Halogenated organic Halogenated organic Inorganic Halogenated organic
MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section describes more in detail the types of samples DPR collected, sample measurement, sampling materials used, and methods of sampling and analysis.
Air Sampling Equipment and Methods

Complete AMN sampling equipment and sampling methods have been fully detailed on AMNs Volume 1 report (DPR, 2013). Briefly, a protective shelter was placed at each air sampling location. The shelter housed Airchek HV30 pumps, SKC Inc personal sample pumps, and SilcoCan canisters. Air samples were collected via three different sampling methods: a multi-pesticide method, individual chemical method (MITC and chloropicrin), and volatile organic compound method (Segawa, 2010). For multi-pesticide monitoring, an AirChek pump pulling air at a rate of 15 L/min was attached to a hand-packed Teflon cartridge containing 30 mL of XAD-4 sorbent resin material. For MITC and chloropicrin monitoring, manufactured pre-packed 200/1800 mg coconut charcoal tubes (MITC) or manufactured pre-packed 400/200 mg XAD-4 tubes (chloropicrin) with sealed glass end tips were attached to a SKC Inc personal sample pump set to a flow rate of 1.5 L/min for MITC or 50 mL/min for chloropicrin. Lastly, for VOC monitoring, a vacuumed 6-liter SilcoCan canister with an attached flow controller to maintain a constant air flow for a 24-hour period was utilized. Once samples were collected, open tube and cartridge ends were tightly capped with appropriate end caps and the air canisters valve was tightly closed. Sample tubes and cartridges were placed in an insulated storage container containing dry ice and remained frozen until transported to the West Sacramento facility where they were checked-in and placed into a freezer until delivered to the CDFA
DRAFT July 2013

laboratory for analysis. SilcoCan canister were transported and stored at ambient conditions. Sample handling-shipping and tracking procedures were followed as defined in DPRs SOP QAQC004.1 and SOP QAQC003.02 (DPR, 1999; DPR, 2005). The samples were sent to a chemical laboratory for extraction and analysis. Personnel from CDFAs Center for Analytical Chemistry washed, rinsed, and packed XAD-4 sorbent material into Teflon sample cartridges and pre-evacuated SilcoCan canisters to a pressure of 30Hg. Chain of custody forms (COC), sample analysis request forms, and sample labels including the study number and sample identification numbers were supplied to field sampling personnel to be attached to sampling tubes, cartridges, and canisters prior to sampling. As the air sampling commenced at each monitoring site, the sample tracking number, date, time, staff initials, weather conditions, and air sampler flow rate were documented on the COC form as presented in SOP ADMN006.01 (DPR, 2004). All pumps used for air sampling were previously calibrated to their respective flow rate by DPR personnel. The use, operation, calibration and maintenance of air sampling pumps are described in DPRs SOP EQAI001.00 (DPR, 2001). Air sampler flow rates were measured using a DryCal flow meter at the beginning and the end of sampling period. All sample pumps were checked and initially calibrated in the laboratory.
Sampling Procedure
AMN samples included in this report were collected from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2012. 24-hour samples were collected every week at each of the 3 sites. The starting day varied each week with the actual dates being randomly selected. Actual sampling start times were left to the discretion of the field sampling personnel, but they always started anywhere from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 pm.
Quality Control Methods

Besides collecting field samples during monitoring, DPR collected additional quality control samples consisting of trip blank samples, field spikes and co-located duplicate samples. A trip blank sample provides information on possible contamination of samples. For the manufactured pre-packed XAD-4 and charcoal sample tubes, the ends were broken open, capped and placed on dry ice with the field samples. The multi-pesticide XAD tubes were opened in the field, capped, and placed on dry ice to be stored and shipped with the field samples. Due to method development issues, no air canister trip blanks were taken. Trip blanks collected from each sampling site were randomly selected and collected at least once every month of sampling. Trip blank samples containing detectable amounts of any of the pesticides would mean a problem with contamination during field and laboratory procedures. A field spike is a laboratory spike sent to the field and placed on an air sampler with air flowing through the sorbent tube. Shipped on dry ice to the field, it is treated just like a field sample, including storage and shipping conditions. The field spike, in comparison with the respective field sample, gives information about any change in the ability to recover the analyte during air sampling. DPR collected one field spike sample per month for each sample type with the exception of VOC samples. VOC field spikes were not collected since the CDFA laboratory does not currently have the proper equipment to create field spikes using canisters. The multi-pesticide XAD cartridge was spiked with two different analytes every month. While chloropicrin and MITC spiked samples varied the spiked concentrations every month. Spike samples outside the control limits established from the validation data for each pesticide would trigger a reassessment of the field and laboratory procedures. A duplicate sample is a sample that is co-located with a field sample. These samples evaluate overall precision in sample measurement and analysis. DPR collected one duplicate sample for each sample type once per month of sampling.
DRAFT July 2013

Laboratory Methods
Method calibration The laboratory verified calibration by analyzing a series of standard samples (samples containing known amounts of analyte dissolved in a solvent). The linear range of calibration was determined by analyzing standards of increasing concentration. Within the linear range, the calibration was determined by regressing the standard concentration on the response of the instrument (peak height or peak area of the chromatogram) using at least five concentrations. The minimum acceptable correlation coefficient of the calibration was given in the SOP for each method, but in general was at least 0.95. Method detection limits and limits of quantitation The method detection limit (MDL) is the lowest concentration of a pesticide (analyte) that a chemical method can reliably detect. The laboratory determined the method detection limit for each analyte by analyzing a standard at a concentration with a signal to noise ratio of 2.5 to 5. This standard is analyzed at least 7 times, and the MDL is determined by calculating the 99 percent confidence interval of the mean. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is the level at which concentrations may be reliably measured and is set at a certain factor above the method detection limit. The level of interference determines the magnitude of this factor; the more interference, the higher the factor. Table 3 lists all of quantitation limits for Air Monitoring Network samples.
DRAFT July 2013

Table 3. Quantitation limits for Air Monitoring Network samples.
Pesticide Acephate Bensulide Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Cypermethrin Dacthal DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion OA Methidathion Metolachlor MITC Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate Trifluralin VOC Samples* Carbon Disulfide 1,3-Dichloropropene Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Detection limit (ng/m ) 1.0 1.4 222 13.7 5.0 2.9 4.7 9.3 3.2 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.9 5.1 3.2 4.6 1.7 1.1 2.2 1.3 1.4 2.7 5.6 3.7 1.4 2.3 6.4 7.2 8.0 3.8 1.2 1.8 1.7
3
Quantitation limit (MDL) (ng/m ) 9.2 9.3 2,778 23.1 23.1 9.3 23.1 9.3 23.1 9.3 9.3 23.1 9.3 9.3 9.3 23.1 23.1 9.3 9.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 23.1 9.3 23.1 9.3 23.1 23.1 9.3 23.1 9.3 9.3 23.1
-----
311 (0.1 ppb) 454 (0.1 ppb) 396 (0.1 ppb) 580 (0.1 ppb)
*For VOC samples the detection limit is the LOQ, the level that can be reliably quantified Calculations of air concentrations For the sorbent tube samples, air concentrations were calculated as an amount of pesticide captured from a volume of air moving through the sampling media. Analytical results are presented in micrograms per sample (ug/sample). The concentrations are converted from ug/sample to nanograms 3 (ng) per cubic meter (m ) of sample air using the following calculations:
DRAFT July 2013
sample results (ug ) 1000 L / m 3 flow rate of sampler (L / min ) run time (min)
x 1000 ng/ug = ng/m
The VOC concentrations were reported as ppb and converted to ng/m3 using the following calculations:
sample results ( ppb) molecular weight 24.45

x 1000 = ng/m The calculation above assumes 1 atmosphere of pressure at 25 C
When calculating average concentrations from multiple samples, samples with no detectable amount were assumed to contain one-half the MDL, and samples with trace amounts were assumed to contain the value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ.
Health Evaluation Methods

Pesticides can cause a variety of health effects at high concentrations. The pesticides included in the AMN were selected in part because risk assessments indicate the potential for high exposure or they are high priority for risk assessment due to toxicity and/or exposure concerns. The AMN pesticides can cause a variety of adverse effects, including respiratory illnesses, damage to the nervous system, cancer, and birth defects. The potential health effects of each pesticide have been summarized on AMNs Volume 1 report (DPR, 2013). No state or federal agency has established health standards for pesticides in air. Therefore, DPR developed health screening levels for the monitored pesticides to place the results in a health-based context. Health screening levels are calculated air concentrations based on a chemical's toxicity that is used to evaluate the possible health effects of exposure to the chemical. Although screening levels are not regulatory standards, they can be used to evaluate air monitoring results. A measured air concentration below the screening level for a given pesticide would not be considered a significant health concern and would not generally undergo further evaluation, but also should not automatically be considered safe and could undergo further evaluation. A measured concentration that is above the screening level would not necessarily indicate a significant health concern, but would indicate the need for a further, more refined evaluation. Significant exceedances of the screening levels could be of health concern and would indicate the need to explore the imposition of mitigation measures. More information on DPR determined screening levels including information on deriving screening levels for each individual pesticide have been summarized on AMNs Volume 1 report (DPR, 2013). The cumulative exposure and risk were estimated using a hazard quotient and hazard index approach for pesticides that have a common mode of action. The potential risk of the measured concentrations of a pesticide in air was evaluated by comparing the air concentration measured over a specified time (e.g., 24 hours, 4 weeks, 1 year) with the screening level derived for a similar exposure (i.e., acute, subchronic, chronic). The ratio of measured air concentration of a pesticide to a reference concentration or screening level for that pesticide is called the hazard quotient (HQ). In this case, Air Concentration Detected (ng/m ) ---------------------------------------------3 Screening Level (ng/m )
3
Hazard Quotient =
If the HQ is greater than 1, then the air concentration exceeds the screening level and would indicate the need for further and more refined evaluation. Similarly, the risk from multiple pesticides (cumulative risk) is evaluated using the hazard index (HI) approach, which sums all of the HQs for the pesticides monitored.
DRAFT July 2013

