Tag Archives: EU

Nanomaterials and safety: Europe’s non-governmental agencies make recommendations; (US) Arizona State University initiative; and Japan’s voluntary carbon nanotube management

I have three news items which have one thing in common, they concern nanomaterials and safety. Two of these of items are fairly recent; the one about Japan has been sitting in my drafts folder for months and I’m including it here because if I don’t do it now, I never will.

First, there’s an April 7, 2014 news item on Nanowerk (h/t) about European non-governmental agencies (CIEL; the Center for International Environmental Law and its partners) and their recommendations regarding nanomaterials and safety. From the CIEL April 2014 news release,

CIEL and European partners* publish position paper on the regulation of nanomaterials at a meeting of EU competent authorities

*ClientEarth, The European Environmental Bureau, European citizen’s Organization for Standardisation, The European consumer voice in Standardisation –ANEC, and Health Care Without Harm, Bureau of European Consumers

… Current EU legislation does not guarantee that all nanomaterials on the market are safe by being assessed separately from the bulk form of the substance. Therefore, we ask the European Commission to come forward with concrete proposals for a comprehensive revision of the existing legal framework addressing the potential risks of nanomaterials.

1. Nanomaterials are different from other substances.

We are concerned that EU law does not take account of the fact that nano forms of a substance are different and have different intrinsic properties from their bulk counterpart. Therefore, we call for this principle to be explicitly established in the REACH, and Classification Labeling and Packaging (CLP) regulations, as well as in all other relevant legislation. To ensure adequate consideration, the submission of comprehensive substance identity and characterization data for all nanomaterials on the market, as defined by the Commission’s proposal for a nanomaterial definition, should be required.

Similarly, we call on the European Commission and EU Member States to ensure that nanomaterials do not benefit from the delays granted under REACH to phase-in substances, on the basis of information collected on their bulk form.

Further, nanomaterials, due to their properties, are generally much more reactive than their bulk counterpart, thereby increasing the risk of harmful impact of nanomaterials compared to an equivalent mass of bulk material. Therefore, the present REACH thresholds for the registration of nanomaterials should be lowered.

Before 2018, all nanomaterials on the market produced in amounts of over 10kg/year must be registered with ECHA on the basis of a full registration dossier specific to the nanoform.

2. Risk from nanomaterials must be assessed

Six years after the entry into force of the REACH registration requirements, only nine substances have been registered as nanomaterials despite the much wider number of substances already on the EU market, as demonstrated by existing inventories. Furthermore, the poor quality of those few nano registration dossiers does not enable their risks to be properly assessed. To confirm the conclusions of the Commission’s nano regulatory review assuming that not all nanomaterials are toxic, relevant EU legislation should be amended to ensure that all nanomaterials are adequately assessed for their hazardous properties.

Given the concerns about novel properties of nanomaterials, under REACH, all registration dossiers of nanomaterials must include a chemical safety assessment and must comply with the same information submission requirements currently required for substances classified as Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMRs).

3. Nanomaterials should be thoroughly evaluated

Pending the thorough risk assessment of nanomaterials demonstrated by comprehensive and up-to-date registration dossiers for all nanoforms on the market, we call on ECHA to systematically check compliance for all nanoforms, as well as check the compliance of all dossiers which, due to uncertainties in the description of their identity and characterization, are suspected of including substances in the nanoform. Further, the Community Roling Action Plan (CoRAP) list should include all identified substances in the nanoform and evaluation should be carried out without delay.

4. Information on nanomaterials must be collected and disseminated

All EU citizens have the right to know which products contain nanomaterials as well as the right to know about their risks to health and environment and overall level of exposure. Given the uncertainties surrounding nanomaterials, the Commission must guarantee that members of the public are in a position to exercise their right to know and to make informed choices pending thorough risk assessments of nanomaterials on the market.

Therefore, a publicly accessible inventory of nanomaterials and consumer products containing nanomaterials must be established at European level. Moreover, specific nano-labelling or declaration requirements must be established for all nano-containing products (detergents, aerosols, sprays, paints, medical devices, etc.) in addition to those applicable to food, cosmetics and biocides which are required under existing obligations.

5. REACH enforcement activities should tackle nanomaterials

REACH’s fundamental principle of “no data, no market” should be thoroughly implemented. Therefore, nanomaterials that are on the market without a meaningful minimum set of data to allow the assessment of their hazards and risks should be denied market access through enforcement activities. In the meantime, we ask the EU Member States and manufacturers to use a precautionary approach in the assessment, production, use and disposal of nanomaterials

This comes on the heels of CIEL’s March 2014 news release announcing a new three-year joint project concerning nanomaterials and safety and responsible development,

Supported by the VELUX foundations, CIEL and ECOS (the European Citizen’s Organization for Standardization) are launching a three-year project aiming to ensure that risk assessment methodologies and risk management tools help guide regulators towards the adoption of a precaution-based regulatory framework for the responsible development of nanomaterials in the EU and beyond.

Together with our project partner the German Öko-Institut, CIEL and ECOS will participate in the work of the standardization organizations Comité Européen de Normalisation and International Standards Organization, and this work of the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], especially related to health, environmental and safety aspects of nanomaterials and exposure and risk assessment. We will translate progress into understandable information and issue policy recommendations to guide regulators and support environmental NGOs in their campaigns for the safe and sustainable production and use of nanomaterials.

The VILLUM FOUNDATION and the VELUX FOUNDATION are non-profit foundations created by Villum Kann Rasmussen, the founder of the VELUX Group and other entities in the VKR Group, whose mission it is to bring daylight, fresh air and a better environment into people’s everyday lives.

Meanwhile in the US, an April 6, 2014 news item on Nanowerk announces a new research network, based at Arizona State University (ASU), devoted to studying health and environmental risks of nanomaterials,

Arizona State University researchers will lead a multi-university project to aid industry in understanding and predicting the potential health and environmental risks from nanomaterials.

Nanoparticles, which are approximately 1 to 100 nanometers in size, are used in an increasing number of consumer products to provide texture, resiliency and, in some cases, antibacterial protection.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded a grant of $5 million over the next four years to support the LCnano Network as part of the Life Cycle of Nanomaterials project, which will focus on helping to ensure the safety of nanomaterials throughout their life cycles – from the manufacture to the use and disposal of the products that contain these engineered materials.

