Health Canada 2020 — Guideline Technical Document, Cadmium in drinking water
This Health Canada Guideline Technical Document, prepared in collaboration with the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, establishes a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of 0.007 mg/L (7 µg/L) for total cadmium in drinking water based on a sample taken at the consumer’s tap. The guideline replaces earlier Canadian drinking-water cadmium guidance and is derived from kidney effects (renal tubular damage measured by β2-microglobulinuria) as the critical health endpoint, using the JECFA (2011) tolerable monthly intake of 25 µg/kg body weight per month as the toxicological anchor. The document is the operative federal-level reference for cadmium in Canadian drinking-water programs and incorporates an extensive Canadian provincial/territorial occurrence dataset, an analytical-method inventory, treatment-technology review (with emphasis on galvanized-steel plumbing as the dominant source), and an international comparison with U.S. EPA, Australian NHMRC, WHO, and EU drinking-water values.
Key numbers
Health-based value derivation (Section 10.0, p. 29-30):
- Maximum acceptable concentration (MAC): 0.007 mg/L (7 µg/L) total cadmium, sample at tap.
- Tolerable daily intake (TDI) adopted: 0.8 µg/kg body weight per day (= JECFA 2011 tolerable monthly intake of 25 µg/kg bw/month).
- Allocation factor for drinking water: 0.20 (“floor value”; food is the main exposure source).
- Body weight: 70 kg (adult; Health Canada 1994).
- Drinking-water intake: 1.5 L/day (adult).
- HBV calculation: 0.0008 mg/kg/day × 70 kg × 0.20 ÷ 1.5 L/day = 0.007 mg/L (rounded).
Toxicological reference points (Section 9.1.2.1, p. 21-22):
- EFSA (2009a) BMDL₀₅ for urinary cadmium (UCd) of 4.0 µg/g creatinine based on a 300 µg/g creatinine cut-off for urinary β2-microglobulin (B2M); after applying an adjustment factor of 3.9 (per WHO 2005), EFSA’s reference value is 1 µg/g creatinine UCd.
- JECFA (2011) breakpoint UCd of 5.24 µg/g creatinine (5th–95th percentile interval 4.95–5.57) in adults ≥50 y; with toxicodynamic variability factor of 3, the corresponding dietary exposure is 0.8 µg/kg bw/day (5th percentile) — adopted as the TDI.
- JECFA tolerable monthly intake: 25 µg/kg bw/month (Health Canada selected as basis).
International drinking-water values for comparison (Section 2.4 and 10.1, p. 2 and 30):
| Authority | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Health Canada 2020 (this document) | 0.007 mg/L | Kidney effects |
| U.S. EPA (1991) MCL | 0.005 mg/L | Kidney effects |
| Australian NHMRC (2011, endorsed 1996) | 0.002 mg/L | JECFA 2000 |
| WHO (2011) | 0.003 mg/L | JECFA 2000 |
| EU directive (1998) parametric value | 0.005 mg/L | — |
Canadian occurrence data — drinking and source (raw) water (Table 2, p. 5-6; sampling years 2000–2019):
| Jurisdiction | Type | % >DL (n) | Min–max (µg/L) | Mean (median) (µg/L) | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newfoundland¹ | Tap | 3.5 (4,858) | 0.01–0.35 | 0.034 (0.02) | 2011–2016 |
| Newfoundland¹ | Source | 3.5 (782) | 0.01–3.5 | 0.40 (0.02) | 2011–2016 |
| Nova Scotia² | Raw | 16.0 (489) | 0.01–4.0 | 0.19 (0.02) | 2002–2016 |
| Nova Scotia² | Treated, distributed | 12.0 (595) | 0.01–0.54 | 0.06 (0.02) | 2002–2016 |
| New Brunswick³ | Raw | 13.0 (2,551) | 0.01–2.9 | 0.12 (0.02) | 2007–2017 |
| New Brunswick³ | Treated, distributed | 3.6 (3,002) | 0.01–3.5 | 0.16 (0.03) | 2007–2017 |
| Quebec⁴ | Distributed | 4.2 (14,483) | 0.002–3.4 | 0.20 (0.01) | 2013–2017 |
| Ontario⁵ | Raw | 14.0 (1,132) | 0.003–5.0 | 0.09 (0.01) | 2013–2019 |
| Ontario⁵ | Treated, distributed | 15.0 (8,251) | 0.003–10.0 | 0.16 (0.10) | 2013–2019 |
| Manitoba⁶ | Raw | 29.0 (1,495) | 0.01–1.0 | 0.04 (0.02) | 2009–2017 |
| Manitoba⁶ | Treated, distributed | 19.0 (2,071) | 0.01–1.0 | 0.04 (0.02) | 2009–2017 |
| Saskatchewan⁷ | Raw, treated, distributed | 14.0 (4,083) | 0.01–5.9 | 0.07 (0.02) | 2007–2017 |
| Alberta⁸ | Raw | 19.0 (273) | 0.10–2.0 | 1.20 (1.00) | 2007–2017 |
| Alberta⁸ | Distribution system | 2.0 (807) | 0.01–0.3 | 0.03 (0.01) | 2007–2017 |
| Alberta⁸ | Well | 0.30 (1,686) | 1.0–31 | 13.4 (15.0) | 2012–2017 |
| BC Interior Health⁹ | Raw and treated | 97.0 (1,180) | 0.005–100.0 | 0.56 (0.02) | 2007–2017 |
| BC Northern Health⁹ | Raw | 39.0 (1,067) | 0.005–5.0 | 0.06 (0.02) | 2007–2017 |
| Yukon¹⁰ | Raw and treated | 32.0 (370) | 0.003–3.41 | 0.08 (0.03) | 2009–2017 |
| Prince Edward Island¹¹ | Tap, distribution system | 0.3 (2,917) | 2.0–6.0 | 3.4 (3.0) | 2013–2015 |
| Canada¹² | Raw (Environment and Climate Change Canada) | 85.6 (18,998) | 0.001–95.4 | 0.07 (0.01) | 2000–2016 |
No samples were provided from Nunavut or the Northwest Territories. Source attributions (footnotes 1–12) are reproduced verbatim from the document and credit provincial/territorial environment, health, and water-security agencies plus Environment and Climate Change Canada (2017) for the national dataset.
Plumbing-system observations (Section 7.1.6.1, p. 16-17, Viraraghavan et al. 2000 dataset cited in document):
- Copper-plumbed dwellings, first round (three sequential sample volumes drawn per dwelling — 125 mL faucet-stagnant, 500 mL plumbing-stagnant, 125 mL distribution-main): Cd concentrations <DL–171 µg/L (first sample), <DL–39 µg/L (second sample), <DL–102 µg/L (third sample). Maximum Cd concentrations of 133 µg/L and 101 µg/L were measured in the second and third rounds (subsequent rounds over time), respectively.
- Plastic-plumbed dwellings: Cd 8–38 µg/L in the first samples taken during the first round; <10 µg/L in all samples during the second and third rounds.
- Brass faucet leaching (Samuels and Meranger 1984 cited in document): chrome-plated brass faucets after 24 h stagnation gave <0.05–10 µg/L (raw, filtered, treated, groundwater, fulvic-acid solutions); highest value 10 µg/L for treated water. After a second 24 h period: <0.05–4 µg/L.
- Cement-mortar lining leaching (Guo et al. 1998 cited in document): up to 1.1 µg/L under static stagnation conditions over five days.
Canadian dietary cadmium exposure (Section 5.2, p. 6; Health Canada 2017a):
- Median dietary exposure: 0.30 µg/kg bw/day in males aged 51–71+ years.
- 0.83 µg/kg bw/day in both sexes aged 4–8 years.
- Multi-sample basis 2009–2015 Canadian food supply.
Canadian biomonitoring data — CHMS (Section 5.6.2, p. 7-8):
- Blood cadmium geometric mean (GM) ages 6–79: cycle 1 (2007–2009) 0.34 µg/L (95% CI 0.31–0.37, n=5,319); cycle 2 (2009–2011) 0.30 µg/L (95% CI 0.27–0.33, n=5,575); cycle 3 (2012–2013) 0.34 µg/L (95% CI 0.31–0.37, n=5,067).
- Blood Cd consistently higher in females (cycle GMs 0.38, 0.33, 0.39 µg/L) than males (0.30, 0.27, 0.31 µg/L).
- Urinary Cd GM ages 6–79: cycle 1 0.34 µg/L (95% CI 0.31–0.38, n=5,491); cycle 2 0.40 µg/L (95% CI 0.36–0.44, n=5,738).
- Creatinine-adjusted UCd: cycle 1 0.42 µg/g creatinine (95% CI 0.40–0.44, n=5,478); cycle 2 0.37 µg/g creatinine (95% CI 0.34–0.41, n=5,719).
- Age trend (Statistics Canada 2015 cited in document, cycle 3 data): blood cadmium GM 0.42 µg/L in adults 20–79 vs 0.12 µg/L in ages 3–19; statistically significant. Urinary cadmium also showed age-dependent increases (60–79 > 40–59 > 20–39) per Garner and Levallois (2016).
Approved analytical methods (Table 3, p. 9):
| Method | Methodology | MDL (µg/L) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA 200.5 Rev. 4.2 | Axially viewed ICP-AES (AVICP-AES) | 0.1 | U.S. EPA 2003 |
| EPA 200.7 Rev. 4.4 | ICP-AES | 1.0 | U.S. EPA 1994a |
| EPA 200.8 Rev. 5.4 | ICP-MS | 0.03 (SIM) – 0.5 (scan) | U.S. EPA 1994b |
| EPA 200.9 Rev. 2.2 | Stabilized-temperature graphite-furnace AAS | 0.05 | U.S. EPA 1994c |
| SM 3113B | Electrothermal AAS | 0.05 | APHA et al. 2017 |
U.S. EPA practical quantitation limit (PQL): 2 µg/L (U.S. EPA 2009).
Residential and material standards (Section 7.2, p. 18-19):
- NSF/ANSI 53, 58, 62 certified residential treatment device performance: average influent of 0.03 mg/L → maximum effluent 0.005 mg/L.
- NSF/ANSI 61 (components) and 60 (treatment chemicals) single product allowable concentration: 0.0005 mg/L.
Carcinogenicity and other toxicology (Section 9-10):
- IARC (2012) classification: Group 1, “carcinogenic to humans” — based on sufficient evidence of lung, kidney, and prostate cancer in occupationally inhalation-exposed workers; epidemiological evidence linking oral cadmium exposure to cancer is limited (document, p. 24, 29).
- Oral LD₅₀ in rats and mice: 100–300 mg/kg (JECFA 2001 cited in document, p. 25).
- Bone-effect BMDL₀₅ values from epidemiology (range 0.5 to ~2 µg/g creatinine UCd) considered inconsistent and not used as critical effect (Section 9.1.2.2, p. 23-24).
Methods (brief)
Regulatory risk-assessment guideline document, not an analytical study. The document compiles and synthesizes:
- Health risk assessment: based on Health Canada’s 2018 cadmium-in-foods hazard assessment (Health Canada 2018a) and prior risk assessments by EFSA (2009a, 2011) and JECFA (2011). Critical effect = renal tubular damage measured by urinary β2-microglobulin (B2M). Dose-response derived from EFSA (2009a) meta-analysis of 35 epidemiological studies aggregating 165 matched group-mean pairs of UCd and B2M (>30,000 individuals; predominantly female Asian populations). Toxicokinetic modelling used Amzal et al. (2009) one-compartment model with Monte Carlo simulation; toxicodynamic variability factor of 3 applied by JECFA (2011). Health Canada adopted the JECFA tolerable monthly intake of 25 µg/kg bw/month (= 0.8 µg/kg bw/day).
