Category Archives: food

A city of science in Japan: Kawasaki (Kanagawa)

Happily, I’m getting more nanotechnology (for the most part) information from Japan. Given Japan’s prominence in this field of endeavour I’ve long felt FrogHeart has not adequately represented Japanese contributions. Now that I’m receiving English language translations, I hope to better address the situation.

This morning (March 26, 2015), there were two news releases from Kawasaki INnovation Gateway at SKYFRONT (KING SKYFRONT), Coastal Area International Strategy Office, Kawasaki City, Japan in my mailbox. Before getting on to the news releases, here’s a little about  the city of Kawasaki and about its innovation gateway. From the Kawasaki, Kanagawa entry in Wikipedia (Note: Links have been removed),

Kawasaki (川崎市 Kawasaki-shi?) is a city in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, located between Tokyo and Yokohama. It is the 9th most populated city in Japan and one of the main cities forming the Greater Tokyo Area and Keihin Industrial Area.

Kawasaki occupies a belt of land stretching about 30 kilometres (19 mi) along the south bank of the Tama River, which divides it from Tokyo. The eastern end of the belt, centered on JR Kawasaki Station, is flat and largely consists of industrial zones and densely built working-class housing, the Western end mountainous and more suburban. The coastline of Tokyo Bay is occupied by vast heavy industrial complexes built on reclaimed land.

There is a 2014 video about Kawasaki’s innovation gateway, which despite its 14 mins. 39 secs. running time I am embedding here. (Caution: They highlight their animal testing facility at some length.)

Now on to the two news releases. The first concerns research on gold nanoparticles that was published in 2014. From a March 26, 2015 Kawasaki INnovation Gateway news release,

Gold nanoparticles size up to cancer treatment

Incorporating gold nanoparticles helps optimise treatment carrier size and stability to improve delivery of cancer treatment to cells.

Treatments that attack cancer cells through the targeted silencing of cancer genes could be developed using small interfering RNA molecules (siRNA). However delivering the siRNA into the cells intact is a challenge as it is readily degraded by enzymes in the blood and small enough to be eliminated from the blood stream by kidney filtration.  Now Kazunori Kataoka at the University of Tokyo and colleagues at Tokyo Institute of Technology have designed a protective treatment delivery vehicle with optimum stability and size for delivering siRNA to cells.

The researchers formed a polymer complex with a single siRNA molecule. The siRNA-loaded complex was then bonded to a 20 nm gold nanoparticle, which thanks to advances in synthesis techniques can be produced with a reliably low size distribution. The resulting nanoarchitecture had the optimum overall size – small enough to infiltrate cells while large enough to accumulate.

In an assay containing heparin – a biological anti-coagulant with a high negative charge density – the complex was found to release the siRNA due to electrostatic interactions. However when the gold nanoparticle was incorporated the complex remained stable. Instead, release of the siRNA from the complex with the gold nanoparticle could be triggered once inside the cell by the presence of glutathione, which is present in high concentrations in intracellular fluid. The glutathione bonded with the gold nanoparticles and the complex, detaching them from each other and leaving the siRNA prone to release.

The researchers further tested their carrier in a subcutaneous tumour model. The authors concluded that the complex bonded to the gold nanoparticle “enabled the efficient tumor accumulation of siRNA and significant in vivo gene silencing effect in the tumor, demonstrating the potential for siRNA-based cancer therapies.”

The news release provides links to the March 2015 newsletter which highlights this research and to the specific article and video,

March 2015 Issue of Kawasaki SkyFront iNewsletter: http://inewsletter-king-skyfront.jp/en/

Contents

Feature video on Professor Kataoka’s research : http://inewsletter-king-skyfront.jp/en/video_feature/vol_3/feature01/

Research highlights: http://inewsletter-king-skyfront.jp/en/research_highlights/vol_3/research01/

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Precise Engineering of siRNA Delivery Vehicles to Tumors Using Polyion Complexes and Gold Nanoparticles by Hyun Jin Kim, Hiroyasu Takemoto, Yu Yi, Meng Zheng, Yoshinori Maeda, Hiroyuki Chaya, Kotaro Hayashi, Peng Mi, Frederico Pittella, R. James Christie, Kazuko Toh, Yu Matsumoto, Nobuhiro Nishiyama, Kanjiro Miyata, and Kazunori Kataoka. ACS Nano, 2014, 8 (9), pp 8979–8991 DOI: 10.1021/nn502125h Publication Date (Web): August 18, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

This article is behind a paywall.

The second March 26, 2015 Kawasaki INnovation Gateway news release concerns a DNA chip and food-borne pathogens,

Rapid and efficient DNA chip technology for testing 14 major types of food borne pathogens

Conventional methods for testing food-borne pathogens is based on the cultivation of pathogens, a process that is complicated and time consuming. So there is demand for alternative methods to test for food-borne pathogens that are simpler, quick and applicable to a wide range of potential applications.

Now Toshiba Ltd and Kawasaki City Institute for Public Health have collaborated in the development of a rapid and efficient automatic abbreviated DNA detection technology that can test for 14 major types of food borne pathogens. The so called ‘DNA chip card’ employs electrochemical DNA chips and overcomes the complicated procedures associated with genetic testing of conventional methods. The ‘DNA chip card’ is expected to find applications in hygiene management in food manufacture, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics.

Details

The so-called automatic abbreviated DNA detection technology ‘DNA chip card’ was developed by Toshiba Ltd and in a collaboration with Kawasaki City Institute for Public Health, used to simultaneously detect 14 different types of food-borne pathogens in less than 90 minutes. The detection sensitivity depends on the target pathogen and has a range of 1E+01~05 cfu/mL.

Notably, such tests would usually take 4-5 days using conventional methods based on pathogen cultivation. Furthermore, in contrast to conventional DNA protocols that require high levels of skill and expertise, the ‘DNA chip card’ only requires the operator to inject nucleic acid, thereby making the procedure easier to use and without specialized operating skills.

