Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Differences between Mains and Bottled Water, in an Area in the Central Area of Romania
1
Department Community Nutrition and Food Safety, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540142 Targu Mures, Romania
2
Department Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology, 540142 Targu Mures, Romania
3
Nutricare Clinic, 540342 Targu Mures, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 1115; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021115
Submission received: 14 December 2022
/
Revised: 5 January 2023
/
Accepted: 6 January 2023
/
Published: 8 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Science and Engineering)
Abstract
:The human body is mostly made up of water. The largest proportion of the human body is water, hence the growing interest of specialists in defining the importance of water in the body and the risks of dehydration. This study determined the physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of the drinking water distributed in the public network in the area of operation of Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County and samples of bottled water existing on the market in Mureş County (mineral, spring or table). The water supplied to the network can be safely consumed. This is demonstrated both by the results of the analyses of the physico-chemical and microbiological parameters related to the legislative standards and by the values of the similar parameters analyzed for the bottled water.
1. Introduction
The human body is made up of 60% water, and if we refer to young children the percentage increases to 75%, while in the elderly it decreases to 50% [1]. The largest proportion of the human body is water, hence the growing interest of specialists in defining the importance of water in the body and the risks of dehydration [2]. People can live without food for almost a month, in the presence of a normal adipose tissue, but without water, survival is not possible for more than 3 days [3].
Minerals are found in dissociated water, as electrolytes, with a positive charge (cations) or a negative charge (anions). The main cations are calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na) and potassium (K), and the category of anions includes bicarbonate (HCO3), chlorine (Cl), sulfate (SO4) and nitrates (NO3). To these are added the trace elements represented by metals and metalloids with a low concentration both in water and in the human body, such as manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), fluorine (F), silicon (Si), selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), etc. [4]. All these play a decisive role in the constitution and functioning of the human body. The body provides a large part of its needs for minerals from food (vegetables and meat), due to the fact that they are found in the form of organic compounds, which are more easily assimilated by the human body than inorganic ionic compounds, as minerals in water [5]. They often grow in soils whose mineral resources have long been depleted by intensive cultivation [5]. However, experts unanimously acknowledge that the intake of minerals from mineral water is not negligible, and it comes to supplement the body’s needs, especially in cases where we do not have a very varied diet in the fruits and vegetables we eat today. They often grow in soils whose mineral resources have long been depleted by intensive cultivation [6].
Water helps to recover lost fluids through metabolism, respiration, perspiration and waste removal. It helps prevent overheating, lubricates joints and tissues, keeps skin healthy and is necessary for proper digestion. It is the perfect calorie-free drink to quench your thirst and rehydrate your body [4].
From a physico-chemical point of view, no two types of mineral water are identical. The mineralogical composition of the rocks crossed by water in its underground course, the duration of this course, the mixture with other waters as well as the presence of natural CO2 emissions, are just a few factors that have a decisive impact on the composition and taste characteristics of mineral water [7].
Bottled drinking water, unlike tap water, is subject to verification only for a limited number of parameters. The tap water is monitored more frequently and can be consulted publicly on the website of the Public Health Directorate or on the website of drinking water supply companies such as the Water Distribution Operator, which serves the Mureș area.
The aim of the study is to compare, in terms of the physico-chemical and microbiological parameters, different brands of bottled water vs. tap water with the aim of increasing consumer confidence in drinking water quality, which could help reduce the use of plastic packaging and increase the reduction in plastic waste as well as greenhouse gas emissions with a climate change mitigation impact and a positive effect on the environment as a whole.
2. Materials and Methods
This study determined the physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of the drinking water distributed in the public network in the area of operation of the Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County and a sample of bottled water existing on the market in Mureş County (mineral, spring or table) and reported the results to the Romanian Drinking Water Standard (Law 458/2002, supplemented by Law 311/2004 and Decision 1020/2005 for the approval of the technical norms for the exploitation and commercialization of natural mineral waters) [8,9,10].
