The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Groundwater ubiquity score: A simple method for assessing pesticide leachability
Abstract
Government agencies at both the state and federal levels now face increasing pressures to assess the likelihood of pesticide occurrence in well‒water supplies. Screening methodologies are required in order to determine which pesticides now in use should receive the greatest attention with respect to groundwater, and in order to determine whether elaborate and expensive groundwater testing should be required in order to register a new pesticide. Several screening techniques have been proposed recently, some based on threshold values for critical physical properties of the pesticide, and others based on mathematical models of the leaching process. A different approach is taken in this paper, whereby an index is derived based entirely on the physical properties of those pesticides that have been found either leachable or essentially immobile. The index is based on graphical examination of a plot formed by two widely available pesticide properties: half‒life in soil (tsoil1/2) and partition coefficient between soil organic carbon and water (Koc). Other physical properties, such as water solubility, octanol/water partition coefficient, and volatility from soil, have often been invoked as indicators of leachability, but they are found in this paper to have no useful power in discriminating between “leachers” and “nonleachers.” Scores assigned with the new screening index agree with the results of several recent well‒water monitoring programs, even though point‒source events are thought to be responsible for some of the observed contamination. A nomogram is given that reduces the task of calculating the index to simply placing a straight edge on a diagram.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E. A. D., et al. (2015) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7 · Cited by 1,372
Macro-Invertebrate Decline in Surface Water Polluted with Imidacloprid
Van Dijk, T. C., Van Staalduinen, M. A., & Van der Sluijs, J. P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062374 · Cited by 448
Mamy, L., Patureau, D., Barriuso, E., Bedos, C., Bessac, F., Louchart, X., Martin-laurent, F., Miege, C., & Benoit, P. (2015) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2014.955627 · Cited by 177
Sigmund, G., Arp, H. P. H., Aumeier, B. M., Bucheli, T. D., Chefetz, B., Chen, W., Droge, S. T. J., Endo, S., Escher, B. I., Hale, S. E., et al. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c00570 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Gustafson, D. I.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-04-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 339-357
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W2160406170
- Cited by
- 885
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Groundwater ubiquity score: A simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/etc.5620080411
- The paper
- Gustafson, D. I. (1989). Groundwater ubiquity score: A simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620080411
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.