Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles

Rachel Cohen,Atena Roshan Fekr,Geoff Fernie

doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5

Rachel Cohen, Atena Roshan Fekr + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5

Copy DOI

Abstract

Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones. There has been a trend in recent years to develop tools to monitor fluid intake using “smart” products such as smart bottles. Several commercial smart bottles are available, mainly targeting health-conscious adults. To the best of our knowledge, these bottles have not been validated in the literature. This study compares four commercially available smart bottles in terms of both performance and functionality. These bottles are the H2OPal, HidrateSpark Steel, HidrateSpark 3, and Thermos Smart Lid. One hundred intake events for each bottle were recorded and analyzed versus ground truth obtained from a high-resolution weight scale. The H2OPal had the lowest Mean Percent Error (MPE) and was able to balance out errors throughout multiple sips. The HidrateSpark 3 provided the most consistent and reliable results, with the lowest per sip error. The MPE values for HidrateSpark bottles were further improved using linear regression, as they had more consistent individual error values. The Thermos Smart Lid provides the lowest accuracy, as the sensors do not extend through the entire bottle, leading to many missed recordings.

Highlights

Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones
This study found that over a 24 h fluid intake period, the HidrateSpark bottle was accurate in measuring total intake within 3% e rror[8]
The Sip Mean Percent Error (MPE) looks at the percent error for each individual sip and the Cumulative MPE looks at the total percent error over time

Summary

Introduction

Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones. There has been a trend in recent years to develop tools to monitor fluid intake using “smart” products such as smart bottles. This study compares four commercially available smart bottles in terms of both performance and functionality. These bottles are the H2OPal, HidrateSpark Steel, HidrateSpark 3, and Thermos Smart Lid. One hundred intake events for each bottle were recorded and analyzed versus ground truth obtained from a high-resolution weight scale. There are many reports in the literature of attempts to create systems or devices that can aide in tracking and managing fluid intake[3] Most of these studies have not resulted in commercially available products. We compare four commercial water bottles in terms of performance and functionality In the Thermos Smart Lid, the sensor does not reach the bottom of the container

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion