Safety Profile
Known Safety Concerns
- Hepatotoxicity approaching or exceeding UL (10 mg/day)
- Elevated copper implicated in Alzheimer disease progression
- Oxidative stress from free copper ions
- Unnecessary for most individuals with a balanced diet
Contraindications
- Hepatotoxicity approaching or exceeding UL (10 mg/day)
- Elevated copper implicated in Alzheimer disease progression
Interactions
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Evidence and Scientific Findings
Ingredient Overview
Copper gluconate is commonly added to supplements to counteract zinc-induced copper depletion. Excess copper causes hepatotoxicity and oxidative stress. Elevated copper has been implicated in Alzheimer disease progression. The UL is 10 mg per day. Most people obtain adequate copper through diet and do not require supplementation.
Biological and Chemical Classification
- Scientific Name
- Copper gluconate
Mechanism of Action
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Pharmacokinetics
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Recommended Dosage
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
SETI — Scientific Evidence Transparency Index
Executive Summary — Ingredient Assessment
- 10 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or RCT)
- Main clinical benefit observed: Mineral
- Evidence consistency: High consistency across studies (100%)
- Hepatotoxicity approaching or exceeding UL (10 mg/day)
- Elevated copper implicated in Alzheimer disease progression
- Oxidative stress from free copper ions
- Unnecessary for most individuals with a balanced diet
The available scientific evidence for Copper Gluconate indicates notable safety signals that warrant caution. Use should be considered carefully and monitored, particularly in sensitive populations or alongside other medications.
Total SETI Score
High risk| Evidence quality | 10/40 |
| Evidence consistency | 20/20 |
| Safety signals | 0/20 |
| Study recency | 10/10 |
| Evidence transparency | 10/10 |
Evidence Summary
- 10 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or systematic review)
- 0 studies identified benefits or no safety concern (GREEN)
- 10 studies reported limited or advisory safety evidence (YELLOW)
Evidence Policy
Only peer-reviewed scientific literature indexed in PubMed or comparable databases is included in this evaluation. Commercial websites, blogs, and marketing materials are excluded. All references include direct traceable links to source documents.
Last updated: 24 მარ 2026, 16:36
Evidence Distribution
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWCopper gluconate drives adherent-invasive Escherichia coli LF82 into a viable-but-non-culturable state: Mechanisms of persistence and susceptibility. ↗An Z et al.. Copper gluconate drives adherent-invasive Escherichia coli LF82 into a viable-but-non-culturable state: Mechanisms of persistence and susceptibility.. Microbiol Res. 2026. PMID:41619420.PMID 41619420 ↗Journal Microbiol ResYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41619420/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWPoor Vision from Copper Deficiency. ↗Klevay LM. Poor Vision from Copper Deficiency.. Curr Nutr Rep. 2025. PMID:41269469.PMID 41269469 ↗Journal Curr Nutr RepYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41269469/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEvidence-Based Management of Box Jellyfish Stings. ↗Yanagihara AA et al.. Evidence-Based Management of Box Jellyfish Stings.. Mil Med. 2025. PMID:40984166.PMID 40984166 ↗Journal Mil MedYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40984166/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWAssessing the Utility of Broad-Acting Inhibitors as Therapeutics in Diverse Venoms. ↗Kadler R et al.. Assessing the Utility of Broad-Acting Inhibitors as Therapeutics in Diverse Venoms.. Toxins (Basel). 2025. PMID:40278686.PMID 40278686 ↗Journal Toxins (Basel)Year 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40278686/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWA Sustainable and Scalable Approach for In Situ Induction of Gradient Nucleation Sites in Biomass-Derived Interface Layers for Ultra-Stable Aqueous Zinc Metal… ↗Liu X et al.. A Sustainable and Scalable Approach for In Situ Induction of Gradient Nucleation Sites in Biomass-Derived Interface Layers for Ultra-Stable Aqueous Zinc Metal Batteries.. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2025. PMID:40130742.PMID 40130742 ↗Journal Angew Chem Int Ed EnglYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40130742/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWDisulfiram-Copper Potentiates Anticancer Efficacy of Standard Chemotherapy Drugs in Bladder Cancer Animal Model through ROS-Autophagy-Ferroptosis Signalling Cascade. ↗Sharma N et al.. Disulfiram-Copper Potentiates Anticancer Efficacy of Standard Chemotherapy Drugs in Bladder Cancer Animal Model through ROS-Autophagy-Ferroptosis Signalling Cascade.. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2025. PMID:39323342.PMID 39323342 ↗Journal Curr Cancer Drug TargetsYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39323342/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWZinc gluconate protects against plant virus infection in tomato and Nicotiana benthamiana plants. ↗Narusaka M et al.. Zinc gluconate protects against plant virus infection in tomato and Nicotiana benthamiana plants.. Plant Biotechnol (Tokyo). 2024. PMID:40083575.PMID 40083575 ↗Journal Plant Biotechnol (Tokyo)Year 2024Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40083575/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWPLGA-Nano-Encapsulated Disulfiram Inhibits Cancer Stem Cells and Targets Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer In Vitro and In Vivo. ↗Butcher K et al.. PLGA-Nano-Encapsulated Disulfiram Inhibits Cancer Stem Cells and Targets Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer In Vitro and In Vivo.. Biomolecules. 2024. PMID:39766358.PMID 39766358 ↗Journal BiomoleculesYear 2024Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39766358/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEvaluation of size-based distribution of components in VYXEOSu00ae liposomal formulation using asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation. ↗Siriwardane DA et al.. Evaluation of size-based distribution of components in VYXEOSu00ae liposomal formulation using asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation.. J Chromatogr A. 2024. PMID:39515205.PMID 39515205 ↗Journal J Chromatogr AYear 2024Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39515205/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWThe combination therapy using tyrosine kinase receptors inhibitors and repurposed drugs to target patient-derived glioblastoma stem cells. ↗Kucinska M et al.. The combination therapy using tyrosine kinase receptors inhibitors and repurposed drugs to target patient-derived glioblastoma stem cells.. Biomed Pharmacother. 2024. PMID:38876048.PMID 38876048 ↗Journal Biomed PharmacotherYear 2024Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38876048/
Score Transparency
0 of 10 approved references (score saturates at 10). More peer-reviewed studies = stronger evidence base.
Method: Q = number of approved references ÷ 10 (capped at 1.0)
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies
Method: L = mean study-level weight across approved references. Level 1 (meta-analysis / systematic review) = 1.0; Level 2 (RCT) = 0.8; Level 3 (cohort/case-control) = 0.6; Level 4 (case report) = 0.4; Level 5 (animal / in-vitro) = 0.2.
Mixed or neutral — roughly equal benefit and risk signals
Method: D = (sum of risk-scored references − sum of benefit-scored references) ÷ total evidence score, then scaled from [−1, 1] to [0, 1]. 0.0 = pure benefit; 0.5 = neutral; 1.0 = pure risk.
One or more monitoring-level safety signals active
Method: S = 0.5 (neutral baseline) + sum of active signal severity deltas ÷ 10. Severity deltas: Critical = +2.0, High = +1.5, Moderate = +1.0, Low = +0.5. Capped at 1.0.
Final GIRI Score for Copper Gluconate. Risk level thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
Full methodology & data sources
The GIRI Score is computed entirely from structured data — no editorial scoring or subjective weighting is applied at any step.
- References: Only approved references are counted. Each reference is assigned an evidence level (L1–L5) and a direction (risk / neutral / benefit) by the reference manager or AI classifier.
- Safety Signals: Sourced from regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others) and pharmacovigilance databases. Only active signals count toward the score.
- Formula version: GIRI Score v3.7.0 — Q × L × D × S × 10.
- Limitations: The score reflects published evidence and recorded signals as of the last update date. It is not a clinical risk assessment and should not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
Risk Level Classification
Based on available regulatory signals and scientific evidence, this ingredient presents a moderate safety concern. Caution is advised, particularly at high doses or in sensitive populations.
0–3.0
3.0–5.5
5.5–7.5
7.5–10
The score pin shows exactly where this ingredient falls on the fixed risk scale.
What drove the Moderate classification for Copper Gluconate
A score of 4.0 places this ingredient in the Moderate band. Thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
0 approved references.
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies (Level 4–5).
Neutral or mixed — benefit and risk signals roughly balanced.
No active signals — S component is at neutral baseline (0.5), contributing no extra risk weight.
No major regulatory restrictions or advisories recorded across monitored jurisdictions (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others).
How are the Low / Moderate / High / Critical thresholds defined?
The four risk levels are fixed score bands. A score is assigned to exactly one level based on where it falls:
| Level | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | 0.0 – 2.9 | Sparse or predominantly beneficial evidence. No active safety alerts. |
| MODERATE | 3.0 – 5.4 | Mixed signals — some risk alongside benefit. Caution at high doses or in sensitive groups. |
| HIGH | 5.5 – 7.4 | Multiple studies or regulatory alerts documenting adverse effects. Professional oversight recommended. |
| CRITICAL | 7.5 – 10 | Regulatory restrictions in one or more major jurisdictions. Serious documented harm. Avoid without specialist supervision. |
Thresholds are fixed constants (GIRI_Score_Utils::LEVEL_THRESHOLDS). They do not change per ingredient and are never subject to editorial adjustment.