4.5 Article

Toxicity of food contact paper evaluated by combined biological and chemical methods

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 59, Issue -, Pages 26-34

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2019.04.001

Keywords

Paper-based; Food contact material; Cytotoxicity; Reconstructed human intestine model; Endocrine disruption; Chemical analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. ERDF/ESF project International competitiveness of NIPH in research, development and education in alternative toxicological methods [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000860]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study was focused on assessment of potential health risks of paper-based food contact materials (FCMs) in a step-wise approach using three toxicological bioassays in vitro and chemical analyses of migrating contaminants. 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity test showed high sensitivity to detect basal toxicity of FCMs extracts and served as a firstline test for selection of samples for further testing. The reconstructed human intestine model EpiIntestinal showed more realistic tissue response than cell culture monolayer and higher resistance despite prolonged exposure to the selected 6 samples, i.e. negligible decrease of viability and intestinal penetration, nevertheless an increase of IL-8 after exposure to black printed sample extract. Yeast based assays identified weak agonistic/antagonostic activity to human androgen receptor of the black printed sample. In accordance with the biological effects, the targeted LC and GC analytical methods confirmed the presence of high amounts of phthalates, photoinitiators and PAHs that could justify the hazard of the black printed sample. Heavily printed uncoated FCMs are recognized not to be suitable for direct contact with food. The selected bioassays and chemical analyses might be useful tools to detect targeted biological effects of xenobiotics suspected to contribute to human exposure from food.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available