4.4 Article

Atmospheric deposition of pesticides to an agricultural watershed of the Chesapeake Bay

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 1611-1622

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2003.1611

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Choptank River watershed, located on the Delmarva Peninsula of the Chesapeake Bay, is dominated by agricultural land use, which makes it vulnerable to runoff and atmospheric deposition of pesticides. Agricultural and wildlife areas are in close proximity and off-site losses of pesticides may contribute to toxic effects on sensitive species of plants and animals. High-volume air samples (n = 31) and event-based rain samples (n = 71) were collected from a single location in the watershed representing regional background conditions. Surface water samples were collected from eight stations in the tidal portion of the river on five occasions during 2000. Chlorothalonil, metolachlor, atrazine, simazine, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos were frequently detected in the air and rain, with maximal concentrations during the period when local or regional crops were planted. The wet deposition load to the watershed was estimated at 150 +/- 16, 61 +/- 7, and 51 +/- 6 kg yr(-1) for chlorothalonil, metolachlor, and atrazine, respectively. The high wet deposition load compared with the estimated annual usage for chlorothalonil (13%) and endosulfan (14-90%) suggests an atmospheric source from outside the watershed. Net air-water gas exchange fluxes for metolachlor varied from -44 +/- 19 to 9.3 +/- 4.1 ng m(-2) d(-1) with negative values indicating net deposition. Wet deposition accounted for 3 to 20% of the total metolachlor mass in the Choptank River and was a more important source to the river than gas exchange. Estimates of herbicide flux presented here are probably a low estimate and actual rates may be significantly higher in areas closer to pesticide application.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available