Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr20041342

Lead isotopic compositions of common arsenical pesticides used in New England

Abstract

The three most important arsenical pesticides and herbicides that were extensively used on apple, blueberry, and potato crops in New England from mid-1800s to recent times are lead arsenate, calcium arsenate, and sodium arsenate. Lead arsenate was probably the most heavily used of the arsenical pesticides until it was banned in 1988. Other metal-arsenic pesticides were also used but in lesser amounts. A recent report identified areas in New England where arsenical pesticides were used extensively (Robinson and Ayuso, 2004). On the basis of factor analysis of metal concentrations in stream sediment samples, a positive correlation with pesticide use was shown in regions having stream sediment sample populations that contained concentrations of high arsenic and lead. Lead isotope compositions of stream sediments from areas with heavy use of the pesticides could not be entirely explained by lead originating from rock sulfides and their weathering products. An industrial lead contribution (mostly from atmospheric deposition of lead) was suggested in general to explain the lead isotopic distributions of the stream sediments that could not be accounted for by the natural lead in the environment. We concluded that when agricultural land previously contaminated with arsenical pesticides is urbanized, pesticide residues in the soils and stream sediments could be released into the groundwater. No lead isotopic data characterizing the compositions of pesticides were available for comparison. We have determined the lead isotopic compositions of commonly used pesticides in New England, such as lead arsenate, sodium metaarsenite, and calcium arsenate, in order to assist in future isotopic comparisons and to better establish anthropogenic sources of Pb and As. New data are also presented for copper acetoarsenite (or Paris green), methyl arsonic acid and methane arsonic acid, as well as for arsanilic acid, all of which are used as feed additives to promote swine and poultry growth. The new data characterize these anthropogenic sources. The data show that the arsenical pesticides have similar compositions: 208Pb/207Pb = 2.3839-2.4721, 206Pb/207Pb = 1.1035-1.2010, and 206Pb/204Pb = 17.070-18.759 and, more importantly, that the pesticides overlap the composition of the stream sediments that represent the areas with the most extensive agricultural use. Copper acetoarsenite (Paris green), arsenic oxide, methyl arsonic acid, methane arsonic acid, and arsanilic acid were also analyzed and have lead isotope compositions that range widely. An important source of arsenic and metals to most of the stream sediment samples in New England appears to be weathering products from rocks and industrial lead, but the extensive use of arsenical pesticides and herbicides up to about the 1960s can also be a significant anthropogenic source in agricultural regions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert Ayuso, Nora Foley, Gilpin Robinson, Gregory Wandless, Jeremy Dillingham. 2004. Lead isotopic compositions of common arsenical pesticides used in New England. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20041342

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona