Calculating lifetime excess cancer risk requires an estimate of intake and a cancer potency factor. No published cancer potency factors for inhalation or ingestion of MCPP are available from Health Canada, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), or the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Concentrations of MCPP have been measured in Canadian outdoor air and drinking water in a limited number of studies.
We estimate regional levels of use of MCPP by the Agricultural and Golf industries as an indicator of potential environmental exposures across Canada.
Provincial Tables & Maps
Agriculture and Golf are two of the most extensive pesticide using industries in Canada. We estimate levels of MCPP use by these industries as an indicator of regional variations in potential environmental exposures.
|Agriculture||Agriculture Methods||Golf||Golf Methods|
The map below displays estimated annual MCPP use for agriculture by sub-provincial regions for all provinces. These estimates are based on recommended pesticide use guidelines from each province; they reflect the MCPP products recommended for use in each province and the crops produced in each sub-provincial region. Provincial maps can be accessed lower on the page to provide more visual detail. Corresponding to the Canada-wide map, a table with estimates of the population at risk of exposure by province and ‘Recommended MCPP Use’ group is also provided.
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia
Newfoundland and Labrador
Recommended Annual Agricultural Use Estimates
- Pesticide product information (e.g. application rates) was compiled from Provincial Crop Guidelines and Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency product labels for each pesticide and province.
- The average annual application rates (tonnes/ha/year) were determined for each crop type using product label information from all products registered for use in a province.
- Farm data at the ecodistrict level was obtained for all provinces from the ‘Interpolated Census of Agriculture to Soil Landscapes, Ecological Frameworks, and Drainage Areas of Canada’ (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada); this data included number of farms and area of production for all crop types.
- Using information on the types of crops that the pesticide of interest was recommended for use on, the farms that produce these crops were identified from the Interpolated Census of Agriculture as ‘likely to use the pesticide of interest’; these farms were identified for each ecodistrict.
- Total recommended use was estimated for each ecodistrict by multiplying crop-specific intensity weights (step 2) by total production area of a crop in an ecodistrict and then summing across all crops that the pesticide is intended for use on within an ecodistrict.
- The recommended use estimates for all Canadian provinces were used to create quintile groups (low to high); i.e. to allow comparisons of use within and across provinces. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to map the recommended use estimates by these quintile groups.
The number of people at risk of exposure to a pesticide was determined using data from the Census of Population (2006) and a Geographic Information System. Population counts within the agricultural areas (i.e. colour shaded in map) were summed across all ecodistricts classified within the same recommended pesticide use category. These population counts represent the number of people who are at risk of exposure to the pesticide by recommended pesticide use level. Excluded from these counts are persons residing within major cities and persons residing within ecodistricts in which the agricultural area could not be identified.
These sources provide information on the number of farms and area of crop production by sub-provincial regions for all provinces.
- 2006 Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada
- Interpolated Census of Agriculture to Soil Landscapes, Ecological Frameworks, and Drainage Areas of Canada (2006), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Provincial Guides for Pesticide Use and Crop Production
These sources provide information on the specific pesticide products registered for use in each province, as well as the specific crops that it is recommended to be used on.
- Table of Active Ingredients, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL)
- Herbicide Abstracts, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL)
- Herbicide Tables, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL)
- Pesticide and Herbicide Selector, Government of Alberta, Agriculture and Rural Development
- Saskatchewan Guide to Crop Protection 2010, Government of Saskatchewan
- Guide to Field Crop Protection, Government of Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives
- Herbicides Used in Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
- Crops - Pesticide Management and Minor Use, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
- Répertoire 2011: Traitements de protection des grandes cultures / Directory 2011: Crop Protection Treatment, Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Répertoire 2009: Traitements de protection de la pomme de terre / Directory 2009: Potato Protection Treatment , Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Concombre de transformation: Identification et répression des ravageurs / Cucumber processing: Pest identification and control (2001) , Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Bleuet en corymbe: Guide de protection / Highbush Blueberry: Protection guide (2011), Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Fraisier: Guide de protection / Strawberry: Protection guide (2011), Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Framboisier: Guide de protection / Raspberry: Protection guide (2011), Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Vigne: Guide de protection / Grapevine: Protection guide (2011), Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Répertoire 2011: Traitements de protection des plantes ornementales en pépinière / Directory 2011: Protection treatment of ornamental plants in nurseries, Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
- Guide des traitements foliaires du pommier 2010-2011 / Guide to foliar treatments of apple trees 2010-2011, Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec
Prince Edward Island
- Vegetable Crop Guides, Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture
- Field Crops, New Brunswick Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries
- Wild Blueberries Weed Control Selection Guide (herbicide) and Disease Control Selection Guide (fungicide), New Brunswick Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries
Pesticide Product Labels
These labels provide product-specific information on application rates and frequency of application for all pesticide products.
- Product Label Search, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
Provides information on the number of people residing by geographic region.
- 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada
National farm data does not provide information on exact farm locations, therefore all farm data is aggregated at a regional level. Not having information on exact farm location presents two main limitations: (1) we cannot determine where in a region a specific pesticide is likely to be used, and (2) we are not able to provide more precise environmental estimates that reflect the number of persons living within close proximity to farms that are likely to use a specific pesticide.
We estimate that the typical Canadian golf course applies an average of 6.8-31.7 kg of MCPP annually. This average value is reported as a range to account for variations in the average amount applied; the amount of pesticide applied across Canada reflects differences in climate and its influence on types of pests and growing conditions.
The maps below displays the locations of golf courses that we have identified in Canada (n=2332). We estimate housing density surrounding each course, as a preliminary assessment of the population that may potentially be exposed to pesticide drift. Results are presented in the table below.
Golf Course Database
Golf Course Locations
No single database is available that is complete in its listing of Canadian golf courses or their geographic locations. We compiled a golf course database in a Geographic Information System (GIS) using data from various sources. Google Earth was used to visually confirm the existence of courses or obtain geographic coordinates in cases where inconsistent or missing data occurred.
Golf Course Size
Area values specific to individual golf courses or their components (greens, tees, fairway, rough, wildlife areas, or water bodies) could not be obtained. We used an average golf course size to represent all courses in Canada, derived from golf course polygons (n=1524) in NRCAN’s CanVec dataset (see Data drop-down menu below). This dataset was updated prior to calculations, to remove polygons where courses no longer exist or update expansions or reductions in size. The average size of a Canadian golf course established from this method was 46.3 hectares (114 acres).
Information from surveys collected by the Golf Superintendents’ Association of America (USEPA 2006) and the Canadian Golf Superintendents’ Association (2003, 2007) were used to determine the ratio of the size of course components to total golf course size (i.e. greens 1.8%, tees 1.4%, fairway 17.4%, and rough 32.9% of total course area). These ratios were applied to the established average Canadian golf course size to estimate the following average sizes of course component: greens 2.0, tees 1.6, fairway 20.0, and rough 37.8 acres.
Estimated Intensity of Pesticide Use
The following schematic displays the general process for estimating the average total annual application of the active ingredient MCPP for a typical Canadian golf course:
- Pesticide and product types used on Canadian golf courses were identified by the 2007 CGSA Best Management Practices Survey.
- Application rates from corresponding product labels were extracted from the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s (PMRA) online database. Variations in application rates for course components (greens, tees, fairway, or rough) were accounted for. In addition, application rates can display large variation depending on the type of pest being treated; although an average rate was calculated which may over- or under-estimate total amounts for individual courses across Canada, further details about the range of application rates are provided in accompanying tables.
- Following the methodology of Fox et al. (2008) to calculate the percentage of course are actually treatable with pesticides based on adjustment factors used by the USEPA PRZEM EXAMS drinking water modeling system, the following values representing average treatable area for each course component were used: greens 2.6%; tees 2.4%; fairways 28.6%, and; rough 60.0%. Based on the size established for the average Canadian golf course, the average treatable area is 28.5 acres per golf course. Estimates of total active ingredient from spot spray applications were calculated as 10% of the treatable area of each course component, based on information obtained from discussions with golf course superintendents.
- The total amount of active ingredient applied for a single full and spray application was multiplied by the reported average number of annual applications in the 2007 CGSA Best Management Practices Survey.
- The resulting estimate is the total average annual application of MCPP to an average golf course in Canada.
Surrounding Housing Density
Golf courses included in the database were visually identified on Google Earth imagery. To assist in estimating potential risk from pesticide drift, population levels in proximity to courses were also visually assessed by obtaining housing counts along the perimeter of golf courses. Courses were ranked into one of four classes:
A golf course database was compiled in a Geographic Information System (GIS) using information from a variety of geographic and commercial data sources (1-4). Information pertaining to pesticide practices was obtained from government and professional associations (5-8) and used to estimate total annual use by watershed sub-sub drainage areas across Canada (9).
- DMTI Spatial Enhanced Point of Interest (2006).
DMTI Spatial provides topographic and built features for Canada, including river, roads, railways, etc. It also provides an enhanced point of interest (POI) database which report the locations of over 1.6 million Canadian businesses and recreation points of interest, including facilities such as schools, hospitals, gas stations, airports and golf courses.
