Tag Archives: EU

An app for nanomaterial risks (NanoRisk)

It seems past time for someone to have developed an app for nanomaterial risks. A Nov. 12, 2015 news item on Nanowerk makes the announcement (Note: A link has been removed),

The NanoRisk App is a guide to help the researcher in the risk assessment of nanomaterials. This evaluation is determined based on the physicochemical characteristics and the activities to be carried out by staff in research laboratories.

The NanoRisk App was developed at the University of Los Andes or Universidad de los Andes in Colombia (there also seems to be one in Chile). From the Nano Risk App homepage,

The NanoRisk App application was developed at the University of Los Andes by the Department of Chemical Engineering and the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and implemented in cooperation with the Department of Occupational Health at the University of Los Andes. This application focuses on the use of manufactured nanomaterials.


Homero Fernando Pastrana Rendón MD, MsC, PhD Candidate. Alba Graciela Ávila, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Felipe Muñoz Giraldo, Professor Associate Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Los Andes.

Acknowledgements to Diego Angulo and Diana Fernandez, from the Imagine group, for all the support in the development of this application.

About the App

The app is a guide to help the researcher in the risk assessment of nanomaterials. This evaluation is determined based on the physicochemical characteristics and the activities to be carried out by staff in research laboratories. This is based on nano risk management strategies from various institutions such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. (NIOSH), the New Development Organization of Japan Energy and Industrial Technology (NEDO), the European Commission (Nanosafe Program) and the work developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (California, USA) in conjunction with the Safety Science Group at the University of Delft in the Netherlands.


The app will estimates the risk at four levels (low, medium, high and very high) for the hazard of the nanomaterial and the probability to be exposed to the material. Then it will recommend measures to contain the risk by applying engineering measures (controlled ventilation system, biosafety cabinet and glovebox).

They have a copyright notice on the page, as well as, instructions on how to access the App and the information.

A couple of lawyers talk wrote about managing nanotechnology risks

Because they are lawyers, I was intrigued by a Nov. 4, 2015 article on managing nanotechnology risks by Michael Lisak and James Mizgala of Sidley Austin LLP for Industry Week. I was also intrigued by the language (Note: A link has been removed),

The inclusion of nanotechnologies within manufacturing processes and products has increased exponentially over the past decade. Fortune recently noted that nanotechnology touches almost all Fortune 500 companies and that the industry’s $20 billion worldwide size is expected to double over the next decade. [emphasis mine]

Yet, potential safety issues have been raised and regulatory uncertainties persist. As such, proactive manufacturers seeking to protect their employees, consumers, the environment and their businesses – while continuing to develop, manufacture and market their products – may face difficult choices in how to best navigate this challenging and fluid landscape, while avoiding potential “nanotort,”  [emphasis mine] whistleblower, consumer fraud and regulatory enforcement lawsuits. Doing so requires forward-thinking advice based upon detailed analyses of each manufacturer’s products and conduct in the context of rapidly evolving scientific, regulatory and legal developments.

I wonder how many terms lawyers are going to coin in addition to “nanotort”?

The lawyers focus largely on two types of nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, with a special emphasis on multi-walled carbon nantubes (MWCNT) and nano titanium dioxide,

Despite this scientific uncertainty, international organizations, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer [a World Health Organization agency], have already concluded that nano titanium dioxide in its powder form and multi-walled carbon nanotube-7 (“MWCNT-7”) [emphasis mine] are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” As such, California’s Department of Public Health lists titanium dioxide and MWCNT-7 as “ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive toxicity as determined by the authoritative scientific bodies.”  Considering that processed (i.e., non-powdered) titanium dioxide is found in products like toothpaste, shampoo, chewing gum and candies, it is not surprising that some have focused upon such statements.

There’s a lot of poison in the world, for example, apples contain seeds which have arsenic in them and, for another, peanuts can be carcinogenic and they can also kill you, as they are poison to people who are allergic to them.

On the occasion of Dunkin’ Donuts removing nano titanium dioxide as an ingredient in the powdered sugar used to coat donuts, I wrote a March 13, 2015 posting, where I quote extensively from Dr. Andrew Maynard’s (then director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center now director of the Risk Innovation Lab at Arizona State University) 2020 science blog posting about nano titanium dioxide and Dunkin’ Donuts,

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

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

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

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

You can find Andrew’s entire discussion in his March 12, 2015 post on the 2020 Science blog. Andrew had written earlier in a July 12, 2014 posting about something he terms ‘nano donut math’ as reported by As You Sow, the activist group that made a Dunkin’ Donuts shareholder proposal which resulted in the company’s decision to stop using nano titanium dioxide in the powdered sugar found on their donuts. In any event, Andrew made this point,

In other words, if a Dunkin’ Donut Powdered Cake Donut contained 8.9 mg of TiO2 particles smaller than 10 nm, it would have to have been doused with over 1 million tons of sugar coating! (Note update at the end of this piece)

Clearly something’s wrong here – either Dunkin’ Donuts are not using food grade TiO2 but a nanopowder with particle so small they would be no use whatsoever in the sugar coating (as well as being incredibly expensive, and not FDA approved).  Or there’s something rather wrong with the analysis!

If it’s the latter – and it’s hard to imagine any other plausible reason for the data – it looks like As You Sow ended up using rather dubious figures to back up their stakeholder resolution.  I’d certainly be interested in more information on the procedures Analytical Sciences used and the checks and balances they had in place, especially as there are a number of things that can mess up a particle analysis like this.

Update July 14: My bad, I made a slight error in the size distribution calculation first time round.  This has been corrected in the article above.  Originally, I cited the estimated Mass Median Diameter (MMD) of the TiO2 particles as 167 nm, and the Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) as 1.6.  Correcting an error in the Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the distribution (these things happen!) led to a revised estimate of MMD = 168 nm and a GSD of 1.44.  These may look like subtle differences, but when calculating the estimated particle mass below 10 nm, they make a massive difference.  With the revised figures, you’d expect less than one trillionth of  a percent of the mass of the TiO2 powder to be below 10 nm!! (the original estimate was a tenth of a millionth of a percent).  In other words – pretty much nothing!  The full analysis can be found here.

Update November 16 2014.  Based on this post, As You Sow checked the data from Analytical Sciences LLC and revised the report accordingly.  This is noted above.

It would seem that if there are concerns over nano titanium dioxide in food, the biggest would not be the amounts ingested by consumers but inhalation by workers should they breathe in large quantities when they are handling the material.

As for the MWCNTs, they have long raised alarms but most especially the long MWCNTs and for people handling them during the course of their work day. Any MWCNTs found in sports equipment and other consumer products are bound in the material and don’t pose any danger of being inhaled into the lungs, unless they should be released from their bound state (e.g. fire might release them).

After some searching for MWCNT-7, I found something which seems also to be known as Mitsui MWCNT-7 or Mitsui 7-MWCNT (here’s one of my sources). As best I understand it, Mitsui is a company that produces an MWCNT which they have coined an MWCNT-7 and which has been used in nanotoxicity testing. As best I can tell, MWCNT is MWCNT-7.

The lawyers (Lisak and Mizgala) note things have changed for manufacturers since the early days and they make some suggestions,

One thing is certain – gone are the days when “sophisticated” manufacturers incorporating nanotechnologies within their products can reasonably expect to shield themselves by pointing to scientific and regulatory uncertainties, especially given the amount of money they are spending on research and development, as well as sales and marketing efforts.

Accordingly, manufacturers should consider undertaking meaningful risk management analyses specific to their applicable products. …

First, manufacturers should fully understand the life-cycle of nanomaterials within their organization. For some, nanomaterials may be an explicit focus of innovation and production, making it easier to pinpoint where nanotechnology fits into their processes and products. For others, nanomaterials may exist either higher-up or in the back-end of their products’ supply chain. …

Second, manufacturers should understand and stay current with the scientific state-of-the-art as well as regulatory requirements and developments potentially applicable to their employees, consumers and the environment. An important consideration related to efforts to understand the state-of-the-art is whether or not manufacturers should themselves expend resources to advance “the science” in seeking to help find answers to some of the aforementioned uncertainties. …

The lawyers go on to suggest that manufacturers should consider proactively researching nanotoxicity so as to better defend themselves against any future legal suits.

Encouraging companies to proactive with toxicity issues is in line with what seems to be an international (Europe & US) regulatory movement putting more onus on producers and manufacturers to take responsibility for safety testing. (This was communicated to me in a conversation I had with an official at the European Union Joint Research Centre where he mentioned REACH regulations and the new emphasis in response to my mention of similar FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) regulations. (We were at the 2014 9th World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Testing in Prague, Czech republic.)

For anyone interested in the International Agency for Research on Cancer you can find it here.

‘Nano to go’, a practical guide to safe handling of nanomaterials and other innovative materials in the workplace

If you’ve been looking for a practical guide to handling nanomaterials you may find that nanoToGo fills the bill. From an Oct. 23, 2015 posting by Lynn Bergeson for Nanotechnology Now,

In September 2015, “Nano to go!” was published. See http://nanovalid.eu/index.php/nanovalid-publications/306-nanotogo “Nano to go!” is “a practically oriented guidance on safe handling of nanomaterials and other innovative materials at the workplace.” The German Federal Institute for Occupational Health (BAuA) developed it within the NanoValid project.

From the nanoToGo webpage on the NanoValid project website (Note: Links have been removed),

Nano to go! contains a brochure, field studies, presentations and general documents to comprehensively support risk assessment and risk management. …

Brochure →

The brochure Safe handling of nanomaterials and other advanced materials at workplacessupports risk assessment and risk management when working with nanomaterials. It provides safety strategies and protection measures for handling nanomaterials bound in solid matrices, dissolved in liquids, insoluble or insoluble powder form, and for handling nanofibres. Additional recommendations are given for storage and disposal of nanomaterials, for protection from fire and explosion, for training and instruction courses, and for occupational health.

Field Studies→

The field studies comprise practical examples of expert assessment of safety and health at different workplaces. They contain detailed descriptions of several exposure measurements at pilot plants and laboratories. The reports describe methods, sampling strategies and devices, summarise and discuss results, and combine measurements and non-measurement methods.

General →

Useful information, templates and examples, such as operating instructions, a sampling protocol, a dialogue guide and a short introduction to safety management and nanomaterials.

Presentations →

Ready to use presentations for university lecturers, supervisors and instruction courses, complemented with explanatory notes.

The ‘brochure’ is 56 pages; I would have called it a manual.

As for the NanoValid project, there’s this from the project’s homepage,

The EU FP7 [Framework Programme 7] large-scale integrating project NanoValid (contract: 263147) has been launched on the 1st of November 2011, as one of the “flagship” nanosafety projects. The project consists of 24 European partners from 14 different countries and 6 partners from Brazil, Canada, India and the US and will run from 2011 to 2015, with a total budget of more than 13 mio EUR (EC contribution 9.6 mio EUR). Main objective of NanoValid is to develop a set of reliable reference methods and materials for the fabrication, physicochemical (pc) characterization, hazard identification and exposure assessment of engineered nanomaterials (EN), including methods for dispersion control and labelling of ENs. Based on newly established reference methods, current approaches and strategies for risk and life cycle assessment will be improved, modified and further developed, and their feasibility assessed by means of practical case studies.

I was not expecting to see Canada in there.

LiquiGlide, a nanotechnology-enabled coating for food packaging and oil and gas pipelines

Getting condiments out of their bottles should be a lot easier in several European countries in the near future. A June 30, 2015 news item on Nanowerk describes the technology and the business deal (Note: A link has been removed),

The days of wasting condiments — and other products — that stick stubbornly to the sides of their bottles may be gone, thanks to MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] spinout LiquiGlide, which has licensed its nonstick coating to a major consumer-goods company.

Developed in 2009 by MIT’s Kripa Varanasi and David Smith, LiquiGlide is a liquid-impregnated coating that acts as a slippery barrier between a surface and a viscous liquid. Applied inside a condiment bottle, for instance, the coating clings permanently to its sides, while allowing the condiment to glide off completely, with no residue.

In 2012, amidst a flurry of media attention following LiquiGlide’s entry in MIT’s $100K Entrepreneurship Competition, Smith and Varanasi founded the startup — with help from the Institute — to commercialize the coating.

Today [June 30, 2015], Norwegian consumer-goods producer Orkla has signed a licensing agreement to use the LiquiGlide’s coating for mayonnaise products sold in Germany, Scandinavia, and several other European nations. This comes on the heels of another licensing deal, with Elmer’s [Elmer’s Glue & Adhesives], announced in March [2015].

A June 30, 2015 MIT news release, which originated the news item, provides more details about the researcher/entrepreneurs’ plans,

But this is only the beginning, says Varanasi, an associate professor of mechanical engineering who is now on LiquiGlide’s board of directors and chief science advisor. The startup, which just entered the consumer-goods market, is courting deals with numerous producers of foods, beauty supplies, and household products. “Our coatings can work with a whole range of products, because we can tailor each coating to meet the specific requirements of each application,” Varanasi says.

Apart from providing savings and convenience, LiquiGlide aims to reduce the surprising amount of wasted products — especially food — that stick to container sides and get tossed. For instance, in 2009 Consumer Reports found that up to 15 percent of bottled condiments are ultimately thrown away. Keeping bottles clean, Varanasi adds, could also drastically cut the use of water and energy, as well as the costs associated with rinsing bottles before recycling. “It has huge potential in terms of critical sustainability,” he says.

Varanasi says LiquiGlide aims next to tackle buildup in oil and gas pipelines, which can cause corrosion and clogs that reduce flow. [emphasis mine] Future uses, he adds, could include coatings for medical devices such as catheters, deicing roofs and airplane wings, and improving manufacturing and process efficiency. “Interfaces are ubiquitous,” he says. “We want to be everywhere.”

The news release goes on to describe the research process in more detail and offers a plug for MIT’s innovation efforts,

LiquiGlide was originally developed while Smith worked on his graduate research in Varanasi’s research group. Smith and Varanasi were interested in preventing ice buildup on airplane surfaces and methane hydrate buildup in oil and gas pipelines.

Some initial work was on superhydrophobic surfaces, which trap pockets of air and naturally repel water. But both researchers found that these surfaces don’t, in fact, shed every bit of liquid. During phase transitions — when vapor turns to liquid, for instance — water droplets condense within microscopic gaps on surfaces, and steadily accumulate. This leads to loss of anti-icing properties of the surface. “Something that is nonwetting to macroscopic drops does not remain nonwetting for microscopic drops,” Varanasi says.

Inspired by the work of researcher David Quéré, of ESPCI in Paris, on slippery “hemisolid-hemiliquid” surfaces, Varanasi and Smith invented permanently wet “liquid-impregnated surfaces” — coatings that don’t have such microscopic gaps. The coatings consist of textured solid material that traps a liquid lubricant through capillary and intermolecular forces. The coating wicks through the textured solid surface, clinging permanently under the product, allowing the product to slide off the surface easily; other materials can’t enter the gaps or displace the coating. “One can say that it’s a self-lubricating surface,” Varanasi says.

Mixing and matching the materials, however, is a complicated process, Varanasi says. Liquid components of the coating, for instance, must be compatible with the chemical and physical properties of the sticky product, and generally immiscible. The solid material must form a textured structure while adhering to the container. And the coating can’t spoil the contents: Foodstuffs, for instance, require safe, edible materials, such as plants and insoluble fibers.

To help choose ingredients, Smith and Varanasi developed the basic scientific principles and algorithms that calculate how the liquid and solid coating materials, and the product, as well as the geometry of the surface structures will all interact to find the optimal “recipe.”

Today, LiquiGlide develops coatings for clients and licenses the recipes to them. Included are instructions that detail the materials, equipment, and process required to create and apply the coating for their specific needs. “The state of the coating we end up with depends entirely on the properties of the product you want to slide over the surface,” says Smith, now LiquiGlide’s CEO.

Having researched materials for hundreds of different viscous liquids over the years — from peanut butter to crude oil to blood — LiquiGlide also has a database of optimal ingredients for its algorithms to pull from when customizing recipes. “Given any new product you want LiquiGlide for, we can zero in on a solution that meets all requirements necessary,” Varanasi says.

MIT: A lab for entrepreneurs

For years, Smith and Varanasi toyed around with commercial applications for LiquiGlide. But in 2012, with help from MIT’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, LiquiGlide went from lab to market in a matter of months.

Initially the idea was to bring coatings to the oil and gas industry. But one day, in early 2012, Varanasi saw his wife struggling to pour honey from its container. “And I thought, ‘We have a solution for that,’” Varanasi says.

The focus then became consumer packaging. Smith and Varanasi took the idea through several entrepreneurship classes — such as 6.933 (Entrepreneurship in Engineering: The Founder’s Journey) — and MIT’s Venture Mentoring Service and Innovation Teams, where student teams research the commercial potential of MIT technologies.

“I did pretty much every last thing you could do,” Smith says. “Because we have such a brilliant network here at MIT, I thought I should take advantage of it.”

That May [2012], Smith, Varanasi, and several MIT students entered LiquiGlide in the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition, earning the Audience Choice Award — and the national spotlight. A video of ketchup sliding out of a LiquiGlide-coated bottle went viral. Numerous media outlets picked up the story, while hundreds of companies reached out to Varanasi to buy the coating. “My phone didn’t stop ringing, my website crashed for a month,” Varanasi says. “It just went crazy.”

That summer [2012], Smith and Varanasi took their startup idea to MIT’s Global Founders’ Skills Accelerator program, which introduced them to a robust network of local investors and helped them build a solid business plan. Soon after, they raised money from family and friends, and won $100,000 at the MassChallenge Entrepreneurship Competition.

When LiquiGlide Inc. launched in August 2012, clients were already knocking down the door. The startup chose a select number to pay for the development and testing of the coating for its products. Within a year, LiquiGlide was cash-flow positive, and had grown from three to 18 employees in its current Cambridge headquarters.

Looking back, Varanasi attributes much of LiquiGlide’s success to MIT’s innovation-based ecosystem, which promotes rapid prototyping for the marketplace through experimentation and collaboration. This ecosystem includes the Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation, the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, the Venture Mentoring Service, and the Technology Licensing Office, among other initiatives. “Having a lab where we could think about … translating the technology to real-world applications, and having this ability to meet people, and bounce ideas … that whole MIT ecosystem was key,” Varanasi says.

Here’s the latest LiquiGlide video,


Video: Melanie Gonick/MIT
Additional footage courtesy of LiquiGlide™
Music sampled from “Candlepower” by Chris Zabriskie

I had thought the EU (European Union) offered more roadblocks to marketing nanotechnology-enabled products used in food packaging than the US. If anyone knows why a US company would market its products in Europe first I would love to find out.

Opportunity for companies to take a survey on risk management and nanotechnology

A June 8, 2015 news item on Nanowerk features a European Union (EU) Framework Programme 7 (FP7) nanotechnology risk management project and survey,

The EU FP7 Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN) project is based on the idea that the current knowledge on environmental and health risks of nanomaterials – while limited – can nevertheless guide nanomanufacturing to avoid liabilities if an integrated approach addressing the complete product lifecycle is applied. SUN aims to evaluate the risks along the supply chains of engineered nanomaterials and incorporate the results into tools and guidelines for sustainable nanomanufacturing.

A May 26, 2015 SUN press release by Stella Stoycheva, which originated the news item, provides more details,

… A key objective of  Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN) is to build the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) to facilitate safe and sustainable nanomanufacturing and risk management. It will integrate tools for ecological and human health risk assessment, lifecycle assessment, economic assessment and social impact assessment within a sustainability assessment framework. We are currently developing the Technological Alternatives and Risk Management Measures (TARMM) inventory and are looking for companies to fill in a short survey.

… We would appreciate responses from personnel of companies involved in nanotechnology-related activities who are familiar with the risk management practices.

You can go here to take the survey. The focus is on companies and there don’t seem to be any geographic requirements such as only EU companies can participate.

Outcomes for US-European Union bridging Nano environment, health, and safety (EHS) research workshop

According to Lynn Bergeson in an April 14, 2015 news item on Nanotechnology Now, a US-European Union (EU) workshop on nanosafety has published a document,

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) published on March 23, 2015, the outcomes of the March 12-13, 2015, joint workshop held by the U.S. and the European Union (EU), “Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts.” …

A US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) ??, ??, 2015 notice on the nano.gov site provides more details,

Workshop participants reviewed progress toward COR [communities of research] goals and objectives, shared best practices, and identified areas for cross-COR collaboration.  To address new challenges the CORs were realigned and expanded with the addition of a COR on nanotechnology characterization. The seven CORs now address:

Databases and Computational Modeling
Exposure through Product Life
Human Toxicity
Risk Assessment
Risk Management and Control

The CORs support the shared goal of responsible nanotechnology development as outlined in the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative EHS Research Strategy, and the research strategy of the EU NanoSafety Cluster. The CORs directly address several priorities described in the documents above, including the creation of a comprehensive nanoEHS knowledge base and international cooperation on the development of best practices and consensus standards.

The CORs are self-run, with technical support provided by the European Commission and the U.S. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. Each Community has European and American co-chairs who convene meetings and teleconferences, guide the discussions, and set the group’s agenda. Participation in the CORs is free and open to any interested individuals. More information is available at www.us-eu.org.

The workshop was organized by the European Commission and the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative under the auspices of the agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Union and the United States.

Coincidentally, I received an April 13, 2015 notice about the European Commission’s NanoSafety Cluster’s Spring 2015 newsletter concerning their efforts but found no mention of the ‘bridging workshop’. Presumably, information was not available prior to the newsletter’s deadline.

In my April 8, 2014 posting about a US proposed rule for reporting nanomaterials, I included information about the US and its efforts to promote or participate in harmonizing the nano situation internationally. Scroll down about 35% of the way to find information about the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Nanotechnology Initiative, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) effort, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) effort.

NANoREG halfway through its project (Environment, Health & Safety) term

A March 18, 2015 news item on Nanowerk announces a third NANoReg newsletter marking the halfway point in the project’s term (Note: Links have been removed),

NANoREG is the first FP7 project to deliver the answers needed by regulators and legislators on EHS [Environment, Health & Safety] by linking them to a scientific evaluation of data and test methods.

Time wise, the NANoREG project is now halfway. After setting the basic conditions for its R&D work, the project now focuses on the generation of reliable and comparable experimental data on the EHS aspects of the selected NANoREG nanomaterials. These data will form the basis for the main “end products” of the NANoREG project: the Regulatory Framework and the NANoREG Toolbox. Highlights of this experimental work and results will be shared with you in this 3rd NANoREG Newsletter (pdf).

The editorial for the 3rd issue of the NANoREG newsletter, which seems to have originated the news item, describes upcoming initiatives,

The Regulatory Framework and the NANoREG Toolbox just mentioned will be developed in close cooperation with organisations involved in standardisation and in the regulatory aspects of nanomaterials like ECHA [European Chemicals Agency], OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], CEN [European Committee for Standardization] and ISO [International Standards Organization]. The results of other EU FP7 [Framework Programme 7] and H2020 [Horizon 2020] [research funding] projects will also be taken into account when developing these products. One of these projects is the H2020 project NANoREG II that focuses on Safe by design and that will start in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2015.

The coordinated and integrated approach in developing the Framework and the NANoREG Toolbox is one of the main elements of the H2020 funded Coordination and Support Action (CSA) “ProSafe” that recently had its Kick-Off meeting in Aix-en-Provence, France. Just like NANoREG this CSA is coordinated by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and as such executed by me. Other elements of this CSA are – among others – the expansions of the involvement of EU and non-EU countries in the NANoREG project in order to broaden the platform of support for the NANoREG results world-wide (“NANoREG+”), the exploitation of synergies between the NANoREG project and other “nanosafety” projects and data management.

The outcome of the CSA will be a White Paper that can be used by policy makers, regulators and industry to establish methods for measuring and assessing the EHS aspects of nanomaterials and that will give guidance to industry how to implement “safe by design“. A forerunner of the White Paper will be subject of a three days scientific conference to be held at the end of 2016. It will include the results of the NANoREG project, the results of the evaluation of EHS data available at the OECD and results from other sources. After consulting Risk assessors and policymakers, the White Paper will be published in the first quarter of 2017.

This project has reached out beyond Europe for partners (from the editorial for the 3rd NANoREG newsletter),

It is quite a challenge we face. Given the expertise and scientific authority of our partners, including the Czech-,Brazilian- and South Korean parties that recently joined the NANoREG project, I am confident however that we will succeed in reaching our goal: creating a solid basis for a balanced combination of nanosafety and innovation that will be beneficial to society.

I hope NANoREG is successful with its goal of “creating a solid basis for a balanced combination of nanosafety and innovation that will be beneficial to society.”

I last wrote about NANoREG in a March 21, 2014 posting.

2014 food and nanotechnologies report from the European Food Safety Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PlasCarb: producing graphene and renewable hydrogen from food waster

I have two tidbits about PlasCarb the first being an announcement of its existence and the second an announcement of its recently published research. A Jan. 13, 2015 news item on Nanowerk describes the PlasCarb project (Note: A link has been removed),

The Centre for Process Innovation (CPI) is leading a European collaborative project that aims to transform food waste into a sustainable source of significant economic added value, namely graphene and renewable hydrogen.

The project titled PlasCarb will transform biogas generated by the anaerobic digestion of food waste using an innovative low energy microwave plasma process to split biogas (methane and carbon dioxide) into high value graphitic carbon and renewable hydrogen.

A Jan. 13, 2015 CPI press release, which originated the news item, describes the project and its organization in greater detail,

CPI  as the coordinator of the project is responsible for the technical aspects in the separation of biogas into methane and carbon dioxide, and separating of the graphitic carbon produced from the renewable hydrogen. The infrastructure at CPI allows for the microwave plasma process to be trialled and optimised at pilot production scale, with a future technology roadmap devised for commercial scale manufacturing.

Graphene is one of the most interesting inventions of modern times. Stronger than steel, yet light, the material conducts electricity and heat. It has been used for a wide variety of applications, from strengthening tennis rackets, spray on radiators, to building semiconductors, electric circuits and solar cells.

The sustainable creation of graphene and renewable hydrogen from food waste in provides a sustainable method towards dealing with food waste problem that the European Union faces. It is estimated that 90 million tonnes of food is wasted each year, a figure which could rise to approximately 126 million tonnes by 2020. In the UK alone, food waste equates to a financial loss to business of at least £5 billion per year.

Dr Keith Robson, Director of Formulation and Flexible Manufacturing at CPI said, “PlasCarb will provide an innovative solution to the problems associated with food waste, which is one of the biggest challenges that the European Union faces in the strive towards a low carbon economy.  The project will not only seek to reduce food waste but also use new technological methods to turn it into renewable energy resources which themselves are of economic value, and all within a sustainable manner.”

