|
|
-
Today I have been working with the OECD Database on research into the safety manufactured nanomaterials. Let me say firstly this is a very impressive and ambitious attempt to gather together information about all of the relevant nano EHS studies which have been carried out or are currently underway. Having just gone live, it is perhaps inappropriate at this time to expect too much from this database, even though it was constructed largely from the previous database from Woodrow Wilson. Having previously worked with that database as part of our EMERGNANO project, I know well the issues which have to be addressed in order to clean the data such that it may be usefully used in analysis or future studies. In addition the need to continually add to the data, and keep it up to date is also paramount. In our EMERGNANO study we took great care to dig below the entry level data available in the database in order to identify those projects which were really relevant and were making real contributions towards resolving the questions relevant to the safety of nanomaterials. My hope had been that OECD would be similarly judicious in their data cleaning activities.
I have to say that my first attempt to derive useful information from this database has not filled me with a great level of confidence. The reason I was using the database was to prepare a talk for EuroNanoforum 2009 which will be held in Prague in June of this year. I am giving a key note speech there in the EHS session and in which I intend to lay out the European landscape. I looked at the OECD database as an information source by which to find all of the projects funded under the framework (FP7) programme. From other activities within that programme (more later) I know of approximately 15 projects with a total funding of something close to 50 million Euros which are under way or about to start. I had had understood that these projects had been added to the OEACD database.
Well it may be that they are, but they are not very easy to find! A search of funding source reveals some interesting reading. First search term “EC”, one project found ENREHS (one of IOM’s). That’s good but the “country” is identified as EC although the project is lead from the UK. Hmmmm. Second term “European”, one project found, which was in fact a regional government funded French project not an EC project. Third attempt “EU”, thirteen projects found. Ah, excellent! Closer examination however shows that only five of the relevant FP7 projects were in that search including one which came up twice. The remainder of the thirteen comprised various other national or barely relevant projects.
Next term “FP7” no projects found. Help, where are the rest of the projects? Eventually after much digging I found 10 of the 15 projects, there may be more!
Undeterred I pressed on, which of my projects are in here? No rather than that, I thought I would search for Lang Tran’s projects. I found three. That might surprise those of you had been under the impression that Lang was one of the most active and widely known researchers working in this area in Europe! It is interesting. The three which were found were “Nanoparticles an occupational hygiene review” in which I was the principal investigator. Project status described as “project is underway” (the project finished in 2004) The second one “A scoping study to indentify hazard data needs for addressing the risks presented by nanoparticles and nanotubes”, principal investigator Lang Tran, status project is underway (the project finished in 2006) The third one a risk assessment for particle exposure principal investigator Tran Lang status correctly identified as project is underway although the name under which this project is better known is PARTICLE_RISK which is not apparent from the data entry. No mention then of the CELLPEN and HARN projects which Lang has led for DEFRA over the last couple of years or of the various other projects of which Lang has been a co-author including EMERGNANO and REFNANO. Nor is there any reference to the ENPRA FP7 project which has just been funded which should also appear in this list.
Its also interesting looking at some of the projects which are on the list. You can do this by selecting all projects. I’ve pull out just a few examples, one, “The tenth annual green chemistry and engineering conference: student scholarships” this entry starts 2006, ends 2007 is to support students to attend this particular conference.
A second one, “A continuous monitor for arsenic in drinking water”?
A third one, “A fundamental study of transport within a single nanoscopic channel.” This project is about quantifying mass transport through nanoporous media and while undoubtedly it is a worthy piece of science and does have some relevance its immediate application towards risk assessment management is probably some time away. Nevertheless this project is identified as having substantial relevance.
“A nanocontact sensor for heavy metal.”, I could go on
These are just a four projects selected from the first page of twenty entries in a total of six hundred and ninety one entries. It is fair to say that the relevance of some of these projects to NANO EHS is rather mixed.
This is not intended to be overly critical of what OECD have done here. On the contrary I think what they have started is something that will in due course become an excellent tool for both researchers and policymakers in this area. However until the data contained within the database can be thoroughly cleaned and validated, a process which will take some considerable time and effort, and kept up to date, then use of the data contained therein for policy making and research prioritisation must be highly suspect.
|
-
November saw the publication of a commentary in Nature Nanotech bearing the title “The US must help set international standards for nanotechnology” (here). As the title suggests, the document was an exhortation for the US to take an active role in the development of standards, particularly through the International Standards Organisation (ISO) programme. Further, the commentary states that representatives from all nations must ensure that all standards are based on sound science. While, that all sounds very laudable, it is perhaps surprising that Nature nanotech deem it worthy of a two page commentary, particularly given that the US are already highly active in the area of standardisation. For example ISO229, Nanotechnologies, in which I participate, out of 39 member countries, the US always has one of the largest delegations. The US also chairs Working Group 3, Environment, Health and Safety.
The commentary goes on to discuss two standards, one of which has just been published by ISO, and the other which has just been adopted as a new work item. This new work item is based on the British Published Document (PD) BSI 6699-2 (title, link). The authors are highly critical of this document, stating “If BSI is successful in converting this PD 6699-2 into an ISO standard, such an international standard could lead to controls and restrictions on the manufacturing and use of nanomaterials, similar to the way that asbestos risk control standards of the twentieth century culminated in import and use restrictions.” As the leader of the team who will develop this standard under ISO, I am a bit surprised at what appears to be an attempt to influence development of this standard from out-with the ISO process, and in what seems to be misrepresentation of the purpose and intent of this standard.
There are two issues central to this critique. One is that the BSI document is not based on sound science, that it is premature and that it will be misinterpreted by the user. The second is that this document will be somehow forced through the ISO process by BSI.
I led the team which wrote the BSI document and so I feel duty bound to try to add some clarity to this argument. PD 6699-2 was developed to provide timely, pertinent and pragmatic advice to industry, and other relevant organisations, on current thinking regarding the precautions that should, in the absence of clear regulations relevant to health and environmental toxicology of nanoparticles, be adopted when handling and disposing of engineered nanoparticles. As with all other standards documents, it is subject to regular review and updating to take account of the current state of the art.
In its “scope” PD 6699-2 “recognizes that there is considerable uncertainty about many aspects of effective risk assessment of nanomaterials, including the hazardous potential of many types of nanoparticles and the levels below which individuals might be exposed with minimal likelihood of adverse health effects. The guide therefore recommends a cautious strategy for handling and disposing of nanomaterials entirely consistent with that promoted by almost all international organisations, including for example the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE). However, at the current time, no occupational exposure limits specific to nanomaterials have been published and it is hard to see this changing in the near future.
Most regulatory guidance to date has been of the form “if you think nanoparticles are hazardous you should minimise exposure”. While this is clearly sensible, it is hugely difficult for the recipients of this guidance to interpret given the current knowledge gaps.
Where 6699-2 has gone further than the regulators have gone thus far is in an attempt to frame the guidance in terms of what it calls “benchmark exposure levels”. These are not intended to be occupational exposure limits. These are intended to help users understand and interpret measurements made to demonstrate effective control of exposure in their workplaces. As is acknowledged (and highlighted in bold) in the text, “Although these benchmark levels relate to current exposure limits, they have not been rigorously developed. Rather, they are intended as pragmatic guidance levels only”. 6699-2 is clear that there is (probably) insufficient evidence available on which formal limits could be based at this time, and even if it was available for one material type, implementing these internationally will be the subject of intense debate (as has been sees with the attempts of NIOSH to implement a new limit for ultrafine (nano) TiO2 ).
The key issue is though, what should people using these materials do right NOW. In writing the BSI document, we considered that the benchmark levels were the most appropriate way of filling the gap in the short term. Other approaches, including for example, giving guidance to users as to how to set their own “in-house” limits, are also possible.
The authors of the Nature Nanotech commentary counterpoint the pragmatic approach in BS6699-2 using the example of asbestos regulations, which they state were based on “exhaustive risk assessment analyses and “evidence of significant risk”. (Actually, this is not my view of how the asbestos regulations developed which I would generalise as becoming increasingly restrictive as the evidence became available) However, it is nothing short of extraordinary to consider the development of the asbestos standards as some kind of exemplar for regulatory process. In the UK alone there are estimated to be 4000 people per year dying from mesothelioma as a result of a failure to control exposure to asbestos to a safe level. The latency period of this disease means that the numbers are still rising and will continue to do so for several years. Clearly many lives might have been saved if the control of asbestos had been based on “pragmatic guidance levels” rather than waiting for “exhaustive risk assessment analyses and “evidence of significant risk “
The thinking in the Nature Nanotech commentary seems to be that it is much better not to give practical, pragmatic guidance in case it is taken out of context. I disagree. My experience is that users of nanoparticles are desperate for such practical guidance which they can apply to make their workplaces safer and healthier for their workforce.
Dealing secondly with the matter of the standardisation process, the document will not be “converted by BSI”, it will be developed by due process firstly within an ISO working group, comprised of experts from all of the member countries who choose to nominate a representative and then at full committee stage, in which in which international consensus will be reached. The first meeting of that working group was in Shanghai last week. There was good agreement about the scope and aims of the document and good discussion about the various options as to how this might be met. I’m confident that we will be able to develop this document to a point where consensus can be achieved.
In the meantime, if you can’t wait for the ISO document, you can still download BS6699-2 free from the BSI site here.
You can read Andrew Maynard comments on BS6699-2 here.
Rob Aitken
|
-
It seems that significant nanoparticle risk studies are just like London buses, you wait ages for one to arrive and then two come along together.
Last month we had the Poland et al. study concerning the hazardous nature of MWCNT. This highly reported study was the first to explicitly test the hypothesis that long carbon nanotubes behave like long asbestos fibres in the body. As described in Andrew Maynards blog, they uses 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.
The results showed that 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.
However, as Andrew stated “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.”
Now we have a study from the other side of the risk equation, exposure
A new study published in inhalation toxicology is the first published attempt to measure exposure to CNT using methods similar to those used to measure asbestos. The study
“Monitoring Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Exposure in a Carbon Nanotube Research Facility “ from a team led by Prof Il Je Yu measured exposures in the post production recovery of MWCNT and in a blending activity, part of a composite formulation process.
The authors use real-time systems (SMPS, APS) to measure airborne concentrations (number and mass) and size distributions, but measured the concentration of fibre-like structures by collecting samples onto cellulose acetate filters and analysing using a transmission electron microscope. All objects, identified as MWCNT with an aspect ratio greater than 3 were counted and measured (length and diameter).
High airborne concentrations of fibres were found in the blending activity (maximum 194 fibres/cc) well over the current fibre TLVs (asbestos 0.1/cc). However, the authors also report that the MWCNT lengths that were shorter than 5 μm, (1760.2 ± 1198.3 nm) and so if conventional fibre counting protocols were followed, all would have been excluded from the count. Clearly then all of the fibres measured in this case would fall into the short category as described by Poland and therefore would not be expected to exhibit the same pathogenicity as long CNT or long asbestos.
However, the study does demonstrate that in a relatively simple industrial process, mixing and blending, it is possible to generate high levels of airborne MWCNT. This is extremely significant given the widely held view that generation of an aerosol of this material is almost impossible. Just because in this case, all of the fibres generated were short, there is no guarantee that a different batch of material or a different process would not produce longer fibres
The study provides a very clear warning about the need for effective exposure control in facilities where MWCNT are being processed. I can only echo Andrews earlier comments,
“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.”
To help with this you may wish to refer to the recent BSI Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials (PD 6699-2:2007,) which 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.
So in answer to my earlier question, yes I think we are getting somewhere. I’m just not sure its where we want to be. Those working with MWCNT, please take note.
|
-
Events over the last couple of weeks have confirmed the view that nanotechnology risk issues are moving sharply up the political agenda in the UK at least.
Firstly, on the 21st February we had a statement in the House of Commons from Ian Pearson, Minister of State (Minister for Science and Innovation) in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). In response to a parliamentary question from Rob Marris, Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West
“To ask the Secretary of State …what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive on health and safety standards in nanotechnology research development” , Pearson stated
“The Government are committed to understanding any potential risks of nanotechnologies and to managing them within a proportionate regulatory framework”.
To illustrate this, Pearson provided information on the ministerial cross-departmental group that co-ordinates the UK’s programme of research into the health, safety and environmental implications of nanotechnologies. Pearson chairs this group, which brings together Ministers from DEFRA, DH, DWP and BERR.
SAFENANO’s contribution was recognised through a specific mention of the merits of BSI PD 6699-2 - Guide to Safe Handling and Disposal of Manufactured Nanomaterials which was drafted by us for BSI. Pearson commented “[it] provides advice on good practice to those working in laboratories where research on new materials and applications is being undertaken, as this is where exposure to engineered free nanoscale materials is most likely to occur at present”.
The full transcript of the parliamentary discussion can be read in Hansard here.
The following week saw the release of the “Statement by the UK Government about Nanotechnologies”. This surprisingly low key document is actually a pretty good description of how the government is “looking to promote the opportunities of
Nanotechnologies” and how it is “looking to ensure appropriate control of the potential risks of nanotechnologies”. It can be downloaded from the DEFRA website here.
It’s fair to say that the document doesn’t really contain much in the way of new information. Most of what it contains was published in the “Characterising the Potential Risks posed by Engineered Nanoparticles; A Second UK Government Research Report” published in December last year and also available on the DEFRA website.
While the level of intent seems strong, it is disappointing that the commitment to funding appears to be less so. There was a fair bit of hand waving as to what has been spent thus far (no detailed breakdown) and very little of detail of future funding plans for risk aspects. The only figure mentioned in this respect was that the Department of Health will contribute £1.25M over the next five years. A trivial sum when contrasted more than £750M detailed in the “looking to promote” part of the document”.
However, the commitment and interest at Ministerial level is welcomed. Hopefully, by the time the next statement is published, a more coherent funding strategy will be laid out.
|
-
If you have ever wondered whether the public are really aware of any nano products then you might be interested in a little advice which my friend and colleague Vicki Stone received from her hairdresser at lunch time today!
After listening to Vicki complaining about the colds she’d had this winter, her hairdresser advised her to take colloidal (nano) silver. Her hairdresser’s friend has been feeding it to her little boy every day for the last few weeks, ‘it’s great he hasn’t had any colds at all since he started to take it’. He takes 5 ml daily. They bought it from the internet http://www.colloidalsilver.com/ . Her chiropractor originally advised the mother to start taking it!
Well I don’t know if colloidal silver can prevent the common cold. I do know that use of this material seems to be growing rapidly in all sorts of applications from food supplements to wound dressings and even to odour free socks. And many of these applications will result in direct exposure of consumers to free silver nanoparticles. This despite the fact that that the US National Institutes of Health National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) have said;
“Animal studies have shown that silver builds up in the tissues of the body. In humans, buildup of silver from colloidal silver can lead to a side effect called argyria. It causes a bluish-gray discoloration of the skin, other organs, deep tissues, nails, and gums. Other side effects from using colloidal silver products may include neurologic problems (such as seizures), kidney damage, stomach distress, headaches, fatigue, and skin irritation.” http://nccam.nih.gov/health/alerts/silver/#d
As to the apparent beneficial effects, NCCAM say that claims made about the effectiveness of colloidal silver products for numerous diseases are unsupported scientifically. The FDA issued a ruling in 1999 that no products containing colloidal silver are generally recognized as “safe and effective”. The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have sent warning letters to the operators of many Web sites that market colloidal silver with drug-like claims (i.e., that their product diagnoses, treats, cures, or prevents disease).
In the US, manufacturers of dietary supplements, unlike manufacturers of drugs, do not have to prove their product's safety and effectiveness to the FDA before it is marketed. If the product is found to be unsafe after it is marketed, the FDA can take certain actions, such as removing it from the marketplace. Well guess what. The regulations ain’t working! Its here, its nano and its being given to 5 year old boys in Edinburgh.
Now who knows how today’s nano-silver compares with yesterdays colloidal silver but my guess would be smaller, smarter and more biologically active! Regulators, please take note!
|
-
Today I attended the third meeting of the working group of the Responsible Nanotechnology Code of Conduct (Responsible NanoCode). This is being developed by the Nanotechnology Industry Association (NIA), Insight Investment, The Royal Society and The Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network. The working group is chaired by the Earl of Selborne KBE, FRS, and comprises representatives from industry, academia and the NGOs.
This summer has seen the emergence of a number of Code of Conduct initiatives in Nanotechnology including an EU Code of Conduct (EUnanocode). While the EU code has a clear focus on research activities, Responsible NanoCode has a much greater business focus and industry involvement. The aim of initiative is to develop a voluntary, principles based code of conduct for businesses involved in the development and application of nanotechnologies. The code is intended to establish a consensus of what constitutes good practice in business across Nanotechnology. Like other principle-based codes it will illustrate expected behaviours and processes, not standards or performance. Indicators of compliance with the code are also being developed. The code is not intended however to be an auditable standard - it will not detail levels of performance expected by companies, nor will it give guidance on definitions, characterisation and measurement.
From my perspective the code is developing very well. The general principles which constitute the main elements of the code, are in my view entirely consistent with the development of nanotechnology in a responsible way. In relation to each of the principles identified, a number of indicators of compliance have also been developed. I have been encouraged by the approaches being developed and the overwhelming commitment of all involved to develop a code which will both challenge industry to act responsibly, and provide a framework which will enable them to do so. The code will shortly be available for public comment and so it would be inappropriate at this stage to give more detail. However, for more information about the code have a look at the website: www.responsiblenanocode.org and be sure to provide comments when the consultation opens.
|
-
The 3rd day of the Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health Conference in Taipei began with a keynote lecture by Bernd Sachweb of the chemical company BASF. Bernd gave a fascinating insight into BASF’s approach to nanotechnology including there definition of what it is, why they are doing it and how they are addressing this risks. One of their key strategies is the integrated process which comprises, in the case of nanomaterials, a completely enclosed cycle of flame syntheses, gas quenching, electrostatic stabilisation, organic coating and collection/transfer to a liquid through wet electrostatic precipitation. An active programme of monitoring is carried out by BASF to ensure satisfactory control of exposures. BASF are one of the leading players in the German NANOCARE project which is considering both exposure and toxicology issues. You can view BASF’s nanotechnology code of conduct document .
Other highlights of the day included an excellent presentation on standardisation by Peter Hatto, chairman of ISO 229 Nanotechnologies, and a presentation by Vicki Colvin of Rice University and ICON on quantified structural activity relationship (QSAR) approaches to nanotechnology.
I had spoken with Vicki earlier about closer links between SAFENANO and ICON. We are both very much in favour of this and we agreed to take forward discussions. Watch this space.
Sadly, this represents the last of my reports from Taipei. Both Vicki Stone and I will travel back on Saturday due to other engagements on Monday and so will miss the last day of the conference. Both the venue and the conference have surpassed my expectations. The city is fascinating and very welcoming, the conference presentations have been excellent, the networking has been valuable and the organisation has been superb. In this respect huge congratulations are due to Prof Chuen-Jinn Tsi and his team especially to Emily Shih and Jessica Wen who did a fantastic job. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this excellent event. Overall, I think that there is much more happening now that there was in the previous event in Minneapolis two years ago. Much of it is good but overall there is still a need for more co-ordination between government, industry and researchers. Events such as this conference can make a significant contribution to that co-ordination.
Rob
|
-
This was the fist full day of presentations at the 3rd Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health Conference in Taipei. After some brief opening remarks by the hosts and organisers, Andrew Maynard of the Woodrow Wison Institute provided an exceptional keynote speech entitled “Safe nanotechnology – where are we now, and where are we going”. In this he laid out the huge potential benefits which are likely to arise from nanotechnology, in medicine, energy, water and new materials but warned that these could be lost unless the potential risks are adequately addressed. As he observed, with the right research; carried out in an appropriate context and with adequate funding there is every reason to expect that many of these technologies will be developed in a way that ensures that the risks are acceptably low.
The rest of the days programme was no less stimulating. Other highlights of the day included a presentation from Lin Li of Washington University in St Louis, USA, on the use of the TSI Electrical Aerosol Detector (EAD). This device has more recently been adapted to measure particle surface area. By sequentially changing the voltage on the ion trap within the device, they were able to collect and measure different size fractions of aerosol. In so doing, they were able to develop information about particle size. A neat trick, which will require a lot more testing and validation, but shows great promise. Other interesting papers in the day included a presentation by Chuck Geraci who provided a case study from the NIOSH nanoparticle field testing programme and Michael Riediker who gave an overview of NanoImpactNet, a new European Network which has just attracted some funding from the EU Framework Programme.
I caught up with Chuck later. The NIOSH programme undertakes surveys in and measurement campaigns in workplaces where nanoparticles and being made or used. Measurement systems include CPC particle counters and SMPS to measure size information. Improvements to control systems and working practices are developed and implemented as necessary. NIOSH have visited 15 worksites, all volunteers, all free of charge, in the last 18 months and are keen to do more. So if you’re interested in volunteering contact Chuck at NIOSH (CGeraci@cdc.gov). I was a little surprised to learn that there is no requirement to put the results of these surveys into the public domain although NIOSH is obviously keen to publish where agreement to do so has been reached. Some of the results are to be presented in this conference (final day) and NIOSH intends to publish some summaries of the data shortly.
Despite the high quality of the presentations, you do question the value of travelling great distances to attend meetings such as this. However, the lunch-break today provided ample support for the decision to attend. While sitting on the steps eating my boxed lunch provided by the organisers I managed to have three short but important meetings in little more than an hour. My first was with Andrew Maynard. We had one of our wide-ranging discussions, of the type that can only really happen when you meet face to face. Andrew was keep to learn more about the SAFENANO site and was particularly interested in the community aspects. I took the opportunity to provide him with more information and asked whether he would be prepared to write an article, or series of articles for the site. We discussed several possibilities but look for an article to appear soon. We also discussed the particle characterisation scheme we developed for our recent publication in nanotoxicology. Andrew has used this in his conference opening keynote address. Although this scheme was intended to help us think about measurement issues, Andrew has a view that it has much wider applications in thinking about nanomaterials, foe example in relation to reference materials. We agreed to try to pursue this and other applications further starting with a meeting on reference materials being organised by NIST next month in Maryland, USA.
Next I spoke with Dave Mark of the UK’s Health and Safety Laboratory. Dave is an old friend from his time at IOM. Together we are planning a joint workshop with the Nanotechnology Industry Association (NIA) in London in November. The intention is to try to map out the kind of services which industry needs in order to better address risk issues. Dave and I managed to fix the agenda and plan out the meeting. I’m looking forward to what I think will be a very useful day.
Finally, I spoke with Peter Hatto who is chair of ISO committee, ISO229 Nanotechnologies. Peter also chairs the UK mirror group BSI NTI/1. This committee is also the steering group for contract which IOM/SAFENANO has won to develop a Good Practice Guide for the Safe Handling and Disposal of Nanomaterials. I was able to update on our progress with this contract. It’s planned that this guide will be published but BSI early next year.
The day concluded with a visit to Taipei 101, currently the world tallest building, and a dinner on the 89th floor with the conference technical committee. A most impressive building and a great dinner too. A nice surprise was to see a display on the top floor of 101 of the seven “Engineering wonders of the world”. There at number four on the list was the Falkirk Wheel which stirred a little Scottish pride so far from home.
More tomorrow.
Rob
|
-
Today was the first day of the 3rd Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health Conference in Taipei, Taiwan. Having now been here more than 24 hours I find myself pleasantly surprised by Taipei. It’s busy of course with fairly substantial pollution issues but its got an excellent, easy to use public transport system and everyone you meet is extremely pleasant courteous and helpful. It’s very easy to get around and feels extremely safe.
Day 1 of the conference comprised eight 90 minute tutorials by invited “experts”. They included Vicki Stone of SnIRC and Napier University, who gave an excellent overview on the effects of nanotechnology on the environment, Steve Brown of Intel who described progress towards best practices on working with engineered nanoparticles including the efforts of ISO 229, and Tilman Butz who described the results of the skin penetration experiments in the Nanoderm project. My own contribution was a presentation on health related assessment of exposure to nanoparticles.
Something struck me looking at the programme though. That was the relative absence of presentations from the UK. Forgive my parochialism but the UK scene is very much in SAFENANO’s mission. Out of the 200 or so keynotes, tutorials, papers and posters only 5 were from the UK. Now I know Taiwan is a long way to come but 5 seems very few considering this is really the main conference for occupationally based studies, (although less so for toxicology studies). For the record these were Vicki’s and my tutorials, two further posters from Vicki’s group on carbon nanotubes and carbon nanoparticle toxicology, a presentation from Dave Mark’s group at HSL on the measurement of “dustiness” for nanoparticles and a presentation from Peter Hatto on the activities of ISO 229. I think that it must reflect a lack of significant activity, particularly in occupational studies, in the UK which disappointing given the emphasis on this in the 2004 Royal Society report. Those responsible for providing research funding, please take note.
|
-
Tonight I’m on the Amsterdam – Hong Kong flight with Vicki Stone en route to Taipei for the 3rd International Symposium on nanotechnology and Occupational Health. The first two were in Buxton in 2004 and in Minneapolis in 2005. The first symposium coincided with the publication of the Royal Society/ Royal Academy report. It was quite unlike any other conference I have attended. For 3 days we sat inside the ballroom the Palace Hotel in Buxton and discussed how little we knew about nanotechnology exposure, toxicology and risk. This absolutely reflected the sprit of the time. The RS report had laid out in the clearest possible terms the need to understand the routes of exposure, to have better methods for measuring exposure and to out and measure exposure. We also had to understand the toxicology, the mechanisms, the processes and the consequences. The RS report also gave the UK government the way to do it, to establish a virtual multidisciplinary institute bringing together expertise with world class experience, to provide serious and significant funding to address these issues. These were important issues, everyone agreed and we, the research community were ready to do our bit to solve them. How optimistic we were then. Since the heady days of Buxton there has been activity for sure, workshops, reviews and plans by the score but I wonder how much we have really advanced the state of knowledge. As an old colleague of mine used to say, never confuse movement with action (you know who you are HG). I’m looking forward to the next few days to assess how much our actions have achieved. More soon.
Rob
|
-
The FP7 process is moving forward and gathering momentum. In FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: NMP, the calls of most interest to me were NMP-2007-1.3-1 Specific, easy-to-use portable devices for measurement and analysis and NMP-2007-1.3-2 Risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles on health and the environment. These calls which closed in early May had a two stage submission process with evaluation and selection after the first stage. The first stage results are now out (on time) and in general, from our perspective at least, encouraging. There had been concerns about whether or not it would be possible to carry out adequate reviews of the large numbers of proposals in such a short timescale. Well clearly the timescale has been achieved and from what I have seen, as a proposer, of the reviews, they seem broadly fair. So credit where credits due. There will be information meetings in Brussels on the 10th and 11th of July for the successful projects with final, full proposals for the two calls in September and October. Now the real work begins!
|
-
Its now less than 48 hrs to go until the FP7 calls close (FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: NMP). This part of the call is for the co-ordination and support actions. In relation to nanotechnology risk there are three topics, all of which close on Tuesday 5th at 17:00 CET. In each case the projects, if funded will have an important role to play in helping to understand the many complex issues surrounding nanoparticle risks.
NMP-2007-1.3-3 is a “Scientific review of the data and studies on the potential impact of engineered nanoparticles on health, safety and the environment”. So the task is to develop a review which will consider and evaluate what is known about the potential risks to health and environment from (i) fullerene and derivates, (ii) nanotubes and derivates, (iii) metals and (iv) oxides. Some similar reviews have been developed before but this is probably the first time that significant resources are being made available to do it.