Examples of pathogens associated with food poisoning that were tested with the “DNA chip card”

Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli

Salmonella

Campylobacter

Vibrio parahaemolyticus

Shigella

Staphylococcus aureus

Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli

Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli

Clostridium perfringens

Bacillus cereus

Yersinia

Listeria

Vibrio cholerae

I think 14 is the highest number of tests I’ve seen for one of these chips. This chip is quite an achievement.

One final bit from the news release about the DNA chip provides a brief description of the gateway and something they call King SkyFront,

About KING SKYFRONT

The Kawasaki INnovation Gateway (KING) SKYFRONT is the flagship science and technology innovation hub of Kawasaki City. KING SKYFRONT is a 40 hectare area located in the Tonomachi area of the Keihin Industrial Region that spans Tokyo and Kanagawa Prefecture and Tokyo International Airport (also often referred to as Haneda Airport).

KING SKYFRONT was launched in 2013 as a base for scholars, industrialists and government administrators to work together to devise real life solutions to global issues in the life sciences and environment.

I find this emphasis on the city interesting. It seems that cities are becoming increasingly important and active where science research and development are concerned. Europe seems to have adopted a biannual event wherein a city is declared a European City of Science in conjunction with the EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF) conferences. The first such city was Dublin in 2012 (I believe the Irish came up with the concept themselves) and was later adopted by Copenhagen for 2014. The latest city to embrace the banner will be Manchester in 2016.

Disinfectants without chemicals for the food industry

Michael Berger in his March 16, 2015 Nanowerk Spotlight article profiles some very interesting research into replacing chemicals with water nanostructures,

The burden of foodborne diseases worldwide is huge, with serious economic and public health consequences. The CDC [US Centers for Disease Control] estimates that each year in the USA approximately 48 million people get sick, 128,000 get hospitalized and 3,000 die from the consumption of food contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms. The food industry is in search of effective intervention methods that can be applied from ‘farm to fork’ to ensure the safety of the food chain and be consumer and environment friendly at the same time.

In the food industry, chemicals are routinely used to clean and disinfect product contact surfaces as well as the outer surface of the food itself. These chemicals provide a necessary and required step to ensure that the foods produced and consumed are as free as possible from microorganisms that can cause foodborne illness.

Food activists are concerned that some of the chemicals used by the food industry for disinfection can cause health issues for consumers. A prime example is the current discussion in Europe about ‘American chlorine chicken’. …

Berger goes on to highlight the research being conducted at the Harvard T. Chan School of Public Health (Harvard University). The team announced a new technique called Engineered Water Nanostructures (EWNS), which is generated by electrospraying water. The team published this paper in 2014,

A chemical free, nanotechnology-based method for airborne bacterial inactivation using engineered water nanostructures by Georgios Pyrgiotakis, James McDevitt, Andre Bordini, Edgar Diaz, Ramon Molina, Christa Watson, Glen Deloid, Steve Lenard, Natalie Fix, Yosuke Mizuyama, Toshiyuki Yamauchi, Joseph Brain and Philip Demokritou. Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2014,1, 15-26 DOI: 10.1039/C3EN00007A

First published online 28 Nov 2013

This paper is open access.

More recently, the team has proved the efficacy of this technique on stainless steel surfaces and tomatoes. A Feb. 25, 2015 Harvard T. Chan School of Public Health news release provides information about the costs of foodborne diseases and goes on to describe the technique and the latest experiments,

The burden of foodborne diseases worldwide is huge, with serious economic and public health consequences. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service reported in 2014 that foodborne illnesses are costing the economy more than $15.6 billion and about 53,245 Americans visit the hospital annually due to foodborne illnesses. The food industry is in search of effective intervention methods that can be applied form “farm to fork” to ensure the safety of the food chain and be consumer and environment friendly at the same time.

Researchers at the Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology of the Harvard T. Chan School of Public Health are currently exploring the effectiveness of a nanotechnology based, chemical free, intervention method for the inactivation of foodborne and spoilage microorganisms on fresh produce and on food production surfaces. This method utilizes Engineered Water Nanostructures (EWNS) generated by electrospraying of water. EWNS possess unique properties; they are 25 nm in diameter, remain airborne in indoor conditions for hours, contain Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), have very strong surface charge (on average 10e/structure) and have the ability to interact and inactivate pathogens by destroying their membrane.

In a study funded by the USDA and just published this week in the premier Environmental Science and Technology journal, the efficacy of these tiny water nanodroplets, in inactivating representative foodborne pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica and Listeria innocua, on stainless steel surfaces and on tomatoes, was assessed showing significant log reductions in inactivation of select food pathogens. These promising results could open up the gateway for further exploration into the dynamics of this method in the battle against foodborne disease. More importantly this novel, chemical-free, cost effective and environmentally friendly intervention method holds great potential for development and application in the food industry, as a ‘green’ alternative to existing inactivation methods.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the latest paper,

Inactivation of Foodborne Microorganisms Using Engineered Water Nanostructures (EWNS) by Georgios Pyrgiotakis, Archana Vasanthakumar, Ya Gao, Mary Eleftheriadou, Eduardo Toledo, Alice DeAraujo, James McDevitt, Taewon Han, Gediminas Mainelis, Ralph Mitchell, and Philip Demokritou. Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/es505868a Publication Date (Web): February 19, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society

This paper is behind a paywall. The researchers have made this image illustrating a ‘water shell’s’ effect on a bacterium located on a tomato,

Courtesy: Researchers and the American Chemical Society

Courtesy: Researchers and the American Chemical Society

I’m not sure how chemical companies are going to feel but this is very exciting news. Still, one has to wonder just how much water this technique would require for full scale adoption and would it be reusable?

