Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625658›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2018

Re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS), Maged Younes, Peter Aggett, Fernando Aguilar, Riccardo Crebelli, Birgit Dusemund, Metka Filipič, Maria Jose Frutos, Pierre Galtier, David Gott and 21 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mitigating Aflatoxin BProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 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

31 authors.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS)
Maged Younes
Peter Aggett
Fernando Aguilar
Riccardo Crebelli
Birgit Dusemund
Metka Filipič
Maria Jose Frutos
Pierre Galtier
David Gott
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Gunter Georg Kuhnle
Jean-Charles Leblanc
Inger Therese Lillegaard
Peter Moldeus
Alicja Mortensen
Agneta Oskarsson
Ivan Stankovic
Ine Waalkens-Berendsen
Rudolf Antonius Woutersen
Matthew Wright
Polly Boon
Dimitrios Chrysafidis
Rainer Gürtler
Pasquale Mosesso
Dominique Parent-Massin
Paul Tobback
Natalia Kovalkovicova
Ana Maria Rincon
Alexandra Tard
Claude Lambré

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The forms of synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) used as E 551 include fumed silica and hydrated silica (precipitated silica, silica gel and hydrous silica). The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for silicon dioxide and silicates. SAS materials used in the available biological and toxicological studies were different in their physicochemical properties; their characteristics were not always described in sufficient detail. Silicon dioxide appears to be poorly absorbed. However, silicon-containing material (in some cases presumed to be silicon dioxide) was found in some tissues. Despite the limitations in the subchronic, reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, including studies with nano silicon dioxide, there was no indication of adverse effects. E 551 does not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity. In the absence of a long-term study with nano silicon dioxide, the Panel could not extrapolate the results from the available chronic study with a material, which does not cover the full-size range of the nanoparticles that could be present in the food additive E 551, to a material complying with the current specifications for E 551. These specifications do not exclude the presence of nanoparticles. The highest exposure estimates were at least one order of magnitude lower than the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) identified (the highest doses tested). The Panel concluded that the EU specifications are insufficient to adequately characterise the food additive E 551. Clear characterisation of particle size distribution is required. Based on the available database, there was no indication for toxicity of E 551 at the reported uses and use levels. Because of the limitations in the available database, the Panel was unable to confirm the current ADI 'not specified'. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 551.

Indexed as

CAS 112926‐00‐8CAS 112945‐52‐5CAS 7631‐86‐9E 551SASsilicasilicon dioxide

Identifiers

PMID32625658
PMCPMC7009582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-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.