An April 1, 2014 ASU news release, which originated the news item, provides more details and includes information about project partners which I’m happy to note include nanoHUB and the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISENet) in addition to the other universities,

Paul Westerhoff is the LCnano Network director, as well as the associate dean of research for ASU’s Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering and a professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment.

The project will team engineers, chemists, toxicologists and social scientists from ASU, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Yale, Oregon’s state universities, the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Illinois-Chicago.

Engineered nanomaterials of silver, titanium, silica and carbon are among the most commonly used. They are dispersed in common liquids and food products, embedded in the polymers from which many products are made and attached to textiles, including clothing.

Nanomaterials provide clear benefits for many products, Westerhoff says, but there remains “a big knowledge gap” about how, or if, nanomaterials are released from consumer products into the environment as they move through their life cycles, eventually ending up in soils and water systems.

“We hope to help industry make sure that the kinds of products that engineered nanomaterials enable them to create are safe for the environment,” Westerhoff says.

“We will develop molecular-level fundamental theories to ensure the manufacturing processes for these products is safer,” he explains, “and provide databases of measurements of the properties and behavior of nanomaterials before, during and after their use in consumer products.”

Among the bigger questions the LCnano Network will investigate are whether nanomaterials can become toxic through exposure to other materials or the biological environs they come in contact with over the course of their life cycles, Westerhoff says.

The researchers will collaborate with industry – both large and small companies – and government laboratories to find ways of reducing such uncertainties.

Among the objectives is to provide a framework for product design and manufacturing that preserves the commercial value of the products using nanomaterials, but minimizes potentially adverse environmental and health hazards.

In pursuing that goal, the network team will also be developing technologies to better detect and predict potential nanomaterial impacts.

Beyond that, the LCnano Network also plans to increase awareness about efforts to protect public safety as engineered nanomaterials in products become more prevalent.

The grant will enable the project team to develop educational programs, including a museum exhibit about nanomaterials based on the LCnano Network project. The exhibit will be deployed through a partnership with the Arizona Science Center and researchers who have worked with the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network.

The team also plans to make information about its research progress available on the nanotechnology industry website Nanohub.org.

“We hope to use Nanohub both as an internal virtual networking tool for the research team, and as a portal to post the outcomes and products of our research for public access,” Westerhoff says.

The grant will also support the participation of graduate students in the Science Outside the Lab program, which educates students on how science and engineering research can help shape public policy.

Other ASU faculty members involved in the LCnano Network project are:

• Pierre Herckes, associate professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
• Kiril Hristovski, assistant professor, Department of Engineering, College of Technology and Innovation
• Thomas Seager, associate professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment
• David Guston, professor and director, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes
• Ira Bennett, assistant research professor, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes
• Jameson Wetmore, associate professor, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, and School of Human Evolution and Social Change

I hope to hear more about the LCnano Network as it progresses.

Finally, there was this Nov. 12, 2013 news item on Nanowerk about instituting  voluntary safety protocols for carbon nanotubes in Japan,

Technology Research Association for Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes (TASC)—a consortium of nine companies and the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) — is developing voluntary safety management techniques for carbon nanotubes (CNTs) under the project (no. P10024) “Innovative carbon nanotubes composite materials project toward achieving a low-carbon society,” which is sponsored by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).

Lynn Bergeson’s Nov. 15, 2013 posting on nanotech.lawbc.com provides a few more details abut the TASC/AIST carbon nanotube project (Note: A link has been removed),

Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) announced in October 2013 a voluntary guidance document on measuring airborne carbon nanotubes (CNT) in workplaces. … The guidance summarizes the available practical methods for measuring airborne CNTs:  (1) on-line aerosol measurement; (2) off-line quantitative analysis (e.g., thermal carbon analysis); and (3) sample collection for electron microscope observation. …

You can  download two protocol documents (Guide to measuring airborne carbon nanotubes in workplaces and/or The protocols of preparation, characterization and in vitro cell based assays for safety testing of carbon nanotubes), another has been published since Nov. 2013, from the AIST’s Developing voluntary safety management techniques for carbon nanotubes (CNTs): Protocol and Guide webpage., Both documents are also available in Japanese and you can link to the Japanese language version of the site from the webpage.

Xerox Research Centre Canada, authentic currency, etc. and a ‘nano’ deal with Authentix

An April 1, 2014 news item on labcanada.com describes a recently signed deal which may turn up the competition in Canada’s currency authentication business sector,

The Xerox Research Centre Canada [XRCC] says it has signed a multi-year materials research services agreement with Dallas-based Authentix, a provider of anti-counterfeiting, brand protection and program integrity solutions for the oil and gas industry; currency, branded products and tax stamp markets.

“Working with companies like Authentix adds to the value our scientists bring to the research world,” said Paul Smith, vice president and director of the Xerox Research Centre Canada. “Not only do we continue to strengthen our scientific role in Canadian innovation, we are now bringing valuable research capabilities to other companies globally.”

Given that Xerox is a US company with a Canadian branch, I’m not sure how signing a deal with another US company aids Canadian innovation. On the plus side, it does give some Canadian scientists a job.

I also noted the reference to “currency authentication”, which suggests that Authentix could be in direct competition with the Canadian company, Nanotech Security Corp. (I have written about Nanotech Security Corp. previously with the two most recent being a Jan. 31, 2014 posting about the company’s presentation at an Optical Document Security Conference and a March 17, 2014 posting about the company’s first commercial client, TED.) Perhaps Xerox plans to spur Canadian innovation by providing more competition for our technology companies.

Here’s more from the March 31, 2014 Xerox news release, which originated the news item about the deal with Authentix,

Scientists at XRCC specialize in the design and development of electronic materials and specialty components; environmentally-friendly processes; coatings, applied nanotechnology; polymer science, engineering and pilot plant scale-up. [emphasis mine]

“Materials science research makes it possible to bring new levels of security, accuracy and efficiency to product authentication,” said Jeff Conroy, chief technology officer of Authentix.  “Leveraging the core competencies of Xerox’s materials lab in Canada expands and accelerates our ability to bring innovative solutions to the authentication market.”

Located near Toronto, XRCC is part of the global Xerox Innovation Group made up of researchers and engineers in five world-renowned research centers. Each center leverages XRCC’s unique, integrated, global materials research and development mandate.

You can find out more about Authentix here.

Getting back to XRCC, they had a longstanding relationship with Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) having signed a 2007 contract with NINT and the Government of Alberta, from a Xerox Innovation Story,

In Canada’s first major public-private nanotechnology research partnership, the Xerox Research Centre of Canada (XRCC), NRC National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) and Government of Alberta will provide approximately $4.5 million for research and development of materials-based nanotechnology over the next three years.

The three partners will invest funds, human resources, and available infrastructures to create a research program and teams focused on developing commercially successful nanotechnology-based discoveries. Personnel from NINT and XRCC will collaborate on research projects at NINT in Edmonton, Alberta, and at XRCC in Mississauga, Ontario.

The funds will contribute to the hiring of eight to 10 scientists who will investigate materials-based nanotechnologies, including document- and display-related technologies. The research program, co-managed by XRCC and NINT, will allow access to Xerox’s experience in successfully commercializing technology to facilitate the market application of resulting inventions.

“This level of public and private sector partnership helps fuel the type of innovation that will keep Alberta, and Canada as a whole, strong and competitive in an increasingly global, knowledge-based economy,” said Doug Horner, minister for Advanced Education and Technology, Government of Alberta. “The investments from the Government of Alberta, Xerox and NINT will build a world-class nanotechnology research program that embraces the spirit of innovation, but also that of commercialization.”

I find the references to Xerox and innovation and commercialization amusing since the company is famous for its innovation missteps. For example, the company owned the photocopying business from the 1960s into the 1970s due to its patent rights but once those rights ran out (there’s usually a time limit on a patent) the company was poorly equipped to compete. My guess is that they didn’t know how in an environment where they no longer held a monopoly. The other famous story concerns the mouse and the graphical user interface both of which were developed at Xerox but the company never pursued those innovations leaving Stephen Jobs and his colleagues to found Apple.

At any rate, Xerox survived those missteps so perhaps they learned something and they really do mean it when they talk about spurring innovation. Although, given the business model for most Canadian technology companies, I expect Nanotech Security Corp. to get purchased by Authentix or one of its competitors with the consequence that Canadian taxpayers have helped to pay, yet again, for innovation that will be purchased by a corporate entity with headquarters in another country and much less interest in maintaining a business presence in Canada. If you think I’m being cynical about another country’s corporate interests in Canada, take a look at this excerpt from Derrick Penner’s March 28, 2014 article for the Vancouver Sun about Vancouver’s recent Globe 2014 conference,

Globe, the biannual conference on sustainable development [March 26 - 28, 2014], is as much about doing business as it is about discussing bright ideas for reducing the impact of industry on the environment.

And a new twist for European delegates, such as Roumeas [Vincent Roumeas, a business development manager for the Paris Region Economic Development Agency], is the prospect of Canada Europe Free Trade.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, last October, signed an agreement in principal, which commits the two sides to finalizing a full agreement giving each other tariff-free access to each others’ markets.

Roumeas said it is too soon to tell how much of a draw EU free trade will be because he is working on developing immediate prospects within the next 18 months, which would be before any benefits from free trade would kick in, if the deal is concluded.

However, his colleague Jeremy Bernard Orawiec, a trade adviser for UbiFrance, does see the agreement as an attraction for French firms interested the American market.

He added that the U.S. is viewed as a tough market to crack, so Canada is looked at as an easier-accessed entry point to all of North America.

“It’s really positive to see Canada able to make an agreement before the U.S.,” Orawiec said. “It gives us a time frame so (companies) can come here [Canada] and explore the whole American market.” [emphases mine]

It’s not clear from his comments but I suspect Orawiec is unaware that Mexico is part of North America. In any event, Canada as a market place or as an innovation centre is not important in and of itself. One can criticize Orawiec for making those comments but I’d like to thank him as he has expressed an attitude that I believe is widely held.

NANoReg invites you to April 11, 2014 workshop in Athens, Greece

For anyone interested in nanomaterials and/or attending an EHS-themed (environment, health, and safety) event in Athens, Greece, NANoREG is holding an April 2014 workshop at the Industrial Technologies 2014 conference (April 9 – 11, 2014). From a March 14, 2014 news item on Nanowerk (Some links have been removed),

NANoREG will identify EHS [environment, health, and safety] aspects that are most relevant from a regulatory point of view. It will provide tools for testing the EHS aspects and the assessment and management of the risks to the regulators and other stakeholders.

To assure that the final results of the project can be implemented in an efficient and effective way, Industry and Regulators are strongly involved in the project.
We kindly invite you to attend the NANoREG workshop and to give your opinion on the regulatory testing of nanomaterials, as a valuable contribution to future economic success of nanotechnology!

The workshop will take place on Friday, April 11, 2014 from 11:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in Athens, Greece, as part of the Industrial Technologies 2014 event. For registration please use the offi cial registration portal: www.naturalway.gr/industrial_technologies

Here’s more about the workshop from the NANoREG workshop page on the Industrial Technologies 2014 website,

1. The NANoREG approach: Answers from Science to the questions/needs of Industry and the Regulation Authorities.
2. First entrypoints, the regulatory questions and needs, an overview, matching of needs
3. NANoREG results: Materials, SOPs and the advancement of Regulatory Risk Assessment and Testing.
4.Overview of the NANoREG projects.
5. Whe window for industry participation, keeping pace with innovation.
6. Modes of collaboartion [sic] for industry.
7. Outlook

A joint workshops of EU FP7 Projects SANOWORK, nanoMICEX and Scaffold funded under the topic NMP.2011.1.3-2 “Worker Protection and exposure risk management strategies for nanomaterials production, use and disposal”, will focus on the main achievements of the three Projects in the related area. All three projects are committed to support the needs of companies and aim to provide a practical overview of the results of current research in the field of management of exposure to nanomaterials.

Here are links to the other three projects collaborating on the NANoREG workshop  SANOWORKnanoMICEX, and Scaffold.

NanoCelluComp (nanocellulose composites, a European Union project) waves goodbye

As I noted in my Feb. 6, 2014 posting about NanoCelluComp and its appearance at the JEC 2014 Composites Show and Conferences in Paris (France), 11-13th March, 2014, the project is experiencing its sunset days.

The project’s (European Commission-funded project under the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme) final (6th) newsletter (which can be found here) has just been published and there are a few interesting items to be found.

They list each of their ‘work packages’ and then describe the progress,

Work Package 1
Extraction of nanocellulose from carrot.
Work Packages 2 & 3
Stabilization and modification of nanocellulose suspensions.
Work Package 4
Nanocellulose based materials.
Work Package 5
Integrated technology for making new materials.
Work Package 6
Assessment of new technology.

