ArticleJournal of food science2025
Compatibility and interference of food simulants and organic solvents with the in vitro toxicological assessment of food contact materials.
Article in Journal of food science, 2025. 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.
- Phthalates: the interplay between diet, obesity, diabetes, and gut microbiota.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Advances in Cytotoxicity Testing: From In Vitro Assays to In Silico Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Compatibility and interference of food simulants and organic solvents with the in vitro toxicological assessment of food contact materials.Journal of food science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensuring the safety of food contact materials (FCMs) is paramount, governed by regulations such as Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 and Commission Regulation (European Union [EU]) 10/2011 for plastic FCMs. This study evaluates the compatibility of food simulants specified in the latter regulation with in vitro biological testing. HepG2 and Caco-2 cell lines were exposed to various concentrations of ethanol and acetic acid. Maximum tolerable amounts of food simulants A, C, and D1 (10%, 20%, and 50% v/v ethanol) were specified at 0.5%, 1.25%, and 2.5%. Food simulant E, Tenax, requires an additional extraction step for the recovery of migrants. An acetone-methanol mixture was selected for its ability to recover both polar and apolar potential migrants. The mixture exerted cytotoxic effects at combined concentrations above 0.5% v/v (0.25% each). Ethanol (Simulants A, C, and D1) interfered with the neutral red uptake (NRU) assay at concentrations above 0.5% v/v, showing no changes in cell viability despite increasing concentrations. Acetic acid (Simulant B) interfered with the NRU assay at 0.5% v/v and lactate dehydrogenase assay at all concentrations, resulting in negative cytotoxicity values due to pH reduction in the exposure medium. Additionally, sample preparation does not interfere with genotoxicity testing, aligning with the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)'s mandatory testing requirements.
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.