PlasCarb will utilise quality research and specialist industrial process engineering to optimise the quality and economic value of the Graphene and hydrogen, further enhancing the sustainability of the process life cycle.

Graphitic carbon has been identified as one of Europe’s economically critical raw materials and of strategic performance in the development of future emerging technologies. The global market for graphite, either mined or synthetic is worth over €10 billion per annum. Hydrogen is already used in significant quantities by industry and recognised with great potential as a future transport fuel for a low carbon economy. The ability to produce renewable hydrogen also has added benefits as currently 95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. Moreover, it is currently projected that increasing demand of raw materials from fossil sources will lead to price volatility, accelerated environmental degradation and rising political tensions over resource access.

Therefore, the latter stages of the project will be dedicated to the market uptake of the PlasCarb process and the output products, through the development of an economically sustainable business strategy, a financial risk assessment of the project results and a flexible financial model that is able to act as a primary screen of economic viability. Based on this, an economic analysis of the process will be determined. Through the development of a decentralised business model for widespread trans-European implementation, the valorisation of food waste will have the potential to be undertaken for the benefit of local economies and employment. More specifically, three interrelated post project exploitation markets have been defined: food waste management, high value graphite and RH2 sales.

PlasCarb is a 3-year collaborative project, co-funded under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and will further reinforce Europe’s leading position in environmental technologies and innovation in high value Carbon. The consortium is composed of eight partners led by CPI from five European countries, whose complimentary research and industrial expertise will enable the required results to be successfully delivered. The project partners are; The Centre for Process Innovation (UK), GasPlas AS (NO), CNRS (FR), Fraunhofer IBP (DE), Uvasol Ltd (UK), GAP Waste Management (UK), Geonardo Ltd. (HU), Abalonyx AS (NO).

You can find PlasCarb here.

The second announcement can be found in a PlasCarb Jan. 14, 2015 press release announcing the publication of research on heterostructures of graphene ribbons,

Few materials have received as much attention from the scientific world or have raised so many hopes with a view to their potential deployment in new applications as graphene has. This is largely due to its superlative properties: it is the thinnest material in existence, almost transparent, the strongest, the stiffest and at the same time the most strechable, the best thermal conductor, the one with the highest intrinsic charge carrier mobility, plus many more fascinating features. Specifically, its electronic properties can vary enormously through its confinement inside nanostructured systems, for example. That is why ribbons or rows of graphene with nanometric widths are emerging as tremendously interesting electronic components. On the other hand, due to the great variability of electronic properties upon minimal changes in the structure of these nanoribbons, exact control on an atomic level is an indispensable requirement to make the most of all their potential.

The lithographic techniques used in conventional nanotechnology do not yet have such resolution and precision. In the year 2010, however, a way was found to synthesise nanoribbons with atomic precision by means of the so-called molecular self-assembly. Molecules designed for this purpose are deposited onto a surface in such a way that they react with each other and give rise to perfectly specified graphene nanoribbons by means of a highly reproducible process and without any other external mediation than heating to the required temperature. In 2013 a team of scientists from the University of Berkeley and the Centre for Materials Physics (CFM), a mixed CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) and UPV/EHU (University of the Basque Country) centre, extended this very concept to new molecules that were forming wider graphene nanoribbons and therefore with new electronic properties. This same group has now managed to go a step further by creating, through this self-assembly, heterostructures that blend segments of graphene nanoribbons of two different widths.

The forming of heterostructures with different materials has been a concept widely used in electronic engineering and has enabled huge advances to be made in conventional electronics. “We have now managed for the first time to form heterostructures of graphene nanoribbons modulating their width on a molecular level with atomic precision. What is more, their subsequent characterisation by means of scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy, complemented with first principles theoretical calculations, has shown that it gives rise to a system with very interesting electronic properties which include, for example, the creation of what are known as quantum wells,” pointed out the scientist Dimas de Oteyza, who has participated in this project. This work, the results of which are being published this very week in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, therefore constitutes a significant success towards the desired deployment of graphene in commercial electronic applications.

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

Molecular bandgap engineering of bottom-up synthesized graphene nanoribbon heterojunctions by Yen-Chia Chen, Ting Cao, Chen Chen, Zahra Pedramrazi, Danny Haberer, Dimas G. de Oteyza, Felix R. Fischer, Steven G. Louie, & Michael F. Crommie. Nature Nanotechnology (2015) doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.307 Published online 12 January 2015

This article is behind a paywall but there is a free preview available via ReadCube access.

Tackling antibiotic resistance with inhalable nanotherapeutics

A June 25, 2014 news item on Nanowerk highlights PneumoNP a new European Union ‘theragnostic’ research project (Note: Links have been removed) ,

A new research project (PneumoNP) is aimed at tackling antibiotic resistance in respiratory tract infections via the use of inhalable nanotherapeutic compounds. Funded under the FP7 programme by the European Commission, the 4-year long PneumoNP project brings together top research institutes, universities, clinicians and enterprises from 6 EU member states. This novel collaboration will contribute to answer the call of the World Health Organization (WHO), who recently released an alarming report on the global threat of antibiotic resistance.

The project will develop an innovative solution to antibiotic resistance by coupling new antibiotics to inhalable carrier molecules, resulting in more efficient targeting of antibiotics to infection-causing bacteria present in the respiratory tract.

An April 30, 2014 WHO news release details the level of antibiotic resistance,

New WHO report provides the most comprehensive picture of antibiotic resistance to date, with data from 114 countries

A new report by WHO–its first to look at antimicrobial resistance, including antibiotic resistance, globally–reveals that this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance–when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections–is now a major threat to public health.

The report, “Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance”, notes that resistance is occurring across many different infectious agents but the report focuses on antibiotic resistance in seven different bacteria responsible for common, serious diseases such as bloodstream infections (sepsis), diarrhoea, pneumonia, urinary tract infections and gonorrhoea. The results are cause for high concern, documenting resistance to antibiotics, especially “last resort” antibiotics, in all regions of the world.

Key findings from the report include:

Resistance to the treatment of last resort for life-threatening infections caused by a common intestinal bacteria, Klebsiella pneumoniae–carbapenem antibiotics–has spread to all regions of the world. K. pneumoniae is a major cause of hospital-acquired infections such as pneumonia, bloodstream infections, infections in newborns and intensive-care unit patients. In some countries, because of resistance, carbapenem antibiotics would not work in more than half of people treated for K. pneumoniae infections.

Resistance to one of the most widely used antibacterial medicines for the treatment of urinary tract infections caused by E. coli–fluoroquinolones–is very widespread. In the 1980s, when these drugs were first introduced, resistance was virtually zero. Today, there are countries in many parts of the world where this treatment is now ineffective in more than half of patients.

Treatment failure to the last resort of treatment for gonorrhoea–third generation cephalosporins–has been confirmed in Austria, Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people are infected with gonorrhoea around the world every day.

Antibiotic resistance causes people to be sick for longer and increases the risk of death. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection. Resistance also increases the cost of health care with lengthier stays in hospital and more intensive care required.

The suggestions offered for tackling antibiotic resistance will be familiar to many (from the news release),

 People can help tackle resistance by:

  •  using antibiotics only when prescribed by a doctor;
  •  completing the full prescription, even if they feel better;
  •  never sharing antibiotics with others or using leftover prescriptions.

A June 25, 2014 PneumoNP press release describes both the European Union’s response to massive, global antibiotic resistance and the specifics of the new programme (PneumoNP),

In this context, the European Commission launched 15 projects under its7 Framework Programme to fight antimicrobial resistance, with PneumoNP being one of these projects. Started in 2014, the aim of this 4-year project is to develop novel therapeutic and diagnostic tools for bacterial respiratory tract infections, focusing on infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae. PneumoNP will pioneer the development of a therapeutic treatment based on a combination of nanocarriers coupled to new antibiotics. This novel combination is expected to enhance the efficiency of antibiotic delivery to the patient. The project is expected to generate:

  • a new inhalable drug system made of a new nanotherapeutic system (an antimicrobial peptide or an active pharmaceutical ingredient and a nanocarrier);
  • a new aerosol technology that will allow direct access to the main focus of infection;
  • an innovative efficiency-efficacy test to follow-up the treatment;
  • a new diagnostic test for faster detection and identification of antibiotic resistance in bacteria causing respiratory infections.

European funding allows PneumoNP to combine scientific research capacities with the expert healthcare capabilities of European enterprises. The result is an interdisciplinary collaboration between 11 teams from 6 EU member states – Spain, Italy, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Denmark. Each partner has a distinct yet collaborative role according to its own expertise involving a total of 8 work packages.

There is a figure in the news release which illustrates the PneumoNP concept,

Figure 2: PneumoNP concept

Figure 2: PneumoNP concept

There is more information about PneumoNP on its website. I wasn’t able to glean much in the way of technical details (are they using silver nanoparticles, what kind of nanocarriers are they considering, etc.) but I imagine those will emerge with time. There is this from the homepage which features the relatively new (to me) word, theragnostic,

Development of a theragnostic system for the treatment of lung Gram-negative bacterial infections

I assume they are conflating two processes, therapeutics and diagnostics for theragnostics.