Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from PET containers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using clean lab methods and protocols developed for measuring Sb in polar snow and ice, we report the abundance of Sb in fifteen brands of bottled water from Canada and forty-eight from Europe. Comparison with the natural abundance of Sb in pristine groundwaters, water bottled commercially in polypropylene, analyses of source waters prior to bottling, and addition of uncontaminated groundwater to PET bottles, provides unambiguous evidence of Sb leaching from the containers. In contrast to the pristine groundwater in Ontario, Canada containing 2.2 +/- 1.2 ng l(-1) Sb, 12 brands of bottled natural waters from Canada contained 156 +/- 86 ng l(-1) and 3 brands of deionized water contained 162 +/- 30 ng l(-1); all of these were bottled in PET containers. Natural water from Ontario bottled in polypropylene contained only 8.2 +/- 0.9 ng l(-1). Comparison of three German brands of water available in both glass bottles and PET containers showed that waters bottled in PET contained up to 30 times more Sb. To confirm that the elevated Sb concentrations are due to leaching from the PET containers, water was collected in acid-cleaned LDPE bottles from a commercial source in Germany, prior to bottling; this water was found to contain 3.8 +/- 0.9 ng l(-1) Sb (n = 5), compared with the same brand of water purchased locally in PET bottles containing 359 +/- 54 ng l(-1) (n = 6). This same brand of water in PET bottles, after an additional three months of storage at room temperature, yielded 626 +/- 15 ng l(-1) Sb (n = 3). Other German brands of water in PET bottles contained 253-546 ng l(-1) Sb (n = 5). The median concentration of Sb in thirty-five brands of water bottled in PET from eleven other European countries was 343 ng l(-1) (n = 35). As an independent check of the hypothesis that Sb is leaching from PET, the pristine groundwater from Canada (containing 2.2 +/- 1.2 ng l(-1) Sb) was collected from the source using PET bottles from Germany: this water contained 50 +/- 17 ng l(-1) Sb (n = 2) after only 37 days, even though it was stored in the refrigerator, and 566 ng l(-1) after six months storage at room temperature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".