Impact of food grade and nano-TiO2 particles on a human intestinal community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles (NPs) are used as an additive (E171 or INS171) in foods such as gum, candy and puddings. To address concerns about the potential hazardous effects of ingested NPs, the toxicity of these food-grade NPs was investigated with a defined model intestinal bacterial community. Each titania preparation (food-grade TiO2 formulations, E171-1 and E171-6a) was tested at concentrations equivalent to those found in the human intestine after sampling 1–2 pieces of gum or candy (100–250 ppm). At the low concentrations used, neither the TiO2 food additives nor control TiO2 NPs had an impact on gas production and only a minor effect on fatty acids profiles (C16:00, C18:00, 15:1 w5c, 18:1 w9c and 18:1 w9c, p < 0.05). DNA profiles and phylogenetic distributions confirmed limited effects on the bacterial community, with a modest decrease in the relative abundance of the dominant Bacteroides ovatus in favor of Clostridium cocleatum (−13% and +14% respectively, p < 0.05). Such minor shifts in the treated consortia suggest that food grade and nano-TiO2 particles do not have a major effect on human gut microbiota when tested in vitro at relevant low concentrations. However, the cumulative effects of chronic TiO2 NP ingestion remain to be tested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".