Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27699444›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2016

The safety of nanostructured synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) as a food additive (E 551).

Claudia Fruijtier-Pölloth

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. SBA-15- and SBA-16-Functionalized Silicas as New Carriers of Niacinamide.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Plasma Functionalization of Silica Bilayer Polymorphs.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Claudia Fruijtier-PöllothCATS Consultants GmbH, Ussenried 7, 87463, Dietmannsried, Germany. claudia@catsconsultants.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9567-7935
Itasca Consultants (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messagesParticle sizes of E 551 products are in the micrometre range. The typical external diameters of the constituent particles (aggregates) are greater than 100 nm. E 551 does not break down under acidic conditions such as in the stomach, but may release dissolved silica in environments with higher pH such as the intestinal tract. E 551 is one of the toxicologically most intensively studied substances and has not shown any relevant systemic or local toxicity after oral exposure. Synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) meeting the specifications for use as a food additive (E 551) is and has always been produced by the same two production methods: the thermal and the wet processes, resulting in E 551 products consisting of particles typically in the micrometre size range. The constituent particles (aggregates) are typically larger than 100 nm and do not contain discernible primary particles. Particle sizes above 100 nm are necessary for E 551 to fulfil its technical function as spacer between food particles, thus avoiding the caking of food particles. Based on an in-depth review of the available toxicological information and intake data, it is concluded that the SAS products specified for use as food additive E 551 do not cause adverse effects in oral repeated-dose studies including doses that exceed current OECD guideline recommendations. In particular, there is no evidence for liver toxicity after oral intake. No adverse effects have been found in oral fertility and developmental toxicity studies, nor are there any indications from in vivo studies for an immunotoxic or neurotoxic effect. SAS is neither mutagenic nor genotoxic in vivo. In intact cells, a direct interaction of unlabelled and unmodified SAS with DNA was never found. Differences in the magnitude of biological responses between pyrogenic and precipitated silica described in some in vitro studies with murine macrophages at exaggerated exposure levels seem to be related to interactions with cell culture proteins and cell membranes. The in vivo studies do not indicate that there is a toxicologically relevant difference between SAS products after oral exposure. It is noted that any silicon dioxide product not meeting established specifications, and/or produced to provide new functionality in food, requires its own specific safety and risk assessment.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeAnimalsCalcium CompoundsEuropean UnionFood AdditivesFood TechnologyHumansNanostructuresParticle SizeSilicatesSilicon DioxideSurface PropertiesToxicity TestsCalcium Compoundscalcium silicateFood AdditivesSilicatesSilicon DioxideE 551Food safetyNanostructuredSASSilicon dioxideSynthetic amorphous silica

Identifiers

PMID27699444
PMCPMC5104814
OpenAlexW2529755146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.