Department of Pesticide Regulation 

Environmental Monitoring Branch 

1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015 

Sacramento, California 95812 

Study 249. Statewide Urban Pesticide Use and Water Quality Monitoring 

Li-Ming (Lee) He 

March 2008 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Urban pesticide use includes structural pest control, landscape maintenance, rights-of-way pest 

control, public health protection, and residential applications. The average annual non-residential 

reported pesticide use in California urban areas from 1995-2005 is ~14 million pounds of active 

ingredients (a.i.) (CDPR, 2006). The non-residential urban use of pesticides in 2006 in California 

amounted to ~500,000 lbs a.i. for permethrin, ~446,000 lbs a.i. for diuron, and ~220,000 lbs a.i. 

for oryzalin. The use of fipronil, which is exclusively used in urban areas in California 

(Gunasekara et al., 2007), has increased dramatically from 650 lbs in 2000 to ~100,000 lbs in 

2006 (Ensminger, 2007). While residential use of pesticides is not reported, total annual urban 

use may be approximately estimated for many pesticides using pesticide sales data and reported 

use data. For example, the mean estimated annual urban use of pesticides during 2004 – 2005 in 

California was ~700,000 lbs a.i. for malathion, 200,000 lbs a.i. for carbaryl, and 740,000 lbs a.i. 

for pyrethroids. Based on comparison of pesticide use and sales data, pesticide applications in 

urban areas account for approximately 70% of pesticide sales in California in 2005 (Spurlock, 

2007). Higher urban pesticide use is anticipated in condense urbanized areas such as the San 

Francisco Bay, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego areas. 

When urban use pesticide residues transport to storm drains or urban waterways by stormwater 

runoff (Guo et al., 2007) or urban baseflow, they may cause toxicity to sensitive aquatic species 

(Gunasekara et al., 2007; He et al., 2007). For example, stormwater samples collected from 

Chollas Creek, a highly urbanized watershed in San Diego, California exhibited toxicity to 

Strongylocentrotus and Ceriodaphnia. Toxicity identification evaluations suggested that 

organophosphate pesticides, most likely diazinon and chlorpyrifos, were responsible for the 

toxicity observed in Ceriodaphnia (Schiff et al., 2002). Another urban runoff study conducted in 
the great Los Angeles area indicated that commercial and high-density residential land uses 

showed the highest diazinon concentrations as opposed to other urban land uses (Schiff and 

Sutula, 2004). The widespread urban use of organophosphate pesticides in California resulted in 

several urban waterbodies being placed in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (SWRCB, 

2007). 

As urban uses of both diazinon and chlorpyrifos were suspended in recent years, pyrethroid use 

has increased sharply. Recent monitoring of urban watersheds has identified potential pyrethroid 

impacts (Bondarenko et al., 2007; He et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2007). Nearly all 

creek sediments collected in Roseville, California - a typical suburban development in the 

Sacramento area caused toxicity to the amphipod Hyalella azteca, and about half the samples 

caused nearly complete mortality. The pyrethroid bifenthrin was the primary cause of the 

toxicity, with additional contributions from the pyrethroids cyfluthrin and cypermethrin. The 

dominant sources of these pyrethroids are structural pest control by professional applicators 

and/or homeowner use of insecticides, particularly lawn care products (Weston et al., 2005). The 

authors concluded that the suburbs of Roseville are probably not unique, and similar sediment 

quality degradation is likely in other suburban areas, particularly in dry regions where landscape 

irrigation can dominate seasonal flow. 

Pyrethroids are just one of the pesticide groups that are widely used in urban areas in California. 

A recent retail store survey indicated that more than 320 pesticide products were on sale at three 

stores in the San Francisco Bay area, and these products contained 99 different a.i.’s (Moran, 

2005). Another survey of 14 stores located in Sacramento County and the San Francisco Bay 

area revealed 542 different products on sale, which contained 112 different a.i.’s (Flint, 2003), 

representing a wide spectrum of urban insecticides and herbicides. Data concerning how and to 

what degree the urban use of these pesticides impacts urban watersheds is lacking. Urban 

monitoring data are therefore needed in order to assess the potential impacts of urban pesticide 

use on aquatic systems. A statewide consistent monitoring program will provide useful data on 

the environmental fate of urban use pesticides and for use in the development of management 

measures. This one-year project represents the Phase I of a multi-year monitoring program that 

includes urban pesticide use screening monitoring of water quality and focused investigations on 

potential source(s) and mitigation measures for source reduction. 

2
2 OBJECTIVES 

This project attempts to address the following: 

• Which pesticides (if any) are present in California urban surface waters at levels that have 

the potential to impact the beneficial uses of those waters? 

• What are the potential sources of pesticides in urban runoff and their relative contribution 

to the receiving water problem?

The overall goal of the multiyear project is to assess urban pesticide use and water quality in 

urban drainage and receiving water from stormwater runoff and baseflow in California’s major 

urbanized areas. The objectives of the first-year study include: 

• Determining which pesticides are present in urban runoff, 

• Evaluating the magnitude of measured concentrations relative to water quality or 

aquatic toxicity benchmarks, and 

• Assessing the effect of waterbody type (stormwater drain vs. urban creek) and 

season (stormwater vs. non-stormwater) on pesticide concentration and/or 

loading. 

The proposed study will also measure other water quality constituents, including dissolved 

oxygen, pH, electrolytic conductivity, and turbidity, to provide essential background information 

and an overall picture of water quality as it relates to aquatic life criteria. 

3 PERSONNEL 

The study will be conducted by staff from the Environmental Monitoring Branch, Surface Water 

Protection Program, under the general direction of Dr. Kean S. Goh, Environmental Program 

Manager. Key personnel are listed below: 

Project Leader: Li-Ming (Lee) He, Ph.D. and Michael Ensminger, Ph.D. 

Field Coordinator: Kevin Kelley and Matthew Goehring 

Senior Scientist: Frank Spurlock, Ph.D. 

Laboratory Liaison: Carissa Ganapathy 

3
Analytical Chemists: California Department of Food and Agriculture, Center for Analytical 

Chemistry. Staff Chemists 

Questions concerning this monitoring project should be directed to Li-Ming (Lee) He at (916) 

327-7479 or by email at lhe@cdpr.ca.gov or Michael Ensminger at (916) 324-4186 or by email 

at mensminger@cdpr.ca.gov. 

4 STUDY PLAN 

4.1 Sampling 

Monitoring will be conducted in four large urban areas in northern and southern California, 

including the greater Sacramento area, the greater San Francisco Bay area, the greater Los 

Angeles area, and the greater San Diego area. This project will be coordinated or leveraged with 

existing DPR-funded investigations including those monitoring efforts already underway through 

UC Riverside (Gan et al., 2007; Greenberg, 2007), UC Davis (Gan et al., 2007), and UC 

Cooperative Extension, or established relationships with Regional Water Quality Control Boards, 

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, and California stormwater management 

agencies/organizations. 

All monitoring sites will be established in each area by cooperating with local water quality 

agencies using currently available information including land use data, catchment area, 

representativeness, historical water quality data, safety and accessibility, and site reconnaissance. 

There will be four or seven monitoring sites in each area (Appendices 1 and 2). The monitoring 

sites are categorized to stormdrain discharges and receiving waters. Stormdrain discharges refer 

to stormdrain outfalls, which represent effluents that may contain pesticides. Such samples 

would represent worst-case conditions (i.e., highest possible pesticide concentrations). If the 

compounds are not detected in the discharges themselves, it is unlikely that toxicity would 

remain after release to and dilution within a receiving water. Receiving waters refer to any 

waterbody that receives runoff discharges. Sampling at stormdrains and receiving waters is 

intended to identify potential pesticides contributed by each category of discharges, their 

concentration at the point of discharge, and differences between dry- and wet-flow conditions. 

4
Sampling will take place in both dry flow (baseflow) and wet flow (rainstorm) conditions during 

the year of monitoring. Three dry- and three wet-flow samplings will be conducted at each 

sampling site in each area. The dry-flow sampling will be conducted during the dry weather 

season (May through September). The wet-flow sampling will include the time of the first flush 

of the first storm (2008-2009 water year) and the first flushes of two other rainstorm events 

(2007-2008 water year). 

The composite sampling method will be used during a storm event wherever feasible. Safety for 

equipment setup and/or limitation of appropriate field equipment availability may prevent the use 

of composite sampling. In this case, grab sampling will be used. Composite samples will be 

collected using polyethylene carboys and subsequently split into amber glass bottles. Grab 

samples will be collected into 1-L amber glass bottles. Samples will be collected as close to 

center channel as possible. Excluding receiving water samples, all other discharges will be 

sampled just prior to the point of release to a receiving water to avoid the effect of dilution and 

mixing from other inputs upstream. Samples will be stored on ice (~4 oC) and transported to the 

designated laboratory for chemical analysis. 

Sediment samples (0 to 3 samples) will be collected into glass jars near the location of a 

stormdrain outfall during the dry-flow season. Effluent quality is inherently variable, and it is 

possible that we could fail to obtain water samples from one or more of the discharges at times of 

significant pesticide input to a receiving water. Since sediments serve as an integrator of longterm pesticide exposure, it is likely that any significant and persistent discharge would 

potentially produce elevated pesticide concentrations in nearby sediments. 

4.2 Field Measurement 

Physicochemical properties of water will be determined using a portable multi-parameter water 

quality monitoring system. Water parameters measured in situ at each site during each sampling 

event will include pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. Salinity and 

total dissolved solids will be estimated from conductivity. These data will be used to supplement 

and help interpret other data including pesticides. 

5
 To provide for interpretation of the monitoring data in the context of the hydrological conditions 

present during monitoring events, rainfall amount and duration will be recorded from the nearest 

reliable rain gauge for each monitoring event. Stormdrain discharge or stream flow rates will be 

measured to characterize the flow regime in effect and to estimate the total loading of target 

pesticides. Flow will be measured using a deployable flowmeter or a portable flow probe. Flow 

data may also be obtained from an existing stream gauge station where available. 

All field measured data and other information will be recorded to a standardized field datasheet. 

4.3 Laboratory Analysis 

Pesticide analytes were determined based on current urban pesticide use or sale information 

(Flint, 2003; Kreidich et al., 2005; Moran, 2007), historical surface water monitoring data 

(CDPR, 2007), preliminary results from urban monitoring in progress (Gan et al., 2007), and 

aquatic toxicity (USEPA, 2007a). The current proposed list of analytes includes the following 

pesticide groups: 

• Insecticides - Pyrethroids (in sediment only), carbamates, organophosphates, and fipronil 

& metabolites; 

• Herbicides - Dinitroanilines, photosynthetic inhibitors (e.g., triazines), and auxin 

transport inhibitors (e.g., phenoxys). 

The full list of pesticides, including specific analyte names, is available in Appendix 3. These 

pesticides will be analyzed using currently available analytical methods. All samples will be 

analyzed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Center for Analytical 

Chemistry, which is located in Sacramento, California. Analytical methods, analytes, method 

detection limits, and reporting limits for this study are also given in Appendix 3. Details of the 

chemical analysis methods and method detection/reporting limits for newly developed methods 

will be updated when available. The list of analytes may be updated or modified at any time as 

new information becomes available or due to changes in available resources. 

6
We will also measure total suspended solids (TSS) in water samples and total organic carbon 

(TOC) in both water and sediment samples using standard methods. 

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) will be performed in accordance with Standard 

Operating Procedure QAQC001.00 (Segawa, 1995), which includes criteria for QC samples. Ten 

percent of the total number of samples will be submitted as field blanks, blind spikes, or field 

duplicates. In addition, QA/QC procedures developed by US EPA (1998) and for SWAMP by 

SWRCB (Puckett, 2002) will be consulted where applicable. 

6 DATA MANAGEMENT 

All data generated by this project will be maintained in the DPR facility. DPR staff (its 

contractors if any) will be responsible for collection of samples and field data. The project 

leaders will be responsible for managing all data including field information, field 

measurements, laboratory analytical data using an existing database or developing a new 

database for the project. 

7 DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 

Water quality will be assessed based on comparison of analytical data with water quality 

objectives or benchmarks indicating potential for biological effects. Water quality objectives 

established by US EPA or California will be used for comparison to measured concentrations 

whenever available. The benchmarks for pesticides developed by US EPA will be used when 

water quality standards are not available (USEPA, 2007c). Other aquatic effects data may also be 

used for comparison to measured concentrations, including LC50 or EC50 (e.g., Table 1) (US 

EPA, 2007a). The content of pyrethroids in sediment will be compared with sediment toxicity 

data (Table 2) developed by Amweg et al. (2005). Data collected from this project will be 

analyzed to determine summary statistics of concentrations and detection frequencies, and 

7
statistical analysis to determine the effect of different factors such as runoff type (e.g. stormwater 

vs. baseflow), season or geographic location may be conducted. Final project report(s) will be 

prepared by project leader(s) in coordination with other project team members. 

8
Table 1. LC50 or EC50 of pesticides for select standard aquatic organisms (USEPA, 2007b) 

derived from US EPA Pesticide ECOTOX Database (2007a) 

Insecticides LC50 in μg/L Herbicides EC50 in μg/L3

Active 

Ingredients 

A. 

bahia1 Daphnia2

C. 

dubia2

Active 

Ingredients 

Green 

Algae 

Beta-Cyfluthrin 0.00242 0.17 0.14 Atrazine 4.3 

Bifenthrin 0.00397 0.32 0.07 Bromacil 6.8 

Carbaryl 5.7 1.25 11.6 Dicamba 61 

Chlorpyrifos 0.035 0.21 0.058 Dichlobenil 2700 

Cyfluthrin 0.00242 0.17 0.14 Diuron 1.3 

Cypermethrin 0.0047 0.36 0.889 Glyphosate 3530 

Deltamethrin 0.0017 0.037 NA Linuron 38.8 

Diazinon 4.2 0.65 0.21 Oryzalin 24 

Esfenvalerate NA 0.27 0.28 Simazine 82 

Fipronil 0.14 15.6 17.5 

Imidacloprid 38 NA NA 

Lambda-Cyhalothrin 0.0041 1.04 0.3 

Malathion 2.2 1.6 1.14 

Permethrin 0.02 1.25 0.55 

Tralomethrin NA 0.15 0.26 

1

 Americamysis bahia (Mysiopsis bahia) with the common name mysid shrimp. 96 h in marine water. 

2

 Daphnia and Ceriodaphnia dubia, 48 h in freshwater. 

3

 96-120 h.

NA - not available. 

Table 2. Sediment toxicity of Hyalella azteca to pyrethroids (10-d LC50 in μg/g sediment organic 

carbon) (Amweg et al., 2005) 

Bifenthrin Cyfluthrin Deltamethrin Esfenvalerate Lambda-cyhalothrin Permethrin 

0.18 1.08 0.79 0.89 0.45 4.88 

9
8 PROJECT SCHEDULE 

This one-year project represents the Phase I of a multi-year monitoring program that includes 

urban pesticide use screening monitoring of water quality and focused investigations on potential 

source(s) and mitigation measures for source reduction. The schedule of major activities 

associated with this project is shown in the following table (Table 3). Some of the tasks listed in 

the table will be accomplished as scheduled, but they can be modified and improved as more 

information is obtained from ongoing monitoring, for example, sampling protocol, chemical 

analysis, or data quality criteria may be modified as needed. 

Table 3. Project Schedule 

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

Identify sampling 

locations 

Develop field 

datasheet/contract 

Develop detailed 

sampling protocol 

Conduct 

sampling and 

measurement 

Perform 

laboratory 

analysis 

Data 

Management 

Perform data 

analysis and 

interpretation 

Final Report 

10
9 BUDGET 

Provided below is the proposed budget for the project. Since the project will be carried out in the 

2008 calendar year, the total cost has been proportioned in FY07-08 and FY08-09 as shown 

below. 

FY07-08 

Sample Samples Price/Sample Cost

Stormdrain water 54 3715 200610 

Receiving water 21 3715 78015 

Sediment 14 800 11200 

Field duplicate 8 3715 29720 

Field Blank 4 3715 14860 

Total 101 334,405*

*See Appendix 1 for details. 

The cost for continuing QC samples is not included. 

FY08-09 

Sample Samples Price/Sample Cost 

Stormdrain water 54 3715 200610 

Receiving water 21 3715 78015 

Sediment 0 800 0 

Field duplicate 4 3715 14860 

Field Blank 0 3715 0 

Total 79 293,485* 

*See Appendix 2 for details. 

The cost for continuing QC samples is not included.

11
10 REFERENCES 

Amweg, E.L., D.P. Weston, and N.M. Ureda. 2005. Use and toxicity of pyrethroid pesticides in 

the Central Valley, California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:966-972. 

Bondarenko, S., F. Spurlock, and J. Gan. 2007. Analysis of pyrethroids in sediment pore water 

by solid-phase microextraction. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2587-2593. 

CDPR. 2006. Summary of pesticide use report data 2005. 495 pp. 

CDPR. 2007. Surface Water Database. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm. 

Ensminger, M. 2007. Fipronil Use in California - 1999-2006. 

Flint, M.L. 2003. Residential pesticide use in California: A survey of the Sacramento, Stockton 

and San Francisco Bay Areas. 198 p. University of California. 

Gan, J., L. Oki, and D. Hover. 2007. Fipronil in urban runoff - A PowerPoint presentation. 

Greenberg, L. 2007. Measuring pesticide runoff from individual homes - A PowerPoint 

presentation. 

Gunasekara, A., T. Truong, K.S. Goh, F. Spurlock, and R.S. Tjeerdema. 2007. Environmental 

fate and toxicology of fipronil. J. Pestic. Sci. 32:189-199. 

Guo, L., K. Kelley, and K.S. Goh. 2007. Evaluation of sources and loading of pesticides to the 

Sacramento River, California, USA, during a storm event of winter 2005. Environ. 

Contam. Toxicol. 26:2274-2281. 

He, L.-M., J. Troiano, A. Wang, and K. Goh. 2007. Environmental chemistry, ecotoxicity, and 

fate of lambda-cyhalothrin. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicity In 

press. 

Moran, K.D. 2005. San Francisco Bay Area pesticide retail store survey. 19 p. 

Moran, K.D. 2007. Pesticides in urban surface water-- Urban pesticides use trends annual report 

2007. 45 p. 

Puckett, M. 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface 

Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California Department of Fish and 

Game, Monterey, CA. Prepared by the State Water Resources Control Board, 

Sacramento, CA. 145 pages plus appendices. 

Schiff, K., and M. Sutula. 2004. Organophosphorous pesticides in storm-water runoff from 

southern California (USA). Environ Toxicol Chem:1815-1821. 

12
Schiff, K., S. Bay, and C. Stransky. 2002. Characterization of stormwater toxicants from an 

urban watershed to freshwater and marine organisms. Urban Water 4:215-227. 

Segawa, R. 1995. Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control. Environmental Hazards Assessment 

Program QAQC001.00. Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. 

Spurlock, F. 2007. Urban pesticide use. 

SWRCB. 2007. 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments, 

available on-line: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_lists2006approved.html. 

USEPA. 1998. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/G-5), EPA/600/R-98/018, 

Office of Research and Development. 

USEPA. 2007a. Pesticide ECOTOX database. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm. 

USEPA. 2007b. Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants; Analytical 

methods for biological pollutants in wastewater and sewage sludge: Final rule. Federal 

Register/Vol. 72, No. 57/Monday, March 26, 2007. 

USEPA. 2007c. Aquatic Life Benchmark Table. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm. 

Weston, D.P., R.W. Holmes, J. You, and M.J. Lydy. 2005. Aquatic toxicity due to residential use 

of pyrethroid insecticides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:9778-9784. 

Xu, Y., F. Spurlock, Z. Wang, and J. Gan. 2007. Comparison of five methods for measuring 

sediment toxicity of hydrophobic contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. Web Release 

Date: 13-Nov-2007. 

Yang, W.C., W. Hunter, F. Spurlock, and J. Gan. 2007. Bioavailability of permethrin and 

cyfluthrin in surface waters with low levels of dissolved organic matter. . J. Environ. 

Qual. 36:1678-1685. 

13
Appendix 1. FY07-08 Monitoring sites, pesticides screening, and analytical cost estimate for urban pesticides use 

#Sampling 

Sites 

# Sampling 

Events Analytes 

Sample Type Sacramento Area 

Bay Area 

LA Area 

San Diego Area 

Rainstorm 

Baseflow 

# Samples 

Fipronil (1) 

Pyrethroids(2) 

Carbamates(3) 

Organophosph

ates (4) 

photosynthetic 

inhibitors (5) 

Dinitroanilines 

(6) 

Auxin transport 

inhibitors (7) 

Stormdrain Discharges 3 5 5 5 1 2 54 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 320 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 $ Receiving Water 1 2 2 2 1 2 21 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 320 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 $ Sediment (same sites as stormdrain discharges) (9) 2 4 4 4 0 1 14 $ - $ 800 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Field Duplicate (water only) 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 320 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 $ Field Blank (water only) 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 320 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 $ 

Total 4 7 7 7 101 

(1) Analytes include degradates. (2) Sediment sampling for 1 or 2 sites in each region. (3) Carbaryl included. (4) Malathion included. Only 2 sites in each region. 1/2 the price was used in estimating the cost. (5) Atrazine, simazine, diuron, bromacil included. (6) Oryzalin and prodiamine included. (7) The phenoxy screen includes dicamba. (8) To be analyzed in house or using a contract lab. (9) Sediment sampling and analysis are limited to pyrethroids only. 
Appendix 2. FY08-09 Monitoring sites, pesticides screening, and analytical cost estimate for urban pesticides use 

#Sampling 

Sites 

# Sampling 

Events Analytes 

Sample Type Sacramento Area 

Bay Area 

LA Area San Diego 

Area

Rainstorm 

Baseflow 

# Samples 

Fipronil (1) 

Pyrethroids(2) 

Carbamates(3) 

Organophosph

ates (4) 

photosynthetic 

inhibitors (5) 

Dinitroanilines 

(6) 

Auxin transport 

inhibitors (7) 

Stormdrain Discharges 3 5 5 5 2 1 54 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 400 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 Receiving Water 1 2 2 2 2 1 21 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 400 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 Sediment (same sites as stormdrain discharges) (9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ - $ 800 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Field Duplicate (water only) 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 400 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 Field Blank (water only) 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 $ 500 $ - $ 800 $ 400 $ 720 $ 800 $ 575 

Total 4 7 7 7 79 

(1) Analytes include degradates. (2) Sediment sampling for 1 or 2 sites in each region. (3) Carbaryl included. (4) Malathion included. Only 2 sites in each region. 1/2 the price was used in estimating the cost. (5) Atrazine, simazine, diuron, bromacil included. (6) Oryzalin and prodiamine included. (7) The phenoxy screen includes dicamba. (8) To be analyzed in house or using a contract lab. (9) Sediment sampling and analysis are limited to pyrethroids only. 

15
 

Appendix 3. Analytes, method detection limit, and reporting limitǂ

Matrix: Water 

Analyte Group: Carbamates (CB) 

Method: HPLC 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/L) (μg/L) 

Aldicarb Sulfoxide 0.011 0.05 

Aldicarb Sulfone 0.02 0.05 

Methomyl 0.01 0.05 

3-OH Carbofuran 0.011 0.05 

Aldicarb 0.01 0.05 

Carbofuran 0.01 0.05 

Carbaryl 0.011 0.05 

Oxymyl 0.02 0.05 

Methiocarb 0.016 0.05 

ǂ Listed in these tables are analytes included in the long screening list of pesticides, some of which may not be used in urban areas. Some of the 

pesticides presented in the table may not be analyzed when a short screening list is used for chemical analysis due to higher costs for analyzing a 

full list of pesticides.
Matrix: Water 

Analyte Group: Dinitroanilines (DN) 

Method: GC/TQMS 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/L) (μg/L) 

Benfluralin 0.012 0.05 

Ethalfluralin 0.015 0.05 

Oryzalin (LCQ) 0.0048 0.05 

Pendimethalin 0.012 0.05 

Prodiamine 0.012 0.05 

Trifluralin 0.014 0.05 

Oxyfluorfen 0.01 0.05 

17
Matrix: Water 

Analyte Group: Fipronil & Metabolites (FP) 

Method: GC/MSD in the SIM mode 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/L) (μg/L) 

Fipronil 0.004 0.05 

Desulfinyl fipronil 0.003 0.05 

Desulfinyl fipronil amide 0.005 0.05 

Fipronil sulfide 0.003 0.05 

Fipronil sulfone 0.005 0.05 

Fipronil amide 0.005 0.05 

18
Matrix: Water 

Analyte Group: Organophosphates (OP) 

Method: GC/FPD 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/L) (μg/L) 

Ethoprop 0.0098 0.05 

Diazinon 0.011 0.04

Disulfoton 0.0093 0.04 

Chlorpyrifos 0.0109 0.04

Malathion 0.0117 0.04 

Methidathion 0.0111 0.05 

Fenamiphos 0.0125 0.05 

Azinphos methyl 0.0099 0.05 

Dichlorvos 0.0098 0.05 

Phorate 0.0083 0.05 

Fonofos 0.0080 0.04 

Dimethoate 0.0079 0.04 

Methyl Parathion 0.0080 0.03 

Tribufos 0.0142 0.05 

Profenofos 0.0114 0.05 

GC/MS (μg/L) (μg/L) 

Diazinon 0.0012 0.01 

Chlorpyrifos 0.0079 0.01 

*in clean American River water 

19
Matrix: Water 

Analyte Group: Auxin transport inhibitors [Phenoxys (PX)]

Method: GC/MS 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/L) (μg/L) 

Dicamba 0.064 0.1 

2,4-D 0.064 0.1 

MCPA 0.064 0.1 

Triclopyr 0.064 0.1 

20
Matrix: Sediment 

Analyte Group: Pyrethroids (PY) 

Method: GC/ECD 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/kg) (μg/kg) 

Bifenthrin 0.108 1.0 

Fenopropathrin 0.109 1.0 

Lambda-cyhalothrin epimer 0.117 1.0 

Lambda-cyhalothrin 0.115 1.0 

Permethrin cis 0.116 1.0 

Permethrin trans 0.135 1.0 

Cyfluthrin 0.183 1.0 

Cypermethrin 0.107 1.0 

Fenvalerate/esfenvalerate 0.143 1.0 

Deltamethrin 0.0661 1.0 

Resmethrin (GC/MSD) 0.870 1.5 

21
Matrix: Water 

Analyte Group: Photosynthetic inhibitors [Triazines (TR)]

Method: LC/MS/MS 

Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Compound 

(μg/L) (μg/L) 

Atrazine 0.020 0.05 

Simazine 0.013 0.05 

Diuron 0.022 0.05 

Prometon 0.016 0.05 

Bromacil 0.031 0.05 

Prometryn 0.016 0.05 

Hexazinone 0.040 0.05 

Metribuzin 0.025 0.05 

Norflurazon 0.019 0.05 

DEA 0.01 0.05 

ACET 0.03 0.05 

DACT 0.016 0.05 

22