Nitrate in community water supplies and incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Sardinia, Italy

A Simple, Ecofriendly, and Fast Method for Nitrate Quantification in Bottled Water Using Visible Spectrophotometry

There are many works associating the presence of nitrate in water and the occurrence of cancer in humans. The most common method for quantifying nitrate in water is based on the use of toxic cadmium as a reductant. In this work, a new approach was developed for the quantification of nitrate in bottled water with indirect spectrophotometry using Zn0 as a reductant. Nitrate is reduced to nitrite using Zn0 in a buffered medium (acetate/acetic acid) and quantified with visible spectrophotometry using the Griess reaction between sulfanilamide and N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine. The influence of pH, buffer solution (constitution and concentration), Zn0 (mass and granulometry), and agitation time on the efficiency of nitrite generation was evaluated. The optimal conditions were an acetate-acetic acid buffer solution with a concentration and pH of 0.75 mol L-1 and 6.00, respectively, and a Zn0 particle size of 20 MESH and Zn0 mass of 300 mg. The limits of detection and quantification (LoD and LoQ) were 0.024 and 0.08 mg L-1, respectively. The method's accuracy and precision were evaluated using the analysis of commercial bottled water. In conclusion, the use of Zn0 instead of cadmium provided a green method with excellent LoD/LoQ. Further, the method proved to be simple and easy to apply during outdoor analysis.

Nitrate and nitrite contamination in drinking water and cancer risk: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pollution of water sources, largely from wide-scale agricultural fertilizer use has resulted in nitrate and nitrite contamination of drinking water. The effects on human health of raised nitrate and nitrite levels in drinking water are currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on the association of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water with human health with a specific focus on cancer.

METHODS

We searched eight databases from 1 January 1990 until 28 February 2021. Meta-analyses were conducted when studies had the same exposure metric and outcome.

RESULTS

Of 9835 studies identified in the literature search, we found 111 studies reporting health outcomes, 60 of which reported cancer outcomes (38 case-control studies; 12 cohort studies; 10 other study designs). Most studies were set in the USA (24), Europe (20) and Taiwan (14), with only 3 studies from low and middle-income countries. Nitrate exposure in water (59 studies) was more commonly investigated than nitrite exposure (4 studies). Colorectal (15 studies) and gastric (13 studies) cancers were the most reported. In meta-analyses (4 studies) we identified a positive association of nitrate exposure with gastric cancer, OR = 1.91 (95%CI = 1.09-3.33) per 10 mg/L increment in nitrate ion. We found no association of nitrate exposure with colorectal cancer (10 studies; OR = 1.02 [95%CI = 0.96-1.08]) or cancers at any other site.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified an association of nitrate in drinking water with gastric cancer but with no other cancer site. There is currently a paucity of robust studies from settings with high levels nitrate pollution in drinking water. Research into this area will be valuable to ascertain the true health burden of nitrate contamination of water and the need for public policies to protect human health.

Reactive nitrogen compounds and their influence on human health: an overview

Nitrogen (N) is a critical component of food security, economy and planetary health. Human production of reactive nitrogen (Nr) via Haber-Bosch process and cultivation-induced biological N₂ fixation (BNF) has doubled global N cycling over the last century. The most important beneficial effect of Nr is augmenting global food supplies due to increased crop yields. However, increased circulation of Nr in the environment is responsible for serious human health effects such as methemoglobinemia ("blue baby syndrome") and eutrophication of coastal and inland waters. Furthermore, ammonia (NH₃) emission mainly from farming and animal husbandary impacts not only human health causing chronic lung disease, inflammation of human airways and irritation of eyes, sinuses and skin but is also involved in the formation of secondary particulate matter (PM) that plays a critical role in environment and human health. Nr also affects human health via global warming, depletion of stratospheric ozone layer resulting in greater intensity of ultra violet B rays (UVB) on the Earth's surface, and creation of ground-level ozone (through reaction of NO₂ with O₂). The consequential indirect human health effects of Nr include the spread of vector-borne pathogens, increased incidence of skin cancer, development of cataracts, and serious respiratory diseases, besides land degradation. Evidently, the strategies to reduce Nr and mitigate adverse environmental and human health impacts include plugging pathways of nitrogen transport and loss through runoff, leaching and emissions of NH₃, nitrogen oxides (NO _x ), and other N compounds; improving fertilizer N use efficiency; reducing regional disparity in access to N fertilizers; enhancing BNF to decrease dependence on chemical fertilizers; replacing animal-based proteins with plant-based proteins; adopting improved methods of livestock raising and manure management; reducing air pollution and secondary PM formation; and subjecting industrial and vehicular NO _x emission to pollution control laws. Strategic implementation of all these presents a major challenge across the fields of agriculture, ecology and public health. Recent observations on the reduction of air pollution in the COVID-19 lockdown period in several world regions provide an insight into the achievability of long-term air quality improvement. In this review, we focus on complex relationships between Nr and human health, highlighting a wide range of beneficial and detrimental effects.

