Category Archives: environment

Germany has released a review of their research strategy for nanomaterials

A Sept. 24, 2016 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton on The National Law Review blog features a new report from German authorities (Note: A link has been removed),

On September 19, 2016, the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) published a report entitled Review of the joint research strategy of the higher federal authorities — Nanomaterials and other advanced materials:  Application safety and environmental compatibility.  The report states that in a long-term research strategy, the higher federal authorities responsible for human and environmental safety — the German Environment Agency (UBA), the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), BAuA, the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM), and the National Metrology Institute (PTB) — are accompanying the rapid pace of development of new materials from the points of view of occupational safety and health, consumer protection, and environmental protection.

Here’s a link to Review of the joint research strategy of the higher federal authorities — Nanomaterials and other advanced materials:  Application safety and environmental compatibility (PDF) and excerpts from the foreword (Note: There are some differences in formatting between what you see here and what you’ll see in the report),

The research strategy builds on the outcomes so far of the joint research strategy of the higher federal authorities launched in 2008 and first evaluated in 2013, “Nanotechnology: Health and Environmental Risks of Nanomaterials”1, while additionally covering other advanced materials where these pose similar risks to humans and the environment or where such risks need to be studied. It also takes up the idea of application safety of chemical products 2 from the New Quality of Work (INQA) initiative of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) and the concept of sustainable
chemistry 3 endorsed by the Federal  Ministry  for  the  Environment, Nature Conservation, Building  and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). Application safety and environmental compatibility are aimed for advanced materials and derived products in order to largely rule out unacceptable risks to humans and the environment. This can be achieved by:

Using safe materials without hazardous properties for humans and the environment (direct application safety); or

Product design for low emissions and environmental compatibility over the entire product lifecycle (integrated application safety); or

Product stewardship, where producers support users in taking technical, organizational, and personal safety measures for the safe use and disposal of products (supported application safety).

As a comprising part of the Federal Government’s Nanotechnology Action Plan 2020, the update of the joint research strategy aims to contribute to governmental research in the following main areas:

 characterising and assessing the human and environmental risks of advanced materials
 Supporting research institutions and business enterprises
 Science-based revision of legal requirements and recommendations
 Public acceptance

The research strategy is to be implemented in projects and other research-related activities. These  include  governmental  research,  tendering  and  extramural  research  funding, and participation in mostly publicly supported projects with third-party funding. Additional activities will take place as part of policy advice and the ongoing work of the sovereign tasks of agencies involved. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches will be used to better connect risk and safety research with innovation research and material development. In keeping up with the rapid pace of development, the time horizon for the research strategy is up to 2020. The research objectives address the research approaches likely to be actionable in this period. The research strategy will be supported by a working group and be evaluated and revised by the end of the Nanotechnology Action Plan 2020. tegy will be implemented in projects and other research-related activities, including governmental research, tendering and extramural research funding, and participation in mostly publicly supported projects with third-party funding.  Agencies will use interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to connect better risk and safety research with innovation research and material development. To keep up with the pace of development, the time horizon for the research strategy extends to 2020.  The research objectives in the report address the research approaches likely to be actionable in this period.  The research strategy will be supported by a working group and be evaluated and revised by the end of the Nanotechnology Action Plan 2020.

It’s always interesting to find out what’s happening elsewhere.

Carbon capture with asphalt

I wish I could turn back the clock a few years, so I could mention this research from Rice University (Texas, US) on using asphalt for carbon capture (more on why at the end of this post). From a Sept. 13, 2016 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

Rice University laboratory has improved its method to turn plain asphalt into a porous material that can capture greenhouse gases from natural gas.

In research detailed this month in Advanced Energy Materials (“Ultra-High Surface Area Activated Porous Asphalt for CO2 Capture through Competitive Adsorption at High Pressures”), Rice researchers showed that a new form of the material can sequester 154 percent of its weight in carbon dioxide at high pressures that are common at gas wellheads.

