Monthly Archives: June 2012

Speeding up bone growth with a tobacco virus

Steven Powell in a June 22, 2012 article for the University of South Carolina news office describes progress that Qian Wang, a chemistry professor, and his colleagues at the University of South Carolina have made toward cutting down the time it takes to heal a bone. From the June 22, 2012 article (Note: I have removed a link),

Wang, Andrew Lee and co-workers just reported in Molecular Pharmaceutics that surfaces coated with bionanoparticles could greatly accelerate the early phases of bone growth. Their coatings, based in part on genetically modified Tobacco mosaic virus, reduced the amount of time it took to convert stem cells into bone nodules – from two weeks to just two days.

Here’s a description of the healing process,

The human body continuously generates and circulates cells that are undifferentiated; that is, they can be converted into the components of a range of tissues, such as skin or muscle or bone, depending on what the body needs.

The conversion of these cells – called stem cells – is set into motion by external cues. In bone healing, the body senses the break at the cellular level and begins converting stem cells into new bone cells at the location of the break, bonding the fracture back into a single unit.

There are reasons for wanting to speed the process,

The process is very slow, which is helpful in allowing a fracture to be properly set, but after that point the wait is at least an inconvenience, and in some cases highly detrimental.

“With a broken femur, a leg, you can be really incapacitated for a long time,” said Wang. “In cases like that, they sometimes inject a protein-based drug, BMP-2, which is very effective in speeding up the healing process. Unfortunately, it’s very expensive and can also have some side effects.”

Wang and his colleagues stumbled across a new approach to speeding up the healing process (Note: I have removed a link),

In a search for alternatives four years ago, Wang and colleagues uncovered some unexpected accelerants of bone growth: plant viruses. They originally meant for these viruses, which are harmless to humans, to work as controls. They coated glass surfaces with uniform coverings of the Turnip yellow mosaic virus and Tobacco mosaic virus, originally intending to use them as starting points for examining other potential variations.

But they were surprised to find that the coatings alone could reduce the amount of time to grow bone nodules from stem cells. Since then, Wang and co-workers have refined their approach to better define just what it is that accelerates bone growth.

This is a description of their latest refinements and what they imagine to be possible at some time in the future,

In the most recent effort spearheaded by Lee, they built up a layer-by-layer assembly underneath the virus coating to ensure stability. They also genetically modified the viral protein to enhance the interaction between the coating and the stem cells and help drive them toward bone growth.

Their efforts were rewarded with bone nodules that formed just two days after the addition of stem cells, compared to two weeks with a standard glass surface. They’re also carefully following the cellular signs involved with success. BMP-2 is involved, but as an intrinsic cellular product rather than an added drug.

“BMP-2 is bone morphogenetic protein 2. It can be added as a protein-based drug, but it’s a natural protein produced in the cell,” said Wang. “We see upregulation of the BMP-2 within 8 hours with the new scaffold.” They also find osteocalcin expression and calcium sequestration, two processes associated with bone formation, to be much more pronounced with their new coatings.

“What we’ve seen could prove very useful, particularly when it comes to external implants in bones,” said Wang. “With those, you have to add a foreign material, and knowing that a coating might increase the bone growth process is clearly beneficial.”

“But more importantly, we feel we’re making progress in a more general sense in bone engineering. We’re really showing the direct correlation between nanotopography and cellular response. If our results can be further developed, in the future you could use titanium to replace the bone, and you might be able to use different kinds of nanoscale patterning on the titanium surface to create all kinds of different cellular responses.” [emphasis mine]

I had not expected to leap from bone tissue engineering to creating titanium bones  the sort of thing that I imagine much interests the military.  As for “different cellular responses,” my imagination fails. What is being suggested? Thanks to the June 25,2012 news item on Nanowerk for alerting me to this work.

What about innovation in Canada? Financial Post live chat on June 28, 2012

I can tell you what at least one issue with Canada and innovation is just by looking at the Financial Post’s notice about their ‘Why can’t Canada do anything with its big ideas?‘ live chat on Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 2 pm (presumably EST). Hint: those of us who live in the ‘other’ parts of the country like it when the timezone is specified since it makes it easier for us to participate. (Yes, I did happen to glance at the bottom of the notice where there is a computer-generated note informing me that the chat starts at 11 am in my timezone [PST] but that’s not enough. I [and likely others] don’t always catch those unobtrusive notices.)

Let’s take at the panel,

Craig Alexander
Mr. Alexander is the senior vice president and chief economist for TD Bank Group. He has 15 years of experience in the private sector as an economic and financial forecaster, and serves as a regular commentator on public policy. Mr. Alexander is regularly called upon by the media to provide perspective on economic and policy issues and writes on a wide range of subjects. In addition to his work in the private sector, Mr. Alexander spent four years as an economist at Statistics Canada, affording him unique perspective on the inner workings of both the public and private sectors.

James Knight
Mr. Knight has been president and CEO of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges since 2007. He is the current Chair of the World Federation of Colleges and Polytechnics (WFCP), an international network of colleges and their associations. Mr. Knight brings more than 25 years of leadership with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), as well as prior experience with the federal government in Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Environment Canada, and as Associate Director of the Heritage Canada Foundation, Mr. Knight brings a depth of national, international and community-oriented expertise to ACCC.

Joel Liederman
Mr. Liederman is the vice president of Business Development and Physical Sciences at MaRS. He carries out technology due diligence, project manages IP development and proof-of-principle projects, develops and executes commercialization plans, and helps launch companies in information and communication technology. Mr. Liederman was a managing partner and company builder with Primaxis Technology Ventures, an early-stage venture capital company focused on the physical and engineering sciences. Prior to Primaxis, he held positions in engineering design, project engineering management, marketing, sales and business development for various high-profile organizations, including General Electric, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Alcatel and Spar Aerospace.

Derek Lothian
Mr. Lothian is the national manager of communications and innovation for Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) – Canada’s largest trade and industry association. CME’s membership network accounts for more than 82 per cent of total manufacturing production and 90 per cent of all goods and services exports. As the voice of manufacturing and global business in Canada, CME directly represents approximately 10,000 companies, and spearheads initiatives such as the establishment of the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition, which touches more than 100,000 companies across the country.

A banker who used to work for Statistics Canada as an economist, an academic and once government bureaucrat for the federal departments of Indian and Northern Affair and of the Environment, a former venture capitalist with an engineering degree who worked for very large enterprises, and a representative from a trade association are the people they’ve chosen (or is it persuaded?) to talk about capitalizing on Canadian innovation.

I don’t see any experience in this group that directly relates to the question the Financial Post has posed. I have my own question, why not ask me to be on the panel? I don’t have any experience either, I’m perfectly happy to talk about this, and I could add some diversity to the panel not being a male making over $100,000/yr.  in a salaried position. [Final sentence reworded June 27, 2012.]

Russian government sells 10% holding in RUSNANO

This is a very brief news bit from a June 22, 2012 article by Scott Rose for Bloomberg Business Week,

Russia’s government plans to sell stakes in its rail monopoly, grain trader, biggest shipper, nanotechnology holding and largest banks within 18 months as it loosens its grip on an economy dominated by commodity exports.

The state must also sell half of Rosagroleasing, 25.5 percent of OAO Bank VTB, 10 percent of nanotechnology holding OAO Rusnano and 7.6 percent of OAO Sberbank in the same period. [emphasis mine]

After selling 10% of RUSNANO, the government will still own 90% if the information in the Wikipedia essay is correct,

Rusnano (Russian: Роснано) (formerly Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies) is a joint-stock company created and owned by the government of Russia and aimed at commercializing developments in nanotechnology. Rusnano’s task is to create by 2015 a nano-industry in the country that will make marketable products worth 900 billion rubles ($29 billion). In April 2012 they invested US $79m in Quantenna Communications, a manufacturer of semiconductors for wireless networks and devices. According to a press release issued by Rusnano, this investment will leverage synergies between Quantenna’s portfolio and a number of nanotechnology initiatives that are under way at RUSNANO.

One hundred percent of the shares in RUSNANO have become the property of the government. At this moment, the Board of Directors and the Auditing Commission have been formed; the chairman of the Executive Board has been appointed—Anatoly Chubais. During its first meeting, planned for late March 2011, the Board of Directors of RUSNANO will form the Executive Board of the company.

This 10% sale seems more symbolic than serious  when compared to the requirement that the government sell 100% of its shares in various business enterprises such as the OAO RusHydro, Russian Agricultural Bank, Sheremetyevo Airport, amongst others.

US chemists talk nano in a June 27, 2012 Washington, DC briefing

The American Chemical Society (ACS) has a Science & the Congress Project where they provide information about various science and technology issues to policymakers. Their latest briefing will be on nanomaterials and the Toxic Substances Control Act.  From the June 21, 2012 news release on EurekAlert,

The American Chemical Society (ACS) Science & the Congress Project invites news media to attend a luncheon briefing on “Nanomaterial Safety: Do We Have the Right Tools?” It will be held Wednesday, June 27, 12-1:30 p.m., in the Russell Senate Office Building Room 325. To attend, register at http://tinyurl.com/ACSSciCongr-nanoEHS.

This briefing is hosted by the ACS Science & the Congress Project with honorary co-host the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus.

With nanotechnology, scientists engineer materials on a molecular level; that is, they work with such basic factors as the size, shape and surface properties of substances, in addition to altering the chemical composition, to create materials that exhibit novel properties. While the science to engineer nanomaterials has been developed largely since the 1980s, public laws to regulate the safety of materials and chemicals, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), were crafted in the 1970s. Important questions for our times: Does our understanding of and information about nanotechnology adequately inform the policies designed to ensure safe product development? Likewise, do the current policies address both the possible problems and benefits associated with nanotechnology? This panel will discuss whether policymakers currently have the necessary tools, both scientific and policy mechanisms, to reap the potentials of nanotechnology.

The briefing will feature the following panelists and an open discussion:

Moderator: Kristen Kulinowski, Ph.D., Science and Technology Policy Institute, Institute for Defense Analyses

Panelists:

  • Lynn Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell P.C.
  • Richard Denison, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Fund
  • Arturo Keller, Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara

For those of us who can’t attend, it is possible to find more information the Science &the Congress Project, from the About page (and if you keep reading you’ll find that you may still be able to access the briefing even if you can’t attend the real-time event),

Since 1995, the American Chemical Society (ACS) has operated the Science & the Congress Project to educate and inform Members of Congress and their staffs on the importance of science and technology to solving national challenges. The Science & the Congress Project has conducted well over 100 congressional briefings on important and timely policy topics, relying on panels of knowledgeable and diverse experts to provide comprehensive, balanced presentations about chosen topics, and to increase the level of scientific and technological literacy on Capitol Hill. The goals of the project include:

  • Highlighting the role of S&T in public policy.
  • Helping Members of Congress and their staffs gain a deeper knowledge of the science involved in policy issues.
  • Serving as a neutral and credible source of scientific information.
  • Promoting the responsible use of science in national policymaking.

Serving ACS and Its Members

The ACS Science & the Congress Project provides significant benefits for ACS and its members:

  • Balanced, nonpartisan briefings lend credibility to ACS policy efforts.
  • Initiation of briefings enhances ACS’s leadership role among peer organizations.
  • Collaborations with cosponsors enhance ACS’s ties and foster cooperation within the scientific community.
  • Online availability of briefing materials increases ACS members’ exposure to science policy topics.

Enhancing Relationships

During more than a decade of existence, the ACS Science & the Congress Project has conducted well over 100 briefings and built relationships with:

  • Congressional offices, committees, caucuses and staffers.
  • Experts in academia, non-governmental organizations and all levels of government.
  • Professional organizations with overlapping interests.

They also make their materials available after the briefing,

Serving as an Ongoing Source of Science Policy Information

Individual web pages for each Science & the Congress Project briefing provide a breadth of resources on the briefing’s topic, including:

  • The speakers’ presentations.
  • Speaker biographical and contact information.
  • Supplemental links, documents, and articles.

I checked and it is possible to access the briefings and other information without a subscription. I hope the nanomaterials briefing will be available soon on the website soon. Here’s the page you should check.

