Andrew Maynard

A consumer’s guide to nanotechnology

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:15:00 GMT

How cool is this: A nanotech-enabled labcoat to protect the user against… well, nanomaterials presumably, amongst other things!

The labcoat—which uses Nanotex technology to make it stain resistant—is part of a major update to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory that tracks manufacture-identified nano-products. Other eye-catchers in the update include a hunting shirt that resists bloodstains, a nanotech-based adhesive for McDonald’s burger containers, and an oven-like device for sanitizing whiffy shoes.

Of course, there are plenty of people who feel that consumer products represent an altogether too trivial side of nanotechnology. And I have to agree that on the scales of virtue, a nano-silver bidet would find it hard to compete with the next generation of nano-enabled solar cells or targeted cancer drugs. Yet trivial as many of the 800+ products in the updated inventory may seem, this is where most people will probably first come across the technology, and start to form their early opinions on whether it’s a good thing, or not so good.

And in this bizarrely-connected world within which we live, good experience with nano-bidets (for example) are more likely than not to make the introduction of nano-cancer drugs go just that little bit smoother.

But beyond initial impressions, consumer products in their broadest sense are where some of the first widespread exposures to engineered nanomaterials are likely to occur. And this means that care is needed over how nanomaterials are used in these products, and how that use is monitored and regulated.

In the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products. But recently, the CPSC has been struggling with low-tech problems like lead in children’s toys, and there is concern that this doesn’t bode well for the agency’s ability to tackle high tech nanotechnology-based products.

This is the conclusion of a new report by E. Marla Felcher of Harvard University’s Kennedy School. In “The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Nanotechnology,” published by the Project on Nanotechnologies, Felcher paints a picture of CPSC as an agency of lofty ideals, crippled by a lack of political support, dwindling resources, inadequate scientific expertise and inadequate authority. In the report’s executive summary, she writes

“CPSC’s inability to carry out its mandate with respect to simple, low-tech products such as Thomas the Tank Engine toy trains, Barbie dolls and Easy-Bake Ovens bodes poorly for its ability to oversee the safety of complex, high-tech products made using nanotechnology. The agency lacks the budget, the statutory authority and the scientific expertise to ensure that the hundreds of nanoproducts now on the market, among them baby bottle nipples, infant teething rings, teddy bears, paints, waxes, kitchenware and appliances, are safe. This problem will only worsen as more sophisticated nanotechnology-based products begin to enter the consumer market.”

The critique is harsh—all the more so because CPSC staff are clearly trying hard to get their heads around the challenges that nanotechnology is presenting them with. Yet according to Felcher, the problems lie not so much with the staff as with the agency’s lack of information, resources and authority. To ensure CPSC is nano-ready (and more broadly, emerging technology-ready), she recommends that:

The agency’s knowledge-base is built-up,
that CPSC work closely with other health and safety agencies,
that information on nano-products is solicited from companies,
that a Chronic Health Advisory Panel is convened to evaluate potential risks associated with nano-products for children,
that the agency appeal to industry to develop voluntary safety standards for children’s products,
and that the US congress take action on the Consumer product Safety Act bill to increase CPSC’s authority to address products based on new and emerging technologies.

There’s a good chance that many of the allegedly nanotechnology-enabled products entering the market are harmless (or at least, mostly harmless). But a combination of novel and sometimes unpredictable material behaviour, few checks and balances to use and an inadequately resourced and empowered regulator seems like a dangerous combination; when a potentially harmful nano-product does come along, there aren’t, it seems, many barriers to prevent problems from occurring.

And we are still dealing with very simple nanotechnologies—nanoparticles of silver, titania and carbon in the main. What happens when consumer product manufacturers start to use more complex nanotechnologies?

OK so nano-consumerism may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. But the impacts of nano-consumerism gone wrong could be far from inconsequential. So if we want to see the less trivial products of nanotechnology—the renewable energy sources, the high performance batteries, the smart drugs—now might be a good time to make sure the first waves of products perform well without causing harm.

Now, back to that shoe de-whiffer—I think my “nano silver far infrared anti-odor healthy socks” need a little help…

And now for something completely different…

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:53:00 GMT

Time for a nano-break.

I’ll be taking a break from the SafeNano blog over the next three weeks, as my family try to convince me there really is life beyond nanotechnology (I’m sceptical). In the meantime, I couldn’t resist giving loyal readers something to think about in my absence:

When was the first intentionally engineered nanoscale material produced? (to qualify, the material must have been characterized to show its nanoscale credentials, and must have been made and marketed because of its nano structure)
Which fiction writer has best captured the future potential of nanotechnology?
Which non-nano consumer product is most in need of a nano-solution (be imaginative)?
Who needs nanotechnology the most—scientists, businesses or “the public”?
Is the concept of nanotechnology a “mind virus”? And if it is, what is the antidote?

Answers (to any question from any perspective) in the comments box below please!

OK, I know it’s the tradition of SafeNano readers not to comment on blog posts, so I am fully expecting to get back to find a big round zero in the comments tally. But I live in hope.

In the meantime, I’m digging out the nano-equivalent of the swear-box—a dollar for every use of the word “nanotechnology” should do I think. This could be an expensive break…

Lux to Nano Business: Safety Matters

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:12:00 GMT

Addressing potential nanotechnology environment, health and safety (EHS) impacts up-front makes good business sense – doesn’t it? The US-based advisory firm Lux Research certainly thinks so. The latest document from the organization—“Nanomaterials State of the Market Q3 2008: Stealth Success, Broad Impact”—recommends investors scrutinize company EHS policies, stresses the need for regulators to gather data on commercial nanotechnologies as fast as they can, and encourages companies share what they are able to about nanomaterial safety.

Like most commercial reports, the latest offering from Lux is not for the fiscally challenged. To read the full tome you will have to shell out the dollars (I suspect they also take Pounds Sterling, Euros, Gold, grandmothers…). This is undoubtedly a worthwhile investment for organizations that are seriously into nanotech. But for those that are on the fringes, or just plain hard up, here are the highlights of the report as they relate to environment, health and safety issues (summarized by yours truly):

Key Issue: Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Issues

The report flags nanotechnology EHS as a key issue for investors, businesses and policy makers. Following previous reports, the importance of real risks, perceptual risks and regulation are highlighted.

On real risks: The pace of risk research and knowledge generation is picking up, but a lack of standards (including characterization standards I assume) means it is hard to stitch together a coherent picture of the nanomaterial risk landscape. Consequently, it remains challenging for companies to make confident decisions about real nanomaterial EHS risks

On perceptual risks: With a lack of data on real risks, the arena for debate over perceived risks continues to be wide open, although in Lux’s perspective the public debate has been less prominent in recent years.

On regulation: Regulatory guidance is hampered by a lack of well-characterized data on nanoparticles, but many agencies have launched efforts to fill these data gaps.

Recent nano-EHS events (2008, compared to previous years)

Publications so far in 2008 are coming out at nearly twice the pace of recent years, and increases look set to continue.
Studies on metal nanoparticles are approaching parity with ceramic nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes
Published exposure studies fall relative to hazard research so far in 2008
Published ecological data has surpassed inhalation studies, though in vitro studies dominate.

Beyond the raw numbers, in discussions with regulators and other experts Lux analysts hear that improvements in the analytical methodology over the past couple of years have raised the level of characterization of nanomaterials, enabling more precise assessments of the applicability and limitations of studies. Initiatives within ISO, OECD and government organizations like NIH are expected to continue this trend.

Nanotech Perceptual Risks Appear Well-Contained – When the Public Is Even Paying Attention

Public awareness studies show mixed – but not negative – opinions on nanotechnology. Dietram Scheufele’s 2007 survey in particular is cited.
Concerned NGOs are still stating the case for more regulatory EHS action.
Despite alarming headlines, Lux felt coverage of the Donaldson MWNT-asbestos story conveyed the right facts.

As results of nanotech EHS studies begin to come in, Lux feel the challenge of perceptual risks will start to turn from countering often-speculative claims that can resonate inside a data gap, to managing facts that might find nanotechnology to be less safe than had been thought. They note that companies will have to stay on top of the issues and continue open communication with the public, but perceptual risks continue to look manageable.

Regulators Are Looking for More Data, but Are Poised to Respond to Significant New Information

Around the world, regulatory agencies are still largely waiting for data on real nanomaterials EHS risks before contemplating any changes to existing frameworks for chemicals and materials. However, over the last year, the first regulatory decisions broadly impacting nanomaterials have been starting to come in.

In June, EU regulators deleted REACH’s exemption for carbon and graphite, apparently in response to worries about nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes that would slip in under the exemption. Moves like this one—say Lux—demonstrate that regulatory can have the flexibility to respond to information as it comes in – and as more coordinated data on nanomaterials EHS begins to come in from efforts such the OECD’s sponsorship program, regulations likely will begin to shift on a case-by-case basis.

Lawyers, Companies, and Local Governments Are Trying to Get Ahead of Regulations

Lawyers are rolling out nanomaterials EHS practices.
Local governments are eyeing regulations to protect their citizens and local industry.
NGOs are uncertain about the future climate for U.S. regulations.

Implications

While there may be no such thing as the “nanotechnology industry,” a nanotech EHS industry will continue to flourish. In particular, EHS consultancies seem to be thriving.
Credible data will inspire some changes in regulations, material by material.
The higher burden of proof required by REACH law will pull up the level of information sharing in the U.S.
Formal coordination of research efforts will leave some stakeholders out of discussions. Though many parties – scientists, corporations, governments, NGOs – have long been discussing nanotech EHS issues, the movement of many of these discussions from academic venues into more formal organizations such as the OECD and ISO have given governments more of a voice and NGOs less of one.

Recommendations

Alone or as a group, nanotech companies should be open and volunteer what they can about their nanomaterials’ safety
Regulators should tighten the feedback cycle for information gathering, as the EPA is doing.
Investors must scrutinize the EHS policies of nanomaterials companies they are targeting.

These are the top-line messages in the report. Overall, the message seems to be cautious but optimistic—regulators, businesses and investors would do well to mind nano-EHS issues up front, but various initiatives are beginning to shift discussions from being speculation based to data based.

But to me the most important message here is that safety matters, and that nanotechnology business will have a tough time of it if researchers and regulators are unable to develop relevant nano EHS-related data and oversight mechanisms that keep pace with the technology.

___________________________________________________________

Note: The full Lux report is prefaced with this disclaimer: “Lux Research does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. Thus, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. This report is based on information obtained from sources believed to be reliable but no independent verification has been made, nor is its accuracy or completeness guaranteed. This report is published solely for informational purposes and is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.”

Late lessons from early warnings

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:49:00 GMT

As the rate of technological progress advances, are we learning the lessons of past successes and failures? And are we applying these lessons successfully to nanotechnology?

In 2001, the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a seminal report on developing emerging technologies responsibly. Through a series of fourteen case studies spanning the past century, a panel led by the late Poul Harremoës examined what has gone right and what has gone wrong with the introduction of past technologies, and what can be learned about introducing new technologies as safely and as successfully as possible.

The resulting report, “Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000” (PDF, 1.7 MB) draws twelve “late lessons” for decision-makers faced with addressing emerging technologies [1].

Although the report was written before nanotechnology hit the big-time, the twelve lessons (listed below) resonate strongly with the challenges of fostering innovative yet responsible nanotechnologies. So much so in fact a new commentary just published on-line in the journal Nature Nanotechnology takes a hard look at how nanotech measures up to the report’s findings.

“Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology” (Hansen, Maynard, Baun and Tickner (2008), DOI:10.1038/nnano.2008.198) systematically compares progress in nanotechnology with each of the EEA’s twelve lessons, and assesses where progress is being made, and where we could be doing better.

And the findings? Some of the lessons have begun to sink in, but overall, it looks like a refresher course in responsible nanotechnology wouldn’t go amiss.

In the commentary, we conclude:

“The picture is not as bleak as it could be. While progress towards developing sustainable nanotechnologies is slow, we do seem to have learnt some new tricks: asking more critical questions early on; developing collaborations that cross discipline, department and international boundaries; beginning the process of targeting research to developing relevant knowledge; engaging stakeholders; and asking whether existing oversight mechanisms are fit for purpose.

But are we doing enough? The question seems not to be whether we have learnt the lessons, but whether we are applying them effectively enough to prevent nanotechnology being one more future case study on now not to introduce a new technology. Despite a good start, it seems that we have become distracted on the way - nanotechnology is being overseen by the same government organizations that promote it; research strategies are not leading to clear answers to critical questions; collaborations are not being as productive as is needed; and stakeholders are not being fully engaged. In part this is attributable to bureaucratic inertia, although comments from some quarters – such as “risk research jeopardizes innovation” or “regulation is bad for business” -- only cloud the waters when clarity of thought and action are needed.

If we are to realize the commercial and social benefits of nanotechnology without leaving a legacy of harm, and prevent nanotechnology from becoming a lesson in what not to do for future generations, perhaps it is time to go back to the class-room and re-learn those late lessons from early warnings.”

Nanotechnology is all about the future. But it seems an occasional glance back in history is needed to set the best course of action for success.

EEA’s Twelve Late Lessons:

1. Acknowledge and respond to ignorance, uncertainty and risk in technology appraisal.

2. Provide long-term environmental and health monitoring and research into early warnings.

3. Identify and work to reduce scientific ‘blind spots’ and knowledge gaps.

4. Identify and reduce interdisciplinary obstacles to learning.

5. Account for real-world conditions in regulatory appraisal.

6. Systematically scrutinize claimed benefits and risks.

7. Evaluate alternative options for meeting needs, and promote robust, diverse and adaptable technologies.

8. Ensure use of ‘lay’ knowledge, as well as specialist expertise.

9. Account fully for the assumptions and values of different social groups.

10. Maintain regulatory independence of interested parties while retaining an inclusive approach to information and opinion gathering.

11. Identify and reduce institutional obstacles to learning and action.

12. Avoid ‘paralysis by analysis’ by acting to reduce potential harm when there are reasonable grounds for concern.

__________________________________________________

[1] At the time of posting, the direct link to the “Late Lessons” report was down (that link is http://reports.eea.europa.eu/environmental_issue_report_2001_22). As an interim measure, I have linked to a copy of the report posted at www.genok.org.

“Wysinwyg” nanoparticles

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:22:00 GMT

Into the babble of conflicting and confusing terms surrounding nanotechnology, let me introduce another one: “wysinwig nanoparticles”—what-you-see-is-NOT-what-you-get nanoparticles. It describes particles that have an annoying habit of revealing their true identity only after they have been painstakingly measured, monitored and characterized—a description that would seem to apply to most nanoparticles when it comes to assessing possible health and environmental impacts.

The problem is; nanoparticles change, depending on the environment they are in and how long they have been there. Move them from one liquid to another, and they change their effective diameter. Introduce them to a different cocktail of chemicals, and some will don a new mantle—changing character in the process. And then there is the problem of agglomeration and aggregation. Single nanoparticles have a nasty habit of getting hitched up to other nanoparticles as soon as your back is turned, and suddenly you are dealing with “crowd dynamics” when you thought you only had individuals to worry about. Or just as you feel you understand the group dynamics, they decide to separate out into individuals again.

