3.889 5.

Review

Bottled Water: An Evidence-Based

Overview of Economic Viability,
Environmental Impact, and Social
Equity

Yael Parag, Efrat Elimelech and Tamar Opher

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129760
 sustainability

Review
Bottled Water: An Evidence-Based Overview of Economic
Viability, Environmental Impact, and Social Equity
Yael Parag 1, * , Efrat Elimelech 2 and Tamar Opher 3

1 School of Sustainability, Reichman University, 8 University St., Herzliya 4610101, Israel

2 Department of Sociology, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel
3 Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper considers bottled water with respect to the three pillars of sustainability:
economic viability, environmental impacts, and social equity. Per-capita consumption of bottled
water has been growing steadily and is the fastest-growing sector of the packaged beverages industry,
with expected annual growth of 10% until 2026. Most bottled water is sold in PET containers, and
various impacts are evident along all phases of the product lifecycle. This paper reviews market
trends and forecasts, lifecycle estimates of energy consumption, associated air pollution and GHG
emissions, water footprint, and waste generation. Concerns around human and ecosystem health
due to pollution, land use changes, storage conditions, microplastics, and leaching from containers
are described, as well as local environmental benefits from companies’ efforts to preserve the quality
of their source water. Growing awareness of the cumulative negative impacts of bottled water have
pushed the industry to voluntarily improve its performance. Yet, as growth continues, further actions
should focus on stricter regulation and on the provision of more sustainable, affordable, available, and
trusted alternatives. Gaps remain in knowledge of the effects of bottled water over its full life cycle.

Keywords: bottled water industry; sustainable consumption; health impact; environmental impact

Citation: Parag, Y.; Elimelech, E.;

Opher, T. Bottled Water: An 1. Introduction
Evidence-Based Overview of
Bottled water is often seen as one of capitalism’s greatest mysteries, “the packaging and
Economic Viability, Environmental
selling of something that is already freely available” [1]. In its massive marketing campaigns
Impact, and Social Equity.
and advertisements, the industry positions bottled water as the ultimate beverage for a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760.
healthy lifestyle and associates its consumption with personal success and a connection to
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129760
wild nature [2]. Influenced by this messaging, the reasons consumers provide for preferring
Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen bottled water over tap water vary: some see it as the only option for clean water; for some
and Giovanni De Feo it is a symbol of status and the modern lifestyle; for others it is simply more convenient,
Received: 1 March 2023
handier, or tastier than tap water [3–5]. In many countries bottled water consumption is
Revised: 8 May 2023
common in all segments of society. In the USA, for example, consumption is spread nearly
Accepted: 15 June 2023 evenly between age groups and income groups, with perhaps slightly more women (54%)
Published: 19 June 2023 drinking it than men [6]. Considering the billions of bottles that are sold every year, the rate
of industry growth, and the consumer price of bottled water often being thousands of times
that of tap water, it seems that the public is convinced that bottled water is superior. This is
surprising, given that most bottled water sold globally (nearly 60% in 2018) is purified tap
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. water, not spring water or natural mineral water [7].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. As a commodity, bottled water is a unique combination of natural resource and indus-
This article is an open access article trial product. In recent decades, the social practice of drinking bottled water has engendered
distributed under the terms and cultural and social shifts with economic, environmental, and social implications [8]. Bottled
conditions of the Creative Commons
water as a socio-techno-economic phenomenon has been widely studied from various
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
perspectives and angles. Interest in bottled water manufacturing, consumption, and envi-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
ronmental impacts is reflected in the growing number of academic publications on the topic.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129760 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

 ‐ ‐

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 2 of 18

‐
A Web of Science database search returned 537 publications with the term “bottled water”
in the title or keywords between 1997 and 2020 (Figure 1). The most common aspects of the
bottled‐ water issue to be addressed are health and environment (in terms of the impacts
of bottled water on consumer health and the environmental impacts of single-use bottles),
economics (global and local industry; market trends), psychology (why consumers prefer
bottled water to tap water), and chemical and engineering aspects of the manufacturing
and industrial processes. While many publications cover more than one aspect, no‐ article ‐ ‐
provides a broad overview of bottled water as a socio-techno-economic phenomenon.

Figure 1. Number of publications with the term “bottled water” in the title or keyword
Figure 1. Number of publications with the term “bottled water” in the title or keywords (Web of
Science Database).

In 2011, the economics, environmental impact, and social implications of the bottled
water industry and consumption trends of the product were reviewed in the Encyclopedia
of Life Support Systems [9]. Subsequently, despite the changes in production technologies
and consumption patterns, no article has provided a broad up-to-date ‐ ‐ multi-perspective
‐
overview of the phenomenon based on data and evidence from various disciplines. Our pa-
per aims to fill this gap by using the prism of the three pillars of sustainability—economic ‐
viability, environmental impact, and social equity—to examine the bottled water phe-
nomenon. As this phenomenon is wide in scope, we apply a semi-systemic review method-
‐
ology, allowing us to include a broad range of topics and different types of studies [10].
Using evidence from these three realms, we observe the multifaceted reality of bottled water
production and consumption. Herein, we present some of the complexities and tensions ‐
inherent to consumer society, in which short-term revenues and economic considerations
often come at the expense of long-term environmental and‐ health ones. Evidence and facts ‐
‐
should be the foundation in the search for a feasible balance between protection of the ‐
environment and human health on the one hand, and fair economic growth and social ‐
prosperity on the other.
The paper begins with a short history of the bottled water market and its evolution,
followed by an overview of the regulatory and policy frameworks that govern bottled
water. It continues by examining bottled water from economic (market and consumption
trends), environmental (energy consumption, air pollution, water footprint, waste, and
ecosystem degradation), and societal (human health, equity, and justice) perspectives. The
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 3 of 18

article concludes with a discussion of the future outlook and notes on the need for unbiased
and updated data.

2. Development of the Bottled Water Market

According to Chapelle [11], the origins of the bottled water industry are in the early
1800s; it started to grow significantly in the United States when mass production of glass
bottles became economically viable. In the early 20th century clean water was not widely
available, and the bottled water industry thrived in both the US and Europe. Among
the early distributors were brands that remain in the market today, such as Evian, San
Pellegrino, Perrier, and Vittel. The improvement of tap water quality in developed countries
during the first half of the 20th century led to a decline in the need for bottled water
for drinking.
Bottled water markets re-emerged in response to several key factors [12]: changes in
consumer drinking habits; strategies on the part of beverage producers; the development
of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles; the intensification of sophisticated branding
techniques; and incidents of drinking water pollution.
Holt [13] identifies three “health constructs” that gave the bottled water market a
substantial push: the hydration trend, starting around 1988, stimulated the demand for
convenient portable water; the 1993 cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, which took a
heavy toll and highlighted bottled water as a contaminant-free choice; and public health
studies published in the early 2000s that identified sugar consumption as a cause of several
chronic health problems and drove middle-class Americans to replace sweetened soft
drinks with bottled water. Opel [14] describes a climate of distrust of public water supplies
driven by several water contamination incidents. The industry took advantage of these
events to spread doubt about public water safety while stressing the purity of its bottled
products. During the first decade of bottled water advertising, water-bottling companies
did not even have to advertise this safety advantage, as NGOs and the media were already
legitimizing and amplifying the tap-water scare [13].
Brei [15] argues that while the concept of health is strongly embedded in the develop-
ment of the French bottled water market, infrastructure and technical innovations brought
about by the Industrial Revolution, such as drilling for new sources and faster bottling
processes, improved the possibilities for commercial exploration of mineral waters. A major
milestone in the growth of the bottled water market in France occurred in the mid-1950s,
when new laws that eased the production process were introduced. These laws eliminated
the requirement for bottling at the source, lifted a prohibition on the sale of a mixture of
two or more different mineral waters, and allowed certain treatments of mineral water [15].

3. Governance, Regulations, and Policies

The governing structure of bottled water varies from place to place, and is somewhat
different from that of drinking water because it covers both the water and its package.
Drinking water, or potable water, is water intended for human consumption. Bottled
water is drinking water sealed in any sort of packaging (plastic or glass bottles, cans,
cartons, etc.) with no added ingredients except that like tap water, it may contain certain
antimicrobial agents [16].
Regulations and standards are in place in most countries to ensure that drinking
water is clean and to protect consumers’ health from any hazards arising from poor-quality
water. Unlike tap water, bottled water is often regarded as a food product and regulated
as such. Commercial foodstuffs are subject to less restrictive regulations and enforcement
methods than tap water; emphasis is mostly put on truthful labeling, sanitary processing,
and transport conditions. Nonetheless, bottled water regulations have become stricter over
the years [17].
At least four levels of regulation apply to the bottled water industry: international,
national, local, and trade association. As a result, the capacity and scope of regulations
vary widely from place to place [18,19]. In the US, for example, drinking water is regulated
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 4 of 18

by the EPA, whereas bottled water is regulated by the FDA, under Section 410(b)(1) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The act requires the FDA to update its standards
of quality for bottled water with every change in the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations issued by the EPA.
The FDA requires bottled water to come from sources that have been approved by
government agencies with the appropriate jurisdiction (for example, municipal drinking
water systems, wells, or springs). The source water must be tested at least every four years
for radiological contaminants, at least once a year for chemical contaminants, and once a
week for microbiological contaminants (unless the water comes from a municipal source,
as these are subject to EPA regulation) [20]. The actual testing is conducted by the bottlers
themselves and is subject to FDA inspection. Maximum contaminant levels have to be
no less stringent than those set by the EPA for tap water. In certain cases, however, FDA
regulation is more restrictive than EPA regulation. For example, the EPA standard for
lead in tap water is 15 parts per billion (in more than 10% of collected samples), while the
FDA standard for bottled water is 5 parts per billion (metal contaminants such as lead
may be present in tap water due to its exposure to household plumbing pipes, and are
less likely to be found in bottled water). At the same time, various potentially harmful
contaminants such as bisphenol A (BPA) and microplastics, which are likely to be present
in bottled water, are not regulated by FDA. In addition, unlike municipal water utilities,
which must report to the public on contaminants found in their water, bottlers are not
required to report contaminants or order recalls, nor are they subject to adequate oversight
of their operations [20]. Certain states may require licensing, certification, or additional
labeling not specified in the federal regulations.
EU legislation covers natural mineral water, spring water, and “other water”, including
exploitation, treatment, microbiological criteria, chemical contaminants, sales description,
labeling, and packaging. Spring waters and “other waters” must also comply with Eu-
ropean Union (Drinking water) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I. No. 282/2016: Natural mineral
waters, spring waters and other waters in bottles or containers).
As a food item, bottled water is subject to any legislation concerning food production,
manufacture, packaging, labeling, storage, etc. [19,21]. For example, in the EU, containers
are subject to safety regulations for all “food contact materials” defined under Commission
Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004.

4. Sustainability
The evolution of bottled water from health necessity (i.e., a way to ensure good water
quality) to a lifestyle and cultural choice has environmental and social implications, as
well as industrial and commercial ones [22–24]. In the following sections, we outline
existing evidence of the current status of the main impacts in each of the three realms of
sustainability: economy, environment, and society. Figure 2 highlights the various impacts
along the life cycle of bottled water (excluding equity and justice, which are discussed
below but are not related to any specific phase of the life cycle).
To begin, we should note three important things: first, only a few academic (non-
industry) studies have quantified the various impacts of bottled water, and many industry
publications do not explain their methodology in detail; second, several studies use fig-
ures from articles published more than a decade ago (for example, figures on energy
consumption from Gleick and Cooley [25] are cited in many recent studies, although they
are probably inaccurate today because manufacturing processes have become more effi-
cient and bottles much lighter); third, comparison between studies is often difficult, as
calculations are conducted for containers of different sizes and impacts depend nonlin-
early on bottle volume (e.g., the impact of a one-liter bottle is not twice the impact of a
half-liter bottle).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 5 of 18

Figure 2. Sustainability aspects of bottled water.

4.1. Economic Viability

Rising interest in healthy living along with government regulations aimed at tack-
ling rising obesity rates has led to increased demand for sugar-free and healthy drinks,
contributing to the growth of the packaged water market [26]. ‐ Today, millions of people ‐
around the world in both developed and developing countries consume bottled water
regularly. It is now by far the most popular type of packaged beverage. In 2020, total
consumption of bottled water (including still, carbonated, flavored, and functional bottled ‐
water was 336 billion liters according to Euromonitor International [27], or 443 billion
liters according to Statista [28]. (Note that Euromonitor International includes additional ‐
products under the bottled water category, beyond those defined by the regulator; see
Section 3 for a comparison.) This is compared to 346 billion liters of all other types of soft
drinks combined, including carbonated beverages, juices, sport drinks, energy drinks, and
ready-to-drink coffee and tea [29]. The vast majority of bottled water is sold in plastic
packages, and nearly 90% is off-trade (that is, sold for consumption off the premises, as
opposed‐ ‐to on-trade, which refers to bottled water bought and consumed in premises such
as restaurants) [27,30]. ‐
‐
The global bottled water industry, which involves many of the largest food brands
in the world, has registered strong growth in recent decades. In 2020 its revenues were
USD 285 billion globally, and it is expected to grow annually by 10.1% between 2020 and
2026 (CAGR) [28]. In 2010, approximately 206 billion liters of bottled water were consumed
globally; in 2020, this was 335 billion liters [27,31] (Figure 3). Between 1999 and 2018, annual
per capita consumption of bottled water (carbonated or still in plastic or glass bottles) in ‐
the US rose from 61 L to 160 L. In comparison, the figure was 274 L in Mexico, 274 L in
Thailand, 190 L in Italy, 144 in Germany, and 132 in the United Arab Emirates [31,32].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 6 of 18

‐
Figure 3. The global market for bottled water (million liters per year). Source: Graph based on
Euromonitor international; data collected from trade sources/national statistics.

Emerging markets such as India, China, Indonesia,‐ and South Korea have recorded
‐
substantial growth thanks to their growing middle-class population, increasing disposable ‐
personal income, and rapid urbanization [26]. These processes have brought a monumental
surge in the consumption of many consumer goods, bottled water among them. For
example, in 2010, 20.3 billion liters of bottled water were purchased in China; in 2020, this
was 50.8 billion liters [27].
With growth in consumption, the bottled water packaging market has been growing
as well. In 2019 it was valued at USD 182 billion, and it is expected to reach USD 278 billion
by 2025 at a CAGR of 6.86% over the forecasting period of 2020 to 2025 [33,34]. ‐
The growing consumption of bottled water may be simply explained by (and cor-
related with) changes in GDP per capita. However, a more critical view suggests that ‐
it should be understood in the context of the wide variation in the quality of public tap
water, the extent of municipal water coverage, the public (lack of) trust in tap water‐ in
each country, and the industry’s implicit and explicit efforts to position bottled water as a
desirable healthy lifestyle choice and as superior to tap water [12,22–24,35].
‐
COVID-19 Market‐ Impact ‐
The COVID-19 pandemic brought lockdown restrictions and social distancing regu-
lations which led to dramatic changes in the patterns of bottled ‐ water consumption and
sales. According to a report by Euromonitor‐ [36], in ‐the US, on-trade sales of bottled
‐
water declined by 42% in 2020, while the long-term‐ ‐
rise in off-trade sales was significantly
intensified, with sales increasing by 7%. The ‐off-trade increase did not offset the on-trade
decline, and the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the bottled ‐ ‐
water industry
in 2020 was a 2% decline in total volume. The high ‐ ratio between on-trade and off-trade
prices made the industry‐ very vulnerable to on-trade decline. As lockdowns eased and
restrictions lifted, on-trade sales bounced back (Figure 3). Different figures are presented
by BWR [37], indicating that total consumption of bottled water in the US increased from
54,300 million liters in 2019 to 56,700 in 2020, a 4.2% increase.

4.2. Environmental Impacts: Resource Use and Externalities

Post-consumer non-degradable bottle waste has attracted great media and public
attention. However, it is only one of many negative impacts linked to the life cycle of bottled
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 7 of 18

water. These include the depletion of resources and materials, consumption of energy and
water, and emission of greenhouse gases and toxic substances. These arise from all stages
of the life cycle, including bottle manufacturing, water extraction, bottling, packaging, and
transport of the product to consumers. Comparing the resource usage for the production of
potable tap water versus bottled water, the environmental impact of the latter is seen to be
greater per all the criteria examined [38,39]. At the same time, the environmental impact of
bottled water is the lowest among all packaged beverages, [40], and the commitment to the
environment declared by the bottled water industry is much higher [41].
Today, the vast majority of bottled water is sold in plastic packages and most of
the existing studies and data are about PET bottles, with only a few comparing different
container types. Recent research suggests that PET bottles have the lowest environmental
impact compared with alternative packaging options. Compared with glass packaging,
the most significant aspects that determine the environmental impact are the number of
reuses of a single glass bottle and the distribution distance [42] On average (i.e., varying
conditions of recycling rate, energy mix, etc.) and for most impact categories, the life cycle
impacts of an aluminum can are higher than those of a PET bottle of the same volume [43].

