Keywords
Bottled water brands, Bacteriological quality, multi-drug resistant bacteria, role of water companies handling procedures
This article is included in the Pathogens gateway.
This article is included in the Antimicrobial Resistance collection.
Bottled water brands, Bacteriological quality, multi-drug resistant bacteria, role of water companies handling procedures
We have incorporated the reviewers' suggestions and recommendations in the new version. The title, data analysis, results, and discussion section have been reviewed to read better in line with the reviewers' suggestions
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lucy A. Semerjian
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ahmad Zarei
Water is essential for the human body and mental functions1–3 as well as for chronic disease prevention4. Water is essential for thermoregulation, protection and cushioning of body vital organs, as well as for breathing and transporting nutrients and oxygen throughout the body2. It is not surprising therefore that water constitute 50–60% of the human body2. Inevitably therefore, adequate total water intake of between 2 to 2.5 liters per day is recommended2.
Achieving and maintaining good health requires the availability and consumption of clean, potable (drinkable) water. This requires that water must be devoid of pathogens, dissolved toxins, and disagreeable turbidity, odor, color and taste5. The current concerns about palatability and microbial and chemical contaminants in tap water6, have led to the proliferation in the consumption of bottled water reaching historical high accounting for billion gallons in consumption6. Bottled water offers a handy source of water for consumption both within and outside household settings. In developing countries such as Kenya, bottled water is habitually sold and consumed in hotel industries, markets places, streets, schools, and during mass gatherings such as wedding and spotting activities, workplaces, health care facilities, and emergency situations7. Unfortunately, bottled water is not always as sterile as perceived. Several reports are available showing contamination bottled water with heterotrophic bacteria and coliforms counts exceeding the national and international standards8,9. Studies have isolated various bacterial contamination from bottled water such as Vibrio cholera and Salmonella spp.10,11, Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., Citrobacter spp. and C. violaceum9. As a result, several waterborne illnesses such as diarrhea account for significant morbidity and mortality among the young and the aged as well as immunocompromised populations12,13.
The bottled drinking water in Kenya should meet the following minimum requirements: be free from pathogens and chemicals; clear (i.e. low turbidity); none saline and should not have offensive taste or smell14. The Kenyan Bureau of standard (KS EAS 153: 2014) reference criteria for packaged water requires the absence of total coliforms, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus faecalis, Shigella and Salmonella in 100 ml of water14. Microbiological contamination of drinking water can have an immediate and significant impact on human health and must therefore be analyzed frequently. Among the factors reported to influence the microbiological quality of bottled water include; material of bottles, color of bottles and the length of storage15. This study investigated the bacteriological quality of bottled water and the association with the processes and handling practices of water bottling companies sold in Nairobi Kenya.
This study was approved by Kenyatta National Hospital and University of Nairobi Ethical Review Committee (KNH-UoN ERC-P971/12/2016). Before recruitment to this study, all study participants provided written informed consent for study participation.
This descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out at the Center for Microbiology Research (CMR), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) (International Organization for Standardization [ISO] 9001:2008– certified) between February 2019 and January 2020.
Sample size. There are about 40 registered water bottling companies in Nairobi (http://www.businesslist.co.ke/category/bottled-water/city:nairobi). Further, the Kenya revenue authority (KRA) has listed about 369 banned water bottling companies at https://www.slideshare.net/starwebmaster/list-of-368-water-brands-banned-by-kebs. To select the bottled water samples in this study, we used the 26% failure rate of the bottled water brands in Nigeria16 to meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and World Health Organization (WHO) requirement for drinking water standard of 100 total coliforms/ml water. Applying the formula for estimating the population proportion with specified relative precision described by Lemeshow et al.17, setting the α at 0.05, a total of 288 bottled water samples were collected to achieve 0.90 power. This number of bottled water samples was divided equally among the 40 brands sold in Nairobi. Therefore, a total of seven bottles per brand were sampled.
Data collection. At the time of the study, due to availability, 25 water brands approved by KRA were purchased from major retail outlets in Nairobi. The other 17 water brands non-approved by KRA were purchased by the roadside or from small retail shops in the streets of Nairobi. All the brands (25 KRA-approved and 17 banned bottled water brands) were sought without preferential treatment of any brands or retail outlets. Seven bottles of each bottled water brand from the same batch were purchased at different retail outlets and shipped in cool box to the laboratory for microbiological analysis within 6 hours of purchasing.
