2011 TAPPI International Conference on Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials

Running from June 6 to June 8, 2011 at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel in Arlington Virginia, the 2011 TAPPI Conference on Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials will focus on the theme of Nanotechnology for a Sustainable Future. Speakers will give presentations on subjects including :

-Importance of Nanotechnology/Nanomaterials to the Forest Products Industry of the 21st Century

- Nanocellulose research

- Production of renewable nanomaterials

Seperate from, but related to the TAPPI Conference, is a workshop on international standards for Nanocellulose. to be held on June 9th. Further information on the conference, workshop and how to register, is available at the websites.

 

OSHA Official Says Employee Exposure to Nanomaterials Has Never Led to Citation by Agency

 

An official at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") stated recently that the agency has never cited an employer for exposing workers to nanomaterials. OSHA remains focused on prevention and the development of guidance measures to stop exposures before they happen. Moreover, because the agency is aware that workers can be exposed to nanomaterials at every step in the development of products containing the compounds, it is taking steps to ensure that there are mitigation techniques at every level, including from the manufacture of the raw materials, the products themselves, and in the recycling of nanomaterials. OSHA is currently working with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH") to draft guidance materials for employers to use, including a safety and health fact sheet focusing on how to limit nanoparticle exposure.

S.847: The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

Senator Lautenberg:This isn't a reorganization of the way we function here. It is to be another version of TSCA, far less harmful but having a law that does cover the bases.

Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on 04/14/2011, S. 847, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2011", is the third bill introduced in the last two years with the intent of reforming and strengthening the Toxic Substances Cotrol Act . S. 3209, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010", also introduced by Senator Lautenberg, and H.R. 5820, the "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010", introduced by Representives Bobby L. Rush (D-IL-1st) and Henry Waxman (D-CA-30th), were intoduced during the 2nd Session of the 111th Congress, but died in committee when the 111th Congress adjourned sine die.

As was noted by a witness at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Publicworks Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health Subcommittee on 02/04/2011

. . . while TSCA was an important step when it was first passed in 1976, it is the only major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized since its initial passage. TSCA is clearly showing its age and its limitations.

A recent article in Pediatrics discusses the limitations of TSCA in greater detail than is possible in this posting.

S. 847 would amend TSCA in several ways.

1- Manufacturers and processors would be required to

submit the minimum data set for the chemical substance to the Administrator--

 

        `(A) for new chemical substances, concurrent with the notice required under section (5)(a)(1)(A); and

 

        `(B) for existing chemical substances, on the earlier of--

 

          `(i) 18 months after the date on which the chemical substance is assigned to a priority class under section 6(a); and

 

          `(ii) 5 years after the date of enactment of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.

         

 

2- Manufacturers and processors would have restrictions placed on them regarding both new chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals:

SEC. 6. MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING NOTICES.

 

    Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2604) is amended to read as follows:

 

`SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING NOTICES.

 

    `(a) New Chemical Substances and New Uses of Chemical Substances-

 

      `(1) NEW CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES- Except as provided in subsection (d), no person may manufacture or process a new chemical substance unless--

 

        `(A) the person submits to the Administrator a notice, in accordance with subsection (c), of the intention of the person to manufacture or process the substance;

 

        `(B) the person complies with subsection (b); and

 

        `(C) the Administrator finds that--

 

          `(i) the manufacturers and processors have established that the chemical substance meets the safety standard under section 6(b); or

 

          `(ii) the new chemical substance, or a metabolite or degradation product of the chemical substance, as applicable, is not, and is not expected to be--

 

            `(I)(aa) manufactured in a volume of more than 1,000,000 pounds annually; or

 

            `(bb) released into the environment in a volume of more than 100,000 pounds annually;

 

            `(II) a known, probable, or suspected reproductive, developmental, neurological, or immunological toxicant, carcinogen, mutagen, or endocrine disruptor;

 

            `(III) persistent and bioaccumulative;

 

            `(IV) found in human cord blood, or otherwise found in human blood, fluids, or tissue, unless the chemical substance, metabolite, or degradation product is naturally present at the level commonly found in that medium; or

 

            `(V) found in food, drinking water, ambient or indoor air, residential soil, or house dust, unless the chemical substance, metabolite, or degradation product is naturally present at the level commonly found in that medium.

