Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 

in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and 

the Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota, 2001–2004

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5118

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Sioux Falls 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater

Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater

Effluent, and the Big Sioux River in or near

Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 2001–2004

By Steven K. Sando, Edward T. Furlong, James L. Gray, and Michael T. Meyer

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperaton with the City of Sioux Falls

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5118
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Sando, S.K., Furlong, E.T., Gray, J.L., and Meyer, M.T., 2006, Occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in drinking 

water, wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 2001–2004: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5118, 168 p.
 iii

Contents

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

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

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

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

Methods of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Sampling Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Collection, Processing, and Analysis of Water and Bottom-Sediment Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Calculation of Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Water Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Bottom-Sediment Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Streamflow Conditions and Field-Measured Properties and Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Organic Wastewater Compounds in Water Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds by Sampling Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds by Sampling Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds by Compound Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Occurrence of Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Organic Wastewater Compounds in Bottom Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Relations Between Concentrations of Organic Wastewater Compounds in 

Dissolved and Whole-Water Fractions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

Implications of Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Supplemental Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

Figures

1. Map showing location of study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2–6. Graphs showing:

2. Flow conditions during sampling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Results for field-measured properties and constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Results for endocrine-disrupting compounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6. Results for organic wastewater compounds and suspected endocrine-disrupting 

compounds in bottom-sediment samples for the September 2002 sampling period. . . . . . . . . . 32
iv 

Tables

1. Selected characteristics of the Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2. Sampling sites and streamflow-gaging stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3. Intervening reach lengths between selected locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

4. Statistical summaries of data related to occurrence of whole-water 3-beta-coprostanol 

in water samples collected from wastewater effluents and the Big Sioux River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5. Statistical summaries of analytical results for organic wastewater compounds 

in bottom-sediment samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6. Organic wastewater compounds detected in bottom-sediment samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

 8. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in 

laboratory method-blank samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

 9. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory reagent-spike samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

 10. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory surrogate-spike samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 11. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in field 

equipment-blank samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

 12. Statistical summaries for field replicate samples for organic wastewater compounds

(OWCs) detected in any sample for any primary/replicate sample pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

 13. Statistical summaries for environmental matrix-spike samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

 14. Results for field-measured properties and constituents in water samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in 

water samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in 

water samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

 17. Analytical results for major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) in water and 

bottom-sediment samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use 

compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and 

bottom-sediment samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

 20. Analytical results for sterol compounds (SCs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic 

wastewater compounds in water samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels 

inwater samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
 v

Conversion Factors

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

°F = (1.8 x °C) + 32.

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm).

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

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Loads of organic wastewater compounds were estimated by multiplying discharges at the times 

of sampling by constituent concentrations and by a conversion factor (0.0053919) to convert 

cubic feet per second and micrograms per liter to pounds per day.

Multiply By To obtain

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

pounds per day (lb/d) 0.4536 kilograms per day (kg/d)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)
vi 

Definition of Acronyms

AHTN 7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene

AP Alkylphenol

ASE Accelerated solvent extraction

EDCs Suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds

FDW Finished drinking water

HHCB 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran

HIACs Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds

HLB Hydrophilic-lipophilic-balance

HPCs Human pharmaceutical compounds

HPLC/ESI-MS High-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass 

spectrometry

HVACs Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds

LRL Laboratory reporting level

MAHs Major agricultural herbicides

NP para-Nonylphenol

NP1EO Nonylphenol monoethoxylate

NP2EO Nonylphenol diethoxylate

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

OGRL Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory

OP1EO Octylphenol monoethoxylate

OP2EO Octylphenol diethoxylate

OWCs Organic wastewater compounds

PAHs Polyaromatic hydrocarbons

QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control

RPD Relative percent difference

RSD Relative standard deviation

SCs Sterol compounds

SIM Selected ion monitoring

SPE Solid-phase extraction 

SRL Study reporting level

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WWE Wastewater treatment plant effluent

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds in

Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux 

River in or near Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 2001–2004

By Steven K. Sando, Edward T. Furlong, James L. Gray, and Michael T. Meyer

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with 

the city of Sioux Falls conducted several rounds of sampling to 

determine the occurrence of organic wastewater compounds 

(OWCs) in the city of Sioux Falls drinking water and wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls 

during August 2001 through May 2004. Water samples were 

collected during both base-flow and storm-runoff conditions. 

Water samples were collected at 8 sites, which included 4 sites 

upstream from the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge, 2 sites downstream from the WWTP discharge, 

1 finished drinking-water site, and 1 WWTP effluent 

(WWE) site. 

A total of 125 different OWCs were analyzed for in this 

study using five different analytical methods. Analyses for 

OWCs were performed at USGS laboratories that are developing and/or refining small-concentration (less than 1 microgram 

per liter (μg/L)) analytical methods. The OWCs were classified 

into six compound classes: human pharmaceutical compounds 

(HPCs); human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs); 

major agricultural herbicides (MAHs); household, industrial, 

and minor agricultural compounds (HIACs); polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs); and sterol compounds (SCs). Some of 

the compounds in the HPC, MAH, HIAC, and PAH classes are 

suspected of being endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs). 

Of the 125 different OWCs analyzed for in this study, 81 OWCs 

had one or more detections in environmental samples reported 

by the laboratories, and of those 81 OWCs, 63 had acceptable 

analytical method performance, were detected at concentrations 

greater than the study reporting levels, and were included in 

analyses and discussion related to occurrence of OWCs in 

drinking water, wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux River.

OWCs in all compound classes were detected in water 

samples from sampling sites in the Sioux Falls area. For the five 

sampling periods when samples were collected from the Sioux 

Falls finished drinking water, only one OWC was detected at a 

concentration greater than the study reporting level (metolachlor; 0.0040 μg/L). 

During base-flow conditions, Big Sioux River sites 

upstream from the WWTP discharge had OWC contributions 

that primarily were from nonpoint animal or crop agriculture 

sources or had OWC concentrations that were minimal. The 

influence of the WWTP discharge on OWCs at downstream 

river sites during base-flow conditions ranged from minimal 

influence to substantial influence depending on the sampling 

period. During runoff conditions, OWCs at sites upstream from 

the WWTP discharge probably were primarily contributed by 

nonpoint animal and/or crop agriculture sources and possibly 

by stormwater runoff from nearby roads. OWCs at sites downstream from the WWTP discharge probably were contributed 

by sources other than the WWTP effluent discharge, such as 

stormwater runoff from urban and/or agriculture areas and/or 

resuspension of OWCs adsorbed to sediment deposited in the 

Big Sioux River. OWC loads generally were substantially 

smaller for upstream sites than downstream sites during both 

base-flow and runoff conditions. 

In general, HPCs and HVACs accounted for relatively 

small portions of the total OWC concentrations in water samples collected from all sampling sites. MAHs generally 

accounted for a relatively small part of the total OWC concentrations during base-flow conditions for all sites, and for a 

substantial part at the river sites during some but not all stormrunoff sampling periods. HIACs generally accounted for a substantial part of the total OWC concentrations in samples 

collected from the WWE site during all sampling periods. In 

samples collected from downstream sites, HIACs generally 

accounted for a substantial part of the total OWC concentration 

during base-flow conditions and during some but not all of the 

storm-runoff sampling periods. PAHs only were detected at Big 

Sioux River sites that might be substantially affected by stormrunoff from roads. PAHs were not detected during any baseflow sampling period and were detected during some but not all 

storm-runoff periods. SCs generally comprised a substantial 

part of the total detected OWC concentrations for WWE and 

Big Sioux River sites during both base-flow and storm-runoff 

conditions. Results indicate that the WWTP discharge substantially contributed to the occurrence of OWCs in the Big Sioux 

River during below-normal base-flow conditions.

There were no human-health concerns apparent in the 

results of this study. Occurrence of EDCs in aquatic systems is 

a very complex and sensitive issue. A complete assessment of 

potential effects of EDCs in the Big Sioux River in or near 
2 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Sioux Falls based on the results of this study is not possible. 

However, EDC concentrations in the Big Sioux River generally 

were less than concentrations reported to have substantial endocrine-disrupting effects on aquatic organisms. The relatively 

large frequency of detection for atrazine might indicate a cause 

for concern with respect to endocrine-disruption effects for 

aquatic organisms.

Introduction

Many organic compounds used in or produced by household, industrial, and agricultural activities are soluble and resistant to wastewater treatment processes, and have been shown to 

occur in wastewater discharges to natural streams (Richardson 

and Bowron, 1985; Halling-Sorensen and others, 1998). Additionally, some of these organic wastewater compounds (OWCs) 

can persist in natural water systems (Barnes and others, 2002; 

Kolpin and others, 2002; Stackelberg and others, 2004) and 

potentially have long-term effects on stream biota; human 

exposure also might occur when those systems are used as water 

supplies. Some OWCs are hormonally active and have been 

shown to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals in laboratory 

studies (Jobling and others, 1996; Thorpe and others, 2001). 

Evidence also indicates that endocrine systems of some fish and 

other vertebrate animals in natural systems have been affected 

by OWCs (Sumpter and Johnson, 2005), although after a 

decade of intensive research in the laboratory and field, the 

mechanisms of endocrine modulation and the long-term, sublethal effects of low-level exposure to OWCs remain poorly 

understood. Thus, data documenting the concentrations and 

composition of OWC mixtures in the environment contribute to 

the understanding of the potential effect these chemicals might 

have in the environment.

Within the Big Sioux River drainage basin in eastern South 

Dakota (fig. 1), considerable agricultural activities occur; both 

crops and livestock are raised, and numerous concentrated animal feeding operations exist. Potential exists for OWCs associated with agricultural activities, including pesticides, antibiotics, and feed supplements from feeding operations, to be 

introduced into both surface and ground water in the basin. 

Additionally, wastewater discharges from some of the larger 

cities in South Dakota (including Watertown, Brookings, and 

Sioux Falls) and from several smaller cities are released directly 

into the Big Sioux River. These wastewater discharges also 

might contain OWCs.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with 

the city of Sioux Falls conducted several rounds of sampling to 

determine the occurrence of OWCs in the city of Sioux Falls 

drinking water and wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux 

River in or near Sioux Falls during August 2001 through May 

2004. Water samples were collected from eight sites during 

both base-flow and runoff conditions. Bottom-sediment samples also were collected from three sites in September 2002.

The OWCs analyzed for in this study (table 7 in the Supplemental Information section at the back of this report) are 

classified into six compound classes: human pharmaceutical 

compounds (HPCs), which are commonly used prescription and 

non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs; human and veterinary 

antibiotic compounds (HVACs), which are prescription drugs 

used in the treatment of infectious diseases; major agricultural 

herbicides (MAHs), which include atrazine, metolachlor, and 

prometon; household, industrial, and minor agricultural compounds (HIACs), which are various generally synthetic organic 

compounds used for a variety of purposes including detergents, 

fire retardants, plasticizers, fragrances, solvents, preservatives, 

and disinfectants; polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which 

are compounds often occurring in fossil fuels or produced by 

the combustion of fossil fuels; and sterol compounds (SCs), 

which are predominantly unsaturated solid alcohols of the steroid group naturally occurring in fatty tissues of plants and animals and present in animal fecal material. Some of the compounds in the HPC, MAH, HIAC, and PAH classes are 

suspected of being endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs).

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the occurrence of 

OWCs in drinking water, wastewater effluent, and the Big 

Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls during 2001–2004. Specifically, this report describes the data-collection and analytical 

methods used in the study and the analytical results documenting the presence, concentrations, loads, and distributions of 

OWCs in this watershed.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize the valuable contributions to this study made by Lyle Johnson, Tim Stefanich, Kevin 

Smith, and Trent Lubbers of the city of Sioux Falls. Also, the 

authors thank the individuals involved in the field data collection for this study, including Dave Hernandez, Nate Stevens, 

Bryan Schaap, Mike Burr, Mark Freese, and Roy Bartholomay.

Description of Study Area

The Big Sioux River originates in northeastern South 

Dakota and flows to the south along the eastern edge of the State 

(fig. 1). The Big Sioux River drains an extended highland or 

plateau, the Coteau des Prairie, which is the largest single topographic feature in eastern South Dakota (Lawrence and Sando, 

1989). The coteau is a 200-mi-long constructional remnant 

from glacial ice sheets that moved south along the eastern edge 

of South Dakota (Flint, 1971; Leap, 1988). The study area comprises about 5,120 mi2 from a location near Brandon, South 

Dakota, upstream to the headwaters of the Big Sioux River
Description of Study Area 3

KINGSBURY

MINER

HANSON

HUTCHINSON

BON HOMME YANKTON

CLAY

HUTCHINSON

UNION

McCOOK

TURNER

MINNEHAHA

LAKE

MARSHALL

DAY

CLARK CODINGTON

HAMLIN

ROBERT

GRANT

DEUEL

BROOKINGS

Big

Big

Big

Sioux

Sioux

Sioux

Skunk Creek

River

River

River

Silver

Slip Up

Split

Rock

Creek

Creek

Creek

Big Sioux River Big Sioux River

diversion channel diversion channel

Big Sioux River

diversion channel

Natural Big Sioux Natural Big Sioux River channel River channel

Natural Big Sioux

River channel

E

E

EE E

E WWEE E

FDW

DS2 DS1

US4

US3

US2

US1

WWE

FDW

DS2 DS1

US4

US3

US2

US1

Sioux Falls ux Falls x Falls

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Volga

Bruce

Watertown Watertown

Estelline Estelline

Brookings Brookings

Flandreau

Egan

Dell Rapids

Baltic

Renner

Brandon Brandon

Castlewood Castlewood

Sioux

Falls

Volga

Bruce

Watertown

Estelline

Brookings

Flandreau

Egan

Dell Rapids

Baltic

Renner

Renner

Brandon

Castlewood

Sioux

Falls

Brandon Brandon

)

E

EEEEEEE

#

#

#

#

# #

06481500 06481500

06485500 06485500

06481000 06481000

06480000 06480000

06479525 06479525

US1

06481000

06481500

#

06482020 06482020 6482020

06485500

06481000

06480000

06479525

SOUTH DAKOTA

MISSOURI

RIVER

Study

area

98° 97°

43°

44°

45°

0 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

0 2 1 3 4 MILES

024 1 3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1985

Universal Traverse Mercator projection, zone 14

EXPLANATION

Sampling site—Identifier is site label

# Gaging station—Number is station

 identification number

Study area

Big Sioux River drainage basin boundary

 within South Dakota

Dam

E

43°

30’

43°

35’

43°

40’

96°45’ 96°40’ 96°35’

Figure 1. Location of study area.
4 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

(fig. 1). Sampling sites were focused in or near Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota.

The climate in the study area is continental and is characterized by large seasonal and daily variations in temperature. 

The normal (1971–2000) mean daily July temperature at Sioux 

Falls is about 22.8°C, and the normal mean daily January temperature is about -10.0°C. Normal annual precipitation is about 

25 in. (South Dakota State University, 2005). On average, about 

81 percent of annual precipitation occurs as rainfall during the 

months of April through October.

Land use in the study area primarily is agricultural with 

corn, wheat, soybeans, miscellaneous small grains, and alfalfa 

as the major crops (Lawrence and Sando, 1989). Livestock 

raised in the basin primarily include dairy cattle, beef cattle, and 

hogs. The cities of Watertown, Brookings, and Sioux Falls are 

the major urban areas in the study area. Smaller cities in the 

study area that are close to the Big Sioux River channel include 

Castlewood, Estelline, Bruce, Volga, Flandreau, Egan, Dell 

Rapids, Baltic, and Renner (fig.1). 

Outwash deposits along the Big Sioux River and its tributaries underlie much of the Big Sioux River Basin (Lawrence 

and Sando, 1989). These outwash deposits include the various 

units of the Big Sioux aquifer, which is one of the more extensively developed aquifers in South Dakota. The outwash deposits consist of cross-bedded gravel, sand, and silt that range in 

thickness from a few feet to about 200 ft, and range in depth 

below land surface from about 1 to 100 ft (Lawrence and Sando, 

1989). Many of the outwash deposits have areas where they are 

hydraulically connected with the Big Sioux River.

The Big Sioux River is a major tributary to the Missouri 

River in eastern South Dakota. The mean annual streamflow of 

the Big Sioux River for water years 1977–2004 is about 99 ft3

/s 

for USGS gaging station 06479525 (located about 15 river 

miles downstream from the city of Watertown; contributing 

drainage area is about 780 mi2

), about 434 ft3/s for USGS gaging station 06480000 (located about 20 river miles downstream 

from the city of Brookings; contributing drainage area is about 

2,665 mi2

), about 577 ft3/s for USGS gaging station 06481000 

(located about 23 river miles upstream from the Sioux Falls city 

limits; contributing drainage area is about 3,250 mi2

), about 

732 ft3

/s for USGS gaging station 06482020 (located in the city 

of Sioux Falls (shown as site US4 in fig.1); contributing drainage area about 3,975 mi2

), and about 1,935 ft3/s for USGS gaging station 06485500 (located about 55 river miles upstream 

from the confluence with the Missouri River near Sioux City, 

Iowa; contributing drainage area is about 7,345 mi2

).

The Big Sioux River channel in the Sioux Falls area has 

been substantially modified from its natural condition primarily 

for flood control and water-level management. In 1961, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of a channelization, levee, and diversion dam project to reduce effects from 

flooding of the Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek on Sioux 

Falls. One of the major aspects of this project was the construction of a diversion dam and channel near the northern edge of 

Sioux Falls that allows the flow of the Big Sioux River to be 

routed either through the natural Big Sioux River channel 

(which flows along the western and southern edges and through 

the center of Sioux Falls; fig.1) or through the diversion channel 

(which bypasses most of Sioux Falls). A second low-head 

diversion dam is located on the diversion channel and functions 

to maintain the water level in the diversion channel to facilitate 

pump withdrawals from the Big Sioux River for the Sioux Falls 

drinking-water supply. Prior to 1990, the city of Sioux Falls 

relied entirely on ground water for its water supply. In late 

1990, the city completed construction of an intake structure to 

withdraw and treat surface water from the Big Sioux River to 

provide drinking water. Since that time, the city has maintained 

a goal of obtaining at least 50 percent of its annual drinkingwater supply directly from the Big Sioux River (Kevin Smith, 

Sioux Falls Public Works Department, written commun., 

May 2005). 

During precipitation events, a substantial amount of the 

stormwater drainage from Sioux Falls flows into the natural Big 

Sioux River channel. Also, Skunk Creek, with a contributing 

drainage area of about 610 mi2

, enters the natural Big Sioux 

River channel in the southwest part of Sioux Falls.

Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota with a population of about 124,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005) and a land 

area of about 63 mi2

 (Kevin Smith, Sioux Falls Public Works 

Department, written commun., March 2005). Characteristics of 

the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for Sioux Falls are presented in table1. The Sioux Falls WWTP discharges 

Table 1. Selected characteristics of the Sioux Falls wastewater 

treatment plant.

Population served 123,975

Population density (people per 

square mile)

1,967.9

Design capacity (million gallons 

per day)

13.43

Number of permitted industries 20

General description of permitted 

industries

Farm, fire, and industrial 

equipment manufacturers, 

hospitals, electronics 

equipment manufacturer, metal 

fabricator, livestock sales, 

meat packing, fluid dairy and 

juices, bakery, prison, airport, 

cardboard box manufacturer, 

concrete products, truck wash

Preliminary treatment Screening and grit removal

Primary treatment Settling basin clarification

Secondary treatment Trickling filtration, secondary 

clarification

Tertiary treatment Aerated activated-sludge 

processing, sand gravity 

filtration, chlorine disinfection, 

sulfur dioxide to neutralize 

chlorine, post-treatment 

aeration

Primary sludge treatment Anaerobic digestion
Methods of Study 5

continuously to the Big Sioux River. During low-flow periods, 

the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharges can account for 

more than 50 percent of the Big Sioux River streamflow downstream from the effluent discharges. Wastewater effluent leaves 

the Sioux Falls WWTP in a concrete pipe about 0.2 mi in length 

that discharges directly to the Big Sioux River.

Methods of Study

Water samples were collected at eight sites to investigate 

the occurrence of OWCs in drinking water, wastewater effluent, 

and the Big Sioux River (fig.1; table 2) in or near Sioux Falls. 

The primary sampling objectives evolved during the course of 

sampling activities. Initially, a single round of sampling was 

conducted during August 2001 at three sites to determine 

whether detectable concentrations of OWCs were present in 

(1) raw water withdrawn from the Big Sioux River for treatment 

to supply drinking water, (2) finished drinking water in the 

drinking-water distribution system, and (3) the Big Sioux River 

downstream from the Sioux Falls urban area and the Sioux Falls 

wastewater effluent discharge. 

After detectable concentrations of OWCs were found in 

the August 2001 Big Sioux River samples, four rounds of sampling were conducted during September 2002 through June 

2003 (two during base-flow conditions and two during stormrunoff conditions) primarily to investigate the relative contribution of the Sioux Falls wastewater effluent discharge to the 

occurrence of OWCs in the Big Sioux River downstream from 

Sioux Falls. The results of these four rounds of sampling generally indicated that during below-normal base-flow periods, the 

primary source of OWCs in the Big Sioux River downstream 

from Sioux Falls probably was the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. However, during storm-runoff conditions, loads of 

OWCs in the Big Sioux River downstream from Sioux Falls 

were substantially larger than what could only be accounted for 

by the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. The network of sampling 

sites for the September 2002 through June 2003 sampling 

rounds was not adequate to confidently identify the possible 

sources of OWCs other than the Sioux Falls wastewater effluent 

discharge.

To better understand possible sources of OWCs in the Big 

Sioux River during storm-runoff conditions, two rounds of sampling were conducted during May 2004. Additional sampling 

sites were included in these sampling rounds.

Sampling Sites

A labeling scheme is used for the sampling sites consisting 

of a three-character identifier of the sample medium and the 

relation between the sampling site and the wastewater effluent 

(tables 2 and 3). The three-character identifiers are defined as 

follows:

• US1 = Big Sioux River near Renner; Big Sioux River 

sampling site farthest upstream from the Sioux Falls 

WWTP discharge; substantially upstream from any 

influences from the city of Sioux Falls and isolated 

from substantial road traffic;

Table 2. Sampling sites and streamflow-gaging stations.

[mi2, square miles; e, estimated; --, not applicable]

Site

label

Station

identification

Station name

Drainage 

area

(mi2)

Contributing 

drainage 

area

(mi2)

Latitude

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Longitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

-- 06481000 Big Sioux River near Dell Rapids, SD e4,330 e3,250 43o 47' 25" 096o 44' 42"

US1 433843096450500 Big Sioux River near Renner, SD e4,365 e3,285 43o 38' 43" 096o 45' 05"

US2 433600096442400 Sioux Falls pump station intake from 

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

e4,400 e3,320 43o 36' 00" 096o 44' 24"

FDW 433419096434200 Sioux Falls water treatment plant 

finished water at Sioux Falls, SD

-- -- -- --

US3 433408096432000 Big Sioux River diversion channel at 

North Drive at Sioux Falls, SD

e4,405 e3,325 43o 34' 08" 096o 43' 20"

US4 06482020 Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue, at Sioux Falls, SDe5,065 e3,975 43o 34' 01" 096o 42' 39"

WWE 433531096394200 Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant 

effluent

-- -- -- --

DS1 433559096390700 Big Sioux River downstream from 

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

e5,110 e4,020 43o 35' 59" 096o 39' 07"

DS2 433541096355800 Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD e5,120 e4,030 43o 35' 41" 096o 35' 58"

-- 06485500 Big Sioux River at Akron, IA e8,425 e7,345 43o 47' 25" 096o 44' 42"
6 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 3. Intervening reach lengths between selected locations.

Starting location Ending location

Intervening reach length

(river miles)

USGS gaging station 06481000 Study sampling site US1 16.4

Study sampling site US1 Study sampling site US2 4.0

Study sampling site US2 Study sampling site US3 2.6

Study sampling site US3 Study sampling site US4 (USGS gaging station 06482020) .6

Study sampling site US2 Study sampling site US4 (USGS gaging station 06482020) 

(through the natural Big Sioux River channel)

16.4

USGS gaging station 06481500 Study sampling site US4 (USGS gaging station 06482020) 

(through the natural Big Sioux River channel)

11.8

Study sampling site US4 

(USGS gaging station 06482020)

Confluence of Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant 

effluent and Big Sioux River

4.2

Confluence of Sioux Falls wastewater treatment 

plant effluent and Big Sioux River

Study sampling site DS1 .6

Study sampling site DS1 Study sampling site DS2 4.3

• US2 = Sioux Falls pump station intake from Big Sioux 

River at Sioux Falls; Big Sioux River sampling site 

second most upstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge; intake for Sioux Falls drinking water where two 

low-head dams create a backwater pool on the Big 

Sioux River; located just downstream from where the 

Big Sioux River enters the Sioux Falls urban area; in an 

area of moderate-volume road traffic and downstream 

from a small amount of stormwater runoff from the 

Sioux Falls urban area;

• FDW = Sioux Falls water treatment plant finished 

water at Sioux Falls; city of Sioux Falls finished drinking water;

• US3 = Big Sioux River diversion channel at North 

Drive at Sioux Falls; Big Sioux River sampling site 

third most upstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge; Big Sioux River diversion channel just 

upstream from confluence with natural Big Sioux River 

channel; in an area of moderate-volume road traffic and 

can be influenced to a small degree by stormwater 

runoff from the Sioux Falls urban area;

• US4 = Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue, at Sioux 

Falls; Big Sioux River sampling site closest upstream 

from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge; just downstream from confluence of natural Big Sioux River 

channel and diversion channel; in an area of high 

volume road traffic and downstream from nearly all 

stormwater runoff from the Sioux Falls urban area; a 

short distance upstream from US4 is a meat packing 

plant that discharges an average of about 4 ft3

/s of 

effluent to the Big Sioux River;

• WWE = Sioux Falls WWTP effluent;

• DS1 = Big Sioux River downstream from Sioux Falls 

WWTP discharge; Big Sioux River sampling site 

closest downstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge; and

• DS2 = Big Sioux River near Brandon; Big Sioux River 

sampling site farthest downstream from the Sioux Falls 

WWTP discharge.

Collection, Processing, and Analysis of Water and 

Bottom-Sediment Samples

Water samples were collected at sites in or near Sioux Falls 

during seven sampling periods: August 15–16, 2001, 

September 9–11, 2002, January 22–24, 2003, March 19–21, 

2003, June 25–27, 2003, May 17–18, 2004, and 

May 30–31, 2004. Because the primary sampling objectives 

changed during the course of sampling activities, not all sampling sites were sampled during every sampling round. During 

all sampling periods, the Sioux Falls WWTP was continuously 

discharging to the Big Sioux River.

Variability in the flow of the Big Sioux River during the 

sampling periods (especially for the runoff sampling periods) 

complicates the ability to directly compare OWC loads and concentrations between sites for a given sampling period. Available 

resources did not allow conducting a Lagrangian scheme that 

samples a given pulse of water as it moves downstream. However, during a given sampling period, the timing of sample collection at each site was designed to generally provide reasonable representation of the streamflow conditions that were 

occurring in the Sioux Falls area during the sampling periods. 

At Big Sioux River sampling sites (except US2 where Big 

Sioux River water is pumped from a backwater pool into the 

intake pipe of the Sioux Falls drinking-water treatment system), 

streamflow was measured using standard USGS procedures 

(Rantz and others, 1982a; Rantz and others 1982b). WWTP discharges at the time of sampling were determined from monitoring records provided by the city of Sioux Falls (Trent Lubbers, 
Methods of Study 7

Sioux Falls WWTP operator, written commun., 2005). For 

site US2, streamflow was estimated by analyzing the Big Sioux 

River flow at upstream and downstream sites. Other fieldmeasured properties and constituents were determined using 

standard USGS procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, 1997–

2004) (table 7).

Water-quality samples for analysis of OWCs were collected and processed using standard USGS techniques (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 1997–2004). Containers and sampling 

equipment contacting the sample water were constructed of 

fluorocarbon polymer, glass, aluminum, or stainless steel and 

were rigorously cleaned using standard USGS procedures. 

Ultra-clean two-person sampling procedures were used and 

sampling teams wore powderless nitrile gloves. Special requirements for collection of wastewater, pharmaceutical, and antibiotic compounds also were adhered to (U.S. Geological Survey, 

1997–2004), including avoiding use of insect repellents, 

sunscreen, tobacco, caffeine, and pharmaceutical drugs by the 

sampling team. 

Wastewater effluent samples were collected using a depthintegrated grab from the centroid of the effluent channel downstream from all treatment activities. Water samples for Big 

Sioux River sites (except US2) were collected using standard 

USGS width- and depth-integrating procedures, generally at 

5 to 10 verticals across the sampling transect. For site US2, 

water samples were collected directly from a tap on the intake 

pipe of the Sioux Falls drinking-water treatment system. Following collection, samples were composited into a glass or 

fluorocarbon polymer compositing container that was immediately chilled and transported to a laboratory processing area. 

Samples were processed at the laboratory processing area 

within a few hours of sample collection. The composite samples 

were split, filtered (if required), decanted into final sample bottles, packaged with ice, and sent by 1-day shipping to the analytical laboratories. Where appropriate, filtration was performed by passing sample water through a pre-conditioned 

0.7-micrometer (μm), nominal-pore-size, baked glass-fiber filter. In this report, constituents in filtered water samples are 

referred to as “dissolved,” which is operationally defined as that 

part of a water sample that passes through a 0.7-μm, nominalpore-size, baked glass-fiber filter. Constituents in unfiltered 

water samples are referred to as “whole water.”

Bottom-sediment samples were collected from three sampling sites (US2, DS1, and DS2) during the September 2002 

sampling period. Samples were collected following procedures 

described by Shelton and Capel (1994). All sampling equipment and containers contacting the bottom-sediment samples 

were constructed of stainless steel or glass, and were rigorously 

cleaned using standard USGS procedures. Ultra-clean twoperson sampling procedures were used, and sampling teams 

wore powderless nitrile gloves. At each sampling site, 10 subsamples of fine-grained material were collected from the upper 

few centimeters of the stream bottom in depositional zones 

within about 300 ft of the water-sampling cross section. The 

subsamples were sieved through a 2-mm stainless-steel sieve 

into a compositing container and thoroughly homogenized. A 

sample of the composited homogenate was placed into a glass 

sample container, placed on ice, and sent in for analysis.

A total of 125 different OWCs were analyzed for in this 

study using five different analytical methods. Analyses for 

OWCs were performed at USGS laboratories that are developing and/or refining small-concentration (less than 1 microgram 

per liter (μg/L)) analytical methods. The following five 

analytical methods were used:

Analytical method 1 (performed at USGS National Water 

Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Lakewood, Colorado) determined 20 prescription and nonprescription HPCs and selected 

metabolites and 4 HVACs in filtered water samples (table 7; 

Cahill and others, 2004) by using hydrophilic-lipophilicbalance (HLB) solid-phase extraction (SPE) cartridges. Pharmaceuticals concentrated in sample extracts were separated, 

identified, and quantified by reversed-phase, high-performance 

liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESI-MS) using selected ion monitoring (SIM) and 

operated in the positive ionization mode.

Analytical method 2 (performed at the USGS Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory (OGRL) in Lawrence, 

Kansas) determined 43 human and veterinary antibiotic compounds in filtered water samples (table 7). Water samples were 

analyzed for compounds primarily in the beta-lactam, macrolide, quinoline, sulfonamide, and tetracycline classes of antibiotics. The beta-lactams, macrolides, quinolones, sulfonamides, and tetracyclines were analyzed separately using online 

SPE methods and HPLC/ESI-MS in positive-ion mode. Samples were extracted for the beta-lactams, macrolides, quinolones, and sulfonamides using Prospekt cartridges (Waters) and 

for the tetracyclines using a proprietary Glyphosate Prospekt 

cartridge (Spark-Holland). The antibiotics for each class were 

eluted and separated using liquid chromatography gradient. 

Individual antibiotic compounds were analyzed using SIM and 

were identified using retention times and the ratio(s) of a quantifying ion to one or two confirming ions. The antibiotic compounds were quantified using the ratio of the area of the basepeak ion of the analyte to the area of the base-peak ion of the 

internal standard. Prior to December 2003, samples were analyzed at OGRL using a single quadrapole HPLC mass spectrometer. After December 2003, samples were analyzed at 

OGRL using a triple quadrapole HPLC mass spectrometer that 

reduced the laboratory reporting levels (LRL) by a factor of 

about 10. 

Analytical method 3 (performed at NWQL) determined 

2 nonprescription HPCs, 3 MAHs, 50 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 

4 SCs in whole-water samples (table 7). Target compounds 

were extracted from water samples using continuous liquidliquid extraction with methylene chloride at pH 2.0 (Lee and 

others, 2004). Extracts were separated and measured by gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry using electron impact ionization and operated in the full-scan mode.

Analytical method 4 (performed at NWQL) determined 

2 nonprescription HPCs, 2 MAHs, 43 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 

4 SCs in filtered samples (table 7). Target compounds were 

extracted from water samples by vacuum through disposable 
8 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

SPE cartridges that contain polystyrene-divinylbenzene resin. 

Sorbed compounds were eluted with dichloromethane-diethylether. Compounds were measured by capillary-column gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry. Other procedures of analytical method 4 were similar to method 3 but were performed 

on filtered samples (Zaugg and others, 2002).

Analytical method 5 (performed at NWQL) determined 

3 MAHs, 44 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 4 SCs in bottom sediment 

(table 7) using procedures described by Burkhardt and others 

(2005). Compound concentrations in solids samples were measured by placing a wet sediment sample in a stainless-steel cell 

and extracting it using an accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) 

system (Dionex ASE 200) with isopropyl alcohol/water. The 

compounds were then isolated from the ASE extracts using SPE 

cartridges (Waters, OASIS HLB polystyrenedivinylbenzene 

phase). The SPE cartridges were then dried, and a Florisil SPE 

cartridge was attached at the base to provide additional extract 

cleanup during elution with dichloromethane/diethyl ether. The 

volume of the extract was reduced under a gentle stream of 

nitrogen, and the methods compounds were analyzed by gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry.

The determination of compounds of interest was a twostep process. First the compound was qualitatively identified 

followed by a quantitative determination of concentration. 

Strict criteria were used to assess both steps prior to reporting a 

compound and its concentration (Barnes and others, 2002; 

Kolpin and others, 2002; Lee and others, 2004). The first step 

of qualitative identification was the presence of the compound 

of interest within an expected chromatographic retention time. 

If present within the chromatographic window, compound mass 

spectrum and diagnostic ion abundance ratios were required to 

match that of the reference compound standard. After qualitative identification criteria were attained, analyte concentrations 

were calculated using a 5- to 8-point calibration curve (concentrations generally from 0.01 to 10.0 μg/L) using internal standard quantitation. The most abundant ion typically was used for 

quantitation, and, if possible, as many as two diagnostic fragment qualifier ions were used for ion abundance ratio confirmation. For method 2, calibration standards were processed 

throughout the extraction procedure, which generally corrects 

concentrations for methodological losses during extraction but 

not for matrix effects. Methods 1, 3, 4, and 5 did not extract calibration standards; thus, the reported compound concentrations 

determined using these methods were not corrected for method 

losses.

LRLs were determined for each analyte by a previously 

published procedure (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1992) for methods 1, 3, 4, and 5. Selected analyte concentrations were flagged with an “e” to indicate estimated values. 

Several of the reasons that the concentration of a qualitatively 

identified compound was reported as an estimate include concentrations that fell outside the calibration range, concentrations for analytes with average recoveries less than 60 percent, 

analytes routinely detected in laboratory blanks, and constituents with reference standards prepared from technical mixtures 

(Barnes and others, 2002; Kolpin and others, 2002; and Lee and 

others, 2004). Quality-assurance/quality-control (QA/QC) data 

were analyzed in detail, and for compounds that were determined to have acceptable QA/QC results, estimated values 

flagged with an “e” were considered to be reasonable estimates 

of actual concentrations and were included in analyses and discussions related to occurrence of OWCs.

In addition to the OWCs in table 7, samples also were 

analyzed for bromoform and four human hormone compounds 

(17-beta-estradiol, equilenin, estrone, and ethynyl estradiol). 

Bromoform is a volatile organic compound that typically occurs 

as a disinfection by-product and requires special sampling procedures (that were not used in this study) for accurate quantitation. Thus, analytical results for bromoform are not included in 

this report. NWQL has determined that the performance of the 

analytical methods for the four human hormone compounds 

have not yet been adequately verified to report the analytical 

results, given the particularly sensitive nature of the occurrence 

of these compounds in aquatic systems. Thus, analytical results 

for the four human hormone compounds are not included in 

this report.

Five OWCs—two HPCs (caffeine and cotinine) and three 

HVACs (erythromycin, sulfamethoxazole, and trimethoprim)—were determined by more than one analytical method. 

For each of these compounds, QA/QC results and LRLs were 

investigated, and the analytical method judged to provide the 

best performance was selected. Only the results for the selected 

method were included in analyses and discussion related to 

occurrence of OWCs in wastewater effluents and the Big 

Sioux River.

For the two May 2004 sampling periods, 2 HPCs, 

2 MAHs, 43 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 4 SCs were determined by 

analytical methods 3 and 4, on whole-water and filtered samples, respectively. QA/QC results and LRLs were investigated 

to assess performances of the two methods for each constituent. 

Analytical results also were investigated to determine whether 

whole-water concentrations were substantially larger than dissolved concentrations (that is, whether a substantial amount of 

the constituent was in the particulate phase), which could provide information concerning possible sources of OWCs. Only 

the results from one of the methods were included in summary 

analyses and discussion related to occurrence of OWCs in 

wastewater effluents and the Big Sioux River. Generally, selection of analytical method 3 results for inclusion in summary 

analyses and discussion was deemed preferable because it provides greater consistency than method 4 for comparison of the 

results of the May 2004 sampling periods with previous sampling periods. However, for several constituents, percent recoveries for laboratory reagent spikes and/or environmental matrix 

spikes were noticeably better (that is, closer to 100 percent) for 

analytical method 4 than for analytical method 3, and the analytical method 4 results were judged to provide the best method 

performance and were included in summary analyses and discussion. This might slightly affect the comparability of OWC 

concentrations between the May 2004 sampling periods and the 

previous sampling periods. Information on which constituents 
Methods of Study 9

were included in summary analyses and discussion for each 

sampling period is presented in table 7.

Calculation of Loads

Loads of OWCs were estimated to provide coarse information on sources and fate of OWCs in the Big Sioux River. 

Because non-Lagrangian sampling was conducted, no attempt 

was made to sample a specific pulse of water as it moved downstream. Thus, exact correspondence between water samples 

collected at different sampling sites would not be expected. A 

primary effect on comparison of loads between sites could be 

diurnal variability in the magnitude of WWTP effluent discharges and concentrations of OWCs in the wastewater effluent. The largest effect of this variability would occur when comparing concentrations and loads of OWCs for the WWTP 

effluent discharge with those for Big Sioux River sampling sites 

downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge for a given 

sampling period. Diurnal variability of the WWTP effluent discharge generally was about 10 ft3

/s for most sampling periods. 

Typical daily operations of the Sioux Falls WWTP result in 

smaller and more variable discharges from about 2:00 a.m. to 

about 9:00 a.m., and larger and mostly stable discharges from 

about 9:00 a.m. to about 2:00 a.m. For sampling periods when 

the WWTP effluent discharge was sampled, sample collection 

at downstream Big Sioux River sampling sites generally was 

conducted such that the part of the sampled Big Sioux River discharge that was contributed by the WWTP effluent discharge 

was very similar to the WWTP effluent discharge at the time 

that the WWTP effluent discharge was sampled. However, no 

data were collected to evaluate diurnal variability in concentrations of OWCs in the WWTP effluent; the effect of this variability on comparison between concentrations and loads of OWCs 

for downstream Big Sioux River sampling sites and the WWTP 

effluent discharge is unknown.

Loads of OWCs were estimated by multiplying discharges 

at the times of sampling by constituent concentrations and by a 

conversion factor (0.0053919) to convert cubic feet per second 

and micrograms per liter to pounds per day. For constituents 

reported as less than the study reporting level (SRL) (defined in 

the Quality Assurance/Quality Control section), the concentrations were assumed to be zero in the load calculations. Load values are reported to two significant figures.

The load estimates presented in this report should be used 

with caution. Possible effects of non-Lagrangian sampling have 

been described. Also, most of the OWC concentrations were 

very small (often near the lower limits of analytical quantitation) and reported by the laboratories as estimated values. The 

multiplication of the concentrations by discharge, which can 

vary substantially from site to site and for some sampling periods was very large, might result in substantially increasing the 

effect of analytical error in the reported load estimates. However, although the error in the absolute values of the load estimates may be substantial, the load estimates probably provide 

reasonably accurate estimates for relative comparison between 

sites and between sampling periods. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Analytical results for OWCs presented in this report 

require additional interpretive effort not typically necessary for 

other water-quality constituents that usually occur at larger concentrations. Many OWCs were analyzed for in this study and 

substantial differences exist in the capability to quantify lowlevel (part-per-billion and lower) concentrations of individual 

compounds. For the five analytical methods used in this study, 

method performance can vary substantially between methods, 

and between compounds within a given method because of the 

range of chemical classes and properties of the compounds 

included in any one method. Also, because several of these 

OWCs (including the plasticizers, surfactants, and caffeine) are 

widely used in common consumer and industrial products, the 

risk of sample contamination in either the laboratory or the field 

varies between compounds and may be an important issue in 

low-level analysis of some trace OWCs. These factors result in 

variable precision/accuracy among compounds and complicate 

presentation of OWC analytical results. 

The long-term performance for a given compound in any 

of the analytical methods used in this study spans a continuum. 

Establishing specific QA/QC criteria to define an “acceptable 

performance” range within this continuum typically is done in 

analytical chemistry practice. However, such criteria are inherently arbitrary and can exclude detections that violate the specified criteria but for which qualitative identification are reliable. 

This can be the case for some compounds determined by the 

analytical methods used in this study, which rely on mass spectrometry. Thus, when a concentration is qualified by the laboratories as “estimated,” it serves as a categorical warning to pay 

particular attention to potential use of the numerical concentration, but not as a distinct boundary between “good” and “poor” 

data.

Given these complications, possible approaches for presentation of OWC analytical results that address the inherent 

complications include: 

• Approach 1: reporting OWC analytical results in a 

manner that lessens the effect of precision/accuracy 

variability by focusing on presence/absence instead of 

quantification (for example, reporting frequency of 

detection instead of concentrations); 

• Approach 2: selecting rigorous QA/QC criteria for 

screening analytical results and only presenting or discussing analytical results that are tightly controlled and 

have a very high probability of accurately representing 

“true” concentrations; 

• Approach 3: selecting broader QA/QC criteria for 

screening analytical results, excluding from discussion 

compounds and concentration ranges that clearly are 

not accurately quantified, but presenting and discussing 

semiquantitative results for a larger set (than 
10 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Approach 2) of compounds and concentration ranges 

for which analytical results are determined to reasonably accurately represent “true” concentrations. 

Selection of an appropriate approach for presenting OWC 

analytical results is subjective and dependent upon study objectives. Approaches 1 and 2 probably represent a more conservative presentation of OWC analytical results than Approach 3. 

However, these approaches truncate the data set, and potentially 

valuable information relevant to study objectives might be 

excluded from discussion. Approach 1 limits data presentation 

to simple qualitative categories of “presence/absence;” potentially useful semiquantitative information contained in the relative magnitudes of concentrations is excluded. Approach 2 

might result in presentation of tightly controlled data for few 

compounds meeting rigorous QA/QC criteria, but useful semiquantitative information for many other compounds might be 

excluded. Approach 3 requires greater effort to define and 

report the selected QA/QC screening criteria but could provide 

additional valuable semiquantitative information on the occurrence of OWCs. 

Approach 3 was selected for use in this report. Detailed 

information concerning QA/QC screening criteria is presented 

in this report to allow evaluation of levels of uncertainty associated with reported concentrations. Because some of the 

analytical methods for OWCs are relatively new or still in 

development, the QA/QC screening criteria used in this study 

were less amenable to stringent quantitative limits than those 

for well-established analytical methods; thus, screening criteria 

used in this study probably are broader than those for many 

water-quality studies. In general, individual concentrations presented in this report should be considered semiquantitative estimates (even though QA/QC results for many of the compounds 

would satisfy even very strict precision/accuracy criteria). 

Qualifying the data as semiquantitative does not undermine the 

suitability of the data for meeting important objectives of this 

study, which included investigation of the “relative” variability 

in OWC occurrence between different sites and between different sampling periods. Analytical results for OWCs that passed 

QA/QC screening criteria were determined to be appropriate for 

this purpose. Within this report, if a specific concentration for a 

specific compound is of particular interest to the reader, the 

QA/QC data presented in the report need to be reviewed in 

detail to better evaluate the uncertainty associated with the specific reported concentration. 

Water Samples

QA/QC samples were collected to assess precision and 

accuracy of analytical results for water samples. For the watersample results, QA/QC data were used to determine which compounds had acceptable method performance and to establish 

SRLs for individual OWCs. QA/QC included both laboratory 

and field activities.

Laboratory QA/QC procedures included processing and 

analyzing method-blank and reagent-spike samples, and adding 

surrogate compounds to all laboratory QA/QC samples, field 

QA/QC samples, and environmental samples. Method-blank 

samples consist of analyte-free water that is processed and analyzed in the laboratory identically to environmental samples. 

Method-blank samples are used to evaluate possible introduction of method compounds or interferences in the laboratory 

setting. For compounds that were detected in laboratory 

method-blank samples, a screening level of five times the 

detected concentration was applied by the laboratories to 

reported detected concentrations in environmental samples 

associated with the method-blank samples with detections (that 

is, concentrations in environmental samples detected by the laboratories that were less than five times the detected concentration in the laboratory method-blank samples were reported as 

less than the LRL). Reagent-spike samples consist of a reagent 

water sample that is fortified with known concentrations of the 

method analytes. Reagent-spike samples are used to monitor the 

performance of a given analytical method (in the absence of 

environmental matrix influences) at the time the environmental 

samples were analyzed, and in aggregate to assess the long-term 

performance of the method over the course of the study. Surrogate compounds are similar in physical and chemical properties 

to one or more of the method analytes, and are added in known 

quantities to all QA/QC and environmental water samples prior 

to analysis. Surrogate compounds are used to assess the effects 

of specific environmental matrixes on the performance of a 

given analytical method and in some cases to assess the potential for errors during the processing of a specific environmental 

sample. At least one method-blank and reagent-spike sample 

typically are analyzed with each set of 10 to 15 environmental 

samples.

Field QA/QC samples included field equipment blanks, 

replicates, and matrix spikes. For this study, 4 to 6 field equipment-blank samples (depending on analytical method), 4 to 

10 replicate samples, and 3 to 10 environmental matrix spikes 

were collected and analyzed for laboratory analytical constituents (table 7). This level of field QA/QC sampling represents 

about 50 percent of the environmental samples collected.

Field equipment-blank samples were collected at field 

sampling sites by passing analyte-free water through the collection and processing equipment used for environmental samples 

using procedures identical to those used to collect and process 

the environmental samples. A field equipment-blank sample 

with constituent concentrations equal to or less than the SRL for 

a given constituent indicates that the overall process of sample 

collection, processing, and laboratory analysis is free of significant contamination. Sporadic, infrequent detections at concentrations near the SRL probably represent random contamination 

or instrument calibration error that is not persistent in the process and that is not likely to cause significant positive bias in 

study results. Consistent detections in the field equipmentblank samples at concentrations that are substantially less than 

concentrations in environmental samples probably indicate routine contamination but do not substantially affect evaluation of 

the environmental data. None of the OWCs analyzed for in this 

study had consistent detections in field equipment-blank 
Methods of Study 11

samples. For OWCs that were sporadically detected in field 

equipment-blank samples, reported detected concentrations in 

environmental samples collected during the same sampling 

period as field equipment-blank samples with detections were 

at least five times greater than the field equipment-blank 

concentrations.

Field replicate samples were used to identify the level of 

precision (reproducibility) of analytical results at environmentally relevant concentrations. Field replicate samples were collected and processed immediately after each associated primary 

environmental sample was collected and processed, and procedures used for replicate samples were identical to those used for 

primary environmental samples. Field replicate samples are 

considered essentially identical in composition to the associated 

primary environmental samples. Precision of analytical results 

for field replicate samples is affected by numerous sources of 

variability potentially introduced by both field and laboratory 

processes, including sample collection, sample processing and 

handling, and laboratory preparation and analysis. Analyses of 

field replicate samples, therefore, can indicate the reproducibility of environmental data and provide information on the adequacy of procedures to produce consistent results. 

Precision of analytical results for field replicate samples 

was determined by calculating the relative percent difference 

(RPD) for each primary/replicate sample pair as indicated in the 

following equation:

, (1)

where

d = difference in concentration between the primary 

environmental sample and the field replicate sample 

for a given primary/replicate sample pair, and

x = mean concentration of the primary environmental 

sample and the field replicate sample for a given 

primary/replicate sample pair.

RPDs only were calculated for primary/replicate sample 

pairs in which a given compound was detected in both samples. 

Because many environmental OWC detections occur near the 

limit at which a compound can be qualitatively identified and 

quantified, a compound might be detected in a primary sample, 

but not the replicate, and vice versa. Thus, the number of primary/replicate sample pairs in which a given compound was 

detected in only one of the samples (but not both) was noted and 

also used to assess data quality and establish SRLs. 

Generally, an RPD of 20 percent or less represents an 

acceptable level of precision, although for very small concentrations near the limit of analytical detectability, the percent 

differences can be substantially larger and still be considered 

reasonable due to the limits of resolution (Taylor, 1987). Most 

of the detected concentrations reported in this study are very 

small and near the limit of analytical detectability. Thus, a 

median RPD of 40 percent generally was used in this study to 

determine acceptability of results for field replicate samples. 

Three compounds (dissolved OP1EO, dissolved phenol, and 

whole-water pyrene) did not meet this criterion but were not 

excluded from analyses and discussion. These compounds had 

only one primary/replicate sample pair in which the compound 

was detected, and the compound was detected in both the primary and replicate samples, but the RPDs exceeded 40 percent. 

All other QA/QC results for these compounds were examined 

in detail and judged to be acceptable. Because a single primary/ 

replicate sample pair presents limited opportunity to evaluate 

analytical precision, and because the other QA/QC analyses for 

these compounds indicated acceptable analytical performance, 

it was determined that these compounds should not be excluded 

from analyses and discussion. RPDs for these three compounds 

ranged from 46 to 68 percent.

Environmental matrix spikes consist of replicate samples 

collected and processed identically to the primary environmental sample that were shipped to the laboratories where they were 

fortified with known concentrations of the method analytes. 

Concentrations of the method analytes in primary environmental samples and the environmental matrix spikes are determined, then the ambient concentrations in the primary sample 

are subtracted from the matrix-spike concentrations, and the 

resulting concentrations compared to the expected concentrations to calculate percent recoveries of analytes. Environmental 

matrix-spike samples are used to monitor the performance of a 

given analytical method for a specific environmental matrix. 

Performance of the analytical methods for individual compounds was evaluated by calculating the relative standard 

deviation (RSD; expressed in percent) of the percent recoveries 

separately for laboratory reagent spikes, laboratory surrogates, 

and environmental matrix spikes. In the percent recovery calculations for the various spiked samples, any censored values 

reported as less than the LRL (for either the unspiked primary 

samples or the spiked samples) were arbitrarily assigned a value 

of zero. RSDs were computed from the standard deviations and 

the mean concentrations of percent recoveries for the spiked 

samples for a given compound. Expressing precision relative to 

a mean concentration standardizes comparison of precision 

among individual constituents. The RSD, in percent, is calculated using the following equation:

, (2)

where

S = standard deviation of percent recoveries of spiked 

samples, and

X = mean of percent recoveries of spiked samples.

Analytical results for laboratory method blanks, laboratory 

reagent spikes, laboratory surrogates, field equipment blanks, 

field replicates, and environmental matrix spikes are summarized in tables 8–13, respectively, in the Supplemental Information section. QA/QC results were analyzed in a two-phase process that determined acceptability of analytical method 

performance for a given compound and then determined an 

SRL that represents the lower level of quantitation at which the 

compound could be consistently identified and reasonably 

accurately quantified. Acceptability of analytical method 

RPD d = ( ) /x *100

RSD S = ( ) /X *100
12 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

performance for a given compound was determined by analysis 

of percent recoveries for laboratory reagent spikes (table 9), laboratory surrogates (table 10), and environmental matrix spikes 

(table 13). Analytical method performance was considered to be 

acceptable when the median percent recoveries for laboratory 

reagent spikes, laboratory surrogates, and environmental matrix 

spikes were between 50 and 120 percent and when the RSDs of 

percent recovery for laboratory reagent spikes, laboratory surrogates, and environmental matrix spikes were less than 

40 percent. Individual compounds that did not meet these 

method-performance acceptability criteria generally were 

excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of 

OWCs in drinking water, wastewater effluent, and the Big 

Sioux River. 

For several compounds, a single method-performance 

acceptability criterion was relaxed to allow inclusion of the 

compounds in analyses and discussion. Whole-water acetophenone, whole-water indole, and whole-water phenol had RSDs 

for percent recoveries for laboratory reagent-spike samples that 

slightly exceeded the acceptance criterion (less than 40 percent), ranging from 42 to 43 percent. Dissolved tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate had a median percent recovery for laboratory 

reagent-spike samples of 130 percent, which was outside of the 

acceptable range of 50–120 percent. Two compounds had 

median environmental matrix spike recoveries that exceeded 

the acceptable range (50–120 percent): whole-water 5-methyl 

benzotriazole (140 percent) and whole-water beta-sitosterol 

(160 percent). Three HPCs had median environmental matrix 

spike recoveries that were less than the acceptable range 

(50–120 percent): dissolved caffeine (analytical method 1; 

33 percent), dissolved cotinine (analytical method 1; 41 percent), and dissolved dehydronifedipine (46 percent). One surrogate compound (dissolved fluoranthene-d10) had a median 

spike recovery of 123 percent, which slightly exceeded the 

acceptable range (50–120 percent). All other QA/QC data for 

these compounds (and in the case of the surrogate fluoranthened10, physically and chemically similar study target compounds) 

were acceptable, and the patterns of occurrence of the compounds in environmental samples were consistent with related 

compounds and intuitively reasonable. Although QA/QC 

acceptance criteria were relaxed for these constituents, the 

effect on the ability to make comparisons in results between 

sites and between sampling periods probably was small.

For compounds that had acceptable analytical method performance for laboratory reagent spikes and environmental 

matrix spikes, analytical results for laboratory method blanks 

(table 8), field equipment blanks (table 11), and field replicate 

samples (table 12) were evaluated to determine SRLs. SRLs 

were established to identify the lower levels of quantitation at 

which the compounds could be consistently identified by the 

analysts (determined by evaluating results for field replicate 

samples) and reasonably accurately quantified without being 

substantially influenced by routine contamination from either 

laboratory or field activities (determined by evaluating results 

for laboratory method blanks and field equipment blanks). For 

each compound meeting method performance criteria, the SRL 

was established such that the compound was consistently 

detected in both samples of primary/replicate sample pairs, and 

the SRL generally was substantially larger than levels of contamination detected in laboratory method blanks and field 

equipment blanks.

There was a single detection of a compound that was not 

included in analyses and discussion. Isophorone was detected in 

a water sample collected from the Sioux Falls finished drinking 

water on March 19, 2003, at a very large concentration 

(36 μg/L). At the time of sample collection, renovation activities were being conducted at the Sioux Falls drinking-water 

treatment plant near the tap where the sample was collected. 

Isophorone is a solvent commonly found in paint, and it is likely 

that the detection of isophorone in the drinking-water sample 

occurred due to contamination of the tap from cleaning of painting equipment.

Information concerning compounds excluded from data 

analyses due to unacceptable method performance and the 

established SRLs for compounds with acceptable method performance are summarized in table 7. Of the 125 different OWCs 

analyzed for in this study, 81 OWCs had one or more detections 

in environmental water samples reported by the laboratories, 

and of those 81 OWCs, 63 had acceptable analytical method 

performance, were detected at concentrations greater than the 

SRLs, and were included in analyses and discussion related to 

occurrence of OWCs in drinking water, wastewater effluent, 

and the Big Sioux River.

Bottom-Sediment Samples

QA/QC data collected to assess precision and accuracy of 

analytical results for bottom-sediment samples were restricted 

to laboratory surrogates. No field QA/QC data were collected 

for bottom-sediment samples. Analytical results for laboratory 

surrogates indicated acceptable method performance for 

bottom-sediment analyses (table 10). Analytical results for 

bottom-sediment samples are presented exactly as reported by 

the analytical laboratories.

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater

Compounds

This section of the report summarizes the occurrence of 

OWCs in drinking water, wastewater effluent, and the Big 

Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls. In addition to presenting 

analytical results of the OWCs, this section of the report 

includes results for field-measured properties and constituents. 

Wastewater discharges and streamflow conditions in the Big 

Sioux River at the time of sampling also are described.

Results for field-measured properties and constituents in 

water samples are given in table 14 in the Supplemental Information section. Laboratory analytical results for HPCs, 

HVACs, MAHs, HIACs, PAHs, and SCs in water samples are 
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 13

given in tables 15–20 in the Supplemental Information section 

and are reported exactly as received from the laboratory. It 

should be noted that for some compounds, the established SRLs 

were larger than some of the detected concentrations reported 

by the laboratories. Thus, some of the reported detected concentrations in tables 15–20 were actually censored at the SRLs for 

the purposes of data analysis and summary. Detected concentrations greater than SRLs for compounds with acceptable QA/QC 

that were used in data analysis and summary related to occurrence of OWCs are noted in tables 15–20.

Summary calculations for OWCs, including total and 

median concentrations for compound classes, are rounded to 

two significant figures in this report. However, illustrations 

were created using unrounded raw values. Thus, there might be 

very small differences between values reported in text/tables 

and those shown in illustrations.

Streamflow Conditions and Field-Measured 

Properties and Constituents

Water samples were collected during base-flow and runoff 

conditions during summer, winter, and spring, 2001–2004. In 

this report, base flow is defined as flow in the stream that is not 

attributable to direct runoff from recent local precipitation or 

snowmelt. Base-flow and runoff conditions were determined by 

analysis of streamflow at USGS station 06482020 prior to sampling. Above-normal or below-normal flow at the time of sampling was determined by comparison to the long-term median 

flow (1977–2004) at USGS station 06482020 

(http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov).

Streamflow conditions during sampling periods are shown 

in figure 2. The Sioux Falls WWTP discharged continuously to 

the Big Sioux River during all sampling periods. During 

August 15–16, 2001, above-normal flow/summer base-flow 

conditions existed for the Big Sioux River in the Sioux Falls 

area. No substantial precipitation had occurred for several days 

prior to sampling. Streamflow at long-term USGS gaging station 06482020 was about 250 percent of the long-term (water 

years 1977–2004) median mid-August streamflow (about 

250 ft3

/s), and the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge 

accounted for about 4 percent of the streamflow of the Big 

Sioux River downstream. During September 9–11, 2002, 

below-normal flow/late-summer base-flow conditions existed 

for the Big Sioux River in the Sioux Falls area; streamflow at 

station 06482020 was about 35 percent of the long-term median 

early-September streamflow (about 200 ft3

/s), and the Sioux 

Falls WWTP effluent discharge accounted for about 35 percent 

of the flow of the Big Sioux River downstream. During 

January 22–24, 2003, below-normal flow/winter base-flow 

conditions existed for the Big Sioux River in the Sioux Falls 

area; streamflow at station 06482020 was about 45 percent of 

the long-term median late-January streamflow (about 70 ft3

/s), 

and the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge accounted for 

about 55 percent of the flow of the Big Sioux River downstream. During March 19–21, 2003, near-normal flow/latewinter storm-runoff conditions resulting from precipitation that 

began on March 18 existed for the Big Sioux River in the Sioux 

Falls area; streamflow at station 06482020 was about 

100 percent of the long-term median late-March streamflow 

(about 750 ft3/s), and the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge 

accounted for about 3 percent of the flow of the Big Sioux River 

downstream. During June 25–27, 2003, near-normal flow/ 

early-summer storm-runoff conditions resulting from precipitation that began on June 24 existed for the Big Sioux River in the 

Sioux Falls area; streamflow at station 06482020 was about 

125 percent of the long-term median late-June streamflow 

(about 840 ft3/s), and the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge 

accounted for about 3 percent of the flow of the Big Sioux River 

downstream. During May 17–18, 2004, below-normal 

flow/spring storm-runoff conditions resulting from precipitation that began on May 16 existed for the Big Sioux River in the 

Sioux Falls area; due to an extended period of below-normal 

precipitation, streamflow at station 06482020 only reached a 

level of about 15 percent of the long-term median mid-May 

streamflow (about 1,000 ft3

/s) during this runoff event, and the 

Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge accounted for about 

15 percent of the flow of the Big Sioux River downstream. During May 30–31, 2004, above-normal flow/spring storm-runoff 

conditions resulting from intense precipitation that began on 

May 28 existed for the Big Sioux River in the Sioux Falls area; 

streamflow at station 06482020 was about 850 percent of the 

long-term median late-May streamflow (about 600 ft3/s) during 

this runoff event, and the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge 

accounted for less than about 1 percent of the flow of the Big 

Sioux River downstream. 

Results for field-measured properties and constituents in 

water samples are presented in table 14 and figure 3. Generally, 

results for field-measured properties and constituents are within 

typical ranges for the Big Sioux River Basin (East Dakota 

Water Development District, 2004).

Organic Wastewater Compounds in Water Samples

OWCs in all compound classes were detected in water 

samples from sampling sites in the Sioux Falls area (fig. 4, 

tables 21 and 22 in the Supplemental Information section). For 

the five sampling periods when samples were collected from the 

Sioux Falls finished drinking water (FDW), only one OWC was 

detected at a concentration greater than the SRL (metolachlor; 

0.0040 μg/L). Due to the consistency in results for this site, analytical results for FDW generally are omitted from discussion in 

following sections.

Changes in sampling objectives during the course of sampling activities complicates presentation of results. Not all sampling sites were sampled during all sampling periods; thus, a 

simple and consistent format for presentation of results for the 

different sampling periods is not possible. For this reason, 

results for OWCs in water samples are presented in the following four sections: (1) occurrence of organic wastewater compounds by sampling period; (2) occurrence of organic wastewater compounds by sampling site; (3) occurrence of organic 

wastewater compounds by compound class; and (4) occurrence 

of endocrine disrupting compounds. The intent of the following 
1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

EX

Station 0648

Discharge

Station 0648Station 0648Sioux Falls w

US1

Sampling site  of sampling

US2US3US4 (station WWE (Sioux DS1DS2

August 15-16, 2001

(above-normal flow/summer

base flow)

(near-normal flow/late-winter

storm runoff)

(above-n

st

(near-normal flow/early-summer

storm runoff)

(below-normal flow/spring

storm runoff)

(below-normal flow/late-summer

base flow)

(below-normal flow/winter

base flow)

14 15 16 17 18

AUGUST 2001

September 9-11, 2002

8 9 10 11 12

SEPTEMBER 2002

January 22-24, 2003

21 22 23 24 25

JANUARY 2003

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,2March 19-21, 2003

18 19 20 21 22

MARCH 2003

1June 25-27, 2003

24 25 26 27 28

JUNE 2003

May 17-18, 2004

16 17 18 19

MAY 2004

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

29 30 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

May 

MA

1 Gaging station 064815

 January through June

2 Gaging station 064810

 March 19-21, 2003; dis

Figure 2. Flow conditions during sampling periods.
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 15

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

TURBIDITY, IN NEPHELOMETRIC

TURBIDITY UNITS

DISSOLVED OXYGEN,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

pH,

IN STANDARD UINTS

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN

MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

WATER TEMPERATURE,

IN DEGREES CELSIUS

August 15-16, 2001

(above-normal flow/summer

base flow)

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

September 9-11, 2002

(below-normal flow/summer

base flow)

January 22-24, 2003

(below-normal flow/winter

base flow)

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collected No data collected

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

Figure 3. Results for field-measured properties and constituents.
16 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

TURBIDITY, IN NEPHELOMETRIC

TURBIDITY UNITS

DISSOLVED OXYGEN,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

pH,

IN STANDARD UINTS

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN

MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

WATER TEMPERATURE,

IN DEGREES CELSIUS

March 19-21, 2003

(near-normal flow/late-winter

storm runoff)

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

June 25-27, 2003

(near-normal flow/early-summer

storm runoff)

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collected

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

No data collected

Value less than reproting level

No data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

Figure 3. Results for field-measured properties and constituents.—Continued
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 17

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

TURBIDITY, IN NEPHELOMETRIC

TURBIDITY UNITS

DISSOLVED OXYGEN,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

pH,

IN STANDARD UINTS

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, IN

MICROSIEMENS PER CENTIMETER

WATER TEMPERATURE,

IN DEGREES CELSIUS

May 30-31, 2004

(above-normal flow/spring

storm runoff)

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collected

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

May 17-18, 2004

(below-normal flow/spring

storm runoff)

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

500

400

300

200

100

0

600

700

800

No data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

16

18

No data collectedNo data collected

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

No data collectedNo data collected

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

No data collectedNo data collected

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No data collectedNo data collected

Figure 3. Results for field-measured properties and constituents.—Continued
0

1510

5

3530252040

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US

SIT

0

1020304050

0

1020304050

0

1020304050

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY

05

101520253035

05

101520253035

05

101520253035

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

August 15-16, 2001

(above-normal flow/ summer base flow)

September 9-11, 2002

(below-normal flow/late-summer base flow)

January 

(below-normal f

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

0

1510

5

3530252040

0

1510

5

3530252040

Figure 4. Results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.
US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL

0

1020304050

0

1020304050

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY

05

101520253035

05

101520253035

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

March 19-21, 2003

(near-normal flow/late-winter storm runoff)

June 25-27, 2003

(near-normal flow/early-summer storm runoff)

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

0

1510

5

3530252040

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

0

1510

5

3530252040

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

Figure 4. Results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued
US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY

05

101520253035

05

101520253035

May 17-18, 2004

(below-normal flow/spring storm runoff)

May 30-31, 2004

(above-normal flow/spring storm runoff)

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

0

1020304050

0

1020304050

LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY

No data collected No data collected

No data collected

0

1510

5

3530252040

No data collected

No data collected No data collected

No data collected No data collected

No data collected No data collected

0

50

150100200

No data collected

No data collected

EXPL

Household, in agricultural  (HIACs)

Major agricult

Each bar repres compound c bar indicated  represents t class contrib

Sterol compoPolyaromatic 

Human and v compounds Human pharm (HPCs)

Figure 4. Results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 21

sections is to present the results thoroughly so that patterns in 

occurrence of OWCs are apparent despite the variability in data 

collection among sampling periods; thus, there is some redundancy in information presented in the different sections.

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds by 

Sampling Period

For the August 2001 sampling period (above-normal 

flow/summer base-flow conditions for the Big Sioux River in 

the Sioux Falls area), sites US2, FDW, and DS2 were sampled. 

Numbers of compounds detected, concentrations, and loads 

were smaller for the sampling site upstream from the WWTP 

effluent discharge (US2) than for the sampling site downstream 

(DS2) (fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). SCs accounted for nearly all of 

the total OWC concentration for both Big Sioux River sites. 

Concentrations and loads of SCs were larger at the downstream 

site, but the increase in SC load at the downstream site probably 

was larger than would have been contributed by the WWTP 

alone (assuming typical operations of the WWTP and comparison of typical WWTP effluent discharges to Big Sioux River 

flow during the sampling period). HIACs accounted for a small 

part of the total OWC concentration for site DS2 and might 

have been contributed by the WWTP discharge. OWC results 

for the August 2001 sampling period indicate that (1) OWCs for 

Big Sioux River sites probably were primarily contributed by 

nonpoint animal agriculture activities, and (2) OWC concentrations for the downstream Big Sioux River site (DS2) probably 

were not strongly influenced by contributions from the Sioux 

Falls WWTP.

For the September 2002 sampling period (below-normal 

flow/late-summer base-flow conditions for the Big Sioux River 

in the Sioux Falls area), sites US2, FDW, WWE, DS1, and DS2 

were sampled. Numbers of OWCs detected, concentrations, and 

loads were larger for the WWTP effluent than for Big Sioux 

River sites, and were smaller for the upstream Big Sioux River 

sampling site (US2) than for downstream sampling sites (DS1 

and DS2) (fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). Total OWC concentrations 

were composed primarily of SCs for Big Sioux River sampling 

sites, and HIACs and SCs for the WWTP effluent. Possible 

explanations for decreases in OWC loads moving downstream 

include (1) degradation of OWCs in the Big Sioux River; 

(2) adsorption of OWCs to particulate material and sedimentation from the water column; (3) diurnal variability in wastewater effluent discharges and concentrations of OWCs in the 

wastewater effluent combined with effects of non-Lagrangian 

sampling; and/or (4) dilution effects decreasing concentrations 

of individual OWCs below detectable concentrations. Although 

total OWC concentrations and loads for the Big Sioux River 

sites downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (DS1 and 

DS2) were not substantially larger than for the upstream site 

(US2), the WWTP effluent discharge influenced OWC concentrations at the downstream sites, as evidenced by the occurrence 

of several individual OWCs, including 7-acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN) and several plasticizers and fire retardants, only in samples collected from the 

WWTP effluent and Big Sioux River downstream sites. OWC 

results for the September 2002 sampling period indicate that 

(1) OWCs for the Big Sioux River site upstream from the 

WWTP effluent discharge were relatively small and probably 

were primarily contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture 

activities, and (2) OWCs for the downstream Big Sioux River 

sites (DS1 and DS2) were influenced by contributions from the 

Sioux Falls WWTP, but OWC concentrations and loads for 

site DS2 were not substantially larger than for site US2.

For the January 2003 sampling period (below-normal 

flow/winter base-flow conditions for the Big Sioux River in the 

Sioux Falls area), sites US2, FDW, WWE, and DS2 were sampled. Numbers of OWCs detected, concentrations, and loads 

were larger for the WWTP effluent than for Big Sioux River 

sites and were substantially smaller for the upstream Big Sioux 

River sampling site (US2) than for the downstream site (DS2) 

(fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). The total OWC concentration and load 

for site US2 were minimal. Total OWC concentrations were 

composed primarily of HVACs, HIACs, and SCs for the 

WWTP effluent and DS2 sites. Total OWC concentrations were 

large for the WWTP effluent (substantially larger than for 

site DS2). OWC results for the January 2003 sampling period 

indicate that (1) OWC concentrations at the Big Sioux River 

site upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge were minimal, and (2) OWCs for the downstream Big Sioux River site 

(DS2) probably were substantially influenced by contributions 

from the Sioux Falls WWTP.

For the March 2003 sampling period (near-normal 

flow/late-winter storm-runoff conditions for the Big Sioux 

River in the Sioux Falls area), sites US2, FDW, WWE, and DS2 

were sampled. Numbers of OWCs detected and OWC concentrations were larger for the WWTP effluent than for Big Sioux 

River sites and were composed primarily of HIACs and SCs 

(fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). However, the OWC load for the 

WWTP effluent was substantially smaller than for the Big 

Sioux River site downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (DS2). Numbers of OWCs detected, and OWC concentrations and loads for the upstream Big Sioux River sampling 

site (US2) were small and composed primarily of HIACs and 

MAHs. Numbers of OWCs detected, and OWC concentrations 

and loads for the downstream Big Sioux River sampling site 

(DS2) were relatively large and composed primarily of HIACs, 

SCs, and PAHs. These patterns indicate that there were substantial contributions of OWCs to the Big Sioux River in the Sioux 

Falls area from sources other than the WWTP effluent discharge. Possible sources of OWCs between sites US2 and DS2 

other than the WWTP effluent discharge include stormwater 

runoff from urban and/or agricultural areas to the Big Sioux 

River and/or resuspension of OWCs adsorbed to sediment 

deposited in the Big Sioux River between sites US2 and DS2. 

OWC results for the March 2003 sampling period indicate that 

(1) OWC concentrations at the Big Sioux River sampling site 

upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge were small and 

probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint crop agriculture sources and possibly stormwater runoff from nearby roads, 
22 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

and (2) OWC concentrations at the Big Sioux River sampling 

site downstream from the WWTP probably were primarily contributed by OWC sources (probably a combination of urban 

stormwater runoff with OWCs derived from human activities 

and nonpoint animal agriculture sources) between sites US2 

and DS2 other than the WWTP effluent discharge.

For the June 2003 sampling period (near-normal 

flow/early-summer storm-runoff conditions for the Big Sioux 

River in the Sioux Falls area), sites US2, FDW, WWE, and DS2 

were sampled. Numbers of OWCs detected and OWC concentrations for the WWTP effluent were larger than for Big Sioux 

River sites and were composed primarily of HIACs and SCs 

(fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). However, the OWC load was substantially smaller for the WWTP effluent than for Big Sioux River 

sites both upstream (US2) and downstream (DS2) from the 

WWTP effluent discharge. OWCs detected for site US2 were 

composed primarily of SCs and MAHs. OWC load for site DS2 

was relatively large and composed primarily of HIACs, SCs, 

and MAHs. The load of SCs decreased between sites US1 and 

DS2, which probably indicates deposition of SCs to sediments 

in the Big Sioux River between sites US1 and DS2. As is the 

case for the March 2003 sampling period, these patterns indicate that there were substantial contributions of OWCs to the 

Big Sioux River in the Sioux Falls area from sources other than 

the WWTP effluent discharge. OWC results for the June 2003 

sampling period indicate that (1) OWC concentrations at the 

Big Sioux River sampling site upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge were fairly substantial and probably contributed 

by nonpoint animal and crop agriculture sources, and (2) OWC 

concentrations at the Big Sioux River sampling site downstream from the WWTP probably were contributed by OWC 

sources (probably a combination of urban runoff with OWCs 

derived from human activities and nonpoint animal agriculture 

sources) between sites US2 and DS2 other than the WWTP 

effluent discharge.

For the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period (below-normal 

flow/spring storm-runoff conditions for the Big Sioux River in 

the Sioux Falls area), sites US1, US3, US4, WWE, DS1, and 

DS2 were sampled. OWC concentrations for the WWTP effluent (WWE) were larger than for Big Sioux River sites and were 

composed primarily of HIACs and SCs (fig. 4, tables 21 and 

22). However, the OWC load was substantially smaller for 

WWE than for the Big Sioux River sites US4, DS1, and DS2. 

Numbers of OWCs, and OWC concentrations and loads for 

sites US1 and US3 were smaller than for the other sampling 

sites, and were primarily composed of SCs for site US1, and 

HIACs and SCs for site US3. OWC concentrations and loads 

were substantially larger for site US4 than for sites US1 and 

US3, and primarily were composed of HIACs and SCs at 

site US4. OWC concentrations and loads for site DS1 were substantially larger than for site US4 and primarily were composed 

of SCs and HIACs. SCs account for most of the increase in 

OWC concentrations between sites US4 and DS1; HIAC loads 

generally were similar between sites US4 and DS1, but some 

individual HIACs detected for site DS1 corresponded with 

HIACs detected for WWE (table 22), indicating that the WWTP 

effluent also contributed to HIACs for site DS1. The increase in 

load of SCs between sites US4 and DS1 might have been contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture sources or resuspension 

of sediment. OWC concentrations and loads for site DS2 were 

substantially smaller than for site DS1, and primarily were composed of SCs and HIACs. OWC results for the May 17–18, 

2004, sampling period indicate that (1) OWC loads for Big 

Sioux River upstream sites US1 and US3 were relatively small 

and probably contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture 

sources and possibly storm runoff from nearby roads; (2) OWC 

loads for the Big Sioux River upstream site US4 were larger 

than loads for the WWTP effluent discharge and probably were 

contributed by a combination of urban stormwater runoff and 

nonpoint animal agriculture sources contributing to the Big 

Sioux River between sites US3 and US4; (3) OWC loads were 

larger for site DS1 than for either site US4 or the WWTP effluent discharge, and the increase in OWC load between sites US4 

and DS1 probably was contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture and/or resuspension of sediment, with a relatively small 

contribution from the WWTP effluent; and (4) OWC loads 

were smaller for site DS2 than for site DS1.

For the May 30–31, 2004, sampling period (above-normal 

flow/spring storm-runoff conditions for the Big Sioux River in 

the Sioux Falls area), sites US1, US3, US4, WWE, DS1, and 

DS2 were sampled. Numbers of OWCs detected and OWC concentrations for the WWTP effluent were larger than for Big 

Sioux River sites and were composed primarily of HIACs and 

SCs (fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). However, the OWC load was substantially smaller for the WWTP effluent than for all Big Sioux 

River sampling sites. Numbers of OWCs, and OWC concentrations and loads for upstream sites US1 and US3 were smaller 

than for the other Big Sioux River sampling sites, and were primarily composed of MAHs and SCs. OWC concentrations and 

loads for upstream site US4 were larger than concentrations and 

loads for sites US1 and US3, and primarily were composed of 

MAHs, SCs, and PAHs. Loads for all of these compound 

classes increased between sites US3 and US4. Between sites 

US3 and US4, the increase in load for MAHs might have been 

contributed by nonpoint crop sources in the Skunk Creek Basin, 

the increase in loads for SCs might have been contributed by 

nonpoint animal agriculture sources in the Skunk Creek Basin 

and urban stormwater runoff, and the increase in load for PAHs 

might have been contributed by urban stormwater runoff. OWC 

concentrations and loads for downstream site DS1 were smaller 

than for site US4 and primarily were composed of MAHs, SCs, 

and PAHs. Although HIACs compose a relatively small part of 

the total OWC concentrations for site DS1, individual HIACs 

detected for site DS1 (table 22) showed little correspondence 

with those detected for the WWTP effluent and indicate that the 

WWTP effluent contributed very little to concentrations and 

loads of OWCs for site DS1. Between sites US4 and DS1, loads 

of SCs and PAHs decreased, loads of MAHs were similar, and 

loads of HIACs increased slightly. OWC concentrations and 

loads for site DS2 were substantially smaller than for site DS1, 

and primarily were composed of MAHs and PAHs. OWC 

results for the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period indicate that 
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 23

(1) OWC loads for Big Sioux River upstream sites US1 and 

US3 were substantially smaller than for more downstream Big 

Sioux River sampling sites and probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint crop and animal agriculture sources; 

(2) OWC loads for the Big Sioux River upstream site US4 were 

larger than loads for the WWTP effluent discharge and probably were contributed by a combination of urban stormwater runoff contributing to the Big Sioux River downstream from sites 

US1 and US3 and nonpoint crop and animal agriculture sources 

contributing to the Big Sioux River both upstream and downstream from sites US1 and US3; (3) OWC loads for site DS1 

were smaller than for site US4 and probably were contributed 

by sources upstream from site US4, with very little contribution 

from the WWTP effluent discharge; and (4) OWC loads were 

smaller for site DS2 than for site DS1.

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds by 

Sampling Site

Site US1 is the Big Sioux River sampling site farthest 

upstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge and is substantially upstream from any influences from the city of Sioux Falls 

and also is isolated from substantial road traffic. Site US1 was 

sampled during two sampling periods: May 17–18, 2004 

(below-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions) and 

May 30–31, 2004 (above-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions). During both of these sampling periods, SCs and MAHs 

accounted for most of the total OWC concentrations (fig. 4), 

and probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint animal 

and crop agriculture sources. Total OWC concentrations for 

site US1 ranged from about 2 to 4 μg/L. Total OWC loads and 

concentrations generally were smaller for site US1 than for 

more downstream Big Sioux River sites.

Site US2 is the Big Sioux River sampling site second most 

upstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. At site US2, 

Big Sioux River water is pumped from a backwater pool into 

the intake pipe of the Sioux Falls drinking-water treatment system, and water samples were collected directly from the intake 

pipe. Site US2 is located just downstream from where the Big 

Sioux River enters the Sioux Falls urban area. There is moderate-volume road traffic, and site US2 can be affected by local 

urban stormwater runoff. Site US2 was sampled during five 

sampling periods: August 2001 (above-normal flow/summer 

base-flow conditions), September 2002 (below-normal 

flow/late-summer base-flow conditions), January 2003 (belownormal flow/winter base-flow conditions), March 2003 (nearnormal flow/late-winter storm-runoff conditions), and June 

2003 (near-normal flow/early-summer storm-runoff conditions). During the base-flow sampling periods, SCs accounted 

for most of the total OWC concentrations (fig. 4) and probably 

were primarily contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture 

sources. During the storm-runoff sampling periods, HIACs, 

MAHs, and SCs accounted for most of the total OWC concentrations and probably were primarily contributed by local urban 

stormwater runoff and nonpoint source agriculture sources. 

Total OWC concentrations for site US2 ranged from less than 

0.01 to about 3.5 μg/L. Total OWC loads and concentrations 

generally were smaller for site US2 than more downstream Big 

Sioux River sites.

Site US3 is the Big Sioux River sampling site third most 

upstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. Site US3 is on 

the Big Sioux River diversion channel just upstream from the 

confluence with natural Big Sioux River channel and near the 

edge of the Sioux Falls urban area. Big Sioux River flow at 

site US3 consists primarily of flow past site US1 plus relatively 

small tributary inflow. There is moderate-volume road traffic, 

and site US3 can be affected by local urban stormwater runoff. 

Site US3 was sampled during two sampling periods: 

May 17–18, 2004 (below-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions) and May 30–31, 2004 (above-normal flow/spring 

storm-runoff conditions). During the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period, which was a relatively small runoff event following an extended dry period, HIACs and SCs accounted for most 

of the total OWC concentration (fig. 4) and probably were primarily contributed by local urban stormwater runoff and nonpoint animal agriculture sources. During the May 30-31, 2004, 

sampling period, which was a very large runoff event, MAHs 

and SCs accounted for most of the total OWC concentration and 

probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint crop and animal agriculture sources. Total OWC concentrations for site US3 

ranged from about 3 to 5 μg/L. Total OWC loads and concentrations generally were smaller for site US3 than for more 

downstream Big Sioux River sites.

Site US4 is the Big Sioux River sampling site closest 

upstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. Site US4 is 

just downstream from the confluence of the natural Big Sioux 

River channel and the diversion channel. There is high-volume 

road traffic, and site US4 is downstream from nearly all potential urban stormwater runoff from Sioux Falls. Site US4 was 

sampled during two sampling periods: May 17–18, 2004, 

(below-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions) and 

May 30–31, 2004 (above-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions). During the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period, which 

was a relatively small runoff event following an extended dry 

period, HIACs and SCs accounted for most of the total OWC 

concentration (fig. 4) and probably were primarily contributed 

by urban stormwater runoff and nonpoint animal agriculture 

sources. During the May 30–31, 2004, sampling period, which 

was a very large runoff event, MAHs, PAHs, and SCs 

accounted for most of the total OWC concentration and probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint crop agriculture 

sources, urban stormwater runoff, and nonpoint animal agriculture sources. Total OWC concentrations for site US4 ranged 

from about 5 to 6 μg/L. Total OWC loads and concentrations 

were smaller for site US4 than for more downstream Big Sioux 

River sites during the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period but 

were larger for site US4 than for more downstream Big Sioux 

River sites during the May 30–31, 2004, sampling period. 

Site WWE is the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent. Site WWE 

was sampled during six sampling periods: September 2002 

(below-normal flow/late-summer base-flow conditions), Janu-
24 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

ary 2003 (below-normal flow/winter base-flow conditions), 

March 2003 (near-normal flow/late-winter storm-runoff conditions), June 2003 (near-normal flow/early-summer stormrunoff conditions), May 17–18, 2004 (below-normal 

flow/spring storm-runoff conditions), and May 30–31, 2004 

(above-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions). During 

these sampling periods, HIACs and SCs accounted for most of 

the total OWC concentrations (fig. 4). Total OWC concentrations for site WWE ranged from about 10 to 45 μg/L. Total 

OWC concentrations always were larger for site WWE than for 

Big Sioux River sites. Total OWC loads also were larger for site 

WWE than for all Big Sioux River sampling sites during baseflow sampling periods, but were smaller for site WWE than for 

Big Sioux River sites US4, DS1, and DS2 during storm-runoff 

sampling periods.

Site DS1 is the Big Sioux River sampling site closest 

downstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. Big Sioux 

River flow at site DS1 consists primarily of flow past site US4 

plus the WWTP effluent discharge plus generally minor runoff 

contributed between sites US4 and DS1. Site DS1 was sampled 

during three sampling periods: September 2002 (below-normal 

flow/late-summer base-flow conditions), May 17–18, 2004 

(below-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions), and 

May 30–31, 2004 (above-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions). During the base-flow sampling period (September 

2002), SCs and HIACs accounted for most of the total OWC 

concentration (fig. 4) and probably were contributed by a combination of the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge and nonpoint animal agriculture sources. Although the total OWC load 

during this sampling period was only slightly larger for site DS1 

than for the upstream Big Sioux River site that was sampled 

(site US2), the contribution of the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent 

discharge to OWC concentrations at site DS1 is evidenced by 

occurrence of several individual OWCs, including AHTN and 

several plasticizers and fire retardants, only in samples collected from the WWTP effluent and Big Sioux River downstream sites (table 22). Relative proportions of OWC compound 

classes varied during storm-runoff conditions. During the 

May 17–18, 2004, sampling period (below-normal flow/spring 

storm-runoff conditions), SCs and HIACs accounted for most 

of the total OWC concentration and probably were contributed 

by nonpoint animal agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and 

the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge. Discernible contributions from the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge to OWC 

concentrations for site DS1 are evidenced by occurrence of several individual OWCs, including AHTN, 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran 

(HHCB), and benzophenone, only in samples collected from 

the WWTP effluent and Big Sioux River downstream sites. The 

total OWC load at site DS1 was larger than the combined loads 

of sites US4 and WWE; in addition to the contribution from the 

WWTP effluent, the increase in OWC load between sites US4 

and DS1 probably was contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture sources and/or resuspension of sediment. During the May 

30–31, 2004, sampling period (above-normal flow/spring 

storm-runoff conditions), MAHs, SCs, and PAHs accounted for 

most of the total OWC concentration and probably were contributed by nonpoint crop and animal agriculture sources and 

urban stormwater runoff, with very little contribution from the 

WWTP effluent discharge. For all of the periods when site DS1 

was sampled, total OWC concentrations ranged from about 3 to 

12 μg/L. Contributions from the WWTP effluent discharge to 

OWC concentrations for site DS1 were discernible during baseflow and below-normal storm-runoff conditions but were very 

minor during above-normal runoff conditions. Total OWC 

loads and concentrations were larger for site DS1 than for site 

DS2 during all sampling periods when both sites were sampled.

Site DS2 is the Big Sioux River sampling site farthest 

downstream from the Sioux Falls WWTP discharge. Big Sioux 

River flow at site DS2 consists primarily of flow past site DS1 

plus generally minor runoff contributed between sites DS1 and 

DS2. Site DS2 was sampled during seven sampling periods: 

August 2001 (above-normal flow/summer base-flow conditions), September 2002 (below-normal flow/late-summer baseflow conditions), January 2003 (below-normal flow/winter 

base-flow conditions), March 2003 (near-normal flow/latewinter storm-runoff conditions), June 2003 (near-normal 

flow/early-summer storm-runoff conditions), May 17–18, 2004 

(below-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions), and 

May 30–31, 2004 (above-normal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions). Relative proportions of OWC compound classes varied during base-flow conditions. During the August 2001 sampling period (above-normal flow/base-flow conditions), SCs 

accounted for most of the total OWC concentration (fig. 4) and 

probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture sources. During the September 2002 sampling period 

(below-normal flow/base-flow conditions), HIACs and SCs 

accounted for most of the total OWC concentration and probably were contributed by a combination of the Sioux Falls 

WWTP effluent discharge and nonpoint animal agriculture 

sources. Although the total OWC load during this sampling 

period was only slightly larger for site DS2 than for the 

upstream Big Sioux River site that was sampled (site US2), the 

contribution of the WWTP effluent discharge to OWC concentrations at site DS2 is evidenced by occurrence of several individual OWCs, including AHTN and several plasticizers and fire 

retardants, only in samples collected from the WWTP effluent 

and Big Sioux River downstream sites (table 22). During the 

January 2003 sampling period (below-normal flow/base-flow 

conditions), HIACs, HVACs, and SCs accounted for most of 

the total OWC concentration and probably were contributed 

primarily by the WWTP effluent discharge. Relative proportions of OWC compound classes varied during storm-runoff 

conditions. During the March 2003 sampling period (nearnormal flow/storm-runoff conditions), HIACs, SC, and PAHs 

accounted for most of the total OWC concentration and probably were primarily contributed by a combination of urban 

stormwater runoff and nonpoint animal agriculture sources. 

During the June 2003 sampling period (near-normal 

flow/storm-runoff conditions), HIACs, SCs, and MAHs 

accounted for most of the total OWC concentrations and probably were primarily contributed by a combination of urban 
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 25

stormwater runoff and nonpoint agriculture sources. During the 

May 17–18, 2004, sampling period (below-normal flow/storm 

runoff), SCs and HIACs accounted for most of the total OWC 

concentration and probably were contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and the Sioux Falls 

WWTP effluent discharge. Discernible contributions from the 

Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge to OWC concentrations 

for site DS2 are evidenced by occurrence of individual OWCs, 

including AHTN and HHCB, only in samples collected from 

sites WWE, DS1, and DS2. During the May 30-31, 2004, sampling period (above-normal flow/storm runoff), MAHs and 

PAHs accounted for most of the total OWC concentration and 

probably were contributed by nonpoint crop agriculture sources 

and urban stormwater runoff, with very little contribution from 

the WWTP effluent discharge. For all of the periods when 

site DS2 was sampled, total OWC concentrations ranged from 

about 2 to 13 μg/L. Contributions from the WWTP effluent discharge to OWC concentrations for site DS2 were discernible 

during base-flow and below-normal storm-runoff conditions 

but were very minor during near- and above-normal runoff conditions. Total OWC loads and concentrations were smaller for 

site DS2 than for site DS1 during all sampling periods when 

both sites were sampled. Loads of all compound classes except 

MAHs decreased between sites DS1 and DS2 for all sampling 

period when both sites were sampled.

Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds by 

Compound Class

HPCs were detected in samples collected from all sites in 

the Sioux Falls area except sites US1 and FDW (fig. 4, tables 21 

and 22). Two different HPCs (caffeine and cotinine) were 

detected in samples collected from Big Sioux River sites 

upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (sites US2, US3, 

and US4) with total detected concentrations for individual samples generally less than about 0.01 μg/L and generally accounting for less than about 2 percent of the total OWC concentration 

for any sample. Five different HPCs (1,7-dimethylxanthine, 

caffeine, cotinine, dehydronifedipine, and salbumatol) were 

detected in samples collected from the Sioux Falls WWTP 

effluent with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.031 to 0.16 μg/L and accounting for 

no more than about 1 percent of the total OWC concentration 

for any sample. Four different HPCs (1,7-dimethylxanthine, 

caffeine, cotinine, and salbumatol) were detected in samples 

collected from Big Sioux River sites downstream from the 

Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge with total detected 

concentrations for individual samples generally less than about 

0.1 μg/L and generally accounting for less than about 2 percent 

of the total OWC concentrations in samples. Generally, HPCs 

contributed very little to OWC concentrations at any of the sampling sites in the Sioux Falls area during any streamflow 

conditions.

HVACs were detected in samples collected from sites 

US1, US3, WWE, DS1, and DS2 (fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). Two 

different HVACs (erythromycin-H2O and sulfamethoxazole) 

were detected in the May 17–18, 2004, samples collected from 

Big Sioux River sites upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (sites US1 and US3) with total detected concentrations 

for individual samples generally less than about 0.1 μg/L and 

accounting for less than about 4 percent of the total OWC concentration. HVACs for upstream Big Sioux River sampling 

sites probably were contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture 

sources. Nine different HVACs were detected in WWE samples 

with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.050 to 24 μg/L. HVACs were detected in all 

WWE samples. HVACs generally accounted for less than 

10 percent of the total OWC concentrations for individual 

WWE samples. However, the total HVAC concentration for the 

January 2003 WWE sample was very large (about 24 μg/L) and 

accounted for about 52 percent of the total OWC concentration 

for that sample. Seven different HVACs were detected in samples collected from downstream Big Sioux River sites (DS1 and 

DS2) with total detected concentrations for individual samples 

ranging from about 0.16 to 3.8 μg/L and generally accounting 

for less than about 2 percent of the total OWC concentrations. 

HVACs were only detected in the January 2003 and May 17–

18, 2004, samples for downstream Big Sioux River sites. The 

total HVAC concentration for the January 2003 sample for site 

DS2 was relatively large (about 3.8 μg/L) and accounted for 

about 28 percent of the total OWC concentration for that sample. HVACs for downstream Big Sioux River sites were primarily contributed by the WWTP effluent discharge for the January 2003 sampling period and possibly a combination of 

nonpoint animal agriculture sources and the WWTP effluent 

discharge for the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period. HVACs 

generally accounted for a relatively small part of the total OWC 

concentrations in water samples collected from all sampling 

sites except for the January 2003 and May 17–18, 2004, samples for site WWE and downstream Big Sioux River sites. 

MAHs were detected in samples collected from all sites 

(fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). Two different MAHs (atrazine and 

metolachlor) were detected in samples collected from Big 

Sioux River sites upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge 

(sites US1, US2, US3, and US4) with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.013 to 

3.2 μg/L. In all samples except those collected during the March 

2003 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling periods, MAHs 

accounted for less than about 10 percent of the total OWC concentrations for upstream Big Sioux River sites. For samples collected during the March 2003 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling 

periods, MAHs accounted for about 41 to 72 percent of the total 

OWC concentrations for upstream Big Sioux River sites. 

MAHs for upstream Big Sioux River sites were primarily contributed by nonpoint crop agriculture sources. One MAH (metolachlor) was detected in a single sample (August 2001 sampling 

period) collected from site FDW at a very small concentration 

(0.0040 μg/L). Three different MAHs (atrazine, metolachlor, 

and prometon) were detected in WWE samples with total 

detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from 

about 0.030 to 0.26 μg/L and accounting for less than about 
26 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

2 percent of the total OWC concentration in any WWE sample. 

Three different MAHs (atrazine, metolachlor, and prometon) 

were detected in Big Sioux River sites downstream from the 

WWTP effluent discharge (sites DS1 and DS2) with total 

detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from 

0.038 to 3.0 μg/L. In all samples except those collected during 

the June 2003 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling periods, MAHs 

accounted for less than about 10 percent of the total OWC concentrations for downstream Big Sioux River sites. For samples 

collected during the June 2003 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling 

periods, MAHs accounted for about 19 to 86 percent of the total 

OWC concentrations for downstream Big Sioux River sites. 

MAHs generally accounted for a relatively small part of the 

total OWC concentrations in samples collected from site WWE 

for all sampling periods and in samples collected from Big 

Sioux River sites during base-flow conditions. During some but 

not all of the storm-runoff sampling periods, MAHs accounted 

for a substantial part of the total OWC concentrations in samples collected from Big Sioux River sites.

HIACs were detected in samples collected from all sampling sites except FDW (fig. 4, tables 21and 22). Thirteen different HIACs were detected in samples collected from Big 

Sioux River sites upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge 

(sites US1, US2, US3, and US4) with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.074 to 

3.2 μg/L. HIACs generally accounted for less than 10 percent of 

the total OWC concentration in samples collected from 

upstream sites. However, HIACs accounted for 55 to 58 percent 

of the total OWC concentrations in samples collected from 

site US2 for the March 2003 sampling period, and from sites 

US3 and US4 for the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period. 

Greater proportions of HIACs for those samples probably were 

contributed by local stormwater runoff from roads. Individual 

HIACs that had the largest maximum concentrations for 

upstream sites include octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO; 

0.20 μg/L), octylphenol monoethoxylate (OP1EO; 0.40 μg/L), 

para-nonylphenol (NP; 0.88 μg/L), and tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (0.91 μg/L). Twenty-seven different HIACs were 

detected in samples collected from site WWE with total 

detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from 

about 5.5 to 17 μg/L. HIACs accounted for about 37 to 

78 percent of the total OWC concentrations in WWE samples. 

Individual HIACs that had the largest maximum concentrations 

in samples collected from site WWE include AHTN (2.1 μg/L), 

nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO; 6.2 μg/L), nonylphenol 

monoethoxylate (NP1EO; 1.7 μg/L), NP (1.9 μg/L), phenol 

(1.8 μg/L), triethyl citrate (1.1 μg/L), tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (3.2 μg/L), and tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (2.9 μg/L). 

Twenty different HIACs were detected in samples collected 

from sites downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge 

(sites DS1 and DS2) with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.095 to 6.6 μg/L. HIACs 

generally accounted for about 20 to 55 percent of the total OWC 

concentrations in samples collected from downstream sites. 

However, HIACs accounted for less than about 5 percent of the 

total OWC concentrations in samples collected from downstream sites for the August 2001 and May 30–31, 2004, samples. Individual HIACs that had the largest maximum concentrations in samples collected from downstream sites include 

AHTN (0.56 μg/L), NP2EO (3.0 μg/L), NP1EO (0.82 μg/L), 

NP (1.2 μg/L), phenol (0.63 μg/L), and tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (0.89 μg/L). In samples collected from upstream Big 

Sioux River sites, HIACs generally accounted for a relatively 

small part of the total OWC concentrations during base-flow 

conditions and for a substantial part during some but not all of 

the storm-runoff sampling periods. HIACs generally accounted 

for a substantial part of the total OWC concentrations in samples collected from site WWE during all sampling periods. In 

samples collected from downstream Big Sioux River sites, 

HIACs generally accounted for a substantial part of the total 

OWC concentration during base-flow conditions and during 

some but not all of the storm-runoff sampling periods.

PAHs were detected in samples collected from sites US3, 

US4, DS1, and DS2 (fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). Ten different 

PAHs were detected in samples collected from Big Sioux River 

sites upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (sites US3 

and US4) with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.019 to 1.3 μg/L. PAHs only were 

detected in water samples collected from upstream Big Sioux 

River sites for storm-runoff sampling periods, during which 

they accounted for about 0.7 to 17 percent of the total detected 

OWC concentrations. Individual PAHs that had the largest 

maximum concentrations for upstream sites include 1-methylnaphthalene (0.13 μg/L), 2-methylnaphthalene (0.11 μg/L), 

benzo[a]pyrene (0.13 μg/L), naphthalene (0.19 μg/L), and 

phenanthrene (0.11 μg/L). No PAHs were detected in samples 

collected from site WWE. Ten different PAHs were detected in 

samples collected from sites downstream from the WWTP 

effluent discharge (sites DS1 and DS2) with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.076 to 

0.61 μg/L. PAHs only were detected in water samples collected 

from downstream Big Sioux River sites for storm-runoff sampling periods, during which they accounted for about 1.2 to 

12 percent of the total detected OWC concentrations. Individual 

PAHs that had the largest maximum concentrations in samples 

collected from downstream sites include fluoranthene 

(0.17 μg/L), naphthalene (0.16 μg/L), phenanthrene 

(0.14 μg/L), and pyrene (0.12 μg/L). PAHs only were detected 

at Big Sioux River sites that might be substantially affected by 

storm-runoff from roads. PAHs were not detected during any 

base-flow sampling period and were detected during some but 

not all storm-runoff periods. Even during runoff periods, PAHs 

accounted for less than 20 percent of total OWC concentrations.

SCs were detected in samples collected from all sites 

except FDW (fig. 4, tables 21 and 22). Two different SCs (betasitosterol and cholesterol) were detected in samples collected 

from Big Sioux River sites upstream from the WWTP effluent 

discharge (sites US1, US2, US3, and US4), with total detected 

concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 1.1 to 

3.3 μg/L and accounting for about 22 to 98 percent of the total 

detected OWC concentrations. The SC that had the largest maximum concentrations for upstream Big Sioux River sites was 
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 27

cholesterol (2.8 μg/L). Three different SCs (3-beta-coprostanol, 

beta-sitosterol, and cholesterol) were detected in samples collected from site WWE, with total detected concentrations for 

individual samples ranging from about 3.1 to 12 μg/L and 

accounting for about 11 to 52 percent of the total detected OWC 

concentrations. The SC that had the largest maximum concentrations for site WWE was cholesterol (5.4 μg/L). Three different SCs (3-beta-coprostanol, beta-sitosterol, and cholesterol) 

were detected in samples collected at Big Sioux River sites 

downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (sites DS1 and 

DS2), with total detected concentrations for individual samples 

ranging from about 0.82 to 6.7 μg/L and accounting for about 

18 to 94 percent of the total detected OWC concentrations. The 

SC that had the largest maximum concentrations for downstream Big Sioux River sites was beta-sitosterol (3.7 μg/L). SCs 

generally comprised a substantial part of the total detected 

OWC concentrations for site WWE and Big Sioux River sites 

during both base-flow and storm-runoff conditions. Occurrence 

of the SC 3-beta-coprostanol is particularly relevant with 

respect to evaluating sources of OWCs because 3-beta-coprostanol is a major component of human feces, typically accounting for about 60 percent of the total fecal sterol content (Leeming and others, 1994). However, the relative amount of 3-betacoprostanol that occurs in feces of most other animals (especially herbivores; Leeming and others, 1994) generally is much 

lower. Several factors affect the relative composition of 3-betacoprostanol in WWTP effluents and receiving waters, including 

(1) variability in 3-beta-coprostanol concentrations in human 

feces between individuals (based largely on variable diet and 

composition of bacteria in the digestive tract); (2) variability in 

3-beta-coprostanol removal between different WWTP processes; and (3) variability in environmental conditions that 

affect degradation of 3-beta-coprostanol in receiving waters 

(Bull and others, 2002). Because of these influencing factors, 

use of 3-beta-coprostanol indices to evaluate OWC sources 

between substantially different areas (with respect to WWTP 

technologies, human diet characteristics, and environmental 

characteristics of effluent receiving waters) should be used with 

caution. However, because the relative composition of 3-betacoprostanol in Sioux Falls WWTP effluents and the environmental characteristics of the Big Sioux River in the Sioux Falls 

area might reasonably be expected to be somewhat stable, 

investigation of the relative composition of 3-beta-coprostanol 

in water samples collected from site WWE and Big Sioux River 

sites provides information on the relative contribution of the 

Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge to the occurrence of 

OWCs in the Big Sioux River. Statistical summaries of data 

related to the occurrence of whole-water 3-beta-copro-stanol in 

water samples collected from site WWE and Big Sioux River 

sampling sites are presented in table 4. Whole-water 3-betacoprostanol was detected in all samples collected from site 

WWE. Ratios of concentrations of 3-beta-coprostanol to cholesterol (which has been used to assess the relative contribution 

of human sewage to total wastewater contamination; Bull and 

others, 2002) in water samples collected from site WWE ranged 

from 46 to 77 percent. Whole-water 3-beta-coprostanol was not 

detected in any samples collected from upstream Big Sioux 

River sites. Whole-water 3-beta-coprostanol was detected in 

two samples collected from downstream Big Sioux River sites 

and only during base-flow sampling periods. For the September 

2002 sampling period (below-normal flow/late-summer baseflow conditions), when the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge accounted for about 35 percent of the flow of the Big 

Sioux River, the ratio of concentrations of 3-beta-coprostanol to 

cholesterol was 77 percent for site WWE and 24 percent at site 

DS1, but 3-beta-coprostanol was not detected at site DS2. The 

occurrence of 3-beta-coprostanol at site DS1, but at a lower 

ratio to total SC concentration than for site WWE, probably 

indicates that human wastewater contributed to the OWC concentration at site DS1, but that 3-beta-coprostanol degraded or 

sedimented from the water column more quickly than cholesterol in the Big Sioux River, or was diluted relative to cholesterol by OWC sources other than the WWTP discharge. For the 

January 2003 sampling period (below-normal flow/winter baseflow conditions), when the Sioux Falls WWTP effluent discharge accounted for about 55 percent of the flow of the Big 

Sioux River, the ratio of concentrations of 3-beta-coprostanol to 

cholesterol was 46 percent for site WWE and 44 percent for site 

DS2. The similarity in ratios of concentrations of 3-betacoprostanol to cholesterol for sites WWE and DS1 indicates 

that the WWTP discharge substantially contributed to the 

occurrence of OWCs in the Big Sioux River during below-normal base-flow conditions.

Occurrence of Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds

EDCs were detected in samples collected from all sampling sites except FDW (fig. 5, tables 21 and 22). Nine different 

EDCs (atrazine, which is an MAH; benzophenone, OP2EO, 

OP1E0, and NP, which are HIACs; and anthracene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene, which are PAHs) 

were detected in samples collected from Big Sioux River sites 

upstream from the WWTP effluent discharge (sites US1, US2, 

US3, and US4), with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 0.024 to 2.9 μg/L. EDCs in 

samples collected from upstream sites generally had larger concentrations and loads for runoff sampling periods than for baseflow sampling periods and probably were primarily contributed 

by nonpoint crop agriculture sources and urban stormwater runoff. 

Twelve different EDCs (atrazine, which is an MAH; and 

AHTN, benzophenone, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, 

HHCB, NP2EO, NP1E0, NP, pentachlorophenol, and triclosan, 

which are HIACs) were detected in samples collected from site 

WWE, with total detected concentrations for individual samples ranging from about 2.3 to 9.5 μg/L. EDC concen-trations in 

samples collected from site WWE were largest for the January 

2003 and March 2003 sampling periods, exceeding about 

9 μg/L.
28 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 4. Statistical summaries of data related to occurrence of whole-water 3-beta-coprostanol in water samples collected from wastewater effluents and the Big Sioux River.

[WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data]

Type of sampling sites

Frequency of 

detection

(percent)

Number

of

samples

Number

of

detections

Statistical summary of 3-betacoprostanol detected 

concentrations for all 

sampling periods (μg/L)

Statistical summary of the ratio of 3-

beta-coprostanol to cholesterol 

concentration for samples with 

detections (percent)

 Stable

low-flow 

sampling 

periods

Stable

high-flow 

and runoff 

sampling 

periods

Minimum

Median

MaximumMinimum

Median

MaximumStandard 

deviation

Big Sioux River sites 

upstream from 

WWTP effluent 

discharge

0 0 11 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

WWTP effluent 100 100 6 6 1.2 1.6 3.9 46 64 77 12

Big Sioux River sites 

downstream from 

WWTP effluent 

discharge

67 0 10 2 .26 .58 .89 24 34 44 15

Fourteen different EDCs (atrazine, which is an MAH; 

AHTN, benzophenone, diazinon, HHCB, NP2EO, NP1E0, NP, 

OP2EO, and OP1EO, which are HIACs; and anthracene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene, which are PAHs) 

were detected in samples collected from sites downstream from 

the WWTP effluent discharge (sites DS1 and DS2). Total 

detected EDC concentrations for individual samples ranged 

from about 0.048 to 4.5 μg/L. 

During base-flow periods, EDCs in water samples collected from downstream sites primarily consisted of HIACs, 

and concentrations varied in association with concentrations in 

water samples collected from site WWE and the relation 

between the WWTP effluent discharges and the flow in the Big 

Sioux River. During September 2002, when the WWTP effluent discharge accounted for about 35 percent of the flow of the 

Big Sioux River, EDC concentrations in water samples collected from site WWE were relatively small, and EDC concentrations in water samples collected from downstream sites were 

very small. During January 2003, when the WWTP effluent discharge accounted for about 55 percent of the flow of the Big 

Sioux River, EDC concentrations were relatively large in water 

samples from site WWE and the downstream sites. During 

storm-runoff conditions, EDCs in water samples collected from 

downstream sites sometimes primarily consisted of HIACs (as 

was the case for the March 2003 and May 17–18, 2004, sampling periods) and sometimes primarily consisted of MAHs (as 

was the case for the June 2003 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling 

periods). However, the WWTP effluent discharge did not 

account for a substantial part of the EDC concentrations in 

water samples collected from downstream sites during any 

storm-runoff sampling periods. During the March 2003 and 

May 17–18, 2004, sampling periods, EDC concentrations in 

water samples from downstream sites primarily consisted of 

HIACs and probably were primarily contributed by urban 

stormwater runoff. During the June 2003 and May 30–31, 2004, 

sampling periods, EDC concentrations in water samples from 

downstream sites primarily consisted of MAHs and probably 

primarily were contributed by nonpoint crop agriculture 

sources.

Organic Wastewater Compounds in Bottom Sediment

Bottom-sediment samples were collected from three sites 

(US2, DS1, and DS2) during the September 2002 sampling 

period (below-normal flow/late-summer base flow). The 

bottom-sediment samples were analyzed by analytical 

method 5 for 3 MAHs, 44 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 4 SCs 

(table 7). 

OWCs in the HIAC, PAH, and SC compound classes were 

detected in all bottom-sediment samples (fig. 6, tables 5 and 6). 

No MAH compounds were detected in any bottom-sediment 

samples. The OWCs detected in bottom sediment have varying 

degrees of hydrophobic properties, which results in those compounds having a tendency to partition to particulate phase and 

deposit in river sediments.

Twelve different OWCs, including 4 HIACs (3-methyl1H-indole, indole, para-cresol, and phenol), 4 PAHs (2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene), 

and 4 SCs (3-beta-coprostanol, beta-sitosterol, beta-stigmastanol, and cholesterol), were detected in bottom sediment collected from site US2. OWCs that occurred in bottom sediment 

collected from site US2 typically are associated with fecal 
0

10

5

15

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US

SIT

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

August 15-16, 2001

(above-normal flow/summer base flow)

September 9-11, 2002

(below-normal flow/late-summer base flow)

January 

(below-normal f

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

0

10

5

15

0

10

5

15

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

Figure 5. Results for endocrine-distrupting compounds.
US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

March 19-21, 2003

(near-normal flow/late-winter storm runoff)

June 25-27, 2003

(near-normal flow/early-summer storm runoff)

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

0

10

5

15

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

0

10

5

15

Figure 5. Results for endocrine-distrupting compounds.—Continued
US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2 SITE LABEL

May 17-18, 2004

(below-normal flow/spring storm runoff)

May 30-31, 2004

(above-normal flow/spring storm runoff)

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

0

10

5

15

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED LOAD, IN POUNDS PER DAY CONCENTRATION,

IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

01

23456789

10

0

100

50

150

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

No data collected

EXPL

Household,  agricultu (HIACs) s endocrine (EDCs)

Major agric suspected  disruptin

Polyaromat suspected  disrupting 

Figure 5. Results for endocrine-distrupting compounds.—Continued
32 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

US1 US2 FDW US3 US4 WWE DS1 DS2

SITE LABEL

All organic wastewater compounds Potentially endocrine disrupting compounds

NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

NOTE: y-axis variously scaled

0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

No data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collectedNo data collected

EXPLANATION

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural

 use compounds (HIACs)

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Figure 6. Results for organic wastewater compounds and suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds in bottom-sediment 

samples for the September 2002 sampling period.

material (3-methyl-1H-indole, indole, 3-beta-coprostanol, betasitosterol, beta-stigmastanol, and cholesterol) or with fuel combustion (2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, 

para-cresol, phenol, and pyrene). Beta-sitosterol and betastigmastanol are plant sterols and also can occur in natural 

waters and sediments through breakdown of native vegetation. 

Thus, the OWCs detected in bottom sediment collected from 

site US2 probably were contributed by upstream nonpoint 

animal agriculture sources, local runoff from roads, or (in the 

case of beta-sitosterol and beta-stigmastanol) breakdown of 

native vegetation.

Twenty different OWCs, including 9 HIACs (3-methyl1H-indole, anthraquinone, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bisphenol-A, indole, NP2EO, para-cresol, phenol, and triclosan), 

7 PAHs (2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, anthracene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and 

pyrene), and 4 SCs (3-beta-coprostanol, beta-sitosterol, betastigmastanol, and cholesterol), were detected in bottom 

sediment collected from Big Sioux River sites downstream 

from the WWTP effluent discharge (sites DS1 and DS2). In 

addition to OWCs typically associated with animal fecal material (3-methyl-1H-indole, indole, 3-beta-coprostanol, beta-sitosterol, beta-stigmastanol, and cholesterol) or with fuel combustion (2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, 

fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, para cresol, phenol, 

and pyrene), OWCs detected in bottom sediment collected from 

sites DS1 and DS2 also included some compounds typically 

associated with household or industrial wastewaters 

(anthraquinone, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bisphenol-A, 

NP2EO, and triclosan). Thus, the OWCs detected in bottom 

sediment collected from sites DS1 and DS2 probably were contributed by a combination of upstream nonpoint animal agriculture sources, urban runoff, WWTP effluent discharges, or (in 

the case of beta-sitosterol and beta-stigmastanol) breakdown of 

native vegetation. 
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 33

Table 5. Statistical summaries of analytical results for organic wastewater compounds in bottom-sediment samples.

[Units are micrograms per kilogram. --, no data collected or not detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station

intake from Big Sioux River

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream 

from Sioux Falls

wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River

at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection (month–day–year) 09–09–2002 09–10–2002 09–11–2002

Time of sample collection (24-hour) 1200 1030 1030

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

No compounds analyzed for -- -- --

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

No compounds analyzed for -- -- --

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- --

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 4 8 8

Minimum detected concentration 42 4.6 1.9

Median detected concentration 50 58 26

Maximum detected concentration 430 240 180

Total detected concentration 570 560 340

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 4 7 6

Minimum detected concentration 7.6 11 8.2

Median detected concentration 9.3 26 25

Maximum detected concentration 21 38 58

Total detected concentration 47 180 170

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 4 4 4

Minimum detected concentration 190 410 190

Median detected concentration 960 1,300 700

Maximum detected concentration 1,600 2,600 1,200

Total detected concentration 3,700 5,600 2,800

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 12 19 18

Minimum detected concentration 7.6 4.6 1.9

Median detected concentration 50 38 33

Maximum detected concentration 1,600 2,600 1,200

Total detected concentration 4,300 6,400 3,300
34 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 5. Statistical summaries of analytical results for organic wastewater compounds in bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per kilogram. --, no data collected or not detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station

intake from Big Sioux River

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream 

from Sioux Falls

wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River

at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- --

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 2 3

Minimum detected concentration -- 6.3 2.9

Median detected concentration -- 58 65

Maximum detected concentration -- 110 180

Total detected concentration -- 120 250

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 2 4 4

Minimum detected concentration 7.6 11 14

Median detected concentration 8.4 24 25

Maximum detected concentration 9.3 38 58

Total detected concentration 17 97 120

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 2 6 7

Minimum detected concentration 7.6 6.3 2.9

Median detected concentration 8.4 24 27

Maximum detected concentration 9.3 110 180

Total detected concentration 17 210 370

The ratios of concentrations of 3-beta-coprostanol to 

cholesterol in bottom sediment collected from sites US2, DS1, 

and DS2 were 12, 19, and 16 percent, respectively. The higher 

ratios for sites DS1 and DS2 probably indicate greater contributions from human sewage at those sites. The ratios in bottom 

sediment for sites DS1 and DS2 were smaller than ratios in 

water samples collected during base-flow conditions (table 4), 

which probably indicates degradation of 3-beta-coprostanol in 

bottom sediment over time and/or dilution of 3-beta-coprostanol in bottom sediment caused by deposition of organic material with smaller ratios originating from sources other than 

WWTP effluents.

Two EDCs (phenanthrene and pyrene, which are PAHs) 

were detected in bottom sediment collected from site US2. 

Seven EDCs (bisphenol-A, NP2EO, and triclosan, which are 

HIACs; and anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, phenanthrene, and 

pyrene, which are PAHs) were detected in bottom sediment collected from sites DS1 and DS2.

Relations Between Concentrations of Organic 

Wastewater Compounds in Dissolved and WholeWater Fractions

For the May 17–18 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling periods, water samples were collected and analyzed for both dissolved and whole-water fractions of 2 nonprescription HPCs, 

2 MAHs, 43 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 4 SCs using analytical 

methods 3 and 4. Evaluation of whether these compounds were 

occurring in dissolved or particulate phase might provide information on possible sources of the compounds that occurred in 

the Big Sioux River and also provide information on the types 
Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds 35

Table 6. Organic wastewater compounds detected in bottom-sediment samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). NP2E0, nonylphenol diethoxylate; --, no data collected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station

intake from Big Sioux River

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream

from Sioux Falls

wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River

at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month-day-year)

09–09–2002 09–10–-2002 09–11–2002

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1200 1030 1030

Number of compounds detected 12 19 18

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

No compounds analyzed for -- -- --

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

No compounds analyzed for -- -- --

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

No compounds detected -- -- --

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural-use compounds (HIACs)

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol) 3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol) 3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol)

Indole Anthraquinone Anthraquinone

para-Cresol Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bisphenol-A

Phenol Indole Indole

NP2EO NP2EO

para-Cresol para-Cresol

Phenol Phenol

Triclosan Triclosan

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene Anthracene

Fluoranthene Anthracene Benzo[a]pyrene

Phenanthrene Benzo[a]pyrene Fluoranthene

Pyrene Fluoranthene Naphthalene

Naphthalene Phenanthrene

Phenanthrene Pyrene

Pyrene

Sterol compounds (SCs)

3-beta-Coprostanol 3-beta-Coprostanol 3-beta-Coprostanol

beta-Sitosterol beta-Sitosterol beta-Sitosterol

beta-Stigmastanol beta-Stigmastanol beta-Stigmastanol

Cholesterol Cholesterol Cholesterol
36 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

of hydrologic conditions that affect the occurrence of the compounds in the river. During storm-runoff conditions, the load of 

OWCs in the Big Sioux River downstream from the WWTP 

effluent discharge was substantially larger than the load contributed by the WWTP effluent discharge. An issue of interest was 

the relative contributions of either direct stormwater runoff or 

resuspension of bottom sediment to OWC concentrations in the 

Big Sioux River downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge.

For many compounds, differences in method performance 

between analytical methods 3 and 4 complicated comparison of 

dissolved and whole-water fractions. For most HPCs, MAHs, 

HIACs, and PAHs, analytical method 4 (performed on filtered 

water samples) had higher percent recoveries in laboratory 

reagent spike samples and environmental matrix spike samples 

than analytical method 3 (performed on unfiltered samples). 

However, percent recoveries for SCs were similar between analytical methods 3 and 4. Probably as a result of these patterns, 

dissolved concentrations of many HPCs, MAHs, and HIACs in 

environmental samples were larger than whole-water 

concentrations.

Analytical results for 3-beta-coprostanol and betasitosterol did not clearly indicate substantial differences 

between dissolved and whole-water fractions in water samples 

collected from Big Sioux River sites. Whole-water cholesterol 

concentrations generally were larger than dissolved concentrations, especially for the May 17–18, 2004, sampling period, 

which indicates that particulate material contributed to the 

whole-water concentrations.

Some PAHs (including fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and 

pyrene) generally had larger whole-water concentrations than 

dissolved concentrations, even though percent recoveries for 

analytical method 3 generally were lower than for analytical 

method 4, indicating that part of the whole-water concentration 

was contributed by particulate material. This general pattern 

was evident for samples from sites US3, US4, DS1, and DS2 

during both the May 17–18 and May 30–31, 2004, sampling 

periods. PAHs generally are hydrophobic and tend to partition 

to particulate phase. The PAHs that generally had larger wholewater concentrations than dissolved concentrations also were 

detected in bottom sediment (collected during the September 

2002 sampling period) at sites US1, DS1, and DS2 (fig. 6, 

tables 5 and 6). Hydrologic conditions that might result in 

resuspension of sediment from the river bottom also are the 

same types of conditions that could mobilize terrestrial particulate material and contribute it to the river in stormwater runoff, 

making it difficult to conclusively determine sources of the particulate fraction of OWCs in the Big Sioux River during runoff 

sampling periods. The data collected in this study are not adequate to conclusively determine the extent to which resuspension of bottom material might have contributed to OWC concentrations in the Big Sioux River during storm-runoff 

sampling periods. However, the load of OWCs for the May 17–

18, 2004, sampling period (below-normal flow/spring stormrunoff conditions following extended below-normal streamflow) was substantially larger at site DS1 than at site US4. The 

increase in load between sites US4 and DS1 primarily was due 

to individual HIACs, PAHs, and SCs that also were detected in 

bottom-sediment samples collected during the September 2002 

sampling period. These patterns might indicate that part of the 

increase in OWC load at site DS1 was contributed by resuspension of bottom sediment during the May 17–18, 2004, sampling 

period. For the May 30–31, 2004, sampling period (abovenormal flow/spring storm-runoff conditions) the load of OWCs 

at site DS1 was less than at site US4, and loads of PAHs and 

SCs decreased between sites US4 and DS1. These patterns 

might indicate that the load of OWCs in the Big Sioux River 

downstream from site US4 primarily was contributed by urban 

runoff and nonpoint agricultural sources upstream from 

site US4.

Implications of Occurrence

Several previous USGS studies have reported concentrations of OWCs in natural waters and WWTP effluents in the 

United States. Kolpin and others (2002) reported OWCs in 

water samples collected from a network of 139 streams across 

30 States during 1999–2000. Glassmeyer and others (2005) 

reported OWCs in water samples collected from WWTP effluents and natural receiving waters for 10 municipalities across 

the United States. Lee and others (2004) reported OWCs in 

water samples collected from 65 sites (wastewater, surface 

water, ground water, and drinking water) in Minnesota. Kolpin 

and others (2004) reported OWC concentrations in water samples collected from stream sites both upstream and downstream 

from WWTP effluent discharges of 10 cities in Iowa. Detected 

concentrations of individual OWCs found in water samples collected from the Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls described 

in this report generally were within ranges of concentrations 

reported in these previous studies. Maximum concentrations of 

detected OWCs found in water samples collected from the Big 

Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls generally were substantially 

less than maxima reported by Kolpin and others (2002), Lee and 

others (2004), and Glassmeyer and others (2005), and generally 

were similar to maxima reported by Kolpin and others (2004). 

It should be noted that the maximum concentrations reported by 

Lee and others (2004) and Glassmeyer and others (2005) 

included results for WWTP effluents. A notable exception to 

these patterns is that some HVACs (including ciprofloxacin, 

erythromycin-H2O, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, and trimethoprim) were detected in water samples collected from the 

Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls at concentrations generally larger than the median concentrations reported by Kolpin 

and others (2004) and approaching or exceeding maxima 

reported by Kolpin and others (2004), Lee and others (2004), 

and Glassmeyer and others (2005), even when concentrations in 

WWTP effluents were included.

There were no human-health concerns apparent in the 

results of this study. Only one OWC (metolachlor) was detected 

in the Sioux Falls finished drinking water at an extremely small 

concentration. Also, water-contact recreation in the Big Sioux 
Implications of Occurrence 37

River near Sioux Falls is very limited. Thus, concerns related to 

the occurrence of OWCs from the Big Sioux River near Sioux 

Falls focus primarily on effects on aquatic ecology; perhaps of 

primary concern would be potential endocrine-disrupting 

effects on aquatic organisms. 

Occurrence of EDCs in aquatic systems is a very complex 

and sensitive issue. A complete assessment of potential effects 

of EDCs in the Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls based on 

the results of this study is not possible for several reasons. Sex 

hormones, which are the most potent EDCs, commonly are 

present in WWTP effluent at concentrations sufficient to cause 

endocrine disruption; however, sex hormones were not reported 

for this study. Also, a relatively small number of water-quality 

samples were collected from the Big Sioux River Basin during 

this study. WWTP effluent discharges vary with time, and concentrations of EDCs in wastewaters vary seasonally and interannually (Rodgers-Gray and others, 2000; Sheahan and others, 

2002). Thus, it is very difficult to accurately quantify inputs of 

EDCs to the Big Sioux River Basin by determining EDC concentrations in a relatively small number of samples. Also, mixtures of individual EDCs, like those that typically were found in 

samples collected from the Big Sioux River, generally are 

believed to have the potential to act additively, but mixture 

effects are poorly understood (Sumpter and Johnson, 2005). 

Further, relatively few of the many organic compounds that 

might be present in WWTP effluents have been evaluated for 

potential endocrine-disrupting effects (Sumpter and Johnson, 

2005). For the EDCs that were determined in this study, total 

concentrations in water samples collected from the Big Sioux 

River downstream from WWTP effluents rarely exceeded 

2 μg/L. It has been determined that some EDCs can have 

endocrine-disrupting effects at very low concentrations (near or 

less than 1 μg/L), and some mechanisms of endocrine disruption make it very difficult to define no-effect levels (Welshons 

and others, 2003). However, for the EDCs determined in this 

study, concentrations that result in observable endocrinedisruption effects generally have been reported to be much 

larger than those observed in the Big Sioux River (Sumpter and 

Johnson, 2005).

Although this study cannot provide a definitive assessment 

of EDC effects in the Big Sioux River, a brief synopsis of 

research on the occurrence of EDCs in aquatic environments 

provides a context for the EDC results and illustrates the complexity of the issue of EDCs in aquatic environments. Effects of 

endocrine disruptors in aquatic environments often are investigated by documenting atypical sexual characteristics in individual organisms (for example, occurrence of female biomarkers in 

male fish), but very few studies have conclusively documented 

that these effects actually result in either reduced reproductive 

potential of the individuals or negative effects on reproductive 

success at the population level (Sumpter and Jobling, 1995; 

Gies and others, 2001). Thus, few studies of EDCs conclusively 

indicate negative reproductive effects in aquatic ecosystems. 

However, in some studies skewed sex ratios and abnormal 

gonadal histology indicate that individual- and population-level 

effects on reproductive success are possible (Desbrow and 

others, 1998).

Potential EDCs detected in the Big Sioux River probably 

were derived from three general types of sources: (1) WWTP 

discharges (AHTN, benzophenone, HHCB, NP2EO, NP1EO, 

and NP were detected in the Big Sioux River and probably were 

attributable to WWTP discharges); (2) urban runoff 

(anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, diazinon, OP2EO, OP1EO, 

phenanthrene, and pyrene were detected in the Big Sioux River 

and probably were attributable to urban runoff); and 

(3) nonpoint source crop agriculture (atrazine was detected in 

the upper Big Sioux River Basin and primarily is attributable to 

nonpoint agricultural crop sources). Research has been conducted on EDCs from these types of sources. Sex hormones, 

alkylphenols (APs), and AP ethoxylates generally have been 

implicated as the primary causative agents in WWTP effluents 

that result in estrogenic effects in aquatic organisms (Jobling 

and Sumpter, 1993; Desbrow and others, 1998; Gies and others, 

2001; Harris and others, 2001; and Jobling and Tyler, 2003). 

Sex hormones (primarily the natural and synthetic estrogens 

17B estradiol and ethynyl estradiol) generally are regarded as 

the most potent EDCs, can produce significant atypical sexual 

characteristics in fish at concentrations less than 0.025 μg/L 

(Sumpter and Johnson, 2005), and in some studies have been 

implicated as the primary compounds contributing to feminization of male fish (Huggett and others, 2003) as a result of exposure to WWTP effluents. Sex hormones commonly are found in 

WWTP effluent discharges (Jobling and Tyler, 2003), so it is 

possible that they occur in the Big Sioux River downstream 

from the Sioux Falls WWTP.

AP ethoxylates and their shorter chain metabolites are 

complex nonionic surfactants. Of the various APs and AP 

ethoxylates, certain isomers of nonylphenol and octylphenol 

appear to have the largest endocrine-disrupting activities and 

have shown substantial estrogenic activity at concentrations in 

the range of about 8 to 10 μg/L (Jobling and others, 1996; Harris 

and others, 2001). APs and AP ethoxylates detected in the Big 

Sioux River at concentrations greater than the SRL include 

NP2EO, NP1EO, NP, OP2EO, and OP1EO. The largest combined concentration for these compounds in any water sample 

collected from the Big Sioux River was about 3.8 μg/L, which 

is less than the reported endocrine-disruption substantial-effect 

level of even the most potent individual AP (Sumpter and 

Johnson, 2005).

Other WWTP-sourced EDCs in the Big Sioux River have 

shown endocrine-disrupting effects in various laboratory studies but generally are not implicated as major causative agents of 

endocrine disruption in aquatic organisms in field studies. The 

other WWTP-sourced EDCs detected in the Big Sioux River 

that have shown endocrine-disrupting effects include AHTN 

(Richard and others, 2002; Richard and others, 2004), 

benzophenone (Schlumpf and others, 2001), and HHCB (Richard and others, 2002; Richard and others, 2004). Generally, 

these compounds have much less potent endocrine-disrupting 

effects than either sex hormones or APs and AP ethoxylates, 

with substantial-effect levels based on laboratory studies 
38 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

generally exceeding 50 μg/L (Richard and others, 2004; 

Sumpter and Johnson, 2005). The maximum concentration 

found in any water sample collected from the Big Sioux River 

for any of these compounds was about 0.56 μg/L (AHTN was 

detected at this concentration in a water sample collected 

from site DS2).

Some researchers have concluded that EDCs are present in 

most, if not all, treated sewage effluents (Jobling and Tyler, 

2003). In some settings, endocrine-disruption effects on aquatic 

organisms have occurred where WWTP effluent discharges 

accounted for between 25 and 50 percent of the flow of receiving waters for relatively short periods of time (about 1 month) 

and as little as 10 percent of the flow of receiving waters for 

longer periods (about 4 months) (Harries and others, 1999; 

Rodgers-Gray and others, 2000). Assuming an average discharge from the Sioux Falls WWTP of 22 ft3

/s (which was 

about the average discharge during the study sampling periods) 

and comparing this level of effluent discharge to the observed 

flow of the Big Sioux River during water years 1977–2004, an 

effluent discharge of 22 ft3

/s would have accounted for about 

50 percent of the flow of the Big Sioux River about 8 percent of 

the time, about 25 percent of the flow of the Big Sioux River 

about 25 percent of the time, and about 10 percent of the flow 

of the Big Sioux River about 45 percent of the time. Based on 

these observations, it is possible that the Sioux Falls WWTP 

effluent discharges might during some periods produce 

endocrine-disrupting effects on aquatic organisms. However, it 

should be noted that concentrations and loads of EDCs 

decreased substantially between sites DS1 and DS2, so potential endocrine-disrupting effects of the Sioux Falls WWTP 

effluent discharges probably would be restricted to a relatively 

short reach of the Big Sioux River. Also, results of other studies 

demonstrating endocrine-disrupting effects of WWTP effluent 

discharges on aquatic organisms do not necessarily have direct 

application to the Big Sioux River because (1) wastewater treatment technologies of and types of raw sewage inputs to different WWTPs vary substantially and result in large variability in 

EDC concentrations in different WWTP effluents; and (2) EDC 

effects on aquatic organisms are species dependent (Sumpter 

and Johnson, 2005), and species present in the Big Sioux River 

may differ from species in other studies.

The EDCs anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, diazinon, OP2EO, 

OP1EO, phenanthrene, and pyrene were detected in the Big 

Sioux River and probably were attributable to urban runoff. 

Anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene are 

PAHs that occur as a result of incomplete combustion of fossil 

fuels or petroleum products that are used in road materials. Laboratory studies have implicated these compounds as EDCs 

(Chaloupka and others, 1993; Cooke and others, 1994; Keith, 

1998) but at much higher concentrations than were detected in 

samples collected from the Big Sioux River. The maximum 

total concentration of these PAH EDCs in any individual Big 

Sioux River sample was about 0.55 μg/L. OP2EO and OP1EO 

are alkylphenol ethoxylates with typical uses as surfactants in 

detergents and a large variety of other products. The maximum 

total concentration of OP2EO and OP1EO in any individual Big 

Sioux River sample was about 0.64 μg/L. The most potent individual APs have been reported to have substantial endocrinedisruption effects at about 8 to 10 μg/L (Sumpter and Johnson, 

2005).

Atrazine is a herbicide contributed to the Big Sioux River 

primarily from nonpoint crop agriculture activities and has been 

implicated in both field and laboratory studies as having 

endocrine-disrupting effects on aquatic organisms (Hayes and 

others, 2003; Spano and others, 2004). Atrazine exposure has 

been reported to result in reproductive abnormalities in frogs at 

concentrations as small as 0.1 μg/L (Hayes and others, 2003), 

but reported effect levels for fish generally are substantially 

larger. Spano and others (2004) reported gonadal abnormalities 

in fish exposed to atrazine at a concentration of 100 μg/L. Bringolf and others (2004) reported lower egg production in fathead 

minnows exposed to atrazine at a concentration of 0.5 μg/L; 

however, the results were not found to be statistically significant. Atrazine was detected in about 67 percent of samples collected from Big Sioux River sites at concentrations ranging 

from 0.02 to 2.7 μg/L (median of 0.29 μg/L). Based on the lack 

of definitive research establishing endocrine-disruptive effect 

levels for atrazine and the relatively small number of samples 

collected during this study, it is not possible to assess whether 

atrazine concentrations detected in Big Sioux River samples 

might have the potential for endocrine disruption of aquatic 

organisms. However, the relatively large frequency of detection 

for atrazine might indicate a cause for concern.

Summary and Conclusions

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with 

the city of Sioux Falls conducted several rounds of sampling to 

determine the occurrence of organic wastewater compounds 

(OWCs) in the city of Sioux Falls drinking water and wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux River in or near Sioux Falls 

during August 2001 through May 2004. Water samples were 

collected during both base-flow and storm-runoff conditions. 

Water samples were collected at 8 sites, which included 4 sites 

upstream from the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge, 2 sites downstream from the WWTP discharge, 

1 finished drinking-water site, and 1 WWTP effluent site 

(WWE). Not all sampling sites were sampled during every sampling round. Bottom-sediment samples were collected from 

three sampling sites during one of the sampling periods when 

water samples were collected.

A total of 125 different OWCs were analyzed for in this 

study using five different analytical methods. Analyses for 

OWCs were performed at USGS laboratories that are developing and/or refining small-concentration (less than 1 microgram 

per liter (μg/L)) analytical methods. The OWCs were classified 

into six compound classes: human pharmaceutical compounds 

(HPCs); human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs); 

major agricultural herbicides (MAHs); household, industrial, 

and minor agricultural compounds (HIACs); polyaromatic 
Summary and Conclusions 39

hydrocarbons (PAHs); and sterol compounds (SCs). Some of 

the compounds in the HPC, MAH, HIAC, and PAH classes are 

suspected of being endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs). 

Of the 125 different OWCs analyzed for in this study, 81 OWCs 

had one or more detections in environmental samples reported 

by the laboratories, and of those 81 OWCs, 63 had acceptable 

analytical method performance, were detected at concentrations 

greater than the study reporting levels, and were included in 

analyses and discussion related to occurrence of OWCs in 

drinking water, wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux River.

OWCs in all compound classes were detected in water 

samples from sampling sites in the Sioux Falls area. For the five 

sampling periods when samples were collected from the Sioux 

Falls finished drinking water, only one OWC was detected at a 

concentration greater than the study reporting level (metolachlor; 0.0040 μg/L). 

During base-flow conditions, Big Sioux River sites 

upstream from the WWTP discharge had OWC contributions 

that primarily were from nonpoint animal or crop agriculture 

sources or had OWC concentrations that were minimal. The 

influence of the WWTP discharge on OWCs at downstream 

river sites during base-flow conditions ranged from small influence to substantial influence depending on the sampling period. 

During runoff conditions, OWCs at sites upstream from the 

WWTP discharge probably were primarily contributed by nonpoint animal and/or crop agriculture sources and possibly by 

stormwater runoff from nearby roads. OWCs at sites downstream from the WWTP discharge probably were contributed 

by sources other than the WWTP effluent discharge, such as 

stormwater runoff from urban and/or agriculture areas and/or 

resuspension of OWCs adsorbed to sediment deposited in the 

Big Sioux River. OWC loads generally were substantially 

smaller for upstream sites than downstream sites during both 

base-flow and runoff conditions. 

Total OWC concentrations ranged from about 2 to 4 μg/L 

at the site farthest upstream from the WWTP discharge, from 

0.01 to about 3.5 μg/L at the second most upstream site, from 

3 to 5 μg/L at the third most upstream site, and from about 5 to 

6 μg/L for the site closest upstream from the WWTP discharge. 

Total OWC loads and concentrations generally were smaller for 

the upstream sites than for the downstream sites. Total OWC 

concentrations for site WWE ranged from about 10 to 45 μg/L 

and always were larger than for Big Sioux River sites. Total 

OWC loads also were larger for site WWE than for all Big 

Sioux River sampling sites during base-flow sampling periods 

but were smaller for site WWE than for one upstream site and 

both downstream sites during storm-runoff sampling periods. 

Total OWC concentrations ranged from about 3 to 12 μg/L at 

the site closest downstream from the WWTP discharge and 

from about 2 to 13 μg/L at the farthest downstream site. Discernible concentrations from the WWTP effluent discharge to 

OWC concentrations at the downstream sites are evidenced by 

occurrence of several individual OWCs only in samples collected from site WWE and the downstream sites. Total loads 

and concentrations were smaller at the farthest downstream site 

than at the closest site downstream from the WWTP effluent.

HPCs were detected in samples collected from all Big 

Sioux River sites (except the site farthest upstream) and from 

site WWE. Generally HPCs contributed very little to OWC concentrations at any of the sampling sites during any streamflow 

conditions. HVACs probably were contributed by nonpoint animal agriculture sources for sites upstream from the WWTP 

effluent and by the WWTP effluent discharge and possibly from 

nonpoint animal agriculture sources for downstream sites. 

HVACs generally accounted for a relatively small part of the 

total OWC concentrations in water samples collected from all 

sampling sites, with the exception of two sampling periods for 

site WWE and the downstream sites. MAHs generally 

accounted for a relatively small part of the total OWC concentrations in samples collected from the WWTP effluent for all 

sampling periods and in samples collected from the Big Sioux 

River sites during base-flow conditions. During some but not all 

of the storm-runoff sampling periods, MAHs accounted for a 

substantial part of the total OWC concentrations at the river 

sites. In samples from the upstream sites, HIACs generally 

accounted for a relatively small part of the total OWC concentrations during base-flow conditions and for a substantial part 

during some but not all of the storm-runoff sampling periods. 

HIACs generally accounted for a substantial part of the total 

OWC concentrations in samples collected from site WWE during all sampling periods. In samples collected from downstream 

sites, HIACs generally accounted for a substantial part of the 

total OWC concentration during base-flow conditions and during some but not all of the storm-runoff sampling periods. 

PAHs only were detected at Big Sioux River sites that might be 

substantially affected by storm-runoff from roads. PAHs were 

not detected during any base-flow sampling period and were 

detected during some but not all storm-runoff periods. Even 

during runoff periods, PAHs accounted for less than 20 percent 

of total OWC concentrations. SCs generally comprised a substantial part of the total detected OWC concentrations for site 

WWE and Big Sioux River sites during both base-flow and 

storm-runoff conditions. The occurrence of the SC 3-betacoprostanol in samples from site WWE and downstream sites is 

particularly relevant with respect to evaluating sources of 

OWCs because 3-beta-coprostanol is a major component of 

human feces. Results indicate that the WWTP discharge substantially contributed to the occurrence of OWCs in the Big 

Sioux River during below-normal base-flow conditions.

EDCs were detected in samples collected from all sampling sites except the finished drinking water. EDCs in samples 

collected from upstream sites generally had larger concentrations and loads during runoff sampling periods than during 

base-flow periods and probably were primarily contributed by 

nonpoint crop agriculture sources. During base-flow periods, 

EDCs in water samples collected from downstream sites primarily consisted of HIACs, and concentrations varied in 

association with concentrations in water samples collected from 

site WWE and the relation between the WWTP effluent discharges and the flow in the Big Sioux River. During stormrunoff conditions, EDCs in water samples collected from downstream sites sometimes primarily consisted of HIACs, which 
40 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

probably were primarily contributed by urban stormwater runoff, and sometimes primarily consisted of MAHs, which probably primarily were contributed by nonpoint crop agriculture 

sources. 

Bottom-sediment samples were collected from one 

upstream sampling site and two downstream sampling sites during a base-flow sampling period. The bottom-sediment samples 

were analyzed for 3 MAHs, 44 HIACs, 10 PAHs, and 4 SCs. 

OWCs in the HIAC, PAH, and SC compound classes were 

detected in all bottom-sediment samples, but no MAH compounds were detected in any bottom-sediment samples. The 

OWCs detected in bottom sediment collected from the 

upstream site probably were contributed by upstream nonpoint 

animal agriculture sources, local runoff from roads, or the 

breakdown of native vegetation. The OWCs detected in bottom 

sediment collected from the downstream sites probably were 

contributed by a combination of upstream nonpoint animal agriculture sources, urban runoff, WWTP effluent discharges, or 

breakdown of native vegetation. 

There were no human-health concerns apparent in the 

results of this study. Occurrence of EDCs in aquatic systems is 

a very complex and sensitive issue. A complete assessment of 

potential effects of EDCs in the Big Sioux River in or near 

Sioux Falls based on the results of this study is not possible. 

However, EDC concentrations in the Big Sioux River generally 

were less than concentrations reported to have substantial 

endocrine-disrupting effects on aquatic organisms. The relatively large frequency of detection for atrazine might indicate a 

cause for concern with respect to endocrine-disruption effects 

for aquatic organisms.

References

Barnes, K.K., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, M.T., Furlong, E.T., 

Zaugg, S.D., and Barber, L.B., 2002, Water-quality data for 

pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater 

contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999–2000: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 02–94, accessed July 7, 2006, at 

http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/OFR-02-94/

Bringolf, R.B., Belden, J.B., and Summerfelt, R.C., 2004, 

Effects of atrazine on fathead minnow in a short-term reproductive assay: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 23, p. 1019–1023.

Bull, I.D., Lockheart, M.J., Elhmmali, M.M., Roberts, D.J., and 

Evershed, R.P., 2002, The origin of faeces by means of biomarker detection: Environment International, v. 27, p. 647–

654.

Burkhardt, M.R., ReVello, R.C., Smith, S.G., and Zaugg, S.D., 

2005, Pressurized liquid extraction using water/isopropanol 

coupled with solid-phase extraction cleanup for industrial 

and anthropogenic waste-indicator compounds in sediment: 

Analytica Chemica Acta, v. 534, p. 89–100.

Cahill, J.D., Furlong, E.T., Burkhardt, M.R., Kolpin, Dana, 

and Anderson, L.G., 2004, Determination of pharmaceutical 

compounds in surface- and ground-water samples by 

solid-phase extraction and high-performance liquid 

chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry: 

Journal of Chromatography A, v. 1041, nos. 1–2, 

p. 171–180. 

Chaloupka, K.L., Harper, N.R., Krishnan, V., Santostefano, M., 

Rodriguez, L.V., and Safe, S.H., 1993, Synergistic activity of 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures as aryl hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor agonists: Chemico-Biological Interactions, v. 89, p. 141–158.

Cook, J.W., Dodds, E.C., Hewett, C.L., and Lawson, W., 1994, 

The estrogenic activity of some condensed-ring compounds 

in relation to their other biological activities: Proceedings of 

the Royal Society of London, v. 114, p. 272–286.

Desbrow, C., Routledge, E.J., Brighty, G.C., Sumpter, J.P., and 

Waldock, M., 1998, Identification of estrogenic chemicals in 

STW effluent—1. Chemical fractionation and in vitro biological screening: Environmental Science & Technology, 

v. 32, p. 1549–1558.

East Dakota Water Development District, 2004, Central Big 

Sioux River Watershed Assessment draft final report and 

TMDL: Pierre, South Dakota, South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, 230 p.

Flint, R.F., 1971, Glacial and Quaternary geology: New York, 

John Wiley and Sons, 892 p.

Gies, Andreas; Gottschalk, Christa; Greiner, Petra; Heger, 

Wolfgang; Kolossa, Marike; Rechenberg, Bettina; Robkamp, 

Elke; Schroeter-Kermani, Christa; Steinhauser, Klaus; and 

Throl, Christine, 2001, Chemicals in the environment which 

interfere with the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife—pollution, effects, control strategies: Report by the 

German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA), 53 p., 

accessed August 5, 2005, at http://www.umweltdaten.de/ 

down-e/chempol2.pdf

Glassmeyer, S.T., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Cahill, J.D., 

Zaugg, S.D., Werner, S.L., Meyer, M.T., and Kryak, D.D., 

2005, Transport of chemical and microbial compounds from 

known wastewater discharges—potential for use as indicators of human fecal contamination: Environmental Science & 

Technology, v. 39, no. 14, p. 5157–5169.

Halling-Sorensen, B., Nielsen, S.N., Lanzky, P.F., Ingerslev, F., 

Lutzhoft, H.C.H., and Jorgensen, S.E., 1998, Occurrence, 

fate, and effects of pharmaceutical substances in the environment—a review: Chemosphere, v. 36, no. 2, p. 357–394.

Harries, J.E.; Janbakhsh, Afsaneh; Jobling, Susan; Matthiessen, 

Peter; Sumpter, J.P.; and Tyler, C.R., 1999, Estrogenic 

potency of effluent from two sewage treatment works in the 

United Kingdom: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 18, p. 932–937.

Harris, C.A., Santos, E.M., Janbakhsh, A., Pottinger, T.G., 

Tyler, C.R., and Sumpter, J.P., 2001, Nonylphenol affects 

gonadotropin levels in the pituitary gland and plasma of 

female rainbow trout: Environmental Science & Technology, 

v. 35, p. 2909–2916.
References 41

Hayes, Tyrone; Haston, Kelly; Tsui, Mable; Hoang, Anhthu; 

Haeffele, Cathryn; and Vonk, Aaron; 2003, Atrazine-induced 

hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American leopard frogs (Rana 

pipiens)—laboratory and field evidence: Environmental 

Health Perspectives, v. 111, p. 568–575.

Huggett, D.B.; Foran, C.M.; Brooks, B.W.; Weston, Jim; Peterson, Bethany; Marsh, D.E.; La Point, T.W.; and Schlenk, 

Daniel, 2003, Comparison of in vitro and in vivo bioassays 

for estrogenicity in effluent from North American municipal 

wastewater facilities: Toxicological Sciences, v. 72, 

p. 77–83.

Jobling, Susan; Sheahan, David; Osborne, J.A.; Matthiessen, 

Peter; and Sumpter, J.P., 1996, Inhibition of testicular growth 

in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to estrogenic alkylphenolic chemicals: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 15, no. 2, p. 194–202.

Jobling, Susan, and Sumpter, J.P., 1993, Detergent components 

in sewage effluent are weakly estrogenic to fish—an in vitro 

study using rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hepatocytes: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 27, p. 361–372.

Jobling, Susan, and Tyler, C.R., 2003, Endocrine disruption in 

wild freshwater fish: Pure and Applied Chemistry, v. 75, 

p. 2219–2234.

Keith, L.W., 1998, Environmental endocrine disruptors: Pure 

and Applied Chemistry, v. 70, p. 2319–2326.

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

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

p. 1202–1211.

Kolpin, D.W., Skopec, Mary, Meyer, M.T., Furlong, E.T., and 

Zaugg, S.D., 2004, Urban contribution of pharmaceutical and 

other organic wastewater contaminants to streams during differing flow conditions: Science of the Total Environment, 

v. 328, p. 119–130.

Lawrence, S.J., and Sando, S.K., 1989, Quality of water from 

surficial-outwash aquifers in the Big Sioux River Basin, eastern South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 89–4170, 81 p.

Leap, D.I., 1988, Geology and hydrology of Day County, South 

Dakota: South Dakota Geological Survey Bulletin 24, 113 p.

Lee, K.E., Barber, L.B., Furlong, E.T., Cahill, J.D., Kolpin, 

D.W., Meyer, M.T., and Zaugg, S.D., 2004, Presence and 

distribution of organic wastewater compounds in wastewater, 

surface, ground, and drinking waters, Minnesota, 2000–02: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2004–5138, 47 p.

Leeming, R.L., Ball, A., Ashbolt, N.J., and Nichols, P.D., 1994, 

Distinguishing between human and animal sources of 

faecal pollution: Australian Journal of Chemistry, v. 61, 

p. 434–435.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982a, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow—volume 1. Measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 

p. 1–285.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982b, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow—volume 2. Computation of discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, p. 285–631.

Richard, H.M.; Schreurs, M.; Legler, Juliette; Artola-Garicano, 

Elsa; Sinnige, T.L.; Lanser, P.H.; Seinen, Willem; and van 

der Burg, Bart, 2004, In vitro and in vivo antiestrogenic 

effects of polycyclic musks in zebrafish: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 38, no. 38, p. 997–1002.

Richard, H.M., Schreurs, M., Quaedackers, M.E., Seinen, 

Willem, and van der Burg, Bart, 2002, Transcriptional activation of estrogen receptor ERα and ERβ by polycyclic 

musks is cell type dependent: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, v. 183, no. 1, p. 1–9.

Richardson, M.L., and Bowron, J.M., 1985, The fate of pharmaceutical chemicals in the aquatic environment: Journal of 

Pharmacy and Pharmacology, v. 37, p. 1–12.

Rodgers-Gray, T.P.; Jobling, Susan; Morris, Steven; Kelly, 

Carole; Kirby, Sonia; Janbakhsh, Afsaneh; Harries, J.E.; 

Waldock, M.J.; Sumpter, J.P.; and Tyler, C.R., 2000, Longterm temporal changes in the estrogenic composition of 

treated sewage effluent and its biological effects on fish: 

Environmental Science & Technology, v. 34, no. 8, 

p. 1521–1528.

Schlumpf, Margret; Cotton, Beata; Conscience, Marianne; 

Haller, Vreni; Steinmann, Beate; and Lichtensteiger, Walter, 

2001, In vitro and in vivo estrogenicity of UV screens: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 109, p. 239–244.

Sheahan, D.A.; Brighty, G.C.; Daniel, Mic; Jobling, Susan; 

Harries, J.E.; Hurst, M.R.; Kennedy, Joe; Kirby, S.J.; Morris, 

Steven; Routledge, E.J.; Sumpter, J.P.; and Waldock, M.J., 

2002, Reduction in the estrogenic activity of a treated sewage 

effluent discharge to an English river as a result of a decrease 

in the concentration of industrially derived surfactants: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 21, no. 3, 

p. 515–519.

Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for collecting 

and processing samples of stream bed sediment for analysis 

of trace elements and organic contaminants for the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 94–458, 20 p.

South Dakota State University, 2005, South Dakota climate 

and weather—precipitation normals (1971–2000): Data 

available on Web, accessed April 7, 2005, at 

http://climate.sdstate.edu/data/pptnormals.shtm

Spano, Laura; Tyler, C.R.; van Aerle, Ronny; Devos, Pierre; 

Mandiki, S.N.M.; Silvestre, Frederic; Thome, J.P.; and Kestemont, Patrick, 2004, Effects of atrazine on sex steroid 

dynamics, plasma vitellogenin concentration and gonad 

development in adult goldfish (Carassius auratus): Aquatic 

Toxicology, v. 66, p. 369–379.

Sumpter, J.P., and Jobling, Susan, 1995, Vitellogenesis as a 

biomarker for estrogenic contamination of the aquatic 

environment: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 103, 

p. 173–187.
42 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Sumpter, J.P., and Johnson, A.C., 2005, Lessons from endocrine disruption and their application to other issues concerning trace organics in the aquatic environment: Environmental 

Science & Technology, v. 39, no. 12, p. 4321–4332.

Stackelberg, P.E., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Zaugg, S.D., 

Henderson, A.K., and Reissman, D.B., 2004, Persistence of 

pharmaceutical compounds and other organic wastewater 

contaminants in a conventional drinking-water-treatment 

plant: Science of the Total Environment, v. 329, nos. 1–3, 

p. 99–113.

Taylor, J.K., 1987, Quality assurance of chemical measurements: Chelsea, Mich., Lewis Publishers, 328 p.

Thorpe, K.L., Hutchinson, T.H., Hetheridge, M.J., Scholze, 

Martin, Sumpter, J.P., and Tyler, C.R., 2001, Assessing the 

biological potency of binary mixtures of environmental 

estrogens using vitellogenin induction in juvenile rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Environmental Science & 

Technology, v. 35, no. 35, p. 2476–2481.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, American factfinder: Information 

available on Web, accessed July 28, 2005, at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/ main.html?_lang=en

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Guidelines 

establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants 

(Appendix B to part 136, Definition and procedure for the 

determination of the method detection limit): U.S. Code of 

Federal Regulations, Title 40, revised as of July 1, 1992.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997–2004, National field manual for 

the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, 

chaps. A1–A9, 2 v., variously paged, available on Web at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A (chapters were originally 

published from 1997–1999; updates and revisions are ongoing and are summarized at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/

FieldManual/mastererrata.html).

Welshons, W.V., Thayer, K.A., Judy, B.M., Tayler, J.A., Curran, E.M., and vom Saal, F.S., 2003, Large effects from small 

exposures—mechanisms for endocrine disrupting chemicals 

with estrogenic activity: Environmental Health Perspectives, 

v. 111, p. 994–1006.

Zaugg, S.D., Smith, S.G., Schroeder, M.P., Barber, L.B., and 

Burkhardt, M.R., 2002, 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, 37 p.
Supplemental Information
44 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use

Field-measured properties and constituents

Gage height -- NA 0.01 ft -- -- --

Discharge, instantaneous -- NA .1 ft3/s -- -- --

Turbidity -- NA 1 NTU -- -- --

Barometric pressure -- NA 1 mm Hg -- -- --

Dissolved oxygen -- NA .1 mg/L -- -- --

pH -- NA .1 standard unit -- -- --

Specific conductance -- NA 5 μS/cm -- -- --

Air temperature -- NA .1°C -- -- --

Water temperature -- NA .1°C -- -- --

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, 

dissolved

1 1, 4, 5 0.144 0.030 611–59–6 caffeine metabolite

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 3 .036 ND 103–90–2 antipyretic 

(nonprescription)

Caffeine, dissolved 1 1, 4, 5 .016 .022 58–08–2 stimulant 

(nonprescription)

Caffeine, dissolved 4 3 .5 ND 58–08–2 stimulant 

(nonprescription)

Caffeine, whole water 3 1 .5 .17 58–08–2 stimulant 

(nonprescription)

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 3 .011 ND 298–46–4 anticonvulsant, antineuralgic 

(prescription)

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 3 .012 ND 51481–61–9 antacid (nonprescription)

Codeine, dissolved 1 3 .015 ND 76–57–3 analgesic (prescription)

Cotinine, dissolved 1 1, 4, 5 .014 .0008 486–56–6 nicotine metabolite

Cotinine, dissolved 4 3 1 ND 486–56–6 nicotine metabolite

Cotinine, whole water 3 3 1 ND 486–56–6 nicotine metabolite

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 1, 4, 5 .015 .0042 67035–22–7 nifedipine metabolite, 

antianginal 

(prescription)

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 3 .016 ND 42399–41–7 antihypertensive 

(prescription)

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 3 .015 ND 58–73–1 antihistamine (prescription)

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 3 .014 ND 54910–89–3 antidepressant (prescription)

Furosemide, dissolved 1 3 .039 ND 54–31–9 diuretic (prescription)

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 3 .013 ND 25812–30–0 antihyperlipidemic 

(prescription)

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 3 .042 ND 15687–27–1 antiinflamatory 

(nonprescription)

Metformin, dissolved 1 3 -- ND 1115–70–4 antidiabetic (prescription)

Miconazole, dissolved 1 3 .018 ND 22916–47–8 antifungal 

(nonprescription)

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 3 .013 ND 66357–35–5 antacid (nonprescription)
Supplemental Information 45

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)—Continued

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 1, 4, 5 0.023 0.023 18559–94–9 antiasthmatic 

(prescription)

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 3 .011 ND 148–79–8 fungicide

Warfarin, dissolved 1 3 .012 ND 81–81–2 anticoagulant 

(prescription)

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 2 0.01 0.01 26787–78–0 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 69–53–4 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, dissolved 2 2 .01 .3 4497–08–9 chlorotetracycline metabolite

Anhydrotetracycline, dissolved 2 2 .01 .15 13803–65–1 tetracycline metabolite

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 3 .004 ND 83905–01–5 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

macrolide class)

Carbadox, dissolved 2 2 .05, .005 .05 6804–07–5 antibiotic 

(veterinary; quinolone class)

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 63527–52–6 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Chlorotetracycline, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .02, .01 .056 57–62–5 antibiotic 

(veterinary; tetracycline class)

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .01, .005 .033 85721–33–1 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

quinolone class)

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 2 .005 .005 105956–97–6 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

quinolone class)

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 61–72–3 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 2 .02, .01 .02 127–33–3 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

tetracycline class)

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 2 .05, .01 .05 564–25–0 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

tetracycline class)

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 -- antibiotic 

(veterinary; quinolone class)
46 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)—Continued

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 3 0.009 ND 114–07–8 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

macrolide class)

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .02, .01, .005 0.025 114–07–8 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

macrolide class)

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .02, .01, .005 .046 114–07–8 erythromycin metabolite

Flumequine, dissolved 2 2 .05, .005 .05 42835–25–6 antibiotic 

(veterinary; quinolone class)

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .01, .005 .01 154–21–2 antibiotic 

(veterinary; macrolide class)

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 2 .005 .005 98079–51–7 antibiotic 

(veterinary; quinolone class)

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 2 .02 .02 -- antibiotic complimentary 

(human)

Minocycline, dissolved 2 2 .02, .01 .02 10118–90–8 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

tetracycline class)

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 2 .01, .005 .01 70458–96–7 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

quinolone class)

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .005 .15 83380–47–6 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

quinolone class)

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 2 .01, .005 .01 6981–18–6 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 66–79–5 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 2 .005 .005 14698–29–4 antibiotic 

(veterinary; quinolone class)

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 2 .05, .01 .05 79–57–2 antibiotic 

(veterinary; tetracycline class)

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 69–57–8 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 2 .01 .01 87–08–1 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; beta 

lactam class)

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 2 .5 .5 -- antibiotic 

(veterinary; arsenical class)

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 2 .01, .005 .01 80214–83–1 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

macrolide class)

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
Supplemental Information 47

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)—Continued

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 2 0.01, 0.005 0.01 98105–99–8 antibiotic 

(veterinary; quinolone class)

Sulfachlorpyridazine, dissolved 2 2 .05, .005 .05 80–32–0 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 2 .005 .005 68–35–9 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Sulfadimethoxine, dissolved 2 2 .01, .005 .01 122–11–2 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 2 .02, .005 .02 127–79–7 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 2 .01, .005 .01 57–68–1 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 2 .05 .05 -- antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

sulfonamide class)

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 3 .064 ND 723–46–6 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

sulfonamide class)

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .05, .005 .014 723–46–6 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

sulfonamide class)

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 2 .05, .005 .05 72–14–0 antibiotic 

(veterinary; sulfonamide class)

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .02, .01 1.6 60–54–8 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

tetracycline class)

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 3 .013 ND 738–70–5 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

sulfonamide class)

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .01, .005 .02 738–70–5 antibiotic 

(human and veterinary; 

sulfonamide class)

Tylosin, dissolved 2 1, 4, 5 .02, .01, .005 .07 1401–69–0 antibiotic 

(veterinary; macrolide class)

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 2 .1, .01, .005 .1 21411–53–0 antibiotic 

(veterinary; macrolide class)

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Atrazine, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 0.5 0.0002 1912–24–9 herbicide

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 1912–24–9 herbicide

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .071 98–82–8 herbicide

Metolachlor, whole water 3 1, 4 .5 .004 98–82–8 herbicide

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 98–82–8 herbicide

Prometon, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .13 1610–18–0 herbicide

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
48 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)—Continued

Prometon, whole water 3 1, 4 0.5 0.02 1610–18–0 herbicide

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 1610–18–0 herbicide

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 1, 5 0.5 0.08 106–46–7 deodorizer, moth repellent

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole 

water

3 3 .5 ND 106–46–7 deodorizer, moth repellent

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 106–46–7 deodorizer, moth repellent

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, whole water

3 2 10, .5 .5 5436–43–1 fire retardant

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, bottom sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 5436–43–1 fire retardant

3,4-Dichlorophenyl 

isocyanate, whole water

3 3 .5 ND 102–36–3 plastic additive

3,4-Dichlorophenyl 

isocyanate, bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 102–36–3 plastic additive

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

dissolved

4 1, 5 1 .02 83–34–1 bacterial metabolite, fecal 

fragrance, dye/perfume 

manufacturing

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

whole water

3 1, 4 1 .019 83–34–1 bacterial metabolite, fecal 

fragrance, dye/perfume 

manufacturing

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

bottom sediment

5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 30 μg/kg 83–34–1 bacterial metabolite, fecal 

fragrance, dye/perfume 

manufacturing

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), dissolved

4 2 5 5 121–00–6 antioxidant

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), whole water

3 3 5 ND 121–00–6 antioxidant

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 4 2 1 1 599–64–4 detergent metabolite

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 2 1 1 599–64–4 detergent metabolite

4-Cumylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 599–64–4 detergent metabolite

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

dissolved

4 2 1 1 1806–26–4 detergent metabolite

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole 

water

3 2 1 1 1806–26–4 detergent metabolite

4-normal-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 1806–26–4 detergent metabolite

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 2 1 1 140–66–9 detergent metabolite

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 2 1 .26 140–66–9 detergent metabolite

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
Supplemental Information 49

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

4-tert-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 140–66–9 detergent metabolite

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 3 2 ND 136–85–6 anticorrosive

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 

whole water

3 1, 4, 5 2 .33 136–85–6 anticorrosive

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene 

(AHTN), dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .23 21145–77–7 fragrance

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene 

(AHTN), whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .048 21145–77–7 fragrance

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene 

(AHTN), bottom sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 21145–77–7 fragrance

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 98–86–2 fragrance

Acetophenone, whole water 3 1, 4 .5 .08 98–86–2 fragrance

Acetophenone, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 98–86–2 fragrance

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .12 84–65–1 dye manufacturing, pesticide

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 1, 4 .5 .098 84–65–1 dye manufacturing, pesticide

Anthraquinone, bottom 

sediment

5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 4 μg/kg 84–65–1 dye manufacturing, pesticide

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .066 119–61–9 photoinitiator, fixative

Benzophenone, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 119–61–9 photoinitiator, fixative

Benzophenone, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 119–61–9 photoinitiator, fixative

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 

whole water

3 3 2 ND 117–81–7 plasticizer

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 

bottom sediment

5 1, 4 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 117–81–7 plasticizer

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 3 1 ND 80–05–7 plasticizer

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 3 1 ND 80–05–7 plasticizer

Bisphenol-A, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 80–05–7 plasticizer

Bromacil, dissolved 4 3 .5 ND 314–40–9 herbicide

Bromacil, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .068 314–40–9 herbicide

Bromacil, bottom sediment 5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 314–40–9 herbicide

Camphor, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .029 76–22–2 fumigant and flavorant

Camphor, whole water 3 2 .5 .5 76–22–2 fumigant and flavorant

Camphor, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 76–22–2 fumigant and flavorant

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
50 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 1, 5 1 0.14 63–25–2 insecticide

Carbaryl, whole water 3 3 1 ND 63–25–2 insecticide

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 2921–88–2 insecticide

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .014 2921–88–2 insecticide

Chlorpyrifos, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 2921–88–2 insecticide

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .034 134–62–3 insect repellent

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .042 134–62–3 insect repellent

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 134–62–3 insect repellent

Diazinon, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 333–41–5 insecticide

Diazinon, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .027 333–41–5 insecticide

Diazinon, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 333–41–5 insecticide

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 3 1 ND 62–73–7 insecticide

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 3 1 ND 62–73–7 insecticide

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 84–66–2 plasticizer

Diethyl phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 84–66–2 plasticizer

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 3 .5 ND 5989–27–5 solvent, fragrance

D-Limonene, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 5989–27–5 solvent, fragrance

D-Limonene, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 5989–27–5 solvent, fragrance

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran 

(HHCB), dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .061 1222–05–5 fragrance

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran 

(HHCB), whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .045 1222–05–5 fragrance

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran 

(HHCB), bottom sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 1222–05–5 fragrance

Indole, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .042 120–72–9 amino-acid metabolite, fragrance, 

pesticide inert ingredient

Indole, whole water 3 1, 4 .5 .015 120–72–9 amino-acid metabolite, fragrance, 

pesticide inert ingredient

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 1.9 μg/kg 120–72–9 amino-acid metabolite, fragrance, 

pesticide inert ingredient

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 124–76–5 fragrance, flavorant

Isoborneol, whole water 3 2 .5 .5 124–76–5 fragrance, flavorant

Isoborneol, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 124–76–5 fragrance, flavorant

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
Supplemental Information 51

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Isophorone, dissolved 4 1, 5 0.5 0.047 78–59–1 solvent

Isophorone, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 78–59–1 solvent

Isophorone, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 78–59–1 solvent

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

dissolved

4 3 .5 ND 98–82–8 solvent

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

whole water

3 3 .5 ND 98–82–8 solvent

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

bottom sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 98–82–8 solvent

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 119–65–3 chemical and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 119–65–3 chemical and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing

Isoquinoline, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 119–65–3 chemical and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing

Menthol, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 89–78–1 pharmaceutical additive, 

fragrance, flavorant

Menthol, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 89–78–1 pharmaceutical additive, 

fragrance, flavorant

Menthol, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 89–78–1 pharmaceutical additive, 

fragrance, flavorant

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 57837–19–1 agricultural fungicide

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 2 .5 .5 57837–19–1 agricultural fungicide

Metalaxyl, bottom sediment 5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 57837–19–1 agricultural fungicide

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 119–36–8 flavoring agent, liniment

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 2 .5 .017 119–36–8 flavoring agent, liniment

Methyl salicylate, bottom 

sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 119–36–8 flavoring agent, liniment

Nonylphenol diethoxylate

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 1 5 3.5 26027–38–2 detergent metabolite

Nonylphenol diethoxylate

(NP2EO), whole water

3 1, 4, 5 5 .66 26027–38–2 detergent metabolite

Nonylphenol diethoxylate

(NP2EO), bottom sediment

5 1, 4 500 μg/kg 65 μg/kg 26027–38–2 detergent metabolite

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate

(NP1EO), whole water

3 1, 4 2 .55 27986–36–3 detergent metabolite

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate

(NP1EO), bottom sediment

5 2 500 μg/kg 500 μg/kg 27986–36–3 detergent metabolite

Octylphenol diethoxylate

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 1, 5 1 .19 26636–32–8 detergent metabolite

Octylphenol diethoxylate

(OP2EO), whole water

3 2 1 .14 26636–32–8 detergent metabolite

Octylphenol diethoxylate

(OP2EO), bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 26636–32–8 detergent metabolite

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
52 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Octylphenol monoethoxylate

(OP1EO), dissolved

3 1, 5 1 0.39 26636–32–8 detergent metabolite

Octylphenol monoethoxylate

(OP1EO), whole water

3 2 1 5.2 26636–32–8 detergent metabolite

Octylphenol monoethoxylate

(OP1EO), bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 26636–32–8 detergent metabolite

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 1, 5 1 .079 106–44–5 antioxidant, manufacturing, fuel 

combustion byproduct

para-Cresol, whole water 3 2 1 1 106–44–5 antioxidant, manufacturing, fuel 

combustion byproduct

para-Cresol, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 100 μg/kg 21 μg/kg 106–44–5 antioxidant, manufacturing, fuel 

combustion byproduct

para-Nonylphenol (NP), 

dissolved

4 1, 5 5 .83 84852–15–3 detergent metabolite

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole 

water

3 1 5 .64 84852–15–3 detergent metabolite

para-Nonylphenol (NP), 

bottom sediment

5 2 500 μg/kg 500 μg/kg 84852–15–3 detergent metabolite

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 1, 5 2 .42 87–86–5 pesticide, wood preservative

Pentachlorophenol, whole 

water

3 3 2 ND 87–86–5 pesticide, wood preservative

Pentachlorophenol, bottom 

sediment

5 2 200 μg/kg 200 μg/kg 87–86–5 pesticide, wood preservative

Phenol, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .34 108–95–2 resin and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing, disinfectant

Phenol, whole water 3 1, 4 .5 .94 108–95–2 resin and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing, disinfectant

Phenol, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 19 μg/kg 108–95–2 resin and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing, disinfectant

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 3 .5 ND 127–18–4 solvent, degreaser

Tetrachloroethylene, whole 

water

3 3 .5 ND 127–18–4 solvent, degreaser

Tetrachloroethylene, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 127–18–4 solvent, degreaser

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .18 126–73–8 plasticizer

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 1, 4 .5 .059 126–73–8 plasticizer

Tributyl phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 126–73–8 plasticizer

Triclosan, dissolved 4 1, 5 1 .16 3380–34–5 antimicrobial disinfectant

Triclosan, whole water 3 1, 4 1 .15 3380–34–5 antimicrobial disinfectant

Triclosan, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 2.9 μg/kg 3380–34–5 antimicrobial disinfectant

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
Supplemental Information 53

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), 

dissolved

4 1, 5 0.5 0.21 77–93–0 plasticizer

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), 

whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .051 77–93–0 plasticizer

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .066 115–86–6 plasticizer

Triphenyl phosphate, whole 

water

3 1, 4 .5 .033 115–86–6 plasticizer

Triphenyl phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 115–86–6 plasticizer

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .4 78–51–3 fire retardant

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .13 78–51–3 fire retardant

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 78–51–3 fire retardant

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .074 115–96–8 fire retardant

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .1 115–96–8 fire retardant

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 115–96–8 fire retardant

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate, dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .13 13674–87–8 fire retardant

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate, whole water

3 1, 4 .5 .071 13674–87–8 fire retardant

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate, bottom sediment

5 2 100 μg/kg 100 μg/kg 13674–87–8 fire retardant

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1, 5 0.5 0.04 90–12–0 PAH

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 3 .5 ND 90–12–0 PAH

1-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 90–12–0 PAH

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 1, 5 .5 .053 581–42–0 PAH

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 3 .5 ND 581–42–0 PAH

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 20 μg/kg 581–42–0 PAH

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .06 91–57–6 PAH

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
54 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—Continued

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 3 0.5 ND 91–57–6 PAH

2-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 91–57–6 PAH

Anthracene, dissolved 4 1 .5 .082 120–12–7 PAH

Anthracene, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .06 120–12–7 PAH

Anthracene, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 10 μg/kg 120–12–7 PAH

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 2 .5 .5 50–32–8 PAH

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .03 50–32–8 PAH

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom 

sediment

5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 25 μg/kg 50–32–8 PAH

Carbazole, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .036 86–74–8 chemical manufacturing, PAH

Carbazole, whole water 3 2 .5 .22 86–74–8 chemical manufacturing, PAH

Carbazole, bottom sediment 5 2 50 μg/kg 50 μg/kg 86–74–8 chemical manufacturing, PAH

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 1 .5 .017 206–44–0 PAH

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .15 206–44–0 PAH

Fluoranthene, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 9.3 μg/kg 206–44–0 PAH

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 1, 5 .5 .049 91–20–3 PAH

Naphthalene, whole water 3 3 .5 ND 91–20–3 PAH

Naphthalene, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 8.2 μg/kg 91–20–3 PAH

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 1 .5 .02 85–01–8 PAH

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .019 85–01–8 PAH

Phenanthrene, bottom 

sediment

5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 7.6 μg/kg 85–01–8 PAH

Pyrene, dissolved 4 1 .5 .012 129–00–0 PAH

Pyrene, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 .5 .04 129–00–0 PAH

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 50 μg/kg 9.3 μg/kg 129–00–0 PAH

Sterol compounds (SCs)

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 1 2 0.77 360–68–9 fecal sterol

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 2 .26 360–68–9 fecal sterol

3-beta-Coprostanol, bottom 

sediment

5 1, 4 250 μg/kg 190 μg/kg 360–68–9 fecal sterol

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1 2 1.2 83–46–5 plant sterol

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 2 .57 83–46–5 plant sterol

beta-Sitosterol, bottom 

sediment

5 1, 4 250 μg/kg 250 μg/kg 83–46–5 plant sterol

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 2 2 1.8 19466–47–8 plant sterol

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 3 2 ND 19466–47–8 plant sterol

beta-Stigmastanol, bottom 

sediment

5 1, 4 500 μg/kg 500 μg/kg 19466–47–8 plant sterol

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
Supplemental Information 55

1Constituent detected in one or more environmental samples at concentration(s) greater than study reporting level.

2Constituent not detected in any environmental sample at concentration(s) greater than study reporting level.

3

Results for laboratory reagent-spike samples, laboratory surrogate samples, and/or matrix-spike samples unacceptable; constituent excluded from analyses 

and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in drinking water, wastewater effluent, and the Big Sioux River.

4

Constituent included in summary analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in drinking water, wastewater effluent, and 

the Big Sioux River for samples collected on or before June 27, 2003.

5

Constituent included in summary analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in drinking water, wastewater effluent, and 

the Big Sioux River for samples collected on or after May 17, 2004.

Sterol compounds (SCs)—Continued

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 1 2 0.94 57–88–5 plant/animal sterol

Cholesterol, whole water 3 1, 4, 5 2 .64 57–88–5 plant/animal sterol

Cholesterol, bottom sediment 5 1, 4 500 μg/kg 500 μg/kg 57–88–5 plant/animal sterol

Laboratory quality-assurance/quality-control surrogate compounds

Bisphenol-A-d3 (surrogate), 

dissolved

4 NA 0.1 percent 

recovery

0.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Bisphenol-A-d3 (surrogate), 

whole water

3 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Bisphenol-A-d3 (surrogate), 

whole water (b)

3 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Bisphenol-A-d8 (surrogate), 

whole water

3 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Bisphenol-A-d8 (surrogate), 

bottom sediment

5 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Caffeine-c13 (surrogate), 

dissolved

4 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Caffeine-c13 (surrogate), whole 

water

3 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Caffeine-d8 (surrogate), whole 

water

3 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Decafluorobiphenyl 

(surrogate), dissolved

4 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

434–90–2 laboratory analytical surrogate

Decafluorobiphenyl 

(surrogate), whole water

3 NA .1 

percent recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

434–90–2 laboratory analytical surrogate

Decafluorobiphenyl 

(surrogate), bottom sediment

5 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

434–90–2 laboratory analytical surrogate

Ethyl-nicontinate-d4 

(surrogate), dissolved

1 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

-- laboratory analytical surrogate

Fluoranthene-d10 (surrogate), 

dissolved

4 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

93951–69–0 laboratory analytical surrogate

Fluoranthene-d10 (surrogate), 

whole water

3 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

93951–69–0 laboratory analytical surrogate

Fluoranthene-d10 (surrogate), 

bottom sediment

5 NA .1 percent 

recovery

.1 percent 

recovery

93951–69–0 laboratory analytical surrogate

Table 7. Field-measured properties and constituents and analytical constituents.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill 

and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and 

others (2005). CAS RN, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number; ft, feet; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; NA, not 

applicable; ND, not determined; --, no data]

Constituent or property

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Laboratory or

method

reporting level

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis

CAS RN Typical use
56 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 8. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in laboratory method-blank samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). μg/L, micrograms per liter; ND, not determined; e, estimated; --, not 

applicable]

Compound

Analytical

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

blanks

Number of 

detections

Minimum 

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Median

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Maximum

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis (μg/L)

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

Acetaminophen, 

dissolved

1 5 16 2 e0.0007 0.10 e0.20 ND

Caffeine, dissolved 1 1 16 4 e.0012 .0032 e.0045 0.022

Caffeine, dissolved 4 5 3 3 e.030 e.050 e.070 ND

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 5 16 2 e.0032 .0034 e.0036 ND

Codeine, dissolved 1 5 16 2 e.0076 .0080 e.0084 ND

Cotinine, dissolved 1 2 16 1 e.0042 e.0042 e.0042 .0008

Cotinine, whole water 3 5 9 1 e.18 e.18 e.18 ND

Dehydronifedipine, 

dissolved

1 1 16 2 e.0004 .0013 e.0021 .0042

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 5 16 2 e.0017 .0018 e.0019 ND

Diphenhydramine, 

dissolved

1 5 16 2 e.0018 .0022 e.0026 ND

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 5 16 2 e.0011 .0032 e.0052 ND

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 5 16 2 e.0029 .0036 e.0043 ND

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 3 24 1 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.01

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, 

dissolved

2 3 25 2 .18 .21 .24 .3

Anhydrotetracycline, 

dissolved

2 3 25 6 .056 .078 .15 .15

Chlorotetracycline, 

dissolved

2 1 25 5 .019 .024 .048 .056

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 2 22 5 .0050 .018 .11 .033

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 3 22 2 .027 .049 .071 .005

Demeclocycline, 

dissolved

2 3 25 8 .017 .024 .098 .02

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 3 25 10 .011 .019 .11 .05

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 1 24 2 .0050 .0055 .0060 .025

Erythromycin-H2O, 

dissolved

2 1 24 9 .013 .023 .027 .046

Lomafloxacin, dissolved 2 3 22 2 .018 .026 .033 .005

Minocycline, dissolved 2 3 25 4 .076 .11 .24 .02

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 3 22 4 .0070 .025 .098 .01

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 1 22 6 .0070 .017 .087 .15

Oxytetracycline, 

dissolved

2 3 25 2 .060 .076 .092 .05

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 3 22 3 .017 .033 .081 .01

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1 25 8 .015 .022 .084 1.6

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 5 16 1 e.0022 e.0022 e.0022 ND

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 1 24 2 .0050 .0055 .0060 .02
Supplemental Information 57

Table 8. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in laboratory method-blank samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). μg/L, micrograms per liter; ND, not determined; e, estimated; --, not 

applicable]

Compound

Analytical

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

blanks

Number of 

detections

Minimum 

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Median

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Maximum

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis (μg/L)

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Atrazine, whole water 3 1 7 1 e0.0001 e0.0001 e0.0001 0.0002

Metolachlor, whole water 3 2 9 1 e.012 e.012 e.012 .004

Prometon, whole water 3 2 9 1 e.018 e.018 e.018 .02

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

dissolved

4 1 3 3 e0.010 0.020 0.040 0.08

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

dissolved

4 3 3 2 e.020 .060 e.10 1

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

whole water

3 1 9 2 e.028 .048 e.068 .26

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 3 3 3 e.12 e.18 e.19 .5

Acetophenone, whole 

water

3 1 9 2 e.038 .039 e.040 .08

Benzophenone, whole 

water

3 5 9 2 e.072 .19 e.31 ND

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate, whole water

3 5 7 5 e.11 e.71 e3.4 ND

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 5 3 1 e.20 e.20 e.20 ND

Camphor, whole water 3 3 9 2 e.0047 .0056 e.0064 .5

Diethyl phthalate, whole 

water

3 5 9 2 e.018 .025 e.031 ND

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 5 3 3 e.060 e.070 e.080 ND

Isophorone, whole water 3 5 9 1 e.12 e.12 e.12 ND

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), dissolved

4 5 3 3 e.010 e.020 e.030 ND

Methyl salicylate, whole 

water

3 3 9 2 e.0073 .0079 e.0084 .017

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 2 e2.4 2.6 e2.7 3.5

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

whole water

3 2 9 1 e2.7 e2.7 e2.7 .66

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate (OP2EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 2 e.080 .090 e.10 .19

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 1 3 2 e.20 .25 e.30 .39

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole water

3 3 9 6 e.14 .16 e2.6 5.2

para-Nonylphenol (NP), 

dissolved

4 4 3 3 e.40 e.70 e1.5 .83
58 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

para-Nonylphenol (NP), 

whole water

3 2 9 1 e2.1 e2.1 e2.1 0.64

Phenol, dissolved 4 1 3 2 e.11 .14 e.17 .34

Phenol, whole water 3 1 9 2 e.034 .048 e.062 .94

Tetrachloroethylene, 

dissolved

4 5 3 1 e.030 e.030 e.030 ND

Tributyl phosphate, whole 

water

3 2 9 1 e.12 e.12 e.12 .059

Triphenyl phosphate, 

whole water

3 2 9 1 e.052 e.052 e.052 .033

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)

phosphate, whole water

3 2 9 1 e.12 e.12 e.12 .13

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, whole water

3 2 9 1 e.089 e.089 e.089 .071

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 1 3 2 e0.006 0.013 e0.020 0.04

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 5 9 2 e.0063 .0065 e.0067 ND

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 1 3 3 e.010 e.030 e.030 .06

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 5 9 2 e.0064 .0066 e.0068 ND

Anthracene, whole water 3 2 9 1 e.096 e.096 e.096 .06

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole 

water

3 2 9 1 e.096 e.096 e.096 .03

Carbazole, whole water 3 3 9 1 e.11 e.11 e.11 .11

Fluoranthene, whole 

water

3 2 9 1 e.13 e.13 e.13 .15

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 3 e.0070 e.020 e.030 .049

Naphthalene, whole water 3 5 9 3 e.0086 e.011 e.057 ND

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 1 3 2 e.0050 .0075 e.010 .02

Phenanthrene, whole 

water

3 2 9 2 e.0041 .057 e.11 .019

Pyrene, whole water 3 2 9 1 e.12 e.12 e.12 .04

Table 8. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in laboratory method-blank samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). μg/L, micrograms per liter; ND, not determined; e, estimated; --, not 

applicable] 

Compound

Analytical

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

blanks

Number of 

detections

Minimum 

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Median

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Maximum

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis (μg/L)
Supplemental Information 59

Sterol compounds (SCs)

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

dissolved

4 1 3 2 e0.50 0.55 e0.60 0.77

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1 3 2 e.70 .80 e.90 1.2

beta-Stigmastanol, 

dissolved

4 1 3 2 e.70 .80 e.90 1.8

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 1 3 3 e.50 e.60 e.80 .94

1Compound detected in one or more method-blank samples but at concentrations generally substantially less than study reporting level; for environmental 

samples associated with method-blank samples with detections, a screening level of five times the detected concentration in the method-blank sample was used.

2Compound generally detected infrequently in method-blank samples (generally less than about 10 percent of method-blank samples); compound was not 

detected in environmental samples associated with method-blank samples with detections, or compound was detected in method-blank samples at concentrations 

substantially less than detected concentrations in environmental samples associated with the method-blank samples with detections.

3

Compound detected in method-blank samples but not detected in any environmental samples at concentrations greater than study reporting level.

4Compound detected in method-blank samples but at concentrations substantially less than detected concentrations in environmental samples associated with 

the method-blank samples with detections.

5Compound detected in method-blank samples; however, compound was excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds in drinking water, wastewater effluents based on results for laboratory reagen-spike or environmental matrix-spike samples.

Table 8. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in laboratory method-blank samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). μg/L, micrograms per liter; ND, not determined; e, estimated; --, not 

applicable] 

Compound

Analytical

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

blanks

Number of 

detections

Minimum 

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Median

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Maximum

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Study reporting 

level for data 

summary and 

analysis (μg/L)
60 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 9. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory reagent-spike samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation; --, not applicable]

Compound

Analytical 

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

spikes

Minimum

percent

recovery

Median

percent

recovery

Maximum

percent

recovery

Percent

recovery

RSD

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, dissolved 1 1 16 62 81 119 19

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 1 16 50 67 106 23

Caffeine, dissolved 1 1 16 68 75 101 10

Caffeine, dissolved 4 1 3 95 115 120 12

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 1 16 56 69 90 13

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 2 16 6 27 41 41

Codeine, dissolved 1 1 16 61 71 167 34

Cotinine, dissolved 1 1 16 56 74 92 15

Cotinine, dissolved 4 2 3 43 44 45 3

Cotinine, whole water 3 2 4 48 62 113 42

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 1 16 57 69 97 15

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 2 16 21 36 60 25

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 2 16 41 45 64 14

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 2 16 20 29 55 33

Furosemide, dissolved 1 2 16 0 15 35 253

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 2 16 9 26 160 102

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 2 16 32 44 100 38

Metformin, dissolved 1 2 16 0 0 4 118

Miconazole, dissolved 1 2 16 2 5 43 105

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 2 16 24 34 59 25

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 1 16 64 73 97 11

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 1 16 67 70 90 11

Warfarin, dissolved 1 1 16 51 58 111 27

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 2 16 0 7 21 75

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 2 16 0 10 23 69

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 2 16 34 49 81 25

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 1 16 56 65 78 10

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Atrazine, whole water 3 1 1 60 60 60 --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 1 3 90 95 100 5

Metolachlor, whole water 3 1 4 34 78 92 36

Prometon, dissolved 4 1 3 90 110 115 13

Prometon, whole water 3 1 4 49 73 89 23

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 1 3 60 65 85 19

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 3 2 4 20 24 89 86

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether, whole 

water

3 1 1 47 47 47 --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, whole water 3 2 1 175 175 175 --

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), dissolved 4 1 3 90 90 100 6

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), whole water 3 1 4 38 69 107 40
Supplemental Information 61

Table 9. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory reagent-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation; --, not applicable]

Compound

Analytical 

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

spikes

Minimum

percent

recovery

Median

percent

recovery

Maximum

percent

recovery

Percent

recovery

RSD

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole (BHA), 

dissolved

4 1 3 70 75 75 4

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole (BHA), 

whole water

3 2 4 2 35 75 82

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 4 1 3 85 105 115 15

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 1 4 50 76 116 34

4-normal-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 3 80 85 85 3

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 4 60 72 97 21

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 3 80 85 90 6

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 4 58 68 94 23

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, dissolved 4 1 3 57 81 94 24

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, whole water 3 1 4 63 85 101 23

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

4 1 3 85 90 100 8

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), whole 

water

3 1 4 50 71 114 35

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 1 3 85 100 110 13

Acetophenone, whole water 3 3 4 41 71 116 43

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 1 3 75 85 90 9

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 1 4 39 72 89 31

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 1 3 80 95 100 11

Benzophenone, whole water 3 2 4 41 74 119 42

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, whole water 3 1 1 70 70 70 --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 1 3 80 85 90 6

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 1 4 51 65 108 36

Bromacil, dissolved 4 1 3 88 95 113 13

Bromacil, whole water 3 1 4 51 72 92 23

Camphor, dissolved 4 1 3 90 95 95 3

Camphor, whole water 3 1 4 40 69 109 40

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 1 3 50 55 55 5

Carbaryl, whole water 3 2 4 14 65 121 66

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 1 3 80 80 85 4

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 1 4 48 74 112 35

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), 

dissolved

4 1 3 75 95 100 15

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), whole 

water

3 1 4 47 79 100 29

Diazinon, dissolved 4 1 3 85 95 100 8

Diazinon, whole water 3 1 4 46 71 108 35

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 2 3 4 6 7 19

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 2 4 33 74 105 44

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 2 1 44 44 44 --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 2 3 37 47 65 29
62 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

D-Limonene, whole water 3 2 4 10 11 60 107

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran 

(HHCB), dissolved

4 1 3 75 90 95 12

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-benzopyran 

(HHCB), whole water

3 1 4 50 76 99 27

Indole, dissolved 4 1 3 85 90 95 6

Indole, whole water 3 3 4 36 64 100 42

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 1 3 80 90 90 7

Isoborneol, whole water 3 1 4 40 76 95 34

Isophorone, dissolved 4 1 3 80 90 90 7

Isophorone, whole water 3 2 4 41 73 114 41

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), dissolved 4 2 3 41 49 70 28

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), whole water 3 2 4 9 13 67 110

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 1 3 75 80 90 9

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 2 4 30 67 108 48

Menthol, dissolved 4 1 3 90 90 95 3

Menthol, whole water 3 2 4 41 72 120 44

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 1 3 90 100 100 6

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 1 4 47 80 85 25

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 1 3 80 90 90 7

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 1 4 37 69 104 40

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 97 97 109 7

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO), whole 

water

3 1 4 59 72 78 11

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate (NP1EO), 

whole water

3 1 1 57 57 57 --

Octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 79 86 86 5

Octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO), whole 

water

3 1 4 46 75 109 34

Octylphenol monoethoxylate (OP1EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 69 79 79 7

Octylphenol monoethoxylate (OP1EO), 

whole water

3 1 4 39 77 94 32

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 1 3 85 95 95 6

para-Cresol, whole water 3 1 4 43 69 110 39

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 4 1 3 86 89 92 3

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole water 3 1 4 45 64 74 22

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 1 3 35 53 64 29

Pentachlorophenol, whole water 3 2 4 44 62 257 95

Phenol, dissolved 4 1 3 95 100 120 13

Phenol, whole water 3 3 4 50 64 121 43

Table 9. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory reagent-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation; --, not applicable]

Compound

Analytical 

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

spikes

Minimum

percent

recovery

Median

percent

recovery

Maximum

percent

recovery

Percent

recovery

RSD
Supplemental Information 63

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 2 3 29 34 60 41

Tetrachloroethylene, whole water 3 2 4 5 8 38 104

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 75 90 95 12

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 1 4 43 79 87 29

Triclosan, dissolved 4 1 3 75 85 85 7

Triclosan, whole water 3 1 4 60 73 90 17

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), dissolved 4 1 3 90 105 110 10

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole water 3 1 4 46 69 75 20

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 90 105 110 10

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 3 1 4 65 75 111 25

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, dissolved 4 4 3 115 130 140 10

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole water 3 1 4 48 65 75 20

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 90 110 115 13

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole water 3 1 4 42 71 93 30

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 90 115 130 18

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, whole water 3 1 4 50 75 108 31

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 80 80 90 7

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 2 4 35 46 103 55

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 80 80 90 7

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole water 3 2 4 34 46 99 54

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 80 80 90 7

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 2 4 33 51 114 60

Anthracene, dissolved 4 1 3 85 100 105 11

Anthracene, whole water 3 1 4 50 68 115 37

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 1 3 75 80 85 6

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 1 4 46 68 110 37

Carbazole, dissolved 4 1 3 100 115 120 9

Carbazole, whole water 3 1 4 55 80 117 32

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 1 3 90 100 110 10

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 1 4 60 72 112 29

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 70 75 80 7

Naphthalene, whole water 3 2 4 27 50 102 55

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 1 3 90 90 100 6

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 1 4 45 67 111 38

Pyrene, dissolved 4 1 3 80 85 90 6

Pyrene, whole water 3 1 4 50 72 113 34

Sterol compounds (SCs)

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 1 3 79 80 81 2

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 3 1 4 64 71 76 8

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1 3 51 54 83 28

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 1 4 65 76 86 12

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1 3 53 59 91 31

Table 9. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory reagent-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation; --, not applicable]

Compound

Analytical 

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

spikes

Minimum

percent

recovery

Median

percent

recovery

Maximum

percent

recovery

Percent

recovery

RSD
64 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Sterol compounds (SCs)—Continued

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 1 4 60 74 87 18

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 1 3 68 83 88 13

Cholesterol, whole water 3 1 4 64 71 76 7

1

Median percent recovery for reagent-spike samples near or within acceptable range (50–120 percent), and percent recovery RSD acceptable (less than 

40 percent); laboratory-reagent spike results judged to be acceptable.

2

Median percent recovery for reagent-spike samples outside of acceptable range (50–120 percent), or percent recovery RSD unacceptable (greater than 

40 percent); compound excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in drinking water, wastewater effluents, 

and the Big Sioux River.

3

Median percent recovery for reagent-spike samples within acceptable range (50–120 percent), but percent recovery RSD slightly exceeded acceptable range 

(less than 40 percent); all other quality-assurance/quality-control results for compound were acceptable; laboratory-reagent spike results judged to be acceptable.

4

Median percent recovery for reagent-spike samples exceeded acceptable range (50–120 percent), but percent recovery RSD within acceptable range (less 

than 40 percent); all other quality-assurance/quality-control results for compound were acceptable; laboratory-reagent spike results judged to be acceptable.

Table 9. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory reagent-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Laboratory; 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation; --, not applicable]

Compound

Analytical 

method

number

Footnote

Number of 

laboratory 

spikes

Minimum

percent

recovery

Median

percent

recovery

Maximum

percent

recovery

Percent

recovery

RSD
Supplemental Information 65

Table 10. Statistical summaries of analytical results for laboratory surrogate-spike compounds.

[Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). RSD, relative 

standard deviation]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

samples 

spiked with 

surrogate 

compounds

Minimum 

surrogate 

percent 

recovery

Median

surrogate 

percent 

recovery

Maximum 

surrogate 

percent 

recovery

Acceptable 

range for

median

surrogate 

percent 

recovery

Surrogate 

percent 

recovery 

RSD

Bisphenol-A-d3 (surrogate), dissolved 4 2 12 118 148 164 50–120 9

Bisphenol-A-d3 (surrogate), whole water (b) 3 2 15 3 173 218 50–120 43

Bisphenol-A-d8 (surrogate), whole water 3 1 13 51 81 111 50–120 24

Bisphenol-A-d8 (surrogate), bottom sediment 5 1 3 21 27 27 18–44 14

Caffeine-c13 (surrogate), dissolved 1 1 4 62 72 82 50–120 12

Caffeine-c13 (surrogate), dissolved 4 2 12 114 125 136 50–120 5

Caffeine-c13 (surrogate), whole water 3 1 15 58 82 141 50–120 27

Caffeine-d8 (surrogate), whole water 3 1 12 50 72 89 50–120 16

Decafluorobiphenyl (surrogate), dissolved 4 1 12 73 89 96 50–120 9

Decafluorobiphenyl (surrogate), whole water 3 1 27 22 55 73 50–120 24

Decafluorobiphenyl (surrogate), bottom 

sediment

5 3 3 19 31 48 30–60 45

Ethyl-nicontinate-d4 (surrogate), dissolved 1 1 27 42 85 117 50–120 20

Fluoranthene-d10 (surrogate), dissolved 4 4 12 114 123 132 50–120 4

Fluoranthene-d10 (surrogate), whole water 3 1 27 41 59 118 50–120 33

Fluoranthene-d10 (surrogate), bottom 

sediment

5 1 3 50 79 80 70–85 24

1Median percent recovery for surrogate-spike compounds near or within acceptable range, and percent recovery RSD acceptable (less than 40 percent).

2Median percent recovery for surrogate-spike compounds outside of acceptable range and/or percent recovery RSD unacceptable (greater than 40 percent); compound excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in drinking water, wastewater effluents, and the Big Sioux 

River.

3Median percent recovery for surrogate-spike compounds within acceptable range, but percent recovery RSD higher than acceptable range; discussions with analytical chemist indicated that large RSD for this compound is not unusual and not indicative of poor analytical results for compounds reported for environmental bottom-sediment samples (Mark Burkhardt, U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory, oral commun., February 17, 2006); laboratory surrogate-spike 

results for bottom-sediment samples judged to be acceptable.

4

Median percent recovery for the fluoranthene-d10 surrogate slightly exceeded the acceptable range. Other quality-assurance/quality-control results for study target compounds physically and chemically similar to the fluoranthene-d10 surrogate were reviewed in detail for acceptability. Because the median percent recovery 

for fluoranthene-d10 only slightly exceeded the acceptable range, no study target compounds were excluded solely on the basis of the fluoranthene-d10 recovery results.
Table 11. Statistical summaries of analytical results for detected compounds in field equipment-blank samples.[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geoche3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). μg/L, micrograms per liter; e, estimated]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

blank

samples

Number of 

detections

Minimum

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Median

detected

concentration

(μg/L)

Maxim

detect

concentr

(μg/L

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 2 6 2 e0.0058 e0.0074 e0.00Caffeine, dissolved 1 1 6 1 e.0108 e.0108 e.01Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 2 6 1 e.0004 e.0004 e.00Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 2 6 1 e.018 e.018 e.01

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 1 6 1 e0.011 e0.011 e0.01Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 1 6 1 e.0060 e.0060 e.00Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 1 6 1 e.019 e.019 e.01Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 1 6 1 e.017 e.017 e.01

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 5 1 e0.13 e0.13 e0.13 Phenol, whole water 3 1 5 2 e.45 e.46 e.47 

Sterol compounds (SCs)

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1 4 1 e1.0 e1.0 e1.0 

1Compound detected infrequently in field equipment-blank samples at concentrations generally substantially less than study reporting level; compound not detected at c

study reporting level in environmental sample associated with field equipment-blank sample with detection.

2Compound detected in field equipment-blank samples; however, compound was excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater c

River and wastewater effluents based on results for laboratory reagent-spike or environmental matrix-spike samples.
Supplemental Information 67

Table 12. Statistical summaries for field replicate samples for organic wastewater compounds (OWCs) detected in any sample for any 

primary/replicate sample pair.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC)]

Compound Footnote

Statistical summary of field replicate results

Number

of field 

primary/

replicate 

sample

pairs

Number of field 

primary/replicate sample pairs 

that compound was detected at 

concentration greater than study 

reporting level in:

Summary statistics for relative 

percent differences for

primary/replicate sample pairs that

the compound was detected

in both samples

Either sample Both samples Minimum Median Maximum

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

Caffeine (method 1), dissolved 1 6 2 2 4.1 6.4 8.6

Caffeine (method 4), dissolved 1 4 3 3 3.6 7.4 8.0

Caffeine (method 3), whole water 1 6 1 1 8.2 8.2 8.2

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 6 2 2 5.9 7.3 8.8

Codeine, dissolved 1 6 1 1 16 16 16

Cotinine (method 1), dissolved 1 6 4 4 2.5 6.8 24

Cotinine (method 4), dissolved 1 4 2 2 4.1 4.1 4.1

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 6 1 1 11.6 12 12

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 6 2 2 5.7 7.1 8.5

Metformin, dissolved 1 6 1 1 5.3 5.3 5.3

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 1 10 1 1 12 12 12

Erythromycin (method 2), dissolved 1 10 3 3 1.1 7.5 13

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 1 10 4 4 2.4 17 19

Ofloxacin, dissolved 1 10 1 1 22 22 22

Sulfamethoxazole (method 1), dissolved 1 6 1 1 6.5 6.5 6.5

Trimethoprim (method 1), dissolved 1 7 2 2 3.7 13 21

Trimethoprim (method 2), dissolved 1 10 3 3 3.6 13 22

Tylosin, dissolved 1 10 1 1 39 39 39

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Atrazine, whole water 1 7 5 5 3.9 9.5 17

Metolachlor, dissolved 1 4 2 2 0 2.9 6

Metolachlor, whole water 1 7 4 4 1.6 8.4 14

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 1 4 2 2 3.8 12 21

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 4 7 2 2 3.2 41 79

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, whole 

water

4 6 3 3 23 46 86

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 1 7 2 2 5.4 12 19

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

1 4 2 2 0 2.3 4.7

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

whole water

1 7 2 2 5.4 22 39

Anthraquinone, dissolved 1 4 2 2 6.9 7.8 8.7

Anthraquinone, whole water 1 7 1 1 18 18 18

Benzophenone, dissolved 1 4 2 2 7.4 9.0 11
68 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 12. Statistical summaries for field replicate samples for organic wastewater compounds (OWCs) detected in any sample for any 

primary/replicate sample pair.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC)]

Compound Footnote

Statistical summary of field replicate results

Number

of field 

primary/

replicate 

sample

pairs

Number of field 

primary/replicate sample pairs 

that compound was detected at 

concentration greater than study 

reporting level in:

Summary statistics for relative 

percent differences for

primary/replicate sample pairs that

the compound was detected

in both samples

Either sample Both samples Minimum Median Maximum

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Bromoform, dissolved 1 4 2 2 4.7 6.0 7.4

Camphor, dissolved 1 4 1 1 9.8 9.8 9.8

Carbaryl, dissolved 1 4 1 1 7.4 7.4 7.4

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), 

dissolved

1 4 3 3 0 0 1.2

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), 

whole water

1 7 3 3 7.8 30 40

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), dissolved

1 4 2 2 5.1 5.8 6.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), whole water

1 7 2 2 15 33 50

Indole, dissolved 1 4 2 2 12 13 15

Isophorone, dissolved 1 4 1 1 5.6 5.6 5.6

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

dissolved

1 4 2 2 4.5 28 52

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

whole water

1 7 1 1 11 11 11

Octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO), 

dissolved

1 4 1 1 19 19 19

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

3 4 1 1 46 46 46

para-Cresol, dissolved 1 4 2 2 0 6.8 14

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 1 4 3 3 0 2.2 9.5

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole water 1 7 1 1 12 12 12

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 1 4 1 1 10 10 10

Phenol, dissolved 3 4 1 1 55 55 55

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 1 4 1 1 20 20 20

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 1 4 3 3 0 5.4 7.7

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 1 7 3 3 0 5.2 8.0

Triclosan, dissolved 1 4 2 2 0 9.1 18

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), dissolved 1 4 2 2 0 3.2 6.5

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole 

water

1 7 2 2 1.2 13 26

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 1 4 3 3 0 3.4 4.1

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 1 7 1 1 5.9 5.9 5.9

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, dissolved 1 4 1 1 5.3 5.3 5.3
Supplemental Information 69

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

2 7 2 1 4.5 4.5 4.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, dissolved 1 4 3 3 2.9 3.5 7.1

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

2 7 3 2 1.7 16 30

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

1 4 2 2 0 3.3 6.6

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, whole 

water

1 7 2 2 22 30 38

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 1 7 1 1 9.5 9.5 9.5

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 1 7 1 1 23 23 23

Carbazole, dissolved 1 4 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0

Fluoranthene, dissolved 1 4 1 1 5.6 5.6 5.6

Naphthalene, dissolved 1 4 1 1 4.0 4.0 4.0

Phenanthrene, dissolved 1 4 1 1 6.5 6.5 6.5

Phenanthrene, whole water 1 7 2 2 4.3 31 58

Pyrene, dissolved 1 4 1 1 0 0 0

Pyrene, whole water 3 7 1 1 68 68 68

Sterol compounds (SCs)

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 1 4 2 2 17 26 35

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 1 7 2 2 20 27 33

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 1 4 1 1 29 29 29

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 3 4 1 1 55 55 55

Cholesterol, dissolved 1 4 2 2 0 16 32

Cholesterol, whole water 2 7 6 5 1.9 29 49

1

When compound was detected at concentrations greater than the study reporting level in either sample of a primary/replicate sample pair, compound was always detected in both samples; median relative percent difference acceptable (less than 40 percent); field replicate results judged to be acceptable.

2

For one primary/replicate sample pair, compound was detected at a concentration greater than the study reporting level in either the primary or replicate sample, but not both; median relative percent difference acceptable (less than 40 percent); all other quality-assurance/quality-control results for compound were acceptable; field replicate results judged to be acceptable.

3Compound was detected at a concentration greater than the study reporting level in both samples of a single primary/replicate sample pair; relative percent 

difference exceeded 40 percent; all other quality-assurance/quality-control results for compound were acceptable; field replicate results judged to be acceptable.

4Compound was detected at a concentration greater than the study reporting level in multiple primary/replicate sample pairs; median relative percent difference exceeded 40 percent; compound excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of emerging contaminants in drinking water, wastewater effluents, and the Big Sioux River.

Table 12. Statistical summaries for field replicate samples for organic wastewater compounds (OWCs) detected in any sample for any 

primary/replicate sample pair.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC)]

Compound Footnote

Statistical summary of field replicate results

Number

of field 

primary/

replicate 

sample

pairs

Number of field 

primary/replicate sample pairs 

that compound was detected at 

concentration greater than study 

reporting level in:

Summary statistics for relative 

percent differences for

primary/replicate sample pairs that

the compound was detected

in both samples

Either sample Both samples Minimum Median Maximum
70 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 13. Statistical summaries for environmental matrix-spike samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg 

and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

matrix spike 

samples

Minimum 

percent 

recovery

Median

percent 

recovery

Maximum 

percent 

recovery

Percent 

recovery

RSD

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, dissolved 1 1 10 42 60 71 16

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 3 10 -9.3 40 52 46

Caffeine, dissolved 1 2 10 29 33 45 15

Caffeine, dissolved 4 1 3 67 110 120 29

Caffeine, whole water 3 1 3 89 94 100 7.7

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 3 10 4.9 19 33 48

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 3 10 8.3 23 32 44

Codeine, dissolved 1 3 10 38 70 140 49

Cotinine, dissolved 1 2 10 31 41 56 23

Cotinine, dissolved 4 1 3 100 110 120 6.1

Cotinine, whole water 3 1 3 48 63 73 21

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 2 10 39 46 81 27

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 3 10 5.9 12 30 60

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 3 10 8.2 11 29 55

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 3 10 0 .22 20 250

Furosemide, dissolved 1 3 10 0 8.0 49 120

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 3 10 0 0 17 210

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 3 10 0 0 35 320

Metformin, dissolved 1 3 10 0 1.5 9.3 120

Miconazole, dissolved 1 3 10 0 0 30 320

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 3 10 0 11 42 78

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 1 10 33 51 64 24

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 3 10 0 7.7 22 83

Warfarin, dissolved 1 3 10 0 29 46 54

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 3 10 0.0 3.3 16 110

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 3 10 0 9.6 46 120

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 3 10 0 11 42 92

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 3 9 10 18 32 40

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Atrazine, whole water 3 1 3 110 120 160 19

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 1 3 88 96 110 9.9

Metolachlor, whole water 3 1 3 53 69 82 21

Prometon, dissolved 4 1 3 100 110 120 7.2

Prometon, whole water 3 1 3 80 100 110 15

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 1 3 69 69 84 12

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 3 3 3 23 23 45 42

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether, 

whole water

3 1 3 58 72 72 12

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, whole 

water

3 3 3 39 110 230 78
Supplemental Information 71

Table 13. Statistical summaries for environmental matrix-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg 

and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

matrix spike 

samples

Minimum 

percent 

recovery

Median

percent 

recovery

Maximum 

percent 

recovery

Percent 

recovery

RSD

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), dissolved 4 1 3 95 97 100 5.2

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), whole water 3 1 3 62 81 85 16

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole (BHA), 

dissolved

4 1 3 84 87 92 4.9

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole (BHA), 

whole water

3 3 3 3.0 7.2 63 140

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 4 1 3 100 110 120 11

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 1 3 71 98 100 19

4-normal-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 3 71 100 110 21

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 3 84 85 98 8.9

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 3 80 100 110 16

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 3 71 94 94 15

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, dissolved 4 3 3 180 210 220 10

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, whole water 3 2 3 130 140 200 23

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

4 1 3 84 88 100 10

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), whole 

water

3 1 3 58 71 72 12

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 1 3 100 100 110 3.1

Acetophenone, whole water 3 1 3 67 81 98 20

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 1 3 86 88 97 6.4

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 1 3 80 81 90 6.4

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 1 3 96 98 110 5.3

Benzophenone, whole water 3 1 3 67 85 90 15

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, whole water 3 3 3 89 94 220 51

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 3 3 92 150 160 28

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 1 3 93 120 130 17

Bromacil, dissolved 4 3 3 100 130 130 11

Bromacil, whole water 3 1 3 78 110 110 17

Camphor, dissolved 4 1 3 94 96 100 3.7

Camphor, whole water 3 1 3 62 81 94 20

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 1 3 78 83 96 11

Carbaryl, whole water 3 3 3 140 150 170 10

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 1 3 63 87 97 21

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 1 3 44 63 72 23

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), 

dissolved

4 1 3 96 100 110 8.4

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), 

whole water

3 1 3 67 92 99 20

Diazinon, dissolved 4 1 3 96 96 100 3.1

Diazinon, whole water 3 1 3 62 81 90 18

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 3 3 13 16 21 23

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 1 3 75 94 94 12

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 1 3 71 90 94 15
72 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 3 3 42 43 46 4.8

D-Limonene, whole water 3 3 3 7.1 7.6 24 75

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), dissolved

4 1 3 71 93 110 20

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), whole water

3 1 3 53 79 81 22

Indole, dissolved 4 1 3 84 87 97 7.7

Indole, whole water 3 1 3 58 63 72 11

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 1 3 92 96 100 4.9

Isoborneol, whole water 3 1 3 62 81 90 18

Isophorone, dissolved 4 1 3 92 100 100 6.1

Isophorone, whole water 3 1 3 67 90 94 18

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), dissolved 4 3 3 46 46 59 15

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), whole water 3 3 3 10 10 26 57

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 1 3 88 91 100 7.5

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 1 3 62 76 81 13

Menthol, dissolved 4 1 3 88 110 120 15

Menthol, whole water 3 1 3 67 81 85 13

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 1 3 96 100 110 7.0

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 1 3 62 94 100 25

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 1 3 92 96 97 2.7

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 1 3 58 76 85 19

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 84 120 120 20

Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO), 

whole water

3 1 3 80 98 100 13

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate (NP1EO), 

whole water

3 1 3 89 100 110 10

Octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 78 100 110 17

Octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO), 

whole water

3 1 3 72 84 91 12

Octylphenol monoethoxylate (OP1EO), 

dissolved

4 1 3 60 95 100 27

Octylphenol monoethoxylate (OP1EO), 

whole water

3 1 3 54 69 77 18

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 1 3 91 100 110 7.4

para-Cresol, whole water 3 1 3 75 85 85 6.9

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 4 1 3 77 96 100 16

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole water 3 1 3 76 85 92 9.3

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 1 3 83 88 93 5.6

Pentachlorophenol, whole water 3 1 3 83 85 85 1.7

Phenol, dissolved 4 1 3 93 100 110 8.6

Table 13. Statistical summaries for environmental matrix-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg 

and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

matrix spike 

samples

Minimum 

percent 

recovery

Median

percent 

recovery

Maximum 

percent 

recovery

Percent 

recovery

RSD
Supplemental Information 73

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)—Continued

Phenol, whole water 3 1 3 58 72 90 22

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 3 3 27 37 46 26

Tetrachloroethylene, whole water 3 3 3 5.8 6.3 17.5 67

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 91 92 110 11

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 1 3 62 81 94 20

Triclosan, dissolved 4 1 3 92 110 110 11

Triclosan, whole water 3 1 3 110 110 120 4.9

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), dissolved 4 1 3 110 110 130 7.9

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole water 3 1 3 80 93 99 11

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 88 110 120 16

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 3 1 3 71 90 110 20

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 120 120 130 6.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole water 3 1 3 80 88 90 6.1

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 100 110 120 5.2

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole water 3 1 3 80 100 100 14

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, dissolved 4 1 3 110 120 120 4.9

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 1 3 98 110 110 7.0

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 86 89 92 3.6

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 3 3 44 49 72 26

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 87 88 92 3.2

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole water 3 3 3 43 44 72 31

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 86 90 92 3.8

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 3 3 44 45 76 33

Anthracene, dissolved 4 1 3 96 100 110 5.3

Anthracene, whole water 3 1 3 75 76 98 16

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 1 3 67 82 88 14

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 1 3 53 63 67 12

Carbazole, dissolved 4 1 3 120 120 130 5.7

Carbazole, whole water 3 1 3 84 99 110 14

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 1 3 82 99 110 13

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 1 3 71 75 95 16

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 1 3 75 77 80 3.4

Naphthalene, whole water 3 3 3 40 44 67 29

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 1 3 90 95 100 5.5

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 1 3 70 71 87 13

Pyrene, dissolved 4 1 3 66 86 88 15

Pyrene, whole water 3 1 3 58 62 82 19

Sterol compounds (SCs)

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 1 3 70 92 95 16

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 3 1 3 73 100 100 20

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1 3 58 93 95 26

Table 13. Statistical summaries for environmental matrix-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg 

and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

matrix spike 

samples

Minimum 

percent 

recovery

Median

percent 

recovery

Maximum 

percent 

recovery

Percent 

recovery

RSD
74 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Sterol compounds (SCs)—Continued

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 2 3 140 160 210 21

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1 3 53 78 91 26

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 3 3 100 200 240 38

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 1 3 66 84 90 16

Cholesterol, whole water 3 1 3 82 90 120 21

1Median spike recovery within acceptable range (50–120 percent), and median spike recovery RSD acceptable (less than 40 percent); matrix-spike results 

judged to be acceptable.

2Median spike recovery outside acceptable range (50–120 percent), but median spike recovery RSD acceptable (less than 40 percent) and all other qualityassurance/quality-control results acceptable; matrix-spike results judged to be acceptable.

3Median spike recovery outside of acceptable range ( 50–120 percent), and/or median spike recovery RSD unacceptable (greater than 40 percent); compound 

excluded from analyses and discussion related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in Big Sioux River and wastewater effluents.

Table 13. Statistical summaries for environmental matrix-spike samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg 

and others (2002). RSD, relative standard deviation]

Compound

Analytical 

method 

number

Footnote

Number of 

matrix spike 

samples

Minimum 

percent 

recovery

Median

percent 

recovery

Maximum 

percent 

recovery

Percent 

recovery

RSD
Supplemental Information 75

Table 14. Results for field-measured properties and constituents in water samples.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near Renner, 

SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–26–2003

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Property or constituent

Discharge, instantaneous (ft3/s) 93.7 1,700 e530 e65 e30 e500 e1,200

Turbidity (NTU) e27 e304 -- e69 -- -- e48

Barometric pressure (mm Hg) 730 714 720 727 737 722 739

Dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

14.2 6.1 8.1 6.2 15.7 13.1 --

pH (standard units) 8.7 7.6 7.8 8.5 8.0 7.8 8.1

Specific conductance (μS/cm) 911 528 1,080 744 1,230 520 805

Water temperature (°C) 20.4 18.1 22.3 25.1 .1 .0 18.4

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion

channel

at North Drive, at

Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at

North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month-dayyear)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003 05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915 1130 1145 1000 1530

Property or constituent

Discharge, 

instantaneous 

(ft3

/s)

-- -- -- -- -- 63.6 1990 221 5140

Turbidity (NTU) -- -- -- -- e<1 e21 e335 38 760

Barometric 

pressure (mm 

Hg)

720 725 740 721 739 734 715 731 716

Dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

3.9 7.6 10.6 6.1 -- 8.8 7.6 10.2 10.0

pH (standard 

units)

8.3 8.7 8.9 8.9 8.8 7.8 7.7 8.1 7.9

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

773 571 820 636 563 908 515 662 430

Water temperature 

(°C)

20.5 23.6 11.1 12.2 16.2 14.0 16.8 14.6 17.5
76 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 14. Results for field-measured properties and constituents in water samples.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeter of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from Sioux 

Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month-day-year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004 09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020 1030 1100 1630

Property or constituent

Discharge, 

instantaneous 

(ft3/s)

e28 e20 e21 e31 e24 e47 e76 290 5,300

Turbidity (NTU) e3 -- -- 49 1 6 34 58 676

Barometric pressure 

(mm Hg)

734 731 724 743 732 720 733 733 719

Dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

7.7 8.4 7.8 6.9 7.7 9.1 9.6 8.2 8.6

pH (standard units) 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.0 6.8 7.2 8.3 7.7 7.8

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm)

1,440 1,760 1,690 1,420 1,640 1,320 1,100 821 501

Water temperature 

(°C)

22.8 9.8 12.0 18.9 16.6 16.0 22.1 14.2 17.7

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month-day-year)

08–16–2001 09–11–2002 01–23–2003 03–20–2003 06–25–2003 05–17–2004 05–31–2004

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Property or constituent

Discharge, instantaneous 

(ft3

/s)

626 73.7 36.9 778 937 249 6,040

Turbidity (NTU) -- 25 -- -- 205 39 310

Barometric pressure 

(mm Hg)

728 733 747 724 739 731 718

Dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

-- 11.8 13.6 12.7 10.3 10.7 9.0

pH (standard units) 7.8 8.5 7.9 7.6 7.8 8.1 7.4

Specific conductance 

(μS/cm)

1,120 1,160 1,750 546 426 877 406

Water temperature (°C) 20.9 23.5 0.0 1.9 21.5 16.0 16.8
Supplemental Information 77

Table 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in water samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). ND, not determined; UD, 

undetected, laboratory reporting level not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site, US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–26–2003

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Compound

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, 

dissolved

1 0.030 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144

Acetaminophen, 

dissolved

1 ND <.036 <.036 <.036 <.036 e.0003 e.032 <.036

Caffeine, dissolved 1 .022 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016 e.015 <.016 <.016

Caffeine, dissolved 4 ND <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Caffeine, whole water 3 .17 <.5 e.12 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.049 <.5

Carbamazepine, 

dissolved

1 ND e.0047 <.011 <.011 .0082 e.030 <.011 e.0071

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012

Codeine, dissolved 1 ND <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015

Cotinine, dissolved 1 .0008 <.014 <.014 <.014 e.0060 e.0081 e.0092 e.0084

Cotinine, dissolved 4 ND <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

Cotinine, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dehydronifedipine, 

dissolved

1 .0042 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 ND <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016

Diphenhydramine, 

dissolved

1 ND <.015 <.015 <.015 <.015 e.0022 <.015 <.015

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 ND <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014

Furosemide, dissolved 1 ND <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 ND <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042

Metformin, dissolved 1 ND UD UD UD UD e.0058 UD UD

Miconazole, dissolved 1 ND <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 .023 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023

Thiabendazole, 

dissolved

1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Warfarin, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012
78 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in water samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). ND, not determined; UD, 

undetected, laboratory reporting level not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Compound

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, dissolved 1 0.030 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 ND <.036 <.036 <.036 <.036 <.036

Caffeine, dissolved 1 .022 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016

Caffeine, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Caffeine, whole water 3 .17 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012

Codeine, dissolved 1 ND <.015 <.015 e.0058 <.015 <.015

Cotinine, dissolved 1 .0008 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014

Cotinine, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Cotinine, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 .0042 <.015 <.015 e.0020 <.015 <.015

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 ND <.016 <.016 e.0017 <.016 <.016

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 ND <.015 <.015 e.0024 <.015 <.015

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 ND <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014

Furosemide, dissolved 1 ND <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 ND <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042

Metformin, dissolved 1 ND UD UD UD UD UD

Miconazole, dissolved 1 ND <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 .023 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Warfarin, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012
Supplemental Information 79

Table 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in water samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). ND, not determined; UD, 

undetected, laboratory reporting level not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff 

Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Compound

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, dissolved 1 0.030 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 --

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 ND <.036 .67 <.036 --

Caffeine, dissolved 1 .022 e.0037 .028 .31 --

Caffeine, dissolved 4 ND <.5 <.5 .54 <0.5

Caffeine, whole water 3 .17 <.5 <.5 .51 --

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 --

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 --

Codeine, dissolved 1 ND <.015 <.015 <.015 --

Cotinine, dissolved 1 .0008 e.0070 e.0032 .030 --

Cotinine, dissolved 4 ND <1 <1 e.24 <1

Cotinine, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 .0042 <.015 <.015 <.015 --

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 ND <.016 <.016 <.016 --

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 ND <.015 <.015 <.015 --

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 ND <.014 <.014 <.014 --

Furosemide, dissolved 1 ND <.039 <.039 <.039 --

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 --

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 ND <.042 <.042 <.042 --

Metformin, dissolved 1 ND UD UD UD --

Miconazole, dissolved 1 ND <.018 <.018 <.018 --

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 --

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 .023 <.023 <.023 <.023 --

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 --

Warfarin, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 --
80 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in water samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). ND, not determined; UD, 

undetected, laboratory reporting level not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytica

l method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Compound

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, dissolved 1 0.030 <0.144 <0.144 e0.048 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 ND e.020 <.036 <.036 e.0018 <.036 <.036

Caffeine, dissolved 1 .022 <.016 .081 .047 .035 <.016 .059

Caffeine, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- e.14 e.13

Caffeine, whole water 3 .17 e.051 e.13 e.082 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 ND .080 .91 .11 e.061 .21 .12

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 ND <.012 .90 .23 <.012 <.012 <.012

Codeine, dissolved 1 ND .029 .26 .12 e.0038 .059 <.015

Cotinine, dissolved 1 .0008 e.021 .027 e.022 e.0143 <.014 .056

Cotinine, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- <1 e.25

Cotinine, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 .0042 e.011 <.015 <.015 e.0010 <.015 e.0025

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 ND e.010 .079 .054 <.016 .063 <.016

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 ND .043 .10 .079 e.0057 .10 .018

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 ND <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014

Furosemide, dissolved 1 ND <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 ND <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042

Metformin, dissolved 1 ND UD .21 UD UD UD UD

Miconazole, dissolved 1 ND <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 ND <.013 .16 .090 <.013 <.013 <.013

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 .023 <.023 .054 .039 <.023 <.023 <.023

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Warfarin, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012
Supplemental Information 81

Table 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in water samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others 

(2002). ND, not determined; UD, undetected, laboratory reporting level not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from Sioux Falls

wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Compound

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, dissolved 1 0.030 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144

Acetaminophen, dissolved 1 ND <.036 e.0521 e.032

Caffeine, dissolved 1 .022 .034 .17 <.016

Caffeine, dissolved 4 ND -- e.26 <.5

Caffeine, whole water 3 .17 <.5 e.19 <.5

Carbamazepine, dissolved 1 ND .038 e.0070 <.011

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012

Codeine, dissolved 1 ND e.0065 <.015 <.015

Cotinine, dissolved 1 .0008 e.011 .017 <.014

Cotinine, dissolved 4 ND -- <1 <1

Cotinine, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1

Dehydronifedipine, dissolved 1 .0042 e.0029 <.015 <.015

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 ND e.0042 <.016 <.016

Diphenhydramine, dissolved 1 ND e.0035 <.015 <.015

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 ND <.014 <.014 <.014

Furosemide, dissolved 1 ND <.039 <.039 <.039

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 ND <.042 <.042 <.042

Metformin, dissolved 1 ND UD UD UD

Miconazole, dissolved 1 ND <.018 <.018 <.018

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 .023 <.023 <.023 <.023

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011

Warfarin, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012
82 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 15. Analytical results for human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs) in water samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002). ND, not determined; UD, 

undetected, laboratory reporting level not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–2001 09–11–2002 01–23–2003 03–20–2003 06–25–2003 05–17–2004 05–31–2004

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Compound

1,7-Dimethylxanthine, 

dissolved

1 0.030 <0.144 e0.034 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144 <0.144

Acetaminophen, 

dissolved

1 ND <.036 <.036 <.036 e.031 e.0037 <.036 e.0045

Caffeine, dissolved 1 .022 <.016 .10 .040 e.015 .075 .15 <.016

Caffeine, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- -- e.32 <.5

Caffeine, whole water 3 .17 <.5 e.28 e.084 e.064 e.084 e.29 <.5

Carbamazepine, 

dissolved

1 ND <.011 .030 .083 <.011 e.067 e.0071 <.011

Cimetidine, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 .19 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012

Codeine, dissolved 1 ND <.015 e.0092 .11 e.0099 e.0069 e.0033 <.015

Cotinine, dissolved 1 .0008 e.0008 .025 e.021 e.025 e.018 .022 e.0049

Cotinine, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Cotinine, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dehydronifedipine, 

dissolved

1 .0042 <.015 e.0026 <.015 <.015 e.0025 <.015 <.015

Diltiazem, dissolved 1 ND <.016 <.016 .038 <.016 <.016 <.016 <.016

Diphenhydramine, 

dissolved

1 ND <.015 <.015 .028 <.015 e.0079 <.015 <.015

Fluoxetine, dissolved 1 ND <.014 <.014 e.0046 <.014 <.014 <.014 <.014

Furosemide, dissolved 1 ND <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039 <.039

Gemfibrozil, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Ibuprofen, dissolved 1 ND <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042 <.042

Metformin, dissolved 1 ND UD UD .047 UD UD UD UD

Miconazole, dissolved 1 ND <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018

Ranitidine, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 .080 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Salbutamol, dissolved 1 .023 <.023 <.023 .024 <.023 <.023 <.023 <.023

Thiabendazole, dissolved 1 ND <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Warfarin, dissolved 1 ND <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012 <.012
Supplemental Information 83

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–

2004

05–31–

2004

08–15–

2001

09–09–

2002

01–22–

2003

03–19–

2003

06–26–

2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Compound

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -- -- -- -- --

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 -- -- -- -- --

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, dissolved 2 .3 <.01 <.01 <0.10 -- -- -- --

Anhydrotetracycline, dissolved 2 .15 <.01 <.01 <.10 -- -- -- --

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.004 <.004 <.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

Carbadox, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 -- -- -- -- --

Chlorotetracycline, dissolved 2 .056 <.01 <.01 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 .033 <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 -- -- -- -- --

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 -- -- -- -- --

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.01 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.01 <.01 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 .025 .019 <.01 <.02 -- -- -- --

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 .046 .055 <.01 -- <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Flumequine, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.05 -- -- -- --

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 -- -- -- -- --

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 .02 -- -- <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Minocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.01 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 .15 <.005 <.005 -- -- -- -- --

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.01 -- -- -- -- --

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 -- -- -- -- --

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 <.05 -- -- -- --

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.01 <.01 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 -- -- -- -- --

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 -- -- -- -- --
84 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Compound—Continued

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 0.5 -- -- <0.5 -- -- -- --

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 .01 <0.005 <0.01 <.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sulfachlorpyridazine, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 -- -- -- -- --

Sulfadimethoxine, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 .02 <.005 <.005 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 .05 -- -- <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 ND <.064 <.064 <.064 <.064 e.027 <.064 <.064

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 .014 .026 <.005 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1.6 <.01 <.01 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 .02 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Tylosin, dissolved 2 .07 <.005 <.01 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 .1 <.005 <.01 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1
Supplemental Information 85

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Compound

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 0.01 -- -- -- -- --

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, dissolved 2 .3 -- -- -- -- --

Anhydrotetracycline, dissolved 2 .15 -- -- -- -- --

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 ND <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

Carbadox, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --

Chlorotetracycline, dissolved 2 .056 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 .033 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- --

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 .025 <.02 -- -- -- --

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 .046 -- <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Flumequine, dissolved 2 .05 -- -- -- -- --

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- --

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Minocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 .15 -- -- -- -- --

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 .005 <.05 -- -- -- --

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- --
86 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 

2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Compound—Continued

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- --

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sulfachlorpyridazine, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- --

Sulfadimethoxine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 ND <.064 <.064 <.064 <.064 <.064

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 .014 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1.6 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Tylosin, dissolved 2 .07 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 .1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1
Supplemental Information 87

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations 

were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others 

(2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Compound

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, dissolved 2 .3 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Anhydrotetracycline, dissolved 2 .15 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.004 <.004 <.004 --

Carbadox, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Chlorotetracycline, dissolved 2 .056 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 .033 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- --

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.009 <.009 <.009 --

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 .025 .018 <.005 .010 <.01

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 .046 <.01 .041 <.01 <.01

Flumequine, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.005 <.01 <.01

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 .02 -- -- -- --

Minocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 .15 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.005 <.01 <.01

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01
88 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 0.5 -- -- -- --

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 .01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfachlorpyridazine, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 .005 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfadimethoxine, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 .02 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 .01 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 .05 -- -- -- --

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 ND <.064 <.064 <.064 --

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 .014 .018 <.005 <.005 <.005

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 .05 <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1.6 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 <.013 --

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.005 <.01 <.01

Tylosin, dissolved 2 .07 <.01 <.005 <.01 <.01

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 .1 <.01 <.005 <.01 <.01

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations 

were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others 

(2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 89

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Compound

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 0.01 -- -- -- -- <0.01 <0.01

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, dissolved 2 .3 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Anhydrotetracycline, dissolved 2 .15 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 ND <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <.004 <.004

Carbadox, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Chlorotetracycline, dissolved 2 .056 <.02 3.7 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 .033 <.01 .62 <.01 <.01 <.005 .072

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.01 <.01

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 -- --

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 .025 -- -- -- -- 1.1 .16

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 .046 .050 .92 <.02 .20 .38 .55

Flumequine, dissolved 2 .05 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 -- --

Minocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 .15 -- -- -- -- .16 .015

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.005

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.01 <.01

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01
90 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- --

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 .01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfachlorpyridazine, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Sulfadimethoxine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 -- --

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 ND .15 <.064 <.064 e.042 .34 <.064

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 .014 <.05 1.1 <.05 .15 .099 .016

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1.6 <.02 17 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 ND <.013 .21 .13 e.018 .11 .021

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 .39 .090 .050 .10 .028

Tylosin, dissolved 2 .07 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 .070 <.005

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 .1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.01 <.005

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 91

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and 

concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method 

number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; 

<, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Compound

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 0.01 -- <0.01 <0.01

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, dissolved 2 .3 -- <.01 <.01

Anhydrotetracycline, dissolved 2 .15 -- <.01 <.01

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 ND <0.004 <.004 <.004

Carbadox, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01

Chlorotetracycline, dissolved 2 .056 <.02 <.01 <.01

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 .033 <.01 <.005 <.005

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- <.005 <.005

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.01 <.01

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 -- --

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.009 <.009 <.009

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 .025 -- .088 <.01

Erythromycin-H2O, dissolved 2 .046 <.02 .042 <.01

Flumequine, dissolved 2 .05 -- <.005 <.005

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- <.005 <.005

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 -- --

Minocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 .15 -- .010 <.005

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 .005 -- <.005 <.005

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.01 <.01

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 .01 -- <.01 <.01
92 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 0.05 -- -- --

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 .01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfachlorpyridazine, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 .005 -- <.005 <.005

Sulfadimethoxine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 -- --

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 1 ND e.036 <.064 <.064

Sulfamethoxazole, dissolved 2 .014 <.05 .047 <.005

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1.6 <.02 <.01 <.01

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 ND <.013 e.0062 <.013

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 .020 <.01

Tylosin, dissolved 2 .07 <.02 <.01 <.01

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 .1 <.1 <.01 <.01

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and 

concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method 

number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; 

<, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 93

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–2001 09–11–2002 01–23–2003 03–20–2003 06–25–2003 05–17–2004 05–31–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Compound

Amoxicillin, dissolved 2 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- <0.01 <0.01

Ampicillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Anhd-Cl-tetracycline, 

dissolved

2 .3 <0.10 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Anhydrotetracycline, 

dissolved

2 .15 <.10 -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Azithromycin, dissolved 1 ND <.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <.004 <.004

Carbadox, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Cefotaxime, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Chlorotetracycline, 

dissolved

2 .056 <.02 <.02 .53 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Ciprofloxacin, dissolved 2 .033 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Clinafloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Cloxacillin, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Demeclocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Doxycycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.01 <.01

Enrofloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 -- --

Erythromycin, dissolved 1 ND e.018 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Erythromycin, dissolved 2 .025 <.02 -- -- -- -- .096 <.01

Erythromycin-H2O, 

dissolved

2 .046 -- <.02 .27 <.02 <.02 .038 <.01

Flumequine, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Lincomycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 .030 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Lomefloxacin, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Methotrexate, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 -- --

Minocycline, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Norfloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Ofloxacin, dissolved 2 .15 -- -- -- -- -- .0080 <.005

Ormetoprim, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01
94 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Oxacillin, dissolved 2 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- <0.01 <0.01

Oxolinic acid, dissolved 2 .005 <0.05 -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Oxytetracycline, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <.01 <.01

Penicillin G, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Penicillin V, dissolved 2 .01 -- -- -- -- -- <.01 <.01

Roxarsone, dissolved 2 .5 <.5 -- -- -- -- -- --

Roxithromycin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Sarafloxacin, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfachlorpyridazine, 

dissolved

2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Sulfadiazine, dissolved 2 .005 -- -- -- -- -- <.005 <.005

Sulfadimethoxine, 

dissolved

2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfamerazine, dissolved 2 .02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethazine, dissolved 2 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.005

Sulfamethizole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 -- --

Sulfamethoxazole, 

dissolved

1 ND <.064 e.023 .20 <.064 .064 <.064 <.064

Sulfamethoxazole, 

dissolved

2 .014 <.05 <.05 .31 <.05 <.05 .061 <.005

Sulfathiazole, dissolved 2 .05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.005 <.005

Tetracycline, dissolved 2 1.6 <.02 <.02 2.50 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Trimethoprim, dissolved 1 ND <.013 <.013 .11 <.013 .029 e.0042 <.013

Trimethoprim, dissolved 2 .02 <.01 <.01 .12 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Tylosin, dissolved 2 .07 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.01

Virginiamycin, dissolved 2 .1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.01 <.01

Table 16. Analytical results for human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs) in water samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter. Analytical method number: 1, Cahill and others (2004); 2, 

U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory. ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 95

Table 17. Analytical results for major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, 

micrograms per kilogram; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection

(month–day–year)

05–18–

2004

05–31–

2004

08–15–

2001

09–09–

2002

01–22–

2003

03–19–

2003

06–26–

2003

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Compound

Atrazine, whole water 3 0.0002 <0.5 2.5 -- e0.024 <0.5 e0.051 0.17

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 .071 e.071 e.35 -- -- -- -- --

Metolachlor, whole water 3 .004 <.5 e.30 e0.013 <.5 <.5 e.12 e.10

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Prometon, dissolved 4 .13 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Prometon, whole water 3 .02 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 6–27–2003

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Compound

Atrazine, whole water 3 0.0002 -- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 .071 -- -- -- -- --

Metolachlor, whole water 3 .004 e0.0040 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Prometon, dissolved 4 .13 -- -- -- -- --

Prometon, whole water 3 .02 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --
96 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 17. Analytical results for major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Station identification number and name (site label)

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Compound

Atrazine, whole water 3 0.0002 <0.5 2.7 e0.30 2.2

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 .071 e.080 .51 e.13 .95

Metolachlor, whole water 3 .004 <.5 e.37 e.065 .65

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Prometon, dissolved 4 .13 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Prometon, whole water 3 .02 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Compound

Atrazine, whole water 3 0.0002 <0.5 <0.5 e0.062 0.083 <0.5 e0.26

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 .071 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Metolachlor, whole water 3 .004 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.072 <.5 <.5

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Prometon, dissolved 4 .13 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Prometon, whole water 3 .02 e.030 <.5 <.5 e.10 <.5 <.5

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --
Supplemental Information 97

Table 17. Analytical results for major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data summary 

and analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Compound

Atrazine, whole water 3 0.0002 e0.018 e0.27 2.2

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 .071 -- e.11 .78

Metolachlor, whole water 3 .004 <.5 e.048 .65

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Prometon, dissolved 4 .13 -- e.13 <.5

Prometon, whole water 3 .02 e.020 <.5 <.5

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–

2001

09–11–

2002

01–23–

2003

03–20–

2003

06–25–

2003

05–17–

2004

05–31–

2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Compound

Atrazine, whole water 3 0.0002 -- <0.5 <0.5 e0.054 0.41 e0.28 2

Atrazine, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Metolachlor, dissolved 4 .071 -- -- -- -- -- e.12 .50

Metolachlor, whole water 3 .004 <0.5 <.5 <.5 e.052 e.34 e.052 e.40

Metolachlor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Prometon, dissolved 4 .13 -- -- -- -- -- e.16 <.5

Prometon, whole water 3 .02 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.40 e.076 <.5

Prometon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --
98 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5,

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–

2004

05–31–

2004

08–15–

2001

09–09–

2002

01–22–

2003

03–19–

2003

06–26–

2003

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Compound

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

dissolved

4 0.08 <0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether, whole 

water

3 .5 <.5 <.5 -- <10 <10 <10 --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl 

isocyanate, whole 

water

4 ND <.5 <.5 -- <.5 <.5 <.5 --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl 

isocyanate, bottom 

sediment

3 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole 

(skatol), dissolved

5 .02 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole 

(skatol), whole water

3 .019 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole 

(skatol), bottom 

sediment

5 30 μg/kg -- -- -- 51 μg/kg -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy

anisole (BHA), 

dissolved

4 5 <5 <5 -- -- -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy

anisole (BHA), whole 

water

3 ND <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

4-Cumylphenol, 

dissolved

5 1 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --
Supplemental Information 99

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5,

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Compound—Continued

4-Cumylphenol, whole 

water

3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

dissolved

4 1 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

whole water

3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

dissolved

4 1 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

whole water

3 .26 <1 <1 e.17 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

5-Methyl-1Hbenzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 ND <2 <2 -- -- -- -- --

5-Methyl-1Hbenzotriazole, whole 

water

3 .33 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthale

ne (AHTN), dissolved

4 .23 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthale

ne (AHTN), whole 

water

3 .048 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthale

ne (AHTN), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Acetophenone, 

dissolved

4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Acetophenone, whole 

water

3 .08 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5
100 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Acetophenone, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Anthraquinone, 

dissolved

4 0.12 <0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

Anthraquinone, whole 

water

3 .098 <.5 <.5 <0.5 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Anthraquinone, bottom 

sediment

5 4 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Benzophenone, 

dissolved

4 .066 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Benzophenone, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.12

Benzophenone, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate, whole water

3 ND <2 <2 -- <.5 e2.1 <.5 <.5

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 ND <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, whole 

water

3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Bromacil, dissolved 4 ND <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Bromacil, whole water 3 .068 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Camphor, dissolved 4 .029 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Camphor, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Camphor, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 .14 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

Carbaryl, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Chlorpyrifos, whole 

water

3 .014 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 101

Compound—Continued

Chlorpyrifos, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET), 

dissolved

4 0.034 e0.034 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET), 

whole water

3 .042 <.5 <.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 e0.074

N,N-Diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET), 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Diazinon, dissolved 4 .5 <5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Diazinon, whole water 3 .027 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 ND <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Diethyl phthalate, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 -- <.5 <.5 <.5 --

Diethyl phthalate, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 ND <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

D-Limonene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), 

dissolved

4 .061 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), 

whole water

3 .045 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
102 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Indole, dissolved 4 0.042 <0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

Indole, whole water 3 .015 <.5 <.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1.9 μg/kg -- -- -- e42 μg/kg -- -- --

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Isoborneol, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoborneol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Isophorone, dissolved 4 .047 e.054 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Isophorone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isophorone, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), dissolved

4 ND <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Isoquinoline, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Menthol, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Menthol, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 103

Compound—Continued

Methyl salicylate, 

dissolved

4 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

Methyl salicylate, whole 

water

3 .017 <.5 <.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Methyl salicylate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 3.5 <5 <5 -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), whole 

water

3 .66 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), bottom 

sediment

5 65 μg/kg -- -- -- <500 μg/kg -- -- --

Nonylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), whole 

water

3 .55 <2 <2 -- <5 <5 <5 --

Nonylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- <500 μg/kg -- -- --

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 .19 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- <1

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), whole 

water

3 .14 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 --

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 .39 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- <1

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
104 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole 

water

3 5.2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 --

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 .079 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

para-Cresol, whole 

water

3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, bottom 

sediment

5 21 μg/kg -- -- -- 430 μg/kg -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol 

(NP), dissolved

4 .83 <5 <5 -- -- -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol 

(NP), whole water

3 .64 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

para-Nonylphenol 

(NP), bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- <500 μg/kg -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, 

dissolved

4 .42 <2 <2 -- -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, 

whole water

3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, 

bottom sediment

5 200 μg/kg -- -- -- <200 μg/kg -- -- --

Phenol, dissolved 4 .34 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Phenol, whole water 3 .94 <.5 <.5 e.59 e.65 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenol, bottom sediment 5 19 μg/kg -- -- -- e49 μg/kg -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, 

dissolved

4 ND <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .18 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, 

whole water

3 .059 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 105

Compound—Continued

Tributyl phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Triclosan, dissolved 4 0.16 <1 <1 -- -- -- -- --

Triclosan, whole water 3 .15 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Triclosan, bottom 

sediment

5 2.9 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Triethyl citrate (ethyl 

citrate), dissolved

4 .21 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Triethyl citrate (ethyl 

citrate), whole water

3 .051 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .066 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Triphenyl phosphate, 

whole water

3 .033 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl) 

phosphate, dissolved

4 .4 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl) 

phosphate, whole 

water

3 .13 <.5 <.5 e.13 <.5 <.5 e.24 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl) 

phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl) 

phosphate, dissolved

4 .074 e.079 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl) 

phosphate, whole 

water

3 .1 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 1.4

Tri(2-chloroethyl) 

phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, dissolved

4 .13 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, whole 

water

3 .071 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- <100 μg/kg -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
106 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5,

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Compound

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 0.08 -- -- -- -- --

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, whole water

3 .5 -- <10 <10 <10 --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

whole water

4 ND -- <.5 <.5 <.5 --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

bottom sediment

3 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

dissolved

5 .02 -- -- -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), whole 

water

3 .019 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), bottom 

sediment

5 30 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), dissolved

4 5 -- -- -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), whole water

3 ND <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 5 1 -- -- -- -- --

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 -- -- -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 -- -- -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 .26 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Supplemental Information 107

Compound—Continued

4-tert-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- --

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, whole 

water

3 0.33 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

4 .23 -- -- -- -- --

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

whole water

3 .048 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Acetophenone, whole water 3 .08 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 .12 -- -- -- -- --

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 .098 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthraquinone, bottom sediment 5 4 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 .066 -- -- -- -- --

Benzophenone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, whole 

water

3 ND -- <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Bromacil, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Bromacil, whole water 3 .068 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Camphor, dissolved 4 .029 -- -- -- -- --

Camphor, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)
108 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Camphor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 0.14 -- -- -- -- --

Carbaryl, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 .014 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), dissolved

4 .034 -- -- -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), whole water

3 .042 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Diazinon, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Diazinon, whole water 3 .027 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 ND -- <.5 <.5 <.5 --

Diethyl phthalate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

D-Limonene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), dissolved

4 .061 -- -- -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), whole 

water

3 .045 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Indole, dissolved 4 .042 -- -- -- -- --

Indole, whole water 3 .015 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1.9 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 109

Compound—Continued

Isoborneol, whole water 3 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Isoborneol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isophorone, dissolved 4 .047 -- -- -- -- --

Isophorone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 136 <.5

Isophorone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Menthol, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Menthol, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 .017 e.014 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 3.5 -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), whole water

3 .66 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), bottom sediment

5 65 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), whole water

3 .55 -- <5 <5 <5 --

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 .19 -- -- -- -- <1

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)
110 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), whole water

3 0.14 <1 <1 <1 <1 --

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 .39 -- -- -- -- <1

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole water

3 5.2 <1 <1 <1 <1 --

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 .079 -- -- -- -- --

para-Cresol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, bottom sediment 5 21 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 4 .83 -- -- -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole 

water

3 .64 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

para-Nonylphenol (NP), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 .42 -- -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, bottom 

sediment

5 200 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Phenol, dissolved 4 .34 -- -- -- -- --

Phenol, whole water 3 .94 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenol, bottom sediment 5 19 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .18 -- -- -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 .059 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tributyl phosphate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Triclosan, dissolved 4 .16 -- -- -- -- --

Triclosan, whole water 3 .15 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Triclosan, bottom sediment 5 2.9 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 111

Compound—Continued

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), 

dissolved

4 0.21 -- -- -- -- --

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole 

water

3 .051 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .066 -- -- -- -- --

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 3 .033 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .4 -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .13 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .074 -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .1 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .13 -- -- -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

whole water

3 .071 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)
112 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5,

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Compound

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 0.08 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, whole water

3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

whole water

4 ND <.5 e.053 e.35 <.5

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

bottom sediment

3 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

dissolved

5 .02 <1 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), whole 

water

3 .019 <1 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), bottom 

sediment

5 30 μg/kg -- -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), dissolved

4 5 <5 <5 <5 <5

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), whole water

3 ND <5 <5 <5 <5

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 5 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 .26 <1 <1 e.23 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --
Supplemental Information 113

Compound—Continued

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 ND <2 <2 <2 <2

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, whole 

water

3 0.33 <2 <2 <2 <2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

4 .23 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

whole water

3 .048 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, whole water 3 .08 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 .12 <.5 <.5 e.14 <.5

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 .098 <.5 <.5 e.10 <.5

Anthraquinone, bottom sediment 5 4 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 .066 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.12

Benzophenone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, whole 

water

3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 ND <1 <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Bromacil, dissolved 4 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, whole water 3 .068 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Camphor, dissolved 4 .029 <.5 <.5 e.029 <.5

Camphor, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Camphor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
114 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 0.14 <1 <1 <1 <1

Carbaryl, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 .014 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), dissolved

4 .034 e.051 <.5 e.085 <.5

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), whole water

3 .042 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Diazinon, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, whole water 3 .027 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 ND <1 <1 <1 <1

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diethyl phthalate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 ND e.068 <.5 <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 e1.8

D-Limonene, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), dissolved

4 .061 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), whole 

water

3 .045 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Indole, dissolved 4 .042 <.5 <.5 e.080 <.5

Indole, whole water 3 .015 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1.9 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 115

Compound—Continued

Isoborneol, whole water 3 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Isoborneol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Isophorone, dissolved 4 .047 e.049 e.25 e.055 <.5

Isophorone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isophorone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

dissolved

4 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Menthol, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 .017 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 3.5 e4.9 <5 e3.6 <5

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), whole water

3 .66 <5 <5 <5 <5

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), bottom sediment

5 65 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), whole water

3 .55 <2 <2 <2 <2

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 .19 e.20 <1 e.19 <1

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
116 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), whole water

3 0.14 <1 <1 <1 <1

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 .39 e.40 <1 e.39 <1

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole water

3 5.2 <1 <1 <1 <1

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 .079 <1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, bottom sediment 5 21 μg/kg -- -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 4 .83 e.83 <5 e.88 <5

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole 

water

3 .64 <5 <5 <5 <5

para-Nonylphenol (NP), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 .42 <2 <2 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, bottom 

sediment

5 200 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Phenol, dissolved 4 .34 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenol, whole water 3 .94 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenol, bottom sediment 5 19 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .18 <.5 <.5 e.25 <.5

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 .059 <.5 <.5 e.12 <.5

Tributyl phosphate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Triclosan, dissolved 4 .16 <1 <1 <1 <1

Triclosan, whole water 3 .15 <1 <1 <1 <1

Triclosan, bottom sediment 5 2.9 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 117

Compound—Continued

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), 

dissolved

4 0.21 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole 

water

3 .051 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .066 <.5 <.5 e.088 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 3 .033 <.5 <.5 e.033 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .4 <.5 <.5 .91 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .13 <.5 e.24 e.43 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .074 e.074 <.5 e.085 <.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .1 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .13 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

whole water

3 .071 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
118 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5,

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Compound

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 0.08 -- -- -- -- e0.16 e0.53

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <0.5 e0.084 e0.11 e.094 e.20

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, whole water

3 .5 <10 <10 <10 -- <.5 <.5

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

whole water

4 ND e.32 e.21 e.23 -- e3.9 e2.7

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

bottom sediment

3 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

dissolved

5 .02 -- -- -- -- <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), whole 

water

3 .019 <1 <1 e.019 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), bottom 

sediment

5 30 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), dissolved

4 5 -- -- -- -- <5 <5

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), whole water

3 ND <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 5 1 -- -- -- -- <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 -- -- -- -- <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 -- -- -- -- <1 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 .26 <1 <1 <1 <1 e.19 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --
Supplemental Information 119

Compound—Continued

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- -- --

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, whole 

water

3 0.33 0.33 1.9 e0.52 <2 e0.72 <2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

4 .23 -- -- -- -- 2.1 1.7

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

whole water

3 .048 .66 1.3 .84 1.1 1.9 .88

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, whole water 3 .08 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.12 <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 .12 -- -- -- -- <.5 e.12

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 .098 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthraquinone, bottom sediment 5 4 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 .066 -- -- -- -- e.20 e.14

Benzophenone, whole water 3 ND e.12 e.23 e.077 e.15 e.14 e.064

Benzophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, whole 

water

3 ND e27 <.5 <.5 <.5 <2 5.5

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Bromacil, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Bromacil, whole water 3 .068 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Camphor, dissolved 4 .029 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Camphor, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Camphor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 .14 -- -- -- -- <1 e.14

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
120 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Carbaryl, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 0.5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 .014 e.014 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), dissolved

4 .034 -- -- -- -- e.2 e.14

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), whole water

3 .042 <.5 e.012 e.22 <.5 e.21 e.070

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Diazinon, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Diazinon, whole water 3 .027 e.027 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 -- <.5 <.5

Diethyl phthalate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), dissolved

4 .061 -- -- -- -- e.40 e.32

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), whole 

water

3 .045 e.16 e.29 e.18 e.21 e.28 e.12

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Indole, dissolved 4 .042 -- -- -- -- e.080 <.5

Indole, whole water 3 .015 <.5 <.5 e.017 <.5 <.5 <.5

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1.9 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Isoborneol, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 121

Compound—Continued

Isoborneol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Isophorone, dissolved 4 .047 -- -- -- -- <0.5 <0.5

Isophorone, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.5 <.5

Isophorone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Menthol, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Menthol, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 .017 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 3.5 -- -- -- -- e4.3 e1.6

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), whole water

3 .66 e1.4 e6.2 e6.2 e2.1 <5 e.66

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), bottom sediment

5 65 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), whole water

3 .55 e.43 e1.5 e1.7 e.94 <2 e.50

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 .19 -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), whole water

3 .14 <1 <1 <1 e.13 e.067 <1

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
122 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 .39 -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole water

3 5.2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 --

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 .079 -- -- -- -- e.11 e.079

para-Cresol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, bottom sediment 5 21 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 4 .83 -- -- -- -- e1.9 e1.1

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole 

water

3 .64 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 e.64

para-Nonylphenol (NP), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 .42 -- -- -- -- <2 e.42

Pentachlorophenol, whole water 3 ND e.040 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, bottom 

sediment

5 200 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Phenol, dissolved 4 .34 -- -- -- -- e.30 .72

Phenol, whole water 3 .94 e1.8 <.5 <.5 e.38 <.5 e.15

Phenol, bottom sediment 5 19 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- <.5 e.087

Tetrachloroethylene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .18 -- -- -- -- e.25 e.19

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 .059 e.21 e.46 e.25 e.28 e.11 e.059

Tributyl phosphate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Triclosan, dissolved 4 .16 -- -- -- -- e.24 e.16

Triclosan, whole water 3 .15 e.097 e.18 e.17 e.14 e.14 <1

Triclosan, bottom sediment 5 2.9 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), 

dissolved

4 .21 -- -- -- -- 1.1 e.32

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 123

Compound—Continued

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole 

water

3 0.051 e0.27 0.86 0.77 0.61 0.86 e0.17

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .066 -- -- -- -- e.12 e.074

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 3 .033 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.079 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .4 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .13 <.5 e3.2 .85 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .074 -- -- -- -- .69 2.9

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .1 e.34 e.36 e.32 e.34 .58 1.7

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .13 -- -- -- -- e.42 e.47

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

whole water

3 .071 e.25 e.39 e.16 e.24 e.24 e.32

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. 

Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
124 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottomsediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5,

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Compound

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, dissolved 4 0.08 -- <0.5 <0.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, whole water 3 ND <0.05 <.5 <.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, whole water

3 .5 <10 <.5 <.5

2,2’,4,4’-Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 -- --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

whole water

4 ND e.050 e4.3 <.5

3,4-Dichlorophenyl isocyanate, 

bottom sediment

3 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), 

dissolved

5 .02 -- e.020 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), whole 

water

3 .019 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole (skatol), bottom 

sediment

5 30 μg/kg 59 μg/kg -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), dissolved

4 5 -- <5 <5

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy anisole 

(BHA), whole water

3 ND <5 <5 <5

4-Cumylphenol, dissolved 5 1 -- <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 -- <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, dissolved 4 1 -- <1 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, whole water 3 .26 <1 <1 <1
Supplemental Information 125

Compound—Continued

4-tert-Octylphenol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 ND -- <2 <2

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, whole 

water

3 0.33 <2 <2 <2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

dissolved

4 .23 -- e.27 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

whole water

3 .048 e.14 e.21 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Acetophenone, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, whole water 3 .08 <.5 <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Anthraquinone, dissolved 4 .12 -- e.12 <.5

Anthraquinone, whole water 3 .098 <.5 e.1 <.5

Anthraquinone, bottom sediment 5 4 μg/kg e4.55 μg/kg -- --

Benzophenone, dissolved 4 .066 -- e.066 e.11

Benzophenone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzophenone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, whole 

water

3 ND e7.5 <2 <2

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg 240 μg/kg -- --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 ND -- <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Bromacil, dissolved 4 ND -- <.5 <.5

Bromacil, whole water 3 .068 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Camphor, dissolved 4 .029 -- e.033 <.5

Camphor, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottomsediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
126 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Camphor, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 0.14 -- <1 <1

Carbaryl, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1

Chlorpyrifos, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, whole water 3 .014 <.5 <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), dissolved

4 .034 -- e.10 <.5

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), whole water

3 .042 e.064 e.051 <.5

N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

(DEET), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Diazinon, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Diazinon, whole water 3 .027 <.5 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 ND -- <1 <1

Dichlorvos, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1

Diethyl phthalate, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Diethyl phthalate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 ND -- <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), dissolved

4 .061 -- e.065 <.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), whole 

water

3 .045 <.5 e.045 <.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran (HHCB), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Indole, dissolved 4 .042 -- e.097 <.5

Indole, whole water 3 .015 <.5 <.5 <.5

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1.9 μg/kg 56 μg/kg -- --

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottomsediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
127 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Isoborneol, whole water 3 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Isoborneol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Isophorone, dissolved 4 .047 -- <.5 <.5

Isophorone, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Isophorone, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), 

dissolved

4 ND -- <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene (cumene), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Menthol, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Menthol, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Methyl salicylate, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, whole water 3 .017 <.5 <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, bottom sediment 5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 3.5 -- e5.0 <5

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), whole water

3 .66 <5 <5 <5

Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), bottom sediment

5 65 μg/kg e110 μg/kg -- --

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), whole water

3 .55 <5 <2 <2

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg <500 μg/kg -- --

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 .19 -- e.24 <1

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), whole water

3 .14 <1 <1 <1

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottomsediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
128 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Octylphenol diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 .39 -- e0.4 <1

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole water

3 5.2 <1 e.43 <1

Octylphenol monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 .079 -- <1 <1

para-Cresol, whole water 3 1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, bottom sediment 5 21 μg/kg e65 μg/kg -- --

para-Nonylphenol (NP), dissolved 4 .83 -- e1.2 <5

para-Nonylphenol (NP), whole 

water

3 .64 <5 <5 <5

para-Nonylphenol (NP), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg <500 μg/kg -- --

Pentachlorophenol, dissolved 4 .42 -- <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, bottom 

sediment

5 200 μg/kg <200 μg/kg -- --

Phenol, dissolved 4 .34 -- e.26 <.5

Phenol, whole water 3 .94 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenol, bottom sediment 5 19 μg/kg e19 μg/kg -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, dissolved 4 ND -- <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Tributyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .18 -- e.20 <.5

Tributyl phosphate, whole water 3 .059 e.082 e.094 <.5

Tributyl phosphate, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Triclosan, dissolved 4 .16 -- <1 <1

Triclosan, whole water 3 .15 <1 <1 <1

Triclosan, bottom sediment 5 2.9 μg/kg e6.27 μg/kg -- --

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), 

dissolved

4 .21 -- e.23 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottomsediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 129

Compound—Continued

Triethyl citrate (ethyl citrate), whole 

water

3 0.051 e0.051 e0.12 <0.5

Triphenyl phosphate, dissolved 4 .066 -- e.069 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, whole water 3 .033 <.5 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .4 -- e.41 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .13 e.13 <.5 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .074 -- e.20 e.089

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, whole 

water

3 .1 e.10 e.15 <.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .13 -- e.13 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

whole water

3 .071 e.071 <.5 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg <100 μg/kg -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottomsediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
130 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–

2001

09–11–2002 01–23–

2003

03–20–

2003

06–25–

2003

05–17–

2004

05–31–

2004

Time of sample 

collection

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Compound

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

dissolved

4 0.08 -- -- -- -- -- <0.5 <0.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

whole water

3 ND <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.5 <.5

1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

2,2’,4,4’-

Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, whole water

3 .5 -- <10 <10 <10 -- <.5 <.5

2,2’,4,4’-

Tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

3,4-Dichlorophenyl 

isocyanate, whole 

water

4 ND -- e.052 <.5 e.053 -- e2.0 <.5

3,4-Dichlorophenyl 

isocyanate, bottom 

sediment

3 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

3-Methyl-1H-indole 

(skatol), dissolved

5 .02 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole 

(skatol), whole water

3 .019 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

3-Methyl-1H-indole 

(skatol), bottom 

sediment

5 30 μg/kg -- e34 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy

anisole (BHA), 

dissolved

4 5 -- -- -- -- -- <5 <5

3-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxy

anisole (BHA), whole 

water

3 ND <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

4-Cumylphenol, 

dissolved

5 1 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1
Supplemental Information 131

Compound—Continued

4-Cumylphenol, whole 

water

3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Cumylphenol, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

dissolved

4 1 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

whole water

3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-normal-Octylphenol, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

dissolved

4 1 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

whole water

3 .26 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 e.16 <1

4-tert-Octylphenol, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

5-Methyl-1Hbenzotriazole, 

dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <2 <2

5-Methyl-1Hbenzotriazole, whole 

water

3 .33 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthale

ne (AHTN), dissolved

4 .23 -- -- -- -- -- e.23 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthale

ne (AHTN), whole 

water

3 .048 e.048 e.11 .56 e.096 <.5 e.20 <.5

7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-

hexamethyl 

tetrahydronaphthale

ne (AHTN), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Acetophenone, 

dissolved

4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Acetophenone, whole 

water

3 .08 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
132 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Acetophenone, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Anthraquinone, 

dissolved

4 .12 -- -- -- -- -- e0.12 <0.5

Anthraquinone, whole 

water

3 .098 <0.5 <.5 <0.5 e0.098 e0.42 <.5 <.5

Anthraquinone, bottom 

sediment

5 4 μg/kg -- e8.0 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Benzophenone, 

dissolved

4 .066 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Benzophenone, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 e.098 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzophenone, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate, whole water

3 ND -- <.5 e2.6 e1.4 <.5 e.41 <2

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Bisphenol-A, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, whole 

water

3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bisphenol-A, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- e180 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Bromacil, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Bromacil, whole water 3 .068 <.5 e.068 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Bromacil, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Camphor, dissolved 4 .029 -- -- -- -- -- e.030 <.5

Camphor, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Camphor, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Carbaryl, dissolved 4 .14 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Carbaryl, whole water 3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 e.79 <1 <1

Chlorpyrifos, 

dissolved

4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Chlorpyrifos, whole 

water

3 .014 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 133

Compound—Continued

Chlorpyrifos, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

N,N-Diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET), 

dissolved

4 0.034 -- -- -- -- -- e0.10 <0.5

N,N-Diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET), 

whole water

3 .042 <0.5 e0.094 e0.076 <0.5 e0.34 e.042 <.5

N,N-Diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET), 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Diazinon, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Diazinon, whole water 3 .027 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.089 <.5 <.5

Diazinon, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Dichlorvos, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Dichlorvos, whole 

water

3 ND <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Diethyl phthalate, 

whole water

3 ND -- <.5 <.5 <.5 -- <.5 <.5

Diethyl phthalate, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

D-Limonene, dissolved 4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

D-Limonene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran 

(HHCB), dissolved

4 .061 -- -- -- -- -- e.061 <.5

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran 

(HHCB), whole water

3 .045 <.5 <.5 e.13 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
134 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethyl 

cyclopenta-g-2-

benzopyran 

(HHCB), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Indole, dissolved 4 0.042 -- -- -- -- -- e0.042 <0.5

Indole, whole water 3 .015 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 e0.015 <0.5 <.5 <.5

Indole, bottom sediment 5 1.9 μg/kg -- e1.9 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isoborneol, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Isoborneol, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoborneol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isophorone, dissolved 4 .047 -- -- -- -- -- e.047 <.5

Isophorone, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isophorone, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isopropylbenzene 

(cumene), bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Isoquinoline, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Isoquinoline, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Menthol, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Menthol, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Menthol, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Metalaxyl, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Metalaxyl, whole water 3 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 135

Compound—Continued

Metalaxyl, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Methyl salicylate, 

dissolved

4 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- <0.5 <0.5

Methyl salicylate, 

whole water

3 .017 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.5 <.5

Methyl salicylate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), dissolved

4 3.5 -- -- -- -- -- <5 <5

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), whole 

water

3 .66 <5 <5 e3.0 e2.9 <5 <5 <5

Nonylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(NP2EO), bottom 

sediment

5 65 μg/kg -- e65 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Nonylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), whole 

water

3 .55 -- <5 e.82 <5 <5 <2 <2

Nonylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(NP1EO), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- <500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), dissolved

4 .19 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), whole 

water

3 .14 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Octylphenol 

diethoxylate 

(OP2EO), bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), dissolved

4 .39 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
136 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Compound—Continued

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), whole 

water

3 5.2 <1 <1 <1 e0.42 <1 <1 <1

Octylphenol 

monoethoxylate 

(OP1EO), bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

para-Cresol, dissolved 4 .079 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

para-Cresol, whole 

water

3 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

para-Cresol, bottom 

sediment

5 21 μg/kg -- e21 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

para-Nonylphenol 

(NP), dissolved

4 .83 -- -- -- -- -- <5 <5

para-Nonylphenol 

(NP), whole water

3 .64 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

para-Nonylphenol 

(NP), bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- <500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol, 

dissolved

4 .42 -- -- -- -- -- <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, 

whole water

3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 e3.6 <2 <2

Pentachlorophenol, 

bottom sediment

5 200 μg/kg -- <200 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Phenol, dissolved 4 .34 -- -- -- -- -- e.24 <.5

Phenol, whole water 3 .94 e.63 e.61 e.56 <.5 e.28 <.5 e.22

Phenol, bottom 

sediment

5 19 μg/kg -- e32 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene, 

dissolved

4 ND -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 e.069 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Tetrachloroethylene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tributyl phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .18 -- -- -- -- -- e.24 <.5

Tributyl phosphate, 

whole water

3 .059 <.5 e.092 e.25 <.5 e.63 e.12 <.5

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
Supplemental Information 137

1Very high likelihood that detection of compound was due to contamination; value was ignored in analyses and discussion.

Compound—Continued

Tributyl phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Triclosan, dissolved 4 0.16 -- -- -- -- -- <1 <1

Triclosan, whole water 3 .15 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Triclosan, bottom 

sediment

5 2.9 μg/kg -- e2.9 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Triethyl citrate (ethyl 

citrate), dissolved

4 .21 -- -- -- -- -- e.21 <.5

Triethyl citrate (ethyl 

citrate), whole water

3 .051 <.5 e.084 e.38 e.070 <.5 e.10 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, 

dissolved

4 .066 -- -- -- -- -- e.066 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, 

whole water

3 .033 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Triphenyl phosphate, 

bottom sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-butoxyethyl) 

phosphate, dissolved

4 .4 -- -- -- -- -- e.40 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl) 

phosphate, whole 

water

3 .13 e.22 <.5 .89 e.33 e.87 <.5 <.5

Tri(2-butoxyethyl) 

phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tri(2-chloroethyl) 

phosphate, dissolved

4 .074 -- -- -- -- -- e.20 e.095

Tri(2-chloroethyl) 

phosphate, whole 

water

3 .1 <.5 e.18 e.22 <.5 e.38 e.14 <.5

Tri(2-chloroethyl) 

phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, dissolved

4 .13 -- -- -- -- -- e.13 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, whole 

water

3 .071 <.5 e.075 e.26 .5 e.24 <.5 <.5

Tri(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate, bottom 

sediment

5 100 μg/kg -- <100 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Table 18. Analytical results for household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) in water and bottom-sediment 

samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
138 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–

2004

05–31–

2004

08–15–

2001

09–09–

2002

01–22–

2003

03–19–

2003

06–26–

2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Compound

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 0.04 <0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .053 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 20 μg/kg -- -- -- e21 μg/kg -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .06 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Anthracene, dissolved 4 .082 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Anthracene, whole water 3 .06 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthracene, bottom 

sediment

5 10 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, 

dissolved

4 .5 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole 

water

3 .03 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom 

sediment

5 25 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Carbazole, dissolved 5 .036 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Carbazole, whole water 3 .22 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbazole, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 .017 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 .15 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5
Supplemental Information 139

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram;; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Compound—Continued

Fluoranthene, bottom 

sediment

5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- e9.3 μg/kg -- -- --

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 0.049 <0.5 <0.5 -- -- -- -- --

Naphthalene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Naphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 8.2 μg/kg -- -- -- <50 μg/kg -- -- --

Phenanthrene, 

dissolved

4 .02 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene, whole 

water

3 .019 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenanthrene, bottom 

sediment

5 7.6 μg/kg -- -- -- e7.6 μg/kg -- -- --

Pyrene, dissolved 4 .012 <.5 <.5 -- -- -- -- --

Pyrene, whole water 3 .04 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- e9.3 μg/kg -- -- --
140 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Compound

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 0.04 -- -- -- -- --

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .053 -- -- -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 20 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 .06 -- -- -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Anthracene, dissolved 4 .082 -- -- -- -- --

Anthracene, whole water 3 .06 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthracene, bottom sediment 5 10 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 .03 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom sediment 5 25 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Carbazole, dissolved 5 .036 -- -- -- -- --

Carbazole, whole water 3 .22 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbazole, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 .017 -- -- -- -- --

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 .15 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Fluoranthene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 .049 -- -- -- -- --

Naphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Naphthalene, bottom sediment 5 8.2 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 .02 -- -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 .019 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenanthrene, bottom sediment 5 7.6 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Pyrene, dissolved 4 .012 -- -- -- -- --

Pyrene, whole water 3 .04 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --
Supplemental Information 141

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds 

with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff 

Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Compound

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 0.04 <0.5 <0.5 e0.024 e0.13

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 e.075

1-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .053 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.077

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 e.035

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 20 μg/kg -- -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 .06 <.5 <.5 e.018 e.11

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 e.045

2-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Anthracene, dissolved 4 .082 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.082

Anthracene, whole water 3 .06 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.052

Anthracene, bottom sediment 5 10 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 .5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 .03 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.13

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom sediment 5 25 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Carbazole, dissolved 5 .036 <.5 <.5 e.050 <.5

Carbazole, whole water 3 .22 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbazole, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 .017 <.5 <.5 e.037 e.035

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 .15 <.5 e.030 e.076 e.22

Fluoranthene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 .049 e.026 <.5 e.049 e.19

Naphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 e.092

Naphthalene, bottom sediment 5 8.2 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 .02 e.021 <.5 e.045 e.11

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 .019 e.019 e.024 e.054 e.15

Phenanthrene, bottom sediment 5 7.6 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Pyrene, dissolved 4 .012 <.5 <.5 e.018 e.039

Pyrene, whole water 3 .04 <.5 e.020 e.047 e.22

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- --
142 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are 

micrograms per liter. unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). 

μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–

2002

01–24–

2003

03–21–

2003

06–26–

2003

05–18–

2004

05–30–

2004

Time of sample collection (24-hour) 1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Compound

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 0.04 -- -- -- -- <0.5 <0.5

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.5 <.5

1-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 .053 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 20 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 .06 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Anthracene, dissolved 4 .082 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Anthracene, whole water 3 .06 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthracene, bottom sediment 5 10 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 .03 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom sediment 5 25 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Carbazole, dissolved 5 .036 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Carbazole, whole water 3 .22 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbazole, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 .017 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 .15 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.14

Fluoranthene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 .049 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Naphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Naphthalene, bottom sediment 5 8.2 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 .02 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 .019 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

Phenanthrene, bottom sediment 5 7.6 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Pyrene, dissolved 4 .012 -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Pyrene, whole water 3 .04 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.018 <.5

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --
Supplemental Information 143

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for 

compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater 

compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, 

Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data summary 

and analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Compound

1-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 0.04 -- e0.024 e0.11

1-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <.5 e.072

1-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .053 -- <.5 e.053

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, whole 

water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 20 μg/kg e36 μg/kg -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, dissolved 4 .06 -- e.029 e.077

2-Methylnaphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 e.041

2-Methylnaphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Anthracene, dissolved 4 .082 -- <.5 <.5

Anthracene, whole water 3 .06 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthracene, bottom sediment 5 10 μg/kg e11 μg/kg -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 .5 -- <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole water 3 .03 <.5 <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom sediment 5 25 μg/kg e26 μg/kg -- --

Carbazole, dissolved 5 .036 -- e.037 <.5

Carbazole, whole water 3 .22 <.5 <.5 <.5

Carbazole, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg <50 μg/kg -- --

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 .017 -- e.026 e.030

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 .15 <.5 e.087 e.10

Fluoranthene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg e31 μg/kg -- --

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 .049 -- e.060 e.16

Naphthalene, whole water 3 ND <.5 <.5 e.093

Naphthalene, bottom sediment 5 8.2 μg/kg e12 μg/kg -- --

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 .02 -- e.032 e.076

Phenanthrene, whole water 3 .019 <.5 e.052 e.12

Phenanthrene, bottom sediment 5 7.6 μg/kg e38 μg/kg -- --

Pyrene, dissolved 4 .012 -- e.020 e.027

Pyrene, whole water 3 .04 <.5 e.067 e.086

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg e22 μg/kg -- --
144 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–

2001

09–11–2002 01–23–

2003

03–20–

2003

06–25–

2003

05–17–

2004

05–31–

2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Compound

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 0.04 -- -- -- -- -- <0.5 e0.067

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 ND <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.5 e.040

1-Methylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .053 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 20 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

dissolved

4 .06 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 e.060

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

whole water

3 ND <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.027

2-Methylnaphthalene, 

bottom sediment

5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Anthracene, dissolved 4 .082 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Anthracene, whole water 3 .06 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.068 <.5 <.5 <.5

Anthracene, bottom 

sediment

5 10 μg/kg -- e14 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Benzo[a]pyrene, dissolved 4 .5 -- -- -- -- -- <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, whole 

water

3 .03 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.063 e.016 <.5 <.5

Benzo[a]pyrene, bottom 

sediment

5 25 μg/kg -- e27 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Carbazole, dissolved 5 .036 -- -- -- -- -- e.036 <.5

Carbazole, whole water 3 .22 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.013 <.5 <.5

Carbazole, bottom sediment 5 50 μg/kg -- <50 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Fluoranthene, dissolved 4 .017 -- -- -- -- -- e.017 e.029

Fluoranthene, whole water 3 .15 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.17 e.044 e.059 e.030
Supplemental Information 145

Compound—Continued

Fluoranthene, bottom 

sediment

5 9.3 μg/kg -- e40 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Naphthalene, dissolved 4 0.049 -- -- -- -- -- <0.5 e0.084

Naphthalene, whole water 3 ND <0.5 <0.5 e0.094 <0.5 <0.5 <.5 e.047

Naphthalene, bottom 

sediment

5 8.2 μg/kg -- e8.2 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene, dissolved 4 .02 -- -- -- -- -- e.029 e.047

Phenanthrene, whole 

water

3 .019 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.14 <.5 <.5 e.045

Phenanthrene, bottom 

sediment

5 7.6 μg/kg -- e58 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Pyrene, dissolved 4 .012 -- -- -- -- -- e.012 e.025

Pyrene, whole water 3 .04 <.5 <.5 <.5 e.12 e.028 e.040 e.022

Pyrene, bottom sediment 5 9.3 μg/kg -- e23 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Table 19. Analytical results for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with 

acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms 

per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms 

per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; --, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
146 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 20. Analytical results for sterol compounds (SCs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee 

and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; 

--, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–

2004

05–31–

2004

08–15–

2001

09–09–2002 01–22–

2003

03–19–

2003

06–26–

2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Compound

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

dissolved

4 0.77 <2 <2 -- -- -- -- --

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

whole water

3 .26 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

bottom sediment

5 190 μg/kg -- -- -- e190 μg/kg -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1.2 <2 <2 -- -- -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, whole 

water

3 .57 <2 <2 e1.6 e0.70 <2 <2 <2

beta-Sitosterol, bottom 

sediment

5 250 μg/kg -- -- -- 1,600 μg/kg -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, 

dissolved

4 1.8 <2 <2 -- -- -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, whole 

water

3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, 

bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- e330 μg/kg -- -- --

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 .94 <2 <2 -- -- -- -- --

Cholesterol, whole water 3 .64 e1.8 e1.1 e1.7 e.84 <2 <2 2.8

Cholesterol, bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- 1,600 μg/kg -- -- --
Supplemental Information 147

Table 20. Analytical results for sterol compounds (SCs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee 

and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; 

--, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant

finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Compound

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 0.77 -- -- -- -- --

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 3 .26 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, bottom 

sediment

5 190 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1.2 -- -- -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 .57 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Sitosterol, bottom sediment 5 250 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1.8 -- -- -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 .94 -- -- -- -- --

Cholesterol, whole water 3 .64 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Cholesterol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Compound

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 0.77 e0.80 <2 e0.77 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 3 .26 <2 <2 <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, bottom 

sediment

5 190 μg/kg -- -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1.2 <2 <2 e1.5 <2

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 .57 <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Sitosterol, bottom sediment 5 250 μg/kg -- -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1.8 e1.6 <2 e1.2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- --

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 .94 e1.6 <2 e1.3 <2

Cholesterol, whole water 3 .64 e1.2 e1.2 e1.3 e1.2

Cholesterol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- --
148 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 20. Analytical results for sterol compounds (SCs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee 

and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; 

--, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1400 0930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Compound

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 0.77 -- -- -- -- e1.1 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole 

water

3 .26 e1.7 e1.6 e1.2 e1.8 3.9 e1.5

3-beta-Coprostanol, bottom 

sediment

5 190 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1.2 -- -- -- -- <2 <2

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 .57 e1.0 <2 <2 e.87 e2.6 <2

beta-Sitosterol, bottom 

sediment

5 250 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1.8 -- -- -- -- <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 .94 -- -- -- -- e1.4 <2

Cholesterol, whole water 3 .64 2.2 3.5 e1.9 2.8 5.4 2.9

Cholesterol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg -- -- -- -- -- --

Analytical 

method 

number

Study reporting 

level

for data 

summary and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Compound

3-beta-Coprostanol, dissolved 4 0.77 -- e0.84 e0.77

3-beta-Coprostanol, whole water 3 .26 e0.26 <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, bottom sediment 5 190 μg/kg 410 μg/kg -- --

beta-Sitosterol, dissolved 4 1.2 -- e1.4 e1.2

beta-Sitosterol, whole water 3 .57 e1.2 e3.7 <2

beta-Sitosterol, bottom sediment 5 250 μg/kg 2,200 μg/kg -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, dissolved 4 1.8 -- e1.4 e1.4

beta-Stigmastanol, whole water 3 ND <2 <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg e420 μg/kg -- --

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 .94 -- e1.5 e.94

Cholesterol, whole water 3 .64 e1.1 3.0 e.82

Cholesterol, bottom sediment 5 500 μg/kg 2,600 μg/kg -- --
Supplemental Information 149

Table 20. Analytical results for sterol compounds (SCs) in water and bottom-sediment samples.—Continued

[Shaded cells indicate concentrations greater than study reporting levels for compounds with acceptable quality assurance/quality control, and concentrations were 

used in analyses related to occurrence of organic wastewater compounds. Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. Analytical method number: 3, Lee 

and others (2004); 4, Zaugg and others (2002); 5, Burkhardt and others (2005). μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ND, not determined; e, estimated; <, less than; 

--, no data collected]

Analytical 

method 

number

Study 

reporting 

level

for data 

summary 

and 

analysis

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–

2001

09–11–

2002

01–23–

2003

03–20–

2003

06–25–

2003

05–17–

2004

05–31–

2004

Time of sample 

collection 

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Compound

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

dissolved

4 0.77 -- -- -- -- -- <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

whole water

3 .26 <2 <2 e0.89 <2 <2 <2 <2

3-beta-Coprostanol, 

bottom sediment

5 190 μg/kg -- e190 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

beta-Sitosterol, 

dissolved

4 1.2 -- -- -- -- -- <2 <2

beta-Sitosterol, whole 

water

3 .57 2.1 e.57 <2 <2 <2 e2.3 <2

beta-Sitosterol, bottom 

sediment

5 250 μg/kg -- 1,200 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

beta-Stigmastanol, 

dissolved

4 1.8 -- -- -- -- -- <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, 

whole water

3 ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

beta-Stigmastanol, 

bottom sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- e200 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --

Cholesterol, dissolved 4 .94 -- -- -- -- -- e1.0 <2

Cholesterol, whole water 3 .64 2.3 e.64 2.0 2.2 e1.8 2.4 <2

Cholesterol, bottom 

sediment

5 500 μg/kg -- 1,200 μg/kg -- -- -- -- --
150 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–26–2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- .0060 .0081 .0092 .0084

Median detected concentration -- -- -- .0060 .0081 .0092 .0084

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- .0060 .0081 .0092 .0084

Total detected concentration -- -- -- .0060 .0081 .0092 .0084

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 .0021 .0013 .025 .054

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Number of compounds detected 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration .026 -- -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration .041 -- -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration .055 -- -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration .081 -- -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) .041 0 0 0 0 0 0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 1 2 1 1 0 2 2

Minimum detected concentration .071 .35 .013 .024 -- .051 .10

Median detected concentration .071 1.4 .013 .024 -- .086 .14

Maximum detected concentration .071 2.5 .013 .024 -- .12 .17

Total detected concentration .071 2.8 .013 .024 -- .17 .27

Total load (pounds per day) .036 26 .037 .0084 -- .46 1.7

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 3 0 1 0 0 1 1

Minimum detected concentration .034 -- .13 -- -- .24 .074

Median detected concentration .054 -- .13 -- -- .24 .074

Maximum detected concentration .079 -- .13 -- -- .24 .074

Total detected concentration .17 -- .13 -- -- .24 .074

Total load (pounds per day) .084 0 .37 0 0 .65 .48

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplemental Information 151

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 2 2 0 0 1

Minimum detected concentration 1.8 1.1 1.6 .70 -- -- 2.8

Median detected concentration 1.8 1.1 1.6 .77 -- -- 2.8

Maximum detected concentration 1.8 1.1 1.7 .84 -- -- 2.8

Total detected concentration 1.8 1.1 3.3 1.5 -- -- 2.8

Total load (pounds per day) .91 10 9.4 .54 0 0 18

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 7 3 4 4 1 4 5

Minimum detected concentration .026 .35 .013 .0060 .0081 .0092 .0084

Median detected concentration .055 1.1 .87 .36 .0081 .086 .10

Maximum detected concentration 1.8 2.5 1.7 .84 .0081 .24 2.8

Total detected concentration 2.1 4.0 3.4 1.6 .0081 .42 3.2

Total load (pounds per day) 1.1 36 9.8 .55 .0013 1.1 20

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- .024 -- .051 .17

Median detected concentration -- -- -- .024 -- .051 .17

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- .024 -- .051 .17

Total detected concentration -- -- -- .024 -- .051 .17

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 .0084 0 .14 1.1

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- 2.5 -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- 2.5 -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- 2.5 -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- 2.5 -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 23 0 0 0 0 0

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Minimum detected concentration -- 2.5 -- .024 -- .051 .17

Median detected concentration -- 2.5 -- .024 -- .051 .17

Maximum detected concentration -- 2.5 -- .024 -- .051 .17

Total detected concentration -- 2.5 -- .024 -- .051 .17

Total load (pounds per day) 0 23 0 .0084 0 .14 1.1

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)
152 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–15–2001 09–09–2002 01–22–2003 03–19–2003 06–27–2003

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1100 1440 1330 1445 0915

Human pharmaceutical compounds (HPCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 1 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) -- 0 0 0 0

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0
Supplemental Information 153

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration .0040 -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) -- 0 0 0 0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433419096434200

Sioux Falls water treatment plant finished drinking water at Sioux Falls, SD

(site FDW, fig. 1)
154 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530

Pharmaceuticals (HPCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 2 2 0

Minimum detected concentration 0.0070 0.0032 0.030 --

Median detected concentration .0070 .015 .17 --

Maximum detected concentration .0070 .028 .31 --

Total detected concentration .0070 .031 .34 --

Total load (pounds per day) .0024 .33 .40 0

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Number of compounds detected 1 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration .0180 -- -- --

Median detected concentration .0180 -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration .0180 -- -- --

Total detected concentration .0180 -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) .0062 0 0 0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 1 2 2 2

Minimum detected concentration .080 .510 .13 .95

Median detected concentration .080 1.6 .22 1.58

Maximum detected concentration .080 2.7 .30 2.2

Total detected concentration .080 3.2 .43 3.2

Total load (pounds per day) .027 34 .51 87

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 6 1 12 1

Minimum detected concentration .049 .25 .029 .12

Median detected concentration .14 .25 .11 .12

Maximum detected concentration .83 .25 .91 .12

Total detected concentration 1.6 .25 3.2 .12

Total load (pounds per day) .55 2.7 3.8 3.3

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 4 9

Minimum detected concentration .019 .024 .047 .052

Median detected concentration .019 .024 .050 .13

Maximum detected concentration .019 .024 .054 .22

Total detected concentration .019 .024 .20 1.3

Total load (pounds per day) .0065 .26 .24 35
Supplemental Information 155

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 1 1

Minimum detected concentration 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

Median detected concentration 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

Maximum detected concentration 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

Total detected concentration 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

Total load (pounds per day) .41 13 1.5 33

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 11 7 21 13

Minimum detected concentration .0070 .0032 .029 .052

Median detected concentration .074 .25 .088 .15

Maximum detected concentration 1.2 2.7 1.3 2.2

Total detected concentration 2.9 4.7 5.4 5.7

Total load (pounds per day) 1.0 51 6.5 160

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 1 1 1

Minimum detected concentration -- 2.7 .30 2.2

Median detected concentration -- 2.7 .30 2.2

Maximum detected concentration -- 2.7 .30 2.2

Total detected concentration -- 2.7 .30 2.2

Total load (pounds per day) 0 29 .36 61

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 3 0 3 1

Minimum detected concentration .20 -- .19 .12

Median detected concentration .40 -- .39 .12

Maximum detected concentration .83 -- .88 .12

Total detected concentration 1.4 -- 1.46 .12

Total load (pounds per day) .49 0 1.7 3.3

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 2 4

Minimum detected concentration .019 .024 .047 .052

Median detected concentration .019 .024 .051 .14

Maximum detected concentration .019 .024 .054 .22

Total detected concentration .019 .024 .10 .55

Total load (pounds per day) .0065 .26 .12 15

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 4 2 6 6

Minimum detected concentration .019 .024 .047 .052

Median detected concentration .30 1.4 .25 .14

Maximum detected concentration .83 2.7 .88 2.2

Total detected concentration 1.4 2.7 1.86 2.9

Total load (pounds per day) .50 29 2.2 80

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion channel

at North Drive, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue,

at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)
156 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 05–18–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1400 930 1045 1135 1020 2020

Pharmaceuticals (HPCs)

Number of compounds detected 2 3 4 2 0 2

Minimum detected concentration .011 .027 .022 .014 -- .056

Median detected concentration .016 .054 .043 .025 -- .057

Maximum detected concentration .021 .081 .048 .035 -- .059

Total detected concentration .031 .16 .16 .050 -- .11

Total load (pounds per day) .0047 .017 .018 .0083 0 .029

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Number of compounds detected 1 6 1 3 6 5

Minimum detected concentration .050 .39 .090 .050 .070 .016

Median detected concentration .050 1.0 .090 .15 .27 .072

Maximum detected concentration .050 17 .090 .20 1.1 .55

Total detected concentration .050 24 .090 .40 2.2 .82

Total load (pounds per day) .0075 2.6 .010 .067 .29 .21

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 1 0 1 3 0 1

Minimum detected concentration .030 -- .062 .072 -- .26

Median detected concentration .030 -- .062 .083 -- .26

Maximum detected concentration .030 -- .062 .10 -- .26

Total detected concentration .030 -- .062 .26 -- .26

Total load (pounds per day) .0045 0 .0070 .043 0 .066

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 11 12 14 10 15 18

Minimum detected concentration .014 .12 .017 .079 .080 .074

Median detected concentration .27 .66 .29 .31 .25 .32

Maximum detected concentration 1.8 6.2 6.2 2.1 2.1 2.9

Total detected concentration 5.5 17 12 6.0 8.7 10

Total load (pounds per day) .82 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.1 2.6

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplemental Information 157

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 3 2 2 3 3 2

Minimum detected concentration 1.0 1.6 1.2 .87 2.6 1.5

Median detected concentration 1.7 2.6 1.6 1.8 3.9 2.2

Maximum detected concentration 2.2 3.5 1.9 2.8 5.4 2.9

Total detected concentration 4.9 5.1 3.1 5.5 12 4.4

Total load (pounds per day) .74 .55 .35 .91 1.5 1.1

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 18 23 22 21 24 29

Minimum detected concentration .011 .027 .017 .014 .070 .016

Median detected concentration .26 .86 .20 .21 .39 .19

Maximum detected concentration 2.2 17.0 6.2 2.8 5.4 2.9

Total detected concentration 10 46 16 12 23 16

Total load (pounds per day) 1.6 4.9 1.8 2.0 3.0 4.0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 1 1 0 1

Minimum detected concentration -- -- .062 .083 -- .26

Median detected concentration -- -- .062 .083 -- .26

Maximum detected concentration -- -- .062 .083 -- .26

Total detected concentration -- -- .062 .083 -- .26

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 .0070 .014 0 .066

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting comounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 5 5 5 4 5 8

Minimum detected concentration .014 .18 .17 .21 .20 .14

Median detected concentration .16 1.3 .84 1.0 .40 .37

Maximum detected concentration 1.4 6.2 6.2 2.1 2.1 1.7

Total detected concentration 2.3 9.5 9.1 4.4 4.8 4.6

Total load (pounds per day) .34 1.0 1.0 .73 .63 1.2

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Median detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Total detected concentration -- -- -- -- -- --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 0 0 0

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 5 5 6 5 5 9

Minimum detected concentration .014 .18 .062 .083 .20 .14

Median detected concentration .16 1.3 .51 .94 .40 .32

Maximum detected concentration 1.4 6.2 6.2 2.1 2.1 1.7

Total detected concentration 2.3 9.5 9.2 4.4 4.8 4.9

Total load (pounds per day) .34 1.02 1.0 .74 .63 1.2

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant effluent

(site WWE, fig. 1)
158 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630

Pharmaceuticals (HPCs)

Number of compounds detected 2 2 0

Minimum detected concentration .011 .017 --

Median detected concentration .022 .093 --

Maximum detected concentration .034 .17 --

Total detected concentration .045 .19 --

Total load (pounds per day) .018 .29 0

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Number of compounds detected 0 3 0

Minimum detected concentration -- .020 --

Median detected concentration -- .047 --

Maximum detected concentration -- .088 --

Total detected concentration -- .16 --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 .24 0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 2 3 2

Minimum detected concentration .018 .11 .78

Median detected concentration .019 .13 1.5

Maximum detected concentration .020 .27 2.2

Total detected concentration .038 .51 3.0

Total load (pounds per day) .016 .80 85

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 7 17 2

Minimum detected concentration .051 .020 .089

Median detected concentration .082 .13 .10

Maximum detected concentration .14 1.2 .11

Total detected concentration .64 3.9 .20

Total load (pounds per day) .26 6.0 5.7

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 4 6

Minimum detected concentration -- .037 .053

Median detected concentration -- .056 .098

Maximum detected concentration -- .067 .16

Total detected concentration -- .22 .61

Total load (pounds per day) 0 .34 17
Supplemental Information 159

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 3 2 1

Minimum detected concentration .26 3.0 .82

Median detected concentration 1.1 3.4 .82

Maximum detected concentration 1.2 3.7 .82

Total detected concentration 2.6 6.7 .82

Total load (pounds per day) 1.0 10 23

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 14 31 11

Minimum detected concentration .011 .017 .053

Median detected concentration .076 .11 .11

Maximum detected concentration 1.2 3.7 2.2

Total detected concentration 3.3 12 4.6

Total load (pounds per day) 1.3 18 132

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 1

Minimum detected concentration .018 .27 2.2

Median detected concentration .018 .27 2.2

Maximum detected concentration .018 .27 2.2

Total detected concentration .018 .27 2.2

Total load (pounds per day) .0074 .42 63

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that aresuspected endocrine-disrupting comounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 6 1

Minimum detected concentration .14 .065 .11

Median detected concentration .14 .26 .11

Maximum detected concentration .14 1.2 .11

Total detected concentration .14 2.2 .11

Total load (pounds per day) .057 3.5 3.1

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 2 2

Minimum detected concentration -- .052 .086

Median detected concentration -- .060 .103

Maximum detected concentration -- .067 .120

Total detected concentration -- .12 .21

Total load (pounds per day) 0 .19 5.9

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 2 9 4

Minimum detected concentration .018 .052 .086

Median detected concentration .079 .24 .12

Maximum detected concentration .14 1.2 2.2

Total detected concentration .16 2.6 2.5

Total load (pounds per day) .065 4.1 72

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)
160 Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample collection 

(month–day–year)

08–16–2001 09–11–2002 01–23–2003 03–20–2003 06–25–2003 05–17–2004 05–31–2004

Time of sample collection 

(24-hour)

0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 1730 1230

Pharmaceuticals (HPCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 3 3 1 2 2 1

Minimum detected concentration .0008 .025 .021 .025 .018 .022 .0049

Median detected concentration .0008 .034 .024 .025 .046 .085 .0049

Maximum detected concentration .0008 .10 .040 .025 .075 .15 .0049

Total detected concentration .0008 .16 .085 .025 .093 .17 .0049

Total load (pounds per day) .0027 .064 .017 .10 .47 .23 .16

Human and veterinary antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 6 0 0 2 0

Minimum detected concentration -- -- .030 -- -- .061 --

Median detected concentration -- -- .29 -- -- .079 --

Maximum detected concentration -- -- 2.5 -- -- .096 --

Total detected concentration -- -- 3.8 -- -- .16 --

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 .75 0 0 .21 0

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 2 3 3 2

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- .052 .34 .12 .50

Median detected concentration -- -- -- .053 .40 .16 1.3

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- .054 .41 .28 2.0

Total detected concentration -- -- -- .11 1.2 .56 2.5

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 .44 5.8 .75 81

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs)

Number of compounds detected 2 7 10 6 7 13 1

Minimum detected concentration .048 .068 .076 .015 .089 .030 .095

Median detected concentration .13 .092 .32 .097 .38 .12 .095

Maximum detected concentration .22 .18 3.0 2.9 .87 .40 .095

Total detected concentration .27 .70 6.6 3.5 3.0 1.9 .095

Total load (pounds per day) .90 .28 1.3 15 15 2.5 3.1

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 5 0 2 4

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- .063 -- .036 .045

Median detected concentration -- -- -- .12 -- .038 .064

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- .17 -- .040 .084

Total detected concentration -- -- -- .56 -- .076 .26

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 2.4 0 .10 8
Supplemental Information 161

Sterol compounds (SCs)

Number of compounds detected 2 2 2 1 1 2 0

Minimum detected concentration 2.1 .57 .89 2.2 1.8 2.3 --

Median detected concentration 2.2 .60 1.4 2.2 1.8 2.4 --

Maximum detected concentration 2.3 .64 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.4 --

Total detected concentration 4.4 1.2 2.9 2.2 1.8 4.7 --

Total load (pounds per day) 15 .48 .57 9.2 9.1 6.3 0

All organic wastewater compounds (OWCs)

Number of compounds detected 5 12 21 15 13 24 8

Minimum detected concentration .0008 .025 .021 .015 .018 .022 .0049

Median detected concentration .22 .093 .27 .096 .38 .12 .076

Maximum detected concentration 2.3 .64 3.0 2.9 1.8 2.4 2.0

Total detected concentration 4.7 2.1 13 6.4 6.0 7.5 2.9

Total load (pounds per day) 16 .82 2.7 27 30 10 93

Major agricultural herbicides (MAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- .054 .41 .28 2.0

Median detected concentration -- -- -- .054 .41 .28 2.0

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- .054 .41 .28 2.0

Total detected concentration -- -- -- .054 .41 .28 2.0

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 .23 2.1 .38 65

Household, industrial, and minor agricultural use compounds (HIACs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting comounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 4 2 1 2 0

Minimum detected concentration .048 .11 .13 .096 .089 .06 --

Median detected concentration .048 .11 .69 1.5 .089 .15 --

Maximum detected concentration .048 .11 3.0 2.9 .089 .23 --

Total detected concentration .048 .11 4.5 3.0 .089 .29 --

Total load (pounds per day) .16 .044 .90 13 .45 .39 0

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 0 0 0 4 0 1 1

Minimum detected concentration -- -- -- .063 -- .040 .045

Median detected concentration -- -- -- .094 -- .040 .045

Maximum detected concentration -- -- -- .14 -- .040 .045

Total detected concentration -- -- -- .39 -- .040 .045

Total load (pounds per day) 0 0 0 1.6 0 .054 1.5

All suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs)

Number of compounds detected 1 1 4 7 2 4 2

Minimum detected concentration .048 .11 .13 .054 .089 .040 .045

Median detected concentration .048 .11 .69 .096 .25 .15 1.0

Maximum detected concentration .048 .11 3.0 2.9 .41 .28 2.0

Total detected concentration .048 .11 4.5 3.4 .50 .61 2.0

Total load (pounds per day) .16 .044 .90 14 2.5 .82 67

Table 21. Statistical summaries of analytical results and load results for organic wastewater compounds in water samples.—Continued

[Units are micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted. --, not detected or not applicable]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2E

OP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433843096450500

Big Sioux River near

Renner, SD

(site US1, fig. 1)

433600096442400

Sioux Falls pump station intake from

Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US2, fig. 1)

43341909643

Sioux Falls water tre

finished drinking water a

(site FDW, f

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–

2004

05–31–

2004

08–15–

2001

09–09–

2002

01–22–

2003

03–19–

2003

06–26–

2003

08–15–

2001

09–09–

2002

01–22–

2003

Time of sample 

collection 

(24-hour)

1500 1800 1405 1200 1105 1130 0930 1100 1440 1330 

Number of compounds 

detected

7 3 4 4 1 4 5 1 0 0 

Human pharmaceutical 

compounds (HPCs)

-- -- -- Cotinine Cotinine Cotinine Cotinine -- -- -- 

Human and veterinary 

antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Erythromycin-H2OSulfamethoxazole

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Major agricultural 

herbicides (MAHs)

Metolachlor Atrazine

Metolachlor

Metolachlor Atrazine -- Atrazine

Metolachlor

AtrazineMetolachlor

Metolachlor -- -- 

Household, industrial, 

and minor agriculturaluse compounds (HIACs)

DEETIsophoroneTri(2-chloroethyl)

phosphate

-- Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)

phosphate

-- -- Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)

phosphate

DEET -- -- -- 

Polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Sterol compounds (SCs) Cholesterol Cholesterol betaSitosterol

Cholesterol

betaSitosterolCholesterol

-- -- Cholesterol -- -- -- 
Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.—Continued[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EOP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion

channel at North Drive, at 

Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff 

Avenue, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant ef

(site WWE, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

05–18–2004 05–31–2004 05–17–2004 05–30–2004 09–10–2002 01–24–2003 03–21–2003 06–26–2003 0

Time of sample 

collection 

(24-hour)

1130 1145 1000 1530 1400 0930 1045 1135 

Number of compounds 

detected

11 7 21 13 18 23 22 21 

Human pharmaceutical 

compounds (HPCs)

Cotinine Caffeine

Cotinine

CaffeineCotinine

-- Dehydronifedipine

Cotinine

CaffeineCotinineSalbutamol

1,7-DimethylxanthineCaffeineCotinineSalbutamol

CaffeineCotinine

Human and veterinary 

antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

Sulfamethoxazole -- -- -- Erythromycin- H2O Chloro- tetracycline

CiprofloxacinErythromycinH2OSulfamethoxazoleTetracyclineTrimethoprim

Trimethoprim ErythromycinH2O

SulfamethoxazoleTrimethoprim

EEOSTT

Major agricultural 

herbicides (MAHs)

Metolachlor Atrazine

Metolachlor

AtrazineMetolachlor

AtrazineMetolachlor

Prometon -- Atrazine Atrazine

MetolachlorPrometon
Household, industrial, 

and minor agriculturaluse compounds (HIACs)

DEETIsophoroneOP2EOOP1EONPTri(2-chloroethyl)

phosphate

Isophorone Anthraquinone

CamphorDEETIndoleIsophoroneOP2EOOP1EONPTributyl 

phosphate

Triphenyl 

phosphate

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Benzophenone 5-Methyl-1H- benzotriazole

AHTNChlorpyrifosDiazinonHHCBNP2EOPhenolTributyl 

phosphate

Triethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichlorois

opropyl)phosphate

5-Methyl-1HbenzotriazoleAHTNDEETHHCBNP2EONP1EOTributyl 

phosphate

TriclosanTriethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichlorois

opropyl)phosphate

3-Methyl-1Hindole 

(skatol)

5-Methyl-1HbenzotriazoleAHTNDEETHHCBIndoleNP2EONP1EOTributyl 

phosphate

TriclosanTriethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

AHTNAcetophenoneHHCBNP2EONP1EOTributyl 

phosphate

Triethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Triphenyl 

phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

1,5-ABDHInpaNTTTTTT

Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.—Continued[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EOP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion

channel at North Drive, at 

Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff 

Avenue, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant ef

(site WWE, fig. 1)
Polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Phenanthrene Phenanthrene Carbazole

NaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

1-Methylnaphthalene2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene2-MethylnaphthaleneAnthraceneBenzo[a]

pyrene

FluorantheneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

-- -- -- -- 

Sterol compounds (SCs) Cholesterol Cholesterol Cholesterol Cholesterol 3-betaCoprostanol

beta-SitosterolCholesterol

3-betaCoprostanolCholesterol

3-betaCoprostanolCholesterol

3-betaCoprostanolbeta-SitosterolCholesterol

3-beC

Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.—Continued[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EOP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433408096432000

Big Sioux River diversion

channel at North Drive, at 

Sioux Falls, SD

(site US3, fig. 1)

06482020

Big Sioux River at North Cliff 

Avenue, at Sioux Falls, SD

(site US4, fig. 1)

433531096394200

Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant ef

(site WWE, fig. 1)
Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.—Continued[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EOP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)

Date of sample 

collection 

(month–day–year)

09–10–2002 05–17–2004 05–30–2004 08–16–2001 09–11–2002 01–23–2003 03–20–2003 06–25–2003 0

Time of sample 

collection 

(24-hour)

1030 1100 1630 0930 1030 1125 1315 1630 

Number of compounds 

detected

14 31 11 5 12 21 15 13 

Human pharmaceutical 

compounds (HPCs)

CotinineCaffeine

CaffeineCotinine

Cotinine 1,7-Dimethylxanthine

CaffeineCotinine

CotinineCaffeineSalbutamol

Cotinine Caffeine

Cotinine

CC

Human and veterinary 

antibiotic compounds (HVACs)

-- Erythromycin

SulfamethoxazoleTrimethoprim

-- -- -- Chlorotetracycline

ErythromycinH2OLincomycinSulfamethoxazoleTetracyclineTrimethoprim

-- -- E

S

Major agricultural 

herbicides (MAHs)

AtrazinePrometon

AtrazineMetolachlorPrometon

AtrazineMetolachlor

-- -- -- Atrazine

Metolachlor

AtrazineMetolachlorPrometon

AMPr
Household, industrial, 

and minor agriculturaluse compounds (HIACs)

AHTNDEETTributyl 

phosphate

Triethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

3-Methyl-1Hindole 

(skatol)

AHTNAnthraquinoneBenzophenoneCamphorDEETHHCBIndoleOP2EOOP1EONPTributyl 

phosphate

Triethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Triphenyl 

phosphate

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

BenzophenoneTri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

AHTNTri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

AHTNBromacilDEETTributyl 

phosphate

Triethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

AHTNDEETHHCBNP2EONP1EOTributyl 

phosphate

Triethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

AHTNAnthraquinoneIndoleNP2EOTriethyl citrate 

(ethyl citrate)

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

AnthraquinoneDEETDiazinonTributyl 

phosphate

Tri(2-

butoxyethyl)phosphate

Tri(2-

chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)

phosphate

AACDHInIsIsTTTTTTTT

Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.—Continued[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EOP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
Polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs)

-- Carbazole

NaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

1-Methylnaphthalene2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene2-MethylnaphthaleneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

-- -- -- Anthracene

Benzo[a]

pyrene

FluoranthenePhenanthrenePyrene

-- C

P

Sterol compounds (SCs) 3-betaCoprostanol

beta-SitosterolCholesterol

beta-SitosterolCholesterol

Cholesterol beta-Sitosterol

Cholesterol

beta-SitosterolCholesterol

3-betaCoprostanolCholesterol

Cholesterol Cholesterol be

C

Table 22. Organic wastewater compounds detected at concentrations greater than study reporting levels in water samples.—Continued[Bold text indicates suspected endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). DEET, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide; NP, para-nonylphenol; NP1EO, nonylphenol monoethoxylate; NP2EOP1EO, octylphenol monoethoxylate; OP2EO, octylphenol diethoxylate; --, none detected]

Station identification number and name (site label)

433559096390700

Big Sioux River downstream from

Sioux Falls wastewater discharge

(site DS1, fig. 1)

433541096355800

Big Sioux River at Brandon, SD

(site DS2, fig. 1)
For more information concerning the research in this report, contact:

U.S. Geological Survey

South Dakota Water Science Center

1608 Mt. View Road

Rapid City, SD 57702

This publication is available online at URL

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2006-5118

Information regarding the water resources in South Dakota is available at: 

http://sd.water.usgs.gov/
Sando and others—Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds in Drinking Water, Wastewater Effluent, and the Big Sioux River, 2001–2004—USGS/SIR 2006–5118

Printed on recycled paper