- Occurrence dataset compilation: drinking-water Cd data from each Canadian province/territory (footnote-credited submissions 2017–2020) plus national Environment and Climate Change Canada (2017) raw-water dataset of n=18,998. No data from Nunavut or the Northwest Territories.
- Analytical-methods inventory: five approved methods with method-detection-limit values (Table 3).
- Treatment-technology review: municipal (coagulation, precipitation, ion exchange, membrane filtration, adsorption) and residential (NSF/ANSI 53, 58, 62) options.
No new analytical measurements are reported. The document operates as a synthesis-and-rule-derivation publication: dose-response selection → TDI adoption → HBV calculation (0.0008 mg/kg/day × 70 kg × 0.20 ÷ 1.5 L/day = 0.007 mg/L rounded) → MAC.
Limitations
- The MAC is derived from a dietary critical effect (kidney) with a 20% allocation factor reflecting that drinking water is a minor exposure source compared to food. The MAC does not protect against any incremental risk associated with simultaneous high-end dietary cadmium exposure beyond the 20% allocation, nor against inhalation exposure from cigarette smoke (which the document acknowledges produces blood Cd levels four to five times higher in smokers; Section 5.4, p. 7).
- The critical EFSA (2009a) meta-analysis used group means rather than individual data points; an adjustment factor of 3.9 was applied to address residual interindividual variability. Health Canada adopted JECFA’s slightly different reanalysis (biexponential breakpoint model) yielding numerically similar reference value.
- Oral carcinogenicity dose-response data are considered insufficient for quantitative risk assessment (Section 10.0, p. 29); the MAC is not based on a cancer endpoint despite IARC Group 1 classification (which derives from inhalation exposure).
- Bone-effect data are inconsistent and were not used as critical effect, although some studies report effects at UCd levels lower than the renal endpoint (Section 9.1.2.2, p. 23-24).
- The Canadian occurrence dataset has no Nunavut or Northwest Territories samples. Sampling protocols differed across jurisdictions (raw, source, treated, distributed, tap, well, distribution system); cross-jurisdiction comparisons should be made cautiously.
- The Alberta well dataset is highly skewed (mean 13.4 µg/L, median 15.0 µg/L, only 0.30% above DL of n=1,686) and likely reflects a small population of high-cadmium private wells rather than the typical distribution.
- The document references but does not reproduce the underlying Viraraghavan et al. (2000), Samuels and Meranger (1984), Schock and Neff (1988), and Subramanian et al. (1991) plumbing-leaching datasets; users seeking primary first-draw data should consult those publications directly.
Implications
- Certification: This guideline establishes the operative Canadian federal cadmium-in-drinking-water MAC (7 µg/L total Cd at tap), the underlying toxicological reference value (TDI 0.8 µg/kg bw/day; tolerable monthly intake 25 µg/kg bw/month), and the residential treatment performance expectation (NSF/ANSI certified devices reducing 0.03 mg/L influent to ≤0.005 mg/L effluent). It provides the Canadian regulatory backdrop for any HMT&C threshold work touching drinking water as an ingredient or process water in food production. The 0.20 drinking-water allocation factor (food is dominant exposure source) is the operative national assumption for partitioning the TDI across exposure media.
- Courses: Useful as a worked example of a national risk assessment that adopts an international body’s reference dose (JECFA tolerable monthly intake) rather than re-deriving from first principles, and as an illustration of how galvanized-steel plumbing legacies (pre-1980 National Plumbing Code Canada) drive present-day metal exposure independent of source-water quality. The plumbing-versus-source-water decoupling is a transferable lesson for any drinking-water lead/cadmium curriculum.
- App: Drinking water (tap, bottled) is a minor but non-zero Cd exposure pathway in the Canadian dataset compiled here. The document’s distributed-water medians across provinces sit in the 0.01–0.10 µg/L band, while the source-water and well distributions reach the tens of µg/L for a small fraction of samples (Alberta wells 0.30% above DL with detected-fraction median 15.0 µg/L; BC Interior raw and treated 97.0% above DL with detected-fraction median 0.02 µg/L). The document attributes the dominant tap-side contribution to galvanized-steel service lines, well components, and pre-1980 plumbing rather than to source-water quality. Central-tendency values across the full sample set do not summarize this within-population heterogeneity.
- Microbiome: Not addressed by the document.
Verification notes
- Cite-key uses the
hc(Health Canada) agency abbreviation with the publication year (2020), consistent with other Health Canada source pages inwiki/sources/(e.g.,hc2008-aluminum-food-additives-industry-request,hc2008-review-dietary-exposure-aluminum). - The sibling file
drinking-water-quality-guideline-cadmium.pdfin the same folder is byte-identical (SHA-256 match) toraw_path; listed innear_duplicates. matricesincludes general drinking-water descriptors (drinking-water, tap-water, source-water, raw-water, treated-water, distribution-water) that span the document’s data tables; no closer-fitting canonical matrix slug for treated/distributed water exists in the system-prompt list.- No matching
[[regulations/canada-cadmium-drinking-water-mac]]page exists yet in the taxonomy snapshot; the document IS the operative Canadian federal MAC for cadmium in drinking water. Flagged here as a backlog regulation-page candidate but NOT created (regulation pages require a hard agency identifier and a Karen-driven Step 0 Lock per CLAUDE.md Part 10). - Canadian provincial table (Table 2) reproduces the document’s footnote citations 1–12 in the table header explanation; values are quoted exactly as the document reports them, including the visually unusual entries (e.g., Quebec mean 0.20 µg/L vs median 0.01 µg/L — a wide right tail; Alberta well median 15.0 µg/L > mean 13.4 µg/L — an artifact of the 0.30% detection rate with very small detected-fraction n).
- Document references but does not reproduce the underlying primary leaching datasets (Viraraghavan et al. 2000, Samuels and Meranger 1984, Schock and Neff 1988, Subramanian et al. 1991); Key numbers explicitly attributes leaching ranges to the document’s own citation chain rather than direct measurement here.
- No brand names appear in the source’s contamination data; vendor names in the analytical-methods table (U.S. EPA, APHA) are method-publishing standards bodies, not Part 12 violations.
- Page numbers in Key numbers cite the PDF’s internal page numbers (e.g., “p. 29-30” = the document’s Section 10.0 heading on PDF-page 29 of 50).
- Audit subagent (2026-06-04) flagged the original Statistics Canada 2015 age-trend block as “UCd GM 0.42 µg/L in adults 20–79 vs 0.12 µg/L in ages 3–19”; verified against source p. 8 — the source explicitly attributes these values to blood cadmium, not urinary cadmium. Block corrected to BCd and a separate sentence added noting the Garner and Levallois (2016) age-dependent UCd increases.
- Audit subagent (2026-06-04) flagged the Viraraghavan et al. (2000) copper-plumbing block for conflating “samples” (the three sequential within-round sample volumes — 125/500/125 mL — drawn per dwelling) with “rounds” (monthly repeats); verified against source p. 17 — finding correct. Block restructured to separate within-round samples (first/second/third sample 125/500/125 mL, values <DL–171/<DL–39/<DL–102 µg/L) from cross-round maxima (133, 101 µg/L in second and third rounds).
- Audit subagent (2026-06-04) flagged App-audience phrasing (“tail risk for app users with old housing stock”, “typical baseline”) as edging into the Part 2 wiki/HMTc firewall (consumer-risk-advisory framing and app-data threshold proposal); reframed to describe what the document’s dataset contains (median band, well/raw outliers, plumbing attribution) without prescribing a downstream HMI app default value or advisory.
- Audit subagent (2026-06-04) flagged “Oral LD₅₀ in rats” as narrower than source attribution; verified against source p. 25 — source says “in rats and mice”. Corrected.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Page history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.
| Commit | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9c0b0a7 | 2026-06-05 | codex fire 2026-06-05: no unclaimed auto-fetched pdfs |