Wysinwyg nanoparticles create real problems for understanding and managing potential impacts. If a particle changes between when it is characterized and when it causes harm, how can that harm be related to a measurable quantity? And how can other researchers be sure they are replicating your experiments? This is one reason why scientists have called for clear guidelines on how nanoparticles are characterized in toxicity experiments—not only before they are introduced to cells or organisms, but after exposure has occurred (See for instance Oberdörster, et al. (2005). Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Part. Fiber Toxicol. 2:8. DOI:10.1186/1743-8977-2-8).

A particularly tough challenge presented by wysinwyg nanoparticles is de-agglomeration—the propensity of clusters of nanoparticles to separate out into smaller groups (and even individual nanoparticles) once exposure has occurred. Imagine, you inhale clusters of nanoparticles that are several micrometers in diameter; clusters that evade the detector in your yet-to-be-invented nanoparticle monitor, because it is only looking for particles smaller than 100 nm. Then imagine that these clusters, once they have deposited into the soapy film lining the lungs, break up into hundreds of individual nanoparticles. The particles that the lungs see are most definitely not those that the monitor saw—wysinwyg in action! Finally, imagine that the individual nanoparticles can penetrate to places in the body inaccessible to the larger clusters, or elicit a response based on their size and surface area—two properties that change through de-agglomeration. Now you have a serious problem, because the changes in particle structure between when they are characterized and when they start interacting with the body are significant.

This de-agglomeration problem has been worrying researchers for some years, but largely without resolution. Back in 2002 I made some preliminary measurements of nanoscale titanium dioxide de-agglomeration in simulated lung surfactant, that suggested partial, but not complete separation of agglomerates was possible. Sadly, the resulting paper isn’t easily accessible—published as it was in the proceedings of Inhaled Particles IX as a supplement to the Annals of Occupational Hygiene. But the long and short of it was that Degussa P25 titanium dioxide was found to separate into 100 nm diameter “agglomerates” when agitated in dipalmitoylphosphatidycholine (DPPC). In comparison, the aerosolized material had a median diameter closer to 300 nm. Clearly some degree of de-agglomeration was occurring, but not to the extent of releasing the smallest particles in the powder, which were around 20 nm in diameter. At the time, I suggested that the nanoparticle clusters separated into what I called “primary agglomerates”—aggregates of nanoparticles that were strongly bonded together, probably through sintering, and that resisted further de-agglomeration as a result.

Now fast forward a few years. A few weeks back, Jingkun Jiang, Günter Oberdörster and Pratim Biswas published the results of a new study in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research that sheds further light on some of the tricks of wysinwyg nanoparticles. The paper “Characterization of size, surface charge, and agglomeration state of nanoparticle dispersions for toxicological studies” (Journal of Nanoparticle Research advance online publication June 24 2008, DOI:10.1007/s11051-008-9446-4) examines various transformations that nanoparticles undergo in different liquid environments. But what particularly caught my eye was the section of the paper on de-agglomeration.

In the study, Degussa P25 titanium dioxide particles and a lab-synthesized sample of anatase TiO2 with a similar primary particle size to the P25 material were suspended in a weak solution of sodium pyrophosphate, and the particle size distribution measured using dynamic light scattering. The suspension was then agitated using an ultrasonic probe, and changes in the particle size distribution measured over time.

The researchers saw a rapid reduction in particle size as the suspensions were sonicated. The lab-synthesized titanium dioxide particles ended up close to the size of the primary particles, suggesting efficient de-agglomeration. The P25 powder on the other hand ended up with a hydrodynamic diameter of ~155 nm after 10 minutes, suggesting that the larger agglomerates were made up of smaller tightly-bound aggregates of nanoparticles, and supporting the earlier Inhaled Particles IX study.

Of course, we still don’t know to what extent de-agglomeration occurs in the lungs when people inhale these and other nanoscale materials. Determining this is a crucial next-step in determining the degree to which nanoparticle agglomerates change between measurement and exposure. But we are moving closer to setting boundaries on how much some particles will change as they enter our bodies.

And of course, the more we know, the less we will be plagued by wysinwyg nanoparticles—which is probably a good thing.

___________________________

Postscript

My earlier work on TiO2 de-agglomeration was published in: Maynard, A. D. (2002). Experimental determination of ultrafine TiO2 de-agglomeration in surrogate pulmonary surfactant – preliminary results. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 46 S1:197-202. Search as I might, I have failed to find an on-line link to this. If anyone digs one up – please let me know!

The full citation for the Jiang et al. paper is: Jiang, J., Oberdörster, G. and Biswas, P. (2008). Characterization of size, surface charge, and agglomeration state of nanoparticle dispersions for toxicological studies J. Nanopart. Res. DOI:10.1007/s11051-008-9446-4.

While I thought I was being marginally clever in coining the term “wysinwyg”, it is in fact in reasonably common usage (check out this link for instance). So much for originality!

Nevertheless, I do think that ISO TC229 should at least consider adding "wysinwyg nanoparticles" to its list of nano-terminology... :-)

Why nanotechnology needs John Howard—but will have to do without

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:08:00 GMT

A terse statement from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today [available here. PDF, 16 KB] confirmed that Dr. John Howard’s tenure as director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) will not be renewed. A strong proponent of safe nanotechnology, it was Dr. Howard’s vision and impetus that put NIOSH on the nanotechnology map and ensured that this US agency with one of the smallest nanotech research budgets punched way above its weight; providing practical advice and guidance to businesses on how best to ensure the safety of their workplaces while underpinning the success of their products. His untimely departure could jeopardize US leadership in this area.

I clearly remember the day that the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) became a reality, shortly after Dr. Howard became NIOSH director. In a move that cut through so much red tape it must have looked like a bureaucratic snowstorm, John and I met to discuss a plan to coordinate nanotechnology activities across the agency. I don’t remember his exact words—just his enthusiasm for the idea and an immediate grasp of the need for NIOSH to look towards emerging risks—but I do remember that before lunch there was no NTRC, and after lunch there was.

It is this style of leadership that has continued to ensure NIOSH not only talks the talk, but also walks the walk when it comes to nanotechnology, no matter what the administrative and bureaucratic barriers.

Since that day, NIOSH has been at the leading edge of filling in the knowledge gaps through a targeted research program, working with businesses to identify and solve problems, and providing the most up to date information possible on working safely with engineered nanomaterials—whether in the smallest start-up or the largest multinational.

And incredibly, all this has been achieved by scrimping and scraping internal dollars together to support the research, with nary a drop of help from above.

Make no mistake, the success of NIOSH in tacking nanotechnology in the workplace is built on the expertise of researchers within the agency. But it was Howard who made things happen. With his departure, there is a real concern that NIOSH’s ability to tackle real-world nanotechnology challenges will languish. It is unlikely that his replacement will have the same vision and drive to make nanotechnology a personal priority, leaving nanotech-focused researchers in the agency without a champion to support their cause. And there is no guarantee that those precious nano-dollars will be protected as the incoming director realigns agency research directions.

The solution of course is for CDC and the federal government to ensure NIOSH has the resources it needs to continue to ensure emerging nanotech workplaces are as safe as possible—around $20 million per year should do the trick [based on my previous estimates]—and the internal leadership to channel resources into a robust and effective nanotechnology strategy.

If this happens, maybe John Howard’s departure will be just a very sad loss. But without action, his leaving could mark the end of a so-far highly successful initiative to support businesses in developing innovative new technologies as safely as possible.