GlaxoSmithKline (with roots in the 18th century) makes 21st century deal with Liquidia Technologies

The GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) company history starts in the 1700s (1715 to be exact) when “Plough Court pharmacy, the forerunner of Allen and Hanburys Ltd, is established in London by Silvanus Bevan” (from the Company History webpage). As you’ve probably guessed, GSK is a pharmaceutical company (from the About Us, Our Company page),

We are a science-led global healthcare company

We have a challenging and inspiring mission: to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer. This mission gives us the purpose to develop innovative medicines and products that help millions of people around the world.

Headquartered in the UK, we are a global organisation with offices in over 100 countries and major research centres in the UK, USA, Spain, Belgium and China.

But being a leader brings responsibility. This means that we care about the impact that we have on the people and places touched by our mission to improve health around the world.

It also means that we must help developing countries where debilitating disease affects millions of people and access to life-changing medicines and vaccines is a problem. To meet this challenge, we are committed to providing discounted medicines where they are needed the most.

We are one of the few healthcare companies researching both medicines and vaccines for the World Health Organization’s three priority diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and are very proud to have developed some of the leading global medicines in these fields.

We produce medicines that treat major disease areas such as asthma, anti-virals, infections, mental health, diabetes, cardiovascular and digestive conditions. In addition, we are a leader in the important area of vaccines and are developing new treatments for cancer.

We also market other consumer products, many of which are among the market leaders:

  • over-the-counter (OTC) medicines including Gaviscon and Panadol
  • dental products such as Aquafresh and Sensodyne
  • smoking control products Nicorette/Niquitin
  • nutritional healthcare drinks such as Lucozade, Ribena and Horlicks skincare products marketed by Stiefel Laboratories

The other partner in this deal, nanomedicine company  Liquidia Technologies offers a less expansive description of their healthcare interests while a more market-oriented approach (from the home page),

Over the next decade, nanotechnology has the potential to influence virtually every aspect of our lives, including our energy, food, water, buildings, and medicines. According to a recently published report by BCC Research, the market value of the worldwide nanomedicine industry alone is estimated to grow at a CAGR [compound annual growth rate] of 12.5% to reach $130.9 billion by the fiscal year 2016. However, in order to realize this broad potential robust, cost-effective, regulatory-friendly manufacturing technologies will be required. Through its novel nanoparticle technology platform and expansive intellectual property, Liquidia is poised to be a leader in the development of nanotechnology-based healthcare products and a catalyst for the growth anticipated across this industry.

Here’s more about the deal and the technology, from the June 20,2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Liquidia Technologies today announced the initiation of a broad, multi-year collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which has acquired exclusive rights to research and develop certain vaccine and inhaled product candidates using the company’s proprietary PRINT® (Particle Replication In Non-Wetting Templates) technology. Liquidia’s PRINT technology is a powerful and versatile nanoparticle technology product development and manufacturing platform that is changing the way companies engineer healthcare products.

“We are very pleased to have the opportunity to work with GSK, a company known for its commitment to scientific excellence, medicinal chemistry expertise and expansive library of proprietary compounds that could potentially benefit from Liquidia’s PRINT technology,” said Neal Fowler, Chief Executive Officer at Liquidia, “The strength of this collaboration is based on the strong and successful heritage of GSK’s vaccine and inhaled therapy franchises and the transformative particle engineering and manufacturing capabilities of Liquidia’s PRINT technology, which when combined, we believe will yield a next generation of life saving therapeutics.”

Here’s my description of Liquidia’s PRINT technology (it’s not possible to cut and past from the company’s Product Platform page). The company has copied lithographic techniques used in the semiconductor industry to develop templates, probably polymer-based, that look like cupcake tins to me. Somehow a bunch of dots (nanoparticles) are attracted to these cupcake tin moulds, which can be different shapes, and somehow the nanoparticles are induced to remain in the shape prescribed by the mould as it disintegrates leaving the newly moulded nanoparticle shape ready for use.

Here’s more from the June 20, 2012 news item,

According to the agreement, Liquidia will receive an upfront payment, comprised of cash and equity, R&D funding, as well as potential for additional licensing fees, development milestones, and royalties. Upfront payment, R&D funding, licensing, and development and regulatory milestone payments under this collaboration could total up to several hundred million dollars upon all contingent payments coming due. Through this agreement, Liquidia has also retained the ability to independently develop certain respiratory and vaccine products in addition to using the PRINT platform to develop products in other therapeutic areas.

It certainly seems as if Liquidia Technologies (the source for the June 20, 2012 news item)  is more interested in communicating about business and markets than about any health benefits for the rest of us.

University of Alberta scientists sniff dirty clothes

Bev Betkowski’s June 22, 2012 news item on physorg.com notes,

Using state-of-the-art techniques for molecular separations in a U of A [University of Alberta] chemistry lab to analyze a pile of sweaty T-shirts worn and washed by 18 study participants, lead researchers Rachel McQueen and James Harynuk joined forces to tackle the problem of stinky workout gear.

The news item which originated in a June 22, 2012 news release from the University of Alberta describes the experiment,

McQueen, an assistant professor in the Department of Human Ecology, teamed with Harynuk, an assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry, to put specially designed T-shirts—two for each participant—to the test in a field trial lasting 10 weeks.

The stack of 36 shirts was specially sewn with two test fabrics—untreated cotton matched either with untreated polyester or with cotton treated with a silver-chloride antimicrobial, designed to fight odour-causing bacteria in sweat. Participants wore the bisymmetrical shirts when exercising, then washed them after each workout.

For the research, the underarms were cut from each T-shirt. The washed and unwashed versions were analyzed for bacterial counts. Using high-tech methods—gas chromatography and mass spectrometry— in Harynuk’s lab, the odorous molecules were also examined.

The compounds in the sweat were separated and analyzed, with individual molecules being identified. The analysis revealed between 1,000 and 2,000 compounds in the odour profiles of each shirt.

“We may find ways to target compounds in the process of designing textiles that don’t retain certain odour-causing molecules.”  [said Harynuk]

Here’s what they discovered,

Their research showed that, for less reek in workout gear, cotton is better than polyester. The experiment also revealed that the T-shirts treated with the antimicrobial finish were not effective in cutting body odour.

“Fabric options vary for workout clothing, but for anyone concerned about body odour, cotton would be a preferable choice,” said McQueen.

That finding about silver nanoparticles definitely contradicts what I understood to be true.  Their conclusion is also a little unexpected,

“Ultimately, the ideal is to find a formula for an odour-resistant textile that can be washed less frequently between workouts, resulting in a more sustainable garment,” she added.

The challenge is in changing the perception of soiled clothing, she noted. [emphasis mine]

“An item may not look dirty, but it smells dirty when people do the ‘sniff test.’ If clothing didn’t look or smell soiled, people might be willing to wear something more than once or twice before throwing it in the laundry—which would really be better for the environment.”

So, changing how clothes smell after a few wearings could help save the environment. If that works, why not do it?

Spain, heritage stone, and nano

Petz Scholtus in a June 21, 2012 posting on the Treehugger website has featured an item about nanotechnology and stone (Note: I have removed a link from the excerpt),

Tecnadis PRS Effect is a water-repellent for facades and historical monuments based on nanoparticles. It is being tested on the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela to prevent the porous stone from absorbing water and humidity, and hence, to make it last longer. What makes this especially suitable for heritage conservation is the fact that it does not close the pores of the stone but instead, lets it breathe.

Here’s a company demonstration of  water being poured on a stone that has been treated with the product (silent with Spanish language titles),

I last posted about Spain, nanotechnology, and heritage conservation efforts in a June 7, 2011 posting about the murals of the Church of Santos Juanes.

Report on nano EHS from US General Accountability Office (GAO)

According the June 22, 2012 news item on Nanowerk, The US General Accountability Office (GAO) has release a new report titled, Nanotechnology: Improved Performance Information Needed for Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (published May 2012). From the report,

Nanotechnology involves the ability to control matter at approximately 1 to 100 nanometers. Worldwide trends suggest that products that rely on nanotechnology will be a $3 trillion market by 2020. However, some of the EHS [Environmental, Health, and Safety]impacts of nanotechnology are unknown. The NSTC [National Science and Technology Council] coordinates and oversees the NNI [National Nanotechnology Initiative], an interagency program that, among other things, develops national strategy documents for federal efforts in nanotechnology.

In this context, GAO examined: (1) changes in federal funding for nanotechnology EHS research from fiscal years 2006 to 2010; (2) the nanomaterials that NNI member agencies’ EHS research focused on in fiscal year 2010; (3) the extent to which NNI member agencies collaborate with stakeholders on this research and related strategies; and (4) the extent to which NNI strategy documents address desirable characteristics of national strategies. GAO’s review included seven NNI agencies that funded 93 percent of the EHS research dollars in fiscal year 2010. This report is based on analysis of NNI and agency documents and responses to a questionnaire of nonfederal stakeholders.

GAO recommends that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which administers the NSTC, (1) coordinate development of performance information for NNI EHS research needs and publicly report this information; and (2) estimate the costs and resources necessary to meet the research needs. OSTP and the seven included agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations. [p.2 of the PDF]

This provides some interesting contrast to the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) 4th assessment report which I wrote about in my May 2, 2012 posting,

PCAST [President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology] acknowledges that the NSET [Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee coordinates planning, budgeting, program implementation, and review of the NNI] has acted on our recommendation to identify a central coordina­tor for nanotechnology-related EHS research within NNCO. The EHS coordinator has done a laudable job developing and communicating the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy. [emphasis mine] However, there is still a lack of integration between nanotechnology-related EHS research funded through the NNI and the kind of information policy makers need to effectively manage potential risks from nanomaterials. The estab­lishment of the Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) through OSTP has begun to bridge that gap, but without close integration between ETIPC and the NEHI working group [Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Working Group], the gap may not be sufficiently narrowed. OSTP and the NSET Subcommittee should expand the charter of the NEHI working group to enable the group to address cross-agency nanotechnology-related policy issues more broadly.

Alphabet soup, eh? The best I can gather is that the GAO report has identified gaps that are identified by the NNI (and which they have begun to address) as per my emphasis in the excerpt from the 4th assessment. As someone who does not know the politics or have access to inside information, the GAO report recommendations are much simpler to understand as the issues are laid out from a more ‘global’ perspective (or big picture perspective) as per US EHS nanotechnology research efforts. The NNI’s 4th assessment report offers more detail and, frankly, I found it more confusing.

This is my 2nd GAO report and, again, I love the writing and organization of the report. (Note: I am lauding the report writing skills.)  Thank you to Frank Rusco, Dan Haas, Krista Anderson, Nirmal Chaudhary, Elizabeth Curda, Lorraine Ettaro, Alison O’Neill, Tind Shepper Ryen, Jeanette Soares, Ruth Solomon, Hai Tran, and Jack Wang.

Self-cleaning gecko feet

I’m back to one of my favourite topics, self’-cleaning products (as I have noted ad nauseam, I long for self-cleaning windows). Scientists at the University of Akron, Ohio, have focussed their attention on the self-cleaning properties of a gecko’s toes. From the June 20, 2012 news release on EurekAlert,

Researchers Shihao Hu, a UA mechanical engineering student, and biologist and recent UA graduate Stephanie Lopez-Chueng of Keiser University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and their team discovered that the clue to a dynamic self-cleaning mechanism in gecko setae, or microscopic foot hair, is achieved through the hyperextension of their toes.

“The analysis reveals that geckos have tiny sticky hairs on their toes called setaes, and due to the attaching and detaching mechanism caused by the rolling and peeling motion of their toes as they walk, they release the dirt particles leaving their feet clean,” Hu says. “The dynamic hyperextension effect of its natural toe peeling increases the speed of the cleaning to nearly twice as fast as previously perceived.”

Partners in the study included Hu; Lopez-Chueng; Dr. Peter Niewiarowski, interim director, UA Integrated Bioscience Ph.D. program; and Zhenhai Xia, University of North Texas, Materials Science and Engineering.

The findings, published in the article, “Dynamic Self-Cleaning in Gecko Setae via Digital Hyperextension,” show that a gecko-inspired adhesive can function under conditions where traditional adhesives do not, possibly inspiring new applications in space or water exploration tools or in common items like duct tape or other products that use sticky properties.

My most recent posting about geckos and their bioadhesive qualities is dated April 3, 2012.