The relationship between consumption of nitrite or nitrate and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Epidemiologic studies of the relationship between nitrite or nitrate consumption and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) remain controversial. The current meta-analysis aimed to reexamine the evidence and quantitatively evaluate that relationship. Manuscripts were retrieved from the Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and PubMed databases up to May 2019. From the studies included in the review, results were combined and presented as odds ratios (OR). To conduct a dose-response (DR) analysis, studies presenting risk estimates over a series of categories of exposure were selected. Our data indicate that the consumption of nitrite was linked to a significantly increased hazard of NHL (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.14–1.65), rather than nitrate (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.94–1.10). According to Egger’s and Begg’s tests (P > 0.05), there was no evidence of significant publication bias. Moreover, our DR analysis indicated that the risk of NHL grew by 26% for each additional microgram of nitrite consumed in the diet per day (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.09–1.42). Through subset analysis of the nitrite studies, data from the high-quality studies indicated that consumption was positively associated with carcinogenicity, leading to NHL (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17–1.77) and positively correlated with the development of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.07–2.26), but not other NHL subtypes. In addition, the data suggested that females (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.15–1.95) and high levels of nitrite intake (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.28–2.09) had a higher risk of NHL. Our meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that nitrite intake, but not that of nitrate, raises the risk of developing NHL. In the future, better designed prospective research studies should be conducted to confirm our findings, clarify potential biological mechanisms and instruct clinicians about NHL prophylaxis.

Re-evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) as food additives

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) when used as food additives. The current acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for nitrate of 3.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day were established by the SCF (1997) and JECFA (2002). The available data did not indicate genotoxic potential for sodium and potassium nitrate. The carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats were negative. The Panel considered the derivation of an ADI for nitrate based on the formation of methaemoglobin, following the conversion of nitrate, excreted in the saliva, to nitrite. However, there were large variations in the data on the nitrate-to-nitrite conversion in the saliva in humans. Therefore, the Panel considered that it was not possible to derive a single value of the ADI from the available data. The Panel noticed that even using the highest nitrate-to-nitrite conversion factor the methaemoglobin levels produced due to nitrite obtained from this conversion would not be clinically significant and would result to a theoretically estimated endogenous N-nitroso compounds (ENOC) production at levels which would be of low concern. Hence, and despite the uncertainty associated with the ADI established by the SCF, the Panel concluded that currently there was insufficient evidence to withdraw this ADI. The exposure to nitrate solely from its use as a food additive was estimated to be less than 5% of the overall exposure to nitrate in food based on a refined estimated exposure scenario. This exposure did not exceed the current ADI (SCF, 1997). However, if all sources of exposure to dietary nitrate are considered (food additive, natural presence and contamination), the ADI would be exceeded for all age groups at the mean and the highest exposure.

Nitrates in municipal drinking water and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: an ecological cancer case-control study in Taiwan

The relationship between nitrate levels in drinking water and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) development has been inconclusive. A matched cancer case-control and a nitrate ecology study was used to investigate the association between mortality attributed to NHL and nitrate exposure from Taiwan's drinking water. All deaths due to NHL in Taiwan residents from 2000 through 2006 were obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Taiwan Provincial Department of Health. Controls were deaths from other causes and were pair-matched to the cases by gender, year of birth, and year of death. Each matched control was selected randomly from the set of possible controls for each case. Data on nitrate-nitrogen (NO(3)-N) levels of drinking water throughout Taiwan were collected from the Taiwan Water Supply Corporation (TWSC). The municipality of residence for cancer cases and controls was presumed to be the source of the subject's nitrate exposure via drinking water. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) for NHL death for those with high nitrate levels in their drinking water, as compared to the lowest tertile, were 1.02 (0.87-1.2) and 1.05 (0.89-1.24), respectively. The results of the present study show that there was no statistically significant association between nitrates in drinking water at levels in this investigation and increased risk of death attributed to NHL.

Risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and nitrate and nitrite from drinking water and diet

INTRODUCTION

Nitrate and nitrite are precursors in the in vivo formation of N-nitroso compounds, potent animal carcinogens.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 1998 to 2000 in Iowa, Detroit, Seattle, and Los Angeles. Because nitrate levels were elevated in many drinking water supplies in Iowa, but not in the other study centers, we evaluated water nitrate levels and risk of NHL in Iowa only. Monitoring data for public supplies were linked to water source histories from 1960 onward. Nitrate was measured at interview homes with private wells. We limited most analyses to those with nitrate estimates for > 70% of their person-years since 1960 (181 cases, 142 controls). For those in the diet arm of the study (458 cases, 383 controls from 4 centers) and for Iowa participants in both the diet and drinking water analyses, we estimated dietary nitrate and nitrite intake using a 117-item food-frequency questionnaire that included foods high in nitrate and nitrite. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for the study matching factors, education, and caloric intake (diet analyses only).

RESULTS

We found no overall association with the highest quartile of average drinking water nitrate (> 2.90 mg/L nitrate-N: odds ratios = 1.2; 95% confidence interval = 0.6-2.2) or with years > or = 5 mg/L (10+ years: 1.4; 0.7-2.9). We observed no evidence of an interaction between drinking water nitrate exposure and either vitamin C or red meat intake, an inhibitor and precursor, respectively, of N-nitroso compound formation. Among those in the diet arm, dietary nitrate was inversely associated with risk of NHL (highest quartile: 0.54; 0.34-0.86). Dietary nitrite intake was associated with increasing risk (highest quartile: 3.1; 1.7-5.5) largely due to intakes of bread and cereal sources of nitrite.

CONCLUSION

Average drinking water nitrate levels below 3 mg/L were not associated with NHL risk. Our study had limited power to evaluate higher levels that deserve further study.