{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029681597409606044, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032379924446842958, 'mean_word_length': 5.551236749116608, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Uncalibrated modelling of conservative tracer and pesticide leaching to groundwater: comparison of potential Tier II exposure assessment models.

The Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) and Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) are currently being considered by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for Tier II screening of pesticide leaching to groundwater (November 2005). The objective of the present research was to compare RZWQM and PRZM based on observed conservative tracer and pesticide pore water and soil concentrations collected in two unique groundwater leaching studies in North Carolina and Georgia. These two sites had been used previously by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Environmental Model Validation Task Force (EMVTF) in the validation of PRZM. As in the FIFRA EMVTF PRZM validation, 'cold' modelling using input parameters based on EPA guidelines/databases and 'site-specific' modelling using field-measured soil and hydraulic parameters were performed with a recently released version of RZWQM called RZWQM-NAWQA (National Water Quality Assessment). Model calibration was not performed for either the 'cold' or 'site-specific' modelling. The models were compared based on predicted pore water and soil concentrations of bromide and pesticides throughout the soil profile. Both models tended to predict faster movement through the soil profile than observed. Based on a quantitative normalised objective function (NOF), RZWQM-NAWQA generally outperformed or was equivalent to PRZM in simulating pore water and soil concentrations. Both models were more successful in predicting soil concentrations (i.e. NOF < 1.0 for site-specific data, which satisfies site-specific applicability) than they were at predicting pore water concentrations.