I don’t believe I’ve featured a gecko so here’s an image provided by the University of Akron,

Blue-spotted Gecko (A gecko-inspired adhesive can function under conditions where traditional adhesives do not, possibly inspiring new applications, University of Akron)

You can find a full size image and the university of Akron’s June 20, 2012 news release here.

Figuring out our knowledge gaps (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) and fillng them (Nanomaterial Registry beta version launched)

You (well, I do) get sick of hearing that nanotechnology awareness is low in the general public. Awareness is low in a lot of areas not just nanotechnology. There’s much to choose from and  it takes a lot of work becoming aware let alone becoming knowledgeable, so one tends to pick and choose.

The June 20, 2012 news item on Nanowerk doesn’t provoke much excitement until,

There are serious gaps in our awareness of the potential risks involved in handling nanomaterials at work, and serious shortcomings in the way that those risks are communicated to workplaces, according to a new literature review(pdf [Risk perception and risk communication with regard to nanomaterials in the workplace {European Risk Observatory, Literature Review}]) from the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA).

We are facing nanotechnology in our everyday life in many products and applications. Although health and environmental hazards have been demonstrated for some manufactured nanomaterials, they are used in food, cosmetics, textiles, paints, sporting goods, electronics, detergents, and many health and fitness products. And they are present in many workplaces, too.  …

In its review of current research on the subject, EU-OSHA found that communication of the potential risks posed by such materials is still poor, with a majority of Europeans (54%), not even knowing what nanotechnology is. Even in workplaces where manufactured nanomaterials are found, the level of awareness is low. For example, 75% of workers and employers in construction are not aware they work with them. [emphasis mine]

Given that the folks who are at most risk (assuming there is any risk) are the ones who work with the materials, this is disturbing.

The workers who have produced the materials (coatings, etc.) being used by the construction workers are at the most risk as they are exposed to the ‘raw’ nanomaterials.

Once the materials have been constituted as part of a product, the risk level will likely dissipate. Still,  construction workers who apply coatings to various surfaces (e.g. windows) would seem to be at higher risk than people who work in a building with nanotechnology-enabled coated windows that have dried and cured. In any event, the construction workers might take greater care with their industrial hygiene practices if they knew they were working with nanotechnology-enabled products.

The EU-OSHA has an online set of case studies, with a nanotechnology category, illustrating Good Occupational Practices. You can find out more here.  (This reminds me of the International Council on Nanotechnology’s [ICON] Good Nano Guide, which I’ve not mentioned in quite some time. It too focuses on how to handle nanomaterials in an occupational setting.)

This next item is not directly related to occupational health and safety although there could be some crossover. RTI (Research Triangle Institute) International has launched their beta version of a Nanomaterial Registry. From the About the Registry page,

Registry Purpose The purpose of the Nanomaterial Registry project is to:

  • Build a repository of curated nanomaterial information by pulling data from a broad collection of publicly available nanomaterial resources
  • Deliver authoritative and useable information on the biological and environmental interaction of well-characterized nanomaterials
  • Provide tools for matching and analyzing nanomaterial data
  • Improve the quality of nanomaterial information by driving standards of accepted procedures and reporting requirements
  • Promote the use of well-defined minimal information standards framework and common nanomaterial standards
  • Identify reliable information that can be used in regulatory decision making

The June 19, 2012 news item on Nanowerk provides more information,

“The quantity of publicly available literature on nanotechnology is staggering, but until now there has not been a centralized authoritative resource dedicated to nanotechnology research and its implications to biological and environmental systems,” said Michele Ostraat, Ph.D., senior director of the Center for Aerosol and Nanomaterials Engineering at RTI and the project’s principal investigator. “This registry will provide a valuable resource for nanotechnology stakeholders to find and investigate nanomaterials across diverse test methods, protocols and data sources in this field.”

Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the registry is designed to improve the quality of and standardization of available methods regarding nanomaterials. This resource will also help researchers create new models, standards and manufacturing methods for nanomaterials and accelerate the development and evaluation of nanomaterials for biomedical and environmental applications.

I have posted about RTI International in the past, most recently in a May 2, 2011 posting.