A Sept. 12, 2016 Rice University news release, which originated the news item, further describes the work (Note: Links have been removed),

Raw natural gas typically contains between 2 and 10 percent carbon dioxide and other impurities, which must be removed before the gas can be sold. The cleanup process is complicated and expensive and most often involves flowing the gas through fluids called amines that can soak up and remove about 15 percent of their own weight in carbon dioxide. The amine process also requires a great deal of energy to recycle the fluids for further use.

“It’s a big energy sink,” said Rice chemist James Tour, whose lab developed a technique last year to turn asphalt into a tough, sponge-like substance that could be used in place of amines to remove carbon dioxide from natural gas as it was pumped from ocean wellheads.

Initial field tests in 2015 found that pressure at the wellhead made it possible for that asphalt material to adsorb, or soak up, 114 percent of its weight in carbon at ambient temperatures.

Tour said the new, improved asphalt sorbent is made in two steps from a less expensive form of asphalt, which makes it more practical for industry.

“This shows we can take the least expensive form of asphalt and make it into this very high surface area material to capture carbon dioxide,” Tour said. “Before, we could only use a very expensive form of asphalt that was not readily available.”

The lab heated a common type asphalt known as Gilsonite at ambient pressure to eliminate unneeded organic molecules, and then heated it again in the presence of potassium hydroxide for about 20 minutes to synthesize oxygen-enhanced porous carbon with a surface area of 4,200 square meters per gram, much higher than that of the previous material.

The Rice lab’s initial asphalt-based porous carbon collected carbon dioxide from gas streams under pressure at the wellhead and released it when the pressure was released. The carbon dioxide could then be repurposed or pumped back underground while the porous carbon could be reused immediately.

In the latest tests with its new material, Tours group showed its new sorbent could remove carbon dioxide at 54 bar pressure. One bar is roughly equal to atmospheric pressure at sea level, and the 54 bar measure in the latest experiments is characteristic of the pressure levels typically found at natural gas wellheads, Tour said.

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

Ultra-High Surface Area Activated Porous Asphalt for CO2 Capture through Competitive Adsorption at High Pressures by Almaz S. Jalilov, Yilun Li, Jian Tian, James M. Tour.  Advanced Energy Materials DOI: 10.1002/aenm.201600693  First published [online]: 8 September 2016

This paper is behind a paywall.

Finishing the story I started at the beginning of this post, I was at an early morning political breakfast a few years back when someone seated at our table asked me if there were any nanotechnology applications for carbon sequestration/capture. At the time, I could not bring any such applications to mind. (Sigh) Now I have an answer.

Reliable findings on the presence of synthetic (engineered) nanoparticles in bodies of water

An Aug. 29, 2016 news item on Nanowerk announces research into determining the presence of engineered (synthetic) nanoparticles in bodies of water,

For a number of years now, an increasing number of synthetic nanoparticles have been manufactured and incorporated into various products, such as cosmetics. For the first time, a research project at the Technical University of Munich and the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment provides reliable findings on their presence in water bodies.

An Aug. 29, 2016 Technical University of Munich (TUM) press release, which originated the news item, provides more information,

Nanoparticles can improve the properties of materials and products. That is the reason why an increasing number of nanoparticles have been manufactured over the past several years. The worldwide consumption of silver nanoparticles is currently estimated at over 300 metric tons. These nanoparticles have the positive effect of killing bacteria and viruses. Products that are coated with these particles include refrigerators and surgical instruments. Silver nanoparticles can even be found in sportswear. This is because the silver particles can prevent the smell of sweat by killing the bacteria that cause it.

Previously, it was unknown whether and in what concentration these nanoparticles enter the environment and e.g. enter bodies of water. If they do, this poses a problem. That is because the silver nanoparticles are toxic to numerous aquatic organisms, and can upset sensitive ecological balances.

Analytical challenge

In the past, however, nanoparticles have not been easy to detect. That is because they measure only 1 to 100 nanometers across [nanoparticles may be larger than 100nm or smaller than 1nm but the official definitions usually specify up to 100nm although some definitions go up to 1000nm] – a nanometer is a millionth of a millimeter. “In order to know if a toxicological hazard exists, we need to know how many of these particles enter the environment, and in particular bodies of water”, explains Michael Schuster, Professor for Analytical Chemistry at the TU Munich.

This was an analytical challenge for the researchers charged with solving the problem on behalf of the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment. In order to overcome this issue, they used a well-known principle that utilizes the effect of surfactants to separate and concentrate the particles. “Surfactants are also found in washing and cleaning detergents”, explains Schuster. “Basically, what they do is envelop grease and dirt particles in what are called micelles, making it possible for them to float in water.” One side of the surfactant is water-soluble, the other fat-soluble. The fat-soluble ends collect around non-polar, non-water soluble compounds such as grease or around particles, and “trap” them in a micelle. The water-soluble, polar ends of the surfactants, on the other hand, point towards the water molecules, allowing the microscopically small micelle to float in water.

A box of sugar cubes in the Walchensee lake

The researchers applied this principle to the nanoparticles. “When the micelles surrounding the particles are warmed slightly, they start to clump”, explains Schuster. This turns the water cloudy. Using a centrifuge, the surfactants and the nanoparticles trapped in them can then be separated from the water. This procedure is called cloud point extraction. The researchers then use the surfactants that have been separated out in this manner – which contain the particles in an unmodified, but highly concentrated form – to measure how many silver nanoparticles are present. To do this, they use a highly sensitive atomic spectrometer configured to only detect silver. In this manner, concentrations in a range of less than one nanogram per liter can be detected. To put this in perspective, this would be like detecting a box of sugar cubes that had dissolved in the Walchensee lake.

With the help of this analysis procedure, it is possible to gain new insight into the concentration of nanoparticles in drinking and waste water, sewage sludge, rivers, and lakes. In Bavaria, the measurements yielded good news: The concentrations measured in the water bodies were extremely low. In was only in four of the 13 Upper Bavarian lakes examined that the concentration even exceeded the minimum detection limit of 0.2 nanograms per liter. No measured value exceeded 1.3 nanograms per liter. So far, no permissible values have been established for silver nanoparticles.

Representative for watercourses, the Isar river was examined from its source to its mouth at around 30 locations. The concentration of silver nanoparticles was also measured in the inflow and outflow of sewage treatment plants. The findings showed that at least 94 percent of silver nanoparticles are filtered out by the sewage treatment plants.

Unfortunately, the researchers have not published their results.

Harvard University announced new Center on Nano-safety Research

The nano safety center at Harvard University (Massachusetts, US) is a joint center with the US National Institute of Environmental Health  Sciences according to an Aug. 29, 2016 news item on Nanowerk,

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs)—which are less than 100 nanometers (one millionth of a millimeter) in diameter—can make the colors in digital printer inks pop and help sunscreens better protect against radiation, among many other applications in industry and science. They may even help prevent infectious diseases. But as the technology becomes more widespread, questions remain about the potential risks that ENMs may pose to health and the environment.

Researchers at the new Harvard-NIEHS [US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences] Nanosafety Research Center at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are working to understand the unique properties of ENMs—both beneficial and harmful—and to ultimately establish safety standards for the field.

An Aug. 16, 2016 Harvard University press release, which originated the news item, provides more detail (Note: Links have been removed),

“We want to help nanotechnology develop as a scientific and economic force while maintaining safeguards for public health,” said Center Director Philip Demokritou, associate professor of aerosol physics at Harvard Chan School. “If you understand the rules of nanobiology, you can design safer nanomaterials.”

ENMs can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact, and toxicological studies have shown that some can penetrate cells and tissues and potentially cause biochemical damage. Because the field of nanoparticle science is relatively new, no standards currently exist for assessing the health risks of exposure to ENMs—or even for how studies of nano-biological interactions should be conducted.

Much of the work of the new Center will focus on building a fundamental understanding of why some ENMs are potentially more harmful than others. The team will also establish a “reference library” of ENMs, each with slightly varied properties, which will be utilized in nanotoxicology research across the country to assess safety. This will allow researchers to pinpoint exactly what aspect of an ENM’s properties may impact health. The researchers will also work to develop standardized methods for nanotoxicology studies evaluating the safety of nanomaterials.

The Center was established with a $4 million dollar grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) last month, and is the only nanosafety research center to receive NIEHS funding for the next five years. It will also play a coordinating role with existing and future NIEHS nanotoxicology research projects nantionwide. Scientists from the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), MIT, University of Maine, and University of Florida will collaborate on the new effort.

The Center builds on the existing Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology at Harvard Chan School, established by Demokritou and Joseph Brain, Cecil K. and Philip Drinker Professor of Environmental Physiology, in the School’s Department of Environmental Health in 2010.

A July 5, 2016 Harvard University press release announcing the $4M grant provides more information about which ENMs are to be studied,

The main focus of the new HSPH-NIEHS Center is to bring together  scientists from across disciplines- material science, chemistry, exposure assessment, risk assessment, nanotoxicology and nanobiology- to assess the potential  environmental Health and safety (EHS) implications of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs).

The $4 million dollar HSPH based Center  which is the only Nanosafety Research  Center to be funded by NIEHS this funding cycle, … The new HSPH-NIEHS Nanosafety Center builds upon the nano-related infrastructure in [the] collaborating Universities, developed over the past 10 years, which includes an inter-disciplinary research group of faculty, research staff and students, as well as state-of-the-art platforms for high throughput synthesis of ENMs, including metal and metal oxides, cutting edge 2D/3D ENMs such as CNTs [carbon nanotubes] and graphene, nanocellulose, and advanced nanocomposites, [emphasis mine] coupled with innovative tools to assess the fate and transport of ENMs in biological systems, statistical and exposure assessment tools, and novel in vitro and in vivo platforms for nanotoxicology research.

“Our mission is to integrate material/exposure/chemical sciences and nanotoxicology-nanobiology   to facilitate assessment of potential risks from emerging nanomaterials.  In doing so, we are bringing together the material synthesis/applications and nanotoxicology communities and other stakeholders including industry,   policy makers and the general public to maximize innovation and growth and minimize environmental and public health risks from nanotechnology”, quoted by  Dr Philip Demokritou, …

This effort certainly falls in line with the current emphasis on interdisciplinary research and creating standards and protocols for researching the toxicology of engineered nanomaterials.

Canada’s Ingenuity Lab receives a $1.7M grant to develop oil recovery system for oil spills

A Sept. 15, 2016 news item on describes the reasons for the $1.7M grant for Alberta’s (Canada) Ingenuity Lab to develop an oil spill recovery system,

Since 2010’s tragic events, which saw BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster desecrate the Gulf of Mexico, oil safety has been on the forefront of the environmental debate and media outrage. In line with the mounting concerns continuing to pique public attention, at the end of this month [Sept. 2016], Hollywood will release its own biopic of the event. As can be expected, more questions will be raised about what exactly went wrong, in addition to fresh criticism aimed at the entire industry.

One question that is likely to emerge is how do we prevent such a calamity from ever happening again? Fortunately, some of the brightest minds in science have been preparing for such an answer.

One team that has been focusing on this dilemma is Alberta-based, multi-disciplinary research initiative Ingenuity Lab. The institution has just secured $1.7m in project funding for developing a highly advanced system for recovering oil from oil spills. This injection of capital will enable Ingenuity Lab to conduct new research and develop commercial production processes for recovering heavy oil spills in marine environments. The technology is centred on cutting edge nanowire-based stimuli-responsive membranes and devices that are capable for recovering oil.

A Sept. 15, 2016 Ingenuity Lab news release on MarketWired, which originated the news item, provides more insight into the oil spill situation,

Oil is a common pollutant in our oceans; more than three million metric tonnes contaminate the sea each year. When crude oil is accidentally released into a body of water by an oil tanker, refinery, storage facility, underwater pipeline or offshore oil-drilling rig, it is an environmental emergency of the most urgent kind.

Depending on the location, oil spills can be highly hazardous, as well as environmentally destructive. Consequently, a timely clean up is absolutely crucial in order to protect the integrity of the water, the shoreline and the numerous creatures that depend on these habitats.

Due to increased scrutiny of the oil industry with regard to its unseemly environmental track record, attention must be focused on the development of new materials and technologies for removing organic contaminants from waterways. Simply put, existing methods are not sufficiently robust.

Fortuitously, however, nanotechnology has opened the door for the development of sophisticated new tools that use specifically designed materials with properties that are ideally suited to enable complex separations, including the separation of crude oil from water.

Ingenuity Lab’s project focuses on the efficient recovery of oil through the development of this novel technology using a variety of stimuli-responsive nanomaterials. When the time comes for scale up production for this technology, Ingenuity Lab will work closely with industry trendsetters, Tortech Nanofibers.

This project forms a strong element of the Oil Spill Response Science (OSRS), which is part of Canada’s world-class tanker safety system for Responsible Resource Development. Through this programme, the Canadian Government ensures that the country’s resource wealth can be safely developed and transported to market, thus creating new jobs and economic growth for all Canadians.

From a communications standpoint, the news release is well written and well strategized to underline the seriousness of the situation and to take advantage of renewed interest in the devastating (people’s lives were lost and environmental damage is still being assessed) 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico due to the upcoming movie titled, Deepwater Horizon. A little more information about the team (how many people, who’s leading the research, are there international and/or interprovincial collaborators?), plans for the research (have they already started? what work, if any, are they building on? what challenges are they facing?) and some technical details would have been welcome.

Regardless, it’s good to hear about this initiative and I wish them great success with it.

You can find our more about Ingenuity Lab here and Tortech Nanofibers here. Interestingly, Tortech is a joint venture between Israel’s Plasan Sasa and the UK’s Q-Flo. (Q-Flo is a spinoff from Cambridge University.) One more thing, Tortech Nanofibers produces materials made of carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Presumably Ingenuity’s “nanowire-based stimuli-responsive membranes” include carbon nanotubes.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US) and five of its nanoscience projects

An Aug 3, 2016 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory news release (also on Azonano as an Aug. 5, 2016 news item) features a selection of their nanoscience projects (Note: Links, embedded images, and embedded videos have been removed),

1. A DIY paint-on coating for energy efficient windows

This “cool” DIY retrofit tech could improve the energy efficiency of windows and save money. Researchers are developing a polymer-based heat-reflective coating that makes use of the unusual molecular architecture of a polymer.

It has the potential to be painted on windows at one-tenth the cost of current retrofit approaches. Window films on the market today reflect infrared solar energy back to the sky while allowing visible light to pass through, but a professional contractor is needed to install them. A low-cost option could significantly expand adoption and result in potential annual energy savings equivalent to taking 5 million cars off the road.

2. Nanowires that move data at light speed

Researchers have found a new way to produce nanoscale wires that can serve as tiny, tunable lasers. The excellent performance of these tiny lasers is promising for the field of optoelectronics, which is focused on combining electronics and light to transmit data, among other applications. Miniaturizing lasers to the nanoscale could further revolutionize computing, bringing light-speed data transmission to desktop, and ultimately, handheld computing devices.

3. Nano sponges that fight climate change

Scientists are developing nano sponges that could capture carbon from power plants before it enters the atmosphere. Initial tests show the hybrid membrane, composed of nano-sized cages (called metal-organic frameworks) and a polymer, is eight times more carbon dioxide permeable than membranes composed only of the polymer.

Boosting carbon dioxide permeability is a big goal in efforts to develop carbon capture materials that are energy efficient and cost competitive. Watch this video for more on this technology.

