Journal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages -Publisher
MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23074023
Keywords
synthetic amorphous silica; food additives; toxicokinetics; tissue distribution; 28-d oral toxicity; fate
Funding
- Ministry of Food and Drug Safety [20182MFDS404]
- National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (MIST) [2021R1A2C2007192]
- Seoul Women's University [2022-0062]
- National Research Foundation of Korea [2021R1A2C2007192] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The synthesis methods of SAS can impact its oral toxicokinetics and tissue distribution, but not its oral toxicity.
(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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available