NanoCelluComp Work Programme Activities.
Work packages 1, 2 and 3 are complete; nonetheless, these methods have been further improved as we have learned more about the properties of the extracted nanocellulose and better ways of removing unwanted components of the vegetable waste.

Activities in work package 4 have provided larger-scale production (100’s of g) of fibres that have been incorporated into resins (work package 5). Production and processing aspects were further fine-tuned over the autumn and early winter to achieve the best performance characteristics in the final composites. Different methods have been used to produce composite materials and full mechanical testing of each has been performed. Finally, demonstrator products have been produced for the JEC Europe 2014 show in Paris (March 11-13).

In work package 6, full life-cycle assessment has been performed on the different production technologies and final demonstrator products.

I’m particularly intrigued by Work Package 1 and its reference to carrots, the first time I’ve heard of carrot-derived nanocellulose. I hope to hear more about these carrots some day. In the meantime, there is more information about vegetable waste and nanocellulose at the JEC conference where NanoCelluComp can be found at Exhibition Stand D83 or in my Feb. 6, 2014 posting.

The 6th newsletter also offers a list of recent papers and publications, their own and others related to nanocellulose. Included here is the list of publications from other agencies,

From cellulose to textile fibre and a ready product

Aalto University has developed a new process with global significance for working cellulose into a textile fibre.

The world’s first textile product made from Ioncell cellulose fibre as well as other results yielded by research programs were introduced at a seminar held by the Finnish Bioeconomy Cluster FIBIC Oy on November 20, 2013.

www.nanocellucomp.eu/from-cellulose-to-textile-fibre-and-a-ready-product

This Self-Cleaning Plate May Mean You’ll Never Have To Do The Dishes

Researchers at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Stockholm) in collaboration with Innventia, have designed a prototype dinner plate made from nanocellulose and coated with a super-hydrophobic material.

www.nanocellucomp.eu/latest-news/this-sel-cleaning-plate-may-mean-youll-never-have-to-do-the-dishes

New report – Biocomposites 350,000t production of wood and natural fibre composites in the European Union in 2012

This market report gives the first comprehensive and detailed picture of the use and amount of wood and natural fibre reinforced composites in the European bio-based economy.

www.nanocellucomp.eu/latest-news/new-report-biocomposites-350000t-production-of-wood-and-natural-fibre-composites-in-the-european-union-in-2012

It looks like some good work has been done and I applaud the group for reaching out to communicate. I wish the Canadian proponents would adopt the practice.

All the best to the NanoCelluComp team and may the efforts be ‘fruitful’.

 

 

Nano workshop with the International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists and ‘in-cosmetics’ on March 1, 2014

The International Federation of Societies of Cosmetic Chemists (IFSCC) is presenting a March 31, 2014 nanotechnology workshop prior to the ‘in-cosmetics exhibition’ due to be held April 1-2, 2014 in Hamburg in partnership with the in-cosmetics organizers.  From a Feb. 17, 2014 IFSCC news release,

The IFSCC has organised a Recent Perspectives in Nanotechnology workshop in association with in-cosmetics which will be held immediately before the show (1-3 April) on 31 March 2014 in Hamburg.

Moderated by IFSCC Vice President and President of the French Society Claudie Willemin, the workshop will provide an update on nanotechnology in Cosmetics. It will focus on the requirements of the EU regulation 1223/2009/WE, enacted by the European Commission to provide tools and methodologies to measure the particle size to fulfil the nanomaterial definition, the safety studies and evaluation methods.

Topics and speakers include:

Nanotechnology in Cosmetics – Current status in EU and Other Countries

Dr Florian Schellauf, Technical Regulatory Affairs – Cosmetics Europe

Characterisation Methods for Nanomaterials for Regulatory Purposes

Dr Hubert Rauscher, European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Nanobiosciences Unit

Nanomaterials’ Safety:  A Summary of the Latest Studies

Prof. Jürgen Lademann, Center of Experimental and Applied Cutaneous Physiology, Department of Dermatology, University of Medecin – La Charité – Berlin

Nanomaterial’s Evaluation Tests

Dr Robert Landsiedel, Product Safety – Experimental Toxicology and Ecology – BASF

Click here for full programme details and to register.

The focus is primarily on the European Union’s efforts according to the workshop programme webpage,

This IFSCC Workshop will provide an update on nanotechnology in Cosmetics. It will focus on the requirements of the EU regulation 1223/2009/WE, enacted by the European Commission to provide tools and methodologies to measure the particle size to fulfil the nanomaterial definition, the safety studies and evaluation methods.

Organised by the IFSCC, a federation dedicated to international cooperation in cosmetic science and technology, this workshop demonstrates its aims.

Moderator: Claudie Willemin

  • 14:00-14:30: Welcome and Introduction
    IFSCC – What does this Acronym mean?
    > Claudie Willemin, Vice President of  the International Federation of the Societies of Cosmetic Chemists and President of La Société Française de Cosmétologie – SFC
  • 14:30-15:15: Nanotechnology in Cosmetics – Current status in EU and Other Countries
    > Dr. Florian Schellauf, Technical Regulatory Affairs- Cosmetics EuropeThe legislator introduced two requirements into the EU Regulation 1223/2009 related to nanomaterials in cosmetic products.The first requirement is the obligation to inform the consumer when nanomaterials are used in cosmetic products (“nano labelling”). The second requirement requires notification to the European Commission of cosmetic products containing certain nanomaterials. These requirements are based on the definition of a nanomaterial provided in the Regulation.

    The requirements come into application from 2013 and discussions have moved from legislation to practical implementation.

    This presentation will provide an overview over the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics, issues related to the implementation of the legal requirements and the interpretation of the cosmetic nanodefinition in relation to the Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011.

    Also in the international arena, there have been harmonization attempts specifically for the cosmetic sector through the ICCR process (International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation). ICCR defined a set of criteria for determining whether or not a material should be considered as a nanomaterial for regulatory purposes. The presentation will also provide an insight into discussions occurring around nanomaterials in cosmetics in selected countries outside of the EU.