 

      `(2) NEW USES OF EXISTING CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES PRIOR TO SAFETY STANDARD DETERMINATION-

 

        `(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), with respect to an existing chemical substance for which the Administrator has not made a safety standard determination under section 6, no person may manufacture or process the chemical substance--

 

          `(i) for a use that was not ongoing on the date of enactment of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011; or

 

          `(ii) at a volume that is significantly increased from the volume as of the date of enactment of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.

 

        `(B) EXCEPTION- A person may manufacture or process a chemical substance in a manner prohibited by subparagraph (A), if the person--

 

          `(i) submits to the Administrator a new or updated declaration under section 8(a); and

 

          `(ii) complies with subsection (b).

 

      `(3) NEW USES OF EXISTING CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES THAT MEET THE SAFETY STANDARD-

 

        `(A) IN GENERAL- For an existing chemical substance for which the Administrator has determined under section 6(b) that the manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance have established that the substance meets the applicable safety standard, no person may manufacture or process the chemical substance for uses, at production volumes, or in manners other than those the Administrator specified in the safety standard determination, unless--

 

          `(i) the manufacturer or processor submits to the Administrator--

 

            `(I) a notice of the intention of the manufacturer or processor to manufacture or process the substance for a new use, at a new production volume, or in such other manner as is inconsistent with a specified condition or term for that substance; and

 

            `(II) all updates to the minimum data set relevant to the new use, new production volume, or other new manner of manufacturing or processing;

 

          `(ii) the notice under clause (i)(I) indicates that the chemical substance will continue to meet the safety standard if the allowed uses, production volumes, or other specified conditions or terms for that chemical substance are revised to encompass the new use, production volume, or other manner of manufacturing or processing; and

 

          `(iii) the Administrator determines that the manufacturer or processor submitting the notice has established that the chemical substance will continue to meet the safety standard if the allowed uses, production volumes, or other specified conditions or terms for that substance, are revised to encompass the new use, production volume, or other manner of manufacturing or processing.

         

3- Priority classes of chemical substances would be established:

      `(2) CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE RISK MANAGEMENT (PRIORITY CLASS 1)-

 

        `(A) DEFINITION OF PRIORITY CLASS 1- In this section, the term `priority class 1' means a priority class that contains chemical substances that the Administrator determines require immediate risk management.

 

        `(B) ASSIGNMENT TO PRIORITY CLASS 1- The Administrator shall assign a chemical substance to priority class 1 if the Administrator determines that the chemical substance is, or is degraded and metabolized into, a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substance with the potential for widespread exposure to humans or other organisms.

 

        `(C) INITIAL ASSIGNMENT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, the Administrator shall assign not less than 20, but not more than 30, chemical substances to the initial priority class 1.

       

    . . . (i) EXPEDITED EXPOSURE REDUCTION- As soon as practicable, but not later than 18 months after the date on which a chemical substance is assigned to priority class 1 under this paragraph, the Administrator shall impose conditions in accordance with subsection (c) on the manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance assigned to priority class 1 that the Administrator determines necessary to achieve the greatest practicable reductions in human or environmental exposure to the chemical substance.

      `(3) CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES REQUIRING SAFETY STANDARD DETERMINATIONS (PRIORITY CLASS 2)-

 

        `(A) DEFINITION OF PRIORITY CLASS 2- In this section, the term `priority class 2' means a priority class that contains chemical substances that Administrator determines require safety standard determinations.

 

        `(B) ASSIGNMENT TO PRIORITY CLASS 2-

 

          `(i) IN GENERAL- Subject to clause (ii), if the Administrator determines, based on any more-than-theoretical concern, that there is uncertainty as to whether a chemical substance would satisfy the safety standard in a determination made under subsection (b), the Administrator shall assign that chemical substance priority class 2.

    `(4) CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES REQUIRING NO IMMEDIATE ACTION (PRIORITY CLASS 3)-

       

        `(A) DEFINITION OF PRIORITY CLASS 3- In this section, the term `priority class 3' means a priority class that contains chemical substances that the Administrator determines require no immediate action.

           

            `(B) ASSIGNMENT TO PRIORITY CLASS 3- The Administrator shall assign a chemical substance to priority class 3 if the chemical substance has intrinsic properties such that the chemical substance, as determined by the Administrator, does not and would not, at any stage of the lifecycle of the chemical substance, pose any risk of adverse effects to human health or the environment under existing, proposed, or anticipated levels of exposure to, or production or patterns of use of, that chemical substance.

            4- The burden of proving the safety of chemicals would shift from the EPA to manufacturers and processors:

              `(b) Safety Standard Determinations for Chemical Substances-

             

                `(1) IN GENERAL-

             

                  `(A) APPLICATION- This paragraph applies to the determination, or redetermination, of whether a chemical substance meets the applicable safety standard of this title.

             

                  `(B) BURDEN OF PROOF-

             

                    `(i) IN GENERAL- Under this title, the manufacturers and processors of a chemical substance, at all times, bear the burden of proving that the chemical substance meets the applicable safety standard.

             

                    `(ii) DUTIES- Under this title, it shall be the duty of--

             

                      `(I) the manufacturers and processors of a chemical substance to provide sufficient information for the Administrator to determine whether the chemical substance meets the applicable safety standard; and

             

                      `(II) the Administrator to determine whether the chemical substance meets the applicable safety standard.

                `(2) DUTIES-

             

                  `(A) MANUFACTURER AND PROCESSOR DUTIES-

             

                    `(i) INITIAL SAFETY STANDARD DETERMINATION SUBMISSION-

             

                      `(I) IN GENERAL- By the date that is 30 months after the date on which a chemical substance is assigned to priority class 2 under subsection (a), the manufacturers and processors of a chemical substance shall--

            `(aa) update the minimum dataset, if the data set was submitted prior to the assignment of the chemical substance to priority class 2 under subsection (a);

            `(bb) submit to the Administrator any additional information the Administrator may require to make a safety standard determination, including any information the Administrator determines is necessary to be developed by testing; and

            `(cc) indicate whether the chemical substance, including specified uses to be evaluated and any proposed conditions on the specified uses, meets the safety standard.

            5- The Administrator of the EPA would be empowered, if a determination is made that a chemical poses a risk to the environmental and/or the public to

            . . .  impose conditions on the manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal of a chemical substance, or mixture or article containing that chemical substance, in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii)(II), including--

             

                `(1) a requirement limiting the quantity of the substance that may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce;

             

                `(2) a requirement--

             

                  `(A) prohibiting the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of the substance for a particular use in a concentration in excess of a level specified by the Administrator in conditions under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii)(II); or

             

                  `(B) limiting the quantity of the substance that may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for--

             

                    `(i) a particular use; or

             

                    `(ii) a particular use in a concentration in excess of a level specified by the Administrator in conditions established under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii)(II);

             

                `(3) a requirement that the substance be marked with or accompanied by clear and adequate warnings and instructions with respect to use, distribution in commerce, or disposal, or any combination of such activities, with the form and content of the warnings and instructions prescribed by the Administrator;

             

                `(4) a requirement that manufacturers and processors of the substance--

             

                  `(A) make and retain records of the processes used to manufacture or process the substance; and

             

                  `(B) monitor or conduct tests that are reasonable and necessary to ensure compliance with this Act;

            6- In submitting required information to the EPA, "trade secrets" would still be protected, but information that a manufacturer or processor designated as "confidential business information" would need to have an explanation and justification submiited with it, explaining why the information should be considered as confidential.

            7- Decisions and orders of the EPA regarding chemical substances, as well as data submitted by manufacturers and processors would be posted to the EPA's website, in an effort to make it more readily available to communities that could be affected by exposure to chemical substances.

            8 - States and municipalities would still have the right to enact or adopt regulations affecting chemical manufacturers:

            `SEC. 18. PREEMPTION.

             

              `Nothing in this Act affects the right of a State or a political subdivision of a State to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance that is different from, or in addition to, a regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance established pursuant to this Act unless compliance with both this Act and the State or political subdivision of a State regulation, requirement, or standard of performance is impossible, in which case the applicable provisions of this Act shall control.'.

            The Environmental Defense Fund has created a chart summarizing how the 2011 act differs from the 2010 act, as well as one summarizing how S. 847 would strengthen TSCA.

            Some of S. 847's language appears to be applicable to the nanotech community:

              `(C) INCLUSIONS- Notwithstanding molecular identity, the Administrator may determine that a variant of a chemical substance is a new chemical substance under section 5(a)(6).';

                `(20) SPECIAL SUBSTANCE CHARACTERISTIC-

             

                  `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `special substance characteristic' means a physical, chemical, or biological characteristic, other than molecular identity, that the Administrator determines, by order or rule, may significantly affect the risks posed by substances exhibiting that characteristic.

             

                  `(B) CONSIDERATIONS- In determining the existence of special substance characteristics, the Administrator may consider--

             

                    `(i) size or size distribution;

             

                    `(ii) shape and surface structure;

             

                    `(iii) reactivity; and

             

                    `(iv) any other properties that may significantly affect the risks posed.';

                `(6) CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES EXHIBITING SPECIAL SUBSTANCE CHARACTERISTICS-

             

                  `(A) DETERMINATION- The Administrator shall determine by order or rule that a variant of a chemical substance exhibiting 1 or more special substance characteristics--

             

                    `(i) is a use that is separate from any use of the chemical substance that does not exhibit the special substance characteristics; or

             

                    `(ii) is a new chemical substance.

             

                  `(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANTS THAT ARE SEPARATE USES- In the case of a chemical substance that the Administrator determines to be a separate use based on the special substance characteristics of the chemical substance, the manufacturer or processor shall satisfy such further conditions as the Administrator establishes, by order or rule.

             

            While efforts to reform and strengthen TSCA has received support from representives of various large chemical companies, among them Dow Chemical, DuPont, and BASF, chances for the passage of S. 847 should be considered slim at best. S. 847 has been introduced at a time when an anti-regulatory ideology is being openly expressed in the House and Senate, as is evident remarks made by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) during the 02/04/2011 hearing:

            . . . . Two, I think a European registration, evaluation and authorization of chemical substances -- a REACH-style program would threaten to kill innovation in the U.S. and is a real recipe for hamstringing small and medium-size manufacturers in particular.

            . .  . Five, I think the peer review process needs to ensure that the peers are absolutely independent. And this means that cherry-picking of research by activists in federal agencies needs to end as well.

            And six, if EPA is going to decide to utilize resources to re- review a chemical prior to the otherwise established scheduled review period, as it has recently, that needs to be -- again, to come back to my central theme -- based on sound science, not simply a New York Times article that, quite frankly, uses politicized science.

            A note of thanks to Bloomberg Government for supplying a copy of the transcript from the 02/04/2011 hearing.

            Are Major Food Companies Backing Away from Engineered Nanoscale Materials?

            A food safety strategist for "As You Sow" recently indicated that the group is conducting a survey "of a wide selection of food manufacturers and retailers regarding their use of nanomaterials in food products."  The group is also creating a "Nanofood Sourcing Framework" designed to guide food-related companies on the issues they should be considering before using engineered nanoscale materials in their products.

            Interestingly, the strategist asked some major food-related corporations about their use of engineered nanoscale materials and believes that companies are "taking a precautionary approach."  Evidently, McDonald's, Pepsi, and Kraft all claim to be "nano-free." McDonald's has an interesting post about the issue on its website:

            McDonald's Corporation is working to understand the use of nanotechnology and its applications in food and packaging products. Given the current uncertainty related to potential impacts of nano-engineered materials, McDonald's does not currently support the use by supplies of nano-engineered materials in the production of any of our food, packaging or toys.

