Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles

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. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS ACCURACY OF A SMART BOTTLE IN MEASURING FLUID

INTAKE BY AMERICAN FOOTBALL PLAYERS DURING PRE-SEASON TRAINING Article Open access 14 July 2023 DESIGN RESEARCH ON A SMART INFUSION DEVICE TO REDUCE MEDICAL WORKLOAD AND ENHANCE PATIENT

SAFETY Article Open access 18 March 2025 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HYDRATION STATUS AND TOTAL FLUID INTAKE IN HEALTHY CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS Article 07 February 2023 INTRODUCTION Dehydration

is a very serious issue as it can lead to adverse complications, including confusion, falls, hospitalization, and death. Fluid intake balance is important especially among the elderly and

people with underlying conditions affecting fluid regulation. High fluid intake is recommended for patients at risk of recurring stone formation. Therefore, monitoring fluid intake is a

useful way to determine if adequate fluid has been consumed1,2. There are many reports in the literature of attempts to create systems or devices that can aide in tracking and managing fluid

intake3. Unfortunately, most of these studies have not resulted in commercially available products. The bottles that are available in the market mainly target recreational athletes or

health-conscious adults hoping to increase their hydration3. In this paper, we aim to determine if common commercially available water bottles are a viable solution for researchers and

patients alike. We compare four commercial water bottles in terms of performance and functionality. These bottles are the HidrateSpark 34, HidrateSpark Steel5, H2O Pal6 and the Thermos Smart

Lid7, as shown in Fig. 1. These were selected as they were the only four popular bottles that were (1) available to purchase in Canada and (2) had sip volume data that could be accessed via

a mobile app. Out of the aforementioned bottles, only a previous version of the HidrateSpark has been validated in research8. This study found that over a 24 h fluid intake period, the

HidrateSpark bottle was accurate in measuring total intake within 3% error8. The HidrateSpark has also been used in clinical studies to monitor intake volume in kidney stone patients9. Since

then, HidrateSpark has developed new bottles with different sensors. The H2OPal has been used in other research studies to track and promote fluid intake, but there is no specific study to

validate its performance2,10. Plecher et al. compared several commercial bottles in terms of functionality for seniors and available information online, however they did not perform any

validation on their accuracy11. All four commercial bottles include a free proprietary application to display and store intake events that are transferred via Bluetooth. The HidrateSpark 3

and the Thermos Smart Lid have the sensors down the middle of the bottle, likely using capacitive sensors, whereas the HidrateSpark Steel and H2Opal have sensors in the base, using load or

pressure sensors. The sensor locations are shown in Fig. 1 by the dashed red boxes. In the Thermos Smart Lid, the sensor does not reach the bottom of the container. METHODS Each bottle was

tested in two phases: (1) a controlled sip volume phase and (2) a free-living phase. In both phases, the results recorded by the bottle (obtained from the products’ mobile apps used on

Android 11) were compared to the ground truth obtained using a 5 kg weight scale (Starfrit Electronic Kitchen Scale 93756). All bottles were calibrated before data collection using the apps.

In Phase 1, sip sizes ranging from 10 to 100 mL in increments of 10 mL were measured in a random order, five times each—for a total of 50 measurements per bottle. These events were not

actual drinking events by a human but were poured out so the volume of each sip could be better controlled. In this phase, the bottles were recalibrated if the sip error was larger than 50 

mL and were re-paired if the app lost Bluetooth connection with the bottle. In the free-living phase, a single user drank from the bottles freely during the day, taking varying sip sizes of

their choice. This phase also consisted of 50 sips over time, but not all in succession. Therefore, each bottle had a dataset of 100 measurements in total. To determine summative liquid

intake and ensure proper daily hydration, it is more important to have an accurate volume intake detection throughout the whole day (24 h), rather than of each sip. However, to determine

just-in-time intervention prompts, there is a need for each sip to have a low error, as done in the study by Conroy et al.2. If a sip is not recorded or is poorly recorded, it is crucial

that the bottle can balance out the volume in the next recordings. Therefore, the error (measured volume − actual volume) was adjusted manually. For example, assume that the subject drinks

10 mL and the bottle reports 0 mL, but then subsequently the subject drinks 20 mL and the bottle reports 30 mL total, then the adjusted error is 0 mL. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 lists

the various performance metrics for each bottle considering both phases (100 sips). The Mean Percentage Error (MPE) per sip, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) per sip and the Cumulative MPE are

calculated as follows: $$\text{Sip} \; \text{MPE}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{({S}_{act}^{i}- {S}_{est}^{i})}{{S}_{act}^{i}}\times 100$$ $$\text{Sip} \;

\text{MAE}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|{S}_{act}^{i}- {S}_{est}^{i}\right|$$ $$\text{Cumulative} \; \text{MPE}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{({C}_{act}^{k}-

{C}_{est}^{k})}{{C}_{act}^{k}}\times 100$$ where \({S}_{act}^{i}\) and \({S}_{est}^{i}\) are the actual and estimated intake volume for \({i}_{th}\) sip, respectively and \(n\) is the total

number of sips. \({C}_{act}^{k}\) and \({C}_{est}^{k}\) represent the cumulative intake volume from the last \(k\) sips. The Sip MPE looks at the percent error for each individual sip and

the Cumulative MPE looks at the total percent error over time. According to the results in Table 1, the H2OPal has the minimum number of missed recordings, the lowest Sip MPE and the lowest

Cumulative MPE. When determining the total intake over a period of time, the Mean Error is preferred as a comparative metric over the Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Because it accounts for the

bottle’s ability to recover a poor measurement over time when recording the subsequent measurements. The sip MAE has also been included for applications where the accuracy of each sip is

important, as it calculates the absolute error of each sip. The Cumulative MPE also measures how well the measurements balance out over the entire phase and does not penalize individual

sips. Another observation was that 3 out of 4 bottles underestimated the volume intake per sip shown in Table 1 with negative numbers. The R-square Pearson correlation coefficients for all

bottles are also shown in Table 1. The HidrateSpark 3 provided the highest correlation coefficient. Although the HidrateSpark 3 had some missed recordings, the majority of those were small

sips (< 40 mL), so that it did not affect the correlation coefficient as heavily. The H2OPal and HidrateSpark Steel both had high correlations with r = 0.88, where the Thermos SmartLid

had the lowest correlation (r = 0.75). The Bland–Altman plots in Fig. 2 also confirmed that the HidrateSpark 3 had the smallest Limits of Agreements (LoA) compared to the other three

bottles. The LoA analyzes the extent to which the actual and measured values agree. In addition, almost all measurements were in the range of LoAs confirming that this bottle provides

consistent results, as shown in Fig. 2c. However, most of the values are below zero, meaning that generally the sip sizes are being underestimated. The same is true for the HidrateSpark

Steel in Fig. 2b, where most of the error values are negative. Therefore, these two bottles provided the highest MPEs and Cumulative MPEs compared to H2Opal and Thermos Smart Lid where the

errors were distributed above and below 0 as seen in Fig. 2a,d. The HidrateSpark Steel and H2OPal had similar standard deviations of 20.04 mL and 21.41 mL, respectively. Figure 2a,b also

demonstrated that the HidrateSpark Steel’s values bounced consistently around the mean but generally stayed within the LoA region, while the H2Opal had more values outside of the LoA region.

The Thermos Smart Lid had the largest standard deviation of 35.42 mL and more than 10% of measurements were outside of the LoA region shown in Fig. 2d. This bottle provided the minimum Sip

Mean Error and relatively small Cumulative MPE, despite having the highest number of missed recordings and largest standard deviation. The Thermos SmartLid had many missed recordings because

the sensor straw does not extend to the bottom of the container, causing missed recordings when the liquid contents are below the sensor stick (around 80 mL). This should lead to

underestimating the fluid intake; however, the Thermos is the only bottle that had a positive MPE and Sip Mean Error, meaning that the bottle is overestimating the fluid intake. Therefore,

the reason the Thermos had a very low mean sip error is because nearly each measurement from the bottle is a large overestimation. When these overestimations are averaged including the many

missed sips that are not recorded at all (or “underestimated”) the mean result balances out. When excluding the missed recordings from the calculation, the Sip Mean Error became + 10.38 mL,

confirming that there is a large overestimation of individual sips. Though this may appear to be positive, in reality this bottle is inaccurate in individual sips estimation and unreliable

as it misses many drinking events. Additionally, as seen in Fig. 2d, the Thermos SmartLid appears to have an increased error as the sip size increases. In summary, the H2OPal is the most

accurate at estimating sips over time and was the most reliable to measure most of the recordings. The Thermos Smart Lid was the least accurate and missed more sips than the other bottles.

The HidrateSpark 3 bottles had more consistent error values, however underestimated the majority of sips leading to poor performance throughout time. CALIBRATION The results suggest that the

bottles may have a certain offset that could be compensated using a calibration algorithm. This is especially true for the HidrateSpark bottles that have small standard deviations of errors

and always underestimate individual sips. The Least-Square (LS) method was used with Phase 1 data while excluding any missed recordings to obtain the offset and gain values. The obtained

equation was used on the measured sip intakes of Phase 2 to calculate the actual value and determine the error after calibration. Table 2 shows that the calibration improved the Sip Mean

Error for both HidrateSpark bottles, but not the H2OPal or Thermos Smart Lid. BOTTLE LIQUID LEVEL COMPARISON In Phase 1 to complete all the measurements, each bottle was refilled multiple

times so it is possible that the calculated MAE is impacted by the filled level of the bottle. To determine this, each bottle was divided into three liquid levels as high, medium, and low,

based on the total volume of each bottle. For the measurements in Phase 1, a one-way ANOVA test was performed to determine if the liquid level had a significant difference on the absolute

error. For the HidrateSpark 3 and Steel, there was no significant differences in the error in each of the three categories. For the H2OPal and the Thermos bottles, there was a borderline

significant difference (p < 0.05) using the Welsh test for unequal variance. Subsequently, a multiple comparison Tukey HSD test was performed on these two bottles. In both cases, the

significant difference was between the “high” level and the “low” level categories. For the H2OPal, the “high” category had the largest mean and standard deviation, meaning that there is a

higher error when the bottle is more filled. However, in the Thermos, the “low” category had the highest error. This is likely because the sensor does not extend to the bottom of the bottle.

REAL WORLD VS SIMULATED PHASES A two tailed t-test was conducted to compare the Phase 1 and Phase 2 errors for each bottle. For all bottles, we achieved _p_ > 0.05 meaning that the two

populations were not significantly different. However, it was observed that the number of missed recordings was much greater in Phase 2 for both HidrateSpark bottles. For the H2OPal, the

number of missed recordings were almost equal (2 vs 3), and for the Thermos SmartLid there were fewer missed recordings in free living scenario (6 vs 10). Since the HidrateSpark bottles were

both improved after calibration, a t-test was also conducted after-calibration. For the HidrateSpark 3, the Phase 1 and 2 errors were borderline significantly different (p = 0.046). This is

more likely due to the larger number of missed recordings in Phase 2 compared to Phase 1. USABILITY ANALYSIS AND LIMITATION This section provides insight on the usability of the bottles and

their apps, as well as additional functionality information. Although the accuracy of the bottles is important, the usability factors are also of interest when choosing a bottle. APP

PERFORMANCE AND FUNCTIONALITY The HidrateSpark 3 and HidrateSpark Steel are equipped with LEDs that blink to remind the users to drink if they are not on track to meet their goal, or to

blink a certain number of times a day (set by the user). They can also be set to blink every time the user drinks. The H2OPal and Thermos Smart Lid do not have any visual feedback to remind

the user to drink. However, all purchased bottles have mobile notifications to remind the users to drink via the mobile app. The number of notifications per day can be customized in the

HidrateSpark and H2OPal app. The HidrateSpark 3 and Steel use a linear trend to guide the user when to drink, and give an hourly suggested target the user should aim for to reach the goal by

the end of the day. The H2OPal and Thermos Smart Lid only provide one total daily target. In all bottles, if the device is not connected to the app by Bluetooth, the data is stored locally

and synchs once paired. None of these four bottles focuses on elderly hydration. Additionally, the formulae the bottles use to determine the daily intake goal were not available, so it is

difficult to determine if they are appropriate for seniors. The bottles are mostly large, heavy and are not tailored to seniors. The use of the mobile app may also not be ideal for seniors,

though it could be useful for researchers to collect data, remotely. HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE LIMITATIONS All bottles could not determine if the liquid was consumed, discarded or spilled. All

bottles also needed to be placed down on a surface after each sip to record the intake, accurately. This means that it is possibile to miss drinks if the bottle is not placed down,

especially if it is refilled. Another limitation is that the devices needed to be re-paired regularly with the app to synchronize the data. The Thermos needed to be re-paired every time the

app is opened, and the HidrateSpark bottles often had difficulty finding the Bluetooth connection. The H2OPal was the easiest to re-pair with the app if the connection was interrupted. All

bottles were calibrated before the testing began, and all had to be recalibrated at least once during the process. The HidrateSpark bottles and H2OPal had to be emptied and filled fully to

calibrate. All the bottles did not have the option to download or save data long term. Additionally, none were able to be accessed via an API. BATTERY The HidrateSpark 3 and H2OPal use

replaceable lithium-ion batteries and the HidrateSpark Steel and Thermos SmartLid use rechargeable batteries. The rechargeable batteries should last up to 2 weeks on a full charge, as stated

by the manufacturers, however, the Thermos SmartLid had to be charged almost every week when using it frequently. This is a limitation as many people will not remember to charge the bottles

regularly. ADDITIONAL FACTORS There are various factors that impact the selection of a smart bottle especially when the users are elderly. The heaviness and bulkiness of the bottle is an

important factor, as it needs to be easy to use for frail older adults. As mentioned, these bottles are not tailored to older adults. The price and the amount liquid each bottle can contain

is also another factor. Table 3 shows the height, weight, liquid volume and price of each bottle. The Thermos Smart Lid is the cheapest and lightest, as it is made entirely of lighter

plastic. It can also hold the most amount of liquid compared to other three bottles. Conversely, the H2OPal is the tallest, heaviest and most expensive among the study bottles. CONCLUSION

AND FUTURE WORKS Commercially available smart bottles are very useful to researchers as there is no need to prototype a new device. Though there are many smart water bottles available, the

most prevalent issue was that the data or raw signals were not accessible to the users, and only some had the results displayed in a mobile app. The development of a widely available smart

bottle with high accuracy and completely accessible data is needed, especially one tailored to older adults. Of the four bottles tested, out of the box the H2OPal had the lowest Sip MPE,

Cumulative MPE, and number of missed recordings. The HidrateSpark 3 had the highest linearity and smallest standard deviation and lowest MAE. The HidrateSpark Steel and HidrateSpark 3 can be

simply calibrated manually to decrease the Sip Mean Error using LS method. For a more accurate sip recording, the HidrateSpark 3 is the preferred bottle, and for more consistent

measurements over a period of time, the H2OPal is preferred. The Thermos SmartLid had the most unreliable performance with the most missed number of sips and a large over estimation of

individual sips. This study is not without limitations. In a real-world scenario, many users will drink from other vessels, especially for hot liquids, store bought beverages and alcohol.

Future work should evaluate how the form factor of each bottle might affect the error to guide smart water bottle design. REFERENCES * Rule, A. D., Lieske, J. C. & Pais, V. M. Jr.

Management of kidney stones in 2020. _JAMA_ 323, 1961–1962. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0662 (2020). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Conroy, D. E., West, A. B., Brunke-Reese, D.,

Thomaz, E. & Streeper, N. M. Just-in-time adaptive intervention to promote fluid consumption in patients with kidney stones. _Health Psychol._ 39, 1062 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  *

Cohen, R., Fernie, G. & Roshan Fekr, A. Fluid intake monitoring systems for the elderly: A review of the literature. _Nutrients_ 13, 2092. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13062092 (2021).

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Inc, H. HidrateSpark 3 Smart Water Bottle & Free Hydration Tracker App—Black https://hidratespark.com/products/black-hidrate-spark-3.

Accessed 21 April 2021. * HidrateSpark STEEL Insulated Stainless Steel Smart Water Bottle & App—Hidrate Inc. https://hidratespark.com/products/hidratespark-steel. Accessed 21 April 2021.

* H2Opal. https://www.h2opal.com/products/h2o-pal. Accessed 9 November 2020. * Thermos® Connected Hydration Bottle with Smart Lid. https://www.thermos.com/smartlid. Accessed 9 November

2020. * Borofsky, M. S., Dauw, C. A., York, N., Terry, C. & Lingeman, J. E. Accuracy of daily fluid intake measurements using a “smart” water bottle. _Urolithiasis_ 46, 343–348.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1006-x (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Bernard, J., Song, L., Henderson, B. & Tasian, G. E. Association between daily water intake and

24-hour urine volume among adolescents with kidney stones. _Urology_ 140, 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.024 (2020). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fallmann, S.,

Psychoula, I., Chen, L., Chen, F., Doyle, J., Triboan, D. Reality and perception: Activity monitoring and data collection within a real-world smart home. in _Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE

SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computed, Scalable Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People and Smart

City Innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI)_, 1–6 (IEEE, 2017). * Plecher, D. A. _et al._ Interactive drinking gadget for the elderly and alzheimer patients. In _Proceedings

of the Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Social Media, Games and Assistive Environments_ (eds Zhou, J. & Salvendy, G.) 444–463 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).

Google Scholar  Download references FUNDING This work was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) foundation Grant (FDN-148450). Dr Fernie receives this funding as the

Creaghan Family Chair in Prevention and Healthcare Technologies. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * The Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University

Health Network, Toronto, Canada Rachel Cohen, Geoff Fernie & Atena Roshan Fekr * Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Rachel Cohen, Geoff Fernie 

& Atena Roshan Fekr * Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Geoff Fernie Authors * Rachel Cohen View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Geoff Fernie View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Atena Roshan Fekr View author publications You can also search

for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization—R.C.; methodology—R.C., A.R.; writing—original draft preparation—R.C., A.R.; writing—review and editing, G.F., A.R.;

supervision—A.R., G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Rachel Cohen. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING

INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and

institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,

adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons

licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise

in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the

permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Cohen, R., Fernie, G. & Roshan Fekr, A. Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles. _Sci Rep_ 12, 4402 (2022).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5 Download citation * Received: 23 September 2021 * Accepted: 07 March 2022 * Published: 15 March 2022 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative