Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “WATER”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Irrigation water as a source of drinking water: is safe use possible?

BACKGROUND: In arid and semi-arid countries there are often large areas where groundwater is brackish and where people have to obtain water from irrigation canals for all uses, including domestic ones. An alternative to drawing drinking water directly from irrigation canals or village water reservoirs is to use the water that has seeped from the irrigation canals and irrigated fields and that has formed a small layer of fresh water on top of the brackish groundwater. The objective of this study was to assess whether use of irrigation seepage water for drinking results in less diarrhoea than direct use of irrigation water and how irrigation water management would impact on health. METHODS: The study was undertaken in an irrigated area in the southern Punjab, Pakistan. Over a one-year period, drinking water sources used and diarrhoea episodes were recorded each day for all individuals of 200 households in 10 villages. Separate surveys were undertaken to collect information on hygiene behaviour, sanitary facilities, and socio-economic status. RESULTS: Seepage water was of much better quality than surface water, but this did not translate into less diarrhoea. This could only be partially explained by the generally poor quality of water in the in-house storage vessels, reflecting considerable in-house contamination of drinking water. Risk factors for diarrhoea were absence of a water connection and water storage facility, lack of a toilet, low standard of hygiene, and low socio-economic status. The association between water quality and diarrhoea varied by the level of water availability and the presence or absence of a toilet. Among people having a high quantity of water available and a toilet, the incidence rate of diarrhoea was higher when surface water was used for drinking than when seepage water was used (relative risk 1.68; 95% CI 1.31-2.15). For people with less water available the direction of the association between water quality and diarrhoea was different (relative risk 0.80; 95% CI 0.69-0.93). This indicates that good quality drinking water provides additional health benefits only when sufficient quantities of water and a toilet are available. In a multivariate analysis no association was found between water quality and diarrhoea but there was a significant effect of water quantity on diarrhoea which was to a large extent mediated through sanitation and hygiene behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the availability of water in the house by having a household connection and a storage facility is the most important factor associated with reduced diarrhoea in this area. Safe use of canal irrigation water seems possible if households can pump seepage water to a large storage tank in their house and have a continuous water supply for sanitation and hygiene. Irrigation water management clearly has an impact on health and bridging the gap between the irrigation and drinking water supply sectors could provide important health benefits by taking into account the domestic water availability when managing irrigation water.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Surveillance for waterborne disease and outbreaks associated with drinking water and water not intended for drinking--United States, 2003-2004.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Since 1971, CDC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists have maintained a collaborative Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Surveillance System for collecting and reporting data related to occurrences and causes of waterborne disease and outbreaks (WBDOs). This surveillance system is the primary source of data concerning the scope and effects of WBDOs in the United States. REPORTING PERIOD: Data presented summarize 36 WBDOs that occurred during January 2003-December 2004 and nine previously unreported WBDOs that occurred during 1982-2002. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: The surveillance system includes data on WBDOs associated with drinking water, water not intended for drinking (excluding recreational water), and water of unknown intent. Public health departments in the states, territories, localities, and Freely Associated States (i.e., the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, formerly parts of the U.S.-administered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands) are primarily responsible for detecting and investigating WBDOs and voluntarily reporting them to CDC by using a standard form. RESULTS: During 2003-2004, a total of 36 WBDOs were reported by 19 states; 30 were associated with drinking water, three were associated with water not intended for drinking, and three were associated with water of unknown intent. The 30 drinking water-associated WBDOs caused illness among an estimated 2,760 persons and were linked to four deaths. Etiologic agents were identified in 25 (83.3%) of these WBDOs: 17 (68.0%) involved pathogens (i.e., 13 bacterial, one parasitic, one viral, one mixed bacterial/parasitic, and one mixed bacterial/parasitic/viral), and eight (32.0%) involved chemical/toxin poisonings. Gastroenteritis represented 67.7% of the illness related to drinking water-associated WBDOs; acute respiratory illness represented 25.8%, and dermatitis represented 6.5%. The classification of deficiencies contributing to WBDOs has been revised to reflect the categories of concerns associated with contamination at or in the source water, treatment facility, or distribution system (SWTD) that are under the jurisdiction of water utilities, versus those at points not under the jurisdiction of a water utility or at the point of water use (NWU/POU), which includes commercially bottled water. A total of 33 deficiencies were cited in the 30 WBDOs associated with drinking water: 17 (51.5%) NWU/POU, 14 (42.4%) SWTD, and two (6.1%) unknown. The most frequently cited NWU/POU deficiencies involved Legionella spp. in the drinking water system (n = eight [47.1%]). The most frequently cited SWTD deficiencies were associated with distribution system contamination (n = six [42.9%]). Contaminated ground water was a contributing factor in seven times as many WBDOs (n = seven) as contaminated surface water (n = one). INTERPRETATION: Approximately half (51.5%) of the drinking water deficiencies occurred outside the jurisdiction of a water utility in situations not currently regulated by EPA. The majority of the WBDOs in which deficiencies were not regulated by EPA were associated with Legionella spp. or chemicals/toxins. Problems in the distribution system were the most commonly identified deficiencies under the jurisdiction of a water utility, underscoring the importance of preventing contamination after water treatment. The substantial proportion of WBDOs involving contaminated ground water provides support for the Ground Water Rule (finalized in October 2006), which specifies when corrective action is required for public ground water systems. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: CDC and EPA use surveillance data to identify the types of water systems, deficiencies, and etiologic agents associated with WBDOs and to evaluate the adequacy of current technologies and practices for providing safe drinking water. Surveillance data also are used to establish research priorities, which can lead to improved water-quality regulation development. The growing proportion of drinking water deficiencies that are not addressed by current EPA rules emphasizes the need to address risk factors for water contamination in the distribution system and at points not under the jurisdiction of water utilities.

