IADR Abstract Archives
Fluoride and pH of Drinking Water Available in Puerto Rico
Objectives: Fluoridated drinking water has the ability to control dental caries, yet, Puerto Rico has not fluoridated public water system. However, some commercial bottled water might contain fluoride naturally, but this is not described in the product labels. Therefore, we aimed to determine the fluoride concentration in commercially available bottled waters in Puerto Rico. Additionally, fluoride values in tap-water and pH of water samples were assessed.
Methods: Thirteen commercially available bottled waters were bought from two major grocery stores in the metropolitan area. Nine samples were acquired in both stores (different lot #), while four were only found in one of the stores. Tap-water samples from two different Puerto Rican municipalities (San Juan and Guaynabo) were also collected. Samples were coded for blind analysis. Fluoride was determined by using a calibrated ion-specific electrode and expressed as ppm F (µg F/mL). pH was measured with a calibrated pH electrode. All individual samples were analyzed in duplicate. Fluoride values (mean±SD) were compared to the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water. pH was compared to critical pH for enamel and dentine demineralization.
Results: Purified (0.02±0.02 µg F/mL; n=6), spring (0.11±0.10 µg F/mL; n=3), mineral (0.23±0.24 µg F/mL; n=3), artesian (0.25±0.00 µg F/mL; n=1), commercial bottled waters, and tap-water (0.10±0.00 µg F/mL; n=2) had fluoride below 0.7 ppm. Tap water samples did not show differences. Of the samples, 75% had pH value >6.2 (safe for dentine), and all samples had a pH >5.5 (safe for enamel). Only three samples advertised having a neutral pH which was confirmed by the analysis.
Conclusions: The analyzed bottled waters did not contain fluoride concentration with anticaries potential. On the other hand, none of the samples had an acidic pH that can potentially increase the risk for enamel erosion.
Methods: Thirteen commercially available bottled waters were bought from two major grocery stores in the metropolitan area. Nine samples were acquired in both stores (different lot #), while four were only found in one of the stores. Tap-water samples from two different Puerto Rican municipalities (San Juan and Guaynabo) were also collected. Samples were coded for blind analysis. Fluoride was determined by using a calibrated ion-specific electrode and expressed as ppm F (µg F/mL). pH was measured with a calibrated pH electrode. All individual samples were analyzed in duplicate. Fluoride values (mean±SD) were compared to the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water. pH was compared to critical pH for enamel and dentine demineralization.
Results: Purified (0.02±0.02 µg F/mL; n=6), spring (0.11±0.10 µg F/mL; n=3), mineral (0.23±0.24 µg F/mL; n=3), artesian (0.25±0.00 µg F/mL; n=1), commercial bottled waters, and tap-water (0.10±0.00 µg F/mL; n=2) had fluoride below 0.7 ppm. Tap water samples did not show differences. Of the samples, 75% had pH value >6.2 (safe for dentine), and all samples had a pH >5.5 (safe for enamel). Only three samples advertised having a neutral pH which was confirmed by the analysis.
Conclusions: The analyzed bottled waters did not contain fluoride concentration with anticaries potential. On the other hand, none of the samples had an acidic pH that can potentially increase the risk for enamel erosion.