4. Custom-made chemical factories

Scientists have recently reengineered a building block of a nanocompartment that occurs naturally in bacteria, greatly expanding the potential of nanocompartments to serve as custom-made chemical factories. Researchers hope to tailor this new use to produce high-value chemical products, such as medicines, on demand

The sturdy nanocompartments are formed by hundreds of copies of just three different types of proteins. Their natural counterparts, known as bacterial microcompartments, encase a wide variety of enzymes that carry out highly specialized chemistry in bacteria.

5. Nanotubes that assemble themselves

Researchers have discovered a family of nature-inspired polymers that, when placed in water, spontaneously assemble into hollow crystalline nanotubes. What’s more, the nanotubes can be tuned to all have the same diameter of between five and ten nanometers.

Controlling the diameter of nanotubes, and the chemical groups exposed in their interior, enables scientists to control what goes through. Nanotubes have the potential to be incredibly useful, from delivering cancer-fighting drugs inside cells to desalinating seawater.

It’s nice to see projects grouped together like that as it gives you a bigger picture of what’s taking place at the lab than you’re likely to get reading news releases about individual projects and breakthroughs.

Berkeley Lab has also got an introductory video which does one of the best jobs I’ve seen of conveying the concept of the nanoscale,

H/t to Aug. 10, 2016 news item on Nanowerk for the Berkeley Lab’s ‘nano penny’ video.

Canada’s consultation on nanoscale forms of substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL)

Yes, there’s a redundancy in the head but there doesn’t seem to be a way around it. Ah well, it seems about seven weeks after Peter Julian (Member of Parliament) introduced his bill in the Canadian House of Commons to regulate nanotechnology (Aug. 29, 2016 posting), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada (HC) have announced a consultation on nanoscale materials. From an Aug. 4, 2016 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson on Nanotechnology Now (Note: Links have been removed),

On July 27, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada (HC) began a consultation on a proposed prioritization approach for nanoscale forms of substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL). See Canada will use the proposed approach to: (1) establish a list of existing nanomaterials in Canada for prioritization; (2) identify how the information available will be used to inform prioritization of nanomaterials for risk assessment; and (3) outline the proposed outcomes of the prioritization process. In 2015, Canada conducted a mandatory survey under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). The survey applied to persons who manufactured or imported any of 206 nanomaterials at a quantity greater than 100 kilograms (kg) during the 2014 calendar year. See Based on the results of the survey, ECCC and HC will prepare a final list of confirmed existing nanomaterials in Canada and will use the list for subsequent prioritization. ECCC and HC propose that, where possible, the substances identified via the survey be “rolled up into” their broader parent nanomaterial groups for the purposes of prioritization. According to ECCC and HC, this will allow, when possible, a more robust look at the hazard, volume, and use data as appropriate, rather than considering an individual substance-by-substance approach. ECCC and HC state that further consideration for sub-grouping (such as by use, unique property, or functionalization) may need to be considered for prioritization and/or risk assessment. …

You can find the Government of Canada’s 2015 Consultation Document: Proposed Approach to Address Nanoscale Forms of Substances on the Domestic Substances List page here, which set the stage for this prioritization exercise.

You can also find the Proposed prioritization approach for nanoscale forms of substances on the Domestic substances list page here where you’ll find information such as this,

Possible nanomaterial groupings, based on parent substance

Aluminum oxide
Iron (II)/(II/III) oxide
Modified silica
Bismuth oxide
Magnesium oxide
Silicon oxide
Calcium carbonate
Manganese (II & III) oxide
Cerium oxide
Titanium dioxide
Cobalt (II) oxide
Yttrium oxide
Copper (II) oxide
Nickel (II) oxide
Zinc oxide
Quantum dots
Zirconium oxide

You can also find information on how to submit comments,

Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on the content of this consultation document and provide other information that would help inform decision making. Please submit comments to one of the addresses provided below by September 25, 2016 [emphasis mine]. ECCC and HC will respond to comments and adapt the proposed approach based on the feedback received on this document, as described in Section 1.2.

Comments on this consultation document can be submitted to one of the following addresses:

By Mail:
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Substances Management Information Line
Chemicals Management Plan
351 St. Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Québec
K1A 0H3

By Email:
Please type “Consultation on Prioritization Approach for Nanomaterials” in the subject line of your message.

By Fax:

Suddenly, there’s lots (relative to the last few years) of action on nanotechnology regulation in Canada.

Everything old is new again: Canadian Parliament holds first reading of another bill to regulate nanotechnlogy

Back in March 2010, Canadian New Democratic Party (NDP) Member of Parliament (MP) Peter Julian introduced a bill to regulate nanotechnology (Bill C-494) in Canada. The Conservative government was in power at the time. I can’t remember how many readings it received but it never did get passed into legislation. Now, Mr. Julian is trying again and, coincidentally or not, the Liberals are in power this time. A July 26, 2016 post by Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton for the National Law Review (Note: Links have been removed),

On June 8, 2016, the Canadian House of Commons held its first reading of an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (nanotechnology) (C-287).  The bill would add Part 6.1 to CEPA primarily to implement procedures for the investigation and assessment of nanomaterials. …

The bill would define nanomaterial as any manufactured substance or product or any component material, ingredient, device or structure that:  (a) is within the nanoscale (one nanometer (nm) up to and including 100 nm), in at least one external dimension; or (b) if it is not within the nanoscale, exhibits one or more properties that are attributable to the size of a substance and size effects.  The bill mandates a risk assessment process to identify the potential benefits and possible risks of nanotechnologies before nanoproducts enter the market.  It would also create a national inventory regarding nanotechnology, including nanomaterials and nanoparticles, using information collected under CEPA Sections 46 and 71 and “any other information to which the Ministers have access.” On July 25, 2015, Canada published a notice announcing a mandatory survey under CEPA Section 71(1)(b) with respect to certain nanomaterials in Canadian commerce.  …

I do have a few observations about the proposed bill. First, it’s more specific than what we have in place now. As I understand current CEPA regulations, they do not cover materials at the nanoscale which are already imported and/or produced at the macroscale and are considered safe, e.g. titanium dioxide. It is assumed that if they’re safe at the macroscale, they will be safe at the nanoscale. I gather this bill is designed to change that status.

Second, there is no mention in Julian’s press release (text to follow) of the joint Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Nanotechnology Initiative which was designed to harmonize US and Canadian regulatory approaches to nanotechnology. Would bill C-287 introduce less harmony or was it designed to harmonize our approaches?

Third, I don’t see a big problem with the idea of an inventory, the issue is always implementation.

Finally, it appears that this bill means more bureaucrats or computerized systems and I’m not sure it addresses the problem that I believe it is trying to address: how to deal with uncertainty about the risks and hazards of an emerging technology while meeting demands for economic progress.

Very finally, here’s Peter Julian’s June 8, 2016 press release,

Julian’s bill to include Nanotechnology under Environmental Protection Act

You can watch the video here:…

OTTAWA – Today [June 8, 2016], Peter Julian, MP (New Westminster-Burnaby) re-introduced Bill C-287 in the House of Commons, which aims to include a framework that would regulate nanotechnology in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

“I first introduced this Bill in 2010. I am pleased to see that some of the aspects of this Bill are being considered by Health Canada and Environment Canada, such as the development of a registry for nanomaterials in commerce and use in Canada. However, there is much more that needs to be done to ensure the responsible use of nanotechnologies in Canada”, said Julian.

Nanotechnology is the application of science and technology to manipulate matter at the atomic or molecular level. Nanomaterials are any ingredient, device, or structure that is between 1 and 100 nm. These materials are present in more than 1000 consumer products, including food and cosmetics. The increasing proliferation of nanoproducts has not been met with an adequate regulatory framework.

