U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5083

In cooperation with the City of Columbus, Ohio

Occurrence of Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and 

Finished Drinking Water from the Upper Scioto River Basin, 

Ohio, 2005–6

Occurrence of Antibiotic Compounds in 

Source Water and Finished Drinking Water 

from the Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 

2005–6

By Dennis P. Finnegan, Laura A. Simonson, and Michael T. Meyer

In cooperation with the City of Columbus, Ohio

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5083

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Finnegan, D.P., Simonson, L.A., and Meyer, M.T., 2010, Occurrence of antibiotic compounds in source water and finished drinking water from the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010–5083, 16 p. plus appendixes.
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................vi

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................3

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................5

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................5

Field Methods........................................................................................................................................5

Quality-Control Procedures ................................................................................................................8

Sample Analysis....................................................................................................................................8

Occurrence of Antibiotics ............................................................................................................................9

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................15

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................15

Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results...................................................18

Appendix 2. Sample Analysis .................................................................................................................38

Figures

1. Graph showing detection frequencies for selected antibiotics. A, The upper 

Scioto River Basin study, 2005–6. B, The National Reconnasiance,1999–2000 .................4

2–3 Maps showing:

2.. Land use in and around study area, upper Scioto River Basin, 

central Ohio ..........................................................................................................................6

 3. Sampling locations, upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 .......................................7

4–8. Graphs showing:

4. Occurrence and concentrations of antibiotic compounds at sites in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, and corresponding detection frequencies 

evaluated against each compound’s miminum reporting level .................................11

5. Total number of detections (61) by antibiotic group for collection sites in 

the upper Scioto River Basin, 2005–6 ............................................................................12

6. Summary of antibiotic compounds detected in water samples collected 

from the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 .........................................................12

7. Numbers of detections of antibiotic compounds by sampling site and 

date in source and finished waters of the upper Scioto River Basin, 

central Ohio, 2005–6 ..........................................................................................................13

8. Total number of detections at all sites, by season, in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, central Ohio, 2005–6............................................................14
iv

Tables

1. Major antibiotic groups and some common uses in human therapy and 

animal husbandry .........................................................................................................................2

2. Major groups of antibiotics and degradation products targeted by 

chemical analysis of water samples collected from the 

upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005-6 .....................................................................................3

3. Sampling-locations descriptions for antibiotic samples collected in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 ....................................................................................8

4. Total numbers of detections of antibiotic compounds in source- and 

finished- water sites from the Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 ........................................10

Appendix Tables

1–1. Field parameters from sampling locations in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 ........................................................................... 18–19

1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 ........................................................................... 20–33

1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6 ........................................................................... 34–37

2–1. Mobile phases used in the liquid chromatography/electrospray 

ionization-mass spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS) techniques for 

three common antibiotic groups ..............................................................................................38
v

Conversion Factors and Abbreviations

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

milliliter (mL) .03381 fluid ounce (oz)

microliter (μL) .001 milliliter

liter (L) .2642 gallon (gal)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) .02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 

(μS/cm at 25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L), 

micrograms per liter (μg/L), or nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL).

Pore sizes of filters are given in micrometers (μm; a micrometer is 0.001 millimeter).
vi

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Matt Steele and Rod Dunn from the City of Columbus, Division of Power and 

Water, for their assistance in project planning and report review
Occurrence of Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water 

and Finished Drinking Water from the Upper Scioto River 

Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

By Dennis P. Finnegan, Laura A. Simonson, and Michael T. Meyer

Abstract

The occurrence of antibiotics in surface water and

groundwater in urban basins has become a topic of increasing interest in recent years. Little is known about the occurrence, fate, or transport of these compounds and the possible

health effects in humans and aquatic life. The U.S. Geological

Survey, in cooperation with the City of Columbus, Division of

Power and Water, did a study to provide a synoptic view of the

occurrence of antibiotics in source and finished waters in the

upper Scioto River Basin.

Water samples were collected seasonally—winter

(December 2005), spring (May 2006), summer (August

2006) and fall (October 2006)—at five surface-water sites,

one groundwater site, and three water-treatment plants

(WTPs). Within the upper Scioto River Basin, sampling at

each WTP involved two sampling sites: a source-water intake

site and a finished-water site.

One or more antibiotics were detected at 11 of the

12 sampling sites. Of the 49 targeted antibiotic compounds,

12 (24 percent) were detected at least one time for a total of

61 detections overall. These compounds were azithromycin,

tylosin, erythromycin-H2O, erythromycin, roxithromycin,

ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole,

iso-chlorotetracycline, lincomycin, and trimethoprim. Detection results were at low levels, with an overall median of

0.014 μg/L. Hap Cremean WTP had the fewest detections,

with two source-water detections of sulfamethoxazole and

azithromycin and no detections in the finished water. Of

the total of 61 detections, 31 were in the winter sample run.

Sulfamethoxazale and azithromycin detections represent

41 percent of all antibiotic detections. Azithromycin was

detected only in the winter sample. Some antibiotics, such as

those in the quinoline and tetracycline families, dissipate more

quickly in warm water, which may explain why they were

detected in the cool months (winter, spring, and fall) and not

in the summer. Antibiotic data collected during this study were

compared to antibiotic data collected in previous national,

regional, and local studies. Many of the same antibiotic

compounds detected in the upper Scioto River Basin also were

detected in those investigations.

Introduction

A national reconnaissance study done during 1999–2000

revealed that a variety of chemicals used daily in homes,

industry, and agriculture and including antimicrobials, detergents, disinfectants, fragrances, fire retardants, prescription

and nonprescription drugs, and pesticides can enter streams 

(Kolpin and others, 2002). These chemicals, which can also 

affect groundwater, are often referred to as emerging contaminants (ECs), organic wastewater compounds (OWCs), and 

pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs); they can 

be released into the environment by various discharges (industrial facilities, animal feedlots, wastewater-treatment plants, 

septic disposal systems) and land applications (sludge, biosolids, or animal waste) in urban or agricultural areas. Antibiotics

are considered to be ECs and can now be detected at low concentrations in surface water and groundwater (U.S. Geological

Survey, 2007). A recent study in Ohio detected antibiotics at 

low concentrations (parts per billion) in streams draining the 

Great and Little Miami River Basins (Rowe and others, 2004). 

The potential effects on humans and biota resulting

from environmental exposure to antibiotics are not well

understood, but ongoing research indicates possible chronic 

effects from long-term exposure to even trace concentrations 

(Kolpin and others, 2002). Large quantities of antibiotics are

administered every year to humans and animals to prevent

and treat diseases and infection (table 1). For some confined

livestock, antibiotics are used to promote growth (Huang

and others, 2001). Little is known about the effects of many 

other individual chemicals or about the potential additive or 

synergistic effects of mixtures of these chemicals. As much as

90 percent of some administered antibiotics can be excreted

without undergoing metabolism, which makes them available to bioaccumulate or biomagnify in aquatic or terrestrial 

organisms (Halling-Sørensen and others, 1998). Few studies 

have addressed the occurrence, fate, or transport of antibiotic 

compounds in the environment, and water-quality standards to 

protect human or aquatic health have not been established for 

most of these chemicals.
2 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

In the recent past, analytical methods were not available

to accurately detect extremely low concentrations of antibiotic

compounds in water and provide a basis for drinking-water

standards. Analytical methods have now been improved to

include a broader range of antibiotic compounds for analysis,

as well as the ability to report detections in concentrations as

low as parts per billion (ppb). Development of drinking-water

standards generally involves long-term exposure studies of

known health effects; as a result, no Maximum Contaminant

Levels (MCLs), Health Advisory Levels (HALs), or HealthBased Screening Levels (HBSLs) for most of these compounds have yet been established (Kolpin and others, 2002).

