Journal of dentistry · 2024
Tap water filtration and purification usage and their impact on the concentrations of fluoride and other minerals - A community-based study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hazzazi Loai Wadea, Soto-Rojas Armando E, Martinez-Mier E Angeles, Nassar Hani Mohammed, Eckert George J, Lippert Frank
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the prevalence of water filtration and purification system (WFPS) use among residents of central Indiana (USA) and determined the effects of WFPS on the concentrations of fluoride, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in tap water.
METHODS: A census-based questionnaire collected data on demographics, water use, and water sources. Participants were also asked to provide water samples from their tap water or the WFPS they used. Water samples were analyzed using ion-specific electrodes (fluoride) and atomic absorption spectrometry (metals). Mineral concentration comparisons between water sources used nonparametric tests; questionnaire associations were testing using correlations, chi-square tests, and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: One hundred and one participants completed the study, of which 71 % used some type of WFPS. Blacks were less likely to use WFPS than Asian or White participants (p = 0.045). Those with bachelor's degrees or higher were more likely to use WFPS (p = 0.003). The most used WFPS were pitcher filters (31 %), water softeners (21 %), reverse osmosis systems (11 %), faucet-mounted filters (4 %), and whole-house carbon filters (1 %). Reverse osmosis systems resulted in the lowest mineral concentrations (median, ppm; F-0.08, Ca-2.30, Mg-0.46, Na-4.60, P-0.35). Pitcher filters were largely comparable to unfiltered tap water. Water softeners resulted in the highest sodium concentrations (78.40 ppm).
CONCLUSION: A large proportion of study participants use WFPS, with pitcher filters being the most common. Reverse osmosis systems had the most significant impact on reducing mineral levels in tap water, while pitcher filters do not adversely affect mineral concentrations.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding how different WFPS affect the various minerals in tap water is essential for helping consumers in choosing the right system and for oral care providers to guide patients on water consumption and the need for fluoride supplementation, especially for those at high risk of dental caries.
METHODS: A census-based questionnaire collected data on demographics, water use, and water sources. Participants were also asked to provide water samples from their tap water or the WFPS they used. Water samples were analyzed using ion-specific electrodes (fluoride) and atomic absorption spectrometry (metals). Mineral concentration comparisons between water sources used nonparametric tests; questionnaire associations were testing using correlations, chi-square tests, and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: One hundred and one participants completed the study, of which 71 % used some type of WFPS. Blacks were less likely to use WFPS than Asian or White participants (p = 0.045). Those with bachelor's degrees or higher were more likely to use WFPS (p = 0.003). The most used WFPS were pitcher filters (31 %), water softeners (21 %), reverse osmosis systems (11 %), faucet-mounted filters (4 %), and whole-house carbon filters (1 %). Reverse osmosis systems resulted in the lowest mineral concentrations (median, ppm; F-0.08, Ca-2.30, Mg-0.46, Na-4.60, P-0.35). Pitcher filters were largely comparable to unfiltered tap water. Water softeners resulted in the highest sodium concentrations (78.40 ppm).
CONCLUSION: A large proportion of study participants use WFPS, with pitcher filters being the most common. Reverse osmosis systems had the most significant impact on reducing mineral levels in tap water, while pitcher filters do not adversely affect mineral concentrations.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding how different WFPS affect the various minerals in tap water is essential for helping consumers in choosing the right system and for oral care providers to guide patients on water consumption and the need for fluoride supplementation, especially for those at high risk of dental caries.