Nobel Prize in Nanotechnology...Hmmmmm
While this is just a guess, you may see the "Nobel Prize in Nanotechnology" very soon. Here's what we know:
Continue Reading...
Lab Experiments Suggest "Buckyballs" Not Toxic
Recent experiments involving "in vivo" testing of C-60 fullerenes, or "buckyballs" appears to conflicts with prior, "in vitro" tests and shows that the nanomaterials may not be toxic when inhaled. Scientists at DuPont conducted experiments on lab rats by implanting the C-60 compound into the rats' tracheas and then looked for signs of damage.
Continue Reading...
Antimicrobial Nano-Neckties
.jpg)
Yesterday's Science Letter reports about SafeSmart’s new antimicrobial necktie which is designed to reduce “the speed of infectious disease and foodborne illnesses in healthcare, hospitality and food service settings.” Although not initially instinctive, contaminated neckties evidently pose a significant risk of infection in certain settings. For example, the article points to a 2004 presentation at an American Society for Microbiology conference in which the speaker explained “doctors’ neckties were eight times more likely to carry bacteria and spread infections than ties worn by hospital workers who did not have contact with patients.” SmartSafe’s website does not indicate the specific antimicrobial nanoparticles used to coat the neckties. However, SmartSafe claims cytotoxicity testing has shown its neckties to be 100% safe. The silk ties come in 24 different patterns including solids, stripes, and “practical patterns.” SafeSmart can also custom make the ties with your company logo. There is no mention on SmartSafe’s website as to whether the company has attempted to register the product with EPA under FIFRA. (See prior posts here, here, here, here, and here).
Nanohorn Toxicity Study
Research scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory are publishing the results of their recent in vivo pulmonary toxicity testing of single-walled carbon nanohorns (SWCNHs) in the next print edition of Nanotoxicology.
R. Lynch, et al., “Assessing the pulmonary toxicity of single-walled carbon nanohorns,” Nanotoxicology, Month 2007; 00(0):1-10 (forthcoming).
The scientists explored the toxicity of SWCNHs because prior toxicity testing of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) indicated in certain circumstances SWCNTs can be more toxic than both MWCNTs and/or fullerenes. Accordingly, the authors theorized "the results from previous SWCNT toxicity studies do not immediately imply the toxicity of other carbon based nanoparticles,” and “the potential toxicity of a nanomaterial cannot be inferred from its elemental composition alone.”
Regarding the test material, the scientists described it as self-aggregated SWCNHs formed into 80-100nm structures with the tips of the individual nanohorns projecting outward from the center in all directions. The researchers chose an inhalation exposure route because of concerns that nanoparticle aerosols may deposit in the alveolar lung regions and may not be expelled through normal lung clearing mechanisms. The article explained that this can lead to oxidative stress and pulmonary inflammation, which can in turn trigger fibrotic change and loss of pulmonary function.
Regarding the test itself, lab mice were subjected to 30 mg of surfactant-suspended SWCNHs through pharyngeal aspiration for 24 hour and 7 day intervals. The scientists selected a 30 mg dose because Shredova (2005) determined mouse exposure to a 20 mg dose of SWCNTs is equivalent to human exposure to 20 eight hour workdays of graphite particles at OSHA permissible exposure limits.
The results were an “early but mild inflammatory response which is primarily resolved by 7 days post-exposure.” Lung microarray analysis showed no robust changes in gene expression, and histological analysis showed no evidence of granuloma formation or fibrosis. However, the researchers noted the lungs of exposed mice were slightly darker than those of non-exposed mice 7 days out, “indicating that the nanoparticles were well distributed through the lung and that complete clearance of SWCNHs had not occurred.”
The scientists concluded “[t]here combined results suggest that SWCNH is a relatively innocuous nanomaterial when delivery to mice in vivo using aspiration as a delivery mechanism.”
Welcome to SAFENANO.org
In the ever growing world of nanotechnology information and research, and new system was launched earlier this week. SAFENANO is attempting to become "the UK's premier resource on nanotechnology hazard and risk." It is managed by the United Kingdom's Institute for Occupational Medicine located in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Continue Reading...Some MSDS Guidance for Nanomaterials
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has published the material safety and data sheets (“MSDS”) for four commercial nanoscale materials on its website. The four MSDS provide manufacturers with an example of how other companies are treating nanoscale materials for disclosure purposes.
Three of the MSDS cover quantum dot products from Evident Technologies in Troy, New York. The MSDS for all three quantum dots use existing CAS numbers from their parent/bulk counterparts for identification purposes. (Links are here, here, and here). Cadmium Selenide quantum dots are labeled with a 1306-24-7 CAS number, while Lead Selenide quantum dots are labeled with a 12069-00-0 CAS number. Exposure limits for bulk/parent materials are also used, and traditional environmental controls and personal protective devices/clothing are recommended. However, Evident Technologies also explains that “to the best of our knowledge the acute and chronic toxicity of [this substance] is not fully known. [This substance] in the form of nanocrystal may or may not represent the same health hazards as a larger [this substance] containing molecules. It is therefore encouraged to use caution when handling this product as its toxicity and modes of exposure are not well characterized or understood.”
The fourth MSDS covers single wall carbon nanotubes produced by HELIX Material Solutions, Inc., in Richardson, Texas. HELIX's MSDS uses the existing CAS number 7782-42-5 (graphite), and notes the bulk/parent material is listed and regulated under TSCA. The MSDS also indicates there are no known toxicological hazards associated with the material, but points out that data on potential ecological impacts remains unknown. HELIX warns users to “avoid handling material in presence of air drafts or near fans,” and also recommends the use of standard exposure controls and personal protective devices.
EU Nanopackaging Initiative
Food & Drug Packaging recently reported the EU is funding a four-year $48.4 million project (“SustainPack") to develop biodegradable packaging using nanocale additives with existing packaging materials. The envisioned nano-packaging would be stronger, present greater barriers to grease and other substances, and would keep food fresher for a longer period of time. Friends of the Earth has condemned the initiative, as well as the current use of nanoscale silver in current products and packaging for anti-microbial purposes, claiming “Companies incorporating nanosilver particles into their products are exposing people and the environment to unknown threats.”
NNI Seeks Public Comment On Nano EHS Research Priorities
Small Times is reporting that the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office at NNI is requesting public comment, until September 17, 2007, on its proposed "Prioritization of Environmental, Health and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document For Public Comment."
According to the Small Times article,
"The comment period is an opportunity for public input into the prioritization of research and information needs related to environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials," groups note, adding that the research priorities will be an important part of the NNI EHS research strategy, which will be used by the Federal agencies to support research within their mission areas.
The NNCO established 25 research priorities. However, to make the list more manageable, it broke the 25 priorities into five broad categories. Overall, I like the approach the government is taking on these research priorities. They are asking the right questions about (1) how engineered nanomaterials interact with biological systems and the environment, (2) how to measure exposure to nanomaterials -- both in workers and to the general public, and (3) what impact nanomaterial exposure has on health. The report also calls for risk management to be a research priority.
Continue Reading...Friends of the Earth Pummel Nano-Sunscreens (Again)
Friends of the Earth ("FOE") published another "warning" paper about suncreens containing nanoscale materials.
I. Illuminato, et al., “A Consumer Guide for Avoiding Nano-Sunscreens,” Friends of the Earth, August 2007.
The tone of the paper is set with a cover photograph of a grandparent applying sunscreen (possibly containing nanoscale materials??) to the back and neck of a vulnerable and unsuspecting child at a family beach outing. FOE's position on sunscreens containing nanoscale materials is then quickly made clear with statements such as: “These nanoparticles are being added without appropriate labeling or reliable safety information.” "While nanoparticles are invisible to the human eye, their potential health impacts are huge . . . ” including “unprecedented mobility and enhanced toxicity.” "Nanoparticles can potentially weak havoc on our health if absorbed through the skin.” They “[c]an enter vital organs, tissues and even our bodies’ cells.” “Nanoparticles used in sunscreens can cause severe damage to our DNA, disrupt the function of our cells, and even lead to cell death.”
The most unfortunate thing about FOE's hyperbolic attack on nano-sunscreens is that it purports to be science-based. For example, great attention is given to studies indicating certain nanoscale materials may have the ability to penetrate the skin down into living tissue. Unfortunately, no converse studies are cited, and several of the cited studies have nothing to do with nano-sunscreen ingredients (e.g./ quantum dots). Rather than providing a true overview of the state of the science regarding nanoscale titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide used in sunscreens, the article attempts to shock and scare consumers into believing sunscreen manufacturers are knowingly incorporating deadly substances into their products.
Beyond, the verbal rhetoric, the article also purports to contain the results of a survey of more than 120 sunscreens manufacturers to determine whether their products contain nanoscale materials. Probably anticipating where the article was headed even before it was written, only nine manufacturers responded to the survey. These nine apparently answered that their products do not contain nanoscale materials., for which they received a "green" rating by FOE. Products from the other 111 companies who declined to participate in the survey were then divided into two remaining categories: (i) uncertain/might contain nanoscale materials ("yellow" rating), and (ii) definitely contain nanoscale materials ("red" rating). Even though they did not participate in the survey, the "red" category companies were branded as such on the basis of information found on the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' consumer nano-product database. While the concept of a consumer nano-product database may have value, companies should be aware WWI posts no limit on the use of its database, making it fair game for NGO's like FOE to use in whatever manner they see fit.
The article concludes by reiterating FEO's call for an “immediate moratorium on the commercial release of all nanotechnological materials and products until such time as . . . “ they are proved safe and effective to FEO's satisfaction. The article also asks readers to contact FDA and complain that nanoscale materials are not being properly regulated (in FOE's opinion), and also to contact the "yellow" rated companies and ask them to disclose whether or not their products contain nanoscale materials.
Nano App Summit 2007
Registrations are now being accepted for the Nano App Summit 2007, being held in Cleveland, Ohio from October 22-25. The Summit will address a wide range of nanotechnology applications, including automotive, defense, and remediation uses. In addition, the Summit kicks off on October 22 with two "tutorials" for those looking to get up to speed on the issues.
Continue Reading...
The new "NINE"
Spearheaded by Sandia National Labs, a group of universities and industry has formed the National Institute for Nano-Engineering (NINE) to address the science and engineering education concerns related to nanotechnology. The NINE "hub" will be located at Sandia, and is designed to "broaden students' education through a unique team research experience by engaging in multi-disciplinary teams working on per-competitive research in leading-edge technical areas." All levels of students will be involved in the project, from pre-college students to post-graduates. The program will also address other aspects of research, including the business, legal, political, and social aspects of research.
Members of NINE include: Intel Corp., Exxon Mobil, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, University of Wisconsin, Rice University, Yale University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and several more companies and universities.
More information on NINE can be found here.
Reminder: Comments Sought by US EPA on Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program
Just a reminder to those interested in commenting on US EPA's draft documents concerning the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP): comments are due to the Agency on or before September 10, 2007.
US EPA is seeking comments on three draft publications: the "Concept Paper for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA, " the "TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances - General Approach," and the Information Collection Request (ICR) in Support of EPA’s Stewardship Program for Nanoscale Materials.
The full text of all three can be found here.
Continue Reading...Enviromental Interest Coalition Provides Nano-Oversight Recommendations
Earlier this week a coalition of public interest, environmental and labor organizations published their nano-oversight recommendations in:
“Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterial,” July 31, 2007
The coalition begins its paper with the observation that “[t]he current situation does not give us hope that we will ‘get it right’ with nanotechnology,” . . . “manufacturing and laboratory settings operate without proper safety guidance or protection measures,” . . . consumers are being exposed to nanomaterials "without being informed of potential risks" . . . and "nanomaterials are being disposed of and released into the environment despite unknown impacts" and adequate detection methods.
The coalition then provides eight specific recommendations based on this assessment. Obviously, many of the recommendations only make sense if you accept the coalition's rather bleak assessment of the current state of nano-affairs. Nevertheless, the coalition's Eight Fundamental Principles are:
Continue Reading...EPA HAS NO IMMEDIATE PLANS TO ISSUE COMPREHENSIVE SNUR UNDER TSCA COVERING ALL NANOSCALE MATERIALS
At today's public meeting on EPA's proposed Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, Charlie Auer, Director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics indicated EPA is not currently working on a general "significant new use rule" encompassing all nanoscale materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as several environmental law attorneys and NGO's have recommended in the past.
Continue Reading...Nanowaste End of Life Environmental Issues
Two authors from the Environmental Law Institute recently considered the timely question of "how various forms of nanomaterials will be disposed of and treated at the end of their use.”
L. Breggin and J. Pendergrass, “Where Does the Nano Go? End-of Life Regulation of Nanotechnologies,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, July 2007.
The article begins with the observation that “[a]s we are learning, when we throw something away, there really I no 'away.' " Key to the authors' article is the question of whether “regulation designed to deal with end-of-life issues [will] work for nanotechnology.” To address this issue, the authors analyzed the applicability of two end-of-life environmental laws to nanotechnology: (i) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and (ii) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Regarding RCRA, the authors determined that the statute “covers nanowastes, although focused on mass as a determinant of regulatory coverage is not necessarily appropriate for nanowastes.” They also recommended further scientific research to determine whether existing handling, treating, storing, and disposing practices are sufficient for nanowastes. Further, the authors appear to implicitly endorse labelling nanowastes as "hazardous wastes" in order to ensure they are covered by RCRA: “Though, as of yet, no nanowastes have been regulated as hazardous waste, this authority seems the most likely mechanism for dealing with risks associated with nanowastes under the existing regulations.” Additionally, they note four RCRA-specific questions EPA should resolve: (i) are the 4 traditional characteristics for determining whether a substance is a "hazardous waste" under RCRA (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) also appropriate for nanowastes? (ii) is the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure currently in place adequate for nanowastes? (iii) should specific nanowastes or categories of nanowastes be listed as “hazardous wastes?” and (iv) are current handling, treating, storing, and disposal practices sufficient for nanowastes?
Regarding CERCLA, the authors determined that the statute will cover nanowastes if they are eventually defined as “hazardous substances.” They also believe that "even if nanomaterials are not hazardous substances, the statue provides broad authority to EPA to address releases of pollutants and contaminants that present an imminent and substantial danger.” The authors presented two CERCLA-related questions for EPA to resolve: (i) whether any CERCLA listed substances produced in nano form and if so, does the listing cover it in nano form, and (ii) whether EPA should evaluate nanomaterials to determine whether they should be classified as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA.
Finally, the paper reminds businesses that even if nanowastes are not currently considered "hazardous wastes" under environmental statutes, they may be deemed as such in the future and should be treated accordingly.
Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act
Nanowerk News is reporting that Representative Mike Honda (D-San Jose) introduced HR 3235, the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities (NANO) Act. The legislation is to "promote the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology in the United States." Representative Honda drew on the report, "Thinking Big About Thinking Small" when drafting the legislation for Congressional consideration.
Continue Reading...