Although human health and environmental effects of 

antibiotics are not well understood, other chemicals—such as 

the antimicrobial compound triclosan found in many liquid 

soaps, dishwasher powders, and plastics—are suspected of 

increasing antibiotic resistance in bacteria in the environment, 

and similar concerns have been raised by large-scale use of 

veterinary antibiotics in confined animal feeding operations 

(Kolpin and others, 2002). 

As a result of attention on the issue of antibiotics in 

public water supplies (Stratton, 2002), the City of Columbus, 

Ohio, received inquiries regarding the presence of antibiotics, 

and other wastewater chemicals in city water supplies. Consequently, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the City of Columbus, collected water samples from 

locations in the upper Scioto River Basin from December 

2005 to October 2006 to determine the occurrence and distribution of antibiotic compounds in source water from the City 

of Columbus, Ohio, during different hydrologic conditions. 

Samples were collected from five surface-water sites, one

groundwater site, and two sites—a source and finished water

site—at each of three water-treatment plants (WTPs). Samples

were analyzed for 49 antibiotic compounds, which were

grouped into five classes: macrolides, beta lactams, quinolines, sulfonamides, and tetracyclines (table 2). A sixth group 

analyzed for, “other antibiotics,” included compounds such as 

carbadox and lincomycin (table 2). 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present and describe

data from the 2005–6 study. Results from this study address

data gaps from a previous reconnaissance effort in 2001

(see “Previous Studies” section; Kolpin and others, 2002)

and complement ongoing efforts by the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment Program to characterize the distribution

and occurrence of antibiotics and OWCs in the Nation’s

water resources.

Table 1. Major antibiotic groups and some common uses in human therapy and animal husbandry.

[Sources: Hooper, D.C., 1998; Smilack, J.D., 1999; Čižman and others, 2001; Huang and others, 2001; Lipsitch and others, 2002; Casewell and others, 2003;

and Scholar, E.M., 2003]

Antibiotic group

Tetracyclines Sulfonamides and quinolones Macrolides and beta lactams

Human-therapy treatment types

Atypical pneumonia syndromes Urinary-tract infections

Respiratory

infections

Community-acquired

pneumonia

Chlamydial infections

Respiratory

infections

Community-acquired

pneumonia Strep throat

Rickettsial

infections

Rocky Mountain

spotted fever Chronic bronchitis Laryngitis

Typhus Gastrointestinal

infections

Gastroenteritis Sinusitis

Q fever Diarrhea Meningitis

Lyme disease Bone and skin

infections

Osteomyelitis

Skin infections

Impetigo

Ehrlichiosis Staph infections Erysipelas

Acne Venereal

diseases

Chlamydial

infections

Cellulitis

Rosacea Middle-ear infections

Animal-husbandry treatment types

Growth promotion

Bacterial infections

Growth promotion

Disease prevention
Introduction 3

Previous Studies

Investigations into the occurrence of ECs in surface

waters have been done at national, regional, and local levels

nationwide, and results indicate that antibiotic compounds are

not uncommon in groundwater and surface water. In 2002,

USGS reported on the first national reconnaissance of the

occurrence of pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other OWCs

in water resources (Kolpin and others, 2002). A network of

139 streams across 30 states was sampled and analyzed for

95 ECs. Some commonly detected antibiotics reported in that

study were lincomycin (19.2 percent detection) and tylosin

(13.5 percent detection; fig.1). Of the antibiotics sampled for,

45 percent were detected, the highest frequency being for

erythromycin-H2O at roughly 21.5 percent. Most detections

were at low concentrations; however, chronic effects from

low-level environmental exposure have potential to promote

antibiotic resistance (Kolpin and others, 2002).

At the regional level, brief investigations into ECs in the

Stillwater River Basin and the Great Miami River Basin were

completed in 2000. Thirty samples collected from subbasins

in the Stillwater River Basin after a single high-flow event

revealed multiple lincomycin detections and an erythromycinH2

O detection in combination with lincomycin. Lincomycin

(23.5 percent) was found at similar frequencies in this regional

study (Rowe and others, 2004) and the national investigation

(Kolpin and others, 2002). Trace amounts of sulfamethazine

and sulfadimethoxine also were detected in spring runoff samples in the Stillwater River Basin (Rowe and others, 2004).

In 2001, the USGS performed a small-scale local reconnaissance study within the current study unit boundaries

to evaluate the presence of antibiotics in source water and

finished drinking water supplied by the City of Columbus.

One to three samples were collected at three surface-water

sites (Powder Lick Run near Summersville, Ohio; Mill Creek

below Marysville, Ohio; and Scioto River near Prospect,

Ohio) in the Scioto River Basin upstream from the sourcewater intake to the Dublin Road WTP. In addition, source- and

finished-water samples were collected at the Dublin Road

and Hap Cremean WTPs. No antibiotics were detected at any

of the three surface-water sites. However, three antibiotic

compounds were detected in one sample event (Dec. 5, 2001)

at the Dublin Road WTP: lincomycin (0.03 μg/L) and sulfadimethoxine (0.01 μg/L) were detected in the source water, and

virginiamycin (0.15 μg/L) was detected in the finished water

(USGS Ohio Water Science Center, unpub. data, 2001).

Table 2. Major groups of antibiotics and degradation products 

targeted by chemical analysis of water samples collected from 

the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005-6.

Macrolides and 

degradation products

Tetracyclines and 

degradation products

Azithromycin Chlorotetracycline

Erythromycin Anhydro-Chlorotetracycline

Erythromycin-H20 Epi-anhydro-Chlorotetracycline

Roxithromycin Epi-chlorotetracycline

Tylosin Epi-iso-chlorotetracycline

Virginiamycin Iso-chlorotetracycline

Demeclocycline

Beta Lactams Doxycycline

Amoxicillin Minocycline

Ampicillin Oxytetracycline

Cefotaxime Alpha apo-oxytetracycline

Cloxacillin Beta apo-oxytetracycline

Oxacillin Epi-oxytetracycline

Penicillin G Tetracycline

Penicllin V Anhydro-tetracycline

Epi-anhydro-tetracycline

Quinolines Epi-tetracycline

Ciprofloxacin

Clinafloxacin Other antibiotics

Flumequine Carbadox

Lomefloxacin Lincomycin

Norfloxacin Ormetoprim

Ofloxacin Trimethoprim

Oxolinic Acid

Sarafloxacin

Sulfonamides

Sulfachlorpyradazine

Sulfadiazine

Sulfadimethoxine

Sulfamerazine

Sulfamethazine

Sulfamethoxazole

Sulfathiazole
SCIOTO RIVER BASIN STUDY

2005–6

39 samples

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE

1999–2000

A B 104 samples

Trimethroprim

Linomycin

Iso-Chlorotetracyline

Sulfamethoxazole

Sulfamethazine

Ooxacin

Ciprooxacin

Roxithromycin

Erythromycin

Erythromycin-H2

0

Tylosin

Azithromycin

DETECTION FREQUENCY, IN PERCENT

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

NS

NS

NS

NS

4 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Figure 1. Detection frequencies for selected antibiotics. A, The upper Scioto River Basin study, 2005–6. 

B, The National Reconnasiance,1999–2000 (Kolpin and others, 2002). (NS, not sampled for.)
Methods 5

Description of Study Area

The upper Scioto River Basin drains approximately

2,300 mi2 of central and north-central Ohio, stretching from

Crawford County at the northernmost point to Franklin County

at the south (fig. 2). The Scioto is the longest free-flowing

river in Ohio at 231 mi long, and it is fed by 3,000 miles of

tributaries that flow through central and north-central Ohio

(Nature Conservancy, 2007; Resources First Foundation,

2007). The surficial geology of the Scioto River Basin consists

of glacial and alluvial deposits (Oblinger and others, 1991).

The Scioto River Basin is a largely agricultural area that

includes numerous suburban communities north of Columbus

(fig. 2). Drainage from agricultural, residential, municipal, and

industrial activities in the basin results in runoff of nutrients,

pesticides, and a variety of ECs to surface water (Rowe and

others, 2004). The basin also contains confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and numerous wastewater-treatment

plants that discharge into the Scioto River (fig. 2). The basin

has a population of approximately 2 million people and is a

major source of public drinking water; more than 20 municipal

water systems draw surface water and groundwater from the

Scioto River, its tributaries, or wells adjacent to its tributaries

(Resources First Foundation, 2007). The City of Columbus

draws 85 percent of the city’s annual water supply (roughly

47.5 billion gallons of water) from three reservoirs in the

Scioto River Basin—Griggs, O’Shaughnessy, and Hoover—

which have a combined storage capacity of about 27 billion

gallons (Columbus Department of Public Utilities, 2009).

Methods

Field Methods

From December 2005 through October 2006 (water years

2006 and 2007), USGS personnel collected water samples

to be analyzed for antibiotics at 12 selected sampling sites.

Samples were collected on a quarterly schedule, in an attempt

to capture ideal hydrologic conditions within each season.

Field blanks and replicates were scheduled to be sampled in

association with each environmental quarterly sample.

Surface-water samples were collected from farthest

upstream to downstream and from west to east by using a

depth- and width-integrated, equal-width-increment (EWI)

method (Wilde and others, 2006). Two models of isokinetic

samplers incorporating a l-L Teflon bottle were used for

surface-water collection: a DH-95 was used from a bridge,

and a DH-81 was used for wading. The collected sample was

composited into a Teflon churn splitter to obtain a homogeneous subsample (Wilde and others, 2006). The surface-water

sites were (1) Powder Lick Run near Summersville, Ohio,

(2) Mill Creek below Marysville, Ohio, (3) Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury, Ohio, (4) Scioto River near Prospect, Ohio,

and (5) Scioto River downstream from Collector Well-104

(CW-104) (fig. 3, table 3). Groundwater samples were collected from site (6) Columbus Well Field Collector Well101 (CW-101)—in the Columbus South well field—which

supplies groundwater to the Parsons Avenue WTP. This site

was sampled by means of the grab-sample method from a

constantly flowing spigot within the well house. Paired sourceand finished-drinking-water grab samples were collected at the

Dublin Road Plant (7, 8), the Hap Cremean Plant (9, 10), and

the Parsons Avenue Plant (11, 12) (fig. 3; table 3).

All samples were processed at the time of collection.

Sample water was filtered through a 0.7-μm baked glass-fiber

filter and captured in two 125-mL, baked amber-glass bottles

(Wilde and others, 2004). Samples were chilled and shipped

overnight to the USGS Organic Geochemistry Research Group

Laboratory (ORGL) in Lawrence, Kansas. Ancillary data collected at each site included temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen concentrations (appendix 1,

table 1–1). Streamflow was measured at ungaged stream sites

1 and 2 (fig. 3; table3). Each sampling event required 1 week 

for collection and processing of samples from all 12 sites.

Because of somewhat atypical weather patterns, sample

collection consisted of low-flow samples in December 2005

and August 2006, and runoff samples in May 2006 and October 2006. Also, because large CAFOs are present in the upper

Scioto River Basin, an additional runoff sample was collected

in August at the stream sites in the upper Scioto—Powder

Lick Run near Summersville, Mill Creek below Marysville,

Scioto River near Prospect, and the Dublin Road WTP sites—

to facilitate assessment of runoff water quality. The remaining

sites—Big Walnut Creek at Sunbury, the Columbus Well Field

CW-101, Scioto River downstream from CW-104, and Hap

Cremean and Parsons WTPs—were sampled once (May) during runoff conditions.

Seasonal runoff samples were scheduled for collection in

May–June (to capture high flows early in the growing season)

and July–August (to capture low flows later in the growing

season). However, more importance was given to collecting at least one set of samples during each seasonal quarter

than to sampling the types of hydrological events expected

during those quarters. Atypical weather conditions resulted

in samples being collected earlier or later than expected,

whenever suitable low-flow or runoff conditions presented

themselves. Stream runoff samples were collected during or

immediately after significant rainfall. No threshold rainfall

amount was defined for a triggered sampling run; seasonal

timing, more than anything, with sufficient rainfall usually

dictated when to sample. Source-water and finished-drinkingwater samples were collected 3–5 days later. In an effort to

target worst-case conditions, samples were collected during

periods when results of daily nitrate and pesticide monitoring

done by the Columbus Division of Power and Water indicated

that concentrations of agrochemicals were highest in the

source water. Low-flow samples were collected in late summer in an effort to target periods when treated wastewater and

septic-tank discharge likely represent a larger proportion of the

total streamflow.
_`

_`

_` _`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_` _` _``__``

_` _` _`

_`

_`

_`_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

_`

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

CRAWFORD

Scioto River

KNOX

LICKING

LOGAN

UNION

ALLEN

CLARK

MIAMI

HARDIN

FRANKLIN

SHELBY

GREENE

FAIRFIELD

RICHLAND

MARION

MADISON

PICKAWAY

MORROW

DELAWARE

AUGLAIZE

WYANDOT CRAWFORD

CHAMPAIGN

ONTGOMERY

Mill Creek

Alum

Creek

Olentangy

River

Big Darby Creek

Big

Walnut Creek

Powder Lick Run

Marion

Galion

Delaware

Columbus

Springfield

83°30' 83°

40°30'

40°

Landcover data from U.S. Geological Survey, 2001

National Land Cover Dataset

projection, Albers; North American Datum of 1983.

Figure 2. Land cover in and around study area, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio.

Delaware

Lake

O'Shaughnessy

Reservoir

Hoover

Reservoir

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

#* Wastewater-treatement plant

_` Confined animal feeding operations

Study area boundary

Open water

Developed, open space and low intensity

Developed, medium and high intensity

Forest

Agriculture

Other

Alum Creek

Reservoir

6 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Figure 2. Land use in and around study area, upper Scioto River Basin, central Ohio.
Figure 3. Sampling locations, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.

(Numbers refer to site descriptions listed in table 3.)

Base from Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Real Estate and Land Management,

1999; scale 1:24,000; State Plane South; North American Datum of 1927.

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

A!

A!

A!

"M

A!

*#

*#

*#

A!

£¤33

§ ̈¦71

£¤23

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦71

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦71

£¤33

£¤665

£¤23

£¤23

§ ̈¦270

Scioto

River

Olentangy

River

Mill Creek

Powder Lick Run

Alum

Creek

Big

Walnut Creek

UNION

FRANKLIN

FAIRFIE

MADISON

MORROW

DELAWARE

AIGN

§ ̈¦70

Olentangy 

3

5

9,10

1

2

4

7,8

11,12

6

83°30' 83°15' 83° 82°45'

40°15'

40°

Site Locations (and map identification number)

A! Stream, gaged (3 and 4)

A! Stream, ungaged (1, 2, and 5)

*# Water treatment plant (7–12)

"M Production well (6)

# All active water treatment plants

or wastewater treatment plants

Study area boundary

EXPLANATION

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

O'Shaughnessy

Reservoir

Alum Creek

Lake

Hoover

Reservoir

Delaware

Lake

Methods 7

Figure 3. Sampling locations, upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6. (Numbers refer to site descriptions listed in table 3.)
8 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Quality-Control Procedures

The quality-control (QC) procedures, which consisted of

collecting and analyzing field blanks and replicates, followed

a general quality-assurance/quality control protocol established for low-level organic analyses (parts per billion), the

same protocol used for pesticides in the NAWQA Program

(Mueller and others, 1997). Because many of the compounds

being sampled for were commonly used products (personal

care products and medicines, for example) and the risk for

accidental contamination was high, a relatively large number of field blanks were collected compared to the NAWQA

pesticide protocol for the project to identify and resolve

possible contamination issues. Antibiotic field-blank samples

represented about 15 percent of the environmental samples

and yielded no detections. Replicates were samples that were

collected in an identical manner as environmental samples as

a measure of variability of the collection and analysis process.

Two replicate samples were collected at study sites Columbus

Well Field CW-101 and Powder Lick Run near Summersville,

Ohio. The replicates indicated good reproducibility of laboratory results with an identical concentration of (0.005 μg/L) for

lincomycin, the only detection from the two replicate samples.

Field spikes—samples augmented with known quantities and

concentrations of analytes or surrogates and often used as a

QC check in water-quality studies—were not collected during

this investigation because there were no available field spike

surrogates at the time of this investigation. All QC results for

the study are listed in appendix 1, table 1–3.

Sample Analysis

Samples were analyzed at the ORGL in Lawrence,

Kansas, for five classes of antibiotics—beta lactams, macrolides, quinolones, sulfonamides, and tetracyclines—by use of

three online solid-phase extraction (SPE) methods and liquid

chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) or LC/MS/MS.

This approach can currently determine 49 commonly used

human-therapy and animal-husbandry antibiotics, including

some antibiotic breakdown products or degradates (tables 1

and 2). Beta lactams and macrolides (BLM), sulfonamides and

quinolones (SQ), and the tetracyclines (TET) were analyzed

separately by use of online solid SPE methods and liquid

chromatography/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry

(LC/ESI-MS) in positive-ion mode. The reporting levels

ranged from 0.01 to 0.005 μg/L. (See appendix 2 for a more

detailed description of BLM, SQ, and TET sample analysis;

Meyer and others, 2007.)

Table 3. Sampling-locations descriptions for antibiotic samples collected in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6. 

[WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well; I, water intake; F, finished water]

Map identification number 

(location shown 

in fig. 1)

Station identification 

number Station name Relation to water-treatment plants 

1 402302083254100 Powder Lick Run near Summersville Upstream from two WTPs.

2 401425083212500 Mill Creek below Marysville Upstream from two WTPs.

3 03228300 Big Walnut Creek at Sunbury Upstream from two WTPs.

4 03219500 Scioto River near Prospect Upstream from two WTPs.

5 395033083002900 Scioto River DS from CW-104 Downstream from one WTP.

6 395111083010600 Columbus Well Field CW-101 Adjacent to one WTP; well sample.

7` 395813083020701 Dublin Road WTP, I At WTP.

8 395813083020702 Dublin Road WTP, F At WTP.

9 400336082533901 Hap Cremean WTP I At WTP.

10 400336082533902 Hap Cremean WTP, F At WTP.

11 395050082591301 Parsons Avenue WTP, I At WTP.

12 395050082591302 Parsons Avenue WTP, F At WTP.
Occurrence of Antibiotics 9

Occurrence of Antibiotics

Antibiotics detected in water samples collected for this

study are summarized in table 4. (The results of all antibiotic 

analyses are listed in appendix 1, table 1–2.) Of the 49 targeted

antibiotic compounds, 12 (24 percent) were detected at least

one time for a total of 61 detections overall (fig. 4; table 4;

appendix 1, table 1–2). These compounds were trimethoprim,

lincomycin, iso-chlorotetracycline, sulfamethoxazole, sulfamethazine, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, tylosin, roxithromycin,

erythromycin-H2O, erythromycin, and azithromycin (fig. 4).

The concentrations of compounds detected ranged from 0.005

to 0.140 μg/L with a median value of 0.014 μg/L (fig. 4).

Antibiotic compound detections were similar to those detected

in three previous antibiotic studies: Furlong and Boyd, 2002

(erythromycin, sulfamethoxazole, and trimethoprim); Rowe

and others, 2004 (lincomycin and erythromycin-H2O); and

Kolpin and others, 2002 (trimethoprim, lincomycin, sulfamethoxazole, sulfamethazine, ciprofloxacin, roxithromycin,

erythromycin-H2O, and tylosin). Macrolides and sulfonamides

were the most commonly detected antibiotic groups representing 41 percent (25) and 28 percent (17) of all detections,

respectively (fig. 5). Huang and others (2001) suggested that

sulfonamides, quinolines, and macrolides are likely water

contaminants because they lack strong sediment sorption

properties and thus are more likely to be found in the water

column than in sediment. Azithromycin (9 detections) was

most frequently detected macrolide, and sulfamethoxazole

(16 detections) was the most commonly detected sulfonamide

(figs. 4 and 6). Only one tetracycline compound was detected,

iso-chlorotetracycline, a degradate product of chlorotetracycline (figs. 4 and 6). Huang and others (2001) noted that

tetracyclines may persist for a significant period of time but

are less mobile than other antibiotic groups, owing to sorption

to soil. The antibiotic group “other” had 12 total detections;

lincomycin and trimethoprim were both detected 6 times

(figs. 5 and 6). Ciprofloxacin (2 detections) and ofloxacin

(3 detections) were the only quinolines detected in the study

area (figs. 4 and 6). No beta lactams were detected (fig. 5).

Previous studies also indicate that beta lactams generally

undergo hydrolysis fairly quickly under mildly acidic or basic

conditions (Huang and others, 2001); thus, beta lactams are

not likely to persist under pH conditions typical of the Scioto

River Basin (appendix 1, table 1–1).

Sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic compound that is often

used in combination with other antibiotics to treat infections,

had the single highest concentration at 0.14 μg/L (fig. 6). Sulfamethoxazole biodegrades slowly if at all, and sulfonamides,

in general, exhibit weak sorption to soils. In addition, hydrolysis of sulfonamides at a neutral pH range is very slow and can

be considered negligible, making them more likely to persist

in solution (Huang and others, 2001).

At least one antibiotic was detected at 11 of the 12 sites; 

Hap Cremean F was the only site with no antibiotic detections 

(fig. 7). Scioto River near Prospect had the most detections

overall at 17 and the most detections (7) on any one sampling

date (on December 8, 2005). The Scioto River downstream

from CW-104 had a total of 16 detections. Both sites had

no less than three antibiotic compounds detected during all

sampling events. Powder Lick Run near Summersville, a

small intermittent stream, had trace detections of lincomycin,

a growth promoter in livestock. This could be a possible connection to the presence of CAFOs upstream from the sampling

site or other agricultural uses in the watershed (fig. 2).

Only two antibiotics, sulfamethoxazole and azithromycin, were detected at the Hap Cremean and Parsons Avenue

WTPs, source-water intake sites (fig. 7). The Dublin Road

WTP source-water intake site had the most antibiotics identified (6) for any one sampling event (May 24, 2006) and also

had detections for all four sampling events; moreover, it is

located between Scioto River nr Prospect and Scioto River

downstream CW-104, both of which had numerous detections

(17 and 16, respectively; figs. 3 and 7). The finished-water site

at the Parsons Avenue WTP had detections of azithromycin,

roxithromyocin and tylosin, whereas Hap Cremean had none.

The Dublin Road WTP finished-water site (Dublin Road F)

had one detection (azithromycin) in the December 2005

sample. Detention times for water-treatment processes were

not included in the sampling protocol; therefore, conclusions

about the efficiency of the WTPs were not drawn.

Data from surface-water sites were evaluated to determine potential seasonal variations in occurrence and concentrations (fig. 8). The number of antibiotic detections decreased

from winter (31) to summer (6) and rose slightly in the fall (9).

The winter sample (December 2005) yielded just over 50 percent of the total detections for this investigation in a relatively

low-flow setting. All of the antibiotics detected during the

course of this investigation (except for iso-chlorotetracycline)

were detected in at least one water sample collected during the

December 2005 sampling event. Other antibiotic studies (Furlong and Boyd, 2002) also have documented a large number

of detections in the coolest months. Furlong and Boyd (2002)

suggested that warm water temperatures found in the summer months cause an increase in biological activity and may

significantly increase the degradation or biological uptake of

some compounds. In addition, Huang and others (2001) found

that tetracyclines and quinolines are susceptible to photodegradation, which may explain why they were detected in the

cool fall through spring months of shorter photo periods and

interference (shading from ice and fallen leaves) and not in

the summer. The concentrations of antibiotic compounds were

only slightly higher in the spring and summer samples than in

the fall and winter samples. Hydrologic conditions were mixed

(relatively low and high flows) during the sampling periods for

both the spring and summer and the fall and winter. Galloway

and others (2005) suggested a positive relation between water

temperature and antibiotic concentration due to mobilization

of certain antibiotic compounds.
10 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 4. Total numbers of detections of antibiotic compounds in source- and finished- water sites from the 

Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.

[All values are in micrograms per liter; bold type indicates compounds that were detected at least once]

Constituent Detection 

level

Number of 

detections Constituent Detection level

Number of 

detections

Beta lactams Tetracyclines and degradation products

Amoxicillin <0.010 0 Chlorotetracycline <0.010 0

Ampicillin <0.010 0 Anhydro-Chlorotetracycline <0.010 0

Cefotaxime <0.010 0 Epi-anhydro-Chlorotetracycline <0.010 0

Cloxacillin <0.010 0 Epi-chlorotetracycline <0.010 0

Oxacillin <0.010 0 Epi-iso-Chlorotetracycline <0.010 0

Penicillin G <0.010 0 Iso-Chlorotetracycline <0.010 1

Penicillin V <0.010 0 Demeclocycline <0.010 0

Macrolides and degradation products Doxycycline <0.010 0

Azithromycin <0.005 9 Minocycline <0.010 0

Erythromycin <0.005 7 Oxytetracycline <0.010 0

Erythromycin-H20 <0.005 6 Alpha apo-oxytetracycline <0.010 0

Roxithromycin <0.005 2 Beta apo-oxytetracycline <0.010 0

Tylosin <0.005 1 Epi-oxytetracycline <0.010 0

Virginiamycin <0.005 0 Tetracycline <0.010 0

Quinolines Anhydro-tetracycline <0.010 0

Ciprofloxacin <0.005 2 Epi-anhydro-tetracycline <0.010 0

Clinafloxacin <0.005 0 Epi-tetracycline <0.010 0

Flumequine <0.005 0 Other antibiotics

Lomefloxacin <0.005 0 Carbadox <0.005 0

Norfloxacin <0.005 0 Lincomycin <0.005 6

Oxfloxacin <0.005 3 Ormetoprim <0.005 0

Oxolinic Acid <0.005 0 Trimethoprim <0.005 7

Sarafloxacin <0.005 0

Sulfonamides

Sulfachlorpyradazine <0.005 0

Sulfadiazine <0.005 0

Sulfadimethoxine <0.005 0

Sulfamerazine <0.005 0

Sulfamethazine <0.005 1

Sulfamethoxazole <0.005 16

Sulfathiazole <0.005 0
X

EXPLANATION

Percentile—Percentage of analyses

 equal to or less than indicated

 values

 90th percentile

 75th percentile

 50th percentile (median)

 25th percentile

 10th percentile

X Outlier (extreme value)

 Mean

 Quinolines

 Tetracyclines and degradation products

 Macrolides and degradation products

 Sulfonamides

 Other antibiotics

Interquartile 

 range

DETECTION FREQUENCY

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

1E-3 0.01 0.1 1

Trimethoprim

Ormetoprim

Lincomycin

Carbadox

Epi-tetracycline

Epi-anhydro-tetrcycline

Anhydro-tetracycline

Tetracycline

Epi-oxytetracycline

Beta apo-oxytetracycline

Alpha apo-oxytetracycline

Oxytetracycline

Minocycline

Doxycycline

Demeclocycline

Iso-chlororotetracycline

Epi-iso-chlorotetracycline

Epi-chlorotetracycline

Epi-anhydro-Chlorotetracycline

Anydro-Chlorotetracycline

Chlorotetracycline

Sulfathiazole

Sulfamethoxazole

Sulfamethazine

Sulfamerazine

Sulfadimethoxine

Sulfadiazine

Sulfachlorpyradazine

Saraoxacin

Oxolinic Acid

Ooxacin

Noroxacin

Lomeoxacin

Flumequine

Clinaoxacin

Ciprooxacin

Virginiamycin

Tylosin

Roxithromycin

Erthyromycin-H2

0

Erythromycin

Azithromycin

Penicillin V

Penicillin G

Oxacillin

Cloxacillin H2

0

Cefotaxime

Ampicillin

Amoxicillin

23.1

15.4

15.4

17.9

5.1

5.1

7.7

2.6

2.6

41

2.6

17.9

Occurrence of Antibiotics 11

Figure 4. Occurrence and concentrations of antibiotic compounds at sites in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, and corresponding 

detection frequencies evaluated against each compound’s miminum reporting level.
Quinolines

n=5

(8 percent)

Sulfonamides

n=17

(28 percent)

Macrolides

n=25 

(41 percent)

Other 

n=13 

(21 percent)

Tetracyclines

n=1

(2 percent)

0.027

0.018

0.08

Surface-water sites, including intake sources (8)

Finished-water sites (3)

Groundwater sites (1)

Maximum concentration

(micrograms per liter) 0.14

20

15

10

5

0

0.026

Azithromycin

Tylosin

Erythromycin-H2

0

Number of detections

Erythromycin

Roxithromycin

Ciprooxacin

Ooxacin

Sulfamethazine

Sulfamethoxazole

Iso-chlorotetracycline

Lincomycin

Trimethoprim

0.046

0.009 0.009

0.006 0.037

0.013

0.016

0.14

12 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Figure 5. Total number of 

detections (61) by antibiotic 

group for collection sites in the 

upper Scioto River Basin, 2005–6 

(n, number of detections; beta 

lactams were not detected). 

Figure 6. Summary of antibiotic compounds detected in water samples collected from the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.
Scioto River DS from CW-104

Scioto River near Prospect

Big Walnut Creek at Sunbury

Powder Lick Run near Somersville

Columbus Well Field CW-101

Dublin Road WTP, I

Dublin Road WTP, F

Hap Creman WTP, I

Hap Creman WTP, F

Parsons Avenue WTP, I

Parsons Avenue WTP, F

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

5/22/2006

5/22/2006

5/23/2006

5/23/2006

5/25/2006

5/24/2006

5/24/2006

5/24/2006

5/24/2006

5/24/2006

5/25/2006

5/25/2006

8/22/2006

8/23/2006

8/23/2006

8/22/2006

8/22/2006

10/18/2006

10/18/2006

10/18/2006

10/19/2006

10/24/2006

10/24/2006

10/24/2006

10/24/2006

10/23/2006

10/23/2006

10/19/2006

12/8/2005

12/8/2005

12/6/2005

12/6/2005

12/7/2005

12/7/2005

12/7/2005

12/7/2005

12/7/2005

12/6/2005

12/6/2005

DATE OF SAMPLE COLLECTION

NUMBER OF DETECTIONS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EXPLANATION

Groundwater Source waters from WTP

 Surface water Finished waters from WTP

Occurrence of Antibiotics 13

Figure 7. Numbers of detections of antibiotic compounds by sampling site and date in source and 

finished waters of the upper Scioto River Basin, central Ohio, 2005–6.
14 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Figure 8. Total number of detections at all sites, by season, in the upper Scioto River 

Basin, central Ohio, 2005–6.

Comparing results from the previous study to those 

from this study, the antibiotic analysis method used during 

2001 included just over half (26) of the antibiotic compounds 

tested for in 2005–6 (49). In addition, four of the compounds 

analyzed for in 2001 were not analyzed for in 2005–6, and 

the minimum reporting limits (MRLs) ranged from twice 

to an order of magnitude higher than the current laboratory 

MRLs. Not surprisingly, many of the compounds detected in 

the earlier investigations were the same as those detected in 

this report (fig. 1). It is important to note that the number of 

antibiotic compounds reported in 2001 (3) was far fewer than 

the compounds reported in 2005–6 (61). It is expected that 

lower MRLs and an expanded compound analysis list, such 

as the ones used in this study, would yield higher detection 

frequencies.
References Cited 15

Summary and Conclusions

Occurrence of antibiotic compounds in surface-andgroundwater has been a topic of increasing interest, along

with the understanding of fate (or transport) of these compounds and the possible health effects in humans and aquatic

life. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the

City of Columbus, Division of Power and Water, collected

water samples from locations in the upper Scioto River Basin

from December 2005 to October 2006 to determine the occurrence and distribution of antibiotic compounds in source water

from the City of Columbus, Ohio. Samples were collected

from five surface-water sites, one groundwater site, and two

sites—a source- and finished-water site—at each of three

water-treatment plants (WTPs). In an effort to target worstcase conditions, samples were collected during periods when

results of daily nitrate and pesticide monitoring done by the

Columbus Division of Power and Water indicated that concentrations of agrochemicals were highest in the source water.

Low-flow samples were collected in late summer in an effort

to target periods when treated wastewater and septic-tank discharge likely represent a larger proportion of the total streamflow. The quality-control (QC) procedures, which consisted of

collecting and analyzing field blanks and replicates, followed a

general quality-assurance/quality control protocol established

for low-level organic analyses. Antibiotic field blank samples

represented about 15 percent of the environmental samples

and yielded no detections. Two replicate samples were collected at study sites Columbus Well Field CW-101 and Powder

Lick Run near Summersville, Ohio. The replicates indicated

good reproducibility of laboratory results with an identical

concentration of (0.005 μg/L) for lincomycin.

Of the 49 targeted antibiotic compounds, 12 (24 percent)

were detected at least one time for a total of 61 detections.

These compounds were trimethoprim, lincomycin, iso-chlorotetracycline, sulfamethoxazole, sulfamethazine, ofloxacin,

ciprofloxacin, tylosin, roxithromycin, erythromycin-H2O,

erythromycin, and azithromycin. Sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic compound that is often used in combination with other

antibiotics to treat infections, had the single highest concentration at 0.14 μg/L. Azithromycin (9 detections) was most

frequently detected macrolide and sulfamethoxazole (16 detections) was the most commonly detected sulfonamide. At least

one antibiotic was detected at 11 of the 12 sites; Hap Cremean

F was the only site with no antibiotic detections. Scioto River

near Prospect had the most detections overall at 17 and the

most detections (7) on any one sampling date (on December 8,

2005). The Scioto River downstream from CW-104 had a total

of 16 detections. Data from surface-water sites were evaluated

to determine potential seasonal variations in occurrence and

concentrations. The number of antibiotic detections decreased

from winter (31) to summer (6) and rose slightly in the fall (9).

The winter sample (December 2005) yielded just over 50 percent of the total detections for this investigation in a relatively

low-flow setting.

Throughout the duration of this project, knowledge of

collection, processing, and analysis of organic wastewater

contaminants have continued to evolve and improve. Timeintegrated source and finished-water samples collected over

a 24-hour period with calculated residence time between the

source and finished would be a preferred collection method

compared to a grab sample for water-treatment plants. Allowing for residence time in the treatment process would provide

a more thorough evaluation of occurrence and distribution and

would also improve understanding of drinking-water treatment

processes and persistence of measurable concentrations of

organic wastewater contaminants in finished water.

References Cited

Boyd, R.A., and Furlong, E.T., 2002, Human-health pharmaceutical compounds in Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona,

and Las Vegas Wash, Nevada, October 2000–August 2001:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–385, 18 p.

Casewell, Mark; Friis, Christian; Marco, Enrico; McMullin,

Paul; and Phillips, Ian, 2003, The European ban on growthpromoting antibiotics and emerging consequences for

human and animal health: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, v. 52, no. 2, p. 159–161.

Cižman, Milan; Pokorn, Marko; Seme, Katja; Oražem,

Andreja; and Paragi, Metka, 2001, The relationship between

trends in macrolide use and resistance to macrolides of

common respiratory pathogens: Journal of Antimicrobial

Chemotherapy, v. 47, no. 4, p. 475–477.

Columbus Department of Public Utilities, Water Sources:

Accessed October 7, 2009, at http://utilities.columbus.gov/

Water/WaterSources%20.htm.

Halling-Sørensen, B.; Nielson, S.N.; Lanzky, P.F.; Ingerslev, F.; Holten Lützhoft, H.C.; and Jorgensen, S.E., 1998,

Occurrence, fate and effects of pharmaceutical substances

in the environment—A review: Chemosphere, v. 35, no. 2,

p. 357–393.

Hooper, D.C., 1998, Expanding uses of fluoroquinolones—

Opportunities and challenges: Annals of Internal Medicine, 

v. 129, no. 11, pt. 1, p. 908–910.

Huang, C.H., Renew, J.E., Smeby, K.L., Pinkston, K., and

Sedlak, D.L., 2001, Assessment of potential antibiotic

contaminants in water and preliminary occurrence analysis,

in Second International Conference on Pharmaceuticals

and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Water, October 9–11, 2001, Minneapolis, Minn.: National Ground

Water Association.
16 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Galloway, J.M., Haggard, B.E., Meyers, M.T., and Green,

W.R., 2005, Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and other

organic wastewater constituents in selected streams in

northern Arkansas, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific

Investigations Report 2005–5140, 24 p.

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M.,

Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., and Buxton, H.T., 2002, Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999–2000—A national reconnaissance: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 36, no. 6,

p. 1202–1211.

Lipsitch, Marc; Singer, R.S.; and Levin, B.R., 2002, Antibiotics in agriculture—When is it time to close the barn door?:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 99,

no. 9, p. 5752–5754.

Meyer, M.T., Lee, E.A., Ferrell, G.M., Bumgarner, J.E., and

Varns, Jerry, 2007, Evaluation of offline tandem and online

solid-phase extraction with liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry for analysis of antibiotics in ambient water and comparison to an independent

method: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations

Report 2007–5021, 28 p.

Mueller, D.K., Martin, J.D., and Lopes, T.J., 1997, Qualitycontrol design for surface-water sampling in the National

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–223, p. 3–6.

Nature Conservancy, 2007, Lower Scioto River Basin—

Building partnerships to sustain high-quality waters:

Accessed September 26, 2007, at http://www.nature.org/

wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/preserves/art16099.

html.

Oblinger, C.J., Sheets, R.A., and Bair, E.S., 1991, Hydrology and water quality near the South Well Field, southern

Franklin County, Ohio, with emphasis on the simulation of ground-water flow and transport of Scioto River:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 91–4080, 78 p.

Resources First Foundation, 2007, Ohio Scioto River Basin

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program—Buffers and

wetlands improving water quality: Accessed September 26,

2007, at http://www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/

viewproject.asp?pid=535.

Rowe, G.L., Jr., Reutter, D.C., Runkle, D.L., Hambrook, J.A.,

Janosy, S.D., and Hwang, L.H., 2004, Water quality in the

Great and Little Miami River Basins: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1229, p. 23–25.

Scholar, E.M., 2003, Fluoroquinolines—Past, present, and

future of a novel group of antibacterial agents: American

Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, v. 66, p. 164–172.

Smilack, J.D., 1999, Symposium on antimicrobial agents—

The tetracyclines: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, v. 74,

p. 727–729.

Stratton, L., 2002, Afraid of the water: Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, March 24, 2002, Home and Garden section.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Toxic Substances Hydrology

Program: Accessed September 26, 2007, at http://toxics.

usgs.gov/regional/emc/index.html.

Wilde, F.D.; Radtke, D.B.; Gibs, Jacob; and Iwatsubo,

R.T., 2004, Processing of water samples, version 2.1:

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources

Investigations, book 9, chap. A5, accessed October 2007 at

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A5/.

Wilde, F.D.; Radtke, D.B.; Gibs, Jacob; and Iwatsubo, R.T.,

2006, Collection of water samples, version 2.0: U.S.

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, accessed October 2007 at

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/.
 17

Appendixes 1–2

Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Tests

Appendix 2. Sample Analysis
18 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–1. Field parameters from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; oC, degrees Celsius; mm Hg, millimeters of

mercury; —, not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well; F, finished water; I, intake]

Site name

Date of 

sample 

collection

Time Discharge

(ft3/s)

Water

 temperature

(oC)

Air

temperature

(oC)

Specific 

conductance, 

field 

(μS/cm)

pH,

(standard 

units)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

Barometric 

pressure

(mm of Hg)

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/082005 1030 203 0.2 -4.0 837 8.08 14.2 746

05/23/2006 1140 340 15.29 20 699 7.87 8.3 744

08/23/2006 1145 44 23.5 23.6 788 7.97 10.1 742

10/18/2006 1200 1910 12.07 14 340 7.53 6.45 739

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 — — — 483 8.05 — —

05/24/2006 0935 — — — 596 7.85 — —

08/22/2006 1325 — — — 506 7.97 — —

10/24/2006 1005 — — — 396 7.73 — —

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 — — — — — — —

05/24/2006 0945 — — — 658 7.74 — —

08/22/2006 1320 — — — 536 7.7 — —

10/24/2006 1000 — — — 423 7.82 — —

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 15.7 0 -2 702 8.35 15.9 746

05/22/2006 1200 21.8 14.9 16 669 8.23 7.1 740

08/23/2006 1000 0 20.6 23.5 1011 7.71 7.3 742

10/19/2006 1015 126 14 13.2 498 7.8 8.74 733

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 0.26 13.1 13 982 7.83 7.77 740

08/22/2006 1015 0 18.8 24.9 1476 7.44 5.61 742

10/18/2006 0930 11.4 12.4 11.5 407 7.7 7.55 735

Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 19

Table 1–1. Field parameters from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; oC, degrees Celsius; mm Hg, millimeters of

mercury; —, not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well; F, finished water; I, intake]

Site name

Date of 

sample 

collection

Time Discharge

(ft3/s)

Water

 temperature

(oC)

Air

temperature

(oC)

Specific 

conductance, 

field 

(μS/cm)

pH,

(standard 

units)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

Barometric 

pressure

(mm of Hg)

Hap Cremean 

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 — — — 384 8.1 — —

05/24/2006 1010 — — — 410 7.89 — —

10/24/2006 1035 — — — 379 8.33 — —

Hap Cremean 

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1115 — — — 340 8.14 — —

05/24/2006 1015 — — — 322 7.38 — —

10/24/2006 1040 — — — 329 8.11 — —

Scioto River

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 1840 7.3 -3.0 671 8.1 — 745

05/23/2006 1400 1370 17.1 23 706 8.2 10.2 752

10/19/2006 1315 7460 13.82 16 608 7.87 9.93 740

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 25 0 -9.0 701 8.27 15.8 746

05/23/2006 1000 49 12.3 14 529 8.22 10.61 744

10/18/2006 1330 447 13.11 17.5 363 7.75 9.98 739

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 — — — 781 7.5 — —

05/25/2006 1010 — — — 829 7.3 — —

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 — — — 867 7.24 — —

05/25/2006 0940 — — — 861 7.09 — —

10/23/2006 1310 — — — 882 7.5 — —

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 — — — 560 7.8 — —

05/23/2006 0945 — — — 554 7.46 — —

10/23/2006 1315 — — — 536 7.7 — —
20 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Lincomycin Carbadox Trimethoprim Ormetoprim Tetracycline Anhydrotetracycline

Epitetracycline

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.005 <0.005 0.012 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1145 <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1200 0.018 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0935 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1325 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 0.007 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0945 0.006 <0.005 0.021 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1320 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/22/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1015 0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1015 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 0930 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 21

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Lincomycin Carbadox Trimethoprim Ormetoprim Tetracycline Anhydrotetracycline

Epitetracycline

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1115 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1040 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.005 <0.005 0.027 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1400 <0.005 <0.005 0.027 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 0.008 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1330 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 0940 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1310 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
22 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time

Epianhydrotetracycline

Chlorotetracycline

Anhydrochlorotetracycline

Epianhydrochlorotetracycline

EpichlorotetracyclineIsochlorotetracycline

Epiisochlorotetracycline

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1140 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1145 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1200 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.037 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0935 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1325 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0945 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1320 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/22/2006 1200 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near

Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 0930 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 23

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time

Epianhydrotetracycline

Chlorotetracycline

Anhydrochlorotetracycline

Epianhydrochlorotetracycline

EpichlorotetracyclineIsochlorotetracycline

Epiisochlorotetracycline

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1035 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1115 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1400 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1315 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1330 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well

Field CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 1010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 0940 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1310 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 0945 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1315 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
24 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Demeclocycline

Oxytetracycline

Alpha

apoxytetracycline

Beta

apoxytetracycline

Epioxytetracycline Minocycline Doxycycline

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1140 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1145 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1200 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0935 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1325 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0945 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1320 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/22/2006 1200 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 0930 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 25

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Demeclocycline

Oxytetracycline

Alpha

apoxytetracycline

Beta

apoxytetracycline

Epioxytetracycline Minocycline Doxycycline

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1035 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1115 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1015 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1400 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1315 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1330 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/08/2005 1055 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 1010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 0940 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1310 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1120 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 1010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1315 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
26 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Sulfathiazole Sulfamerazine

SulfamethazineSulfamethoxazole

Sulfachlorpyradazine

Sulfadimethoxine Sulfadiazine

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.050 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.024 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/23/2006 1145 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.013 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 0935 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1325 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 <0.005 <0.005 0.006 0.022 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.031 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1320 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.017 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.012 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/22/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/19/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 0930 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 27

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Sulfathiazole Sulfamerazine

SulfamethazineSulfamethoxazole

Sulfachlorpyradazine

Sulfadimethoxine Sulfadiazine

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Hap Cremean

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1030 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Scioto River

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.088 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 1400 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.052 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/19/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.074 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.016 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 1330 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/25/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 0940 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/25/2006 1310 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/25/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/23/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
28 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Norfloxacin Ciprofloxacin

Clinafloxacin Flumequine Lomefloxacin Ofloxacin Oxolinic 

Acid

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005

05/23/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/23/2006 1145 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 0935 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1325 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1320 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/22/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/19/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 0930 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 29

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Norfloxacin Ciprofloxacin

Clinafloxacin Flumequine Lomefloxacin Ofloxacin Oxolinic 

Acid

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Hap Cremean 

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1030 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Scioto River

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.005 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.013 <0.005

05/23/2006 1400 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009 <0.005

10/19/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 1330 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/25/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 0940 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/25/2006 1310 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/25/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/23/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
30 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Sarafloxacin Azithromycin Tylosin Virginiamycin

ErythromycinH2

0 Erythromycin Roxithromycin

Scioto River near

Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.005 0.011 <0.005 <0.005 0.014 0.015 <0.005

05/23/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 <0.005

08/23/2006 1145 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.013 0.022 <0.005

10/18/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.005 0.025 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 0935 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1325 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 <0.005 0.031 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.017 0.010 0.009

08/22/2006 1320 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Mill Creek below

Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/22/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/19/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

08/22/2006 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 0930 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 31

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Sarafloxacin Azithromycin Tylosin Virginiamycin

ErythromycinH2

0 Erythromycin Roxithromycin

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1035 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Hap Cremean

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1030 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/24/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/24/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Scioto River DS from

CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.005 0.036 <0.005 <0.005 0.021 0.019 <0.005

05/23/2006 1400 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.026 0.046 <0.005

10/19/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 0.008 <0.005

Big Walnut Creek at

Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.005 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/18/2006 1330 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 <0.005 0.048 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/25/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.005 0.043 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

05/23/2006 0940 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/25/2006 1310 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 <0.005 0.080 0.016 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.023

05/25/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

10/23/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
32 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Amoxicillin Ampicillin Cefotaxime Cloxacillin Oxacillin Penicillin G Penicillin V

Scioto River

near Prospect

12/08/2005 1030 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1140 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1145 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1200 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1035 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0935 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1325 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Dublin Road

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 0945 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1320 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1000 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Mill Creek

below Marysville

12/08/2005 1215 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/22/2006 1200 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/23/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1015 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville

05/22/2006 1000 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

08/22/2006 1015 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 0930 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 33

Table 1–2. Water-quality analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; F, finished water; I, intake; CW, collector well; DS, downstream; bold, value exceeded

detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Amoxicillin Ampicillin Cefotaxime Cloxacillin Oxacillin Penicillin G Penicillin V

Hap Cremean

WTP, I

12/07/2005 1120 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1035 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F

12/07/2005 1030 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/24/2006 1140 <0.005 <0.005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/24/2006 1200 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River 

DS from CW-104

12/06/2005 1130 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1400 <0.005 <0.005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/19/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury

12/08/2005 0915 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 1000 <0.005 <0.005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/18/2006 1330 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101

12/06/2005 1055 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 1010 <0.005 <0.005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, I

12/06/2005 1020 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/23/2006 0940 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/25/2006 1310 <0.005 <0.005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F

12/06/2005 1015 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

05/25/2006 0945 <0.005 <0.005 <0. 010 <0. 010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

10/23/2006 1315 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
34 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; —, not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well;

F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Lincomycin Carbadox Trimethoprim Ormetoprim Tetracycline Anhydrotetracycline

Epianhydrotetracycline

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CW-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; —, not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well;

F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Chlorotetracycline

AnhydrochlorotetracyclineEpi-anhydrochlorotetracyclineEpichlorotetracyclineIsoChlorotetracyclineEpi-isochloro-tetracycline

Demeclocycline

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CW-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 35

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; —, not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well;

F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Oxytetracycline

Alpha

apooxytetracycline

Beta

apooxytetracycline

Epioxytetracycline Minocycline Doxycycline Sulfathiazole

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Scioto River

DS from CW-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; — not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well; F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Sulfamerazine

SulfamethazineSulfamethoxazole

Sulfachlorpyradazine

Sulfadimethoxine Sulfadiazine Norfloxacin

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Scioto River

DS from CW-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
36 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; — not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well;

F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Ciprofloxacin

Clinafloxacin Flumequine Lomefloxacin Ofloxacin Oxolinic 

Acid

SarafloxacinAzithromycin

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Scioto River

DS from CW-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; — not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream; CW, collector well;

F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Tylosin Virginiamycin Erythromycin-H2

0 Erythromycin Roxithromycin Amoxocillin Ampicillin

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CW-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010
Appendix 1. Water-Quality Analyses and Quality-Control Results 37

Table 1–3. Quality-control analyses from sampling locations in the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6.—Continued

[All constituent concentrations in micrograms per liter; — not measured; <, less than; WTP, water-treatment plant; DS, downstream;

CW, collector well; F, finished water; I, intake; bold, value exceeded detection or reporting level]

Site name Date Time Cefotaxime Cloxacillin Oxacillin Penicilln G Penicillin V

Field blanks

Dublin Road

WTP, I 12/07/2005 1041 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 08/22/2006 1014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Hap Cremean

WTP, F 10/24/2006 1039 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Big Walnut Creek

at Sunbury 05/23/2006 0959 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Scioto River

DS from CWl-104 05/23/2006 1359 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Parsons Avenue

WTP, F 05/23/2006 0944 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Replicates

Powder Lick Run

near Summersville 05/22/2006 1001 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Columbus Well Field

CW-101 05/25/2006 1011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
38 Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water, Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6

Appendix 2. Sample Analysis

and were prepared for the SQ and TET method by adding

250 μL of formic acid to 9.75 mL of deionized water, and for

the BLM method by adding 10 ml of a 10 percent NaCl solution with 0.5 percent diNa-EDTA to an 11-mL crimp top vial.

All of the prepared samples were loaded on the online

solid phase extraction (SPE) Triathalon autosampler. During

analysis, the online SPE lines were rinsed with solvents and

solutions configured with the Triathalon autosampler and the

high-pressure dispenser. The cartridges were rinsed immediately prior to extraction. A volume of 10 ml of sample was

drawn into a Teflon sample loop and dispensed through the

Prospekt SPE cartridge.

The antibiotics for each method were eluted with 750 μL

of ACN and separated using a liquid chromatography (LC)

gradient with the A and B mobile phases listed in table 2–1

below (Meyer and others, 2007). The initial flow rates of the

A and B mobile phases were decreased and contained a higher

proportion of the B mobile phase to assist in eluting the Prospekt SPE cartridge. During the elution, the LC autosampler

injected 20 μL of the internal standard. The isocratic mobile

phase was used to increase the aqueous phase in the mobile

phase stream to focus the compounds eluted from the SPE

cartridge onto the head of the LC column. After the mobile

phase flow had passed through the SPE cartridge, the flow rate

was increased to 0.36 mL/min, and the isocratic pump flow

was turned off. A 3.0 × 150 mm Luna C18(2) (Phenonomenex)

with 3-μm packing was used to separate the antibiotics for

each of the three methods. The LC column was rinsed for

5 minutes with 100 percent mobile phase B at the end of the

gradient and then equilibrated at initial conditions for 5 minutes before the next sample analysis.

Table 2–1. Mobile phases used in the liquid chromatography/electrospray ionizationmass spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS) techniques for three common antibiotic groups.

[%, percent]

Mobile-phase 

name

Antibiotic groups

Tetracyclines Sulfonamides and 

quinolones

Macrolides and 

beta lactams

A 0.3% formic acid 0.3% formic acid 5mM NH4-acetate

B 1.0% formic acid Acetonitrile Acetonitrile

Isocratic 0.3% formic acid 0.3% formic acid 5mM NH4-acetate

Samples were extracted for the beta lactam and macrolides (BLM) and sulfonamides and quinolines (SQ) methods

using HLB Prospekt cartridges (Waters Corp., Milford, Mass.)

and for the tetracyclines (TET) method using a proprietary

Glyphosate Prospekt cartridge (Spark Holland, Emmen, The

Netherlands). Simatone was used as an internal standard for

all three methods; the surrogate standards were oleandomycin

for the BLM method, nalidixic acid and 13C6 sulfamethazine

for the SQ method, and meclocycline for the TET method.

A 1.23 ng/μL solution of the internal standard, simatone,

was diluted 1:20 for the BLM and SQ methods and 1:40

for the TET method. The diluted standard was added to

an amber 2-mL chromatography vial and placed on the

LC autosampler tray.

Samples were prepared for analysis by pipetting a

10-mL aliquot of each sample into 11-mL glass crimp-top

vials. For the BLM and SQ methods, 75 mL of 6.67 ng/ml

surrogate solutions were made up in distilled water, and for

the TET method, in a 5% diNa-EDTA solution; 750 μL of the

respective surrogate was added to each sample, standard, and

blank. Standard curves were prepared for each method by

diluting the respective 1-ng/μL standard mix to 1ng/mL with

distilled water. Standard solutions, 10 mL in volume, were

then made at concentrations of 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5

and 1.0 μg/L.

A duplicate sample, a 0.5- or 1.0-μg/L matrix-spiked

sample, and a blank were analyzed after every 10 samples and

a 1.0 μg/L standard solution after every 20. All standard solutions, blanks, and matrix spikes were treated the same as the

water samples. Sample modifier solutions were added to each

sample by the online SPE autosampler just prior to extraction

Finnegan and others—Occurrence of Antibiotic Compounds in Source Water and Finished Drinking Water from the Upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005–6—SIR 2010–5083