NMP-2007-1.3-4 is “Creation of a critical and commented database on the health, safety and environmental impact of nanoparticles”. This support action aims at creating a database on environment and health effects, to include physicochemical characterisation and properties of nanomaterials, explosion risks, hazard information like acute and chronic toxicity, toxicokinetics, ecotoxicity, bioaccumulation, exposure information throughout the life cycle of nanomaterials, environmental fate of nanoparticles, results from in vitro studies (such as cell and tissue penetration, potential circulatory effects, mutagenicity and genotoxicity, where the case), in vivo studies and occupational epidemiological studies. The database should be useful to identify potential risks with nanomaterials for workers, consumers or public at large. This is quite a challenging task which will require identification and review of published work and the extraction and evaluation of the data contained therein.
NMP-2007-1.3-5 “Coordination in studying the environmental, safety and health impact of engineered nanoparticles and nanotechnology based materials and products”. This call is really about trying to develop co-coordinated approaches for testing, screening and modeling through a series of publications and activities.
While all of these are undoubtedly important, none of them will in themselves produce any new data and we have to look to some other parts on the NMP program to do that.
So you may not be surprised to learn that IOM and SAFENANO staff are currently involved in bids for all three calls. My own relatively relaxed attitude stems from the fact that in most cases the proposals are in good shape and indeed first (and sometimes second) versions have already been submitted. That’s not to say that I haven’t spent most of this weekend working on them but really they are not at all bad. I only hope there evaluators take the same view. We’ll know soon enough.
|
-
Just back from Brussels. Its only when you go there you really begin to get a sense what FP7 is all about. Like the 20m high TV screen outside the Berlaymont Building showing an FP7 infomercial 24 hours a day. Or multi-story FP7 adverts inside and outside of commission buildings. It is just so much of the mainstream of Brussels life whereas in the UK, I would think that few outside those that participate in it have even heard of it.
What news though about the first round of submissions in NMP? Well, there’s not too much in the way of details available yet but what I have heard is I think fairly encouraging. There has been over-subscription in many of the topics but no more so than in previous calls. The threatened avalanches have not materialised. Of course there are differences between different topics but apparently nothing extraordinary. And the good news is that that the promised early decisions on the first stage of the two stage proposals in NMP 4.1.3 are still likely to happen, perhaps before the end of June.
It could be a busy summer!
|
-
I’m travelling this evening to Brussels to take part in a meeting about the EC Framework Programme FP7, NMP (Nanotechnologies). It seems an appropriate time to reflect on the events of the last few months. What an extraordinary time it has been. As a research scientist working in nanotechnology risk issues, the overwhelming problem since the publication of the Royal Society report in 2004 has been a lack of funding to carry out there research which has been clearly identified as necessary. The frustration of researchers in the UK in particular has been much in evidence as we have seen the research agenda taken forward elsewhere, most notably in the US, where a more coherent funding strategy has been adopted.
Publication of the EC FP7 Nanotechnology (NMP) research call a few days before Christmas 2006 was a major step forward. Five specific calls under NMP 4.1.3 Health, Safety and Environmental Impacts concerning portable devices , toxicology and risk, scientific reviews, a critical and commented database and co-ordination. The offers fairly flooded in (and still continue to do so). How our in-boxes filled up. It seemed that every week brought a new “opportunity” to lead or to join another proposal, and for many of the calls a two stage submission process meant that the first stage was a relatively simple 10 page submission. Of course we didn’t take them all. The first peak was 5th of May when the portable device and toxicology/risk calls closed. We’re now in the second wave with the rest of the proposals due on 4th June. Truly this has been a time of plenty, well plenty of work writing proposals for sure!
But here’s the thing. If my contacts with other researchers are anything to go by, the NMP programme is going to be flooded with applications so it’s quite likely that vast majority of proposals will have to be rejected at the first stage. And this raises the question, if every nano-risk scientist is involved in applications just who will be available to evaluate them! I really hope that all of this effort has not just ended up in a giant lottery.
Time will tell. More news from Brussels soon.
|
|
|
|