Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30105209›Full record

ArticleToxicology reports2018

Microcystins in water and in microalgae: Do microcystins as microalgae contaminants warrant the current public alarm?

Stefano Scoglio

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Digestive Constraints ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Stefano ScoglioNutritherapy Research Centre, Urbino, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microcystins have been the subject of increasingly alarming popular and scientific articles, which have taken as their unquestionable foundation the provisional Guideline of 1 μg/L established by the WHO Panel on microcystins levels in water, and mechanically translated by the Oregon government as 1 μg/g of Klamath Aphanizomenon flos aquae microalgae. This article underlines the significant limitations and ultimately scientific untenability of the WHO Guideline on microcystins in water, for being based on testing methodologies which may lead to a significant overestimation of the toxicity of microcystins. I propose criteria for the realization of new experimental studies on the toxicity of microcystins, based on the essential understanding that drinking water is contaminated by whole cyanobacterial microalgae rather than purified microcystins, while it is important to differentiate between water and cyanobacterial supplements. It is indeed a mistake to automatically apply standards that are proper for water to cyanobacterial supplements, as they have different concentrations of the antioxidant substances that inactivate or significantly reduce the toxicity of microcystins, a fact that also require that each cyanobacterial supplement be tested individually and through realistic testing methodologies.

Indexed as

Aphanizomenon flos aquaeChlorellaCyanobacteriaKlamath algaeMicrocystinsSpirulinaWater safety

Identifiers

PMID30105209
PMCPMC6086208
OpenAlexW2886699250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.