Archives of

1. Introduction
Water is the most abundant chemical substance on the earth’s surface and the most important factor for creatures’ survival. About 65% to 75% of the human body weight is made up of water. Water, as one of the three factors in the formation and survival of the environment, is more important than ever [1,2]. Water-related concerns are acute in arid and semi-arid regions, and many countries facing water crises rely on non-conventional water sources (purified sewage or desalinated seawater). Nowadays, people use bottled water for various reasons, including a lack of favorable drinking water quality of distribution systems, lack of drinking water, ease of access, and relatively low cost. According to the general public, bottled water is completely hygienic and safe, while it can sometimes not have the required quality. Bottled water has standards, rules, and regulations; however, if they are higher than the standard values, the product is unhealthy and may be dangerous for the consumer [3]. Bottled waters are divided into two categories: Mineral bottled waters and drinking bottled waters. Mineral water contains minerals, trace elements, and other ingredients and is obtained directly from the spring or the points excavated from the underground layers. Concerning the use of bottled waters, several aspects are taken into account, such as the water type, compounds, additives, price, quality control, environmental effects stemming from plastic bottles, and more energy consumption
Investigating Water Quality Parameters of the Water of the Distribution Network, the Outlet Water of the Household Water Purification Device, and the Widely Consumed Bottled Waters Distributed in the City of Ardabil, and Comparing them with Drinking Water Standards in 2019
Zahra Pourakbar1ID, Abdollah Dargahi2,3ID, Ahmad Mokhtari1ID, Mehdi Vosoughi1,3ID, Hadi Sadeghi1*ID
1Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Health, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran
2Department of Environmental Health, Khalkhal University of Medical Sciences, Khalkhal, Iran
3Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Hadi Sadeghi, Email: hsadeghi1079@gmail.com
Abstract
Background & Aims: The quality of water consumed by individuals in a society will significantly affect the health of individuals of that society. Various substances that enter individuals’ bodies through drinking water play a critical role in maintaining their health so that the lack or excess of some of these substances can cause many complications. Thus, this study aims to determine water quality parameters of the water of the distribution network, the outlet water of the household water purification device, and the widely consumed bottled waters distributed in the city of Ardabil, and compare them with drinking water standards in 2019.
Materials and Methods: This study is a descriptive cross-sectional type, in which 30 bottled waters from 10 most widely consumed brands of bottled water distributed in the city of Ardabil and also 30 samples of the water of the distribution network and the outlet water of the household water purification device were randomly selected. All samples were tested based on the method standard reference. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare the brands of bottles, the one-sample t test was used to compare the mean of each parameter with the standard value, and the paired student t-test was used to compare the mean inlet and outlet of the water purification device.
Results: The results showed no microbial pollution in the investigated samples. The highest removal efficiency of the parameters by the household water purification device was 93.18% for sodium, and the lowest was 7.0% for nitrite.
Conclusion: In terms of chemical and microbial quality, the widely consumed bottled waters distributed in Ardabil had no health problems. In general, since the concentration of most urban physicochemical parameters is below the drinking water standard limit of 1053 in household water purification devices, the use of these devices is not necessary for the city of Ardabil.
Keywords: Water purification, Water quality, Drinking water, Bottled water
Received: Januray, 12, 2022, Accepted: February, 14, 2022, ePublished: December 29, 2022
https://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/
10.34172/AHS.11.4.38.17
Vol. 11, No. 4, 2022, 248-257
Original Article
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022 249
Quality Parameters of the Water of the Household Water Purification Device
compared to the pipeline network, [4]. One of the
parameters that may impact bottled water is the place of
water extraction. The quality of extracted water depends
on the environment of the groundwater table, which can
culminate in the contact of the groundwater with the
surrounding rocks and the dissolution of the minerals,
and change the content of its minerals, which the bottled
water samples may be different due to it [5]. According
to the World Health Organization (WHO) report, more
than 1.8 million people (mostly children) die annually
in the world by water-borne diseases, and this issue has
become one of the most leading and common causes of
death [6]. There are various ways for entering chemical
and microbial pollution into water sources in today’s
industrial societies, including the sewage from chemical
industries, the waters that have passed through farmlands
as drainage and are contaminated with pesticides or
chemical fertilizers, and municipal sewage and chemical
waste disposal areas, which are among serious sources of
pollution [7]. In case of violation of the standards, some
of the components in water (nitrate, nitrite, fluoride,
etc.) may have unfavorable effects on water quality and
reduce water quality [8]. One of the essential parameters
in producing and consuming bottled waters, like other
drinking waters, is controlling their physical, chemical,
and microbial quality, which can lead to consumer
dissatisfaction or complications for them [9]. Nowadays,
with increasing the population, decreasing water resource
reserves per capita, and increasing physical, chemical,
and microbial water pollution, the water crisis has been
proposed as one of the critical global problems so that
main message in the second world water council in the
Hague, the Netherlands in 2000, was the necessity of
more rational water management, its fundamental reform
and transformation, the coordinated participation of the
beneficiary sectors of the society in water management,
and the extension of international cooperations to
solve the water crisis [10]. One of the most important
health problems in backward and developing countries
is the lack of healthy drinking water. Since the basis of
sustainable development is a healthy human being and
human health relies on benefiting from ideal drinking
water, there is no place for the health and well-being of
society without supplying healthy water [11]. Given the
WHO policy, some factors in bottled waters receive more
attention than waters of the distribution network, and
stricter standards are applied to reduce their pollution
[12]. Bottled waters must meet the drinking water quality
standards of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
WHO, and the Institute of Standards and Industrial
Research. In many societies, water quality standards have
been formulated separately [13]. Because of the pollution
potential of urban water sources, people have turned to
bottled waters and household water purification devices
as alternative sources. In order to inhibit the incidence of
health effects due to consuming improper and polluted
water, awareness of drinking water quality becomes
particularly important. Therefore, the current research
was conducted to assess water quality parameters of the
water of the distribution network, the outlet water of the
household water purification devices, and the widely
consumed bottled waters distributed in the city of Ardabil
and compare them with drinking water standards in 2019.
2. Materials and Methods
This research was a descriptive cross-sectional study
conducted in 2019 in Ardabil. The statistical population
included the water of the distribution network, the outlet
water of the household water purification device, and the
widely consumed bottled waters distributed in Ardabil.
According to the investigations, 10 widely consumed
brands of bottled water are distributed in Ardabil,
which are predominant in the country, too. Out of these
10 brands, five are bottled mineral waters called Vata,
Parmin, D.D., Atash, and Pana, which are packaged and
supplied in Ardabil province. Five other brands are bottled
drinking waters called Oxab, Purelife, Damavand, Desani,
and Aquafina, which are packaged in other provinces.
Three samples were collected from the ten bottled water
brands (30 bottles) and 30 samples were collected from
the inlets and outlets of household water purification
devices. It should be noted that one sample of each brand
of bottled waters also worked, but because of obtaining
better results regarding statistical mean comparison, three
samples of each brand (with the same production date)
were prepared. The total number of samples was 60. In
order to prepare samples of household water desalination
devices, Ardabil was randomly divided into five regions,
and water samples were randomly taken from each region.
The samples were then transferred to the laboratory of
Ardabil School of Health and tested. Totally, 780 samples
were analyzed for 13 parameters investigated in this study
according to the standard method of water and wastewater.
In general, the tests were performed in two categories,
including device tests and titration, on the basis of the
method standard reference for water and wastewater
tests. pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured
using a portable pH meter and EC meter, respectively.
Total hardness, calcium, and chloride were measured by
the titration method, sulfate, fluoride, nitrate, and nitrite
were measured using a spectrophotometer device, and
sodium was measured using a flame photometer device;
for measuring other factors, the instructions contained
in the book of “Standard Methods” were used. The most
portable number (MPN) method was also used for
microbial testing [14].
2.1. Data analysis
The results were analyzed using Excel and SPSS version
22 software, and the mean concentrations obtained were
Pourakbar et al
250 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022
compared with drinking water and bottled mineral water
standards. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
test was used to compare the brands of bottles, the onesample
t test was used to compare the mean of each
parameter with the standard value, and the paired student
t-test was used to compare the mean inlet and outlet of
the water purification device.
3. Results
The results of investigating the water quality parameters
of bottled waters, inlet and outlet waters of the household
water purification device, data analysis, and the removal
efficiency of parameters by household water purification
devices are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The results of
the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation
values of physicochemical parameters in bottled waters
distributed in Ardabil in 2019 are presented in Table 1; the
results of the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard
deviation values of physicochemical parameters in the
inlet and outlet waters of household water purification
devices in Ardabil in 2019 and the comparison of their
mean concentrations with the drinking water standard
1053 are presented in Table 2. Table 2 represents the
removal efficiency results of physicochemical parameters
by household water purification devices in Ardabil in
2019. The results of the one-sample t-test for comparing
the mean values of physicochemical parameters in the
inlet and outlet waters of household water purification
devices with the drinking water standard 1053 revealed
a significant relationship between the parameters
investigated in the inlet and outlet waters of household
water purification devices (P<0.05). In addition, the results
of the ANOVA test for the physicochemical parameters of
bottled waters showed a significant difference between all
parameters investigated in this study (except for nitrite
and pH).
4. Discussion
4.1. Nitrate
Nitrate is produced by nitrogen oxidation. Most metal
nitrates are water-soluble and are present in small
amounts in surface and underground water. Nitrate is
detrimental to human health, and long-term contact with
its high concentrations may cause disease. The standard
amount of nitrate for drinking water and bottled water in
Iran is less than 50 mg/L [15], and the amount of nitrate
in the samples tested in the current study is less than this
value. Although the entrance of small amounts of nitrate
into the adult human body is not dangerous since nitrate
is a natural part of the human diet, if nitrate concentration
is high, especially above 45 mg/L, then consuming such
water for children younger than six months old, especially
for babies who eat infant formula, is dangerous and results
in the occurrence of a disease called methemoglobinemia
[16]. According to Iran’s Standards and Industrial
Research, if the amount of nitrate is more than 10 mg/L,
the words “not suitable for babies” should be written
on the bottled water label [17]. Among the brands
investigated in the current study, the highest nitrate
concentration was observed in the Pana brand, with a
mean value of 1.14 mg/L, and the Aquafina brand had the
lowest nitrate concentration, with a mean value of 1.29
mg/L. In the study of the inlets and outlets of household
water purification devices in the current study, the highest
amount of nitrate was related to inlet 4 with a mean value
of 5.11 mg/L, and the lowest amount was related to inlet
1 with a mean value of 2.18 mg/L. The mean nitrate range
at the inlets and outlets of household water purification
devices was between 0.43 and 5.11 mg/L, which is below
the standard limit. In the present study, nitrate removal
efficiency by household water purification devices was
81.86%. The mean nitrate concentration was 3.94 mg/L at
the inlets and 0.72 mg/L at the outlets of household water
purification devices. None of the samples investigated
in the present research were associated with nitrate
Table 1. The results of the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation values of physicochemical parameters in bottled waters distributed in
Ardabil in 2019
Parameters Minimum Values Maximum Values Mean Values Standard Deviation Values
Nitrate 1.29 14.1 5.713 3.793
Nitrite 0.0002 0.004 0.0007 0.0017
Fluoride 0.15 0.87 0.4073 0.9943
Chloride 0.16 13.82 3.41 4.621
Total hardness 25.2 165.6 78.048 54.831
Calcium 0.0 56.45 17.712 17.973
Sodium 1.3 19.96 7.532 6.132
Sulfate 2.84 78.45 33.998 26.1
EC 122.25 794.42 324.9137 168.32
TDS 85.58 556.13 227.44 117.827
pH 7.23 8.03 7.628 0.575
EC, electrical conductivity; TDS, total dissolved solids
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022 251
Quality Parameters of the Water of the Household Water Purification Device
concerning pathogenicity and all are in appropriate
health conditions. The results of Orooji and colleagues’
study to assess the quality of bottled waters consumed in
Iran showed that the mean nitrate concentration in all
investigated bottled waters was within the standard range
of bottled drinking waters and lower than the maximum
permissible amount for drinking. Also, there was a
significant difference in a number of samples between the
measured values and those listed on the bottled water label
[18], which is consistent with the results of the present
study. The results of a study on bottled mineral waters in
Italy indicated that the amount of nitrate was within the
standard limit [19]. A study on inorganic ions, including
nitrate in bottled drinking waters in Japan, concluded that
nitrate concentration was within the standard limit [20].
A study conducted in Finland showed that the devices’
efficiency in reducing nitrate was 91.75% [21], which is
almost consistent with the results of the present study.
Numerous studies have indicated the association of the
presence of nitrate in drinking water with the risk of
cancers such as gastric cancer [22].
4.2. Nitrite
Nitrite is the regenerated form of nitrate, which can create
health problems of methemoglobinemia, liver injury,
and carcinogenic nitrosamines in the body because
of the possibility of bonding with blood hemoglobin.
Thus, its presence in drinking water is worrying and
should be eliminated [23]. Iran’s national standard
1053 has not stated any optimal limit for nitrite and has
suggested the maximum permissible amount of nitrite as
3 mg/L. Standard 2441 of Iran’s Institute of Standards and
Industrial Research for nitrite in bottled waters has stated
0.02 mg/L as the permissible limit. In the investigated
bottled water brands, the amount of nitrite had not been
included only on the label of the Desani brand bottled
water. In all investigated samples, nitrite was lower than
the permissible limit. In examining the amounts of nitrite
in bottled mineral waters in the city of Babol, nitrite
concentration was reported to be within 0.003 to 0.05
Table 2. The results of the physicochemical parameters in the inlet and outlet waters of household water purification devices
Parameters Minimum Values Maximum Values Mean Values
Standard Deviation
Values
Mean Removal
Efficiency
Maximum
Standard
Maximum Permissible
Amount
Nitrate
Inlet 2.18 5.11 3.944
81.86 - 50
Outlet 0.43 1 0.7153
Nitrite
Inlet 0.0052 0.0086 0.0073
7.0 - 3
Outlet 0.0 0.0077 0.0066
Fluoride
Inlet 0.0 0.87 0.4113
60.78 0.5 1.5
Outlet 0.0 0.36 0.1613
Chloride
Inlet 12.49 66.98 44.95
77.7 25. 400
Outlet 3.99 22.49 10.02
Total hardness
Inlet 64.8 101.52 76.03
88.71 200 500
Outlet 2.88 15.12 8.58
Calcium
Inlet 37.88 83.81 52.36
90.22 300 -
Outlet 0.86 21.6 5.12
Sodium
Inlet 40.25 95.57 79.96
93.18 200 200
Outlet 2.05 8.13 5.45
Sulfate
Inlet 32.01 163.2 71.85
87.12 250 400
Outlet 0.0 124.11 9.25
EC
Inlet 122.25 1144.55 1324.91
89.95 - -
Outlet 38.63 794.42 125.92
TDS
Inlet 85.58 801.18 500.44
89.95 1000 1500
Outlet 27.04 556.13 54.14
pH
Inlet 7.23 8.03 7.62
- 5.6-5.8 5.6-0.9
Outlet 5.5 7.93 6.59
Total coliform
Inlet 0.0 0.0 -
- Zero Zero
Outlet 0.0 0.0 -
Fecal coliform
Inlet 0.0 0.0 -
- Zero Zero
Outlet 0.0 0.0 -
Note: Concentrations with the drinking water standard 1053.
EC, electrical conductivity; TDS, total dissolved solids.
Pourakbar et al
252 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022
mg/L [24]. The results of Orooji and colleagues’ study
to assess the quality of bottled waters consumed in Iran
revealed that the mean concentration of the chemical
parameter of nitrite in all investigated bottled waters was
within the standard range of bottled drinking waters and
lower than the maximum permissible amount for drinking
[18]. The evaluation of the efficiency of household water
purification devices by Sadigh et al showed that the outlet
nitrite amount of two three-filter and six-filter household
water purification devices had significant changes
compared to each other [25]. Investigating the drinking
water quality of the city of Bardsir showed that the amount
of nitrite in all samples was lower than the permissible
limit of the Iranian standard and the WHO guidelines
[26]. The results of the current research regarding the
60 investigated water samples indicated that the mean
nitrite concentration was 0.0038 mg/L and the standard
deviation was 0.00378. According to the results of the
present study, the nitrite concentration of all samples was
lower than the standard limit.
4.3. Fluoride
One of the water quality indices that can provide
beneficial information about water drinkability and its
content of minerals is the amount of fluoride in water,
which is essential as one of the anions of water concerning
health aspects and its effect on dental health [27].
According to Iran’s drinking water standard, the ideal
concentration of fluoride in drinking water is 0.7 mg/L
in hot months and 1.2 mg/L in cold months. Based on
the results of the current study, the outlet fluoride amount
of the household water purification device is significantly
lower than the minimum standard values in municipal
water. The reduction of fluoride by these devices is one
of the principal disadvantages of these devices and may
have health effects on humans. Of course, similar studies
carried out in other places have confirmed the removal
of fluoride by these devices and its reduction below
the drinking water standard. In a study conducted in
Bojnoord, the efficiency of water purification devices in
fluoride reduction was found to be 68.8% [28]; another
research in Qeshm showed the efficiency of these devices
in fluoride reduction at 99.3% [29], all confirming the
results of the present research. The efficiency of the
devices in the current study to reduce fluoride is 60.78%.
Investigations carried out by different researchers,
including Matloob’s study on investigating the amount of
fluoride in Euphrates River water and bottled waters in the
city of Babel, Iraq [30] and Dianati and colleagues’ [31]
study in the city of Savadkooh, showed that the amount
of fluoride in the investigated water samples was lower
than the WHO standard and Iran’s national standard
1053 of drinking water, which have declared the amount
of fluoride to be 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L; this result is consistent
with our results regarding the amount of fluoride in
the water samples investigated in the city of Ardabil. In
the investigation of bottled waters in the present study,
the amount of fluoride had not been mentioned on the
bottles’ labels for four brands, Aquafina, Pana, Parmin,
and Damavand. The comparison of the analysis results of
the present study was not consistent with the values listed
on the bottles’ labels. Thus, it is necessary to monitor and
supervise the places of producing these bottled waters
continuously, and the information about the actual water
quality and the bottles’ labels should coincide. The results
of the current study on the mean fluoride value of bottled
waters showed that only two brands of the investigated
bottled waters, that is, Atash mineral water with a mean
fluoride value of 0.53 mg/L and Damavand drinking
water with a mean fluoride value of 0.76 mg/L, were
within the standard limit and other bottled waters were
below the standard limit. The results of Cochrane and
colleagues’ study, indicated that the amount of fluoride
in five out of ten water samples was 0.03 mg/L and less
than the standard limit [32]. The results of Shabankareh
Fard and colleagues’ study on investigating the amount
of fluoride in drinking water of the distribution network
of Bushehr showed that the mean fluoride value was 0.48
mg/L [33], which is consistent with the findings of the
present research. The results of the present study on the
60 investigated water samples showed that the minimum
fluoride concentration was zero, the maximum fluoride
concentration was 0.87 mg/L, the mean value was 0.35,
and the standard deviation was 0.226. The results of
the statistical analysis indicated a significant difference
between the investigated groups regarding fluoride
concentration, which may be due to fluoride reduction by
the household water purification device and the difference
in water sources. According to the results of the present
study, the amount of fluoride concentration in most of the
samples was lower than the standard limit. Since the most
important way to receive fluoride is through drinking
water and the absorption of fluoride about 0.5 to 1.5 mg/d
is useful for the growth of teeth and bones, the amount
of fluoride in the investigated drinking water network of
Ardabil and bottled waters should be increased.
4.4. Chloride
Chloride is a mineral that is very helpful in creating taste
in water. The presence of chloride anion can be one of the
reasons for unfavorable drinking water [34]. Iran’s national
standard 1053 has stated the ideal amount of chloride as
250 and its maximum permissible amount as 400 mg/L.
The WHO guideline standard for chloride is 250 mg/L.
The mean chloride concentration in all investigated
samples was lower than the optimal standard. In Jahed
Khaniki and colleagues’ study in Tehran, the amount
of chloride in all investigated samples was determined
within the standard limit and much lower than the
optimal level [15], which is consistent with the results of
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022 253
Quality Parameters of the Water of the Household Water Purification Device
the present study. In Amouei and colleagues’ study on the
water quality of Khaaf, the chloride parameter was higher
than the standard limit in 10% of cases [35]. The results
of Azarpira and colleagues’ study in the city of Saveh
indicated that the mean chloride concentration exceeded
the permissible limits, and water non-quality conditions
were totally obvious [36]. In the study conducted in
Kashan, the mean inlet and outlet chloride of household
water purification devices were about 204 and 68 mg/L,
and the device efficiency in reducing the amount of
chloride was reported to be 66.5% [37]. The mean inlet and
outlet chloride of household water purification devices
in Bojnoord have been found to be 167 and 37 mg/L,
respectively, and the efficiency of the devices in reducing
chloride has been 77.8% [28]. The results of the present
study on 60 investigated water samples showed that the
total mean chloride concentration was 15.44 mg/L and
the standard deviation was 19.01. The results of statistical
analysis indicated a significant difference between the
investigated groups in terms of chlorine concentration.
According to the results of the present study, the amount
of chlorine concentration in all samples was lower than
the standard limit. The mean chlorine concentration at the
inlets of household water purification devices in Ardabil
in the current research was 44.95 mg/L, and considering
that the chlorine concentration in the water of the
distribution network of Ardabil is less than the optimal
level, the use of the household water purification device
with reduced efficiency of 77.7% causes the taste of water
to disappear because based on the recommendations of
relevant organizations, the presence of minerals such as
chloride is necessary for proper drinking taste.
4.5. Total hardness
Water hardness is one of the influencing factors in water
tastiness, which is caused due to the existence of calcium
and magnesium in water. In assessing widely consumed
bottled waters distributed in Ardabil, the Damavand
brand bottled water was determined as hard water, the
Purelife and Oxab brands were determined as semi-hard
waters, and other brands were determined as light waters.
The results of investigating bottled water samples available
in Ilam revealed that the investigated samples were within
the permissible limit regarding total hardness [38], which
is consistent with the results of the current research. The
results of investigating bottled water samples in Hamedan
province showed that the total hardness level of 40 out of
56 samples was less than the optimal maximum, and 16
samples had a total hardness level higher than the optimal
maximum [39]. The results of investigating the drinking
water sources of Saveh [36] showed that the mean
concentration of total hardness exceeded the maximum
permissible limit. In the examination of the water quality
of Bushehr, the mean total hardness was obtained at 458
mg/L regarding calcium carbonate, which is determined
as very hard water according to the classification [33].
According to Iran’s national drinking water standard, the
optimum level of total hardness is 200, and the maximum
permissible amount is 500 mg/L regarding calcium
carbonate. Hence, the drinking water hardness of Ardabil,
with a mean concentration of 76.03, will cause no health
problems for consumers. Considering that the drinking
water hardness of Ardabil is classified as semi-hard water
according to the WHO classification [40], after being
purified by household water purification devices, it is
placed in the class of light waters, and since light waters
cause cardiovascular diseases [41], the reduction of this
amount of hardness by household water purification
devices may have health effects; therefore, this issue is
considered a disadvantage of these devices [41]. The
hardness removal efficiency in the current study was
88.71%, which is consistent with the study conducted in
Qeshm, in which the hardness removal efficiency by the
household water purification device was 99.5% [29].
4.6. Calcium
Calcium is mostly present in bones and teeth, and its
shortage results in osteoporosis. Only 1% of it is available
in other parts of the body, and this amount performs
many actions; for example, the contraction of our muscles
relies on the existence of calcium. Considering that most
food we consume during the day is water, the reason for
the importance of calcium in drinking water is evident.
Calcium can be absorbed in drinking water. Therefore,
water can have a critical role in supplying the calcium
needed by the body. Calcium is present in all waters that
originate from rocks, and its amount depends on the type
of bedrock through which the water passes. Calcium is
often seen as carbonate, bicarbonate, and sulfate [42].
The main characteristic of calcium shortage in children
is rickets and structural transformation in growing bones,
while in adults, it contributes to osteoporosis. Standard
1053 has stated the optimum calcium level as 300 mg/L
and has not specified a permissible level. In the present
study, the mean inlet calcium concentration of household
water purification devices was obtained at 52.36 mg/L.
The removal efficiency of the investigated devices was
estimated at 90.22%, which is consistent with the results
of Rajaei and colleagues’ study suggesting the calcium
reduction efficiency as 85.5% [43]. In the present study,
investigating the mean calcium concentration of widely
consumed bottled waters distributed in Ardabil was
measured at 17.71 mg/L, which is inconsistent with the
results of Orooji et al. In Orooji’s study, the mean calcium
concentration in bottled waters was within the standard
limit of bottled drinking waters [18].
4.7. Sodium
In the current research, all investigated samples had
sodium levels lower than 200 mg/L. Examining Iran’s
Pourakbar et al
254 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022
bottled water quality by Orooji et al in 2015 showed that
the amount of sodium in all investigated samples was
within the determined standard limit and much lower
than the optimal standard, which is consistent with the
results of the current research. The investigation of the
bottled mineral water quality in Kerman in 2009 indicated
that 46% of the samples had higher sodium amounts than
the recommended limit [44].
4.8. Sulfate
In the present study, the mean sulfate concentration at
the inlets of household water purification devices was
obtained at 71.85 mg/L. Investigating the mean sulfate
concentration of water in Ardabil by Sadigh et al showed
its mean sulfate concentration as 70.4 mg/L, which is
consistent with the results of the present study [25]. The
mean outlet sulfate concentration of the devices is equal
to 9.25 mg/L, indicating a sharp decrease in the outlet
sulfate concentration of these devices. Considering that
the concentration of minerals in water is essential in small
amounts to create taste in drinking water, this reduction
may largely remove the taste of water, which can be
considered one of the disadvantages of these devices. On
the other hand, because of sulfate’s laxative effects, this
reduction can be helpful in some cases [45]. In Rezaei and
colleagues’ study on bottled water samples, the amount
of sulfate in all samples was within the standard limit. In
the current research, the mean sulfate concentration for
widely consumed bottled waters distributed in Ardabil
was much lower than the optimal level [17]. The results of
Rajaei and colleagues’ study showed that the mean outlet
sulfate concentration of household water purification
devices was 5 mg/L, which is to some extent in line with
the results of the current research [43]. The results of
Amouei and colleagues’ study regarding the water quality
of Khaaf showed that the amount of sulfate was 20%
higher than the standard limit [35]. Shabankareh Fard
and colleagues’ study on the drinking water quality of
the distribution network of Bushehr reported the mean
sulfate as 728.38 mg/L and higher than the drinking water
standard, which does not meet any of the standards and
is not consistent with the results of the current study [33].
4.9. Electrical conductivity
Considering that EC is directly associated with TDS and
water-soluble salts, its measurement is essential to control
water quality. The EC drinking water standard is directly
associated with the TDS value of drinking water, which
can be considered less than 1500 μS/cm. In the current
study, the EC limit in bottled waters was obtained at
678.97-199.77 μS/cm. The highest amount is related to the
Damavand brand bottled water, and the lowest is related
to the D.D. brand bottled water. The drinking water EC
sin Ardabil is in the range of 854.33-1518.2 μS/cm. The
mean EC level at the inlet of household water purification
devices is 1254/911 and more than the optimal maximum
European standard. The mean EC level at the outlets was
estimated to be 735.419 μS/cm. The highest amount was
obtained in inlet 3 and the lowest in inlet 4. The removal
efficiency of household water purification devices was
estimated to be 82.95%. In Nourmoradi and colleagues
study, the EC removal efficiency by household water
purification devices was reported to be 70.44%, which is,
to some extent, consistent with the results of the present
study [46]. In Sadigh and colleagues’ study, the mean EC
level at the inlets of household water purification devices
was reported to be 875.84, and that at the outlets it was
reported to be 83.03 μS/cm, which is not consistent with
the results of the present study [25]. When examining
drinking water quality in Saveh, the EC level was higher
than the maximum permissible limit [36].
4.10. Total dissolved solids
In the present study, the mean TDSs in all investigated
samples were lower than the recommended standards in
Iran and more than the value recommended by the US
Environmental Protection Agency. The results of the
current study were consistent with the results of Godini et
al [38] and Orooji et al [18] studies. In Shabankareh Fard
and colleagues’ study on the water distribution network
of Bushehr, the mean TDS value was reported as 577.7
mg/L [33]. In the current research, the amount of TDS
in the inlet water of the household water purification
device meets the national standard but is higher than
the amount recommended by the US Environmental
Protection Agency standard. This amount of TDS can
cause problems regarding the taste in the drinking water
of the distribution network of Ardabil and consequently
lead to consumer dissatisfaction. The TDS reduction
efficiency by household water purification devices was
estimated at 82.95%, which is to some extent consistent
with the results of the study conducted in Ilam, indicating
the efficiency of household water purification devices in
TDSs reduction to be 70.44% [38].
4.11. pH
pH is one of water’s most important physicochemical
properties because most water purification methods
depend on pH. The pH levels at the inlets of household
water purification devices in the present study were in
the range of 7.2-8.37 and at the outlets were in the range
of 5.5-7.93. Forty percent of the pH of the outlet samples
of the household water purification device was lower
than the permissible limit of 6.5, which can be one of the
disadvantages of household water purification devices.
The results of the present study show that household water
purification devices have the least impact on pH, which is
consistent with Nourmoradi and colleagues study [46].
In Shabankareh Fard and colleagues’ study, the pH level
of water in Bushehr’s water distribution network was
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022 255
Quality Parameters of the Water of the Household Water Purification Device
reported to be in the range of 7.04-7.22, which was in the
normal and permissible range compared to the standards
and is consistent with the results of the current study [33].
Alimohammadi and colleagues’ study on bottled water
quality in Iran showed that the 6% pH of Iran’s mineral
waters is outside the standard range [47].
4.12. Fecal coliform and total coliform
According to Iran’s national standards and the WHO
standard, the number of total coliforms should be zero
in 95% of samples and, at most, 3 in the remaining 5%.
Also, fecal coliform should be zero in drinking water [48].
In this study, all the results of total coliform and fecal
coliform tests were negative, indicating that the water
of the distribution network and the widely consumed
bottled waters distributed in Ardabil are healthy from
a microbial perspective. The results of the study are
consistent with the results of the studies conducted in
Ilam [38] and Kerman [44]. Information regarding the
microbial quality of water produced by household water
purification devices is minimal, and the function of these
systems can be different. In Deghani and colleagues’
study on the outlet water of desalination devices with
reverse osmosis process, no cases of pollution with total
coliform and fecal coliform were observed [29], which
is consistent with the results of the present study. The
results of investigating the effect of the household water
purification device on the drinking water quality in Ilam
showed that the household water purification device does
not have an acceptable efficiency in removing microbial
pollution, and in most cases, it has increased microbial
pollution [38].
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the physicochemical and
microbial parameters of widely consumed bottled waters
distributed in the city of Ardabil and the physicochemical
and microbial parameters of the inlet and outlet waters
of household water purification devices. In general, it can
be concluded that the widely consumed bottled waters
distributed in Ardabil have no health problems in terms
of chemical and microbial quality. Household water
purification devices are highly efficient in decreasing
physical and chemical parameters of water. Given that
most of the physicochemical parameters of the drinking
water distribution network of Ardabil are below the
drinking water standard 1053, using these devices is not
necessary for this city because such devices often reduce
the concentration of the parameters to below the standard
limit and somehow reduce the taste of water. In addition,
they cause high removal of useful minerals; thus, the users
of household water purification devices should be aware
of the low intake of minerals from the purified water.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of carrying
out this project, Ardabil University of medical sciences.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis,
investigation, supervision, funding acquisition: Hadi Sadeghi and
Abdollah Dargahi; Resources, writing - original draft, writingreview
& editing: Mehdi Vosoughi and Ahmad Mokhtari; Formal
analysis, investigation, resources: Zahra Pourakbar.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ardabil
University of Medical Sciences (Code: IR.ARUMS.REC.1398.065).
Funding
This research was supported by the research project, Funded by the
Ardabil University of Medical Sciences.
References
1. Morgan CE, Bowling JM, Bartram J, Kayser GL. Attributes
of drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene associated with
microbiological water quality of stored drinking water in rural
schools in Mozambique and Uganda. Int J Hyg Environ Health.
2021;236:113804. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113804.
2. Timmers PHA, Slootweg T, Knezev A, van der Schans M,
Zandvliet L, Reus A, et al. Improved drinking water quality
after adding advanced oxidation for organic micropollutant
removal to pretreatment of river water undergoing dune
infiltration near The Hague, Netherlands. J Hazard Mater.
2022;429:128346. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128346.
3. Hu G, Mian HR, Abedin Z, Li J, Hewage K, Sadiq R. Integrated
probabilistic-fuzzy synthetic evaluation of drinking water
quality in rural and remote communities. J Environ Manage.
2022;301:113937. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113937.
4. Praveena SM, Laohaprapanon S. Quality assessment for
methodological aspects of microplastics analysis in bottled
water–a critical review. Food Control. 2021;130:108285. doi:
10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108285.
5. Cerna-Cortes JF, Cortes-Cueto AL, Villegas-Martínez D,
Leon-Montes N, Salas-Rangel LP, Rivera-Gutierrez S, et
al. Bacteriological quality of bottled water obtained from
Mexico City small water purification plants: Incidence and
identification of potentially pathogenic nontuberculous
mycobacteria species. Int J Food Microbiol. 2019;306:108260.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108260.
6. Farid-ul-Hasnain S, Johansson E, Krantz G. What do young
adults know about the HIV/AIDS epidemic? Findings from a
population based study in Karachi, Pakistan. BMC Infect Dis.
2009;9:38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-38.
7. Shams M, Qasemi M, Afsharnia M, Mohammadzadeh A, Zarei
A. Chemical and microbial quality of bottled drinking water
in Gonabad city, Iran: effect of time and storage conditions on
microbial quality of bottled waters. MethodsX. 2019;6:273-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2019.02.001.
8. Cidu R, Frau F, Tore P. Drinking water quality: comparing
inorganic components in bottled water and Italian tap water.
J Food Compost Anal. 2011;24(2):184-93. doi: 10.1016/j.
jfca.2010.08.005.
9. Ighalo JO, Adeniyi AG. A comprehensive review of
water quality monitoring and assessment in Nigeria.
Chemosphere. 2020;260:127569. doi: 10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.127569.
10. Remoundou K, Koundouri P. Environmental effects on public
health: an economic perspective. Int J Environ Res Public
Pourakbar et al
256 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022
Health. 2009;6(8):2160-78. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6082160.
11. Soltanian M, Dargahi A, Asadi F, Ivani A, Setareh P, Saleh
E. Variation of physicochemical quality of groundwater
watershed in Gharehsou during 2003-2012. J Mazandaran
Univ Med Sci. 2015;24(121):275-87. [Persian].
12. Shams Khorramabadi G, Dargahi A, Tabandeh L, Godini
H, Mostafaee P. Survey of heavy metal pollution (copper,
lead, zinc, cadmium, iron and manganese) in drinking
water resources of Nurabad city, Lorestan, Iran 2013. Yafteh.
2016;18(2):13-22. [Persian].
13. Hamad AA, Sharaf M, Hamza MA, Selim S, Hetta HF, El-Kazzaz
W. Investigation of the bacterial contamination and antibiotic
susceptibility profile of bacteria isolated from bottled drinking
water. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(1):e0151621. doi: 10.1128/
spectrum.01516-21.
14. American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th
ed. Washington DC, USA: APHA; 1995.
15. Jahed Khaniki G, Mahdavi M, Ghasri A, Saeednia S.
Investigation of nitrate concentrations in some bottled water
available in Tehran. Iran J Health Environ. 2008;1(1):45-50.
[Persian].
16. El-Sofany EA. Removal of lanthanum and gadolinium
from nitrate medium using Aliquat-336 impregnated onto
Amberlite XAD-4. J Hazard Mater. 2008;153(3):948-54. doi:
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.046.
17. Adesakin TA, Oyewale AT, Bayero U, Mohammed AN, Aduwo
IA, Ahmed PZ, et al. Assessment of bacteriological quality
and physico-chemical parameters of domestic water sources
in Samaru community, Zaria, Northwest Nigeria. Heliyon.
2020;6(8):e04773. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04773.
18. Orooji N, Takdastan A, Noori Sepehr M, Raeesi GR. Evaluation
the quality of bottled waters consumption in Iran in 2015.
J Environ Health Eng. 2017;4(1):70-81. doi: 10.18869/
acadpub.jehe.4.1.70. [Persian].
19. Cicchella D, Albanese S, De Vivo B, Dinelli E, Giaccio L, Lima
A, et al. Trace elements and ions in Italian bottled mineral
waters: identification of anomalous values and human health
related effects. J Geochem Explor. 2010;107(3):336-49. doi:
10.1016/j.gexplo.2010.04.004.
20. Abouleish MY. Concentration of selected anions in bottled
water in the United Arab Emirates. Water. 2012;4(2):496-509.
doi: 10.3390/w4020496.
21. Sehn P. Fluoride removal with extra low energy reverse osmosis
membranes: three years of large scale field experience in
Finland. Desalination. 2008;223(1-3):73-84. doi: 10.1016/j.
desal.2007.02.077.
22. Catling LA, Abubakar I, Lake IR, Swift L, Hunter PR. A
systematic review of analytical observational studies
investigating the association between cardiovascular disease
and drinking water hardness. J Water Health. 2008;6(4):433-
42. doi: 10.2166/wh.2008.054.
23. Choe S, Liljestrand HM, Khim J. Nitrate reduction by zerovalent
iron under different pH regimes. Appl Geochem.
2004;19(3):335-42. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2003.08.001.
24. Aghalari Z, Jafarian S. Survey of nitrite and nitrate in mineral
water available in the city of Babol in 2015. J Environ Health
Eng. 2017;5(1):65-72. doi: 10.29252/jehe.5.1.65. [Persian].
25. Sadigh A, Nasehi F, Fataei E, Aligadri M. Investigating the
efficiency of home water treatment systems to reduce or
eliminate water quality parameters in the city of Ardabil in
1392. J Health. 2015;6(4):458-69. [Persian].
26. Malakootian M, Momeni J. Quality survey of drinking
water in Bardsir, Iran 2009-2010. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci.
2012;11(4):403-10. [Persian].
27. UNICEF. Position on Water Fluoridation. Fluoride in Water:
An Overview. UNICEF; 2009.
28. Tavangar A, Naimi N, Alizade H, Tavakoli Ghochani H,
Ghorbanpour R. Evaluation of water treatment systems’
performance available in Bojnurd ciry during 2013. J North
Khorasan Univ Med Sci. 2014;5(5):1107-19. doi: 10.29252/
jnkums.5.5.S5.1107. [Persian].
29. Deghani M, Doleh M, Hashemi H, Shamsaddini N. The
quality of raw and treated water of desalination plants by
reverse osmosis in Qeshm. Health and Development Journal.
2013;2(1):33-43. [Persian].
30. Matloob MH. Fluoride concentration of drinking water in
Babil-Iraq. J Appl Sci. 2011;11(18):3315-21. doi: 10.3923/
jas.2011.3315.3321.
31. Dianati Tilaki R, Rasouli Z. Reviewing the chemical quality
(nitrate, fluoride, hardness, electrical conductivity) and
bacteriological assessment of drinking water in Savadkuh,
Iran, during 2010-2011. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci.
2013;23(104):51-5. [Persian].
32. Cochrane NJ, Saranathan S, Morgan MV, Dashper SG.
Fluoride content of still bottled water in Australia. Aust
Dent J. 2006;51(3):242-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.
tb00436.x.
33. Shabankareh Fard E, Hayati R, Dobaradaran S. Evaluation
of physical, chemical and microbial quality of distribution
network drinking water in Bushehr, Iran. Iran South Med J.
2015;17(6):1223-35. [Persian].
34. Ghaffari HR, Kamari Z, Ranaei V, Pilevar Z, Akbari M,
Moridi M, et al. The concentration of potentially hazardous
elements (PHEs) in drinking water and non-carcinogenic risk
assessment: a case study in Bandar Abbas, Iran. Environ Res.
2021;201:111567. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111567.
35. Amouei A, Mohammadi AA, Koshki Z, Asgharnia HA, Fallah
SH, Tabarinia H. Nitrate and nitrite in available bottled water
in Babol (Mazandaran; Iran) in summer 2010. J Babol Univ
Med Sci. 2011;14(1):64-70. [Persian].
36. Azarpira H, Rasolevandi T, Aali R, Mahvi A, Ghorbanpour
MA, Moradi h, et al. Investigation of nitrate and nitrite
concentration and other physicochemical parameters of
drinking water sources in Saveh city during the year of
2018. J Res Environ Health. 2018;4(2):140-5. doi: 10.22038/
jreh.2018.33436.1232. [Persian].
37. Khaung T, Iwai CB, Chuasavathi T. Water quality monitoring
in Inle Lake, Myanmar from the floating garden activity.
Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences.
2021;17(5):593-608. doi: 10.11113/mjfas.v17n5.2330.
38. Godini K, Sayehmiri K, Alyan G, Alavi S, Rostami R.
Investigation of microbial and chemical quality of bottled
waters distributed in Ilam (western Iran) 2009-10. J Ilam Univ
Med Sci. 2012;20(2):33-7. [Persian].
39. Riahi Khoram M, Khoshshoar M, Hashemi M. Chemical
and microbiological properties of bottled water in Hamedan
province. J Food Hyg. 2014;4(13):69-96. [Persian].
40. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and
Health Advisories. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water; 2004.
41. Ziv-El MC, Rittmann BE. Systematic evaluation of nitrate
and perchlorate bioreduction kinetics in groundwater using
a hydrogen-based membrane biofilm reactor. Water Res.
2009;43(1):173-81. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.09.035.
42. Nkamare MB, Ofili AN, Adeleke AJ. Physico-chemical and
microbiological assessment of borehole water in Okutukutu,
Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Adv Appl Sci Res. 2012;3(5):2549-52.
43. Rajaei MS, Salemi Z, Karimi B, Ghanadzadeh MJ, Mashayekhi
M. Effect of household water treatment systems on the physical
and chemical quality of water in 2011-2012. J Arak Uni Med
43. Rajaei MS, Salemi Z, Karimi B, Ghanadzadeh MJ, Mashayekhi
M. Effect of household water treatment systems on the physical
and chemical quality of water in 2011-2012. J Arak Uni Med
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 11, Number 4, 2022 257
Quality Parameters of the Water of the Household Water Purification Device
Sci. 2013;16(72):26-36. [Persian].
44. Loloei M, Zolala F. Survey on the quality of mineral bottled
waters in Kerman city in 2009. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci.
2011;10(3):183-92. [Persian].
45. Nouri A, Sadeghnezhad R, Soori MM, Mozaffari P,
Sadeghi S, Ebrahemzadih M, et al. Physical, chemical, and
microbial quality of drinking water in Sanandaj, Iran. J
Adv Environ Health Res. 2018;6(4):210-6. doi: 10.22102/
jaehr.2018.121023.1066.
46. Nourmoradi H, Karami N, Karami S, Mazloomi S. Investigation
on the effect of household water treatment plants on the
drinking water quality of Ilam city. J Environ Health Eng.
2017;5(1):57-64. doi: 10.29252/jehe.5.1.57. [Persian].
47. Alimohammadi M, Askari M, Aminizadeh S, Dehghanifard
E, Rezazadeh M. Evaluation of microbial quality of bottled
water in Iran. J Environ Health Eng. 2014;1(2):137-45. doi:
10.18869/acadpub.jehe.1.2.137. [Persian].
48. Mwabi JK, Mamba BB, Momba MN. Removal of Escherichia
coli and faecal coliforms from surface water and groundwater
by household water treatment devices/systems: a sustainable
solution for improving water quality in rural communities of
the Southern African development community region. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(1):139-70. doi: 10.3390/
ijerph9010139.