Archive for the ‘health and safety’ Category

« Older Entries

German report on nanosilver toxicity and some thoughts on the US EPA silver nanomaterials consultation

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

More about nanosilver toxicology (see earlier posting about US EPA silver nanomaterials consultation) this week courtesy of an article by Michael Berger about a new report from a group of German researchers. From the article on Nanowerk,

Silver had already been recognized in ancient Greece and Rome for its infection-fighting properties but in modern times pharmaceutical companies made more money developing antibiotics. However, thanks to emerging nanotechnology applications, silver has made a comeback in the form of antimicrobial nanoparticle coatings for textiles, surgical instruments, lab equipment, floors or wall paints (see for instance: “Antibacterial nanotechnology multi-action materials that work day and night”).

The flip side of silver’s desired toxicity towards microbes is that it might have toxic effects for humans as well (“As nanotechnology goes mainstream, ‘toxic socks’ raise concerns”) and this has raised debate about the safety of nanosilver products. Although scientists have worked to reduce the toxicity of antimicrobial nanosilver in products, concerns remain.

Not helping to put these concerns to rest is a new report from a group of researchers in Germany that shows that toxicity of silver nanoparticles increases during storage because of slow dissolution under release of silver ions.

…

According to Epple [Matthias Epple, a professor for inorganic chemistry at the University of Duisburg-Essen], there is a general agreement that dissolved silver ions are responsible for the biological action that is especially pronounced against microorganisms. The lethal silver concentration of silver nanoparticles for human mesenchymal stem cells is about three times higher than that of silver ions (in terms of the absolute concentration of silver in a given solution).

The report has been published by the American Chemical Society in Chemistry of Materials. You can find an abstrect here, the full article is behind a paywall.

I was interested to note that the focus for the report is on the dissolution of nanoscale silver in water. By contrast, the US EPA consultation uses, as its starting point for the case study, nanoscale silver in an antibacterial spray. While laboratory researchers tend to focus on specifics such as the dissolution of  silver nanoparticles and ions, the EPA’s strategy allows for a 360o view. Theoretically, commenters could focus on anything from the production of the air spray, its own packaging, its use in various situations such as hospitals or food packaging, etc., and the various ways it dissipates into the environment, e.g. being washed off and ending up in the water supply.  This can lead to a comprehensive framework for future research activities examining more specific questions which provide answers that fit back into the framework.

Berger’sarticlereminds me of an October 29, 2009 news item on Science Daily about Swiss researchers, clothes washers, and nanosilver,

Scientists in Switzerland are reporting results of one of the first studies on the release of silver nanoparticles from laundering those anti-odor, anti-bacterial socks now on the market. Their findings may suggest ways that manufacturers and consumers can minimize the release of these particles to the environment, where they could harm fish and other wildlife.

…

They found that most of the released particles were relatively large and that most came out of the fabrics during the first wash. The total released varied from 1.3 to 35 percent of the total nanosilver in the fabric. Bleach generally did not affect the amount released. “These results have important implications for the risk assessment of silver textiles and also for environmental fate studies of nanosilver, because they show that under certain conditions relevant to washing, primarily coarse silver-containing particles are released,” the paper says.

The research report was published by the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal. The abstract is available here, the full article is behind a paywall.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in environment, health and safety, nanotechnology, risk | No Comments »

Tony Clement announces Canadian government nano investment in two Alberta firms

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Tony Clement, Canada’s Minister of Industry, announced investments totaling over $500,000 to two Alberta-based firms associated with nanotechnology. From the news release on Marketwire [ETA Aug.18.10: there's also this link to the item on Nanowerk],

The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, today announced contributions of $285,268 to Sonoro Energy Limited and $257,000 to IntelligentNano Incorporated from the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP). The funding supports innovative research and development projects that will assist both firms in developing high-tech solutions for global markets.

“Our government is investing in science and technology to create good jobs, strengthen the economy and improve the quality of life of Canadians,” said Minister Clement. “This government is supporting Canadian firms that successfully develop and apply innovative technologies. Canada’s Economic Action Plan is bolstering scientific research and commercialization, while creating good jobs and economic growth.”

Edmonton boasts Canada’s largest and most technologically advanced nanotechnology research infrastructure, centred around the National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT). NINT is a joint initiative between the National Research Council of Canada, the University of Alberta, and the Government of Alberta.

So there you have it, the follow up to yesterday’s news flash. If you’re curious about the two companies, Sonoro is using the money to,

[support] a project that will seek to accelerate the commercial upgrading of heavy oil into synthetic crude, by small and medium- sized producers in remote areas. As the technology is both scalable and repeatable, Sonoro is actively pursuing heavy oil resource opportunities, particularly in remote global regions where there is heavy oil that could benefit from low-cost upgrading technology. Sonoro Energy has developed and patented a proprietary sonic reactor technology platform that transfers sonic energy on an industrial scale to physical, chemical or biological processes.

IntelligentNano will apply its funds towards,

further development of the “Sonacell,” a device for amplifying and accelerating the growth of therapeutic stem cells. Stem cells have an ability to self-renew and the potential to replace diseased and damaged tissues in the body, without the risk of rejection and side effects. Adults have a very small number of such cells; IntelligentNano has developed the “Sonacell,” which will make it possible to harvest and grow a sufficient quantity of a patient’s own stem cells for use in medical therapies. The “Sonacell” opens the door to the possibility of treatments for diseases like diabetes, arthritis, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in energy, health and safety, nanotechnology | 1 Comment »

Bees and smart bombs

Monday, August 9th, 2010

I wasn’t expecting to think about bees and bombs again (after my July 28, 2010 posting on science knitting and yarn bombing respectively) but then this news item, Novel bee venom derivative forms a nanoparticle ‘smart bomb’ to target cancer cells, popped up on Nanowerk last week. From the news item,

The next time you are stung by a bee, here’s some consolation: a toxic protein in bee venom, when altered, significantly improves the effectiveness liposome-encapsulated drugs or dyes, such as those already used to treat or diagnose cancer. This research [Samuel Wickline], described in the August 2010 print issue of the FASEB [Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology] Journal, shows how modified melittin may revolutionize treatments for cancer and perhaps other conditions, such as arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and serious infections.

I gather the joournal’s editor is also experiencing these coincidences,

“Our journal is abuzz in a hive of bee-related discoveries. Just last month, we published research showing for the first time how honey kills bacteria. This month, the Wickline study shows how bee venom peptides can form “smart bombs” that deliver liposomal nanoparticles directly to their target, without collateral damage,” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the FASEB Journal.

That’s a lot of military jargon.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in health and safety, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Simon Fraser University uses gold nanoparticles for anti-folding

Friday, August 6th, 2010

It always amazes me when something pops in my email and turns out to be related to one of my latest postings. Today, Simon Fraser University sent me a news release about Paul Li and his lab-on-a-chip work where he’s trying to keep DNA strands separate. From the news release,

A Simon Fraser University chemist who pioneered lab-on-a-biochip technology six years ago has struck gold in the research world again, this time literally.

Paul Li has combined nanoscale-sized-particles of gold with two powerful tools in molecular biology to make DNA analysis more than 10 times faster at room temperature, rather than previously required higher temperatures.

Li has sped up gene identification by fusing the slide-like microarray’s ability to identify known DNA gene sequences with the multi-channel microfluidic device’s ability to quickly analyse small amounts of liquid.

The palm-sized hybrid biochip is roughly the same thickness as the Canadian Loonie.

But what really makes the invention a biomedical gold mine is the addition of gold nanoparticles to the liquid being analysed on it. Mixed with DNA, tiny spheres of gold act as mini magnets that adhere to each of the DNA’s twin strands.

When the DNA is heated, the two strands separate. The gold nanoparticles keep them apart, which enables scientists to probe each strand with other pieces of DNA that are engineered to recognize known gene sequences.

“The key benefit of the gold is that it allows us to do our analysis at room temperature (25 degrees C),” explains Li. “That is half the conventional temperature needed, which requires the use of an apparatus that tolerates high temperatures.

“More importantly, DNA sequences with slight differences are now differentiated by the nanoparticle, but not by the high temperature.”

This invention will revolutionize researchers’ ability to probe biological samples and detect genes for forensic analysis, disease detection and drug development.

I may have stretched this just a bit by calling anti-folding but this process which uses the gold nanoparticles to keep the DNA strands from adhering to each other contrasts with the work mentioned in today’s earlier post, Folding, origami, and shapeshifting and an article with over 50,000 authors, where DNA was used to keep ensure that carbon nanotubes don’t adhere to each other.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in health and safety, nanotechnology | No Comments »

A dissolving nanopatch that delivers vaccines without needles

Monday, July 26th, 2010

I briefly noted the ‘nanopatch’ last year in an April 22, 2009 posting,

Scientists in Australia are developing a ‘nanopatch’ which would replace the use of needles for vaccinations.

It looks like those Australian scientists have gotten a step closer. According to a news item on Nanowerk,

“What we have been able to show for the first time is that the Nanopatch is completely dissolvable,” Professor [Mark] Kendall {Project Leader, Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology] said.

“That means zero needles, zero sharps, zero opportunity for contamination and zero chance of needle-stick injury.

“The World Health Organisation estimates that 30 percent of vaccinations in Africa are unsafe due to cross contamination caused by needle-stick injury. That’s a healthcare burden of about $25 per administration.”

The Nanopatch is smaller than a postage stamp and is packed with thousands of tiny projections – invisible to the human eye – now dried to include the vaccine itself together with biocompatible excipients.

…

Research published in journal PLos One [Public Library of Science] in April found that the Nanopatch achieved a protective immune response using an unprecedented one-hundredth of the standard needle and syringe dose.

Professor Kendall said this was 10 times better than any other delivery method.

Congratulations to Professor Kendall and his team.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in health and safety, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Nanotechnology and sunscreens: recalibrating positions and the excruciating business of getting it as right as possible

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

I’ve been waiting for Andrew Maynard’s comments (on his 2020 Science blog) about the Friends of the Earth (FoE) guest bloggers’ (Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato) response to his posting (Just how risky could nanoparticles in sunscreens be?) where he challenged them to quantify the nanosunscreen risk to consumers.  His reflections on the FoE response and the subsequent discussion are well worth reading. From Andrew’s posting, The safety of nanotechnology-based sunscreens – some reflections,

Getting nanomaterials’ use in context. First, Georgia and Ian, very appropriately in my opinion, brought up the societal context within which new technologies and products are developed and used:

“why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit.”

Andrew again,

… we need to think carefully about how we use scientific knowledge and data – “evidence” – in making decisions.

As he goes on to point out, cherrypicking data isn’t a substantive means of supporting your position over the long run.

Unfortunately it’s a common practice on all sides ranging from policymakers, politicians, civil society groups, consumers, medical institutions, etc. and these days we don’t have the luxury, ignorance about downsides such as pollution and chemical poisoning on a global scale for example, that previous generations enjoyed.

Three of the scientists whose work was cited by FoE as proof that nanosunscreens are dangerous either posted directly or asked Andrew to post comments which clarified the situation with exquisite care,

Despite FoE’s implications that nanoparticles in sunscreens might cause cancer because they are photoactive, Peter Dobson points out that there are nanomaterials used in sunscreens that are designed not to be photoactive. Brian Gulson, who’s work on zinc skin penetration was cited by FoE, points out that his studies only show conclusively that zinc atoms or ions can pass through the skin, not that nanoparticles can pass through. He also notes that the amount of zinc penetration from zinc-based sunscreens is very much lower than the level of zinc people have in their body in the first place. Tilman Butz, who led one of the largest projects on nanoparticle penetration through skin to date, points out that – based on current understanding – the nanoparticles used in sunscreens are too large to penetrate through the skin.

These three comments alone begin to cast the potential risks associated with nanomaterials in sunscreens in a very different light to that presented by FoE. Certainly there are still uncertainties about the possible consequences of using these materials – no-one is denying that. But the weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterials within sunscreens – if engineered and used appropriately – do not present a clear and present threat to human health.

Go to the comments section of the 2020 Science blog for the full text of Peter Dobson’s response, Brian Gulson’s response posted by Andrew on Gulson’s behalf, and Tilman Butz’s response posted by Andrew on Butz’s behalf. (I found these comments very helpful as I had made the mistake of assuming that there was proof that nanoparticles do penetrate the skin barrier [as per my posting of June 23, 2010].)

I want to point out that the stakes are quite high despite the fact that sunscreens are classified as a cosmetic. I’ve heard at least one commentator (Pat Roy Mooney of The ETC Group, Interview at 2009 Elevate Festival at 4:32) scoff because nanotechnology is being used in cosmetics as if it’s frivolous. Given the important role sunscreens play in our health these days, a safe sunscreen has to be high on the list of most people’s priorities but this leads to a question.

Should we stop developing more effective nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens (and by extension, other nanotechnology-enabled products) due to concern that we may cause more harm than good?

Andrew goes on to provide some interesting insight into the issue citing the Precautionary Principle and supplementing his comments with some of Richard Jones’ (author of Soft Machines book and blog and consultant to UK government on various nanotechnology topics) suggestions to refine the Precautionary Principle guidelines,

1. what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?

2. what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?

3. what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the issues around risk, the precautionary principle, emerging technologies, and the role of research read this posting (as well as its predecessors) and as much of the discussion as you can manage.

One additional thought which was posited in the comments section by Hilary Sutcliffe (you’ll need to scroll the comments as I haven’t figured out how to create a direct link to her comment) has to do with the role that companies have with regard to their research and making it available in the discussion about health, safety, and the environment (HSE),

… we need to be able to access ‘the best available information’ in order to make informed decisions in the face of uncertainty and enable the rounded assessment that Prof Richard Jones suggests. This is indeed essential, but ‘we’ are usually constrained by the lack of one very large chunk of ‘available information’ which is the HSE testing the companies themselves have done which leads them to judge the material or product they have developed is safe.

Further in the comment she goes on to discuss a project (What’s fair to share?) that her organization (MATTER) is planning where they want to discuss how companies can share their HSE data without giving away intellectual property and/or competitive advantages.

Finally, I want to paraphrase something I said elsewhere. While I am critical of the tactics used by the Friends of the Earth in this instance, there is no doubt in my mind that the organization and other civil society groups serve a very important role in raising much needed discussion about nanotechnology risks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in beauty and cosmetics, environment, health and safety, nanotechnology, risk | 1 Comment »

A nanotechnology wrinkle

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

A cosmetics ad (more about that in a minute) came back to memory this morning as I read Michael Berger’s Nanowerk Spotlight article (Using nanotechnology to unlock a fountain of bull) about a Thomson Reuters report on nanotechnology and the cosmetics industry. From the article,

Two days ago we ran a press release from Thomson Reuters about a brief report they compiled on patent data relating to nanotechnology in the cosmetics industry. …

It already begins with the sensational title: Can Nanotech Unlock The Fountain of Youth? (pdf). That certainly catches the eye of the layperson. What exactly face creams, shampoos and sunscreens have to do with the “fountain of youth” remains unexplained. Oh, and they do make a reference to ‘remote concepts’ like nanorobotics. So let your imagination run wild! Little NanoStretchinators (trademark pending Nanowerk) that remove wrinkles from underneath the skin maybe? Or the fully automated Follicle-NanoSeeder that restores the shining body of the male scalp?

After poking a little more fun at the report, Berger hones in on distortions such as this,

Not a word about potential risks, or health and environmental concerns. But when you look at these three quoted studies you get a different message. The initiative by the EPA they are referring to actually “will determine whether these materials present a potential environmental hazard or exposure over their life cycles, and how these materials, when used in products, may be modified or managed to avoid or mitigate potential human health or ecological impacts.”

Berger goes on to provide more eye opening references and comments. As for the ad I’d seen, it’s been a few months since I first saw it in one of my local daily newspapers but I clipped it since it featured this copy:

Euoko’s Eye Contour Nanolift
Like millions of very tiny plastic surgeons

Seems like a nanobot reference, doesn’t it?

It caught me eye because these days, it’s not often (almost never) that you see a cosmetics company overtly touting a nanotechnology product.  L’Oréal doesn’t mention ‘nanosomes’ after years of using the term in its marketing campaigns for its Revitalift ads (no nanosomes on the company’s Canadian website when I checked it this morning, July 15, 2010). If you’re interested in “millions of tiny plastic surgeons”, you can pay $320 CAD for 15 ml online here. Sadly, the website makes no mention of the plastic surgeons but there is this,

The cocktail for the post-injection, post-laser, post-surgery, post-peel era. Millions of lifting nanoparticles work with South American native rose moss and Asiatic pennywort to sustain instant and long-term surface smoothness. Lupine lipopeptides from France maximize optical properties of the skin to accentuate radiance. [emphasis mine]

On other wrinkling nanotechnology news, a news item on Nanowerk features this,

As a sign of aging or in a suit, wrinkles are almost never welcome, but two papers in the current issue of Physical Review Letters (“Smooth Cascade of Wrinkles at the Edge of a Floating Elastic Film” and “Draping Films: A Wrinkle to Fold Transition”) offer some perspective on what determines their size and shape in soft materials.

…

The experiments offer complimentary insights into how defects, such as an edge or a fold, influence the presence of wrinkles and could prove helpful in understanding the formation of wrinkles in biological tissue.

I’m curious as to funding details for this work being done by two different teams of physicists at the University of Massachusetts but I haven’t been able to track details. I was not able to access the research articles themselves and that’s usually where you can find those details.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in beauty and cosmetics, health and safety, nanotechnology | No Comments »

When is a nano-enabled product not nano-enabled?

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Dietram Scheufele over at nanopublic has highlighted some research that David Berube (author of Nanohype—book and blog and professor at the University of North Carolina) and colleagues have published in Nanotechnology Law & Business (research article is behind a paywall). From Dietram’s July 3, 2010 blog posting (I’m unable to link to the specific post, so please scroll to or hunt for the date) about Berube’s research into the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ (PEN) Consumer Products Inventory (CPI),

The article takes a critical look at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) consumer product inventory. The inventory has been used widely as a gauge of the number and types of nano consumer products currently on the U.S. market.

… [the authors concluded]

“that the CPI is not wholly reliable, and does not have sufficient validity to justify its prominence as evidence for claims associated with the pervasiveness of nanotechnology on the U.S. and global markets. In addition, we caution researchers to approach the CPI with care and due consideration because using the CPI as a rhetorical flourish to amplify concerns about market intrusions seems unjustified.”

In other words, use the CPI with care. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to read Berube’s paper but I did go to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website and looked at the criteria for inclusion in the CPI where PEN clearly states the inventory’s limitations,

Selection of products

Most products in this inventory satisfy three criteria:

1. They can be readily purchased by consumers, and

2. They are identified as nano-based by the manufacturer OR another source, and

3. The nano-based claims for the product appear reasonable.

In every instance, we have tried to identify specific products from specific producers. However, since nanotechnology has broad applications in a variety of fields, we have included a number of “generic” products that you can find in many places on the market such as computer processor chips. These are clearly labeled in the inventory. In some cases, companies offer several similar nanotechnology-based products and product lines. To reduce redundancy, we have just included a few samples in this inventory and hope that they will provide an initial baseline for understanding how nanotechnology is being commercialized.

There are probably some products in the inventory which producers allege are “nano,” but which may not be. We have made no attempt to verify manufacturer claims about the use of nanotechnology in these products, nor have we conducted any independent testing of the products. We have tried to avoid including products that clearly do not use nanotechnology, but some have undoubtedly slipped through.

Finally, some products are marked “Archive” to indicate that their availability can no longer be ascertained. When these products were added to the inventory we included live links, but since then the company may have discontinued the product, gone out of business, removed a self-identifying “nano” claim or simply changed their web address. In these instances we have attempted to locate a cached version of the product website using The Internet Archive.

I imagine that despite PEN’s clearly statements some folks have referenced it carelessly hence the concern about using it as hype from Berube and his colleagues.

The bit about manufacturers removing the ‘nano’ claim hit home since I did some research into washers that use nanosilver. A friend was disturbed by a recent article about them and I remembered that the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had made a special designation for these types of washers. As it turns out, I got it 1/2 right. From the December 4, 2006 article by Susan Morissey in Chemical and Engineering News,

Silver—claimed to be nanoparticles—employed to kill bacteria in washing machines will now be regulated as a pesticide, EPA announced late last month. Currently, washers that generate silver ions are classified as devices and are not required to be registered with EPA.

The products at issue are Samsung washing machines that are advertised as using silver ions to kill 99.9% of odor-causing bacteria. This technology, called SilverCare, generates ions by applying current to two silver plates housed next to the machine’s tub. The ions are then directed into the tub during the wash cycle.

“EPA has determined that the Samsung silver ion-generating washing machine is subject to registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act,” according to an EPA statement. The agency decided to change the classification of the washer because it releases silver ions into the laundry “for the purpose of killing microbial pests,” the statement explains.

For its part, Samsung has pledged to comply with the change of policy. “Samsung has and will continue to work with EPA and state regulators regarding regulation of the silver washing machine,” the company says.

Several groups concerned about the environmental impact of nanoparticles of silver had asked EPA to reevaluate the way products containing such materials are regulated. For example, environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted in a letter to EPA that there are currently more than 40 products on the market in addition to Samsung’s washing machine that have made or implied claims of using nanoparticles of silver to kill bacteria.

NRDC praised EPA for taking what it called a “step in the right direction” by reclassifying nanosilver generated in a washer as a pesticide. The group also said this revised policy should lead to EPA reassessing other products that use nanoparticles of silver for their biocidal qualities.

A pesticide is not exactly a special designation but it certainly is unique as applied to clothes washers. The EPA announcement was made around the US Thanksgiving period (late November) according to a December 6, 2006 article by Scott E. Rickert in Industry Week. From Rickert’s article,

First, let’s backtrack and get the facts behind the headline. The trigger for the EPA decision was a Samsung washing machine. The “SilverWash” contains silver nanoparticles and claims that it helps to kill bacteria in clothes by releasing silver ions into the water during the wash.

Various U.S water authorities became concerned that discharged nanosilver might accumulate in the water system, particularly in wastewater treatment plants where beneficial bacteria are used to purify water of its toxins. This opinion means that nanosilver could be viewed as an environmental pesticide, requiring the product to be registered and tested under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In the words of EPA spokesperson Jennifer Wood, “The release of silver ions in the washing machines is a pesticide, because it is a substance released into the laundry for the purpose of killing pests.”

So what does this really mean to nano-industry? Specifically, we’re not sure yet. It will take several months for the final rules to be detailed in the Federal Register. But some of the early responses have me scratching my head.

One company has removed any reference to nanosilver from their marketing information for antimicrobial devices. Apparently, in the short run, that excludes them from any ruling. As Jim Jones, director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, said, “Unless you’re making a claim to kill a pest, you’re not a pesticide.”

This is not a simple ‘good guy vs. bad guy’ situation. Defining nanotechnology, nanoparticles, nanomaterials, etc. is a work in progress which makes attempts to regulate products and production in this area an even earlier work in progress. This situation is not confined to the US or to Canada. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be confined to any one country, which makes the situation applicable globally.

There is work being done and changes instituted, for example, the EPA has announced (from the PEN website),

At an April 29 presentation to the Pesticide Programs Dialogue Committee in Washington, D.C. EPA’s William Jordan announced a new working definition of nanomaterials as “an ingredient that contains particles that have been intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.” In addition EPA is preparing a Federal Register Announcement due out in June which announces a new interpretation of FIFRA/regulations and proposes a new policy stating that the presence of a nanoscale material in a pesticide product is reportable under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) and applies to already registered products as well as products pending registration.

As well, statements from the NanoBusiness Alliance suggest (in a previous posting on this blog) that there is some support within the business community for thoughtful regulation. As to what thoughtful means in this context, I think that’s something we, as a a society, need to work out.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, environment, health and safety, nanotechnology, regulation | No Comments »

Nanomaterials and health and safety position statement from the NanoBusiness Alliance

Monday, July 5th, 2010

I’m not entirely sure how this works but the NanoBusiness Alliance (US-based) has distributed a position statement which focuses on Nanomaterials Product Sustainability while invoking the ‘Holy Trinity’ of environment, health, and safety (EHS). From the news item on Nanowerk,

As an enabling technology applicable to diverse fields, including alternative energy, medicine, and electronics, among many others, nanotechnology offers tremendous value to society. As with any emerging technology, nanotechnology and nanoscale materials must be managed in a responsible way to identify and minimize any potential adverse effect on human health or the environment. The Alliance is committed to fostering the responsible and sustainable development of nanotechnology, to working with governmental and related nanotechnology stakeholders to develop appropriate scientific testing tools, methodologies and data to characterize nanoscale materials, and to developing informed, science-based governance policies, laws, standards, practices, and regulations pertinent to nanoscale materials.

I was hoping to get more information on the Alliance’s website but I can’t find the news release with the position statement let alone more details about it.

Tags: ,
Posted in business, environment, health and safety, nanotechnology | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries