INTRODUCTION: Different forms of water vary in calcium content. High divalent ion (i.e., Ca(2+), Mg(2+), etc.) concentration is deleterious to the absorption and efficacy of the bisphosphonate group of drugs in osteoporosis treatment. Water with high calcium concentration may also present an alternate pathway of calcium administration. In either case, knowing the actual concentration is critical. HYPOTHESIS: The current paper is a surveillance study. We hypothesize that there is considerable variation in the calcium concentrations in the various water sources: tap water from US and Canadian cities of different regions and purified, spring, and mineral bottled waters. In addition, we hypothesize that the water filter removes a significant amount of minerals including calcium from the water. METHODOLOGY: Calcium concentrations in various city tap waters, as well as an assorted number of bottled waters, were determined through the direct inspection of scientific data. The effect of filtering was also determined by mineral analysis of mineral water directly before and after filtration. RESULT: The calcium concentration of water varies from 1 to 135 mg/L across the USA and Canada. Most spring waters were found to have a relatively low calcium concentration, with an average of 21.8 mg/L. Purified waters contain a negligible calcium concentration. Mineral waters, on the other hand, were generally found to contain higher calcium concentrations, an average of 208 mg/L of calcium. Filtration was found to remove a considerable amount of calcium from the water, removing 89% on average. CONCLUSION: Calcium concentration in water varied substantially from different sources in the USA and Canada. Bottled waters presented with concentrations of calcium covering a very large range. Certain tap and bottled waters present with concentrations of calcium sufficient to exhibit a deleterious effect on bisphosphonate treatment. Alternatively, certain waters may be used as a source of calcium that may provide over 40% of the recommended daily intake for calcium.
INTRODUCTION: Different forms of water vary in calcium content. High divalent ion (i.e., Ca(2+), Mg(2+), etc.) concentration is deleterious to the absorption and efficacy of the bisphosphonate group of drugs in osteoporosis treatment. Water with high calcium concentration may also present an alternate pathway of calcium administration. In either case, knowing the actual concentration is critical. HYPOTHESIS: The current paper is a surveillance study. We hypothesize that there is considerable variation in the calcium concentrations in the various water sources: tapwater from US and Canadian cities of different regions and purified, spring, and mineral bottled waters. In addition, we hypothesize that the water filter removes a significant amount of minerals including calcium from the water. METHODOLOGY:Calcium concentrations in various city tap waters, as well as an assorted number of bottled waters, were determined through the direct inspection of scientific data. The effect of filtering was also determined by mineral analysis of mineral water directly before and after filtration. RESULT: The calcium concentration of water varies from 1 to 135 mg/L across the USA and Canada. Most spring waters were found to have a relatively low calcium concentration, with an average of 21.8 mg/L. Purified waters contain a negligible calcium concentration. Mineral waters, on the other hand, were generally found to contain higher calcium concentrations, an average of 208 mg/L of calcium. Filtration was found to remove a considerable amount of calcium from the water, removing 89% on average. CONCLUSION:Calcium concentration in water varied substantially from different sources in the USA and Canada. Bottled waters presented with concentrations of calcium covering a very large range. Certain tap and bottled waters present with concentrations of calcium sufficient to exhibit a deleterious effect on bisphosphonate treatment. Alternatively, certain waters may be used as a source of calcium that may provide over 40% of the recommended daily intake for calcium.
Authors: E Orwoll; M Ettinger; S Weiss; P Miller; D Kendler; J Graham; S Adami; K Weber; R Lorenc; P Pietschmann; K Vandormael; A Lombardi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-08-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: U A Liberman; S R Weiss; J Bröll; H W Minne; H Quan; N H Bell; J Rodriguez-Portales; R W Downs; J Dequeker; M Favus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K G Saag; R Emkey; T J Schnitzer; J P Brown; F Hawkins; S Goemaere; G Thamsborg; U A Liberman; P D Delmas; M P Malice; M Czachur; A G Daifotis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-07-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J P Devogelaer; H Broll; R Correa-Rotter; D C Cumming; C N De Deuxchaisnes; P Geusens; D Hosking; P Jaeger; J M Kaufman; M Leite; J Leon; U Liberman; C J Menkes; P J Meunier; I Reid; J Rodriguez; A Romanowicz; E Seeman; A Vermeulen; L J Hirsch; A Lombardi; K Plezia; A C Santora; A J Yates; W Yuan Journal: Bone Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Cristina Palacios; G Justus Hofmeyr; Gabriela Cormick; Maria Nieves Garcia-Casal; Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas; Ana Pilar Betrán Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Gabriela Cormick; Natalia Matamoros; Iris B Romero; Surya M Perez; Cintia White; Dana Z Watson; José M Belizán; Miriam Sosa; M Fernanda Gugole Ottaviano; Eliana Elizagoyen; Lorena Garitta Journal: Gates Open Res Date: 2022-01-10