To evaluate the effect of the treatment process on pesticide concentration, source water and

finished (treated) water samples were collected from 12 community water systems (CWSs)

and analyzed for water-soluble pesticides. The pesticides most frequently detected in the
source water were the triazine herbicides (atrazine, cyanazine, prometon, and simazine)
and the chloroacetanilide herbicides (acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor). Atrazine,

metolachlor, prometon, and simazine were detected in the source and finished water of
every system sampled. Deethylatrazine, a degradate, was detected in the source and finished
water of every CWS but one. The triazine and chloroacetanilide herbicides were usually

detected in the finished water after the treatment process, although for most treatment
plants the concentrations were significantly less in the finished water. For other pesticides
detected in source water—especially the organophosphate insecticides and other sulfur-

containing pesticides (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and metribuzin)—the treatment

process either removed or degraded the pesticide completely.

Water-soluble
pesticidesin finished water
of community water supplies
esticides are used extensively throughout the United States to improve

BY RICHARD H. COUPE

AND JOEL D. BLOMQUIST

P crop yields, protect the health and safety of citizens, and increase the aes-
thetic value of parks, golf courses, ponds, and other recreational areas.
However, the extensive use of these pesticides has led to a degradation
of surface water and groundwater quality in many areas and in some cases
poses a direct threat to human or aquatic health (Larson et al, 1997; Barbash &
Resek, 1996).
More than 130 million people in the United States receive their drinking water
from surface water sources (Solley et al, 1998). Surface waters are particularly vul-
nerable to contamination by pesticides because they may receive runoff directly
from agricultural fields, urban areas, golf courses, rights-of-way, reforested areas,
and other areas that typically receive pesticide applications. Pesticides also have
been shown to be carried in the atmosphere and deposited by wet or dry depo-
sition far from their point of application (Majewski & Capel, 1995).

2004 © American Water Works Association

56 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL

 The extensive use of certain
pesticides has led to a degradation
of surface water and groundwater
quality in many areas and in some
cases poses a direct threat to
human or aquatic health.

PESTICIDE STUDIES
Literature review. Data have
been collected on the occurrence
and distribution of pesticides in
surface waters, both in reser-
voirs and streams, throughout
the United States (Gilliom et al,
1999; Larson et al, 1999; Thur-
man et al, 1991), but it is
unclear whether the pesticides
detected in surface waters reflect
the pesticides detected in drink-
ing water after the source water
has been treated. In a study of water samples collected cal differences could be observed among the concentra-
from homes in Maryland, 84% of the samples from sur- tions of atrazine, cyanazine, and deethylatrazine in water
face water sources had detectable levels of atrazine, from the reservoirs before and after treatment and that the
whereas only one sample in which the source water was type of activated carbon treatment did not seem to mat-
from a public or private well had a detectable level of ter (University of Iowa, 1995).
atrazine (MacIntosh et al, 1999). A 1995 study of 19 Other studies have shown that chlorination removes
Iowa water supply reservoirs concluded that no statisti- some pesticides through chemical reaction; these pesti-

TABLE 1 Community water systems sampled 1999–2000

Predominant Population
Water Treatment Plant Land Use Areas Served Served Source Water

Clermont Water Authority* Agricultural North Central Clermont County, 80,000 Harsha Lake
Ohio (Funk et al, 2003)
Edmond Water Supply Urban Edmond, Okla. 53,000 Arcadia Lake
Elsinore Valley Municipal Urban Elsinore, Canyon, and 81,100 Railroad Canyon Reservoir
Water District Hoset, Calif.
Higginsville Municipal Utilities Agricultural Higginsville, Mo. 4,700 Higginsville City Lake
Indianapolis Water Company Agricultural Indianapolis, Ind. 801,000 Eagle Creek
Village of LeRoy Water Agricultural LeRoy Village and LeRoy, N.Y. 6,300 Lake LeRoy and
Department Lake LaGrange
Mitchell Water Department Agricultural Mitchell, S.D. 138,000 Lake Mitchell
Spartanburg Waterworks Agricultural Spartanburg County, S.C. 19,000 South Pacolet River
Tar River Water Treatment Plant Agricultural Rocky Mount, Battleburg, 56,000 Tar River
Whitakers, and Nashville, N.C.
Tensas Water Distribution Agricultural Tensas Parish, La. 4,000 Lake Bruin
Association Inc.
Waxahachie Water Treatment Plant Agricultural Waxahachie, Texas (Ging, 2002) 23,000 Lake Waxahachie
Western Berks Water Authority Agricultural Shillington, West Reading, 25,000 Blue Marsh Lake
and Wyomissing, Pa.

*Data from the Clermont Water Authority were segregated by date because the treatment process changed significantly after Nov. 20, 1999. Clermont 1 refers to data
collected up to and including Nov. 20, 1999; Clermont 2 refers to data collected after that date.

2004 © American Water Works Association

COUPE ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 96:10 • JOURNAL AWWA | OCTOBER 2004 57
 in drinking water. In order to ade-
FIGURE 1 Location of community water systems sampled 1999–2000 quately compute exposure levels of the
general population to pesticides, USEPA
Mitchell Water Higginsville Indianapolis Water needs information on pesticide con-
LeRoy Water
Department, Municipal Company, Ind.
Department, N.Y.
centrations in drinking water on a
S.D. Utilities, Mo. Clemont Water
Authority, Ohio
national scale. However, there are only
a few data sets that contain information
on pesticide concentrations in drink-
ing water, and these generally cover
only selected compounds or local areas
Western (Blomquist et al, 2001).
Berks
Water This article documents the results
Authority, Pa.
of a pilot study designed and funded
Tar River by the US Geological Survey (USGS)
Water
Treatment and USEPA and conducted by USGS in
Elsinore Valley
Plant, N.C. 1999 and 2000. The study focused on
Municipal Water
District, Calif.
Tensas Water the occurrence and distribution of 43
Edmond
Water Supply, Distribution water-soluble pesticides and 4 pesticide
Okla. Association, La. Spartanburg
Waterworks,
degradates in the source and finished
Sampled in 1999 and 2000 Waxahachie Water
Sampled in 1999 Treatment Plant, S.C. water of 12 community water systems
Texas (CWSs) in the United States and com-
General location of sampling site
400 mi pared pesticide concentrations in source
400 km waters with pesticide concentrations in
finished waters (after the treatment
process). A detailed description of the
cides include metribuzin (Miltner et al, 1989); thioben- sampling methods, frequency, and quality-assurance and
carb (Kodama et al, 1997; Frank, 1990); chlorpyrifos; quality-control procedures as well as a more thorough
and diazinon (Aizawa et al, 1994). Carbofuran was shown discussion of the treatment processes and the chemical
to be unstable under high-pH conditions that might occur and physical properties of the source water can be found
during the softening process (Miltner et al, 1989). Frank elsewhere (Blomquist et al, 2001).
(1990) demonstrated that chlorination and low levels of
powered activated carbon (PAC) had little effect on the METHODS
concentrations of s-triazines and chloroacetamide herbi- Description of sampling sites. Because this was a pilot
cides but that high levels of PAC (up to 50 mg/L) reduced program, the study selected systems that were expected to
the concentrations of these herbicides to near reporting lim- be vulnerable to pesticide contamination. No attempt
its. Conventional water treatment was ineffective in remov- was made to ensure that the populations served by this
ing metolachlor and terbutylazine from surface water from group of CWSs were representative of the populations
the Arno River near Florence, Italy (Griffini et al, 1999). served by CWSs throughout the United States. In gen-
Factors affecting pesticide removal. The ability of a eral, the source water for the selected facilities (Table 1 and
treatment plant to remove or degrade a pesticide has been Figure 1) are small lakes or reservoirs (hereafter referred
shown to depend on many variables, including: the char- to as reservoirs) located in areas of high pesticide use and
acteristics of the surface water, such as the amount of where the soils indicated that there is a high runoff poten-
organic carbon (Duguet et al, 1994; Haist-Gulde et al, tial. Other factors that were considered during selection
1993); the pH (Hu et al, 1998; Speth & Miltner, 1998); of these reservoirs included spatial representation through-
the type of oxidant used, e.g., chlorine, chlorine dioxide, out the United States, integration with ongoing moni-
or ozone (Adams & Randtke, 1992; Mason et al, 1990); toring efforts, and the systems’ willingness to participate.
the contact time (Haist-Gulde & Baldauf, 1996); the type The systems participating in this study were the Cler-
of activated carbon (Paune et al, 1998); the operation of mont Water Authority (Ohio), Edmond Water Supply
the treatment plant, e.g., frequency of backwashing (Aydin (Okla.), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (Calif.),
& Yurdun, 1999); and the chemical structure of the pes- Higginsville Municipal Utilities (Mo.), Indianapolis Water
ticide (Hu et al, 1998). All have been shown to be factors Company (Ind.), Village of LeRoy Water Department
in the effectiveness of a treatment process. (N.Y.), Mitchell Water Department (S.D.), Spartanburg
Data on pesticide concentrations in drinking water. Under Waterworks (S.C.), Tar River Water Treatment Plant
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the US Envi- (N.C.), Tensas Water Distribution Association (La.), Wax-
ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the responsi- ahachie Water Treatment Plant (Texas), and Western
bility to assess aggregate risk from exposure to pesticides Berks Water Authority (Pa.). Ten of the sites were selected

2004 © American Water Works Association

58 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL

 TABLE 2 Order of water treatment stages and chemicals used during treatment at the 12 community water systems
in this study*

Water Treatment Plant Order of Water Treatment Stages and Chemicals Used†

Clermont Water Authority
Edmond Water Supply
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Higginsville Municipal Utilities
Indianapolis Water Company
LeRoy Water Department
Mitchell Water Department
Spartanburg Waterworks
Tar River Water Treatment Plant
Tensas Water Distribution Association Inc.
Waxahachie Water Treatment Plant
Western Berks Water Authority
(1) predisinfection (ClO2–KMnO4), (2) rapid mix (AlSO4)(PAC before 11/20/99), (3) flocculation
(pH adjustment and polymers), (4) settling, (5) filtration (rapid sand with GAC after
11/20/99), (6) postdisinfection (phosphate, F, Cl2 and NaOH), (7) clearwell storage,
(8) distribution
(1) aeration, (2) predisinfection (O3), (3) flocculation–clarification (polymers and lime),
(4) solids contact–clarification (CO2), (5) postdisinfection (O3), (6) polyphosphate polymer
(Cl2), (7) mixed media filters, (8) carbon filter (GAC), (9) postdisinfection (Cl2), (10) clearwell
storage, (11) distribution
(1) predisinfection (Cl2 optional, Al salts), (2) rapid mix (cationic polymer), (3) accelerator
(Cl2 optional, nonionic polymer), (4) prechlorination (NaOH), (5) dual-media filters,
(6) postchlorination, (7) clearwell storage, (8) holding pond, (9) distribution
(1) predisinfection (ClO2), (2) flash mixer (polymer coagulant), (3) flocculation–sedimentation
(lime), (4) flash mixer (sodium, silica, F), (5) flocculation–sedimentation (Cl2), (6) dual-media
filtration (sand with GAC cap), (7) postdisinfection (Cl2), (8) clearwell storage, (9) distribution
(1) predisinfection (Cl2, carbon optional), (2) splitter and rapid mix [Cl2, Al2(SO4)3, polymers,
carbon optional, lime, KMnO4], (3) mixing and settling basin (Cl2, polymer, PAC), (4) filter
plant (F, ammonia), (5) finished water reservoir (Cl2), (6) distribution
(1) predisinfection (Cl2, PAC, KMnO4), (2) flocculation (Al salts, polymers), (3) filtration,
(4) postdisinfection (Cl2, F, orthophosphate), (5) clearwell storage, (6) storage, (7) distribution
(1) GAC polymers [lime, Al2(SO4)3, polymers, ClO2, F, ammonium polyphosphate added],
(2) postdisinfection (Cl2), (3) distribution
(1) predisinfection [Al2(SO4)3, lime, carbon, Cl2, and polymers], (2) hydraulic flocculation
(Al salts, polymers), (3) dual-media high-rate filters, (4) postdisinfection (F, lime, phosphate,
Cl2), (5) clearwell storage, (6) distribution
(1) predisinfection (Al salts and precaustic), (2) flash mixer (polymers), (3) flocculation,
(4) sediment basin, (5) dual-media filtration (Cl2), (6) postdisinfection (postcaustic, F, Cl2,
phosphate), (7) clearwell storage, (8) distribution
(1) clarification (Cl2, Al, soda ash), (2) filtration, (3) reservoir, (4) distribution
(1) predisinfection (Cl2–KMnO4), (2) flocculation (ferric sulfate), (3) disinfection (chloramines)
(4) dual-media filtration sand (anthracite), (5) corrosion control (NaOH and hydrofluorisilic
acid), (6) clearwell storage, (7) distribution
(1) predisinfection (PAC, KMnO4, ClO2, lime), (2) flocculation–clarification [Al2(SO4)3],
(3) filtration sand and anthracite (hydrofluosilic acid), (4) ammonium sulfate (chloramines)
(5) corrosion control (phosphate), (6) clearwell storage, (7) reservoir, (8) distribution

*Table modified from Blomquist et al (2001) who conducted interviews with the plant staffs to determine treatment stages.
†Al—aluminum, Al2(SO4)3—aluminum sulfate, Cl2—chlorine, ClO2—chlorine dioxide, CO2—carbon dioxide, F—fluoride, GAC—granular activate carbon, KMnO4—
potassium permanganate, NaOH—sodium hydroxide, O3—ozone, PAC—powdered activated carbon

to represent agricultural land use, with total agricultural
land ranging from 24.4 to 94.9% of the surrounding
watershed (Blomquist et al, 2001). The other two sites
(Elsinore and Edmond) were selected because urban areas
were deemed to be the predominant influence on the
water quality in these basins.
The type of water treatment used at each CWS was not
a selection criterion (Table 2). Each of the facilities used
one or more of several basic treatment types: disinfec-
tion, coagulation and clarification, filtration, and adsorp-
tion. The systems also exhibited variation in both their
method of disinfection and the point in the treatment
process where disinfection occurred. The method of fil-
tration as well as the type of adsorption also varied among
systems in this study, and some of these processes varied
seasonally at certain facilities (Blomquist et al, 2001).
Sample collection. Water samples were collected from
a tap on the intake line or, if the tap was not available,
from the reservoir near the intake line; concurrently, sam-
ples were collected from the compliance tap after the
treatment process and before the water entered the dis-
tribution system. Although samples were collected con-
currently in time, the intake sample may not represent
the sample collected after the treatment process because
of the time of travel through the treatment plant. The
average flow-through time was <26 h for all participat-
ing systems (Blomquist et al, 2001). In addition, it has
been suggested that a granular activated carbon (GAC) fil-
ter can act as a chromatographic column; depending on
conditions of the filter and properties of the pesticide, a
pesticide concentration peak can be slowed and appear in
the filter effluent well after the source water entered the
treatment process (Duguet et al, 1994). Because of the
integrating nature of reservoirs, however, it is expected
that any difference would be slight. For the purpose of this
article, it is assumed that the samples are paired samples,
with the difference in pesticide concentration attribut-
able to the effect of the treatment processes.

2004 © American Water Works Association

COUPE ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 96:10 • JOURNAL AWWA | OCTOBER 2004 59

 fiber filter and collected in 1-L com-
FIGURE 2 Sampling dates busted amber bottles. Samples were
iced and shipped to the USGS National
Clermont 1 Indianapolis Tensas
Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in
Clermont 2 LeRoy Waxahachie Denver, Colo., for extraction and
Edmond Mitchell Western Berks analysis. Solid-phase extraction (SPE)
Elsinore Spartanburg
Higginsville Tar River
was used prior to pesticide analysis of
samples by gas chromatography–mass
spectrometry (GC–MS). In the SPE
Community Water Supply

step, pesticides were isolated from pre-

filtered water samples by using dis-
posable polypropylene syringe car-
tridges packed with octadecyl-bonded
porous silica (C-18) (Zaugg et al,
1995). As a quality-assurance measure,
samples were spiked with a 100-µL
volume of surrogate compounds before
extraction to measure the extraction
efficiency. One litre of prefiltered water
sample was then pumped through the
3/1/99 5/1/99 7/1/99 9/1/99 11/1/99 1/1/00 3/1/00 5/1/00 7/1/00 9/1/00 11/1/00 1/1/01
SPE cartridge at a flow rate of 25
Sampling Dates
mL/min. At the NWQL, the pesticides
were extracted from the cartridges and
analyzed by GC–MS. Forty-three pes-
FIGURE 3 Acetochlor concentrations in source water and finished water
ticides and four degradates (Table 3)
were analyzed by GC–MS as described
1.000 in Zaugg et al (1995).
Data analysis. The data from the
Clermont 1
Clermont 2
source water generally can be grouped
into three categories: (1) pesticides that
Finished Water Concentration—µg/L

Higginsville
Indianapolis were either not detected in any system
LeRoy
0.100 Mitchell
or were detected only a few times, (2)
Western Berks pesticides that were detected in most
samples from a few systems, and (3)
pesticides that were detected in many of
the samples from most systems. The
0.010
information that can be gleaned from
the first category of pesticide detec-
tions is limited to the statement that
these pesticides were not often detected
above the reporting limit at any of
these CWSs. Most of the pesticides are
0.001
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 in this category. The amount of data
Source Water Concentration—µg/L available in the second category gen-
erally is not enough for statistical
analyses but is sufficient to make some
observations about the effects of water
From April 1999 through December 2000, 228 paired treatment on these pesticides. Only a few pesticides are in
samples were collected from 12 CWSs (Figure 2). At three this category. The third category includes 10 pesticides (8
systems, sampling was discontinued after December 1999. herbicides, 1 herbicide degradate, and 1 insecticide) that
Sampling was most intensive (i.e., about every other week) have enough data for statistical analyses.
during periods of projected high pesticide use (May– For those pesticides with enough data for statistical
August). analyses, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to deter-
Water analysis. Water samples were filtered on site mine whether the median difference in concentration
through an aluminum filter plate with a combusted (baked between source and finished water paired observations
at 400oC for at least 2 h) 0.7-µm-nominal-pore-size glass- was zero (Helsel & Hirsch, 1992). Significance was deter-

2004 © American Water Works Association

60 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL

mined at the 95% confidence level.
Rejecting the null hypothesis (that the FIGURE 4 Tebuthiuron concentrations in source water and finished water
median difference is zero) would indi-
0.100
cate that the treatment process had some
effect on the concentration of that pesti-
cide. Sample pairs in which the pesticide
Finished Water Concentration—µg/L
concentration from both the source water
and the finished water was censored (e.g.,
less than the method reporting level
[MRL]) were discarded from the data
before analyses. If the pesticide concen- 0.010
tration in the source water was not cen-
sored and the concentration in the fin-
ished water was censored (~20% of the
samples), then for statistical analyses the
concentration in the finished water was
set to half the MRL (Table 3).
For those rare cases (fewer than 4%)
in which the pesticide concentration was 0.001
0.001
censored in the source water and the
concentration was not censored in the
finished water, half of the reporting level
was used for the concentration in the
source water. For the majority of these occurrences, the
concentration in the finished water was quite close to the
censoring level of the analytical method (Table 3).
After Nov. 20, 1999, the Clermont facility shifted from
a more conventional treatment system using PAC to an
advanced system using GAC; therefore, the data and sta-
tistical analyses for this plant were segregated between the
two time periods—before and after the addition of GAC to
the treatment process (Funk et al, 2003). Data collected up
to and including Nov. 20, 1999, are designated Clermont
1; data collected after that date are designated Clermont 2.
RESULTS
Of the 43 pesticides and 4 degradates analyzed in this
study, 15 were not detected in either surface or finished
water from any site, and 9 others were detected in fewer
than 1% of the paired samples (Table 3). The most fre-
quently detected classes of pesticides were the triazine
herbicides (atrazine, cyanazine, prometon, and simazine)
and the chloroacetanilide herbicides (acetochlor, alachlor,
and metolachlor). Atrazine, metolachlor, prometon, and
simazine were detected in the source water and finished
water of every CWS at least once. Deethylatrazine (an
atrazine degradate) and tebuthiuron were detected in the
source water and finished water of every system but one.
Diazinon, detected in the source water of 10 systems,
was not detected in the finished water of any.
Ten of the pesticides were detected in more than 30%
of the samples, whereas the other 37 pesticides were
detected in fewer than 15% of the samples, and most
pesticides (33) had fewer than 5% detections. Little infor-
mation can be gleaned on a national perspective for most
of the 37 compounds that were detected in fewer than
2004 © American Water Works Association
Clermont 1 Higginsville Tar River
Clermont 2 Indianapolis Tensas
Edmond Mitchell Waxahachie
Elsinore Spartanburg Western Berks
0.010 0.100
Source Water Concentration—µg/L
15% of the samples, except that these pesticides were
not usually detected above the MRL in these systems.
However, five of these 37 pesticides—chlorpyrifos,
malathion, EPTC (S-ethyl di-N,N-propylthiocarbamate),
metribuzin, and pronamide—had detections at a few facil-
ities, which provided sufficient information to make some
observations concerning the fates of these pesticides in
the water treatment process.
Chlorpyrifos and malathion are both organophos-
phate insecticides and were infrequently detected in the
source water. Chlorpyrifos was reported 11 times (max-
imum concentration = 0.011 µg/L) in the source water
from four systems (Clermont, Spartanburg, Tensas, and
Western Berks). Malathion was detected in five source
water samples (maximum concentration = 0.10 µg/L), all
from Tensas except for one from the Higginsville facility.
Chlorpyrifos and malathion were not detected in any fin-
ished water samples.
The herbicide EPTC was detected in the source water
from four systems (maximum concentration = 0.037
µg/L); however, the majority of the detections were found
in the LeRoy (13) and Mitchell (10) systems. There were
only two EPTC detections in source water from Western
Berks and one from Tensas. There were no detections of
EPTC in finished water from LeRoy. However, for every
source water detection of EPTC in the Mitchell CWS
(maximum concentration = 0.036 µg/L), there was also a
detection of EPTC in the finished water. The concentra-
tions of EPTC in the finished water were lower (maximum
concentration = 0.028 µg/L) but still detectable.
Metribuzin, a triazine herbicide used extensively in
the midwest, was detected 30 times in source water (max-
imum concentration = 0.29 µg/L) from three systems
COUPE ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 96:10 • JOURNAL AWWA | OCTOBER 2004 61
TABLE 3 Results for pesticides and pesticide degradates

Detection Frequency Drinking Water

in Source Water Standard or Guideline Guideline for
(number = 228) MRL‡ (MCL or HA)§ Aquatic Life
Pesticide* Type† % µg/L µg/L µg/L

Atrazine H 96.9 0.001 3** 2††

Simazine H 93.8 0.005 4** 10††
Metolachlor H 91.6 0.002 70 8††
Deethylatrazine M 91.6 0.002 NS‡‡ NS
Prometon H 74.6 0.018 100 NS
Cyanazine H 52.3 0.004 1 2††
Tebuthiuron H 42.1 0.01 500 1.6††
Acetochlor H 37.7 0.002 NS NS
Diazinon I 31.5 0.002 0.6 0.009§§
Alachlor H 31.1 0.002 2** NS
Metribuzin H 13.2 0.004 100 1††
EPTC H 11.8 0.002 NS NS
p,p⬘-DDE M 7.0 0.006 NS NS
DCPA H 6.6 0.002 4,000 NS
Pronamide H 6.6 0.003 50 NS
Chlorpyrifos I 4.8 0.004 20 0.041***
Trifluralin H 3.5 0.002 5 0.1††
Carbaryl I 3.1 0.003 700 0.02§§
Pendimethalin H 2.6 0.004 NS NS
Azinphos-methyl I 2.2 0.001 NS 0.01†††
Malathion I 2.2 0.005 200 0.1†††
Fonofos I 1.7 0.003 10 NS
Carbofuran I 1.3 0.003 40** 1.75††
Terbacil H 0.9 0.007 90 NS
Benfluralin H 0.4 0.002 NS NS
Butylate H 0.4 0.002 350 NS
2,6-Diethylanaline M 0.4 0.003 NS NS
Linuron H 0.4 0.002 NS 7††
Methyl parathion I 0.4 0.006 2 NS
Napropamide H 0.4 0.003 NS NS
Phorate I 0.4 0.002 NS NS
Triallate H 0.4 0.001 NS 0.24††
Dieldrin I 0.0 0.001 NS 0.0625***
Disulfoton I 0.0 0.017 0.3 0.05§§
Ethalfluralin H 0.0 0.004 NS NS
Ethoprop I 0.0 0.003 NS NS
alpha-HCH M 0.0 0.002 NS 0.01††
gamma-HCH I 0.0 0.004 0.2** 0.08***
Parathion I 0.0 0.004 NS 0.013***
Pebulate H 0.0 0.004 NS NS
Molinate H 0.0 0.004 NS NS
cis-Permethrin I 0.0 0.005 NS NS
Propachlor H 0.0 0.007 90 NS
Propanil H 0.0 0.004 NS NS
Propargite I 0.0 0.013 NS NS
Terbufos H 0.0 0.013 0.9 NS
Thiobencarb H 0.0 0.002 NS NS

*DCPA—dimethyl-2,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalate; p,p⬘-DDE—dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene; EPTC—S-ethyl di-N,N-propylthiocarbamate;

HCH—hexachlorocyclohexane
†H—herbicide, I—insecticide, M—metabolite
‡MRL—method reporting level
§MCL—maximum contaminant level, HA—health advisory
**Value is the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) maximum contaminant level for drinking water; other values are USEPA lifetime health advisories for a
70-kg (154-lb) adult (Nowell & Resek, 1994).
††Canadian government aquatic life guidelines (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, 1991)
‡‡NS—no standard or guideline
§§National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering aquatic life guidelines, 1973 (Nowell & Resek, 1994)
***USEPA chronic aquatic life guidelines (Nowell & Resek, 1994)
†††USEPA acute aquatic life guidelines (Nowell & Resek, 1994)

2004 © American Water Works Association

62 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL
(Higginsville, Clermont 1, and Indianapolis) but was not
detected in the finished water of any CWS. Pronamide,
another herbicide, was detected in 15 water samples of
source water from Edmond (maximum concentration =
0.048 µg/L). Nine of the source water detections were
paired with finished water detections of pronamide,
although the concentrations were less in the finished
water, usually less than half of the source water concen-
tration (maximum concentration = 0.017 µg/L).
Tables 4–6 list eight pesticides and one degradate for
which there were enough data to perform statistical analy-
ses. The ninth pesticide, diazinon, is not shown because
there were no uncensored values in the finished water.
The nine pesticides fall into four chemical classes:
organophosphates (diazinon), chloroaceteanilides (ace-
tochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor), triazines (atrazine,
cyanazine, prometon, and simazine), and one substituted
urea (tebuthiuron). These nine pesticides were frequently
detected in the source water, and some were detected in
the source water from every CWS (atrazine, metolachlor,
prometon, and simazine). Maximum concentrations in
the source water of atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine
exceeded 1 µg/L in fewer than 5% of the samples. No
other pesticide in this study exceeded 1 µg/L. No finished
water sample exceeded the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) at any CWS.
Diazinon, reported in the source water from eight of the
12 facilities (at a maximum concentration of 0.10 µg/L),
was never reported above the MRL in finished water from
any CWS. Acetochlor was detected in the source water
of six of the 12 systems, although in the LeRoy facility, ace-
tochlor was detected only twice and in low concentra-
tions. Concentrations of acetochlor were significantly
lower in finished water than in the source water of West-
ern Berks, Higginsville, and Clermont 2 (Table 4).
Although not statistically significant, the maximum and/or
median concentrations were slightly higher in finished
water (Table 4, Figure 3) than in source water from LeRoy,
Mitchell, and Indianapolis. Concentrations that plot above
the 1:1 line (Figure 3) indicate higher concentrations in the
finished water than in the source water.
Alachlor was detected in the source water of the same
CWS that showed acetochlor concentrations. In addition
there was one detection of alachlor in source water from
Waxahachie. Median alachlor concentrations in finished
water were significantly lower in Western Berks, Hig-
ginsville, Clermont 1, and Clermont 2 samples compared
with source water concentrations. Alachlor concentra-
tions in source water and finished water from the sys-
tems in this study never exceeded the MCL of 2 µg/L.
For alachlor, however, the MCL goal (a nonenforceable
public health goal) is 0.0 µg/L (USEPA, 2000), and 22.4%
of the finished water samples had detectable concentra-
tions of alachlor.
Metolachlor was detected at least once in the source
water and finished water of every CWS and in 91.6% of
2004 © American Water Works Association
COUPE ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 96:10 • JOURNAL AWWA | OCTOBER 2004
the paired water samples (Table 5). The maximum con-
centration of metolachlor in source water exceeded 1.0
µg/L in only two systems—Higginsville and Clermont 2.
The concentration of metolachlor in finished water was
significantly lower than in the source water at nine of
the 12 CWSs. Whenever the median metolachlor con-
centration in source water was >0.1 µg/L, the concen-
tration was significantly lower in the finished water.
Most frequently detected pesticides.The triazine herbi-
cides atrazine, cyanazine, prometon, and simazine (Tables
4 and 6) were the pesticides most frequently detected in
this study and were detected in 96.9, 52.3, 74.6, and 93.8%
of paired samples, respectively. Atrazine exceeded the MCL
of 3 µg/L in source water at two facilities—Higginsville
(seven samples, most collected between May 3, 1999 and
July 26, 1999) and Clermont 2 (four samples, all collected
between July 6, 2000, and Aug. 15, 2000). However,
atrazine did not exceed the MCL in finished water from any
CWS. Atrazine concentrations in finished water were sig-
nificantly lower than in source water at 10 of the 12 systems.
Prometon concentrations generally were quite low
(Table 6); maximum concentrations exceeded 0.035 µg/L
at only one CWS (Edmond). The maximum concentration
of prometon in source water from Edmond was 0.14
µg/L. Prometon concentrations in finished water were
significantly lower than the source water at three of the
12 facilities. Simazine concentrations were significantly
lower in the finished water from nine of the 12 systems.
The median and maximum concentrations of prometon
and simazine in source water were highest in the Edmond
and Elsinore CWSs. The land use in the drainage basin for
these two systems is mostly urban. Prometon does not
have much use in agriculture but is used heavily for home
and outdoor applications (Majewski & Capel, 1995).
Simazine has significant agricultural uses but is also used
in urban areas for lawn care, golf courses, nonselective
weed control in industrial areas and rights-of-way, and
algae control in ponds.
Deethylatrazine, a degradate of atrazine, was detected
in the source water and finished water from every system
except Elsinore (Table 5). The median concentration of
deethylatrazine was significantly lower in the finished
water than in source water for five of the 11 CWSs. How-
ever, for Waxahachie, the median concentration of deethy-
latrazine in the finished water was significantly higher
than in the source water, and the maximum and/or median
concentrations of deethylatrazine were higher in the fin-
ished water (but not statistically higher) of some other sys-
tems (Tar River, LeRoy, and Indianapolis).
Tebuthiuron, an herbicide, was detected in the source
water and finished water of every system except LeRoy,
although the concentrations were low, with the maxi-
mum concentration <0.04 µg/L (Table 6). Median tebuthi-
uron concentrations in finished water were significantly
different from median concentrations in the source water
from Western Berks, Edmond, Clermont 1, Clermont 2,
63
TABLE 4 Summary statistics for acetochlor, alachlor, and atrazine degradate detected in source water and finished
water for 12 community water systems, April 1999–December 2000

Pesticide*

Acetochlor Alachlor Atrazine

Water SW FW SW FW SW FW
System µg/L µg/L p µg/L µg/L p µg/L µg/L p

Tar River ND† ND NA‡ ND ND NA 0.043/0.022 0.034/0.015 0.0039

Western Berks 0.048/0.013 0.025/0.009 0.0020 0.021/0.009 0.010/0.006 0.0020 1.60/0.094 0.740/0.056 <0.0001
LeRoy 0.009/0.008 0.014/0.009 NA 0.176/0.044 0.148/0.040 0.0547 0.490/0.183 0.459/0.165 <0.0001
Higginsville 0.031/0.020 0.022/0.006 <0.0001 0.653/0.011 0.056/0.007 <0.0001 6.40/2.46 1.30/0.722 <0.0001
Edmond ND ND NA ND ND NA 0.689/0.286 0.385/0.269 0.0323
Mitchell 0.334/0.034 0.395/0.027 1.0000 0.013/0.013 0.011/0.010 0.1250 2.53/1.32 2.47/1.14 0.0004
Clermont 1 0.052/0.029 0.045/0.024 0.2324 0.028/0.014 0.027/0.011 0.0273 0.402/0.222 0.208/0.121 0.0020
Clermont 2 0.284/0.096 0.021/0.012 0.0020 0.105/0.038 0.006/<0.001 0.0010 3.86/2.69 0.095/0.038 0.0010
Tensas ND ND NA ND ND NA 1.02/0.855 0.851/0.733 <0.0001
Elsinore ND ND NA ND ND NA 0.006/0.004 0.005/0.003 0.1250
Spartanburg ND ND NA ND ND NA 0.009/0.005 0.008/0.004 0.0010
Waxahachie ND ND NA 0.004/0.004 <0.001/<0.001 NA 0.610/0.527 0.589/0.515 0.1289
Indianapolis 0.119/0.035 0.121/0.033 0.1876 0.010/0.007 0.012/0.006 0.8750 1.82/0.919 1.70/0.830 <0.0001

*SW—maximum/median concentration in source water; FW—maximum/median concentration in finished water; p—value of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, i.e.,
the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (that the median difference between source and finished water paired observations is zero) when it is true (values
<0.05 are in bold type)
†ND—not detected
‡NA—not applicable (fewer than four data points)

TABLE 5 Summary statistics for cyanazine, deethylatrazine, and metolachlor detected in source water and finished
water for 12 community water systems, April 1999–December 2000

Pesticide*

Cyanazine Deethylatrazine Metolachlor

Water SW FW SW FW SW FW
System µg/L µg/L p µg/L µg/L p µg/L µg/L p

Tar River ND† ND NA‡ 0.010/0.006 0.009/0.007 0.3750 0.046/0.021 0.016/0.012 0.0078
Western Berks 0.037/0.021 0.019/0.014 0.0039 0.255/0.104 0.200/0.069 <0.0001 0.520/0.025 0.245/0.015 <0.0001
LeRoy 0.079/0.036 0.072/0.031 0.0867 0.127/0.071 0.151/0.076 0.5184 0.442/0.110 0.410/0.104 <0.0001
Higginsville 0.024/0.011 0.020/0.010 0.2111 0.682/0.399 0.296/0.100 <0.0001 2.78/0.250 0.514/0.063 <0.0001
Edmond ND ND NA 0.0947/0.041 0.0624/0.040 0.1991 0.036/0.012 0.012/0.007 0.0003
Mitchell 0.038/0.025 0.051/0.023 0.0569 0.444/0.273 0.352/0.238 0.0001 0.079/0.025 0.072/0.023 0.0488
Clermont 1 0.233/0.178 0.211/0.116 0.0002 0.110/0.076 0.078/0.040 0.0137 0.412/0.289 0.384/0.212 0.0020
Clermont 2 0.030/0.022 <0.002/<0.002 0.0010 0.668/0.397 0.017/0.009 0.0010 1.01/0.574 0.041/0.024 0.0010
Tensas 0.332/0.179 0.355/0.117 <0.0001 0.195/0.156 0.194/0.134 0.0357 0.033/0.015 0.027/0.013 0.0006
Elsinore ND ND NA ND ND NA 0.005/0.004 0.003/<0.003 0.2500
Spartanburg ND ND NA 0.006/0.004 0.005/0.003 0.0934 0.006/0.004 0.006/0.003 0.1038
Waxahachie ND ND NA 0.128/0.105 0.134/0.111 0.0117 0.056/0.041 0.050/0.039 0.0977
Indianapolis 0.030/0.016 0.030/0.011 0.2412 0.290/0.091 0.253/0.097 0.4980 0.753/0.157 0.661/0.145 <0.0001

*SW—maximum/median concentration in source water; FW—maximum/median concentration in finished water; p—value of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, i.e.,
the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (that the median difference between source and finished water paired observations is zero) when it is true (values
<0.05 are in bold type)
†ND—not detected
‡NA—not applicable (fewer than four data points)

2004 © American Water Works Association

64 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL
 TABLE 6 Summary statistics for prometon, simazine, and tebuthiuron detected in source water and finished water
for 12 community water systems, April 1999–December 2000

Pesticide*

Prometon Simazine Tebuthiuron

Water SW FW SW FW SW FW
System µg/L µg/L p µg/L µg/L p µg/L µg/L p

Tar River 0.015/0.010 0.014/0.008 0.1602 0.022/0.012 0.018/0.009 0.0547 0.011/0.011 <0.005/<0.005 NA‡
Western Berks 0.018/0.011 0.012/0.009 0.0005 0.123/0.040 0.056/0.018 <0.0001 0.009/0.007 0.005/0.004 0.0010
LeRoy 0.008/0.005 0.008/<0.009 0.0781 0.008/0.006 0.008/<0.005 0.0040 ND† ND NA
Higginsville 0.026/0.012 0.012/0.007 <0.0001 0.769/0.097 0.092/0.020 <0.0001 0.003/0.003 <0.008/<0.008 NA
Edmond 0.138/0.086 0.103/0.072 <0.0001 1.52/0.990 0.571/0.395 <0.0001 0.024/0.019 0.032/0.022 0.0095
Mitchell 0.015/0.010 0.017/0.010 0.2986 0.016/0.009 0.014/0.009 0.0305 0.004/0.002 0.004/0.004 NA
Clermont 1 0.018/0.008 0.007/0.003 0.2188 0.032/0.027 0.024/0.016 0.0020 0.015/0.011 0.009/0.007 0.0039
Clermont 2 0.013/0.012 0.009/0.009 0.0938 0.625/0.386 0.011/<0.005 0.0010 0.015/0.012 <0.005/<0.005 0.0078
Tensas 0.018/0.007 0.007/0.004 0.0578 0.184/0.124 0.173/0.102 <0.0001 0.010/0.007 0.009/0.003 0.0391
Elsinore 0.028/0.025 0.030/0.022 0.0781 0.091/0.078 0.078/0.062 0.0391 0.012/0.009 0.018/0.007 0.8438
Spartanburg 0.008/0.004 0.004/0.004 0.4131 0.059/0.036 0.051/0.027 <0.0001 0.010/0.007 0.008/0.005 0.2743
Waxahachie 0.008/0.006 0.008/0.007 0.5000 0.021/0.017 0.020/0.017 0.8125 0.010/0.008 0.008/0.006 1.0000
Indianapolis 0.034/0.020 0.032/0.019 0.0949 0.026/0.019 0.025/0.017 0.1290 0.012/0.010 0.011/0.008 0.8457

*SW—maximum/median concentration in source water; FW—maximum/median concentration in finished water; p—value of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, i.e.,
the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (that the median difference between source and finished water paired observations is zero) when it is true (values
<0.05 are in bold type)
†ND—not detected
‡NA—not applicable (fewer than four data points)

and Tensas. Median concentrations of tebuthiuron in fin-
ished water were lower than in the source water from
Western Berks, Clermont 1, Clermont 2, and Tensas but
higher than in the Edmond source water (finished water
median concentration = 0.022 µg/L and source water
median concentration = 0.019 µg/L). The relation of
tebuthiuron concentrations in finished water and source
water is shown in Figure 4.
DISCUSSION
In relation to the pesticide concentration in the source
waters of these systems, there are at least three possible
outcomes for the concentration in finished water: (1) the
concentration in the finished water increases, (2) the con-
centration in the finished water decreases, or (3) the pes-
ticide concentration is unaffected by the treatment process.
Outcome 1: The concentration in the finished water
increases. It is not generally expected that the pesticide
concentration in finished water would be greater than
that in the source water, but there are at least three pos-
sible reasons why this could happen: analytical error, pro-
duction of a pesticide by the treatment process, and stor-
age in the system that allowed for later release of the
pesticide. The last has been documented and ascribed to
lengthy backwashing intervals of the sand filters for alpha-
HCH and aldrin, two relatively hydrophobic pesticides
(Aydin & Yurdun, 1999). Richards and colleagues (1975)
reported an increase in atrazine, dichlorodiphenyl dichlo-
roethylene (DDE), and dieldrin after the treatment process
and ascribe the cause to sorption and desorption phe-
nomenon related to overuse of the GAC beds. In this
study, the only pesticides that had a statistically significant
increase in concentration between the source water and fin-
ished water were tebuthiuron at the Edmond facility and
deethylatrazine at the Waxahachie facility.
Although the analytical method used in this study has
been shown to be a sensitive and reliable method for the
determination of low concentrations of a broad range of
pesticides (Zaugg et al, 1995), the possibility of analyti-
cal error exists when analyzing constituents near the MRL
in the parts-per-trillion range. However, it would be
expected that the error associated with analytical mea-
surements would be the same for the source water and the
finished water and that a bias would not occur.
Several of the compounds analyzed in this research
are degradates of herbicides frequently detected in source
water. The two herbicide degradates are 2,6-diethylanaline
(a degradate of alachlor) and deethylatrazine (an atrazine
degradate). This study found only one detection of 2,6-
diethylanaline in source water and none in finished water,
although there were many detections of alachlor (Table 3).
This would indicate that alachlor is not being degraded
to 2,6-diethylanaline by the treatment process to con-
centrations above the MRL or is being removed by the

2004 © American Water Works Association

COUPE ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 96:10 • JOURNAL AWWA | OCTOBER 2004 65


