Bryony Ross

ObservatoryNANO – responsible nanotechnology for socio-economic benefit

bryony@safenano.org — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:49:00 GMT

After spending a fair bit of time ‘hibernating’ at SAFENANO HQ (well, that’s how I wish it was!), this month sees the beginning of a fairly busy period for the team, and the start of a number of very important new projects in nano HSE. The first of these kicked off on Monday, with the preliminary meeting of the newly-formed FP7 action 'ObservatoryNANO' in London

ObservatoryNANO is a 4 year FP7 funded project featuring 10 partners from across Europe, the basic idea of which is to examine 10 key areas of nanotechnology development, and provide easily accessible information covering economic impact, technological advances, health & safety implications, regulations and standards both in the present time and with a horizon scanning focus.

SAFENANO/IOM have the task of leading the Health Safety aspect of the project. The task we have been set, namely to review the technological and economic reports produced by other partners and provide a comprehensive health and safety assessment of each area, is definitely going to be a challenge, but the project's outcome should be a resource that is invaluable to industry, academia and government alike. Following Monday's meeting, where the main aim was to meet everyone else, and begin ordering how to coordinate our actions with those of the people responsible for each of the 10 technical, scientific and economic reports. For the SAFENANO team, it was just great to finally start work on another of the FP7 projects everyone has worked so hard to be awarded. Following this, we’re now ready to meet with our workpackage partners RIVM, CEA and EMPA at the beginning of summer and get started on the work proper - SAFENANO will keep you updated on how we progress as the HSE aspects of the project develop.

In the meantime, there is already a website up and running to introduce users to the project - have a look at www.observatory-nano.eu for more information!

UK Nanoforum 2007

bryony@safenano.org — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:26:00 GMT

Today was the UK Nanoforum 2007 in Westminster, London. As part of SAFENANO’s new consultancy service provision launch, myself and Rob flew down to attend. The turnout was great, with around 400 delegates from over 20 countries round the world, and even before lunch we’d spoken to lots of people who were very interested in what SAFENANO had to offer.

The services branch of SAFENANO was finally made official in the last couple of weeks, and we’re now developing a full range of services to provide industry and academia with the tools to ensure that their nanotechnology provision is as safe as it can be. SAFENANO.org was updated in the last week to include a brief introduction to our services, which are split into 5 main areas – toxicology/ecotox lab services, Occupational Health, Occupational Hygiene, Training and Toxicology Review.

In the morning, there was a series of workshops and keynote speeches from eminent names covering UK nano capabilities, and these proved to be very interesting. I was particularly taken with the Team AVNP project Paul Reip of QinetiQ discussed (AVNP stands for Anti Viral Nanoparticles). The project, which has been running for almost its full 2 year span, has successfully produced particles that are both anti-viral (lethal to H5N1 bird flu virus, MRSA52 and E.Coli amongst others) anti-microbial and anti-fungal. Although it will still be a while before particles like this are available as finished products (e.g. as a coating on a facemask filter) and protecting the frontline care staff it was originally designed for, it was great to see a real positive benefit being reaped from nanotech.

In the afternoon, Rob gave an elevator speech to attending delegates (all without powerpoint, I was impressed!). This was very well received, and the SAFENANO exhibition stand also received a lot of attention – even sporting a queue at one point in the afternoon!

All in all, I think the day was invaluable to SAFENANO - we not only received a good number of new membership requests, but we made some new business contacts that I think could be valuable in the future, and even managed to take a few pictures during the event. I'm heading off today for a much anticipated holiday, so SAFENANO may not be quite as up to date as usual over the next 10 days, but when i come back ill update the site fully, and post the photos :)

A welcome break for the bewildered

bryony@safenano.org — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:17:00 GMT

I am still really quite new to the nanotechnology health and safety area, but like many people who follow its developments, recent efforts reported addressing this area have in my eyes seemed at times so fragmented and overlapping that the cynical side of my personality was left wondering how we even got this far! The field seems be becoming an increasingly crowded area to work in, and must be bewildering to newcomers (I was confused!). Two articles in the October 15th edition of Chemical and Engineering News therefore came as a welcome respite to the usually confusing releases of recent times.

The online edition of the magazine addresses in two articles the state of environmental, health, and safety research of engineered nanoparticles, and the challenges risk-based nanotech research faces in America. The articles, written by Susan R Morrisey, provide a brief and easily understood overview of recent efforts being made in America by both Government and NGOs to address these issues, and highlight the questions being asked about exactly how useful the federal strategy will end up being as it seemingly lags begind the NGOs (several of whom are imminently to release of strategic plans for this area).

The first, ‘Setting Priorities for Nanotech’ discusses the efforts made thus far by the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. It summarises the steps that lead to the publication of NEHI’s plan for Prioritization of EH&S research needs for Nanotechnology, and the mixed reception that this brought from NGO’s across America (see SAFENANO’s coverage of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ reaction to this release). It also covers the current position that the NEHI group are in, the problems they face in the immediate future, and includes reaction from E. Clayton Teague, Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.

The second article focuses on the challenges of Risk-Based Nanotech Research, and summarises the efforts being made by Rice University’s International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) to address the need for a predictive model for assessing how nanoparticles interact with biological systems in the run down to ICON’s release of this report in the coming months.

Of course, the articles focus entirely on the USA, and are not by any means an all encompassing record of the efforts being made, past, present and future. However, they provide a good overview of the current lie of the land in the effort to promote nanotechnology health and safety - and reading them didn’t make my head hurt!

Follow the links to read 'Setting Priorities for Nanotech' or 'Challenges of Risk-Based Nanotech Research'

Nice Conference, shame about the plane.

bryony@safenano.org — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:59:00 GMT

Today myself and Rob Aitken are at the NanoCentral / CEMMNT Nanomaterials Networking event in Loughborough. We flew down last night, and despite a cancelled flight, followed by a 'blissful' 4 hour delay in the Airport, and then a walk from the Hotel to the venue that was a little longer than anticipated (try taking your company’s marketing materials, your bag and your laptop for a 25 minute powerwalk!), we managed to get the SAFENANO stand up and running successfully.

The day was unique in that it really had an emphasis on cross disciplinnary co-ordination and networking, as such every delegate present attended all 4 broadly themed presentation sessions of the day, in which companies and initiatives represented provided a potted guide to their current offering and future plans.

The four sessions were: Nanomaterial Synthesis and Supply, Nanomaterials Dispersion functionalization and formulation, Nanomaterials applications development and Nanomaterials Characterisation and HSE. To keep things running smoothly, Stephen Cash of NanoCentral facilitated the talks, ensuring people kept to their 5 minute time limits by asking the crowd to clap when he signalled with a red card, and Rob did a great job of encapsulating SAFENANO's offering of Information provision, Services, and Community into a neat presentation to the gathered delegates.

During the lunch and Networking session that followed we met a lot of new faces, all of whom are really interested in the initiative, and have made some interesting potential new alliances. So, despite our best laid travel plans turning into a veritable disaster, its been a successful day overall!

...here’s hoping we get home tonight with a little less of a struggle than our outward journey!!!

Engineered Nanoparticles in the Environment

bryony@safenano.org — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:08:00 GMT

This week, I was lucky enough to be invited to hear an impromptu talk from Joel A Pedersen of the Environmental Chemistry and Technology Program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dr Pedersen was in the UK to attend ‘Prion 2007’, and dropped by the IOM to give us a summary of his work on transformation of engineered nanoparticles in the environment, something I knew little about before his visit.

To start, we were given an introduction to the complex interfacial interactions to which nanoparticles are subject, including the Extended Derjaguin Landau Verney Overbeek (XDLVO) theory and interactions such as the Electrostatic Double Layer, Lifshitz van der Waals and Polar Interactions. In addition, Dr Pedersen gave an eloquent description of the confounding influence steric reactions, surface roughness and functionalization could bring, the effect each of these has on Nanoparticle behaviour, and the inherent difficulties these multiple simultaneous interactions present for making accurate quantitative predictions of nanoparticle behaviour in the environment.