  • 15:15-15:50: Characterisation Methods for Nanomaterials for Regulatory Purposes
    > Dr. Hubert Rauscher, European Commission -Joint Research Centre – Nanobiosciences UnitNanomaterials are addressed in the European Regulation on Cosmetic Products (EC)1223/2009 as well as in several other sectors of national and international legislation and in various guidelines. This requires clear terminology, such as a definition of the term “nanomaterial” and implementation provisions. Such a definition for regulatory purposes and its individual elements needs to be legally clear and unambiguous, and enforceable through agreed measurement techniques and procedures. The presentation highlights the technical and scientific requirements for the characterisation of nanomaterials that need to be met for this purpose and reviews currently available techniques. The contribution also offers considerations on the way forward towards the development of new measurement techniques, the combination of experimental methods and the need for validation studies for the characterisation of nanomaterials for regulatory purposes.
  • 15:50-16:15: Coffee Break
  • 16:15-16:50: Nanomaterials’ Safety:  A Summary of the Latest Studies
    > Prof. Jürgen Lademann, Center of Experimental and Applied Cutaneous Physiology, Department of Dermatology, University of Medecin – La Charité – BerlinFor more than 20 years both academic institutions and industrial enterprises have been researching into the development of strategies for drug delivery through the human skin by means of nanoparticles. However, a commercial product based on that concept is still lacking as, obviously, nanoparticles of ≥30 nm do not penetrate the human skin barrier. Whether this applies also to smaller particles is currently a topic of intense research.First indications that nanoparticles might not penetrate the skin barrier resulted from investigations of sunscreens that contained TiO2 particles of approximately 100 nm in diameter. At the end of a 14 day test period, volunteers who had applied the sunscreen three times each day were measured for TiO2 penetration using the tape stripping method. In addition, biopsies were taken and histological sections were analyzed. The results clearly showed that the TiO2 nanoparticles were located upon the skin surface and in some of the hair follicles. The penetration profile also revealed low TiO2 concentrations near the boundary to the living epidermis.  However, in follow-up investigations these TiO2 concentrations turned out to be located in the hair follicles.

    Interestingly, only some of the hair follicles contained TiO2 particles. In a subsequent study it could be shown that the nanoparticles penetrated into the hair follicles only if the latter display sebum production or hair growth. This means that hair follicles are usually closed by a cover that must be opened from inside out by mass flow to permit the topically applied nanoparticles penetrating into the hair follicles.  Particles of 500-800 nm in diameter were found to penetrate into the hair follicles most efficiently; either in vivo or – in the case of porcine ear model skin – if the hairs are moved by a massage. Investigating the hair surface structure, it was found that the thickness of the cuticula on the hair amounts to 600-800 nm. Due to resonance effects and if the hairs are moving, nanoparticles within this diameter range obviously penetrate into the hair follicles where they can be stored for a period exceeding 10 days. Thereafter, they escape with the sebum onto the skin surface again. A penetration of particles through the intact skin barrier could not be detected.

    The problem of particulate structures, particularly of those exceeding 100 nm, is that they do not penetrate the intact skin barrier on the intercellular pathway. They remain on the skin surface and are removed by washing, textile contact and desquamation, so that scarcely any nanoparticles are detectable after 24 h. However, once the particles have been transported into the hair follicles part of them are stored there for more than 10 days and are then re-transferred to the skin surface with the sebum. In various papers nanoparticles were reported to pass the skin barrier. This is always correct if the skin barrier is disturbed. Such disturbance could have been caused by disease or mechanical manipulation, e.g., taking of biopsies, tape stripping or cyanoacrylate stripping. In such cases, nanoparticles could also be detected in the living skin. So far, no evidence has been provided to suggest that nanoparticles are capable of penetrating the intact skin. Therefore, a collaborative project was recently launched by the German Research Association (DFG) in which the excellent penetration properties of particles >100 mm shall be used to transport drugs, which would normally not penetrate into the hair follicles, efficiently to the target structures in the hair follicles where they can be released by an external trigger system.

  • 16:50-17:30: Nanomaterial’s Evaluation Tests
    > Dr. Robert Landsiedel, Product Safety – Experimental Toxicology and Ecology – BASFWarranting the safety of nanotechnological products is seen as a crucial element in ensuring that the benefits of the new technology can be fully exploited. One prominent trait of NM is the fact that, during the life-time of a given NM, humans can be exposed to different forms of the material, e.g. due to agglomeration or aggregation, corona formation or interaction with surrounding organic material, or dissolution. In order to remove the need to test each form of nanomaterial in all its uses with a pre-defined, fixed list of methods, a concern-driven approach is proposed. Such approaches should start out by determining concerns, i.e. specific information needs for a given NM based on realistic exposure scenarios. Recognized concerns can be addressed in a set of tiers using standardized protocols for NM preparation and testing. Tier 1 includes determining physico-chemical properties, non-testing (e.g. structure activity relationships) and evaluating existing data. In tier 2, a limited set of in vitro and in vivo tests are performed that can either indicate that the risk of the specific concern is sufficiently known or indicate the need for further testing, including details for such testing. By effectively exploiting all available information, IATA allow accelerating the risk assessment process and reducing testing costs and animal use (in line with the 3Rs principle implemented in EU Directive 2010/63/EU). Combining material properties, exposure, biokinetics and hazard data, information gained with IATA can be used to recognize groups of NM based upon similar modes-of-action. Grouping of substances in return should form an integral part of the IATA themselves.
  • 17:30-18:00: Q&A and Conclusion

You can go here to register for this workshop. If you are attending the exhibition only, you can register for free until March 31, 2014 but if you want to attend the nano workshop and others, an Early Bird rate starting at €280 +VAT is available until Feb. 28, 2014.

For anyone who doesn’t fully grasp what the ‘in-cosmetics’ exhibition is all about, here’s a video,

Funding opportunities from the European Union’s Horizon 2010 programme and US DARPA’s Young Faculty Award program

A Dec. 12, 2013 news item on Nanowerk announces a call for proposals from the European Union’s (EU) massive science funding programme, Horizon 2020, which replaces the EU’s previous Framework Programme 7 initiative,

The European Commission presented for the first time today calls for Proposals under Horizon 2020, the European Union’s new 80 billion euro research and innovation program, which runs from 2014 to 2020. Worth more than 15 billion euros over the first two years, the funding is intended to help boost Europe’s knowledge-driven economy, and tackle issues that will make a difference in people’s lives. International cooperation is a priority in Horizon 2020 with the program open to participation of researchers from across the world, including the United States.

“It’s time to get down to business,” said European Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner Maire Geoghegan-Quinn. “Horizon 2020 funding is vital for the future of research and innovation in Europe, and will contribute to growth, jobs and a better quality of life. We have designed Horizon 2020 to produce results, and we have slashed red tape to make it easier to participate. So I am calling on researchers, universities, businesses including SMEs, and others to sign up!”

