ReviewNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Toxicological Assessment of Cellulose Nanomaterials: Oral Exposure.
Review in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The effects of ingested cellulose nanomaterials on DNA methylation in intestinal cells.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2026Article
- Optimizing the implementation of safe and sustainable by design to better enable sustainable innovation.iScience · 2025Review
- Plant cell-inspired colon-targeted cargo delivery systems with dual-triggered release mechanisms.Science advances · 2025Article
- 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
- A 28-Day Repeated Oral Administration Study of Mechanically Fibrillated Cellulose Nanofibers According to OECD TG407.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Challenges of the Application of In Vitro Digestion for Nanomaterials Safety Assessment.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Important Role and Properties of Granular Nanocellulose Particles in an In Vitro Simulated Gastrointestinal System and in Lipid Digestibility and Permeability.Biomolecules · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cellulose nanomaterials (CNMs) have emerged recently as an important group of sustainable bio-based nanomaterials (NMs) with potential applications in multiple sectors, including the food, food packaging, and biomedical fields. The widening of these applications leads to increased human oral exposure to these NMs and, potentially, to adverse health outcomes. Presently, the potential hazards regarding oral exposure to CNMs are insufficiently characterised. There is a need to understand and manage the potential adverse effects that might result from the ingestion of CNMs before products using CNMs reach commercialisation. This work reviews the potential applications of CNMs in the food and biomedical sectors along with the existing toxicological in vitro and in vivo studies, while also identifying current knowledge gaps. Relevant considerations when performing toxicological studies following oral exposure to CNMs are highlighted. An increasing number of studies have been published in the last years, overall showing that ingested CNMs are not toxic to the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), suggestive of the biocompatibility of the majority of the tested CNMs. However, in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies, as well as long-term carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity studies, are not yet available. These studies are needed to support a wider use of CNMs in applications that can lead to human oral ingestion, thereby promoting a safe and sustainable-by-design approach.
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.