For the sake of nanobusinesses in the US and beyond, let’s hope it is the former. In the meantime, NIOSH or no NIOSH, I suspect we haven’t seen the last of the Howard-nanotechnology partnership.

Benny the Bear comes clean

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:28:00 GMT

Last December I highlighted the case of Benny the Bear—a soft toy using nano-silver to give it antimicrobial properties (Benny the Bear, and the case of the disappearing nanoparticles). It appeared at the time that the manufacturer was being rather coy about the use of nanotechnology, leading to me suggesting: “perhaps it’s time for Benny to come clean.”

Well, come clean he has. And the revelation: Benny really is silver-free—uncertainty over risks, regulation and public acceptance led to the manufacturer to find a non-nano alternative.

In last Friday’s broadcast of Living On Earth—a U.S. weekly environmental news and information radio program—reporter Jeff Young interviewed Roy Sharda, a partner in Pure Plushy; the Chicago-based company that makes Benny. According to Sharda,

“We have used nano silver in the past there's a lot of speculation as to how much nano silver technology is accepted. Anytime you see controversy you try to sort of avoid it.”

Pure Plushy stopped using nano-silver because there were just too many questions about the material, how people will respond to its use, and how the government might regulate it.

So in the “case of the disappearing nanoparticles,” they really did disappear; to be replaced by a (presumably) more conventional EPA-approved antimicrobial.

Sharda says he still believes in nanotechnology, but clearly felt that a lack of safety information and clarity of oversight made investing in such a new and uncertain technology too much of a business risk.

Mmm. I wonder how many other companies—small and large—are shying away from investing in nanotech because of similar concerns?

(The complete Living On Earth article “Small Technology, Big Questions” can be found here.)

Nano-sunscreens leave their mark

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:57:00 GMT

Painted metal roofs are cheap, convenient, and usually very durable. But over the past two years, a rash of accelerated ageing has blighted pre-painted steel roofing in Australia. And intriguingly the ageing—which affects the coating—seems to be localized to small patches, taking on the form of fingerprints, handprints and even footprints.

The culprit it seems is sunscreen that is spilt or otherwise transferred to the roofing by construction workers during installation. And not any old sunscreen—this would appear to be a uniquely nano phenomenon. But I get ahead of myself…

Pick up a bottle of sunscreen and there is a fair chance these days that it contains nanoparticles, engineered to absorb and reflect away harmful UV radiation. Many manufacturers are introducing lines of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens as alternatives to those using more conventional organic chemicals, and it’s not hard to see why: the active ingredients in these nano sun blocks are generally more gentle on the skin than their non-nano counterparts; they are made to sit on the surface of the skin rather than penetrate into it; and if designed well, they continue to block UV radiation for several hours after application. And of course, they go on clear, giving a product that works well and looks good.

But each year as the sun and the sunscreen come out, questions over the safety of nano-formulations are raised. Can these nanoscale particles penetrate through the outer layers of the skin to the underlying living cells, and even the bloodstream? And if they get there, what harm could they cause? So far, most studies suggest that nanoparticles in sunscreens stay where they are supposed to—on the skin, not in it. Yet there is another question that has been bobbing along just under the surface for the past few years: could mixing nanoparticles, sun and moisture lead to a chemically corrosive mix that is bad for the skin?

The issue in question is photocatalytic activity. Titanium dioxide, and to a lesser extent zinc oxide, are photoactive—they have the ability to absorb UV, and in the presence of moisture convert benign water molecules into chemically active hydroxyl free radicals. These highly reactive chemicals could spell bad news for sunscreen users if they are generated in large amounts—eating away the components that hold the sunscreen together, and even possibly causing skin damage if they get below the surface and into cells.

Fortunately, manufacturers and users of titanium dioxide have long been aware of this propensity to generate free radicals, and have found ways of suppressing it in sunscreens. Photocatalytic activity depends on the crystalline structure of titanium dioxide. Anatase and rutile forms of titanium dioxide have the same chemical formula but different crystalline structures. And, as it turns out, different properties. Make nanoparticles from anatase titanium dioxide, or a mix of anatase and rutile, and you have a powerful source of harmful hydroxyl radicals in the presence of water and UV. But make nanoparticles out of rutile titanium dioxide alone, and photocatalytic activity is reduced substantially.

However, even rutile titanium dioxide particles show some photocatalytic activity. Early uses of rutile titanium dioxide as a white pigment in outdoor paint were plagued by the paint turning chalky after too much sun exposure. The problem was tracked down to hydroxyl radicals being produced and degrading the paint’s binder. The solution: coat the particles with a material that prevents free radical formation—no more chalky paint, and coatings that will last for years in the fiercest sun.

Makers of titanium dioxide-based sunscreens use a similar trick to retain the functionality of nanoparticles while avoiding the potentially harmful photocatalytic properties. For instance Optisol—a UV blocking agent made by the company Oxonica—incorporates a minute amount of manganese into the crystal lattice of rutile titanium dioxide nanoparticles. This doping allows the absorbed UV energy to be dissipated while virtually eliminating the formation of free radicals. Not only does this make sunscreens using Optisol potentially safer; they also last longer in the sun, as there are fewer free radicals to break down other ingredients in the product.

So all looks rosy for nano-enabled sunscreens. At least, it did until the publication of a recent paper. And this is where we get back to pre-painted steel roofs. Since mid 2006, researchers in New South Wales Australia have noticed unusual defects developing in newly installed pre-painted steel roofs. The damage is typically localized to areas of pressure contact, often taking the form of fingerprints or shoe impressions. And it results in accelerated weathering—in one example, patches of a roof appeared to age an equivalent of 15 years in only 18 months. The culprit? Nanoparticle-containing sunscreens, which are accidentally transferred to the roof during installation by touching or splashing.

In the paper “The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings,” [Progress in Organic Coatings 62: 313:320. 2008] authors Phil Barker and Amos Branch systematically track down the underlying cause behind the unsightly blemishes. Out of ten sunscreens tested—four containing no nanoparticles, five containing titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and one containing zinc oxide nanoparticles—all but one of the nanoparticle-based sunscreens consistently degraded samples of pre-painted roofing surface exposed to sunlight for 12 weeks. In contrast, the non-nano products had no obvious deleterious effect. In the worst case, the roofing lost over 85% of its gloss (a measure of degradation) in just six weeks.

Digging a little deeper, Barker and Branch pinned the effect to nanoparticles in all but one sunscreen acting as photocatalysts, and generating hydroxyl radicals in the presence of UV radiation and water. Despite assumptions that nanoparticles in sunscreens are engineered not to produce significant amounts of free radicals, these products were generating them fast enough to significantly damage roof coatings in a matter of weeks!

So have we had the wool pulled over our eyes? Are these supposedly benign nano-sunscreens we are slathering on our skin adding to our wrinkle-count before our time, and perhaps more besides?

Before jumping to conclusions, it is worth taking stock of what is known, and what is not. While the study showed all but one of the nanoparticle-based sunscreens had some adverse effects on the roofing, these effects varied greatly between products. The sunscreen using nano-zinc oxide particles led to a 55% reduction in gloss over 12 weeks, while in the worst case, a sunscreen containing 4% titanium dioxide led to a 95% reduction in gloss over 12 weeks. Assuming that the reduction in gloss is associated with the formation of hydroxyl radicals (and the evidence presented by Barker and Branch arising from a logical sequence of laboratory experiments is pretty convincing), there is still uncertainty over how harmful these would be when generated on the skin of a sunscreen-user. To cause damage, the hydroxyl radicals would need to penetrate deep into the skin and into cells before loosing their potency, and if the nanoparticles stay on top of the skin where they are supposed to, significant penetration may not occur.

