ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Evaluation of the Suitability of Mammalian
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- From "Undetectable" to "Sensitive Detection": Advances in Derivatization Techniques for LC-MS Analysis of Genotoxic Impurities.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Preclinical research models for evaluating the biocompatibility of bioresorbable metallic cardiovascular stents: A comparative review.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Disinfection Byproducts Confirmed over 50 Years: Systematic Curation, Modes of Toxic Action, and Toxicogenomics.Environmental science & technology · 2025Review
- Toxicological assessment of novel Anti-COVID traditional Chinese medicine formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102: a comprehensive study on safety and genotoxicity.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tert-butylhydroquinone, butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl gallate as synthetic food antioxidants.Food science & nutrition · 2024Review
- Online and Offline Prioritization of Chemicals of Interest in Suspect Screening and Non-targeted Screening with High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry.Analytical chemistry · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Direct Comparison of the Lowest Effect Concentrations of Mutagenic Reference Substances in Two Ames Test Formats.Toxics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-targeted screening of food contact materials (FCM) for non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) reveals a great number of unknown and unidentified substances present at low concentrations. In the absence of toxicological data, the application of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) or of EU Regulation 10/2011 requires methods able to fulfill safety threshold criteria. In this review, mammalian
resultsThe ability of the assays to detect genotoxic effects varies greatly between substance classes. Especially for direct-acting mutagens, the assays lacked the ability to detect most DNA reactive substances below the threshold of 10 ppb, making them unsuitable to pick up potential genotoxicants present in FCM migrates. However, suitability for the detection of chromosomal damage or investigation of other modes of action makes them a complementary tool as part of a standard test battery aimed at giving additional information to ensure safety.
conclusionimprovements are necessary to comply with regulatory thresholds to consider mammalian genotoxicity
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.