Communicable Diseases↗
PubMed2002

Occurrence of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in riverbank fiftered water and drnking water produced by riverbank filtration. 2.

Bank filtration of river or lake water represents an efficient and natural purification process used for the drinking water production in many countries and at an amount of about 15-16% in Germany. From experiences over decades particularly at the river Rhine and Elbe, it is known that the occurrence of persistent pollutants in river water can represent a problem for the quality of drinking water produced by bank filtration. The common detection of the gasoline additive methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in drinking water and the announced phase-out of the oxygenate in the U.S. show that MTBE can contaminate large water amounts due to its physicochemical properties. The MTBE situation in the U.S differs from Europe, and significantly lower concentrations in the German environment can be expected. Average MTBE concentrations of 200-250 ng/L in the Lower Main and Lower Rhine river in 2000/2001 were reported. At two sites at the Lower Rhine and Lower Main rivers MTBE concentrations in bank filtered water (n = 22), recovering well water, raw water, and drinking water produced by the water utility at the Lower Rhine site (n = 30) and tap water at Frankfurt/M City (n = 13) were analyzed from 1999 to 2001. Sample analysis is performed by a combination of headspace-solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) with a detection limit of 10 ng/L and a relative standard deviation of 11%. At the Lower Rhine site up to 80 m from the river an average MTBE concentration of 88 ng/L in riverbank filtered water, recovering well water, and raw water (n = 7) and of 43-110 ng/L in drinking water (n = 3) result. At the Lower Main site up to 400 m from the river MTBE concentrations from 52 to 250 ng/L (n = 7) were measured. Tap water samples at Frankfurt/M (mean of 35 ng/L, maximum of 71 ng/L) were in the same range as MTBE amounts in drinking water at the Lower Rhine site. Measured MTBE amounts eliminated by bank filtration at the Lower Rhine site are comparable to other contaminants. The results of this study show that concentrations measured in river water and drinking water are approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than the U.S. drinking water standard of 20-40 microg/L, represent trace-level concentrations, and are not of major concern nowadays. However, the unfavorable combination of the occurrence of nonpoint MTBE emissions and the persistent behavior of the ether in water even at low concentrations should not be neglected in future discussion. The reported MTBE concentrations are relevant for precautionary aspects. MTBE concentrations in German river water show a tendency toward increasing concentrations since 1999, and in the future possible higher concentrations could represent a risk for the quality of drinking water that is being produced by water utility using bank filtered river water.

Filtration↗
PubMed2001

Time of day and access to food alter water intake in rats after water deprivation.

1. Drinking behaviour after water deprivation is one of the standard tests used to study thirst in humans and animals. Diurnal cycle and food availability are known to influence water intake, but have not been considered in previous studies of thirst after water deprivation. In the present study, we examined the effects of diurnal variation and food availability on water intake after 24 h water deprivation in rats. 2. All rats cycled through four treatments in varying order. These treatments were: (i) 24 h water deprivation with free access to food from 1900 h one day to 1900 h the next day, followed by free access to both food and water (Night-with-Food); (ii) 24 h water deprivation with free access to food from from 1900 h one day to 1900 h the next day, followed by free access to water but not food (Night-without-Food); (iii) 24 h water deprivation with free access to food from 0700 h one day to 0700 h the next day, followed by free access to both food and water (Day-with-Food); or (iv) 24 h water deprivation with free access to food from 0700 h one day to 0700 h the next day, followed by free access to water but not food (Day-without-Food). The amount of water consumed during the first 6 h, post-24 h water deprivation, was examined under each condition. 3. There was a significant diurnal effect (P < 0.001) and a significant food availability effect (P = 0.007) on the water consumed in the 6 h period after water deprivation. Most water was consumed by the Night-with-Food group and the least amount of water was consumed by the Day-without-Food group. These effects persisted after correction for water intake during 6 h periods from 0700 and 1900 h with and without food but without previous water deprivation. The diurnal and food availability effects on water consumption were independent (P = 0.5). 4. The coefficient of variability for each group suggests that the most sensitive measurements of water intake are obtained during the day in the absence of food. 5. We conclude that both the time of day and access to food independently alter water intake in rats subjected to a previous 24 h water deprivation. Our study also supports the validity of performing water intake measurements in thirst studies in rats during the day.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

Correlation between bioprotective effectiveness and dynamic properties of trehalose-water, maltose-water and sucrose-water mixtures.