4.2.1. Energy and Fuels

In contrast to tap water, which is distributed through a relatively energy-efficient
infrastructure, the manufacturing of plastic or glass containers and their filling, packaging,
and long-distance transport involves burning large quantities of fossil fuels.
A life-cycle assessment conducted for the International Bottled Water Association [40]
found that the manufacturing of a 500 mL PET bottle (weighting 8.3 g) requires 0.96 MJ.
According to this analysis, PET bottles have the lowest energy consumption compared
to other 500 mL beverage containers, i.e., aluminum can—1.34 MJ (19.7 g), beverage
carton—1.06 MJ (21.8 g), and glass bottle—4.32 MJ (300.6 g). An earlier study [25] estimated
that the total energy used to manufacture a typical one-liter plastic bottle (weighing 38 g) is
5.6–10.2 MJ, of which approximately 4 MJ/L goes to making the PET resin, turning it into
bottles, and transporting the bottles to the filling location. The large difference between
the figures from these two studies is explained by the reduced weight of the bottles and
improvements in the production processes that took place during the twelve years that
separated the studies. According to Antea Group [7], between 2013 and 2017 energy use
for PET bottle manufacturing decreased by more than 9%.
After the PET bottles have been manufactured, more energy is used to fill them with
water at the factory, transport them, and refrigerate them in stores or homes. Calculations
from 2009 [25] of the energy used to transport bottles to market show great variation from
1.4 MJ/L to 5.8 MJ/L. Significantly less energy is needed for filling, cleaning, labeling, seal-
ing, and cooling. In 2009, the embodied energy of bottled water (the total energy consumed
in the life-cycle stages from extraction to consumption) was as much as 2000 times that of
tap water [25]. At the product’s end of life, more energy is consumed during all processes
involved in waste management, such as landfilling, sorting, recovering, or recycling (see
Section 4.2.4 on solid waste). It is reasonable to assume that these figures have changed in
the last decade; however, we could not find a more recent analysis or published estimates.

4.2.2. Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

As with any activity involving combustion of fossil fuels, the production of bottles,
whether plastic, glass, or cardboard, emits greenhouse gases (GHG) and other pollutants
to the atmosphere in amounts that depend on the type of fuel and the efficiency of the
processes. A study from 2012 estimated that 1 kg of PET results in the emission of 40 g
of hydrocarbons, 25 g of sulfur oxides, 18 g of carbon monoxide, 20 g of nitrogen oxide,
and 2.3 kg of CO2 [1]. The IBWA [40] estimates the GHG emissions associated with the
manufacturing phase of 500 mL PET bottles to be 0.05 kg CO2 eq per bottle (compared to
other 500 mL beverage containers, i.e., aluminum can—0.15 kg, beverage carton—0.075 kg,
and glass bottle—0.38 kg). However, the IBWA report provides insufficient information
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 8 of 18

on the system boundaries (for example, whether emissions embodied in raw material and
transport are included). According to Horowitz et al. [44], total GHG emissions for the full
life cycle of a 500 mL PET water bottle are 3.87 kg CO2 eq.

4.2.3. Water Footprint

A product’s water footprint (WF) is the amount of fresh water consumed along the
complete life cycle, including direct (operational) and indirect (supply chain) consumption.
In addition to the water contained in the bottle, water is used at the bottling plant (e.g.,
to wash the bottles), in the production of fuels that are used for transport, and in the
manufacturing of packaging materials, such as PET or glass for the bottles and corrugated
cardboard and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) for mass packaging [45].
The WF of bottled water varies significantly depending on local industry practices,
fuel type, and study parameters [46]. An Italian study [47] estimated the WF of a 1.5 L PET
water bottle from six different local manufacturers as 8.1 L on average. Results show an
inverse correlation with the size of the manufacturing facility, which is plausible according
to economies of scale. The WF of bottled water in India was estimated as 17.4 L per one-liter
bottle of water, of which 61% is attributed to packaging materials (PET and cardboard) [48].
The IBWA [40] estimates the WF associated with the packaging material (PET) at 17.4 L for
a 500 mL bottle (compared to other 500 mL beverage containers, i.e., aluminum can—28.4 L,
beverage carton—51.8 L, and glass bottle—109.4 L). In other words, the amount of water
that goes into the production and supply of PET bottled water may be 17 to 35 times greater
than the water delivered to consumers in each bottle. Mainardi-Remis et al. [45] estimated
the direct and indirect WF of water in 20-L reusable plastic bottles at six times the amount
directly consumed, with electricity and raw materials being the most significant factors. By
comparison, the WF of tap water has been reported as 2.4 L per liter of water delivered [47].

4.2.4. Solid Waste

Technological developments over the past decades have considerably reduced the
mass of manufactured PET water bottles. The average weight of a 500 mL bottle declined
by 51% between 2000 and 2014 to a mere 9.25 g [49], and further to 8.3 g in 2021 [40].
Nonetheless, because consumption is continuously increasing, plastic water bottles con-
tinue to produce enormous amounts of waste. Unfortunately, we could not find any data
which differentiate between plastic waste more generally and PET bottles specifically, let
alone PET water bottles; thus, we cannot quantify the specific contribution of bottled water
to the growing global problem of plastic waste.
Post-consumer plastic waste is predicted to reach 230 million tonnes a year globally
by 2025 [50]. Plastic waste is managed according to varying national waste regulations and
various kinds of infrastructure. It is mostly collected and transported to a treatment facility
(recycling, waste-to-energy, or landfill), although a significant portion is mismanaged or in-
adequately contained (for example, disposed of in open dumps). Part of this fraction is then
transported by runoff or wind, inflicting mechanical and chemical damage on surrounding
ecosystems. Lebreton and Andrady [50] estimated that 60 million to 99 million tonnes
of plastic waste, representing 47% of global annual municipal plastic waste generation,
was mismanaged in 2015. In developed countries most plastic waste is managed, while in
developing countries waste collection and disposal are often of low quality or completely
lacking, with indiscriminate dumping the most common disposal method [51].
In Europe, where landfilling restrictions are implemented in most countries, plastic
packaging recycling rates reached 41% in 2016 [52]. In the US, the recycling rate of PET
and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles reached 29% in 2018; the remaining 71%
was landfilled [53]. In most parts of the world the recycled percentage is even smaller, and
managed plastic waste is mostly landfilled or incinerated for energy recovery, often after
having been transported over long distances [54].
Recycling is perceived by many as the preferred solution for PET bottles, though in
terms of environmental impact it is not necessarily preferable to incineration or landfilling.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 9 of 18

Which treatment method is best depends on local conditions such as the transport distance
to the receiving facility and the electricity fuel mix. Plastic waste created in America or
Europe is often not treated locally, instead being transported across the globe to the far
east [55]. Microplastics pollution, a subcategory of plastic waste, is discussed in section
Contamination from the Package.

4.2.5. Ecosystems
The bottled water industry puts a strain on ecosystems through pollution and waste
production. Other environmental impacts of the value chain of bottled water include
damage to ecosystems and reduction in biodiversity brought about by land use changes
and the presence of microplastics and other pollutant emissions [56–59]. Compared to
municipal water supply, water extraction for bottled water is relatively small, though it is
increasing with the rapid growth of the industry, accelerating the drop in water reservoir
levels [60]. We did not find any study that evaluates the actual impact of removing water for
bottling on the health of ecosystems. While further research is needed to fill this knowledge
gap, a recent modeling study that compared different strategies for meeting the drinking
water needs of the city of Barcelona estimated that using entirely bottled water would result
in approximately 1400 times more species lost per year compared to using tap water [56].
On the other hand, the activities of the bottled water industry can provide local envi-
ronmental benefits, as seen in a comprehensive study in France that analyzed bottled water
samples representing 70% of the local market. The rarity of contaminants indicates that
aquifers exploited for bottling are better preserved compared to less protected groundwater
reservoirs [61]. This is because companies that bottle natural water have an interest in pro-
tecting these reservoirs from pollution at their own expense, even if government legislation
does not require them to take any action. However, these positive effects are only local,
benefitting individual catchment areas, and do not extend to other water resources.

4.3. Societal Impacts

4.3.1. Human Health
Health concerns associated with bottled water consumption are related to the quality
of the source water, the type of container, and the storage conditions.
Various recent studies have investigated the transformation of contaminants of emerg-
ing concern (CECs) in water [62–65]. CECs are newly identified anthropogenic-source
contaminants, including pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), bisphenol
A (BPA), phthalates, alkylphenols, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and
microplastics [62]. CECs may enter the environment through industrial, domestic, and
agricultural runoff waters or through the overflow of wastewater treatment facilities.
While the impact of most of these substances on human health is not entirely clear
at this point, evidence suggests that they are potentially harmful, with possible carcino-
genic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects and reproductive developmental toxicity [66];
in addition, they may disrupt the normal functioning of gut microbiota [67] and the en-
docrine system [68].
Human exposure to such substances is widespread, as a significant share of industrial
food and beverages is delivered, stored, and consumed in various types of plastic containers.
Differentiating between substances that enter the body via drinking of bottled water and
those that were consumed with food, let alone attributing a specific pathology to bottled
water consumption, is nearly impossible.

Contaminants from Source Water

Roughly 98% of all bottled water sold in Europe is either natural mineral water or
spring water [69]. However, as mentioned earlier, in 2020 nearly 60% of all bottled water
sold globally was purified tap water, not spring or natural mineral water [27]. Therefore,
bottled water may contain any of the contaminants occasionally found in public drink-
ing water. These include organic contaminants of natural origin in aquifers or surface
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 10 of 18

water (such as, geosmin, methylisoborneol, isopropyl, methoxypyrazine isobutyl, and

methoxypyrazine) or of anthropogenic origin (such as from pipelines, municipal sewage
treatment plants, agriculture, or transport, including microbiological contaminants, pesti-
cides, aromatic hydrocarbons, and amino acids) [70].
A recent study that tested for the presence of 187 pharmaceuticals and personal care
products (PPCPs) in various brands of bottled water worldwide identified 44 compounds
belonging to 14 PPCP categories in 56 of the 68 bottled water samples [66].
A 2008 study compared the bacteriological quality of Brazilian municipal tap water to
bottled water in 20-L bottles for water dispensers. The municipal tap water was superior to
water samples collected from the water dispensers, and even to samples collected from new
bottles before installation in the dispensers. Of the tested bottles, 77% were contaminated
with at least one type of coliform or indicator bacterium and/or at least one pathogenic
bacterium, compared to 36% of municipal tap water samples [71]. In similar research
performed in Nepal in 2016, all municipal tap water samples and most of the bottled
drinking water samples tested were contaminated with one or more types of indicator
organisms. In the Nepalese case, however, the bottled drinking water was found to be safer
to drink than the tap water [72].

Contamination from Packaging

Contaminants originating in the chemical composition of plastic bottles are often
found in bottled water. Contamination type and concentration depend on the container
type [62] and storage conditions, which affect the rate at which the chemicals leach into the
water [73–75]. A Chinese study analyzing the ten most popular bottled water brands in
Beijing for the presence of phthalate esters concluded that their release from PET bottles
into water could be mitigated by avoiding high temperatures, long storage times, and UV
radiation during storage [76]. Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware of the conditions
in which water bottles are stored prior to purchase, and cannot estimate the cleanliness of
the water.
Various substances are added to plastic in the process of bottle manufacturing. For
example, synthetic organic chemicals (the phthalates BBP and BPA) improve flexibility,
transparency, and durability. These substances are known to disrupt normal human
hormonal activity. Another example is Sb2 O3 , a catalyst used in PET manufacturing, from
which antimony (Sb) leaches into the water [73,75,77].
With glass bottles, the main source of contaminants is the cap, which is either plastic or
metal. Guart et al. [78] found that glass bottles with metallic crown caps caused migration
of alkylphenols into the water. A German study that tested three bottled water brands
found lead concentrations 26 to 57 times higher in water packaged in glass bottles compared
to water packaged in PET bottles [79]. Santana et al. [80] suggested that phthalates may
migrate into water from the PVC seals of glass bottles. Overall, however, water in plastic
bottles tends to be more heavily contaminated than water in glass bottles [62].
A Greek study that tested six different bottled water brands for the presence of
endocrine-disrupting compounds (BPA, nonylphenol, tert-octylphenol, and others) found
low levels (below the maximum safe dose) in all brands [81].
In a Chilean study, 30% of bottled water samples were found to contain arsenic in
amounts exceeding those permitted by Chilean, WHO, and US EPA regulations [82]. In
Turkey, arsenic was found in certain bottled water samples at levels exceeding EC and
WHO standards, in certain cases up to three times higher [83]. In Iran, certain samples of
bottled water had levels of nitrates exceeding national and US EPA standards [84], and in
Germany almost 5% of samples exceeded German and/or European limits for one or more
of the following elements: arsenic, nitrate, nitrite, manganese, nickel, and barium [85].

Microplastics
Microplastics are contaminants of which awareness has been growing in recent years.
They appear to be ubiquitous in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems [86] and in the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 11 of 18

body organs of humans and wildlife [87]. Though there is no internationally recognized
definition, we take them to be “a heterogeneous mixture of differently shaped materials
referred to as fragments, fibers, spheroids, granules, pellets, flakes or beads, in the range of
0.1–5000 µm” [88]. Most microplastics in the environment are derived from the degradation
of larger plastic debris.
Microplastics have been identified in all aquatic environments, both marine and
fresh water (lakes, rivers, reservoirs, groundwater); however, investigations focusing on
drinking water are rare [89,90]. Microplastics have entered the food web, and are becoming
an emerging food safety issue [90]. Human exposure pathways include ingestion and
inhalation, and the presence of microplastics in human stool samples [91] and human
blood [92] has recently been verified. Numerous studies in recent years have examined the
presence of microplastics in various food products, including beer [93,94], table salt [95], and
seafood [88]. Total human exposure to microplastics through food, drink, and inhalation
ranges from 74,000 to 121,000 particles per year, depending on age and sex [96].
Drinking water is one possible medium of exposure to microplastics [97]. A recent
systematic review reports that in all reviewed studies between 92% and 100% of bottled
water samples tested positive for microplastics. The most common polymers identified in
drinking water samples (both tap and bottled water) were PET and polypropylene [90].
According to Cox et al. [96], “individuals who meet their recommended water intake
through only bottled sources may be ingesting an additional 90,000 microplastics annually,
compared to 4000 microplastics for those who consume only tap water”. In 2018, researchers
from the State University of New York examined 259 samples of bottled water; 93% showed
signs of microplastic contamination, roughly twice as many as in tap water [98,99].
When comparing microplastic contamination in water sold in different types of pack-
aging, wide variance was found between water sold in plastic bottles (single-use and
returnable), beverage cartons, and glass bottles. While all the examined water contained
microplastics of 5 to 100 µm, the composition varied by the type of container [89]. Water
from single-use plastic bottles contained a mean of 14 particles per liter, while water from
glass bottles contained 50 particles per liter. There were eight times as many plastic par-
ticles in water from returnable plastic bottles compared to water from single-use plastic
bottles. Smaller particles (<5 µm) were found in much greater numbers: 2650 particles
per liter in single-use PET bottles and up to 6290 particles per liter in glass bottles [100].
Schymanski et al. [89] suggested that the high number of microplastic particles in glass
bottles could be due to the production, cleaning, and refilling of reusable bottles.
The impact on human health of the consumption of microplastics and nanoplastics is
somewhat unclear as of yet [101]; the literature presents inconclusive and contradictory
findings. For example, based on exposure estimates and the total mass transfer of small
molecules (such as additives and oligomers), Welle and Franz [102] concluded that the
reported microplastics amounts found in mineral water did not present a safety concern for
people of any age. Hwang et al. [103] came to a different conclusion when considering that
direct contact between polypropylene microparticles and cells might cause health problems
by inducing the production of cytokines by immune cells. Prata et al. [104] maintained that
with the predicted increase of microplastics in the environment, more studies are needed to
fully understand the risk to human health, which requires knowledge of human exposure,
pathogenesis, and other effects.

4.3.2. Equity and Justice

Related to the health and environmental impacts discussed in the previous sections
are questions of equity and social injustice. These questions concern the contrast between
the people who benefit from the bottled water industry (‘winners’) and those who suffer or
pay for its negative impacts without gaining any benefit (‘losers’). Beneficiaries include
the shareholders in the industry, the manufacturers, and other organizations, such as
communities and people who are involved in the businesses of bottling and selling bottled
water to consumers and who earn money from it. Other beneficiaries include those who
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 12 of 18

choose to buy and consume bottled water. A relatively small group of affluent people
can afford bottled water, while the environmental impacts of the industry, such as waste,
pollution, and GHG emissions, as well as the costs of dealing with these externalities, are
shared by all.
The losers are those who are not interested in or cannot afford bottled water, who
nonetheless bear the negative impacts (for example, paying higher municipal fees for waste
management), along with those who are exposed to the health impacts without consuming
bottled water themselves. Other losers include the local communities living near the water
resources, who sometimes experience environmental damage that harms their livelihoods,
and those who do not live near the spring or water source but whose access to it (as either
an income source or a recreational destination) is compromised, such as in the Siprianos
case in Texas (Supreme Court of Texas, 1999; Thompson et al., 2018). Ethical dilemmas
come into play in cases where bottled water companies are interested in water sources
located near towns suffering from economic decline, and the residents are torn between the
employment opportunities offered by the company and the need to preserve their local
environment and maintain water access, such as in the case of a small town close to Mount
Shasta in Siskiyou County, California [20].
When disputes arise between environmental advocacy groups or local residents and
a bottling company over the pumping of water, often (and depending on the state’s leg-
islation) the plaintiff has no standing in court [20]. One example is the lawsuit against
Nestle Waters North America submitted by residents of Mecosta County, Michigan, in
an attempt to prevent Nestle from constructing a new bottling facility and to limit the
amount of groundwater that could be extracted. The suit was denied by the Supreme
Court of Michigan, as the residents did not have riparian rights and could not prove that
their aesthetic or recreational enjoyment of the waters were harmed as a result of the
pumping [20,105]. When it comes to disputes, the inequality between global bottled water
corporations and local communities or environmental groups is evident in the amount of
resources each party has available. Large and often multinational commercial companies
have substantially more financial resources and more sophisticated legal teams [20].
In certain situations, bottled water is the only way to provide people with the basic
human right of healthy drinking water, for example, in places where the quality of tap
water is bad due to poor infrastructure [35] or contamination, such as the case of lead
contamination in Flint, Michigan, in 2014 to 2019 [106]. Notably, in 2015, nearly 21 million
people in the US relied on community water systems that violated health-based quality
standards [107], and approximately 25% of US residents (77 million people) were served by
water utilities that violated at least one of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require-
ments [108]. Racial, ethnic, and language vulnerability had the strongest relationships with
most indicators of weak compliance and enforcement of the SDWA, including length of
time out of compliance [109,110].
However, the practice of relying on bottled water for clean water supplies over long
periods of time has been criticized as reducing the pressure on the government to fix its
water infrastructure by treating the symptoms rather than solving the problem [2,111].
Bottled water is significantly more expensive than tap water. In Israel, for example, the
average cost of 1 m3 of tap water is around USD 2.44, which is roughly the on-trade price
of 500 mL of bottled water (around USD 2.38). Thus, bottled water costs roughly 2000 times
as much as tap water. The high price consumers are willing to pay for bottled water
drives many of the big bottled water companies around the world to engage in a constant
search for new water supplies and the purchase of water rights from farmers in rural
communities [111]. In South America, for example, foreign water corporations have bought
vast wilderness tracts and even whole water systems to hold for future development. In
a few places, bottled water companies have dried up whole ecosystems far beyond the
boundaries of their own land [112]. The appropriation of public water supplies by private
entities raises social justice concerns when local users are displaced and public resources are
commoditized [113]. These concerns are even more salient in cases of water exported from
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 13 of 18

less affluent areas, which may be deprived of vital water resources for the ‘convenience’ of
affluent consumers elsewhere [112].
A widely researched and reported example is FIJI Water. Established in 1997, FIJI
bottled water is extracted, bottled, and shipped from Fiji. The water comes from an artesian
aquifer in the Yaqara Valley on Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu. FIJI Water has promoted its
water with the slogans ‘untouched’ and ‘every drop is green’, and has won international
success, especially in the US market, with numerous celebrity endorsements. All this
stands in contrast to frequent claims of environmental, social, or political harm to the local
surroundings and communities due to the company’s operations [114].

5. Conclusions
In his 2009 book Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed from Protecting the
Environment to Protecting Ourselves, Andrew Szasz argues that the use of bottled water by
those who can afford it is an example of “inverted quarantine”, wherein by purchasing
what they perceive as “healthy” products people attempt to isolate themselves from a dan-
gerous environment all around them. Concerns over tap water quality are often implicitly
promoted by the bottled water industry [24,111]. According to Szasz [2], one implication of
inverted quarantine is that by switching to bottled water people feel protected from risk,
and can stop worrying about the quality of tap water. This “political anesthesia” reduces
the public pressure on policymakers to spend more resources on tap water infrastructure
and treatment. The result is often weaker enforcement of public water regulations, which in
turn further pushes people to consume bottled water in cyclical fashion. It seems, however,
that in recent years the political anesthesia surrounding environmental problems in general
and plastic pollution in particular may be gradually wearing off.
The growing awareness of the cumulative negative impacts of bottled water has
pushed the industry to voluntarily improve its standards. As mentioned, it has improved
significantly in terms of material consumption, energy efficiency, GHG emissions, water
footprint, ecosystem protection, and more [40]. However, these voluntary steps are not
enough to adequately protect the environment.
Challenges remain in regulating the industry to ensure that its various negative
environmental and social impacts are minimized, externalities are internalized, and the
“polluter pays” principle is implemented throughout the value chain. There is a need for
stricter regulations along the different stages of the product life cycle of bottled water, from
stricter protection of water sources and their surrounding ecosystems to tighter regulation
of material consumption, production, storage, and waste management. Efforts to promote
stricter regulation of a powerful multi-billion-worth industry such as that of bottled water
often face strong opposition from the industry as well as its beneficiaries, stakeholders,
and lobbyists.
Regulating the industry is not enough. In places where tap water is of good quality,
trust in the public water supply must be improved. Guidance through education, nudges,
and social marketing could influence consumer water consumption patterns and promote
a shift to more sustainable options such as tap water and reusable bottles.
Several local and regional governments have in fact begun initiatives to reduce bottled
water consumption in their jurisdictions. These actions include limits on the purchase of
bottled water by public funds, bans on bottled water at public events, and taxes on the sale
of bottled water. In the last few years more than 100 American cities have adopted measures
to restrict government spending on bottled water, and bans have spread to national parks
and universities [115]. San Francisco has been leading the way, for example with a 2014
city ordinance banning the sale of single-use plastic water bottles on properties owned by
the city. Although San Francisco often “takes the limelight”, Concord, Massachusetts, was
the first place in the United States to ban the sale of bottled water completely, which it did
in 2010 [116]. Such regulations, which are opposed by a powerful industry sector with a
strong lobby, can only work if they are supported by the public.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 14 of 18

It has been suggested that banning bottled water might backfire. A study at a uni-
versity campus examined the effect of banning bottled water on the consumption of other
bottled beverages [117]. The unintended consequence was a significant increase in sales
of sugar-free and sugar-sweetened beverages. This outcome is worrisome because bot-
tled water is better in terms of its health and environmental impacts than these other
bottled beverages.
Mainstreaming the norm of free tap-water provision in restaurants and bars is another
strategy for reducing bottled water consumption. A 2017 survey in England by the envi-
ronmental nonprofit Keep Britain Tidy asked people about their habits regarding water
consumption in restaurants and bars; 71% of respondents felt uncomfortable asking for
free tap water without buying something else, and more than a third (37%) felt awkward
asking for it in a reusable bottle even if they were making a separate purchase [118]. Thus,
consuming tap water in public places is not yet the prevailing or socially accepted norm.
This might change in EU countries with the amended Water Directive EU 2020/2184 [119],
which encourages the free provision of water in public administrations and buildings and
allows the charging of a small serving fee in restaurants, canteens, and catering services.
Not all countries have such legislation.
These observations suggest that in order to be effective, any initiatives to reduce
bottled water consumption need to offer free and easily accessible alternatives and be
bolstered by an informational campaign. To illustrate this, in the summer of 2019 San
Francisco banned bottled water in SFO, the city’s international airport. The new policy
prohibits the sale of single-use plastic bottles by shops, restaurants, lounges, and other
retailers, including vending machines. Instead, passengers are encouraged to bring their
own containers and refill them with filtered water at roughly 100 “hydration stations”
around the facility [120].
This overview has presented the most current research available on various aspects
of bottled water, underscoring the complexity of bottled water as a multidimensional
phenomenon that carries long-term environmental implications and potential health risks.
Despite this industry’s drawbacks, its growth is driven by powerful economic motivations,
meaning that bottled water is unlikely to disappear in the coming decades. Therefore,
we conclude that actions to reduce its impacts should focus on stricter regulation and on
the provision of sustainable, affordable, available, and trusted alternatives. Technological
innovation and the development of new environmentally friendly processes and materials
is another promising path, and funding should be allocated towards research and upscaling
of such initiatives. Finally, our knowledge about health impacts is insufficient, and many
gaps remain in our knowledge of the full life cycle of bottled water as a product. Most
recent studies have been carried out by or for industry. Transparent research conducted by
impartial organizations or academia would permit a more comprehensive understanding
of the interplay between economy, environment, and society in the bottled water industry.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.P., E.E. and T.O.; writing—original draft preparation,
Y.P., E.E. and T.O.; writing—review and editing, Y.P., E.E. and T.O.; visualization, E.E. and T.O. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Queiroz, J.T.; Rosenberg, M.W.; Heller, L.; Zhouri, A.L.; Silva, S.R. News about Tap and Bottled Water: Can This Influence People’s
Choices? J. Environ. Prot. 2012, 3, 324–333. [CrossRef]
2. Szasz, A. Shopping Our Way to Safety How We Changed from Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves; University of
Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-8166-3509-2.
3. DBK Admin. Bottled Water Loses to Tap in Taste Test. Available online: https://dbknews.com/2010/11/09/article_307d7d40-46
fe-5816-a16e-f38dbc54df62-html/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 15 of 18

4. Statista. Leading Reasons Consumers Drink Bottled Water in the United States as of November 2019. Available online:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1178166/bottled-water-reasons-for-consumption-us/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
5. Ragusa, A.T.; Crampton, A. To Buy or Not to Buy? Perceptions of Bottled Drinking Water in Australia and New Zealand. Hum.
Ecol. 2016, 44, 565–576. [CrossRef]
6. Statista. Bottled Water—United States. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/non-alcoholic-drinks/bottled-
water/united-states?currency=USD (accessed on 1 December 2021).
7. Antea Group. Water and Energy Use Benchmarking Study; International Bottled Water Association: Alexandria, VA, USA,
2018; Available online: https://bottledwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/IBWA-Report_14Nov2018-002AL121318.pdf
(accessed on 26 November 2021).
8. Jaffee, D.; Newman, S. A Bottle Half Empty: Bottled Water, Commodification, and Contestation. Organ. Environ. 2013, 26, 318–335.
[CrossRef]
9. Parag, Y.; Opher, T.; Bottled Drinking Water. UNESCO—Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (UNESCO—EOLSS). Biological,
Physiological and Health Sciences. 2011. Available online: https://www.eolss.net/toc/c03-browsecontents.aspx (accessed on
1 December 2021).
10. Snyder, H. Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [CrossRef]
11. Chapelle, F. Wellsprings: A Natural History of Bottled Spring Waters; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2005;
ISBN 0813536146.
12. Hawkins, G. The Impacts of Bottled Water: An Analysis of Bottled Water Markets and Their Interactions with Tap Water Provision.
WIREs Water 2017, 4, e1203. [CrossRef]
13. Holt, D.B. Constructing Sustainable Consumption: From Ethical Values to the Cultural Transformation of Unsustainable Markets.
Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2012, 644, 236–255. [CrossRef]
14. Opel, A. Constructing Purity: Bottled Water and the Commodification of Nature. J. Am. Cult. 1999, 22, 67–76. [CrossRef]
15. Brei, V.A. How Is a Bottled Water Market Created? WIREs Water 2018, 5, e1220. [CrossRef]
16. World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
17. Food Standards Agency. Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water and Bottled Drinking Water Regulations in Wales and Northern Ireland;
Food Standards Agency: London, UK, 2017.
18. Gleick, P.H. The World’s Water 2004–2005: The Myth and Reality of Bottled Water; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
19. Ashurst, P.; Hargitt, R.; Palmer, F. Soft Drink and Fruit Juice Problems Solved; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017;
ISBN 9780081009185.
20. Ford-Stille, H. Regulated and Hydrated: A Case for Regulating Bottled Water; Santa Clara University: Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2020;
Volume 60.
21. Dijkstra, A.F.; de Roda Husman, A.M. Chapter 14—Bottled and Drinking Water. In Food Safety Management a Practical Guide for the
Food Industry; Motarjemi, Y., Lelieveld, H., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 347–377. ISBN 978-0-12-381504-0.
22. Clarke, T. Inside the Bottle: Exposing the Bottled Water Industry; Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2008.
23. Hawkins, G.; Potter, E.; Race, K. Plastic Water: The Social and Material Life of Bottled Water; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015.
24. Parag, Y.; Timmons Roberts, J. A Battle against the Bottles: Building, Claiming, and Regaining Tap-Water Trustworthiness. Soc.
Nat. Resour. 2009, 22, 625–636. [CrossRef]
25. Gleick, P.H.; Cooley, H.S. Energy Implications of Bottled Water. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 014009. [CrossRef]
26. MarketLine. Global Packaged Water. December 2019. Reference Code: 0199-2908; MarketLine: London, UK, 2019.
27. Euromonitor International. Bottled Water—Market Sizes Statistics. Passport. 2021.
28. Lu, Y. Bottled Water Report 2021, July 2021, Statista.
29. Euromonitor International. Soft Drink—Market Sizes Statistics. Passport. 2021.
30. Statista. Bottled Water—Worldwide. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/non-alcoholic-drinks/bottled-
water/worldwide (accessed on 1 December 2021).
31. Conway, J. Per Capita consumption of Bottled Water Worldwide 2018, by Leading Countries, 2020, Statista. Available on-
line: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183388/per-capita-consumption-of-bottled-water-worldwide-in-2009/ (accessed on
22 June 2021).
32. Statista. Per Capita Consumption of Bottled Water in the United States from 1999 to 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.
com/statistics/183377/per-capita-consumption-of-bottled-water-in-the-us-since-1999/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
33. Research and Markets, Bottled Water Packaging Market—Growth, Trends, and Forecast (2020–2025). Available online:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/06/02/2042035/0/en/Global-Bottled-Water-Packaging-Market-
Analysis-2020-2025-Market-Forecast-to-Reach-USD-278-31-billion-by-2025.html (accessed on 22 June 2021).
34. Azoulay, A.; Garzon, P.; Eisenberg, M.J. Comparison of the Mineral Content of Tap Water and Bottled Waters. J. Gen. Intern. Med.
2001, 16, 168–175. [CrossRef]
35. Greene, J. Bottled Water in Mexico: The Rise of a New Access to Water Paradigm. WIREs Water 2018, 5, 1286. [CrossRef]
36. Euromonitor International. Bottled Water in the US; Euromonitor International: London, UK, 2020.
37. Rodwan, G.J. Bottled Water 2020: U.S. and International Developments and Statistics, Bottled Water Reporter. 2021. Avail-
able online: https://bottledwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2020BWstats_BMC_pub2021BWR.pdf (accessed on
30 August 2021).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 16 of 18

38. Lagioia, G.; Calabró, G.; Amicarelli, V. Empirical Study of the Environmental Management of Italy’s Drinking Water Supply.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 60, 119–130. [CrossRef]
39. Garfí, M.; Cadena, E.; Sanchez-Ramos, D.; Ferrer, I. Life Cycle Assessment of Drinking Water: Comparing Conventional Water
Treatment, Reverse Osmosis and Mineral Water in Glass and Plastic Bottles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 997–1003. [CrossRef]
40. IBWA. Environmental Footprint. Available online: https://bottledwater.org/environmental-footprint/ (accessed on
30 August 2021).
41. Franklin Associates. Life Cycle Impacts of Plastic Packaging Compared to Substitutes in the United States and Canada Theoretical
Substitution Analysis; Franklin Associates: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2021.
42. Ferrara, C.; de Feo, G.; Picone, V. Lca of Glass versus Pet Mineral Water Bottles: An Italian Case Study. Recycling 2021, 6, 50.
[CrossRef]
43. Barrow, M.; Pernstich, P.; Cumberlege, T. Carbon Footprint of Soft Drinks Packaging; Carbon Trust: London, UK, 2021.
44. Horowitz, N.; Frago, J.; Mu, D. Life Cycle Assessment of Bottled Water: A Case Study of Green2O Products. Waste Manag. 2018,
76, 734–743. [CrossRef]
45. Mainardi-Remis, J.M.; Gutiérrez-Cacciabue, D.; Romero, D.S.; Rajal, V.B. Setting Boundaries within a Bottled Water Plant Aid
to Better Visualize the Water Use: An Approach through the Water Footprint Indicator. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 43, 102199.
[CrossRef]
46. Vanham, D.; Medarac, H.; Schyns, J.F.; Hogeboom, R.J.; Magagna, D. The Consumptive Water Footprint of the European Union
Energy Sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 104016. [CrossRef]
47. Botto, S. Tap Water vs. Bottled Water in a Footprint Integrated Approach. Nat. Prec. 2009. [CrossRef]
48. Tandon, S.A.; Kolekar, N.; Kumar, R. Water and Energy Footprint Assessment of Bottled Water Industries in India. Nat. Resour.
2014, 5, 68–72. [CrossRef]
49. IBWA. The Environment. Available online: https://bottledwater.org/learn-more-about-bottled-water/ (accessed on
30 August 2021).
50. Lebreton, L.; Andrady, A. Future Scenarios of Global Plastic Waste Generation and Disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 6.
[CrossRef]
51. Wardrop, N.A.; Dzodzomenyo, M.; Aryeetey, G.; Hill, A.G.; Bain, R.E.S.; Wright, J. Estimation of Packaged Water Consumption
and Associated Plastic Waste Production from Household Budget Surveys. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 074029. [CrossRef]
52. PlasticsEurope. Plastics—The Facts 2017: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. 2018.
53. US EPA Facts and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling, Plastics: Material-Specific Data. 2021. US EPA. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data (accessed
on 22 June 2021).
54. Hawkins, G. Packaging Water: Plastic Bottles as Market and Public Devices. Econ. Soc. 2011, 40, 534–552. [CrossRef]
55. Wen, Z.; Xie, Y.; Chen, M.; Dinga, C.D. China’s Plastic Import Ban Increases Prospects of Environmental Impact Mitigation of
Plastic Waste Trade Flow Worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 425. [CrossRef]
56. Villanueva, C.M.; Garfí, M.; Milà, C.; Olmos, S.; Ferrer, I.; Tonne, C. Health and Environmental Impacts of Drinking Water Choices
in Barcelona, Spain: A Modelling Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148884. [CrossRef]
57. Geerts, R.; Vandermoere, F.; van Winckel, T.; Halet, D.; Joos, P.; van den Steen, K.; van Meenen, E.; Blust, R.; Borregán-Ochando, E.;
Vlaeminck, S.E. Bottle or Tap? Toward an Integrated Approach to Water Type Consumption. Water Res. 2020, 173, 115578.
[CrossRef]
58. Chae, Y.; An, Y.J. Current Research Trends on Plastic Pollution and Ecological Impacts on the Soil Ecosystem: A Review. Environ.
Pollut. 2018, 240, 387–395. [CrossRef]
59. De Souza Machado, A.A.; Kloas, W.; Zarfl, C.; Hempel, S.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics as an Emerging Threat to Terrestrial
Ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 24, 1405–1416. [CrossRef]
60. Thompson, B.; Leshy, J.; Abrams, R.; Zellmer, S. Legal Control of Water Resources: Cases and Materials, 6th ed.; American Casebook
Series; West Academic Publishing: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2018.
61. Le Coadou, L.; Le Ménach, K.; Labadie, P.; Dévier, M.H.; Pardon, P.; Augagneur, S.; Budzinski, H. Quality Survey of Natural
Mineral Water and Spring Water Sold in France: Monitoring of Hormones, Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides, Perfluoroalkyl Substances,
Phthalates, and Alkylphenols at the Ultra-Trace Level. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 603–604, 651–662. [CrossRef]
62. Akhbarizadeh, R.; Dobaradaran, S.; Schmidt, T.C.; Nabipour, I.; Spitz, J. Worldwide Bottled Water Occurrence of Emerging
Contaminants: A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 392, 122271. [CrossRef]
63. Starling, M.C.V.M.; Amorim, C.C.; Leão, M.M.D. Occurrence, Control and Fate of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in
Environmental Compartments in Brazil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 372, 17–36. [CrossRef]
64. Wilkinson, J.; Hooda, P.S.; Barker, J.; Barton, S.; Swinden, J. Occurrence, Fate and Transformation of Emerging Contaminants in
Water: An Overarching Review of the Field. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 954–970. [CrossRef]
65. Gogoi, A.; Mazumder, P.; Tyagi, V.K.; Tushara Chaminda, G.G.; An, A.K.; Kumar, M. Occurrence and Fate of Emerging
Contaminants in Water Environment: A Review. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 6, 169–180. [CrossRef]
66. Wang, C.; Ye, D.; Li, X.; Jia, Y.; Zhao, L.; Liu, S.; Xu, J.; Du, J.; Tian, L.; Li, J.; et al. Occurrence of Pharmaceuticals and Personal
Care Products in Bottled Water and Assessment of the Associated Risks. Environ. Int. 2021, 155, 106651. [CrossRef]
67. Belkaid, Y.; Hand, T.W. Role of the Microbiota in Immunity and Inflammation. Cell 2014, 157, 121–141. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 17 of 18

68. Wagner, M.; Oehlmann, J. Endocrine Disruptors in Bottled Mineral Water: Total Estrogenic Burden and Migration from Plastic
Bottles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2009, 16, 278–286. [CrossRef]
69. Natural Mineral Waters Europe Statistics. Available online: https://naturalmineralwaterseurope.org/statistics/ (accessed on
22 June 2021).
70. Diduch, M.; Polkowska, Z.; Namieśnik, J. Factors Affecting the Quality of Bottled Water. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2013,
23, 111–119. [CrossRef]
71. Zamberlan da Silva, M.E.; Santana, R.G.; Guilhermetti, M.; Filho, I.C.; Endo, E.H.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Nakamura, C.V.; Dias
Filho, B.P. Comparison of the Bacteriological Quality of Tap Water and Bottled Mineral Water. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2008,
211, 504–509. [CrossRef]
72. Pant, N.D.; Poudyal, N.; Bhattacharya, S.K. Bacteriological Quality of Bottled Drinking Water versus Municipal Tap Water in
Dharan Municipality, Nepal. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2016, 35, 17. [CrossRef]
73. Aghaee, E.M.; Alimohammadi, M.; Nabizadeh, R.; Khaniki, G.J.; Naseri, S.; Mahvi, A.H.; Yaghmaeian, K.; Aslani, H.; Nazmara, S.;
Mahmoudi, B.; et al. Effects of Storage Time and Temperature on the Antimony and Some Trace Element Release from Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) into the Bottled Drinking Water. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2014, 12, 133. [CrossRef]
74. Shotyk, W.; Krachler, M. Contamination of Bottled Waters with Antimony Leaching from Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Increases upon Storage. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 1560–1563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Filella, M. Antimony and PET Bottles: Checking Facts. Chemosphere 2020, 261, 127732. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Xu, X.; Zhou, G.; Lei, K.; Leblanc, G.A.; An, L. Phthalate Esters and Their Potential Risk in PET Bottled Water Stored under
Common Conditions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Cicchella, D.; Albanese, S.; de Vivo, B.; Dinelli, E.; Giaccio, L.; Lima, A.; Valera, P. Trace Elements and Ions in Italian Bottled
Mineral Waters: Identification of Anomalous Values and Human Health Related Effects. J. Geochem. Explor. 2010, 107, 336–349.
[CrossRef]
78. Guart, A.; Bono-Blay, F.; Borrell, A.; Lacorte, S. Effect of Bottling and Storage on the Migration of Plastic Constituents in Spanish
Bottled Waters. Food Chem. 2014, 156, 73–80. [CrossRef]
79. Shotyk, W.; Krachler, M. Lead in Bottled Waters: Contamination from Glass and Comparison with Pristine Groundwater. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 3508–3513. [CrossRef]
80. Santana, J.; Giraudi, C.; Marengo, E.; Robotti, E.; Pires, S.; Nunes, I.; Gaspar, E.M. Preliminary Toxicological Assessment of
Phthalate Esters from Drinking Water Consumed in Portugal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 1380–1390. [CrossRef]
81. Amiridou, D.; Voutsa, D. Alkylphenols and Phthalates in Bottled Waters. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 281–286. [CrossRef]
82. Daniele, L.; Cannatelli, C.; Buscher, J.T.; Bonatici, G. Chemical Composition of Chilean Bottled Waters: Anomalous Values and
Possible Effects on Human Health. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 689, 526–533. [CrossRef]
83. Güler, C.; Alpaslan, M. Mineral Content of 70 Bottled Water Brands Sold on the Turkish Market: Assessment of Their Compliance
with Current Regulations. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2009, 22, 728–737. [CrossRef]
84. Soroush, M.; Ehya, F.; Maleki, S. Major and Trace Elements in Some Bottled Water Brands from Khuzestan Province Market, SW
Iran, and Accordance with National and International Standards. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 302. [CrossRef]
85. Birke, M.; Rauch, U.; Harazim, B.; Lorenz, H.; Glatte, W. Major and Trace Elements in German Bottled Water, Their Regional
Distribution, and Accordance with National and International Standards. J. Geochem. Explor. 2010, 107, 245–271. [CrossRef]
86. Horton, A.A.; Walton, A.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Lahive, E.; Svendsen, C. Microplastics in Freshwater and Terrestrial Environments:
Evaluating the Current Understanding to Identify the Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017,
586, 127–141. [CrossRef]
87. Eerkes-Medrano, D.; Leslie, H.A.; Quinn, B. Microplastics in Drinking Water: A Review and Assessment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci.
Health 2019, 7, 69–75. [CrossRef]
88. EFSA. Presence of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Food, with Particular Focus on Seafood. EFSA J. 2016, 14, e04501. [CrossRef]
89. Schymanski, D.; Goldbeck, C.; Humpf, H.U.; Fürst, P. Analysis of Microplastics in Water by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy: Release
of Plastic Particles from Different Packaging into Mineral Water. Water Res. 2018, 129, 154–162. [CrossRef]
90. Danopoulos, E.; Twiddy, M.; Rotchell, J.M. Microplastic Contamination of Drinking Water: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2020,
15, e0236838. [CrossRef]
91. Schwabl, P.; Köppel, S.; Königshofer, P.; Bucsics, T.; Trauner, M.; Reiberger, T.; Liebmann, B. Detection of Various Microplastics in
Human Stool: A Prospective Case Series. Ann. Intern. Med. 2019, 171, 453–457. [CrossRef]
92. Leslie, H.A.; van Velzen, M.J.; Brandsma, S.H.; Vethaak, D.; Garcia-Vallejo, J.J.; Lamoree, M.H. Discovery and Quantification of
Plastic Particle Pollution in Human Blood. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107199. [CrossRef]
93. Wiesheu, A.C.; Anger, P.M.; Baumann, T.; Niessner, R.; Ivleva, N.P. Raman Microspectroscopic Analysis of Fibers in Beverages.
Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 5722–5725. [CrossRef]
94. Kosuth, M.; Mason, S.A.; Wattenberg, E.V. Anthropogenic Contamination of Tap Water, Beer, and Sea Salt. PLoS ONE 2018,
13, e0194970. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Yang, D.; Shi, H.; Li, L.; Li, J.; Jabeen, K.; Kolandhasamy, P. Microplastic Pollution in Table Salts from China. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2015, 49, 13622–13627. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96. Cox, K.D.; Covernton, G.A.; Davies, H.L.; Dower, J.F.; Juanes, F.; Dudas, S.E. Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2019, 53, 7068–7074. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9760 18 of 18

97. World Health Organization. Microplastics in Drinking-Water; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019;
ISBN 9781626239777.
98. Koelmans, A.A.; Mohamed Nor, N.H.; Hermsen, E.; Kooi, M.; Mintenig, S.M.; de France, J. Microplastics in Freshwaters and
Drinking Water: Critical Review and Assessment of Data Quality. Water Res. 2019, 155, 410–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Mason, S.A.; Welch, V.G.; Neratko, J. Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled Water. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 407. [CrossRef]
100. Oßmann, B.E.; Sarau, G.; Holtmannspötter, H.; Pischetsrieder, M.; Christiansen, S.H.; Dicke, W. Small-Sized Microplastics and
Pigmented Particles in Bottled Mineral Water. Water Res. 2018, 141, 307–316. [CrossRef]
101. Wright, S.L.; Kelly, F.J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6634–6647. [CrossRef]
102. Welle, F.; Franz, R. Microplastic in Bottled Natural Mineral Water–Literature Review and Considerations on Exposure and Risk
Assessment. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2018, 35, 2482–2492. [CrossRef]
103. Hwang, J.; Choi, D.; Han, S.; Choi, J.; Hong, J. An Assessment of the Toxicity of Polypropylene Microplastics in Human Derived
Cells. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 684, 657–669. [CrossRef]
104. Prata, J.C.; da Costa, J.P.; Lopes, I.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Environmental Exposure to Microplastics: An Overview on
Possible Human Health Effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455. [CrossRef]
105. Winter, C. Nestlé Makes Billions Bottling Water It Pays Nearly Nothing For. 2017. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for (accessed on 22 April 2022).
106. Wang, T.; Kim, J.; Whelton, A.J. Management of Plastic Bottle and Filter Waste during the Large-Scale Flint Michigan Lead
Contaminated Drinking Water Incident. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 115–124. [CrossRef]
107. Allaire, M.; Wu, H.; Lall, U. National Trends in Drinking Water Quality Violations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2078–2083.
[CrossRef]
108. Fedinick, K.P.; Wu, M.; Panditharatne, M.; Olson, E.D. Threats on Tap: Widespread Violations Highlight; NRDC: New York, NY, USA,
2017; Available online: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/threats-on-tap-water-infrastructure-protections-report.pdf
(accessed on 22 April 2022).
109. Fedinick, K.P.; Taylor, S.; Roberts, M. Watered Down Justice; NRDC: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.
nrdc.org/sites/default/files/watered-down-justice-report.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
110. Bae, J. Clean Water for All: Examining Safe Drinking Water Act Violations of Water Systems and Community Characteristics.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA, 2021.
111. Pacheco-Vega, R. Human Right to Water and Bottled Water Consumption: Governing at the Intersection of Water Justice, Rights,
and Ethics. In Water Politics: Governance, Justice and the Right to Water; Sultana, F., Loftus, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
112. Barlow, M. Blue Gold: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World’s Water Supply—A Special Report; International
Forum on Globalization: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001.
113. Glennon, R. Water Scarcity, Marketing, and Privatization. Tex. Law Rev. 2005, 83, 1873–1902.
114. Jones, C.; Murray, W.E.; Overton, J. FIJI Water, Water Everywhere: Global Brands and Democratic and Social Injustice. Asia Pac.
Viewp. 2017, 58, 112–123. [CrossRef]
115. Levin, S. How San Francisco Is Leading the Way out of Bottled Water Culture, The Guardian, 28 June 2017. Available online: https:
//www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/how-san-francisco-is-leading-the-way-out-of-bottled-water-culture (ac-
cessed on 22 June 2021).
116. Cournoyer, C. Univ. of Vermont is Latest to Ban Plastic WaterBottles, Governing, 02 Febuary 2012. Available online: https:
//www.governing.com/archive/gov-university-of-vermont-latest-to-ban-plastic-water-bottles.html (accessed on 22 June 2021).
117. Berman, E.R.; Johnson, R.K. The Unintended Consequences of Changes in Beverage Options and the Removal of Bottled Water
on a University Campus. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 1404–1408. [CrossRef]
118. Smithers, R. British Embarrassment over Asking for Tap Water in Bars Fuels Plastic Bottle Waste—Survey, The Guardian, 11 May
2017. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/11/british-embarrassment-over-asking-for-
tap-water-in-bars-fuels-plastic-bottle-waste-survey (accessed on 22 June 2021).
119. European Union Directive (EU). 2020/2184 of the Europian Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the Quality of
Water Intended for Human Consumption (Recast) (Text with EEA Relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, 435, 1–62.
120. Sampson, H. SFO Becomes the First Airport to Enact a Plastic Water Bottle Ban, but Reactions from Travelers Are Mixed, The
Washington Post, 20 August 2019. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2019/08/05/sfo-becomes-first-
airport-enact-plastic-water-bottle-ban-reactions-travelers-are-mixed/ (accessed on 22 June 2021).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.