Original Article

Yonago Acta medica 2015;58:115–122

Water Quality Evaluation of PET Bottled Water by Mineral Balance in		
the Northeast Asian Region: A Case Study of South Korea
Daisuke Houri* and Chung Mo Koo†

*Division of Medical Education, Department of Social Medicine, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago
683-8503, Japan and †Faculty of Economics and International Trade, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 200-701, South Korea

ABSTRACT

taste. Mineral water is now marketed as a popular commercial product and, partly due to health concerns, theproduction and consumption of various mineral waters
have steadily increased.
In South Korea, where urbanization has progressed
rapidly along with the country’s economic growth, thecustom of drinking tap water directly from the faucet
has decreased as the quality of city water has deteriorated. In Japan, in contrast, tap water can still be drunk
directly from the faucet. However, due to fears related
to water safety, to the popularity of super-soft waterand to consumer preferences for hard water for dieting
purposes, most drinking water comes from polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottled water.
One research study so far has been reported by Choiet al.1 who analyzed the mineral ingredients of South
Korean PET bottled water for the whole country. However, the names of individual PET bottle brands were notmentioned. Moreover, this report1 analyzed PET bottled
water that was purchased between 1995 and 1996, justafter the sale of drinking water in containers in South
Korea was permitted in 1994. It can be assumed that thePET bottled water samples studied included both newly
sold water as well as water whose sale had been discontinued. As yet, there have been no articles about Koreanbottled water published in English which deal with water indexes of taste and of health.
The study here analyzed PET bottled water sold in
LOTTE Mart in Seoul, a major South Korean bottled
water supplier, with each PET bottle name clearlyshown.
For the study, a comparison was carried out ofwater samples from 9 types of PET bottled water soldin South Korea as well as from tap water in the cities
of Seoul and Chuncheon. These were compared withsamples of Japanese PET bottled water2, 3 in order todetermine shared commonalities and identify individual
characteristics. To evaluate water quality objectively, wequantified the elements contained in the water samples.

Background

The past few years have seen a demandfor drinking water in contemporary society with a focus
on safety and taste. Mineral water is now marketed asa popular commercial product and, partly due to healthconcerns, the production.
Methods For the study, a comparison was carriedout of water samples from 9 types of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottled water sold in South Korea aswell as from tap water in the cities of Seoul and Chuncheon. These were compared with samples of Japanese
PET bottled water in order to determine shared commonalities and identify individual characteristics. To
evaluate water quality objectively, we quantified theelements contained in the water samples. Samples wereassessed not with the usual sensory evaluation but withthe evaluation approach advocated by Hashimoto et al.
which employs the Water Index of Taste and the Water
Index of Health. The levels of water quality obtained
were compared with the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water”
and the “Standards for Tasty Water” devised for city water.
Results The PET Bottled water varieties analyzed
in this study—Seoksu, Icis, Bong Pyong, Soon Soo
100, Dong Won Saem Mul, GI JANG SOO and DIAMOND—showed the Water Index of Taste ≥ 2.0 and
the Water Index of Health ≥ 5.2, which we classified as
tasty/healthy water. SamDaSoo and NamiNeral can beclassified as tasty water due to their values of the Water
Index of Taste ≥ 2.0 and the Water Index of Health < 5.2.
Conclusion The South Korean PET bottled waterstudied here fulfills the “Water Index of Taste,” “Water
Index of Health,” “Standard for Tasty Water” and “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” that Japanese people value
for city water. We can conclude that bottled water whichmeets water quality requirements will be considered
good-tasting by a majority of people.
Key words bottled water; mineral water; South Korea;

taste; water quality

Corresponding author: Daisuke Houri, PhD
houri@med.tottori-u.ac.jp
Received 2015 June 26
Accepted 2015 July 27
Abbreviation: PET, polyethylene terephthalate

The past few years have seen a demand for drinking water in contemporary society with a focus on safety and115

D. Houri and C. M. Koo

Samples were assessed not with the usual sensory evaluation4 but with the evaluation approach advocated by
Hashimoto et al.5, 6 which employs the Water Index of
Taste and the Water Index of Health. The levels of water
quality obtained were compared with the “Prerequisites
for Tasty Water” and the “Standards for Tasty Water”
devised for city water by the “Tasty Water Research Association” (Tokyo, Japan) of the former Japanese Healthand Welfare Ministry.7

placed in an empty PET bottle, and was sent by airmail
to Japan for analysis. Since LOTTE Mart is a respected
South Korean retail store, the PET bottle samples purchased there were assumed to be popular brands with ahigh degree of trust.
PET bottled water from Chuncheon City was also
analyzed. This water, which comes from a local water
source in the Chuncheon City region, was purchased
there in 2013 from a local convenience store. The PET
bottled water varieties analyzed were NamiNeral (Jae
Ewon, Hamyeon, South Korea), GI JANG SOO (Donghae Water, Seoul, South Korea), DIAMOND (CocaCola Korea, Yangsan-si, South Korea) and city water in
Chuncheon City. The tap water in Chuncheon City was
obtained from a faucet in the kitchen of a restaurant in
Chuncheon Myeongdong Dakagalbi Street in the central
part of the city. It was placed in an empty PET bottle,
and sent by airmail to Japan for analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Samples for analysis

PET bottled water that is currently available for purchasewas used for the analysis. The samples were randomly
selected by a colleague in South Korea from PET bottled
water sold in LOTTE Mart (Seoul Station store). These
were then sent by air mail to Japan for analysis. The
varieties of South Korean PET bottled water analyzed
were Sam Da Soo (Jeju Special Self-Governing Province
Development, Jeju-si, South Korea), Seoksu (Hitejinro
Beverage, Seoul, South Korea), Icis (Lotte Chilsung
Beverage, Seoul, South Korea), Bong Pyong (Hae-Tae
Beverage, Pyeongchang, South Korea), Soon Soo 100(Coca-Cola Korea, Yangsan-si, South Korea) and Dong
Won Saem Mul (Dong-won F&B, Seoul, South Korea)
as well as city water from general apartments in thecity of Seoul (South Korea). The tap water came froma faucet in the apartment of a colleague in Seoul, wasAnalysis items, methods and devices

The items analyzed for each water sample were total
solids, hardness, potassium permanganate consumption,
free carbonate, residual chlorine, threshold odor number,odor, pH, Fe, Cl-, SO42-, Ca, K, SiO2, Mg and Na. Table
1 shows these items and the assay and devices used.
For this study, water analysis was carried out by the
Tottori Health Service Association (Tottori, Japan), theofficially registered organization for Tottori Prefecture,

Table 1. Analytical methods and analyzers
Analysis Items

Analysis Methods

Analyzers

Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
SiO2
2Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
SO4
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Hardness
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
pH
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Total solids
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Free carbonate
Potassium permanganate
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
consumption
Residual chlorineStandard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Threshold odor number Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Odor
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
Fe
Standard methods for the examination of water (2001)
ClNa
Calibration curve method
K
Calibration curve method
Mg
Calibration curve method
Ca
Calibration curve method*HITACHI P-4010 (Hitachi High-Tech Science, Tokyo, Japan).
†LC-10AD (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan).
‡HORIBA F-13 (Horiba, Kyoto, Japan).
§RIGAKU CIROS CCD (Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan).

116

ICP-AESHITACHI P-4010*
Ion chromatograph method LC-10AD†
Titration method
Glass electrode method
HORIBA F-13‡
Gravimetric method
Titration method
Titration method
DPD method
Organoleptic method
Organoleptic method
ICP-AESIon chromatograph method
ICP-AESICP-AESICP-AESICP-AESHITACHI P-4010*
LC-10AD†RIGAKU CIROS CCD§RIGAKU CIROS CCD§RIGAKU CIROS CCD§RIGAKU CIROS CCD§

Tasty wateraccording to the Standard Methods for Examinationof Water (2001)8. However, total solids, free carbonate,
potassium permanganate consumption, Fe and Cl- were
not analyzed for the three varieties of NamiNeral, GI
JANG SOO and DIAMOND. This was because data on
the Water Index of Taste and Water Index of Health forthese three PET bottles was needed at once for anotherresearch project, so these items were not analyzed.

was shown as the border line for water which was or was
not tasty.
Water Index of Taste =Ca + K +SiO2
Mg +SO4

The Water Index of Taste is determined by theabove equation. When the Water Index of Taste value is
2.0 or more, the water is judged to be tasty. Water Index
of Taste values was obtained for the water quality element of each sample.

Water Index of Taste and Water Index of Health

Water Index of Taste
The index used to evaluate water taste was the “Water
Index of Taste” designed by Hashimoto et al.5, 6 as wellas the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” and “Standard for
Tasty Water” used by the Ministry of Health and Welfare for tap water.
The Water Index of Taste is decided by the balanceof Ca, K, SiO2, Mg, and SO42-. In other words, thewater index of taste is determined by the proportion of
the total amount of Ca, K and SiO2 as well as the total
amounts of Mg and SO42-.
Hashimoto et al. have shown, as measured by sensory examination, that Ca, K and SiO2 improve the tasteof nationally representative drinking water and mineralwater while Mg and SO4 worsen the taste. Based onthese findings, they proposed this Water Index of Taste.
After calculating the Water Index of Taste for drinking
water and mineral water, the Water Index of Taste = 2.0

Water Index of HealthHashimoto et al. 5, 6, 9 claim that the presence of Ca inwater is an important plus factor for health since it prevents osteoporosis and acts to maintain heart and muscle
functions. They claim that Na, in contrast, is a minus
factor because a higher Na intake raises the risk factor
for arteriosclerosis. They therefore advocate a “Water
Index of Health” calculated from the Ca concentration
and Na density as health indicators.
Water Index of Health = Ca - 0.87 Na
The Water Index of Health is obtained from theabove equation. The Water Index of Health value wasdetermined from water analyses of each sample. When

Table 2. Influence on tap water taste of items in the "Standards for Tasty Water" (A) and "Prerequisites for Tasty
Water" (B)Water quality item

A

B

Total solids○○

Hardness○○

Potassium permanganate
consumption○○

Free carbonate○

Temperature○

Quantity of the mineral left when sample is vaporized. In moderate amounts, this gives a fullbodied mild taste. In greater quantities, the taste worsens as a result of increased astringency,
bitterness and salty taste.
Total quantity of the Mg and Ca. With low hardness, water becomes easier to drink. the taste
improve when Ca > Mg, and the bitterness increases when the amount of Mg is higher.
This shows the quantity of organic material. At high amounts, the taste is spoiled due to greater
astringency.
This refers to the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in water. This gives a refreshing taste, but
in greater quantities the taste becomes too strong.
This is one of the key points that determine water taste. At a temperature of 10-15 degrees Celsius, water is perceived as most refreshing.

Residual chlorine○

This imparts a chlorine smell to water and spoils the taste at high densities.

Threshold odor number○

Depending on the condition of the water source, the taste can become unpleasant due to the addition of various smells.
When the standard value is "not abnormal," the presence of unusual odors and taste may indicate
contamination of water by sewage or factory effluent.
This indicates a hydrogen-ion concentration in the solution. For tap water, the standard for acidity or alkalinity is 5.8-8.6. However, a value of 6.7-7 is most suitable for good taste.
The standard value is determined by the amount of iron that leads to a worsening taste in Japanese tea.
This refers to the anionic chlorine of the mineral ingredient. This differs from chlorine used forsterilization. The standard value is set from the value that produces the taste of saltiness.

Odor

○

pH

○

Fe

○

Cl-

○

Influence on tap water taste117

D. Houri and C. M. Koo

the value of the Water Index of Health is 5.2 or more, thewater is judged to be healthy.

results of water tasting conducted in each region of Japan and to an analysis of the tap water quality aroundthe country. Water deemed tasty was determined using a questionnaire survey. The quality of those water
varieties felt to be tasty by many people was analyzed
for selected items (A of Table 2: 7 items of total solids,
hardness, potassium permanganate consumption, freecarbonate, water temperature, residual chlorine, andthreshold odor number) to obtain a standard value. However, for this study, water temperature, residual chlorine
and threshold odor number were excluded in the analysis
of PET bottled water.
The elements and numerical values for tasty water
were calculated using the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” and “Standard for Tasty Water” with the assumptionthat this water is safe and pleasant to drink. However,
the water quality evaluation items and criteria were different. Currently, seven items in the “Standard for Tasty
Water” are generally understood to be the standard
requirements for tasty water. Each sample in the study
was evaluated for water quality items of both the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” and the “Standard for Tasty
Water.”