Dunkin’ Donuts and nano titanium dioxide

It’s been a busy few days for titanium dioxide, nano and otherwise, as the news about its removal from powdered sugar in Dunkin’ Donuts products ripples through the nano blogosphere. A March 6, 2015 news item on Azonano kicks off the discussion with an announcement,

Dunkin’ Brands, the parent company of the Dunkin’ Donuts chain, has agreed to remove titanium dioxide, a whitening agent that is commonly a source of nanomaterials, from all powdered sugar used to make the company’s donuts. As a result of this progress, the advocacy group As You Sow has withdrawn a shareholder proposal asking Dunkin’ to assess and reduce the risks of using nanomaterials in its food products.

Here’s a brief recent history of Dunkin’ Donuts and nano titanium dioxide from my Aug. 21, 2014 posting titled, FOE, nano, and food: part two of three (the problem with research),

Returning to the ‘debate’, a July 11, 2014 article by Sarah Shemkus for a sponsored section in the UK’s Guardian newspaper highlights an initiative taken by an environmental organization, As You Sow, concerning titanium dioxide in Dunkin’ Donuts’ products (Note: A link has been removed),

The activists at environmental nonprofit As You Sow want you to take another look at your breakfast doughnut. The organization recently filed a shareholder resolution asking Dunkin’ Brands, the parent company of Dunkin’ Donuts, to identify products that may contain nanomaterials and to prepare a report assessing the risks of using these substances in foods.

Their resolution received a fair amount of support: at the company’s annual general meeting in May, 18.7% of shareholders, representing $547m in investment, voted for it. Danielle Fugere, As You Sow’s president, claims that it was the first such resolution to ever receive a vote. Though it did not pass, she says that she is encouraged by the support it received.

“That’s a substantial number of votes in favor, especially for a first-time resolution,” she says.

The measure was driven by recent testing sponsored by As You Sow, which found nanoparticles of titanium dioxide in the powdered sugar that coats some of the donut chain’s products. [emphasis mine] An additive widely used to boost whiteness in products from toothpaste to plastic, microscopic titanium dioxide has not been conclusively proven unsafe for human consumption. Then again, As You Sow contends, there also isn’t proof that it is harmless.

“Until a company can demonstrate the use of nanomaterials is safe, we’re asking companies either to not use them or to provide labels,” says Fugere. “It would make more sense to understand these materials before putting them in our food.”

As I understand it, Dunkin’ Donuts will be removing all titanium dioxide, nano-sized or other, from powdered sugar used in its products. It seems As You Sow’s promise to withdraw its July 2104 shareholder resolution is the main reason for Dunkin’ Donuts’ decision. While I was and am critical of Dunkin’ Donuts’ handling of the situation with As You Sow, I am somewhat distressed that the company seems to have acquiesced on the basis of research which is, at best, inconclusive.

Dr. Andrew Maynard, director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Centre, has written a substantive analysis of the current situation regarding nano titanium dioxide in a March 12, 2015 post on his 2020 Science blog (Note: Links have been removed),

Titanium dioxide (which isn’t the same thing as the metal titanium) is an inert, insoluble material that’s used as a whitener in everything from paper and paint to plastics. It’s the active ingredient in many mineral-based sunscreens. And as a pigment, is also used to make food products look more appealing.

Part of the appeal to food producers is that titanium dioxide is a pretty dull chemical. It doesn’t dissolve in water. It isn’t particularly reactive. It isn’t easily absorbed into the body from food. And it doesn’t seem to cause adverse health problems. It just seems to do what manufacturers want it to do – make food look better. It’s what makes the powdered sugar coating on donuts appear so dense and snow white. Titanium dioxide gives it a boost.

And you’ve probably been consuming it for years without knowing. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration allows food products to contain up to 1% food-grade titanium dioxide without the need to include it on the ingredient label. Help yourself to a slice of bread, a bar of chocolate, a spoonful of mayonnaise or a donut, and chances are you’ll be eating a small amount of the substance.

Andrew goes on to describe the concerns that groups such as You As Sow have (Note: Links have been removed),

For some years now, researchers have recognized that some powders become more toxic the smaller the individual particles are, and titanium dioxide is no exception. Pigment grade titanium dioxide – the stuff typically used in consumer products and food – contains particles around 200 nanometers in diameter, or around one five hundredth the width of a human hair. Inhale large quantities of these titanium dioxide particles (I’m thinking “can’t see your hand in front of your face” quantities), and your lungs would begin to feel it.

If the particles are smaller though, it takes much less material to cause the same effect.

But you’d still need to inhale very large quantities of the material for it to be harmful. And while eating a powdered donut can certainly be messy, it’s highly unlikely that you’re going to end up stuck in a cloud of titanium dioxide-tinted powdered sugar coating!

… Depending on what they are made of and what shape they are, research has shown that some nanoparticles are capable of getting to parts of the body that are inaccessible to larger particles. And some particles are more chemically reactive because of their small size. Some may cause unexpected harm simply because they are small enough to throw a nano-wrench into the nano-workings of your cells.

This body of research is why organizations like As You Sow have been advocating caution in using nanoparticles in products without appropriate testing – especially in food. But the science about nanoparticles isn’t as straightforward as it seems.

As Andrew notes,

First of all, particles of the same size but made of different materials can behave in radically different ways. Assuming one type of nanoparticle is potentially harmful because of what another type does is the equivalent of avoiding apples because you’re allergic to oysters.

He describes some of the research on nano titanium dioxide (Note: Links have been removed),

… In 2004 the European Food Safety Agency carried out a comprehensive safety review of the material. After considering the available evidence on the same materials that are currently being used in products like Dunkin’ Donuts, the review panel concluded that there no evidence for safety concerns.

Most research on titanium dioxide nanoparticles has been carried out on ones that are inhaled, not ones we eat. Yet nanoparticles in the gut are a very different proposition to those that are breathed in.

