The healing speed of burn victims is sometimes delayed by wound inflammation caused by bacteria. Silver is sometimes used as an antimicrobial agent to kill bacteria in these instances. We recently ran across an interesting March 2006 medical case report regarding an incident of possible nanosilver uptake by a young burn victim through his wound dressings. No broad conclusions should be drawn from the anomalous article which is summarized below.
A healthy 17 year old male sustained severe burns over 30% of his body. His wounds were dressed with nanosilver wound dressings which were then changed and reapplied on the fourth and sixth days after the injury.
DuPont and Environmental Defense jointly launched their Nano Risk Framework this morning at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Two speakers from each principal introduced the framework, and were then followed by a panel discussion including three speakers representing other nanotechnology stakeholders.
Gwen Ruta, Director, Corporate Partnership Programs, ED spoke first regarding how the framework's underlying partnership came into existence. She indicated that ED first became interested in nanotechnology because of its potentially promising environmental and energy saving applications. As it explored those areas, ED also became aware of potential EHS concerns surrounding the manufacturing and use of engineered nanomaterials. ED then looked for a possible corporate partner to address nano-related EHS issues in an attempt to make sure the industry, "gets it right the first time," unlike what Ms. Ruta believes transpired with CFCs, DDT, and asbestos.
Continue Reading...Will standard air filtration techniques work with nanoparticles? This question has come up on several nanotechnology panels we have attended over the past 6 months. Here is a short lay person's analysis of the most helpful article I have found on the subject. -- Kim S., et al., "Experimental study of nanoparticles penetration through commercial filter media." Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2007) 9:117-125.
Two South Korean scientists recently published a research paper on the issue of whether different shapes of nanosilver particles have different antibacterial properties. The short answer is apparently “yes.”
See Pal, S., et al., "Does Antibacterial Activity of Silver Nanoparticles Depend on the Shape of Nanoparticle? A Study of the Gram-Negative Bacterium Eschericha coli," Applied Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 73, No. 6, 1712-20 (March 2007).
The authors started the article by noting that “silver has been employed most extensively since ancient times to fight infections and control spoilage,” and “ . . . in minute concentrations, silver is nontoxic to human cells. The epidemiological history of silver has established its non toxicity in normal use.” Their specific experiment exposed E. coli bacteria to three different shapes of nanoparticles: (1) truncated triangular nanoplates; (2) spherical; and (3) rods. Of the three shapes, the truncated triangular nanoplates had the greatest antibacterial properties.
The authors concluded that “[t]he difference in the observed trends in E. coli inhibition can be explained in terms of the percent of active facets present in nanoparticles of different shapes. Truncated triangular silver nanoplates, with {111} active facets, exhibited higher inhibition than spherical nanoparticles and pentagonal rods, both of which have primarily {100} active facets (with lesser amounts of {111} active facets). The authors speculate that "silver nanoparticles with the same surface areas but with different shapes may also have different effective surface areas in terms of active facets.”
By Tim Cahill:
A recently released study entitled Nanotechnology in Health Care to 2011 from Freedonia Group, Inc., a Cleveland-based industry research firm, reports that demand for nanotechnology medical products will increase over 17 percent per year to $53 billion in 2011 and then to more than $110 billion in 2016. The study predicts that the greatest short-term impact will be the development of nanotechnology medical products related to cancer and central nervous system disorders as well as orthopedic nanoimplants.
The report also states: "the critical need for new or improved therapies for many medical conditions will promote the adaptation of nanotechnology to an expanding number of pharmaceuticals. The total market for nanomedicines will command strong growth over the long term. Treatments based on humanized monoclonal antibodies, nanopolymers and nanoproteins will drive gains, with compounds for cancer, heart diseases, neurological disorders and viral infections leading new product introductions and growth opportunities."
Last month, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars published Terry Davies' thoughtful paper "EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century."
Among other notable credentials, Davies is a former EPA official from the Bush I administration and before that had a hand in drafting the plan that created EPA as well as in drafting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) back in the 1970s. His paper contains five sections: (I) Setting an Agenda; (II) The Current Situation; (III) Tools for Dealing with Nano; (IV) EPA in the 21st Century; and (V) Next Steps.
Each section of the paper is thoughtful and warrants separate coverage and comment, which I will not attempt here. Of primary interest to our readers are most likely the five pages on "Reforming Regulation" which appear in the "Tools for Dealing with Nano" section. In these pages Davies sets forth eight new possible federal regulatory approaches to nanotechnology. The eight approaches which are not mutually exclusive follow:
Continue Reading...A recent article in Mass High Tech magazine discusses the City of Cambridge's efforts to implement its own nanotechnology hazardous materials ordinance in response to Berkeley, California's efforts last December. Although there are some inaccuracies in the article (for example I am aware of no protests related to nanotechnology in Cambridge) the gist of the article is accurate. The City has formed an advisory panel which is going to meet for the next six months before making a recomendation to the City on whether or not to ennact a nanordinance and, if so, what it should look like. Because of the unique scientific and legal resources being applied to this process in Cambridge, the results of the advisory board process may end up being replicated on local and state(possibly federal) levels across the country. We have worked very hard to secure a spot on the City's advisory panel and to open a candid and direct dialogue with the City and its Director of Environmental Health to ensure adequate industry representation in this process. Please feel free to call or email us if you are interested in joining our industry coalition or if you would like additional information.
Ed. note: every Friday (more or less) Nanotechnology Law Report's David Fischer will look back at the week’s news and analysis of nano related issues. If you have something you’d like to bring to our attention, email him.
Several sources are reporting that the Russian Government has created a state agency to oversee nanotechnology issues. Nanowerk reports that the new government body "will ensure interaction between government, business and scientists in the implementation of the state policy in the spheres of nanotechnology and nano-industry." And, the lower house of the Russian Parliament is considering legislation that would form Russia's first nanotechnology based company.
Additionally, Small Times reports that Russian and American interests are collaborating for nanotechnology research and development as well as helping Russian counterparts present new technologies and discoveries while assisting with patent and other intellectual property protections.
This is just another example of how wide reaching nanotechnology is becoming. Beyond the Russians more fully engaging in the sector, it appears that nanotech is helping to further thaw diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia.
Zhu, X., et al., "Developmental Toxicity in Zebrafish Embryos After Exposure to Manufactured Nanomaterials: Buckminsterfullerene Aggregates and Fullerol," Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 976-979 (2007).
In this paper, several scientists test two nanomaterials -- buckyballs nC60 and fullerols C60(OH)16–18 -- on zebrafish embryos to determine whether these two particular nanomaterials are developmentally toxic under certain circumstances. The scientists purportedly eliminated material purity and solvent toxicity concerns that have plagued some prior tests, allowing them to fully focus on the nanomaterials themselves.
Measurement intervals after exposure to buckyball and fullerol nanoparticle concentrated solutions varied from 12 to 96 hours. Here are some of the findings:
- Regarding hatching rates, after 60 hours, embryos exposed to control solutions had a 44% hatching rate, compared to 0% for those exposed to the buckyball solution.
The scientists concluded: "Structurally, [fullerols are] a derivative of [buckballs] with 16 to 18 hydroxite radical groups connected by covalent bonds. This fullerol had no detectable developmental toxicity . . . similar to the results of other cytotoxicity experiments. Apparently, toxicity decreases as the number of chemical groups attached to [the buckyballs] (and their attachment symmetry) increases."
Also notable was a separate test in which the researchers exposed embryos to a solution of buckyballs and GSH (glutathione) which is a known antioxidant. With GSH added to the mix, survival rates were markedly increased (80% with GSH after 96 hours compared to 55% without GSH ), hatching rates were increased (100% survival with GSH after 96 hours compared to 15% without GSH ), slowing heartbeat rates were lessened (no slowed heart beat with GSH after 48 hours compared to 50% without GSH ), and less pericardial edema occurred (30% with GSH after 96 hours compared to 80% without GSH ). Thus, the scientists concluded that even though it “did not completely prevent embryo damage,” the “developmental toxicity of [buckyballs] was effectively attenuated by GSH.”
As is hopefully apparent to our readers, nanolawreport attempts to provide balanced coverage of nano-related EHS and legal issues. Personally, I did not think the recent Consumer Reports article "Our first tests: Nanoparticles found in many sunscreens" was particularly well-balanced.
The article implies that laboratory studies of sunscreens containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles have shown that it "damage[s] DNA of cells and possibly cause[s] other harm as well." A clearer distinction should have been drawn between lab tests of unbound zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles versus sunscreens containing those substances. There are no scientific studies showing sunscreens containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause cell DNA damage.
Further, the article refers to inhalation studies without reminding readers that it is virtually impossible to inhale nanoparticles bound in a sunscreen lotion (please let me know if you are aware of any brands of powdered sunscreen that contain nanoparticles), and also there is no evidence to suggest such nanoparticles are ever released in respirable form from sunscreen lotions actually applied to human skin.
Finally, no sunscreen can do its job if it is rarely used. The article essentially concluded that sunscreens containing nanoparticles are not truly needed without at least mentioning the potential benefit of more people using sunscreen containing nanoparticles more often because of cosmetic/appearance issues. It would have been interesting if Consumer Reports had actually surveyed consumers about which product they liked better and were more likely to use more frequently. Preferences play a huge role in whether or not a product is ultimately accepted and used.
NanoReg News recently published an article regarding NSTI's Nanotech 2007 conference which took place in Santa Clara, California during the last week of May. The article contained a nice quote from an exclusive interview with Australian nanotechnology officials regarding that country's investment in tnanotechnology, and also commented on the EHS panels occurring on the first day of the conference.
Yesterday, Inside OSHA published an article entitled "Labor Groups Begin Collecting Nanotechnology Exposure Data." The article quotes an AFL-CIO industrial hygienist as indicating the union is gathering data on workers exposed to nanomaterials in the workplace, and that it is "surveying workers to identify potential adverse effects from the controversial new technology and to track any occupational hazard trends within the industry."
The article is a little unclear in some respects. After personally speaking with the AFL-CIO industrial hygienist in question, I learned that the AFL-CIO (like many other groups) is watching nanotechnology very closely and is reviewing all new EHS information as it is published in the public domain. The scientist did not mean to imply that the AFL-CIO is currently out measuring and sampling nanoscale materials in the ambient workplace environment.
Undoubtedly, the possible EHS effects of nanotechnology will continue to be closely monitored by relevant labor groups.
Research and Market recently announced the publication of a new report addressing environmental uses and applications of nanomaterials. The report covers many applications, environmental media, and toxicology, and, "describes nanotechnologies, nanomaterials, nanotechnology companies, universities and research centers related to nanotechnologies for new environmental technologies. Areas covered by are leading edge research in emission reduction, environmental remediation and monitoring, green manufacturing, water filtration and treatment, energy conversion and storage, alternative energy and toxicology. "
The table of contents of the report is available here, and the full report can be purchased for EUR 1,584 (approximately $2,100.00).
Resources For the Future and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars co-sponsored yesterday's panel discussion "Nanotechnology and Nature: Can We Reduce Any Risks and Still Reap the Benefits?" at RFF's offices here in Washington, D.C. Panel speakers were Terry Davies (RFF), Andrew Maynard (WWC), Celia Merzbacher (White House), Marti Otto (EPA), and Jennifer Sass (NRDC).
Terry Davies initiated the panel discussion by providing some background information on nanotechnology, discussing the broadness and depth of the technology, and highlighting the dilemma of balancing nanotechnology's potential benefits against any potential EHS risks. He indicated that the industry must balance the potential costs of nanotechnology -- which he described a possibility/probability of adverse health effects arising from the use of nanomaterials in some instances against the purported benefits of the technology. Davies also referenced the WWC's catalog of consumer products that purport to employ nanotechnology, and said that the number of consumer products already claiming to employ nanotechnology shows that this controversy is not something to leave for discussion in the distant future. He also defined the basic issue at the core of this dilemma as not whether one is "for" or "against" nanotechnology, but rather the degree of caution that should be exercised as the technology is put to commercial uses. To explain his point, Davies presented a nanotechnology policy regulatory continuum familiar to those monitoring WWC's recent work -- a total moratorium at one end of the spectrum all the way to absolutely no-new regulation at the other. In between are the additional choices of a partial moratorium, totally new legislation, and "tinkering" with existing regulations. Davies should be credited with not forcing his own views on a captive audience, instead referring interested parties to his paper recently published by WWC -- "EPA and Nanotechnology Oversight for the 21st Century."
Andrew Maynard then provided general background information on what nanotechnology is, its potential benefits, and its potential risks. Regarding potential benefits, Maynard mentioned four applications: stronger, lighter materials; improved energy storage and generation; provision of clean water; and dramatic improvements in medicine. After discussing benefits, Maynard then turned to an EHS risk theme. He noted that the industry faced two types of risks -- potentially real EHS risks which are being investigated by scientists and government, and public perception of these alleged risks which needs to be equally considered. Maynard also referenced the July Consumer Report article regarding nanotechnology. He noted that the magazine compared 8 nano-based sunscreens to several "traditional" sunscreens which supposedly did not contain nanoparticles. The magazine found "traditional" sunscreens worked just as well as the nano-variety and concluded that nano-based sunscreens were not needed.
Celia Merzbacher from the White House spoke next and did a nice job of outlining federal spending and research priorities both on R&D and into the potential EHS ramifications of nanotechnology. Merzbacher highlighted the federal government's requested budget for nano-research in 2008 -- $1.5 billion total, with $60 million of this amount requested for EHS research. She also covered some of the beneficial uses of nanotechnology including solar cells, clean water technologies, thermoelectric materials, energy storage, fuel cell technology, catalysts, and nano-manufacturing. She explained the US government currently spends about 1/4 of the total world wide government funds allocated to nano-RD and is the world-leader in this regard. She closed her presentation with some examples of the EHS research being conducted by NIOSH and the National Cancer Institute, and explained how there is a parallel need for industry sponsored research regarding EHS implications of its own products and also for research collaboration by governments worldwide.
Marti Otto spoke next regarding EPA's research into various applications and implications of nanotechnology. She provided some interesting slides showing how EPA has funded various nano-related research over time, and also highlighting EPA's major position papers including its February 2007 nanotechnology white paper. Otto then described several beneficial environmental applications of nanotechnology under consideration by EPA including: use in remediation of hazardous wastes; green manufacturing; energy conservation and storage; real time monitoring and detection of pollutants in the environment; homeland security research; nano water filtration; and nano smoke stack emission mitigation. Of particular note, she mentioned EPA's efforts to use nanoscale zero valent iron particles to clean underground water plumes that may be contaminated with heavy metals.
Jennifer Sass closed the panel by advocating a limited moratorium on the use of nanomaterials in certain contexts. In keeping with NRDC's recent position paper (which we previously discussed here), she recommended prohibiting the use of "unsafe" or untested nanoparticles in consumer applications; a complete nano-life-cycle assessment before consumer products are introduced to the public; the full and meaningful participation of the public and workers in any regulatory scheme; and addressing social and ethical considerations at the same time and at the same pace at which the business side of the industry is developing. Additionally, while we disagree with her underlying premise, Ms. Sass also issued a heartfelt plea to take nanotechnology policy decision making "out of the corporate boardrooms" and into the public domain.
Counterfeiting is widespread because it is lucrative and often difficult to detect. Nanowerk highlights the use of nanotechnology in the battle against counterfeit goods. Nanoencryption provides a new option for distinguishing between genuine and counterfeit goods, particularly pharmaceuticals.
Drug counterfeiting is particularly problematic because it compromises patient safety in addition to causing monetary losses and erosion of brand value. The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest estimates that counterfeit drug sales are growing at an annual rate of about 13% – nearly the twice the growth rate of genuine pharmaceutical products – and could reach $75 billion by 2010.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.