Julian’s Bill C-287 would establish a balanced approach ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology and the safe use off nanomaterials in Canada. The Bill mandates a risk assessment process to identify the potential benefits and possible risks of nanotechnologies before nanoproducts enter the market. It would also require a comprehensive, publicly accessible database that lists existing nanomaterials identified by the Government of Canada.

“While nanotechnology can be very beneficial to people, there are certain risks to it as well. We must identify and mitigate possible risks to better protect the environment and human health before they become an issue. Canada must ensure our regulatory processes ensure nanomaterial safety before the introduction of these substances in Canada”, said Julian.

I’m including links to my 2010 email interview with Peter Julian (published in three parts),

March 24, 2010 (Part one)

March 25, 2010 (Part two)

March 26, 2010 (Part three)

I also covered a hearing on nanomaterials and safety held by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Health on June 10, 2010 in a June 23, 2010 posting.

Two nano workshops precede OpenTox Euro conference

The main conference OpenTox Euro is focused on novel materials and it’s being preceded by two nano workshops. All of of these events will be taking place in Germany in Oct. 2016. From an Aug. 11, 2016 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson on Nanotechnology Now,

The OpenTox Euro Conference, “Integrating Scientific Evidence Supporting Risk Assessment and Safer Design of Novel Substances,” will be held October 26-28, 2016. … The current topics for the Conference include: (1) computational modeling of mechanisms at the nanoscale; (2) translational bioinformatics applied to safety assessment; (3) advances in cheminformatics; (4) interoperability in action; (5) development and application of adverse outcome pathways; (6) open science applications showcase; (7) toxicokinetics and extrapolation; and (8) risk assessment.

On Oct. 24, 2016, two days before OpenTox Euro, the EU-US Nano EHS [Environmental Health and Safety] 2016 workshop will be held in Germany. The theme is: ‘Enabling a Sustainable Harmonised Knowledge Infrastructure supporting Nano Environmental and Health Safety Assessment’ and the objectives are,

The objective of the workshop is to facilitate networking, knowledge sharing and idea development on the requirements and implementation of a sustainable knowledge infrastructure for Nano Environmental and Health Safety Assessment and Communications. The infrastructure should support the needs required by different stakeholders including scientific researchers, industry, regulators, workers and consumers.

The workshop will also identify funding opportunities and financial models within and beyond current international and national programs. Specifically, the workshop will facilitate active discussions but also identify potential partners for future EU-US cooperation on the development of knowledge infrastructure in the NanoEHS field. Advances in the Nano Safety harmonisation process, including developing an ongoing working consensus on data management and ontology, will be discussed:

– Information needs of stakeholders and applications
– Data collection and management in the area of NanoEHS
– Developments in ontologies supporting NanoEHS goals
– Harmonisation efforts between EU and US programs
– Identify practice and infrastructure gaps and possible solutions
– Identify needs and solutions for different stakeholders
– Propose an overarching sustainable solution for the market and society

The presentations will be focused on the current efforts and concrete achievements within EU and US initiatives and their potential elaboration and extension.

The second workshop is being held by the eNanoMapper (ENM) project on Oct. 25, 2016 and concerns Nano Modelling. The objectives and workshop sessions are:

1. Give the opportunity to research groups working on computational nanotoxicology to disseminate their modelling tools based on hands-on examples and exercises
2. Present a collection of modelling tools that can span the entire lifecycle of nanotox research, starting from the design of experiments until use of models for risk assessment in biological and environmental systems.
3. Engage the workshop participants in using different modelling tools and motivate them to contribute and share their knowledge.

Indicative workshop sessions

• Preparation of datasets to be used for modelling and risk assessment
• Ontologies and databases
• Computation of theoretical descriptors
• NanoQSAR Modelling
• Ab-initio modelling
• Mechanistic modelling
• Modelling based on Omics data
• Filling data gaps-Read Across
• Risk assessment
• Experimental design

We would encourage research teams that have developed tools in the areas of computational nanotoxicology and risk assessment to demonstrate their tools in this workshop.

That’s going to be a very full week in Germany.

You can register for OpenTox Euro and more here.