FIGURE 5 Deethylatrazine concentrations in source water and finished
water
1.0000
Clermont 1
Clermont 2
Edmond
Finished Water Concentration—µg/L
Higginsville
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
0.0001 0.0010
Source Water Concentration—µg/L
treatment process. A confounding factor here is that the
MRL for 2,6-diethylanaline is slightly higher (0.003 µg/L)
than that of alachlor (0.002 µg/L), and this may have
masked some low-level effects.
The median concentrations of deethylatrazine in source
water were significantly different from the median con-
centration of deethylatrazine in finished water for the
following systems: Clermont 1, Clermont 2, Higginsville,
Mitchell, Tensas, Waxahachie, and Western Berks (Table
5, Figure 5). The median concentrations in finished water
were lower than in the source water for these facilities,
with the exception of Waxahachie, which had a higher
median deethylatrazine concentration in finished water. It
follows that for 5 of the 11 systems in which deethyla-
trazine was reported in source water, there is evidence
that some, but not all, deethylatrazine was being removed
by the treatment process. In addition to Waxahachie
(where median concentrations were significantly higher in
the finished water), the median concentrations were higher
(but not statistically [significantly] higher) in the finished
water of Tar River, LeRoy, and Indianapolis. Many of
the values from Tar River, Spartanburg, and Indianapo-
lis plot above the 1:1 line (Figure 5), indicating that the
finished water concentration was higher than the source
water concentration. Haist-Gulde et al (1993) reported
that deethylatrazine was detected in the filter effluent of
a GAC bed but not in the source water and that the con-
centration was related to the depth of the bed, with higher
concentrations corresponding to deeper beds. The pre-
sumption was that atrazine (mean concentration in the
source water = 1.9 µg/L) was sorbed to the GAC and
microbially degraded to deethylatrazine. This needs fur-
66 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL
ther study because the concentrations
of deethylatrazine were very low in
most cases, and the results may be
attributable to analytical error or
related to time of travel through the
Indianapolis Tar River
LeRoy Tensus treatment process.
Mitchell Waxahachie Another pesticide degradate ana-
Spartanburg Western Berks
lyzed in this research was p,p⬘-DDE, a
degradate of dichlorodiphenyl trichlo-
roethane. All concentrations of p,p⬘-
DDE in this study were reported as
estimated because they were below the
MRL and, although identification was
confirmed, quantification is qualita-
tive. Detections of p,p ⬘ -DDE were
infrequent and in low concentrations,
and p,p⬘-DDE was detected in both
the source water and finished water.
There were not enough data to indi-
0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
cate the fate of p,p⬘-DDE in the treat-
ment process.
Outcome 2: The concentration in the
finished water decreases. There are at
least two ways that the pesticide con-
centration in the finished water could decrease from that in
source water because of treatment. The first is a physical
process (such as by sedimentation, volatilization, or sorb-
tion onto activated carbon). The second is by a chemical
transformation of the pesticide by the treatment process.
In this study, most of the pesticides for which there
were enough data to make some observations about the
effects of the treatment process fell into one of two cat-
egories: (1) the pesticide was transported through the
treatment process, although the concentrations were sig-
nificantly reduced by the treatment process (acetochlor,
alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, prometon,
simazine, and tebuthiuron) and (2) the pesticide was not
detected in finished water (chlorpyrifos, diazinon,
malathion, and metribuzin).
For those pesticides detected in source water and not
detected in finished drinking water, the literature offers a
suggestion as to the fate of the pesticide. The organophos-
phate pesticides that contain a P=S bond are easily oxi-
dized by chlorine and produce oxons (P=O) as a primary
by-product (Aizawa et al, 1994; Magara et al, 1994).
Some organophosphates (e.g., malathion) are also prone
to base-catalyzed hydrolysis and could be degraded dur-
ing the softening process. In this study, the organophos-
phates that were reported in source water with enough fre-
quency to indicate their fate were chlorpyrifos, diazinon,
and malathion. None of these organophosphates were
detected in finished water. Mechanisms other than oxi-
dation (e.g., sedimentation) may be involved with the
removal of these organophosphates from finished water.
Metribuzin, a sulfur-containing herbicide, was detected
in many source water samples from a few facilities but was
2004 © American Water Works Association
not detected in any finished water sam-
ple; there may be several processes that FIGURE 6 EPTC concentrations in source water and finished water
ensure the complete removal of this her-
bicide from drinking water. Miltner et 0.100
al (1989) demonstrated that the use of
GAC reduced the concentration of LeRoy

Finished Water Concentration—µg/L

metribuzin in finished water by more Mitchell
than 50% and that metribuzin was eas-
ily oxidized by free chlorine in bench
tests on spiked Ohio River water. By
sampling at various points in full-scale
0.010
treatment plants, Miltner and co-work-
ers showed that metribuzin was not
removed in significant amounts by
processes such as clarification, soften-
ing, filtration, or recarbonation. In a
study of paired samples collected from
the Sydenham River and from drinking
water from the town of Dresden, Ont. 0.001
(which uses the Sydenham River as its 0.001 0.010 0.100
source of drinking water), metribuzin Source Water Concentration—µg/L
was shown to decrease in concentration EPTC—S-ethyl di-N,N-propylthiocarbamate
in chlorinated drinking water and to be
removed completely when even a small
amount of PAC (5 mg/L) was used (Frank, 1990). CONCLUSIONS
The distribution of EPTC concentrations in the fin- Of the 43 pesticides and 4 degradates examined in
ished waters of LeRoy and Mitchell illustrates the nonuni- this study, only 15 had sufficient data to observe sys-
formity of outcomes for some pesticides. The range of tematic changes in concentration between the source
EPTC concentrations in the source water of the two sys- water and the finished water. Four pesticides (chlorpyri-
tems is similar; however, there were no detections of fos, diazinon, malathion, and metribuzin) were com-
EPTC in the finished water of LeRoy, whereas every pletely removed by the treatment process, possibly as a
source water detection in the Mitchell system was paired result of being oxidized by the free chlorine used for dis-
with a finished water detection (Figure 6), although the infection. The other 11 compounds (acetochlor, alachlor,
concentrations were somewhat less in the finished water. atrazine, cyanazine, deethylatrazine, EPTC, metolachlor,
The reasons for this are unclear and could be related to prometon, pronamide, simazine, and tebuthiuron) were
differences in the treatment processes of the two systems not completely removed by the treatment process,
or the quality of the source water and its interaction with although the concentrations in the finished water were
the treatment process. This study was not designed to usually less than the concentrations in the source water.
determine the reasons for differences in pesticides detected
in finished water among CWSs but rather as a pilot study ACKNOWLEDGMENT
to determine if there were differences in the concentrations The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of
of pesticides in the source water and finished water of Pesticide Programs and its Office of Ground Water and
selected water distribution systems. Drinking Water and the US Geological Survey National
Outcome 3: The pesticide concentration is unaffected by Water Quality Assessment Program provided financial
the treatment process. Most of the pesticide–CWS combi- support for this pilot study. Their support and collabo-
nations in Table 4 had detectable concentrations in the fin- ration during the planning and execution of this pilot
ished water, indicating that pesticides were transported program are greatly appreciated. Special thanks are
through the various treatment processes. Many of the pes- extended to the management and staff of each of the par-
ticide concentrations (Tables 4–6) were significantly lowered ticipating community water systems. The authors are
by the treatment process but still detectable in the finished grateful for the facilities’ willingness to participate in this
water. Those pesticide–CWS combinations that did not voluntary effort in the interest of developing a better
show a statistically significant reduction in pesticide con- understanding of their water systems.
centration usually had very low concentrations of the pes-
ticide in the source water (<0.020 µg/L), and the failure to ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
detect a significant reduction could be related to analytical Richard H. Coupe1 is a supervisory hydrologist with
error in the measurement of these very low concentrations. the US Geological Survey (USGS), 308 S. Airport Rd.,