- D&B Selectory Database (2009).
The D&B database is a comprehensive listing of all businesses operating in Canada. Records were extracted from the D&B database for Canadian businesses listed as golf course or membership clubs.
CanVec is a digital vector cartographic product for Canada provided by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), derived from National Topographic Data Base (NTDB) map series. It includes the locations of golf courses and driving ranges.
- Google Earth.
Golf courses are a unique source since they are easily identifiable from satellite imagery. Google Earth was used as a tool for confirming the existence of golf courses, or acquiring missing geographic coordinates.
- Canadian Golf Superintendents’ Association Best Management Practices Survey (2003, 2008).
The Canadian Golf Superintendents’ Association (CGSA) conducted sample surveys of its members in both 2003 and 2007. These surveys provide information about environmental practices used by golf course superintendents, including average golf course size, types of pesticides used and the number of annual applications, location applied on course (greens, tees, fairways or roughs) and number of pesticide applicators on staff.
- Fox, G.A. et al. (2008). Estimating watershed level nonagricultural pesticide use from golf courses using geospatial methods, Journal of American Water Resources Association, 44(6): 1363-1372.
Example of use of methodology to calculate the percentage of course actually treatable with pesticide based on adjustment factors used by the USEPA PRZM EXAMS drinking water modeling system.
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Golf Course Adjustment Factors Modifying Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations and Estimated Environmental Concentrations Generated by Tier I (FIRST) and Tier II (PRZM/EXAMS) Models (2010).
The US EPA provides guidelines on adjustment factors for golf courses when estimating drinking water concentrations and estimated environmental concentrations with particular aquatic models (FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS). These adjustment factors recognize it is not always appropriate to assume an entire golf course area is treated with pesticides, as typical of agricultural crops. Instead, separate playing surfaces of courses are taken into account in calculations, and areas not treated by pesticides are discounted. This source provides a summary of golf course acreage data from a survey of 741 US golf courses, which can be used to confirm or supplement Canadian survey data.
- Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Product Label Database (2010).
Provide product-specific information on application rates and frequency of application for all pesticide products.
- Water Survey of Canada Sub-Sub Drainage Areas.
Sub-sub drainage areas (SSDA) from the Water Survey of Canada National Scale Frameworks Hydrology, version 5.0, were used to delineate watersheds. This dataset divides Canada into 1015 watershed polygons, ranging in size from 11 to 728,446 km2.
Developing estimates of pesticide use or potential environmental exposure to golf course pesticides in Canada is challenging due to a lack of detailed information on golf courses and the pesticide practices they employ.
As a result, our estimates are based on characterizing an average Canadian golf course (i.e. size, frequency of applications, amounts applied) to represent all courses across Canada. In reality, greater variation exists across Canada, reflecting differences in climate and its influence on types of pests and growing conditions. The possibility of future refinement will depend on the availability of more detailed data at the provincial or individual golf course level.
Little evidence of pesticide drift from golf course application exists in the literature. Although we identify a population at potential risk, the actual risk of exposure from drift is currently unknown.
We are planning to update our estimates for 2011 if new data become available. Check here periodically for information on identified trends in measured levels or factors related to exposure.
|Outdoor Air||Drinking Water|
Aulagnier F, Poissant L, Brunet D, Beauvais C, Pilote M, Deblois C, Dassylva N. 2008. Pesticides measured in air and precipitation in the Yamaska Basin (Québec) : occurrence and concentrations in 2004. Sci Total Environ 294(2-3): 338-348.
Yao Y, Harner T, Blanchard P, Tuduri L, Waite D, Poissant L, Murphy C, Belzer W, Aulagnier F, Sverko E. 2008. Pesticides in the atmosphere across Canadian agricultural regions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 : 5931-5937.
Byrtus G, Pongar K, Browning C, Burland R, McGuinness E, Humphries D. 2004. A summary of pesticide residue data from the Alberta Treated Water Survey, 1995-2003. Alberta Environment, Environmental Assurance Service. Edmonton. 57 pp.
Donald DB, Cessna AJ, Sverko E, Glozier N. 2007. Pesticides in surface drinking-water supplies of the Northern Great Plains. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(8): 1183-1191.
We searched for only publicly available data of measurements of MCPP in the Canadian environment. No systematic method for measuring data quality was possible, so we provide the following assessments of how well the data used may represent the actual Canadian average levels. Quality is rated higher when there are data from a number of Canadian monitors, or from Canadian studies that show results similar to other comparable studies. Quality is rated lower when data from few monitors or studies were available, and lowest when estimates are based on non-Canadian data. Others may rate data quality differently.