4.1 Article

pH of bottled water commercially available in Australia and its implications for oral health

Journal

JOURNAL OF WATER AND HEALTH
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 871-876

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wh.2022.070

Keywords

Australia; bottled water; erosive tooth wear; oral health; pH

Funding

  1. Australian Dental Research Foundation (ADRF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent studies have found that some bottled water products are acidic and can erode the teeth. Flavored bottled waters were found to be the most acidic, while alkaline waters had the lowest acidity. This finding raises concerns about the risk of tooth wear from consuming bottled waters.
With a higher pH level and being unlikely to erode the tooth, bottled water has been considered a safe alternative to acidic beverages. However, recent studies have reported some bottled water products in different countries to be acidic. The present paper aimed to examine the pH values of 42 bottled waters commercially available in Australia, using a pH metre and probe, and classify their risks to cause erosive tooth wear in comparison with the critical pH of enamel and dentine. Of the 42 bottled water samples collected, 81.0 and 73.8% were considered erosive to tooth dentine and enamel, respectively. Flavoured waters were the most acidic, followed by sparkling waters, spring waters, artesian waters, mineral waters, and alkaline waters. All sparkling waters and flavoured waters showed an erosive risk to the enamel and dentine. Portions of spring waters and artesian waters were also acidic enough to erode tooth structures. The findings of this work were of concern given the risk of sustaining erosive tooth wear from consuming bottled waters. Health promotion strategies including public awareness and education on oral health consequences related to the consumption of bottled water are needed. Future epidemiological and in vivo investigations are also warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available