The data taken from the weekly published report on the physico-chemical and microbiological parameters for the drinking water distributed by the local water operator were used for analysis (Appendix A.1, Appendix A.2).
For bottled water, 20 different brands of bottled water existing on the market in Mureş County in 2022 were purchased.
Statistical Determinations
For the data identified through the water analysis, we calculated the median, minimum and maximum for both the bottled water and drinking water from the distribution system. For both data sets, we applied normality tests [11] and validity tests. The comparison of the two sets of data (bottled water vs. drinking water from the distribution system) was made using non-parametric tests (Mann–Whitney test).
The statistical calculation was performed using GraphPrism vers. 9 and the chosen significance threshold was 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Physico-Chemical Parameters
The values of the physico-chemical parameters of the bottled water samples, on different brands, were similar (Table 1).
The only element in which we did not have significant differences between the two types of water was the oxidability (Table 2).
For the content of minerals (anions), the statistically significant differences were identified for bicarbonates, sulphates and chlorides in the water distributed in the network and the bottled one. It can be seen that the only element in which there was no statistically significant difference was the nitrate content in the water (Table 3).
In the case of cations, we identified statistically significant differences for the following elements: hardness water, calcium and magnesium content. Ammonium was the only element analyzed in which we did not identify statistically significant differences between the main’s water and bottled water. (Table 4).
3.2. Microbiological Determinations for Bottled Water
The number of colonies at 22 °C in the case of 9 bottled waters exceeded the microbiological parameters, namely at the no. of colonies at 22 °C. Samples 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 18 exceeded 385 and a maximum of 4000 CFU/mL. The maximum value was recorded at test no. 16: flat spring water, with 4000 CFU/mL (Table 5).
The number of colonies at 37 ° C in the case of 5 bottled waters exceeded the microbiological parameters, namely at the no. of colonies at 37 °C. Samples 7, 9, 10, 11 and 15 recorded exceedances ranging from 270 to a maximum of 2560 CFU/mL. The maximum value was recorded at test no. 10: flat mineral water, with 2560 CFU/mL (Table 5).
4. Discussion
In the present study, we aimed to follow only the usual drinking water contaminants and the microbiological ones, between tap and bottled water, in order to identify any differences that would justify the exclusion of tap water as drinking water.
The physico-chemical and microbiological parameters for 9 of the samples in the public water network displayed on the Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County website, in January 2022, were compared with the same parameters analyzed for 20 samples of bottled water, accessible to consumers in the same area.
The analysis of the samples was completed through the same laboratory, belonging to the Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County, and the standard was representative of the Romanian Drinking Water Standard, regulated by law [8,9,10].
All drinking water samples from the public supply network fall within the drinking water standard, unlike the 9 bottled water (Table 5) samples that do not fall within the standard, due to the microbiological component.
The results of this study are all the more important as the legal standards for drinking water distributed in public supply networks are stricter than those for bottled water [8].
Various studies have found irregularities in certain samples of bottled water, such as the presence of traces of E. coli [12,13] or arsenic [14]. These studies could not prove that bottled water is inferior in quality to municipal water, but drew attention to the regulatory framework for bottled water, which they categorized as inadequate to ensure consumers’ purity or water safety.
Other studies drew attention to the possibility of transferring chemicals from the composition of plastic bottles into the water they contain [15]. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE or # 1), the plastic used to pack most single-use bottled water bottles, is not intended to be reused, but consumers often refill and reuse these bottles. PETs are considered more stable and less prone to such transfers than other forms of plastic, but studies suggest that di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) can be released by the repeated use of PET containers, a probably human carcinogen compound that affects the endocrine system [16].
Another study found high levels of antimony in bottled water in PET bottles and found that the source of the contamination was the bottles themselves, although the concentration levels were lower than those considered safe for drinking water in the US and Canada [17]. In most of these studies, it was found that the concentration of toxins increases the longer the water stays inside the plastic bottles and the higher the storage temperature [18]. Considerable attention has also been paid to the chemical transfer problems associated with Bisphenol A (BPA) [17] and plastic microparticles [19,20].
There are studies that draw attention to the possibility that bottled water may contain in certain quantities some substances with a potentially more or less harmful effect on human health: these cannot be classified as unsuitable for consumption [21,22].
Many consumers believe that bottled water is a high quality product. In reality, countless companies simply filter municipal water and bottle it [21,23]. Increased transparency in bottled water analysis could provide greater certainty about the quality of bottled water [23,24]. The possibility of informing consumers through labeling, as it applies to food [25], would provide the opportunity to identify the consumer’s profile in relation to water consumption [26,27].
On the other hand, the consumption of oil, energy and water from the production process and the transportation of bottled water, as well as the huge amounts of waste that end up in landfills or directly in nature, through which ecosystems are directly and indirectly affected, are a reality that we must be aware of, and we must take it into account when we have the opportunity to choose between different sources of water that are safe for our health [28].
5. Conclusions
The water supplied to the network can be safely consumed. This is demonstrated both by the results of the analyses of the physico-chemical and microbiological parameters related to the legislative standards and by the values of the similar parameters analyzed for the bottled water. The analysis of the water consumption behavior in the population can complete the present study, in order to intervene to promote water consumption as more accessible and cheaper by reducing the risks of chemical and biological contaminants for humans and environmental pollutants.
Author Contributions
R.F. (conceptualization; writing—original draft preparation; writing—review and editing), A.C. (formal analysis; methodology; writing—review and editing), M.R. (investigation; resources; writing—original draft preparation; writing—review and editing). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Physico-Chemical Determinations for Drinking Water Distributed by Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County
Table A1.
Physico-chemical parameters of drinking water from the Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County network.
Table A1.
Physico-chemical parameters of drinking water from the Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County network.
| Collection Areas Targu Mures | Turbidity, FNU | pH | Oxidisability, mg/l | Conductivity, µS/cm | Dry Residue -180 grd, mg/l | Bicarbonates (HCO3), mg/l | Nitrites (NO2), mg/l | Nitrates (NO3), mg/l | Sulphates (SO4), mg/l | Chlorides (Cl), mg/l | Hardness G | Calcium (Ca), mg/l | Magnesium (Mg), mg/l | Ammonium (NH4), mg/l |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Nombril | 0.22 | 7.6 | 1.07 | 204 | 102 | 49 | <0.004 | 3.5 | 14.6 | 18.4 | 3.7 | 16.7 | 5.9 | 0.019 |
| Centru | 0.35 | 7.5 | 1.07 | 188 | 124 | 61 | <0.004 | 3.5 | 13.4 | 17.1 | 3.4 | 15.4 | 5.4 | 0.009 |
| Cornişa | 0.22 | 7.5 | 1.49 | 196 | 76 | 62 | <0.004 | 3.6 | 13.5 | 18.1 | 3.7 | 16.8 | 5.6 | 0.017 |
| Mihai Viteazu | 0.22 | 7.5 | 1.20 | 218 | 138 | 68 | <0.004 | 3.6 | 15.9 | 20.2 | 3.9 | 18.0 | 5.8 | 0.010 |
| Gh. Marinescu | 0.24 | 7.5 | 1.95 | 205 | 96 | 63 | <0.004 | 3.4 | 13.6 | 18.9 | 3.9 | 16.6 | 6.7 | 0.008 |
| Tudor | 0.20 | 7.5 | 1.49 | 190 | 130 | 61 | <0.004 | 3.2 | 14.6 | 17.9 | 3.4 | 15.4 | 5.1 | 0.018 |
| Dâmbu Pietros | 0.27 | 7.5 | 1.56 | 199 | 124 | 62 | <0.004 | 3.6 | 15.3 | 17.9 | 3.5 | 17.2 | 4.8 | 0.010 |
| Gh. Doja | 0.28 | 7.5 | 1.33 | 186 | 150 | 58 | <0.004 | 3.7 | 14.6 | 17.3 | 3.4 | 17.1 | 5.0 | 0.017 |
| Unirii | 0.23 | 7.5 | 1.75 | 188 | 122 | 58 | <0.004 | 3.8 | 11.8 | 18.5 | 3.9 | 17.3 | 6.2 | 0.013 |
Appendix A.2. Microbiological Determinations for Drinking Water Distributed by Water Distribution Operator in Mureș County
Number of Colonies at 22 °C
The total number of colonies or mesophilic germs (which grow at 22 °C), a global indicator that allows the assessment of the general microbiological load of water, was analyzed by the method of incorporating in Petri dishes successive dilutions made from water, by inserting 1 cm3 dilution in the culture medium. The number of colonies obtained after incubation for 48 h at 22 °C was used together with the dilution used to estimate the number of mesophilic germs per cm3 of collected water.
Number of Colonies at 37 °C
The total number of colonies or mesophilic germs (which grow at 37 °C), a global indicator that allows the assessment of the general microbiological load of water, was analyzed by the method of incorporating in Petri dishes the successive dilutions made from collected water, by inserting 1 cm3 dilution in the culture medium. The number of colonies obtained after incubation for 48 h at 37 °C was used together with the dilution used to estimate the number of mesophilic germs per cm3 of collected water.
References
- Ruta, F.D.; Tarcea, M. Bazele Nutritiei; University Press Targu-Mures: Targu-Mures, Romania, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, S.G.; Chen, W. Human Body Water Composition Measurement:Methods and Clinical Application. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 2018, 40, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Institutul National De Sanatate Publica. Available online: https://insp.gov.ro/download/cnmrmc/Ghiduri/Igiena%20Mediului%20si%20Apa%20Potabila/Notiuni-generale-pentru-populatie-privind-categoriile-de-apa-imbuteliata.pdf. (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- Mihele, D. Igiena Alimentaţiei: Nutriţie, Dietoterapie si Compoziţia Alimentelor; Editura Medicală: Bucureşti, Romania, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Feru, A. Ghidul Apelor Minerale Naturale; Risoprint: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Quattrini, S. Natural Mineral Waters: Chemical Characteristics and Health Effects. Clin. Cases Miner. Bone Metab. 2016, 13, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Honig, V.; Procházka, P.; Obergruber, M.; Roubík, H. Nutrient Effect on the Taste of Mineral Waters: Evidence from Europe. Foods 2020, 9, 1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- CAMERA DEPUTATILOR. Available online: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=37178 (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- CAMERA DEPUTATILOR. Available online: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=50357 (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- CAMERA DEPUTATILOR. Available online: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act?ida=59310 (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- Avram, C.; Marusteri, M. Normality assessment, few paradigms and use cases. Rev. Romana Med. Lab. 2022, 30, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curutiu, C.; Iordache, F.; Gurban, P.; Lazar, V.; Chifiriuc, M.C. Main Microbiological Pollutants of Bottled Waters and Beverages. Bottled Packaged Water 2019, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The Consumption of Bottled Water Containing Certain Bacteria or Groups of Bacteria and the Implications for Public Health. Available online: https://www.fsai.ie/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9286 (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- Consumer Reports. Available online: https://www.consumerreports.org/water-quality/arsenic-in-some-bottled-water-brands-at-unsafe-levels/ (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- Irina, D. Determination of Phthalates from Bottled Water by GC-MS. 2012. Available online: http://aerapa.conference.ubbcluj.ro/ (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- Westerhoff, P.; Prapaipong, P.; Shock, E.; Hillaireau, A. Antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used for bottled drinking water. Water Res. 2008, 42, 551–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cao, X.-L.; Corriveau, J. Survey of bisphenol A in bottled water products in Canada. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 1 2008, 2, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zlatanović, L.; van der Hoek, J.P.; Vreeburg, J.H.G. An experimental study on the influence of water stagnation and temperature change on water quality in a full-scale domestic drinking water system. Water Res. 2017, 123, 761–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Molaee Aghaee, E.; Alimohammadi, M.; Nabizadeh, R.; Jahed Khaniki, G.; Naseri, S.; Mahvi, A.H.; Yaghmaeian, K. Effects of storage time and temperature on the antimony and some trace element release from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) into the bottled drinking water. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2014, 12, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mason, S.A.; Welch, V.G.; Neratko, J. Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled Water. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cidu, R.; Frau, F.; Tore, P. Drinking Water Quality: Comparing Inorganic Components in Bottled Water and Italian Tap Water. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2011, 24, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamberlan da Silva, M.E.; Santana, R.G.; Guilhermetti, M.; Filho, I.C.; Endo, E.H.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Nakamura, C.V.; Dias Filho, B.P. Comparison of the bacteriological quality of tap water and bottled mineral water. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2008, 211, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clean Water Action. Available online: https://www.cleanwateraction.org/2020/07/29/bottled-water-human-health-consequences-drinking-plastic. (accessed on 25 November 2022).
- Mahajan, R.K.; Walia, T.P.; Lark, B.S.; Sumanjit. Analysis of physical and chemical parameters of bottled drinking water. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2006, 16, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avram, C.; Avram, L.; Rus, V.; Georgescu, I.M.; Ruta, F.; Olah, P. Food Labels. Consumer Understanding of the Information Contained. A Pilot Study. Progr. Nutr. 2022, 24, e2022100. [Google Scholar]
- Avram, C.; Avram, L.; Olah, P.; Rus, V.; Georgescu, I.M.; Bucur, O.M.; Ruta, F. Knowledge about food additives among adults—Pilot study. Progr. Nutr. 2021, 23, e2022100. [Google Scholar]
- Saylor, A.; Prokopy, L.S.; Amberg, S. What’s wrong with the tap? Examining perceptions of tap water and bottled water at Purdue University. Environ. Manag. 2011, 48, 588–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Varbanov, P.S.; Klemeš, J.J.; Wan Alwi, S.R. Water Availability Footprint Addressing Water Quality. Water Environ. Syst. 2019, 7, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perera, M.P.; Ng, A.W.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; O’Connor, J.; Perera, B.J.C. Investigation of water quality in combined recycled water and stormwater systems. Urban Water J. 2018, 15, 478–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zlatanović, L.; Knezev, A.; Van der Hoek, J.P.; Vreeburg, J.H.G. Influence of an Extended Domestic Drinking Water System on the Drinking Water Quality. Water 2018, 10, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rizak, S.; Cunliffe, D.; Sinclair, M.; Vulcano, R.; Howard, J.; Hrudey, S.; Callan, P. Drinking water quality management: A holistic approach. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 47, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Physico-chemical parameters for bottled water.
| BOTTLED WATER | Turbidity, FNU | pH | Oxidisability, mg/l | Conductivity S/cm | Residue sec -180 grd, mg/l | Bicarbonates (HCO3), mg/l | Nitrites (NO2), mg/l | Nitrates (NO3), mg/l | Sulphates (SO4), mg/l | Chlorides (Cl), mg/l | Total Durity G | Calcium (Ca), mg/l | Magnesium (Mg), mg/l | Ammonium (NHx), mg/l |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oligomineral plain water 1 | 0.13 | 8.0 | 1.38 | 184 | 90 | 73 | <0.004 | 2.0 | 7.1 | 0.2 | 20.8 | 68.0 | 39.0 | 0.011 |
| Oligomineral plain water 2 | 0.17 | 7.6 | 1.28 | 90 | 76 | 29 | <0.004 | 4.9 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 17.9 | 0.007 |
| Oligomineral plain water 2 | 0.17 | 7.7 | 0.77 | 354 | 182 | 207 | <0.004 | 2.1 | 8.8 | 0.9 | 11.4 | 44.0 | 22.1 | 0.015 |
| Mineral plain water 1 | 0.11 | 7.8 | 3.01 | 511 | 296 | 317 | <0.004 | 5.5 | 9.2 | 1.9 | 15.2 | 57.0 | 31.0 | 0.016 |
| Mineral plain water 2 | 0.21 | 7.7 | 0.90 | 615 | 372 | 354 | <0.004 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 13.2 | 37.8 | 204.0 | 40.0 | 0.010 |
| Mineral plain water 3 | 0.10 | 7.6 | 1.09 | 323 | 170 | 171 | <0.004 | 5.6 | 8.5 | 2.3 | 10.6 | 61.2 | 8.7 | 0.008 |
| Mineral plain water 4 | 0.19 | 7.9 | 1.18 | 35 | 202 | 195 | <0.004 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 1.0 | 11.5 | 72.0 | 6.2 | 0.014 |
| Mineral plain water 5 | 0.12 | 7.6 | 1.31 | 606 | 338 | 285 | <0.004 | 4.2 | 11.9 | 11.0 | 16.4 | 75.1 | 25.3 | 0.010 |
| Mineral plain water 6 | 0.12 | 7.6 | 1.34 | 119 | 68 | 65 | 0.012 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 13.5 | 6.9 | 0.016 |
| Mineral plain water 7 | 0.25 | 8.0 | 1.44 | 310 | 168 | 181 | <0.004 | 3.8 | 7.2 | 0.7 | 9.6 | 53.9 | 8.8 | 0.009 |
| Alkaline mineral water | 0.11 | 9.1 | 1.09 | 207 | 142 | 71 | <0.004 | 0.5 | 26.6 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 3.7 | 0.014 |
| Mineral water | 0.11 | 6.3 | 1.57 | 1146 | 736 | 683 | <0.004 | 2.0 | 35.6 | 10.5 | 30.8 | 111.0 | 66.1 | 0.026 |
| Imported mineral water | 0.26 | 7.9 | 0.74 | 478 | 254 | 293 | <0.004 | 8.8 | 5.9 | 3.6 | 4.8 | 52.0 | 11.9 | 0.010 |
| Flat water spring 1 | 0.14 | 7.6 | 0.70 | 844 | 482 | 417 | <0.004 | 19.9 | 29.4 | 32.4 | 21.4 | 83.9 | 41.7 | 0.021 |
| Flat water spring 2 | 0.21 | 7.7 | 1.66 | 415 | 240 | 268 | <0.004 | 3.6 | 11.0 | 2.0 | 14.2 | 79.7 | 12.8 | 0.012 |
| Flat water spring 3 | 0.13 | 7.5 | 1.12 | 416 | 234 | 195 | <0.004 | 3.9 | 9.8 | 2.4 | 13.5 | 68.7 | 16.5 | 0.011 |
| Flat water spring 4 | 0.15 | 7.9 | 0.90 | 548 | 334 | 176 | <0.004 | 1.9 | 89.0 | 9.1 | 5.7 | 17.7 | 14.1 | 0.010 |
| Alkaline plain water spring 1 | 0.21 | 8.1 | 1.18 | 283 | 208 | 159 | <0.004 | 3.6 | 10.0 | 1.5 | 10.1 | 12.5 | 10.1 | 0.012 |
| Alkaline flat water spring 2 | 0.22 | 9.4 | 1.95 | 298 | 190 | 203 | <0.004 | 0.6 | 10.5 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 2.8 | 5.5 | 0.042 |
| Import table water | 0.18 | 6.9 | 1.12 | 476 | 488 | 20 | <0.004 | 0.4 | 4.8 | 127.0 | 11.5 | 62.4 | 11.8 | 0.102 |
Table 2.
Physical and chemical parameters for main’s water vs. bottled water.
| Physico-Chemical Parameters Analyzed | Drinking Water from the Distribution System Median (min/max) | Bottled Water (PET) Median (min/max) | p | |
| Turbidity | 0.23 (0.2/0.35) | 0.16 (0.1/0.26) | 0.0002 * | |
| pH | 7.5 (7.5/7.6) | 7.7 (6.3/9.4) | 0.0010 * | |
| Oxidability | 1.49 (1.07/1.95) | 1.18 (0.7/3.01) | 0.1862 * | |
| Conductivity | 196 (186/218) | 384.5 (35/1146) | 0.0110 * | |
| Dry residue -180 grd | 124 (76/150) | 221 (68/736) | 0.0017 * |
* Mann–Whitney test.
Table 3.
Mineral content (anions) in main’s water vs. bottled water.
| Anions (mg/L) | Drinking Water from the Distribution System Median (Min/Max) | Bottled Water (PET) Median (Min/Max) | p | |
| Bicarbonate (HCO3) | 61 (48.8/68) | 195 (20/683) | 0.0003 * | |
| Nitrates (NO3) | 3.55 (3.17/3.77) | 3.72 (0.4/19.86) | 0.5695 * | |
| Sulphates (SO4) | 14.6 (11.8/15.9) | 9.02 (4.81/89) | 0.0112 * | |
| Chlorides (Cl) | 18.1 (17.1/20.2) | 2.35 (0.2/127) | 0.0003 * |
* Mann–Whitney test.
Table 4.
Mineral content (cations) in main’s water vs. bottled water.
| Cations (mg/L) | Drinking Water from the Distribution System Median (Min/Max) | Bottled Water (PET) Median (Min/Max) | p | |
| Total Durity G | 3.7 (3.4/3.9) | 11.45 (0.86/37.8) | 0.001 * | |
| Calcium (Ca) | 16.8 (15.4/18) | 59.10 (1.4/204) | 0.037 * | |
| Magnesium (Mg) | 5.59 (4.8/6.65) | 13.45 (3.72/66.1) | 0.0002 * | |
| Ammonium (NH4) | 0.013 (0.008/0.019) | 0.012 (0.007/0.102) | 0.972 * |
* Mann–Whitney test.
Table 5.
Physico-chemical parameters for bottled water.
| BOTTLED WATER | Total Coliform Bacteria, UFC/250 ml | Escherichia Coli, UFC/250 ml | Enterococi, UFC/250 ml | Clostridium Perfringens, UFC/50 ml | Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, UFC/250 ml | Number of Colonies at 22 grd, UFC/ml | Number of Colonies at 37 grd, UFC/ml |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flat oligomineral water 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat oligomineral water 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat oligomineral water 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 118 | 9 |
| Flat mineral water 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat mineral water 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat mineral water 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat mineral water 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2080 | 1120 |
| Flat mineral water 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 385 | 18 |
| Flat mineral water 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3200 | 2500 |
| Flat mineral water 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2400 | 2560 |
| Alkaline mineral water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 528 |
| Mineral water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Imported mineral water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Flat water spring 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat water spring 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1280 | 270 |
| Flat water spring 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4000 | 20 |
| Flat water spring 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alkaline flat water spring 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 1 |
| Alkaline flat water spring 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Import table water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Florina, R.; Calin, A.; Raluca, M. Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Differences between Mains and Bottled Water, in an Area in the Central Area of Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021115
AMA Style
Florina R, Calin A, Raluca M. Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Differences between Mains and Bottled Water, in an Area in the Central Area of Romania. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(2):1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021115
Chicago/Turabian StyleFlorina, Ruta, Avram Calin, and Maior Raluca. 2023. "Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Differences between Mains and Bottled Water, in an Area in the Central Area of Romania" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 2: 1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021115
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
