Mutagenic investigation of peppermint oil in the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome test

Andersen, Pia Haubro; Jensen, N.J.

doi:10.1016/0165-1218(84)90080-6

Cited by 63 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…trans-Menthone [FL-no: 07.176] was genotoxic in an Ames test (Andersen and Jensen, 1984) and in a somatic mutation and recombination test (SMART) with D. melanogaster (Franzios et al, 1997). The observed effects were not very pronounced.…”

Section: Genotoxicity Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…(Andersen and Jensen, 1984) No indication of which enantiomer was used. In the absence of metabolic activation, the highest concentration was cytotoxic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chromosome aberration Human lymphocytes 0, 0.1, 1, 10 mM (1563 µg/ml 4 ) Negative 1 (Murthy et al, 1991) The study is considered valid. (Andersen and Jensen, 1984) Concentrations were selected based on preliminary experiments. In absence of metabolic activation, menthone was mutagenic only to strain TA1537 at 6.4 and 32 μg/ml (slightly less than 2-fold increase in mutation frequency), but not at higher (toxic) concentrations.…”

Section: Chromosome Aberrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 5 (FGE.09Rev5): Secondary alicyclic saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and esters containing secondary alicyclic alcohols from chemical group 8 and 30, and an ester of a phenol derivat

2014

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

None of the substances were considered to have genotoxic potential. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach (the Procedure) that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that the 21 substances 02.075, 02.135, 02.167, 06.136, 07.059, 07.109, 07.202, 07.203, 07.255, 09.154, 09.355, 09.520, 09.618, 09.619, 09.621, 09.843, 09.870, 09.929, 09.935 Seventeen of the flavouring substances have one or more chiral centres.Fourteen of the flavouring substances belong to structural class I, six belong to structural class II and one to structural class III, according to the decision tree approach presented by Cramer et al., 1978. Fourteen of the flavouring substances have been reported to occur naturally in a wide range of food items.In its evaluation, the Panel as a default used the "Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake" (MSDI) approach to estimate the per capita intakes of the flavouring substances in Europe. However, when the Panel examined the information provided by the European Flavour Industry on the use levels in various foods, it appeared obvious that the MSDI approach in a number of cases would grossly underestimate the intake by regular consumers of products flavoured at the use level reported by the Industry, especially in those cases where the annual production values were reported to be small. In consequence, the Panel had reservations about the data on use and use levels provided and the intake estimates obtained by the MSDI approach.In the absence of more precise information that would enable the Panel to make a more realistic estimate of the intakes of the flavouring substances, the Panel has decided also to perform an estimate of the daily intakes per person using a "modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake" (mTAMDI) approach based on the normal use levels reported by Industry. In those cases where the mTAMDI approach indicated that the intake of a flavouring substance might exceed its corresponding threshold of concern, the Panel decided not to carry out a formal safety assessment using the Procedure. In these cases the Panel requires more precise data on use and use levels.According to the default MSDI approach the 14 flavouring substances belonging to structural class I have intakes in Europe ranging from 0.0012 to 830 µg/capita/day, for five of the six substances from structural class II the intakes range from 0.0085 to 530 µg/capita/day, and for the substance from structural class III the intake is 1.2 µg/capita/day, which are all below their respective threshold of concern value for structural class I, II or III of 1800, 540 or 90 µg/person/day, respectively. For one substance .520] from structural class II the MSDI is 770 µg/capita/day, which is above the threshold of concern of 540 µg/person/day, however, an NOAEL provides a sufficient margin of safety and therefore do the total combined intakes of the candidate and suppor...

show abstract

Section: Genotoxicity Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…(Andersen and Jensen, 1984) No indication of which enantiomer was used. In the absence of metabolic activation, the highest concentration was cytotoxic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Chromosome Aberrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 5 (FGE.09Rev5): Secondary alicyclic saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and esters containing secondary alicyclic alcohols from chemical group 8 and 30, and an ester of a phenol derivat

2014

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Major points of this paper are summarized below. Ames Salmonella mutagenicity testing (involving strains TA 92, TA 94, TA 98, TA 100, TA 1535 and TA 1537) with d,l-menthol both in the presence and absence of an S-9 mixture for metabolic activation was reported to be negative (268,269). In a chromosome aberration test with a Chinese hamster fibroblast cell line the response was also negative (269).…”

Section: Mentholmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Additives on Cigarette Related Health Risks

Klus¹,

Scherer²,

Müller

2012

Beiträge Zur Tabakforschung International/Contributions to Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tobacco additives play an important role in the manufacturing and for the quality of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes and roll-your-own tobaccos. Attention is increasingly given to the potential effects of additives on consumer behavior and health. This review is intended to compile, collate and - to some degree - evaluate the wealth of pertinent scientific information available from the published literature and other special sources. At first, the reasons are set forth for the use of additives in cigarette manufacturing. In response to the growing controversy over the attractiveness and addictiveness of smoking, the clarification of terms and concepts is followed by a detailed discussion of two kinds of substances with particular relevance: Additives like ammonium compounds that are claimed to increase nicotine availability, and additives that are claimed to increase nicotine addictiveness.The composition and toxicity of mainstream smoke of cigarettes with and without additives are assessed in several respects. The potentials of pyrolysis studies are explored by looking at a number of key studies and some basic considerations regarding in vitro and in vivo toxicity testing are addressed. Five major literature reviews on additives published between 1994 and 2004, and the results of several comprehensive experimental studies covering a large range of additives, released between 2002 and 2012, are dealt with in detail. Single tobacco additives of particular importance (menthol, glycerol, 1,2-propylene glycol, sorbitol, sugars, cocoa, licorice, citric acid, triacetin, and ammonium compounds) are discussed in dedicated chapters, which are generally subdivided into special sections: Use and toxicological assessment; inclusion level in cigarettes, transfer and pyrolysis; attractiveness and addictiveness; effect on cigarette mainstream smoke composition; effect on cigarette mainstream smoke toxicity. Epidemiological findings and data obtained by the biomonitoring of smokers consuming cigarettes with and without additives are compiled and interpreted specifically for American blend cigarettes, Virginia cigarettes, “French” (dark) cigarettes and menthol cigarettes whereby the focus is on the effects of additives on smoking topography and potential health risks.Opinionated reviews were published in recent years that are compromised by arbitrary selection of sources and unbalanced views. Leaving those unconsidered, the aggregated scientific knowledge shows that tobacco additives have only occasional and limited effects on cigarette mainstream smoke composition, which are almost never reflected in the results of toxicological in vitro assays or in vivo studies. This supports the conclusion that tobacco additives are not likely to increase the known health risks of smoking. There is also no evidence for sustaining claims that certain additives increase nicotine availability or nicotine addictiveness.

show abstract

“…(Murthy et al, 1991) The study is considered valid. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(10):2396 (Andersen and Jensen, 1984b) Concentrations were selected based on preliminary experiments. In absence of metabolic activation, menthone was mutagenic only to strain TA1537 at 6.4 and 32 μg/ml (slightly less than 2-fold increase in mutation frequency), but not at higher (toxic) concentrations.…”

Section: Iii3 Summary and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 3 (FGE.09Rev3): Secondary alicyclic saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and esters containing secondary alicyclic alcohols from chemical group 8 and 30, and an ester of a phenol derivative from chemical group 25

2011

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate 17 flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 3, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. None of the substances were considered to have genotoxic potential. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach (the Procedure) that integrates information on structure‐activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that the 16 substances [FL‐no: 02.070, 02.075, 02.135, 02.167, 06.136, 07.203, 09.154, 09.355, 09.520, 09.618, 09.619, 09.621, 09.870, 09.929, 09.935 and 09.949] do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. For the remaining candidate substance [FL‐no: 07.207] additional toxicity data are requested (further metabolism and/or toxicity studies). Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Specifications including complete purity criteria and identity for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 17 candidate substances.

show abstract

Mutagenic investigation of peppermint oil in the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome test

Cited by 63 publications

References 3 publications

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 5 (FGE.09Rev5): Secondary alicyclic saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and esters containing secondary alicyclic alcohols from chemical group 8 and 30, and an ester of a phenol derivat

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 5 (FGE.09Rev5): Secondary alicyclic saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and esters containing secondary alicyclic alcohols from chemical group 8 and 30, and an ester of a phenol derivat

Influence of Additives on Cigarette Related Health Risks

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 9, Revision 3 (FGE.09Rev3): Secondary alicyclic saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and esters containing secondary alicyclic alcohols from chemical group 8 and 30, and an ester of a phenol derivative from chemical group 25

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About