Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29970114›Full record

ReviewParticle and fibre toxicology2018

Ingested engineered nanomaterials: state of science in nanotoxicity testing and future research needs.

Ikjot Singh Sohal, Kevin S O'Fallon, Peter Gaines, Philip Demokritou, Dhimiter Bello

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 165 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ikjot Singh SohalBiomedical Engineering & Biotechnology Program, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA. IkjotSingh_Sohal@student.uml.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0118-6129
Kevin S O'FallonNatick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA, 01760, USA.
Peter GainesDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA.
Philip DemokritouHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and the Harvard Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Dhimiter BelloBiomedical Engineering & Biotechnology Program, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA. Dhimiter_bello@uml.edu.
University of Massachusetts Lowell · USCombat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Engineered Nanomaterial Synthesis, Characterization and Method Development Center for Nano-safety ResearchU24ES026946 · NIEHS · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI DEMOKRITOU, PHILIP · 2016 to 2020
$3.8M
Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center Agreement, W911QY-14Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (US) W911QY-14-2-0001NIEHS NIH HHS U24 ES026946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEngineered nanomaterials (ENM) are used extensively in food products to fulfill a number of roles, including enhancement of color and texture, for nutritional fortification, enhanced bioavailability, improved barrier properties of packaging, and enhanced food preservation. Safety assessment of ingested engineered nanomaterials (iENM) has gained interest in the nanotoxicology community in recent years. A variety of test systems and approaches have been used for such evaluations, with in vitro monoculture cell models being the most common test systems, owing to their low cost and ease-of-use. The goal of this review is to systematically assess the current state of science in toxicological testing of iENM, with particular emphasis on model test systems, their physiological relevance, methodological strengths and challenges, realistic doses (ranges and rates), and then to identify future research needs and priorities based on these assessments.

methodsExtensive searches were conducted in Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed literature on safety assessment of iENM over the last decade, using keywords such as "nanoparticle", "food", "toxicity", and combinations thereof. Relevant literature was assessed based on a set of criteria that included the relevance of nanomaterials tested; ENM physicochemical and morphological characterization; dispersion and dosimetry in an in vitro system; dose ranges employed, the rationale and dose realism; dissolution behavior of iENM; endpoints tested, and the main findings of each study. Observations were entered into an excel spreadsheet, transferred to Origin, from where summary statistics were calculated to assess patterns, trends, and research gaps.

resultsA total of 650 peer-reviewed publications were identified from 2007 to 2017, of which 39 were deemed relevant. Only 21% of the studies used food grade nanomaterials for testing; adequate physicochemical and morphological characterization was performed in 53% of the studies. All in vitro studies lacked dosimetry and 60% of them did not provide a rationale for the doses tested and their relevance. Only 12% of the studies attempted to consider the dissolution kinetics of nanomaterials. Moreover, only 1 study attempted to prepare and characterize standardized nanoparticle dispersions.

conclusionWe identified 5 clusters of factors deemed relevant to nanotoxicology of food-grade iENM: (i) using food-grade nanomaterials for toxicity testing; (ii) performing comprehensive physicochemical and morphological characterization of iENM in the dry state, (iii) establishing standard NP dispersions and their characterization in cell culture medium, (iv) employing realistic dose ranges and standardized in vitro dosimetry models, and (v) investigating dissolution kinetics and biotransformation behavior of iENM in synthetic media representative of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract fluids, including analyses in a fasted state and in the presence of a food matrix. We discussed how these factors, when not considered thoughtfully, could influence the results and generalizability of in vitro and in vivo testing. We conclude with a set of recommendations to guide future iENM toxicity studies and to develop/adopt more relevant in vitro model systems representative of in vivo animal and human iENM exposure scenarios.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological AvailabilityFood AdditivesFood SafetyGastrointestinal TractHumansNanostructuresParticle SizeSurface PropertiesToxicity TestsFood AdditivesCaco-2Food gradeGastrointestinal tractIngested nanoparticlesTitanium dioxide E171Zinc oxide

Identifiers

PMID29970114
PMCPMC6029122
OpenAlexW2810366966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.