@article{GuthHueserRothetal.2021,
  author    = {Guth, Sabine and H{\"u}ser, Stephanie and Roth, Angelika and Degen, Gisela and Diel, Patrick and Edlund, Karolina and Eisenbrand, Gerhard and Engel, Karl-Heinz and Epe, Bernd and Grune, Tilman and Heinz, Volker and Henle, Thomas and Humpf, Hans-Ulrich and J{\"a}ger, Henry and Joost, Hans-Georg and Kulling, Sabine E. and Lampen, Alfonso and Mally, Angela and Marchan, Rosemarie and Marko, Doris and M{\"u}hle, Eva and Nitsche, Michael A. and R{\"o}hrdanz, Elke and Stadler, Richard and van Thriel, Christoph and Vieths, Stefan and Vogel, Rudi F. and Wascher, Edmund and Watzl, Carsten and N{\"o}thlings, Ute and Hengstler, Jan G.},
  title     = {Contribution to the ongoing discussion on fluoride toxicity},
  series = {Archives of Toxicology},
  volume    = {95},
  journal   = {Archives of Toxicology},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {0340-5761},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00204-021-03072-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-307161},
  pages     = {2571-2587},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Since the addition of fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s, there have been frequent and sometimes heated discussions regarding its benefits and risks. In a recently published review, we addressed the question if current exposure levels in Europe represent a risk to human health. This review was discussed in an editorial asking why we did not calculate benchmark doses (BMD) of fluoride neurotoxicity for humans. Here, we address the question, why it is problematic to calculate BMDs based on the currently available data. Briefly, the conclusions of the available studies are not homogeneous, reporting negative as well as positive results; moreover, the positive studies lack control of confounding factors such as the influence of well-known neurotoxicants. We also discuss the limitations of several further epidemiological studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria of our review. Finally, it is important to not only focus on epidemiological studies. Rather, risk analysis should consider all available data, including epidemiological, animal, as well as in vitro studies. Despite remaining uncertainties, the totality of evidence does not support the notion that fluoride should be considered a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RychlikHumpfMarkoetal.2014,
  author    = {Rychlik, Michael and Humpf, Hans-Ulrich and Marko, Doris and D{\"a}nicke, Sven and Mally, Angela and Berthiller, Franz and Klaffke, Horst and Lorenz, Nicole},
  title     = {Proposal of a comprehensive definition of modified and other forms of mycotoxins including "masked" mycotoxins},
  series = {Mycotoxin Research},
  volume    = {30},
  journal   = {Mycotoxin Research},
  number    = {4},
  doi       = {10.1007/s12550-014-0203-5},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-121240},
  pages     = {197-205},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {As the term "masked mycotoxins" encompasses only conjugated mycotoxins generated by plants and no other possible forms of mycotoxins and their modifications, we hereby propose for all these forms a systematic definition consisting of four hierarchic levels. The highest level differentiates the free and unmodified forms of mycotoxins from those being matrix-associated and from those being modified in their chemical structure. The following lower levels further differentiate, in particular, "modified mycotoxins" into "biologically modified" and "chemically modified" with all variations of metabolites of the former and dividing the latter into "thermally formed" and "non-thermally formed" ones. To harmonize future scientific wording and subsequent legislation, we suggest that the term "modified mycotoxins" should be used in the future and the term "masked mycotoxins" to be kept for the fraction of biologically modified mycotoxins that were conjugated by plants.},
  language  = {en}
}