Comparative toxicity of silicon dioxide, silver and iron oxide nanoparticles after repeated oral administration to rats

Yun, Jun Won; Kim, Seung Hyun; You, Ji Ran; Kim, Woo Ho; Jang, Ja June; Min, Sang Il; Kim, Hee Chan; Chung, Doo Hyun; Jeong, Jayoung; Kang, Byeong Cheol; Hwan, Jeong

doi:10.1002/jat.3125

Cited by 91 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…49 A study where iron oxide nanoparticles were orally administered at about 3 mg/kg body weight to rats over a 13-week period reported that they did not accumulate in tissues or produce toxicity. 54 Another rat feeding study with much higher oral dose (250-1000 mg/kg body weight) of iron oxide nanoparticles for 13-week also did not find their tissue accumulation or toxicity in both male or female rats. 50 Titanium dioxide (TiO 2 ) nanoparticles.…”

Section: Inorganic Nanoparticlesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is nano safe in foods? Establishing the factors impacting the gastrointestinal fate and toxicity of organic and inorganic food-grade nanoparticles

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanotechnology offers the food industry a number of new approaches for improving the quality, shelf life, safety, and healthiness of foods. Nevertheless, there is concern from consumers, regulatory agencies, and the food industry about potential adverse effects (toxicity) associated with the application of nanotechnology in foods. In particular, there is concern about the direct incorporation of engineered nanoparticles into foods, such as those used as delivery systems for colors, flavors, preservatives, nutrients, and nutraceuticals, or those used to modify the optical, rheological, or flow properties of foods or food packaging. This review article summarizes the application of both inorganic (silver, iron oxide, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, and zinc oxide) and organic (lipid, protein, and carbohydrate) nanoparticles in foods, highlights the most important nanoparticle characteristics that influence their behavior, discusses the importance of food matrix and gastrointestinal tract effects on nanoparticle properties, emphasizes potential toxicity mechanisms of different food-grade nanoparticles, and stresses important areas where research is still needed. The authors note that nanoparticles are already present in many natural and processed foods, and that new kinds of nanoparticles may be utilized as functional ingredients by the food industry in the future. Many of these nanoparticles are unlikely to have adverse affects on human health, but there is evidence that some of them could have harmful effects and that future studies are required.

show abstract

Section: Inorganic Nanoparticlesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is nano safe in foods? Establishing the factors impacting the gastrointestinal fate and toxicity of organic and inorganic food-grade nanoparticles

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A subchronic toxicity of red iron oxide nanoparticles (60–118 nm) was investigated by Yun et al. () in a 13‐week oral toxicity study according to the OECD TG 408 (OECD, ). Rats received daily doses of 250, 500 or 1,000 mg/kg bw per day for 13 weeks by gavage.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of iron compounds (E1) as feed additives for all species: ferric oxide based on a dossier submitted by Poortershaven Industriële Mineralen B.V.

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The additive under assessment, ferric oxide, contains between 57% and 69% iron (Fe). The EFSA FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of ferric oxide for the target animals owing to that (i) the application of ferric oxide red is for all animal species, (ii) lifetime administration to animals is not excluded and (iii) a sufficient biological and toxicological database was not available. Regarding (i) the very low absorption of iron from the ferric oxide by target animals and (ii) the homoeostatic regulation of iron metabolism in animals, any influence of feeding the ferric oxide on the iron content of edible tissues and products is not expected. The use of ferric oxide in animal nutrition is unlikely to result in a direct exposure of the consumer to this oxide. Consequently, the supplementation of feed for food‐producing animals with ferric oxide would likely not constitute a risk to consumers. Ferric oxide is an irritant to skin and eyes by mechanical action. Owing to the nickel content in the additive, the ferric oxide should be regarded as dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation of ferric oxide, and the contained chromium and nickel, is a hazard; as exposure by inhalation is likely, handling ferric oxide would be a risk for the users. As there is concern about the possible genotoxicity of ferric oxide, any route of exposure should be considered as hazardous. Iron oxides are ubiquitous in the environment. Any additional input from the nutritional use of ferric oxide in food‐producing animals is considered negligible. It is unlikely that the use of the additive in animal nutrition would pose a risk to the environment. Ferric oxide should not be considered as iron source capable to meet iron requirements of animals.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of iron oxide black, red and yellow for all animal species

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Iron oxides black, red and yellow are intended to be used as colourings to add and restore colour to feedingstuffs at a recommended concentration between 500 and 1,200 mg/kg. No data on the tolerance of target animals were provided. The iron oxides black, red and yellow are excreted essentially unchanged in the faeces of the target animals. Iron absorption from these water insoluble iron oxides is low. However, no conclusion on the safety of the iron oxides under assessment for the target animals could be made as a sufficient biological and toxicological database, particularly genotoxicity data, was not available. The use of the iron oxides in animal nutrition is unlikely to result in a direct exposure of the consumer and would not influence the iron content of edible tissues and products from animals treated with iron oxides. Consequently, the supplementation of feed for food‐producing animals with the iron oxides under assessment would not provide a risk to consumers. Iron oxide black, red and yellow should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes. In the absence of any information, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed FEEDAP cannot conclude on the potential of the additives to be a skin sensitiser. As the inhalation of iron oxides could cause unspecific lung inflammation, inhalation exposure of users should be considered to be a hazard. As there is concern about the possible genotoxicity of iron oxides, any route of exposure should be considered as hazardous. The use of iron oxide black, red and yellow in animal nutrition does not pose a risk to the environment. The iron oxides are effective in colouring feedingstuffs.

show abstract

Comparative toxicity of silicon dioxide, silver and iron oxide nanoparticles after repeated oral administration to rats

Cited by 91 publications

References 55 publications

Is nano safe in foods? Establishing the factors impacting the gastrointestinal fate and toxicity of organic and inorganic food-grade nanoparticles

Is nano safe in foods? Establishing the factors impacting the gastrointestinal fate and toxicity of organic and inorganic food-grade nanoparticles

Safety and efficacy of iron compounds (E1) as feed additives for all species: ferric oxide based on a dossier submitted by Poortershaven Industriële Mineralen B.V.

Safety and efficacy of iron oxide black, red and yellow for all animal species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About