Studies into the impacts of ingested nanoparticles are still in their infancy, and more research is definitely needed. Early indications are that the gastrointestinal tract is pretty good at handling small quantities of these fine particles. This stands to reason given the naturally occurring nanoparticles we inadvertently eat every day, from charred foods and soil residue on veggies and salad, to more esoteric products such as clay-baked potatoes. There’s even evidence that nanoparticles occur naturally inside the gastrointestinal tract.

He also probes the issue’s, nanoparticles, be they titanium dioxide or otherwise, and toxicity, complexity (Note: Links have been removed),

There’s a small possibility that we haven’t been looking in the right places when it comes to possible health issues. Maybe – just maybe – there could be long term health problems from this seemingly ubiquitous diet of small, insoluble particles that we just haven’t spotted yet. It’s the sort of question that scientists love to ask, because it opens up new avenues of research. It doesn’t mean that there is an issue, just that there is sufficient wiggle room in what we don’t know to ask interesting questions.

… While there is no evidence of a causal association between titanium dioxide in food and ill health, some studies – but not all by any means – suggest that large quantities of titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause harm if they get to specific parts of the body.

For instance, there are a growing number of published studies that indicate nanometer sized titanium dioxide particles may cause DNA damage at high concentrations if it can get into cells. But while these studies demonstrate the potential for harm to occur, they lack information on how much material is needed, and under what conditions, for significant harm. And they tend to be associated with much larger quantities of material than anyone is likely to be ingesting on a regular basis.

They are also counterbalanced by studies that show no effects, indicating that there is still considerable uncertainty over the toxicity or otherwise of the material. It’s as if we’ve just discovered that paper can cause cuts, but we’re not sure yet whether this is a minor inconvenience or potentially life threatening. In the case of nanoscale titanium dioxide, it’s the classic case of “more research is needed.”

I strongly suggest reading Andrew’s post in its entirety either here on the University of Michigan website or here on The Conversation website.

Dexter Johnson in a March 11, 2015 post on his Nanoclast blog also weighs in on the discussion. He provides a very neat summary of the issues along with these observations (Note Links have been removed),

With decades of TiO2 being in our food supply and no reports of toxic reactions, it would seem that the threshold for proof is extremely high, especially when you combine the term “nano” with “asbestos”.

As You Sow makes sure to point out that asbestos is a nanoparticle. While the average diameter of an asbestos fiber is around 20 to 90 nm, their lengths varied between 200 nm and 200 micrometers.

The toxic aspect of asbestos was not its diameter, but its length. …

In addition to his summary Dexter highlights As You Sows attempt to link titanium dioxide nanoparticles to asbestos. I suggest reading his post for an informed description of what made asbestos so toxic (here) and why the linkage seems specious at this time.

For anyone interested in how As You Sow managed to introduce asbestos toxicity issues into a discussion about nano titanium dioxide and food products, there’s this from As You Sow’s FAQs (frequently asked questions) about nanomaterials in food page,

Why are nanomaterials in food important to investors?

When technology is used before ensuring that it is safe for humans and the environment, and before regulatory standards exist, companies can be exposed to significant financial, legal, and reputational risk. The limited studies that exist on nanomaterials, including nanoscale titanium dioxide*, have indicated that ingestion of these particles may pose health hazards.

The inaction of regulators does not protect companies, especially when the regulators themselves warn of the dangers of nanoparticles’ largely unknown risks. Draft guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raises questions about the safety of nanoparticles and demonstrates the general lack of knowledge about the technology and its effects. (1)

Asbestos litigation is a good example of the risks that can arise from using an emerging technology before it is proven safe. Use of asbestos (a nanomaterial) has created the longest, most expensive mass tort in national history with total U.S. costs now standing at over $250 billion. (2) If companies been asked to investigate and minimize or avoid risks prior to adopting asbestos technology, a sad and expensive chapter in worker harm could have been avoided.

* Titanium dioxide is a common pigment and FDA-approved food additive. It is used as a whitener, a dispersant, and a thickener.

While I don’t particularly appreciate fear-mongering as a tactic, the strategy of targeting investors and their concerns, seems to have helped As You Sow win its way.

2014 food and nanotechnologies report from the European Food Safety Authority

A Feb. 27, 2015 news item on Nanowerk announced the latest annual report on food and nanotechnologies from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),

In accordance with European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s strategy for cooperation and networking with Member States, a Network for Risk Assessment of Nanotechnologies in Food and Feed was established in 2010. The overall goals of this Network are to facilitate harmonisation of assessment practices and methodologies; to enhance exchange of information and data between EFSA and MS; and to achieve synergies in risk assessment activities. The Annual reports of the Network inform the public and the EFSA Advisory Forum about its specific activities and achievements.

The summary for the EFSA Scientific Network of Risk Assessment of Nanotechnologies in Food and Feed1 for 2014 Technical Report offers more details (Note: A link has been removed),

The Network is composed of representatives from 21 Member States and Norway. In addition, observers to this Network represent the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Montenegro. There is also representation from the European Commission (DGSANTE and JRC), from the EFSA Scientific Committee and the relevant Units/Panels.

During 2014, the Network followed-up on its priority areas and contributed to the making of inventory lists of applications of Nanomaterials already present in the food/feed chain.

