Seventh Pesticide Use Reporting Workshop

DPR's Air Monitoring Project DPR s Air Monitoring Project

t P li C lif iat Parlier, California

Rosemary Neal Ph.D., Department of Pesticide Regulation

5/20/2008

DPR Environmental Justice Project

Focus: Monitor air in a Central Valley community

To select the community, DPR evaluated 83 communities in San Joaquin Valley - region of highest pesticide use.E h it l t d f Each community evaluated for:

EJ criteria• Child population density (<18 yrs old)p p y ( y )• Non-white population percentage• Median family income• Number of non-occupational drift illnesses

criteria based on availability of cumulative impact data• Monitoring density for pesticides in municipal wells• Number of air pollutants monitored• Number of air pollutants monitored

pesticide use criteria based on• Regional use (within 5 mi of community)

L l ( ithi 1 i f it )

5/20/2008

• Local use (within 1 mi of community)

Selecting a Community for Monitoringg y f g

Other considerations for community selection:Air sampling feasibilityAir sampling feasibilityWeather conditionsPossible collaboration with other projectsPossible collaboration with other projects

DPR selected Parlier for monitoring:Highest rated communitygSeveral preferred monitoring sites (schools)1 or 2 related health studies1 or 2 related health studies

5/20/2008

Parlier, Fresno County, y

Small agricultural Small agricultural community ~20 miles southeast of Fresnosoutheast of Fresno

Population approx 12,000High percentage of Latinos High percentage of Latinos and children

Stone fruit and grapes are the primary crops in are the primary crops in the area

5/20/2008

Monitoring LocationsMonitor three schools

Martinez

g

Ben BenavidezCesar Chavez

Collect 24-hr samples, 3 days/week, for 1 yrCollect 2 samples:

Multi-pesticide (25 pesticides, 5 breakdown products)Methyl isothiocyanate, MITC (1 pesticide)

kjkj

Martinez

Ben Benavidezkjkj

Cesar Chavez

5/20/2008

Monitoring for other pollutantsg f p

Department of Pesticide RegulationDrinking water monitoring for 12 pesticides and g g pbreakdown products

Air Resources Board (at Benavidez School)Volatile organic compoundsMetals/elementsParticulate matter (PM 2.5)

Air Pollution Control District (at Kearney Ag ( y gCenter)

OzoneNitrogen dioxideHydrocarbons (during summer)

5/20/2008

Preliminary Findingsy g

20 pesticides were detected by DPR and ARB.Only diazinon and acrolein exceeded the acute Only diazinon and acrolein exceeded the acute health screening levels. Acrolein use was most likely due to non-pesticidal sources.e y due to o pest c da sou cesMITC was the chemical with the highest concentration that likely resulted from concentration that likely resulted from pesticide use. All detections were well below the screening level.the screening level.82 percent of the locations and days monitored had detectable concentrations of monitored had detectable concentrations of more than one pesticide.

5/20/2008

Data Analysisy

Which techniques is DPR using to evaluate the data?

Comparing reported pesticide use f P ti id U R t d t b from Pesticide Use Report database (PUR) with the monitoring data.Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to evaluate pesticide y ( ) puse reported at the field level.Investigating environmental Investigating environmental conditions to assess their impact.

5/20/2008

Diazinon Applications During 2006

Data from 2006 Pesticide Use Report

SangerSangerSanger

Pesticide Use Report Database

Del ReyDel ReyDel Rey

No. of Applications1 - 4

kk

k

Parlier

Reedleyk

kk

Parlier

Reedleyk

kk

Parlier

Reedley

5 - 11

12 - 23

Total Lbs AISelmaSelmaSelma

Total Lbs AI5 - 46

47 - 143

DinubaDinubaDinubaStudy Area

144 - 279

5/20/2008

KingsburgKingsburgKingsburg

0 1 2 3 4 Miles

Examining Data in More Detailg

Choosing the appropriate scale:

Sanger Sanger

Choosing the appropriate scale:

Del Rey

Sanger

Del Rey

Sanger

P li

Del Rey

P li

Del Rey

kk

k

Selma

Parlier

Reedleyk

kk

Selma

Parlier

Reedley

Dinuba Dinuba

Kingsburg KingsburgLbs per Acre

< 2.00

2 01 - 4 00

5/20/2008

Using the Square Mile Using actual Field Sites**Spatial data courtesy of Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner

2.01 4.00

> 4.01

Field Level Spatial Datap

Efforts to develop site-specific field data using GIS started in the middata using GIS started in the mid-1990s.At least 2/3rds of the CACs have developed data and are using it for developed data and are using it for pesticide permitting and use reportingreporting.Field sites are uniquely identified and q ycan be related to PUR records.

