New Study On Detecting Carbon Nanotubes In Living Organisms

Posted on September 26, 2007 by Patrick T. Lewis

Researchers at Rice University successfully utilized a near-infrared flourescent imaging technique to detect individual carbon nanotubes in fruit flies.  The study, reported here and here, involved an experiment where the researchers fed fruit fly larvae a diet that contained carbon nanotubes.  The flies were then shot with a laser, which excited the nanotubes and allowed them to be viewed using a flourescent technique.   The good news is that the fruit flies apparently survived to adulthood just as well as fruit flies in the control group, and apparently weighed the same as the controls, too.  The study's conclusions about the bioaccumulation of the nanotubes in the fruit flies are interesting:

When the researchers removed and examined tissues from the flies, they found the near-infrared microscope allowed them to see and identify individual nanotubes inside the tissue specimens. The highest concentration of nanotubes was found in the dorsal vessel, which is analogous to a main blood vessel in a mammal. Lesser concentrations were found in the brain, ventral nerve cord, salivary glands, trachea and fat. Based on their assays, the team estimates that only about one in 100 million nanotubes passed through the gut wall and became incorporated into the flies' organs. 

I don't know enough about the anatomy of a fruit fly to fully grasp the significance of these findings, but I find it hopeful that only a tiny fraction of the nanotubes accumulated in the flies' organs, and also find it hopeful that the flies were apparently not harmed by the nanotubes' presence.  One of the researchers quoted in the report, Dr. Bruce Weisman, is a well-known nanotechnology researcher at Rice.

Update:

Thanks to Youtube, we can see a six second video of the carbon nanotubes "lit up" inside the fruit flies here. 

Tags: , , ,

Europe Big On Nanotech Research and EHS Issues

Posted on September 26, 2007 by Patrick T. Lewis

According to this recent article in the Jerusalem Post, the European Union is the top public financier of nanotechnology:

With €1.4 billion allocated to 550 projects in the field of nanosciences and nanotechnology, the EU's 6th Research Framework Program accounts for one-third of total public funding for nanotechnology and is the world's largest single funding agency worldwide for this field.

The article notes, however, that private funding for nanotechnology research in Europe lags the U.S. and Japan.

The Europeans appear to be taking an integrated approach to nanotechnology safety, by investing €28 million in safety research as part of each of its programs.  Much like in the U.S., European regulators are also exploring whether the EC's environmental, health and safety laws require change to deal with these issues:

The European Commission is currently undertaking a review of existing legislation to see whether the current regulatory framework appropriately addresses health, safety and environmental risks. Moreover, it has taken steps to establish an observatory to provide decision-makers with dynamic assessments of scientific and market developments.

It looks like the U.S. might be moving faster on nanotechnology regulatory issues, so I will be interested to see whether the Europeans take our lead or chart their own course.  So far, they seem to be taking a sensible approach to the problem.  I especially like the integration of safety research into their primary research grants (which, among other benefits, reduces the likelihood that scientists will overstate the results of safety issues in an effort to attract more funding) and the inclusion of private industry in the regulatory process.

Tags: , , , ,

Enivronment Health and Safety -- Bibliography of Primary Scientific Research

Posted on November 17, 2006 by John C. Monica, Jr.

Tags: ,

Scientists Present "Five Grand Challenges" Regarding Future Nano-EHS Research

Posted on November 16, 2006 by John C. Monica, Jr.

Earlier today, two top nanoscientists -- Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center and Dr. Sally S. Tinkle, Assistant to the Deputy Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health -- made a presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Scholar Center announcing their new article appearing in November 2006 issue of Nature.

Maynard said that the article was the result of intense collaboration between 14 top nano-experts from numerous scientific disciplines who came together to create a 10-to-15 year framework for assessing the potential health risks posed by nano-technology. 

Maynard indicated the primary purpose of the article was to motivate scientists to put in place within the next 12 months a long-term plan for conducting the necessary environmental, health, and safety research in this area. Maynard expounded on five "Grand Challenges" the authors believe are key to forming a robust, world-wide nano-EHS research plan:

1. Creating new instrumentation to measure possible exposure to nanomaterials through air by 2010 and water by 2012, leading to “smart” nanosensors with the ability to detect potential exposure hazards and identify potential environmental and/or health reactions by 2017;

2. Establishing effective and relevant nanotoxicology testing methods world-wide which combine applicable existing testing methods with new cutting edge technologies. International nanotoxicology testing protocols would be established by 2012; effective alternatives to in vitro testing would be created by 2022; and a final answer to any questions regarding the potential toxicity of fiber-shaped nanomaterials (such as carbon nanotubes) by 2012;

3. Creating systems that can predict the potential impact of new nanomaterials on the environment and in the body, leading to finalized methods for engineering safely designed nanomaterials by 2017;
4. Developing systems and methods that enable scientists to assess the potential impact of nanomaterials during their entire life-cycle from cradle to grave;

5. Devising effective research programs to accomplish the four above-referenced Challenges. In order to maintain the authors’ developmental time-line, Maynard indicated that this challenge would need to be met within the next twelve (12) months and would involve collaboration, communication, and coordination between international governments, scientists, and industry representatives.

Maynard concluded by stressing that mastering these Grand Challenges will allow the nano-industry to make decisions regarding any potential nano-EHS risks posed by its products based on sound science, not continued speculation.

Tinkle further elaborated several broad concepts embedded within the Grand Challenges:

1. Establishing a research pipeline to coordinate nano-EHS research, including identifying and sealing any gaps in the pipeline between (i) basic nanoscience; (ii) nano-application engineering; and (iii) nano-decision making at the product and policy making level;

2. Identifying cross-cutting themes and research concepts that can be used between scientific disciplines;

3. Combining traditional research methods with cutting edge research strategies; and

4. Establishing partnerships among international governments and international scientists to jointly addresses research needs.

Of note, audience members asked Maynard and Tinkle follow-up questions concerning (i) budgetary requirements for the authors’ proposal, (ii) whether this time-line could somehow be sped up; (iii) how to balance this nano-EHS research time-line against the burgeoning commercial market for nano-based products; and (iv) the efficacy of existing nanotoxicology testing methods.



The authors’ article an be found at “Safe handling of nanotechnology,” Nature, Volume 444 Number 7117 pp. 243-400 (November 16, 2006)



JCM: While the authors' five Grand Challenges provide a much-needed framework, current nanomanufacturers should consider what they can and should do to protect themselves from potential consumer litigation during the next seven (7) to twelve (12) years while the scientists sort this all out.  I am not sure plaintiffs attorneys and consumers will have the patience required by this proposal. 

 

For reference purposes, the author's time-line is conveniently summarized in a graphic contained in the Nature article.
Tags: , ,