At its 2014 meeting the Network focussed again on updates of research results from toxicological studies relevant for the oral route of exposure. Member States representatives presented relevant studies. The type of nanomaterials that are now occurring in the food/feed chain are mainly Titanium dioxide (TiO2) and Synthetic Amorphous Silica (SAS). The evidence bases for oral toxicity and for conducting comprehensive risk assessments of these two materials is building up, but more research remains needed. Challenges to draw firm risk assessment conclusions reside in (1) the intake estimation (2) the possible worst-case absorption and the dose-dependence of absorption (3) the potential irrelevance of high dose oral toxicity studies for risk assessment (4) the extrapolation of kinetic data from rat to man (5) the nanoparticle determination in tissues, and (6) the many differences between the types of nanoforms of one nanomaterial (e.g. in kinetics and toxicity). Some differences in behaviour of different nanoforms have been observed, but there is no clear overview. A new issue of concern is that absorption is not linear with dose: high dose studies are often used for tox testing for estimation of safe dose, while the high dose may result in aggregation, agglomeration, gelation and as a consequence dose-dependent absorption.

Challenges also remain to exist regarding the technical aspects for considering a material as a nanomaterial (NM) for the regulatory purpose of food labelling. The NanoDefine project (FP7) is expected to deliver by 2017 an implementable test-scheme for regulatory purposes to distinguish nano from non-nano.

The Network agreed that regardless the current challenges and regardless the % of nanoforms in the bulk material (particle size% or mass%), EFSA should assess the nano-fraction, no matter how small. Food law, as being implemented by the EFSA Panels is covering nanomaterials. Nanomaterials are addressed mainly by cross-referring to the Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2011 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2140.pdf). (p. 2 print & PDF versions)

For anyone curious about the European Food and Safety Authority, you can go here.

Canada’s Green Earth Nano Science expands into the European Union

It’s nice to learn of another Canadian ‘nanotechnology’ company. According to a Feb. 6, 2015 news item on Nanotechnology Now, Toronto-based Green Earth Nano Science has recently received some very good business news,

Green Earth Nano Science has signed an Exclusive Distribution Agreement with CleanShield Denmark to bring GENS NANO and SOLARSTUCCO self-cleaning coatings, and AGRIHIT biodegradable cleaners, organic plant based disinfectants, and sanitizers into Denmark, Sweden, Norway and German markets.

A Feb. 1, 2015 Green Earth Nano Science news release, which originated the news item, describes the deal in more detail,

Green Earth Nano Science, Inc., (GENS) from Toronto, Canada is one of the first of the new class of global companies specializing in investment, commercialization, manufacturing, and distribution of new sustainable green environmental technologies. GENS have recently expanded its marketplace to Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany through Danish company CleanShield by signing Exclusive License Distribution Agreement for distribution and application of its Gens Nano & SolarStucco branded self-cleaning, anti-bacterial coatings, and AgriHit branded organic disinfectants & sanitizers, natural bio degradable cleaners, natural foliar fertilizers & plant growth & health enhancers.

CleanShield, a Denmark Company, is a growing corporation with an existing applicator and sales networks with customers in key Denmark industrial and hospitality segments. CleanShield has strong capabilities to develop sales distribution and application networks through their connection and relationships with many local businesses, government, health care and hospitality facilities plus building maintenance companies. Green technology products portfolio offered by Green Earth Nano Science, Inc. focuses on constant improvements through commercialization of path breaking technologies that benefit the environment as well as people. Many industries benefit from GENS natural products and environmental solutions, including farming, food, health care, hospitality, commercial and residential industries.

Miroslaw Chrzaniecki, VP from Green Earth Nano Science, Inc. stated: “We are energized with opportunity to serve and expend in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and German territories. Looking just at Denmark, it is one of the World’s richest countries, home to various types of industries including big agricultural production companies making it an ideal frontier for expansion. To add to this fact, Denmark’s principal exports: machinery, instruments, food products, industrial machinery, chemical products, furniture, pharmaceuticals, and canned ham and pork can all benefit GENS’s Green 3D Shield bio security system that works wonders by utilizing herbal natural cleaning technologies. Local farmers as mentioned by Mr. Chrzaniecki can also take advantage of the revolutionary AgriHit Plant Growth & Health Enhancer, made from plant extracts when applied diluted with water on the plant leafs help plants to fight off diseases, repel small insects, fungi attacks. [emphasis mine] Other products we introduce in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany are our natural cleaners, organic sanitizers; natural self-cleaning and self-sanitizing antibacterial coatings will benefit many businesses and even home clients as well. For example e-coil, salmonella and other potential devastating outbreaks within food manufactures can be prevented or reduced by application of GENS NANO self sanitizing coating. Hotels and office building and homes can be made as allergy free by treating A/C systems and regular use of food safe, long lasting AgriHit organic disinfectants and by using our plant based antibacterial cleaners in daily cleaning routines. I can talk for hours about many different benefits that together with our exclusive license partners we will introduce in Europe.” opines Miroslaw Chrzaniecki, VP of Green Earth Nano Science, Inc.

On the other hand, Mr. Thomas Gregersen Bowmann, Director of CleanShield shares the same enthusiasm and excitement saying “Now by signing Exclusive Territory Licensing agreement with Canadian company Green Earth Nano Science Inc. we are on the forefront of green revolution in Denmark. With a professional team ready to happily serve and offer these green infection control solutions using GENS’s reliable green-products such as SolarStucco, AgriHit and 3D Shield bio security systems can help sustain our loyal clients’ needs to achieve great savings and reducing outbreak problems while protecting the environment. Crews are experienced and well trained and we are very happy to be able to offer green infection control solutions and implement Green 3D Shield bio security system in their facilities. With the introduction of environment friendly, natural products, we will help our clients to achieve great savings for the whole different industries and also reduce problems associated with outbreaks at the same time. We will be implementing an aggressive marketing strategy to explore all business opportunities in Denmark.”

The AgriHit product, the part about “repel small insects, fungi attacks,” reminds me of Vive Crop Protection (another Toronto-based ‘nano’ company) and its product line. I last mentioned that company in a Nov. 21, 2014 post about the expansion of its manufacturing capabilities.

Getting back to the matter at hand, congratulations to Green Earth Nano Science! You can find out more about CleanShield here, provided you have Danish language skills. For anyone particularly interested in AgriHit (the Green Earth Nano Science [GENS] product), it has its own website here. One comment, I found the GENS website organization a little confusing. I advise checking both the Solutions tab and the Products tab if you’re interested in learning more about their products, as well as, visiting the AgriHit website.

Bacteria is shocked, I tell you, shocked

Casablanca (1942, black and white, Hollywood movie) lovers may recognize the paraphrase of just one of the many famous lines in the movie. However, this ‘shocking’ news has more to do with preventing bacteria from congregating on surfaces according to a Jan. 12, 2014 news item by Alexander Chilton on Azonano (Note: Links have been removed),

Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Cornell University have devised a new nanoscale surface which uses an electrochemical anodization process in order to prevent the surface attachment of bacteria.

The research published in the Biofouling journal focuses on the formation of nanoscale pores which alter the surface energy and electrical charge of a metal surface. A repulsive force is exerted on the bacterial cells, which prevents the attachment of bacteria and the formation of a biofilm. The size of the nanoscale pores formed can be as small as 15 nanometers.

The application of the anodization process to aluminum created a nanoporous surface, known as alumina. This surface proved effective in preventing the attachment of two popular bacterial species: Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7.

Krishna Ramanujan’s Jan. 9, 2015 article for Cornell University’s Chronicle explains why the scientists are excited about the anodization technique,

“It’s probably one of the lowest-cost possibilities to manufacture a nanostructure on a metallic surface,” said Carmen Moraru, associate professor of food science and the paper’s senior author. …

Finding low-cost solutions to limiting bacterial attachments is key, especially in biomedical and food processing applications.  …

Anodized metals could be used to prevent buildups of biofilms – slick communities of bacteria that adhere to surfaces and are tricky to remove – in biomedical clean rooms and in equipment parts that are hard to reach or clean, Moraru said.

There are other strategies for limiting bacterial attachment to surfaces, including chemicals and bactericides, but these have limited applications, especially when it comes to food processing, Moraru said. With food processing, surfaces must meet food safety guidelines and be inert to food that they may contact.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Alumina surfaces with nanoscale topography reduce attachment and biofilm formation by Escherichia coli and Listeria spp. by Guoping Feng, Yifan Cheng, Shu-Yi Wang, Lillian C. Hsu, Yazmin Feliz, Diana A. Borca-Tasciuc, Randy W. Worobo, & Carmen I. Moraru. Biofouling: The Journal of Bioadhesion and Biofilm Research Volume 30, Issue 10, 2014 pages 1253-1268 DOI: 10.1080/08927014.2014.976561 Published online: 27 Nov 2014

This article is open access.

Detecting Ochratoxin A in agricultural products with gold nanoparticles

Iranian researchers have developed a fast, inexpensive way to test for a cancer-causing toxicant found in some agricultural products. From a Jan. 5, 2015 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

Researchers from Isfahan University of Technology used gold nanoparticles in the production of a detection kit to find cancerous toxicant in agricultural products (“Ultrasensitive and quantitative gold nanoparticle-based immunochromatographic assay for detection of ochratoxin A in agro-products”).

The use of the kit increases speed, sensitivity and ease of application.

A Jan. 5, 2015 Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council (INIC) news release, which originated the news item, describes Ochratoxin A and the kit,

Humans and animals are always threatened by various toxicants naturally produced in different food products. Ochratoxin A is a type of toxicant that is produced by some types of fungi, which has been classified in human cancerous materials (Group B2) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

There are many methods to detect this toxicant, but in addition to high costs, these methods are time-consuming and require skillful and expert people to carry out the tests. The fact is that in many places where the detection of ochratoxin A is a necessity, there is no equipment and the detection process fails.

Increasing the detection speed, ease of application, and reducing costs are among the advantages of the method proposed by the researchers. Obtaining technical knowledge for the production of various detection kits based on this method for different materials is another achievement of the researchers.

In this research, a fast and ultra-sensitive detection kit has been produced based on immunochromatography method. To this end, test tapes have been designed and produced by using gold nanoparticles markers, and the results are obtained by placing the sample on the tape after 15 minutes. Gold nanoparticles create red color after combining with the toxicant and the color is visible by naked eye too.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the published research,

Ultrasensitive and quantitative gold nanoparticle-based immunochromatographic assay for detection of ochratoxin A in agro-products by Marjan Majdinasab, Mahmoud Sheikh-Zeinoddin, Sabihe Soleimanian-Zad, Peiwu Li, Qi Zhang, Xin Li, and Xiaoqian Tang. Journal of Chromatography B Volume 974, 1 January 2015, Pages 147–154. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2014.10.034

This paper is behind a paywall.

Quantum dots cycling through the food chain

Rice University (Texas, US) researchers have published a study which follows quantum dot nanoparticles as they enter the water supply and are taken up by plant roots and leaves and eaten by caterpillars. From a Dec. 16, 2014 news item on ScienceDaily,

In one of the most comprehensive laboratory studies of its kind, Rice University scientists traced the uptake and accumulation of quantum dot nanoparticles from water to plant roots, plant leaves and leaf-eating caterpillars.

The study, one of the first to examine how nanoparticles move through human-relevant food chains, found that nanoparticle accumulation in both plants and animals varied significantly depending upon the type of surface coating applied to the particles. The research is available online in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology.

A Dec. 16, 2014 Rice University news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, provides insight into some of the issues being addressed with this research (Note: Links have been removed),

“With industrial use of nanoparticles on the rise, there are increasing questions about how they move through the environment and whether they may accumulate in high levels in plants and animals that people eat,” said study co-author Janet Braam, professor and chair of the Department of BioSciences at Rice.

Braam and colleagues studied the uptake of fluorescent quantum dots by Arabidopsis thaliana, an oft-studied plant species that is a relative of mustard, broccoli and kale. In particular, the team looked at how various surface coatings affected how quantum dots moved from roots to leaves as well as how the particles accumulated in leaves. The team also studied how quantum dots behaved when caterpillars called cabbage loopers (Trichoplusia ni) fed upon plant leaves containing quantum dots.

“The impact of nanoparticle uptake on plants themselves and on the herbivores that feed upon them is an open question,” said study first author Yeonjong Koo, a postdoctoral research associate in Braam’s lab. “Very little work has been done in this area, especially in terrestrial plants, which are the cornerstone of human food webs.”

Some toxins, like mercury and DDT, tend to accumulate in higher concentrations as they move up the food chain from plants to animals. It is unknown whether nanoparticles may also be subject to this process, known as biomagnification.

While there are hundreds of types of nanoparticles in use, Koo chose to study quantum dots, submicroscopic bits of semiconductors that glow brightly under ultraviolet light. The fluorescent particles — which contained cadmium, selenium, zinc and sulfur — could easily be measured and imaged in the tests. In addition, the team treated the surface of the quantum dots with three different polymer coatings — one positively charged, one negatively charged and one neutral.

“In industrial applications, nanoparticles are often coated with a polymer to increase solubility, improve stability, enhance properties and for other reasons,” said study co-author Pedro Alvarez, professor and chair of Rice’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. “We expect surface coatings to play a significant role in whether and how nanomaterials may accumulate in food webs.”

Previous lab studies had suggested that the neutral coatings might cause the nanoparticles to aggregate and form clumps that were so large that they would not readily move from a plant’s roots to its leaves. The experiments bore this out. Of the three particle types, only those with charged coatings moved readily through the plants, and only the negatively charged particles avoided clumping altogether. The study also found that the type of coating impacted the plants’ ability to biodegrade, or break down, the quantum dots.

Koo and colleagues found caterpillars that fed on plants containing quantum dots gained less weight and grew more slowly than caterpillars that fed on untainted leaves. By examining the caterpillar’s excrement, the scientists were also able to estimate whether cadmium, selenium and intact quantum dots might be accumulating in the animals. Again, the coating played an important role.

“Our tests were not specifically designed to measure bioaccumulation in caterpillars, but the data we collected suggest that particles with positively charged coatings may accumulate in cells and pose a risk of bioaccumulation,” Koo said. “Based on our findings, more tests should be conducted to determine the extent of this risk under a broader set of ecological conditions.”

The researchers have a couple of images illustrating their work,

The buildup of fluorescent quantum dots in the leaves of Arabidopsis plants is apparent in this photograph of the plants under ultraviolet light. Credit: Y. Koo/Rice University

The buildup of fluorescent quantum dots in the leaves of Arabidopsis plants is apparent in this photograph of the plants under ultraviolet light. Credit: Y. Koo/Rice University

And, there’s a caterpillar,

Cabbage looper

Cabbage looper

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Fluorescence Reports Intact Quantum Dot Uptake into Roots and Translocation to Leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana and Subsequent Ingestion by Insect Herbivores by Yeonjong Koo, Jing Wang, Qingbo Zhang, Huiguang Zhu, E. Wassim Chehab, Vicki L. Colvin, Pedro J. J. Alvarez, and Janet Braam. Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript DOI: 10.1021/es5050562 Publication Date (Web): December 1, 2014

Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

This paper is open access but you must be registered on the website.

One final thought about the research, it did take place in a laboratory environment and there doesn’t seem to have been any soil involved so the uptake can not be directly compared (as I understand matters) to the uptake characteristics where plant cultivation requires soil. This seems to have been a study involving hydroponic framing practices.

Singaporeans’ perceptions of nanotechnology and consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies in food production

This is the first time I’ve seen a study about nanotechnology perception and awareness from Asia. (As I’m sure this is not the first or the only such study, I lament my language skills once more. Since my primary search is for English language materials with my second language, French, as a very distant second, I am limited to translated materials.)

This piece of research comes from Singapore. From a Dec. 11, 2014 news item on the Asian Scientist magazine website,

A survey published in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research shows that while the Singaporean population is more familiar with nanotechnology than their Western counterparts in the US and Europe, they are also more wary of the risks involved.

Asia is expected to dominate the use and release of nanomaterials into the environment, largely due to the size of the population. Furthermore, the region in general—and Singapore in particular—has invested heavily in nanotechnology research, rapidly translating their findings into industrial and consumer products. However, there has been a lack of studies documenting public attitudes and acceptance of new technologies such as nanotechnology.

To address this gap of information, a team of researchers led by first author Dr. Saji George from the Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology conducted a survey of 1,080 Singaporeans above the age of 15. Their results revealed that approximately 80 percent had some understanding of nanotechnology.

A June 20, 2014 Nanyang Polytechnic media release provides additional details about the research,

In a recent public perception study conducted in Singapore with 1,000 respondents, researchers from Nanyang Polytechnic’s (NYP) Centre for Sustainable Nanotechnology (CSN) found that 80% of respondents were aware of nanotechnology, while only 40% of them were positive about its benefits. This was shared at the official launch of the CSN today. The event was graced by Mr Derek Ho, Director-General, Environmental Public Health Division, National Environment Agency (NEA).

The Centre is the first-of-its-kind among institutes of higher learning (IHLs) in Singapore. It is dedicated to studying the potential impact of novel engineered nanomaterials, and developing ways to ensure that nanotechnology applications are adopted in a sustainable manner for individuals and the environment. This makes the $1 million facility a key training facility for NYP’s students from the Schools of Chemical & Life Sciences, Engineering, and Health Sciences.