Comparison of “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” and“Standard for Tasty Water” for tap water

In April 1984, the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare announced its “Prerequisites for Tasty Water.” Table
2 shows the data for the taste and features of tap wateraccording to the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” and“Standard for Tasty Water.”
An analysis of tap water said to be either tasty or
not tasty was carried out at 30 places around Japan using items from the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” (B ofTable 2: 7 items of total solids, hardness, potassium permanganate consumption, odor, pH, Fe, Cl-). The results
showed that tasty water was shown to have a constantchemical tendency. In June 1984, the “Tasty Water Research Association” of the former Health and Welfare
Ministry was established to determine what kind ofwater is “tasty” and to examine ways to make drinking
water more delicious. Its “Standard for Tasty Water”7
was officially announced in 1985.
This “Standard for Tasty Water” referred to theTable 3. Characteristics and chemical composition of bottled waters and tap waters
mg/L

Sam Da Soo

Seoksu

Icis

Bong Pyong

Soon Soo 100

Mg (mg/L)
Na (mg/L)
Ca (mg/L)
K (mg/L)
SiO2 (mg/L)
SO42- (mg/L)
Hardness (mg/L)
pH

2.5 (1.0–2.8)
5.8 (4.0–7.2)
2.9 (2.2–3.6)
2.0 (1.5–3.4)
26.0
1.8
17
7.4

2.9 (1.7–5.7)
4.7 (2.1–9.2)
24.0 (15.0–49.6)
1.4 (0.8–2.4)
11.0
7.9
72 (70–80)
7.3 (7.4–7.8)

3.7 (1–6)
13.0 (4–40)
27.0 (7–46)
1.2 (0–2)
23.0
15.0
83
6.7

2.2 (0.8–5.4)
6.2 (2.5–10.7)
12.0 (5.8–34.1)
0.5 (0.3–1.4)
20.0
3.8
40
6.7

2.5 (0.4–2.8)
9.0 (3.9–12.5)
13.0 (6.1–24.8)
0.8 (0.1–1.4)
22.0
5.3
44
7.1

Type of Water

Deep well water

Deep well water

Deep well water

Deep well water

Deep well water

Means of Sterilization Non-heatingsterilization
Natural mineral
Official Name
water

Non-heatingsterilization
Natural mineralwater

Non-heatingsterilization
Natural mineral
water

Ozone sterilizing

Ozone sterilizing

Mineral water

Mineral water

Place of water intake

Naeam-li, GadeukSan 70, Gyole-ri,
CheongwonJeochun-eup, Jeju-si myun,gun. Chung-buk

Bottling location

Gyole-ri, Jeochuneup, Jeju-si

Price(Volume)

500 won*(500 mL)

URL

http://www.jpdc.co.kr http://www.seoksuandpuriss.com

149-2 Naeamli, Gadeuk-myu,
Cheongwon-gun.
Chung-buk
480 won*(500 mL)

Jinjo-ri, Bongpyong- Chukryung-san,Myun, Pyoungchang- Sudong-myun,
Namyangju-si,
gun, Gangwon
Gyeonggi-do
San
139,
Jinjo-ri,132-2 Mukbang-ri, Bongpyong-Myun, Sudong-myun,
Sandong, Gimhea-si, Pyoungchang-gun, Namyangju-si,
Gyeonggi-do
Gyeonggi-do
Gangwon
450 won*
280 won*
320 won*(500 mL)(500 mL)(500 mL)
Mukbang-ri, Sandong, Gimhea-si,
Gyeonggi-do

http://company.lottechilsung.
co.kr/product/drink_product. n/a
jsp?code=109&nPos=030206

http://www.cocacola.
co.kr/Soonsoo/

Water Index of Tast
7.2
3.4
2.7
5.4
4.6
Water Index of Health -2.2
19.9
15.7
6.6
5.2
The numerical values in parentheses show the numerical values of each mineral element that were displayed on the PET bottle labels.
n/a, not applicable. *Korean currency.

118

Tasty water

Water Index of Health
Table 4 shows the Water Index of Health of the sample
and the conditions applied.
The Water Index of Health value for PET bottled waterfrom Seoul, except for the Sam Da Soo and NamiNeral
samples, was 5.2 or more. This meets the standard andis assumed to be healthy water.

RESULTS

Analysis of chemical composition

Table 3 shows an analysis of the chemical composition
for each sample.
The value of the mineral element analyzed came fromthe numerical value displayed on the PET bottles. Most
PET bottled water analyzed was generally soft waterwith a hardness level of 14–83 mg/L. The pH value wasneutral at roughly 7.0. Only GI JANG SOO showed a
pH of 8.0 and a hardness of 110 mg/L. Tap water in bothSeoul City and Chuncheon City was soft. The Seoul
tap water had a hardness value of 48 mg/L while that in
Chuncheon City had a hardness value of 35 mg/L.

Comparison of tap water samples in terms of the“Standard for Tasty Water” and “Prerequisites for
Tasty Water”

The results for city water quality according to the “Standard for Tasty Water” and “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” are shown in Table 5. The four indices of the conditions applied are summarized in Table 4.
In general, the PET Bottled water samples from South
Korea met the “Standard for Tasty Water” and “Prerequisites for Tasty Water.”Index items of tasty water and healthy water

Water Index of Taste
Table 4 shows the Water Index of Taste for the samples
and conditions applied.
When the Water Index of Taste value is 2.0 or more,
the water is judged to be tasty. All PET bottled water
analyzed was judged to be tasty water. However, neither
sample of tap water (from Seoul and Chuncheon) was
judged to be tasty.

DISCUSSION
In this paper, the aspect of water quality studied was themain dissolution element. This differs from the evaluation of water quality for beverages issued by public

Dong Won Saem Mul Tap Water (Seoul)

NamiNeral

GI JANG SOODIAMOND

Tap Water (Chuncheon)

2.0 (0.1–6.7)
5.7 (0.9–30.9)
17.0 (1.0–40.1)
0.6 (0.2–2.1)
10.0
12.0
52
7.2

0.8 (0.4–1.4)
2.2 (1.0–6.5)
4.4 (3.8–13.7)
0.6 (0.2–1.2)
7.7
3.9
14
7.2

1.5
5.9
20
0.6
11
4.2
56
7.6
Natural mineralwater
Non-heatingsterilization
Natural mineral
water

2.5
4.2
10
1.3
3.4
6.1
35
7.2

Ozone sterilizing

2.8
7.2
14
2.1
0.4
11
48
7.1
Running water(City water)
Liquid chlorine
sterilization

Mineral water

Tap water

Mineral water

7.5 (7.97)
6.0 (5.86)
32 (32.58)
0.7 (0.74)
6.7
8.8
110
8.0
Natural mineralwater
Non-heatingsterilization
Natural mineralwater

Deajun-ri, Chungsanmyun, Yeoncheon- Han rivergun, Gyeonggi-do

Gapyung-goon,
Gyeonggi-do

Donghae-si,
Gangwon-do

Chulwon-goon,
Gangwon-do

Soyanggang-dam,
Chuncheon-dam

164-2, Gooeu-dong, Gapyung-goon,
Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Gyeonggi-do(5 more in Seoul)459-5, Mangsangdong, Donghae-si,
Gangwon-do

329-2, Yongsan-ri,
Sinbook-eup, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do(1 more in Chuncheon

561.27 won*
(m²)

n/a

1000 won*(500 mL)

478 Yookdan-ri,
Geunnam-myun,
Chulwon-goon,
Gangwon-do
315 won*(500 mL)

n/awww.donghaewater. http://www.diamond- http://water.chuncheon.
co.krwater.co.kr
go.kr/main/main.php

Deep well water

212-3 Deajun-ri,
Chungsan-myun,
Yeoncheon-gun,
Gyeonggi-do
400 won*(500 ml)

http://www.dongwon- http://water.seoul.
saemmul.co.kr/
go.kr/
2.0
12.0

1.2
7.7

Deep well water
n/a

2.7
2.5

2.4
26.8

119

5.5
14.9

Mineral water
Liquid chlorine
sterilization
Tap water

n/a

1.71
6.4

D. Houri and C. M. Koo
Table 4. Evaluation of each sample according to the four indices
Water Index of TasteSam Da Soo
Seoksu
Icis
Bong Pyong
Soon Soo 100
Dong Won Saem Mul
Tap Water (Seoul)
NamiNeral
GI JANG SOODIAMOND
Tap Water (Chuncheon)

○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*

Water Index of Health

7.2
3.4
2.7
5.4
4.6
2.0
1.2
2.7
2.5
5.5
1.7

○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*
○*

–2.2
19.9
15.7
6.6
5.2
12.0
7.7
2.5
26.8
14.9
6.4

Standards for
Tasty Water

Prerequisites for
Tasty Water

3/4†
4/4†
4/4†
4/4†
4/4†
4/4†
3/4†
–
–
–
2/4†

6/7†
5/7†
5/7†
6/7†
6/7†
5/7†
5/7†
–
–
–
5/7†

*Cases that meet the requirements of the “Water Index of Taste” or the “Water Index of Health.”†Ratio that meets the requirements of the “Standards for Tasty Water” or the “Prerequisites for Tasty Water.”Table 5. Comparison with Standards and Prerequisites for Tasty Water of bottled waters and tap waters
Total solids Hardness
mg/L
mg/L
Standards for Tasty Water
30–200Prerequisites for Tasty Water 50–200
Sam Da Soo
66
Seoksu110
Icis
180
Bong Pyong
82
Soon Soo 100
98
Dong Won Saem Mul
85
Tap water (Seoul)92
Tap Water (Chuncheon)63

10–100
≤50
17
72
83
40
44
52
48
45

Free
carbonate
mg/L

Potassium
permanganate
consumption
mg/kg

Odor

pH

Fe
mg/L

Clmg/L

3–30
–
2.2
4.0
10.0
6.6
4.4
3.5
2.2
–

≤3
≤ 1.5
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.9
2.7
2.0

–
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none

–
6.0–7.5
7.4
7.3
6.7
6.7
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2

–
≤ 0.02< 0.03< 0.03< 0.03< 0.03< 0.03< 0.03< 0.03< 0.03

–
≤ 50
6.5
6.2
25.0
6.1
3.9
2.0
16.0
6.1

health centers. This study provides a chemical analysisof the essential elements of water. Here, the main features are considered.

Water with a hardness of 50 mg/L is generally liked
by many people and water of Ca > Mg is said to have agood taste. Almost all the PET Bottled water in South
Korea and Japan analyzed in this study had a hardnessof roughly 50 mg/L water with Ca > Mg. All samples
more or less met the “Standard for Tasty Water” and“Prerequisites for Tasty Water,” although the content ofiron ions was somewhat high.
Since South Korea is a peninsula located on the
Asian continent, the hardness of South Korean PET
Bottle water should be high1 like Russian water. However, it is actually soft. Choi et al.1 evaluated the Water
Index of Taste ratio of South Korean PET Bottled natural mineral water as 61.9%. Although the PET bottled
water samples evaluated in this study were randomly
selected at LOTTE Mart, they met all the index standards. The PET bottled water samples studied were collected from all over South Korea, and can be considered

Criteria for tasty water

The Water Index of Taste is determined by the ratio ofmineral elements.
All the South Korean PET Bottled water analyzed met
the standards of the Water Index of Taste. Since South
Korean mountains are famous for their clear high quality natural water, the PET bottled water collected can beevaluated as tasty water. Seoksu, for example, is a very
popular variety of mineral water collected at a mountain
range from a layer of mica granite and quartz 200m below ground. One source of mineral water, Mt. Sobaek,
is said to rank as one of the three major water sourcesin the world alongside Shasta in the USA and Vichy inFrance.
120

Tasty water

popular brands of water sold in the country’s metropolis,
Seoul. For this reason, it can be considered that PET
bottled water sold in Seoul will be evaluated as tasty by
Japanese people. In terms of quality, South Korean PET
bottled water can be considered similar to PET bottled
water in Japan given its hardness and qualitative index
scores.
According to the “Tasty Water Research Association,”7 “Good taste is an individual matter. Although
there is a large amount of individual variation, goodtasting water can be generally regarded as a constant.”
For most people, water that meets water quality requirements is felt to be tasty. Delicious good tasting water canbe considered as universal.
One reason that tap water in Seoul did not meet theWater Index of Taste, compared to other varieties, may
be that it had an extremely low SiO2 value. In order toconvince its citizens that its tap water is safe to drink,
Seoul City is distributing “Arisu” tap water in PET
bottles at civic meetings and city events at no cost. Tap
water in Seoul comes from the Han River. It is purified
at a water purification plant, then filled in PET bottles
and named “Arisu.” The safety of “Arisu” has been officially recognized by the water quality authorities of
the U.S. Army and Navy10 and has been judged to be
in conformity with the 145 standards promoted by theWorld Health Organization. Despite this, Seoul citizens
do not trust the city’s tap water and rarely drink it. Thisis because of frequent reports in the past about germs in
the water, heavy metals mixed in from old water pipes
and pollution from rainwater washed in through soil.