He then moved on to focus on the actual lifecycle of nanoparticles, and changes in their surface that may occur during this lifecycle. Dr Pedersen described acquisition and biomodification of NP coatings, and gave laboratory-based and real-life examples of both. He then discussed chemical models for microbially mediated NP transformation, including oxidation, reduction and ligand –assisted dissolution of nanoparticles – the area his group are currently investigating. His laboratory had carried out an elegant experiment using an in vitro biomimetic oxidative assay which made use of lignolytic funghi. The group had applied this assay to polyethylene glycol (PEG) functionalised Quantum Dots, colloidal NPs that have undergone development as organic dyes and fluorescent markers in living cells amongst other applications. They found that that Quantum Dot transformation is possible within oxidative environments, and that Cadmium was released from within the core of the QDs they used.

Despite the huge complexity of the concepts Dr Pedersen was conveying (a lot to take on board if you’re as new to the topic as I am!), his talk and research was incredibly interesting. In addition, the results he has collected so far clearly have possible wide-ranging implications for the use of such Quantum Dots in living organisms given that substances which make up the core of QD’s are often intrinsically toxic in nature. It also reminded me of the enormity of the puzzle that scientists investigating nanotechnology are facing, and what a tiny proportion of this we have tackled so far.

Buckyballs and Asbestos - poor science or poor reporting?

bryony@safenano.org — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:36:00 GMT

In the last week, Cosmetics Design Europe ran an article that caused quite a stir in the nano-world. The article, entitled ‘Professor compares nanomaterials to asbestos’ began with “Nanomaterials used in cosmetics have been compared to the invisible airborne killer, asbestos, by a high-profile chemistry professor at the BA Festival of Science in York.” Immediately, the eye-catching nature of the story meant it spread across nano, cosmetic and consumer group news sites.

That, of course, was to be expected. However at the time, I felt a little reticent to report the story on SAFENANO, as I had a gut instinct that the ‘high profile chemistry Professor’ in question (Professor Ryan of Sheffield University) may have been reported out of context – spelling mistakes and serious slips in the way his comments on nano (or nono) science was reported on the web made me wonder how much was verbatim and how much was poor reporting in action. In addition, from comments made by Professor Ryan reported in another article, he appeared to hold an upbeat attitude to nanotechnologies – not what you would expect of someone proclaiming them to be a major health hazard. However, without having been at the talk myself, I had no way of telling whether Prof Ryan or the journalist reporting him was at fault.

A few days on, I’m pleased to see that the SAFENANO team were not the only ones to with reservations. Kristen Kulinowski, director of the International Council on Nanotechnology, and director of external affairs of the NSF Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology has published an article in her NanoRisk blog analysing and commenting on Professor Ryan’s remarks at the BA Festival of Science.

She makes a number of very good observations about how the story ‘fails to meet the mark of good science/science reporting’ – Having read it through, I can’t improve on what she wrote so have simply added it below:

1. Equating carbon nanotubes and buckyballs.

"During a talk on nanotechnology and the environment, Tony Ryan, director of the Polymer Centre at the University of Sheffield, compared carbon nonotubes, otherwise known as buckyballs, to the construction material."

Leaving aside the possible Freudian slip in the misspelling of nanotube, carbon nanotubes are not buckyballs. They both belong to a class of materials known as fullerenes and can be referred to as "carbon-based nanomaterials" but they are not the same thing. The buckyball is the soccer-ball-shaped molecule and the nanotube is its longer, tubular cousin.

2. Assuming idealized form of carbon nanotube.

"One of the potential dangers with carbon nanotubes is: are we creating a new asbestos? The asbestos response is based on the shape of the particle. Part of the issue is in the shape of the molecule and how they're introduced," said Ryan.

We've all seen images of carbon nanotubes that look like rigid little sticks. I've also seen plenty of images of nanotube spaghetti where the tubes, which have a natural affinity for one another, all clump together into a tangled mess. Unlike asbestos. It's actually very difficult to individualize a sample of carbon nanotubes into single particles.

3. Assuming same route of exposure for nanotubes as asbestos, i.e., inhalation of individual particles.

"It is asbestos fibres rather than asbestos itself that causes serious health problems because they can become airborne and lodge themselves in the skin or lungs."

While it is true that liquid suspensions of carbon nanotubes injected in the lungs of rodents have been shown to pose hazards to lung tissue, there is little to no evidence that carbon nanotubes can be aerosolized into an inhalable form.

4. Equating carbon nanotubes and buckyballs. (see also #1)

"Although there has been no conclusive evidence to suggest that the size of carbon nanotubes poses serious health risks, Ryan advised caution with regards to cosmetic applications. The professor said: 'I wouldn't put buckyballs anywhere near my face.'"

I suspect this was the reporter's fault and that Professor Ryan probably said "nanomaterials" or "carbon nanoparticles" or some other more general term. This illustrates a very common issue that arises in discussions of nano EHS: the lumping together of all nanomaterials into a single class and then transferring documented effects from one type of particle onto another or even all nanomaterials.

5. Getting an organization's name wrong.

"Despite widespread anxiety about the use of nanomaterials there are 22 sunscreens and 77 cosmetic products, on the market that have been developed using nanotechnology, according to the Project on Emerging Technology."

A minor point, perhaps, but the inventory is maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

I think Kulinowski’s observations on the original report are pretty spot on, and agree with them almost completely. My one minor concern would be her statement that “there is little evidence that carbon nanotubes can be aerosolized into an inhalable form”…I think at this stage it is pretty dangerous to assume that carbon nanotubes will not at any point during their current or future uses pose a threat to health via this route. However, this is purely an aside to what is a well reasoned examination of a story that has again highlighted the need for accurate and fair reporting of advances in nanotechnology risk research.

EU Nanotechnology Action Plan

bryony@safenano.org — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:03:00 GMT

I just finished reading through the Interim report on the EU Nanotechnology Action Plan. Having summarised its contents in a news article for the main SAFENANO website, I found myself confused by some of the shortcomings highlighted in the report.

Amongst the weaknesses listed as apparent in Europe, a 'lack of interdisciplinnary infrastructure for research' was noted. I find this hard to agree with when groups such as the Safety of Nanomaterials Interdisciplinary Research Centre (SnIRC), which has been active since 2005, are established and ready to coordinate research efforts. In addition, other groups such as ENTA and the NIA are actively working to bridge the gap between researchers and industrialists, and are in a good position to coordinate efforts to help increase private investment in research, and aid with further development of an interdisciplinnary infrastructure for nanotechnology. Maybe i'm missing something (it has been a pretty hectic day for me), but from my perspective there is definately coordination, and infrastructure has been developed...i suspect that the root of the issue will be found in a lack of funding to take these areas forward at a pace that matches the speed at which nano is taking off commercially rather than anything else...what are your views?

In addition, the report specified that activities should take place to develop a shared understanding of the responsibility of researchers within an ethical framework. Ok, so maybe there is no ethical framework as such yet, but I do think that we have an understanding of our responsibility as researchers, otherwise SAFENANO would never have been developed or funded!

IEEE Spectrum's Nanotech Review

bryony@safenano.org — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:20:00 GMT

Today the IEEE published an article about nanotechnology and its possible implications for health and the environment. 'Nano particles without macroproblems' by Barbara Karn and H. Scott Matthews introduces the field, its current climate, and its problems. It then discusses some of the more notable scientific developments in the nanotoxicology field over the last decade, and what has been done to address the issues that these have raised.

The authors definately promote the precautionary view of nanotechnology and its development, pushing the message 'the chance to act responsibly won't last forever', and reiterating the point that although there have been some moves made to tackle the issues, they are far from a fair match for the scale of the problem. They also highlight that responsibility for ensuring nanotechnologies do not jeapordise the future of our general health and the environment is a problem that should be taken on and addressed by industry as well as academia.

Overall, the piece makes for pretty light reading to a toxicologist, but is a good concise overview for anyone not specialist in the area - well done to the authors.

Bry

We know what we want...but what next??

bryony@safenano.org — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:42:00 GMT

Today, EHP online pre-published the findings of a US workshop looking at Hazard Assessment of Nanoparticles. The workshop, held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in April 2006, brought together some of the nanotechnology heavyweights in the US and beyond to discuss what information is needed to understand the human health impact of engineered nanoparticles, and how this information would be best obtained.

The workshop was really a prelude to the burst of standardisation and regulation themed activity in both Europe and the US. Having been involved with both the development and implementation of SAFENANO, and the REFNANO workshop series conducted by SnIRC and SAFENANO earlier in 2007, it was pleasing to look through the results and conclusions of the EHP report and see that at least some of the demands raised have been met. For example, by developing SAFENANO, Recommendation 3 'Develop a Multi-Disciplinnary community of practice and information-sharing forum for researchers and all interested stakeholders' is now in place and avaliable through the our Community area.

REFNANO also further developed the recommendations put forward; in particular, recommendation 4 (Develop and make avaliable a set of reference nanoparticles for research laboratories to use as controls/benchmarks in their studies) and recommendation 5 'work towards quantitative risk assessment by selecting a set of 3-5 specific nanoparticles for full physicochemical characterization, in vitro and in vivo testing' were tackled.

Having been pleased to see almost complete concurrance between the US And EU's recommendations on a strategy to address nanotechnology hazard, and delighted to be actively involved in promoting areas of this, i couldn't help feel dissapointed that the US and the UK and EU clearly also have an ongoing common major problem - funding. This is old news really - we all know there is a lack of funding, but i do find myself wondering how long we will be attending these workshops, reporting the findings and calling for funding to further the development of robust testing and regulatory mechanisms to protect the health of workers and the general public, before any funding significant enough to implement these recommendations is allocated. After all, governments worldwide are more than happy to recognise Nano Health and Safety issues as a hugely important, recommend the formation of interdisciplinnary teams to tackle it and encourage sharing of information amongst parties involved...but so far, no government seems to be putting forward the cash to progress matters as quickly as everyone says is necessary.... Despite all this though, and as naiive as it seems, I am ever hopeful that this will change in the near future!

REFNANO's final report has recently been completed, and will be published via DEFRA soon - keep checking SAENANO.org for further details on this.

NB. I am aware that there are a number of upcoming workshops on developing strategies to regulate nanomaterials in the near future - for example, NIST's US Workshop on Standards for EHS Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, and NanoStrand's EU workshops on standardisation and characterisation (for details, see SAFENANO's Event Calendar). These i'm sure will be of great benefit to those involved in terms of organising thinking on these topics further, and will provide some more publicity for what is without doubt the most important but least funded area of nanotechnology. Here's hoping someone takes heed and funds the actioning of the findings...

New York Times Blog sparks lively debate

bryony@safenano.org — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:53:00 GMT

An article in the New York Times we spotted the other day has sparked lively debate amongst some eminent names within Nanotechnology.

The short article, written by Barnaby J Feder entitled 'No One Can Accuse Them of Acting Rashly' discusses the US Federal Government's latest report into nanotechnology safety concerns (“Prioritization of Environmental, Health and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials — An Interim Document for Public Comment.”). Feder argues that although their latest publication is 'an admirable attempt to categorize thinking on this subject', their lack of progress on an area in seeming need of urgent address 'borders on parody'.

Comments from scientists working within the NanoBusiness Alliance, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, ICON and Environmental Defense amongst others make for fascinating reading, especially as opinions definately clash...definately worth a read!

To view the article and its comments, please click here.

To read “Prioritization of Environmental, Health and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials — An Interim Document for Public Comment.” please click here.

SAFENANO becomes official

bryony@safenano.org — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:55:00 GMT

I have been working on SAFENANO for about 10 months now, and have spent a lot of hours developing the design and content of safenano.org, so i was delighted to be able to distribute our press release and officially launch the site yesterday.

The launch went well, news about SAFENANO has already been round the globe a couple of times, and visits to the site as well as registration requests have been good in the first 24 hours.

As is predictable, there were some teething issues (!) but nonetheless the initial feedback that I've recieved has been positive, and I hope that SAFENANO will become a useful resource to a wide audience of people involved in the nanotechnology industry.

I would now encourage people to make the most of the site, and particularly to join in with the community side of things, as i believe this is a potentially powerful resource in shaping the responsible development of nanotechnology both within and outside the UK. It has the unique ability to instantly bring together researchers, industrialists, government officials, campaigners, and the general public from all over the globe - but you need to take part to be heard!

Brice joins SAFENANO

bryony@safenano.org — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:31:00 GMT

This week, Brice Dourcin, a graduate student from France joined the IOM for the summer to work on Nanotechnology Health and Safety.

Brice is a student at Montpellier 1 University in France, and has just graduated with a BSc Toxicology from Napier University after a years' exchange in Scotland. During his time working on SAFENANO, Brice will be contributing blogs to the SAFENANO Community. I am looking forward to hearing his views on the latest issues in nano health, safety and regulation, and how they compare to those in place or being planned within France.

Nano Guinea Pigs

bryony@safenano.org — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:12:00 GMT

At the end of last week, I invited eight colleagues to become 'guinea pigs' and review the SAFENANO website. Over the last few days, the guinea pigs have been reporting back with their comments on how SAFENANO looks to an independant viewer.

The comments and results so far are pretty positive. Everyone seemed to be very keen on the ideas and ethos of the site, like the variety and depth of information avaliable, and all commented on the potential value of the Community as a tool for communication with fellow nanotechnologists. There were a few comments regarding the layout of some pages, so i have been working on these with the team for the last few days to iron any problems out, and i think we're starting to get there.

As with every other new website, there have been a fair few teething problems and technical hitches, but it all seems to finally be coming together at the moment - fingers crossed nothing will go wrong in the lead up to our official launch!

I'm still interested to hear people's views on the site, so please feel free to email me or post a comment on the 'feedback' forum if you have a constructuve comment to add!

Nanotoxicology in Australasia

bryony@safenano.org — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:15:00 GMT

The most recent edition of the British Toxicological Society Newsletter (Summer '07) has recently been published. From this, I have just finished reading an interesting article about the visit of Cardiff University lecturer Dr Kelly BeruBe to Australasia as the BTS' 'Australasian Visitor' for 2006.

Her article takes the form of a travel log detailing the talks she gave during her visit, and the news article and radio interview she was invitied to take part in while she was there. Dr BeruBe talked mainly on the emerging health effects of nanoparticles, with particular reference to inhaled nanoparticles.

Both the radio interview and the newspaper article are transcribed in the article. The radio interview in particular forms a good light introduction to the topic of diesel particles in pollution, the health effects this may have, the current regulations in place to control this and what is being developed to control the emmisison of such particles into the air.

You can read the whole article in the latest BTS Newsletter (Summer '07) - see www.thebts.org.

You can access details of the Radio Story by clicking here.

Council on Bioethics

bryony@safenano.org — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:44:00 GMT

On Friday, Andrew Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson Institute will be presenting the benefits, risks and ethics surrounding nanotechnology to the President's Council on Bioethics (see SAFENANO news item)

As with everyone at SAFENANO, I was pleased to hear that the Presidents advisors were taking an interest in this area, and that they were seeking advice from the right people. However, given the President's backward stance on many areas of scientific research and development, I can't help wondering whether the conclusions the Council draw with reference to the responsible development of nanotechnology will be taken in by the President himself and reflected in his policies. Time will tell...