Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer 

Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River 

Basin, Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, 

July 1998–October 2000 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4107 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

City of Kansas City, Missouri, 

Water Services Department 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer 

Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River 

Basin, Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, 

July 1998–October 2000

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4107

Prepared in cooperation with the

City of Kansas City, Missouri,

Water Services Department

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover Photograph: Brush Creek at Kansas City, Missouri, 1999.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer 

Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River 

Basin, Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, 

July 1998–October 2000

By Donald H. Wilkison, Daniel J. Armstrong, and Dale W. Blevins

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4107

Prepared in cooperation with the

City of Kansas City, Missouri,

Water Services Department

Rolla, Missouri

2002
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute 

endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

For additional information write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey, WRD

1400 Independence Road

Mail Stop 100

Rolla, Missouri 65401

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents iii

CONTENTS

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

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

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

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Methods............................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Sampling Protocol .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Statistical Analyses................................................................................................................................................. 9

Quality Control and Assurance......................................................................................................................................... 9

Water Quality.................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Wastewater Indicator Compounds and Wastewater Treatment Removal Efficiencies ........................................... 16

Base-Flow Water Quality........................................................................................................................................ 18

Physical Properties ....................................................................................................................................... 18

Nutrients ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Wastewater Indicator Compounds ................................................................................................................ 20

Antioxidants........................................................................................................................................ 22

Caffeine and Cotinine ......................................................................................................................... 22

Sterols and Stanols.............................................................................................................................. 22

Phenols and Detergent Metabolites.................................................................................................... 24

Antimicrobials.................................................................................................................................... 25

Insect Repellents................................................................................................................................. 27

Flame Retardants................................................................................................................................ 27

Insecticides ......................................................................................................................................... 27

PAH’s.................................................................................................................................................. 28

Additional Wastewater Indicators During Base Flow .................................................................................. 28

Pharmaceutical Compounds............................................................................................................... 28

Bacteria and Bacterial Sources........................................................................................................... 31

Stormflow Water Quality........................................................................................................................................ 33

Nutrients in Stormflow ................................................................................................................................. 33

Wastewater Indicator Compounds................................................................................................................ 34

Antioxidants........................................................................................................................................ 35

Caffeine and Cotinine ......................................................................................................................... 35

Sterols and Stanols.............................................................................................................................. 36

Phenols and Detergent Compounds.................................................................................................... 36

Antimicrobials.................................................................................................................................... 37

Insect Repellents................................................................................................................................. 37

Flame Retardants................................................................................................................................ 37

Insecticides ......................................................................................................................................... 37

PAH’s.................................................................................................................................................. 38

Relative Hydrograph Contributions of Constituents .................................................................................... 38

Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings....................................................................................................... 38

Summary........................................................................................................................................................................... 50

References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 51
iv 

FIGURES

1. Map showing location of study area and sampling sites.................................................................................. 3

2. Graphs showing mean daily discharge for Blue River near Kansas City (site 5) and Brush Creek at

Ward Parkway (site 7) from October 1997 through September 2000.............................................................. 5

3. Graphs showing specific conductance, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity beginning

August 1998 through September 2000............................................................................................................. 7

4. Quantile-quantile plots showing quality assurance data .................................................................................. 11

5. –7. Boxplots showing:

5. Total nitrogen concentration by site and the percentage of the total nitrogen derived from

nitrate by stream (inset) in base-flow samples.................................................................................... 19

6. Total phosphorus concentration by site and the percentage of the total phosphorus that is

orthophosphate by stream (inset) in base-flow samples...................................................................... 21

7. Total nonionic detergent concentration by site and stream (inset) in base-flow samples................... 26

8. Graphs showing concentrations and loads of selected pharmaceutical compounds in base-flow samples...... 30

9. Trilinear diagrams showing percentage of similarity between ribosomnal patterns of Escherichia coli

isolates from water samples at three sites when compared against three possible hosts (dog, goose,

or human) ......................................................................................................................................................... 32

10.–13. Boxplots showing:

10. Number of wastewater indicator compounds detected in base-flow and stormflow samples at

each site............................................................................................................................................... 35

11. Sum of loads (A) and sum of concentrations (B) for wastewater indicator compounds in storm

hydrograph segments .......................................................................................................................... 39

12. Yield of selected constituents in base-flow samples........................................................................... 40

13. Yield of selected constituents in stormflow samples .......................................................................... 44

TABLES

1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in base-flow samples.................. 59

2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in base-flow samples............................................. 67

3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples................................................. 92

4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples ....................................................... 107

5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples............................................ 119

6. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents and wastewater indicator compounds in field blank

and equipment blank samples................................................................................................................................ 161

7. Average wastewater treatment removal efficiencies, in percent, for selected wastewater indicator

compounds............................................................................................................................................................. 17

8. Detection frequency of selected pharmaceutical compounds in base-flow samples (n=39) and method

detection limits....................................................................................................................................................... 29

9. Relative water-quality impact rankings between sites during storm and base-flow conditions............................ 49
Introduction 1

Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows 

on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City, 

Missouri and Kansas, July 1998--October 2000

By Donald H. Wilkison, Daniel J. Armstrong, and Dale W. Blevins

Abstract

Samples were collected from 16 base-flow 

events and a minimum of 10 stormflow events 

between July 1998 and October 2000 to characterize the effects of wastewater and combined sewer 

overflows on water quality in the Blue River 

Basin, Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas. Waterquality effects were determined by analysis of 

nutrients, chloride, chemical and biochemical oxygen demand, and suspended sediment samples 

from three streams (Blue River, Brush Creek, and 

Indian Creek) in the basin as well as the determination of a suite of compounds known to be indicative of wastewater including antioxidants, 

caffeine, detergent metabolites, antimicrobials, 

and selected over-the-counter and prescription 

pharmaceuticals. Constituent loads were determined for both hydrologic regimes and a measure 

of the relative water-quality impact of selected 

stream reaches on the Blue River and Brush Creek 

was developed. Genetic fingerprint patterns of 

Escherichia coli bacteria from selected stream 

samples were compared to a data base of knownsource patterns to determine possible sources of 

bacteria. 

Water quality in the basin was affected by 

wastewater during both base flows and stormflows; however, there were two distinct sources 

that contributed to these effects. In the Blue River 

and Indian Creek, the nearly continuous discharge 

of treated wastewater effluent was the primary 

source of nutrients, wastewater indicator compounds, and pharmaceutical compounds detected 

in stream samples. Wastewater inputs into Brush 

Creek were largely the result of intermittent stormflow events that triggered the overflow of combined storm and sanitary sewers, and the 

subsequent discharge of untreated wastewater into 

the creek. A portion of the sediment, organic matter, and associated constituents from these events 

were trapped by a series of impoundments constructed along Brush Creek where they likely continued to affect water quality during base flow.

Concentrations and loads of most wastewater 

constituents in the Blue River and Indian Creek were 

significantly greater than in Brush Creek, especially 

during base flow. However, wastewater indicator 

compound concentrations were sometimes greater 

in some Brush Creek stormflow samples. Selected 

stream reaches along the mid-portion of Brush 

Creek showed higher effects relative to other sites, 

primarily because these sites were in impounded 

reaches with the greatest density of wastewater 

inputs, or had relatively small drainage areas. 

INTRODUCTION

As part of a flood-control, economic development, and beautification program in the Blue River and 

Brush Creek Basins, the city of Kansas City, Missouri, 

made channel modifications to the Blue River and 

Brush Creek. Sections of both streams were deepened 

and widened to provide increased flood control. A 

series of lakes, fountains, dams, and waterfalls were 

created along Brush Creek and the area was landscaped 
2 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

to provide more than 5 km (kilometers) of urban parkland for recreation. However, the downstream 10 mi 

(miles) of the Blue River and Brush Creek occasionally 

receive wastewater from the overflow of combined sanitary and stormwater sewers at 220 locations within the 

city. Aesthetic and health concerns from these overflows limited the implementation of some recreational 

activities along the Brush Creek corridor.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the city of Kansas City, Missouri, began a 

study in 1998 to better understand the effects of wastewater originating from combined sewer overflows 

(CSOs) on the water quality of the Blue River and 

Brush Creek. Compounds indicative of wastewater 

were targeted for study, and included antioxidants, 

bisphenol A, cholesterol, coprostanol, 17-β estradiol, 

nonionic surfactants, disinfectants, fragrances, and 

selected over-the-counter and prescription drugs. Many 

wastewater indicator compounds have been broadly 

characterized as “emerging contaminants” primarily 

because sampling methodologies and analytical techniques have only recently become available to quantify 

these constituents in environmental samples (Furlong 

and others, 2000; Meyer and others, 2000; Lindsey and 

others, 2001; Zaugg and others, 2001; Kolpin and others, 2002). The environmental effects of many of these 

compounds currently is poorly understood (Daughton 

and Jones-Lepp, 2001). A number of them—notably 

bisphenol A, 17-β estradiol, and the nonionic surfactants—are known, or suspected, agents of endocrine 

disruption in aquatic environments (Committee on 

Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment and 

others, 1999). Some disinfectants, such as the antimicrobial agent triclosan, are suspected of causing bacterial resistance (McMurry and others, 1998a). The 

presence of human drugs in aquatic environments may 

be seen as a potential indicator of the adverse effect of 

humans on the environment (Daughton and Ternes, 

1999) because many drugs are administered to humans 

in high doses, may pass through the body with little or 

no degradation, and once released into the environment 

may be readily assimilated by other organisms.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents information to assess the 

effect of wastewater and combined sewer overflows on 

the stream water quality in the Blue River Basin in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, during June 1998 to 

October 2000. The report includes concentrations and 

loads for selected water-quality constituents and wastewater indicator compounds in stream samples from the 

Blue River, Brush Creek, and Indian Creek during baseflow conditions and from the Blue River and Brush 

Creek during stormflow conditions. Additionally, estimates of the relative impact of wastewater on selected 

stream reaches of the Blue River and Brush Creek are 

provided. Concentrations of wastewater indicator compounds in untreated wastewater also are provided for 

comparison purposes as are wastewater treatment plant 

removal efficiencies. Continuous water-quality data for 

specific conductance, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity are provided for selected sites. The 

distribution of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria in 

stream samples during base flow is presented along with 

source ribotypes of E. coli for selected samples.

Acknowledgments

The authors express gratitude for the support, 

technical contributions, and guidance of numerous 

USGS colleagues in the preparation of this document. 

S.L. Severn and R.S. Inman were especially instrumental in the preparation of the manuscript. Steven D. 

Zaugg, D.W. Kolpin, and Don Stoekel provided review 

and thoughtful criticism of the manuscript. Dr. Ed Furlong and Jeff Cahill guided the collection and analysis 

of pharmaceutical data. Charles Raab and Brian 

Schroeder, without whom this work would not have 

been possible, of the city of Kansas City, Missouri 

Water Services Department, were especially supportive 

of this work from its inception. Jim Nanaman, also of 

the Water Services Department, provided support and 

access to the Blue River Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(WWTP) and Jim Mellum provided careful review of 

the manuscript. Dr. Andy Carson of the University of 

Missouri provided review and technical advice on bacterial source tracking. Members of the Johnson County 

Wastewater Department graciously allowed access to 

the Tomahawk Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Description of Study Area

The study area is located in metropolitan Kansas 

City, Missouri (fig. 1). The Blue River and its tributaries are located along the Missouri-Kansas border. Blue 

River and Brush Creek have drainage areas of 700 and 

75 km2

 (square kilometers). The drainage area of 

Indian Creek is approximately 110 km2. Most of the
Introduction 3

Kansas

Study area

Missouri

CONTINUOUS RECORD WATER-QUALITY SITE, SAMPLING SITE,

AND GAGING STATION AND SITE NUMBER

SAMPLING SITE AND GAGING STATION AND SITE NUMBER

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND SITE NUMBER

EXPLANATION

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1992

Transverse Mercator projection

Central meridian 93°00’, origin 00°00’

Figure 1. Location of study area and sampling sites.

5

7

Kansas

River

River

Missouri

Brush

Creek

Blue River

Indian

Creek

Tomahawk

Creek

Coffee Creek

River

Blue

Wolf

Creek

Kansas City, Missouri

city limit

MISSOURI

KANSAS

94°30' 94°45' 94°37'30"

39°07'30"

38°52'30"

38°45'

39°

94°52'30"

13,14

11

7

5

6

10

4

9

1

2

3

8

12

12
4 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

Kansas City metropolitan area south of the Missouri 

River lies in the Blue River Basin and the basin continues to become increasingly urbanized. In 1978, onethird was urbanized, with the remaining portion agricultural or undeveloped land (Blevins, 1986). Since 

1980, urban land use has increased an estimated 25 percent within the basin (Frank Lenk, Mid-American 

Regional Council, written commun., 2000) and an 

equivalent increase has occurred in mean annual runoff 

for the Blue River near Kansas City (site 5, fig. 1).

Flash flooding is a concern in the area and several floods have resulted in loss of life and extensive 

property damage (Hauth and Carswell, 1978; Hauth 

and others, 1981; Becker and others, 1983). In an effort 

to control flooding, extensive channel modifications 

were made to the downstream 10 mi of the Blue River 

and the downstream 4 mi of Brush Creek. A series of 

three dams were constructed to impound water through 

the lower reaches of Brush Creek. The upper and lower 

pools contain large fountains designed to entrain and 

aerate water to reduce stagnation. Sometimes (especially during late summer) recirculation of stream 

water intended to maintain the upper pool elevation 

results in lower water levels in the downstream pools.

Water-quality concerns also are an issue. Combined sewers underlie about 140 km2

 in an area of Kansas City roughly bounded on the north by the Missouri 

River, on the east by the Blue River, on the south by 

85th Street (approximately 1 mi north of site 5), and on 

the west by the Kansas state line. Previous studies, conducted before the completion of the channel improvements, demonstrated that inflows from CSOs 

occasionally degraded water quality on the lower Blue 

River and Brush Creek (Blevins, 1986). Concentrations 

of nutrients, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD5), dissolved solids, suspended sediment, and 

metals increased in streams following inflows from 

CSOs (Burns and McDonnell, 1994). The effects were 

most pronounced in initial stream rises that followed 

dry antecedent conditions (Blevins, 1986). Three 

municipal WWTPs discharge treated effluent into 

either the Blue River or one of its tributaries (Indian 

and Tomahawk Creeks), and wet-weather wastewater 

discharges occasionally occur in Brush Creek. The 

smallest municipal treatment plant (designed for a population of 30,000 people) is on the upper Blue River 

near the Missouri-Kansas border. Plants designed for 

populations of 90,000 and 100,000 are on upper Indian 

Creek and lower Tomahawk Creek, respectively. A 

large WWTP (serving a population of 250,000) on the 

lower Blue River discharges its effluent into the Missouri River, but may have occasional wet-weather discharges into the lower Blue River. Large fecal coliform 

bacteria densities in the Brush Creek pools has limited 

the implementation of some proposed recreational 

activities within the basin.

METHODS

Streamflow and water-quality data were collected from July 1998 to October 2001 to characterize 

selected water-quality parameters and to provide data 

for estimating constituent loads during base flow and 

stormflow events. Base flow for this study was defined 

as streamflow unaffected by storm runoff.

Sampling Protocol

Continuous stream-stage (water-surface elevation) data were collected at seven sampling sites from 

July 1998 through October 2001. Stage data were measured at 15-minute intervals on the Blue River and at 5-

minute intervals on Brush Creek using either a vented 

submersible pressure transducer, a non-submersible 

pressure transducer, or by float and stilling well. 

Streamflow measurements were used to establish and 

maintain the relation between stage and discharge 

(Rantz and others, 1982). Mean daily discharge at two 

sites (5 and 7) for the period October 1997 through 

September 2000 is shown in figure 2.

Water samples were collected manually at 7 surface-water sites (sites 5 to 11, fig. 1) during 16 baseflow events and analyzed for nutrients, fecal E. coli

bacteria, physical properties (table 1, at the back of this 

report), and wastewater indicator compounds (table 2, 

at the back of this report). The physical properties 

included specific conductance, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity. Base-flow 

events were defined as those occurring at least 72 hours 

after all rainfall exceeding 0.10 in. (inch) had fallen 

within the basin, or when flow conditions at sites 5 or 8 

had returned to, or below, the long-term median daily 

discharge. Water samples from wastewater influent 

streams at three WWTPs (sites 12 to 14, fig. 1) were 

analyzed for concentrations of wastewater indicator 

compounds (table 3, at the back of this report) to determine concentrations expected in untreated wastewater 

during base flow. Beginning in December 1999, samples also were collected on Indian Creek (site 4) to bet-
Methods 5

10,000

1,000

100

14 28 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14

No data

SITE 5

SITE 7

10

1

0.1

14 28

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

1997 1998

15,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

0.1

14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

1998 1999

10,000

1,000

100

10

1

0.1

14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28 14 28

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

1999 2000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Figure 2. Mean daily discharge for Blue River near Kansas City

(site 5) and Brush Creek at Ward Parkway (site 7) from October

1997 through September 2000.
6 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

ter evaluate the effects of inflow from Indian Creek and 

WWTP effluent on the Blue River water quality. Three 

additional sites (sites 1 to 3, fig. 1) were sampled during 

two reconnaissance samplings designed to further evaluate the effects of treated wastewater effluent on water 

quality in the Blue River. Removal rates of wastewater 

indicator compounds from treatment plants were estimated by comparing the influent loads to the effluent 

loads. Base-flow samples were depth- and width-integrated across the stream (Wilde and others, 1999a), 

except on occasions when flow constrictions warranted 

the collection of grab samples from the centroid of 

flow.

Stormflow samples were collected using automatic samplers programmed to collect flow-weighed 

samples after stage thresholds were exceeded. Stormflow water samples were analyzed for nutrients, BOD5, 

chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, total 

organic carbon (TOC), and wastewater indicator compounds (tables 4 and 5, at the back of this report). All 

samples were collected and processed using either glass 

or fluorocarbon polymer equipment in accordance with 

established USGS protocols (Wilde and others, 1999a, 

1999b). Sampling equipment was cleaned using standard USGS methods for the sampling of organic compounds (Wilde and others, 1998).

At least 10 different storms were sampled at sites 

5 to 11, figure 1. Stormflow samples were then composited into segments that corresponded to the rising, peak, 

and falling phases of the stormflow based on visual 

inspection of the storm hydrograph for each site. Every 

attempt was made to sample all three phases of the 

hydrograph during each storm; however, not all phases 

were sampled during every storm, and not all sites were 

sampled during every event. During a few of the storms, 

phases were combined (for example, rise plus peak) to 

provide sufficient sample volume for analytical requirements. Stormflow volume was determined for each 

storm phase from the measured discharge, and loads 

were calculated by multiplying the measured concentration of each constituent by the stormflow volume. 

The median percentage of each phase sampled was 98 

percent for the rising phase, 100 percent for the peak 

phase, and 88 percent for the falling phase.

Major nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) species 

were determined on both unfiltered and filtered samples using methods outlined in Fishman and others 

(1994). Wastewater indicator compounds were determined from unfiltered samples by continuous liquidliquid extraction with methylene chloride, and determined by capillary-column gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry using selected-ion monitoring (Brown 

and others, 1999; Kolpin and others, 2002). Information in Zaugg and others (2001) provides details about 

the specific wastewater indicator compounds analyzed 

and their uses. Human drugs were determined from filtered samples by high-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry 

analysis (Furlong and others, 2000; Kolpin and others, 

2002). The wastewater and pharmaceutical analytical 

methods provide data at extremely low chemical concentrations (micrograms per liter) and are very sensitive 

to the detection of target analytes. Both methods are 

termed “information-rich” (Childress and others, 1999) 

because enhanced analyte identification capabilities 

provide qualified low-concentration data for interpretation and statistical analysis. Therefore, reported concentrations of some analytes may be marked as 

estimated (E) if they occur at concentrations outside of 

instrument calibration ranges or if the compounds 

exhibit poor analytical method recovery.

 Aliquots of base-flow stream samples were cultured and enumerated for E. coli bacteria according to 

most-probable-number methods (Myers and Wilde, 

1997). Selected bacteria samples were collected for 

host-source identification using sterile equipment, 

packed in ice, and shipped within 6 hours of collection 

to the University of Missouri Veterinary Pathobiology 

Department in Columbia, Missouri. Subtle variation in 

the genetic material of E. coli isolates from these samples was determined by ribotyping (Carson and others, 

2001) or rep-PCR DNA fingerprinting (Dombek and 

others, 2000). Association of stream E. coli isolates 

with fecal sources was done with a fingerprint library of 

fecal E. coli from potential animal hosts, including 

human (Carson and others, 2001). 

Continuous water-quality monitors capable of 

measuring specific conductance, pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity 

were used at five sites (5, 8, 9, 10, and 11, fig. 1) to 

determine physiochemical properties at 15-minute 

intervals (fig. 3) for a part of each year. Monitors were 

removed in late November to prevent freezing of waterquality probes and redeployed in April or May of the 

following year. The monitors were encased in either a 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or 18-in. diameter corrugated 

pipe with holes drilled into the side to allow for adequate water exchange and anchored to concrete or rock 

on the bank for protection against floods. Sensors on 
Methods 7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

Brush Creek at Main Street

Site 8

No

data No data No data

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Site 9

No data

No data

No data

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Site 10

No data

No data No data

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

ASO D J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J AS N

1998 1999 2000

Blue River at 12th Street

Site 11

No data No data

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

Blue River near Kansas City

Site 5

No data

No data

No data

DAILY MEAN SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS

Figure 3. Specific conductance, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity beginning

August 1998 through September 2000.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

No data No data

Blue River near Kansas City

Site 5

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

No data No data

Brush Creek at Main Street

Site 8

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

No data No data

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Site 9

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

No data

No data No data No data

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Site 10

ASO D J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J AS N 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1998 1999 2000

No data

No data No data

Blue River at 12th Street

Site 11

pH

pH, IN STANDARD UNITS
8 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

0

5

10

15

18

Blue River near Kansas City

Site 5

No data No data

0

5

10

15

18

Brush Creek at Main Street

Site 8

No data

No data

0

5

10

15

18

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Site 9

No data

No data

0

5

10

15

18

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Site 10

No data No data

0

5

10

15

18

ASO D J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J AS N

Blue River at 12th Street

Site 11

No data

No data

1998 1999 2000

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 3. Specific conductance, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity beginning

August 1998 through September 2000—Continued.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No data No data

Blue River near Kansas City

Site 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No data No data

Brush Creek at Main Street

Site 8

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No data No data

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Site 9

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No data

No data

No data

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Site 10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ASO D J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J AS N

1998 1999 2000

No data

No data

Blue River at 12th Street

Site 11

DAILY MEAN TEMPERATURE

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS
Quality Control and Assurance 9

the multi-parameter monitors were cleaned and calibrated according to manufacturers specifications at 

approximately 2-week intervals during the period of 

use to reduce problems with biofouling and instrument 

drift (Wagner and others, 2000). Field measurements, 

using separately calibrated instrumentation, also were 

taken during calibration visits for comparison purposes 

and possible adjustment of the continuous data. 

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted comparing 

water-quality characteristics between sites and 

between base-flow and stormflow samples at individual sampling sites. Nonparametric statistical methods 

were used to analyze the data when appropriate 

because water-quality data generally are not normally 

distributed, and the data often contain values less than 

the method detection limit (censored data). Nonparametric statistical methods also are used because these 

methods are not unduly affected by extreme data values 

(outliers) and because ranks of the data are used instead 

of the actual concentrations of the water-quality constituents. A significance level (α) of 0.05 was used for 

all statistical tests in this study. The attained significance level, or probability of error (p-value) from the 

test, often was much lower and is reported to provide a 

quantitative indication of the degree of similarity or difference between data sets.

The nonparametric statistical methods included 

the Kruskal-Wallis test, multiple comparison t-tests on 

the data ranks, and contingency tables (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). The Kruskal-Wallis test is an analysis of 

variance on the ranks of data that test for differences in 

the central tendency, or medians, of two or more 

groups. When the Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated a significant difference at the 0.05 level, a t-test on the ranks 

(Tukey’s W) was performed on each paired group to 

evaluate which groups were statistically different from 

one another.

QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE

 Quality control and assurance samples were collected and analyzed to insure the integrity of the waterquality data presented in this report. Approximately 10 

percent of all samples collected were quality control 

and assurance samples. Samples for wastewater indicator compounds were collected in replicate in case reDAILY MEAN TURBIDITY

TURBIDITY, IN NEPHELOMETRIC TURBIDITY UNITS

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Blue River near Kansas City

Site 5

No data No data

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Brush Creek at Main Street

Site 8

No data No data

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Site 9

No data No data

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Site 10

No data No data

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 ASOND J FMAMJ J ASOND J FMAMJ J AS

1998 1999 2000

Blue River at 12th Street

Site 11

No data No data

Figure 3. Specific conductance, pH, temperature,

dissolved oxygen, and turbidity beginning August

1998 through September 2000—Continued.
10 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

analysis was needed. The adequacy of the field cleaning and sample processing protocols were evaluated 

through field and equipment blank samples. 

 Highly purified water (blank water) was passed 

through the same equipment used to collect and process 

water-quality samples and then stored, shipped, and 

analyzed by the identical methods that were used for 

environmental samples. Another blank sample was prepared at the laboratory and analyzed alongside environmental samples to insure that laboratory contamination 

was not a problem during analyses (approximately 100 

laboratory blank samples in total; data not shown). 

Measurable concentrations in blank water can result 

from trace amounts of constituents in the water, as well 

as residual material in sample processing or analytical 

equipment. Results from field and equipment blank 

samples are listed in table 6, at the back of this report. 

Most compounds were not detected in any blank samples; if detected, the reported concentrations were near 

the detection limit for these compounds. Two compounds (tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate and 

benzo[a]pyrene) were detected in five blank samples. 

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate is a common component 

in many plastics and, although sample collection procedures avoided polyethylene plastics, samples were 

transported to the laboratory in polyethylene coolers 

lined with polyethylene bags. Also, samples were processed in vehicles used onsite, and analyzed in laboratories where many plastic parts and components exist. 

Any of these may have contributed to the detection of 

tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate in blank samples and environmental concentrations reported for these compounds may be biased high. Generally, the blank 

sample data support the conclusion that equipment 

cleaning, sample collection, and processing procedures 

provided an inconsequential source of bias to environmental samples.

Replicate samples were collected to determine 

the variability in sample collection and processing procedures and to examine the affect these variations may 

have on concentrations determined from environmental 

samples. Quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots (fig. 4) show 

the concentrations of constituents in environmental 

samples plotted with the concentrations determined 

from the replicate samples. If no difference exists 

between these concentrations, then a line extends 

through the center of all of the data points with a resultant coefficient of determination (r2) equal to 1. However, concentration differences can, and do, exist in 

replicate samples. The smaller the difference between 

the two sets, the higher the level of confidence one can 

have that this variability is insufficient to significantly 

bias results. These plots also provide information about 

how these differences can change as concentration levels vary.

For most constituents, concentration differences 

in replicate samples were minor, with coefficients of 

determination generally greater than or equal to 0.95, 

especially in the concentration ranges observed in environmental samples. These data indicate sample collection and analytical procedures would account for 5 

percent or less of any variation in concentrations; however, coefficients of determination were less than 0.90 

for some wastewater indicator compounds. These variations are likely related to a number of factors. Replicate samples were collected over a wide spectrum of 

expected concentrations—from dilute natural waters to 

raw wastewater. Most Q-Q plots for wastewater compounds show a higher degree of agreement between 

samples at low concentrations than between samples at 

higher concentrations. Replicate samples from natural 

waters constitute most of the lower end data points, 

whereas the replicate samples collected from wastewater plants represent the bulk of points on the upper end 

of the plots, where a greater degree of scatter occurs.

Concentrations measured in wastewater samples 

often were in excess of calibration standards, and 

reported concentrations routinely were estimated from 

extrapolations of lower values. Additionally, wastewater samples would be expected to be the most complex 

and biologically active samples. Therefore, matrix 

interference, or biological degradation, may have exacerbated variation among some samples. Also, because 

wastewater influent replicate samples were collected 

sequentially, some time (usually about 15 minutes) 

passed between replicate sample collection. Temporal 

variations can occur within influent streams. Wastewater compounds generally have a high affinity for sediment or suspended organic matter. Thus, slight 

differences in suspended sediment or organic matter 

between samples may substantially affect concentrations of other measured constituents.

WATER QUALITY

In highly urbanized basins, a variety of factors 

determine the concentrations of water-quality constituents measured in surface-water samples. The primary 

components of streamflow are ground-water discharge 

and surface runoff. However, treated wastewater efflu-
Water Quality 11

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

5

4

3

2

1

0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Total ammonia

as nitrogen

r 2 = 0.93

s = 0.06

n = 19

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Dissolved nitrite plus nitrate

as nitrogen

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.01

n = 19

012345

Total phosphorus

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 19

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Chemical oxygen demand

r 2 = 0.73

s = 0.18

n = 11

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

r 2 = 0.80

s = 0.10

n = 19

Total ammonia

plus organic nitrogen

0

01234

1.2

0.8

0.4

0

Dissolved phosphorus

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 19

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Dissolved chloride

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 11

4 0.25

0.20

3

0.15

2

0.10

1 0.05

Dissolved nitrite

as nitrogen

r 2 = 0.94

s = 0.06

n = 19

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Dissolved orthophosphate

as phosphorus

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.01

n=8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Biochemical oxygen demand

r 2 = 0.94

s = 0.39

n=4

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

45

Total organic carbon

r 2 = 0.95

s = 0.07

n = 12

4,000

40

35 3,000

30

25

2,000 20

15

10 1,000

5

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Suspended sediment

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 11

REPLICATE SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

EXPLANATION

r 2 COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION

s STANDARD ERROR IN MILLIGRAM OR MICROGRAM PER LITER

n NUMBER OF REPLICATES

Figure 4. Quality assurance data.
12 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

1,4-dichlorobenzene

r 2 = 0.71

s = 0.10

n = 47

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

2,6-di-tert-butylbenzoquinone

r 2 = 0.78

s = 0.07

n = 47

160 

120 

80 

40 

0 

0 40 80 120 160 

r 2 = 0.98

s = 0.02

n = 47

4-nonylphenol

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

r 2 = 0.64

s = 0.09

n = 47

Anthracene

6

4 

2 

0 

0 2 4 6 

2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethyl acetate

r 2 = 0.76

s = 0.08

n = 29

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

2,6-dimethyl naphthalene

r 2 = 0.92

s = 0.06

n = 26

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole

r 2 = 0.96

s = 0.04

n = 19

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Benzaldehyde

r 2 = 0.94

s = 0.05

n = 29

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5

2,6-di-tert-butylphenol

r 2 = 0.98

s = 0.02

n = 47

75 

60 

45 

30 

15 

0 

r 2 = 0.90

s = 0.04

n = 47

4-methylphenol

4 

3 

2 

1 

0

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0

0 15 30 45 60 75 

Acetophenone

r 2 = 0.28

s = 0.08

n = 47

0 1 2 3 4 

Benzo(a)pyrene

r 2 = 0.57

s = 0.07

n = 47

0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

REPLICATE SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 4. Quality assurance data—Continued.
Water Quality 13

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

9

6 

3 

0 

0 3 6 9 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate

r 2 = 0.37

s = 0.11

n = 47

0.45

0.30

0.15

0

0 0.15 0.30 0.45

BHA

(butylated hydroxyanisole)

r 2 = 0.78

s = 0.07

n = 47

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Carbaryl

r 2 = 0.93

s = 0.04

n = 47

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

cis-chlordane

r 2 = 0.74

s = 0.07

n = 47

40

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

r 2 = 0.49

s = 0.05

n = 47

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

BHT

(butylated hydroxytoluene)

r 2 = 0.84

s = 0.06

n = 47

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Codeine

r 2 = 0.41

s = 0.30

n = 44

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

r 2 = 0.96

s = 0.05

n = 47

Chlorpyrifos

5

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Bisphenol A

r 2 = 0.92

s = 0.04

n = 47

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

r 2 = 0.89

s = 0.05

n = 47

Caffeine

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Cotinine

r 2 = 0.70

s = 0.15

n = 16

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

0 100 200 300 400 

Cholesterol

r 2 = 0.94

s = 0.04

n = 47

REPLICATE SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 4. Quality assurance data—Continued.
14 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

160

Coprostanol

r 2 = 0.92

s = 0.04

n = 47

0.4

r 2 = 0.80

s = 0.05

n = 47

Diazinon

0.10

0.08

120 0.3

0.06

80 0.2

0.04

40 0.1

0.02

Dieldrin

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 47

0 0 0

0 40 80 120 160 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

7 2.5 4.0

6 3.5

2.0

5 3.0

4 1.5 2.5

2.0

3 1.0 1.5

2 1.0

0.5

1 0.5

0 0 0

01234567 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

N,N-diethyltoluamide

r 2 = 0.97

s = 0.04

n = 16

17β-estradiol

r 2 = 0.74

s = 0.08

n = 47

r 2 = 0.91

s = 0.08

n = 16

Diethylphthalate

30

5

0

Ethanol, 2-butoxy, phosphate

r 2 = 0.73

s = 0.06

n = 47

2.5

25 2.0

20

1.5

15

1.0

10

0.5

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 5 10 15 20

Fluoranthene

r 2 = 0.55

s = 0.09

n = 47

0

5

10

15

20

Naphthalene

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.01

n = 47

14

20

40

60

80

r 2 = 0.95

s = 0.03

n = 47

NP1EO

(nonylphenol

monoethoxylate)

0

0 75

NP2EO

(nonylphenol

diethoxylate)

r 2 = 0.95

s = 0.03

n = 46

8

120

60

100 6

45

4

30

2

15

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 15 30 45 60 75 02468

r 2 = 0.92

s = 0.04

n = 44

OP1EO

(octylphenol monoethoxylate)

REPLICATE SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 4. Quality assurance data—Continued.
Water Quality 15

Figure 4. Quality assurance data—Continued.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

9.0

OP2E0 (octylphenol

diethoxylate)

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 44

25

Phthalic anhydride

r 2 = 0.82

s = 0.07

n = 47

2.0

7.5 20

1.5

6.0

15

4.5 1.0

10

3.0

0.5

1.5 5

0 0 0

0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

r 2 = 0.68

s = 0.07

n = 47

Phenanthrene

35

Phenol

r 2 = 0.90

s = 0.04

n = 47

2.0

Pyrene

r 2 = 0.68

s = 0.07

n = 47

12

30 10

25 1.5

8

20

1.0 6

15

4 10 0.5

5 2

0 0 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Stigmastanol

r 2 = 0.56

s = 0.16

n = 16

3.5 8 0.4

3.0

2.5 6 0.3

2.0

4 0.2

1.5

1.0 2 0.1

0.5

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate

r 2 = 0.46

s = 0.16

n = 47

0

Tetrachloroethylene

r 2 = 0.91

s = 0.05

n = 47

0

Triclosan

r 2 = 0.91

s = 0.04

n = 44

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 02468 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

8 0.7 3.0

0.6 2.5

6 0.5

2.0

0.4

4 1.5

0.3

1.0

2 0.2

0.1 0.5

0 0 0

02468 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Triphenyl phosphate

r 2 = 0.94

s = 0.04

r 2 = 0.84 n = 47

s = 0.06

n = 47

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate

Tributylphosphate

r 2 = 0.99

s = 0.02

n = 29

REPLICATE SAMPLE CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
16 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

ent constituted, on average, 15 percent of the flow in 

the Blue River from 1998 through 2000. During dry 

periods, the percentage of streamflow derived from 

wastewater effluent in the Blue River likely approaches 

50 percent—with the remaining one-half originating as 

ground water. Before discharge into the stream, this 

water migrates through the unsaturated zone. In urban 

areas, the unsaturated zone is highly dissected by utility 

trenches, pipes, conduits, and construction activities 

that provide the infrastructure of telephone, water, 

sewer, and other utility services to metropolitan residents. The hydrologic result of these perturbations is 

the creation of a network of flow paths in the unsaturated zone that allows for the preferential movement of 

water from the surface down into ground water. This 

process can be important because: (1) the normal filtering and adsorption mechanism of the overlying soil 

column is short-circuited when contaminants rapidly 

move through the unsaturated zone, and (2) aging or 

leaking sewer pipes can provide a continual source of 

contaminants as water moves along these preferential 

paths. Although the constituent concentrations 

detected in base-flow samples should primarily be 

attributable to ground water, other processes likely are 

important.

Surface-water runoff is the primary component 

of streamflow during and immediately after storms. 

Because a large part of the Blue River Basin includes 

impervious surfaces, substantial amounts of runoff can 

quickly be generated during rainfall. As runoff moves 

across impervious surfaces, constituents deposited during dry periods can be mobilized into streams. Storm 

sewer capacities often are overwhelmed by runoff volumes during intense storms. Where storm and sanitary 

sewers are hydraulically connected, excess runoff can 

combine with untreated wastewater and deliver wastewater directly to receiving streams.

Wastewater Indicator Compounds and 

Wastewater Treatment Removal 

Efficiencies

Three untreated wastewater streams (table 3) 

were sampled 11 times during base-flow conditions to 

determine the occurrence of these compounds in raw 

wastewater. All of the wastewater indicator compounds 

were detected in the raw wastewater samples, confirming their viability as potential indicators of wastewater.

Grab samples collected from treated wastewater 

effluent (4 samples) and those collected at site 4 (6 

samples) immediately downstream from a WWTP discharge point were used to estimate WWTP removal 

efficiencies of selected wastewater indicator compounds. Removal efficiencies (table 7) represent the 

ratio of the discharged mass of any given constituent to 

the influent mass of the same constituent expressed as 

a percentage. Influent volumes at the Blue River 

WWTP (sites 13 and 14, fig. 1) were obtained from 

flow meters at the time of sample collection. An equivalent volume was assumed to exit the plant as effluent, 

although plant volumes can, and do, fluctuate throughout the day. Volumes entering the Tomahawk Creek 

WWTP (site 12, fig. 1) were obtained from plant personnel on the day of collection and represent an average daily flow for that day. Samples collected at site 4 

may not be representative of effluent concentrations 

because dilution occurs as effluent mixes with native 

stream water. Indian Creek also receives effluent from 

another upstream treatment facility. Many of these 

compounds have strong affinities for sediments and 

thus concentrations may quickly decline in-stream. 

Therefore, samples collected at site 4 probably are 

more representative of effluent from the Tomahawk 

Creek facility rather than the upstream treatment facility.

Estimates of removal efficiencies generally were 

higher for the Tomahawk Creek WWTP than for the 

Blue River WWTP. Treatment facilities often differ in 

their ability to remove various constituents, the treatment technology employed, and the amount of waste 

entering the plant. Some of these factors, along with the 

different estimation methodologies between facilities, 

may have affected removal efficiency estimations. 

Therefore, the estimates may be more accurately 

viewed as a means of bracketing the removal efficiency 

endpoints. 

The sterols cholesterol (a plant and animal steroid) and coprostanol (a fecal steroid) were detected in 

all of the WWTP influent samples. Median influent 

concentration of cholesterol were 35 times that 

observed in stream samples, and coprostanol concentrations were 70 times those detected in stream samples. Although the calculated removal efficiencies for 

these compounds ranged from 62 to 99 percent, effluent concentrations often exceeded concentrations 

detected in stream samples by an order of magnitude. 

However, improvements in wastewater treatment over 

the last 30 years has greatly decreased the amount of
Wastewater Indicator Compounds and Wastewater Treatment Removal Efficiencies 17

Table 7. Average wastewater treatment removal efficiencies, in percent, for selected wastewater indicator compounds[Numbers below chemical names are CAS numbers (Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers); BHA, butylated hydroxyanisole; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; NP1EO, nonylphenol 

monoethoxylate; NP2EO, nonylphenol diethoxylate; OP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; BR, Blue River Wastewater Treatment Plant; TC, Tomahawk Creek 

Wastewater Treatment Plant; --, not determined]

2,6-Di-tert1,4- butyl- 2,6-Di-tert- 5-Methyl-1H- Bis(2-ethyl Bis(2-ethyl BisDichloro- benzo- butyl- 4-Methyl 4-Nonyl- benzo- Aceto- Benzo[a]- hexyl) hexyl) phenol 

benzene quinone phenol cresol phenol triazole phenone Anthracene pyrene adipate phthalate

A BHA

Site 106-46-7 106-51-4 128-39-2 106-44-5 104-40-5 136-85-6 98-86-2 120-12-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5

BR 80 100 -- 98 69 -46 73 100 55 -- 100 88 100

TC 99 100 100 100 97 92 67 100 99 72 96 94 100

N,N- Ethanol,2-

Coprost- diethyl- Diethyl- 17-β butoxy, Fluoran- NaphthaBHT Caffeine Cholesterol Codeine Cotinine anol toluamide phthalate Estradiol phosphate thene lene NP1EO

Site 128-37-0 58-08-2 57-88-5 76-57-3 486-56-6 360-68-9 134-62-3 84-66-2 50-28-2 64-17-5 206-44-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3

BR 90 88 62 -58 71 66 62 100 100 22 92 99 50

TC 100 99 98 85 98 99 91 100 100 94 89 98 97

Tetra- Tri(2-chloro Tris(dichlorPhthalic Phenan- chloro- ethyl) Triphenyl isopropyl) 

anhydride NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO threne Phenol Pyrene ethylene Triclosan phosphate phosphate phosphate

Site 85-44-9 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-18-4 129-00-0 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 115-86-6 13674-84-5

BR 78 1 28 -473 100 95 79 97 40 -7 53 --

TC 91 94 93 95 99 100 85 100 97 76 90 63
18 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

coprostanol discharged to streams. The mean coprostanol concentration measured in effluent at the Blue 

River WWTP was 381 μg/L (micrograms per liter) in 

1970 (Tabak and Bunch, 1970) compared to 21 μg/L 

measured in this study. 

Phenols and detergent metabolites are a major 

component of waste streams entering and exiting 

wastewater treatment facilities. Phenolic compounds 

represent most of the mass of wastewater indicator 

compounds in both WWTP influent and effluent. Calculated removal efficiencies for phenol and bisphenol 

A ranged from 88 to 94 percent at the two WWTPs, 

with the highest removal rates at the Tomahawk Creek 

WWTP. Removal efficiencies at the Blue River WWTP 

were less than 50 percent for all detergent metabolites. 

Effluent concentrations of some metabolites, nonylphenol diethoxalate (NP2EO) and octylphenol diethoxalate (OP2EO), were equivalent to or greater than those 

measured in the influent. This also may be the result of 

matrix interferences or poor compound recovery. However, the removal rate is likely affected by the breakdown of nonylphenol and octylphenol polyethoxalate 

compounds (those that have anywhere from 3 to 20 

attached ethoxalate units, which were not analyzed in 

this study) into the shorter chain compounds: nonylphenol monoethoxalate (NP1EO), NP2EO, alkylphenol 

monoethoxylate (AP1EO), and alkylphenol diethoxylate (AP2EO) (which were analyzed).

 Calculated removal efficiencies for the widely 

used compounds caffeine, cotinine, triclosan, N,N, 

diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET), and acetophenone indicate that trace amounts of these compounds survive

WWTPs. A few other compounds, notably the antioxidant, 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole, and the flame retardant, tri(2-choloroethyl)phosphate, were detected at 

elevated concentrations in effluent at the Blue River 

WWTP, which discharges to the Missouri River. The 

reason for this is unclear. These compounds may be 

bound to organic matter in influent and subsequently 

liberated into the effluent during the treatment process. 

Matrix interference also may affect the precise determination of these compounds in wastewater effluent.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) were 

common in wastewater influent samples, and the measured concentrations generally were about 4 times 

greater than concentrations detected in base-flow 

stream samples. Greater than 90 percent of PAH’s are 

removed during wastewater treatment. WWTP effluent 

contributes some, but probably not the entire PAH burden seen in base-flow samples.

These data indicate that generally, WWTP processes remove most of the wastewater indicator compounds. However, trace amounts of many compounds 

survive the treatment process and ultimately are discharged to receiving waters. Although the exact nature 

and amount of WWTP contributions cannot be determined, these discharges clearly affect the concentration 

of many wastewater compounds detected in stream 

samples.

Base-Flow Water Quality

Water-quality assessments were needed during 

base-flow conditions to characterize the effects of 

wastewater between storms and to provide a base-line 

data set for historical comparisons as changes occur 

within the basin. Sixteen sets of base-flow samples 

(tables 1 and 2) were collected. Whenever possible, the 

sample sets were collected synoptically, meaning as 

close in time as possible, with no intervening rainfall 

during sample collection. Sample events were dispersed throughout the year. Selected physical properties (specific conductance, pH, water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity) were 

measured onsite for each base-flow sampling event. 

Discharge at each site was either measured or determined from established rating curves and was used to 

calculate instantaneous loads of selected water-quality 

constituents and to estimate daily loads.

Physical Properties

No significant difference existed between specific conductance, pH, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen concentration between sites during 

base-flow sampling events (table 1). Specific conductance varied the most between sites, but the differences 

were not statistically significant (p=0.10). However, 

specific conductance measurements along Brush Creek 

were sometimes elevated by as much as 10 times that of 

the median value of 650 μS/cm (microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius) during winter samplings 

after the application of de-icing road salts. The median 

pH value for sites along the Blue River (7.8) was nearly 

identical to Brush Creek sites (7.7). However, a greater 

range in values was noted at the Brush Creek sites, and 
Base-Flow Water Quality 19

at two sites (7 and 9), pH values occasionally were 

below 7.0. This change in pH most likely is related to 

the effects of algal blooms on water chemistry. Water 

temperature varied the least between sites, primarily 

because water temperature was largely affected by air 

temperature and the synoptic nature of the sampling 

events. Median dissolved oxygen concentration was 

8.9 mg/L (milligrams per liter).

Nutrients

Total N concentrations (calculated by summing 

the concentrations of ammonia plus organic N plus 

nitrite plus nitrate) and the percentage of total N as 

nitrate (NO3) were significantly higher at Blue River 

sites compared to Brush Creek sites (p<0.001, fig. 5). 

Median total N concentration in the Blue River was 4.9 

TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

a a a

b b b b

p<0.001

Blue River Brush Creek

STREAM

20

PERCENT NITROGEN FROM NITRATE

0

40

60

80

100 (45)

(60)

(15)

(15)

(15)

(15)

(15)

(15)

(15)

5 6 7 8 910 11

SITE

EXPLANATION

p<0.001

(60)

a

BLUE RIVER

BRUSH CREEK

P-VALUE—Significance level from

Kruskal-Wallis test

NUMBER IN PARENTHESES—Number of

samples

LETTER—Different letters indicate a significant

difference exists between sites

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

75th PERCENTILE

50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

25th PERCENTILE

SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

Figure 5. Total nitrogen concentration by site and the percentage of the total nitrogen derived

from nitrate by stream (inset) in base-flow samples.
20 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

mg/L, compared to 1.8 mg/L in Brush Creek. These 

differences can be attributed to differences in NO3 concentrations and N speciation between the two streams. 

The median NO3 concentration in the Blue River was 

11 times that in Brush Creek (3.78 mg/L compared to 

0.33 mg/L). Nitrate accounted for 75 percent of N in 

the Blue River and 20 percent in Brush Creek. 

Although the median concentration of organic N was 

only slightly higher in Brush Creek (0.92 mg/L) than 

the Blue River (0.82 mg/L), the percentage of total N in 

organic form is much larger in Brush Creek (58 percent) than in the Blue River (20 percent).

Phosphorus concentrations in the Blue River also 

were significantly higher than in Brush Creek 

(p<0.001). The majority of P in both streams was dissolved, as orthophosphate, although this percentage 

was higher in the Blue River (90 percent) than in Brush 

Creek (55 percent, fig. 6). Aquatic growth is not limited 

in either stream by the lack of orthophosphate, which 

often is the case in surface waters.

 Nutrients can derive from a number of sources 

within the basin, including atmospheric deposition, 

organic matter from soils and algae, fertilizers, and 

inputs from both treated and untreated wastewater. The 

Blue River and Brush Creek have an almost continual 

excess of nutrients; however, the sources of these nutrients differs between the two streams.

Although nonpoint sources cannot entirely be 

discounted, the primary source of nutrients in the Blue 

River likely is from the discharge of treated wastewater 

in the upper part of the basin. Organic N in wastewater 

is oxidized during the treatment process and subsequently discharged into streams as NO3. Smaller 

amounts of ammonia and organic N also may be discharged from these plants into the Blue River, but dissolved oxygen in streams would oxidize these N 

species into NO3 where it would remain stable. Nitrate 

is readily bioavailable and a portion is removed by 

plants and aquatic organisms; however, the relatively 

continuous nature of effluent discharges leads to N saturation in the Blue River. The median calculated load 

of 600 kg/d (kilograms per day) of N moving through 

the Blue River is almost 40 times the value calculated 

for Brush Creek (16 kg/d).

Nutrient concentrations in Brush Creek likely 

result from a myriad of sources, including atmospheric 

deposition, fertilizers and organic N leached from soils, 

the decomposition of plants and organic matter, leaks 

from sewer lines, and inputs from infrequent CSO 

events or wastewater bypasses. As nutrients are transported downstream they are subject to a variety of 

biotransformations, especially as they cycle through 

impoundments. Fountains have been designed in these 

lakes to entrain and aerate the water, and thus provide 

an opportunity to oxidize N species (ammonia and 

organic N) into NO3. However, a better understanding 

of the effects of aeration on water quality is needed as 

the aerated water volume may be small compared to the 

total volume of lake water. Additional factors also may 

affect how nutrients are transformed within Brush 

Creek. Evaporation in these lakes can exceed inflows; 

to maintain the upper pool elevation, part of the water 

from the next lowest impoundment is recycled through 

the upper impoundment. Impoundments often stratify 

during much of the summer, which results in a layer of 

decreased dissolved oxygen concentration at depth, 

and can reduce NO3 into nitrite (NO2) and ultimately 

convert it to nitrogen (N2) gas, where it can move into 

the atmosphere. Algal blooms, which convert bioavailable N [mostly ammonia (NH4) and NO3] into organic 

N, also can occur during sunny days. These blooms follow a diurnal periodicity that is marked by increasing 

dissolved oxygen levels through midday as photosynthesis proceeds. Ultimately, algae growth occurs 

unabated until light penetration through the water column is attenuated sufficiently to produce algal die-offs, 

and dissolved oxygen concentrations decline. Algae 

sinks to the bottom where biogeochemical processes 

can act to convert the organic N into more soluble 

forms of N. 

Wastewater Indicator Compounds

A number of wastewater indicator compounds 

were frequently detected (equal to or greater than 50 

percent detection frequency) in base-flow samples. The 

compounds caffeine, triclosan, and DEET—ingredients in coffee, antimicrobial soaps, and insect repellent—were detected in more than 90 percent of samples 

analyzed and seem to be ubiquitous in this urban environment. Furthermore, the frequent detection of these 

compounds in a national reconnaissance of 139 streams 

indicates that their environmental occurrence is widespread (Kolpin and others, 2002).

Wastewater compounds can originate from a 

variety of sources within the basin. The WWTPs in the 

upper part of the Blue River Basin serve approximately 235,000 people who discharge an estimated 

320 million liters of domestic wastewater daily (Solley 

and others, 1998). Based on this estimate, WWTP 

effluent contributed, on average, 40 percent of the
Base-Flow Water Quality 21

5

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

4

3

2

1

Blue River

p<0.001

a a a

b b b b

Brush Creek

STREAM

0

20

40

60

80

100

PERCENT PHOSPHORUS

AS ORTHOPHOSPHATE

(9)

(12)

(15)

(15)

(15) (15)

(15) (15)

(15)

0

5 6 7 8 910 11

SITE

EXPLANATION

p<0.001

(12)

a

BLUE RIVER

BRUSH CREEK

P-VALUE—Significance level from

Kruskal-Wallis test

NUMBER IN PARENTHESES—Number of

samples

LETTER—Different letters indicate a significant

difference exists between sites

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

75th PERCENTILE

50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

25th PERCENTILE

SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

Figure 6. Total phosphorus concentration by site and the percentage of the total phosphorus that is orthophosphate by stream (inset) in base-flow samples.
22 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

flow at Blue River site 5 during base-flow sampling 

events. WWTP effluent is not discharged into Brush 

Creek.

Comparative analysis of detection frequency, 

concentrations, and loads between streams and sites 

provides clues as to the sources and origins of these 

compounds. Because of the large number of wastewater compounds analyzed, they have been broadly characterized into the following categories: antioxidants, 

caffeine and cotinine, sterols and stanols, phenols and 

detergent metabolites, antimicrobials, insect repellents, 

flame retardants, insecticides, and PAH’s.

Antioxidants

Three antioxidants, butylated hydroxyanisole 

(BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and 5-

methyl-1H-benzotriazole, as well as the principal 

metabolites of BHA and BHT—2,6-di-tert-butylphenol and 2,6-di-tert-butyl benzoquinone, respectively—(Lopez-Avila and Hites, 1981) were analyzed. 

BHA and BHT are added as preservatives to foods and 

are added to other materials such as food packages and 

plastics to prevent brittleness. The antioxidant 5-

methyl-1H-benzotriazole primarily is used in antifreeze and de-icers as an anti-corrosion agent.

All samples collected from Indian Creek, 94 percent of samples collected from the Blue River, and 67 

percent of samples collected from Brush Creek had 

detectable concentrations of 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole. The highest concentrations of 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole were detected in samples downstream from 

wastewater discharges, and concentrations of this compound were significantly higher (p=0.002) on Indian 

Creek (0.61 μg/L) when compared to the Blue River 

(0.32 μg/L) or Brush Creek (0.14 μg/L).

 The other antioxidants did not follow the distribution pattern of 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole. BHA and 

2,6-di-tert-butyl benzoquinone were detected in 19 percent of samples, but in only one sample from Indian 

Creek. BHT and 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol were detected 

in only 5 percent of samples and in no samples from 

Indian Creek. Previous data on the occurrence of antioxidants in the environment are sparse. Environmental 

litter, which often accumulates along roadways and in 

parking lots, is subject to photo degradation and 

decomposition and can be transported into streams via 

runoff. Further decomposition may contribute trace 

amounts of these compounds to streams during baseflow. Although improper stream-side disposal of waste 

antifreeze cannot be discounted as a source for 5-

methyl-1H-benzotriazole during base flow, a substantial portion likely originates from WWTP effluent.

Caffeine and Cotinine

Caffeine was one of the most frequently detected 

(96 percent of samples) wastewater compounds in base 

flow. Although the median concentration of caffeine 

was highest in samples from Indian Creek (1.0 μg/L), 

the concentrations were not significantly higher (p=

0.112) than those detected in samples from the Blue 

River (0.54 μg/L) or Brush Creek (0.79 μg/L).

The frequent caffeine detections are likely 

related to several factors. Although ingested caffeine is 

almost completely metabolized (97 percent) by the 

body (Tang-Liu and others, 1983), copious amounts of 

this compound are consumed. Based on a daily per capita use rate of 280 milligrams per consumer (Barone 

and Roberts, 1996) and the most recent population figures (U.S. Department of the Census, 2000) the average 

annual consumption of caffeine in the Kansas City metropolitan area is estimated to be 110,000 kg (kilograms) (242,000 pounds). Unconsumed coffee and soft 

drinks poured down drains or directly disposed into the 

environment likely contributes to the occurrence of caffeine in water samples. Once released into the environment, caffeine would be expected to easily migrate 

through soils and the unsaturated zone (Seiler and others, 1999).

Cotinine is the result of the body’s rapid assimilation and metabolism of nicotine, the active ingredient 

in tobacco and smoking-cessation products. Cotinine 

was detected in 63 percent of base-flow samples. Concentrations in samples from Indian Creek (median 

value of 0.12 μg/L) and Blue River (median concentration of 0.09 μg/L) were significantly higher than in 

samples from Brush Creek (median concentration of 

0.02 μg/L; p=0.007). Cotinine, similar to caffeine, 

likely has multiple environmental sources, including 

WWTP effluent discharge, as well as the decomposition of improperly disposed cigarettes.

 Sterols and Stanols

The sterols and stanols cholesterol, coprostanol, 

stigmastanol, and 17-β estradiol were analyzed. Cholesterol is a component of many substances, including 

plants, but has been shown to occur in wastewater. 

Within the intestines of humans and other higher animals, cholesterol is microbially reduced into coprostanol (Chan and others, 1998) and related isomers. 
Base-Flow Water Quality 23

Biotransformation in humans favors coprostanol over 

the isomers, which results in a distinct sterol fingerprint 

dominated by coprostanol (Leeming and others, 1996). 

Coprostanol has been shown to account for, on average, 

65 percent of the sterols eliminated in human feces 

(Ferezou and others, 1978). A number of studies have 

shown sterols and stanols, especially coprostanol, to be 

efficient tracers of wastewater (Singley and others, 

1974; Mudge and others, 1998; Maldonado and others, 

1999; O’Leary and others, 1999; Elhmmali and others, 

2000). The plant sterol stigmastanol was analyzed in 

samples beginning in February 2000 with the hope of 

being able to better determine the portion of the cholesterol that might originate from plants versus animals. 

However, it also has been shown to be a component of 

pulp-mill wastes and therefore may be released from 

the decomposition of paper in the environment (Cook 

and others, 1997). The natural and endogenous hormone, 17-β estradiol, also was analyzed.

Cholesterol was detected in 81 percent of all 

samples. Although little difference existed in the detection frequency between streams, the median concentration in Indian Creek (5.2 μg/L) was double that in 

Brush Creek (2.6 μg/L) and almost 4 times that in the 

Blue River (1.4 μg/L). Cholesterol concentrations 

were significantly higher in Indian Creek and Brush 

Creek samples than in Blue River samples (p=0.002). 

The median concentration generally increased downstream in Indian Creek and Brush Creek, but decreased 

in the Blue River. This is likely attributable to the fact 

that both treated and untreated wastewater sources tend 

to increase downstream in the two tributary streams. 

The highest concentrations in two samples from Brush 

Creek (sites 8 and 9) approximated those occasionally 

seen in wastewater influent and likely indicate recent 

wastewater inputs. In the Blue River, sediment depositions, dilution, or both may affect the progressive 

downstream decrease in concentrations.

 Coprostanol was detected in 72 percent of all 

samples and its occurrence in base-flow samples followed a similar trend to that observed for cholesterol. 

Detections of coprostanol in samples from Indian 

Creek were higher (92 percent) than those in samples 

from the Blue River (78 percent) and Brush Creek (64 

percent). The median concentration in Indian Creek 

(2.05 μg/L) was almost 3 times those detected in the 

samples from the Blue River (0.78 μg/L) and Brush 

Creek (0.75 μg/L). These differences were significant 

(p=0.001); however, like cholesterol, the highest 

observed concentrations in any samples were in samples collected from sites 8 and 9 on Brush Creek.

 Stigmastanol was detected in about one-fourth 

of all samples (n=49) but the detection frequency was 

much greater in samples collected from Brush Creek 

(43 percent) than for the other sites. The reason for this 

is unclear. One possibility is that as grass clippings 

(which are frequently discharged into the sections of 

the creek during park maintenance) break down, trace 

amounts of plant sterols, one of which is stigmastanol, 

are released into the environment. The breakdown of 

paper in trash also may release stigmastanol into the 

environment. Longer retention times and lower dissolved oxygen concentrations in Brush Creek also may 

favor the formation, or stability, of stigmastanol. More 

than one-half (54 to 96 percent) of stigmastanol generally is removed during wastewater treatment (Cook and 

others, 1997) so its presence in environmental samples 

may point to nonpoint and untreated, rather than treated 

wastewater sources.

The naturally occurring estrogen, 17-β estradiol, 

was detected in 13 percent of all samples analyzed. 

Samples collected from Indian Creek had nearly 3 

times the frequency (31 percent) of detections than did 

samples from Brush Creek (11 percent) and the Blue 

River (12 percent). Additionally, the median detectable 

concentration was 3 to 4 times higher in samples from 

Indian Creek (0.58 μg/L) than in samples from Brush 

Creek (0.16 μg/L) and the Blue River (0.17 μg/L). 

Although removal efficiencies for estrogens often 

exceed 85 percent in WWTPs (Baronti and others, 

2000) and even though microbial activity is expected to 

quickly oxidize 17-β estradiol to estrone (Ternes and 

others, 1999a), estrogens often are detected in wastewater discharges (Ternes and others, 1999b). Although 

17-β estradiol was detected only occasionally in baseflow samples in this study (concentrations ranged from 

0.10 to 1.9 μg/L), even intermittent exposure to concentrations as low as 0.12 μg/L can induce adverse 

reproductive changes in fish (Panter and others, 2000; 

Rogers-Gray and others, 2000). 

Sterols have been shown to be important predictors of wastewater contamination (LeBlanc and others, 

1992). Sterols analyzed in this study, with the exception of stigmastanol, generally showed a similar distribution pattern. These data indicate that source and fate 

is similar for each compound. There were higher detection frequencies and concentrations in samples from 

Indian Creek than samples from Brush Creek or the 
24 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

Blue River. Indian Creek sites are more directly 

affected by treated wastewater discharges than are other 

sites. Sites along Brush Creek occasionally are subjected to large loads of sterols from CSOs and two sites 

on Brush Creek occasionally have extremely elevated 

levels of some sterols. The concentrations of coprostanol (r2=0.82) and stigmastanol (r2=0.73) correlated 

well with the concentration of cholesterol at sites.

 Once released into the aquatic environment, sterols are subject to a number of biogeochemical transformations (Maldonado and others, 2000). Foremost, 

they degrade rapidly under aerobic conditions and are 

strongly sorbed onto sediments. O’Leary and others 

(1999) reported a 70 percent loss of coprostanol within 

1 week in well-mixed waters and suggested, if inputs 

were sporadic, then coprostanol would be difficult to 

detect after about 20 days because of decomposition 

and incorporation into sediments. Once buried in sediments, these compounds have been shown to be stable 

for many years (LeBlanc and others, 1992); however, 

sedimentary geochemical processes would likely 

reduce a portion of the cholesterol into coprostanol 

(Elhmmali and others, 1997). No significant changes 

occurred in the ratio of coprostanol/cholesterol 

between influent and effluent (or adjacent river) samples, indicating that little transformation occurs during 

wastewater treatment. The median coprostanol/cholesterol ratio for influent at the Blue River WWTP was 

0.92, compared to 0.96 for the effluent. The ratio at the 

Tomahawk Creek WWTP influent was 0.75, compared 

to 0.78 for river sampling sites immediately downstream from WWTP effluent discharges (sites 3 and 4).

Although coprostanol is stable in anaerobic 

environments, microbial hydrogenation of the cholesterol double carbon bond (between the 5 and 6 carbons) produces coprostanol (Sherblom and others, 

1997). Such biogeochemical transformation also 

would be expected to occur in anoxic sediments where 

microbial populations include flora similar to that 

found in human intestines—for example, sediments 

derived from CSOs. During summer, the overlying 

water column at sites 8, 9, and 10 often stratifies, 

which eventually results in the depletion of dissolved 

oxygen concentrations at depth. These conditions may 

favor the stability of some microbial populations, so 

there may be times when favorable geochemical conditions exist in Brush Creek sediments for the in-situ 

reduction of cholesterol to coprostanol. This may 

account for some of the very high levels of coprostanol 

occasionally found at some Brush Creek sites.

Phenols and Detergent Metabolites

Phenolic compounds analyzed included bisphenol A, phenol, and several metabolites of the alkyl-phenol polyethoxylate (APEO) surfactants. Bisphenol A 

and phenol primarily are used in plastics manufacturing; however, smaller amounts of phenol are used as a 

disinfectant and antifungal agent. APEO surfactants are 

nonanionic surfactants used extensively in laundry 

detergents and textile manufacturing (Talmage, 1999). 

They also are a component in many paints, herbicides, 

pesticides, and cosmetics (Sole and others, 2000). In 

the United States, most APEO surfactants are nonylphenol exthyloxalates (NPEO). The octylphenol 

exthyloxalates (OPEO) constitute a much smaller percentage of the total market (Bennett and Metcalfe, 

2000). Based on worldwide-use figures, the ratio would 

be about 80 percent NPEO’s to 20 percent OPEO’s 

(White and others, 1994). NPEO and OPEO are commercial mixtures that contain a range (1 to 50) of 

ethoxylate units (John and White, 2000). As these products break down, ethoxylate units are removed, which 

results in the formation of compounds with fewer and 

fewer ethylene oxide groups (Ahel and others, 1994). 

The degradation products are more persistent, toxic, 

hydrophobic, and estrogenic than the parent compounds and have been detected frequently in wastewater effluents (Bennie, 1999; Maquire, 1999; Servos, 

1999). Samples that contained two, one, and no 

attached ethoxylate groups, which are identified as 

NP2EO and OP2EO, NP1EO and octylphenol 

monoexthoxylate (OP1EO), and nonylphenol (NP), 

respectively, were analyzed in this study.

No significant difference was determined in 

either bisphenol A (p=0.82) or phenol (p=0.08) concentrations between streams. Bisphenol A was detected in 

71 percent of all stream samples compared to only 24 

percent of samples with detectable concentrations of 

phenol.

The detergent metabolites NP and NP1EO, 

NP2EO, and OP1EO were detected at a much higher 

frequency and at significantly higher concentrations 

in Indian Creek than in Brush Creek or the Blue River. 

More than 90 percent of samples from Indian Creek 

had detections of these compounds, and the concentrations were significantly higher (p<0.01 for all four 

compounds) when compared to Brush Creek and the 

Blue River. Total detergent concentrations (defined as 

the sum of NP, NP1EO, NP2EO, OP1EO, and OP2EO 

concentrations) were 5 to 7 times higher on Indian 

Creek than for Brush Creek or the Blue River (fig. 7). 
Base-Flow Water Quality 25

Concentrations were highest at sites immediately 

downstream from WWTP discharge points (sites 3 

and 4). Consequently, detergent concentrations indicate that a much larger effect occurs at base flow as 

the result of WWTP effluent than as a result of CSOs.

The nonylphenols (NP1EO, NP2EO, and NP) 

accounted for, on average, 93 percent of the total measured detergent metabolites, and the octylphenols 

(OP1EO and OP2EO) only 7 percent. Although the 

specific use rates of nonylphenols versus octylphenols 

within the basin were impossible to determine, these 

detection percentages generally are consistent with use 

estimates previously discussed.

 Two important differences were noted in the 

distribution of two compounds—NP2EO and 

NP—between streams. The concentrations of both 

compounds were significantly higher in samples from 

Indian Creek than in samples from Brush Creek or the 

Blue River (p<0.001 and p=0.008, respectively). Also, 

the percentage of the total measured detergent metabolites that each compound represented was quite different between streams. For samples collected from 

Indian Creek, almost one-half (47 percent) of the total 

detergent metabolites could, on average, be attributed 

to NP2EO concentrations, compared to 26 percent on 

Brush Creek and 29 percent on the Blue River. 

Nonylphenol showed an opposite trend. In samples 

from Indian Creek, NP concentrations represented only 

16 percent of the total measured metabolites, compared 

to 33 percent in samples from Brush Creek and 34 percent in Blue River samples. Once these compounds are 

released into the environment, several things act to produce these differences. NP2EO degrades much faster in 

oxygenated, natural waters than does NP (Ahel and 

others, 1994). Both compounds have a very strong 

affinity for sediments (log Kow, [octanol water coefficient]= 4.0 to 4.5; Ahel and Giger, 1993), which results 

in rapid decreases in concentrations as the distance 

from the source increases (Bennett and Metcalf, 2000). 

As decomposition occurs within bottom sediments, NP 

can be formed from the breakdown of NP1EO and 

NP2EO. Therefore, as the distance from the source 

increases, the ratio of NP2EO to NP should decrease. 

At site 4, located approximately 0.25 km downstream 

from a WWTP discharge point on Indian Creek, the 

median ratio was 2.5. At downstream Blue River sampling points, the ratio declined from 1.0 at site 5, to 0.81 

at site 6, to 0.65 at site 11. This progressive downstream 

decrease indicates that site 4 is closer to the source of 

the detergent metabolites in the stream and that the 

base-flow effect at Blue River sites is largely related to 

WWTP effluent.

Antimicrobials

Triclosan has been in use for more than 30 

years as an antimicrobial agent in many deodorants 

and bar soaps (Levy and others, 1999). Triclosan use 

has risen dramatically in the last few years as it has 

been added to a wide range of products including 

body washes, liquid hand soaps, dishwasher powders, 

toothpastes, fabrics, and plastics (McMurry and others, 1998b). A recent survey determined that threefourths of liquid soaps contained triclosan (Perencevich and others, 2001). Triclosan was detected in 

almost every base-flow sample (97 percent of samples), indicating that it is likely an ubiquitous environmental presence in streams that receive 

wastewater. The presence of triclosan in environmental samples is a concern because of possible development of antiseptic resistant bacteria strains (McMurry 

and others, 1998a; Suller and Russell, 2000; Meade 

and others, 2001) and because triclosan has been 

detected in human breast milk and blood plasma 

(Adolfsson-Erici and others, 2000; Hovander and others, 2002). Previous work on the presence of triclosan 

in environmental samples has focused on its occurrence in sediments (Lopez-Avila and Hites, 1980; 

Hale and others, 2000), aquatic organisms (Miyazaki 

and others, 1984; Okumura and others, 1996) and 

possible modes of environmental degradation (Voets 

and others, 1976).

Concentrations of triclosan in samples from 

Indian Creek and the Blue River were significantly 

higher (p<0.001) than in samples from Brush Creek. 

The median concentration of triclosan at site 4 (0.80 

μg/L) was 7 times the median concentration for samples from Brush Creek sites (0.11 μg/L). These data 

indicate that WWTP effluents likely affect the occurrence of triclosan in streams more than CSOs during 

base flow. This also may be due in part to the fact that 

a few bacteria—some of which may be present in 

stream sediments in impounded reaches of Brush 

Creek—can utilize triclosan as a carbon source, and 

thus are capable of degrading it (Hundt and others, 

2000; Hay and others, 2001; Meade and others, 

2001).
26 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

20

TOTAL NONIONIC DETERGENT CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

15

10

5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

SITE

EXPLANATION

(66)

(51)

Blue River Brush Creek Indian Creek

STREAM

0

5

10

15

TOTAL DETERGENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGARMS PER LITER

(13)

(17)

(16)

(15)

(17)

(16)

(18)

(16)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(8)

BLUE RIVER

BRUSH CREEK

INDIAN CREEK

(66) NUMBER IN PARENTHESES—

Number of samples

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

75th PERCENTILE

50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

25th PERCENTILE

SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

Figure 7. Total nonionic detergent concentration by site and stream (inset) in base-flow samples.

11
Base-Flow Water Quality 27

Insect Repellents

DEET is the active ingredient in most commercial insect repellents that are formulated for personal 

use against mosquitoes, ticks, and other biting insects. 

Although concentrations were low, DEET was detected 

in every base-flow sample analyzed. DEET concentrations were significantly higher (p=0.014) in samples 

from Indian Creek (0.20 μg/L) and the Blue River (0.22 

μg/L) when compared to Brush Creek (0.13 μg/L). 

Although DEET commonly is used in recreational 

areas and many sampling sites were adjacent to, or 

upstream from parks, stream-side trails, ball fields, and 

golf courses, these factors would not be expected to be 

the major effect on the environmental occurrence of 

DEET. It is more likely that DEET is removed during 

laundry and bathing, transported to WWTPs where a 

significant amount survives the treatment process, and 

is ultimately discharged into receiving streams.

Flame Retardants

 Flame-retardant compounds are used in a variety 

of products including fabrics, carpets, and plastics to 

break the burning cycle. Three phosphate-based flame 

retardants—triphenyl phosphate, tri(2-choloroethyl)phosphate, and tris(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate—were analyzed by the wastewater indicator 

compound method. Most research on the environmental occurrence of flame retardants has focused on the 

brominated retardants and not on the phosphate-based 

retardants. Triphenyl phosphate commonly is added to 

plastics and has been shown to be emitted by the heat 

of computer video display units (Carlsson and others, 

2000).

Tri(2-choloroethyl)phosphate was detected in 

nearly every sample (92 percent). Concentrations were 

significantly higher (p=0.003) in samples from Indian 

Creek (median concentration of 0.28 μg/L) when compared to samples from the Blue River (median concentration of 0.15 μg/L) or Brush Creek (median 

concentration of 0.10 μg/L). Triphenyl phosphate was 

detected in 38 percent of all samples; however, the 

detection frequency in samples from Indian Creek was 

2 to 2.8 times that compared to the detection frequency 

in the Blue River and Brush Creek. The concentrations 

of triphenyl phosphate also were significantly higher in 

samples from Indian Creek (p<0.001) when compared 

to other streams. Tris(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate was 

detected in 15 percent of samples analyzed.

Insecticides

The wastewater indicator compound method 

analyzes for seven insecticides: carbaryl, chlordane (as 

cis-chlordane), chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dieldrin, lindane, and methyl parathion. With the exception of 

methyl parathion, these compounds are, or have been, 

licensed for use on common household pests. Carbaryl, 

chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and lindane are used to control 

a variety of lawn and garden pests, but also are registered for home use against termites, fleas, ticks, and 

lice. Additionally, lindane is registered for human use 

as a scabicide and pediculcide, and thus is a minor component in some medicinal lotions and creams. Chlordane and dieldrin were registered for use against 

termites until they were banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1988 and 1987, 

respectively. Diazinon and chlorpyrifos currently 

(2002) are being phased out by their manufacturers, a 

process which is expected to be completed by the end 

of 2004.

Frequencies of insecticide detections were 

slightly higher on Brush Creek (24 percent) than on 

either Indian Creek (16 percent) or the Blue River (15 

percent), a difference attributable to the higher detection frequency of chlordane and dieldrin in samples 

collected from Brush Creek. Neither of these compounds were detected in any samples collected from 

Indian Creek. Chlordane and dieldrin strongly sorb 

onto sediments (log Kow = 3 to 5). They are persistent 

environmental contaminants, with an estimated soil 

half-life of 7 and 20 years. Insecticides are likely 

flushed into Brush Creek during runoff and then partition into the overlying water column. Concentrations of 

chlordane, dieldren, and chlorpyrifos were strongly 

correlated (r2

>0.90) with the occurrence of one 

another.

 Overall, the most frequently detected insecticides were diazinon (61 percent) and chlorpyrifos (23 

percent). These compounds are some of the most 

widely used insecticides in the home and garden. 

Domestic use of diazinon and chlorpyrifos has been 

estimated at 4.5 to 5 million pounds per year (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, written commun., accessed September 2001 

at URL http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op). Analysis of 

these compounds in 22 urban streams nationwide 

showed detection frequencies (diazinon, 69 percent; 

chlorpyrifos, 37 percent) similar to those observed in 

this study (Larson and others, 1999).
28 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

 The detection frequency and the median concentration of diazinon was higher in samples collected 

from Indian Creek than in the Blue River or Brush 

Creek. Diazinon was detected in 69 percent of samples 

from Indian Creek and the median concentration for 

samples with detections was 0.13 μg/L. Diazinon concentrations in Indian Creek were not significantly different (p=0.15) when compared to the Blue River sites 

(65 percent detections; median concentration of 0.06 

μg/L) or to Brush Creek (56 percent detections; median 

concentration of 0.06 μg/L). Chlorpyrifos detections 

were more frequent in Indian Creek (46 percent; 0.02 

μg/L median concentration) than the Blue River (12 

percent; 0.01 μg/L) and Brush Creek (27 percent; 0.02 

μg/L) but the concentrations were not significantly different (p=0.50).

Carbaryl was detected in 15 percent of all samples. Most of those samples (15 of 19) were collected 

from sites along Brush Creek. Estimated United States 

annual use of carbaryl for home and garden uses ranks 

just below that of diazinon and chlorpyrifos.

Lindane was detected in three samples. There 

were no detections of methyl parathion in any samples.

PAH’s

PAH’s result from the incomplete combustion of 

organic compounds. Although these compounds can 

originate from a variety of sources, they are common 

contaminants in urban environments because of their 

presence in vehicle exhaust, their tendency to sorb onto 

road dust, and their subsequent erosion into water bodies (Wakeham and others, 1980; Waker and others, 

1999). Although PAH’s may be indicators of urban runoff, domestic wastewater has been shown to contribute 

as much as 60 percent of certain PAH’s—pyrene and 

phenanthrene—to wastewater influent (Paxeus, 1996). 

The wastewater indicator compound method included 

six PAH’s: anthracene, fluoranthrene, napthalene, 

phenanthrene, pyrene, and benzo[a]pyrene. Fifty percent of base-flow samples had detectable concentrations of a PAH. Little difference existed between 

detection frequency on the Blue River (48 percent) and 

Brush Creek (54 percent), but a smaller number (36 

percent) of samples from Indian Creek had detectable 

concentrations of PAH’s.

The lower Brush Creek (site 10) and the lower 

Blue River (site 11) had the highest observed concentrations of PAH’s. This may be related to the proximity 

of these sites to industrial asphalt facilities. Concentrations of fluoranthene were highly correlated (r2=0.96) 

with the concentration of pyrene in samples. Coefficients of determination for anthracene concentrations 

with phenanthrene and fluoranthrene were 0.65 and 

0.62. Coefficients of determination for benzo[a]pyrene 

with other PAH’s ranged from 0.03 to 0.51. This difference in coefficients of determination is likely because 

the heavier molecular weight PAH’s, such as 

benzo[a]pyrene, are more strongly bound to sediments 

than are the lighter PAH’s (Bruggeman and van der 

Naald, 1988).

Another possible source of PAH’s in base-flow 

samples is the partitioning of these compounds from 

bottom sediments into the overlying water column. Bed 

sediment concentrations were determined at two sites 

(8 and 9) in January 1999 for the compounds 

anthracene [904 μg/kg (micrograms per kilogram)], 

fluoranthrene (8,265 μg/kg), napthalene (57 μg/kg), 

phenanthrene (5,340 μg/kg), pyrene (6,300 μg/kg), and 

benzo[a]pyrene (1,945 μg/kg). Although limited, these 

data indicate that concentrations of some wastewater 

indicator compounds in bed sediments may be much 

greater (3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater) than concentrations in the overlying water column and extends 

the possibility that partitioning may have occurred at 

the sediment-water interface. This phenomenon warrants additional study.

Additional Wastewater Indicators During Base Flow

Selected base-flow samples also were analyzed 

for pharmaceutical compounds and for the source of 

stream E. coli using bacterial source tracking methods. 

Analysis of pharmaceutical compounds in stream samples provided another measure of the relative effect 

associated with WWTP effluent compared to that from 

CSOs during base flow. Bacterial source tracking 

methods were used to assess if some of the measured 

stream bacteria might originate from human or animal 

sources.

Pharmaceutical Compounds

Samples selected from base-flow sampling 

events were analyzed for the occurrence of selected 

over-the-counter and prescription drugs to help clarify 

the sources and relative contributions of wastewater 

inputs, especially those that may result from the discharge of treated effluent in receiving streams. An 

over-the-counter pain medication, acetaminophen and 

a metabolite of nicotine (the active ingredient in 

tobacco products) were the most frequently detected 
Base-Flow Water Quality 29

pharmaceutical compounds in stream samples. Two 

anti-bacterial drugs, sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, prescribed for the treatment of urinary tract infections, were the most frequently detected prescription 

drugs. These antibiotics are administered in very high 

doses and about 50 percent of the administered drug 

typically is not metabolized and, therefore, is discharged in urine within 24 hours. The drugs analyzed 

and their sample detection frequencies are listed in 

table 8.

Pharmaceutical compounds in Brush Creek at 

base flow would be expected to originate from groundwater discharges or from previous CSO events. 

Although these processes also may contribute pharmaceuticals to the Blue River, an important distinction 

exists between the two streams—the Blue River 

receives WWTP effluent and Brush Creek does not. 

Comparing the concentrations and loads between 

streams and between sites provides an indication of the 

relative magnitude of these sources, as well as how 

these compounds may behave once they enter the 

aquatic environment.

Concentrations and loads of pharmaceutical 

compounds for one synoptic sampling event are shown 

in figure 8. For this event, samples were collected, as 

nearly as possible, so as to sample the same water as it 

moved downstream from site to site. Therefore, if 

stream inputs are additive, then both constituent concentrations and loads should increase downstream. If 

inputs result from a point source, then downstream constituent concentrations should decline as more water 

enters the stream, but downstream constituent loads 

should remain constant unless processes are removing 

them from the system. Concentrations and loads entering the Tomahawk Creek WWTP are shown for comparison purposes with stream sample concentrations. 

Treated effluent from this plant is discharged just 

upstream from site 4. Increases in the concentrations of 

sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim between those 

determined in WWTP influent and those determined in 

the sample immediately downstream from the effluent 

discharge may result from upstream inputs of these 

Table 8. Detection frequency of selected pharmaceutical compounds in base-flow samples (n=39) and method 

detection limits

[ND, not determined]

Detection frequency, Method Compounds with no Method

percent of samples detection limit detections detection limit

Compound analyzed (micrograms per liter) in any samples (micrograms per liter)

Acetaminophen 77 0.009 Digoxin 0.008

Caffeine 74 .014 Cimitidine .007

Codeine 18 ND Enalaprilat .150

Cotinine 82 .023 Fluoxetine .018

Diltiazem 33 .012 Furosemide ND

Gemfibrozil 3 .014 Linsinopril ND

Ibuprofen 20 .018 Metformin .003

Sulfamethoxazole 59 .023 Salbutamol .029

Trimethoprim 49 .014 Ranitidine .010

Warfarin .006
30 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

Figure 8. Concentrations and loads of selected pharmaceutical compounds in base-flow samples.

0.01

10

0.070.050.040.030.02

0.70.50.40.30.20.1

754321

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

ACETAMINOPHENCAFFEINECODEINE

COTININEDILTIAZEMIBUPROFEN

PARAXANTHINETRIMETHOPRIMSULFAMETHOXAZOLE

SAMPLES COLLECTEDFEBRUARY 14, 2000

0.001

10

0.0070.005

0.004

0.0030.002

0.070.050.040.030.020.01

0.70.50.40.30.20.1

754321

SAMPLES COLLECTEDFEBRUARY 16, 2000

100

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

7

5

4

3

2

1

70

50

40

30

20

10

7 8 9 10

SITE SITE

10

10,000

70

50

40

30

20

50

400

300

200

100

0

700

7,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

LOAD, IN GRAMS PER DAY

Tomahawk Creek

Wastewater Treatment

Plant Influent

4 5 6 11

EXPLANATION
Base-Flow Water Quality 31

compounds, or may reflect matrix interferences associated with the complex nature of WWTP influent samples.

A number of important differences were noted 

between pharmaceutical compounds in the Blue River 

and in Brush Creek during the synoptic sampling. First, 

many more compounds were detected in samples from 

the Blue River than in Brush Creek. Second, compound 

concentrations generally were about an order of magnitude greater in samples from the Blue River than in 

Brush Creek. Also, because the flow in the Blue River 

generally is an order of magnitude greater than flows in 

Brush Creek, the mass of pharmaceutical compounds 

determined in Blue River samples was about 100 times 

greater than in Brush Creek samples. Therefore, 

although wastewater treatment removes a significant 

amount of many pharmaceuticals, a percentage survive 

the treatment process and are ultimately discharged to 

surface water. Contributions of pharmaceuticals occur 

almost continually from WWTPs; however, diurnal and 

seasonal fluctuations likely occur. Although CSO 

events may introduce pharmaceuticals into streams, 

these events are not daily occurrences. Once discharged 

into streams, the downstream mass of pharmaceuticals 

did not change much. This indicates that in-stream processes, especially during the winter when water temperatures and biological processes typically are at their 

lowest levels, may not be available to remove these 

compounds from streams.

Bacteria and Bacterial Sources

E. coli concentrations were determined from 

water samples collected during base flow for the Blue 

River (sites 5, 6, and 11) and Brush Creek (sites 7, 8, 9, 

and 10). The median concentration of E. coli was 800 

col/100 mL (colonies per 100 milliliters of water) on the 

Blue River and 490 col/100 mL on Brush Creek. Bacteria populations in streams often are closely correlated to 

sediment concentrations (Christensen and others, 

2000). The median sediment concentration in the Blue 

River (72.5 mg/L) was more than double the median 

concentration in Brush Creek (34.0 mg/L). Single sample E. coli concentrations usually were greater than the 

recommended USEPA full-body contact limit of 235 

col/100 mL (Dufour, 1984). The highest concentrations 

generally were measured from samples collected at the 

two most downstream stream sites (10 and 11). Median 

E. coli colony concentrations were 1,400 col/100 mL at 

site 10, and 1,000 col/100 mL at site 11. Bacteria concentrations were not determined on Indian Creek; however, the section of Indian Creek immediately upstream 

from site 4 in Kansas is listed as an impaired stream 

because of concerns about elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations (Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment, 2000). Bacteria source-tracking samples 

were collected at sites 5, 8, and 10. Genetic fingerprint 

patterns generated from these samples were then compared with a data base of known-source E. coli patterns 

to determine possible sources of E. coli contamination 

in the basin. These data are plotted in figure 9 and show 

the genetic similarity of E. coli isolated from water 

samples with E. coli isolated from three hosts—dogs, 

geese, and humans—all of which are known to be 

present in the basin. Genetic fingerprint patterns of 

water-borne E. coli with the closest association to a host 

plot in the corner of the ternary graph. Assignment to a 

host group was defined to occur when water sample patterns had a 75 percent or greater similarity to those from 

a known host. Samples outside of those limits were 

assumed to be from unknown source(s).

 At this time absolute determinations are difficult 

to make about the source of every water-borne E. coli

isolate based on the limited sample size (n=900) of the 

known-source library. Based on the number of observations in stream samples (n=145), E. coli originates from 

a variety of sources. Presumptive sources of E. coli

were almost equally divided among dogs (28.3 percent), geese (22.1 percent), humans (23.4 percent), and 

unknown sources (26.2 percent). The most accurate 

source host determinations (92 percent) are attributable 

to humans (Carson and others, 2001). E. coli from nonhuman sources, such as turkeys, often present genetic 

fingerprint patterns similar to those of E. coli associated 

with humans, but in this instance, turkeys would be 

expected to contribute little, if any, bacteria within the 

urban basin. The primary source of misclassification 

with dogs are turkeys or pigs, which also are unlikely 

sources within the basin. Some of the isolates attributed 

to geese could originate from dogs, and vice versa, 

because of the similarities between these two patterns. 

The pattern recognition method is considered more 

accurate when limited to three, or fewer, possible host 

sources, which was how the analyses were constructed. 

Different combinations of host sources may have provided somewhat different results.

Overflows from CSOs, WWTP bypasses, and 

leaking sewer lines may be contributing human-derived 

E. coli to Brush Creek. WWTP effluent discharges into 

the upper Blue River (and it’s tributaries) are the likely
32 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100

Brush Creek at Kansas City

GOOSE

HUMAN

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DOG

HUMAN

GOOSE

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20

10

0

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GOOSE

HUMAN

Brush Creek at Elmwood

Blue River near Kansas City

d=6

g=11

h=7

u=5

d=14

g=11

h=18

u=25

d=17

g=5

h=16

u=10

Site 5

Site 8

Site 10

100

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

DOG DOG

PERCENT OF SIMILARITY

NOTE: Points plotting on top of other points are represented

by a single point. Sample location shown in center.

EXPLANATION

ISOLATES WITH 75 PERCENT OR GREATER SIMILARITY TO

Dog

Goose

Human

ISOLATES WITH LESS THAN 75 PERCENT SIMILARITY TO ANY GROUP

GROUP AND NUMBER OF ISOLATES ASSIGNED TO THAT GROUP

d=14 Dog

g=11 Goose

h=18 Human

u=25 Unknown

Figure 9. Percentage of similarity between ribosomnal patterns of Escherichia coli isolates from water samples

at three sites when compared against three possible hosts (dog, goose, or human).

0 0
Stormflow Water Quality 33

source of human-derived E. coli in the Blue River. 

Given the typical concentrations of E. coli generally 

detected in these streams, bacteria contributed from 

humans alone would sometimes exceed the maximum 

level designed for safe whole-body contact recreation. 

In periods immediately following wastewater discharges into receiving streams, the percentage of 

stream E. coli derived from humans likely increases.

 Improved statistical methods may allow for 

increasing the degree to which sample patterns can be 

matched to possible sources. One possibility is the 

method of Dombek and others (2000), which uses dendrogram construction coupled with fuzzy logic and 

applied-discriminant cluster analysis to determine statistical similarity between patterns. This method claims 

classification rates of 75 to 100 percent for 7 possible 

animal sources, including humans, geese, and ducks 

(not examined in this study). Human patterns, although 

statistically different, were determined to be most similar to cows and ducks. Samples were not compared 

against cows or ducks in this study, although cattle may 

be a source of bacteria in the upper Blue River, and 

ducks may contribute small sources of bacteria to 

Brush Creek. Additional bacterial source-tracking data 

are needed to examine spatial and temporal trends in 

bacterial sources in receiving streams, to examine the 

potential of preferential sorption of bacteria from different sources onto bottom sediments, and for further 

field validation of bacterial source-tracking methods.

Stormflow Water Quality

Samples were collected at sites 5 through 11 during periods of stormflow from May 1999 to October 

2000, and analyzed for total and dissolved nutrients, 

dissolved chloride, chemical and BOD5, suspended 

sediment, and wastewater indicator compounds. Generally, water-quality constituent concentrations in 

stormflow were elevated over those observed in baseflow samples and these increases were higher in Brush 

Creek than in the Blue River. The highest concentrations of many constituents often were observed at 

Brush Creek sites that corresponded to areas of the 

highest population density and near-stream recreational activity. However, constituent loads on the Blue 

River were much greater than those in Brush Creek 

because of the greater volume of stormflow in the Blue 

River.

Nutrients in Stormflow

 Nitrogen concentrations, with the exception of 

ammonia, and loads for all N species, were significantly higher on the Blue River than on Brush Creek 

during stormflow events. Median total N concentration 

in stormflow samples from the Blue River was 5.3 

mg/L, compared to 2.4 mg/L in samples from Brush 

Creek. These differences are mostly attributable to 

higher NO3 concentrations in the Blue River and to a 

lesser extent, higher organic N concentrations. The 

median NO3 concentration in Blue River stormflow 

(2.10 mg/L) was 4.5 times that in Brush Creek (0.47 

mg/L). NO3 accounted for slightly less than one-half of 

the N (47 percent) in the Blue River, compared to 16 

percent in Brush Creek. The predominate N species in 

stormflow in both streams was organic N. Although the 

median concentration of organic N in stormflow was 

lower in Brush Creek (1.69 mg/L) than in the Blue 

River (2.55 mg/L), it constituted a much higher percentage of the total N in Brush Creek (78 percent) than 

for the Blue River (49 percent).

Median N load in the Blue River during stormflow was more than 20 times the median load calculated for Brush Creek (2,700 and 122 kg). During 

runoff events, N can be mobilized from a variety of 

sources. In the Blue River, about one-half of the total N 

contribution occurs in the dissolved phase—of which 

more than 90 percent occurs as NO3—and about onehalf as suspended organic matter. Excess fertilizer 

applied to fields, parks, and lawns likely contributes a 

part of this N, as do effluents from WWTPs. Row cropping in the upper basin continues to decline, largely 

replaced by pasture and suburban development. Nutrients also are attached to sediment particles that are easily eroded from the banks of the Blue River. Along 

Brush Creek, a much higher contribution of the N during stormflow comes from organic matter. Although 

suspended sediment concentrations in the upper part of 

the Brush Creek Basin (upstream of, and just downstream of site 5) can be high, most of the middle section 

of the stream is concrete-lined, which prevents bank 

erosion. Thus, most of the N in Brush Creek originates 

from sediments and organic matter flushed from the 

urban landscape: lawns, golf courses, parks, streets, 

roofs, gutters, storm sewers, and CSOs. During intense 

runoff events, increased stream velocities within 

impounded reaches may scour sediments, releasing N 

and associated organic matter trapped behind lowwater dams.
34 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

Total and dissolved P concentrations and loads 

were significantly higher (p<0.01) in Blue River stormflow than in Brush Creek. P in runoff occurred primarily in the particulate phase. Consequently, higher total 

P concentrations in the Blue River were likely because 

of higher sediment concentrations.

The median chloride concentration in stormflow 

samples from the Blue River was slightly higher (43.1 

mg/L) than from samples collected from Brush Creek 

(30.5 mg/L). Chloride loads were significantly higher 

(p<0.01) on the Blue River because of flow differences. 

On Brush Creek, sites 8 and 10 had the highest median 

storm loads of chloride.

There was no significant difference between 

BOD5 concentrations on the Blue River and Brush 

Creek (p=0.26), or between any of the sites (p=0.15). 

Because of much higher flows in the Blue River, the 

BOD5 loads were, however, substantially higher than 

on Brush Creek. The median BOD5 storm load was 

24,000 kg on the Blue River compared to 2,260 kg on 

Brush Creek. These values are lower than previously 

reported BOD5 storm load values of 41,000 kg for the 

Blue River, and 3,200 kg for Brush Creek at site 10 

(Blevins, 1986), and may reflect changes in stream 

hydrology that have occurred in these streams in the 

intervening years but also may be the result of differences in storm intensities between the two studies. 

Impoundments on Brush Creek now allow part of the 

sediment and organic matter to settle out before it 

reaches the Blue River. The stream gradient in the lower 

Blue River (below its confluence with Brush Creek) 

also has been lowered. This encourages deposition of 

sediment and organic matter and can result in reduced 

stream BOD5 values.

The median concentration of COD was equivalent in both streams (59 mg/L). The median TOC concentration was slightly higher in stormflow samples 

from the Blue River (26.6 mg/L) than in samples from 

Brush Creek (16.8 mg/L). Both COD and TOC loads 

were significantly higher (p<0.01) on the Blue River 

because of higher flows.

 The median suspended sediment concentration 

during runoff events was 7 times greater on the Blue 

River (764 mg/L) than on Brush Creek (104 mg/L) primarily because the extensive channel stabilization 

along Brush Creek limits bank erosion in most stream 

sections. However, the uppermost Brush Creek site (site 

7), often had very high suspended sediment concentrations (median concentration of 523 mg/L) because of 

sediments mobilized from upstream construction activities and channel-bank erosion. Stream velocities in the 

upper, unimpounded reaches of the basin are great 

enough to keep these particles suspended until they 

encounter lower stream gradients and velocities in the 

downstream impounded reaches. This results in particle 

settling and lower suspended sediment concentrations 

in these reaches.

Brush Creek contributed an average of 10 percent 

of the flow to the Blue River during storms, but a 

smaller percentage of the N (6 percent), P (3 percent), 

chloride (Cl) (6 percent), TOC (7 percent), BOD5 (8 

percent), and sediment (1 percent). Relative loads were 

determined by dividing the loads measured at the downstream Brush Creek site (site 10) by the loads measured 

in the next downstream Blue River site (site 11). Additionally, N, P, TOC, COD, and sediment loads measured at the upper Brush Creek site (site 7), exceeded 

those determined for downstream sites 8 and 10. These 

data indicate that substantial amounts of nutrients and 

sediments can originate in the upper part of the basin 

and eventually accumulate in Brush Creek impoundments. Additional inputs certainly occur downstream 

on Brush Creek, and part of these loads are likely to be 

deposited in sediments accumulating in downstream 

reservoirs. Stormflow contributes substantial nutrients 

to both streams; however, storm contributions in Brush 

Creek seem to affect water quality more than they do in 

the Blue River.

Wastewater Indicator Compounds

 A significantly higher number of wastewater 

indicator compounds were detected in stormflow samples than in base-flow samples (p<0.01, fig. 10). Wastewater inputs that occur during storms are in addition to 

those contributions observed during base-flow conditions. Also, storms activate an increased number of 

wastewater sources and pathways. Only sites on the 

Blue River (sites 5, 6, and 11) and on Brush Creek (sites 

7 through 10) were sampled during storms (table 4) 

because of equipment and logistic limitations. Concentrations for many compounds often were greater in 

stormflow samples, but this was not always the case, 

and would not always be expected because some storms 

trigger CSO events and/or wastewater plant bypasses 

and others do not. A myriad of factors, including rainfall duration and intensity, antecedent moisture conditions, and storm sewer blockages come into play to 

trigger these events. Ultimately, natural streamflows 

(which are limited only by runoff volumes) greatly 

exceed possible wastewater inputs (which have finite 
Stormflow Water Quality 35

40

p < 0.01

EXPLANATION

P-VALUE—Significance level from

Kruskal-Wallis test

NUMBER OF WASTEWATER COMPOUNDS DETECTED

p < 0.01

STORMFLOW SAMPLE—Solid line

indicates median value of 24

BASE-FLOW SAMPLE—Dashed line

indicates median value of 19

30

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE BOX

20

LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE BOX

75th PERCENTILE

50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

10

25th PERCENTILE

SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

0

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW BOX

SITE

Figure 10. Number of wastewater indicator compounds detected

in base-flow and stormflow samples at each site.

limits). This can dilute wastewater indicator concentrations below detection limits. Also, some of the 

observed concentrations of some compounds are likely 

flushed into streams from the nonpoint urban landscape 

of roofs, sidewalks, streets, parks, and storm sewers 

where they may have accumulated. Additionally, 

wastewater compounds, many of which have high 

affinities for sediments, can be resuspended from the 

disturbance of bottom sediment deposits as stream 

velocities and carrying capacities increase during 

stormflows.

Antioxidants

The antioxidant 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole was 

detected in 79 percent of stormflow samples and 2,6-ditert-butyl benzoquinone, a metabolite of BHT, was 

detected in 35 percent of the samples. There was almost 

no difference in the detection frequency or the median 

measured concentration of these compounds between 

the Blue River and Brush Creek. This differs considerably from base-flow observations, when concentrations 

in Brush Creek were less than one-half of those in the 

Blue River, and indicates that runoff has a much greater 

impact on the concentrations observed in Brush Creek 

than in the Blue River.