HI = HQ1 (pesticide 1) + HQ2 (pesticide 2) + HQ3 (pesticide 3) + (and so forth) If the HI is greater than 1, this indicates that the cumulative toxicity of the multiple pesticides should be further evaluated and that potential health impacts may have been missed by only considering the pesticides individually. The AMN samples for nine pesticides that may cause cancer, as designated by the Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) B2 list. Proposition 65 protects California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals while EPAs B2 list probable human carcinogen chemicals. Chemicals on the Proposition 65 list for cancer are: carbon disulfide, oxydemeton methyl, and propargite while chemicals on EPAs B2 list are: 1,3-dichloropropene, chlorothalonil, DDVP, diuron, iprodione, and propargite. Cancer risk is expressed as a probability for the occurrence of cancer (e.g., -6 -5 1 in 1,000,000 or 10 , 1 in 100,000 or 10 , etc.), and was estimated based on the following calculation for each pesticide. Risk of single pesticide = (cancer potency) X (exposure) Exposure for single pesticide = (air concentration) X (respiratory rate) Risk for single pesticide = (cancer potency) X (air concentration) X (respiratory rate) Total risk for AMN pesticides = (risk of pesticide 1) + (risk of pesticide 2) It is a standard default assumption that exposure to a carcinogen takes place over a lifetime, so DPR 3 -5 -6 uses a default respiratory rate for an adult of 0.28 m /kg-day. Risk in the range of 10 to 10 or less is generally considered to be at the limit of what is considered to be negligible. DPR has issued risk management directives for some pesticides that specify air concentration levels as regulatory goals, and these goals have been footnoted in the appropriate tables. The data from this monitoring will be used in part to determine the effectiveness of its mitigation measures in meeting these goals.
AIR MONITORING RESULTS Results for All Pesticides and Communities Combined
DPR collected 156 sets of samples, with each set consisting of four samples analyzed for 33 pesticides and 5 breakdown products. On March 21, 2012, DPR cancelled the sale of all products containing methyl iodide at the request of the registrant. Methyl iodide monitoring as part of the AMN was stopped on 6/20/2012 and therefore monitoring results for this pesticide include results from January 1. 2012 to 6/20/2012. Additionally, acrolein, which was previously included on the AMN as a monitored pesticide was dropped from AMN monitoring starting on 1/1/2012. Acrolein is mainly produced as a byproduct of automobile emissions and other combustion sources not related to pesticidal uses (ATSDR, 2007). Moreover, there is recent uncertainty about the validity of this VOC method for acrolein. And so upon the advice of the DPRs Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee, acting as the AMNs scientific review board, acrolein is no longer monitored for as part of the AMN. Of the 156 sets of samples, 137 (87.8%) contained at least one detectable chemical. A total of 6,002 analyses were conducted on the air samples collected from all three sampling locations from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Of the 6,002 analyses, 331 (5.5%) showed detectable concentrations, which included quantifiable and trace detections. Samples with quantifiable concentrations accounted for 1.4% (81) of all analyses conducted. Quantifiable detections refer to concentrations above the LOQ for their respective pesticide. Thirteen of the 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR were only detected at Trace levels. Fourteen of the
DRAFT July 2013

33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR were not detected. Table 4 lists the number of detections for each pesticide and pesticide breakdown products included in the AMN. The chemicals with the highest number of detections were chlorpyrifos and MITC, each with 44 (28%) detections at all three sampling locations. Table 4. Percentage of positive samples per chemical.
Pesticide
EPTC DDVP Trifluralin Chlorothalonil Dacthal Chlorpyrifos pp-Dicofol Malathion Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Oxyfluorfen Propargite Iprodione Permethrin Cypermethrin Acephate Bensulide Chlorpyrifos OA SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate (DEF) Diazinon Diazinon OA Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Malathion OA Methidathion Metolachlor Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Phosmet Simazine MITC Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide*** Carbon Disulfide cis-1,3-Dichloropropene t-1,3-Dichloropropene
Number of possible detections

156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 155 156 156 75 156 156 156
Total number of detections*

2 6 16 23 27 44 0 8 1 0 3 7 3 0 0 1 0 39 0** 5 5 0 2 32 26 0 0 0 4 0 0 13 44 0 11 0** 1 4 4
Number of quantified detections

2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 11 0 1 4 4
Percent of detections
1% 4% 10% 15% 17% 28% 0% 5% 1% 0% 2% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 25% 0% 3% 3% 0% 1% 21% 17% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 8% 28% 0% 7% 0% 1% 3% 3%
Percent of quantifiable detections

1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% 0% 7% 0% 1% 3% 3%
Total 6002 331 81 6% 1% *Includes both quantified and trace detections **The laboratory reported SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate and methyl iodide in one sample each. Due to the lack of pesticide applications in the surrounding area DPR has designated these samples as false positives. ***On March 21, 2012, DPR cancelled the sale of all products containing methyl iodide at the request of the registrant. Methyl iodide monitoring was stopped on 6/20/2012.
10
DRAFT July 2013
Tables 5-8 list the number of detections for each pesticide and pesticide breakdown products per sampling location. Dacthal (27), MITC (29), and MITC/Trifluralin (12 each) were the chemicals with the most detections in Salinas, Shafter, and Ripon, respectively.
Table 5. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Salinas, California.

Pesticide
EPTC DDVP Trifluralin Chlorothalonil Dacthal Chlorpyrifos pp-Dicofol Malathion Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Oxyfluorfen Propargite Iprodione Permethrin Cypermethrin Acephate Bensulide Chlorpyrifos OA SSS-tributyl (DEF) Diazinon Diazinon OA Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Malathion OA Methidathion Metolachlor Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Phosmet Simazine MITC Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Carbon Disulfide cis-1,3-Dichloropropene t-1,3-Dichloropropene

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 52 52 25 52 52 52

0 5 1 0 27 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 5 0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 1 1 1
0% 10% 2% 0% 52% 23% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 40% 31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 6% 0% 10% 0% 2% 2% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 10% 0% 2% 2% 2%
Total 2000 107 15 5% 1% *Includes both quantified and trace detections **On March 21, 2012, DPR cancelled the sale of all products containing methyl iodide at the request of the registrant. Methyl iodide monitoring was stopped on 6/20/2012.
11
DRAFT July 2013

Table 6. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Shafter, California.
Pesticide
EPTC DDVP Trifluralin Chlorothalonil Dacthal Chlorpyrifos pp-Dicofol Malathion Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Oxyfluorfen Propargite Iprodione Permethrin Cypermethrin Acephate Bensulide Chlorpyrifos OA SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate (DEF) Diazinon Diazinon OA Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Malathion OA Methidathion Metolachlor Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Phosmet Simazine MITC Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Carbon Disulfide cis-1,3-Dichloropropene t-1,3-Dichloropropene

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 25 52 52 52

2 0 3 12 0 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 25 0 2 4 0 2 6 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 29 0 2 0 0 3 3

2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 2 0 0 3 3
4% 0% 6% 23% 0% 48% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 48% 0% 4% 8% 0% 4% 12% 10% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 12% 56% 0% 4% 0% 0% 6% 6%

4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 56% 0% 4% 0% 0% 6% 6%
12
DRAFT July 2013

Table 7. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Ripon, California.
Pesticide
EPTC DDVP Trifluralin Chlorothalonil Dacthal Chlorpyrifos pp-Dicofol Malathion Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Oxyfluorfen Propargite Iprodione Permethrin Cypermethrin Acephate Bensulide Chlorpyrifos OA SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate (DEF) Diazinon Diazinon OA Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Malathion OA Methidathion Metolachlor Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Phosmet Simazine MITC Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Carbon Disulfide cis-1,3-Dichloropropene t-1,3-Dichloropropene

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 25 52 52 52

0 1 12 11 0 7 0 0 1 0 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 12 0 4 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 0
0% 2% 23% 21% 0% 13% 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 13% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 10% 23% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%
13
DRAFT July 2013

Table 8 lists the total number of detections of the monitored chemicals segregated by the sampling location. All three sites show similar detection percentages for the monitored chemicals ranging from 4.5% to 6.7% of all collected samples. These detections included both quantifiable (above LOQ) and trace detections (above MDL but below LOQ). Shafter had the highest percentage of samples with detections at 6.7%, it also contained the highest percent of quantifiable samples at 2.4%. A total of 156 sample sets were taken from all three sampling locations (52 sample sets from each sampling location), 137 (87.8%) sample sets contained at least one detection. Percentage of sample sets with at least one detection ranged from 78.8% to 94.2% depending on sampling location. Table 8. Detections of monitored chemicals by location.
Location Salinas Shafter Ripon Number of possible detections 2000 2001 2001 Total number of detections* 107 134 90 Number of quantified detections 15 48 18 Percent of detections 5.4 6.7 4.5 5.5 Percent of quantifiable detections 0.8 2.4 0.9 1.3 Number of sampling sets 52 52 52 156 Number of sets with at least one detection 47 49 41 137 Percent of sample sets with at least one detection 90.4 94.2 78.8 87.8
Total 6002 331 81 *Includes quantified detections and trace detections
Table 9 presents the highest 1-day concentration at any site for each pesticide monitored. None of the pesticides monitored exceeded their screening level. Chlorpyrifos was the highest pesticide relative to 3 its screening level with a maximum concentration of 130.9 ng/m or 10.9% of its acute screening level. Diazinon OA was the next highest pesticide relative to its screening level with a concentration of 10.1 3 ng/m or 7.7% of its acute screening level. Figures 2a-c and 3 illustrate the highest one-day concentrations detections in all three sampling sites for selected pesticides due to pesticidal use.
14
DRAFT July 2013

Table 9. Highest one-day concentration for chemicals monitored. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide
Acephate Bensulide Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Cypermethrin Dacthal DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA 1,3-Dichloropropene pp-Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion OA Methidathion Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Metolachlor MITC Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributyl (DEF)
Highest 1-day concentration (ng/m3)

Trace (5.2) Not Detected (0.7) 616.3 Not Detected (111) Trace (18.4) 130.9 17.4 Not Detected (2.3) Trace (16.3) 68.8 Trace (5.2) 10.1 3,643 Not Detected (1.1) Not Detected (1.2) Trace (5.6) 31.8 Trace (13.2) Not Detected (2.3) 18.1 Trace (12.1) Trace (12.6) 10.7 Not Detected (0.7) 2,667 Not Detected (168.5)** Not Detected (1.4) 346.6 Not Detected (1.9) Trace (12.2) Not Detected (1.2) Trace (14.7) Not Detected (3.6) Not Detected (4.0) Trace (13.5) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (0.9)**
1-day acute screening level* (ng/m3)

12,000 259,000 1,550,000 491,000 34,000 1,200 1,200 113,000 23,500 11,000 130 130 160,000 68,000 4,300 4,300 170,000 3,300 3,300 230,000 939,000 112,500 112,500 3,100 820,000 185,770 85,000 66,000 170,000 420,000 39,200 510,000 168,000 77,000 14,000 110,000 8,800
% of screening level
0.043% 0.000% 0.040% 0.023% 0.054% 10.911% 1.447% 0.002% 0.069% 0.625% 4.000% 7.747% 2.277% 0.002% 0.028% 0.131% 0.019% 0.399% 0.070% 0.008% 0.001% 0.011% 0.009% 0.023% 0.325% 0.091% 0.002% 0.525% 0.001% 0.003% 0.003% 0.003% 0.002% 0.005% 0.096% 0.005%
0.010% Trace (12.4) Trifluralin 1,200,000 0.001% * DPR regulatory target level for 1-day or shorter exposure. **The laboratory reported SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate and methyl iodide in one sample each. Due to the lack of pesticide applications in the surrounding area DPR has designated these samples as false positives.
15
DRAFT July 2013

Figure 2a. Highest one-day (acute) concentrations detected in all three sampling locations.
Figure 2b. Highest one-day (acute) concentrations detected in all three sampling locations (continued).
16
DRAFT July 2013
Figure 2c. Highest one-day (acute) concentrations detected in all three sampling locations (continued).
17
DRAFT July 2013
Figure 3. Highest one-day (acute) concentrations detected for the aggregate of cis- and trans-1,3dichloropropene in all three sampling locations.
Table 10 shows the highest 4-week average concentrations. The pesticide with the highest subchronic exposure was MITC, with a maximum 4-week concentration equivalent to 5.9% of its screening level. Methyl bromide and chlorpyrifos were the next highest, with maximum 4-week concentrations equivalent to 5.8% and 5.4% of their screening levels, respectively. Methyl bromide also had the 3 highest absolute 4-week concentration of 1,119 ng/m . Figures 4a-c present the highest 4-week concentrations measured in any sample for each of the pesticides with a quantifiable detection that was from pesticidal use, compared with the subchronic screening level for the pesticide. Figure 5 presents the rolling 4-week concentrations measured for the sum of cis-1,3-dichloropropene and trans-
18
DRAFT July 2013

1,3- dichloropropene from all three sampling locations. The 4-week concentrations were calculated using one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for samples with trace (unquantifiable) concentrations. Table 10. The highest of rolling 4-week air concentrations, subchronic screening levels, and % of the subchronic screening level. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide
Acephate Bensulide Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Cypermethrin Dacthal DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA 1,3-Dichloropropene pp-Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion OA Methidathion Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Metolachlor MITC Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate (DEF) Trifluralin * DPR regulatory target level for 4-week exposure.
Highest 4-wk rolling concentration (ng/m3)

1.7 0.7 270.7 111.0 18.4 46.3 13.1 2.3 16.3 18.4 2.9 5.6 1135.4 1.1 1.2 3.3 19.6 4.5 2.3 7.1 3.4 12.6 5.3 0.7 1118.8 168.5 1.4 176.6 1.9 6.5 1.2 9.0 3.6 4.0 10.6 2.9 2.0 12.4
Subchronic Screening Level (ng/m3)

8,500 24,000 800,000 2,300 34,000 850 850 81,000 470 2,200 130 130 120,000 49,000 3,000 3,000 17,000 3,300 3,300 24,000 286,000 80,600 80,600 3,100 19,400 261,240 15,000 3,000 26,000 230,000 610 180,000 90,000 26,000 14,000 31,000 8,800 170,000
0.020% 0.003% 0.034% 4.826% 0.054% 5.446% 1.542% 0.003% 3.457% 0.837% 2.235% 4.325% 0.946% 0.002% 0.039% 0.110% 0.116% 0.137% 0.070% 0.029% 0.001% 0.016% 0.007% 0.023% 5.767% 0.065% 0.009% 5.886% 0.007% 0.003% 0.189% 0.005% 0.004% 0.015% 0.075% 0.009% 0.023% 0.007%
19
DRAFT July 2013

Figure 4a. Rolling 4-week average (subchronic) concentrations detected for the three monitoring locations. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.).
Figure 4b. Rolling 4-week average (subchronic) concentrations detected for the three monitoring locations. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.) (continued).
20
DRAFT July 2013
Figure 4c. Rolling 4-week average (subchronic) concentrations detected for the three monitoring locations. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.) (continued).
21
DRAFT July 2013
Figure 5. Rolling 4-week average (subchronic) concentrations detected for the aggregate of cis- and trans-1,3-dichloropropene in all three sampling locations.
Table 11 shows the overall average concentrations for all samples collected from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Average concentrations were calculated using one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for samples with trace (unquantifiable) concentrations. No pesticide average concentrations exceeded the screening levels for the chronic exposure period. The pesticide with the highest chronic exposures was Dacthal, with 3 concentration of 6.7 ng/m or 17% of its chronic screening level, followed by Methyl bromide with an
22
DRAFT July 2013

overall concentration of 306 ng/m or 7.8% of its screening level. The highest overall average 3 concentration measured for pesticide was 371 ng/m for 1,3-Dichloropropene. The second highest 3 overall concentration measured was 306 ng/m for methyl bromide. Table 11. The average concentration for all chemicals from samples collected from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide
Acephate Bensulide Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Cypermethrin Dacthal DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA 1,3-Dichloropropene pp-Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion OA Methidathion Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Metolachlor MITC Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributyltriphosphorotrithioate (DEF) Trifluralin
3
Overall average concentration (ng/m3)

0.5 0.7 158.5 111.0 8.6 6.7 2.9 2.3 6.7 2.4 0.7 1.2 370.6 1.1 1.2 1.0 3.8 1.7 2.3 1.0 0.8 1.7 1.5 0.7 305.6 168.5 1.4 24.6 1.9 1.0 1.2 3.4 3.6 4.0 2.4 1.0 0.9 2.0
Chronic screening level (ng/m3)

8,500 24,000 800,000 1,800 34,000 510 510 27,000 47 770 130 130 120,000 20,000 300 300 5,700 330 330 8,500 286,000 8,100 8,100 2,500 3,900 87,080 15,000 300 26,000 232,000 610 51,000 90,000 18,000 14,000 31,000 NA - Seasonal 41,000
0.006% 0.003% 0.020% 6.167% 0.025% 1.321% 0.569% 0.009% 14.253% 0.314% 0.561% 0.936% 0.309% 0.005% 0.385% 0.343% 0.067% 0.513% 0.702% 0.012% 0.000% 0.021% 0.018% 0.029% 7.836% 0.194% 0.009% 8.189% 0.007% 0.000% 0.189% 0.007% 0.004% 0.022% 0.017% 0.003% NA 0.005%
23
DRAFT July 2013
Table 12 summarizes the magnitude of the air concentrations relative to the screening levels for the 11 pesticides and breakdown products that had quantifiable concentrations in at least one sample. None of the pesticides exceeded its screening level for any of the exposure periods. Chlorpyrifos (plus its OA) had the highest acute risk, with a maximum 1-day concentration that was 12.1% of its acute screening level. Chlorpyrifos (plus its OA) also had the highest subchronic risk, with a maximum 4week concentration that was 6.4% of its subchronic screening level. MITC had the highest chronic risk, with a 1-year concentration that was 8.2% of its screening level. Table 12. Overall air concentrations relative to the screening levels for chemicals with quantifiable concentrations. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide
1,3-Dichloropropene Carbon Disulfide Chlorpyrifos + OA DDVP Diazinon OA Diuron EPTC Malathion OA Methyl Bromide MITC
% of acute screening level

2.28% 0.04% 12.36% 0.63% 7.75% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.33% 0.53%
% of subchronic screening level

0.95% 0.03% 6.99% 0.84% 4.33% 0.12% 0.03% 0.01% 5.77% 5.89%
% of chronic screening level

0.31% 0.02% 1.88% 0.31% 0.94% 0.07% 0.01% 0.02% 7.84% 8.19%
Results for Salinas

Tables 13-15 show the highest 1-day, 4-week, and overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, respectively. None of the pesticides exceeded the screening levels. Five pesticides were detected at quantifiable concentrations in Salinas: 1,3-dichloropropene, carbon disulfide, diuron, methyl bromide, and MITC. Nine additional pesticides (or breakdown products) were detected at trace levels only. Twenty-four pesticides (or breakdown products) were not detected. All pesticides detected at quantifiable concentrations were fumigants with the exception of diuron. 1,33 dichloropropene had the highest 1-day concentration of 3,430 ng/m or 2% of its screening level. Methyl bromide had the highest 4-week average concentration relative to its screening level (6% of its 3 screening level, 1,098 ng/m ). Although Dacthal was only detected at trace levels in Salinas, it was the pesticide with the highest overall average concentration relative to its screening level with a value of 3 3 23% (11 ng/m ), this discrepancy is mainly due to a relatively low chronic screening level of 47 ng/m skewing the percent of screening level calculation. Cumulative exposure to organophosphate is discussed in a later section.
24
DRAFT July 2013

Table 13. Highest 1-day concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, California. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide
Acephate Bensulide Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Cypermethrin Dacthal DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA 1,3-Dichloropropene pp-Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion OA Methidathion Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Metolachlor MITC Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributyl...(DEF) Trifluralin

Not Detected (0.5) Not Detected (0.7) 616.3 Not Detected (111) Not Detected (6.9) Trace (14.1) Trace (6.1) Not Detected (2.3) Trace (16.3) Trace (13.2) Trace (5.2) Not Detected (1.0) 3429.8 Not Detected (1.1) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (1.0) 31.8 Not Detected (1.6) Not Detected (2.3) Not Detected (0.8) Not Detected (0.5) ) Trace (12.6) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (0.7) 2526.8 Not Detected (168.5) Not Detected (1.4) 181.8 Not Detected (1.9) Not Detected (0.7) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (3.2) Not Detected (3.6) Not Detected (4.0) Not Detected (1.9) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (0.9) Trace (12.4)
1-day acute screening level (ng/m3)

12,000 259,000 1,550,000 491,000 34,000 1,200 1,200 113,000 23,500 11,000 130 130 160,000 68,000 4,300 4,300 170,000 3,300 3,300 230,000 939,000 112,500 112,500 3,100 820,000 185,770 85,000 66,000 170,000 420,000 39,200 510,000 168,000 77,000 14,000 110,000 8,800 1,200,000
0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 1.17% 0.51% 0.00% 0.07% 0.12% 4.02% 0.80% 2.14% 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.05% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.31% 0.09% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
25
DRAFT July 2013
Table 14. Highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, California. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 270.7 111.0 6.9 14.1 3.8 2.3 16.3 7.4 1.7 1.0 1082.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 19.6 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.5 12.6 5.3 0.7 1097.5 168.5 1.4 71.0 1.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 3.6 4.0 1.9 2.9 0.9 3.7

8,500 24,000 800,000 2,300 34,000 850 850 81,000 470 2,200 130 130 120,000 49,000 3,000 3,000 17,000 3,300 3,300 24,000 286,000 80,600 80,600 3,100 19,400 261,240 15,000 3,000 26,000 230,000 610 180,000 90,000 26,000 14,000 31,000 8,800 170,000
0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 4.83% 0.02% 1.66% 0.45% 0.00% 3.46% 0.34% 1.34% 0.80% 0.90% 0.00% 0.04% 0.03% 0.12% 0.05% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 5.66% 0.06% 0.01% 2.37% 0.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%
26
DRAFT July 2013

Table 15. Overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Salinas, California. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 164.4 111.0 6.9 5.2 1.8 2.3 10.7 2.7 0.7 1.0 359.7 1.1 1.2 1.0 5.4 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.5 2.6 2.1 0.7 354.5 168.5 1.4 8.1 1.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 3.6 4.0 1.9 0.8 0.9 1.1
Chronic Screening Level (ng/m3)

8,500 24,000 800,000 1,800 34,000 510 510 27,000 47 770 130 130 120,000 20,000 300 300 5,700 330 330 8,500 286,000 8,100 8,100 2,500 3,900 87,080 15,000 300 26,000 232,000 610 51,000 90,000 18,000 14,000 31,000 NA - Seasonal 41,000
0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 6.17% 0.02% 1.02% 0.36% 0.01% 22.76% 0.35% 0.51% 0.80% 0.30% 0.01% 0.39% 0.32% 0.09% 0.49% 0.70% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 9.09% 0.19% 0.01% 2.71% 0.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
27
DRAFT July 2013

Results for Shafter
Tables 16-18 show the highest 1-day, 4-week, and overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, respectively. None of the pesticides exceeded the screening levels. Eight pesticides (or breakdown products) were detected at quantifiable concentrations in Shafter: 1,3dichloropropene, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos OA, diazinon OA, EPTC, malathion OA, methyl bromide, and MITC. Ten additional pesticides (or breakdown products) were detected at trace levels. Twenty pesticides (or breakdown products) were not detected. Chlorpyrifos had the highest 1-day concentration relative to its screening level with a value of 11%. MITC had the highest 4-week and overall average concentrations relative to its screening level, 5.9% and 17% of its screening level, respectively. Cumulative exposure to organophosphates is discussed in a later section. Table 16. Highest 1-day concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, California. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

Not Detected (0.5) Not Detected (0.7) Not Detected (156) Not Detected (111) 18.4 130.9 17.4 Not Detected (2.3) Not Detected (4.7) Not Detected (1.6) Trace (5.2) 10.1 3643.0 Not Detected (1.1) Not Detected (1.2) Trace (5.6) Trace (7.2) Not Detected (1.6) Not Detected (2.3) 18.1 Trace (12.1) Trace (12.6) 10.7 Not Detected (0.7) 2134.8 Not Detected (169) Not Detected (1.4) 346.6 Not Detected (1.9) Trace (12.2) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (3.2) Not Detected (3.6) Not Detected (4.0) Not Detected (1.9) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (0.9) Trace (12.4)

12,000 259,000 1,550,000 491,000 34,000 1,200 1,200 113,000 23,500 11,000 130 130 160,000 68,000 4,300 4,300 170,000 3,300 3,300 230,000 939,000 112,500 112,500 3,100 820,000 185,770 85,000 66,000 170,000 420,000 39,200 510,000 168,000 77,000 14,000 110,000 8,800 1,200,000
0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.05% 10.91% 1.45% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 4.02% 7.75% 2.28% 0.00% 0.03% 0.13% 0.00% 0.05% 0.07% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
28
DRAFT July 2013

Table 17. Highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, California. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

1.7 0.7 155.5 111.0 18.4 46.3 13.1 2.3 4.7 1.6 2.9 5.6 1135.4 1.1 1.2 3.3 6.1 1.6 2.3 7.1 3.4 4.0 4.3 0.7 682.2 168.5 1.4 176.6 1.9 3.6 1.2 3.2 3.6 4.0 1.9 2.9 0.9 6.6

8,500 24,000 800,000 2,300 34,000 850 850 81,000 470 2,200 130 130 120,000 49,000 3,000 3,000 17,000 3,300 3,300 24,000 286,000 80,600 80,600 3,100 19,400 261,240 15,000 3,000 26,000 230,000 610 180,000 90,000 26,000 14,000 31,000 8,800 170,000
0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 4.83% 0.05% 5.45% 1.54% 0.00% 1.00% 0.07% 2.23% 4.33% 0.95% 0.00% 0.04% 0.11% 0.04% 0.05% 0.07% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% 3.52% 0.06% 0.01% 5.89% 0.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%
29
DRAFT July 2013

Table 18. Overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Shafter, California. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.6 0.7 155.5 111.0 9.5 10.9 4.4 2.3 4.7 1.6 0.8 1.5 452.7 1.1 1.2 1.1 3.1 1.6 2.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.7 247.1 168.5 1.4 51.1 1.9 0.9 1.2 3.2 3.6 4.0 1.9 1.1 0.9 1.5

8,500 24,000 800,000 1,800 34,000 510 510 27,000 47 770 130 130 120,000 20,000 300 300 5,700 330 330 8,500 286,000 8,100 8,100 2,500 3,900 87,080 15,000 300 26,000 232,000 610 51,000 90,000 18,000 14,000 31,000 NA - Seasonal 41,000
0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 6.17% 0.03% 2.15% 0.86% 0.01% 10.00% 0.21% 0.58% 1.14% 0.38% 0.01% 0.39% 0.38% 0.05% 0.49% 0.70% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% 6.34% 0.19% 0.01% 17.03% 0.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
30
DRAFT July 2013

Results for Ripon
Tables 19-21 show the highest 1-day, 4-week, and overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, respectively. None of the pesticides exceeded the screening levels. Four pesticides were detected at quantifiable concentrations in Ripon: Chlorpyrifos OA, DDVP, methyl bromide, and MITC. Thirteen additional pesticides (or breakdown products) were detected at trace levels. Twenty-one pesticides (or breakdown products) were not detected. Diazinon OA had the 3 highest 1-day concentration relative to its screening level (4.4% of its screening level, 5.7 ng/m ). Methyl bromide has the highest overall 1-day concentration in Ripon with a measured concentration of 3 2,667 ng/m . Methyl bromide had the highest 4-week average concentration relative to its screening 3 level (5.8% of its screening level, 1,119 ng/m ). Although Dacthal was only detected at trace levels in Ripon, it was the pesticide with the highest overall average concentration relative to its screening level 3 with a value of 10% (4.7 ng/m ), this discrepancy is mainly due to a relatively low chronic screening 3 level of 47 ng/m skewing the percent of screening level calculation. Methyl bromide has the highest 3 overall average concentration in Ripon with a measured concentration of 315 ng/m . Cumulative exposure to organophosphate is discussed in a later section.
31
DRAFT July 2013

Table 19. Highest 1-day concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

Not Detected (0.5) Not Detected (0.7) Not Detected (156) Not Detected (111) Trace (18.4) Trace (14.1) 13.2 Not Detected (2.3) Not Detected (4.7) 68.8 Trace (5.2) Trace (5.7) Not Detected (300) Not Detected (1.1) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (1.0) Trace (7.2) Trace (13.2) Not Detected (2.3) Not Detected (0.8) Trace (12.1) Not Detected (1.1) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (0.7) 2666.5 Not Detected (169) Not Detected (1.4) 90.1 Not Detected (1.9) Trace (12.2) Not Detected (1.2) Trace (14.7) Not Detected (3.6) Not Detected (4.0) Trace (13.5) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (0.9) Trace (12.4)

12,000 259,000 1,550,000 491,000 34,000 1,200 1,200 113,000 23,500 11,000 130 130 160,000 68,000 4,300 4,300 170,000 3,300 3,300 230,000 939,000 112,500 112,500 3,100 820,000 185,770 85,000 66,000 170,000 420,000 39,200 510,000 168,000 77,000 14,000 110,000 8,800 1,200,000
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.05% 1.17% 1.10% 0.00% 0.02% 0.63% 4.02% 4.38% 0.19% 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% 0.00% 0.40% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.10% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
32
DRAFT July 2013
Table 20. Highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, California. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 155.5 111.0 18.4 11.2 7.9 2.3 4.7 18.4 1.7 2.2 299.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 4.9 4.5 2.3 0.8 3.4 1.1 5.3 0.7 1118.8 168.5 1.4 50.4 1.9 6.5 1.2 9.0 3.6 4.0 10.6 2.9 0.9 12.4

8,500 24,000 800,000 2,300 34,000 850 850 81,000 470 2,200 130 130 120,000 49,000 3,000 3,000 17,000 3,300 3,300 24,000 286,000 80,600 80,600 3,100 19,400 261,240 15,000 3,000 26,000 230,000 610 180,000 90,000 26,000 14,000 31,000 8,800 170,000
0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 4.83% 0.05% 1.32% 0.93% 0.00% 1.00% 0.84% 1.34% 1.69% 0.25% 0.00% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.14% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% 5.77% 0.06% 0.01% 1.68% 0.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
33
DRAFT July 2013

Table 21. Overall average concentrations for pesticides monitored in Ripon, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A concentration greater than 100% of the screening level suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 155.5 111.0 9.3 4.1 2.5 2.3 4.7 2.9 0.8 1.1 299.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 3.0 1.8 2.3 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 315.2 168.5 1.4 14.2 1.9 1.4 1.2 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.5 1.0 0.9 3.5

8,500 24,000 800,000 1,800 34,000 510 510 27,000 47 770 130 130 120,000 20,000 300 300 5,700 330 330 8,500 286,000 8,100 8,100 2,500 3,900 87,080 15,000 300 26,000 232,000 610 51,000 90,000 18,000 14,000 31,000 NA - Seasonal 41,000
0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 6.17% 0.03% 0.80% 0.49% 0.01% 10.00% 0.38% 0.58% 0.87% 0.25% 0.01% 0.39% 0.32% 0.05% 0.56% 0.70% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 8.08% 0.19% 0.01% 4.72% 0.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01%
34
DRAFT July 2013

Cumulative Exposure Estimates
Cumulative exposures were only calculated for organophosphate pesticides. These were the only pesticides that have a common mode of action and were detected at quantifiable concentrations. While organophosphates can have additional potential health effects, they all inhibit cholinesterase, an enzyme in the nervous system. Although EPTC, an N-methyl carbamate herbicide, inhibits cholinesterase, it has a different mechanism of toxicity and toxicity profile than the organophosphate insecticides; therefore, it would not be appropriate to group it with the organophosphates in a cumulative exposure calculation. As described in the Materials and Methods section, the cumulative exposure was estimated using a hazard quotient and hazard index approach that relies on the ratio between detected air concentration and the screening level. The organophosphate cumulative exposures were estimated for each community and exposure period. As shown in Table 22, none of the hazard indices exceeded one, indicating that the screening levels were not exceeded for all organophosphates combined. Shafter had a higher hazard index than Salinas and Ripon for all exposure periods. The acute hazard indices were higher for all three communities, in comparison to the subchronic and chronic hazard indices. Table 22. Summary of organophosphate cumulative exposure. A hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Community Salinas Shafter Ripon Acute hazard index 0.067 0.244 0.114 Subchronic hazard index 0.049 0.109 0.064 Chronic hazard index 0.037 0.058 0.037
As shown in Tables 23 - 31, Shafter and Ripon were the only locations with any quantifiable concentrations of organophosphates detected. A total of 4 organophosphates were detected at quantifiable concentration in Shafter (Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos OA, Diazinon OA, and Malathion OA) and 3 organophosphates were detected at quantifiable concentration in Ripon (Chlorpyrifos OA, DDVP, and Diazinon OA). All three communities had trace levels for several organophosphates. Nine of the 14 organophosphates or OAs were detected in at least one sample; Acephate, Bensulide, Dimethoate, Oxydemeton-methyl, and Phosmet were not detected. Diazinon and chlorpyrifos (plus their OAs) accounted for most of the organophosphate cumulative exposure for all exposure periods. These two pesticides accounted for 73.0% 99.0% of the organophosphate cumulative exposure, depending on the community and exposure period. Table 23. Highest one-day concentration of organophosphates monitored in Salinas, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide
Acephate Bensulide Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Malathion Malathion OA Oxydemeton methyl Phosmet SSS-tributyl...(DEF) Hazard Index
Highest 1-day adjusted concentration (ng/m3)

Not Detected (0.5) Not Detected (0.7) Trace (14.1) Trace (6.1) Trace (13.2) Trace (5.2) Not Detected (1.0) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (1.0) Trace (12.6) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (4.0) Not Detected (0.9)
24-Hour acute Screening Level (ng/m3)

12,000 259,000 1,200 1,200 11,000 130 130 4,300 4,300 112,500 112,500 39,200 77,000 8,800
Acute Hazard quotient

0.000043 0.000003 0.011729 0.005092 0.001197 0.040231 0.008000 0.000269 0.000226 0.000112 0.000047 0.000029 0.000052 0.000100 0.067129
35
DRAFT July 2013

Table 24. Highest 4-week rolling concentration of organophosphates monitored in Salinas, California. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 14.1 3.8 7.4 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.0 12.6 5.3 1.2 4.0 0.9

8,500 24,000 850 850 2,200 130 130 3,000 3,000 80,600 80,600 610 18,000 8,800
Subchronic Hazard quotient

0.000060 0.000029 0.016559 0.004453 0.003361 0.013404 0.008000 0.000385 0.000323 0.000157 0.000066 0.001893 0.000221 0.000100 0.049011
Table 25. Overall average concentration of organophosphates monitored in Salinas, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 5.2 1.8 2.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.6 2.1 1.2 4.0 0.9

8,500 24,000 510 510 27,000 130 130 300 300 8,100 8,100 610 18,000 NA - Seasonal
Chronic Hazard quotient

0.000060 0.000029 0.010177 0.003564 0.000101 0.005149 0.008000 0.003850 0.003233 0.000327 0.000257 0.001893 0.000221 NA 0.036862
36
DRAFT July 2013

Table 26. Highest one-day concentration of organophosphates monitored in Shafter, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

Not Detected (0.5) Not Detected (0.7) 130.9 17.4 Not Detected (1.6) Trace (5.2) 10.1 Not Detected (1.2) Trace (5.6) Trace (12.6) 10.7 Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (4.0) Not Detected (0.9)

12,000 259,000 1,200 1,200 11,000 130 130 4,300 4,300 112,500 112,500 39,200 77,000 8,800

0.000430 0.000003 0.109108 0.014468 0.000147 0.040231 0.077469 0.000269 0.001307 0.000112 0.000095 0.000029 0.000052 0.000100 0.243819
Table 27. Highest 4-week rolling concentration of organophosphates monitored in Shafter, California. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

1.7 0.7 46.3 13.1 1.6 2.9 5.6 1.2 3.3 4.0 4.3 1.2 4.0 0.9

8,500 24,000 850 850 2,200 130 3,000 3,000 300 80,600 80,600 610 18,000 8,800

0.000197 0.000029 0.054462 0.015419 0.000736 0.022346 0.001874 0.000385 0.010983 0.000049 0.000054 0.001893 0.000221 0.000100 0.108750
37
DRAFT July 2013

Table 28. Overall average concentration of organophosphates monitored in Shafter, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.6 0.7 10.9 4.4 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 4.0 0.9

8,500 24,000 510 510 27,000 130 130 300 300 8,100 8,100 610 18,000 NA - Seasonal

0.000071 0.000029 0.021468 0.008625 0.000060 0.005837 0.011400 0.003850 0.003829 0.000162 0.000148 0.001893 0.000221 NA 0.057594
Table 29. Highest one-day concentration of organophosphates monitored in Ripon, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

Not Detected (0.5) Not Detected (0.7) Trace (14.1) 13.2 68.8 Trace (5.2) 5.7 Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (1.0) Not Detected (1.1) Trace (5.3) Not Detected (1.2) Not Detected (4.0) Not Detected (0.9)

12,000 259,000 1,200 1,200 11,000 130 130 4,300 4,300 112,500 112,500 39,200 77,000 8,800

0.000043 0.000003 0.011729 0.010986 0.006253 0.040231 0.043769 0.000269 0.000226 0.000010 0.000047 0.000029 0.000052 0.000102 0.113648
38
DRAFT July 2013

Table 30. Highest 4-week rolling concentration of organophosphates monitored in Ripon, California. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1,2,3, and 4; average of weeks 2,3,4, and 5, etc.). Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 11.2 7.9 18.4 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 5.3 1.2 4.0 0.9

8,500 24,000 850 850 2,200 130 130 3,000 3,000 80,600 80,600 610 18,000 8,800

0.000060 0.000029 0.013162 0.009268 0.008368 0.013404 0.016942 0.000385 0.000323 0.000014 0.000066 0.001893 0.000221 0.000102 0.064238
Table 31. Overall average concentration of organophosphates monitored in Ripon, California. Number in parentheses is one-half the MDL for samples with no detectable amount, and a value halfway between the MDL and the LOQ for trace samples. A hazard quotient or hazard index greater than one suggests the need for further evaluation.
Pesticide

0.5 0.7 4.1 2.5 2.9 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 4.0 0.9

8,500 24,000 510 510 27,000 130 130 300 300 8,100 8,100 610 18,000 NA - Seasonal

0.000060 0.000029 0.008000 0.004883 0.000108 0.005837 0.008688 0.003850 0.003233 0.000135 0.000135 0.001893 0.000221 NA 0.037072
39
DRAFT July 2013

Cancer Risk Estimates
Only one of the chemicals measured at a quantifiable concentration is considered a human carcinogen. 1,3-D is classified as a probable human carcinogen by U.S.EPA and is listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. The risk of cancer from exposure to a chemical is determined from the cancer potency of the chemical and the human exposure to the chemical. Cancer potency is -1 expressed in the units of (mg/kg-day) . Cancer risk is expressed as a probability for the occurrence of -6 -5 cancer (e.g., 1 in 1,000,000 or 10 , 1 in 100,000 or 10 , etc). It is a standard default assumption that exposure to a carcinogen takes place over a lifetime, so the default respiratory rate for an adult is used 3 -1 (0.28 m /kg/day) over 70 years. DPR has calculated a cancer potency of 0.055 (mg/kg-day) . The risk is then calculated as (cancer potency) X (chronic air concentration) X (respiratory rate). The yearly concentration is calculated as an average of the monthly averages of the measured concentrations over the year of sampling. Since most of the samples resulted in non-detectable concentrations, the method of handling the non-detectable concentrations can have a large effect on the estimated cancer risk. Because the detection limit for 1,3-dichloropropene has such a significant effect on the cancer risk estimates, three different estimates were calculated (Table 32). In addition to uncertainty in the data, the estimate assumes that the chronic exposure occurs every single day for a lifetime (70 years). However, this assumption is consistent with standard risk assessment procedures. As described in the next section, the cancer risk estimates for 1,3-D were calculated by treating samples with no detectable concentrations as having concentrations of 0 (Minimum), 1/2MDL (Standard), or MDL (Maximum): Table 32. Minimum, standard, and maximum cancer risk estimates for 1,3-D.
Sampling Location Salinas Ripon Shafter Minimum (ND = 0*MDL) 0.073 in 100,000 0.34 in 100,000 Standard (ND = 1/2 MDL) 0.53 in 100,000 0.77 in 100,000 No quantifiable detections Maximum (ND = MDL) 0.98 in 100,000 1.19 in 100,000
The method of calculation determines whether the risk is considered negligible or above that. Risk in -5 -6 the range of 1 in 100,000 (10 ) to 1 in 1,000,000 (10 ) or less is generally considered to be at the limit -5 of what is considered to be negligible. DPR has set a cancer risk regulatory goal of 1 in 100,000 (10 ) for 1,3-D. All cancer risk estimates calculated by utilizing either 0, 1/2 MDL or the MDL provide cancer risk estimates which are almost all lower than DPRs regulatory goal.
Uncertainty of Air Concentrations - Treatment of ND and Trace Samples

To determine the impact of DPRs practice of substituting a value of one-half of the Method Detection Limit (MDL) for samples with no detectable amount and substituting the midpoint between the MDL and the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) for trace samples, various highest 4-week rolling average concentrations and overall average concentrations were calculated for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration using two alternative methods of treating samples with no detectable and trace concentrations. Table 33 shows various highest 4-week rolling average concentrations and overall average concentrations determined by using a minimum, a standard, and a maximum 3 method. Minimum average concentrations are calculated using a value of 0 ng/m for samples with no detectable amount and by using the Method Detection Limit (MDL) for trace samples. Standard average concentrations are calculated by using a value of one-half of the MDL for samples with no detectable amount and substituting the midpoint between the MDL and the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) for trace samples. Maximum average concentrations were calculated using the MDL for samples with no detectable amount and substituting the LOQ for all trace detections.
40
DRAFT July 2013

The difference between maximum and minimum values for 4-week rolling averages varied from 0% to 151% depending on the pesticide in question, while the difference in the overall average concentrations contained more variance for some pesticides ranging from 18% to 7,725%. Overall compared to the screening level, employing the DPRs standard method versus a minimum or maximum alternative method does not change the fact that the concentrations observed are greatly below the screening levels for all pesticides monitored and thus the standard method provides more of an accurate midpoint representation of the actual environmental concentrations for the target pesticides. Table 33. Minimum, standard, and maximum highest 4-week rolling average concentrations and overall average concentrations for pesticides with at least one quantifiable detection.
Pesticide Minimum Highest 4-wk rolling concentration 3 (ng/m ) Standard Highest 4-wk rolling concentration 3 (ng/m ) Maximum Highest 4-wk rolling concentration 3 (ng/m ) Percent Difference between maximum and minimum Minimum overall average concentration 3 (ng/m ) Standard overall average concentration 3 (ng/m ) Maximum overall average 3 (ng/m ) Percent Difference between maximum and minimum
1,3-D Carbon Disulfide Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA DDVP Diazinon OA Diuron EPTC Malathion OA Methyl Bromide MITC
911 154 42 12 17 4 20 7 5 1020 177
1135 271 46 13 18 6 20 7 5 1119 177
1360 387 51 14 20 8 20 8 5 1218 177
49% 151% 22% 13% 14% 114% 0% 12% 0% 19% 0%
79 4 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 122 23
371 159 7 3 2 1 4 1 2 306 25
663 313 11 5 4 2 6 2 2 490 27
741% 7,725% 319% 327% 344% 2,200% 228% 800% 122% 303% 18%
AIR MONITORING NETWORK TREND ANALYSIS

This is the 2 volume of AMN result data. Volume 1 of the AMN included results from February 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Of the 34 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR in 2011, 29 were detected in at least one sample. All concentrations were low relative to the screening levels, with the exception of the results for acrolein resulting from non-pesticidal sources. Overall, 92.5 % of the 5,676 analyses (number of samples times the number of chemicals analyzed) resulted in no detectable concentrations. Only 7.5% of the analyses had detectable (trace or quantifiable) concentrations, and 3% of the analyses had quantifiable concentrations. None of the pesticides (except acrolein) exceeded their screening levels for exposure periods of one year or less, indicating low health risk to the people in these communities. Seven of the nine pesticides (plus two breakdown products) detected at quantifiable concentrations in the AMN were either fumigants (1,3dichloropropene, chloropicrin, methyl bromide, MITC) or organophosphate insecticides (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion). Of the 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR in 2012, 24 were detected in at least one sample. All concentrations were low relative to the screening levels. A total of 6,002 analyses were conducted on the air samples collected from all three sampling locations from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Of the 6,002 analyses, 331 (5.5%) showed detectable concentrations, which included quantifiable and trace detections. Samples with quantifiable concentrations accounted for 1.3% (81) of all analyses conducted. Quantifiable detections refer to concentrations above the LOQ for their respective pesticide. Fourteen of the 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR were not detected.
nd
41
DRAFT July 2013
Table 34 shows the highest 24-hour concentrations from all three AMN sampling locations from both 2011 and 2012. Concentrations measured in 2012 were relatively lower than the concentrations measured in 2011 for most pesticides monitored with the exception of Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos OA, and Carbon Disulfide both of which were not detected in 2011 but had quantifiable concentrations in 2012. Table 34. Comparison of the highest 24-hour concentrations for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in either 2011 or 2012 for all three AMN sampling locations. (Number in parentheses refer
to the percentage of samples with quantifiable or trace detections). Highest 24-hour concentration (ng/m3) Chemical 2011 2012 Salinas Shafter Ripon Salinas Shafter
1,3-Dicholopropene Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA Diuron EPTC Malathion Malathion OA Methyl bromide 10,072 (6%) ND 3,926 (%) Trace (23%) Trace (11%) Trace (6%) Trace (23%) Trace (17%) Trace (4%) ND 13 (9%) Trace (30%) 6,055 (19%) ND ND ND 27 (53%) 9 (45%) Trace (2%) 60 (11%) 36 (4%) Trace (6%) 187 (17%) ND Trace (6.4%) 2,934 (9%) 12,250 (4%) ND ND Trace (19%) Trace (25%) ND Trace (4%) Trace (2%) ND ND Trace (2%) Trace (13%) 2,934 (20%) 3,430 (2%) 616 (2%) ND Trace (23%) Trace (8%) Trace (10%) Trace (2%) ND 32 (40%) ND Trace (13%) Trace (31%) 2,527 (10%) 182 (6%) 3,643 (6%) ND ND 131 (48%) 17 (48%) ND Trace (4%) 10 (8%) Trace (12%) 18 (4%) Trace (2%) 11 (10%) 2,135 (4%) 347 (56%)
Ripon
ND ND ND Trace (13%) 13 (19%) 69 (2%) Trace (4%) Trace (2%) Trace (10%) ND ND Trace (10%) 2,667 (4%) 90 (23%)
MITC 51 (10%) 930 (40%) 308 (42%) Values in parentheses refer to the percentage of samples with detections. ND = Not Detected.
Table 35 shows the highest 4-week rolling concentrations from all three AMN sampling locations from both 2011 and 2012. Concentrations are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4; average of weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5, etc.). Although, most concentrations measured in 2012 were relatively lower than the concentrations measured in 2011 for most pesticides monitored, the highest 4-week rolling concentrations for Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos OA, DDVP, and Diuron all were higher in 2012 compared to the 4-week rolling concentrations from 2011.
42
DRAFT July 2013

Table 35. Comparison of the highest 4-week rolling concentrations for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in either 2011 or 2012 for all three AMN sampling locations. Concentrations
are presented as rolling or moving averages (i.e., average of weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4; average of weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5, etc.). Highest 4-week rolling concentration (ng/m3) 2011 2012 Shafter Ripon Salinas Shafter
ND ND ND 11 5 Trace 17 10 Trace 75 ND Trace 1,403 564 4,022 ND ND Trace Trace ND Trace Trace ND ND Trace Trace 1,659 144 1,082 271 ND Trace Trace Trace Trace ND 20 ND Trace Trace 1,098 71 1,135 ND ND 46 13 ND Trace 6 6 7 Trace 4 683 177
Chemical Salinas
1,3-Dicholopropene Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA Diuron EPTC Malathion Malathion OA Methyl bromide MITC ND = Not Detected. 2,743 ND 1,809 Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace Trace ND 6 Trace 4,124 15
Ripon
ND ND ND Trace 8 18 Trace Trace 5 ND ND Trace 1,119 50
As listed on Table 36, the overall average concentrations from the pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in 2012 were generally lower than the average concentrations from 2011. Salinas seem to have slightly higher pesticide concentrations in 2012 as those compared to 2011 for a few pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in 2012 (e.g., carbon disulfide, DDVP, Diuron, Malathion, and MITC). Table 36. Comparison of the overall average concentrations for pesticides with at least one detectable concentration in either 2011 or 2012 for all three AMN sampling locations.
Overall average concentration (ng/m3) Chemical Salinas
1,3-Dicholopropene Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA Diuron EPTC Malathion Malathion OA Methyl bromide MITC ND = Not Detected. 760 ND 325 5 2 2 2 2 3 ND 2 2 1,020 6
2011 Shafter
ND ND ND 7 2 2 2 2 3 8 ND 1 425 73
Ripon
851 ND ND 5 3 ND 1 1 ND ND 1 1 656 34
Salinas
360 270 ND 5 2 3 1 ND 5 ND 3 2 355 8
2012 Shafter
453 ND ND 11 4 ND 1 2 3 1 1 1 247 51
Ripon
ND ND ND 4 3 3 1 1 3 ND ND 1 315 14
43
DRAFT July 2013

Comparison to Other Monitoring
The ARB, in support of DPRs toxic air contaminant monitoring program, monitors ambient air for a variety of pesticides. The ARB monitors air concentrations of a pesticide in counties with the highest reported use for that particular pesticide and during the season of its highest reported use. The ambient air sampling conducted under this program includes results for 15 of the pesticides in the AMN: 1,3-dichloropropene, chlorpyrifos, chlorothalonil, diazinon, endosulfan, EPTC, malathion, MITC, methyl bromide, permethrin, propargite, simazine and S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate (DEF). Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) monitored for chlorpyrifos and its oxon analog in Lindsay (Tulare County) as part of its Drift Catcher program (Mills and Kegley, 2006). The program collected 104 24-hour samples between July 13 and August 2, 2004, and 108 samples between June 13 and July 22, 2005. In 2004, 76 percent of the samples were above the quantitation limit of 30 3 ng/sample (equivalent to 6 ng/m for a 24-hour sample). The highest concentration measured was 3 1,340 ng/m for a 24-hour period (Table 37). Concentrations measured at all three AMN locations in 2012 were much lower than concentrations measured in other parts of the state by ARB, PANNA, or all three AMN locations in 2011. Chlorothalonil, Endosulfan, and DEF were the only chemicals that had a higher maximum 24-hour concentration in an AMN sampling location in 2012 than those measured in Parlier or in an AMN sampling location in 2011 (Table 37). Table 37. Highest 24-hour concentrations of the pesticides monitored in Salinas, Shafter, and Ripon from 2011 and 2012 compared to previous DPR/ARB and PANNA monitoring studies in California.
2011 Other Studies Chemical 1,3-Dichloropropene Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Diazinon Endosulfan EPTC Malathion Malathion OA Methyl bromide MITC Permethrin Propargite Simazine S,S,S-tributyl(DEF)
*
2012 Ripon Salinas Shafter Ripon
Parlier
Salinas
Shafter
Year 2000 2002 2004 1996 1997 1996 1996 1998 1998 2001 1993 1997 1999 1998 1987
County Kern Fresno Tulare Tulare Fresno Fresno Imperial Imperial Imperial Santa Cruz Kern Monterey Fresno Fresno Fresno
Max. 24-hr conc. (ng/m3) 135,000 14 1,340 230 290 166 240 90 28 142,000 18,000 Trace 1300 18 330
Max. 24-hr Max. 24-hr Max. 24-hr Max. 24-hr conc. conc. conc. conc. (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3) 23,080 Trace 150 28 172 ND ND 21 16 2,468 5,010 Trace Trace Trace ND 10,072 ND Trace Trace Trace ND ND 13 Trace 6,055 51 ND ND Trace ND ND Trace 27 9.2 60 ND 187 ND Trace 2,934 930 Trace Trace Trace ND 12,249 Trace Trace Trace Trace ND ND Trace Trace 2,934 308 Trace Trace Trace ND
Max. 24-hr Max. 24-hr Max. 24-hr conc. conc. conc. (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3) 3,430 ND Trace Trace Trace ND ND Trace Trace 2,527 182 ND ND Trace ND 3,643 18 131 17 Trace ND 18 Trace 11 2,135 347 ND ND Trace ND ND Trace Trace 13 Trace Trace ND ND Trace 2,667 90 ND Trace Trace Trace
ND = Not Detected.
44
DRAFT July 2013

DATA VALIDATION/QUALITY ASSURANCE Data Review Before any statistical or other evaluation of the data, the entire set of sample chains of custody and laboratory quality assurance data were reviewed to determine the strength of the data for final assessment. The sample chains of custody were checked for any notations of flow faults or stoppage in sample collection, or any changes greater than 20 percent in the flow over the sampling interval. A grand total of one air sample was invalid: an MITC air sample taken from the Salinas sampling location collected rain water inside of the sampling media tube thus making the MITC sample invalid. The invalid MITC sample was not replaced and was not included in any of the average calculations. Quality Control Results Laboratory matrix spikes and matrix blanks were included with every set of samples extracted and analyzed at the lab and are part of the laboratory quality control (QC) program. The matrix spikes are conducted to assess accuracy and precision; the blanks are to check for contamination at the laboratory or contamination of the resin packed in the sorption tubes. The blank matrix materials were not fortified, but were extracted and analyzed along with the matrix spikes and field samples. Table 38 lists the averages for the quality control samples that were extracted and analyzed with the air samples for the entire monitoring period. Laboratory matrix spike recovery averages ranged from 81 percent to 101 percent for all chemicals analyzed. None of the laboratory matrix spike samples were outside the control limits established from the validation data. The matrix blind spikes were fortified by a CDFA chemist not associated with the analysis. The blind spikes were given to DPR staff, relabeled, and then intermingled and delivered with field samples. The average percent recovery results are listed on Table 38 and ranged from 42.9 to 124 percent. The trip blanks were blank matrix samples that were transported to and from the field locations, but were not placed on air pumps. These samples were a control to check for contamination during transportation. Field blanks, blind spikes and duplicate samples are part of DPRs field and laboratory QC program. A duplicate sample is a sample that is co-located with another sample in the field. These samples serve to evaluate overall precision in sample measurement and analysis. Duplicate samples (Table 39) with quantifiable concentrations had a maximum relative difference of 0 percent for the XAD multiple pesticide samples, 11.3 percent for the MITC samples, 0 percent for chloropicrin samples, and 0 percent for VOC samples, indicating proper field and laboratory procedures.
45
DRAFT July 2013

Table 37. Average results for quality control/quality assurance samples. Chemical
Acephate Bensulide Carbon Disulfide Chloropicrin Chlorothalonil Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos OA Cypermethrin Dacthal DDVP Diazinon Diazinon OA cis-1,3-Dichloropropene t-1,3-Dichloropropene Dicofol Dimethoate Dimethoate OA Diuron Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate EPTC Iprodione Malathion Malathion OA Methidathion Methyl Bromide Methyl Iodide Metolachlor MITC Norflurazon Oryzalin Oxydemeton methyl Oxyfluorfen Permethrin Phosmet Propargite Simazine SSS-tributyl (DEF) Trifluralin
Lab spikes (% recovery)

94.4 94.1 97.6 92.4 95.2 96.0 94.1 97.4 95.4 88.8 93.5 94.5 101.4 100.8 97.6 91.5 94.3 90.6 94.9 97.6 86.9 95.5 97.7 88.0 94.6 94.8 99.5 94.1 81.0 93.4 94.3 94.8 98.4 98.5 94.1 93.9 94.2 96.2 93.6
Field spikes (% recovery)

82.7 94.3 NS 81.1 90.0 NS NS 72.0 NS 75.3 74.5 NS 90.7 NS 124.0 57.7 78.3 60.1 83.4 76.7 70.2 97.0 74.4 50.8 NS 87.1 NS 88.9 71.6 78.6 56.2 NS 42.9 82.7 61.7 NS 81.3 NS NS
Lab blanks Trip blanks 3 3 (ng/m ) (ng/m )

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND = None detected; NS = Field sample not spiked with the chemical.
46
DRAFT July 2013

Table 38. Results for duplicate sample pairs.
Number of matches Primary/duplicate results Multiple chemical samples MITC samples
NDa/ND Traceb/trace ND/trace ND/>LOQ trace/>LOQ >LOQ/>LOQ Relative Differencec
a b
Chloropicrin samples
7 0 0 0 0 0 0%
VOC samples
43 0 0 0 0 0 0%
507 18 18 1 0 0 0%
8 0 0 2 0 4 11.3%
ND = None detected. trace = Pesticide detection confirmed, but less than the quantitation limit. c For pairs with both concentrations >LOQ. False Positive Samples & erroneous detections The CDFA laboratory reported some detections that are inconsistent with agricultural practices for S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate (tribufos, active ingredient in DEF and Folex) and Methyl Iodide. S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate was detected at trace levels on February 15, 2012 at the Ripon site. S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate is used solely for cotton defoliation, but no cotton is grown in the Ripon area and cotton defoliation applications occur in the fall. Methyl Iodide was detected at a concentration of 2,263 ng/m3 on June 6, 2012 at the Salinas site but on March 21, 2012, DPR cancelled the sale of all products containing methyl iodide at the request of the registrant. Therefore a th methyl iodide detection at the Salinas site on June 6 seems highly unlikely. On AMNs results for 2011 (DPR, 2013), five previous S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate detections were determined to be false positives by CDFA due to carryover in the liquid chromatograph/mass spectrometer used to analyze the samples. The carryover occurred when a field sample was analyzed immediately following a spiked quality control sample or the highest concentration reference standard, and some of the spike or standard bleeding into the next sample in the sequence. The carryover only resulted in false th positives at trace levels. DPR staff suspects that the DEF detection on February 15 is likely a false positive although CDFA staff disagrees. DPR staff also suspects that the methyl iodide detection could not have been detected in Salinas. Validation and Control Limits The MITC and the multi-pesticide analysis method in sorption tubes were validated according to the DPR SOP QAQC001.00 (DPR, 1995). The laboratory conducted validations by spiking three to five matrix blanks at three to five different spike levels, and then analyzing them. This procedure was repeated three to five times. From the validation data, DPR created control limits by multiplying the standard deviation of the data by 3 times and adding it to the mean.
47
DRAFT July 2013

DISCUSSION Overall, 94.5 % of the 6,002 analyses (number of samples times the number of chemicals analyzed) resulted in no detectable concentrations. Only 331 (5.5%) of the analyses had detectable (trace or quantifiable) concentrations, and 1.3% of the analyses had quantifiable concentrations. Quantifiable detections refer to concentrations above the LOQ for their respective pesticide. Fourteen of the 33 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products monitored by DPR were not detected. Of the 33 pesticide and 5 breakdown products included in the AMN, 26 were detected in at least one sample. However, all air concentrations were low relative to the screening levels. None of the pesticides exceeded their screening levels for any of the exposure periods, indicating low health risk to the people in these communities. Nine of the 11 pesticides (including three breakdown products) detected at quantifiable concentrations in the AMN were either fumigants (1,3-dichloropropene, carbon disulfide, methyl bromide, and MITC) or organophosphate insecticides (chlorpyrifos + OA, DDVP, diazinon OA, and malathion OA). Diuron and EPTC were the other two pesticides detected at quantifiable concentrations. The primary need for the AMN is to supplement data from the toxic air contaminant program, particularly to estimate subchronic and chronic exposure to individual as well as cumulative exposure to multiple pesticides. Organophosphates were the only pesticides that were detected at quantifiable concentrations and have a common mode of action (cholinesterase inhibition). The hazard index (combined screening level) for organophosphates was less than one for all exposure periods, indicating a low risk from cumulative exposure. Relative to the screening levels, air concentrations representing chronic exposure were less than the acute or subchronic exposures for most pesticides. While the subchronic exposure was greater than the acute exposure for several pesticides, the AMN and other community ambient air monitoring usually underestimates acute exposure. Ambient air monitoring in communities is the standard method DPR uses to estimate subchronic and chronic exposures. Application-site monitoring in the immediate vicinity of a treated field is normally used to estimate acute exposure, and these air concentrations are typically several times higher than acute exposures measured from ambient air monitoring since they are collected 100 feet or less from the application, whereas ambient samples may be collected a mile or more away. Its likely that the maximum acute exposure is higher than indicated by these data. DPR has established regional use limits (township caps) for methyl bromide to control subchronic exposure. Townships are 6 x 6 mile areas designated by the Public Lands Survey System. The township cap for methyl bromide is a monthly cap, with the goal of limiting the subchronic exposure to 3 no more than the screening level of 19,400 ng/m (5 ppb). All measured air concentrations were less than six percent of DPRs regulatory target, indicating that the methyl bromide township caps are keeping air concentrations below the health protective targets set by DPR. At DPRs request, ARB conducted additional ambient monitoring for methyl bromide in other communties during 2011. Those concentrations were also less than DPRs regulatory target (Vidrio, et al. 2012). Only 1,3-D was measured at a quantifiable concentration and is considered a probable human carcinogen. Most of the samples collected had no detectable concentrations of 1,3-D, but the estimated risk does not exceed DPRs regulatory goal for cancer risk. Higher pesticide air concentrations have been detected in other studies. This is likely due to greater amounts of pesticides applied near the monitoring sites for the other studies, as well as mitigation measures implemented since some of the studies were conducted. Ambient air monitoring for the toxic air contaminant program focuses on the highest use areas and highest use periods for individual pesticides.
48
DRAFT July 2013

REFERENCES
ATSDR, 2007. Toxicological profile for Acrolein. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Atlanta, GA. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp124-c6.pdf CDFA, 1999. Determination of chloropicrin desorbed from LAD-4 resin tubes. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/specproj/lompoc/99append/append_m.pdf CDFA, 2004. Determination of MITC in air by GC/NPD or GC/TSD. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/anl_methds/bio_282.pdf CDFA, 2008. Determination of Selected Pesticides Collected on XAD-4 Resin by High Performance Liquid Chromatography Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/anl_methds/imeth_309.pdf DPR, 1995. Standard Operating Procedure: Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sops/qaqc001.pdf DPR, 1999. Standard Operating Procedure: Transporting, Packaging and Shipping Samples from the Field to the Warehouse or Laboratory. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sops/qaqc0401.pdf DPR, 2001. Standard Operating Procedure: Instructions for Calibration and Use of SKC Inc. Personal Sample Pumps. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sops/eqai001.pdf DPR, 2004. Standard Operating Procedure: Creating and Filling out a Chain of Custody Record. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sops/admn00601.pdf DPR, 2005. Standard Operating Procedure: Sample Tracking Procedures. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/sops/QAQC003.02.pdf DPR, 2013. Air Monitoring Network Results for 2011: Volume 1. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/airinit/amn_vol1_final.pdf Mills, K. and S. Kegley. 2006. Air Monitoring for Chlorpyrifos in Lindsay, California June-July 2004 and JulyAugust 2005. Pesticide Action Network North America. July 14, 2006. http://www.panna.org/index.php?q=drift/catcher/results/DCLindsay04-05. Segawa, R. 2010. Pesticide Air Monitoring Network Monitoring Plan. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/airinit/air_network_plan_final.pdf Vidrio, E., P. Wofford, and R. Segawa. 2012. Methyl Bromide Air Monitoring Results for 2011. Memorandum to Christopher Reardon, dated July 17, 2012. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA.
49

2013 California DPR Pesticide Levels Air - Network - Report - Draft - 0713

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2013 California DPR Pesticide Levels Air - Network - Report - Draft - 0713

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFT July 2013

California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation

AIR MONITORING NETWORK RESULTS FOR 2012 Volume 2

Department of Pesticide Regulation 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

Site Locations (Figure 1)

DRAFT July 2013

Figure 1. Map of the three sampling station locations.

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Air Sampling Equipment and Methods

DRAFT July 2013

Quality Control Methods

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

x 1000 ng/ug = ng/m

sample results ( ppb) molecular weight 24.45

Health Evaluation Methods

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

Number of possible detections

Total number of detections*

Number of quantified detections

Percent of quantifiable detections

DRAFT July 2013

Table 5. Percentage of positive samples per chemical detected in Salinas, California.

Number of possible detections

Total number of detections*

Number of quantified detections

Percent of quantifiable detections

DRAFT July 2013

Number of possible detections

Total number of detections*

Number of quantified detections

Percent of quantifiable detections

DRAFT July 2013

Number of possible detections

Total number of detections*

Number of quantified detections

Percent of quantifiable detections

DRAFT July 2013

Total 6002 331 81 *Includes quantified detections and trace detections

DRAFT July 2013

Highest 1-day concentration (ng/m3)

1-day acute screening level* (ng/m3)

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

DRAFT July 2013

Highest 4-wk rolling concentration (ng/m3)

Subchronic Screening Level (ng/m3)

DRAFT July 2013