5/20/2008

Field Border DevelopmentField Border Developmentield o de evelopmentield o de evelopment•24 Counties – various stages of completenesscompleteness

•Total number of sites digitized (approx):163 000(approx):163,000

•Number of sites/county ranges from ~ 400 (Lake) to > 26 000 (Monterey)~ 400 (Lake) to > 26,000 (Monterey).

h h Other Counties Other Counties Developing DataDeveloping Data••SiskiyouSiskiyouSiskiyouSiskiyou••ShastaShasta••ButteButte

. ••YubaYuba••SolanoSolano••MarinMarin

.0 100 20050 Miles

MarinMarin••Contra CostaContra Costa

How Attributes are Related to Map Featuresp

Shape Grower_id Site_id Grower_sit

Polygon16951602440 N40 16951602440N40Polygon16951605130 1A 169516051301APolygon16951605130 1A 169516051301APolygonPolygon16951600010 A-1 16951600010A-1Polygon16951605130 4A 169516051304APolygonPolygonPolygon16951600010 P-4 16951600010P-4Polygon16951605130 3D 169516051303DPolygonPolygon

Permit Location Pmt_siteid Commodity Amount_pla

16951604460N40 16951602440N40 CORN16951602440101 16951602440101 COTTON16951602980102 16951602440102 WHEAT1695160513011A 1695160513011A ALMONDS1695160513011B 1695160513011B PISTACHIOS1695160513011C 1695160513011C ALMONDS1695160513011D 1695160513011D PISTACHIOS169516003701A 169516003701A COTTON169516003701A 169516003701A COTTON169516051301A 169516051301A ALMONDS1695160037025WC 1695160037025WCALFALFA169516051302A 169516051302A PISTACHIOS

Diazinon Applications in 2006pp

Pounds of diazinon applied Pounds of diazinon applied to fields some part of which are ½ -, 1- or 2 -

l

School: Martinez

miles away

School Mart nez1/2 mile: 0 lbs1 mile: 86 lbs2 mile: 697 lbs k

Parlierk

Parlierk

Parlier

School: Ben Benavidez1/2 mile: 25 lbs

kk kk kk

S h l: C s Ch

1 mile: 25 lbs2 mile: 571 lbs

School: Cesar Chavez1/2 mile: 160 lbs1 mile: 215 lbs2 il 497 lb

5/20/2008

2 mile: 497 lbs

Diazinon- Application vs Detection700 60.00

ppLbs Applied ng/m3 Detected

60050 00

Weeekly AverageDiazinon Detected(ng/m3)

500

40 00

50.00Weekly Sum ofDiazinon Applied(pounds)

400

30 00

40.00

300

20 00

30.00

200

10 00

20.00

0

100

0 00

10.00

Detection Limit

Trace

5/20/2008

0 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Other Factors to ConsiderOthe acto s to Conside

Distance from Application Sites to ReceptorsSites to Receptors

How far awayIn what direction

Seasonal differences inWi d V t /Di tiWind Vector/Direction

Temperature & Precipitation

Jan - MarApr - JunJul - SeptOct - Dec

5/20/2008

Diazinon- Application vs Detection700 60.00Lbs Applied ng/m3 Detected

pp

60050 00

Weeekly AverageDiazinon Detected(ng/m3)

500

40 00

50.00Weekly Sum ofDiazinon Applied(pounds)

400

30 00

40.00

300

20 00

30.00

200

10 00

20.00

0

100

0 00

10.00

Detection Limit

Trace

5/20/2008

0 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Preliminary Examination of Meteorological Conditions

July 9 – 15July 16 – 22

Trace

12 184 - 12

Detected ng/m3

Applied61 - 8625 - 6012 - 18

< 15 lbs15 – 30 lbs> 30 lbs

pp

5/20/2008

Daily DetailyDate Avg Detection Total AppliedNo. of Applications

ng/m3 lbs AIng/m3 lbs AI7/5/2006 8.03 42 47/6/2006 15 37/7/2006 10 27/8/2006 65 2

700 60.00

W kl A

7/9/2006 13.26 12 17/10/2006 23.88 72 37/11/2006 15.65 230 107/12/2006 81 27/13/2006 139 5

500

60050.00

Weeekly AverageDiazinon Detected(ng/m3)