            Regarding Kraft, the strategist wrote that Kraft "first posted a statement on their website in 2009 announcing that they are not using nanotechnology, although they did admit to be exploring nano applications for packaging. Two year later, Food Production Daily reports that ‘Kraft is one company to have taken a deliberate step away from the emerging technology.'"
             

            FDA Science Board to Meet

            In a notice published in the Federal Register for 05/04/2011, the FDA Science Board, an advisory panel that provides advice to the FDA Commissioner and the Commission on "specific complex and technical issues as well as, emerging issues within the scientific community, in industry and academia . . . .advice to the Agency on keeping pace with technical and scientific evolutions in the fields of regulatory science, or formulating an appropriate research agendas; upgrading its scientific and research facilities to keep pace with these changes", announced that it be having a meeting on 05/20/2011 at the FDA building in Silver Spring MD. Part of the meeting will consist of the Science Coard receiving updates on the FDA's Nanotechnology Research Program.

            Members of the public who are interested in presenting data, information or their views on the FDA's Nanotech Research Program are invited to submitt written material to

            Ms. Martha Monser

            Office of the Commissioner, FDA

            10903 New Hampshire Ave.

            Bldg 32 Rm 4286

            Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002

            by 05/13/2011. Anyone interested in making an oral presentation at the meeting should submit, again to Ms. Monser at the address above, names and contact information for participants, along with an estimate of how long the presentation might run. Due to the limits of time for presentations, and to give everyone a fair chance, the FDA may hold a lottery.

            Meeting materials will be posted to the FDA's website by 05/18/2011. For those unable to attend in person the meeting will be webcast.

            University of California, San Francisco Publishes Nanotechnology Regulatory Policy Recommendations

            The Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is part of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Services located in UCSF’s School of Medicine. PRHE just published its "Recommendations for Addressing Potential Health Risks from Nanomaterials in California” which was commissioned by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment  (OEHA).  The document is designed to provide the State with an overview of nanotechnology materials and their potential exposures and human health risks, and proposes a selection of policy options for addressing potential hazards and risks from nanotechnology.  We previously provided our comments on the May 2010 draft of this document here.  A year later, many of our same concerns still apply to the final document.

            The new document makes a range of recommendations, which are set forth below:

            Recommendations to address health risks from nanomaterials for OEHHA that can be achieved under the existing regulatory structure:

            1. Develop a definition of nanomaterials that can be used to identify them.

            2. Identify and define priority properties for risk characterization and collect information about them for each nanomaterial.

            3. Develop characteristics by which to define, describe, and group nanomaterials according to conventional or unique properties.

            4. Establish a publicly accessible clearinghouse and inventory of nanomaterial sources and products.

            5. Identify and/or develop methods for monitoring nanomaterials in environmental media and through human biomonitoring.

            6. Collect information on the fate and transport of nanomaterials, including through monitoring in environmental and biological media.

            7. As for other chemicals, focus on identifying and addressing nanomaterials that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT).

            8. Use existing hazard traits from other chemicals and toxicological and environmental-health-related endpoints to assess potential adverse health outcomes from nanomaterial exposure.

            9. Evaluate existing risk-assessment guidelines to determine whether they sufficiently cover nanomaterials, adjusting or incorporating nano-specific approaches as needed.

            10. Integrate nanomaterials into current efforts to modernize toxicity testing.

            11. Develop and maintain relationships with other governments and researchers to share relevant data and information on nanotechnology and nanomaterials’ use, applications, and toxicity.

            12. Improve coordination and monitor communication among federal and state agencies, other countries’ governments, businesses, and NGOs.

            13. Continue to include opportunities for public input and comment during decision-making processes.
             

            Recommendations to support successful approaches to address potential health risks from nanomaterials that are currently outside the scope of OEHHA.

            1. Require disclosure of where and what nanomaterials are manufactured, in what quantities, and for what new or existing products.


            2. Require reporting of properties that can identify nanomaterials that are persistent,bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT). Phase out uses consistent with approaches for other PBTs.


            3. Develop a framework for making policy and regulatory decisions that balances the uses and benefits of nanomaterials with their toxicity and exposure potential.


            4. Require testing of release and exposure potential for nanomaterials in consumer products for both existing and new products.


            5. Increase efforts to protect and educate workers, researchers, and downstream users of nanomaterials


            6. Require sufficient toxicological testing—preferably pre-market and also post-market as necessary—to assess risks to manufacturing and other workers and to downstream users, including consumers and susceptible subpopulations such as infants.


            7. Implement a labeling system that requires labeling of products that contain nanomaterials.
             

            8. Increase funding and support for targeted, nano-specific research to fill data gaps.
             

            9. Conduct targeted research on the biological fate, transport, and distribution of nanomaterials, including sources, exposure routes, and internal distributions. Integrate this research with information gathered on exposure potential.
             

            EPA to Issue New Carbon Nanotube Significant New Use Rule

            Here is an advance copy of a new multi-walled carbon nanotube significant new use rule being published tomorrow in the federal register.  It applies only to the specific carbon nanotubes that were the subject of PMN P-08-199, and binds anyone who intends to manufacture, import, or process the specific chemical substance.  It is largely consistent with past SNURs and Consent Orders for other CNTs.  For those wondering, "processors" and "processing" is broadly defined under TSCA.  It has been used in the past to include repackaging for commercial purposes, using the material in the manufacturing of new mixtures, and/or the production of articles using the substance.

            World's Tiniest Guitar and Images

            Nano Engineering Students Create World's Smallest Images of Stephen Colbert

             

            Two nanotechnology engineering students at the University of Waterloo, in Waterloo, Canada, have created the world's smallest images of comedian Stephen Colbert. The undergraduate students, John Maier and Erin Bedford, made the images using aluminum sputtered onto substrate through a photoresist mask. The smallest of the four images  is approximately 110 µm by 130 µm, while the largest measured 1.8 mm by 2.3 mm.

             

            For more information, please visit www.microcolbert.com

             

            World's Smallest Musical Instrument Created

             

            Researchers at Cornell University have created the world's smallest musical instrument—a miniature guitar measuring approximately 10 microns long with six strings that are each about 100 atoms wide—out of crystalline silicon. The guitar can only be played by targeting miniature lasers at the strings with an atomic force microscope, resulting in a 40 mergahertz signal measuring at 130,000 times higher than the sound of a full size guitar and one of the highest pitched tones ever recorded. The noise is inaudible to the human ear. The guitar, about the size of a human red blood cell, was created to advertise the great potential behind nanotechnology.

             

            Nano TiO2 Cigarette Filters. Bad Idea?

            The May 3, 2011 edition of Chemistry World carried an interesting article by James Urqhart -- Titanate cigarette filter -- regarding several Chinese researchers who have developed a cigarette filter which employs nanoscale TiO2 which supposedly filters out harmful tobacco smoke constituents.  One of the researchers claims that "[a] great range of harmful compounds including tar, nicotine, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, selected carbonyls and phenolic compounds can be reduced efficiently." 

            The article also maintains that the researchers are "confident that titanate nanomaterials used in filters do not pose a health risk to smokers by inhalation" because "TiO2 is already widely used in consumer products including sunscreens, cosmetics and food."  Readers can judge the strength or weakness of this logic for themselves.

            The article draws to mind Kent cigarettes with Micronite filters which were manufactured in the early to mid 1950s.  Believe it or not, these particular Kent cigarettes utilized crocidolite asbestos in their filters because of its unique filtering properties.  Readers can imagine the health-related lawsuits and judgments that followed.

            Despite their unique filtering properties, mixing tobacco and engineered nanoscale materials in cigarette in this litigation environment is probably a bad idea.