Potential risk of BPA and phthalates in commercial water bottles: a minireview

The global water bottling market grows annually. Today, to ensure consumer safety, it is important to verify the possible migration of compounds from bottles into the water contained in them. Potential health risks due to the prevalence of bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates (PAEs) exposure through water bottle consumption have become an important issue. BPA, benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), di- n butyl phthalate (DBP) and di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) can cause adverse effects on human health. Papers of literature published in English, with BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP detections during 2017, by 2019 by liquid chromatography and gas chromatography analysis methods were searched. The highest concentrations of BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP in all the bottled waters studied were found to be 5.7, 12.11, 82.8 and 64.0 μ g/L, respectively. DBP was the most compound detected and the main contributor by bottled water consumption with 23.7% of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI). Based on the risk assessment, BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP in commercial water bottles do not pose a serious concern for humans. The average estrogen equivalent level revealed that BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP in bottled waters may induce adverse estrogenic effects on human health.

The bottled water industry is a phenomenon in practically every region of the world. First, bottled water became a mainstream commercial beverage category in Western Europe and later grew into a truly global beverage (IBWA ). The bottled industry produces mainly two types of packaged water: packaged natural mineral drinking water and packaged drinking water. The last is water derived from any source of a potable water (ground, well, bore well water, etc.), which must be subjected to different treatment processes such as filtration, aeration, decantation, and reverse osmosis (Jain et al. ). In 2018, for the first time, global bottled water consumption has surpassed that 100 billion gallons is Thus, this work hopes to aid decision-making in future research focusing on BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP in commercial water bottles using HPLC and GC. Moreover, this review hopes to avoid consumer exposure to these chemicals and to guarantee consumer safety.

BPA AND PAES IN PET BOTTLED WATER
The production process of water bottles uses PC plastics containing BPA (antioxidant or monomer) (Alfarhani et al. ; Fikarová et al. ; Liu et al. ). Although BPA is not used in the manufacture of PET, it should consider the use of recycled PET (R-PET) as a possible source of BPA coming from cross-contamination, not only during the recycling process but also during the manufacture of virgin PET (Dreolin et al. ). BPA leachable from polymer packaging due to its moderate water solubility (120-300 mg/L: pH 7.0 at 25 C) and low log K ow (3.32) in water (Borrirukwisitsak et

Extraction techniques for detection
The sample preparation has been considered as the Achilles' heel (Fumes et al. ). Matrix-related compounds can be co-extracted and can interfere in the analysis; so, the sample preparation has a multifarious role related to target analyte extraction, preconcentration and clean-up from coexisting species (Gao et al. ). A preconcentration step is usually necessary before the final analysis of compounds   Table 1

DETECTIONS OF BPA AND PAES
The detected levels of BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP in commercial water bottles without the storage study are present in Table 2

RISK ASSESSMENT
Daily intake-associated risk assessment To compare the health risk via commercial water bottle consumption was used the risk assessment. The highest levels of BPA, BBP, DBP and DEHP in commercial water bottles are presented in Table 4 and       The worst-case scenario (the maximum level of each compound) was employed. b EDI ¼ (C × IR)/BW, where C is the concentration of target compounds (μg/L or mg/kg), ingestion rate (IR) is the daily consumption rate of bottled water (L/day or g/day), and BW is body weight (Luo et al. 2018), and the IR was assumed to be 2.0 L/day or and 2.0 kg/day for a 70 kg for adult (BW) (WHO 2005). The value of 2.0 L/day refers to all water sources that includes water from all supply sources such as community water supply (i.e., tap water), bottled water, etc. μg/kg-bw/day: microgram per kilogram of the body weight of the person taking per day. c Contribution via drinking water ¼ (EDI/TDI) × 100 (Zaki & Shoeib 2018), where the TDI for BPA, BBP, DBP, and DEHP are available for reference as established by EFSA (4, 500, 10 and 50 μg/ kg-bw/day). d ELCR is the Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks due to exposure to chemicals through the use of bottled water. ELCR ¼ DWUR × MC, where Drinking Water Unit Risk is equal to 4.7 × 10 À7 μg/L of DEHP in water, and MC is the maximum concentration (μg/L or μg/kg) of DEHP in bottled water (Jeddi et al. 2015). Here was considered the value of 4.7 × 10 À7 μg/kg for papers with concentrations give in mg/kg.
contribution via commercial water bottles (Table 4) (Table 5), which is more restrictive for DEHP, the contribution would be much higher (9.15%).
The carcinogenic risk (Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks -ELCR) posed by the highest concentration of DEHP in bottled water was negligible for all papers, with extremely below or between the accepted risk level of 10 À6 -10 À4 cancer risk (WHO ). As mentioned by WHO (), daily water intake can vary significantly in different parts of the world and location-specific data on drinking water consumption are preferred. As reported by Leung et al.

Potential estrogenic effect of BPA and PAEs
Despite the safety factor indicates that the levels of the compounds in bottled waters are acceptable in terms of water safety, the potential estrogenic effects of the compounds by an average Estrogen Equivalent (EEQ) level in bottled waters are based on the highest concentrations that were evaluated ( Table 5). The EEQ provides valuable information on human exposure to estrogen-like compounds, aiding in the estimation of the total dietary intake of estrogenicity (Schilirò et al. ). The potential estrogenic effects of BBP and DBP in bottled water should not be ignored due to their relatively high concentrations. As can be seen in Table 5, the average EEQ level in the bottled waters is significantly at 6.1652 ng E2/L, which was 22.8 times higher than those that cause adverse estrogenic effects on zebrafish (0.27 ng E2/L) as reported by Soares et al. (). Thus, the  (1987a, 1987b, 1988, 2019a).
j Hazard Quotient (HQ) ¼ EDI/RfD, where HQ is associated with the exposure via the specified exposure route (unitless) (Jeddi et al. 2015).
where EP and c denote the estrogenic potency of an individual estrogenic compound (in vitro bioassays) and its corresponding concentration (Liu et al. 2009). l Legler et al. (1999). m Kim & Ryu (2006

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.