A Dec. 11, 2013 EU press release provides more details about the call and about Horizon 2020,

For the first time, the Commission has indicated funding priorities over two years, providing researchers and businesses with more certainty than ever before on the direction of EU research policy. Most calls from the 2014 budget are already open for submissions as of today, with more to follow over the course of the year. Calls in the 2014 budget alone are worth around €7.8 billion, with funding focused on the three key pillars of Horizon 2020:

  • Excellent Science: Around €3 billion, including €1.7 billion for grants from the European Research Council for top scientists and €800 million for Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowships for younger researchers (see MEMO/13/1123).
  • Industrial Leadership: €1.8 billion to support Europe’s industrial leadership in areas like ICT, nanotechnologies, advanced manufacturing, robotics, biotechnologies and space.
  • Societal challenges: €2.8 billion for innovative projects addressing Horizon 2020′s seven societal challenges, broadly: health; agriculture, maritime and bioeconomy; energy; transport; climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials; reflective societies; and security.

Background

Horizon 2020 is the EU’s biggest ever research and innovation framework programme with a seven year budget worth nearly €80 billion. Most EU research funding is allocated on the basis of competitive calls, but the budget for Horizon includes funding also for the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service; the European Institute for Innovation and Technology and research carried out within the framework of the Euratom Treaty. Separate calls will also be published under specific Partnerships with industry and with Member States (see IP/13/668). In 2014 the total EU research budget, including these items and administrative expenditure, will be around €9.3 billion, rising to around €9.9 billion in 2015. Final 2015 amounts are subject to the decision on the 2015 annual budget.

The funding opportunities under Horizon 2020 are set out in work programmes published on the EU’s digital portal for research funding, which has been redesigned for quicker, paperless procedures. Participants will also find simpler programme architecture and funding, a single set of rules, and a reduced burden from financial controls and audits.

The 2014-15 calls include €500 million over two years dedicated to innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through a brand new SME Instrument. Gender aspects are expected to be included in many of the projects, and there is funding to further stimulate debate on science’s role within society. There are also new rules to make ‘open access’ a requirement for Horizon 2020, so that publications of project results are freely accessible to all.

The EU’s Horizon 2010 programme has created a How to get funding? webpage, which should answer your questions and does provide links to applications and more.

Moving on: Jessica Leber writes about a US DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) call for research proposals in her Dec. 11, 2013 article for Fast Company (Note: Links have been removed),

The Pentagon’s advanced research arm is always dreaming up crazy, futuristic technologies that will shape the future of the military and society. DARPA was involved in early Internet development, and these days the agency works on everything from drone-slaying lasers to humanoid robots that could save your life.

Every year, DARPA gives out young faculty awards aimed at recruiting the “rising star” researchers in academia to devote their brains to the military’s technological needs. “The long-term goal of the program is to develop the next generation of scientists and engineers in the research community who will focus a significant portion of their future careers on DoD and National Security issues,” this year’s grant program announcement reads.

A Nov. 19, 2013 DARPA news release describes the Young Faculty Awards program, eligibility (you must be employed in a US institution of higher learning), and their areas of interest,

2014 YFA announcement increases the number of research topics from 13 to 18 and for the first time permits teaming with subcontractors

DARPA defines its research portfolio within a framework that puts the Agency’s enduring mission in the context of tomorrow’s environment for national security and technology. An integral part of this strategy includes establishing and sustaining a pipeline of talented scientists, engineers, and mathematicians who are motivated to pursue high risk, high payoff fundamental research in disciplines that are critical to maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military.

DARPA’s Young Faculty Awards (YFA) program addresses this need by funding the work of promising researchers and pairing them with DARPA program managers.  This pairing provides YFA researchers with mentoring and networking opportunities as well as exposure to DoD technology needs and the overall research and development process. The 2014 YFA solicitation includes technical topic areas in the physical sciences, engineering, materials, mathematics, biology, computing, informatics and manufacturing disciplines that are relevant to the research interests of DARPA’s Defense Sciences and Microsystems Technology Offices.

“YFA offers promising junior faculty members and their peers at nonprofit research institutions the chance to do potentially revolutionary work much earlier in their careers than they otherwise could,” said William Casebeer, DARPA program manager for the 2014 class. “By expanding the list of research topics this year from 13 to 18—our largest portfolio since the program started in 2006—we hope to attract even more creative proposals that could lead to future breakthroughs on critical defense challenges. The growth reflects how successful past awardees have been in supporting DARPA’s mission.”

Eligible applicants must be employed in U.S. institutions of higher learning and within five years of appointment to a tenure-track position, or hold equivalent positions at non-profit research institutions.

Researchers selected for YFA grants receive up to $500,000 in funding over a 24-month period. As many as four of the most exceptional performers may be selected to receive up to another $500,000 over an additional year under a DARPA Director’s Fellowship.

DARPA is, for the first time, permitting proposers to form partnerships with subcontractors. The subcontractor relationship cannot exceed 30 percent of the total grant value. In addition to enhancing the competitiveness of proposed research plans, this change is designed to provide young investigators with the opportunity to manage a multidisciplinary team and gain a better understanding of the work performed by a DARPA program manager.

“The YFA program represents a strategic investment in fundamental research and professional development of the next generation of scientists and engineers focused on defense and national security issues,” said Mari Maeda, director of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office. “It also benefits the young researchers and their institutions by engaging them in valuable, high-risk, high-impact research, providing a mentoring relationship with a DARPA program manager, expanding channels for future ideas to flow, and, now, exposing them to the rigors of managing a multidisciplinary team.”

The list of technical topic areas for 2014 includes:

  • Optimizing Supervision for Improved Autonomy
  • Neurobiological Mechanisms of Social Media Processing
  • Next-generation Neural Sensing for Brain-Machine Interfaces
  • Mathematical and Computational Methods to Identify and Characterize Logical and Causal Relations in Information
  • Time-Dependent Integrated Computational Materials Engineering
  • Long-range Detection of Special Nuclear Materials
  • Alternate Fusion Concepts
  • New Materials and Devices for Monitoring and Modulating Local Physiology
  • Methods and Theory for Fundamental Circuit-Level Understanding of the Human Brain
  • Hierarchically Complex Materials that Respond and Adapt
  • Disruptive Materials Processing
  • Disruptive Computing Architectures
  • Appliqué Antenna Elements for Platform Integration
  • Modeling Phonon Generation and Transport in the Near Junction Region of Wide-Bandgap Transistors
  • Advanced Automation and Microfluidic Technologies for Engineering Biology
  • Energy Recovery in Post-CMOS Technologies
  • Thin Film Transistors for High-performance RF and Power Electronics
  • Neural-inspired Computer Engineering

You can go here  http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=247637 for all the details about DAARPA’s YFA call for proposals,

As for deadlines, I had some difficulty finding one for the current 2020 Horizon call for proposals, as I gather there a number of calls being announced in the news item on Nanowerk,. You can find more information on the How to participate page but it is only one of several starting points for your journey through this remarkable and huge funding programme.

Meanwhile ,the current deadline for the DARPA YRA proposals is Jan. 7, 2014.

Good luck!

2013 U.S.-EU (European Union) NanoEHS (Environment, Health, and Safety) Workshop—sorry you can’t register yet

The October 2013 issue (6th newsletter) from NanoValid, an EU-funded (European Union) funded project; mentioned in my Aug. 6, 2013 posting, featuring a Sept. 2013 workshop on characterizing nanomaterials, mentions activities such as an upcoming 2013 US-EU EHS (Environment, Health, and Safety) nano workshop (from the US-EU.org’s nano EHS event page),,

NOTICE: Registration for this event has been delayed due to the U.S. government shutdown. We are working to open registration as soon as possible and will post the registration link on http://us-eu.org/2013-u-s-eu-nanoehs-workshop/ as  soon as it is live. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your patience.

DATE: December 2-3, 2013

LOCATION: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia

SCOPE: This event will bring together the U.S.-EU Communities of Research (CORs), which are a platform for scientists address environmental; health; and safety questions about nanomaterials, by developing a shared repertoire of protocols and methods to overcome research gaps and barriers. The Communities were established in 2012, and this workshop is intended to further develop and support the CORs’ activities.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this workshop is to publicize progress towards COR goals and objectives, clarify and communicate future plans, share best practices, and identify areas of cross-Community collaboration.

OUTCOMES: This workshop will culminate in a publicly-available workshop summary. Presentation slides will also be posted on us-eu.org.

STRUCTURE: U.S. – EU events will span 2 days before the 2013 NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) grantees conference (http://www.nseresearch.org/).

  • Monday, December 2: Self-Managed Meetings of Individual CORs at NSF
  • Tuesday, December 3: “U.S.-EU: Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts” Joint Workshop. All of the CORs will convene to report progress, communicate future goals, share best practices, and identify potential areas for collaboration.

Attendees are invited to remain for:

  • Wednesday-Friday, December 4-6: NSE grantee conference. Day 1 will focus on the research and education activities of ongoing grant projects in the area of environmental health and safety.

ATTENDEES: Participants will include American and European scientists and policy makers from academia, research institutes, industry, and governments. This workshop will be free and open to the public with registration on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration will likely be capped at approximately 100 people.

I found a more direct link to the 2013 NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Grantees Conference here. Also, here’s a link to the October 2013 (6th) issue of the NanoValid newsletter..

What do you do with a problem like regulating nanotechnology risks?

You get points for recognizing the “Sound of Music’ reference. Of course, the points aren’t useful for anything, which leads me in a roundabout way to Michael Berger’s fascinating May 28, 2013 Nanowerk Spotlight article, Does the EU’s chemical regulation sufficiently address nanotechnology risks? It’s a digest of a discussion, published in Nature Nanotechnology’s May 2013 issue, about nanotechnology regulations in light of the European Commission’s (EC; a unit in the European Union structure) Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials.

Berger summarizes Steffen Foss Hansen’s The European Union’s chemical legislation needs revision (article is behind a paywall) and Antonio Tajani’s response to Hansen, Substance identification of nanomaterials not key to ensuring their safe use (article is behind a paywall; Note: Links have been removed from the following excerpt),

The European Union’s chemical legislation known as REACH needs revision argues Steffen Foss Hansen, Associate Professor at DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark. In a correspondence to the Editor of Nature Nanotechnology (“The European Union’s chemical legislation needs revision”), Hansen argues that REACH needs to be revised in three major areas.

First of all, a distinction needs to be made in the legal text of REACH between the bulk and the nano form of a given material and Hansen argues that the European Commission should acknowledge that nanomaterials cannot be identified solely by chemical composition. Additional main identifiers (such as primary particle size distribution, shape – including aspect ratio – specific surface area and surface treatment) are needed as this is the only manner in which it can be made clear that the properties and behavior of nanomaterials differ fundamentally from each other and from the bulk material.

In a response to Hansen’s Correspondence, Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, writes that substance identification of nanomaterials is not key to ensuring their safe use (“Substance identification of nanomaterials not key to ensuring their safe use”).

Tajani argues that substance identification is only one element and that trying to identify unambiguous rules for substance identification is probably elusive and might result in ever more complex rules on what is considered as the same substance as opposed to different substances, without necessarily resulting in more safety of nanomaterials. Instead, Tajani and the European Commission wish to focus on clarifying what is needed to demonstrate the safe use while also noting that the implementation of regulatory changes would take several years and hence is not desirable.

As per my Oct. 25, 2011 posting (Nanoparticle size doesn’t matter), my thinking on environmental, health, and safety issues regarding engineered nanomaterials has been in the process of change and I note that focusing on the size, shape, and other factors would make regulation next to impossible. So, I’m inclined to agree with Tajani’s arguments that trying to develop “unambiguous rules for substance identification” is not a worthwhile approach to dealing with any EHS issues that nanomaterials may present and will likely prove futile in the same way as gaining points for recognizing my attempted ‘Sound of Music’ reference.

I assume that Tajani and Hansen are referring to engineered nanomaterials as opposed to naturally occurring nanomaterials. (I too forget to specify but unless otherwise noted I’m usually referring to engineered nanomaterials.)

For me, two of the most compelling issues that Hansen presents revolve around a lack of data and standardized testing (from Hansen’s article in Nature),

… there are few measured exposure data and that few environmental fate and behaviour studies are available. …

… there are currently no standardized (eco)toxicity test guidelines in use …

I do wonder how many the word ‘few’ represents as I’m reminded of the plethora of studies on silver nanoparticles and on long, multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Certainly, they are attempting to address the situation regarding consistent testing protocols in the US as per my May 8, 2013 post about the NanoGo Consortium. Perhaps the EC folks could consider using these protocols as a model for a European version?  I assume that Hansen is commenting on a broader, European-inflected picture rather than the piecemeal, ‘globalish’ picture I have formed from my meanderings in the nanosphere.

