Williams Ashley R, Bain Robert E S, Fisher Michael B, Cronk Ryan, Kelly Emma R, Bartram Jamie
The Water Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
The Water Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America; UNICEF, New York, NY, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 27;10(10):e0140899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140899. eCollection 2015.
Packaged water products provide an increasingly important source of water for consumption. However, recent studies raise concerns over their safety.
To assess the microbial safety of packaged water, examine differences between regions, country incomes, packaged water types, and compare packaged water with other water sources.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles published in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish, with no date restrictions were identified from online databases and two previous reviews. Studies published before April 2014 that assessed packaged water for the presence of Escherichia coli, thermotolerant or total coliforms were included provided they tested at least ten samples or brands.
A total of 170 studies were included in the review. The majority of studies did not detect fecal indicator bacteria in packaged water (78/141). Compared to packaged water from upper-middle and high-income countries, packaged water from low and lower-middle-income countries was 4.6 (95% CI: 2.6-8.1) and 13.6 (95% CI: 6.9-26.7) times more likely to contain fecal indicator bacteria and total coliforms, respectively. Compared to all other packaged water types, water from small bottles was less likely to be contaminated with fecal indicator bacteria (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.17-0.58) and total coliforms (OR = 0.10, 95%CI: 0.05, 0.22). Packaged water was less likely to contain fecal indicator bacteria (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.20, 0.62) compared to other water sources used for consumption.
Policymakers and regulators should recognize the potential benefits of packaged water in providing safer water for consumption at and away from home, especially for those who are otherwise unlikely to gain access to a reliable, safe water supply in the near future. To improve the quality of packaged water products they should be integrated into regulatory and monitoring frameworks.
包装水产品日益成为重要的饮用水来源。然而,近期研究引发了对其安全性的担忧。
评估包装水的微生物安全性,研究不同地区、国家收入水平、包装水类型之间的差异,并将包装水与其他水源进行比较。
我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析。从在线数据库及此前的两篇综述中,筛选出以英文、法文、葡萄牙文、西班牙文和土耳其文发表且无日期限制的文章。纳入2014年4月之前发表的、评估包装水中大肠杆菌、耐热或总大肠菌群存在情况的研究,条件是这些研究至少检测了10个样本或品牌。
该综述共纳入170项研究。大多数研究未在包装水中检测到粪便指示菌(78/141)。与中高收入国家和高收入国家的包装水相比,低收入国家和中低收入国家的包装水含有粪便指示菌和总大肠菌群的可能性分别高出4.6倍(95%置信区间:2.6 - 8.1)和13.6倍(95%置信区间:6.9 - 26.7)。与所有其他类型的包装水相比,小瓶装水被粪便指示菌污染的可能性较小(比值比 = 0.32,95%置信区间:0.17 - 0.58),被总大肠菌群污染的可能性也较小(比值比 = 0.10,95%置信区间:0.05,0.22)。与其他消费用水源相比,包装水含有粪便指示菌的可能性较小(比值比 = 0.35,95%置信区间:0.20,0.62)。
政策制定者和监管机构应认识到包装水在为家庭内外提供更安全饮用水方面的潜在益处,特别是对于那些近期不太可能获得可靠、安全供水的人群。为提高包装水产品质量,应将其纳入监管和监测框架。