Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources

In total 21 available brands of bottled water being marketed in Islamabad and Rawalpindi were collected. In order to make the water quality testing process transparent, PCRWR collected bottled water samples randomly from public utility stores and shops of Islamabad and Rawalpindi in collaboration with Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan (CRCP), Local Administration (Magistrate) and Food Control Authorities. A set of three samples of each brand was collected and sealed at site. Out of these, one sealed sample was handed over to the shopkeeper concerned at that very moment, one brought in the laboratory for analysis and one preserved in the water testing laboratory of PCRWR. Some additional samples were also collected and sent to Excel, Nayab and Al-shifa laboratories for verification of accuracy of results of PCRWR. Codes were allotted to each brand for transparency and secrecy. The details of these codes allotted are shown at Table-1.

Bottled Water Brands and Laboratory Codes

*S. No.*	*Brand Code*	*Brand Name*	*Quantity*
1.	M1	Niagra	1 ½ Litre
2.	M2	Nestle	1 ½ Litre
3.	M3	Ava	1 ½ Litre
4.	M4	Sparklets	1 ½ Litre
5.	M5	Masafi	1 ½ Litre
6.	M6	Aqua Safe	1 ½ Litre
7.	M7	Cool	1 ½ Litre
8.	M8	Ab-e-Hayat	1 ½ Litre
9.	M9,	Rainbow	½ Litre
10.	M10	Pearl	1 ½ Litre
11.	M11	Safa	1 ½ Litre
12.	M12	Zam Zam	1 ½ Litre
13.	M13	Fresh	1 ½ Litre
14.	M14	Musaffa	1 ½ Litre
15.	M15	Wellgreen	1 ½ Litre
16.	M16	Aqua Flow	1 ½ Litre
17.	M17	Max Wellpur	1 ½ Litre
18.	M18	Himalaya	1 ½ Litre
19.	M19	Brecon Carreg	2 Litre
20.	M20	Evian	1 ½ Litre
21.	M21	Perrier	1 Litre

Each water sample was analyzed for 24 water quality parameters comprising alkalinity, bicarbonate, calcium, carbonate, chloride, colour, electrical conductivity, fluoride, hardness, iron, magnesium, nitrate nitrogen, odour, pH, potassium, sodium, sulfate, taste, total dissolved solids, turbidity, coliform, non coliform and eschericia coli in the PCRWR water quality laboratory at Islamabad. However, the analysis of some inorganic constituents, pesticides, radiological, organic chemicals and some microbiological parameters like fecal streptococci, enterobacter, salmonella etc. could not be carried out due to lack of facilities. The standard analytical methods were adopted for the determination of aesthetic, physico-chemical and bacteriological water quality parameters. The analysis results of all laboratories were compared well with each other. The comparison of results is shown in Table-2.

Microbiological Comparison from Different Laboratories

*S.No.*	*Brand* *Name*	*Water Quality Parameters*	*PCRWR Lab.*	*Excel Lab.*	*Nayab Lab.*	*Al-Shifa Lab.*
1.	Nestle	MPN (Coliform)/100 ml MPN (E. Coli)/100 ml	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	- -	Nil Nil
2.	Ava	MPN (Coliform)/100 ml MPN (E. Coli)/100 ml	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	-
3.	Sparklets	MPN (Coliform)/100 ml MPN (E. Coli)/100 ml	12 Nil	-	Nil* Nil	1** Nil

* Colony count 10 in 1 ml water sample.

** Total plate count 240 C.F.U/ml. and presence of pseudomonas spp.

The water sample collection team comprised of following members;
1. Two technical members from PCRWR
2. One member from Administration i.e. City Magistrate
3. One member from CRCP
4. One member from Food Control Authority

Site Coordinator Wali Muhammad Jatoi