Hansen also points this out in his Nature article (Note: Footnotes have been removed),

Another disturbing aspect of the Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials is that it focuses only on first-generation nanomaterials (that is, passive nanostructures such as nanoparticles). The Staff Working Paper acknowledges that second- and third-generation nanomaterials (for example, targeted drug-delivery systems and novel robotic devices) are entering early stages of market development, …

I’m beginning to find the discussion about definitions and resultant regulations wearing and am coming to the conclusion that the focus should be on bringing the information already gathered together, standardizing tests, determining what is  known and not known, and establishing some forward momentum.

SurFunCell project merges nanotechnology and renewable resources (cellulose) to create new materials

Given the current Canadian interest in forest-based cellulose research (ArboraNano; Canadian Forest NanoProducts Network and  CelluForce), this Jan. 11, 2013 news item on Nanowerk seems à propos (Note: A link has been removed),

EU-funded [European Union] scientists are bringing two of the most important fields of research together to develop novel multifunctional materials.

European scientists are merging renewable resources with nanotechnology with EU funding of the ‘Surface functionalisation of cellulose matrices using cellulose embedded nanoparticles’ (Surfuncell) project.

This Jan. 7, 2013 article (on the Cordis website) which originated the news item, provides more details about cellulose and the SurFunCell project,

Cellulose is a polysaccharide, a long-chain sugar that is the main constituent of plant cell walls. Investigators are creating new composite materials (consisting of more than one individual material) composed of nano-scaled polysaccharide layers with embedded nanoparticles. The new class of high-value bio-based materials with tailored functions will be applicable to separation technology, medical devices, sensors and electronic systems.

Surfuncell is focused on modifying the surface of cellulose-based materials with polysaccharide derivatives and nanoparticles. Aside from using renewable materials, the project employs surface modification rather than the conventional practice of using nanoparticles as fillers in a bulk matrix. Scientists are creating demonstrators in the fields of pulp and paper, cellulosic yarns, cellulose films and filter membranes.

Scientists have created numerous nanoparticles and cellulose derivatives that are the source of new materials being produced in pilot tests. Among these are antimicrobial fibres for textiles and separation membranes with reduced clogging behaviour.

The subsequent project phase will focus on implementing pilot plant production of cellophane foils with enhanced barrier properties and of ultraviolet (UV)-protected paper surfaces. Surfuncell is merging nanotechnology and the use of renewable resources to develop novel multifunctional products in a sustainable way.

There was some excitement last year when a CNC (the term cellulose nanocrystals seems to be gaining over nanocrystalline cellulose [NCC]) pilot plant was opened in Wisconsin (July 27, 2012 posting), the official opening of the CelluForce plant in Québec (Jan. 30, 2012 posting), and in 2011, there was the announcement of a pilot plant to be opened in Alberta (July 5, 2011 posting).

Pinocchio enabled by nanotechnology

Wood products used to build bone? Unfortunately, there aren’t many details in the Nov. 9, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

European research has investigated ways of transforming complex, organised natural products such as wood to make materials suitable for rebuilding the human skeletal system.

The metamorphosis of wood to a ceramic that is identical to the mineral part of bone tissue hydroxyapatite takes place at the molecular or nano-level. The EU-funded ‘New bio-ceramisation processes applied to vegetable hierarchical structures’ (TEM-PLANT) project aimed to develop and apply novel processes to hierarchical materials like wood to produce smart ceramics that behave like bone and ligaments.

TEM-PLANT developed several types of materials with huge practical potential. These included bone scaffolding to help bone regrowth with properties very like the real thing. There is a strong possibility that the new scaffolding concept could make an appearance in the clinic in the next 5 to 10 years.

Success has also been achieved for that all-important soft skeletal tissue. The project team have shown in vivo that natural polymers can be processed to produce regenerative scaffolds for both ligaments and tendons.

At the molecular level, TEM-PLANT has investigated the very nuts and bolts of transforming hierarchically structured materials like wood. Chemo-physical phenomena have been identified behind the self-assembling and mineralisation processes required to achieve the modification of raw materials.

I did check out the TEM-PLANT/New Bio-ceramisation processes applied to vegetable hierarchical structures project webpage on the European Union’s Cordis website only to find out that the project ended in 2011,

TEM-PLANT project focuses on the development and application of breakthrough processes to transform plant-derived hierarchical structures into templates for the exploitation of innovative biomedical devices with smart anisotropic performances and advanced biomechanical characteristics, designed for bone and ligament substitution. Natural bio-structures usually have properties superior to those of analogous synthetically manufactured materials with similar phase compositions. The remarkable biomechanical properties of bone and ligament tissues depend on their hierarchic structure which is an organized assembly of structural units at increasing size levels. In fact, these structures are highly organized from the molecular to nano-, micro- and macro-scales, always in a hierarchical manner, with intricate but extremely functional architectures able to constantly adapt to ever changing mechanical needs.The TEM-PLANT project primary addresses the nano-biotechnologies area and will push the current boundaries of the state-of-the-art in production of hierarchical structured biomaterials. By combining biology, chemistry, materials science, nanotechnology and production technologies, new and complex plant transformation processes will be investigated to copy smart hierarchical structures existing in nature and to develop breakthrough biomaterials that could open the door to a whole new generation of biomedical applications for which no effective solution exists to date. Starting from suitably selected vegetal raw material, ceramization processes based on pyrolysis will be applied to produce carbon templates, which will be either infiltrated by silicon to produce inert SiC ceramic structures or exchanged by electrophoresis deposition to produce bioresobable ceramics. For ligament yielding two processes will be developed: pH-controlled and electrophoresis-controlled fibration to generate fibrous collagenous cords with high tensile strength and wear-resistance.

It looks like interesting work and I wish I could find out more about it (were they using nanocrystalline cellulose/crystal nanocellulose?). In the meantime, I decided to investigate Pinocchio (from the Wikipedia essay; I have removed links, etc.),

Pinocchio … is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the 1883 children’s novel The Adventures of Pinocchio, by Carlo Collodi, an Italian writer, and has since appeared in many adaptations of that story and others. Carved by a woodcarver named Geppetto in a small Italian village, he was created as a wooden puppet but dreamed of becoming a real boy.  …

Interestingly, the lead team (Istituto di Scienza e Technologia dei Materiali Ceramici – CNR – Biomaterials Lab)

for the New Bio-ceramisation processes applied to vegetable hierarchical structures project was based in Italy.