Then there is the anomalous nano-sunscreen that didn’t show an appreciable effect. A nifty piece of X-ray diffraction analysis in the Barker and Branch paper showed that the titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the roof-damaging sunscreens were an anatase/rutile mix, while the nanoparticles in the benign sunscreen were comprised of rutile titanium dioxide alone. Clearly crystalline form matters, as Oxonica realized when they selected the less-active rutile form of titanium dioxide as the basis for Optisol.

This study demonstrates that it is possible to create nanoparticle-based sunscreens that do not generate significant amounts of hydroxyl free radicals. But the bottom line here is that some nano-based sunscreens are being sold (in Australia at least) that contain photoactive nanoparticles which generate hydroxyl radicals in the presence of water and sunlight. This raises questions about the impact of these products on users over time and, perhaps more significantly, their impact on the environment. A photocatalytic titanium dioxide particle released into the environment will continue to generate hydroxyl radicals as long as it is exposed to UV radiation—because this is a catalytic process, the particle is not destroyed in the process, but just carries on doing its stuff; day after day, year after year.

But perhaps the biggest question here is one of regulation. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration does not currently discriminate between anatase and rutile titanium dioxide particles in sunscreens, or doped and un-doped particles [Sunscreen Drug Products For Over-The-Counter Human Use: Final Monograph. May 21 1999. PDF, 144 KB]. This may change following further consultation on the use of nanoscale titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens [see Sunscreen Drug Products For Over-The-Counter Human Use; Proposed Amendment of Final Monograph; Proposed Rule. August 27 2007. PDF, 424 KB]. But in the meantime, what is to stop manufacturers using potentially harmful forms of titanium dioxide in sunscreens? And how will consumers be able to distinguish between companies that have got it right, and those that have not?

It seems that if we are not careful, nano-sunscreens could be making their mark on more than just pre-painted steel roofing.

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:36:00 GMT

Read Thomas L. Friedman’s “The World is Flat” or Neal Stephenson’s “Cryptonomicon”, and you get a glimpse into how the hacker culture that emerged at the tail end of the twentieth century revolutionized the digital world. Will a confluence of emerging technologies—including information tech, biotech, and nanotech—lead to a similar revolution in the biological world?

Behind every computer screen is a complexity of software and hardware that together create a virtual world in which many of us spend more time living out our lives than is probably healthy—whether crunching numbers, playing games or churning out our latest blog. This world is built in part (some would say a large part) on the work of technically savvy individuals—hackers—who have learned the art of manipulating the fundamental building blocks of the digital world.

According to that fount of all knowledge Wikipedia, a “computer hacker is a person who enjoys designing software and building programs with a sense for aesthetics and playful cleverness.” A big attraction of hacking is the ability to change “reality” (albeit a digital reality) by manipulating the software (and hardware in the broadest interpretation of "hacker") that defines it. And the factors that make this possible? Easy access to knowledge and tools, and the development of global grassroots networks for information sharing.

But here’s a question: what are the chances of a biology-based hacker culture arising; enticed by the lure of tinkering with biological codes that define living systems, rather than digital codes that govern digital systems? The answer is that it is already here. The “biohacking” culture is alive and kicking, and already pushing the boundaries of what is possible and acceptable.

Reading through a just-released report on the social and ethical challenges of synthetic biology commissioned by the U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Synthetic Biology. Social and Ethical Challenges. PDF, 740 KB), I was particularly intrigued by a short section on what has been termed “garage biology.” (For a succinct overview of the report , I would recommend Richard Jones’ recent blog entry at Soft Machines.) On the subject of garage biology, authors Andrew Balmer and Paul Martin of the Institute for Science and Society at the University of Nottingham had this to say:

“As DNA sequencing becomes cheaper and quicker and second hand equipment becomes available on eBay the power to create synthetic sequences may be dispersed to many individuals and groups. Biohackers have also become known by the portmanteau ‘biopunk’ (biotech punk), that has its origins as a science fiction genre. The most recent, and significant addition to this movement has been the online publication of a ‘Primer for Synthetic Biology’, a manual, written in simple, non-technical language, for those wishing to engage themselves in some bio hacking.”

With my interest piqued, I went on-line to check out the "biopunk" community. A quick search brought up this recent comment from a teenager on the biopunk.org website:

“A few weeks ago I had somebody in school complaining about her eating disorder, Ceiliacs disease or something, and how she can't eaten certain foods because of it. She has mentioned this before, and frankly I was tired of it, so I spent just *20* minutes on the internet during my lunch period and found a cure hidden in the patent database, and then told her how to use http://e-oligos.com/ and then http://biohack.sf.net/ and http://openwetware.org/ to get the materials she needs from http://labx.com/ to implement the solution in some gastrointestinal bacteria and cure it herself. Problem freakin' solved.” [http://www.biopunk.org/on-the-state-of-biodiy-biopunk-culture-t36.html]

I have no idea whether synthetic biology is as accessible to the masses as this comment would imply (I suspect not). But clearly there is a growing culture of people interested in playing with genetic software and hardware in much the same way as conventional hackers play with computer software and hardware. And this is being spurred on by increasingly easy access to tools and knowledge within a growing grassroots community.

Additional parallels between digital and biological hacking abound. For instance, one of the drivers behind the development of the digital world most of us now inhabit was the open source movement, providing open access to computer code on the understanding that hackers shared any improvements made to the code with the rest of the world. Similar movements are growing up around synthetic biology, with the significant difference being that the “code” is now biological. A good example is the BioBricks Foundation that is developing an open source registry of standard biological parts that can be used to “program living organisms in the same way a computer scientist can program a computer.”

While only time will tell whether the biopunk movement will have the same impact on synbio as the hacker culture had on the digital world (and there are plenty of skeptics out there who are doubtful), the idea of “hacking biology” appeals to plenty of people. Especially where it brings within their grasp tools that enable engineering-based concepts to be applied to biological systems. Drew Endy—a leading proponent of synthetic biology—had this to say in a recent interview:

“Programming DNA is more cool, it's more appealing, it's more powerful than silicon. You have an actual living, reproducing machine; it's nanotechnology that works. It's not some Drexlarian (Eric Drexler) fantasy. And we get to program it. And it's actually a pretty cheap technology. You don't need a FAB Lab like you need for silicon wafers. You grow some stuff up in sugar water with a little bit of nutrients. My read on the world is that there is tremendous pressure that's just started to be revealed around what heretofore has been extraordinarily limited access to biotechnology.” [Edge, issue 237, February 19 2008]

While the debate surrounding the social and ethical development and use of synthetic biology tends to focus on issues such as bioterrorism, uncontrolled releases, global justice and the creation of “artificial life,” it is quite possible that a successful biopunk movement will change the context within which this debate is conducted. How do you establish a framework for socially and ethically responsible development when the person you need to reach is an adolescent teenager constructing new biological code in their basement?

This is a major challenge to the development of safe and societally accepted synthetic biology. Biological hacking may never develop on the scale of computer hacking —“life” might shatter our hubris by turning out to be more complex than anyone imagined. But I do not think we can afford to be complacent here. The four recommendations made in the BBSRC report will definitely help pave the way towards socially and ethically responsible synthetic biology: recognizing the importance of maintaining public legitimacy and support; ensuring the scientific community engage with society on the impacts of their work; pursuing partnerships with civil society groups, social scientists and ethicists; and putting in place a robust governance framework before synthetic biology applications are realized. However, I suspect that these are just the first steps in a long process to ensure society as a whole takes responsibility for developing and using an increasing level of control over the basic building blocks of life wisely.

As a final thought, when a hacker causes the digital reality in their computer to malfunction through tinkering, they can simply reboot and start again. It might not be so simple when hacking life itself. This may be a flawed analogy, but it is probably something the new socioethics of synbio should address if serious mis-steps are to be avoided.

A shift in emphasis for the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:24:00 GMT

Emulated around the world, the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has set the pace for government-driven nanotechnology research and development. Yet as the science and technology of working at the nanoscale mature, the challenges of transforming laboratory curiosities into safe, successful and sustainable products loom large. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008—just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives—aims to tackle these challenges head-on.

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, signed by President Bush In 2003, codified the NNI as a cross-agency research and development initiative focused on knowledge generation to underpin new technological advances. In this, the NNI has been an unqualified success. Even accounting for research re branding (“nano” is most definitely a broad church), the NNI has stimulated tremendous advances in understanding how materials behave and can be manipulated at the nanoscale; and the new possibilities that open up as a result. But as an R&D initiative, the NNI has struggled to bridge the gap between innovative science and sustainable technologies.

This year the 2003 Act is up for reauthorization, and both the U.S. House and Senate are looking to further support the potential economic and social benefits that nanotech R&D promises. The bill just passed by the House (by a vote of 407 to 6) is an important step towards ensuring nanotechnology’s use in the service of society. Still to come is a Senate bill addressing the reauthorization, but the signs are positive that as nanotechnology begins to grow up, the emphasis is shifting from generating new knowledge to using it wisely.

The new Act makes a number of changes to the NNI, but the following strike me as being particularly relevant:

Designation of a coordinator for the social dimensions of nanotechnology.   The new position would reside in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (in the Executive Office of the President), and would be responsible (among other things) for ensuring an Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) research plan is developed, updated and implemented across the federal government.

This coordinator would bring much-needed leadership to nanotechnology EHS research within the federal government, and would help focus efforts on what is needed to underpin the emergence of safe nanotechnologies. Whoever gets fingered for the position will have a tough job of it though—federal agencies typically resist “interference” from the Whitehouse, and very real concerns over the politicization of science in the U.S. could undermine trust in the appointee. And of course, a coordinator with no fiscal authority will find it hard to get the agencies’ attention in the first place.

Yet even with these hurdles in place, a coordinator with vision, sound scientific credentials and a willingness to work in partnership with federal agencies could put federal nano-EHS research back on track.

Development and implementation of a nanotechnology risk-research plan. The Act calls for the coordinator (see above) to develop, periodically update and implement a research plan addressing the societal dimensions of nanotechnology, including potential environment, health and safety impacts. Key specified components include: Near and long-term research objectives; milestones, along with delivery times and resource-requirements; agency roles in carrying out the research plan; funding requirements, allocations and sources.

Where there’s a plan, there is at least the possibility of progress—something that many of us have been saying for some time (check out here, for instance). ’Nuff said!

Development and maintenance of a publicly accessible database of research projects funded to address nanotechnology environmental, health and safety impacts.

Sound familiar? This database already exists in the guise of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies inventory of nanotechnology EHS research—currently being taken over and updated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Knowing what is currently going on is a no-brainer in developing an effective research plan. But the utility of a research database is only as good as its implementation and the data it holds. Get it right, and you have a powerful tool. But get it wrong, and you are lumbered with a bureaucratic obstacle course that serves no-one.

Given the utility of an effective database that handles risk-relevant research information in a sophisticated way, this is one the federal government’ cannot afford to get wrong.

Establish interdisciplinary research centres addressing Green Nanotechnology. These centres to include: research on methods and approaches to develop environmentally benign nanoscale products and manufacturing processes; fostering the transfer of green nanotech knowledge to industry; and educating scientists and engineers in the principles and techniques of green nanotech.

Back in 2007, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies published the report “Green Nanotechnology: It’s Easier Than You Think,” highlighting research, perspectives and policy options in this area. Learning how to use a new technology in environmentally sound ways at the beginning of its development cycle makes a lot of sense—and specific inclusion of Green Nano in the new Act is an encouraging step in the right direction.

Overall, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 begins to shift the emphasis of nanotech in the U.S. from innovative research, to effective development, and lays a firm foundation on which to build socially beneficial and economically successful technologies.

Will it succeed in what it sets out to do? That will depend on how the federal government chooses to respond. There is nothing to stop federal agencies continuing with business as usual, tortuously justifying current activities as adhering to the letter of the Act. But for real progress to be made, the NNI will need to embrace the spirit behind this reauthorization, and take action because it is needed, not because it is demanded.

Smart materials; smart choices?

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:39:00 GMT

Why nano? Why care? For non-nanotech initiates, an obsession with nanotechnology must sometimes seem a bizarre occupation of the sad and lonely. And even within the nanotechnology community, who hasn’t had occasional doubts over the legitimacy of singling out “nano” as something special? Yet occasionally a piece of work comes along that helps put things back into perspective. For me, a paper just published on-line in the journal Nano Letters did exactly that.

To be quite frank, the paper’s title is not what I would call inspirational. But dig below the surface, and you unearth an object lesson in what makes nano so intriguing, and why taking a fresh look at possible health and environmental impacts is so important. First the science though.

The Science

The paper in question is “Controlled Manipulation of Giant Hybrid Inorganic Nanowire Assemblies” by Fung Suong Ou, Manikoth M. Shaijumon, and Pulickel M. Ajayan, published on-line in Nano Letters, May 29 2008. Unfortunately, a subscription to the journal is needed to view the paper, but the supplemental information is freely available (here), and well worth looking at.

In brief, the authors used a nanoscale fabrication technique to construct long, straight, carbon nanotubes capped with gold nanowires. Think “magician’s wand” with the nanotube as the stem and the gold as the white tip, and you will get the idea. The nano-wands (for want of a better description) were between 100 nm and 150 nm wide, and over 100 mircometres (100,000 nm) long. Micrographs in the paper show rafts of uniform-length nano-wands stacked side by side, with individual wands fraying off at the edges.

But this is where things get interesting. These long, straight artificial rods were designed to have one end that was hydrophobic (water-repelling; the carbon end), and one end that was hydrophilic (water-seeking; the gold). When dispersed in water, these wands formed a uniform suspension. But when an organic solvent—dichloromethane (DCM)—was added to the mix, the nano-wands assembled into shells around the DCM, with the black carbon nanotubes facing in and the gold tips facing out. With a bit of shaking and ultrasonic agitation, one large gold-coloured sphere was formed, separating the DCM from the water. Reversing the process by suspending the nano-wands in DCM and adding water, a large black sphere assembled; separating the water from the organic solvent. Black, because in this case the carbon nanotube “tails” were pointing outward.

Using the same fabrication technique, the researchers demonstrated a couple of other tricks. By adding a band of the metal nickel below the gold tip, the nano-wands could be made magnetic—so now the spheres separating the two liquids could be moved around using a magnetic field. And by adding an ultraviolet light-degradable hydrophobic chemical to the gold end of nano-wands, spheres were constructed that quite literally turned inside-out under UV irradiation.

The Promise

Nanotechnology is all about functionality—making materials and products that behave in new and unusual ways because they have been engineered at an incredibly fine scale. This new and unusual behaviour might in some cases be due to the unusual physics and chemistry of small clusters of atoms (such as the size-related fluorescence of quantum dots). But it can just as easily arise from engineering a material at such a fine scale that it can be used in new ways (such as making antimicrobial silver particles small enough to be incorporated into a miscellany of products); or constructing materials at the nanoscale with such sophistication that new properties emerge (multi-functional nano-therapeutics for instance). The nano-wands are most definitely in the latter categories—their functionality arises from their smallness and sophistication.

The important point here is that, while size matters, performance matters more. And so while these nano-wands are technically larger than the 100 nm limit usually (and somewhat arbitrarily) imposed on nanotechnology, they nevertheless represent an ability to create a novel functional material through sophisticated engineering at a very fine scale.

And what functionality! This is a crude material compared to what could be achieved using similar construction techniques, but even so the nano-wands behave in a most unusual way. Functionally, they are reminiscent of polar molecules, and the spheres they form are analogous to micelles—“capsules” formed by organic molecules with opposing hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends. But by engineering them at the nanoscale out of inorganic materials, structural and functional possibilities open up that are way beyond the realm of chemistry alone.

It is easy to imagine how this material could be used to encapsulate and collect chemical spills in the environment. Or deliver drugs to where they are needed in a very targeted way (only releasing their payload by disassembling when the right signal is received). Yet the work of Fung Suong Ou and colleagues hints at much greater things. Using the same basic technology, there is nothing to prevent the construction of multi-component nanomaterials that can assemble and re-assemble in many different ways, depending on their environment and the stimuli they receive. As the paper’s authors’ conclude,

“This controlled engineering feat at the nanoscale that allows well-controlled assembly and manipulation could lead to the creation of smart materials that are a cornerstone for the development of nanotechnology-based applications.”

The challenge

But stimulating as the science is, this paper is also an object lesson in why new thinking is needed on possible risks to human health and the environment, if such technologies are to succeed.

First and foremost, the paper comes hot on the heels of Poland et al.’s study linking some forms of multi-walled carbon nanotubes to precursors of mesothelioma—a disease more usually associated with asbestos exposure. Poland’s research suggests that carbon nanotubes which are thin, longer than 15 – 20 micrometres, straight, and dispersible, could lead to the disease if inhaled. The nano-wands in the Ou et al. paper are around 150 nm in diameter, something over 100 micrometres long, straight, and apparently dispersible—in other words, exactly the types of fibres which Poland’s work suggests more research is needed on before the possible health implications are understood.

It’s too early to tell whether Ou’s nano-wands will have their own unique risk-profile. But their inevitable comparison with the nanotubes used in Poland’s study and the possibilities of dispersive use hinted at in the accompanying press release do raise important questions about their safety. The important point here is not that this particular material might show harmful behaviour, but that there is always the chance that novel behaviour can lead to unanticipated harm—unless the right questions are asked early on. And this most definitely requires new thinking on what those questions are, and how they might best be answered.

The second object lesson in new challenges concerns regulations. Unless used as a drug or pesticide, substances are typically regulated according to their chemical makeup. It’s an approach that was developed at a time when the terms “chemical” and “substance” were interchangeable. But Ou’s nano-wands challenge this paradigm.

These nano-wands and other hybrid substances have no unique chemical identity, and so potentially slip through the net of many existing regulations. Yet they display a functionality that depends on their physical form and complex makeup, which is not predictable from their chemical components. And regulations are needed that recognize this. If effective approaches are to be developed to ensure the safe use of this emerging class of material, new thinking is needed on how substances are classified and regulated.

The bottom line

Why nano? As Ou’s work shows, we can potentially do things with nano that are way beyond any other technology at our disposal. And when nano is combined with other technologies like biotech and information tech, the possibilities become endless.

Why care? Because nano will change your life, whether you like it or not. And you might want to make sure that it is a change for the better, not for the worse.

And the nano-wands? These have tremendous potential as an innovative new material. Lets hope that their development is matched by equally innovative thinking on using them safely.

Further resources

Paper: Controlled Manipulation of Giant Hybrid Inorganic Nanowire Assemblies

Supplemental Material to the paper

Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology. J. Clarence Davies

Paper: Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study

Carbon nanotubes: the new asbestos? Not if we act fast.

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:19:00 GMT

Mix carbon nanotubes and asbestos together (metaphorically) and you get an explosive mix—at least if news coverage of the latest publication coming out of Professor Ken Donaldson’s team is anything to go by. The research—published on-line today in Nature Nanotechnology—is the first to explicitly test the hypothesis that long carbon nanotubes behave like long asbestos fibres in the body.

In brief, the study (which I was a co-author on) used an established method to test whether a fibrous material has the potential to lead to the disease mesothelioma—a cancer of the outer lining of the lungs that can take decades to develop following exposure. In the method, samples of material are injected into the abdominal space of mice, where inflammation and the formation of granulomas in the lining tissue (the mesothelium) are studied over a seven-day period. Previous research has established that the combined presence of fibres, inflammation and granulomas is a very strong indicator that mesothelioma will occur in the long-term. While the method uses lining of the abdominal space, it is highly predictive of what happens in the same tissue surrounding the lungs, if it is exposed to durable fibres.

Five materials were tested in this study: short amosite asbestos fibres, long amosite asbestos fibres, short and/or tangled multi walled carbon nanotubes (two samples), long straight multi walled carbon nanotubes (two samples), and carbon black (compact graphite-based particles. The results: fibres longer than 15 micrometers to 20 micrometers (whether asbestos or carbon nanotubes) led to a positive response; short/compact particles did not.

This is the first study to demonstrate that carbon nanotubes that physically resemble harmful asbestos fibres, can also behave like harmful asbestos fibres.

What the study does not address is whether exposure to long straight carbon nanotubes will occur or, if it does, whether these fine fibres will reach the mesothelium surrounding the lungs, and go on to cause mesothelioma.

But the results are sufficiently compelling to suggest urgent action is needed if we are to prevent a long lasting legacy of harm from some forms of carbon nanotubes, and ensure the emergence of safe and trusted carbon nanotube applications.

First and foremost, targeted research is needed to validate this study, assess the magnitude and nature of likely carbon nanotube exposures—from material production to product disposal—and evaluate whether inhaled nanotubes can work their way to the outer lining of the lungs. The current U.S. federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research (PDF, 2.2 MB) does not specifically address the health impacts of carbon nanotubes (despite a recommendation from the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in 2004 to carry out exactly this type of research). Perhaps it’s time to rethink what is important here.

But action is also needed now to ensure carbon nanotube exposures to workers and users are kept as low as possible. This means developing appropriate exposure measurement methods, applying effective control and containment protocols, and agreeing on benchmark exposure levels to use in the absence of more formal exposure limits. The recent BSI Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials (PD 6699-2:2007, see also “Safe nanotechnology in the workplace: A practical guide”) recommends a benchmark exposure level of 0.01 fibres/ml for carbon nanotubes in the absence of any other information—this would seem to be good advice for long carbon nanotubes, until more is known about their exposure potential and hazardous nature. Long multi-walled carbon nanotubes can currently be purchased from outlets like CheapTubes Incorporated for as little as 40 cents a gram (as long as you by them in kilogramme quantities), yet the health and safety advice still assumes these are as harmless as graphite—this has to change.

And thirdly, action is needed to ensure transparency—making sure regulators, industries and consumers know which types of carbon nanotubes are being used, where they are being used, and what precautions should be taken to ensure safe use.

Carbon nanotubes have great potential as a unique material that can be used in many unique and beneficial ways—from reducing our environmental impact to curing diseases. But mis-steps now could easily undermine trust in this nascent industry, and prevent the material’s potential from being realized.

The comparison with asbestos is firmly grounded in the physical resemblance between certain forms of the two materials, and this alone should stimulate clear action to ensure safe use. But the health impacts of asbestos exposure still resonate through society—deaths from asbestos-related disease are not expected to peak for another ten years—and the mere suggestion of similarities between nanotubes and asbestos fibres could cause investors and users to shy away from this new technology unless there are clear assurances that health and safety concerns are being fully addressed.

Widespread pickup in the media of the current study suggests that people care about carbon nanotubes, and whether they are safe. The good news is that we still have time to ensure they are used safely—but only if we act now and act fast.

Additional Resources

Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Poland et al. (2008). doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111

Carbon nanotubes display asbestos-like behaviour - a SAFENANO commentary by Ken Donaldson

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Nanotechnology consumer products inventory

International Council On Nanotechnology backgrounder on multi walled carbon nanotunes and mesothelioma

NIOSH Science Blog

Decoupling “nanotechnology”

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:04:00 GMT

"Nanotechnology" as an overarching concept is great for sweeping statements and sound bites, but falls short when it comes to real-world decision-making. As nanoscale technologies are increasingly used in everything from antimicrobial socks to anti-cancer drugs, perhaps its time to rethink how we talk about the myriad diverse technologies that fall, slip or are forcibly squeezed under this all-encompassing banner.

At last year's Bernstein Symposium, I had the pleasure of listening to National Public Radio science journalist Richard Harris talking about the latest greatest technology-not nanotechnology, but yellowtechnology. A rather liberal re-interpretation of Richard's lecture goes something like this:

"Yellowtechnology is the next technological revolution-if you think biotechnology and information technology are cool, just wait until you see what yellowtech can do. Yellow makes everything faster; smarter; hotter. Want more powerful power tools? Just add yellow. Got to have a faster, sleeker sports car? Make it yellow. And everyone knows that yellow is the surest route to making good food great-from M&M's to mustard.

"The beauty of yellowtech is that it reflects what nature has been doing for millennia. Daffodils, the sun, canaries-everywhere you look, the natural world is exploiting yellowtech. In developing this new technology we are simply treading in the footsteps of mother nature, and producing new products that are environmentally friendly to their core. In the twenty first century, yellow is the new green.

"But care is needed-who hasn't experienced the dark side of a carelessly discarded banana skin? Yellowtech may be the next best thing, but we need to learn how to use it responsibly. We need new research to discover where yellow might be harmful. We need regulations to ensure safe use. And we need transparency so we know where yellow is being used, and what the consequences might be. Is your yellow rubber duck safe? If not, how would you know?"

[long pause]

"I'm sorry what was that? I was supposed to be talking about nanotechnology, not yellowtechnology? OK, let's start again...

"Nanotechnology is the next technological revolution-if you thought we could change the world with biotechnology and information technology, just wait until you see what nanotech can do..."

The above delivery is inspired by rather than transcribed from Richard's lecture (A video of the original lecture can be viewed from here), but it does encapsulate a critical point-a grand idea that is sufficiently broad can be used-or abused-to almost any purpose, and in the end becomes meaningless.

The grand idea of nanotechnology has unquestionably stimulated much new science and technology around the world, and has energized the quest to develop scientific knowledge targeted at improving quality of life. Yet when it comes to identifying its benefits, addressing its risks and overseeing its safe use, it is as slippery (and some would argue as meaningless) a concept as yellowtechnology.

Under this grand idea, there is the temptation to redefine the most trivial advances as "nanotechnology" in order to emphasize the scale and magnitude of the new technological revolution. But there is also the lure of mixing and matching risks-either to over-stress the dangers of the new technology, or to justify a ragbag of studies as a coherent risk research strategy. And so it becomes conceivable that consumers might reject new technologies for energy harvesting because a nanotech-based toothpaste gets a bad rap (a hypothetical example), or a multi-million dollar materials characterization facility is justified on the grounds of what it might hypothetically contribute to preventing occupational exposures.

As businesses, governments and consumers are faced with making increasingly sophisticated decisions on how nanotechnology is and is not used, it becomes more important to differentiate between the grand idea, and the products and processes it leads to.

This process of "decoupling" is the only way of ensuring intelligent and informed conversations about product-specific benefits and risks.

By decoupling different expressions of nanotechnology from the overarching concept, it becomes possible to make informed decisions on the resulting nanotechnologies, rather than the idea of nanotechnology. Focusing on the products of the grand idea, rather than the idea itself, regulators can begin to talk about how a specific substance (like nanoscale silver) might present new challenges, without being sidetracked by other unrelated nanomaterials. Or consumers can begin to have informed conversations about the pros and cons of certain products-say, nanoscale electronics-without being baffled by claims and counter-claims associated with unrelated "nanotech" products.

The grand idea of nanotechnology has taken such firm root around the world that decoupling it into its component technologies and products will not be easy. But if we are to avoid nanotechnology becoming as farcical as yellowtechnology, it's something we need to do-the sooner the better.

Enough meetings already!

andrew.maynard@physics.org — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:57:00 GMT

My worst nightmare—I’m sitting at the back of a small plane (by the bathroom), my knees up round my ears (because someone else with a bigger case got to the overhead storage before me), and a small child screaming its head off two rows down. But unlike a nightmare, this is reality, and waking up to a better life is not an option! What did I do to deserve this? The polite answer—agree to speak at yet another nano-meeting!

Don’t get me wrong, I realize that for most people these events are a welcome break from everyday routine; a chance to catch up with old colleagues, and possibly even learn something new. But spare a thought for those of us for whom the “nano-meeting” has become an unfortunate way of life!

By my calculation, this will be the fifty-fourth nano-meeting I have spoken at or participated in over the last twelve months. I think that puts me in the addict category! Having shared the platform with some esteemed colleagues—again and again and again—I could probably give their talks off pat, as they could probably give mine. And the really worrying thing—many of these traveling partners have tougher schedules than me.

As I sit here in my cramped seat; twisted most unnaturally in order to type on my laptop’s keyboard, I find myself asking: is the toll this incessant travel is taking on my health, my family and my by-now non-existent social life, the real “risk” of nanotechnology? And is the nano-meeting-carbon-footprint threatening to overshadow all other environmental impacts? And I must confess, the answer that comes back to me in my admittedly stressed state is most assuredly yes!

So here’s my plan: I am going to call for a moratorium on nano-meetings—just until we know more about the “risks.” I thought about a voluntary program, with the slogan “just say no to nano-meetings”, and a network of self-help groups for recovering nano-meeting addicts. But I know the temptation to do just one more meeting would be too strong. The only solution is legislative action—and soon!

Bliss! No more working nights and weekends to get ready for the next lecture. No more burning the midnight oil to answer the day’s cascade of emails. No more shifting in my seat every thirty seconds as the next incontinent passenger squeezes past to reach the bathroom. Of course, it might make it kind of difficult to inform, educate and engage people on nanotechnology. But hey—right now, I’m willing to pay that price.

Later…

Well, having landed and tracked down the obligatory Starbucks, I can feel sanity returning. These meetings are tough and, contrary to what some think, most of us on the circuit attend them to be of service, rather than to indulge ourselves. They do hit hard on our families, our jobs and our time. But I think that most of us feel the effort is worthwhile, if the end result is informed discussion and action on developing nanotechnologies responsibly—as long as we don’t end up substituting meetings for action. And they do have their compensations… the leopard-print bath robe I’ve just discovered in my nautically-themed hotel room makes the whole enterprise seem that much more worth while. :-)

Postscript

This was written several months back at a particularly low point on the nano-meeting circuit. I still travel too much and spend too little time at home—as I write, I am looking out over a cloud-flecked North America from 30,000 feet. So much for good intentions! Maybe I’ll decline the next invitation. Maybe…