Tag Archives: EU

Trans-Atlantic Platform (T-AP) is a unique collaboration of humanities and social science researchers from Europe and the Americas

Launched in 2013, the Trans-Atlantic Platform is co-chaired by Dr.Ted Hewitt, president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) , and Dr. Renée van Kessel-Hagesteijn, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research—Social Sciences (NWO—Social Sciences).

An EU (European Union) publication, International Innovation features an interview about T-AP with Ted Hewitt in a June 30, 2016 posting,

The Trans-Atlantic Platform is a unique collaboration of humanities and social science funders from Europe and the Americas. International Innovation’s Rebecca Torr speaks with Ted Hewitt, President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Co-Chair of T-AP to understand more about the Platform and its pilot funding programme, Digging into Data.

Many commentators have called for better integration between natural and social scientists, to ensure that the societal benefits of STEM research are fully realised. Does the integration of diverse scientific disciplines form part of T-AP’s remit, and if so, how are you working to achieve this?

T-AP was designed primarily to promote and facilitate research across SSH. However, given the Platform’s thematic priorities and the funding opportunities being contemplated, we anticipate that a good number of non-SSH [emphasis mine] researchers will be involved.

As an example, on March 1, T-AP launched its first pilot funding opportunity: the T-AP Digging into Data Challenge. One of the sponsors is the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada’s federal funding agency for research in the natural sciences and engineering. Their involvement ensures that the perspective of the natural sciences is included in the challenge. The Digging into Data Challenge is open to any project that addresses research questions in the SSH by using large-scale digital data analysis techniques, and is then able to show how these techniques can lead to new insights. And the challenge specifically aims to advance multidisciplinary collaborative projects.

When you tackle a research question or undertake research to address a social challenge, you need collaboration between various SSH disciplines or between SSH and STEM disciplines. So, while proposals must address SSH research questions, the individual teams often involve STEM researchers, such as computer scientists.

In previous rounds of the Digging into Data Challenge, this has led to invaluable research. One project looked at how the media shaped public opinion around the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. Another used CT scans to examine hundreds of mummies, ultimately discovering that atherosclerosis, a form of heart disease, was prevalent 4,000 years ago. In both cases, these multidisciplinary historical research projects have helped inform our thinking of the present.

Of course, Digging into Data isn’t the only research area in which T-AP will be involved. Since its inception, T-AP partners have identified three priority areas beyond digital scholarship: diversity, inequality and difference; resilient and innovative societies; and transformative research on the environment. Each of these areas touches on a variety of SSH fields, while the transformative research on the environment area has strong connections with STEM fields. In September 2015, T-AP organised a workshop around this third priority area; environmental science researchers were among the workshop participants.

I wish Hewitt hadn’t described researchers from disciplines other than the humanities and social sciences as “non-SSH.” The designation divides the world in two: us and non-take your pick: non-Catholic/Muslim/American/STEM/SSH/etc.

Getting back to the interview, it is surprisingly Canuck-centric in places,

How does T-AP fit in with Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)’s priorities?

One of the objectives in SSHRC’s new strategic plan is to develop partnerships that enable us to expand the reach of our funding. As T-AP provides SSHRC with links to 16 agencies across Europe and the Americas, it is an efficient mechanism for us to broaden the scope of our support and promotion of post-secondary-based research and training in SSH.

It also provides an opportunity to explore cutting edge areas of research, such as big data (as we did with the first call we put out, Digging into Data). The research enterprise is becoming increasingly international, by which I mean that researchers are working on issues with international dimensions or collaborating in international teams. In this globalised environment, SSHRC must partner with international funders to support research excellence. By developing international funding opportunities, T-AP helps researchers create teams better positioned to tackle the most exciting and promising research topics.

Finally, it is a highly effective way of broadly promoting the value of SSH research throughout Canada and around the globe. There are significant costs and complexities involved in international research, and uncoordinated funding from multiple national funders can actually create barriers to collaboration. A platform like T-AP helps funders coordinate and streamline processes.

The interview gets a little more international scope when it turns to the data project,

What is the significance of your pilot funding programme in digital scholarship and what types of projects will it support?

The T-AP Digging into Data Challenge is significant for several reasons. First, the geographic reach of Digging is truly significant. With 16 participants from 11 countries, this round of Digging has significantly broader participation from previous rounds. This is also the first time Digging into Data includes funders from South America.

The T-AP Digging into Data Challenge is open to any research project that addresses questions in SSH. In terms of what those projects will end up being is anybody’s guess – projects from past competitions have involved fields ranging from musicology to anthropology to political science.

The Challenge’s main focus is, of course, the use of big data in research.

You may want to read the interview in its entirety here.

I have checked out the Trans-Atlantic Platform website but cannot determine how someone or some institution might consult that site for information on how to get involved in their projects or get funding. However, there is a T-AP Digging into Data website where there is evidence of the first international call for funding submissions. Sadly, the deadline for the 2016 call has passed if the website is to be believed (sometimes people are late when changing deadline dates).

nanoIndEx publishes guidance document on assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials

Lynn Bergeson’s June 21, 2016 posting on Nanotechnology Now announced a newly published guidance document from the European Union’s nanoIndEx,

… The guidance document summarizes the key findings of the project, and is intended to present the state of the art in personal exposure assessment for nanomaterials. The conclusions section states: “Unfortunately, many nanotoxicological studies have used excessive, unrealistically high doses of [manufactured nanomaterials] and it is therefore debatable what their findings mean for the lower real-world exposures of humans. Moreover, it is not clear how to establish realistic exposure dose testing in toxicological studies, as available data on occupational exposure levels are still sparse.” According to the guidance document, future studies should focus on the potentially adverse effects of low-level and realistic exposure to manufactured nanomaterials, especially through the use of exposure doses similar to those identified in environmental sampling.

You can find the 49pp PDF here or here. To whet your appetite, here’s a bit from the introduction to the “Exposure to Airborne Nanomaterials; A Guidance Document,”

… While human exposure to MNMs may in principle occur during any stage of the material’s lifecycle, it is most likely in workplaces, where these materials are produced or handled in large quantities or over long periods of time. Inhalation is considered as the most critical uptake route, because the small particles are able to penetrate deep into the lung and deposit in the gas exchange region. Inhalation exposure to airborne nanomaterials therefore needs to be assessed in view of worker protection.

Exposure to airborne particles can generally best be assessed by measuring the individual exposure in the personal breathing zone (PBZ) of an individual. The PBZ is defined as a 30 cm hemisphere around mouth and nose [2]. Measurements in the PBZ require instruments that are small and light-weight. The individual exposure specifically to MNMs [manufactured nanomaterials, sometimes also known as engineered nanomaterials or nanoparticles] has not been assessable in the past due to the lack of suitable personal samplers and/or monitors. Instead, most studies related to exposure to MNMs have been carried out using either bulky static measurement equipment or not nanospecific personal samplers. In recent years, novel samplers and monitors have been introduced that allow for an assessment of the more nanospecific personal exposure to airborne MNMs. In the terminology used in nanoIndEx, samplers are devices that collect particles on a substrate, e.g. a filter
of flat surface, for subsequent analysis, whereas monitors are real-time instruments that deliver
information on the airborne concentrations with high time resolution. Scientifically sound investigations on the accuracy, comparability and field applicability of these novel samplers and monitors had been lacking. … (p. 4 print; p. 6 PDF)

There’s also a brief description of the nanoindEX project in the Introduction,

The three-year project started on June 1st, 2013, and has been funded under the frame of SIINN, the ERA-NET [European Research Area Network] for a Safe Implementation of Innovative Nanoscience and Nanotechnology [SINN]. The aim of the project was to scrutinise the instrumentation available for personal exposure assessment concerning their field readiness and usability in order to use this information to generate reliable data on personal exposure in real workplaces and to eventually widely distribute the findings among the interested public. This Guidance Document you are holding in your hands summarises the key findings of the project. (p. 5 print; p. 7 PDF)

As I understand it, the area of most concern where nanotoxicology is concerned would be inhalation of nanoparticles into the lungs as the body has fewer protections in the respiratory tract than it has elsewhere, e.g. skin or digestive system.

Lungs: EU SmartNanoTox and Pneumo NP

I have three news bits about lungs one concerning relatively new techniques for testing the impact nanomaterials may have on lungs and two concerning developments at PneumoNP; the first regarding a new technique for getting antibiotics to a lung infected with pneumonia and the second, a new antibiotic.

Predicting nanotoxicity in the lungs

From a June 13, 2016 news item on Nanowerk,

Scientists at the Helmholtz Zentrum München [German Research Centre for Environmental Health] have received more than one million euros in the framework of the European Horizon 2020 Initiative [a major European Commission science funding initiative successor to the Framework Programme 7 initiative]. Dr. Tobias Stöger and Dr. Otmar Schmid from the Institute of Lung Biology and Disease and the Comprehensive Pneumology Center (CPC) will be using the funds to develop new tests to assess risks posed by nanomaterials in the airways. This could contribute to reducing the need for complex toxicity tests.

A June 13, 2016 Helmholtz Zentrum München (German Research Centre for Environmental Health) press release, which originated the news item, expands on the theme,

Nanoparticles are extremely small particles that can penetrate into remote parts of the body. While researchers are investigating various strategies for harvesting the potential of nanoparticles for medical applications, they could also pose inherent health risks*. Currently the hazard assessment of nanomaterials necessitates a complex and laborious procedure. In addition to complete material characterization, controlled exposure studies are needed for each nanomaterial in order to guarantee the toxicological safety.

As a part of the EU SmartNanoTox project, which has now been funded with a total of eight million euros, eleven European research partners, including the Helmholtz Zentrum München, want to develop a new concept for the toxicological assessment of nanomaterials.

Reference database for hazardous substances

Biologist Tobias Stöger and physicist Otmar Schmid, both research group heads at the Institute of Lung Biology and Disease, hope that the use of modern methods will help to advance the assessment procedure. “We hope to make more reliable nanotoxicity predictions by using modern approaches involving systems biology, computer modelling, and appropriate statistical methods,” states Stöger.

The lung experts are concentrating primarily on the respiratory tract. The approach involves defining a representative selection of toxic nanomaterials and conducting an in-depth examination of their structure and the various molecular modes of action that lead to their toxicity. These data are then digitalized and transferred to a reference database for new nanomaterials. Economical tests that are easy to conduct should then make it possible to assess the toxicological potential of these new nanomaterials by comparing the test results s with what is already known from the database. “This should make it possible to predict whether or not a newly developed nanomaterial poses a health risk,” Otmar Schmid says.

* Review: Schmid, O. and Stoeger, T. (2016). Surface area is the biologically most effective dose metric for acute nanoparticle toxicity in the lung. Journal of Aerosol Science, DOI:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.12.006

The SmartNanoTox webpage is here on the European Commission’s Cordis website.

Carrying antibiotics into lungs (PneumoNP)

I received this news from the European Commission’s PneumoNP project (I wrote about PneumoNP in a June 26, 2014 posting when it was first announced). This latest development is from a March 21, 2016 email (the original can be found here on the How to pack antibiotics in nanocarriers webpage on the PneumoNP website),

PneumoNP researchers work on a complex task: attach or encapsulate antibiotics with nanocarriers that are stable enough to be included in an aerosol formulation, to pass through respiratory tracts and finally deliver antibiotics on areas of lungs affected by pneumonia infections. The good news is that they finally identify two promising methods to generate nanocarriers.

So far, compacting polymer coils into single-chain nanoparticles in water and mild conditions was an unsolved issue. But in Spain, IK4-CIDETEC scientists developed a covalent-based method that produces nanocarriers with remarkable stability under those particular conditions. Cherry on the cake, the preparation is scalable for more industrial production. IK4-CIDETEC patented the process.

Fig.: A polymer coil (step 1) compacts into a nanocarrier with cross-linkers (step 2). Then, antibiotics get attached to the nanocarrier (step 3).

Fig.: A polymer coil (step 1) compacts into a nanocarrier with cross-linkers (step 2). Then, antibiotics get attached to the nanocarrier (step 3).

At the same time, another route to produce lipidic nanocarriers have been developed by researchers from Utrecht University. In particular, they optimized the method consisting in assembling lipids directly around a drug. As a result, generated lipidic nanocarriers show encouraging stability properties and are able to carry sufficient quantity of antibiotics.

Fig.: On presence of antibiotics, the lipidic layer (step 1) aggregates the the drug (step 2) until the lipids forms a capsule around the antibiotics (step 3).

Fig.: On presence of antibiotics, a lipidic layer (step 1) aggregates the drug (step 2) until the lipids forms a capsule around antibiotics (step 3).

Assays of both polymeric and lipidic nanocarriers are currently performed by ITEM Fraunhofer Institute in Germany, Ingeniatrics Tecnologias in Spain and Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands. Part of these tests allows to make sure that the nanocarriers are not toxic to cells. Other tests are also done to verify that the efficiency of antibiotics on Klebsiella Pneumoniae bacteria when they are attached to nanocarriers.

A new antibiotic for pneumonia (PneumoNP)

A June 14, 2016 PneumoNP press release (received via email) announces work on a promising new approach to an antibiotic for pneumonia,

The antimicrobial peptide M33 may be the long-sought substitute to treat difficult lung infections, like multi-drug resistant pneumonia.

In 2013, the European Respiratory Society predicted 3 millions cases of pneumonia in Europe every year [1]. The standard treatment for pneumonia is an intravenous administration of a combination of drugs. This leads to the development of antibiotic resistance in the population. Gradually, doctors are running out of solutions to cure patients. An Italian company suggests a new option: the M33 peptide.

Few years ago, the Italian company SetLance SRL decided to investigate the M33 peptide. The antimicrobial peptide is an optimized version of an artificial peptide sequence selected for its efficacy and stability. So far, it showed encouraging in-vitro results against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, including Klebsiella Pneumoniae. With the support of EU funding to the PneumoNP project, SetLance SRL had the opportunity to develop a new formulation of M33 that enhances its antimicrobial activity.

The new formulation of M33 fights Gram-negative bacteria in three steps. First of all, the M33 binds with the lipopolysaccharides (LPS) on the outer membrane of bacteria. Then, the molecule forms a helix and finally disrupts the membrane provoking cytoplasm leaking. The peptide enabled up to 80% of mices to survive Pseudomonas Aeruginosa-based lung infections. Beyond these encouraging results, toxicity to the new M33 formulation seems to be much lower than antimicrobial peptides currently used in clinical practice like colistin [2].

Lately, SetLance scaled-up the synthesis route and is now able to produce several hundred milligrams per batch. The molecule is robust enough for industrial production. We may expect this drug to go on clinical development and validation at the beginning of 2018.

[1] http://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/acute-lower-respiratory-infections/pneumonia/
[2] Ceccherini et al., Antimicrobial activity of levofloxacin-M33 peptide conjugation or combination, Chem Med Comm. 2016; Brunetti et al., In vitro and in vivo efficacy, toxicity, bio-distribution and resistance selection of a novel antibacterial drug candidate. Scientific Reports 2016

I believe all the references are open access.

Brief final comment

The only element linking these news bits together is that they concern the lungs.

UK and US issue documents nanomaterial safety to support safe work with nanomaterials

I am featuring two bits of information about nanosafety first from the UK and then from the US.

UK and nanosafety

A May 30, 2016 news item on Nanowerk announces a not particularly exciting but necessary report on handling nanomaterials safely (Note: A link has been removed),

The UK Nanosafety Group (UKNSG) has updated and published a 2nd edition of guidance (pdf) to support safe and responsible working practices with nanomaterials in research and development laboratories.

A May 25, 2016 UK Nanosafety Group press release, which originated the news item, provides more detail,

The document aims to provide guidance on factors relating to establishing a safe workplace and good safety practice when working with particulate nanomaterials. It is applicable to a wide range of nanomaterials, including particles, fibres, powders, tubes and wires as well as aggregates and agglomerates, and recognises previous and current uncertainty in developing effective risk management when dealing with nanomaterials and advocates a precautionary strategy to minimise potential exposure.

The 2nd edition of the guidance provides updates to account for changes in legislation, recent studies in the literature, and best practice since 2012. In particular, specific sections have been revised to account for the full implementation of Global Harmonised System (GHS) which came into force on 1 June 2015 through the CLP [Classification, Labelling and Packaging] regulations. The document explains the approaches that are presently being used to select effective control measures for the management of nanomaterials, more specifically control banding tools presently in use. Significant changes can be found in the following sections: ‘Hazard Banding’, ‘Exposure Control’, ‘Toxicology’, and ‘Monitoring’.

