ArticleJournal of public health dentistry2025
The effect of water filter pitchers on the mineral concentration of tap water.
Article in Journal of public health dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The health benefits of alkaline water: is it a fact or marketing myth?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The effect of water filter pitchers on the mineral concentration of tap water.Journal of public health dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the effect of water filter pitchers on the concentration of different minerals in tap water.
methodsNine water filter pitchers (A-I) were chosen based on consumer preferences and Amazon reviews. Each filter was tested for its ability to modify the concentrations of fluoride, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in tap water. Tap water samples were collected before and after filtration, at various intervals (1, 5, 10, 30, 50, 75, and 100 L) during filtration, and analyzed using an ion-specific electrode (fluoride) and atomic absorption spectrometry (other minerals). Statistical analyses were conducted to compare filtered and unfiltered water mineral concentrations.
resultsWater filter pitcher effect: Filters F (p < 0.001) and G (p = 0.030) decreased fluoride concentrations. All filters except I (p = 0.235) and H (p = 0.717) decreased calcium concentrations (p < 0.01). Filters E (p = 0.018), D (p = 0.014), and G (p = 0.010) decreased magnesium concentrations. Filters I (p = 0.028) and D (p = 0.009) increased potassium concentrations. Filter A (p = 0.002) increased sodium concentrations, while C (p = 0.034) decreased sodium concentrations. Effect of filter aging: All filters affected mineral concentrations over time but to varying extents. Filter G had the most pronounced effect on reducing mineral concentrations compared to all others. No filter was able to completely remove fluoride from tap water, contrary to the claims made by three manufacturers.
conclusionsThe present study highlighted that water filter pitchers vary greatly in their ability to affect mineral concentrations in tap water during their use. Further research is needed to develop more effective water treatment solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.