Fluoride in Drinking-water

Although water constitutes 71% of the earth's surface, only 0.3% of it is available as fresh water for human use. Moreover, the quality of fresh water in ground and surface systems is of great concern, as potable water needs to have appropriate mineral content. Ground and surface water quality in rural and urban environments is affected by both natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Because of this, water is becoming scarcer as the population increases across the world. Natural processes leading to changes in water quality include weathering of rocks, evapotranspiration, depositions due to wind, leaching from soil, run-off due to hydrological factors, and biological processes in the aquatic environment. These natural processes cause changes in the pH and alkalinity of the water, and also phosphorus loading, increase in fluoride content and high concentrations of sulphates. Anthropogenic factors affecting water quality include impacts due to agriculture, use of fertilizers, manures and pesticides, animal husbandry activities, inefficient irrigation practices, deforestation of woods, aquaculture, pollution due to industrial effluents and domestic sewage, mining, and recreational activities. These anthropogenic influences cause elevated concentrations of heavy metals, mercury, coliforms and nutrient loads. This paper studies the effects of natural processes and human influences in rural and urban aquatic systems. Pollution due to environmental parameters such as heavy metal pollution, heavy metals and bacterial and pathogenic contamination of both urban and rural areas is discussed in detail.

show abstract

“…If such a source is not available, defluoridation is the only means remaining to prevent fluorosis (Fawell et al 2006). …”

Section: Natural Factors Affecting Water Quality In Ruralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas

Khatri¹,

Tyagi²

2014

Frontiers in Life Science

795

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…WHO states that "it may not be possible to achieve effective fluoride-based caries prevention without some degree of dental fluorosis, regardless of which methods are chosen to maintain a low level of fluoride in the mouth" [216] A guideline value of 1.5 mg/L fluoride in drinking water has been recommended as a level at which dental fluorosis should be minimal. [10] A 2011 update of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality concluded that this guideline value should be maintained, as there is no new evidence to suggest a need for revision. [21] For optimal dental health, WHO suggests that the optimal range should be 0.8-1.0 mg/L, and that drinking water supplies should have fluoride levels raised or lowered to this range if possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because fluoride exhibits both beneficial and harmful effects, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognises an adequate lower level of intake and sets an upper limit on levels of fluoride in water (range 0.5-1.5 mg/L). [10] The recommendations are devised to ensure protection against adverse effects over the course of a lifetime, including in the most sensitive segments of the population. Likewise, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the New Zealand Ministry of Health (NZMoH), and other health authorities similarly recommend optimal intake levels for fluoride in their dietary guidelines for nutrients, but also set upper levels of intake to protect against potential adverse effects (see section 2.4).…”

Section: Beneficial Vs Toxic Dosesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[10] Around 30 countries worldwide have intentionally fluoridated water supplies, serving an estimated 370 million people. An additional >50 million people drink water that is naturally fluoridated at or near the optimal level, including those supplied from some water sources in Canada, the UK, Spain, Japan, Finland, Chile, Argentina and Australia that have natural fluoride levels of around 1.0 mg/L.…”

Section: Fluoridation Around the Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following reviews of the evidence for health effects of fluoride in drinking water, [10,99] the WHO continues to recommend fluoridation of water supplies, where possible, as the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay, as stated in their 2010 document for decision makers [100] and reiterated on the current (2014) WHO website, which states: "Public health actions are needed to provide sufficient fluoride intake in areas where this is lacking, so as to minimise tooth decay. This can be done through drinking water fluoridation, or, when this is not possible, through salt or milk fluoridation."…”

Section: Evidence From International Reviews and Recent Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Water fluoridation: It really is this simple

2017

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(RSNZ), and the Ministry of Health, to review the scientific evidence for and against the efficacy and safety of fluoridation of public water supplies. After discussion between the parties, it was agreed that the Office of the PMCSA and the RSNZ would establish a panel to undertake a review. This review would adhere strictly to the scientific issues of safety and efficacy (or otherwise), but take into account the various concerns that have been raised in the public domain about the science and safety of fluoride. It would not consider the ethical and philosophical issues that have surrounded fluoridation and influenced legal proceedings lately. The Prime Minister gave his consent for the Office of the PMCSA to be involved and funding was provided by Councils through your office and by the Ministry of Health.We are pleased to advise the report is being delivered on the timetable agreed. ProcessGiven this is inevitably an issue that arouses passions and argument, we summarise in some detail the process used.As this was the first formal scientific review conducted jointly between the Office of PMCSA and the Royal Society a memorandum of understanding for the process was developed and has been followed.The essence of the process was that the PMCSA appointed an experienced literature researcher to undertake the primary research and literature reviews. Following an initial scoping that included an extensive reading of the literature (informal, grey and peer reviewed) on the subject, a draft table of contents was agreed between the PMCSA and the President of the RSNZ. The RSNZ then appointed a panel of appropriate experts across the relevant disciplines that was approved by the PMCSA.A member of civil society with expertise in local body issues, Ms Kerry Prendergast, was invited to be an observer to the panel and to be included in the discussions and drafting to be sure that it met local body needs. The scientific writer then produced an early partial draft of the report that was presented to a meeting of the expert panel, and their input was sought both as to framing and interpretation of the literature. The panel paid particular attention to the claims that fluoride had adverse effects on brain development, on the risks of cancer, musculoskeletal and hormonal disorders -being the major areas where claims about potential harms have been made. Over the following weeks, the panel members joined in an iterative process with the scientific writer to develop the report. In its advanced form all the members of the panel, together with the PMCSA and the President of the RSNZ, agreed via email exchange on the final wording of the report and its executive summary. In this form it was sent out for international peer review by appropriate scientific experts in Australia, UK and Ireland. Following their suggestions (which were minor and did not affect the panel's conclusions), the report and executive summary were returned to the panel for comment. Findings and recommendationsThe report and its executive summary are very clear i...

show abstract

Fluoride resistance capacity in mammalian cells involves complex global gene expression changes

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluorine is a bone‐seeking element ubiquitously present in the environment and widely used in many oral hygiene products. In humans, excessive intake of fluoride may cause dental and skeletal fluorosis. However, endemic fluorosis does not appear to develop in a proportion of individuals exposed to the same levels of fluoride. The mechanisms by which mammalian cells resist fluoride are still unclear. In this study, we developed strains of mouse L‐929 cells resistant to different levels of fluoride. High‐throughput RNA‐sequencing analyses of the fluoride‐resistant L‐929 cells indicated that massive changes in global gene expression occurred, compared with the wild‐type L‐929 cells. The main biological processes and functions changed were associated with the extracellular region and matrix, response to stress, receptor binding, and signal transduction. This indicated that high doses of fluoride not only exerted stress on L‐929 cells but also induced functional pathways that helped them adapt to the presence of fluoride or to expel it. These data should prove useful in identifying cellular processes or transporters/channels that play central roles in adaptation to or expulsion of fluoride in humans.

show abstract

Fluoride in Drinking-water

Cited by 187 publications

References 0 publications

Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas

Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas

Water fluoridation: It really is this simple

Fluoride resistance capacity in mammalian cells involves complex global gene expression changes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About