Tag Archives: Lynn L. Bergeson

Nanosunscreen in swimming pools

Leave a reply

Thanks to Lynn L. Bergeson’s Sept. 21, 2016 posting for information about the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research into what happens to the nanoparticles when your nanosunscreen washes off into a swimming pool. Bergeson’s post points to an Aug. 15, 2016 EPA blog posting by Susanna Blair,

… It’s not surprising that sunscreens are detected in pool water (after all, some is bound to wash off when we take a dip), but certain sunscreens have also been widely detected in our ecosystems and in our wastewater. So how is our sunscreen ending up in our environment and what are the impacts?

Well, EPA researchers are working to better understand this issue, specifically investigating sunscreens that contain engineered nanomaterials and how they might change when exposed to the chemicals in pool water [open access paper but you need to register for free] … But before I delve into that, let’s talk a bit about sunscreen chemistry and nanomaterials….

Blair goes on to provide a good brief description of  nanosunscreens before moving onto her main topic,

Many sunscreens contain titanium dioxide (TiO2) because it absorbs UV radiation, preventing it from damaging our skin. But titanium dioxide decomposes into other molecules when in the presence of water and UV radiation. This is important because one of the new molecules produced is called a singlet oxygen reactive oxygen species. These reactive oxygen species have been shown to cause extensive cell damage and even cell death in plants and animals. To shield skin from reactive oxygen species, titanium dioxide engineered nanomaterials are often coated with other materials such as aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3).

EPA researchers are testing to see whether swimming pool water degrades the aluminum hydroxide coating, and if the extent of this degradation is enough to allow the production of potentially harmful reactive oxygen species. In this study, the coated titanium dioxide engineered nanomaterials were exposed to pool water for time intervals ranging from 45 minutes to 14 days, followed by imaging using an electron microscope.  Results show that after 3 days, pool water caused the aluminum hydroxide coating to degrade, which can reduce the coating’s protective properties and increase the potential toxicity.  To be clear, even with degraded coating, the toxicity measured from the coated titanium dioxide, was significantly less [emphasis mine] than the uncoated material. So in the short-term – in the amount of time one might wear sunscreen before bathing and washing it off — these sunscreens still provide life-saving protection against UV radiation. However, the sunscreen chemicals will remain in the environment considerably longer, and continue to degrade as they are exposed to other things.

…

Blair finishes by explaining that research is continuing as the EPA researches the whole life cycle of engineered nanomaterials.

Canada’s consultation on nanoscale forms of substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL)

Leave a reply

Yes, there’s a redundancy in the head but there doesn’t seem to be a way around it. Ah well, it seems about seven weeks after Peter Julian (Member of Parliament) introduced his bill in the Canadian House of Commons to regulate nanotechnology (Aug. 29, 2016 posting), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada (HC) have announced a consultation on nanoscale materials. From an Aug. 4, 2016 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson on Nanotechnology Now (Note: Links have been removed),

On July 27, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada (HC) began a consultation on a proposed prioritization approach for nanoscale forms of substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL). See http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=FA3C8DBF-1 Canada will use the proposed approach to: (1) establish a list of existing nanomaterials in Canada for prioritization; (2) identify how the information available will be used to inform prioritization of nanomaterials for risk assessment; and (3) outline the proposed outcomes of the prioritization process. In 2015, Canada conducted a mandatory survey under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). The survey applied to persons who manufactured or imported any of 206 nanomaterials at a quantity greater than 100 kilograms (kg) during the 2014 calendar year. See http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/default.asp?lang=En&n=28ABBAC9-1%20-%20s1 Based on the results of the survey, ECCC and HC will prepare a final list of confirmed existing nanomaterials in Canada and will use the list for subsequent prioritization. ECCC and HC propose that, where possible, the substances identified via the survey be “rolled up into” their broader parent nanomaterial groups for the purposes of prioritization. According to ECCC and HC, this will allow, when possible, a more robust look at the hazard, volume, and use data as appropriate, rather than considering an individual substance-by-substance approach. ECCC and HC state that further consideration for sub-grouping (such as by use, unique property, or functionalization) may need to be considered for prioritization and/or risk assessment. …

You can find the Government of Canada’s 2015 Consultation Document: Proposed Approach to Address Nanoscale Forms of Substances on the Domestic Substances List page here, which set the stage for this prioritization exercise.

You can also find the Proposed prioritization approach for nanoscale forms of substances on the Domestic substances list page here where you’ll find information such as this,

Possible nanomaterial groupings, based on parent substance

Aluminum oxide
Iron (II)/(II/III) oxide
Modified silica
Bismuth oxide
Magnesium oxide
Silicon oxide
Calcium carbonate
Manganese (II & III) oxide
Silver
Cerium oxide
Nanocellulose
Titanium dioxide
Cobalt (II) oxide
Nanoclays
Yttrium oxide
Copper (II) oxide
Nickel (II) oxide
Zinc oxide
Gold
Quantum dots
Zirconium oxide

You can also find information on how to submit comments,

Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on the content of this consultation document and provide other information that would help inform decision making. Please submit comments to one of the addresses provided below by September 25, 2016 [emphasis mine]. ECCC and HC will respond to comments and adapt the proposed approach based on the feedback received on this document, as described in Section 1.2.

Comments on this consultation document can be submitted to one of the following addresses:

By Mail:
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Substances Management Information Line
Chemicals Management Plan
351 St. Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Québec
K1A 0H3

By Email:
eccc.substances.eccc@canada.ca
Please type “Consultation on Prioritization Approach for Nanomaterials” in the subject line of your message.

By Fax:
819-938-5212

Suddenly, there’s lots (relative to the last few years) of action on nanotechnology regulation in Canada.

Everything old is new again: Canadian Parliament holds first reading of another bill to regulate nanotechnlogy

Leave a reply

Back in March 2010, Canadian New Democratic Party (NDP) Member of Parliament (MP) Peter Julian introduced a bill to regulate nanotechnology (Bill C-494) in Canada. The Conservative government was in power at the time. I can’t remember how many readings it received but it never did get passed into legislation. Now, Mr. Julian is trying again and, coincidentally or not, the Liberals are in power this time. A July 26, 2016 post by Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton for the National Law Review (Note: Links have been removed),

On June 8, 2016, the Canadian House of Commons held its first reading of an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (nanotechnology) (C-287).  The bill would add Part 6.1 to CEPA primarily to implement procedures for the investigation and assessment of nanomaterials. …

…

The bill would define nanomaterial as any manufactured substance or product or any component material, ingredient, device or structure that:  (a) is within the nanoscale (one nanometer (nm) up to and including 100 nm), in at least one external dimension; or (b) if it is not within the nanoscale, exhibits one or more properties that are attributable to the size of a substance and size effects.  The bill mandates a risk assessment process to identify the potential benefits and possible risks of nanotechnologies before nanoproducts enter the market.  It would also create a national inventory regarding nanotechnology, including nanomaterials and nanoparticles, using information collected under CEPA Sections 46 and 71 and “any other information to which the Ministers have access.” On July 25, 2015, Canada published a notice announcing a mandatory survey under CEPA Section 71(1)(b) with respect to certain nanomaterials in Canadian commerce.  …

I do have a few observations about the proposed bill. First, it’s more specific than what we have in place now. As I understand current CEPA regulations, they do not cover materials at the nanoscale which are already imported and/or produced at the macroscale and are considered safe, e.g. titanium dioxide. It is assumed that if they’re safe at the macroscale, they will be safe at the nanoscale. I gather this bill is designed to change that status.

Second, there is no mention in Julian’s press release (text to follow) of the joint Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Nanotechnology Initiative which was designed to harmonize US and Canadian regulatory approaches to nanotechnology. Would bill C-287 introduce less harmony or was it designed to harmonize our approaches?

Third, I don’t see a big problem with the idea of an inventory, the issue is always implementation.

Finally, it appears that this bill means more bureaucrats or computerized systems and I’m not sure it addresses the problem that I believe it is trying to address: how to deal with uncertainty about the risks and hazards of an emerging technology while meeting demands for economic progress.

Very finally, here’s Peter Julian’s June 8, 2016 press release,

Julian’s bill to include Nanotechnology under Environmental Protection Act

…

You can watch the video here: https://peterjulian.ca/Introduction_of_Private_Member_Bill_C287_An_Act_t…

OTTAWA – Today [June 8, 2016], Peter Julian, MP (New Westminster-Burnaby) re-introduced Bill C-287 in the House of Commons, which aims to include a framework that would regulate nanotechnology in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

“I first introduced this Bill in 2010. I am pleased to see that some of the aspects of this Bill are being considered by Health Canada and Environment Canada, such as the development of a registry for nanomaterials in commerce and use in Canada. However, there is much more that needs to be done to ensure the responsible use of nanotechnologies in Canada”, said Julian.

Nanotechnology is the application of science and technology to manipulate matter at the atomic or molecular level. Nanomaterials are any ingredient, device, or structure that is between 1 and 100 nm. These materials are present in more than 1000 consumer products, including food and cosmetics. The increasing proliferation of nanoproducts has not been met with an adequate regulatory framework.

Julian’s Bill C-287 would establish a balanced approach ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology and the safe use off nanomaterials in Canada. The Bill mandates a risk assessment process to identify the potential benefits and possible risks of nanotechnologies before nanoproducts enter the market. It would also require a comprehensive, publicly accessible database that lists existing nanomaterials identified by the Government of Canada.

“While nanotechnology can be very beneficial to people, there are certain risks to it as well. We must identify and mitigate possible risks to better protect the environment and human health before they become an issue. Canada must ensure our regulatory processes ensure nanomaterial safety before the introduction of these substances in Canada”, said Julian.

I’m including links to my 2010 email interview with Peter Julian (published in three parts),

March 24, 2010 (Part one)

March 25, 2010 (Part two)

March 26, 2010 (Part three)

I also covered a hearing on nanomaterials and safety held by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Health on June 10, 2010 in a June 23, 2010 posting.

Two nano workshops precede OpenTox Euro conference

Leave a reply

The main conference OpenTox Euro is focused on novel materials and it’s being preceded by two nano workshops. All of of these events will be taking place in Germany in Oct. 2016. From an Aug. 11, 2016 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson on Nanotechnology Now,

The OpenTox Euro Conference, “Integrating Scientific Evidence Supporting Risk Assessment and Safer Design of Novel Substances,” will be held October 26-28, 2016. … The current topics for the Conference include: (1) computational modeling of mechanisms at the nanoscale; (2) translational bioinformatics applied to safety assessment; (3) advances in cheminformatics; (4) interoperability in action; (5) development and application of adverse outcome pathways; (6) open science applications showcase; (7) toxicokinetics and extrapolation; and (8) risk assessment.

On Oct. 24, 2016, two days before OpenTox Euro, the EU-US Nano EHS [Environmental Health and Safety] 2016 workshop will be held in Germany. The theme is: ‘Enabling a Sustainable Harmonised Knowledge Infrastructure supporting Nano Environmental and Health Safety Assessment’ and the objectives are,

The objective of the workshop is to facilitate networking, knowledge sharing and idea development on the requirements and implementation of a sustainable knowledge infrastructure for Nano Environmental and Health Safety Assessment and Communications. The infrastructure should support the needs required by different stakeholders including scientific researchers, industry, regulators, workers and consumers.

The workshop will also identify funding opportunities and financial models within and beyond current international and national programs. Specifically, the workshop will facilitate active discussions but also identify potential partners for future EU-US cooperation on the development of knowledge infrastructure in the NanoEHS field. Advances in the Nano Safety harmonisation process, including developing an ongoing working consensus on data management and ontology, will be discussed:

– Information needs of stakeholders and applications
– Data collection and management in the area of NanoEHS
– Developments in ontologies supporting NanoEHS goals
– Harmonisation efforts between EU and US programs
– Identify practice and infrastructure gaps and possible solutions
– Identify needs and solutions for different stakeholders
– Propose an overarching sustainable solution for the market and society

The presentations will be focused on the current efforts and concrete achievements within EU and US initiatives and their potential elaboration and extension.

The second workshop is being held by the eNanoMapper (ENM) project on Oct. 25, 2016 and concerns Nano Modelling. The objectives and workshop sessions are:

1. Give the opportunity to research groups working on computational nanotoxicology to disseminate their modelling tools based on hands-on examples and exercises
2. Present a collection of modelling tools that can span the entire lifecycle of nanotox research, starting from the design of experiments until use of models for risk assessment in biological and environmental systems.
3. Engage the workshop participants in using different modelling tools and motivate them to contribute and share their knowledge.

Indicative workshop sessions

• Preparation of datasets to be used for modelling and risk assessment
• Ontologies and databases
• Computation of theoretical descriptors
• NanoQSAR Modelling
• Ab-initio modelling
• Mechanistic modelling
• Modelling based on Omics data
• Filling data gaps-Read Across
• Risk assessment
• Experimental design

We would encourage research teams that have developed tools in the areas of computational nanotoxicology and risk assessment to demonstrate their tools in this workshop.

That’s going to be a very full week in Germany.

You can register for OpenTox Euro and more here.

Two European surveys on disposal practices for manufactured nano-objects

Leave a reply

Lynn L. Bergeson’s Aug. 10, 2016 post on Nanotechnology Now announces two surveys (one for producers of nanoscale objects and one for waste disposal companies) being conducted by the European Commission,

Under European Commission (EC) funding, the European Committee for Standardization Technical Committee (CEN/TC) 352 — Nanotechnologies is developing guidelines relating to the safe waste management and disposal of deliberately manufactured nano-objects.

Tatiana Correia has written a July 15, 2016 description of the committee’s surveys for Innovate UK Network,

Under  the European Commission funding, CEN TC 352 European standardisation committee  are  developing guidelines relating to the safe waste management and  disposal of deliberately manufactured nano-objects. These are discrete pieces  of  material with one or more dimensions in the nanoscale(1). These may  also  be  referred  to  as  nanoparticles,  quantum  dots, nanofibres, nanotubes  and  nanoplates.  The  guidelines  will provide guidance for all waste  management  activities  from  the  manufacturing  and  processing of manufactured  nano-objects  (MNOs). In order to ensure that the context for this  document  is  correct,  it  is useful to gain an insight into current practice in the disposal of MNOs.

Here’s a link to the Questionnaire relating to current disposal practice for Manufactured Nano-objects in Waste – Companies manufacturing or processing manufactured nano-objects and to the Questionnaire relating to current disposal practice for Manufactured Nano-objects in Waste – Waste disposal companies.

The deadline for both surveys is Sept. 5, 2016.

European Commission okays use of nanoscale titanium dioxide in cosmetics and beauty products (sunscreens)

Leave a reply

Lynn L. Bergeson has a July 21, 2016 post on Nanotechnology Now with information about a July 14, 2016 European Commission (EC) regulation allowing nanoscale titanium dioxide to be used as a UV (ultraviolet) filter, i.e., sunscreen in various cosmetic and beauty products. You can find more details about the regulation and where it can be found in Bergeson’s posting. I was most interested in the specifics about the nano titanium dioxide particles,

… Titanium dioxide (nano) is not to be used in applications that may lead to exposure of the end user’s lungs by inhalation. Only nanomaterials having the following characteristics are allowed:
– Purity ¡Ý [sic] 99 percent;
– Rutile form, or rutile with up to 5 percent anatase, with crystalline structure and physical appearance as clusters of spherical, needle, or lanceolate shapes;
– Median particle size based on number size distribution ¡Ý [sic] 30 nanometers (nm);
– Aspect ratio from 1 to 4.5, and volume specific surface area ¡Ü [sic] 460 square meters per cubic meter (m2/cm3);
– Coated with silica, hydrated silica, alumina, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum stearate, stearic acid, trimethoxycaprylylsilane, glycerin, dimethicone, hydrogen dimethicone, or simethicone;
– Photocatalytic activity ¡Ü [sic] 10 percent compared to corresponding non-coated or non-doped reference, and
– Nanoparticles are photostable in the final formulation.

I’m guessing that purity should be greater than 99%, that median particle size should be greater than 30 nm, that aspect ratio should be less than 460 square meters per cubic meter, and that photocatalytic activity should be less than 10%.

If anyone should know better or have access to the data, please do let me know in the comments section.

European Commission (EC) responds to a 2014 petition calling for a European Union (EU)-wide ban on microplastics and nanoparticles

Leave a reply

Lynn Bergeson’s July 12, 2016 posting on Nanotechnology Now features information about the European Commission’s response to a petition to ban the use of microplastics and nanoparticles throughout the European Union,

On June 29, 2016, the European Commission (EC) provided a notice to the European Parliament regarding its response to a 2014 petition calling for a European Union (EU)-wide ban on microplastics and nanoparticles. … In its response, the EC states that nanoparticles “are ubiquitous in the environment,” and while some manufactured nanomaterials may potentially be carcinogenic, others are not. The EC states that the general regulatory framework on chemicals, along with the sectoral legislation, “are appropriate to assess and manage the risks from nanomaterials, provided that a case-by-case assessment is performed.” The EC notes that the need to modify the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation to include more specific requirements for nanomaterials was identified. According to the EC, a final impact assessment of the proposed changes is being prepared, and the modification of technical REACH Annexes to include specific considerations for nanomaterials is planned for early 2017. The EC states that it created a web portal intended to improve communication regarding nanomaterials, and that this web portal will soon be superseded by the EU Nano Observatory, which will be managed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

I was imagining the petition was made by a consortium of civil society groups but it seems it was initiated by an individual, Ludwig Bühlmeier. You can find the notice of the petition here and the petition itself (PDF) here. I believe the still current EC portal “… intended to improve communication regarding nanomaterials …” is the JRC (Joint Research Centre) Web Platform on Nanomaterials.