The aim of the present work is to link the bioprotective effectiveness to the dynamic properties of a class of homologous disaccharides, that is, trehalose, maltose and sucrose, and their mixtures in water. The findings obtained by elastic neutron scattering point out a harmonic-anharmonic transition for all the three disaccharide mixtures. Using a new operative definition of 'fragility', the different degrees of 'strength' of the investigated systems are determined. The links existing between the degree of fragility and the cryptoprotective action are also discussed.

Maltose↗
PubMed2000

Restricted versus liberal water intake for preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Most premature infants are not sufficiently mature physiologically to take all of their required water and nutrients orally, and so they cannot regulate their own water intake. Thus, the caregiver must determine the amount of water to be given each day to such infants. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to examine the effects of water intake on postnatal weight loss and on the risks of dehydration, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intracranial hemorrhage, and death in premature infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized clinical trials were sought that compared the outcomes of interest in groups of premature infants who were given different levels of water intake according to experimental protocol. Such trials were sought in a previous review by one of the authors (Bell EF. Fluid therapy. In: Effective Care of the Newborn Infant, eds JC Sinclair, MB Bracken. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 59-72, approximately approximately Bell 1992 approximately approximately ), in a list of trials provided by the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, and in the authors' personal files. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized clinical trials of varying water intake in premature infants are included. The review was limited to trials that included infants whose water intake was provided mainly or entirely by parenteral means. Studies were included regardless of outcomes examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were selected by two reviewers, who also assessed the methodological quality of each trial. Data were independently extracted by the reviewers, and differences were reconciled. The data were then entered into tables using RevMan 3.1 for Windows. The adverse event rates were calculated for the restricted and liberal water intake groups for each dichotomous outcome, and the relative risk was computed. In addition, the maximal weight loss results were recorded, and the weighted mean difference was computed. The analyses (including calculation of relative risk, risk difference, and weighted mean difference) and tests of heterogeneity were accomplished with MetaView 3.1 software and a fixed effects model. No subgroup analyses were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: The analysis of the four studies taken together indicates that restricted water intake significantly increases postnatal weight loss and significantly reduces the risks of patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, and death. With restricted water intake, there are trends toward increased risk of dehydration and reduced risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, but these trends are not statistically significant. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, the most prudent prescription for water intake to premature infants would seem to be careful restriction of water intake so that physiological needs are met without allowing significant dehydration. This practice could be expected to decrease the risks of patent ductus arteriosus and necrotizing enterocolitis--and perhaps the overall risk of death--without significantly increased risk of adverse consequences.

Drinking↗
PubMed2006

Public perceptions of drinking water: a postal survey of residents with private water supplies.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, the legal responsibility for the condition of private water supplies, including private wells and cisterns, rests with their owners. However, there are reports that Canadians test these water supplies intermittently and that treatment of such water is uncommon. An estimated 45% of all waterborne outbreaks in Canada involve non-municipal systems. An understanding of the perceptions and needs of Canadians served by private water supplies is essential, as it would enable public health professionals to better target public education and drinking water policy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the public perceptions of private water supplies in the City of Hamilton, Ontario (Canada), with the intent of informing public education and outreach strategies within the population. METHODS: A cross-sectional postal survey of 246 residences with private water supplies was conducted in May 2004. Questions pertained to the perceptions of water quality and alternative water sources, water testing behaviours and the self-identified need for further information. RESULTS: Private wells, cisterns or both, were the source of household water for 71%, 16% and 13% of respondents, respectively. Although respondents rated their water quality highly, 80% also had concerns with its safety. The most common concerns pertained to bacterial and chemical contamination of their water supply and its potential negative effect on health. Approximately 56% and 61% of respondents used in-home treatment devices and bottled water within their homes, respectively, mainly due to perceived improvements in the safety and aesthetic qualities compared to regular tap water. Testing of private water supplies was performed infrequently: 8% of respondents tested at a frequency that meets current provincial guidelines. Two-thirds of respondents wanted more information on various topics related to private water supplies. Flyers and newspapers were the two media reported most likely to be used. CONCLUSION: Although respondents rated their water quality highly, the majority had concerns regarding the water from their private supply, and the use of bottled water and water treatment devices was extensive. The results of this study suggest important lines of inquiry and provide support and input for public education programs, particularly those related to private water testing, in this population.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Reducing bacterial counts in dental unit waterlines: tap water versus distilled water.

BACKGROUND: The maximum recommended level of microbial contamination of water from dental unit waterlines (DUWL) is 200 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL). This article addresses the importance of water selection in achieving that standard. METHODS: Microbial contamination in water samples from 75 new dental units, with a closed-circuit water system, were compared using combinations of tap water and sterile distilled water with and without two chemical disinfectants (bleach and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, Bio2000) over a six-week period. Baseline tap water samples were collected and tested initially. RESULTS: The microbial plate counts of seven tap water specimens (controls) ranged from 4 to 95 CFU/mL. These results were well below both the 500 CFU/mL standard for public drinking water and the 200 CFU/mL goal for dental treatment water. However, when passed through dental units, no significant bacterial reduction was achieved for samples of tap water (Group 1), tap water treated with bleach (Group 2), or tap water treated with Bio2000 (Group 4). Only water samples from dental units using Bio2000 alone (Group 3) or a combination of sterile, distilled water with Bio2000 (Group 5) met or exceeded the 200 CFU/mL standard. CONCLUSIONS: Using tap water alone or tap water with bleach did not improve water quality. However, the American Dental Association (ADA) standard for reduced microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines was met using Bio2000 and distilled water treated with Bio2000. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The ADA standard of 200 CFU/mL was achieved using a closed water system and distilled water treated with Bio2000. Using 100% Bio2000 is also effective, but more costly.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2000

Fluoride and bacterial content of bottled water vs tap water.

CONTEXT: Bottled water has become a status symbol and is frequently used in place of tap water. While both waters are considered safe to drink, is either more beneficial in preventing tooth decay and is there a difference in purity? OBJECTIVE: To determine the fluoride level and bacterial content of commercially bottled waters municipal tap water and to compare the results. DESIGN: Comparative study. SETTING: Cleveland, Ohio. SAMPLE: Fifty-seven samples of 5 categories of bottled waters were purchased from local stores. Samples of tap water were collected in sterile containers from the 4 local water processing plants. Fluoride levels were determined by an ion-selective electrode method. Water was cultured quantitatively and levels of bacteria were calculated as colony-forming units (CFUs) per milliliter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Fluoride levels and bacterial counts. RESULTS: Fluoride levels within the range recommended for drinking water by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, 0.80 to 1.30 mg/L, were found in only 3 samples of bottled water tested. The fluoride levels of tap water samples were within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00 mg/L. The bacterial counts in the bottled water samples ranged from less than 0.01 CFU/mL to 4900 CFUs/mL, including 6 samples with levels substantially above 1000 CFUs/mL. In contrast, bacterial counts in samples of tap water ranged from 0.2 to 2.7 CFUs/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Five percent of the bottled water purchased in Cleveland fell within the required fluoride range recommended by the state, compared with 100% of the tap water samples, all of which were also within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00 mg/L. Use of bottled water based on the assumption of purity can be misguided. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, published a final ruling that requires community water systems to regularly report to the public on the quality of local tap water; there are no similar proposals to determine the quality of bottled water through labeling.

Bacteria↗
PubMed2001

Comparison of the mineral content of tap water and bottled waters.

OBJECTIVES: Because of growing concern that constituents of drinking water may have adverse health effects, consumption of tap water in North America has decreased and consumption of bottled water has increased. Our objectives were to 1) determine whether North American tap water contains clinically important levels of calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), and sodium (Na+) and 2) determine whether differences in mineral content of tap water and commercially available bottled waters are clinically important. DESIGN: We obtained mineral analysis reports from municipal water authorities of 21 major North American cities. Mineral content of tap water was compared with published data regarding commercially available bottled waters and with dietary reference intakes (DRIs). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mineral levels varied among tap water sources in North America and among bottled waters. European bottled waters generally contained higher mineral levels than North American tap water sources and North American bottled waters. For half of the tap water sources we examined, adults may fulfill between 8% and 16% of their Ca2+ DRI and between 6% and 31% of their Mg2+ DRI by drinking 2 liters per day. One liter of most moderate mineralization European bottled waters contained between 20% and 58% of the Ca2+ DRI and between 16% and 41% of the Mg2+ DRI in adults. High mineralization bottled waters often contained up to half of the maximum recommended daily intake of Na+. CONCLUSION: Drinking water sources available to North Americans may contain high levels of Ca2+, Mg2+, and Na+ and may provide clinically important portions of the recommended dietary intake of these minerals. Physicians should encourage patients to check the mineral content of their drinking water, whether tap or bottled, and choose water most appropriate for their needs.

Beverages↗