Structured interviews. To investigate the role of manufacturing handling and packaging process on the microbiological quality of water, randomly, this study visited the premises of all the available 25 registered and 17 banned water bottle and packaging companies located in Nairobi. Those consenting (see Extended data for the consent form 18) underwent a structured 20–30-minute face-to-face discussion within the premises at secluded and secured offices to gather information including the following information: type of abstraction, pipe work materials, bottling process, staff training, policies and procedures and microbiological quality of bottled water in Nairobi adopted from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme) (see Extended data for a blank copy of the survey18).
The water temperature and pH were measured immediately after purchase using the HACH Sensionþ MM150 Portable Multi-Parameter Meter (Hach Company, Loveland, CO), according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Each of the seven water samples per brand were analyzed separately. Bacterial contamination in these water samples were achieved using total plate count by the spread plate method and total coliform count and fecal coliform count by membrane filter method as described by WHO,19. Briefly, 100 mL of water samples were filtered through a 0.22-µm-pore-size membrane filter (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA), and filters placed on membrane Fecal Coliform (m-FC) agar plates were incubated at 37 and 44°C for 18 to 24 h to determine total coliform (TC) and fecal coliform (FC) counts, respectively.
The bacteria isolates were subsequently cultured onto bile esculin agar, eosine methylene blue agar, m-endo agar les, and plate count agar. These were then identified using colony morphology, Gram’s staining, biochemical tests and further characterized using the VITEK 2 system, version 0.8.01 (bioMerieux, Inc., Hazelwood, MO).
Each of the bacterial isolates were tested for susceptibility to antimicrobials by a controlled disk diffusion technique of Kirby-Bauer incubated at 35°C for 18 hours. The isolates were tested for susceptibility to the following 11 antibiotics (OXOID, England): amoxicillin (10 μg), tetracycline (30 μg), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (30 μg), chloramphenicol (30 μg), gentamicin (10 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), doxycycline (30 μg), erythromycin (30 μg), ofloxacin (30 μg), ceftriaxone (30 μg) and kanamycin (30 μg). These tests were done according to guidelines set by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute20. E. coli ATCC 25922 (with known minimum inhibitory concentrations) was used as a reference strain in the disk diffusion susceptibility tests.
Frequency (%), mean and standard deviation, were used to describe the water physiochemical properties and bacterial colony count. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test were used to test for variation between variables. The association between the presence of TCC >100 CFU/ml contaminating bottled water and companies water handling and processing characteristics were calculated using Poisson regression. Manual backward elimination method was used to reach the most parsimonious model in multivariate analysis. This included factors that were associated with contamination with TCC >100 CFU/ml at the significance level of P≤0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA v13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).
The buying price (mean ± SD) of KRA-approved brands was slightly higher than the banned bottled water: 37.8 ± 16.95 Kenyan shillings (Kshs) versus 29.6 ± 13.32 Kshs (p = 0.0208). The temperatures (mean ± SD) for KRA approved and banned bottled water were not significantly different 16.09 ± 0.85°C versus 16.1 ± 1.21°C, respectively (p = 0.869). On the contrary, the pH (mean ± SD) of KRA approved and banned bottled water were statistically different, at 6.8 ± 0.23 versus 7.1± 0.36, respectively (p = 0.0002). The (mean ± SD per ml) total plate count, total coliform count and fecal coliform count KRA approved bottled water were found to be lower than those from KRA banned bottled water, with values of 18.5 ± 32.89 versus 56.9 ± 122.06 (p = 0.0373), 6.9 ± 14.42 versus 33.5 ± 64.37 (p = 0.0058), and 1.02 ± 3.01 versus 14.5 ± 29.51 (p = 0.0019), respectively (Table 1). Characteristics of each sample are available as Underlying data18.
Based on the WHO recommended criteria for drinking water, there were no KRA-approved bottled water brands exceeding the recommended pH limit of 6.5 to 7.5 while 35.3% banned bottled water exceeded the limit. With regards to total plate counts, there were 4 (16%) KRA-approved and 6 (35.3%) KRA-banned bottled water exceeding WHO criteria for drinking water. Similarly, on the basis of TCC and FCC there were 1 (4%) KRA approved and 3 (17.6%) KRA-banned bottled water brands exceeding WHO criteria for drinking water (Table 2).
E. coli was the most common bacteria type found contaminating four (16%) different KRA-approved bottled water brands and four (23.5%) of the banned brands. Other bacteria isolated from the KRA-approved bottled water brands included Pseudomonas spp. (n=4, 16%), Enterobacter spp. (n=1, 4%), Klebsiella spp. (n=1, 4%) and Proteus spp. (n=1 (4 %). With regards to KRA banned bottled water samples apart from the E. coli, other isolated bacteria were Enterobacter spp. (n=1, 5.9%), Klebsiella spp. (n=1, 5.9%) and Aeromonas spp. (n=1, 5.9%).
Susceptibility testing showed that all the bacterial isolates were resistant to at least one type of antibiotics. All the isolates were susceptible to ceftriaxone and ofloxacin. Most of the bacterial isolates 19 out of 28 (67.9%) were resistant to amoxicillin. The bacteria isolates were also resistance to erythromycin (14/28; 50%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (8/28; 28.6%), doxycycline (7/28; 25%), tetracycline (5/28; 17.9%), gentamycin (4/28; 14.3%), chloramphenicol (4/28; 14.3%), kanamycin (3/28; 10.7%) and ciprofloxacin (3/28; 10.7%).
Most bacteria from KRA-banned bottled waters were resistant to gentamycin and erythromycin. The bacteria from the KRA approved brands were mostly resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Amoxicillin, tetracycline and doxycycline. Most of multidrug resistance (resistant to more than three drugs) E. coli and Klebsiella spp. were from KRA-banned bottled water, while multidrug resistance Pseudomonas spp. from KRA-approved brands (Table 3).
In multivariable analysis, bottled water brands that used chlorine-based disinfectants for cleaning pipework/tankers and bottling equipment were less likely to exceed WHO TCC limits compared to those that did not use any detergent for cleaning (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.8). Companies that had food safety programs (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.019 to 0.9), procedures for water sourcing (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.012 to 0.9) and procedures for contamination protection (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.9) (Table 4). Self-reported company details are available as Underlying data18.
Evaluation of bacteriological quality of bottled drinking water is important and urgent in Kenya given the current upsurge of different brands of bottled water, most of which are not regulated. This study was unique and among the first in Kenya to evaluate the role of the practices used by water bottling companies in relation to the bacterial quality of water in line with the WHO acceptability criteria. This was compared between those bottled waters approved and banned brands by Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). The bacteriological quality of bottled water from approved brands was found to be better than those of banned brands. The total coliforms and fecal coliform present in 100 ml of water were detected cumulatively in 9.5% of all brands, and in 4% of KRA-approved and 17.6% of banned bottled water brands. The proportion of bottle water brands with unacceptable in line with WHO limits were lower than the 50% reported in Bangladesh21, 37.5% in India22, 26% reported in Nigeria16 and 25% in Nepal9. On the contrary, the proportion of unacceptable bottled water brands in our study was higher than the 4.6% reported in Tanzania23 the 9% in Sri Lanka24 and 0% reported in Saudi Arabia25. Although KRA approval is based on tax payment rather than on scientific basis, the high number of KRA-banned bottled water brands points to the possibilities of ineffectiveness of the disinfection processes used in these brands. In a process likely to be mainly for financial benefit by the bottled water manufacturers, studies have cited the improper practice of filling the bottle directly from tap water and sealing it without any prior treatment as among the reasons responsible for higher brands of bottled water beyond the acceptable limits of bacteriological quality9. Longer storage periods, especially of already-contaminated bottled water, have been shown to worsen the bacteriological quality. As in many developing countries, the laxity by the government body responsible for monitoring the quality of bottled water has been shown to account for higher levels of bottled water brands with unacceptable microbiological limits9.
With regards to total plate count or heterotrophic bacteria, in this study, a total of 23.8% of the bottled water brands (40% KRA-approved and 60% banned brands) were contaminated. In other settings, higher percentages of between 20% to 100% of heterotrophic bacteria contamination of bottled drinking water have been reported9,26,27. Studies have associated long storage duration with high levels of bacterial concentration mainly due to larger surface area for growth, higher temperature, and the nutrients arising in the container28. This quantity of heterotrophic bacteria is shown to correlate with water pH. There were 35.5% of banned bottled water brands with a pH below the pH 6.5 minimum level recommended by WHO, which could account for the higher numbers of heterotrophic bacteria per milliliter detected in these brands. Similar results were also reported by Pant et al.9.
The presence of total coliforms and fecal coliforms in 4% KRA-approved and 17.6% KRA-banned bottled water brands exceeding WHO criteria is similar to that observed by other studies23,29. This is worrying and a pointer to either poor water processing, introducing flakes of human skin or indigenously acquired by filling the bottles directly from the natural sources or taps23.
E. coli (in 19.1%) was the most common bacteria found contaminating the bottled water brands. Others included Pseudomonas spp. (9.5%), Enterobacter spp. (4.8%), Klebsiella spp. (4.8%) and Proteus spp. (2.3%) and Aeromonas spp. (2.3%). In Nepal, Pant et al.9 isolated more of Pseudomonas spp. (87.5 %) and Acinetobacter spp. (87.5 %). In Iran Momtaz et al.,10 isolated E. coli, while in Brazil, Vasconcellos et al.30 isolated Salmonella spp., and V. cholerae from bottled water.
Although all bacteria in our investigation were susceptible to ceftriaxone and ofloxacin, resistance to erythromycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline, tetracycline, gentamycin, chloramphenicol, kanamycin and ciprofloxacin were noted. Multidrug resistance (resistant to more than three drugs) in E. coli, Klebsiella spp. and Pseudomonas spp. from all bottle brands were also detected. The presence of different species of bacteria, including multidrug resistant strains, in supposedly bacteria-free bottled water is of important public health problem. Pathogenicity notwithstanding, their presence in bottled waters heavily consumed by those including the elderly, children and the immunocompromised, the hazards of contamination, and health risks to consumers should not be taken for granted10,30.
This study incorporated a unique feature by investigating the manufacturing practices potentially associated with contamination of bottled water. In multivariable analysis, companies that used chlorine-based disinfectants for cleaning pipework/tankers and bottling equipment were less likely to have water brands exceeding WHO TCC limits compared to that that did not use any detergent for cleaning. Zamberlan et al.31 showed the importance of disinfection processes used by the water bottling companies as playing a key determinant of bacterial concentration in bottled water. In Nepal, Pant et al.9 showed that failure to disinfect water represents an important avenue for bacterial entry and colonization of water processing systems. Our study further showed that companies that had food safety programs, procedures for water sourcing and procedures for contamination protection were less likely produce bottled waters with unacceptable microbiological limits. As expected, if companies are set up in line with guidelines set by regulatory authorities, then the end product will be devoid or have a reduced microbial contamination. In this study, although more of companies producing approved brands had recommended water collection and transportation systems, water treatment procedures (filtration, UV and chlorination and reverse osmosis), packaged water using polycarbonate containers, used machine during bottling process, had batch tracing system, routinely tested their products according to the WHO guidelines and having recommended handling standard procedures than banned ones, these were not factors associated with the contamination of bottled water.
Our study had some limitations. First, due to limited resources available, the study could not process large enough numbers of the samples to include all brands sold in the country. Second, owing to the limited laboratory methods used, we were not able to identify all the potential pathogens that contaminated the water, including other pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. Third, the cross-sectional nature of our study only allowed us to describe associations between water company processes and procedures and bacterial quality and not a causal conclusion. Such outcomes can be confirmed in a longitudinal study. These limitations notwithstanding, one of the key outcomes of this investigation is the capacity to show that the perceived safe bottled water brands, including the top-selling and most expensive brands in Kenya, could be contaminated with bacteria beyond the WHO recommended limits. Additionally, some of these bacteria associated with significant disease outbreaks were multidrug-resistant. The study also showed that water bottling companies’ operations and processes are key avenue for bacterial water contamination. The Kenya Bureau of Standards is the Kenyan regulatory and monitoring authority for all water and packaged foods. Our results may suggest, however, that concerted efforts must be made to improve the ability of national governments to properly regulate and monitor these products which has been shown to improve product quality and safety32,33.
Figshare: Bottled water brands are contaminated with multidrug resistant bacteria which are associated with companies handling procedures in Nairobi Kenya. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13046534.v218
This project contains the following underlying data:
Figshare: Bottled water brands are contaminated with multidrug resistant bacteria which are associated with companies handling procedures in Nairobi Kenya. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13046534.v218
This project contains the following extended data:
Safia F1000_Consent.docx. (Informed consent form.)
Safia F1000 Interview guide.docx. (Survey used in the present study.)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
We would like to thank the study participants (heads of water bottling companies) who shared with us their operations and experience. We wish to acknowledge the Director KEMRI, all the staff of the CMR, Nairobi, Kenya.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Water quality, water and wastewater treatment and reuse, emerging contaminants, PPCPs, environmental pollution control
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Shams M, Qasemi M, Afsharnia M, Mohammadzadeh A, et al.: Chemical and microbial quality of bottled drinking water in Gonabad city, Iran: Effect of time and storage conditions on microbial quality of bottled waters.MethodsX. 2019; 6: 273-277 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 2 (revision) 03 Mar 21 |
read | read |
Version 1 16 Nov 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)