ArticleToxicology research2020
Physical, chemical, and toxicological characterization of fibrillated forms of cellulose using an
Article in Toxicology research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Life-Cycle Risk Assessment of Second-Generation Cellulose Nanomaterials.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the cyto- and genotoxicity of two types of cellulose nanomaterials using human intestinal cells and in vitro digestion simulation.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Toxicological Assessment of Cellulose Nanomaterials: Oral Exposure.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Fluorescently Labeled Cellulose Nanofibers for Environmental Health and Safety Studies.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Physical, chemical, and toxicological characterization of sulfated cellulose nanocrystals for food-related applications usingToxicology research · 2020Article
- A 90-day dietary study with fibrillated cellulose in Sprague-Dawley rats.Toxicology reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fibrillated cellulose is a next-generation material in development for a variety of applications, including use in food and food-contact materials. An alternative testing strategy including simulated digestion was developed to compare the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of seven different types of fibrillated cellulose, following European Food Safety Authority guidance. Fibrillated forms were compared to a conventional form of cellulose which has been used in food for over 85 years and has Generally Recognized as safe regulatory status in the USA. The physical and chemical characterization of fibrillated celluloses demonstrate that these materials are similar physically and chemically, which composed of the same fundamental molecular structure and exhibit similar morphology, size, size distribution, surface charge, and low levels of impurities. Simulated gastrointestinal and lysosomal digestions demonstrate that these physical and chemical similarities remain following exposure to conditions that mimic the gastrointestinal tract or intracellular lysosomes. A toxicological investigation with an advanced intestinal co-culture model found that exposure to each of the fibrillated and conventional forms of cellulose, in either the pristine or digested form at 0.4% by weight, showed no adverse toxicological effects including cytotoxicity, barrier integrity, oxidative stress, or inflammation. The results demonstrate the physical, chemical, and biological similarities of these materials and provide substantive evidence to support their grouping and ability to read-across data as part of a food safety demonstration.
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.