in the popular Korean TV drama “Dae Jang Geum” asdrinking water used in the Imperial Court.
When classified by Hashimoto et al. using the Water
Index of Taste and the Water Index of Health, the PET
Bottled water varieties analyzed in this study—Seoksu,
Icis Bong Pyong, Soon Soo 100, Dong Won Saem Mul,
GI JANG SOO and DIAMOND—showed the Water
Index of Taste ≥ 2.0 and the Water Index of Health ≥5.2,
which we classified as tasty/healthy water. Sam Da Soo
and NamiNeral can be classified as tasty water due totheir values of the Water Index of Taste ≥ 2.0 and theWater Index of Health < 5.2.
The “Tasty Water Research Association” of the former Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry quoted inthis study works to ensure Japanese water that Japanesepeople regard as tasty. However, the South Korean PET
bottled water studied here fulfills the “Water Index of
Taste,” “Water Index of Health,” “Standard for Tasty
Water” and “Prerequisites for Tasty Water” that Japanese people value for city water. When we consider
this and the fact that these brands of water are sold in
LOTTE Mart, a respected supermarket in Korea, we canconclude that bottled water which meets water quality
requirements will be considered good-tasting by a majority of people, since good-taste in water is universal.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES
1 Choi Y, Sasaki H, Sugahara T. Properties of Korean naturalmineral water. Journal for the integrated study of dietary
habits. 1998;9:64-73. DOI: 10.2740/jisdh.9.64. Japanese withEnglish Abstract.
2 Houri D, Morimoto M, Matsumoto K. Water Quality Evaluation of Natural Mineral Water by Mineral Balance. Journal ofJapan Biological Society of Water and Waste. 2006;42:207-13.
Japanese with English Abstract.
3 Houri D and Yoshioka S. Mineral-balance-oriented quality
evaluation of waters of clear springs neighboring Mt. Daisen,
Japan. Health Sciences. 2004;20:312-21. Japanese with English Abstract.
4 Satoh M. [Introduction to sensory test]. Tokyo: JUSE Press,
Ltd.; 1983. p. 63-9. Japanese.
5 Hashimoto S, Furukawa K, Minami J. Studies on the water
quality evaluation of drinking waters based on mineral balances (I) Preparation of mineral waters and their sensory
test. Jpn. J. Water Treat. Biol. 1985; 21:19-24.DOI: 10.2521/
jswtb.21.2_19. Japanese.
6 Hashimoto S, Fujita M, Furukawa K, Minami J. [Studies on
the water quality evaluation of drinking waters based on mineral balances]. Water purification and liquid wastes treatment.
1988;29:13-28. Japanese.
7 The “Tasty Water Research Association.” [Palatable water.]
JWWA. 1985;54:76-81. Japanese.
8 Japan water works association. [Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Commentary 2001]. Tokyo: Japanwater works association; 2001. 827 p. Japanese.

Concerning healthy water

PET Bottled water in South Korea, except for the Sam
Da Soo brand, was found to be tasty and was classified
as good, healthy water. It is considered that Sam Da Soo
did not meet the Water Index of Health because it had
low amounts of Ca and because Ca < Na. However, thewater source in South Korea for Sam Da Soo is Cheju
Island. This water, compared with other types of PET
bottled water, includes a large amount of SiO2 and may
be popular because it contains 7 μg of vanadium (which
is listed on the label).
On the other hand, the Water Index of Health for
GI JANG SOO was very high. GI JANG SOO has ahardness of 110 mg/L and includes extremely minuteamounts of yellow ocher clay as well as abundant minerals and enzymes. It has been used in Korea for beautyand health since ancient times.11 Because Japan has nosuch yellow ocher layers, there is no water containing
amounts of yellow ocher. Another reason that GI JANG
SOO may have become popular is that it was introduced
121

D. Houri and C. M. Koo
9 Hashimoto S. Evaluation of water quality of healthy and/or
tasty drinking water and its application to Japanese waters.
The society of heating air-conditioning and sanitary engineersof Japan. 1989;63:463-8. Japanese with English Abstract.
10 The environmental news [Internet]. Tokyo: Kankyoshimbunsha, Co., Ltd; 2008 May 28 [cited 2015 May 25]. Available
from: http://www.kankyo-news.co.jp/ps/qn/guest/news/showbody.cgi?CCODE=81&NCODE=17 (2008/05/28). Japanese.

11 dagegawa [Internet]. gijangsoo; [updated 2013 June 6; cited
2015 July 10]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=6VO1Ns07THA.

122