4.8 Review

Safety assessment of nanoparticles in food: Current status and prospective

期刊

NANO TODAY
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nantod.2021.101169

关键词

Food; Nanoparticles; Toxicity; Safety assessment

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China of Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2017YFC1600200]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB36000000]
  3. Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province [2020B0101020001]
  4. National Nature Science Foundation of China [31971318, 3191153018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Safety assessments of nanoparticles in food are crucial for public health, but current reliance on traditional toxicological assessments leads to uncertainties and limits accuracy. Developing scientific evaluation procedures is necessary for safeguarding supervision and maintaining public health.
Safety assessments of nanoparticles (NPs) in food are essential for safeguarding supervision and maintaining public health. However, there are still no safety assessment procedures for NPs established at the national level in China and no specific toxicology and safety assessment procedures concerning NPs in food. Current methods of evaluating the safety of NPs mainly rely on traditional toxicological assessments that are extrapolated based on animal experiments from high doses to low doses and from animals to humans. This leads to uncertainties which restrict the accuracy of safety assessments for NPs, and limit the development of scientific and effective evaluation procedures and regulatory measures. This review summarizes relevant research on the application and toxicity of NPs in food as well as current administrative and regulatory issues concerning NPs in food in China and some developed countries. As such, a scientific basis is provided for the future development of evaluation procedures for NPs in food. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据