Weekly Sum ofDiazinon Applied(pounds)

7/14/2006 39 17/15/2006 53 57/16/2006 13.56 0 07/17/2006 4.70 0 07/18/2006 131 80 113 6

400

500

40.00

7/18/2006 131.80 113 6

300

20.00

30.00

100

200

10.00

5/20/20080 0.00

07/18 – Avg 131 8 ng/m3 detectedSanger

07/18 Avg 131.8 ng/m detected

Del Rey85lbs AI Applied

28lbs AI Applied to 4 fields

85lbs AI Applied to 2 fields

Avg. Distance ~5.5 miles

ppAvg. Distance ~3 miles

kjkj

kj

Cesar Chavez

Martinez

Reed

Ben Benavidez

Date Avg Detection Total Applied No. of Applications/ 3 lb AIng/m3 lbs AI

7/5/2006 8.03 42 47/6/2006 15 37/6/2006 15 37/7/2006 10 27/8/2006 65 27/9/2006 13.26 12 1

7/10/2006 23.88 72 37/11/2006 15 65 230 107/11/2006 15.65 230 107/12/2006 81 27/13/2006 139 57/14/2006 39 17/15/2006 53 57/16/2006 13 56 0 07/16/2006 13.56 0 07/17/2006 4.70 0 07/18/2006 131.80 113 6

5/20/2008

07/15 – Avg 13.56 ng/m3 detected on 7/16Sanger

07/15 Avg 13.56 ng/m detected on 7/1610lbs AI Applied to 1

fields

Del Rey

fieldsDistance ~5 miles

20lbs AI Applied to 1 fields

20lbs AI Applied to 1 field

Distance ~3 miles

to 1 fieldsDistance ~7

miles

kjkj

kj

Cesar Chavez

Martinez

Reed

Ben Benavidez

3lbs AI Applied to 2 ppfields

Distance ~2.5 miles

Date Avg Detection Total Applied No. of Applicationsng/m3 lbs AI

7/5/2006 8.03 42 47/6/2006 15 3

Sanger07/11 7/6/2006 15 37/7/2006 10 27/8/2006 65 27/9/2006 13.26 12 1

7/10/2006 23.88 72 37/11/2006 15.65 230 10

Del Rey

7/12/2006 81 27/13/2006 139 57/14/2006 39 17/15/2006 53 57/16/2006 13.56 0 07/17/2006 4 70 0 0

y7/17/2006 4.70 0 07/18/2006 131.80 113 6

kjkj

kj

Cesar Chavez

Martinez

Reed

Ben Benavidez

Reed

Date Avg Detection Total Applied No. of Applicationsng/m3 lbs AI

7/5/2006 8.03 42 47/6/2006 15 3

Sanger07/107/6/2006 15 37/7/2006 10 27/8/2006 65 27/9/2006 13.26 12 1

7/10/2006 23.88 72 37/11/2006 15.65 230 10

Del Rey

7/12/2006 81 27/13/2006 139 57/14/2006 39 17/15/2006 53 57/16/2006 13.56 0 07/17/2006 4 70 0 07/17/2006 4.70 0 07/18/2006 131.80 113 6

kjkj

kj

Cesar Chavez

Martinez

Reed

Ben Benavidez

Factors to Consider

Field level data provide more specific spatial Field level data provide more specific spatial detail.

Monitoring only occurred three days per week.

Possible errors in use reporting.p g

Meteorological conditions impact pesticide behavior and off-site movementbehavior and off-site movement.

5/20/2008

What Are The Next Steps?p

A l i t h i t ll d t t d Apply mapping techniques to all detected chemicals.Investigate relationships between pesticide use and meteorological parameters and the

d t ti measured concentrations. Attempt to develop a model to predict ambient air concentrations.Determine whether this information can be used predicatively to develop mitigation measures.

5/20/2008

Acknowledgementsg

Pam Wofford, Project Leader(916) 324-4297(916) 324 4297Pwofford@cdpr.ca.gov

Karen FrancoKaren Franco, Deputy Ag Commissioner, Fresno Countyp y g , y

5/20/2008

Additional informationf

www.cdpr.ca.gov, Environmental Justice Pilot ProjectJustice, Pilot Project

Randy Segawa, Project Manager(916) 324 4137(916) 324-4137Rsegawa@cdpr.ca.gov

Veda Federighi, DPR EJ Coordinator(916) 445-3974(916) 445 3974Vfederghi@cdpr.ca.gov

5/20/2008