2004 © American Water Works Association

COUPE ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 96:10 • JOURNAL AWWA | OCTOBER 2004 67

 Pearl, MS 39208, e-mail
rhcoupe@usgs.gov. A doctoral candi-
date at Mississippi State University,
he has a BA degree from George
Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and
an MS degree from Mississippi State.
He has worked for the USGS since
1980 on a variety of projects in Vir-
ginia, Illinois, and Mississippi. For the past 15 years,
his research has focused on the fate and transport of
REFERENCES
Adams, C.D. & Randtke, S.J., 1992. Ozonation
By-products of Atrazine in Synthetic and
Natural Waters. Envir. Sci. & Technol.,
26:2218.
Aydin, A. & Yurdun, T., 1999. Residues of
Organochlorine Pesticides in Water
Sources of Istanbul. Water, Air, & Soil
Pollution, 111:385.
Aizawa, T. et al, 1994. Chlorination By-prod-
ucts of Pesticides in Drinking Water.
Water Supply, 12:SS11-6.
Barbash, J.E. & Resek, E.A., 1996. Pesticides
in Ground Water—Distribution, Trends,
and Governing Factors. Pesticides in the
Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press,
Chelsea, Mich.
Blomquist, J.D. et al, 2001. Pesticides in
Selected Water Supply Reservoirs and
Finished Drinking Water, 1999–2000.
Summary of Results From a Pilot Moni-
toring Program. US Geological Survey
Open File Rept., 01-456.
Canadian Council of Resource and Environ-
mental Ministers, 1991 (update 1992).
Canadian Water Quality Guidelines: Water
Quality Branch, Inland Waters Direc-
torate, Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ont.
Duguet, J.P. et al, 1994. Occurrence of Pesti-
cides in Natural Waters and Removal
During Drinking Water Processes. Water
Supply, 12:SS11-1.
Frank, R., 1990. Triazine and Chloroacetamide
Herbicides in the Sydenham River Water
and Municipal Drinking Water, Dresden,
Ontario, Canada, 1981–1987. Archives
Envir. Contamination & Toxicol., 19:319:324.
Funk, J.M. et al, 2003. Pesticides and Pesti-
cide Degradates in the East Fork Little
Miami River and William H. Harsha Lake,
Southwestern Ohio, 1999–2000. US Geo-
logical Survey Water Resources Inves-
tigative Rept., 03-4216.
Gilliom, R.J. et al, 1999. Testing Water Quality
for Pesticide Pollution. Envir. Sci. & Tech-
nol. News, 164:169.
Ging, P.B., 2002. Pesticides and Their Break-
down Products in Lake Waxahachie,
68 OCTOBER 2004 | JOURNAL AWWA • 96:10 | PEER-REVIEWED | COUPE ET AL
agricultural chemicals. Joel D. Blomquist is a hydrolo-
gist with the USGS in Baltimore, Md.
FOOTNOTES
1To whom correspondence should be addressed
If you have a comment about this article,
please contact us at journal@awwa.org.
Texas, and in Finished Drinking Water
From the Lake. US Geological Survey
Fact Sheet 032-02.
Griffini, O. et al, 1999. Removal of Pesticides
During the Drinking Water Treatment
Process at Florence Water Supply, Italy.
Aqua—Jour. Water Ser. Res. Technol.,
48:177:185.
Haist-Gulde, B. & Baldauf, G., 1996. Removal
of Pesticides by Powdered Activated
Carbon—Practical Aspects. Water Sup-
ply, 14:201:208.
Haist-Gulde, B. et al, 1993. Removal of Pesti-
cides From Raw Waters. Water Supply,
11:187:196.
Helsel, D.R & Hirsch, R.M., 1992. Statistical
Methods in Water Resources. Elsevier
Science Publishers, New York.
Hu, J. et al, 1998. Adsorptive Characteristics
of Ionogenic Aromatic Pesticides in
Water on Powdered Activated Carbon.
Water Res., 32:2593.
Kodama, S. et al, 1997. S-oxygenation of
Thiobencarb in Tap Water Processed by
Chlorination. Jour. Agric. Food Chem.,
45:990.
Larson, S.J. et al, 1999. Pesticides in Streams
of the United States—Initial Results From
the National Water Quality Assessment
Program. US Geological Survey, 98-4222.
Larson, S.J. et al, 1997. Pesticides in Surfaces
Waters—Distribution, Trends, and Govern-
ing Factors. Pesticides in the Hydrologic
System. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Mich.
MacIntosh, D.L. et al, 1999. Longitudinal Expo-
sure to Selected Pesticides in Drinking Wa-
ter. Human Ecol. Risk Assessment, 5:575.
Magara, Y. et al, 1994. Degradation of Pesti-
cides by Chlorination During Water Purifi-
cation. Water Sci. & Technol., 30:119.
Majewski, M.S. & Capel, P.D., 1995. Pesticides
in the Atmosphere—Distribution, Trends,
and Governing Factors. Pesticides in the
Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press,
Chelsea, Mich.
Mason, Y. et al, 1990. Carbamate Insecticides:
Removal From Water by Chlorination and
Ozonation. Water Res., 24:11:21.
2004 © American Water Works Association
Miltner, R.J. et al, 1989. Treatment of Seasonal
Pesticides in Surface Waters. Jour.
AWWA, 81:43:52.
Nowell, L.H. & Resek, E.A., 1994. Summary of
National Standards and Guidelines for
Pesticides in Water, Bed Sediment, and
Aquatic Organisms and their Application
to Water Quality Assessments. US Geo-
logical Survey, 94-44.
Paune, F. et al, 1998. Assessment of the
Removal of Organic Chemicals From Raw
and Drinking Water at a Llobregat River
Water Works Plant Using GAC. Water
Res., 32:3313.
Richards, J.J. et al, 1975. Analysis of Various
Iowa Waters for Selected Pesticides:
Atrazine, DDE, and Dieldrin—1974. Pesti-
cides Monitoring Jour., 9:12:173.
Solley, W.B. et al, 1998. Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1995. US
Geological Survey Circular 1200.
Speth, T.F. & Miltner, R.J., 1998. Adsorption
Capacity of GAC for Synthetic Organics.
Jour. AWWA, 90:171:74.
Thurman, E.M. et al, 1991. Herbicides in Sur-
face Waters of the Midwestern United
States: The Effect of Spring Flush. Envir.
Sci. & Technol., 25:1704.
University of Iowa, 1995. Study of Herbicides
in Water and Sediment From 19 Iowa
Water Supply Reservoirs January–Feb-
ruary, 1995. University of Iowa Hygienic
Laboratory Rept. No. 95-1, Des Moines,
Iowa.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection
Agency), 2000. Maximum Contaminant
Levels (Subpart B, Part 141, National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations).
CFR 40, Parts 100–149, revised
July 1, 2000.
Zaugg, S.D. et al, 1995. Methods of Analysis
by the US Geological Survey
National Water Quality Laboratory
Determination of Pesticides in Water
by C-18 Solid-Phase Extraction and
Capillary-Column Gas Chromatogra-
phy–Mass Spectrometry With
Selected Ion Monitoring. US Geologi-
cal Survey 95-181.