Perceptions influenced by exposure to prior information

The perception study conducted in collaboration with the United Kingdom’s Newcastle University, is part of a worldwide study. [emphasis mine] About 1,000 respondents were surveyed in Singapore. Among them, 80% had some level of familiarity with nanotechnology,  while only 40% of them were positive about its benefits. One of the strong determinants that influenced the perception of the public was their prior exposure to news on adverse effects of nanotechnology. This could be due to negative information on nanotechnology carried in the media. Often these are over interpretations of laboratory studies that tend to dampen public confidence in nanotechnology.

“Nanotechnology may be a double-edged sword in some applications. A large proportion of the population is already aware of it, and interestingly, 60% have actually come across negative information on nanotechnology. This points to the need for the Centre for Sustainable Nanotechnology to conduct its work robustly and effectively, to sharpen the benefits, and blunt the risks associated with nanotechnology. This will enable industries to better apply the relevant solutions, and for people to use products containing nanotechnology more confidently. Another impetus for the Centre is that through such studies, companies will learn what consumers are concerned about in specific types of products and how these concerns can be addressed during product design and manufacturing stages,” said Dr Joel Lee, Director of NYP’s School of Chemical & Life Sciences where the Centre is located.

The study also found variations in perception among different socio-demographic groups, and among applications of nanotechnology across different product ranges, for example food, baby products, medicine, clothing, cosmetics, water filters and electronics.

While this is a segue, there’s a very interesting tidbit about silver nanoparticles in this media release,

Smarter Antibacterial Nanotechnology

Since the CSN started operations in 2013, senior lecturers, Dr Saji George and Dr Hannah Gardner, from NYP’s Schools of Chemical & Life Sciences and Engineering, respectively, have studied the effectiveness of nano-silver in eliminating bacteria – which accounts for 30% of commercial nanotechnology – in applications currently available in the market. Nano-silver is largely used as an alternate anti-microbial solution in a range of industries, including clothing, baby products, personal care products and medicine.

Their research findings, now filed as a patent, uncovered that some drug resistant bacterial strains could also develop resistance to silver, contrary to the general notion that all bacterial strains will succumb to it. The duo then designed and developed a cost-effective method to generate cationic polymer coated silver nanoparticles. They observed that these nanoparticles could eliminate pathogenic bacteria regardless of their ability to resist antibiotics and silver.

Dr Lee added, “Nano-silver has captured the attention of industry and researchers. What we hope to achieve with the CSN is two-fold. We aim to be a resource for industries and even government regulatory agencies to tap on to better understand nanotechnology, its effects, and improve on its applications. These would also translate into real-world industry projects for our students and equip them to better serve the industry when they embark on their careers.”

Here’s a link to and citation for the paper,

Awareness on adverse effects of nanotechnology increases negative perception among public: survey study from Singapore by Saji George, Gulbanu Kaptan, Joel Lee, Lynn Frewer. Journal of Nanoparticle Research November 2014, 16:2751 Date: 22 Nov 2014

This paper is behind a paywall.

I did search for the “… worldwide study” regarding nanotechnology awareness and perceptions but found instead a recently published study on the topic of consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies used in food production practices which features George and Frewer,

Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production by L.J. Frewer, N. Gupta, S. George, A.R.H. Fischer, E.L. Giles, and D. Coles. Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 40, Issue 2, December 2014, Pages 211–225 (Special Issue: Nanotechnology in Foods: Science behind and future perspectives)

This article is behind a paywall.

Who would buy foods that were nanotechnology-enabled or genetically modified?

A research survey conducted by scientists at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and the University of Minnesota suggests that under certain conditions, consumers in the US would be likely to purchase nanotechnology-enabled or genetically modified food. From a Dec. 2, 2014 news item on Nanowerk,

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Minnesota shows that the majority of consumers will accept the presence of nanotechnology or genetic modification (GM) technology in foods – but only if the technology enhances the nutrition or improves the safety of the food.

A Dec. 2, 2014 NCSU news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, notes that while many people will pay more to avoid nanotechnology-enabled or genetically modified food there is an exception of sorts,

“In general, people are willing to pay more to avoid GM or nanotech in foods, and people were more averse to GM tech than to nanotech,” says Dr. Jennifer Kuzma, senior author of a paper on the research and co-director of the Genetic Engineering in Society Center at NC State. “However, it’s not really that simple. There were some qualifiers, indicating that many people would be willing to buy GM or nanotech in foods if there were health or safety benefits.”

The researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,117 U.S. consumers. Participants were asked to answer an array of questions that explored their willingness to purchase foods that contained GM tech and foods that contained nanotech. The questions also explored the price of the various foods and whether participants would buy foods that contained nanotech or GM tech if the foods had enhanced nutrition, improved taste, improved food safety, or if the production of the food had environmental benefits.

The researchers found that survey participants could be broken into four groups.

Eighteen percent of participants belonged to a group labeled the “new technology rejecters,” which would not by GM or nanotech foods under any circumstances. Nineteen percent of participants belonged to a group labeled the “technology averse,” which would buy GM or nanotech foods only if those products conveyed food safety benefits. Twenty-three percent of participants were “price oriented,” basing their shopping decisions primarily on the cost of the food – regardless of the presence of GM or nanotech. And 40 percent of participants were “benefit oriented,” meaning they would buy GM or nanotech foods if the foods had enhanced nutrition or food safety.

“This tells us that GM or nanotech food products have greater potential to be viable in the marketplace if companies focus on developing products that have safety and nutrition benefits – because a majority of consumers would be willing to buy those products,” Kuzma says.

“From a policy standpoint, it also argues that GM and nanotech foods should be labeled, so that the technology rejecters can avoid them,” Kuzma adds.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products by Chengyan Yue, Shuoli Zhao, and Jennifer Kuzma. Journal of Agricultural Economics DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12090 Article first published online: 12 NOV 2014

© 2014 The Agricultural Economics Society

This paper is behind a paywall.

I have mentioned Jennifer Kuzma’s work previously in an Oct. 29, 2013 posting titled, Nano info on food labels wanted by public in the US?