Quality comparison of tap water vs. bottled water in the industrial city of Yanbu (Saudi Arabia)

Our plain-English summary of Quality comparison of tap water vs. bottled water in the industrial city of Yanbu (Saudi Arabia), by M. Ahmad, A.S. Bajahlan (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2009).

The study

• Authors: M. Ahmad, A.S. Bajahlan
• Journal: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
• Published: 2009;159(1-4):1-14
• Cited by: 33 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare the quality of bottled water with potabilized desalinated tap water. Fourteen brands of local and imported bottled water samples were collected from the local market and analyzed for physicochemical parameters in the Royal Commission Environmental Laboratory. Results were compared with 5-year continuous monitoring data of tap water from different locations in Madinat Yanbu Al-Sinaiyah (MYAS) including storage tanks of desalination plant. Results show that there was no significant difference in the quality of tap water and bottled water. Bacteriological test was never found positive in the 5-year data in tap water. Similarly, physicochemical analysis shows the persistent quality of tap water. Based on hardness analysis, bottled and tap water are categorized as soft water. Trihalomethanes (THMs) study also indicates that traces of disinfection by products (DBPs) are present in both tap and bottled water and are much less than the World Health Organization and Environmental Protection Agency maximum permissible limits. It is also important to note that the tap water distribution network in MAYS is a high-pressure recirculation network and there is no chance to grow bacteria in stagnant water in pipe lines or houses. Recently, the Royal Commission has replaced the whole drinking water network, which was made of asbestos-cemented pipes with glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) pipes, to avoid any asbestos contaminations. Based on these results, it is concluded that drinking water distributed in the city is of very good and persistent quality, comparable with bottled water. Continuous monitoring also guarantees the safe drinking water to the community. Hence, it is the responsibility of the Royal Commission to encourage the peoples in the city to drink tap water as it is as good as bottled water even better than some of the brands and is monitored regularly. It is also much cheaper compared to bottled water and is available round the clock. Preference for tap water over bottled water will also reduce the production of bottled water that has flooded the market, the enormous strain on the environment, and the pollution due to used empty plastic bottles in the landfill area and will help to keep the city clean.

In plain English

This study compared 14 bottled water brands (three imported) from the local market of Madinat Yanbu Al-Sinaiyah, Saudi Arabia, with five years of monitoring data (January 2003 to December 2007) for the city's desalinated tap water. Tap water was sampled weekly in four sectors of the city. The authors reported no coliform bacteria in any tap water sample over five years, or in any bottled brand. Tap water hardness averaged 54.55 mg/L. The authors called all local bottled brands soft water, though their table gives local brand B-7 a hardness of 142.0 mg/L, within the article's own 'hard' range. Trihalomethanes are by-products of chlorine disinfection. In tap water they averaged 8.63 μg/L in the authors' table (8.617 μg/L in the text), with bromoform the largest component at 5.43 μg/L. Among bottled brands the highest level was 18.07 μg/L, in brand 12. The article says the city replaced its asbestos-cement water pipes with glass-reinforced plastic pipes; it reported no asbestos measurements. The authors concluded that there was no significant difference in quality between tap water and bottled water.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Water quality comparison: laboratory analysis of 14 bottled water brands compared with 5 years of routine tap water monitoring data
• Who was studied: 14 bottled water brands (3 imported) from the local market, and tap water from the city's distribution network in Madinat Yanbu Al-Sinaiyah, Saudi Arabia (four sectors, ten samples per sector weekly; the article reports 1,412 samples from 40 locations), January 2003 to December 2007
• Exposure: Not an asbestos exposure study. It measured drinking water quality (bacteria, minerals, trace metals, trihalomethanes). Asbestos appears only in the statement that asbestos-cement pipes in the drinking water network were replaced with glass-reinforced plastic pipes. Asbestos is not among the parameters the article lists as analyzed.
• Main results:
  • Tap water: no total or fecal coliform colonies were detected in any sample over the 5-year period
  • Bottled water: total and fecal coliform tests were negative in all samples of all brands
  • Tap water total hardness ranged from 40.0 to 80.0 mg/L, with an average of 54.55 mg/L
  • The authors state that all local bottled brands fall into the soft water category. Their own Table 1 does not fully match this (see next item).
  • Table 1 gives local brand B-7 a total hardness of 142.0 mg/L, which falls in the article's 'hard' range (120 to less than 180 mg/L)
  • Bottled water: some local brands had total dissolved solids below the minimum permissible limit of 100 mg/L
  • Bottled water: a few brands had sodium above the Royal Commission maximum permissible limit of 20 mg/L
  • Tap water (Table 2, average of 10 sampling points): bromoform 5.43 μg/L, dibromochloromethane 1.83 μg/L, bromodichloromethane 1.07 μg/L and chloroform 0.29 μg/L, for total trihalomethanes of 8.63 μg/L. The text gives the tap water average as 8.617 μg/L.
  • Bottled water: the highest trihalomethane levels were in brand 12 (18.07 μg/L) and brand 9 (14.9 μg/L)
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that there was no significant difference in quality between the city's tap water and the bottled water sold in the local market

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Hardness (Mohs Scale).

Related studies

• The effects of acid precipitation runoff episodes on reservoir and tapwater quality in an Appalachian Mountain water supply — W.E. Sharpe, D.R. DeWalle (1990)
• Investigating possible effects of abestos in city water: surveillance of gastrointestinal cancer incidence in Duluth, Minnesota — B.S. Levy, E. Sigurdson, et al. (1976)
• Quality assessment and public health status of harvested rainwater in a peri-urban community in Edo State of Nigeria — I.H. Igbinosa, I.T. Aighewi (2017)
• Detection of virus in water: sensitivity of the tentative standard method for drinking water — W.F. Hill, W. Jakubowski, et al. (1976)
• Three potential sources of microfungi in a treated municipal water supply system in sub-tropical Australia — N.B. Sammon, K.M. Harrower, et al. (2011)
• Drinking water and cancer — K.P. Cantor (1997)

Browse more research in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, or return to medical research.