ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Oral Toxicokinetics, Tissue Distribution, and 28-Day Oral Toxicity of Two Differently Manufactured Food Additive Silicon Dioxides.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanoparticle approaches for hepatitis therapy and clinical translation.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Oral Excretion Kinetics of Food-Additive Silicon Dioxides and Their Effect on In Vivo Macrophage Activation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) is widely used as a food additive and contains nano-sized particles. SAS can be produced by fumed and precipitated methods, which may possess different physiochemical properties, toxicokinetics, and oral toxicity. (2) Methods: The toxicokinetics of fumed SAS and precipitated SAS were evaluated following a single-dose oral administration in rats. The tissue distribution and fate of both SAS particles were assessed after repeated oral administration in rats for 28 d, followed by recovery period for 90 d. Their 28-d repeated oral toxicity was also evaluated. (3) Results: Precipitated SAS showed higher oral absorption than fumed SAS, but the oral absorption of both SAS particles was low (<4%), even at 2000 mg/kg. Our tissue-distribution study revealed that both SAS particles, at a high dose (2000 mg/kg), were accumulated in the liver after repeated administration for 28 d, but the increased concentrations returned to normal levels at 29 d, the first day of the recovery period. A higher distribution level of precipitated SAS than fumed SAS and decomposed particle fates of both SAS particles were found in the liver at 28 d. No significant toxicological findings were observed after 28-d oral administration, suggesting their low oral toxicity. (4) Conclusions: Different manufacturing methods of SAS can, therefore, affect its oral toxicokinetics and tissue distribution, but not oral toxicity.
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.