The remaining antioxidants were rarely detected 

in any of the storm samples. These were BHA, of 

which there were no detections, 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol, a BHA metabolite, of which there was 1 detection, 

and BHT which was detected in 2 samples. These compounds often were detected in wastewater effluent samples, generally at concentrations very near the method 

detection limit, but not in storm or base-flow samples. 

Dilution, degradation, and analytical sensitivity likely 

play roles in why these compounds were rarely 

observed in environmental samples, and these factors 

limit their use as viable wastewater tracers.

Caffeine and Cotinine

Only one stormflow sample did not have detectable concentrations of caffeine. The median caffeine 

concentration in Brush Creek (1.0 μg/L) was twice that 

in the Blue River (0.5 μg/L). This difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). These concentrations 

were near those observed in base-flow samples (0.79 

and 0.54 μg/L). Given that increased flows would tend 

to dilute stream concentrations, these data indicate that 

runoff provides additional source(s) of caffeine to 

streams. Some caffeine sources are likely from CSOs, 

but nonpoint sources also are possible. The highest caf-
36 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

feine concentrations in stormflow samples were 

observed at site 9 on Brush Creek, followed by sites 8 

and 10.

Cotinine, the nicotine metabolite, was detected 

in 70 percent of stormflow samples. Its occurrence and 

distribution in stormflow was similar to the pattern 

observed for caffeine. Like caffeine, the median concentration in Brush Creek (0.14 μg/L) was twice that in 

the Blue River (0.07 μg/L). The highest concentrations 

were observed at sites 7, 8, and 9. The median cotinine 

concentration in storm samples from Brush Creek was 

about 4 times the median concentration in base-flow 

samples (0.04 μg/L), but the median stormflow sample 

concentration in the Blue River was slightly less than 

that observed in base-flow samples (0.09 μg/L). Again, 

these data indicate that runoff mobilizes additional 

sources of cotinine, and that these sources play a more 

important role in the water quality of Brush Creek than 

in the Blue River.

Sterols and Stanols

Cholesterol was detected in 74 percent of all 

stormflow samples. The detection frequency in Brush 

Creek (86 percent) samples was greater than in samples 

from the Blue River (56 percent) and the median cholesterol concentration in Brush Creek stormflow samples (3.3 μg/L) was twice that in the Blue River (1.6 

μg/L). These concentrations represent slight increases 

over those observed in base-flow samples (2.6 μg/L in 

Brush Creek and 1.4 μg/L in the Blue River) and indicate that additional inputs of cholesterol occur during 

storms. Although some cholesterol may derive from 

nonpoint sources, CSOs likely contribute a portion of 

the cholesterol observed in runoff.

 Coprostanol concentrations in stormflow samples followed a similar trend to that observed for cholesterol. Detections of coprostanol in samples from 

Brush Creek were higher (80 percent) than those 

observed in samples from the Blue River (53 percent). 

The median concentration in Brush Creek (1.1 μg/L) 

was 1.5 times the concentration in the Blue River (0.71 

μg/L). In base-flow samples these concentrations were 

nearly equivalent (0.75 μg/L compared to 0.79 μg/L), 

which again indicates the importance of storm wastewater contributions to Brush Creek water quality. The 

highest concentrations in any samples were collected 

from sites 8 and 9 on Brush Creek.

 Fewer than 10 percent of samples had detectable 

concentrations of stigmastanol and 17-β estradiol. Stigmastanol was detected in only 7 samples (all on Brush 

Creek). Increased flow likely acts to dilute concentrations below the relatively high method detection limit 

for this compound. Also, storms may disturb the optimal geochemical (anoxic) conditions needed for the 

decomposition of waste paper, which can liberate stigmastanol into the environment.

Site 5 had the greatest detection frequency of

17-β estradiol (25 percent of samples). Other sites had 

2 or fewer detections of 17-β estradiol. Dilution, and a 

relatively high method detection limit, likely plays a 

role in the relative infrequent detection of this compound in storm samples. Although detections at site 5 

may reflect contributions from upstream WWTPs, the 

relatively small sample size (n=20) warrants caution in 

this interpretation.

Phenols and Detergent Compounds

Phenolic compounds (phenol, bisphenol A, NP, 

and the APEO’s) were common in stormflow samples. 

Only two samples did not have a detection of any phenolic compound. NP and APEO are considered especially relevant as wastewater indicators because of their 

use in detergents.

 Phenol was detected in 41 percent of samples 

from the Blue River (median concentration of 0.34 

μg/L) compared to 34 percent of samples from Brush 

Creek (median concentration of 0.42 μg/L). There was 

no significant difference in concentrations between the 

two streams (p=0.43).

Bisphenol A was detected in all but one stormflow sample. The median concentration of bisphenol A 

in samples from Brush Creek (0.34 μg/L) was about 

double that observed in samples from the Blue River 

(0.19 μg/L), and this difference was significant 

(p<0.001). The highest concentrations were observed 

at sites 7, 8, and 9. The environmental occurrence of 

bisphenol A may be due, in part, to its common use in 

plastics manufacturing. Plastics are a major component 

of litter and unless physically removed, tend to accumulate along roadways, in parkland, in storm sewers, 

and catch basins. Plastics are resistant, but not immune, 

to degradation. If subjected to ultraviolet radiation, 

such as that offered by sunlight, plastics slowly break 

down and may release trace amounts of phenols into 

the environment, which can then migrate to streams.

Total nonionic detergent concentration (the sum 

of NP, NP1EO, NP2EO, OP1EO, and OP2EO concentrations) from Brush Creek (median concentration of 

3.76 μg/L) was slightly more than double that in sam-
Stormflow Water Quality 37

ples from the Blue River (median concentration of 1.69 

μg/L). The median total detergent concentrations in 

stormflow samples was highest at site 9 (5.26 μg/L).

These concentrations represent a 100 percent 

increase over base-flow concentrations for Brush 

Creek, and a 25 percent decrease for the Blue River. 

This phenomenon likely results because the occurrence 

of these compounds in Brush Creek primarily is dictated by stormflow inputs, whereas in the Blue River 

the primary source of these compounds is wastewater 

effluent, which gets increasingly diluted as runoff volume increases.

Antimicrobials

 Triclosan was detected in all but four stormflow 

samples. There was little difference between the 

median concentration in Blue River samples (0.23 

μg/L) and Brush Creek samples (0.20 μg/L) or between 

individual sites, except for site 7, which had a median 

concentration slightly more than one-half of those seen 

at the other sites (0.13 μg/L). The median stormflow 

concentration in the Blue River was very similar to that 

seen in base-flow samples (0.27 μg/L), but the median 

stormflow concentration in Brush Creek was almost 

twice that observed in base-flow samples (0.11 μg/L). 

These data underscore the increased importance of 

wastewater storm contributions to Brush Creek when 

compared to the Blue River.

Insect Repellents

DEET, the insect repellent, was detected in every 

stormflow sample. The median concentration was 

higher on Brush Creek (0.52 μg/L) than in the Blue 

River (0.32 μg/L); a pattern observed for many other 

wastewater compounds during storms. The highest 

concentration was observed at site 9 on Brush Creek 

(median concentration of 2.06 μg/L); again, this pattern 

was observed for many other wastewater indicator 

compounds. These data indicate that CSO inputs into 

Brush Creek, especially upstream of site 9, play a more 

substantial water-quality role relative to the Blue River, 

and that substantial wastewater contributions to Brush 

Creek occur during storms.

Flame Retardants

 The flame retardant, tri(2-choloroethyl)phosphate was detected in every stormflow sample except 

one. The median concentration in Brush Creek and in 

Blue River was equivalent (0.15 μg/L). However, 

between sites, the highest median concentration was 

observed at site 9. The frequent occurrence of this 

flame retardant may be related to it being a common 

component of plastics that tend to accumulate in the 

environment, especially along roadways and storm 

sewers. Subsequent degradation and runoff may liberate trace amounts of this compound into receiving 

streams.

 Forty-three percent of stormflow samples had 

detectable concentrations of triphenyl phosphate. 

Although detections were more frequent in samples 

from the Blue River (53 percent) than in Brush Creek, 

the median concentration in Brush Creek samples (0.10 

μg/L) was 2 times that in Blue River samples (0.05 

μg/L). Tris(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate was detected 

in one sample.

Insecticides

 Both insecticide detection frequencies and concentrations were greater in stormflow samples from 

Brush Creek than the Blue River. Stormflow detection 

frequencies and concentrations also were greater than 

those seen in base-flow samples. This is likely because 

of the fact that in addition to any insecticide contributions that may originate from wastewater sources, 

storm runoff likely mobilizes insecticides from golf 

courses, lawns, and parks. 

Diazinon was the most frequently detected insecticide in stormflow samples (86 percent of all samples) 

and the median concentration in Brush Creek (0.21 

μg/L) was double that in the Blue River (0.10 μg/L). 

The next most frequently detected insecticide in stormflow samples was carbaryl, detected in two-thirds of all 

samples, which was a substantial increase over its 

occurrence in base-flow samples (15 percent of all 

samples). This increase may be related to its relatively 

high degree of solubility when compared to the other 

insecticides examined. Also, as previously reported, 

carbaryl breaks down rapidly under photolysis, and is 

not very stable once released in the environment. The 

median carbaryl concentration in Brush Creek (0.28 

μg/L) was significantly higher than that in the Blue 

River (0.08 μg/L).

The insecticides chlordane and chlorpyrifos 

were detected in 32 and 22 percent of stormflow samples, respectively. Lindane was detected in four samples, and one sample had detectable concentrations of 

methyl parathion.
38 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

The median total insecticide concentration (the 

sum of all measured insecticides) was 3 times greater in 

Brush Creek (0.41 μg/L) than in the Blue River (0.13 

μg/L) and greatest at site 7, the uppermost Brush Creek 

site. Three golf courses in the upper part of the basin 

may be sources, although contributions from adjacent 

parkland or lawns also are likely. Also, high in-stream 

velocities at site 7 may keep sediments (and associated 

contaminants) suspended in the water column compared to downstream sites below impoundments. The 

median load of insecticides in stormflow, however, was 

3 times greater in the Blue River because of higher flow 

volumes.

PAH’s

 PAH’s were some of the most frequently 

detected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow 

samples. Fluoranthrene and pyrene were detected in 

nearly all samples (more than 95 percent), phenanthrene and benzo[a]pyrene were detected in more than 

90 percent of samples, and anthracene in 80 percent of 

samples. Napthalene was detected in 40 percent of samples. Concentrations of PAH’s were highly correlated 

with one another. Total PAH concentrations, defined as 

the sum of the concentrations of individual PAH’s, in 

Brush Creek (median concentration of 2.0 μg/L) were 

nearly twice those in the Blue River (median concentration of 1.1 μg/L). These values represent a ten-fold 

increase in concentrations observed in base-flow samples. PAH concentrations were greatest in samples from 

site 7, the uppermost Brush Creek site. Consequently, it 

is likely that nonpoint sources of PAH’s are more dominate than wastewater overflows and bypasses as 

sources in storm runoff.

Relative Hydrograph Contributions of 

Constituents

Because storm samples were segmented by the 

rising, peak, or falling stage of the storm hydrograph, 

the relative contribution of wastewater constituents that 

were delivered during each phase could be examined. 

The loads and concentrations for the sum of all wastewater indicator compounds determined in storm samples for the various hydrograph segment samples are 

shown in figure 11. Loads were significantly higher in 

peak flow (p=0.006) when compared to the rise and 

recession, primarily because an average of 62 percent 

of the total stormflow occurred during the hydrograph 

peak. There was no significant difference in total wastewater concentrations between each phase (p=0.33) 

because of several factors. The highly urbanized nature 

of the basin results in very rapid hydrologic responses 

to runoff events. Streams rise and fall quickly during 

storm events. Concentrations measured in the rise represent those from the initial flush of nonpoint sources 

superimposed upon base-flow contributions. This tends 

to increase wastewater indicator concentrations. If rainfall is of sufficient intensity and duration, CSOs are 

triggered, which contribute wastewater to receiving 

streams. Relatively high concentrations of wastewater 

indicator compounds would be expected from CSOs; 

however, increased flows should suppress concentrations through dilution. Together, these processes would 

tend to lower concentration levels in peak samples. As 

flow recedes, the relative importance of any recent 

inputs becomes more evident since concentrations 

remain relatively stable. Not all storms trigger CSO 

events, so peak events also include storms that did not 

trigger CSOs. Also, and perhaps most importantly, suspended stream sediments, to which most of these indicator compounds are strongly affiliated, are mainly 

(more than 75 percent) composed of easily transported 

clay particles (Blevins, 1986). Therefore, very little 

energy is required to keep these sediments in suspension throughout the course of the hydrograph.

YIELDS AND RELATIVE WATERQUALITY IMPACT RANKINGS 

Contaminant concentrations and fluxes can help 

better understand sources, the relative magnitude of 

sources, and information about trends, processes, and 

transformations. However, loads are biased in favor of 

streams, or sites, with the largest drainage areas 

because these areas have higher discharges, which often 

translates into higher loads. Yields, determined by 

dividing the load for any given constituent at a particular site by the drainage area for that site, factor out this 

inherent bias and provide an equivalent measure of 

comparison for individual stream reaches. The drainage 

area referred to is the unit area between study sites. The 

sum of the drainage areas would equal the basin drainage area.

Relative water-quality impact rankings for 

stream reaches were done according to the following 

protocol. First, yields were determined for total N and 

total P, and for wastewater indicator compounds that 

had a 50 percent or greater detection frequency (figs. 12
Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings 39

60

50

40

A (51) ( 47) (30) (15) ( 22) (2)

p=0.006

a b b b b b

SUM OF CONCENTRATIONS OF WASTEWATER SUM OF LOADS OF WASTEWATER

COMPOUNDS, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER COMPOUNDS, IN KILOGRAMS

30

20

10

0

80

60

40

20

0

B p=0.33

(51) ( 47) (30) (15) ( 22) (2)

Rise Peak Fall All Rise Peak

plus plus

peak fall STAGE

EXPLANATION

p=0.33 P-VALUE—Significance level from VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

Kruskal-Wallis test INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

(2) NUMBER IN PARENTHESES—Number of INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

samples

75th PERCENTILE

a LETTER—Different letters indicate a significant

difference exists between segments 50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

25th PERCENTILE

NOTE: ALL, sample composited over entire range of hydrograph

RISE PLUS PEAK, sample composited from rise and peak stages SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

PEAK PLUS FALL, sample composited from peak and falling stage INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

Figure 11. Sum of loads (A) and sum of concentrations (B) for wastewater

indicator compounds in storm hydrograph segments.
40 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

5

5

4

4

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER DAY YIELD, IN KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER DAY

Total nitrogen

(3) (1) (7) (4) (5) (6) (2)

Total phosphorus

(5) (1) (7) (3) (4) (6) (2)

3

2

1

0

3

2

1

0

12

1.0

10

0.8

8

0.6

6

0.4

4

2

4-nonylphenol

(5) (2) (7) (1) (3) (6) (4)

0.2

0 0

5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole

(4) (1) (7) (3) (5) (6) (2)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER SITE NUMBER

EXPLANATION

(2) NUMBER IN PARENTHESES—Number VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

indicates the relative rank of the median INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX 

value for any given constituent compared LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE 

to the median value at other sites where INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX 

1 equals the highest median value and 

7 equals the lowest 75th PERCENTILE 

50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

25th PERCENTILE

SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

Figure 12. Yield of selected constituents in base-flow samples.
Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings 41

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Cotinine

(5) (1) (7) (3) (4) (6) (2)

Figure 12. Yield of selected constituents in base-flow samples—Continued.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Bisphenol A

(5) (2) (7) (1) (3) (5) (4)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Caffeine

(5) (2) (7) (1) (3) (5) (4)

1,225

Cholesterol

50

25

0

75

(6) (3) (7) (1) (2) (5) (4)

0

50

200

250

Coprostanol

100

(5) (3) (7) (1) (2) (5) (4)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

DEET

(N,N-diethyltoluamide)

(5) (2) (7) (1) (4) (6) (3)

1,200

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER DAY
42 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

Figure 12. Yield of selected constituents in base-flow samples—Continued.

0

2

6

7

Fluoranthene

1

3

(7) (4) (6) (2) (3) (5) (1)

0

10

50

NP1EO (Nonylphenol monoethoxylate)

20

(5) (3) (7) (1) (3) (5) (4)

40

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER SITE NUMBER

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Diazinon

(7) (3) (6) (1) (2) (5) (3)

0

10

20

40

50

Ethanol-2-butoxy, phosphate

(5) (3) (7) (1) (2) (6) (4)

0

10

25

35

45

NP2EO (Nonylphenol diethoxylate)

(5) (2) (6) (4) (1) (7) (3)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phthalic anhydride

(5) (2) (7) (1) (4) (6) (2)

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER DAY
Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings 43

and 13). There were 18 wastewater indicator compounds in base-flow samples and 22 compounds in 

storm samples that met this criterion. Stormflow samples also included yields for chloride, TOC, BOD5, and 

COD. To prevent outlier bias, the median yield for each 

constituent was compared against the median yield for 

all the other sites. The sites were then ranked in order 

from highest to lowest; the site with the highest median 

yield was assigned a rank of 1, the site with the lowest 

median yield was assigned a rank of 7. This was done 

for each constituent used in the analysis. 

Not all compounds behave similarly within the 

environment, and the fate of many of these compounds 

is poorly understood; therefore, no special weight was 

given to any constituent and no consideration was given 

to potential human, or aquatic, health effects. A myriad 

of factors and urban processes may further distort the 

behavior of environmental contaminants. Quantification of all factors and processes is impractical, if not 

impossible. Therefore, the more measures of impact 

available, the less likely that any one given measure 

will skew the results. The relative water-quality impact 

ranking for each stream reach (table 9) represents the 

average of the individual yield ranks for that reach. The 

stream reach with the lowest average rank would have 

the greatest impact relative to it’s drainage area, and to 

the other stream reaches.

For the Blue River, relative impact during stormflow was directly related to increased downstream constituent loadings. This would be expected as the treated 

wastewater inputs all occur upstream of site 5 and the 

number, volume, and opportunity for CSO events 

increases downstream. Relative impact data for Brush 

Creek was much different. The highest impact rankings 

for any stream reach occurred between sites 8 and 9, 

followed by the reach between sites 7 and 8. Impact 

rankings at the most upstream Brush Creek reach, 

upstream of site 7, were higher than those at the most

3.0

0

1

5

6

Pyrene

(5) (4) (7) (2) (3) (5) (1)

4

2

Phenanthrene

0

0.5

1.0

2.0

2.0

2.5 (6) (4) (7) (1) (2) (5) (3)

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER DAY

0

5

6

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate 2

1

(5) (2) (6) (1) (4) (7) (3)

0

4

Triclosan

8

(5) (1) (7) (2) (4) (6) (3)

12

16

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER SITE NUMBER

Figure 12. Yield of selected constituents in base-flow samples—Continued.
44 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

0

50

75

25

100

125

150

175

200

225

Total nitrogen

(6) (1) (5) (4) (3) (7) (2)

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

Total phosphorus

(4) (1) (6) (5) (3) (7) (2)

0

500

750

250

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

Chloride

(6) (4) (7) (2) (1) (5) (3)

0

500

750

250

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

Total organic carbon

(6) (4) (5) (3) (1) (7) (2)

Figure 13. Yield of selected constituents in stormflow samples.

0

1,000

5,000

6,000

5-day biochemical oxygen demand

(5) (4) (7) (2) (1) (6) (3)

2,000

0

2,000

6,000

8,000

4,000

Chemical oxygen demand

(5) (4) (6) (2) (1) (7) (3)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER SITE NUMBER

EXPLANATION

SMALLEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

25th PERCENTILE

50th PERCENTILE (MEDIAN)

75th PERCENTILE

LARGEST VALUE WITHIN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE ABOVE THE BOX

VALUE GREATER THAN 1.5 TIMES THE

INTERQUARTILE RANGE BELOW THE BOX

(2) NUMBER IN PARENTHESES—Number

indicates the relative rank of the median

value for any given constituent compared

to the median value at other sites; where

1 equals the highest median value and

7 equals the lowest

YIELD, IN KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER EVENT
Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings 45

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

SITE NUMBER

0

4

8

12

16

5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (5) (3)

0

10,000

5,000

20,000

15,000

30,000

25,000

40,000

45,000

35,000

Suspended sediment

(4) (2) (3) (6) (5) (7) (1)

YIELD, IN KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE

KILOMETER PER EVENT

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER EVENT

0

50

200

250

100

4-nonylphenol

(7) (5) (6) (2) (1) (4) (3)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Anthracene

(7) (5) (3) (2) (4) (6) (4)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Benzo(a)pyrene

(6) (5) (3) (2) (1) (7) (4)

Figure 13. Yield of selected constituents in stormflow samples—Continued.
46 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cotinine

(7) (5) (6) (2) (1) (4) (3)

SITE NUMBER

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER EVENT

Figure 13. Yield of selected constituents in stormflow samples—Continued.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bisphenol A

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (5) (3)

0

20

Caffeine

40

(7) (5) (6) (2) (1) (4) (3)

75

95

0

100

500

550

Coprostanol

150

50

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (4) (3)

0

200

600

700

300

100

Cholesterol

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (4) (3)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0

4

8

12

16

Carbaryl

(7) (3) (4) (2) (1) (5) (6)
Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings 47

0

40

100

110

50

20

NP1EO (Nonylphenol monoethoxylate)

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (5) (3)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

Fluoranthene

(6) (5) (3) (2) (1) (7) (4)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SITE NUMBER

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER EVENT

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Diazinon

(7) (4) (5) (2) (1) (6) (3)

DEET (N,N-diethyltoluamide)

0

10

20

30

40

50

(6) (5) (4) (3) (1) (7) (2)

0

5

15

20

25

Diethylphthalate

10

(7) (6) (5) (3) (1) (4) (2)

0

20

40

75

95

Ethanol, 2-butoxy, phosphate

(7) (5) (6) (2) (1) (4) (3)

Figure 13. Yield of selected constituents in stormflow samples—Continued.
48 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pyrene

(6) (5) (3) (2) (1) (7) (4)

YIELD, IN GRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER EVENT

SITE NUMBER SITE NUMBER

0

5

10

15

25

30

Triclosan

(6) (4) (7) (3) (1) (5) (2)

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

OP1EO (Octylphenol monoethoxylate)

(6) (4) (3) (2) (1) (7) (5)

0

30

20

50

40

70

60

90

100

80 Phthalic anhydride

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (5) (3)

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate

(7) (4) (6) (2) (1) (5) (3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Phenanthrene

(6) (4) (3) (2) (1) (7) (5)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 13. Yield of selected constituents in stormflow samples—Continued.
Yields and Relative Water-Quality Impact Rankings 49

Table 9. Relative water-quality impact rankings between sites during storm and base-flow conditions

[Lower numbers indicate a higher degree of relative impact]

Stormflow rankings

Site

number

(fig. 1) Site name

Relative

drainage area

(square kilometers)

Average rank

(fig. 11)

Relative

water-quality

impact rank

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Blue River near Kansas City, Missouri

Blue River at Blue Parkway

Brush Creek at Ward Parkway

Brush Creek at Kansas City, Missouri

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Blue River at 12th Street

490

78

32

6.9

5.4

30

120

6.3

4.1

5.1

2.4

1.3

5.6

3.1

7

4

5

2

1

6

3

Base-flow rankings

Site

number

(fig. 1) Site name

Average rank

(fig. 11)

Relative

water-quality

impact rank

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Blue River near Kansas City, Missouri

Blue River at Blue Parkway

Brush Creek at Ward Parkway

Brush Creek at Kansas City, Missouri

Brush Creek at Rockhill Road

Brush Creek at Elmwood Avenue

Blue River at 12th Street

5.4

2.4

6.7

1.5

3.3

5.7

2.9

5

2

7

1

4

6

3

downstream reach, between sites 9 and 10. The reasons 

for this order of relative water-quality impact rankings 

are complex. The middle sections of Brush Creek have 

the highest population densities and the greatest 

amount of impervious cover, which may trigger more 

frequent CSO events. Hydrologic changes related to 

the stream channel modifications likely plays a role in 

why the section between sites 8 and 9 showed the highest impact. Consumer complaints related to sewer 

backups during storms are numerous in this drainage 

area. Storms deliver sediment, organic matter, and 

associated pollutants into Brush Creek, which then 

accumulate in reservoirs upstream of sites 8, 9, and 10. 

Sediment accumulation is greatest in the reservoirs 

above sites 8 and 10, where stream velocities during 

storm events are lowest. Higher stream velocities in the 

reach between site 8 and 9 result in the transport of 

higher contaminant loads through this section.

During base flow, the highest relative waterquality impact ranking was determined in the stream 

reach located between sites 7 and 8 on Brush Creek. 

The reason for this is not clear. It may be related to the 

interaction of wastewater sediments with the overlying 

water column at the downstream end of this reach (near 

site 8), especially considering that downstream water is 

recirculated back upstream for a portion of each day in 

order to maintain the pool elevation at site 8. The interaction of ground and surface water, especially with 

regard to its interaction with sewer lines, also cannot be 

ruled out as contributing to the elevated ranking for this 

stream reach. Base-flow impact rankings for the Blue 

River were highest in the middle section of the Blue 

River (between sites 5 and 6). This ranking may be 

affected by illicit dumping that occurs near site 6, as 

well as the downstream end of this reach’s proximity to 

several light industrial facilities. However, the procedures used to calculate impact rankings may not sufficiently account for the predominate nature of the Blue 

River wastewater indicator compound inputs that occur 

during base flow, which have been shown to be from 

WWTPs. If the predominate source of wastewater in 

the Blue River originates as WWTP discharges from 

Indian Creek, then calculated yields upstream of site 5 

(which include the entire basin upstream of site 5) may 

be biased low. Additional data collected at sites 1 and 4 

should help to clarify this possibility.
50 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

SUMMARY

The impact of wastewater on water quality in the 

Blue River Basin was determined during both baseflow and stormflow conditions. Traditional constituent 

measures coupled with new compounds and analytical 

tools were used in the evaluation. The study focused 

primarily on two streams in the basin, the Blue River 

and Brush Creek. Traditional constituents included 

total and dissolved nutrients, chloride, total organic 

carbon (TOC), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD5), and chemical oxygen demand (COD). New 

analyses included a suite of consumer compounds 

indicative of wastewater, selected over-the-counter and 

prescription pharmaceuticals, and source-tracking of 

Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria using genetic fingerprinting. Together, these data were used to identify the 

predominate sources of wastewater entering these 

streams during base flows and stormflows, and determine the relative impact of wastewater on the waterquality of selected stream reaches.

 Wastewater impacts are governed by many processes; these processes change depending upon the 

hydrologic regime, or the stream of interest. Wastewater treatment plant discharges into the Blue River or its 

upper tributaries, are the major source of wastewater in 

the Blue River. These sources are especially obvious 

during base-flow conditions.

WWTPs effectively remove most, but not all, 

constituents. The removal efficiency varies with 

WWTP and by compound. WWTP removal efficiencies also can be adversely affected by factors such as 

malfunctioning equipment, insufficient capacity to 

meet current population demands, or heavy rainfall. 

Constituents remaining after treatment, although subject to diurnal and seasonal fluctuations, continuously 

are discharged to receiving streams, and thus have a 

continued environmental presence. Because a number 

of WWTPs operate within the Blue River Basin, especially in the upper part of the basin, wastewater inputs 

are additive.

Wastewater inputs into Brush Creek primarily 

result from infrequent combined sewer overflow (CSO) 

events. The sporadic nature of these events generally 

means that wastewater concentrations and loads in the 

Blue River during base flow typically exceed those 

observed in Brush Creek during base flow. However, 

impounded reaches of Brush Creek trap storm sediments (including those from CSOs) and associated 

constituents. Once trapped, these sediments may continue to impact Brush Creek water quality as additional 

processes come into play. During base flow, trace 

amounts of wastewater contaminants may partition into 

the overlying water column and affect water quality. 

Fountains, designed to entrain and aerate water in the 

impoundments, may facilitate this process. During 

storms, stream velocities increase in reaches immediately downstream from low-water dams and in areas 

with constricted flow, and enhance the downstream 

transport of wastewater constituents. A portion of the 

wastewater impacts observed in Brush Creek may have 

resulted from groundwater contributions, especially in 

areas where the stream channel bisects areas of aging 

sewer lines.

During storms, the interrelation of additional 

factors determine wastewater indicator compound 

detection frequencies and concentrations. In the Blue 

River, as runoff volume increases in relation to WWTP 

contributions, wastewater concentrations related to 

these sources becomes diluted. However, increased 

stream velocities can also mobilize stream sediments 

and associated constituents. Minor contributions may 

have resulted from ground-water discharges to surface 

water. These contributions, which are small relative to 

effluent contributions during base flow, decrease during runoff events. Constituents mobilized through surface runoff, storm sewers, leaky sewer pipes, CSOs, 

and wastewater bypasses play a much greater role in 

Brush Creek during stormflow. The timing of these 

events and runoff volume determines in-stream concentrations.

Tributaries, especially those with a large number 

of CSOs, like Brush Creek, would be expected to contribute substantially to constituent loads in the Blue 

River. However, low stream gradients in impounded 

reaches of Brush Creek encourage sediment deposition 

and allow suspended contaminants to settle from the 

water column. Some of these sediments also are periodically excavated from upper channel reaches; thus, 

wastewater stormflow contributions from Brush Creek 

to the Blue River are less than would be expected.

 The smaller drainage area of Brush Creek compared to the Blue River had important implications for 

the determination of the relative water-quality impact 

between the two streams. During storms, water-quality 

impact on the Blue River was largely a function of 

increased, downstream inputs. For Brush Creek stormflow, the highest relative water-quality impact occurred 

between the two middle sites (8 and 9), which has a relatively small drainage area but relatively dense, sur-
References 51

rounding population. The higher population density 

likely acts to trigger more frequent CSO events, and to 

increase the relative water-quality impact associated 

with ones that do occur. Impact was lowest at the most 

downstream Brush Creek stream reach because many 

wastewater compounds which enter Brush Creek during storms are trapped by upstream impoundments.

Relative water-quality impact on Brush Creek 

during base flow was greatest in the stream reach 

between sites 7 and 8. Increased relative water-quality 

impact at this site may result from the repeated contact 

of recycled water (designed to maintain a stable pool 

elevation above site 8) with contaminated bottom sediments. The relative impact of Blue River stream segments during base-flow events was highest in the 

middle reaches of the stream, an area that frequently 

receives dumping. However, base-flow impact rankings 

for the Blue River may not sufficiently account for 

wastewater discharges from WWTPs because of relatively large drainage area upstream of site 5.

This study documents how a variety of analytical 

approaches can be used together to determine wastewater impacts on stream water quality. Some of these techniques and constituents have been in use for many years 

while others are just now emerging as tools of hydrologic investigation. These new methods and constituents can be helpful in determining wastewater sources 

and in characterizing the relation between human activity and stream water quality. Additional research will 

further characterize the temporal and spatial trends of 

many of these compounds within the environment as 

well provide additional data to assess their fate and 

transport and environmental consequences. Certain 

compounds, in particular those associated with detergents such as triclosan, alkylphenol polyethoxylates, 

and sterols seem especially viable as wastewater tracing 

tools. As populations become increasingly urban and 

suburban, such methodologies and characterizations 

should increase in importance. 

REFERENCES

Adolfsson-Erici, M., Patterson, M., Parkkonen, J., and 

Sturve, J., 2000, Triclosan, a commonly used bactericide found in human milk and in the aquatic environment, in Abstracts of Dioxin 2000, 20th International 

Symposium on Halogenated Environmental Organic 

Pollutants and POP’s: Monterey, Calif., p. 39.

Ahel, M., and Giger, W., 1993, Partitioning of alkylphenols 

and alkylphenol polyethoxylates between water and 

organic solvents: Chemosphere, v. 26, no. 8, p. 1,471–

1,478.

Ahel, M., Giger, W., and Schaffner, C., 1994, Behavior of 

alkylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants in the aquatic 

environment—II. Occurrence and transformation in rivers: Water Research, v. 28, no. 5, p. 1,143–1,152.

Barone, J.J., and Roberts, H.R., 1996, Caffeine consumption: 

Food Chemistry and Toxicology, v. 34, no. 1, p. 119–

129.

Baronti, C., Curini, R., D’Ascenzo, G., Di Corcia, A., Gentili, A., and Samperi, R., 2000, Monitoring natural and 

synthetic estrogens at activated sludge sewage treatment 

plants and in a receiving river water: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, no. 24, p. 5,059–5,066.

Becker, L.D., Alexander, T.W., and Waite, L.A., 1983, 

Floods in Kansas City, Missouri and Vicinity, August 

12–13, 1982: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 83–4141, 35 p.

Bennett, E.R., and Metcalfe, C.D., 2000, Distribution of degradation products of alkylphenol ethoxylates near sewage treatment plants in the lower Great Lakes, North 

America: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 

19, no. 4, p. 784–792.

Bennie, D.T., 1999, Review of the environmental occurrence 

of alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates: Water 

Quality Research Journal of Canada, v. 34, no. 1, p. 79–

122.

Blevins, D.W., 1986, Quality of stormwater runoff in the 

Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas, July–October 

1981 and April–July 1982: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4226, 131 p. 

Brown, G.K., Zaugg, S.D., and Barber, L.B., 1999, Wastewater analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry,

in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., eds., U.S. 

Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program-Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina, March 8–12, 1999: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4018B, v. 2, p. 431–436.

Bruggeman, W.A., and van der Naald, W.G.H., 1988, Occurrence, distribution, and availability of PAH in surface 

waters and sediments: Toxicological and Environmental 

Chemistry, v. 16, no. 4, p. 241–243.
52 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

Burns and McDonnell, 1994, Combined sewer overflow 

water quality impact analysis, system hydraulic modeling and recommendation of corrective action: Kansas 

City, Mo., variously paged.

Carlsson, H., Nilsson, U., and Ostman, C., 2000, Video display units—An emission source of the contact allergenic flame retardant triphenyl phosphate in the indoor 

environment: Environmental Science and Technology, 

v. 34, no. 18, p. 3,885–3,889.

Carson, A.C., Shear, B.L., Ellersieck, M.R., and Asfaw, A., 

2001, Identification of fecal Escherichia Coli from 

humans and animals by ribotyping: Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 67, no. 4, p. 1,503–1,507.

Chan, K.H., Lam, M.H.W., Poon, K.F., Yeung, H.Y., and 

Chiu, K.T., 1998, Application of sedimentary fecal 

stanols and sterols in tracing sewage pollution in coastal 

waters: Water Research, v. 32, no. 1, p. 225–235.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on 

long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-quality data provided 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99–193, 19 p.

Christensen, V.G., Jian, X., and Ziegler, A.C., 2000, Regression analysis and real-time water-quality monitoring to 

estimate constituent concentrations, loads, and yields in 

the Little Arkansas River, south-central Kansas, 1995–

99: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4126, 36 p.

Committee on Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, 

Commission on Life Sciences, and National Research 

Council, 1999, Hormonally active agents in the environment: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 

430 p.

Cook, D.L., LaFleur, L., Parrish, A., Jones, J., and Hoy, D., 

1997, Characterization of plant sterols from 22 U.S. 

pulp and paper mills: Water Science and Technology, v. 

35, no. 2–3, p. 297–303.

Daughton, C.G., and Jones-Lepp, T.L., 2001, Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment—Scientific and regulatory issues: American 

Chemical Society (ACS) Symposium Series 791, 

Oxford University Press, 396 p.

Daughton, C.G., and Ternes, T.A., 1999, Pharmaceuticals 

and personal care products in the environment—Agents 

of subtle change?: Environmental Health Perspectives, 

v. 107, suppl. 6, p. 907–938.

Dombek, P.E., Johnson, L.K., Zimmerley, S.T., and Sadowsky, M.J., 2000, Use of repetitive DNA sequences 

and the PCR to differentiate Escherichia Coli isolates 

from human and animal sources: Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 66, no. 6, p. 2,572–2,577.

Dufour, A.P., 1984, Health effects criteria for fresh recreational waters: Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA-600/1-84-004, 33 p. 

Elhmmali, M.M., Roberts, D.J., and Evershed, R.P., 1997, 

Bile acids as a new class of sewage pollution indicator: 

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 31, no. 12, 

p. 3,663–3,668.

——— 2000, Combined analysis of bile acids and sterols/

stanols from riverine particulates to assess sewage discharges and other fecal sources: Environmental Science 

and Technology, v. 34, no. 1, p. 39–46.

Ferezou, J., Gouffier, E., Coste, T., and Chevallier, F., 1978, 

Daily elimination of fecal neutral sterols by humans: 

Digestion, v. 18, p. 201–212.

Fishman, M.J., Raese, J.W., Gerlitz, C.N., and Husband, 

R.A., 1994, U.S. Geological Survey approved inorganic 

and organic methods for the analysis of water and fluvial sediment, 1954–94: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 94–351, 55 p. 

Furlong, E.T., Cahill, J.D., Werner, S.L., Burkhardt, M.R., 

Kolpin, D.W., and Gates, P.M., 2000, High-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionizationmass spectrometric analysis of agricultural and human 

health pharmaceuticals in samples of ground and surface water, in Emerging Issues Conference of the 

National Ground Water Association, June 7–8, 2000, 

Minneapolis, Minn., p. 6.

Hale, R.C., Smith, C.L., de Fur, P.O., Harvey, E., Bush, E.O., 

La Guardia, M.J., and Vadas, G.G., 2000, Nonylphenols 

in sediments and effluents associated with diverse 

wastewater outfalls: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 19, no. 4, p. 946–952. 

Hauth, L.D., and Carswell, W.J., Jr., 1978, Floods in Kansas 

City, Missouri and Kansas, September 12–13, 1977: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 78–63, 36 p.
References 53

Hauth, L.D., Carswell, W.J., Jr., and Chin, E.H., 1981, 

Floods in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, September 12–13, 1977: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1169, 47 p.

Hay, A.G., Dees, P.M., and Sayler, G.S., 2001, Growth of a 

bacterial consortium on triclosan: FEMS Microbiology 

Ecology, v. 36, p. 105–112.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 522 p.

Hovander, L., Malmberg, T., Athanasiadou, M., Athanassiadis, I., Rahm, S., Bergman, A., Klasson Wehler, E., 

2002, Identification of hydroxylated PCB metabolites 

and other phenolic halogenated pollutants in human 

blood plasma: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 42, p. 105–117.

Hundt, K., Martin, D., Hammer, E., Jonas, U., Kindermann, 

M.K., and Schauer, F., 2000, Transformation of triclosan by Trametes versicolor and Pycnoporus cinnabarinus: Applied and Environmental Microbiology, v. 

66, no. 9, p. 4,157–4,160.

John, D.M., and White, G.F., 2000, Environmental fate of 

nonylphenol ethoxylates—Differential adsorption of 

homologs to components of river sediments: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 19, no. 2, p. 293–

300.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2000, Kansas water quality assessment (305(b) report): Topeka, 

Kans., 41 p., accessed October 2001 at URL http://

www.kdhe.state.ks.us/befs/305b_2000/.

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 and 

Technology, v. 36, no. 6, p. 1,202–1,211.

Larson, S.J., Gilliom, R.J., and Capel, P.D., 1999, Pesticides 

in streams of the United States—Initial results from the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98–4222, 99 p.

LeBlanc, L.A., Latimer, J.S., Ellis, J.T., and Quinn, J.G., 

1992, The geochemistry of coprostanol in waters and 

surface sediments from Narragansett Bay: Estuarine, 

Coastal, and Shelf Science, v. 34, p. 439–458. 

Leeming, R., Ball, A., Ashbolt, N., and Nichols, P., 1996, 

Using faecal sterols from humans and animals to distinguish faecal pollution in receiving waters: Water 

Research, v. 30, p. 2,893–2,900. 

Levy, C.W., Roujeinikova, A., Sedelenikova, S., Baker, P.J., 

Stuitje, A.R., Slabas, A.R., Rice, D.W., and Rafferty, 

J.B., 1999, Molecular basis of triclosan activity: Nature, 

v. 398, p. 383–384.

Lindsey, M.E., Meyer, M.T., and Thurman, E.M., 2001, 

Analysis of trace levels of sulfonamide and tetracycline 

antibacterials in groundwater and surface water using 

solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry: Analytical Chemistry, v. 73, no. 19, p. 

4,640–4,646. 

Lopez-Avila, V., and Hites, R.A., 1980, Organic compounds 

in an industrial wastewater—Their transport into sediments: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 14, 

p. 1,382–1,390.

——— 1981, Oxidation of phenolic antioxidants in a river 

system: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 15, 

no. 11, p. 1,388–1,390.

Maldonado, C., Dachs, J., and Bayona, J.M., 1999, Trialkylamines and coprostanol as tracers of urban pollution in 

waters from enclosed seas—The Mediterranean and 

Black Sea: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 

33, p. 3,290–3,296.

Maquire, R.J., 1999, Review of the persistence of nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates in aquatic environments: Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, v. 

34, no. 1, p. 37–78.

McMurry, L.M., Oethinger, M., and Levy, S.B., 1998a, 

Over-expression of marA, soxS, or acrAB produces 

resistance to triclosan in laboratory and clinical strains 

of Escherichia coli: FEMS Microbiology Letters, v. 

166, no. 2, p. 305–309.

——— 1998b, Triclosan targets lipid synthesis: Nature v. 

394, no. 6, p. 531–532.

Meade, M.J., Waddell, R.L., and Callahan, T.M., 2001, Soil 

bacteria Pseudomonas putida and Alcaligenes xylosoxidans subsp. denitrificans inactivate triclosan in liquid 

and solid substrates: FEMS Microbiology Letters, v. 

204, p. 45–48.

Meyer, M.T., Bumgarner, J.E., Varns, J.L., Daughtridge, J.V., 

Thurman, E.M., and Hostltler, K.A., 2000, Use of 

radioimmunoassay as a screen for antibiotics in con-
54 Effects of Wastewater and Combined Sewer Overflows on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Missouri and Kansas

fined feeding operations and confirmation by liquid 

chromatography/mass spectrometry: The Science of the 

Total Environment, v. 248, p. 181–187.

Miyazaki, T., Yamagishi, T., and Matsumoto, M., 1984, Residues of 4-Chloro-1-(2,4-dichlorphenoxy)-2-methoxybenzene (Triclosan methyl) in aquatic biota: Bulletin of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 32, 

no. 2, p. 227–232.

Mudge, S.M., Hooper, L., and Icely, J.D., 1998, Biomarkers 

associated with sewage in the Arade Estuary, Portugal: 

Environmental Technology, v. 19, p. 1,055–1,060.

Myers, D.N., and Wilde, F.D., 1997, National field manual 

for the collection of water-quality data—Biological 

indicators: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques for 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A7, variously paged.

Okumura, T., Yamagishi, T., and Matsumoto, M., 1996, Gas 

chromatography-mass spectrometery determination of 

triclosans in water, sediment, and fish samples via 

methylation with diazomethane: Analytica Chimica 

Acta, v. 325, p. 175–184.

O’Leary, T., Leeming, R., Nichols, P.D., and Volkman, J.K., 

1999, Assessment of the sources, transport and fate of 

sewage-derived organic matter in Port Phillip Bay, Australia, using the signature lipid coprostanol: Marine and 

Freshwater Research, v. 50, p. 547–556.

Panter, G.H., Thompson, R.S., and Sumpter, J.P., 2000, 

Intermittent exposure of fish to estradiol: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, p. 2,756–2,760.

Paxeus, N., 1996, Organic pollutants in the effluents of large 

wastewater treatment plants in Sweden: Water 

Resources, v. 30, no. 5, p. 1,115–1,122.

Perencevich, E.N., Wong, M.T., and Harris, A.D., 2001, 

National and regional assessment of the antibacterial 

soap market—A step toward determining the impact of 

prevalent antibacterial soaps: American Journal of 

Infection Control, v. 29, no. 5, p. 281–283.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow—Volume 1. Measurement of stage 

and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175, 284 p.

Rogers-Gray, T.P., Jobling, S., Morris, S., Kelly, C., Kirby, 

S., Janbakhsh, A., Harries, J.E., Waldock, M.J., 

Sumpter, J.P., and Tyler, C.R., 2000, Long-term temporal changes in the estrogenic composition of treated 

sewage effluent and its biological effects on fish: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, no. 8, p. 

1,521–1,528.

Seiler, R.L., Zaugg, S.D., Thomas, J.M., and Howcroft, D.L., 

1999, Caffeine and pharmaceuticals as indicators waste 

water contamination in wells: Ground Water, v. 37, no. 

3, p. 405–410.

Servos, M.R., 1999, Review of the aquatic toxicity, estrogenic responses and the bioaccumulation of alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates: Water Quality 

Research Journal of Canada, v. 34, no. 1, p. 123–177.

Sherblom, P.M., Henry, M.S., and Kelly, D., 1997, Questions 

remain in the use of coprostanol and epicoprostanol as 

domestic waste markers: examples from coastal Florida, in Eganhous, R.P., ed., Molecular Markers in Environmental Geochemistry: American Chemical Society 

(ACS) Symposium Series, v. 671, p. 320–331.

Singley, J.E., Kirchmer, C.J., Miura, R., 1974, Analysis of 

coprostanol, an indicator of fecal contamination: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Protection Technology Series 660/2-74-

021, 114 p.

Sole, M., Lopez de Alda, M.J., Castillo, M., Porte, C., Ladegaard-Pedersen, K., and Barcelo, D., 2000, Estrogenicity determination in sewage treatment plants and 

surface waters from the Catalonian Area (NE Spain): 

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, no. 24, 

p. 5,076–5,083.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1200, 71 p.

Suller, M.T.E., and Russell, A.D., 2000, Triclosan and antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: Journal of 

Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, v. 46, p. 11–18.

Tabak, H.H., and Bunch, R.L., 1970, Missouri River Basin 

sterol assay project report. Coprostanol, a positive 

marker of domestic and run-off pollution—Sterol assay 

of wastewater plant effluents and surface waters of the 

lower main stem Missouri: Cincinnati, Ohio, Federal 

Water Quality Administration, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, 18 p. 

Talmage, S.S., 1994, Environmental and human safety of 

major surfactants—Alcohol ethoxylates and alkylphenol ethoxylates: Boca Raton, Fla., Lewis Publishers, 

374 p.
References 55

Tang-Liu, D.D., Williams, R.L., and Riegelman, S., 1983, 

Disposition of caffeine and its metabolites in man: Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, v. 

24, no. 1, p. 180–185.

Ternes, T.A., Kreckel, P., and Mueller, J., 1999a, Behavior 

and occurrence of estrogens in municipal sewage treatment plants—II. Aerobic batch experiments with activated sludge: The Science of the Total Environment, v. 

225, p. 91–99.

Ternes, T.A., Stumpf, M., Mueller, J., Haberer, K., Wilken, 

R.D., and Servos, M., 1999b, Behavior and occurrence 

of estrogens in municipal sewage treatment plants—I. 

Investigations in Germany, Canada, and Brazil: The 

Science of the Total Environment, v. 225, p. 81–90.

U.S. Department of the Census, 2000, Population estimates 

program: accessed August 2001, at URL http://

www.census.gov/population/estimates.

Voets, J.P., Pipyn, P., van Lancker, P., and Verstraete, W., 

1976, Degradation of microbiocides under different 

environmental conditions: Journal of Applied Bacteriology, v. 40, p. 67–72.

Wagner, R.J., Mattraw, H.C., Ritz, G.F., and Smith, B.A., 

2000, Guidelines and standard procedures for continuous water-quality monitors—Site selection, field operation, calibration, record computation, and reporting: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4252, 53 p.

Wakeham, S.G., Schaffner, C., and Giger, W., 1980, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in recent lake sediments—I. 

Compounds having anthropogenic origins: Geochimica 

et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 44, no. 3, p. 403–413.

Waker, W.J., McNutt, R.P., and Maslanka, C.K., 1999, The 

potential contribution of urban runoff to surface sediments of the Passaic River—Sources and chemical 

characteristics: Chemosphere, v. 38, no. 2, p. 363–377.

White, R., Jobling, S., Hoarde, S.A., Sumpter, J.P., and 

Parker, M.G., 1994, Environmentally persistent alkylphenolic compounds are estrogenic: Endocrinology, v. 

135, no. 1, p. 175–182.

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

1998, National field manual for the collection of waterquality data—Cleaning of equipment for water sampling: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques for WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A3, variously 

paged.

——— 1999a, National field manual for the collection of 

water-quality data—Collection of water samples: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques for Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, variously paged.

——— 1999b, National field manual for the collection of 

water-quality data—Processing of water samples: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques for Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A5, variously paged.

Zaugg, S.D., Smith, S.G., Schroeder, M.P., Barber, L.B., and 

Burkhardt, M.R., 2001, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of wastewater compounds by 

polystyrene divinylbenzene solid-phase extraction and 

capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4186, p. 37. 
TABLES
Physical Properties, Nutrients, Bacteria, and Selected Chemical Concentrations in Baseflow Samples 59

Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples[L/s, liter per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; dissolved concentrations from filtered samples; mg/L, milligrams p

unfiltered samples; amm+org, ammonia plus organic; NO2 + NO3, nitrite plus nitrate; ntu, Nephelometric Turbidity Units; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; μg/L, 

<, less than; K, results based on non-ideal colony count; E, estimated]

Nitrogen, 

Site Discharge, Specific pH

Water Oxygen, Chloride, Nitrogen, ammonia, 

number Sample Sample instantaneous conductance (standard temperature dissolved dissolved amm+org dissolved 

(fig. 1) date time (L/s) (μS/c

m) units) (°C) (mg/L) (mg/L) total (

mg/L) (mg/L) 

1 08/22/00 0945 61.5 950 7.54 25.0 6.4 -- 0.95 0.04 

10/11/00 1030 108 780 7.71 10.5 11.9 -- .65 .01 

2 08/23/00 0930 11.1 695 6.90 26.0 4.4 -- .53 .06 

10/12/00 1045 24.9 840 7.99 12.0 10.9 -- .65 .03 

3 08/23/00 1045 85.0 1,090 6.54 25.0 5.3 -- 4.73 3.50 

10/12/00 1315 118 1,110 7.27 22.0 8.8 -- 1.70 .33 

4 06/29/00 1015 971 820 7.31 22.5 6.7 -- 1.75 .55 

08/23/00 1230 508 1,060 7.14 28.0 7.5 -- 2.27 .76 

10/12/00 1530 558 1,030 7.64 17.0 8.6 -- 3.66 1.76 

5 08/20/98 1300 623 800 7.80 29.0 7.1 -- .91 .05 

10/09/98 1045 6,990 620 8.19 14.5 9.0 -- .60 .08 12/03/98 1400 8,780 545 8.15 14.5 9.6 -- .55 <.02 01/27/99 1030 1,300 895 7.80 5.5 11.0 -- 1.36 .54 02/22/99 0930 2,830 685 8.52 4.5 15.7 -- .71 .22 

5 05/06/99 1130 9,060 510 7.92 15.0 10.0 -- .92 .16 

06/10/99 0830 1,110 680 7.94 26.0 6.8 -- .79 .02 07/21/99 1045 595 760 8.03 28.5 8.3 64.2 .66 <.02 10/13/99 1215 595 885 7.83 18.0 7.9 -- .89 <.02 12/17/99 1035 1,010 810 7.09 3.0 12.2 82.6 1.26 .35 

5 02/14/00 1110 784 1,250 7.50 4.0 10.7 -- 3.22 1.54 

04/11/00 1020 651 840 7.22 14.0 8.0 -- .91 <.02 

05/03/00 1130 708 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

06/29/00 1300 1,950 670 7.63 24.0 7.1 -- .83 .02 08/22/00 1010 513 1,020 7.44 26.0 5.0 -- 1.27 .12 

10/11/00 1030 575 870 7.80 10.0 12.3 -- 1.43 .44 
60 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Discharge, instantaneous (L/s) Specific conductance 

(μS/cm)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Water 

temperature 

(°C)

Oxygen, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Chloride, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Nitrogen, 

amm+org 

total (mg/L)

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

6 09/09/98 0930 1,050 870 7.80 22.5 5.1 -- 1.14 0.15 

10/14/98 0945 3,570 700 8.10 16.0 7.9 -- .571 .13 12/09/98 1030 9,180 565 7.80 7.0 11.1 -- .66 .14 01/21/99 1200 1,810 1,120 7.90 3.0 9.6 -- .96 .18 02/22/99 1115 5,610 715 8.50 4.5 20.5 -- .70 .27 

6 05/07/99 0945 9,400 590 7.89 14.5 9.0 -- .83 .12 

06/15/99 1430 1,900 580 7.57 24.8 6.5 -- .74 .02 08/19/99 0945 1,110 865 7.56 26.0 5.2 84.5 1.05 <.02 10/13/99 1330 1,010 880 7.71 17.5 7.5 -- .71 <.02 12/17/99 1300 1,660 825 7.67 3.5 11.6 86.0 1.15 .30 

6 02/14/00 1230 920 1,250 7.60 3.5 10.8 -- 2.26 .72 

04/11/00 1145 1,050 855 7.19 14.0 7.3 -- .89 <.02 

05/03/00 1145 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 06/29/00 1430 1,990 665 7.35 24.5 5.4 -- 1.06 .14 08/22/00 1215 668 970 7.27 26.0 5.1 -- 1.02 .07 

10/11/00 1430 841 790 7.30 11.0 10.7 -- .86 .16 

7 08/21/98 1030 36.8 705 7.40 28.0 5.7 -- .96 .05 

10/07/98 1130 510 880 7.64 17.0 6.8 -- 2.48 .24 12/01/98 1045 425 715 7.80 13.5 8.9 -- 1.63 .40 01/20/99 1330 21.9 1,680 7.45 1.3 13.9 -- .35 .03 02/25/99 0930 73.6 6,850 7.95 5.3 13.7 2,300 .84 .24 

7 04/29/99 0830 898 865 7.89 13.5 9.1 -- 2.57 .34 

06/08/99 0815 28.9 645 7.56 25.5 4.5 -- .85 .10 07/21/99 0800 76.5 725 8.13 29.5 9.2 93.8 .46 <.02 10/14/99 1430 8.20 765 7.42 15.5 5.2 -- .38 <.02 12/20/99 1140 66.0 1,360 6.75 2.0 10.6 290 .57 <.02 

7 02/16/00 1030 17.0 2,440 6.58 3.5 12.3 -- .28 .03 

04/12/00 0940 7.93 900 6.65 10.5 6.9 -- .42 <.02 05/03/00 0830 14.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 06/19/00 1100 15.6 585 7.69 23.5 9.0 -- .41 <.02 08/10/00 0930 35.4 660 7.24 28.5 6.0 -- .92 .10 10/03/00 1015 48.4 635 7.17 20.0 7.0 -- .82 .12 
Physical Properties, Nutrients, Bacteria, and Selected Chemical Concentrations in Baseflow Samples 61

8 08/26/98 1215 144 560 7.70 29.0 7.4 -- 0.58 0.14 

10/07/98 1545 640 860 7.95 17.5 6.7 -- 2.88 .19 12/01/98 1300 253 590 7.67 14.0 4.2 -- 2.01 .22 01/26/99 1230 118 1,980 7.80 3.0 9.7 -- .91 .28 02/25/99 1400 193 4,270 8.09 6.0 11.7 1,300 .78 .17 

8 04/29/99 1245 622 740 7.89 14.5 10.9 -- 2.81 .51 

06/08/99 1030 193 555 7.63 26.0 3.8 -- 1.82 .71 07/22/99 0930 592 625 8.36 30.0 8.3 75.7 .88 <.02 10/15/99 0945 694 590 8.39 17.0 10.2 -- .84 <.02 12/20/99 1255 496 645 7.58 1.5 12.4 87.4 .61 <.02 

8 02/16/00 1255 47.3 3,210 7.69 4.5 11.8 -- 1.12 .43 

04/12/00 1050 201 665 7.84 11.5 9.3 -- .75 <.02 05/03/00 0900 99.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 06/19/00 1040 221 295 7.07 22.0 3.9 -- 1.34 .42 08/10/00 1030 144 355 7.28 27.5 2.0 -- 1.40 .21 10/03/00 1100 221 365 7.50 20.0 8.0 -- .46 .08 

9 08/26/98 1250 142 520 7.80 27.5 2.6 -- .58 .12 

10/08/98 1530 170 945 7.63 18.0 6.6 -- 2.57 .10 12/02/98 1315 263 640 7.88 13.5 7.5 -- 2.13 .39 01/26/99 1530 134 2,010 7.40 4.3 5.0 -- 1.03 .30 02/26/99 0815 162 2,830 7.99 5.2 10.1 823 4.17 1.01 

9 04/30/99 0830 386 875 8.06 15.0 9.4 -- 1.74 .20 

06/08/99 1515 109 465 8.54 30.0 6.9 -- 1.95 .23 07/22/99 1320 <.01 605 8.25 33.5 9.6 72.3 .59 <.02 10/15/99 1055 63.2 865 8.38 17.5 15.4 -- .79 <.02 12/21/99 1100 <.01 630 7.08 2.0 10.5 93.3 1.45 .03 

9 02/16/00 1345 45.3 2,480 8.20 6.5 14.7 -- 26.3 22.0 

04/12/00 1230 <.01 615 7.83 12.0 9.6 -- 1.13 <.02 05/03/00 1000 73.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 06/19/00 1315 134 250 8.54 23.0 11.0 -- 1.60 <.02 08/10/00 1150 134 275 7.49 29.0 2.9 -- 1.31 .31 10/03/00 1245 162 335 8.77 20.0 8.34 -- 1.01 <.02 

Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Discharge, 

instantaneous 

(L/s)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Water 

temperature 

(°C)

Oxygen, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Chloride, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Nitrogen, 

amm+org 

total (mg/L)

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)
62 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 09/08/98 1300 5.38 450 6.80 26.5 6.4 -- 2.08 1.30 

10/13/98 1230 78.4 970 8.00 17.0 9.2 -- 1.25 .33 12/02/98 1000 227 285 7.51 14.5 2.0 -- 1.42 .03 01/21/99 1330 51.0 2,090 7.40 2.8 9.2 -- .55 .14 02/26/99 0945 82.7 2,300 8.12 11.0 11.1 603 7.61 .56 

10 04/30/99 1300 165 695 7.81 14.5 4.7 -- 1.59 .18 

06/09/99 1400 51.0 660 8.31 33.5 10.1 -- 1.09 .06 08/18/99 1400 109 360 7.36 27.5 6.0 21.4 1.37 <.02 10/15/99 1250 25.2 455 8.35 18.0 14.0 -- 1.10 .17 12/21/99 1220 142 355 7.45 3.5 4.4 36.1 1.28 .55 

10 02/16/00 1515 43.9 975 8.43 5.9 16.0 -- 1.64 .48 

04/12/00 1345 28.6 580 7.65 14.0 9.9 -- 1.43 .07 05/03/00 1100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 06/22/00 1000 89.5 300 6.61 24.0 3.1 -- 1.35 .20 08/10/00 1145 95.7 200 6.57 23.0 1.5 -- 1.34 .38 10/03/00 1230 73.1 300 8.26 20.0 13.8 -- 1.24 .05 

11 09/09/98 1200 1,980 810 8.16 22.5 8.6 -- 1.71 .67 

10/15/98 0930 4,020 745 8.06 17.0 8.1 -- 1.92 .50 12/09/98 1430 11,800 560 7.90 7.8 10.8 -- .81 .18 01/27/99 1230 1,460 1,060 7.70 6.0 11.1 -- 1.32 .53 02/18/99 1000 6,370 765 8.10 6.0 5.8 -- .76 .25 

11 05/10/99 1030 7,080 680 7.85 19.0 7.8 -- .87 .19 

06/18/99 0930 4,390 520 7.39 20.0 6.6 -- 1.09 .12 08/19/99 1530 1,170 660 7.66 27.5 6.7 55.9 1.31 .22 10/14/99 1030 884 855 7.86 15.5 9.9 -- .82 <.02 12/21/99 1430 1,700 895 7.12 2.70 12.3 77.1 1.09 .35 

11 02/15/00 1215 850 1,250 7.44 7.5 15.9 -- 2.55 .59 

04/11/00 1445 960 870 7.62 12.0 9.3 -- 1.09 .03 

05/03/00 1220 1,190 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 06/30/00 0930 1,920 685 7.43 23.0 5.9 -- 1.14 .14 08/22/00 1300 862 945 7.84 27.5 6.4 -- 1.27 .16 

10/11/00 1230 1,020 760 7.52 10.8 14.2 -- .94 .23 

Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Discharge, 

instantaneous 

(L/s)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Water 

temperature (°C)

Oxygen, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Chloride, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Nitrogen, 

amm+org 

total (mg/L)

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)
Physical Properties, Nutrients, Bacteria, and Selected Chemical Concentrations in Baseflow Samples 63

Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1) Sample date

Sample 

time

Phos-phorus, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Phosphorus, 

total (mg/L)

Orthophosphate, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Carbon 

organic 

total (mg/L)

 Biochemical 

oxygen

demand 

(mg/L)

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand 

(mg/L)

Turbidity 

(ntu)

Escherichia 

coli

(col/100 mL)

Chloro

phyll-A 

(μg/L)

1 08/22/00 0945 1.29 1.27 1.11 5.97 -- -- 22 -- -- 

10/11/00 1030 .89 .94 .91 5.75 -- -- 6.2 -- -- 

2 08/23/00 0930 <.05 .05 .02 8.73 -- -- -- -- -- 

10/12/00 1045 .04 .09 .05 9.04 -- -- 8.8 -- -- 

3 08/23/00 1045 3.82 3.57 3.27 9.66 -- -- -- -- -- 

10/12/00 1315 3.33 3.38 3.12 10.2 -- -- 4.2 -- -- 

4 06/29/00 1015 1.49 1.55 1.24 8.17 -- -- 10 -- -- 

08/23/00 1230 3.50 3.71 3.23 10.5 -- -- -- -- -- 10/12/00 1530 2.41 2.45 2.24 10.6 -- -- 6.8 -- -- 

5 08/20/98 1300 1.27 1.36 -- -- -- -- 16 220 -- 

10/09/98 1045 .21 .26 -- -- -- -- 16 120 -- 12/03/98 1400 .20 .26 -- -- -- -- 21 800 -- 01/27/99 1030 1.08 1.16 -- -- -- -- 7.5 640 -- 02/22/99 0930 .51 .57 -- -- -- -- 8.0 K1,400 -- 

5 05/06/99 1130 .16 .28 -- -- -- -- 64 2,700 -- 

06/10/99 0830 .82 .92 -- -- -- -- 16 K1,000 -- 07/21/99 1045 1.31 .70 -- -- -- -- 10 1,680 -- 10/13/99 1215 1.65 1.96 -- -- -- -- 6.1 K970 -- 12/17/99 1035 1.03 1.12 -- -- -- -- 8.4 K75 -- 

5 02/14/00 1110 2.52 3.89 -- -- -- -- 5.1 100 -- 

04/11/00 1020 1.18 1.21 -- -- -- -- 14 740 -- 

05/03/00 1130 -- -- -- -- 2.00 23.0 -- -- -- 06/29/00 1300 .71 .76 .63 6.21 -- -- 23 400 -- 08/22/00 1010 2.35 2.44 2.16 8.62 -- -- 15 K170 2.70 

10/11/00 1030 1.42 1.48 1.37 8.95 -- -- 6.6 K320 -- 
64 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Phos-phorus, dissolved (mg/L) Phos- phorus, total (mg/L) Ortho- phosphate, dissolved (mg/L) Carbon organic total (mg/L) Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) Turbidity (ntu) Escherichia coli (col/100 mL) Chloro

phyll-A 

(μg/L)

6 09/09/98 0930 1.23 1.34 -- -- -- -- 42 660 -- 

10/14/98 0945 .33 .36 -- -- -- -- 24 190 -- 12/09/98 1030 .15 .23 -- -- -- -- 36 4,600 -- 01/21/99 1200 1.10 1.10 -- -- -- -- 6.1 240 -- 02/22/99 1115 .33 .40 -- -- -- -- 8.6 K1,400 -- 

6 05/07/99 0945 .16 .27 -- -- -- -- 4 3,200 -- 

06/15/99 1430 .11 .48 -- -- 2.02 -- 36 2,000 -- 08/19/99 0945 1.23 1.41 -- -- -- -- 51 940 -- 10/13/99 1330 1.18 1.36 -- -- -- -- 15 K4,000 -- 12/17/99 1300 .97 1.05 -- -- -- -- 9.9 K150 -- 

6 02/14/00 1230 1.93 2.14 -- -- -- -- 6.9 K450 -- 

04/11/00 1145 .78 .90 -- -- -- -- 22 1,800 -- 

05/03/00 1145 -- -- -- -- 3.10 120 -- -- -- 06/29/00 1430 .43 .54 0.37 7.58 -- -- 45 K920 -- 08/22/00 1215 1.41 1.51 1.28 7.64 -- -- 51 510 1.40 

10/11/00 1430 .87 .98 .86 7.45 -- -- 17

K750 -- 

7 08/21/98 1030 .06 .03 -- -- -- -- -- 130 -- 

10/07/98 1130 .29 .35 -- -- -- -- 6.4 K400 -- 12/01/98 1045 .25 .34 -- -- -- -- 11 K3,800 -- 01/20/99 1330 .04 .04 -- -- -- -- 3.0 K130 -- 02/25/99 0930 <.05 .06 -- -- -- -- 9.6 11,000 -- 

7 04/29/99 0830 .29 .41 -- -- -- -- 3.0 2,200 -- 

06/08/99 0815 .10 .17 -- -- -- -- 10 K950 -- 07/21/99 0800 <.05 .07 -- -- -- -- 5.1 580 -- 10/14/99 1430 .08 .08 -- -- -- -- 2.2 K100 -- 12/20/99 1140 E.05 .08 -- -- -- -- 8.0 K2,000 -- 

7 02/16/00 1030 <.05 <.05 -- -- -- -- 1.5 0 -- 

04/12/00 0940 <.05 .06 -- -- -- -- 4.4 710 -- 05/03/00 0830 -- -- -- -- 2.90 36.0 -- -- -- 06/19/00 1100 E.05 .07 .02 4.31 -- -- 3.6 310 -- 08/10/00 0930 .10 .13 .08 5.14 -- -- 4.1 K4,300 .65 10/03/00 1015

E.03 .11 .02 5.30 -- -- 6.3 K150 -- 
Physical Properties, Nutrients, Bacteria, and Selected Chemical Concentrations in Baseflow Samples 65

8 08/26/98 1215 0.06 0.09 -- -- -- -- 11.1 K150 -- 

10/07/98 1545 .33 .31 -- -- -- -- 8.3 220 -- 12/01/98 1300 .39 .42 -- -- -- -- 17.5 K4,800 -- 01/26/99 1230 .08 .12 -- -- -- -- 34.2 610 -- 02/25/99 1400 E.04 .09 -- -- -- -- 9.4 9,100 -- 

8 04/29/99 1245 .40 .51 -- -- -- -- 10 1,600 -- 

06/08/99 1030 .22 .35 -- -- -- -- 5.3 K480 -- 07/22/99 0930 E.03 .10 -- -- -- -- 4.4 500 -- 10/15/99 0945 E.04 .06 -- -- -- -- 8.0 K650 -- 12/20/99 1255 .08 .13 -- -- -- -- 6.3 K12,000 -- 

8 02/16/00 1255

E.03 .07 -- -- -- -- 4.1 0 -- 

04/12/00 1050 <.05 .07 -- -- -- -- 8.4 4,400 -- 05/03/00 0900 -- -- -- -- 18.0 3,700 -- -- -- 06/19/00 1040 .09 .18 0.06 6.50 -- -- 12 K200 -- 08/10/00 1030 .16 .24 .07 6.36 -- -- 18 K12,000 E7.90 10/03/00 1100 E.04

E.06 .03 4.02 -- -- 8.8 K190 -- 

9 08/26/98 1250 <.01 .15 -- -- -- -- 12 470 -- 

10/08/98 1530 .28 .31 -- -- -- -- 6.7 K340 -- 12/02/98 1315 .34 .35 -- -- -- -- 16 240 -- 01/26/99 1530 .09 .14 -- -- -- -- 22 190 -- 02/26/99 0815 <.05 .09 -- -- -- -- 11 1,400 -- 04/30/99 0830 .26 .30 -- -- -- -- 6.4 K1,100 -- 

9 06/08/99 1515 .11 .36 -- -- -- -- 17 K450 -- 

07/22/99 1320 E.03 <.05 -- -- -- -- 4.9 100 -- 10/15/99 1055 <.05 .07 -- -- -- -- 6.4 K480 -- 12/21/99 1100 .15 .14 -- -- -- -- 11 3,100 -- 

9 02/16/00 1345 <.05 .21 -- -- -- -- 23 0 -- 

04/12/00 1230 <.05 .12 -- -- -- -- 9.2 1,200 -- 05/03/00 1000 -- -- -- -- 4.70 160 -- -- -- 06/19/00 1315 .08 .28 .03 9.41 -- -- 12 K170 -- 08/10/00 1150 .16 .25 .10 6.15 -- -- 42 K4,200 11.5 10/03/00 1245 <.06 .12 <.01 6.67 -- -- 10 K70 -- 

Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1) Sample date

Sample 

time

Phos-phorus, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Phosphorus, 

total (mg/L)

Orthophosphate, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Carbon 

organic 

total (mg/L)

 Biochemical 

oxygen

demand 

(mg/L)

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand 

(mg/L)

Turbidity 

(ntu)

Escherichia 

coli

(col/100 mL)

Chloro

phyll-A 

(μg/L)
66 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 09/08/98 1300 0.17 0.25 -- -- -- -- 16 230 -- 

10/13/98 1230 .15 .12 -- -- -- -- 5.8 260 -- 12/02/98 1000 .21 .38 -- -- -- -- 26 8,800 -- 01/21/99 1330 .06 .08 -- -- -- -- 7.7 K34 -- 02/26/99 0945 E.04 4.42 -- -- -- -- 360 18,000 -- 

10 04/30/99 1300 .15 .24 -- -- -- -- 7.3 K35,000 -- 

06/09/99 1400 .10 .27 -- -- -- -- 44 28,000 -- 08/18/99 1400 .07 .21 -- -- -- -- 8.4 K300 -- 10/15/99 1250 .07 .15 -- -- -- -- 4.2 70 -- 12/21/99 1220 .26 .24 -- -- -- -- 14 K1,400 -- 

10 02/16/00 1515 .10 .31 -- -- -- -- 8.6 0 -- 

04/12/00 1345 .08 .21 -- -- -- -- 10.4 3,200 -- 05/03/00 1100 -- -- -- -- 7.70 120 -- -- -- 06/22/00 1000 .10 .26 0.06 7.75 -- -- 59 5,900 -- 08/10/00 1145 .08 .25 .05 5.46 -- -- 93 K2,780 4.20 10/03/00 1230 <.06 .14 <.01 7.24 -- -- 10 K150 -- 

11 09/09/98 1200 .43 .52 -- -- -- -- 50 540 -- 

10/15/98 0930 .20 .75 -- -- -- -- 66 400 -- 12/09/98 1430 .14 .16 -- -- -- -- 32 6,100 -- 01/27/99 1230 .45 .61 -- -- -- -- 38 970 -- 02/18/99 1000 .27 .37 -- -- -- -- 17 K1,010 -- 

11 05/10/99 1030 .16 .32 -- -- -- -- 120 K700 -- 

06/18/99 0930 .36 .51 -- -- 9.56 -- 66 K10,500 -- 08/19/99 1530 .42 .56 -- -- -- -- 63 530 -- 10/14/99 1030 .86 1.05 -- -- -- -- 36 K 350 -- 12/21/99 1430 .98 .91 -- -- -- -- 45 1,550 -- 

11 02/15/00 1215 1.65 2.02 -- -- -- -- 33 0 -- 

04/11/00 1445 .57 .75 -- -- -- -- 87 1,300 -- 

05/03/00 1220 -- -- -- -- 4.80 74.0 -- -- -- 06/30/00 0930 .35 .53 .29 8.54 -- -- 79 2,200 -- 08/22/00 1300 1.16 1.26 1.01 7.64 -- -- 55 5,500 3.70 

10/11/00 1230 .65 .78 .63 8.72 -- -- 26 2,600 -- 

Table 1. Physical properties, nutrients, bacteria, and selected chemical concentrations in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1) Sample date

Sample 

time

Phos-phorus, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Phosphorus, 

total (mg/L)

Orthophosphate, 

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Carbon 

organic 

total (mg/L)

 Biochemical 

oxygen

demand 

(mg/L)

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand 

(mg/L)

Turbidity 

(ntu)

Escherichia 

coli

(col/100 mL)

Chloro

phyll-A 

(μg/L)
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 67

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples[Numbers below chemical names are CAS numbers (Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers); all chemical concentrations in units of micrograms per liter in unfilter

hydroxyanisole; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EO, nonylphenol diethoxylate; OP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2ENA, not available; <, less than; E, estimated; --, no data]

Site

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample

date

Sample 

time

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

95-50-1

1,3-

Dichlorobenzene

541-73-1

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene

106-46-7

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)et

hyl acetate

124-17-4

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

128-39-2

2,6-Di-tertbutyl-benzoquinone

106-51-4

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene

581-42-0

4-Methylphenol

106-44-5

4-Nonylphenol

104-40-5

1 08/22/00 0945 -- -- <0.04 -- <0.15 <0.50 -- <0.06 E0.35 

10/11/00 1030 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.28 

2 08/23/00 0930 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- E.03 E.64 

10/12/00 1045 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 <.70 

3 08/23/00 1045 -- -- .07 -- <.15 <.50 -- .08 E1.44 

10/12/00 1315 -- -- .09 -- <.15 <.50 -- E.04

E1.25 

10/12/00 1316 -- -- .09 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06

E1.03 

4 12/17/99 1045 <0.03 <0.03 <.03 <0.10 <.09 <.07

E0.03 <.03 E3.10 

12/17/99 1046 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 E.03 <.03 E3.70 02/14/00 1045 -- -- E.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E3.91 02/14/00 1046 -- -- E.02 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E3.68 

04/11/00 1130 -- -- .03 -- <.09 .33 -- .07 E1.55 

4 06/29/00 1015 -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 -- <.06 E.85 

08/23/00 1230 -- -- .37 -- <.15 <.50 -- E.03

E2.02 

10/12/00 1500 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- E.03 E1.90 

5 08/20/98 1300 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.04 <.03 E.43 

08/20/98 1301 E.004 <.03 E.006 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.04 <.03 E.51 10/09/98 1045 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.04 <.03 .39 12/03/98 1400 <.03 <.03 E.002 <.06 <.09 E.04 <.09 <.03 <.50 01/27/99 1030 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 .14 <.09 <.03

E2.20 

5 02/22/99 0930 <.03 <.03 E.01 <.06 <.09 <.07 

E.007 <.03

E1.30 

05/06/99 1130 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03

E1.80 

06/10/99 0830 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.84 07/21/99 1045 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.58 10/13/99 1215 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.69 
68 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Dichloro- benzene Dichloro- benzene Dichloro- benzene Butoxyethoxy)et hyl acetate 2,6-Di-tert- butylphenol butyl-benzo- quinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl- phenol 4-Nonyl- phenol 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 

1,2- 1,3- 1,4- 2-(2- 2,6-Di-tert- 

5 12/17/99 1035 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.10 <0.09 <0.07 E0.02 <0.03 E2.00 

12/17/99 1036 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 E.03 <.03 E1.80 02/14/00 1110 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E2.71 

04/11/00 1020 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E.80 

06/29/00 1300 -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 -- <.06 .44 

5 08/22/00 1010 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.84 

10/11/00 1030 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.75 

6 09/09/98 0930 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 .14

E.03 .23 E1.40 

10/14/98 0945 <.03 <.03 E.01 <.06 <.09 <.07 E.02 <.03 E.35 12/09/98 1030 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.61 01/21/99 1200 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E1.80 02/22/99 1115 <.03 <.03 E.02 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E1.10 

6 05/07/99 0945 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.60 

06/15/99 1430 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 E.13 E.06 <.09 <.03 <.50 08/19/99 0945 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E1.00 08/19/99 0946 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 E.02 E.78 10/13/99 1330 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.58 

6 12/17/99 1300 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 E.02 <.03 E1.90 

02/14/00 1230 -- -- E.01 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E2.10 

04/11/00 1145 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03

E1.36 

06/29/00 1430 -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 -- <.06 <.50 08/22/00 1215 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.44 

10/11/00 1430 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.47 

7 08/21/98 1030 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.04 <.03 <.50 

10/07/98 1130 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.04 .48 <.50 12/01/98 1045 <.03 <.03 E.01 .07 <.09 E.06 <.09 .50 E.53 01/20/99 1330 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 E.01 <.03 E1.10 02/25/99 0930 <.03 <.03 E.006 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.60 

7 04/29/99 0830 <0.03 <0.03 E0.03 0.35 <0.09 0.17 <0.09 0.08

E0.91 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 69

06/08/99 0815 <.03 E.001 <.03 .22 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.91 07/21/99 0800 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 10/14/99 1430 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 12/20/99 1140 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03

E1.40 

7 02/16/00 1030 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E.55 

04/12/00 0940 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 <.50 06/19/00 1100 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 <.50 08/10/00 0930 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.71 10/03/00 1100 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.40 

8 08/28/98 1215 <.03 <.03 E.01 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.04 <.03 <.50 

08/28/98 1216 <.03 <.03 <.03 .20 <.09 <.07 <.04 <.03 <.50 10/07/98 1545 <.03 <.03 .04 .44 <.09 .20 .13 .38

E1.20 

12/01/98 1300 <.03 <.03

E.02

E.05 <.09 .12 <.09 .76

E1.20 

12/01/98 1301 <.03 <.03

E.02 <.06 <.09 .07 <.09 .98

E1.20 

8 01/26/99 1230 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 E.08 <.03 E.74 

02/25/99 1400 <.03 <.03 E.02 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E1.00 04/29/99 1245 <.03 <.03

E.03 .58 <.09 .14 <.09 .13

E1.00 

06/08/99 1030 <.03 <.03 E.01 .14 <.09 .10 E.01 <.03 E.89 07/22/99 0930 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 

8 10/15/99 0945 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 

12/20/99 1255 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 E.03 <.03 E.87 02/16/00 1255 -- -- .16 -- <.09 <.07 -- .04 E.93 04/12/00 1050 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- .19 <.50 06/19/00 1040 -- --

E.01 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 <.50 

8 08/10/00 1030 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.71 

10/03/00 1015 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 <.70 

9 08/28/98 1250 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.06 <0.09 <0.07 <0.04 <0.03 <0.50 

10/08/98 1530 <.03 <.03

E.03 <.06 <.09 .08 .08 .35 E.70 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

1,3-

Dichlorobenzene

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)et

hyl acetate

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

2,6-Di-tertbutyl-benzoquinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl- phenol 4-Nonyl- phenol 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 
70 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 12/02/98 1315 <.03 <.03 E.02 .06 <.09 .11 <.09 <.03 E1.30 

01/26/99 1530 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 E.05 .12 E3.00 02/26/99 0815 <.03 <.03 E.02 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.73 

9 04/30/99 0830 <.03 <.03 E.03 .52 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.67 

06/08/99 1515 <.03 <.03 .04 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 07/22/99 1320 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E1.00 10/15/99 1055 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 10/15/99 1056 <.03 <.03 E.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03

E1.30 

9 12/20/99 1100 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07

E.03 <.03

E1.10 

02/16/00 1345 -- -- .06 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03

E1.09 

04/12/00 1230 -- -- .03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E.51 06/19/00 1315 -- -- .08 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 <.50 08/10/00 1150 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.61 10/03/00 1245 -- -- E.03 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.45 

10 09/08/98 1300 <.03 <.03 .11 <.06 <.09 <.07

E.03 .26 E1.60 

09/08/98 1301 <.03 <.03 .10 <.06 <.09 .13 .04 .24 E2.40 10/13/98 1230 <.03 <.03 .16 <.06 <.09 <.07

E.03 .09 E.40 

12/02/98 1000 <.03 <.03 .04 .07 <.09 E.06 <.09 <.03 E.92 01/21/99 1330 <.03 <.03 .09 <.06 <.09 <.07

E.03 <.03 E.64 

10 02/26/99 0945 E.008 <.03 .08 <.06 <.09 <.07 .23 .11 E.95 

04/30/99 1300 <.03 <.03 .09 .13 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.94 06/09/99 1400 <.03 <.03 .18 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.91 08/18/99 1400 <.03 <.03 .09 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 .04 E2.00 08/18/99 1401 <.03 <.03 .13 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 .04 E2.20 

10 10/15/99 1250 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 

12/21/99 1220 <.03 <.03 .06 <.10 <.09 <.07

E.03 <.03

E2.30 

02/16/00 1515 -- -- .03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E.64 

10 04/12/00 1345 -- -- 0.08 -- <0.09 <0.07 -- <0.03 <0.50 

06/22/00 1000 -- -- .06 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 <.50 08/10/00 1145 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.44 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

1,3-

Dichlorobenzene

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)et

hyl acetate

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

2,6-Di-tertbutyl-benzoquinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl- phenol 4-Nonyl- phenol 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 71

08/10/00 1146 -- -- E.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- E.03 E.50 10/03/00 1230 -- -- .05 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.56 

11 09/09/98 1430 <0.03 <0.03 .03 <0.06 <.09 .08 <0.09 <.03 E.44 

10/15/98 0930 <.03 <.03 .04 .33 <.09 <.07 .43 .11 E.40 12/09/98 1430 <.03 <.03 E.02 <.06 <.09 .13

E.01 E.01 E.46 

01/27/99 1230 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 <.50 02/18/99 1000 <.03 <.03 E.03 <.06 <.09 <.07

E.03 <.03 E.90 

11 05/10/99 1030 <.03 <.03 E.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 E.04 <.03 E.59 

06/18/99 0930 <.03 <.03 E.03 <.06 <.09 <.07

E.02 <.03 <.50 

08/19/99 1530 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 E.03 E1.40 08/19/99 1531 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 E.03 E1.30 10/14/99 1030 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.09 <.03 E.61 

11 12/21/99 1430 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 E.03 .34 E1.80 

02/15/00 1215 -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03 E1.56 

04/11/00 1445 -- -- .04 -- <.09 <.07 -- <.03

E1.63 

06/30/00 0930 -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 -- <.06 <.50 08/22/00 1300 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E1.29 

10/11/00 1230 -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E.55 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

1,3-

Dichlorobenzene

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)et

hyl acetate

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

2,6-Di-tertbutyl-benzoquinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl- phenol 4-Nonyl- phenol 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 
72 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Anthracene 120-12-7 Benzaldehyde 100-52-7

Benzo[a]-

pyrene

50-32-8

Bis(2-ethyl 

hexyl)-

adipate

103-23-1

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)-

phthalate

117-81-7

Bisphenol

A

80-05-7

BHA

25013-16-5

BH

T

128-37-0

Caffeine

58-08-2

Carbary

63-25-2

1 08/22/00 0945 <0.06 -- <0.07 <2.00 <2.50 <0.09 <0.12 <0.11 <0.08 <0.06 

10/11/00 1030 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 <.09 <.12 <.11 E.05 <.06 

2 08/23/00 0930 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .13 <.12 <.11 E.07 <.06 

10/12/00 1045 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 <.09 <.12 <.11 E.05 <.06 

3 08/23/00 1045 <.06 -- E.06 <2.00 <2.50 .19 <.12 E.12 .11 <.06 

10/12/00 1315 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50

E.08 <.12 <.11 <.08 <.06 

10/12/00 1316 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50

E.06 <.12 <.11 <.08 <.06 

4 12/17/99 1045 <.05 <0.15 <.05 6.70 <1.50 .14 <.10 <.08 1.00 <.06 

12/17/99 1046 <.05 <.15 <.05 5.70 <1.50 .15 <.10 <.08 .97 <.06 02/14/00 1045 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .11 <.12 <.08 1.90 <.06 02/14/00 1046 <.05 -- E.03 1.62 <2.00 .14 <.12 <.08 1.81 <.06 

04/11/00 1130 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 4.12 .20 <.12 <.08 .43 <.06 

4 06/29/00 1015 <.06 -- <.05 <2.00 <2.50 <.09 <.12 <.08 1.41 <.06 

08/23/00 1230 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 E2.61 .21 <.12 <.11 1.75 <.06 10/12/00 1500 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .10 <.12 <.11 3.22 <.06 

5 08/20/98 1300 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .19 <.06 

08/20/98 1301 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .24 <.06 10/09/98 1045 E.02 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09

E.12 <.08 .29 <.06 

12/03/98 1400 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09

E.04 <.08 .15 <.06 

01/27/99 1030 E.02 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .68 E.16 

5 02/22/99 0930 <.05 <.10

E.04

E.88 <2.00 .09 <.12 <.08 .65 <.06 

05/06/99 1130 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 E.08 <.12 <.08 .99 E.0006/10/99 0830 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .44 <.06 07/21/99 1045 <.05 <.10 <.05 <.90 <1.50 <.09 <.10 <.08 .41 <.06 10/13/99 1215 <.05 <.10 <.05

E.62 <1.50 <.09 <.10 <.08 .26 <.06 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 73

5 12/17/99 1035 <0.05 <0.10 <0.05 5.30 <1.50 <0.10 <0.08 0.72 <0.06 

12/17/99 1036 <.05 <.10 <.05 5.80 <1.50 <0.09 <.10 <.08 .71 <.06 02/14/00 1110 <.05 -- <.05 1.89 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 1.23 <.06 

04/11/00 1020 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 3.83 <.09 <.12 <.08 .58 <.06 

06/29/00 1300 <.06

E2.60 <.05 <2.00 <2.50 .14 <.12 <.06 .57 <.06 

<.09

5 08/22/00 1010 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 <.12 <.11 .59 <.06 

10/11/00 1030 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50

E.07 <.12 <.11 1.13 <.06 

<.09

6 0 9/09/98 0930 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00

E.14 <.08 .25 <.06 

10/14/98 0945 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 .64 E.05 <.08 .12 <.06 12/09/98 1030 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 .20 <.12 <.08 .19 <.06 01/21/99 1200 E.01 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00

E.05 <.12 <.08 .57 <.06 

02/22/99 1115 <.05 <.10 E.04 <1.50 <2.00 .30 <.12 <.08 .79 <.06 

.30

6 05/07/99 0945 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 <.12 <.08 .67 <.06 

06/15/99 1430 E.02 <.10

E.03 <1.50 <2.00 .16 <.12 <.08 .29 <.06 

08/19/99 0945 <.05 <.15

E.03 <.90 <1.50 E.07 <.10 <.08 .27 <.06 

08/19/99 0946 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 .16 <.10 <.08 .15 <.06 10/13/99 1330 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 .14 <.10 <.08 .23 <.06 

.10

6 12/17/99 1300 <.05 <.15 <.05 5.40 <1.50 <.10 <.08 .67 <.06 

02/14/00 1230 <.05 -- <.05 1.79 <2.00 .14 <.12 <.08 1.23 <.06 

04/11/00 1145 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .30 <.12 <.08 .84 <.06 

06/29/00 1430 <.06 -- <.05 <2.00 <2.50 .41 <.12 <.08 .70 <.06 08/22/00 1215 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 <.09 <.12 <.11 .31 <.06 

10/11/00 1430 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .11 <.12 <.11 .53 <.06 

.13

7 08/21/98 1030 E.03 .20 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.12 <.08 E.06 <.06 

10/07/98 1130 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 4.80 <.06 12/01/98 1045 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 19.0 <.09

E.06 <.08 1.40

E.02

01/20/99 1330 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00

E.03 <.12 <.08 .10 <.06 

02/25/99 0930 <.05 <.10 .18 E.47 <2.00

E.04 <.12 <.08 1.50 <.06 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene

Benzaldehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene

Bis(2-ethyl 

hexyl)- 

adipate

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)-

phthalate

Bisphenol

A BHA BHT Caffeine Carbary

120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 
74 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

7 04/29/99 0830 <0.05 <0.10 <0.05 1.80 8.0 0.35 <0.12 <0.08 1.60 <0.06 

06/08/99 0815 E.03 <.10

E.02 <1.50 <2.00 .11 <.12 <.08 .55 <.06 

07/21/99 0800 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 <.09 <.10 <.08 .09 <.06 10/14/99 1430 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 16.0 <.09 <.10 <.08 .08 <.06 12/20/99 1140 <.05 <.15 E.04 1.70 <1.50 .18 <.10 <.08 .75 <.06 

7 02/16/00 1030 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00

E.09 <.12 <.08 .09 <.06 

04/12/00 0940 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .10 <.06 06/19/00 1100 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 <.08 <.06 08/10/00 0930 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50

E.08 <.12 <.11 .87 <.06 

10/03/00 1100 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .10 <.12 <.11 .24 <.06 

8 08/28/98 1215 E.04 .38 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .26 <.06 

08/28/98 1216 <.05 .34 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .25 <.06 10/07/98 1545 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09

E.24 <.08 5.00

E.57 

12/01/98 1300 E.02 <.10

E.02 <1.50 <2.00 .11 E.09 <.08 2.00 E.03 

12/01/98 1301 E.01 <.10

E.02 <1.50 <2.00

E.07

E.07 <.08 1.80

E.03

8 01/26/99 1230 .06 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .90 <.06 

02/25/99 1400 <.05 <.10 .15 E.58 <2.00 .30 <.12 <.08 .88 <.06 04/29/99 1245 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 4.70 .15 E.12 <.08 4.20 <.06 06/08/99 1030 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .23 <.12 <.08 1.20 <.06 07/22/99 0930 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 <.09 <.10 <.08 .73 <.06 

8 10/15/99 0945 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 

E1.40 .12 <.10 <.08 .49 <.06 

12/20/99 1255 <.05 <.15

E.02 4.40 <1.50 .18 <.10 <.08 .71 <.06 

02/16/00 1255 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .20 <.12 <.08 .49 <.06 04/12/00 1050 <.05 -- E.05 <1.50 1.20 .43 <.12 <.08 .81 <.06 06/19/00 1040 E.01 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .12 <.06 

8 08/10/00 1030 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50

E.08 <.12 <.11 .87 <.06 

10/03/00 1015 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 <.09 <.12 <.11 <.08 <.06

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene

Benzaldehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene

Bis(2-ethyl 

hexyl)- 

adipate

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)-

phthalate

Bisphenol

A BHA BHT Caffeine Carbary

120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 75

9 08/28/98 1250

E0.04 0.29 <0.05 <1.50 3.00 <0.09 <0.12 <0.08 0.19 <0.06 

10/08/98 1530 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .11 E.13 <.08 4.50 <.06 12/02/98 1315 E.02 <.10 .08 <1.50 <2.00 E.06 E.11 <.08 2.30 E.03 01/26/99 1530 .13 <.10 .80 <1.50 6.00 .41 <.12 <.08 1.70 <.06 02/26/99 0815 <.05 <.10 .10 E.36 <2.00 .27 <.12 <.08 1.00 <.06 

9 04/30/99 0830 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .11 <.12 <.08 4.00 <.06 

06/08/99 1515 <.05 <.10

E.02 <1.50 2.00 .18 <.12 <.08 1.60 <.06 

07/22/99 1320 <.05 <.15

E.03 <.90 2.30 .15 <.10 <.08 1.80 <.06 

10/15/99 1055 <.05 <.15 <.05

E.74 <1.50 <.09 <.10 <.08 .53 <.06 

10/15/99 1056 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 4.20 <.09 <.10 <.08 .79 <.06 

9 12/20/99 1100 <.05 <.15 E.04 4.20 <1.50 .21 <.10 <.08 .78 <.06 

02/16/00 1345 <.05 -- E.03 <1.50 <2.00 .27 <.12 <.08 .34 <.06 04/12/00 1230 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 5.12 .32 <.12 <.08 1.05 <.06 06/19/00 1315 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 .14 <.06 08/10/00 1150 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .10 <.12 <.11 .77 <.06 10/03/00 1245 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .13 <.12 <.11 .27 <.06 

0 09/08/98 1300 E.02 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 .55 <.12 <.08 .09 <.06 

09/08/98 1301 E.03 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 .73 E.15 <.08 .11 <.06 10/13/98 1230 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 <.09

E.08 <.08 1.10 <.06

12/02/98 1000 E.02 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00 .11 E.07 <.08 .86

E.02

01/21/99 1330 <.05 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00

E.07

E.08 <.08 .41 E.03 

0 02/26/99 0945 .24 <.10 .46

E.33 <2.00 .16

E.14 <.08 .36 <.06 

04/30/99 1300 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .12 <.12 <.08 2.60 <.06 06/09/99 1400 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .20 <.12 <.08 .84 <.06 08/18/99 1400 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 .38 <.10 <.08 1.20 <.06 08/18/99 1401 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 .38 <.10 <.08 1.20 <.06 

0 10/15/99 1250 <.05 <.15 <.05

E.74 1.60 <.09 <.10 <.08 .52 E.23 

12/21/99 1220 <.05 <.15 <.05 2.40 <1.50 .23 <.10 <.08 1.40 <.06 02/16/00 1515 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 2.22 .15 <.12 <.08 .79 <.06 

111

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene

Benzaldehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene

Bis(2-ethyl 

hexyl)- 

adipate

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)-

phthalate

Bisphenol

A BHA BHT Caffeine Carbary

120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 
76 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 04/12/00 1345

E0.03 -- E0.04 <1.50 2.14 0.47 <0.12 <0.08 2.33 <0.06 

06/22/00 1000 E.01 -- <.05 <1.50 <2.00

E.04 <.12 <.08 .52 E.00

08/10/00 1145 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 E.06 <.12 <.08 .25 <.0608/10/00 1146 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .10 <.12 <.08 .37 <.06 10/03/00 1230 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .20 <.12 <.11 .77 <.06 

11 09/09/98 1430 <.05 <0.10 .13 <1.50 <2.00

E.07

E.05 <.08 .25 <.06 

10/15/98 0930 .14 <.10 .08 <1.50 <2.00 .26 E.08 <.08 .27 <.06 12/09/98 1430 E.01 <.10 <.50 <1.50 <2.00

E.08

E.10 <.08 .42 <.06 

01/27/99 1230 .09 <.10 .65 <1.50 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 1.20 <.06 02/18/99 1000 <.05 <.10

E.04

E.49 <2.00 .18 <.12 <.08 .79 <.06 

11 05/10/99 1030 .07 <.10 .08 <1.50 <2.00 .18 <.12 <.08 .48 <.06 

06/18/99 0930 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 <2.00 .10 <.12 <.08 .45

E.05 

08/19/99 1530 E.03 <.15

E.03 <.90 <1.50 .20 <.10 <.08 .66 E.07 

08/19/99 1531 E.03 <.15

E.03 <.90 <1.50 .27 <.10 <.08 .63 <.06 

10/14/99 1030 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 <1.50 .12 <.10 <.08 .26 <.06 

11 12/21/99 1430 <.05 <.15 <.05 2.50 <1.50 .24 <.10 <.08 .50 <.06 

02/15/00 1215 .06 -- E.03 <1.50 <2.00 .27 <.12 <.08 1.09 <.06 

04/11/00 1445 E.03 -- E.04 <1.50 <2.00 .34 <.12 <.08 1.23 <.06 

06/30/00 0930 <.06 -- <.05 <2.00 <2.50

E.07 <.12 <.08 1.08 <.06 

08/22/00 1300 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .12 <.12 <.11 .50 <.06

10/11/00 1230 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .14 <.12 <.11 .55 <.06 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene

Benzaldehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene

Bis(2-ethyl 

hexyl)- 

adipate

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)-

phthalate

Bisphenol

A BHA BHT Caffeine Carbary

120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 77

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Cholesterol

57-88-5

Codeine

76-57-3

Coprostanol

360-68-9

Cotinine

486-56-6

Diazinon

333-41-5

Dieldrin

60-57-1

Diethylphthalate

84-66-2

N,N-diethyltoluamide

134-62-3

17-β

Estradiol

50-28-2

Etha

bu

phos

64-

1 08/22/00 0945 <1.50 <0.20 <0.60 <0.08 0.05 <0.08 <0.35 <0.08 <0.50 <0

10/11/00 1030 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .05 <.08 <.35

E.06 

E.17 <

2 08/23/00 0930

E1.72 .22

E1.27 .10 .29 <.08 <.35 .12

E.47 

10/12/00 1045 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .22 <.08 <.35 <.08 <.50 <

3 08/23/00 1045

E1.89 .42

E1.80 E.06 .10 <.08 <.35 .18 E.16 

10/12/00 1315

E2.07 .39

E1.22 <.08 .13 <.08 <.35

E.05 <.50

E

10/12/00 1316 <1.50 .30 E.66 <.08 .12 <.08 <.35 E.05 <.50 <

4 12/17/99 1045 E3.60 .42 E2.30 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 1

12/17/99 1046 E6.20 .32 E5.10 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 102/14/00 1045

E8.92 .46

E6.12 .12 <.03 <.08 <.25 .24 <.50 2

02/14/00 1046

E9.22 .46

E6.47 .12 <.03 <.08 <.25 .22 <.50 2

04/11/00 1130 E5.21 <.10 E1.09 .13 .23 <.08 <.25 .60 E.98 1

4 06/29/00 1015

E1.60 E.09 E.93 .09 .14 <.08 <.25 .91 <.50 3

08/23/00 1230

E7.60 .43

E5.60 .14 .07 <.08 <.35 .87

E.68 1

10/12/00 1500

E6.22 .22

E4.01 .16 .13 <.08 <.35 .17 <.50 1

5 08/20/98 1300 E.63 -- E.38 -- .09 <.08 -- -- <.50 

08/20/98 1301 E.64 -- E.32 -- .12 <.08 -- -- <.50 10/09/98 1045 <1.50 -- <.80 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 12/03/98 1400 E.16 <.10

E.04 --

E.004 <.08 -- -- <.50 

01/27/99 1030 E1.40 .35 E1.00 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

5 02/22/99 0930

E1.20 .24

E.87 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

05/06/99 1130 E1.70 <.10

E.66 -- .06 <.08 -- -- <.50 1

06/10/99 0830 E2.60 <.10 E1.20 -- .14 <.08 -- -- <.50 107/21/99 1045

E3.50 <.10 E.96 -- .12 <.08 -- -- <.50 4

10/13/99 1215 E.97 .23 E.58 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <
78 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

5 12/17/99 1035

E2.00 <0.10

E1.30 -- E0.03 <0.08 -- -- <0.50 0

12/17/99 1036 E1.40 <.10 E.94 -- E.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 02/14/00 1110 E5.38 .40 E3.48 <0.04 <.03 <.08 <0.25 0.17 <.50 2

04/11/00 1020

E6.40 <.10 E.81 .06 .08 <.08 <.25 .24

E.31 

06/29/00 1300 <1.50 <.20 <.60 .06 .14 <.08 <.25 .33 <.50 1

5 08/22/00 1010

E1.92 .26

E1.42 .11 .04 <.08 <.35 .34 <.50 

10/11/00 1030

E1.99 E.16 E1.57 .09 .12 <.08 <.35 .15 E.15 

6 0 9/09/98 0930 <1.50 -- <.80 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

10/14/98 0945 E1.10 -- E.35 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <12/09/98 1030 E.21 <.10

E.10 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

01/21/99 1200

E1.20 .44

E.84 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

02/22/99 1115 E1.30 .24 E.63 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

6 05/07/99 0945

E1.60 <.10 E1.10 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.50 

06/15/99 1430

E1.10 <.10 E.19 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.50 

08/19/99 0945

E1.50 <.10 E.75 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.50 

08/19/99 0946

E1.30 <.10 E.52 -- .05 <.08 -- -- <.50 

10/13/99 1330 E1.00 <.10 E.40 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <

6 12/17/99 1300

E1.70 <.10 E1.20 -- .03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

02/14/00 1230

E5.05 .33

E3.35 .14 <.03 <.08 <.25 .19 <.50 2

04/11/00 1145 E2.67 <.10 E.83 .17 <.03 <.08 <.25 .24 E.82 1

06/29/00 1430 <1.50 <.20 <.60 .05 .07 <.08 E.22 .22 <.50 108/22/00 1215 <1.50 <.20 E.50 .08

E.02 <.08 <.35 .22 <.50 

10/11/00 1430 <1.50 E.12 E.64 <.08 .14 <.08 <.35 .09 <.50 

7 08/21/98 1030 <1.50 -- <.80 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <

10/07/98 1130 E7.50 -- E4.00 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 12/01/98 1045

E4.00 <.10 E2.80 -- E.01

E.06 -- -- <.50 

01/20/99 1330 <1.00 .24 <.60 -- <.03

E.02 -- -- <.50 

02/25/99 0930 E.51 <.10

E.18 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Cholesterol Codeine

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17-β Estradiol

Etha

bu

phos

57-88-5 76-57-3 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-28-2 64-
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 79

7 04/29/99 0830

E8.30 <0.10

E9.70 -- <0.03 0.42 -- -- <0.50 1

06/08/99 0815

E1.80 <.10 E.42 -- .29 <.08 -- -- <.50 1

07/21/99 0800

E1.40 <.10 <.60 -- .05

E.02 -- -- <.50 

10/14/99 1430 E1.40 <.10 <.60 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <12/20/99 1140 E1.20 <.10

E.65 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

7 02/16/00 1030

E1.97 <.10 E1.00 <0.04 <.03 <.08 <0.25 0.07 <.50 <

04/12/00 0940 E1.32 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.03 <.08 <.25 <.04 <.50 <06/19/00 1100 E.16 <.10 <.60 <.04 E.02 <.08 <.25 <.04 <.50 E08/10/00 0930 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .39

E.03 <.35 .24 <.50 

10/03/00 1100 E1.61 <.20 <.60 <.08 .05 <.08 <.35 E.05 <.50 

8 08/28/98 1215

E1.80 -- <.80 -- .05 <.08 -- -- <.50 <

08/28/98 1216

E1.20 -- <.80 -- .05 <.08 -- -- <.50 

10/07/98 1545 E18.0 -- E31.0 -- .03 .30 -- -- <.50 512/01/98 1300

E5.40 .10

E4.50 -- .04 .09 -- -- E.14 

12/01/98 1301

E5.70 <.10 E4.90 -- E.03

E.08 -- -- <.50 

8 01/26/99 1230 <1.00 <.10 <.60 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

02/25/99 1400 E.60 <.10 <.60 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 204/29/99 1245 <1.00 <.10 E9.80 -- <.03 .21 -- -- <.50 206/08/99 1030

E3.20 <.10 E.46 -- .18 <.08 -- -- <.50 3

07/22/99 0930

E2.70 <.10 <.60 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

8 10/15/99 0945

E4.20 <.10 <.60 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.50 1

12/20/99 1255 <1.00 <.10 <.60 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 02/16/00 1255

E3.56 <.10 E1.68 <.04 <.03 <.08 <.25 .18 <.50 1

04/12/00 1050 E4.48 .57 E.68 .27 <.03 <.08 <.25 .13 E1.93 106/19/00 1040 E.51 <.10 <.60

E.01 .08 <.08 <.25 E.03 <.50 

8 08/10/00 1030 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .39

E.03 <.35 .24 <.50 

10/03/00 1015 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .04

E.01 <.35 <.08 <.50 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Cholesterol Codeine

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17-β Estradiol

Etha

bu

phos

57-88-5 76-57-3 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-28-2 64-
80 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

9 08/28/98 1250

E2.60 -- <0.80 -- 0.06 <0.08 -- -- <0.50 0

10/08/98 1530

E5.00 -- E4.80 -- <.03 .19 -- -- <.50 4

12/02/98 1315

E5.60 0.13 E3.90 -- .04 .10 -- -- <.50 

01/26/99 1530 E1.30 <.10 E.96 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 202/26/99 0815 E.15 <.10

E.10 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

9 04/30/99 0830

E1.00 .24 E7.60 -- <.03 .21 -- -- <.50 2

06/08/99 1515

E3.30 <.10 E.69 -- .24 <.08 -- -- <.50 4

07/22/99 1320

E6.90 <.10 <.60 -- .40 <.08 -- -- <.50 6

10/15/99 1055

E3.50 <.10 <.60 -- .07 <.08 -- -- <.50 

10/15/99 1056

E4.50 <.10 E1.10 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 1

9 12/20/99 1100 <1.00 <.10 <.60 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

02/16/00 1345

E3.25 <.10 E1.80 <0.04 <.03 <.08 <0.25 0.17 <.50 

04/12/00 1230 E21.6 <.10

E.88 .32 <.03 <.08 E.23 .14 <.50 1

06/19/00 1315 E.78 <.10

E.16 <.04 .06 <.08 <.25 E.03 <.50 

08/10/00 1150 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .49 E.03 <.35 .23 <.50 10/03/00 1245

E2.68 <.20 <.60 <.08 .04 <.08 <.35

E.04 <.50 

10 09/08/98 1300 <1.50 -- <.80 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

09/08/98 1301 <1.50 -- <.80 -- .06 <.08 -- -- <.50 10/13/98 1230 E1.70 -- E.22 -- <.03 E.07 -- -- <.50 112/02/98 1000 E.80 E.09

E.26 -- .05 E.04 -- -- <.50 

01/21/99 1330 <1.00 1.00

E.72 -- <.03

E.02 -- -- <.50 

10 02/26/99 0945 E.20 <.10

E.10 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <

04/30/99 1300 E1.70 .19 E.68 -- .07 .15 -- -- <.50 106/09/99 1400

E3.00 <.10 E.77 -- .13 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

08/18/99 1400 E3.00 <.10 E1.20 -- .24 <.08 -- -- <.50 208/18/99 1401 E3.40 <.10 E1.30 -- .23 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

10 10/15/99 1250

E1.90 <.10 <.60 -- .06

E.06 -- -- <.50 

12/21/99 1220 E1.80 <.10 E.73 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.50 02/16/00 1515

E2.76 <.10 E1.26 <.04 <.03 <.08 <.25 .15 <.50 1

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Cholesterol Codeine

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17-β Estradiol

Etha

bu

phos

57-88-5 76-57-3 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-28-2 64-
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 81

10 04/12/00 1345

E9.74 <0.10

E1.52 0.34 <0.03 <0.08 0.46 0.17 <0.50 2

06/22/00 1000 E.29 <.10

E.17

E.01 .22 <.08 <.25 .05 <.50 

08/10/00 1145 <1.50 <.20 <.60 <.08 .19 E.009 <.35 .11 E.10 E08/10/00 1146 E2.88 <.20 <.60 <.08 .35 E.01 <.35 .14 <.50 10/03/00 1230

E2.72 <.20 E.54 E.06 .05 <.08 <.35 .09 <.50 

11 09/09/98 1430 E.10 -- <.60 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.50 

10/15/98 0930 <1.50 -- <.80 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 12/09/98 1430 E.50 <.10

E.14 -- E.01

E.01 -- -- <.50 

01/27/99 1230 <1.00 <.10 <.60 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.50 202/18/99 1000 E.35 .16 E.21 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 2

11 05/10/99 1030 E.23 <.10

E.08 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.50 

06/18/99 0930 <1.00 <.10 <.60 -- .10 <.08 -- -- <.50 08/19/99 1530

E1.40 <.10 E.60 -- .13 <.08 -- -- <.50 1

08/19/99 1531 E2.60 <.10 E1.20 -- .10 <.08 -- -- <.50 110/14/99 1030 E.57 <.10

E.26 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 <

11 12/21/99 1430 E1.60 <.10 E.94 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.50 

02/15/00 1215

E3.92 .28

E2.09 <.04 <.03 <.08 <.25 .17 <.50 1

04/11/00 1445 E3.27 <.10 E1.10 .22 <.03 <.08 .36 .26 <.50 2

06/30/00 0930 <1.50 <.20 <.60 .09 .14 <.08 E.34 .36 <.50 108/22/00 1300 <1.50 <.20 E.69 .11 E.03 <.08 <.35 .32 <.50 

10/11/00 1230 <1.50 E.16

E1.09 E.08 .17 <.08 <.35 .09 E.18 1

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Cholesterol Codeine

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17-β Estradiol

Etha

bu

phos

57-88-5 76-57-3 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-28-2 64-
82 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Lindane 58-89-9 Methyl parathion 298-00-0

Naphthalene

91-20-3

NP1EO

27986-36-3

NP2EO

NA

OP1EO

2315-67-5

OP2EO

2315-61-9

Phenanthrene

85-01-8

Phenol

108-95-2

1 08/22/00 0945

E0.01 <0.06 <0.025

E1.06

E1.52

E0.26 <0.20 <0.05 <0.45 

10/11/00 1030 <.05 <.06 <.025

E.97

E1.18

E.26 <.20 <.05

E.22 

2 08/23/00 0930 <.05 <.06 <.025

E2.50 E3.37

E.71

E.15 <.05

E.29

10/12/00 1045 <.05 <.06 <.025 <1.00 <1.10 <.12 <.20 <.05 <.45 

3 08/23/00 1045 <.05 <.06 .04 E3.69

E1.40 E.35 <.20 <.05 E.36 

10/12/00 1315 <.05 <.06 .04 E4.27

E9.05 E.23 <.20 <.05 <.45 

10/12/00 1316 <.05 <.06 .03 E3.66

E7.81 E.18 <.20 <.05 <.45 

4 12/17/99 1045 <.05 <.06 <.03

E2.80 E4.50

E.67

E.10

E.04 <.15 

12/17/99 1046 <.05 <.06 <.03

E4.10 E5.60

E.52

E.17

E.03 <.15 

02/14/00 1045 <.05 <.06 <.03

E6.34 E6.80

E.44

E.17 <.06 <.08 

02/14/00 1046 <.05 <.06 <.03

E6.10 E6.52

E.49

E.17 <.06 <.08 

04/11/00 1130 <.05 <.06 <.03

E4.40 E5.06

E.25

E.07

E.05 <.08

4 06/29/00 1015 <.05 <.06

E.02

E1.84 E2.76

E.08 <.20 <.05 <.25

08/23/00 1230 <.05 <.06 .04 E6.11 E7.55 E1.36

E.26 <.05

E.35

10/12/00 1500 <.05 <.06 .03 E5.29

E6.36 E.35 <.20 <.05 E.25 

5 08/20/98 1300 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.45 <1.10 -- -- <.06 <.08 

08/20/98 1301 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.59 <1.10 -- -- <.06 <.08 

10/09/98 1045 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- E.01 <.08 12/03/98 1400 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.14

E.06 <.10

E.01 <.06 <.08 

01/27/99 1030 <.05 <.06 <.03

E2.30 E1.00

E.32 <.20 .12 <.08 

5 02/22/99 0930 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.70 E2.60

E.46

E.16 <.06 <.08 

05/06/99 1130 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.75 E.63 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.08 06/10/99 0830 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.41

E.31

E.21

E.02 <.06 <.08 

07/21/99 1045 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 <.10 E.07 <.06 <.15 10/13/99 1215 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.60

E.84 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 83

5 12/17/99 1035 <0.05 <0.06 <0.03 E1.70

E2.00 <0.10 <0.20 E0.04 <0.15 

12/17/99 1036 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.60 E1.80 <.10 <.20

E.04 <.15 

02/14/00 1110 <.05 <.06 <.03 E4.74 E4.92 <.10 <.20 E.02 <.08 

04/11/00 1020 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.60 E1.61 <.10 <.20

E.05 .89 

06/29/00 1300 <.05 <.06

E.02

E1.48 E1.35 .07 <.20 <.05 <.25 

5 08/22/00 1010 <.05 <.06 .04 E2.23

E3.71 E.42 E.10 <.05 E.20 

10/11/00 1030 <.05 <.06 .03 E1.50

E2.38 E.18 <.20 <.05 <.45 

6 0 9/09/98 0930 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- <.06 <.08 

10/14/98 0945 <.05 <.06

E.02 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- <.06 <.08 

12/09/98 1030 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.14 <1.10 E.03 E.01 <.06 <.08 

01/21/99 1200 <.05 <.06 <.03 E2.00 E.94 E.29 <.20 E.03 <.08 02/22/99 1115 <.05 <.06 <.03 1.40 2.40 .45 <.20 <.06 <.08 

6 05/07/99 0945 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.29

E.08 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.08 

06/15/99 1430 <.05 <.06 .05 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 E.04 <.08 08/19/99 0945 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 <.10 E.05 <.06 <.15 08/19/99 0946 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 10/13/99 1330 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.57

E.67 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 

6 12/17/99 1300 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.40 E1.60 <.10 <.20

E.04 <.15 

02/14/00 1230 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.86 E1.46 <.10 <.20

E.02 <.08 

04/11/00 1145 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.73 E1.62

E.10

E.04 <.06 <.08 

06/29/00 1430 <.05 <.06 <.02 E1.40 E.49 <.10 <.20 <.05 <.25 08/22/00 1215 E.008 <.06 .03 E.93 E1.33 E.20 <.20 <.05 <.45 

10/11/00 1430 <.05 <.06 <.025

E.74

E1.34 E.10 <.20 <.05 E.35 

7 08/21/98 1030 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- E.05 <.08 

10/07/98 1130 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.40

E.26 -- -- <.06 <.08 

12/01/98 1045 <.05 <.06

E.02

E.60

E.39

E.10

E.02 <.06 .09 

01/20/99 1330 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.40 <1.10 E.23 E.06 E.03 <.08 

02/25/99 0930 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10

E.70 <.20 .11 <.08 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Lindane

Methyl 

parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO

Phenanthrene Phenol 

58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-95-2 
84 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

7 04/29/99 0830 <0.05 <0.06 <0.03 E0.67

E3.30 E0.19

E0.20 <0.06 <0.08 

06/08/99 0815 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.59 <1.10 E.46 E.05 .09 <.08 

07/21/99 0800 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 10/14/99 1430 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 <.10 <.20 E.02 <.15 12/20/99 1140 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.10 E1.10 <.10 E.10 E.05 <.15 

7 02/16/00 1030 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.55 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.08 

04/12/00 0940 <.05 <.06

E.02 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20

E.04 2.53 

06/19/00 1100 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.10 E.14 <.10 <.20 E.03 <.08 08/10/00 0930 <.05 <.06 <.025

E.53

E.72

E.10 <.20 <.05 <.45 

10/03/00 1100 <.05 <.06 <.025 E.81 <1.10 E.09 <.20 <.05 <.45 

8 08/28/98 1215 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- <.06 <.08 

08/28/98 1216 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- <.06 <.08 10/07/98 1545 <.05 <.06 .08 E5.40

E4.90 -- -- E.05 .16 

12/01/98 1300 <.05 <.06 .04 E1.00

E.67

E.22

E.07

E.03 .12 

12/01/98 1301 <.05 <.06 .04 E.85 E.40 E.20 E.06 E.03 .11 

8 01/26/99 1230 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20

E.03 <.08 

02/25/99 1400 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.80

E.10

E.65

E.10 .08 <.08 

04/29/99 1245 <.05 <.06

E.02

E2.00 E3.60

E.33

E.10 <.06 <.08 

06/08/99 1030 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.26

E.42

E.44

E.04 <.06 .30 

07/22/99 0930 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.10 <.10 <.20 E.03 <.15 

8 10/15/99 0945 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.10 E.38 E.05 <.06 <.15 

12/20/99 1255 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.10 <.10 <.20 E.05 <.15 02/16/00 1255 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.27 E.64 <.10 <.20 E.05 .36 

04/12/00 1050 <.05 <.06

E.02 

E1.47 E1.13

E.19

E.06 .12 5.92 

06/19/00 1040 <.05 <.06 .03 <1.00 <1.10 E.04 <.20 E.03 .13

8 08/10/00 1030 <.05 <.06 <.025 E.53

E.72

E.10 <.20 <.05 <.45 

10/03/00 1015 <.05 <.06 <.025 E.60 <1.10 <.12 <.20 <.05 <.45 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Lindane

Methyl 

parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO

Phenanthrene Phenol 

58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-95-2 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 85

9 08/28/98 1250 <0.05 <0.06 <0.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- 0.11 <0.08 

10/08/98 1530 <.05 <.06 .06 E3.90

E1.30 -- -- E.03 <.08 

12/02/98 1315 <.05 <.06

E.03

E1.20 E.96 E0.21

E0.07 E.03 <.08 

01/26/99 1530 <.05 <.06 <.03

E2.20 E.90 <.10 <.20 .57 <.08 

02/26/99 0815 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.10 E.68 E.80 E.18 .06 <.08 

9 04/30/99 0830 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.00 E1.90

E.29

E.09 <.06 <.08 

06/08/99 1515 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.08 07/22/99 1320 <.05 <.06 .08 <.80 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .24 <.15 10/15/99 1055 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 10/15/99 1056 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.93

E.30 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 

9 12/20/99 1100 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.10 <.10 <.20

E.05 <.15 

02/16/00 1345 <.05 <.06 <.03

E2.24 E.85 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.08 

04/12/00 1230 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .13 <.08 06/19/00 1315 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.16

E.17

E.02

E.008 <.06 .13 

08/10/00 1150 <.05 <.06 <.025 E.72 E1.91 <.12 <.20 <.05 <.45 10/03/00 1245 <.05 <.06 <.025 E.60 <1.10 E.11 <.20 <.05 E.52 

10 09/08/98 1300 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- E.02 <.08 

09/08/98 1301 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- E.03 <.08 10/13/98 1230 <.05 <.06

E.02

E.64

E.27 -- -- <.06 .17 

12/02/98 1000 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.61

E.25

E.10

E.03 <.06 <.08 

01/21/99 1330 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.55 <1.10 E.08 <.20 <.06 <.08 

10 02/26/99 0945 <.05 <.06 .15 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .68 <.08 

04/30/99 1300 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.73

E1.00 <.10 E.06 <.06 <.08 

06/09/99 1400 <.05 <.06

E.02

E.52

E.50 <.10 <.20

E.02 <.08 

08/18/99 1400 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.88 <1.10 <.10 <.20 E.05 <.15 

08/18/99 1401 <.05 <.06

E.02

E.95 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .06 <.15 

10 10/15/99 1250 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.10 E.73 E.45 <.20 <.06 <.15 

12/21/99 1220 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20

E.04 <.15 

02/16/00 1515 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.94 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 .47 

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Lindane

Methyl 

parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO

Phenanthrene Phenol 

58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-95-2 
86 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 04/12/00 1345 <0.05 <0.06 0.03

E1.87 <1.10 <0.10 <0.20 0.15 0.71 

06/22/00 1000 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.14

E.17 <.10 <.20

E.03 <.08 

08/10/00 1145 <.05 <.06 <.025

E.65

E.74

E.13 <.20 <.05 <.45

08/10/00 1146 <.05 <.06 <.025

E.59

E.65

E.11 <.20 <.05 <.45 

10/03/00 1230 <.05 <.06 <.025 E.70 <1.10 E.10 <.20 <.05 E.26 

11 09/09/98 1430 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.08

10/15/98 0930 <.05 <.06 .51 E.58 <1.10 -- -- .98 <.08 12/09/98 1430 <.05 <.06 .04 E.35 E.16 E.05 E.03 E.05 <.08 01/27/99 1230 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .30 <.08 02/18/99 1000 <.05 <.06 .20 E.56 E.40 E.33 E.07 <.06 <.08 

11 05/10/99 1030 <.05 <.06 .20 E.49 E.31 E.20 E.06 .47 <.08 

06/18/99 0930 <.05 <.06 .06 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 E.04 <.08 08/19/99 1530 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.40 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .07 <.15 

08/19/99 1531 <.05 <.06 <.03

E.66 <1.10 <.10 E.06 E.05 <.15 

10/14/99 1030 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 <.15 

11 12/21/99 1430 <.05 <.06 .66 E1.40

E1.70 <.10 <.20 E.05 .76 

02/15/00 1215 <.05 <.06 .87 E2.35

E1.60 E.38 <.20 E.05 <.08 

04/11/00 1445 <.05 <.06 2.19 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 .11 <.08 

06/30/00 0930 <.05 <.06 .15 E1.37

E.74

E.08 <.20

E.03 

E.31 

08/22/00 1300 E.01 <.06 .78 E1.56

E2.22 E.34 <.20 E.04 E.80 

10/11/00 1230 <.05 <.06 1.19

E.96

E1.82 E.14 <.20 E.04 <.45

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Lindane

Methyl 

parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO

Phenanthrene Phenol 

58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-95-2 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 87

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample

date

Sample 

time

Stigmastanol

19466-47-8

Tetrachloroethylene

127-18-4

Triclosan

3380-34-5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

115-96-8

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

13674-84-5

Tributyl

phosphate

126-73-8

Triph

phosp

115-8

1 08/22/00 0945 <2.00 <0.03 0.05 0.24 <0.10 -- <0.1

10/11/00 1030 <2.00 <.03 .08 .08 <.10 -- <.1

2 08/23/00 0930 E1.71 <.03 .06 .09 <.10 -- <.1

10/12/00 1045 <2.00 <.03 <.05 E.04 <.10 -- <.1

3 08/23/00 1045 <2.00 .05 .42 .30 <.10 -- .1

10/12/00 1315 <2.00 <.03 .29 .31 <.10 -- .110/12/00 1316 <2.00 <.03 .24 .28 <.10 -- .1

4 12/17/99 1045 -- <.03 .39 .16 .27 0.10 E.0

12/17/99 1046 -- <.03 .62 .17 .32 .11 .102/14/00 1045 <2.00 <.03 1.01 .35 <.10 -- .102/14/00 1046 <2.00 <.03 .95 .33 <.10 -- .1

04/11/00 1130

E1.18 <.03 1.03 .57 <.10 -- .1

4 06/29/00 1015 <2.00 <.03 .67 .12 <.10 -- <.1

08/23/00 1230 E3.27 <.03 .91 .27 <.10 -- E.010/12/00 1500 <2.00 <.03 .69 .30 <.10 -- .1

5 08/20/98 1300 -- <.03 -- .17 <.10 .13 <.1

08/20/98 1301 -- <.03 -- .23 <.10 .18 <.110/09/98 1045 -- <.03 -- <.04 <.10 .04 <.112/03/98 1400 -- <.03 .12 E.02 <.10 <.04 <.101/27/99 1030 -- <.03 .29 .07 <.10 .09 <.1

5 02/22/99 0930 -- <.03 .85 .12

E.18 .13 .8

05/06/99 1130 -- <.03 .46 .08 <.10 .05 <.106/10/99 0830 -- <.03 .15 .20 <.10 .10 <.107/21/99 1045 -- <.03 .32 .34 <.10 .12 <.110/13/99 1215 -- <.03 .15 .11 <.10 .06 <.1
88 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

5 12/17/99 1035 -- <0.03 0.24 0.11 0.19 0.08 E0.0

12/17/99 1036 -- <.03 .22 .11 .14 .09

E.0

02/14/00 1110 <2.00 <.03 .77 .30 <.10 -- .1

04/11/00 1020 <2.00 <.03 1.10 .37 <.10 -- E.1

06/29/00 1300 <2.00 <.03 .53 .08 <.10 -- <.1

5 08/22/00 1010 <2.00 <.03 .54 .23 <.10 -- <.1

10/11/00 1030 <2.00 <.03 .32 .18 <.10 -- <.1

6 0 9/09/98 0930 -- <.03 -- .34 <.10 .12 <.1

10/14/98 0945 -- <.03 -- <.04 <.10 .05 <.112/09/98 1030 -- <.03 .07 <.04 <.10 <.04 <.101/21/99 1200 -- <.03 .69 .09 <.10 .13 <.102/22/99 1115 -- E.02 .67 .15 <.10 .12 .0

6 05/07/99 0945 -- <.03 1.30 .04 <.10 .04 <.1

06/15/99 1430 -- <.03 .05 .22 <.10 <.04 <.108/19/99 0945 -- <.03 .32 .22 <.10 .42 <.108/19/99 0946 -- <.03 .27 .15 <.10 .21 <.110/13/99 1330 -- <.03 .15 .10 <.10 <.1

6 12/17/99 1300 -- <.03 .21 .11 .18 <.06 <.1

02/14/00 1230 <2.00 <.03 .68 .27 <.10 -- E.1

04/11/00 1145 <2.00 <.03 .38 .24 <.10 -- E.0

06/29/00 1430 <2.00 <.03 .30

E.03 <.10 -- <.1

08/22/00 1215 <2.00 <.03 .27 .17 <.10 -- <.1

10/11/00 1430 <2.00 <.03 .18 .10 <.10 -- <.1

7 08/21/98 1030 -- <.03 -- <.04 <.10 <.04 <.1

10/07/98 1130 -- <.03 -- .28 <.10 <.04 <.112/01/98 1045 -- <.03 .18 .05 <.10 .23 <.101/20/99 1330 -- <.03 .05 <.04 <.10 .07 <.102/25/99 0930 --

E.02 .22 .32 <.10 .68 E.0

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Stigmastanol 

Tetrachloroethylene Triclosan

Tri(2-chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate

Triph

phosp

19466-47-8 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-8
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 89

7 04/29/99 0830 -- 0.08 0.36 0.07 <0.10 0.14 <0.1

06/08/99 0815 --

E.02 .12 .19 <.10 .17 <.1

07/21/99 0800 -- <.03

E.03

E.04 <.10 <.06 <.1

10/14/99 1430 -- <.03 .07 .05 <.10 <.06 <.112/20/99 1140 -- <.03 .11 .12 .12 .26

E.6

7 02/16/00 1030 <2.00 <.03 .09 .09 <.10 -- <.1

04/12/00 0940 <2.00 <.03 <.04 <.04 <.10 -- E.006/19/00 1100 <2.00 <.03 .05 <.04 <.10 -- E.008/10/00 0930 <2.00 <.03 .08 .07 <.10 -- <.110/03/00 1100 <2.00 <.03 E.04 .07 <.10 -- <.1

8 08/28/98 1215 -- <.03 -- <.04 <.10 .05 <.1

08/28/98 1216 -- <.03 -- .14 <.10 .06 <.110/07/98 1545 -- .13 -- .76 <.10 1.50 .112/01/98 1300 --

E.02 .35 .05 <.10 .17 <.1

12/01/98 1301 --

E.02 .32 .05 <.10 .15 <.1

8 01/26/99 1230 -- <.03 .09 .14 <.10 .14 <.1

02/25/99 1400 -- .03 .34 .33 <.10 .60

E.1

04/29/99 1245 -- .07 1.00 .15 <.10 .21 <.106/08/99 1030 -- <.03 .10 .14 <.10 .12 <.107/22/99 0930 -- <.03 .05 .10 <.10 <.06 <.1

8 10/15/99 0945 -- <.03 .08 .11 <.10 .10 <.1

12/20/99 1255 -- <.03 .07 .07 <.10 <.06

E.0

02/16/00 1255 <2.00 <.03 .09 .11 <.10 -- E.004/12/00 1050 E2.15 <.03 .45 .17 <.10 -- E.106/19/00 1040 <2.00 <.03 

E.04

E.02 <.10 -- E.0

8 08/10/00 1030 <2.00 <.03 .08 .07 <.10 -- <.1

10/03/00 1015 <2.00 <.03 

E.03 .08 <.10 -- <.1

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Stigmastanol 

Tetrachloroethylene Triclosan

Tri(2-chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate

Triph

phosp

19466-47-8 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-8
90 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

9 08/28/98 1250 -- <0.03 -- 0.13 <0.10 0.06 <0.1

10/08/98 1530 -- .08 -- .59 .24 .52 .112/02/98 1315 -- <.03 0.42 .06 <.10 .49 <.101/26/99 1530 -- <.03 .12 .09 <.10 .21 <.102/26/99 0815 -- <.03 .20 <.04 .15 .63 E.1

9 04/30/99 0830 -- .04 .46 .07 <.10 <.04 <.1

06/08/99 1515 --

E.02 .12 .13 <.10 .13 <.1

07/22/99 1320 -- <.03 .22 .40 <.10 .26 <.110/15/99 1055 -- <.03 .11 .09 <.10 <.06 <.110/15/99 1056 -- <.03 .21 .08 <.10 <.06 <.1

9 12/20/99 1100 -- <.03 .08 .08 <.10 <.06

E.0

02/16/00 1345 <2.00 <.03 .09 .15 <.10 -- E.004/12/00 1230 E2.10 <.03 .69 .21 <.10 -- .106/19/00 1315 E.16 <.03 .07 E.02 <.10 -- E.008/10/00 1150 <2.00 <.03 .10 .07 <.10 -- <.110/03/00 1245 <2.00 <.03 .06 .06 <.10 -- <.1

10 09/08/98 1300 -- <.03 -- .25 <.10 <.04 <.1

09/08/98 1301 -- <.03 -- .28 <.10 .06 <.110/13/98 1230 -- .06 -- .31 <.10 .07 E.012/02/98 1000 -- .04 .19 .06 <.10 .05 <.101/21/99 1330 -- <.03 .05 E.03 <.10 -- <.1

10 02/26/99 0945 -- .11 <.04 <.04 <.10 .32 <.1

04/30/99 1300 -- .05 .67 .11 <.10 .10 <.106/09/99 1400 -- .04 .09 .10 <.10 .08 <.108/18/99 1400 -- .05 .36 .20 <.10 .20 <.108/18/99 1401 -- .07 .39 .20 <.10 .24 <.1

10 10/15/99 1250 -- <.03 .12 .16 <.10 .11 <.1

12/21/99 1220 -- <.03 .19 .12 .15 .13 .102/16/00 1515 <2.00 E.02 .15 .08 <.10 -- E.0

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Stigmastanol 

Tetrachloroethylene Triclosan

Tri(2-chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate

Triph

phosp

19466-47-8 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-8
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Baseflow Samples 91

10 04/12/00 1345 E0.77 <0.03 0.56 0.25 <0.10 -- 0.1

06/22/00 1000 <2.00 <.03 .05 E.02 <.10 -- E.008/10/00 1145 <2.00 <.03 .06 .04 <.10 -- <.108/10/00 1146 <2.00 E.02 .07 .05 <.10 -- <.110/03/00 1230 <2.00 <.03 .15 .13 <.10 -- <.1

11 09/09/98 1430 --

E.004 .17 E.23 .17

E0.12 E.0

10/15/98 0930 --

E.02 -- .15 <.10 .05 <.1

12/09/98 1430 -- <.03 .14 E.03 <.10 <.04 <.101/27/99 1230 -- <.03 .06 .10 <.10 .12 <.102/18/99 1000 --

E.03 .42 .05 .11 .09

E.0

11 05/10/99 1030 -- <.03 .27 .07 <.10 .06 <.1

06/18/99 0930 -- <.03 .07 .08 <.10 <.04 <.108/19/99 1530 -- <.03 .23 .20 <.10 .47 <.108/19/99 1531 -- <.03 .24 .19 <.10 .42 <.110/14/99 1030 -- <.03 .13 .12 <.10 .10 <.1

11 12/21/99 1430 -- <.03 .23 .13 .18 .12

E.0

02/15/00 1215 <2.00 <.03 .57 .25 <.10 -- E.0

04/11/00 1445 <2.00 <.03 .59 .31 <.10 -- E.0

06/30/00 0930 <2.00 E.02 .40 .07 <.10 -- <.108/22/00 1300 <2.00 <.03 .29 .19 <.10 -- <.1

10/11/00 1230 <2.00 <.03 .21 .15 <.10 -- <.1

Table 2. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in baseflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Stigmastanol 

Tetrachloroethylene Triclosan

Tri(2-chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate

Triph

phosp

19466-47-8 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-8
92 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

.Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples[Numbers below chemical names are CAS numbers (Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers); all chemical concentrations in units of micrograms per liter in unfilter

hydroxyanisole; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EO, nonylphenol diethoxylate; OP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2Enot available; TMCK, Tomahawk Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent; <, less than; E, estimated; --, no data; BLUE, Blue River Wastewater Influent; NEID, Nort

Influent; Effluent, treated discharge from Blue River Wastewater Treatment Plant]

2,6-Di-tert1,2- 1,3- 1,4- 2(2- butylSite

number Sample Sample 

Dichlorobenzene Dichloro- benzene Dichloro- benzene Butxyethoxy) ethyl acetate 2,6-Di-tert- butylphenol benzo- quinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl phenol 4-Nonyl- phenol 

(fig. 1) date time 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 

12(TMCK) 02/01/99 1000 <0.03 <0.03 0.33 <0.06 <0.09 0.59 <0.09 14.0 E11.0 

02/01/99 1001 <.03 <.03 .36 <.06 <.09 .41 <.09 21.2 E13.0 05/06/99 1000 E.002 <.03 .22 1.40 <.09 <.07 E.02 1.30 E9.60 05/06/99 1001 <.03 <.03 .23 1.00 <.09 <.07 E.02 2.60 E10.0 06/17/99 1040 <.03 <.03 .16 <.06 <.09 <.07 E.02 11.9 E13.7 

12(TMCK) 06/17/99 1041 <.03 <.03 .15 <.06 <.09 .12 <.09 11.9 E14.4 

08/06/99 1200 <.03 <.03 .32 <.10 <.09 <.07 -- 12.6 E29.0 08/06/99 1201 <.03 <.03 .46 <.10 E.07 <.07 -- 24.6 E40.1 10/19/99 1000 <.03 <.03 .44 <.10 E.06 <.07 E.07 20.0 E26.0 10/19/99 1001 <.03 <.03 .35 <.10 <.09 .38 E.05 17.0 E22.0 

12(TMCK) 12/17/99 0945 <.03 <.03 .24 3.20 <.09 <.07 E.05 12.0 E22.0 

12/17/99 0946 <.03 <.03 .18 1.30 <.09 <.07 E.03 1.50 E16.0 02/15/00 0930 -- -- .31 -- E.06 .57 -- 16.4 E22.8 02/15/00 0931 -- -- .22 -- <.09 <.07 -- 7.04 E15.1 

04/11/00 1030 -- -- 1.80 -- E.33 <.07 -- 128 E58.1 

12(TM

CK) 06/22/00 1200 -- -- .19 -- <.15 <.50 -- 8.55 E13.8 

06/22/00 1201 -- -- .22 -- <.15 <.50 -- 22.0 E15.7 08/23/00 1400 -- -- 1.73 -- <.15 <.50 -- 51.0 E21.2 08/23/00 1401 -- -- .86 -- <.15 <.50 -- 39.0 E13.8 10/19/00 1300 -- -- .44 -- <.15 <.50 -- 47.3 E9.67 10/19/00 1301 -- -- .50 -- <.15 <.50 -- 64.1 E13.0 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 93

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

1,3-

Dichlorobenzene

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene

2(2-

Butxyethoxy) 

ethyl acetate

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

2,6-Di-tertbutylbenzoquinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl phenol 4-Nonyl

phenol 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 

13(BL

UE) 01/25/99 1000 <0.03 <0.03 0.49 3.60 E0.04 0.26 <0.09 1.30

E10.0 

01/25/99 1001 <.03 <.03 .60 5.50

E.08 .46 E.09 .47

E19.0 

05/07/99 1330 <.03 <.03 .60 <.06 E.04 .20 .18 9.40 E42.0 05/07/99 1331 <.03 <.03 .38 <.06 <.09 .13 .10 2.70 E18.0 06/17/99 1430 <.03 <.03 2.30 <.06 <.09 .09 E.04 .15

E15.8 

13(BL

UE) 06/17/99 1431 <.03 <.03 .94 <.06 E.02 E.06 E.03 .11 E12.3 

08/06/99 1345 .13 <.03 .78 <.10

E.09 <.50 -- 4.40

E89.8 

08/06/99 1346 .11 <.03 .69 <.10

E.09 <.50 -- 4.10

E93.8 

10/19/99 1130 <.03 <.03 .54 <.10

E.05 .30 1.50 9.30

E35.0 

10/19/99 1131 <.03 <.03 .63 <.10 E.07 .34 2.20 11.0 E43.0 

13(BL

UE) 12/08/99 1230 <.03 <.03 .70 3.30 <.09 <.07 E.06 6.30

E19.0 

02/15/00 0845 -- -- .90 -- E.09 <.07 -- 23.6 E31.7 02/15/00 0846 -- -- .74 -- E.13 <.07 -- 19.8 E28.0 04/10/00 1145 -- -- 1.49 -- E.20 <.07 -- 36.3 E86.5 08/23/00 1000 -- -- .92 -- <.15 <.50 -- 8.23 E29.4 

13(BL

UE) 08/23/00 1001 -- -- 1.10 -- <.15 <.50 -- 7.79

E31.0 

10/19/00 1130 -- -- .89 -- <.15 <.50 -- 29.3 E48.4 10/19/00 1131 -- -- .93 -- <.15 <.50 -- 36.9 E61.1 

14(NEID) 01/25/99 1000 <.03 <.03 .56 <.06 <.09 <.07 .66 28.0 E53.0 

01/25/99 1001 <.03 <.03 .61 <.06 <.09 .55 .70 35.0 E57.0 05/07/99 1400 <.03 <.03 .36 1.00

E.18 .16 .30 25.0 E38.0 

05/07/99 1401 <.03 <.03 .40 <.06 E.18 .18 .32 23.0 E45.0 06/17/99 1400 <.03 <.03 1.10 <.06 <.09 .28 .35 8.90

E25.5 

14(NEID) 06/17/99 1401 <.03 <.03 .34 <.06 <.09 .32 .39 9.00 E23.5 

08/06/99 1415 <.03 <.03 .47 <.10 E1.20 <.07 -- 11.2 E58.9 08/06/99 1416 <.03 <.03 .61 <.10 E1.40 <.07 -- 13.9 E72.0 10/19/99 1230 <.03 <.03 1.00 <.10 <.09 <.07 .42 14.0 E94.0 10/19/99 1231 <.03 <.03 1.50 <.10 <.09 <.07 .60 18.0 E130 
94 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 14(NEID) 12/08/99 1330 <0.03 <0.03 0.60 2.30 <0.09 <0.07 2.80 16.0 E45.0 

12/08/99 1331 <.03 <.03 .55 2.50 <.09 <.07 2.30 16.0 E48.0 02/15/00 0915 -- -- 1.42 -- <.15 <.07 -- 20.9 E40.4 02/15/00 0916 -- -- 1.24 -- <.15 <.07 -- 23.4 E36.6 04/10/00 1215 -- -- 2.47 -- E.23 <.07 -- 54.8 E118 

14(NEID) 06/21/00 0945 -- -- 1.16 -- <.15 -- -- .63 E33.8 

08/23/00 1030 -- -- .80 -- <.15 <.50 -- 13.2 E94.6 08/23/00 1031 -- -- .67 -- E.14 <.50 -- 13.1 E110 10/19/00 1200 -- -- .96 -- E.71 <.50 -- 45.5 E139 10/19/00 1201 -- -- .98 -- E.64 <.50 -- 44.8 E156 

Effluent 04/10/00 1115 -- -- 1.45 -- E.17 <.07 -- 1.31 E97.1 

06/21/00 0940 -- -- .18 -- <.15 <.50 -- <.06 E13.0 08/23/00 1100 -- -- .18 -- <.15 <.50 -- .09 E21.4 08/23/00 1101 -- -- .19 -- <.15 <.50 -- .08 E21.0 10/19/00 1230 -- -- .20 -- <.15 <.50 -- .12

E16.7 

10/19/00 1231 -- -- .16 -- <.15 <.50 -- E.05 E13.2 

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

1,3-

Dichlorobenzene

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene

2(2-

Butxyethoxy) 

ethyl acetate

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

2,6-Di-tertbutylbenzoquinone 2,6-Dimethyl- naphthalene 4-Methyl phenol 4-Nonyl

phenol 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 104-40-5 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 95

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene

120-12-7

Benzaldehyde

100-52-7

Benzo[a]- 

pyrene

50-32-8

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 

adipate

103-23-1

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)-

phthalate

117-81-7

Bisphenol 

A

80-05-7

BHA

25013-16-5

BH

T

128-37-0

Caffeine

58-08-2

12(TMCK) 02/01/99 1000 <0.03 <0.10 <0.05 <1.50 3.70 <0.09 0.38

E1.10 20.0 

02/01/99 1001 <.03 <.10 <.05 <1.50 4.20 <.09 .40

E1.00 25.0 

05/06/99 1000 <.05 .12 <.05 <1.50 6.50 .67 .20 E.54 13.0 05/06/99 1001 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 6.30 .70 .20 E.56 14.0 06/17/99 1040 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 3.40 .46 .15 E.44 17.0 

12(TMCK) 06/17/99 1041 E.01 <.10 <.05 <1.50 4.50 .48 .15 E.49 16.3 

08/06/99 1200 <.05 .15 .07 1.60 8.20 2.00 .22 E.50 17.7 08/06/99 1201 E.02 .21 .07 <1.50 9.40 .72 .29 E.65 26.2 10/19/99 1000 <.05 <.15 <.05 .60 9.70 .51 .29 E.65 16.0 10/19/99 1001 <.05 <.15 <.05 .60 7.90 .59 .24 E.49 14.0 

12(TMCK) 12/17/99 0945 <.05 <.15 <.05 2.70 5.30 .63 .28 E.59 15.0 

12/17/99 0946 <.05 <.15 <.05 3.50 3.10 .44 .24 E.42 12.0 02/15/00 0930 <.05 -- <.05 2.48 5.36 .40 .35 E.83 24.8 02/15/00 0931 E.04 -- <.05 2.34 3.15 <.09 .24 E.49 19.2 

04/11/00 1030 .06 -- .14 <1.50 11.2 <.09 .45 E1.86 59.5 

12(TMCK) 06/22/00 1200 E.06 -- <.07 <2.00 E2.66 <.09 .13 E.39 22.2 

06/22/00 1201 E.5 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 <.09 .14 E.41 20.3 08/23/00 1400 <.06 -- .11 <2.00 E5.02 4.25 <.12 E.76 61.2 08/23/00 1401 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 E4.06 3.87 <.12 E.57 43.4 10/19/00 1300 <.06 -- E.03 <2.00 <2.50 3.13 .16 E.53 44.0 10/19/00 1301 <.06 -- E.04 <2.00 <2.50 4.55 .26 E.81 62.1 
96 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 13(BL

UE) 01/25/99 1000 0.04 <0.10 <0.05 <1.50 6.30 <0.09 0.10 E0.19 6.80 

01/25/99 1001 .12 .20 <.05 <1.50 38.0 <.09 .23 E.46 .66 05/07/99 1330 .56 <.10 2.80 <1.50 13.0 .82 .11 E.36 13.0 05/07/99 1331 <.06 <.10 .13 <1.50 11.0 .85 .09 E.23 13.0 06/17/99 1430 .07 <.10 .48 <1.50 5.60 .45 .10 E.18 18.4 

13(BL

UE) 06/17/99 1431 <.05 <.10 .06 <1.50 5.20 .40 .09 E.17 16.6 

08/06/99 1345 <.05 .75 E.04 <.90 13.8 1.70 .25 E.41 21.4 08/06/99 1346 .03 .69 E.04 <.90 14.4 .96 .22 E.39 22.2 10/19/99 1130 <.05 <.15 <.05 1.00 13.0 .84 .19 E.36 12.0 10/19/99 1131 <.05 <.15 <.05 1.00 20.0 .84 .24 E.45 14.0 

13(BL

UE) 12/08/99 1230 <.05 <.15 E.03 2.80 3.60 .56 .23 E.31 12.0 

02/15/00 0845 .10 -- .16 <1.50 7.92 <.09 .29 E.57 23.2 02/15/00 0846 <.05 -- E.03 <1.50 6.06 .39 .25 E.45 19.3 04/10/00 1145 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 18.2 4.89 .38 E.90 173 08/23/00 1000 .22 -- .37 <2.00 E4.36 3.23 .16 E.38 17.6 

13(BL

UE) 08/23/00 1001 E.03 -- E.04 <2.00 E4.71 3.44 .18 E.40 20.6 

10/19/00 1130 E.05 -- E.04 <2.00 <2.50 3.79 .22 E.43 29.0 10/19/00 1131 E.04 -- E.04 <2.00 <2.50 4.56 .27 E.50 33.2 

14(NEID) 01/25/99 1000 <.03 <.10 .25 <2.00 26.0 <.09 .38 E.55 <.08 

01/25/99 1001 <.03 <.10 .35 <2.00 81.0 <.09 .48 E.55 <.08 05/07/99 1400 <.05 <.10 .12 1.50 12.0 1.80 .09 E.54 9.00 05/07/99 1401 <.05 <.10 .12 8.00 18.0 1.40 .10 E.62 10.0 06/17/99 1400 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 6.30 .85 .07 E.16 14.6 

14(NEID) 06/17/99 1401 .03 <.10 <.05 <1.50 4.70 .67 .08 E.18 13.4 

08/06/99 1415 .08 .19 .05 .85 5.30 1.20 .16 E.36 16.3 08/06/99 1416 .11 .29 .09 <.90 8.10 1.40 .20 E.42 22.0 10/19/99 1230 .35 <.15 .30 1.00 11.0 1.30 .24 E.50 15.0 10/19/99 1231 .42 <.15 1.20 1.00 26.0 1.40 .34 E.78 16.0 

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene Benzaldehyde

Benzo[a]- 

pyrene

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 

adipate

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)- 

phthalate

Bisphenol 

A BHA BHT Caffeine 

120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 97

14(NEID) 12/08/99 1330 <0.05 <0.15 0.06 3.80 5.50 1.30 0.23

E0.43 15.0 

12/08/99 1331 <.05 <.15 .05 3.30 6.40 1.30 .26 E.46 14.0 02/15/00 0915 .23 -- .16 2.43 5.42 1.51 .23 E.43 13.3 02/15/00 0916 .11 -- <.05 2.05 5.92 1.72 .23 E.44 17.4 04/10/00 1215 .12 -- .07 <1.50 18.6 2.73 .45

E1.26 48.0 

14(NEID) 06/21/00 0945 .48 -- .46 <2.00 E2.96 3.05 -- E.17 7.48 

08/23/00 1030 .11 -- .08 <2.00 E6.16 3.62 .18 E.59 28.4 08/23/00 1031 .11 -- E.05 <2.00

E7.07 3.65 .16 E.62 32.1 

10/19/00 1200 .19 -- .11 <2.00 <2.50 3.29 .31 E.66 35.5 10/19/00 1201 .17 -- .13 <2.00 <2.50 3.59 .30 E.58 34.7 

Effluent 04/10/00 1115 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 14.9 1.43 .47 E.72 34.3 

06/21/00 0940 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .25 <.12 <.11 .60 08/23/00 1100 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .54 <.12 E.15 4.28 08/23/00 1101 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .43 <.12 E.12 4.12 10/19/00 1230 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .71 <.12 <.11 5.68 10/19/00 1231 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 <2.50 .52 <.12 <.11 3.74 

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Anthracene Benzaldehyde

Benzo[a]- 

pyrene

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 

adipate

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)- 

phthalate

Bisphenol 

A BHA BHT Caffeine 

120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 
98 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2

Cholesterol

57-88-5

Codeine

76-57-3

Coprostanol

360-68-9

Cotinine

486-56-6

Diazinon

333-41-5

Dieldrin

60-57-1

Diethylphthalate

84-66-2

N,N-diethyltoluamide

134-62-3

12(TMCK) 02/01/99 1000 <0.02

E54.0 <0.10

E0.82 -- <0.05 <0.08 -- -- 

02/01/99 1001 <.02

E52.0 <.10 E1.60 -- <.05 <.08 -- -- 

05/06/99 1000 <.02 E190 <.10 E150 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 05/06/99 1001 <.02 E170 <.10 E140 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 06/17/99 1040 <.02 E100 .40

E81.2 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

12(TMCK) 06/17/99 1041 <.02 E131 <.10 E105 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

08/06/99 1200 <.02 E118 <.10 E103 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 08/06/99 1201 <.02

E91.7 <.10 E83.9 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

10/19/99 1000 <.02 E310 <.10 E66.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 10/19/99 1001 <.02 E240 <.10 E59.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

12(TMCK) 12/17/99 0945 <.02 E180 .71

E120 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

12/17/99 0946 <.02 E150 .53

E110 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

02/15/00 0930 <.02

E61.1 .63 E63.2 0.95 <.03 <.08 6.13 0.27 

02/15/00 0931 <.02

E48.8 .47 E52.3 .52 <.03 <.08 4.80 .27 

04/11/00 1030 <.02 E207 <.10 E198 1.49 <.03 <.08 13.1 1.25 

12(TMCK) 06/22/00 1200 <.02

E97.4 <.20 E63.2 .84 .15 <.08

E1.77 1.09 

06/22/00 1201 <.02

E75.8 .25 E51.1 .83 .18 <.08

E2.15 1.08 

08/23/00 1400 <.02

E52.3 <.20 E33.1 1.78 <.03 <.08

E6.08 1.68 

08/23/00 1401 <.02

E55.5 <.20 E33.0 1.25 <.03 <.08

E4.36 1.32 

10/19/00 1300 <.02

E51.1 .55 E39.3 .82 <.03 <.08

E5.00 .31

10/19/00 1301 <.02

E48.4 <.20 E34.9 1.20 <.03 <.08

E6.13 .43 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 99

13(BL

UE) 01/25/99 1000 <0.02 E11.0 2.10

E10.0 -- <0.05 <0.08 -- -- 

01/25/99 1001 <.02

E48.0 .40

E59.0 -- <.05 <.08 -- -- 

05/07/99 1330 <.02

E99.0 <.10 E110 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

05/07/99 1331 <.02

E78.0 <.10 E81.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

06/17/99 1430 <.02

E80.8 1.20 E68.5 -- .10 <.08 -- -- 

13(BL

UE) 06/17/99 1431 <.02

E65.2 .46

E54.4 -- .09 <.08 -- -- 

08/06/99 1345 <.02

E83.5 <.10 E80.2 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

08/06/99 1346 <.02

E73.5 <.10 E70.6 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

10/19/99 1130 <.02 E190 <.10

E51.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

10/19/99 1131 <.02 E260 <.10

E62.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

13(BL

UE) 12/08/99 1230 <.02

E84.0 <.10 E63.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

02/15/00 0845 <.02

E40.7 <.10 E45.6 1.87 <.03 <.08 5.20 0.41 

02/15/00 0846 <.02

E42.1 <.10 E49.0 .74 <.03 <.08 4.47 .39 

04/10/00 1145 <.02 E163 <.10 E152 2.85 .23 <.08 5.59 .4808/23/00 1000 <.02

E29.6 <.20 E19.4 .94 .14 <.08 E5.07 2.23 

13(BL

UE) 08/23/00 1001 <.02

E42.4 .43

E28.3 .86 .23 <.08 E6.02 2.42 

10/19/00 1130 <.02 E36.6 <.20 E30.2 <.08 <.03 <.08 E2.46 .35 10/19/00 1131 <.02 E39.0 <.20 E33.5 <.08 <.03 <.08 E2.77 .38 

14(NEID) 01/25/99 1000 <.02

E35.0 .64

E47.0 -- <.05 <.08 -- -- 

01/25/99 1001 <.02

E40.0 <.10 E56.0 -- <.05 <.08 -- -- 

05/07/99 1400 <.02

E50.0 <.10 E71.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

05/07/99 1401 <.02

E56.0 <.10 E68.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

06/17/99 1400 <.02

E55.1 .29

E34.4 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

14(NEID) 06/17/99 1401 <.02

E46.7 .26

E38.6 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

08/06/99 1415 <.02

E61.8 <.10 E59.4 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

08/06/99 1416 <.02

E75.0 <.10 E78.1 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

10/19/99 1230 <.02 E350 .62 E79.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 10/19/99 1231 <.02 E310 <.10

E61.0 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Chlorpyrifos Cholesterol Codeine Coprost- anol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 

2921-88-2 57-88-5 76-57-3 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 
100 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

14(NEID) 12/08/99 1330 <0.02 E120 <0.10 E98.0 -- <0.03 <0.08 -- -- 

12/08/99 1331 <.02 E140 <.10 E110 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- 02/15/00 0915 <.02

E37.2 <.10 E48.4 0.93 <.03 <.08 3.14 0.35 

02/15/00 0916 <.02

E37.0 <.10 E48.4 1.03 <.03 <.08 3.85 .30 

04/10/00 1215 <.02 E149 <.10 E136 3.02 <.03 <.08 8.38 .56 

4(NEID) 06/21/00 0945 <.02

E26.4 <.20 E35.1 .43 .15 <.08 E.32 .64 

08/23/00 1030 <.02

E54.6 <.20 E38.7 1.24 .16 <.08

E3.57 1.71 

08/23/00 1031 <.02

E44.7 <.20 E51.9 1.67 .18 <.08

E3.33 1.68 

10/19/00 1200 <.02

E48.9 <.20 E38.9 1.47 <.03 <.08 E1.91 <.08 

10/19/00 1201 <.02

E57.0 <.20 E43.6 1.60 <.03 <.08 E1.70 <.08 

Effluent 04/10/00 1115 <.02 E62.7 .92

E59.7 1.68 .24 <.08 <.25 1.16 

06/21/00 0940 <.02

E12.3 <.20 E14.7 .13 .19 <.08 <.35 .42 

08/23/00 1100 .09

E14.0 .49

E12.4 .47 .21 <.08 <.35 1.19 

08/23/00 1101 .06

E14.7 .51

E14.3 .45 .16 <.08 <.35 1.20 

10/19/00 1230 .08 E14.1 .50

E13.2 .55 .15 <.08 <.35 .44 

10/19/00 1231 .06 E11.9 .36 E11.4 .32 .11 <.08 <.35 .34 

1

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Chlorpyrifos Cholesterol Codeine Coprost- anol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 

2921-88-2 57-88-5 76-57-3 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 101

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

 number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Fluoranthene

206-44-0

Lindane

58-89-9

Methyl

parathion

298-00-0

Naphthalene

91-20-3

NP1EO

27986-36-3

NP2EO

N

A

OP1EO

2315-67-5

OP2EO

2315-61-9

Phenanthrene

85-01-8

Phenol

108-95-2

12(TMCK) 02/01/99 1000 0.13

E0.05 <0.06 0.03

E12.0 -- E1.40

E7.60

E0.02 3.00 

02/01/99 1001 <.03 E.06 <.06 .03

E12.0 -- E1.70

E8.00 <.05 4.40 

05/06/99 1000 <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03

E11.0 E8.10

E1.60

E1.20 <.06 .63 

05/06/99 1001 <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03

E12.0 E10.0 E1.60 E.61 <.06 1.20 

06/17/99 1040 <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03

E15.3 E5.80

E1.10 <.20 <.06 2.60 

12(TMCK) 06/17/99 1041 <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03

E16.1 E5.80

E1.00 <.20 E.05 2.90 

08/06/99 1200 .12 <.05 <.06 .06

E37.9 E17.6 E1.50 <.20 .09 6.00 

08/06/99 1201 .14 <.05 <.06 .10

E55.4 E21.1 E2.60 <.20 .10 10.0 

10/19/99 1000 .06 <.05 <.06 <.03

E22.0 E14.0 E1.90 <.20 E.05 8.50

10/19/99 1001 .04 <.05 <.06 <.03 E20.0 E11.0 E1.70 <.20 <.06 5.90

12(TMCK) 12/17/99 0945 .03 <.05 <.06 <.03 E24.0 <1.0 E2.60 E.50 <.06 6.80 

12/17/99 0946 .02 <.05 <.06 <.03

E17.0 <1.0 E1.80 E.55 <.06 1.20 

02/15/00 0930 .09 <.05 <.06 <.03 E20.6 E9.34 E.97 <.20 .08 4.99 02/15/00 0931 .16 <.05 <.06 <.03 E15.1 E6.82 E.68 <.20 .08 3.85 

04/11/00 1030 .33 <.05 <.06 .18

E43.8 E16.9 E1.70 <.20 .21 37.2 

12(TMCK) 06/22/00 1200 .05 <.05 .12 .05

E45.8 E31.8 E1.36 <.20 .07

E5.82

06/22/00 1201 .03 <.05 .12 .05

E52.2 E17.4 E1.50 <.20 .04

E10.2 

08/23/00 1400 .42 <.05 <.06 .15

E35.1 E25.3 E1.73 <.20 .14

E18.0 

08/23/00 1401 .06 <.05 <.06 .12

E25.9 E21.0 E1.26 <.20 .06

E10.8 

10/19/00 1300 .05 <.05 <.06 .13

E17.7 E13.9 E1.68 E.32 .05

E7.77

10/19/00 1301 .07 <.05 <.06 .17

E28.2 E15.1 E1.96 E.23 .07

E12.2 
102 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 13(BL

UE) 01/25/99 1000 -- E0.06 <0.06 0.14

E14.0 <1.1 E0.97 <0.20 <0.05 <.08 

01/25/99 1001 0.24 .13 <.06 .18

E21.0 <1.1 E1.40 <.20 <.05 .18 

05/07/99 1330 4.20 <.05 <.06 .42 E40.0 E15.0 E1.70 <.20 4.10 2.60 05/07/99 1331 .27 <.05 <.06 .38

E29.0 E11.0 E1.40 E.99 .13 .83 

06/17/99 1430 .96 <.05 <.06 .06

E24.6 E3.80 E1.50 <.20 .43 .20 

13(BL

UE) 06/17/99 1431 <.03 <.05 <.06 .06 E18.8 E2.90 E1.20 <.20 .09 <.08 

08/06/99 1345 .12 <.05 <.06 1.20 E90.7 E6.90 E4.20 <.20 .16 5.80 08/06/99 1346 .13 <.05 <.06 .84

E80.7 E3.40 E3.80 <.20 .15 5.30 

10/19/99 1130 .07 <.05 <.06 15.0 E38.0 E27.0 E2.50 <.20 .08 .9510/19/99 1131 .08 <.05 <.06 18.0 E45.0 E35.0 E3.10 <.20 .11 .99

13(BL

UE) 12/08/99 1230 .04 <.05 <.06 .13

E19.0 <1.1 E1.80 <.20 .06 2.30 

02/15/00 0845 .34 <.05 <.06 .20

E28.9 E11.6 E1.35 <.20 .15 5.04 

02/15/00 0846 .12 <.05 <.06 .15

E28.4 E11.1 E1.38 <.20 .09 4.07 

04/10/00 1145 <.03 <.05 <.06 1.86 E50.6 E29.2 E2.22 E.38 .16 17.6 08/23/00 1000 1.54 <.05 <.06 .15 E42.3 E17.9 E1.35 <.20 .76 E4.96

13(BL

UE) 08/23/00 1001 .12 <.05 <.06 .15

E45.0 E20.6 E1.75 <.20 .10 E6.24

10/19/00 1130 .13 <.05 <.06 .18 E46.0 <1.1 E1.99 <.20 .14 E25.3 10/19/00 1131 .14 <.05 <.06 .19 E41.8 <1.1 E1.67 <.20 .15 E30.2 

14(NEID) 01/25/99 1000 1.10 .66 <.06 2.40 E31.0 <1.1 E1.40 <.20 .27 16.0 

01/25/99 1001 1.30 .78 <.06 2.60 E34.0 <1.1 E1.80 <.20 .34 <.08 05/07/99 1400 .27 <.05 <.06 .96

E33.0 E27.0 E2.10 E.80 .24 <.08 

05/07/99 1401 .28 .09 <.06 1.00

E43.0 E24.0 E2.60 E1.00 .26 <.08 

06/17/99 1400 <.03 <.05 <.06 1.80

E29.8 <1.1 E2.40 E.52 .20 5.00 

14(NEID) 06/17/99 1401 <.03 <.05 <.06 1.90

E29.4 <1.1 E2.20 E.47 .21 4.50 

08/06/99 1415 .24 <.05 <.06 .67

E60.5 E12.9 E5.60 E.79 .24 5.30 

08/06/99 1416 .35 <.05 <.06 .82

E73.8 E21.3 E7.60

E1.30 .33 7.40 

10/19/99 1230 1.30 <.05 <.06 .79 E51.0 E67.0 E3.20 <.20 .90 8.0010/19/99 1231 2.10 <.05 <.06 1.10

E63.0 E69.0 E3.80 <.20 1.60 9.20 

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

 number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO Phenan- threne Phenol 

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-95-2 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 103

14(NEID) 12/08/99 1330 0.14 <0.05 <0.06 1.80

E22.0 <1.1 E2.20 <0.20 0.76 7.10 

12/08/99 1331 .13 <.05 <.06 1.50 E24.0 <1.1 E2.30 <.20 .72 7.00 02/15/00 0915 .76 <.05 <.06 2.62 E39.3 E33.9 E2.70 <.20 1.08 7.20 02/15/00 0916 .21 <.05 <.06 3.24 E36.9 E36.3 E2.90 <.20 .77 10.2 04/10/00 1215 .25 <.05 <.06 6.26 E57.7 E59.3 E2.31 E.38 .71 22.9 

14(NEID) 06/21/00 0945 2.09 <.05 <.06 .53 E22.9 E49.4 E.85 E.27 1.37

E1.23 

08/23/00 1030 .59 <.05 <.06 .88 E126

E34.4 E2.98 E.21 .59 E7.96

08/23/00 1031 .38 <.05 <.06 .70 E114

E41.6 E2.61 E.27 .44 E9.24

10/19/00 1200 .55 <.05 <.06 .97

E63.0 E9.14 E1.17 <.20 .55 E21.4 

10/19/00 1201 .54 <.05 <.06 .88

E53.7 E11.4 E1.19 <.20 .54 E22.4 

Effluent 04/10/00 1115 .11 <.05 .60 <.03 E62.5 E68.4 E3.24 E.51 <.06 .61 

06/21/00 0940 .04 <.05 <.06 <.03 E15.3 E15.1 E.57 E.16 <.05 <.45 08/23/00 1100 <.03 <.05 <.06 .03

E44.4 E34.1 E2.05 E.57 <.05 E.49 

08/23/00 1101 <.03 E.02 <.06 <.03 E43.0 E29.4 E2.11 E.51 <.05 E.56 10/19/00 1230 .04 <.05 <.06 <.03 E30.1 E41.0 E1.44 E.63 <.05

E1.71 

10/19/00 1231 .03 <.05 <.06 <.03 E21.3 E27.4 E.98 E.40 <.05 E.72 

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued

Site

 number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

date

Sample 

time

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO OP1EO OP2EO Phenan- threne Phenol 

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 2315-67-5 2315-61-9 85-01-8 108-95-2 
104 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Stigmastanol 19466-47-8

Tetrachloroethylene

127-18-4

Triclosan

3380-34-5

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

115-96-8

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

13674-84-5

Tributyl 

phosphate

126-73-8

Triph

phosp

115-

12(TMCK) 02/01/99 1000 -- <0.03 3.00 0.24 <0.10 0.16 <0.1

02/01/99 1001 -- <.03 3.20 .25 <.10 .16 <.105/06/99 1000 -- .02 7.00 <.04 <.10 .19 <.105/06/99 1001 -- <.03 7.00 <.04 <.10 <.04 <.106/17/99 1040 -- .03 3.40 .16 <.10 <.04 <.1

12(TMCK) 06/17/99 1041 -- .02 3.80 .18 <.10 <.04 <.1

08/06/99 1200 -- .06 5.10 .34 <.10 .30 <.108/06/99 1201 -- .13 6.20 .37 <.10 .44 <.110/19/99 1000 -- <.03 4.30 .27 <.10 .31 <.110/19/99 1001 -- <.03 3.80 .21 <.10 .24 <.1

12(TMCK) 12/17/99 0945 -- <.03 4.00 .21 .35 .30 .2

12/17/99 0946 -- <.03 3.30 .18 .26 .12 .102/15/00 0930

E7.25 .02 3.47 .24 <.10 -- .2

02/15/00 0931

E5.07 .02 3.98 .16 <.10 -- .1

04/11/00 1030

E19.6 .04 7.63 .26 <.10 -- .3

12(TMCK) 06/22/00 1200

E12.0 <.03 4.25 .29 <.10 -- .1

06/22/00 1201

E9.26 <.03 3.15 .26 <.10 -- .1

08/23/00 1400

E8.33 .02 4.25 .36 <.10 -- .2

08/23/00 1401

E9.33 .02 3.51 .30 <.10 -- .2

10/19/00 1300

E9.44 <.03 4.16 .26 <.10 -- .2

10/19/00 1301

E5.76 <.03 5.35 .31 <.10 -- .2
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Sewage Samples 105

Site 

number 

(fig. 1) date time 19466-47-8 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-

13(BL

UE) 01/25/99 1000 -- 0.09 1.00 0.07 <0.10 <0.04 <0.1

01/25/99 1001 -- .09 3.50 .16 <.10 .48 <.105/07/99 1330 -- .60 6.50 <.04 <.10 1.20 <.105/07/99 1331 -- .56 4.70 .21 <.10 .73 <.106/17/99 1430 -- .10 2.80 .12 <.10 <.04 <.1

13(BL

UE) 06/17/99 1431 -- .09 2.50 .13 <.10 <.04 <.1

08/06/99 1345 -- .15 4.50 .67 <.10 2.00 <.108/06/99 1346 -- .15 4.60 .64 <.10 1.80 <.110/19/99 1130 -- .12 3.30 .15 <.10 .62 <.110/19/99 1131 -- .15 4.00 .19 <.10 .58 <.1

13(BL

UE) 12/08/99 1230 -- .26 2.60 .22 .27 .48 .1

02/15/00 0845

E6.11 .35 4.18 .17 <.10 -- .2

02/15/00 0846

E5.57 .28 3.28 .17 <.10 -- .2

04/10/00 1145 E18.1 .18 5.45 .36 <.10 -- .308/23/00 1000

E7.82 .06 2.86 .20 <.10 -- .1

13(BL

UE) 08/23/00 1001

E8.48 .07 3.11 .20 <.10 -- .1

10/19/00 1130 E2.70 .17 3.93 .20 <.10 -- .110/19/00 1131 E5.54 .17 4.25 .14 <.10 -- .2

14(NEID) 01/25/99 1000 -- .72 2.60 .19 <.10 <.04 <.1

01/25/99 1001 -- .59 3.60 .17 <.10 <.04 <.105/07/99 1400 -- .82 3.40 .19 <.10 .93 <.105/07/99 1401 -- 1.00 3.80 <.04 <.10 1.00 <.106/17/99 1400 -- .12 1.80 .18 <.10 .85 <.1

14(NEID) 06/17/99 1401 -- .12 1.70 .18 <.10 .74 <.1

08/06/99 1415 -- 1.20 2.60 .22 <.10 .88 <.108/06/99 1416 -- 1.40 3.60 .28 <.10 .92 <.110/19/99 1230 -- .56 3.00 .20 <.10 6.60 <.110/19/99 1231 -- .36 3.90 .21 <.10 7.70 <.1

Sample Sample Stigmastanol

Tetrachloroethylene Triclosan

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)- 

phosphate

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate

Triph

phosp

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued
106 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Site number (fig. 1) Sample date Sample time Stigmastanol Tetrachloro- ethylene Triclosan Tri(2- chloroethyl)- phosphate Tris(dichlor- isopropyl)- phosphate Tributyl phosphate Triph

phosp

19466-47-8 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-

Table 3. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in sewage samples—Continued 14(NEID) 12/08/99 1330 -- 0.37 2.90 0.23 0.38 <0.06 0.7

12/08/99 1331 -- .34 3.20 .23 <.10 <.06 .602/15/00 0915

E5.32 .90 2.23 .20 <.10 -- 1.8

02/15/00 0916

E4.84 1.06 2.19 .20 <.10 -- .8

04/10/00 1215

E14.6 1.76 4.24 .62 <.10 -- .4

14(NEID) 06/21/00 0945

E5.12 .21 1.87 .26 <.10 -- 2.9

08/23/00 1030

E10.5 .45 3.48 .31 <.10 -- 2.6

08/23/00 1031

E10.8 .40 4.23 .30 <.10 -- 2.1

10/19/00 1200

E3.12 3.38 3.62 .18 <.10 -- 2.8

10/19/00 1201

E9.28 2.32 3.72 .17 <.10 -- 2.6

Effluent 04/10/00 1115 E6.64 .06 4.76 .66 <.10 -- .4

06/21/00 0940 <2.00 <.03 1.35 .18 <.10 -- .308/23/00 1100 E5.41 <.03 2.24 .23 <.10 -- .308/23/00 1101 E2.99 <.03 2.25 .23 <.10 -- .310/19/00 1230

E4.13 <.03 2.97 .25 <.10 -- .8

10/19/00 1231

E1.94 <.03 2.20 .20 <.10 -- .7
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents in Stormflow Samples 107

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples[Total concentrations in milligrams per liter from unfiltered samples, dissolved in milligrams per liter from filtered samples, chemical oxygen demand in milligrams per l

in milligrams per liter, suspended sediment concentration in milligrams per liter; amm+org, ammonia plus organic; NO2 + NO3, nitrite plus nitrate; P, peak flow; <, less t

flow; F, receding flow, samples composited from more than one hydrologic condition are marked with multiple codes; E, estimated; >, greater than] 

Site Sample Sample Nitrogen, Nitrogen, Nitrogen, Nitrogen, 

number Sample Sample end end Hydrologic ammonia, nitrite, amm+org, NO2 + NO3, Phos-phorus, Phos-phorus

(fig. 1) begin date begin time date time condition dissolved dissolved total dissolved total dissolved 

5 09/12/99 1030 09/12/99 1530 P <0.02 0.12 1.94 1.98 1.02 0.41 

09/27/99 1000 09/28/99 0130 R .04 .03 1.82 .98 .62 .19 09/28/99 0130 09/28/99 1600 P .08 .04 3.05 .89 1.07 .18 

11/22/99 2130 11/23/99 0145 R -- -- -- -- -- -- 

12/09/99 0800 12/09/99 1500 P .09 .09 2.93 2.15 1.21 .50 

5 12/09/99 1500 12/10/99 0900 F .02 .04 2.91 1.05 .91 .20 

02/25/00 1230 02/25/00 1930 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 0445 05/09/00 1530 R,P .23 .21 2.67 2.12 1.33 .67 05/21/00 1800 05/22/00 0000 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/26/00 0500 05/26/00 1100 R,P .10 .10 4.06 1.49 1.56 .39 

5 05/26/00 1100 05/26/00 1900 F .10 .06 3.17 1.09 1.23 .21 

06/13/00 2215 06/14/00 0530 R .05 .06 2.55 1.54 1.29 .28 06/14/00 0530 06/14/00 1000 P <.02 .03 2.62 .89 1.10 .07 07/17/00 0300 07/17/00 1000 R,P .11 .06 4.77 2.19 2.16 .35 07/17/00 1000 07/17/00 1600 F .06 .05 3.94 1.36 1.46 .17 

5 07/27/00 0100 07/27/00 0900 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

07/28/00 1200 07/29/00 0330 R,P .11 .06 1.41 1.99 .61 .35 09/22/00 2145 09/23/00 0500 R .09 .06 3.04 2.82 1.69 .59 09/23/00 0500 09/23/00 1100 P .10 .04 2.07 1.52 .88 .23 09/23/00 1100 09/24/00 0000 F .08 .04 1.29 2.85 .64 .41 10/05/00 0545 10/05/00 1600 R,P .09 .07 2.39 2.68 1.31 .62 

6 09/04/99 1800 09/04/99 2215 R <.02 .12 2.42 4.72 1.80 .90 

09/04/99 2215 09/05/99 1100 P <.02 .09 2.80 4.19 2.04 .96 09/12/99 2000 09/13/99 0540 P <.02 .04 1.86 1.92 .84 .33 09/27/99 1200 09/28/99 0000 R .05 .05 .80 5.85 1.03 1.05 02/24/00 2300 02/25/00 1600 R .34 .12 3.02 2.73 -- .48 
108 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample begin date Sample begin time Sample end date Sample end time Hydrologic condition Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved Nitrogen, amm+org, total Nitrogen, NO2 + NO3, dissolved Phos-phorus, total Phos-phorus

dissolved 

6 02/25/00 1600 02/25/00 2315 P 0.44 0.15 2.38 3.11 -- 0.55 

05/09/00 0600 05/09/00 1100 R .12 .21 2.72 3.81 2.04 1.11 05/09/00 1100 05/09/00 1700 P <.02 .17 2.84 4.15 2.31 1.27 05/21/00 2100 05/22/00 0245 R,P .19 .23 2.74 4.12 2.45 1.25 05/22/00 0300 05/22/00 0800 F .26 .33 2.77 5.11 3.45 1.57 

6 05/26/00 0500 05/26/00 1015

R .39 .11 1.61 2.16 .99 .51 

06/13/00 2245 06/14/00 0600

R .06 .06 3.37 2.51 2.06 .38 

07/17/00 0330 07/17/00 0700

R .21 .05 9.69 2.96 5.22 .41 

07/17/00 0700 07/17/00 1500 P .09 .06 8.49 4.31 4.85 .58 07/27/00 0045 07/27/00 2345 R,P,F <.02 .13 2.96 4.33 1.93 .87 

6 09/04/00 0645 09/04/00 2230 R,P,F .19 .06 2.73 4.05 1.91 1.00 

09/23/00 0300 09/23/00 0515

R .10 .05 3.21 4.75 2.39 .87 

09/23/00 0515 09/23/00 1300 P .10 .07 2.33 2.96 1.61 .67 10/05/00 0630 10/05/00 1300

R .08 .05 2.01 3.79 1.46 .81 

10/05/00 1300 10/06/00 0015 P .19 .10 3.50 3.32 2.22 .77 

7 05/17/99 0000 05/17/99 0040 R,P .33 .04 4.07 .56 .49 .09 

05/17/99 0040 05/17/99 0215 F .14 .04 4.97 .55 .93 .07 05/17/99 0215 05/17/99 0350

R .23 .04 4.33 .59 .78 .08 

05/21/99 0130 05/21/99 0240 R,P .19 .07 4.89 .77 1.07 .12 05/21/99 0240 05/21/99 0500 F .36 .05 3.71 .67 .70 .09 

7 06/23/99 1110 06/23/99 1215

R .05 .02 1.96 .44 .52 .07 

06/23/99 1215 06/23/99 1515 P <.02 .06 2.06 1.02 .51 .16 09/12/99 0625 09/12/99 0730

R <.02 .08 4.54 .23 1.46 .06 

09/12/99 0730 09/12/99 1000 P <.02 .08 2.40 .20 .65 .07 09/27/99 0400 09/27/99 0505

R <.02 .02 .54 .41 .10 E.05 

7 09/27/99 0505 09/27/99 0615 P .03 .05 1.35 .80 .22 .07 

09/27/99 0615 09/27/99 0920 F <.02 .04 .83 .52 .18 .06 02/25/00 1030 02/25/00 1600 R,P,F .10 .03 2.38 .51 .64 <.05 05/09/00 0315 05/09/00 0645 R,P .11 .27 7.64 .23 1.93 .14 05/09/00 0645 05/09/00 1200 F <.02 .04 2.63 .36 .67 .13 
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents in Stormflow Samples 109

7 05/21/00 1550 05/21/00 2100 R,P,F 0.37 0.08 13.8 0.36 4.20 E0.04 

07/11/00 2300 07/12/00 0630 R,P,F <.02 .04 1.67 .71 .44 E.04 

07/17/00 0230 07/17/00 0400 R,P .15 .03 6.30 .66 2.53 .07 07/17/00 0400 07/17/00 1000 F .16 .02 2.45 .65 .91 .09 09/04/00 0700 09/04/00 0835 R,P .09 .05 6.43 1.25 1.71 E.04 

7 09/04/00 0835 09/04/00 1240 F .16 .04 5.86 1.51 1.56 E.04 

10/04/00 2240 10/05/00 0025 R,P .10 .03 3.76 .65 1.13 .08 10/05/00 0025 10/05/00 0500 F .14 .03 2.53 .83 .61 .08 10/05/00 0550 10/05/00 0730 R E.04 .03 3.72 .71 1.13 .11 

8 05/15/99 0730 05/15/99 1330 R,P,F .19 .06 1.53 .68 .23 .05 

05/17/99 0000 05/17/99 0055 R,P .28 .07 1.47 .67 .22 .08 05/17/99 0055 05/17/99 0205 F <.02 .06 1.51 .30 .29 <.05 05/17/99 0205 05/17/99 0400 R <.02 .07 1.56 .44 .28 .06 05/21/99 0125 05/21/99 0250 R,P .32 .07 2.10 .81 .40 .08 

8 05/21/99 0250 05/21/99 0600 F .05 .13 1.86 .98 .32 .12 

09/04/99 1645 09/04/99 1850 R <.02 .01 1.01 .10 .14 .07 09/04/99 1850 09/05/99 0410 P <.02 .10 1.31 .37 .21 .10 09/12/99 0640 09/12/99 0735 R <.02 .04 1.09 .06 .23 .07 09/12/99 0735 09/12/99 1100 P <.02 .09 1.78 .24 .49 .08 

8 09/27/99 0415 09/27/99 0525 R .07 .05 1.01 .27 .08 E.04 

09/27/99 0525 09/27/99 0625 P .05 .04 .82 .42 .11 E.05 09/27/99 0625 09/27/99 1000 F <.02 .05 1.15 .78 .18 .08 02/25/00 1000 02/25/00 1230 R,P .20 .03 .98 .72 .17 .07 02/25/00 1230 02/25/00 1530 F .11 .02 1.22 .53 .23 .06 

8 05/09/00 0320 05/09/00 0530 R .48 .06 2.49 .13 .39 .17 

05/09/00 0530 05/09/00 0700 P .14 .07 2.84 .29 .48 .16 05/09/00 0700 05/09/00 1230 F .03 .06 2.26 .52 .42 .11 05/21/00 1500 05/21/00 2100 R,P,F .65 .13 1.87 .34 .33 .17 

07/11/00 2250 07/12/00 0700 R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

nitrite, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

amm+org, 

total

Nitrogen, 

NO2 + NO3, 

dissolved

Phos-phorus,

total

Phos-phorus

dissolved
110 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 09/04/00 0700 09/04/00 0800 R,P 0.24 0.01 1.47 0.31 0.22 0.06 

09/04/00 0800 09/04/00 1200 F .49 .03 2.06 .88 .40 .16 10/04/00 2250 10/05/00 0500 R,P,F .11 .03 1.35 .51 .29 .07 

9 05/12/99 0005 05/12/99 0055 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

05/15/99 0745 05/15/99 0900

R .05 .09 1.74 .79 .27 .09 

05/15/99 0900 05/15/99 1025 P .12 .07 1.50 .63 .25 <.05 05/15/99 1025 05/15/99 1400 F <.02 .09 1.52 .63 .25 E.04 05/16/99 2315 05/17/99 0050

R .45 .08 2.14 .65 .37 .08 

9 05/17/99 0050 05/17/99 0225 P,F .17 .07 1.44 .64 .25 .07 

05/17/99 0225 05/17/99 0405

R .23 .05 1.66 .68 .28 .11 

05/21/99 0120 05/21/99 0210

R .09 .10 1.92 .89 .37 .10 

05/21/99 0210 05/21/99 0305 P .40 .14 1.60 1.06 .47 .14 06/23/99 0930 06/23/99 1230

R .03 .07 2.06 .39 .39 .09 

9 06/23/99 1230 06/23/99 1630 P <.02 <.01 1.84 <.05 .49 .13 

09/04/99 1540 09/04/99 1900

R <.02 .12 2.03 .15 .34 .10 

09/04/99 1900 09/05/99 0400 P <.02 .05 1.31 .58 .24 .13 09/12/99 0615 09/12/99 0730

R <.02 .06 2.20 .30 .43 .08 

09/12/99 0730 09/12/99 0925 P <.02 .05 2.16 .34 .50 .07 

9 09/27/99 0405 09/27/99 0520

R <.02 .04 1.60 .42 .23 .06 

09/27/99 0520 09/27/99 0620 P .07 .04 .94 .31 .10 .05 09/27/99 0620 09/27/99 1000 F <.02 .04 1.06 .63 .16 E.05 02/25/00 0910 02/25/00 1105 R .54 .05 1.83 .88 .35 .11 02/25/00 1105 02/25/00 1315 P .23 .03 1.11 .81 .18 .09 

9 05/09/00 0330 05/09/00 0550

R .26 .09 3.26 .36 .61 .21 

05/09/00 0550 05/09/00 0720 P .39 .07 3.16 .34 .54 .12 05/09/00 0720 05/09/00 1230 F .16 .09 3.85 .61 .68 .06 05/21/00 1615 05/21/00 2200 R,P,F .53 .11 2.06 .46 .50 .08 

07/11/00 2255 07/12/00 0800 R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

nitrite, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

amm+org, 

total

Nitrogen, 

NO2 + NO3, 

dissolved

Phos-phorus,

total

Phos-phorus

dissolved
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents in Stormflow Samples 111

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

nitrite, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

amm+org, 

total

Nitrogen, 

NO2 + NO3, 

dissolved

Phos-phorus,

total

Phos-phorus

dissolved

9 07/17/00 0235 07/17/00 0315 R 0.22 0.02 3.10 0.42 0.85 0.07 

07/17/00 0315 07/17/00 0405 P .23 .03 6.02 .43 1.91 E.05 07/17/00 0405 07/17/00 1030 F .20 .03 3.91 .65 1.65 .06 09/04/00 0700 09/04/00 0815 R,P .32 .02 3.36 .58 .72 .10 09/04/00 0815 09/04/00 1355 F .35 .02 1.63 .50 .24 .10 

9 10/04/00 2240 10/04/00 2330 R <.04 .03 2.62 .38 .53 E.05 

10/04/00 2330 10/05/00 0530 P,F <.04 .06 1.68 .42 .35 .07 10/05/00 0530 10/05/00 0710 R .08 .03 2.67 .61 .57 .09 

10 05/21/99 0200 05/21/99 0240 R .32 .12 1.65 .59 .28 .08 

05/21/99 0240 05/21/99 0340 P .23 .11 1.71 .61 .28 .07 05/21/99 0340 05/21/99 0630 F .24 .11 1.80 .63 .29 .10 06/23/99 1255 06/23/99 1325 R .36 .03 3.36 .41 .92 .06 06/23/99 1325 06/23/99 1415 P .32 .03 2.33 .43 .67 .08 

10 06/23/99 1420 06/23/99 1515 F .65 .04 4.53 .42 1.28 E.04 

09/04/99 1700 09/04/99 1900 R .16 .01 1.61 .05 .29 .15 09/04/99 1905 09/05/99 0500 P .46 .08 2.14 .14 .38 .20 09/12/99 0615 09/12/99 0740 R .21 <.01 1.46 <.05 .30 .19 09/12/99 0740 09/12/99 1000 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

10 02/25/00 1030 02/25/00 1310 R,P .52 .04 1.31 .73 .17 .09 

02/25/00 1310 02/25/00 1700 F .61 .04 1.62 .72 .22 .10 05/09/00 0530 05/09/00 1200 F .56 .04 3.19 .21 .52 .18 05/21/00 1700 05/21/00 2010 R,P,F .46 .01 2.20 <.05 .38 .19 

07/11/00 2100 07/12/00 0700 R,P,F <.02 <.01 .98 .07 .15 <.05 

10 07/26/00 2330 07/27/00 0900 R,P,F .09 <.01 1.16 .06 .18 <.05 

10/04/00 2300 10/04/00 2345 R,P .07 .04 2.14 .32 .59 <.06 10/04/00 2345 10/05/00 0600 F .10 .03 1.37 .14 .18 <.06 10/05/00 0600 10/05/00 0725 R .10 .02 1.37 .24 .23 <.06 
112 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

11 11/22/99 2200 11/23/99 0500

R 0.11 0.14 4.79 1.88 2.04 0.29 

11/23/99 0500 11/23/99 1330 P <.02 .15 4.39 4.32 2.79 .85 

12/09/99 1100 12/09/99 1830 P .37 .05 3.12 1.12 1.15 .21 12/09/99 1830 12/10/99 0600 F .35 .09 4.16 1.99 1.85 .34 02/25/00 1100 02/25/00 2215

R .52 .11 1.96 2.14 -- .34 

11 02/25/00 2215 02/26/00 0600 P .47 .14 1.84 2.76 -- .54 

05/09/00 0530 05/09/00 1215

R .41 .05 1.54 1.82 .89 .37 

05/09/00 1215 05/09/00 2215 P .34 .29 2.42 2.73 1.46 .73 05/09/00 2215 05/10/00 1045 F .30 .25 3.10 3.34 1.90 .85 05/26/00 0545 05/26/00 1130 R .62 .07 4.65 .84 1.63 .15 

11 05/26/00 1130 05/26/00 2345 P .22 .20 3.21 2.71 1.97 .39 

06/13/00 2200 06/14/00 0530

R .34 .07 2.86 .81 1.39 .11 

06/14/00 0530 06/14/00 1900 P .20 .09 2.73 1.57 1.38 .13 07/12/00 0130 07/12/00 0900 P .17 .07 2.95 1.97 1.25 .22 07/17/00 0400 07/17/00 1800 R,P .59 .04 4.71 .85 1.67 .10 

11 07/27/00 0200 07/27/00 1700 R,P <.02 .08 1.58 1.77 .69 .29 

07/28/00 1330 07/29/00 0700 R,P .19 .07 1.55 2.27 .73 .36 09/23/00 0000 09/23/00 0715

R .24 .07 3.02 2.53 1.66 .46 

09/23/00 0715 09/23/00 1500 P .26 .05 2.77 1.54 1.23 .23 10/05/00 0130 10/05/00 0930

R .19 .06 1.52 2.13 .69 .33 

11 10/05/00 0930 10/05/00 1445 P .24 .04 2.06 .77 .71 .13 

10/05/00 1445 10/05/00 2245 P .19 .05 2.12 2.10 1.19 .41 10/05/00 2245 10/06/00 0900 F .20 .09 2.07 3.26 1.37 .69 

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

nitrite, 

dissolved

Nitrogen, 

amm+org, 

total

Nitrogen, 

NO2 + NO3, 

dissolved

Phos-phorus,

total

Phos-phorus

dissolved
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents in Stormflow Samples 113

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Chemical 

Site Sample Sample oxygen 5-day Suspend

number Sample Sample end end Hydrologic demand, Chloride, Biochemical sedimen

(fig. 1) begin date begin time date time condition high level dissolved oxygen demand concentrat

5 09/12/99 1030 09/12/99 1530 P 157 32.6 -- 733

09/27/99 1000 09/28/99 0130

R 31.0 18.2 -- 387

09/28/99 0130 09/28/99 1600 P 49.0 14.4 -- 915

11/22/99 2130 11/23/99 0145

R -- -- -- --

12/09/99 0800 12/09/99 1500 P 82.0 42.8 -- 387

5 12/09/99 1500 12/10/99 0900 F 62.0 22.2 -- 915

02/25/00 1230 02/25/00 1930 P -- -- -- --05/09/00 0445 05/09/00 1530 R,P 110 57.8 -- --05/21/00 1800 05/22/00 0000 P -- -- -- 1,61005/26/00 0500 05/26/00 1100 R,P 143 31.1 -- 1,520

5 05/26/00 1100 05/26/00 1900 F 58.0 30.7 -- 1,310

06/13/00 2215 06/14/00 0530

R 76.0 28.4 34.5 1,130

06/14/00 0530 06/14/00 1000 P 66.0 17.7 31.7 85407/17/00 0300 07/17/00 1000 R,P 96.0 23.6 32.3 2,55007/17/00 1000 07/17/00 1600 F 48.0 17.7 31.2 1,610

5 07/27/00 0100 07/27/00 0900 R,P -- -- -- --

07/28/00 1200 07/29/00 0330 R,P 82.0 26.2 340 22209/22/00 2145 09/23/00 0500

R 50.0 41.3 -- 752

09/23/00 0500 09/23/00 1100 P 90.0 21.5 -- 72409/23/00 1100 09/24/00 0000 F 52.0 33.9 -- --10/05/00 0545 10/05/00 1600 R,P 72.0 40.6 112 536

6 09/04/99 1800 09/04/99 2215

R 230 68.5 -- 627

09/04/99 2215 09/05/99 1100 P 94.6 73.4 -- 86309/12/99 2000 09/13/99 0540 P 56.0 26.5 -- 88109/27/99 1200 09/28/99 0000

R 29.0 74.0 -- 545

02/24/00 2300 02/25/00 1600

R 51.0 112 -- 1,260
114 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/25/00 1600 02/25/00 2315 P 30.0 106 -- 401

05/09/00 0600 05/09/00 1100 R 57.0 86.0 51.5 53405/09/00 1100 05/09/00 1700 P 90.0 88.0 59.8 57005/21/00 2100 05/22/00 0245 R,P 70.0 94.7 19.6 71205/22/00 0300 05/22/00 0800 F 77.0 103 24.4 767

6 05/26/00 0500 05/26/00 1015

R 89.0 63.1 -- 187

06/13/00 2245 06/14/00 0600

R 120 44.5 43.1 1,400

07/17/00 0330 07/17/00 0700

R 140 34.1 38.8 832

07/17/00 0700 07/17/00 1500 P 64.0 >54.4 240 73807/27/00 0045 07/27/00 2345

R,P,F 87.0 69.5 116 3,920

6 09/04/00 0645 09/04/00 2230

R,P,F 150 66.0 -- 723

09/23/00 0300 09/23/00 0515

R 37.0 63.8 -- 1,220

09/23/00 0515 09/23/00 1300 P 31.0 43.6 -- 64310/05/00 0630 10/05/00 1300

R 33.0 62.3 36.1 527

10/50/00 1300 10/06/00 0015 P 36.0 53.8 -- 1,250

7 05/17/99 0000 05/17/99 0040 R,P 62.7 13.9 -- 183

05/17/99 0040 05/17/99 0215 F 111 32.5 -- 41305/17/99 0215 05/17/99 0350

R 153 21.6 -- 353

05/21/99 0130 05/21/99 0240 R,P 104 49.8 -- 62905/21/99 0240 05/21/99 0500 F 118 13.2 -- 328

7 06/23/99 1110 06/23/99 1215

R -- 45.4 -- 336

06/23/99 1215 06/23/99 1515 P 70.0 13.9 9.2 20209/12/99 0625 09/12/99 0730

R 159 49.1 -- 1,240

09/12/99 0730 09/12/99 1000 P 102 14.5 -- 52309/27/99 0400 09/27/99 0505

R 20.0 62.2 -- --

7 09/27/99 0505 09/27/99 0615 P 26.0 24.6 -- 134

09/27/99 0615 09/27/99 0920 F 39.0 8.59 -- 58.02/25/00 1030 02/25/00 1600

R,P,F 83.0 88.9 -- 4,710

05/09/00 0315 05/09/00 0645 R,P 260 30.5 110 1,09005/09/00 0645 05/09/00 1200 F 85.0 14.8 40.1 327

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand, 

high level

Chloride, 

dissolved

5-day 

Biochemical 

oxygen demand

Suspend

sedimen

concentrat
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents in Stormflow Samples 115

7 05/21/00 1550 05/21/00 2100

R,P,F 46.0 21.5 46.1 3,510

07/11/00 2300 07/12/00 0630

R,P,F 39.0 65.5 12.4 343

07/17/00 0230 07/17/00 0400 R,P 93.0 10.9 35.7 3,16007/17/00 0400 07/17/00 1000 F 27.0 5.44 30.8 82509/04/00 0700 09/04/00 0835 R,P 130 58.2 44.3 1,660

7 09/04/00 0835 09/04/00 1240 F 120 27.4 33.9 1,360

10/04/00 2240 10/05/00 0025 R,P 91.0 34.6 45.6 1,37010/05/00 0025 10/05/00 0500 F 53.0 21.0 48.5 41810/05/00 0550 10/05/00 0730

R 71.0 10.0 45.5 1,160

8 05/15/99 0730 05/15/99 1330

R,P,F -- -- -- --

05/17/99 0000 05/17/99 0055 R,P 186 22.1 -- 40.05/17/99 0055 05/17/99 0205 F 115 30.6 -- 76.05/17/99 0205 05/17/99 0400

R 105 28.1 -- 83.

05/21/99 0125 05/21/99 0250 R,P 56.6 32.9 -- 133

8 05/21/99 0250 05/21/99 0600 F 33.6 57.8 -- 96.

09/04/99 1645 09/04/99 1850

R 19.0 62.4 -- 31.

09/04/99 1850 09/05/99 0410 P 59.0 47.2 -- 44.09/12/99 0640 09/12/99 0735

R 234 28.8 -- 86.

09/12/99 0735 09/12/99 1100 P 55.0 37.3 -- 254

8 09/27/99 0415 09/27/99 0525

R 37.0 36.0 -- 62.

09/27/99 0525 09/27/99 0625 P 47.0 39.7 -- 31.09/27/99 0625 09/27/99 1000 F 17.0 29.6 -- 46.02/25/00 1000 02/25/00 1230 R,P 25.0 127 -- 59.02/25/00 1230 02/25/00 1530 F 32.0 121 -- 107

8 05/09/00 0320 05/09/00 0530

R 90.0 59.7 82.0 52.

05/09/00 0530 05/09/00 0700 P 120 42.4 95.0 60.05/09/00 0700 05/09/00 1230 F 86.0 44.7 85.0 19405/21/00 1500 05/21/00 2100

R,P,F 45.0 40.5 24.8 39.

07/11/00 2250 07/12/00 0700

R,P,F -- -- -- 249

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand, 

high level

Chloride, 

dissolved

5-day 

Biochemical 

oxygen demand

Suspend

sedimen

concentrat
116 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 09/04/00 0700 09/04/00 0800 R,P 33.0 51.4 15.9 73.

09/04/00 0800 09/04/00 1200 F 46.0 31.1 21.1 10610/04/00 2250 10/05/00 0500

R,P,F 23.0 22.4 40.3 111

9 05/12/99 0005 05/12/99 0055 P -- -- -- --

05/15/99 0745 05/15/99 0900

R 204 41.5 -- --

05/15/99 0900 05/15/99 1025 P 45.3 37.3 -- --05/15/99 1025 05/15/99 1400 F 45.0 42.2 -- --05/16/99 2315 05/17/99 0050

R 43.5 14.5 -- 96.

9 05/17/99 0050 05/17/99 0225 P,F 36.4 18.5 -- --

05/17/99 0225 05/17/99 0405

R 42.4 28.8 -- 97.

05/21/99 0120 05/21/99 0210

R 60.2 52.6 -- 117

05/21/99 0210 05/21/99 0305 P 43.4 51.1 -- 49.06/23/99 0930 06/23/99 1230

R 55.0 19.3 -- 79.

9 06/23/99 1230 06/23/99 1630 P 88.0 8.88 -- 182

09/04/99 1540 09/04/99 1900

R 535 40.9 -- 100

09/04/99 1900 09/05/99 0400 P 382 33.0 -- --09/12/99 0615 09/12/99 0730

R 109 14.5 -- 102

09/12/99 0730 09/12/99 0925 P 75.0 32.2 -- 155

9 09/27/99 0405 09/27/99 0520

R 20.0 20.9 -- 62.

09/27/99 0520 09/27/99 0620 P 35.0 32.0 -- 32.09/27/99 0620 09/27/99 1000 F 73.0 42.1 -- 46.02/25/00 0910 02/25/00 1105 R 40.0 88.5 -- 92.02/25/00 1105 02/25/00 1315 P 32.0 123 -- 66.

9 05/09/00 0330 05/09/00 0550

R 73.0 43.7 36.2 68.

05/09/00 0550 05/09/00 0720 P 64.0 41.1 33.6 96.05/09/00 0720 05/09/00 1230 F 81.0 39.5 49.5 21005/21/00 1615 05/21/00 2200

R,P,F 99.0 44.1 34.2 167

07/11/00 2255 07/12/00 0800

R,P,F -- -- -- --

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand, 

high level

Chloride, 

dissolved

5-day 

Biochemical 

oxygen demand

Suspend

sedimen

concentrat
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents in Stormflow Samples 117

9 07/17/00 0235 07/17/00 0315

R 64.0 24.5 45.1 398

07/17/00 0315 07/17/00 0405 P 106 20.9 39.9 1,84007/17/00 0405 07/17/00 1030 F 50.0 12.1 33.0 1,90009/04/00 0700 09/04/00 0815 R,P 100 38.4 80.3 37909/04/00 0815 09/04/00 1355 F 110 42.0 75.5 71.

9 10/04/00 2240 10/04/00 2330

R 74.0 18.4 70.0 202

10/04/00 2330 10/05/00 0530 P,F 67.0 17.0 60.3 10010/05/00 0530 10/05/00 0710

R 163 22.5 155 285

10 05/21/99 0200 05/21/99 0240

R 43.0 25.6 -- 58.

05/21/99 0240 05/21/99 0340 P 35.3 25.6 -- 58.05/21/99 0340 05/21/99 0630 F 32.2 22.5 -- --06/23/99 1255 06/23/99 1325

R 72.0 8.50 9.00 682

06/23/99 1325 06/23/99 1415 P 46.0 6.82 8.50 419

10 06/23/99 1420 06/23/99 1515 F 93.0 9.36 8.90 906

09/04/99 1700 09/04/99 1900

R 44.0 27.7 -- 37.

09/04/99 1905 09/05/99 0500 P 35.0 26.4 -- 39.09/12/99 0615 09/12/99 0740

R 96.0 29.0 -- 32.

09/12/99 0740 09/12/99 1000 P -- -- -- --

10 02/25/00 1030 02/25/00 1310 R,P 22.0 87.8 -- 59.

02/25/00 1310 02/25/00 1700 F 24.0 86.7 -- 60.05/09/00 0530 05/09/00 1200 F 56.0 54.6 34.5 69.05/21/00 1700 05/21/00 2010

R,P,F 60.0 45.1 33.0 31.

07/11/00 2100 07/12/00 0700

R,P,F 26.0 14.1 14.2 25.

10 07/26/00 2330 07/27/00 0900

R,P,F 43.0 15.6 28.1 56.

10/04/00 2300 10/04/00 2345 R,P 27.0 20.1 44.9 14010/04/00 2345 10/05/00 0600 F 22.0 20.7 34.8 35.10/05/00 0600 10/05/00 0725

R 24.0 19.2 40.3 53.

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand, 

high level

Chloride, 

dissolved

5-day 

Biochemical 

oxygen demand

Suspend

sedimen

concentrat
118 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

11 11/22/99 2200 11/23/99 0500

R 94.0 45.1 -- 1,270

11/23/99 0500 11/23/99 1330 P 96.0 69.1 -- 1,380

12/09/99 1100 12/09/99 1830 P 27.0 34.3 -- 76212/09/99 1830 12/10/99 0600 F 57.0 41.5 -- 1,35002/25/00 1100 02/25/00 2215

R 29.0 96.8 -- 187

11 02/25/00 2215 02/26/00 0600 P 24.0 117 -- 223

05/09/00 0530 05/09/00 1215

R 34.0 69.3 -- 356

05/09/00 1215 05/09/00 2215 P 41.0 65.7 44.6 49405/09/00 2215 05/10/00 1045 F 50.0 83.9 -- --05/26/00 0545 05/26/00 1130 R <10.0 37.5 -- 1,000

11 05/26/00 1130 05/26/00 2345 P 88.0 58.9 -- 1,110

06/13/00 2200 06/14/00 0530

R 48.0 26.2 23.8 1,030

06/14/00 0530 06/14/00 1900 P 64.0 31.5 29.4 87007/12/00 0130 07/12/00 0900 P 60.0 39.5 11.0 98307/17/00 0400 07/17/00 1800 R,P 73.0 21.6 >270 1,240

11 07/27/00 0200 07/27/00 1700 R,P 88.0 43.5 197 257

07/28/00 1330 07/29/00 0700 R,P 90.0 33.0 102 28009/23/00 0000 09/23/00 0715

R 26.0 43.4 -- 1,060

09/23/00 0715 09/23/00 1500 P 37.0 28.0 -- 88610/05/00 0130 10/05/00 0930

R 22.0 39.6 70.4 191

11 10/05/00 0930 10/05/00 1445 P 24.0 19.6 39.4 411

10/05/00 1445 10/05/00 2245 P 22.0 36.8 -- --10/05/00 2245 10/06/00 0900 F 33.0 49.6 -- 479

Table 4. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Chemical 

oxygen 

demand, 

high level

Chloride, 

dissolved

5-day 

Biochemical 

oxygen demand

Suspend

sedimen

concentrat
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 119

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples[Numbers below chemical names are CAS numbers (Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers); all chemical concentrations in units of micrograms per liter in unfilter

hydroxyanisole; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EO, nonylphenol diethoxylate; OP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2Epeak flow; <, less than; R, rising flow; F, receding flow, samples composited from more than one hydrologic condition are marked with multiple codes; E, estimated; --, n

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin

date

Sample 

begin time

Sample 

end

date

Sample 

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

95-50-1

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

541-73-1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

106-46-7

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)et

hyl acetate 

124-17-4

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol

128-39-2

2,6-Di-tertbutyl-benzo

quinone

106-51-4

5 09/12/99 1030 09/12/99 1530 P <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.10 <0.09 <0.07 

09/27/99 1000 09/28/99 0130

R <.03 .10 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/28/99 0130 09/28/99 1600 P <.03 E.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

11/22/99 2130 11/23/99 0145

R <.03 .05 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

12/09/99 0800 12/09/99 1500 P <.03 .07 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

5 12/09/99 1500 12/10/99 0900 F <.03 .16 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

02/25/00 1230 02/25/00 1930 P -- -- E.02 -- <.09 .23 05/09/00 0445 05/09/00 1530 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .49 05/21/00 1800 05/22/00 0000 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/26/00 0500 05/26/00 1100 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 

5 05/26/00 1100 05/26/00 1900 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .13 

06/13/00 2215 06/14/00 0530

R -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 

06/14/00 0530 06/14/00 1000 P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 07/17/00 0300 07/17/00 1000 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 07/17/00 1000 07/17/00 1600 F -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 

5 07/27/00 0100 07/27/00 0900 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 

07/28/00 1200 07/29/00 0330 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 09/22/00 2145 09/23/00 0500

R -- -- <.03 -- <.08 .24 

09/23/00 0500 09/23/00 1100 P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 .24 09/23/00 1100 09/24/00 0000 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .24 10/05/00 0545 10/05/00 1600 R,P -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

6 09/04/99 1800 09/04/99 2215

R -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/99 2215 09/05/99 1100 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 09/12/99 2000 09/13/99 0540 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/27/99 1200 09/28/99 0000

R <.03 .04 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/27/99 1201 09/28/99 0001

R <.03 E.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 
120 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued Site number (fig. 1) Sample begin date Sample begin time Sample end date Sample end time Hydrologic condition 1,2-Dichloro- benzene 1,3-Dichloro- benzene 1,4-Dichloro- benzene 2-(2- Butoxyethoxy)e thyl acetate 2,6-Di-tert- butyl- phenol 2,6-Di-ter

butyl-benz

quinone 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R -- -- E0.02 -- <0.09 <0.07 

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 05/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00 R -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .23 05/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .34 05/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .10 

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R -- -- E.01 -- <.09 <.07 

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00

R -- -- E.01 -- <.09 <.07 

06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01

R -- -- E.01 -- <.09 E.05 

07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00

R -- -- E.02 -- <.08 <.50 

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45

R,P,F -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 

07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46

R,P,F -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 

09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30

R,P,F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

09/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15

R -- -- E.01 -- <.09 .12 

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P -- -- E.01 -- <.09 .12 

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P -- -- E.01 -- <.09 .12 10/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00

R -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P <0.03 E0.01 <.03 0.39 <.09 .10 

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F <.03 <.03 <.03 .62 <.09 .13 05/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R <.03 E.01 <.03 .53 <.09 .10 

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P <.03 <.03 <.03 .41 <.09 .17 05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F <.03 E.02 <.03 .29 <.09 .14 

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 .16 

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P <.03 <.03 .05 <.06 <.09 .12 09/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 121

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05

R <0.03 E0.02 <0.03 <0.10 <0.09 <0.07 

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 .49 09/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00

R,P,F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .19 

05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .20 

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F -- -- E.02 -- <.09 <.07 

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30

R,P,F -- -- <.03 -- <.08 .41 

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 10/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 10/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 10/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30

R -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30

R,P,F <.03 <.03 <.03 .32 <.09 .19 

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P <.03 <.03 <.03 .38 <.09 .23 05/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F <.03 <.03 <.03 .35 <.09 .15 05/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00

R <.03 <.03 <.03 .27 <.09 .12 

05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P <.03 <.03 <.03 .17 E.003 .15 

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F <.03 <.03 <.03 .13 <.09 <.07 

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 .23 

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 .12 09/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin 

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichloro- benzene 1,4-Dichloro- benzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)e

thyl acetate 

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol 2,6-Di-ter

butyl-benz

quinone 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 
122 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P -- -- E0.03 -- <0.09 0.33 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F -- -- E.01 -- <.09 <.07 05/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30

R -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .29 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .30 05/09/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .26 

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 09/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F -- -- .05 -- <.15 <.50 10/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00

R,P,F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01

R,P,F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P <0.03 <0.03 E.02 0.16 <.09 .16 

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00

R <.03 .05 <.03 .47 <.09 <.07 

05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P <.03 E.02 <.03 .32 <.09 .18 05/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F <.03 .04 <.03 .22 <.09 <.07 05/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50

R <.03 .03 E.03 .32 <.09 .13 

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F <.03 E.02 <.03 .30 <.09 .18 

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05

R <.03 E.02 <.03 .28 <.09 .17 

05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10

R <.03 .04 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P <.03 .05 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 06/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30

R <.03 E.01

E.02 

E.04 <.09 .21 

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P <.03 E.01

E.02 .06 <.09 .15 

09/04/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20

R <.03 <.03

E.01 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- -- -- -- -- 02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05 R -- -- .05 -- <.09 <.07 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin 

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichloro- benzene 1,4-Dichloro- benzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)e

thyl acetate 

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol 2,6-Di-ter

butyl-benz

quinone 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 123

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P -- -- 0.04 -- <0.09 0.22 

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50

R -- -- .06 -- <.09 .92 

05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .80 05/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00

R,P,F -- -- E.01 -- <.09 <.07 

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00

R,P,F -- -- .04 -- <.08 .67 

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15

R -- -- .04 -- <.08 <.50 

07/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P -- -- E.02 -- <.08 <.50 07/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P -- -- .08 -- <.15 <.50 

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F -- -- .04 -- <.15 <.50 

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30

R -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 10/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10

R -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40 R <0.03 <0.03 .05 0.42 <.09 <.07 

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P <.03 <.03 .05 .46 <.09 .13 05/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F <.03 <.03 .04 .19 <.09 <.07 06/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25

R <.03 <.03 .09 .08 <.09 <.07 

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P <.03 <.03 .07 <.06 <.09 <.07 

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F <.03 <.03 .14 .08 <.09 <.07 

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/04/99 17:01 09/04/99 19:01

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P <.03 <.03 .10 <.10 <.09 <.07 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40

R <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P -- -- .10 -- <.09 <.07 02/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F -- -- .14 -- <.09 <.07 05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F -- -- .28 -- <.09 .38 05/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10

R,P,F -- -- .05 -- <.09 <.07 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin 

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichloro- benzene 1,4-Dichloro- benzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)e

thyl acetate 

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol 2,6-Di-ter

butyl-benz

quinone 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 
124 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- 0.04 -- <0.08 0.48 

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F -- -- E.03 -- <.08 <.50 

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P -- -- E.03 -- <.15 <.50 10/04/00 23:45 10/05/00 06:00 F -- -- .04 -- <.15 <.50 10/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25

R -- -- .07 -- <.15 <.50 

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00 R <0.03 <0.03 .04 <0.010 <.09 <.07

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P <.03 <.03

E.02 <.10 <.09 <.07 

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P <.03 .05 .05 <.10 <.09 <.07 12/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F <.03 .04 .04 <.10 <.09 <.07 02/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15

R -- -- E.02 -- <.09 .23 

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P -- -- E.02 -- <.09 <.07 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15

R -- -- .04 -- <.09 1.33 

05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P -- -- .03 -- <.09 .60 05/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F -- -- <.03 -- <.09 .91 05/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30 R -- -- <.03 -- <.09 <.07 

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P -- -- .06 -- <.09 .10 

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30

R -- -- .06 -- <.09 <.07 

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P -- -- .06 -- <.09 <.07 07/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P -- -- .03 -- <.08 .91 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P -- -- .11 -- <.08 <.50 

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P -- -- .04 -- <.08 <.50 

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P -- -- <.03 -- <.08 <.50 09/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15

R -- -- .05 -- <.09 .37 

09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P -- -- .12 -- <.09 .27 09/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P -- -- .12 -- <.09 .33 

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30

R -- -- .04 -- <.15 <.50 

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P -- -- .09 -- <.15 <.50 10/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P -- -- .06 -- <.15 <.50 10/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F -- -- <.04 -- <.15 <.50 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin 

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichloro- benzene 1,4-Dichloro- benzene

2-(2-

Butoxyethoxy)e

thyl acetate 

2,6-Di-tertbutylphenol 2,6-Di-ter

butyl-benz

quinone 

95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 125

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sa

mple

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end

date

Sample

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

4-Nonylphenol

104-40-5

5-Methyl1H-benzotriazole

136-85-6

Acetophenone

98-86-2

Anthracene

120-12-7

Benzaldehyde

100-52-7

Benzo[a]- 

pyrene

50-32-8

Bis(2-ethyl 

hexyl)

adipate

103-23-1

5 09/12/99 10:30 09/12/99 15:30 P E0.86 -- <0.03 <0.05 <0.15 0.09 2.40 

09/27/99 10:00 09/28/99 01:30

R

E1.00 -- <.03 .05 <.15 .22 <.90 

09/28/99 01:30 09/28/99 16:00 P E1.20 -- <.03 E.04 <.15 .16 <.90 

11/22/99 21:30 11/23/99 01:45

R

E1.80 -- <.03 .05 <.15 .14 2.20 

12/09/99 08:00 12/09/99 15:00 P E.60 -- <.03 .08 <.15 .36 9.10 

5 12/09/99 15:00 12/10/99 09:00 F E.95 -- <.03 .23 <.15 .58 13.0 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 19:30 P E1.23 1.29 .09 .09 -- .28 <1.50 05/09/00 04:45 05/09/00 15:30 R,P E1.69 <.10 <.10 .33 -- .23 <1.50 05/21/00 18:00 05/22/00 00:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 11:00 R,P E.93 .41 <.10 .08 .36 <1.50 

5 05/26/00 11:00 05/26/00 19:00 F E.73 .47 <.10 .08 -- .33 <1.50 

06/13/00 22:15 06/14/00 05:30

R <.50 <.10 <.10 .06 -- .10 <1.50 

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 10:00 P <.50 <.10 <.10 E.02 -- .06 <1.50 07/17/00 03:00 07/17/00 10:00 R,P E3.42 .30 .32 .22 -- .53

E2.22 

07/17/00 10:00 07/17/00 16:00 F E1.26 .37 .36 .07 -- .20 <2.00 

5 07/27/00 01:00 07/27/00 09:00 R,P E1.18 .46 .27 E.05 -- .14 <2.00 

07/28/00 12:00 07/29/00 03:30 R,P <.50 <.10 <.22 <.06 -- <.05 <2.00 09/22/00 21:45 09/23/00 05:00

R <.50 .54 <.15 E.04 -- .21 <2.00 

09/23/00 05:00 09/23/00 11:00 P <.50 .36 <.15 E.03 -- .14 <2.00 09/23/00 11:00 09/24/00 00:00 F <.50 .48 E.08 E.02 -- .08 <1.50 10/05/00 05:45 10/05/00 16:00 R,P E.53 .36 <.22 .08 -- .20 <2.00 

6 09/04/99 18:00 09/04/99 22:15

R -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/99 22:15 09/05/99 11:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 09/12/99 20:00 09/13/99 05:40 P E.71 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 .15 2.70 09/27/99 12:00 09/28/99 00:00 R

E2.20 -- <.03 E.04 <.15 .12 <.90 

09/27/99 12:01 09/28/99 00:01 R

E2.00 -- <.03 E.04 <.15 .09 <.90 
126 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R

E1.11 1.06 0.09 0.13 -- 0.38 <1.50 

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P E.49 .65 <.03 <.05 -- .09 <1.50 05/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00

R

E1.22 .21 <.10 .06 -- .19 <1.50 

05/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P E1.04 <.10 <.10 E.04 -- .12 <1.50 05/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P E.96 .78 <.10 <.05 -- .17 <1.50 

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F E1.15 .48 <.10 E.04 -- .16 <1.50 

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R

E.52 .41 <.10 <.05 -- .09 <1.50 

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00 R <.50 <.10 <.10 E.02 -- .06 <1.50 06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01 R <.50 <.10 <.10 E.02 -- .09 <1.50 07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00

R

E1.18 .43 <.22 .07 -- .27 <2.00 

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P E.61 .32 <.15 E.04 -- .22 <2.00 

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45

R,P,F E.97 .23 <.22 E.03 -- .06 <2.00 

07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46 R,P,F E1.00 .34 <.22 E.04 -- .09 <2.00 09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30 R,P,F E1.26 1.02 .22 E.05 -- .12 <2.00 09/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15

R <.50 .89 <.10 E.02 -- .09 <1.50 

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P E.41 .78 E.10 E.03 -- .10 <1.50 

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P E.49 .76 .10 E.03 -- .10 <1.50 10/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00

R

E.53 .34 <.22 E.05 -- .15 <2.00 

10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P E.34 .21 <.22 E.03 -- .12 <2.00 

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P E2.16 -- .48 2.51 0.14 4.39 <1.50 

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F E1.57 -- .52 2.22 .18 5.76 <1.50 05/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R

E1.39 -- .38 1.00 .12 3.20 <1.50 

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P E1.39 -- .56 .39 .17 2.56 <1.50 05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F E1.35 -- .54 .87 .14 2.12 <1.50 

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R

E1.70 -- <.10 .10 <.10 1.10 <1.50 

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P E2.50 -- <.10 .07 <.10 .76 <1.50 09/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30 R

E1.60 -- <.03 .17 <.15 1.00 5.90 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P E1.50 -- <.03 .12 <.15 .75 4.50 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P E1.70 -- <.03 .17 <.15 .93 4.60 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end

date

Sample 

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

4-Nonylphenol

5-Methyl1H-benzotriazole Aceto- phenone Anthracene Benzal- dehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) adipate 

104-40-5 136-85-6 98-86-2 120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 127

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05

R

E1.90 -- <0.03 E0.04 <0.15 E0.05 <0.90 

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P E2.60 -- <.03 .21 <.15 .62 <.90 09/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F E2.20 -- .04 .18 <.15 .40 <.90 02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00

R,P,F E.78 <0.10 .14 .19 -- .73 <1.50 

05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F E.86 <.10 .68 .13 -- .19 <1.50 

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F E2.82 .37 .42 .57 -- 1.70 <1.50 

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30 R,P,F E2.09 1.17 .39 .23 -- .85 <2.00 

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P E1.21 .60 .32 .39 -- .95 <2.00 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F E1.59 <.10 .32 .16 -- .37 <2.00 

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P E2.72 .85 .43 .28 -- .75 <2.00 

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F E2.83 1.30 .54 .17 -- .45 <2.00 10/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P E.23 E.12 <.22 .09 -- .38 <2.00 10/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F E.48 .21 <.22 .12 -- .32 <2.00 10/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30

R

E.50 .27 <.22 .17 -- .54 <2.00 

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30 R,P,F E1.80 -- .30 .09 <.10 .22 <1.50 

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P E1.44 -- .17 .07 <.10 .11 <1.50 05/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F E1.16 -- .23 .11 <.10 .31 <1.50 05/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00 R

E1.31 -- .28 .79 <.10 .75 <1.50 

05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P E1.33 -- .36 .14 <.10 .22 <1.50 

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F E1.31 -- .26 .16 <.10 .41 <1.50 

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50

R

E1.30 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 .06 <.90 

09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P E1.40 -- <.03 E.04 <.15 .10 <.90 09/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P E1.60 -- <.03 E.04 <.15 .14 <.90 09/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35 R

E1.60 -- <.03 E.04 <.15 .14 5.00 

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P E1.40 -- <.03 .08 <.15 .48 6.50 

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P E.38 -- .03 .07 <.15 .47 <.90 09/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25 R

E1.20 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 

09/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P E2.10 -- <.03 E.03 <.15 .06 <.90 09/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F E2.20 -- <.03 .07 <.15 .15 <.90 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end

date

Sample 

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

4-Nonylphenol

5-Methyl1H-benzotriazole Aceto- phenone Anthracene Benzal- dehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) adipate 

104-40-5 136-85-6 98-86-2 120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 
128 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P E1.05 0.88 <0.03 0.06 -- 0.22 <1.50 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F E.70 .54 <.03 .06 -- .19 <1.50 05/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30 R <.50 <.10 <.10 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P E1.59 <.10 <.10 .31 -- .26 <1.50 05/09/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F E1.02 .29 <.10 .08 -- .14 <1.50 

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F E.40 .55 <.10 <.05 -- E.05 <1.50 

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P E3.52 1.02 .30 .09 -- .12 <2.00 09/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F E4.32 .79 .36 .07 -- .14 <2.00 10/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00 R,P,F E1.14 .27 <.22 E.04 -- .11 <2.00 10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01

R,P,F E.90 .23 <.22 E.04 -- .12 <2.00 

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P E2.20 -- .20 E.02 <0.10 .25 <1.50 

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00 R

E2.98 -- .58 .09 <.10 .37 <1.50 

05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P E2.00 -- .38 .08 <.10 .28 <1.50 05/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F E2.02 -- .44 .10 <.10 .22 <1.50 05/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50 R

E1.84 -- .47 .07 <.10 .31 <1.50 

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F E1.94 -- .17 <.05 <.10 .14 <1.50 

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05 R

E1.68 -- .40 .28 <.10 .62 <1.50 

05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10 R

E1.50 -- .48 .12 <.10 .34 <1.50 

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P E2.09 -- .25 .12 <.10 .63 <1.50 06/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30 R

E2.10 -- <.10 <.05 <.10 .17 <1.50 

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P E1.90 -- <.10 <.05 <.10 .22 <1.50 

09/04/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00 R

E3.30 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 .15 <.90 

09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P E2.20 -- <.03 .06 <.15 .14 <.90 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R

E3.60 -- <.03 .06 <.15 .45 3.50 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P E2.40 -- <.03 .09 <.15 .57 4.40 

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P E2.20 -- <.03 .09 <.15 .55 4.90 

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20

R

E3.50 -- <.03 .07 <.15 .23 <.90 

09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P E2.10 -- <.03 E.05 <.15 .16 <.90 09/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05

R

E2.05 1.18 <.03 E.07 -- .33 <1.50 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end

date

Sample 

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

4-Nonylphenol

5-Methyl1H-benzotriazole Aceto- phenone Anthracene Benzal- dehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) adipate 

104-40-5 136-85-6 98-86-2 120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 129

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P E1.52 0.87 <0.03 E0.04 -- 0.23 <1.50 

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50

R

E.54 <.10 <.10 .06 -- .19 <1.50 

05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F E2.64 <.10 .46 .14 -- .23 <1.50 05/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00

R,P,F E.69 .68 <.10 .06 -- .24 <1.50 

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00 R,P,F E2.80 1.52 .34 .10 -- .24 <2.00 

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15 R

E2.90 .77 .49 .22 -- .54 <2.00 

07/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P E2.40 .65 .40 .26 -- .58 <2.00 07/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F E1.38 .55 .30 .12 -- .31 <2.00 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P E6.14 .59 .40 .23 -- .55 <2.00 

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F E4.06 .57 .35 E.06 -- .09 <2.00 

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30

R

E1.53 .16 <.22 .08 -- .34 <2.00 

10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F E1.28 .33 <.22 E.04 -- .13 <2.00 10/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10

R

E1.34 .30 <.22 .10 -- .37 <2.00 

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40 R

E1.36 -- <.10 <.05 <0.10 .05 <1.50 

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P E1.48 -- <.10 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 05/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F E1.15 -- <.10 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.50 06/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25 R

E1.30 -- <.10 .05 <.10 .65 <1.50 

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P E.97 -- <.10 E.03 <.10 .36 <1.50 

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F E2.20 -- <.10 .05 <.10 .59 <1.50 

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00 R

E1.40 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 

09/04/99 17:01 09/04/99 19:01 R

E1.10 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 

09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P E4.20 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 <.05 <.90 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40 R

E1.70 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 <.05 4.00 

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P E1.70 -- <.03 <.05 <.15 <.05 4.90 

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P E1.33 .85 <.03 <.05 --

E.05 <1.50 

02/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F E1.86 .70 <.03 <.05 -- .06 <1.50 05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F E4.03 <.10 <.10 E.04 --

E.03

E1.96 

05/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10

R,P,F E.87 .98 <.10 <.05 -- <.05 <1.50 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end

date

Sample 

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

4-Nonylphenol

5-Methyl1H-benzotriazole Aceto- phenone Anthracene Benzal- dehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) adipate 

104-40-5 136-85-6 98-86-2 120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 
130 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F E1.78 0.87 0.36 E0.05 -- <0.05 <2.00 

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F E1.02 .17 <.22 E.03 -- E.04 <2.00 

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P E1.26 .27 <.22 <.06 -- E.06 <2.00 10/04/00 23:45 10/50/00 06:00 F E1.73 .31 <.22 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 10/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25 R

E1.30 .38 <.22 <.06 -- <.07 <2.00 

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00

R

E1.80 -- .06 .09 <0.15 .27 2.30 

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P E2.60 -- <.03 .09 <.15 .28 2.70 

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P E1.30 -- <.03 .08 <.15 .35 6.40 12/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F E.89 -- <.03 .12 <.15 .34 6.90 02/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15 R

E1.06 1.13 .10 <.05 -- .08 <1.50 

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P E1.29 1.05 .11 <.05 -- .08 <1.50 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15 R

E1.41 <.10 <.10 E.04 -- .08 <1.50 

05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P E1.14 <.10 <.10 .05 -- .10 <1.50 05/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F E1.72 <.10 <.10 .06 -- .12 <1.50 05/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30 R

E.95 .78 <.10 <.05 -- .08 <1.50 

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P E1.54 .43 <.10 .06 -- .15 <1.50 

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30 R

E.89 <.10 <.10 E.05 -- .08 <1.50 

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P E.51 <.10 <.10 E.02 -- .05 <1.50 07/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P E1.99 1.49 .32 .11 -- .44 <2.00 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P E1.55 .49 .26 .07 -- .09 <2.00 

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P E1.12 .22 <.22 E.03 -- .05 <2.00 

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P <.50 .75 <.22 E.04 -- .07 <2.00 09/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15

R

E.58 .71 <.10 .06 -- .17 <1.50 

09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P E.68 .86 <.10 E.05 -- .12 <1.50 09/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P E.73 .84 <.10 .05 -- .16 <1.50 

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30 R

E1.17 .29 <.22 <.06 -- E.05 <2.00 

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P E1.29 .38 <.22 E.05 -- .11 <2.00 10/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P E.92 .43 <.22 E.04 -- .08 <2.00 10/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F E.69 .43 <.22 E.04 -- .11 <2.00 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end

date

Sample 

end

time

Hydrologic 

condition

4-Nonylphenol

5-Methyl1H-benzotriazole Aceto- phenone Anthracene Benzal- dehyde Benzo[a]- pyrene Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) adipate 

104-40-5 136-85-6 98-86-2 120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 131

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site

number

(fig. 1)

Sa

mple

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample end 

date

Sample

end time

Hydrologic 

condition

BHA

25013-16-5

BHT

128-37-0

Caffeine

58-08-2

Carbaryl

63-25-2

CisChlordane

5103-71-9

Chlorpyri

2921-88-

5 09/12/99 10:30 09/12/99 15:30 P <0.10 <0.08 0.42 <0.06 <0.04 <0.02 

09/27/99 10:00 09/28/99 01:30

R <.10 <.08 .39 <.06 <.04 <.02 

09/28/99 01:30 09/28/99 16:00 P <.10 <.08 .28 E.13 E.03 <.02 

11/22/99 21:30 11/23/99 01:45

R <.10 <.08 .36 <.06 <.04 <.02 

12/09/99 08:00 12/09/99 15:00 P <.10 <.08 .35 <.06 <.04 <.02 

5 12/09/99 15:00 12/10/99 09:00 F <.10 <.08 .22 <.06 <.04 <.02 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 19:30 P <.12 <.08 1.12 <.06 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 04:45 05/09/00 15:30 R,P <.12 <.08 1.09 E.10 <.04 <.02 05/21/00 18:00 05/22/00 00:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 11:00

R,P <.12 <.08 .30 <.06 <.04 <.02 

5 05/26/00 11:00 05/26/00 19:00 F <.12 <.08 .35 <.06 <.04 <.02 

06/13/00 22:15 06/14/00 05:30

R <.12 <.08 .24 <.06 <.04 <.02 

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 10:00 P <.12 <.08 .11 <.06 <.04 <.02 07/17/00 03:00 07/17/00 10:00 R,P <.12 <.08 <.08 E.27 E.01 .08 07/17/00 10:00 07/17/00 16:00 F <.12 <.08 .37 E.19 <.04 .07 

5 07/27/00 01:00 07/27/00 09:00 R,P <.12 <.08 .52 E.09 <.04 <.02 

07/28/00 12:00 07/29/00 03:30 R,P <.12 <.08 E.04 E.05 <.04 <.02 09/22/00 21:45 09/23/00 05:00

R <.12 <.08 .32 E.35 <.04 <.02 

09/23/00 05:00 09/23/00 11:00 P <.12 <.08 .26 E.16 <.04 <.02 09/23/00 11:00 09/24/00 00:00 F <.12 <.08 .34 E.04 <.04 <.02 10/05/00 05:45 10/05/00 16:00 R,P <.12 <.11 .46 E.09 <.04 <.02 

6 09/04/99 18:00 09/04/99 22:15

R -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/99 22:15 09/05/99 11:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 09/12/99 20:00 09/13/99 05:40 P <.10 <.08 .43 E.07 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 12:00 09/28/99 00:00 R <.10 <.08 1.00 E.10 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 12:01 09/28/99 00:01 R <.10 <.08 1.10 E.08 <.04 <.02 
132 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R <0.12 <0.08 1.01 <0.06 <0.04 <0.02 

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P <.12 <.08 .92 <.06 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00

R <.12 <.08 .89 <.06 <.04 <.02 

05/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P <.12 <.08 1.18 <.06 <.04 <.02 05/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P <.12 <.08 .50 <.06 <.04 <.02 

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F <.12 <.08 .64 <.06 <.04 <.02 

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R <.12 <.08 .59 <.06 <.04 <.02 

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00

R <.12 <.08 .20 <.06 <.04 <.02 

06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01

R <.12 <.08 .27 <.06 <.04 <.02 

07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00

R <.12 <.08 .48 E.11 E.01 <.02 

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P <.12 <.08 .24 E.03 E.01 <.02 

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45

R,P,F <.12 <.08 .34 E.05 <.04 <.02 

07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46

R,P,F <.12 <.08 .46 E.05 E.01 <.02 

09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30

R,P,F <.12 <.11 .64 <.06 <.04 <.02 

09/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15

R <.12 <.08 .32 E.22 <.04 <.02 

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P <.12 <.08 .65 E.33 <.04 <.02 

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P <.12 <.08 .53 E.30 <.04 <.02 10/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00

R <.12 <.11 .50 <.06 E.004 <.02 

10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P <.12 <.11 .35 E.06 E.004 <.02 

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P <.12 <.08 1.00 E.54 E.03 <.02 

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F <.12 <.08 .77 E.66 .06 <.02 05/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R <.12 <.08 .70 E.63 .06 <.02 

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P <.12 <.08 .97 E.72 .05 .15 05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F <.12 <.08 1.25 E.56 E.03 .09 

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R <.12 <.08 .58 E.33 E.02 .06 

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P <.12 <.08 .90 E.20 E.03 .07 09/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30

R <.10 <.08 .46 E.42 <.04 <.02 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P <.10 <.08 .50 E.40 <.04 <.02 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P <.10 <.08 .62 E.46 <.04 <.02 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end time

Hydrologic 

condition

BHA BHT Caffeine Carbaryl

CisChlordane Chlorpyri

25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 5103-71-9 2921-88-
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 133

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05

R <0.10 <0.08 0.75 E0.42 <0.04 <0.02 

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P <.10 <.08 2.00 E.42 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F <.10 <.08 1.20 E.28 <.04 <.02 02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00 R,P,F <.12 <.08 1.47 <.06 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F <.12 <.08 1.11 E.19 <.04 <.02 

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F <.12 E.09 .55 <.06 <.04 <.02 

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30 R,P,F <.12 <.08 .88 E1.19 E.01 <.02 

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P <.12 <.08 .51 E.33 .04 .08 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F <.12 <.08 .37 E.11 E.02 .07 

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P <.12 <.11 .86 E.25 E.03 <.02 

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F <.12 <.11 1.13 E.20 E.03 <.02 10/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P <.12 <.11 .20 <.06 E.01 E.02 10/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F <.12 <.11 .59 E.04 E.01 E.02 10/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30

R <.12 <.11 .55 E.05 E.01 E.02 

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30

R,P,F <.12 <.08 1.69 E1.06 <.04 <.02 

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P <.12 <.08 1.57 E.93 <.04 <.02 05/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F <.12 <.08 1.10 E.71 <.04 .06 05/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00

R <.12 <.08 .99 E.58 <.04 <.02 

05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P <.12 <.08 .98 E.69 E.01 .07 

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F <.12 <.08 2.58 E.32 E.02 .07 

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50

R <.10 <.08 .33 <.06 <.04 <.02 

09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P <.10 <.08 .91 E.31 <.04 <.02 09/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P <.10 <.08 1.20 E.35 <.04 <.02 09/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35

R <.10 <.08 .85 <.06 <.04 <.02 

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P <.10 <.08 .64 E.30 <.04 <.02 

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P <.10 <.08 .59 E.29 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25

R <.10 <.08 .30 <.06 <.04 <.02 

09/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P <.10 <.08 1.50 E.26 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F <.10 <.08 1.50 E.40 <.04 <.02 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end time

Hydrologic 

condition

BHA BHT Caffeine Carbaryl

CisChlordane Chlorpyri

25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 5103-71-9 2921-88-
134 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P <0.12 <0.08 1.52 E0.10 <0.04 <0.02 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F <.12 <.08 1.31 E.13 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30

R <.12 <.08 .99 E.08 <.04 <.02 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P <.12 <.08 1.86 E.14 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F <.12 <.08 .85 E.16 <.04 <.02 

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F <.12 <.08 .60 <.06 <.04 <.02 

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P <.12 <.11 .87 <.06 E.01 <.02 09/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F <.12 <.11 1.16 E.25 E.01 <.02 10/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00

R,P,F <.12 <.11 .84 <.06 E.01 .02 

10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01

R,P,F <.12 <.11 .72 <.06 E.01 E.01 

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P <.12 <.08 3.30 <.06 <.04 .34 

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00

R <.12 <.08 2.28 E.39 E.02 .11 

05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P <.12 <.08 1.00 E.36 E.02 .08 05/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F <.12 <.08 1.56

E1.88 E.01 .07 

05/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50

R <.12 <.08 1.64 E1.07 E.02 .08 

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F <.12 <.08 1.64 E.83 E.01 .07 

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05 R <.12 <.08 1.15 E.55 E.02 <.02 05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10

R <.12 <.08 1.86 E.77 E.02 .08 

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P <.12 <.08 3.11 E.29 E.03 .06 06/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30

R <.12 <.08 .77 E.09 E.01 .03 

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P <.12 <.08 .82 E.14 E.02 .05 

09/04/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00 R <.10 <.08 1.40 E.41 <.04 <.02 09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P <.10 <.08 1.10 E.40 <.04 <.02 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R <.10 <.08 1.30 E.09 <.04 <.02 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P <.10 <.08 1.00 E.18 <.04 <.02 

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P <.10 <.08 1.00 E.19 <.04 <.02 

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20 R <.10 <.08 1.20 <.06 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P <.10 <.08 1.10 E.10 <.04 <.02 09/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- -- -- -- -- 02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05

R <.12 <.08 2.80 <.06 <.04 <.02 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end time

Hydrologic 

condition

BHA BHT Caffeine Carbaryl

CisChlordane Chlorpyri

25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 5103-71-9 2921-88-
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 135

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P <0.12 <0.08 1.95 E0.07 <0.04 <0.02 

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50 R <.12 <.08 1.94 E.09 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F <.12 <.08 1.64 E.22 <.04 <.02 05/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00

R,P,F <.12 <.08 .72 <.06 <.04 <.02 

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00 R,P,F <.12 <.08 1.64 E.41 <.04 <.02 

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15 R <.12 <.08 1.27 E.08 E.02 .1407/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P <.12 <.08 1.14 E.28 E.02 .08 07/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F <.12 <.08 .68 E.26 E.02 .07 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P <.12 <.11 1.20 <.06 E.02 <.02 

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F <.12 <.11 1.22 <.06 <.04 <.02 

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30

R <.12 <.11 .69 <.06 E.01 .04 

10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F <.12 <.11 1.00 E.04 E.004 <.02 10/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10

R <.12 <.11 .87 E.04 E.01 E.02 

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40

R <.12 <.08 1.37 E.26 E.01 .05 

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P <.12 <.08 1.24 E.19 <.04 <.02 05/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F <.12 <.08 1.17 E.24 <.04 <.02 06/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25

R <.12 <.08 .51 E.09 E.02 .03 

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P <.12 <.08 .45 E.07 E.01 .03 

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F <.12 <.08 .71 E.06 E.01 .04 

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00

R <.10 <.08 .96 <.06 <.04 <.02 

09/04/99 17:01 09/04/99 19:01

R <.10 <.08 .89 <.06 <.04 <.02 

09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P <.10 <.08 1.40 <.06 <.04 <.02 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40 R <.10 <.08 1.30 E.08 <.04 <.02 

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P <.10 <.08 .76 <.06 <.04 <.02 

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P <.12 <.08 1.19 E.09 <.04 <.02 02/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F <.12 <.08 1.71 <.06 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F <.12 <.08 1.91 E.09 <.04 <.02 05/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10 R,P,F <.12 <.08 1.30 <.06 <.04 <.02 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end time

Hydrologic 

condition

BHA BHT Caffeine Carbaryl

CisChlordane Chlorpyri

25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 5103-71-9 2921-88-
136 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F <0.12 <0.08 1.30 <0.06 <0.04 <0.02 

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F <.12 <.08 .28 <.06 <.04 <.02 

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P <.12 <.11 .65 <.06 <.04 <.02 10/04/00 23:45 10/05/00 06:00 F <.12 <.11 .66 <.06 <.04 <.02 10/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25

R <.12 <.11 .65 <.06 <.04 <.02 

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00

R <.10 <.08 .84 E.06 <.04 <.02 

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P <.10 <.08 .65 E.04 <.04 <.02 

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P <.10 <.08 .64 <.06 <.04 <.02 12/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F <.10 <.08 .53 <.06 <.04 <.02 02/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15 R <.12 <.08 1.25 <.06 <.04 <.02 

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P <.12 <.08 1.25 <.06 <.04 <.02 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15 R <.12 <.08 1.22 E.02 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P <.12 <.08 .83 E.05 <.04 <.02 05/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F <.12 <.08 1.03 E.08 <.04 <.02 05/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30

R <.12 <.08 .74 <.06 <.04 <.02 

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P <.12 <.08 .54 E.11 <.04 <.02 

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30

R <.12 <.08 .39 <.06 <.04 <.02 

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P <.12 <.08 .37 <.06 <.04 <.02 07/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P <.12 E.08 .87 E.29 <.04 <.02 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P <.12 <.08 .68 E.08 E.01 .06 

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P <.12 <.08 .54 E.04 <.04 <.02 

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P <.12 <.08 .58 E.21 <.04 <.02 09/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15

R <.12 <.08 .20 E.04 <.04 <.02 

09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P <.12 <.08 .33 E.09 <.04 <.02 09/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P <.12 <.08 .37 E.09 <.04 <.02 

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30

R <.12 <.11 .50 E.03 E.002 <.02 

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P <.12 <.11 .75 E.04 E.01 <.02 10/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P <.12 <.11 .71 E.05 E.004 <.02 10/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F <.12 <.11 .47 E.07 E.01 <.02 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end time

Hydrologic 

condition

BHA BHT Caffeine Carbaryl

CisChlordane Chlorpyri

25013-16-5 128-37-0 58-08-2 63-25-2 5103-71-9 2921-88-
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 137

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site

number Sa

mple

Sample 

begin Sample end 

Sample

end Hydrologic 

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,

N-diethyltoluamide 17

Estr

(fig. 1) begin date time date time condition 360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-2

5 09/12/99 10:30 09/12/99 15:30 P E0.20 -- 0.15 <0.08 -- -- <0.

09/27/99 10:00 09/28/99 01:30

R <.60 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.

09/28/99 01:30 09/28/99 16:00 P <.60 -- .11 <.08 -- -- <.

11/22/99 21:30 11/23/99 01:45

R

E.46 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- E.

12/09/99 08:00 12/09/99 15:00 P E.09 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.

5 12/09/99 15:00 12/10/99 09:00 F <.60 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 19:30 P E1.21 0.18 <.03 <.08 0.44 1.42 <.05/09/00 04:45 05/09/00 15:30 R,P <.60 <.04 .40 <.08 .35 1.47 <.05/21/00 18:00 05/22/00 00:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- -05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 11:00

R,P E1.12 <.04 .16 <.08 .27 .53 <.

5 05/26/00 11:00 05/26/00 19:00 F E.68 .07 .24 <.08 .31 .78 <.

06/13/00 22:15 06/14/00 05:30

R <.60 E.04 .13 <.08 <.25 .66 <.

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 10:00 P <.60 <.04 .16 <.08 <.25 .22 <.07/17/00 03:00 07/17/00 10:00 R,P <.60 <.04 .47 <.08 E.27 .74 <.07/17/00 10:00 07/17/00 16:00 F E.78 .05 .61 <.08 <.25 .71 E1.

5 07/27/00 01:00 07/27/00 09:00 R,P <.60 .08 .20 <.08 E.26 1.16 E.

07/28/00 12:00 07/29/00 03:30 R,P <.60 <.04 E.03 <.08 <.25 .10 <.09/22/00 21:45 09/23/00 05:00

R <.60 .09 .10 <.08 <.25 .87 <.

09/23/00 05:00 09/23/00 11:00 P <.60 .06 .11 <.08 <.25 .62 E.09/23/00 11:00 09/24/00 00:00 F <.60 <.04 .13 <.08 <.25 .76 <.10/05/00 05:45 10/05/00 16:00 R,P E.92 E.06 .08 <.08 E.29 .57 E.

6 09/04/99 18:00 09/04/99 22:15

R -- -- -- -- -- -- -

09/04/99 22:15 09/05/99 11:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- -09/12/99 20:00 09/13/99 05:40 P E.21 -- .14 <.08 -- -- <.09/27/99 12:00 09/28/99 00:00

R

E.59 -- .04 <.08 -- -- <.

09/27/99 12:01 09/28/99 00:01 R .52 -- E.02 <.08 -- -- <.
138 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R

E1.46 0.20 <0.03 <0.08 <0.25 0.32 <0.

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P E1.03 .07 <.03 <.08 <.25 .19 <.05/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00

R <.60 <.04 <.03 <.08 E.24 .30 <.

05/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P <.60 .07 <.03 <.08 E.24 .39 <.05/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P E1.49 .07 .10 <.08 <.25 .31 <.

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F E2.01 <.04 .07 <.08 <.25 .36 <.

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R

E.71 .09 .10 <.08 <.25 .24 <.

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00

R <.60 E.03 .06 <.08 <.25 .15 <.

06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01

R

E.49 <.04 .06 <.08 <.25 .19 <.

07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00

R <.60 .09 .22 <.08 <.25 .44 <.

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P <.60 .06 .06 <.08 <.25 .21 <.

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45

R,P,F <.60 .04 .08 <.08 E.15 .29 <.

07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46

R,P,F <.60 .08 .10 <.08 E.17 .31 <.

09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30 R,P,F E1.07 .14 .18 <.08 <.35 .40 <.09/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15

R <.60 <.04 .06 <.08 <.25 .08 <.

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P <.60 <.04 .10 <.08 <.25 .10 <.

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P <.60 .10 .08 <.08 <.25 .10 <.10/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00

R

E.41 E.05 E.02 <.08 <.35 .14 <.

10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P E.45 <.08 .05 <.08 <.35 .09 <.

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P E.62 -- .58 <.08 -- -- <.

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F E1.90 -- .42 <.08 -- -- <.05/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R

E.82 -- .50 <.08 -- -- <.

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P E3.67 -- .81 E.06 -- -- <.05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F E1.29 -- 1.21 <.08 -- -- <.

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R

E.91 -- .36 E.02 -- -- <.

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P E1.30 -- .42 E.04 -- -- <.09/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30

R

E.38 -- .14 <.08 -- -- <.

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P E.47 -- .13 <.08 -- -- <.09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P E.34 -- .17 <.08 -- -- <.

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17

Estr

360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-2
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 139

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05

R <0.60 -- 0.08 <0.08 -- -- <0.

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P <.60 -- .16 <.08 -- -- <.09/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F <.60 -- .13 <.08 -- -- <.02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00 R,P,F E.46 0.28 <.03 <.08 0.27 0.80 <.05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- -

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F <.60 <.04 .37 <.08 E.23 .40 <.

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F <.60 <.04 .18 <.08 <.25 .47 <.

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30

R,P,F <.60 .17 .34 E.01 .35 1.33 <.

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P <.60 .06 .52 <.08 <.25 .85 <.07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F E.84 .05 .51 E.02 <.25 .65 E.

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P E.91 .15 .36 E.05 E.45 1.50 <.

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F E.84 .17 .47 <.08 E.37 1.27 <.10/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P <.60 <.08 E.03 <.08 <.35 .18 <.10/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F <.60 <.08 .10 <.08 <.35 .34 <.10/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30

R <.60 <.08 .07 E.02 <.35 .36 <.

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30

R,P,F E.81 -- .32 E.05 -- -- <.

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P E.32 -- .32 <.08 -- -- <.05/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F E.79 -- .29 <.08 -- -- <.05/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00

R

E.22 -- .41 <.08 -- -- <.

05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P E.21 -- .84 <.08 -- -- <.

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F E.47 -- .50 E.06 -- -- <.

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50 R

E1.10 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.

09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P E.49 -- .14 <.08 -- -- <.09/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P E.82 -- .16 <.08 -- -- <.09/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35

R

E1.70 -- .13 <.08 -- -- <.

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P E1.40 -- .13 <.08 -- -- E.

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P E1.30 -- .13 <.08 -- -- E.09/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25

R <.60 -- .03 <.08 -- -- <.

09/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P E.99 -- .05 <.08 -- -- <.09/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F E.52 -- .12 <.08 -- -- <.

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17

Estr

360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-2
140 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P E1.90 0.16 <0.03 <0.08 0.47 0.35 <0.

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F E.89 .21 <.03 <.08 .37 .30 <.05/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30

R <.60 <.04 .23 <.08 <.25 .10 <.

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P <.60 <.04 .17 <.08 .47 .18 <.05/09/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F <.60 .06 .19 <.08 E.22 .13 <.

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F E.67 .12 .13 <.08 <.25 .13 <.

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- -

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P E4.01 .16 .15 <.08 E.40 .56 <.09/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F E6.63 .14 .30 <.08 E.38 .59 <.10/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00

R,P,F E1.04 E.06 .05 E.01 <.35 .18 <.

10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01

R,P,F E.77 E.06 .06 E.01 <.35 .16 <.

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P E2.00 -- .10 <.08 -- -- <.

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00

R

E2.54 -- .39 <.08 -- -- <.

05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P E1.46 -- .24 <.08 -- -- <.05/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F E.38 -- .28 <.08 -- -- <.05/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50

R

E1.11 -- .44 <.08 -- -- <.

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F E.41 -- .34 <.08 -- -- <.

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05

R

E.52 -- .38 <.08 -- -- <.

05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10

R

E1.04 -- .62 E.03 -- -- <.

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P E2.59 -- .37 E.05 -- -- <.06/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30

R

E1.50 -- .26 <.08 -- -- <.

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P E3.50 -- .54 E.02 -- -- <.

09/04/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00

R

E3.80 -- .14 <.08 -- -- <.

09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P E1.10 -- .21 <.08 -- -- <.09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R

E8.70 -- .12 <.08 -- -- <.

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P E2.60 -- .12 <.08 -- -- <.

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P E2.90 -- .12 <.08 -- -- <.

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20

R

E2.50 -- .09 <.08 -- -- <.

09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P E1.50 -- .04 <.08 -- -- <.09/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- -- -- -- -- -02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05 R

E3.80 .26 <.03 <.08 .44 1.62 <.

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17

Estr

360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-2
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 141

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P E2.65 0.16 <0.03 <0.08 0.42 1.42 <0.

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50

R <.60 <.04 .46 <.08 .46 2.13 <.

05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F <.60 <.04 .37 <.08 .50 2.52 <.05/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00

R,P,F E2.06 .12 .18 <.08 .39 1.32 <.

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00

R,P,F E1.49 .21 .41 <.08 .66 4.76 <.

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15 R

E8.11 .14 .43 <.08 E.18 2.32

E.

07/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P E1.91 .12 .38 <.08 E.17 2.09 <.07/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F <.60 .08 .48 <.08 E.16 2.03

E.

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P E11.5 .18 .28 <.08 E.59 3.46 <.

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F E5.72 .18 .21 <.08 E.53 2.84 <.

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30 R

E4.57 <.08 E.03 <.08 <.35 .95 <.

10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F E2.82 E.07 .06 <.08 <.35 1.11 <.10/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10

R

E3.34 E.06 .07 E.01 <.35 1.18 <.

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40

R

E.46 -- .55 <.08 -- -- <.

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P E.53 -- .52 <.08 -- -- <.05/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F E.32 -- .54 <.08 -- -- <.06/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25

R

E.92 -- .27 <.08 -- -- <.

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P E.56 -- .31 E.01 -- -- <.

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F E1.70 -- .21 <.08 -- -- <.

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00

R

E.40 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.

09/04/99 17:01 09/04/99 19:01

R

E.54 -- .08 <.08 -- -- <.

09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P E1.70 -- .16 <.08 -- -- <.09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40

R

E.64 -- .11 <.08 -- -- <.

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P E.42 -- .09 <.08 -- -- <.

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P E1.66 .18 <.03 <.08 .48 .18 E.02/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F E3.42 .23 <.03 <.08 .45 .24 E.05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F <.60 .09 .21 <.08 .31 .15 <.05/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10

R,P,F E.94 .28 .16 <.08 .31 .18 <.

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17

Estr

360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-2
142 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00 R,P,F <0.60 0.16 0.32 <0.08 0.39 0.45 <0.

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F <.60 .04 .13 <.08 <.25 .14 <.

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P E.52 E.07 .07 <.08 E.28 .18 <.10/04/00 23:45 10/05/00 06:00 F E1.16 E.08 .03 <.08 <.35 .19 <.10/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25

R

E.97 E.08 .05 <.08 <.35 .15 <.

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00

R

E.54 -- .13 <.08 -- -- <.

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P E.82 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P E.19 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.12/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F E.11 -- <.03 <.08 -- -- <.02/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15

R

E.91 .15 <.03 <.08 .59 1.05 <.

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P E1.76 .21 <.03 <.08 .74 .73 <.

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15 R <.60 <.04 <.03 <.08 .64 .29 <.05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P <.60 <.04 <.03 <.08 .82 .51 <.05/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F <.60 <.04 .24 <.08 1.01 .71 <.05/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30

R

E1.99 <.04 <.03 <.08 .57 .29 <.

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P E1.58 .10 .18 <.08 .72 .41 <.

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30

R

E.85 .06 .06 <.08 <.25 .23 <.

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P E.56 E.04 .07 <.08 <.25 .16 <.07/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P <.60 .20 .16 <.08 1.38 1.06 <.07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P E1.10 .08 .21 <.08 E.43 .66

E.

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P <.60 .05 .11 <.08 E.91 .46 <.

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P <.60 .14 .30 <.08 E.44 .49 <.09/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15

R <.60 <.04 .09 <.08 <.25 .32 <.

09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P <.60 <.04 .09 <.08 <.25 .24 <.09/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P <.60 <.04 .10 <.08 <.25 .24 <.

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30

R

E.46 E.05 .04 <.08 E.43 .21 <.

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P E.74 E.07 .07 <.08 E.50 .20 <.10/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P E.66 E.06 .04 <.08 E.36 .17 <.10/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F E.50 E.06 .06 <.08 <.35 .16 <.

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Coprostanol Cotinine Diazinon Dieldrin Diethyl- phthalate N,N-diethyl- toluamide 17

Estr

360-68-9 486-56-6 333-41-5 60-57-1 84-66-2 134-62-3 50-2
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 143

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site

number Sa

mple

Sample 

begin Sample end 

Sample

end Hydrologic 

Fluoranthene

Lindane

Methyl

parathion

Naphthalene NP1EO

NP2EO

O

(fig. 1) begin date time date time condition 206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 N

A 23

5 09/12/99 10:30 09/12/99 15:30 P 0.28 <0.05 <0.06 <0.03 E0.60 E0.45 

09/27/99 10:00 09/28/99 01:30 R .56 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.04 <1.00 09/28/99 01:30 09/28/99 16:00 P .42 E.02 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 

11/22/99 21:30 11/23/99 01:45

R .36 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.00 <1.00 

12/09/99 08:00 12/09/99 15:00 P .65 .21 <.06 .08 E.41 <1.00 

5 12/09/99 15:00 12/10/99 09:00 F .99 <.05 <.06 .13 <.80 <1.00 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 19:30 P 1.26 <.05 <.06 .04 E1.85 E2.23 05/09/00 04:45 05/09/00 15:30 R,P .92 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 05/21/00 18:00 05/22/00 00:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 11:00 R,P 1.16 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.13 <1.10 

5 05/26/00 11:00 05/26/00 19:00 F 1.21 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.28 <1.10 

06/13/00 22:15 06/14/00 05:30 R .64 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.54 E.64 06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 10:00 P .29 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.35 <1.10 07/17/00 03:00 07/17/00 10:00 R,P 1.99 <.05 <.06 .04 E2.12 E2.52 07/17/00 10:00 07/17/00 16:00 F .69 <.05 <.06 .03 E2.01

E2.39

5 07/27/00 01:00 07/27/00 09:00 R,P .60 <.05 <.06 E.02 <1.00 <1.10 

07/28/00 12:00 07/29/00 03:30 R,P .04 <.05 <.06 <.02 <1.00 <1.10 09/22/00 21:45 09/23/00 05:00

R .71 <.05 <.06 <.02 E1.03 <1.10 

09/23/00 05:00 09/23/00 11:00 P .50 <.05 <.06 <.02

E1.10 <1.10

09/23/00 11:00 09/24/00 00:00 F .29 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.21 <1.10

10/05/00 05:45 10/05/00 16:00 R,P .85 <.05 <.06 E.02 E1.00 E1.52 

6 09/04/99 18:00 09/04/99 22:15

R -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/99 22:15 09/05/99 11:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 09/12/99 20:00 09/13/99 05:40 P .37 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.46 <1.00 09/27/99 12:00 09/28/99 00:00 R .26 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.80 <1.00 09/27/99 12:01 09/28/99 00:01 R .23 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 
144 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R 1.61 <0.05 <0.06 0.03 E1.26 E1.12 

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P .39 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.74 <1.10 05/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00

R .73 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

05/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P .61 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 05/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P .58 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.65 <1.10 

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F .65 <.05 <.06 <.03 E2.35 E2.74 

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R .23 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00 R .27 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.36 <1.10 06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01 R .31 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.54

E.75

07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00 R .83 <.05 <.06 .02 E1.45

E1.32

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P E.76 <.05 <.06 E.03 E1.73 E2.18 

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45

R,P,F .21 <.05 <.06 <.02 <1.00 <1.10 

07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46

R,P,F .35 <.05 <.06 <.02 <1.00 <1.10 

09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30 R,P,F .43 <.05 <.06 .05 E1.20 <1.1009/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15

R .28 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.15 <1.10 

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P .31 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.75 <1.10 

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P .33 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.11 <1.10 10/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00

R .43 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P .40 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.42 <1.10 

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P 6.13 -- <.06 1.01 E.96 E.94 

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F 7.38 -- <.06 1.09 E.76 E1.10 05/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R 5.13 -- <.06 .21 E1.16 E1.26 

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P 3.68 -- <.06 <.03 E2.66 E3.08 05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F 3.24 -- <.06 .38 E2.20 E2.38 

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R 1.70 -- <.06 .05 <1.00 <1.10 

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P 1.30 -- <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 09/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30

R 2.00 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P 1.40 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P 2.00 <.05 <.06 .03 <.80 <1.00 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO O

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 23
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 145

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05

R 0.18 <0.05 <0.06 <0.03 E0.12 <1.00 

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P 1.40 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 09/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F .95 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.25 <1.00 02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00

R,P,F 3.15 <.05 <.06 .07 <1.00 <1.10 

05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F .99 <.05 <.06 .07 <1.00 <1.10 

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F 6.04 <.05 <.06 .42 <1.00 <1.10 

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30

R,P,F 1.12 <.05 <.06 .08 E1.70 <1.10 

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P 3.76 <.05 <.06 .07 E1.57 E1.69 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F 1.44 <.05 <.06 .05 E1.59 E1.40 

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P 3.02 <.05 <.06 .09 <1.00 <1.10 

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F 1.93 <.05 <.06 .07 <1.00 E2.57 10/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P 1.39 <.05 <.06 .03 <1.00 <1.10 10/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F 1.39 <.05 <.06 .03 <1.00 <1.10 10/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30

R 2.07 <.05 <.06 .03 <1.00 <1.10 

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30

R,P,F .70 -- <.06 .04 E1.14 E1.24 

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P .47 -- <.06 E.03 E.85 E1.57 05/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F .94 -- <.06 .04 E.91 E.89 05/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00

R 1.92 -- <.06 .75 E.57 E.65 

05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P .70 -- <.06 <.03 E1.27 E1.28 

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F .94 -- <.06 <.03 E1.17 E1.30 

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50 R .13 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P .26 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.0009/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P .37 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 09/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35 R .32 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.10 E.84

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P 1.10 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.20 E1.30 

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P .96 .28 E.01 E.02 E.16 <1.00 09/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25 R .08 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.0009/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P .19 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.20 <1.00 09/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F .45 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.50 <1.00 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO O

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 23
146 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P 1.08 <0.05 <0.06 0.04 <1.00 <1.10 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F 1.14 <.05 <.06 E.03 <1.00 <1.10 05/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30

R .07 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P .83 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 050/9/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F .85 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F .12 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P .45 <.05 <.06 .03 E1.69

E1.91

09/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F .64 <.05 <.06 .06 E3.73

E2.60

10/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00

R,P,F .42 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01

R,P,F .42 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P .61 -- <.06 <.03 E1.60 E1.30 

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00

R 1.08 -- <.06 E.03 E2.12 E1.41 

05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P .87 -- <.06 E.02 E.90 E.63 05/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F .74 -- <.06 .03 E1.15

E.80

05/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50

R .80 -- <.06 .04 E1.22 E2.00 

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F .53 -- <.06 E.03 E.95 E1.76 

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05

R 1.44 -- <.06 .13 E.95 E1.38 

05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10 R .93 -- <.06 <.03

E1.32 E1.30

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P 1.15 -- <.06 <.03 E1.82 E2.03 06/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30 R .39 -- <.06 <.03 E.52

E.35 

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P .57 -- <.06 <.03 E.65

E.28 

090/4/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00

R .41 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.20 E2.10 

09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P .38 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.67 <1.0009/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R 1.00 <.05 <.06 <.03 E2.00 E.98 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P 1.20 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.20 E1.00 

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P 1.30 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.20 E.98 

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20

R .57 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.10 <1.00 

09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P .36 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.79 <1.0009/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- -- -- -- -- 02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05

R 1.45 <.05 <.06 .03 E1.78 1.58 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO O

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 23
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 147

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P 0.90 <0.05 <0.06 E0.02 E1.28 E0.89 

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50

R .70 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F .86 <.05 <.06 .05 <1.00 <1.10 05/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00

R,P,F .76 <.05 <.06 E.02 <1.00 <1.10 

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00 R,P,F .35 <.05 <.06 .03 E2.63 <1.10 

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15

R 1.83 <.05 <.06 .04 E2.23 E1.80 

07/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P 2.17 <.05 <.06 .07 E2.12 E1.86 07/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F 1.11 <.05 <.06 .04 E1.80 E1.79 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P 1.90 <.05 <.06 .12 E4.65 E3.54 

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F .41 <.05 <.06 .05 E2.90 E2.69 

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30

R 1.22 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.34 <1.10 

10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F .44 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.12 E2.00 10/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10

R 1.30 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.92 E1.86 

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40 R .25 -- <.06 <.03 E.73

E.64 

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P .22 -- <.06 <.03 E1.09 E1.06 05/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F .21 -- <.06 <.03 E.58 E.44 06/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25

R 1.20 -- <.06 E.02 E.55 <1.10 

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P .88 -- <.06 <.03 E.48

E.18 

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F .94 -- <.06 E.02 E.78 E.23 

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00 R .04 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 09/04/99 17:01 09/04/99 19:01 R .06 <.05 <.06 <.03 <.80 <1.00 09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P .10 <.05 <.06 <.03 E1.40 <1.00 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40

R <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.94 <1.00 

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.84 <1.00 

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P .28 <.05 <.06 <.03

E1.19 E.99

02/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F .39 <.05 <.06 E.02 E1.54 E1.39 05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F .23 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 05/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10

R,P,F <.03 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO O

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 23
148 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F 0.10 <0.05 <0.06 0.02 <1.00 <1.10 

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F .06 <.05 <.06 <.02 <1.00 <1.10 

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P .14 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 10/04/00 23:45 10/05/00 06:00 F .06 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.66 <1.1010/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25 R .07 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.81 <1.10

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00

R .62 <.05 <.06 .04 E.84 <1.00 

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P .69 <.05 <.06 .04 E1.50 <1.00

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P .53 <.05 <.06 .05 E.56 <1.00 12/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F .60 <.05 <.06 .04 E.44 <1.00 02/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15 R .45 <.05 <.06 E.02

E1.03 E.31 

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P .40 <.05 <.06 E.03 E1.38 E1.82 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15

R .39 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P .51 <.05 <.06 E.03 <1.00 <1.10 05/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F .58 <.05 <.06 E.03 <1.00 <1.10 05/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30

R .30 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P .60 <.05 <.06 E.03

E1.23 E1.39 

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30 R .31 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.61 <1.10 06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P .21 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.41 <1.10 07/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P .59 <.05 <.06 .07 E2.21 <1.10 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P .41 <.05 <.06 .03 E1.65

E1.50

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P .16 <.05 <.06 .05 <1.00 <1.10

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P .29 E.02 <.06 .05 E1.46

E1.40 

09/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15

R .53 <.05 <.06 E.03 E1.40 <1.10 

09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P .43 <.05 <.06 E.03 E1.20 <1.10 09/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P .51 <.05 <.06 E.02 E1.60 <1.10 

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30 R .17 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.60 <1.10

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P .41 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.79 <1.1010/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P .32 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.68 <1.10 10/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F .40 <.05 <.06 <.03 E.76 <1.10 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Fluoranthene Lindane Methyl parathion Naphthalene NP1EO NP2EO O

206-44-0 58-89-9 298-00-0 91-20-3 27986-36-3 NA 23
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 149

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site

number Sa

mple

Sample 

begin Sample end 

Sample

end Hydrologic 

Phenanthrene Phenol Phthalic anhydride Pyrene Stigmastanol

Tetrachloroethylene T

(fig. 1) begin date time date time condition 85-01-8 108-95-2 85-44-9 129-00-0 19466-47-8 127-18-4 33

5 09/12/99 10:30 09/12/99 15:30 P 0.08 <0.15 0.81 0.22 -- 0.12 

09/27/99 10:00 09/28/99 01:30

R .24 <.15 .70 .44 -- .07 

09/28/99 01:30 09/28/99 16:00 P .16 <.15 <.20 .35 -- .06 

11/22/99 21:30 11/23/99 01:45 R .14 <.15 .52 .30 -- <.03 

12/09/99 08:00 12/09/99 15:00 P .36 <.15 <.20 .56 -- <.03 

5 12/09/99 15:00 12/10/99 09:00 F .79 <.15 <.20 .85 -- <.03 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 19:30 P .52 .33 E1.48 .98 <2.00 <.03 05/09/00 04:45 05/09/00 15:30 R,P .28 .33 E1.93 .71 <2.00 <.03 05/21/00 18:00 05/22/00 00:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 11:00

R,P .47 <.08 E1.34 .90 <2.00 <.03 

5 05/26/00 11:00 05/26/00 19:00 F .51 .29 E2.28 .92 <2.00 <.03 

06/13/00 22:15 06/14/00 05:30

R .23 .17 E.47 .49 <2.00 <.03 

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 10:00 P .09 .31 E.36 .22 <2.00 <.03 07/17/00 03:00 07/17/00 10:00 R,P .75 E.40 E.77 1.56 <2.00 <.03 07/17/00 10:00 07/17/00 16:00 F .23 E.28 E.92 .54 <2.00 <.03 

5 07/27/00 01:00 07/27/00 09:00 R,P .19 E.32 E3.33 .46 <2.00 <.03 

07/28/00 12:00 07/29/00 03:30 R,P <.05 <.25 E.50 E.03 <2.00 <.03 09/22/00 21:45 09/23/00 05:00 R .21 <.25 E1.08 .58 <2.00 <.03 09/23/00 05:00 09/23/00 11:00 P .16 <.25 E.82 .41 <2.00 <.03 09/23/00 11:00 09/24/00 00:00 F .08 <.08 E.75 .23 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 05:45 10/05/00 16:00 R,P .29 E.22 E.39 .71 <2.00 <.03 

6 09/04/99 18:00 09/04/99 22:15

R -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/99 22:15 09/05/99 11:00 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 09/12/99 20:00 09/13/99 05:40 P .11 <.15 .88 .31 -- <.03 09/27/99 12:00 09/28/99 00:00 R .09 <.15 1.10 .23 -- .07 09/27/99 12:01 09/28/99 00:01 R .08 <.15 .93 .21 -- .06 
150 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R 0.64 0.72 E1.10 1.28 <2.00 <0.03 

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P .15 .43 E.87 .29 <2.00 <.03 05/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00

R .32 <.08 E1.27 .59 <2.00 <.03 

05/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P .20 <.08 E1.28 .49 <2.00 <.03 05/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P .20 .34 E1.76 .47 <2.00 <.03 

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F .32 .65 E1.88 .55 <2.00 <.03 

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R <.06 <.08 E1.07 .17 <2.00 E.03 

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00 R .09 <.08 E.39 .20 <2.00 <.03 06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01

R .11 .31 E.53 .24 <2.00 <.03 

07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00 R .24 E.95 E.77 .67 <2.00 <.03 

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P .23 E.39 E.34 E.63 <2.00 <.03

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45 R,P,F .08 <.25 E1.14 .17 <2.00 <.03 07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46

R,P,F .11 E.48 E2.15 .28 <2.00 <.03 

09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30 R,P,F .10 <.45 E.49 .34 <2.00 <.03 09/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15 R .07 <.08 E1.11 .24 <2.00 <.03 

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P .08 <.08 E1.40 .26 <2.00 <.03 

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P .09 <.08 E1.03 .26 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00 R .16 <.45 E.37 .38 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P .13 <.45 <.35 .34 <2.00 <.03 

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P 6.01 .18 1.30 5.18 -- E.02 

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F 7.45 .53 1.34 5.54 -- .04 05/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R 3.72 .30 .80 4.44 -- E.03 

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P 1.86 .32 1.40 2.92 -- E.03 05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F 2.18 .26 1.42 2.70 -- .04 

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R .83 <.08 .62 1.40 -- <.03 

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P .49 <.08 .44 .99 -- .05 09/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30 R .96 <.15 1.00 1.70 -- .22 09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P .58 <.15 .76 1.20 -- .60 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P .85 <.15 1.00 1.70 -- 1.00 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Phenanthrene Phenol Phthalic anhydride Pyrene Stigmastanol Tetrachloro- ethylene T

85-01-8 108-95-2 85-44-9 129-00-0 19466-47-8 127-18-4 33
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 151

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05

R 0.08 <0.15 1.40 0.13 -- 0.06 

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P .64 <.15 4.90 1.10 -- .08 09/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F .38 <.15 2.10 .71 -- .06 02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00

R,P,F 1.44 .66 E2.38 2.31 E0.85 <.03 

05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- -- -- -- -- 

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F .31 .28 E2.23 .77 <2.00 <.03 

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F 3.56 .30 E2.68 4.44 E1.42 E.03 

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30 R,P,F .62 E.68 E1.48 .97 <2.00 <.03 

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P 1.66 E.54 E.97 2.90 <2.00 E.02 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F .54 <.25 E.85 1.07 <2.00 .08 

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P 1.21 <.45 E.92 2.29 <2.00 <.03 

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F .70 <.45 E1.30 1.43 <2.00 <.03 10/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P .51 E.35 <.35 1.12 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F .57 <.45 E.52 1.12 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30 R .90 <.45 E.60 1.65 <2.00 <.03 

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30

R,P,F .27 <.08 1.68 .52 -- .11 

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P .17 <.08 1.02 .32 -- E.03 05/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F .41 <.08 .79 .71 -- .03 05/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00 R 2.06 <.08 1.02 1.57 -- E.03 05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P .31 <.08 1.98 .55 -- .03 

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F .43 <.08 1.04 .76 -- E.02 

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50

R <.06 <.15 1.00 .08 -- <.03 

09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P .08 <.15 2.10 .20 -- <.03 09/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P .10 <.15 2.50 .26 -- <.03 09/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35 R .08 <.15 1.10 .25 -- .08 

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P .43 <.15 .91 .92 -- .29 

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P .39 <.15 .70 .78 -- .21 09/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25

R

E.03 <.15 .62 .06 -- .06 

09/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P E.05 <.15 .98 .15 -- .06 09/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F .14 <.15 3.00 .34 -- .07 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Phenanthrene Phenol Phthalic anhydride Pyrene Stigmastanol Tetrachloro- ethylene T

85-01-8 108-95-2 85-44-9 129-00-0 19466-47-8 127-18-4 33
152 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P 0.33 0.32 E1.24 0.76 <2.00 0.36 

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F .42 .50 E1.43 .74 <2.00 .17 05/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30

R <.06 2.13 E2.33 .06 <2.00 <.03 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P .23 <.08 <.15 .70 <2.00 <.03 05/09/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F .27 .49 E1.91 .65 <2.00 <.03 

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F E.04 .36 E1.76 .10 <2.00 <.03 

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- -- -- -- -- 

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P .23 <.45 E1.23 .35 <2.00 <.03 09/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F .35 E.32 E1.83 .45 <2.00

E.02 

10/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00 R,P,F .13 E.47 E.63 .34 <2.00

E.02 

10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01 R,P,F .12 <.45 E.49 .34 <2.00

E.03 

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P .21 <.08 .78 .45 -- <.03 

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00 R .38 .44 1.84 .77 -- .04 05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P .29 <.08 1.25 .65 -- .04 05/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F .29 <.08 1.21 .54 -- .08 05/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50 R .30 <.08 1.06 .58 -- .03 

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F .18 <.08 1.25 .36 -- E.02 

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05 R .84 <.08 1.31 1.13 -- E.02 05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10

R .37 <.08 1.57 .72 -- <.03 

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P .40 <.08 1.17 .93 -- <.03 06/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30 R .07 <.08 .57 .32 -- E.02 

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P .12 <.08 .45 .47 -- .03 

09/04/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00

R .09 <.15 1.30 .29 -- <.03 

09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P .10 <.15 1.90 .28 -- <.03 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R .31 <.15 1.30 .89 -- <.03 

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P .42 <.15 1.20 1.00 -- <.03 

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P .45 <.15 1.40 1.10 -- <.03 

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20 R .20 <.15 1.30 .48 -- .06 09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P .12 <.15 1.10 .29 -- .06 09/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- -- -- -- -- 02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05

R .46 .51 E2.26 1.02

E1.01 1.30 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Phenanthrene Phenol Phthalic anhydride Pyrene Stigmastanol Tetrachloro- ethylene T

85-01-8 108-95-2 85-44-9 129-00-0 19466-47-8 127-18-4 33
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 153

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P 0.29 0.33 E1.77 0.77 E0.83 0.69 

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50 R .16 <.08 E2.27 .53 <2.00 <.03 05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- -- -- -- -- 05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F .33 <.08 E3.28 .64 <2.00 <.03 05/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00 R,P,F .27 .51 E2.04 .54 <2.00 <.03 

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00

R,P,F .08 <.25 E1.29 .30 <2.00 <.03 

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15

R .61 E.77 E1.38 1.48 E2.21 <.03 

07/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P .90 E.72 E1.13 1.68 <2.00 <.03 07/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F .36 E.78 E.96 .88 <2.00 <.03 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P 1.02 E.21 E1.20 1.52 E2.10 E.03 

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F .26 E.39 E2.12 .30 <2.00 <.03 

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30 R .41 <.45 E.44 1.02 <2.00 <.03 10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F .13 <.45 E.61 .36 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10 R .44 E.25 E.73 1.06 <2.00 <.03 

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40

R <.06 <.08 .74 .15 -- <.03 

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P <.06 <.08 .83 <.03 -- <.03 05/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F <.06 <.08 .68 <.03 -- <.03 06/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25

R .39 <.08 .32 1.00 -- .05 

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P .22 <.08 .28 .67 -- .06 

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F .32 <.08 .40 .78 -- .07 

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00

R <.06 <.15 .90 .03 -- <.03 

09/04/99 17:01 09/04/99 19:01 R <.06 <.15 1.20 <.03 -- <.03 09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P <.06 <.15 1.80 .06 -- .13 09/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40 R <.06 <.15 1.30 <.03 -- <.03 

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P <.06 <.15 1.20 <.03 -- <.03 

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P E.05 .46 E1.00 .16 <2.00 .07 02/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F .09 .66 E1.38 .26 E1.01 .13 05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F E.05 <.08 E2.31 .16 <2.00 <.03 05/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10

R,P,F <.06 .35 E2.72 <.03 <2.00 <.03 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Phenanthrene Phenol Phthalic anhydride Pyrene Stigmastanol Tetrachloro- ethylene T

85-01-8 108-95-2 85-44-9 129-00-0 19466-47-8 127-18-4 33
154 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F E0.03 E0.72 E0.82 0.08 <2.00 <0.03 

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F E.02 E.24 E1.39 .05 <2.00 <.03 

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P E.04 <.45 E.47 .13 <2.00 <.03 10/04/00 23:45 10/05/00 06:00 F <.05 E.29 E.61 .05 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25 R <.05 <.45 E.57 .05 <2.00 <.03 

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00 R .24 <.15 .64 .54 -- <.03 

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P .26 <.15 .91 .60 -- <.03 

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P .19 <.15 <.20 .46 -- <.03 12/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F .25 <.15 <.20 .52 -- <.03 02/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15 R .15 1.35

E1.14 .33 <2.00 <.03 

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P .13 .38 E1.34 .30 <2.00 <.03 

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15 R .09 <.08 E1.29 .31 <2.00 <.03 05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P .19 <.08 E.78 .41 <2.00 <.03 05/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F .15 .37 E1.75 .45 <2.00 <.03 05/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30

R .08 .96 E4.65 .23 <2.00 <.03 

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P .25 .25 E1.71 .45 <2.00

E.03 

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30 R .11 <.08 E.61 .25 <2.00 <.03 06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P .06 .22 E.49 .17 <2.00 <.03 07/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P .19 E.72 E1.20 .51 <2.00 <.03 07/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P .16 E.61 E.81 .32 <2.00 <.03 

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P .05 <.25 E1.54 .12 <2.00 <.03 

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P .05 E.27 E.49 .20 <2.00 <.03 09/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15 R .16 <.08 E1.21 .45 <2.00 <.03 09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P .15 <.08 E1.03 .36 <2.00 <.03 09/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P .18 <.08 E1.08 .44 <2.00 <.03 

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30 R

E.05 <.45 E.38 .15 <2.00 <.03 

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P .14 <.45 E.42 .37 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P .09 <.45 E.39 .28 <2.00 <.03 10/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F .11 E.25 E.45 .33 <2.00 <.03 

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Phenanthrene Phenol Phthalic anhydride Pyrene Stigmastanol Tetrachloro- ethylene T

85-01-8 108-95-2 85-44-9 129-00-0 19466-47-8 127-18-4 33
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 155

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Tris(dichlorSite 

number 

Sample

begin

Sample 

begin Sample end 

Sample

end Hydrologic 

isopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate

Triphenyl

phosphate

(fig. 1) date time date time condition 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6

5 09/12/99 10:30 09/12/99 15:30 P <0.10 0.10 <0.10

09/27/99 10:00 09/28/99 01:30

R <.10 <.06 <.10

09/28/99 01:30 09/28/99 16:00 P <.10 .09 <.10

11/22/99 21:30 11/23/99 01:45

R <.10 .13 <.10

12/09/99 08:00 12/09/99 15:00 P <.10 <.06 <.10

5 12/09/99 15:00 12/10/99 09:00 F <.10 <.06 <.10

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 19:30 P <.10 -- E.0905/09/00 04:45 05/09/00 15:30 R,P <.10 -- E.0805/21/00 18:00 05/22/00 00:00 P -- -- --05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 11:00 R,P <.10 -- E.06

5 05/26/00 11:00 05/26/00 19:00 F <.10 -- E.08

06/13/00 22:15 06/14/00 05:30

R <.10 -- E.02

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 10:00 P <.10 -- E.0207/17/00 03:00 07/17/00 10:00 R,P <.10 -- E.0807/17/00 10:00 07/17/00 16:00 F <.10 -- <.10

5 07/27/00 01:00 07/27/00 09:00 R,P <.10 -- <.10

07/28/00 12:00 07/29/00 03:30 R,P <.10 -- <.1009/22/00 21:45 09/23/00 05:00

R <.10 -- <.10

09/23/00 05:00 09/23/00 11:00 P <.10 -- <.1009/23/00 11:00 09/24/00 00:00 F <.10 -- E.0310/05/00 05:45 10/05/00 16:00 R,P <.10 -- <.10

6 09/04/99 18:00 09/04/99 22:15

R -- -- --

09/04/99 22:15 09/05/99 11:00 P -- -- --09/12/99 20:00 09/13/99 05:40 P <.10 .10 <.1009/27/99 12:00 09/28/99 00:00

R <.10 .20 <.10

09/27/99 12:01 09/28/99 00:01

R <.10 .17 <.10
156 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

6 02/24/00 23:00 02/25/00 16:00

R <0.10 -- E0.07

02/25/00 16:00 02/25/00 23:15 P <.10 -- E.0405/09/00 06:00 05/09/00 11:00 R <.10 -- E.0505/09/00 11:00 05/09/00 17:00 P <.10 -- E.0405/21/00 21:00 05/22/00 02:45 R,P <.10 -- E.07

6 05/22/00 03:00 05/22/00 08:00 F <.10 -- E.06

05/26/00 05:00 05/26/00 10:15

R <.10 -- E.05

06/13/00 22:45 06/14/00 06:00

R <.10 -- E.02

06/13/00 22:46 06/14/00 06:01

R <.10 -- E.02

07/17/00 03:30 07/17/00 07:00

R <.10 -- <.10

6 07/17/00 07:00 07/17/00 15:00 P .16 -- <.10

07/27/00 00:45 07/27/00 23:45

R,P,F <.10 -- <.10

07/27/00 00:46 07/27/00 23:46

R,P,F <.10 -- <.10

09/04/00 06:45 09/04/00 22:30

R,P,F <.10 -- <.10

09/23/00 03:00 09/23/00 05:15

R <.10 -- E.02

6 09/23/00 05:15 09/23/00 13:00 P <.10 -- E.04

09/23/00 05:16 09/23/00 13:01 P <.10 -- E.0410/05/00 06:30 10/05/00 13:00

R <.10 -- <.10

10/05/00 13:00 10/06/00 00:15 P <.10 -- <.10

7 05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:40 R,P <.10 0.24 <.10

05/17/99 00:40 05/17/99 02:15 F <.10 .20 <.1005/17/99 02:15 05/17/99 03:50

R <.10 .17 <.10

05/21/99 01:30 05/21/99 02:40 R,P <.10 <.04 <.1005/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 05:00 F <.10 .13 <.10

7 06/23/99 11:10 06/23/99 12:15

R <.10 .07 <.10

06/23/99 12:15 06/23/99 15:15 P <.10 .05 <.1009/12/99 06:25 09/12/99 07:30

R <.10 .13 <.10

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 10:00 P <.10 .12 <.1009/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 10:01 P <.10 .13 <.10

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate 

Triphenyl 

phosphate

13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 157

7 09/27/99 04:00 09/27/99 05:05 R <0.10 0.15 <0.10

09/27/99 05:05 09/27/99 06:15 P <.10 .28 <.1009/27/99 06:15 09/27/99 09:20 F <.10 .17 <.1002/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 16:00

R,P,F <.10 -- .17

05/09/00 03:15 05/09/00 06:45 R,P -- -- --

7 05/09/00 06:45 05/09/00 12:00 F <.10 -- .11

05/21/00 15:50 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F <.10 -- E.07

07/11/00 23:00 07/12/00 06:30

R,P,F <.10 -- .10

07/17/00 02:30 07/17/00 04:00 R,P <.10 -- E.0607/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 10:00 F <.10 -- E.08

7 09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:35 R,P <.10 -- .14

09/04/00 08:35 09/04/00 12:40 F <.10 -- E.0910/04/00 22:40 10/05/00 00:25 R,P <.10 -- <.1010/05/00 00:25 10/05/00 05:00 F <.10 -- <.1010/05/00 05:50 10/05/00 07:30

R <.10 -- .14

8 05/15/99 07:30 05/15/99 13:30

R,P,F <.10 .40 <.10

05/17/99 00:00 05/17/99 00:55 R,P <.10 .37 <.1005/17/99 00:55 05/17/99 02:05 F <.10 .19 <.1005/17/99 02:05 05/17/99 04:00

R <.10 .13 <.10

05/21/99 01:25 05/21/99 02:50 R,P <.10 .19 <.10

8 05/21/99 02:50 05/21/99 06:00 F <.10 .34 <.10

09/04/99 16:45 09/04/99 18:50

R <.10 .12 <.10

09/04/99 18:50 09/05/99 04:10 P <.10 .12 <.1009/04/99 18:51 09/05/99 04:11 P <.10 .15 <.1009/12/99 06:40 09/12/99 07:35

R <.10 .13 <.10

8 09/12/99 07:35 09/12/99 11:00 P <.10 .28 <.10

09/12/99 07:36 09/12/99 11:01 P <.10 .10 <.1009/27/99 04:15 09/27/99 05:25

R <.10 <.06 <.10

09/27/99 05:25 09/27/99 06:25 P <.10 <.06 <.1009/27/99 06:25 09/27/99 10:00 F <.10 .18 <.10

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate 

Triphenyl 

phosphate

13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6
158 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City

8 02/25/00 10:00 02/25/00 12:30 R,P <0.10 -- 0.15

02/25/00 12:30 02/25/00 15:30 F <.10 -- .1805/09/00 03:20 05/09/00 05:30

R <.10 -- E.05

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 07:00 P <.10 -- .1305/09/00 07:00 05/09/00 12:30 F <.10 -- E.10

8 05/21/00 15:00 05/21/00 21:00

R,P,F <.10 -- E.07

07/11/00 22:50 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F -- -- --

09/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:00 R,P <.10 -- E.1009/04/00 08:00 09/04/00 12:00 F <.10 -- .1210/04/00 22:50 10/05/00 05:00

R,P,F <.10 -- E.10

10/04/00 22:51 10/05/00 05:01

R,P,F <.10 -- E.08

9 05/12/99 00:05 05/12/99 00:55 P <.10 0.51 <.10

05/15/99 07:45 05/15/99 09:00

R <.10 .57 <.10

05/15/99 09:00 05/15/99 10:25 P <.10 .37 <.1005/15/99 10:25 05/15/99 14:00 F <.10 .37 <.1005/16/99 23:15 05/17/99 00:50

R <.10 .53 <.10

9 05/17/99 00:50 05/17/99 02:25 P,F <.10 .54 <.10

05/17/99 02:25 05/17/99 04:05

R <.10 .35 <.10

05/21/99 01:20 05/21/99 02:10

R <.10 .26 <.10

05/21/99 02:10 05/21/99 03:05 P <.10 .50 <.1006/23/99 09:30 06/23/99 12:30

R <.10 .08 <.10

9 06/23/99 12:30 06/23/99 16:30 P <.10 <.04 <.10

09/04/99 15:40 09/04/99 19:00

R <.10 .17 <.10

09/04/99 19:00 09/05/99 04:00 P <.10 .14 <.1009/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:30

R <.10 .13 <.10

09/12/99 07:30 09/12/99 09:25 P <.10 .16 <.10

9 09/12/99 07:31 09/12/99 09:26 P <.10 .14 <.10

09/27/99 04:05 09/27/99 05:20

R <.10 .11 <.10

09/27/99 05:20 09/27/99 06:20 P <.10 <.06 <.1009/27/99 06:20 09/27/99 10:00 F -- -- --02/25/00 09:10 02/25/00 11:05 R <.10 -- .14

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate 

Triphenyl 

phosphate

13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6
Concentrations of Selected Wastewater Indicator Compounds in Stormflow Samples 159

9 02/25/00 11:05 02/25/00 13:15 P <0.10 -- 0.12

05/09/00 03:30 05/09/00 05:50

R <.10 -- .11

05/09/00 05:50 05/09/00 07:20 P -- -- --05/09/00 07:20 05/09/00 12:30 F <.10 -- E.0805/21/00 16:15 05/21/00 22:00

R,P,F <.10 -- E.07

9 07/11/00 22:55 07/12/00 08:00

R,P,F <.10 -- .14

07/17/00 02:35 07/17/00 03:15

R <.10 -- E.09

07/17/00 03:15 07/17/00 04:05 P <.10 -- E.0707/17/00 04:05 07/17/00 10:30 F <.10 -- E.0609/04/00 07:00 09/04/00 08:15 R,P <.10 -- E.10

9 09/04/00 08:15 09/04/00 13:55 F <.10 -- E.10

10/04/00 22:40 10/04/00 23:30

R <.10 -- <.10

10/04/00 23:30 10/05/00 05:30 P,F <.10 -- E.0610/05/00 05:30 10/05/00 07:10

R <.10 -- E.08

10 05/21/99 02:00 05/21/99 02:40

R <.10 0.27 <.10

05/21/99 02:40 05/21/99 03:40 P <.10 .28 <.1005/21/99 03:40 05/21/99 06:30 F <.10 .17 <.1006/23/99 12:55 06/23/99 13:25

R <.10 .04 <.10

06/23/99 13:25 06/23/99 14:15 P <.10 <.04 <.10

10 06/23/99 14:20 06/23/99 15:15 F <.10 .06 <.10

09/04/99 17:00 09/04/99 19:00

R <.10 .12 <.10

09/04/99 17:01 0904/99 19:01

R <.10 .12 <.10

09/04/99 19:05 09/05/99 05:00 P <.10 .19 <.1009/12/99 06:15 09/12/99 07:40

R <.10 .16 <.10

10 09/12/99 07:40 09/12/99 10:00 P <.10 .10 <.10

02/25/00 10:30 02/25/00 13:10 R,P <.10 -- .1402/25/00 13:10 02/25/00 17:00 F <.10 -- .1505/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:00 F <.10 -- E.1005/21/00 17:00 05/21/00 20:10

R,P,F <.10 -- E.08

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate 

Triphenyl 

phosphate

13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6
160 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City 10 07/11/00 21:00 07/12/00 07:00

R,P,F <0.10 -- E0.06

07/26/00 23:30 07/27/00 09:00

R,P,F <.10 -- <.10

10/04/00 23:00 10/04/00 23:45 R,P <.10 -- <.1010/04/00 23:45 10/05/00 06:00 F <.10 -- <.1010/05/00 06:00 10/05/00 07:25

R <.10 -- <.10

11 11/22/99 22:00 11/23/99 05:00

R <.10 0.11 <.10

11/23/99 05:00 11/23/99 13:30 P <.10 .15 <.10

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 18:30 P <.10 .12 <.1012/09/99 18:30 12/10/99 06:00 F <.10 <.06 <.1002/25/00 11:00 02/25/00 22:15

R <.10 -- E.10

11 02/25/00 22:15 02/26/00 06:00 P <.10 -- E.09

05/09/00 05:30 05/09/00 12:15

R <.10 -- E.05

05/09/00 12:15 05/09/00 22:15 P <.10 -- E.0505/09/00 22:15 05/10/00 10:45 F <.10 -- E.0605/26/00 05:45 05/26/00 11:30 R <.10 -- E.06

11 05/26/00 11:30 05/26/00 23:45 P <.10 -- E.07

06/13/00 22:00 06/14/00 05:30

R <.10 -- E.03

06/14/00 05:30 06/14/00 19:00 P <.10 -- E.0407/12/00 01:30 07/12/00 09:00 P <.10 -- .1507/17/00 04:00 07/17/00 18:00 R,P <.10 -- E.06

11 07/27/00 02:00 07/27/00 17:00 R,P <.10 -- <.10

07/28/00 13:30 07/29/00 07:00 R,P <.10 -- E.0609/23/00 00:00 09/23/00 07:15

R <.10 -- E.03

09/23/00 07:15 09/23/00 15:00 P <.10 -- E.0509/23/00 07:16 09/23/00 15:01 P <.10 -- E.04

11 10/05/00 01:30 10/05/00 09:30

R <.10 -- <.10

10/05/00 09:30 10/05/00 14:45 P <.10 -- <.1010/05/00 14:45 10/05/00 22:45 P <.10 -- <.1010/05/00 22:45 10/06/00 09:00 F <.10 -- <.10

Table 5. Concentrations of selected wastewater indicator compounds in stormflow samples—Continued

Site 

number 

(fig. 1)

Sample 

begin

date

Sample 

begin 

time

Sample end 

date

Sample 

end 

time

Hydrologic 

condition

Tris(dichlorisopropyl)- 

phosphate

Tributyl 

phosphate 

Triphenyl 

phosphate

13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6
Concentrations of Selected Water-Quality Constituents and Wastewater Indicator Compounds 161

Table 6. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents and wastewater indicator compounds in field blank and equipment blank samples[Numbers below chemical names are CAS numbers (Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers); water-quality concentrations in units of milligrams per liter; wastewat

units of micrograms per liter; amm+org, ammonia plus organic; NO2 + NO3, nitrite plus nitrate; BHA, butylated hydroxyanisole; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; NP1EO

NP2EO, nonylphenol diethoxylate; OP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; F, field blank; <, less than; --, no data; E, equipment blank; 

Phosphorus, 

Nitrogen, Nitrogen, Nitrogen, NO2 Nitrogen, Phos- Phos- ortho- Carbon 

Site Sa

mple Sample amm+org, ammonia, + N

O3, nitrite, phorus, phorus, phosphate, organic, 

type date time total dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved total dissolved total 

6-F 09/09/98 09:31 <0.1 0.03 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.03 -- 7-F 12/01/98 12:01 <.1 <.02 <.05 <.01 <.05 .02 <.03 -- 6-F 12/10/99 09:46 .1 <.02 .05 <.01 <.05 <.05 <.03 0.52 

2-(2-Butoxy- 2,6-Di-tert- 2,6-Di-tert- 2,6-Dimethyl- 

1,2-Dichloro- 1,3-Dichloro- 1,4-Dichloro- ethoxy) ethyl butyl- butyl-benzo- naphtha- 4-

Methyl 

Site Sa

mple Sample benzene benzene benzene acetate phenol quinone lene phenol 

type date time 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 124-17-4 128-39-2 106-51-4 581-42-0 106-44-5 

7-F 08/21/98 10:31 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.06 <0.09 <0.07 <0.06 <0.03 7-F 12/01/98 10:46 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 .04 <.03 6-F 05/07/99 09:46 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 .08 <.06 <.03 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:00 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.06 <.03 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:01 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.06 <.09 <.07 <.06 <.03 

6-F 12/10/99 12:01 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.10 <.03 

10-F 12/10/99 09:00 <.03 <.03 <.03 <.10 <.09 <.07 <.10 <.03 

Bis(2-ethyl- BisBenzo[a]- Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)- phenol 

Site Sa

mple Sample 

Anthracene

Benzalde-hyde pyrene hexyl) adipate phthalate A

B

H

A

B

H

T

type date time 120-12-7 100-52-7 50-32-8 103-23-1 117-81-7 80-05-7 128-37-0 128-37-0 

7-F 08/21/98 10:31 <0.05 <0.10 0.09 <1.5 <2.00 <0.09 <0.12 <0.08 7-F 12/01/98 10:46 <.05 <.10 .22 <1.5 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 6-F 05/07/99 09:46 <.05 <.10 .16 <1.5 <2.00 <.09 .05 <.08 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:00 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.5 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:01 <.05 <.10 <.05 <1.5 <2.00 <.09 <.12 <.08 

6-F 12/10/99 12:01 <.05 <.15 .14 4.7 <1.50 <.09 <.12 <.08 

10-F 12/10/99 09:00 <.05 <.15 .36 <.90 <1.50 <.09 <.12 <.08 
162 Effects of Combined Sewer Overflows and Wastewater Effluent on Water Quality in the Blue River Basin, Kansas City Table 6. Concentrations of selected water-quality constituents and wastewater indicator compounds in field blank and equipment blank samples—Con

cis- 17-β 

Site Sa

mple Sample Codeine

Coprostanol Chlordane

Chlorpyrifos Cholesterol Diazinon Dieldrin Estradiol 

type date time 76-57-3 360-68-9 5103-71-9 2921-88-2 57-88-5 333-41-5 60-57-1 50-28-2 

7-F 08/21/98 10:31 <0.10 <0.60 <0.04 <0.02 <1.50 <0.03 <0.08 <0.50 7-F 12/01/98 10:46 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.02 <1.00 <.03 <.08 <.50 6-F 05/07/99 09:46 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.02 <1.00 <.03 <.08 <.50 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:00 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.02 <1.00 <.03 <.08 <.50 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:01 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.02 <1.00 <.03 <.08 <.50 

6-F 12/10/99 12:01 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.02 <1.00 <.03 <.08 <.50 

10-F 12/10/99 09:00 <.10 <.60 <.04 <.02 <1.00 <.03 <.08 <.50 

Site

type

Sa

mple

date

Sample 

time

Lindane

58-89-9

Methyl 

parathion

298-00-0

Naphthalene

91-20-3

NP1E

O

27986-36-3

NP2EO

N

A

OP1EO

2315-67-5

OP2EO

2315-61-9

Phenan-threne

85-01-8

7-F 08/21/98 10:31 <0.05 <0.06 <0.03 <1.00 <1.10 -- -- <0.06 7-F 12/01/98 10:46 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <0.10 <0.20 <.06 6-F 05/07/99 09:46 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:00 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 

8-

E 05/12/99 08:01 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.10 <.10 <.20 <.06 

6-F 12/10/99 12:01 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.00 <.10 <.20 <.06 

10-F 12/10/99 09:00 <.05 <.06 <.03 <1.00 <1.00 <.10 <.20 <.06 

Tri(2-chloro- Tris(dichlorTetrachloro- ethyl)- isopropyl)- 

Tributyl 

Triphenyl 

Site Sa

mple Sample Pyrene ethylene

Triclosan phosphate phosphate phosphate phosphate

type date time 129-00-0 127-18-4 3380-34-5 115-96-8 13674-84-5 126-73-8 115-86-6

7-F 08/21/98 10:31 <0.03 <0.03 <0.04 0.25 <0.10 <0.04 <0.107-F 12/01/98 10:46 <.03 <.03 <.04 .14 <.10 <.04 <.106-F 05/07/99 09:46 <.03 <.03 <.04 .13 <.10 <.04 <.10

8-

E 05/12/99 08:00 <.03 <.03 <.04 <.04 <.10 <.04 <.10

8-

E 05/12/99 08:01 <.03 <.03 <.04 <.04 <.10 <.04 <.10

6-F 12/10/99 12:01 <.03 <.03 <.04 .32 <.10 <.04 <.10

10-F 12/10/99 09:00 <.03 <.03 <.04 .10 <.10 <.04 <.10
WILKISON, 

Wa

ARM

te

STRO

r Qua

N

lit

G, 

y in th

and B

e 

L

Bl

EV

ue Riv

INS—

e

Effect

r Basi

s

n,

 of Wa

 Kans

stewat

as City

er a

, Mi

nd 

ssouri and 

Combined S

Kan

ewe

sas, J

r O

u

v

ly

e

 1

rflow

998–Octob

s on—US

er 2

GS 

000

WRIR 02-–4107