Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32995299›Full record

ArticleToxicology reports2020

A toxicological evaluation of a fulvic and humic acids preparation.

Timothy S Murbach, Róbert Glávits, John R Endres, Amy E Clewell, Gábor Hirka, Adél Vértesi, Erzsébet Béres, Ilona Pasics Szakonyiné

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Humic Substances as a Versatile Intermediary.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Sodium Humate Alleviates EnterotoxigenicFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  18. A Comprehensive Toxicological Assessment of Fulvic Acid.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Timothy S MurbachAIBMR Life Sciences, Inc., 1425 Broadway, Suite 458, Seattle, WA 98122, USA.
Róbert GlávitsToxi-Coop Zrt., Berlini utca 47-49, H-1045 Budapest, Hungary.
John R EndresAIBMR Life Sciences, Inc., 1425 Broadway, Suite 458, Seattle, WA 98122, USA.
Amy E ClewellAIBMR Life Sciences, Inc., 1425 Broadway, Suite 458, Seattle, WA 98122, USA.
Gábor HirkaToxi-Coop Zrt., Berlini utca 47-49, H-1045 Budapest, Hungary.
Adél VértesiToxi-Coop Zrt., Arácsi út 97, 8230 Balatonfüred, Hungary.
Erzsébet BéresToxi-Coop Zrt., Arácsi út 97, 8230 Balatonfüred, Hungary.
Ilona Pasics SzakonyinéToxi-Coop Zrt., Berlini utca 47-49, H-1045 Budapest, Hungary.
American Institute of Biological Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humic substances are ubiquitous in soils and waters. These complex superstructures are derived from the decomposition of dead plant and animal matter and are vital to soil health. Their heterogenous composition is specific to their site of origin and is comprised of weakly bound aggregates of small organic compounds that can sequester minerals and make them available to plants. As such, they may possess potential nutritional value for humans, and extractions of fulvic and humic acids can be produced that could be suitable for such purposes. For this reason, we evaluated the toxicological profile of a specific preparation (blk. 333) of fulvic and humic acids derived from a lignite deposit in Alberta, Canada and found it to lack genotoxic potential in a bacterial reverse mutation test, in vitro mammalian chromosomal aberration test, and in vivo mammalian micronucleus test. No general or organ toxicity was observed in Wistar rats following 90 days of continuous exposure, and a no observed adverse effect level (NOEAL) was determined at 2000 mg/kg bw/day, the highest tested dose. Our results suggest the feasibility of further evaluation for development of the preparation as a nutritional supplement in food.

Indexed as

ANOVA, analysis of varianceblk. 333CDFA, California Department of Food and AgriculturalCl-HA, chlorinated humic acidDME, Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’sEFSA, European Food Safety AuthorityFA, fulvic acidFOB, functional observation batteryfT4, free thyroxineFulvic acidGLP, good laboratory practiceHA, humic acidHumic acidMPCE, micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytesNOAELNOAEL, no observed adverse effect levelO3/Cl2-HA, ozonated and chlorinated humic acidO3-HA, ozonated humic acidOECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentS9, post mitochondrial supernatant S9-mix Phenobarbital/β-naphthoflavone-induced rat liver S9 metabolic activation systemSafetySCE, sister chromatid exchangeSD, Sprague-DawleySOP, standard operating procedureSPF, specific pathogen-freeTG, test guidelineToxicityTSH, thyroid stimulating hormone

Identifiers

PMID32995299
PMCPMC7505752
OpenAlexW3084769631

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.