Of relevance to employers, managers, health and safety advisors, and users of particulate nanomaterials in research and development, the guidance should be read in conjunction with the Approved Code of Practice on COSHH [Control of Substances Hazardous to Health], together with the other literature referred to in the document. The document has been produced taking account of the safety information currently available and is presented in the format of guidance and recommendations to support implementation of suitable protocols and control measures by employers and employees. It is intended that the document will be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis to keep abreast of the evolving nature of the content.

The guidance titled “Working Safely with Nanomaterials in Research & Development” is about 48 pp. and can be found here.

Tidbit about US nano environmental, health, and safety

Sylvia Palmer has written a May 27, 2016 update for ChemicalWatch on reports about or including information about environmental, health, and safety measures being taken in the US,

Three reports released recently by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) highlight the US government’ investments and initiatives in nanotechnology. They also detail current progress and the need for further understanding of exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products –and how companies can protect their nanotechnology workforce.

NNI’s Quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials (QEEN) from manufactured products: addressing environmental, health, and safety implications notes significant progress has been made in the ability to quantify nanomaterial exposures. However, it says greater understanding of exposure risks in “real-world” scenarios is needed. Alternative testing models and high-throughput methods for rapidly estimating exposures will be further explored, it adds.

You can find the report, Quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials (QEEN) from manufactured products: addressing environmental, health, and safety implications, here. Palmer’s article briefly describes the other two reports which contain information about US nano environmental, health, and safety efforts.

There is more about the three reports in an April 11, 2016 posting by Lloyd Whitman (Assistant Director for Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Treye Thomas (leader of the Chemical Hazards Program team in the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Coordinator for Environmental, Health, and Safety Research under the National Nanotechnology Initiative) on the White House blog,

The recently released NNI Supplement to the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017, which serves as the annual report for the NNI, highlights the programs and coordinated activities taking place across the many departments, independent agencies, and commissions participating today in the NNI—an initiative that continues to serve as a model for effective coordination of Federal science and technology R&D. As detailed in this report, nanoEHS activities continue to account for about 10 percent of the annual NNI budget, with cumulative Federal R&D investments in this area exceeding $1 billion over the past decade. This report includes descriptions of a wide variety of individual agency and coordinated activities supporting the responsible development of nanotechnology.

To understand and control the risks of using any new materials in consumer products, it is important to understand the potential for exposure and any associated hazards across product life cycles. Last month, the NNI released a report, Quantifying Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials (QEEN) from Manufactured Products: Addressing Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications, summarizing a workshop on this topic sponsored by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The main goals of the workshop were to assess progress in developing tools and methods for quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials across the product life cycle, and to identify new research needed to advance exposure assessment for nanotechnology-enabled products. …

The technical experts who participated in CPSC’s workshop recommended that future work focus on the complex issue of determining biomarkers of exposure linked to disease, which will require substantive public–private collaboration, partnership, and knowledge sharing. Recognizing these needs, the President’s 2017 Budget request for CPSC includes funds for a new nanotechnology center led by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to develop test methods and to quantify and characterize the presence, release, and mechanisms of consumer exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products. This cost-effective, interagency collaboration will enable CPSC—through NIEHS—to collect the needed data to inform the safety of nanotechnology in consumer products and allow CPSC to benefit from NIEHS’s scientific network and experience.

Managing EHS risks across a product’s lifecycle includes protecting the workers who manufacture those products. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has issued a series of documents providing guidance to this emerging industry, including the recently released publication Building a Safety Program to Protect the Nanotechnology Workforce: A Guide for Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises. This guide provides business owners with the tools necessary to develop and implement a written health and safety program to protect their employees.

Whitman also mentions a June 2016 international conference in the context of this news,

The responsible development of nanotechnology is a goal that the United States shares with many countries. The United States and the European Union are engaged in notable cooperation on this front. European and American scientists engaged in nanoEHS research convene annually for a joint workshop to identify areas of shared interest and mechanisms for collaboration to advance nanoEHS science. The 2016 joint workshop will be held on June 6–7, 2016 in Arlington, VA, and is free and open to the public. …

Open access to nanoparticles and nanocomposites

One of the major issues for developing nanotechnology-enabled products is access to nanoparticles and nanocomposites. For example, I’ve had a number of requests from entrepreneurs for suggestions as to how to access cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) so they can develop a product idea. (It’s been a few years since the last request and I hope that means it’s easier to get access to CNC.)

Regardless, access remains a problem and the European Union has devised a solution which allows open access to nanoparticles and nanocomposites through project Co-Pilot. The announcement was made in a May 10, 2016 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

“What opportunities does the nanotechnology provide in general, provide nanoparticles for my products and processes?” So far, this question cannot be answered easily. Preparation and modification of nanoparticles and the further processing require special technical infrastructure and complex knowledge. For small and medium businesses the construction of this infrastructure “just on luck” is often not worth it. Even large companies shy away from the risks. As a result many good ideas just stay in the drawer.

A simple and open access to high-class infrastructure for the reliable production of small batches of functionalized nanoparticles and nanocomposites for testing could ease the way towards new nano-based products for chemical and pharmaceutical companies. The European Union has allocated funds for the construction of a number of pilot lines and open-access infrastructure within the framework of the EU project CoPilot.

A May 9, 2016 Fraunhofer-Institut für Silicatforschung press release, which originated the news item, offers greater description,

A simple and open access to high-class infrastructure for the reliable production of small batches of functionalized nanoparticles and nanocomposites for testing could ease the way towards new nano-based products for chemical and pharmaceutical companies. The European Union has allocated funds for the construction of a number of pilot lines and open-access infrastructure within the framework of the EU project CoPilot. A consortium of 13 partners from research and industry, including nanotechnology specialist TNO from the Netherlands and the Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research ISC from Wuerzburg, Germany as well as seven nanomaterial manufacturers, is currently setting up the pilot line in Wuerzburg. First, they establish the particle production, modification and compounding on pilot scale based on four different model systems. The approach enables maximum variability and flexibility for the pilot production of various particle systems and composites. Two further open access lines will be established at TNO in Eindhoven and at the Sueddeutsche Kunststoffzentrum SKZ in Selb.

The “nanoparticle kitchen”

Essential elements of the pilot line in Wuerzburg are the particle synthesis in batches up to 100 liters, modification and separation methods such as semi-continuous operating centrifuge and in-line analysis and techniques for the uniform and agglomeration free incorporation of nanoparticles into composites. Dr. Karl Mandel, head of Particle Technology of Fraunhofer ISC, compares the pilot line with a high-tech kitchen: “We provide the top-notch equipment and the star chefs to synthesize a nano menu à la carte as well as nanoparticles according to individual requests. Thus, companies can test their own receipts – or our existing receipts – before they practice their own cooking or set up their nano kitchen.”

In the future, the EU project offers companies a contact point if they want to try their nano idea and require enough material for sampling and estimation of future production costs. This can, on the one hand, minimize the development risk, on the other hand, it maximizes the flexibility and production safety. To give lots of companies the opportunity to influence direction and structure/formation/setup of the nanoparticle kitchen, the project partners will offer open meetings on a regular basis.

I gather Co-Pilot has been offering workshops. The next is in July 2016 according to the press release,

The next workshop in this context takes place at Fraunhofer ISC in Wuerzburg, 7h July 2016. The partners present the pilot line and the first results of the four model systems – double layered hydroxide nanoparticle polymer composites for flame inhibiting fillers, titanium dioxide nanoparticles for high refractive index composites, magnetic particles for innovative catalysts and hollow silica composites for anti-glare coatings. Interested companies can find more information about the upcoming workshop on the website of the project www.h2020copilot.eu and on the website of Fraunhofer ISC www.isc.fraunhofer.de that hosts the event.

I tracked down a tiny bit more information about the July 2016 workshop in a May 2, 2016 Co-Pilot press release,

On July 7 2016, the CoPilot project partners give an insight view of the many new functionalization and applications of tailored nanoparticles in the workshop “The Nanoparticle Kitchen – particles und functions à la carte”, taking place in Wuerzburg, Germany. Join the Fraunhofer ISC’s lab tour of the “Nanoparticle Kitchen”, listen to the presentations of research institutes and industry and discuss your ideas with experts. Nanoparticles offer many options for today’s and tomorrow’s products.

More about program and registration soon on this [CoPilot] website!

I wonder if they’re considering this open access to nanoparticles and nanocomposites approach elsewhere?

A step toward commercializing smart windows with electrochromic film

A Dec. 4, 2015 news item on phys.org has reawakened my dream of electrochromic (smart) windows,

EC [electrochromic] film devices have been hampered in making the move from research to innovation by a number of technical and economic obstacles. EELICON [Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Comfort by Smart Light Transmittance Control] aims to overcome these obstacles by removing equipment limitations, automating processes, and validating a possible high-throughput prototype production process for a cost-effective, high-performance EC film technology.

Retrofitting windows with an electrically dimmable plastic film is a dream that is finally coming close to fruition. According to life cycle assessment studies, considerable energy savings may result when such films are included in architectural glazing, appliance doors, aircraft cabin windows, and vehicle sunroofs; and user comfort is enhanced as well.

The EU [European Union]-funded EELICON (Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Comfort by Smart Light Transmittance Control) project is focusing on an innovative switchable light transmittance technology that was developed in a project previously co-funded by the EU Framework Programmes. The project developed mechanically flexible and light-weight electrochromic (EC) film devices based on a conductive polymer nanocomposite technology with a property profile far beyond the current state-of-the art.

A Dec. 3, 2015 CORDIS (EU Community Research and Development Service) press release, which originated the news item, features an interview with the project coordinator and manager,

Dr. Uwe Posset, project coordinator and Expert Group Manager at ZfAE – Center for Applied Electrochemistry, Fraunhofer ISC, discusses the project’s achievements so far.

Do you have any results to show regarding the objectives that you have defined?

We are indeed working on a demonstration line to roll out a possible production process for electrochromic (EC) films, i.e. plastic films that can change colour upon application of a small voltage. Such films can be used to create smart windows for the control of sunlight and glare in buildings and vehicles. This technology is known to have the potential to save substantial amounts of energy for air conditioning. Darkening the film will decrease heat gain in the interior while maintaining the view through the window. The film provides possibilities to retrofit existing windows.

Do you have results from a life cycle assessment (LCA)?

Yes. The results essentially show that the targeted film technology can be produced with less primary energy than a standard EC window. We are currently working on extending the LCA to demonstrate the energy saving potential of the EC film during the use phase.

How much do you expect the technology to cost? How competitive will it be with existing technologies (e.g. price/performance)?

We target a price level of 200 €/m2, which is about a factor of 4 less than standard EC windows based on glass. To be really competitive, an even lower price may be required, but 200 €/m2 is usually discussed in the community as a threshold price for competitiveness. A full performance evaluation is currently in progress. According to discussions with potential end-users, producers and customers, price is the major driver, while some performance aspects may be negotiable, depending on the application.

How easy or difficult will the technology be to commercialise?

It is a complex process presumably requiring an industrial development phase of 2-3 years after the end of the project and substantial investment (currently estimated: €10 million).

Which are the most promising application areas?

Smart windows for energy-efficient buildings, vehicle sunroofs, smart aircraft cabin windows, switchable appliance doors, smart eyewear and visors.

What are the main benefits provided by the technology (any quantitative data would be welcome in addition to a qualitative description)?

There are many benefits. What we are developing is a film-based technology suitable for window integration and retrofitting. It will have short switching times (<1 min as compared to 10-15 min for state-of-the-art EC windows), and most importantly cost-effective, high-throughput production will be possible (roll-to-roll manufacturing).

Our technology will also have a higher bleached state visual light transmittance as compared to state-of-the-art EC windows (60-65 % vs. 50-55 %); a lower darkened state visual light transmittance as compared to state-of-the-art EC windows (5-10 % vs. 10-15 %); it will be fully colourless (“neutral tint”) bleached state with no residual colour or hue.; it will have an appreciable g-value modulation as opposed to liquid crystal-based smart window film technologies; it is mechanically rugged; and it has a large thermal operation range (-25 to +60 °C).

Once the project is completed, what will be the next steps? How do you see the technology evolving in the future?

We will then have to focus on industrial development – scaling from pilot to production scale. Huge markets will become accessible in the future if the price target can be met and minimum performance requirements are fulfilled.

You can find out more about EELICON here.

I’m glad to see they’re finding a way to make the technology affordable and that they’ve tackled the ‘ruggedness’ issue; see my Oct. 9, 2015 posting about smart windows and their need for anti-aging treatment (apparently the windows are prone to mechanical failures over time).

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.

Authors

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.

RESULT:

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.