Risk assessment quantifies fluoride in tea and assesses health risks for consumers, indicating safety for typical intake.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring element present in water, soil, food, and various consumer products. While it is essential for dental health at low levels, excessive intake may cause dental and skeletal fluorosis and other adverse health effects. Tea (Camellia sinensis) is a relevant dietary source of fluoride due to its accumulation in leaves during growth. This study quantified fluoride concentrations in commercially available black and green teas and assessed associated non-carcinogenic health risks using deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Twelve tea samples (five black and seven green) were analyzed using potentiometric measurement after infusion times of 3, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Mean fluoride concentrations were 5.56 ± 1.94 mg/L in black teas and 3.90 ± 2.09 mg/L in green teas, with substantial inter-sample variability and no consistent time-dependent trend across the dataset. Individual samples showed heterogeneous extraction behavior, with both increasing and decreasing patterns observed. Deterministic risk assessment indicated that estimated daily intake (EDI) values resulted in hazard quotients (HQ) below 1 for all samples and infusion times, suggesting no significant non-carcinogenic risk under typical exposure conditions. Monte Carlo simulation (70,000 iterations) showed that mean and median exposure estimates remained within acceptable limits; however, HQ values exceeding 1 at higher percentiles indicated potential concern for a small subgroup of high consumers under high-end exposure scenarios. These findings indicate that tea can contribute to dietary fluoride exposure, although typical consumption of the analyzed products does not represent a significant health risk. The results highlight the importance of probabilistic risk assessment and continued monitoring of fluoride levels in tea products to better characterize population-level exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kajtazović et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: