Skip to main content

Occurrence of glyphosate and acidic herbicides in select urban rivers and streams in Canada, 2007

Environmental Science and Pollution Research volume 19, pages 821–834 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Public and scientific concern has grown over the last decade in Canada over the cosmetic use of pesticides in urban centers. With this in mind, a national survey was designed to monitor eight commonly used herbicides in urban rivers and streams across Canada.

Materials and methods

To coordinate sample collections across the country, samples were collected monthly on one of two predetermined dates from April to September, 2007 from 19 sites within 16 watersheds, including 15 sites downstream of urban lands and two reference sites. Water samples were also collected approximately three times from each watershed during or after precipitation events. All samples were collected using a common sampling protocol and all were analyzed using the same analytical laboratories.

Results and discussion

The herbicides 2,4-D, mecoprop, dicamba, glyphosate and its major metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) were most frequently detected. Using either herbicide concentrations upstream/downstream of urban centers or bromoxynil and clopyralid as indictors of agricultural inputs of herbicides to streams, it was clear that environmental concentrations of these herbicides downstream of urban areas were linked to urban use in Canada. Herbicide concentrations in streams draining urban areas were greater during or after significant rainfall events and, with the exception of glyphosate, were significantly greater in the Province of Ontario. Herbicide concentrations were not correlated to the proportion of the watersheds in urban land use. Also, there was no difference in seasonal patterns of herbicide concentrations across urban centers when grouped in five geographic areas. None of the herbicide concentrations measured exceeded existing Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life.

Conclusions

This is the first time a national survey of pesticides in urban rivers has been carried out in a consistent fashion across Canada. Concentrations of 2,4-D, mecoprop, dicamba, glyphosate, and AMPA were linked to urban use and frequently detected in all geographic areas. However, geographic differences in concentration suggested differences in usage or stream connectivity patterns among urban centers. Some jurisdictions in Canada have recently restricted cosmetic use of pesticides and it would be interesting to determine whether such restrictions will lead to reduced pesticide concentrations in urban streams.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Blanchoud H, Farrugia F, Mouchel JM (2004) Pesticide uses and transfers in urbanised catchments. Chemosphere 55:905–913

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchoud H, Moreau-Guigon E, Farrugia F, Chevreuil M, Mouchel JM (2007) Contribution by urban and agricultural pesticide uses to water contamination at the scale of the Marne watershed. Sci Total Environ 375:168–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Botta F, Lavison G, Couturier G, Alliot F, Moreau-Guigon E, Fauchon N, Guery B, Chevreuil M, Blanchoud H (2009) Transfer of glyphosate and its degradate AMPA to surface waters through urban sewerage systems. Chemosphere 77:133–139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Byer JD, Struger J, Klawunn P, Todd A, Sverko E (2008) Low cost monitoring of glyphosate in surface waters using the ELISA method: an evaluation. Environ Sci Technol 42:6052–6057

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CCME—Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (1999) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: in Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Chacko VT, Gummer WD (1980) Content and distribution pattern of 2,4-D in the Red River. In: Environment Canada IWD (Hrsg.). Technical Bulletin, Regina, p 12

    Google Scholar 

  • CropLife (2008) Annual Report, Toronto

  • Donald DB, Cessna AJ, Sverko E, Glozier NE (2007) Pesticides in surface drinking-water supplies of the northern Great Plains. Environ Health Perspect 115:1183–1191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fatta-Kassinos D, Bester K, Kümmerer K, Haus N, Zimmermann S, Sures B (2010) Precious metals in urban aquatic systems: platinum, palladium and rhodium: sources, occurrence, bioavailability and effects. In: Alloway BJ, Trevors JT (eds) Xenobiotics in the urban water cycle. Environmental pollution. Springer, Netherlands, pp 73–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Wiley, New York, p 384

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr E, Nnadi F (2009) Non-point source nutrient loading in an urban watershed. ASCE, Kansas City, 140 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman RS, Capel PD, Larson SJ (2000) Comparison of pesticides in eight U.S. urban streams. Environ Tox Chem 19:2249–2258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolpin DW, Thurman EM, Lee EA, Meyer MT, Furlong ET, Glassmeyer ST (2006) Urban contributions of glyphosate and its degradate AMPA to streams in the United States. Sci Total Environ 354:191–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) (1994) Survey of pesticide use in Ontario, 1993. Economics and Policy Co-ordination Branch, OMAFRA, Guelph, Ontario

  • Phillips PJ, Bode RW (2002) Concentrations of pesticides and pesticide degradates in the Croton River watersheds in south-eastern New York, July–September 2000. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report, Troy

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips PJ, Bode RW (2004) Pesticides in surface water runoff in south-eastern New York State, USA: seasonal and stormflow effects on concentrations. Wiley, New York, pp 531–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawn DFK, Halldorson THJ, Woychuk RN, Muir DCG (1999) Pesticides in the Red River and its tributaries in southern Manitoba: 1993–95, 34. National Water Research Institute, Burlington, 37 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Shala L, Foster G (2010) Surface water concentrations and loading budgets of pharmaceuticals and other domestic-use chemicals in an urban watershed (Washington, DC, USA). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 58:551–561

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Struger J, Fletcher T (2007) Occurrence of lawn care and agricultural pesticides in the Don River and Humber River watersheds (1998–2002). J Great Lakes Res 33:887–905

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Struger J, Boyter D, Licsko ZJ, Johnson BD (1994) Environmental concentrations of urban pesticides. In: James W (ed) Current practices in modelling the management of stormwater impacts. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 85–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Struger J, Thompson D, Staznik B, Martin P, McDaniel T, Marvin C (2008) Occurrence of glyphosate in surface waters of Southern Ontario. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 80:378–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlin C (2006) The pesticide manual. British Crop Protection Council (BCPC), 1350 pp

  • United States Geological Survey (1999) The Quality of our nation’s waters—nutrients and pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular, pp. 82

  • Weston DP, Holmes RW, Lydy MJ (2009) Residential runoff as a source of pyrethroid pesticides to urban creeks. Environ Pollut 157:287–294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wittmer IK, Scheidegger R, Bader H-P, Singer H, Stamm C (2011) Loss rates of urban biocides can exceed those of agricultural pesticides. Sci Total Environ 409:920–932

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Metre PCV, Mahler BJ, Wilson JT, Ligouis B, Razzaque MM, Schaeffer DJ, Werth CJ (2010) Influence of coal-tar sealcoat and other carbonaceous materials on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon loading in an urban watershed. Environ Sci Technol 44:1217–1223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the sampling and analytical efforts by the staff of Environment Canada. We are also grateful for the GIS work and watershed delineation conducted by François Boudreault of Environment Canada. This monitoring project was funded by Environment Canada’s Pesticide Science Fund.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Allan J. Cessna

    Present address: Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, National Hydrology Research Centre, 11 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 3H5

Affiliations

  1. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, National Hydrology Research Centre, 11 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 3H5

    Nancy E. Glozier

  2. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON, Canada, L7R 4A6

    John Struger, Steve J. Cagampan & Ed Sverko

  3. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Allan J. Cessna

  4. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, 201-401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6C 3S5

    Melissa Gledhill & Mark A. Sekela

  5. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, 105 Rue McGill, Montreal, QC, Canada, H2Y 2E7

    Myriam Rondeau

  6. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, 45 Alderney Drive, Dartmouth, NS, Canada, B2Y 2N6

    William R. Ernst & Clair Murphy

  7. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 0E7

    Janine L. Murray

  8. Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, 2365 Albert Street, Room 300, Regina, SK, Canada, S4P 4K1

    David B. Donald

Authors
  1. Nancy E. Glozier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Struger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan J. Cessna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melissa Gledhill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Myriam Rondeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William R. Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark A. Sekela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Steve J. Cagampan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ed Sverko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Clair Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Janine L. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. David B. Donald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Struger.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Ake Bergman

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Fig. S1

Examples of river discharge for three rivers with distinct discharge regimes; 1 Highland Creek—frequent rainfall events with event discharge elevated well above base flow, 2 Bow River—a large river with mountain runoff dominated pattern with small impact of rain event on overall discharge, and 3 Swift Current Creek—a small river with infrequent and small rain events. Timing of water quality samples are indicated with an X; X EV indicates a sample classified as being obtained during an event (DOC 88.5 KB)

Fig. S2

Principal component analysis of concentrations of 2,4-D, mecoprop, dicamba, AMPA, and glyphosate for 90 water samples collected from 15 urban rivers between April 2007 and September 2007. Vector arrows show the direction of increasing concentration for each herbicide. Samples with highest concentrations of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba are located in the upper right quadrant; those with highest concentrations of AMPA and glyphosate, in the lower right quadrant. Expanded view (top) shows the spread of samples in the area with high sample overlap (DOC 105 kb)

Table S1

Pesticide physical–chemical characteristics of some pesticides detected in Canadian rivers (DOC 44.5 KB\)

Table S2

Water quality measurements during high discharge (June) and low discharge (September) sampling periods (DOC 96 kb)

Table S3

Detailed summary statistics for urban specific site groupings or sample type (event vs. non-event). Guidelines are from CCME 1999 (DOC 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glozier, N.E., Struger, J., Cessna, A.J. et al. Occurrence of glyphosate and acidic herbicides in select urban rivers and streams in Canada, 2007. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19, 821–834 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0600-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0600-7

Keywords

  • Glyphosate
  • Acid herbicides
  • National survey
  • Urban rivers
  • Urban streams