Cargando…

Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate the variations in mineral content of tap drinking water across major Australian cities, compared with bottled still and sparkling water, and discuss the possible implications on kidney stone disease (KSD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mineral c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwok, Michael, McGeorge, Stephen, Roberts, Matthew, Somani, Bhaskar, Rukin, Nicholas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.168
_version_ 1784762133710372864
author Kwok, Michael
McGeorge, Stephen
Roberts, Matthew
Somani, Bhaskar
Rukin, Nicholas
author_facet Kwok, Michael
McGeorge, Stephen
Roberts, Matthew
Somani, Bhaskar
Rukin, Nicholas
author_sort Kwok, Michael
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate the variations in mineral content of tap drinking water across major Australian cities, compared with bottled still and sparkling water, and discuss the possible implications on kidney stone disease (KSD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mineral composition of public tap water from 10 metropolitan and regional Australian cities was compared using the drinking water quality reports published from 2019 to 2021 by the respective water service utilities providers. Specifically, average levels of calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and sulphates were compared with published mineral content data from bottled still and sparkling drinking water in Australia. RESULTS: The median or mean (depending on report output) mineral composition was highly variable for calcium (range 1.3 to 20.33 mg/L), magnesium (range 1.1 to 11.2 mg/L), bicarbonate (range 12 to 79 mg/L), sodium (range 3 to 47.1 mg/L), potassium (range 0.4 to 3.23 mg/L) and (sulphates range <1 to 37.4 mg/L). Calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate levels in tap water were lower than in bottled sparkling water. Consumption of 3 L/day of the most calcium rich tap water would fulfil 4.7% of the RDI, compared with 8.7% with bottled sparkling water. Consumption of 3 L of the most magnesium rich tap water would fulfil 8% of the RDI, compared with 13.6% with bottled sparkling water. CONCLUSION: The mineral content of tap drinking water varied substantially across major Australian city centres. Bottled sparkling water on average provided higher levels of calcium, bicarbonate and magnesium and may be preferred for prevention of calcium oxalate stones. These findings may assist counselling of patients with KSD depending on geographic location in the context of other modifiable risk factors and 24‐h urine analysis results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9349584
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93495842022-08-09 Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis Kwok, Michael McGeorge, Stephen Roberts, Matthew Somani, Bhaskar Rukin, Nicholas BJUI Compass To the Drawing Board OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate the variations in mineral content of tap drinking water across major Australian cities, compared with bottled still and sparkling water, and discuss the possible implications on kidney stone disease (KSD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mineral composition of public tap water from 10 metropolitan and regional Australian cities was compared using the drinking water quality reports published from 2019 to 2021 by the respective water service utilities providers. Specifically, average levels of calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and sulphates were compared with published mineral content data from bottled still and sparkling drinking water in Australia. RESULTS: The median or mean (depending on report output) mineral composition was highly variable for calcium (range 1.3 to 20.33 mg/L), magnesium (range 1.1 to 11.2 mg/L), bicarbonate (range 12 to 79 mg/L), sodium (range 3 to 47.1 mg/L), potassium (range 0.4 to 3.23 mg/L) and (sulphates range <1 to 37.4 mg/L). Calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate levels in tap water were lower than in bottled sparkling water. Consumption of 3 L/day of the most calcium rich tap water would fulfil 4.7% of the RDI, compared with 8.7% with bottled sparkling water. Consumption of 3 L of the most magnesium rich tap water would fulfil 8% of the RDI, compared with 13.6% with bottled sparkling water. CONCLUSION: The mineral content of tap drinking water varied substantially across major Australian city centres. Bottled sparkling water on average provided higher levels of calcium, bicarbonate and magnesium and may be preferred for prevention of calcium oxalate stones. These findings may assist counselling of patients with KSD depending on geographic location in the context of other modifiable risk factors and 24‐h urine analysis results. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9349584/ /pubmed/35950043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.168 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle To the Drawing Board
Kwok, Michael
McGeorge, Stephen
Roberts, Matthew
Somani, Bhaskar
Rukin, Nicholas
Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
title Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
title_full Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
title_fullStr Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
title_full_unstemmed Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
title_short Mineral content variations between Australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
title_sort mineral content variations between australian tap and bottled water in the context of urolithiasis
topic To the Drawing Board
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.168
work_keys_str_mv AT kwokmichael mineralcontentvariationsbetweenaustraliantapandbottledwaterinthecontextofurolithiasis
AT mcgeorgestephen mineralcontentvariationsbetweenaustraliantapandbottledwaterinthecontextofurolithiasis
AT robertsmatthew mineralcontentvariationsbetweenaustraliantapandbottledwaterinthecontextofurolithiasis
AT somanibhaskar mineralcontentvariationsbetweenaustraliantapandbottledwaterinthecontextofurolithiasis
AT rukinnicholas mineralcontentvariationsbetweenaustraliantapandbottledwaterinthecontextofurolithiasis