Tag Archives: nanosunscreens

Amid controversies, Australian government spends big bucks on Australian Institute for Nanoscience

Leave a reply

Kim Carr, Australia’s Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, delivered  an extraordinary speech, by Canadian standard (ours tend to remarkable blandness), at the sod-turning event for the new Australian Institute for Nanoscience (AIN) due to open in May 2015. Before getting to the speech, here’s a bit more about the event from a July 24, 2013 news item on Global Times,

Australian government will deliver a fund for the new Australian Institute for Nanoscience ( AIN) which will open in May 2015 to boost its research of nanotechnology, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Kim Carr confirmed in a statement after breaking the ground for the new facility at the University of Sydney on Wednesday.

…

The AIN project is a major new building combining research laboratories with teaching facilities to drive cross-disciplinary collaboration to develop nanomaterials and devices.

The July 24, 2013 Australian government media release about the AIN sod-turning provides more details about the government’s investment in the institute and its backing of nanoscience/nanotechnology research,

Senator Kim Carr said the Australian Government’s $40 million contribution, through the Education Investment Fund, to assist in the facility’s construction backs in Labor’s commitment to giving our researchers the tools they need to pursue world-leading work.

…

“Nanotechnology is a transformative force for manufacturing and is predicted to be worth $US3 trillion globally by 2020. Australia needs to stake a claim to our slice of that pie now, by building well-researched prototypes for the market. AIN will help make that happen and keep Australian research internationally competitive.”

Senator Carr said AIN will increase our national research capability by bringing together world-class nanoscience researchers across three main areas:

  • New medical diagnostics and therapies combining quantum technology with imaging and drug delivery and solutions such as a fully implantable bionic eye;
  • Faster, more secure and more efficient communications based on photonics and quantum science technologies; and
  • Revolutionary optical instrumentation to explore the frontiers of our universe, along with faster data processing technologies for the SKA.

I’m not sure where Carr got the “… worth $US3 trillion globally by 2020” number for nanotechnology’s impact on the global economy. More interesting to me, are these comments from Carr’s speech (you can find the entire speech here),

It is a great pleasure to share in the progress of the Australian Institute for Nanoscience here at Sydney University.

Three years have passed since I announced the funding for this facility:

$40 million from the Federal Government;

backed by $71 million from the university;

and a further $20 million from other sources, including the New South Wales government, the Australian National Fabrication Facility; the ARC’s CUDOS; the Australian Astronomical Observatory and Bandwidth Foundry International.

It was one of the many projects made possible by the Education Investment Fund – which, over three rounds, secured a total of $3.5 billion in new research infrastructure for a federal contribution of $1.5 billion.

This is an impressive return on investment.

At that time, this was the sort of research guaranteed to bring out the anti-science crowd.

There were beat-ups in the press, demonstrations in universities, and scare campaigns run on worksites. [emphasis mine]

It was as if the Enlightenment had never happened. It was as if nanoscience was some kind of global conspiracy to kill us all with sunscreen. [emphasis mine]

But I saw this project differently. And I put my views on the record at the time this investment was announced.

As I said back then:

“I don’t begin by saying “this is too strange” or “this is too hard”. I don’t begin by saying “no”.

I begin by asking, “what’s in it for Australia?” – “what’s in it for the people we serve?” – and “how can we make this work?”

…

The speech continues with a very optimistic view of all the economic benefits to be derived from an investment in nanoscience/nanotechnology.

Given the extreme lack of interest in Canada and its very odd (or perhaps it’s a harbinger of the future?) almost unknown National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT), which exists on a NINT University of Alberta website and on a NINT National Research Council website, the “beat-ups in the press, etc.” provide a fascinating and contrasting socio-cultural perspective. The difference is perhaps due to a very active, both in Australia and internationally, Friends of the Earth group.

Friends of the Earth Australia campaigned long (years) and hard against nanosunscreens in a leadup to some rather disturbing survey findings in 2012 (my Feb. 9, 2012 posting) where some 13% of Australians, first reported as 17%,  didn’t use any sunscreens whatsoever, due to their fear of ‘nanosunscreens’.

Kim Carr has been mentioned here before in an Aug. 26, 2011 posting which highlighted a study showing  Australians held positive (?) attitudes towards nanotechnology and those attitudes had gotten more positive over time. My guess, not having looked at the study, is that the study focussed on areas where people usually express positive attitudes (e. g. better health care with less invasive medical procedures) and not on environmental issues (e.g. nanosilver in your clothing washing off and ending up in the water supply).

I do love how elected officials, the world over, pick and choose their ‘facts’.

Natural and engineered nanoparticles in an Orion magazine podcast & in a NanoBosc machinima piece

Leave a reply

The Jan. 16, 2013 Orion magazine podcast discussion (more about that later) regarding safety and engineered and natural nanoparticles arose from an article (worth reading) by Heather Millar in the magazine’s January/February 2013 issue, Pandora’s Boxes.

For anyone familiar with the term ‘Pandora’s box’, Millar’s and the magazine’s bias is made clear immediately, nanoparticles are small and threatening. From the Pandora’s box Wikipedia essay,

Today, the phrase “to open Pandora’s box” means to perform an action that may seem small or innocuous, but that turns out to have severe and far-reaching consequences. [emphases mine]

Millar’s article is well written and offers some excellent explanations. For example, there’s this from Pandora’s Boxes,

So chemistry and physics work differently if you’re a nanoparticle. You’re not as small as an atom or a molecule, but you’re also not even as big as a cell, so you’re definitely not of the macro world either. You exist in an undiscovered country somewhere between the molecular and the macroscopic. Here, the laws of the very small (quantum mechanics) merge quirkily with the laws of the very large (classical physics). Some say nanomaterials bring a third dimension to chemistry’s periodic table, because at the nano scale, long-established rules and groupings don’t necessarily hold up.

Then, she has some dodgier material,

Yet size seems to be a double-edged sword in the nanoverse. Because nanoparticles are so small, they can slip past the body’s various barriers: skin, the blood-brain barrier, the lining of the gut and airways. Once inside, these tiny particles can bind to many things. They seem to build up over time, especially in the brain. Some cause inflammation and cell damage. Preliminary research shows this can harm the organs of lab animals, though the results of some of these studies are a matter of debate.

Some published research has shown that inhaled nanoparticles actually become more toxic as they get smaller. Nano–titanium dioxide, one of the most commonly used nanoparticles (Pop-Tarts, sunblock), has been shown to damage DNA in animals and prematurely corrode metals. Carbon nanotubes seem to penetrate lungs even more deeply than asbestos. [emphases mine]

I think it’s worth ‘unpacking’ these two paragraphs, so here goes.  Slipping past the body’s barriers is a lot more difficult than Millar suggests in the first paragraph. My July 4, 2012 posting on breakthough research  where they penetrated the skin barrier includes this comment from me,

After all the concerns  about nanosunscreens and nanoparticles penetrating the skin raised by civil society groups, the Friends of the Earth in particular, it’s interesting to note that doctors and scientists consider penetration of the skin barrier to be extremely difficult. Of course, they seem to have solved [as of July 2012] that problem which means the chorus of concerns may rise to new heights.

I had a followup in my Oct.3, 2012 posting titled, Can nanoparticles pass through the skin or not?, suggesting there’s still a lot of confusion about this topic even within the scientific community.

Moving on to the other ‘breaches’. As I recall, there was a recent  (Autumn 2012?) nanomedicine research announcement that the blood-brain barrier was breached by nanoparticles. I haven’t yet encountered any mention of breaching the gut and I mention lungs in my next paragraph where I discuss carbon nanotubes.

As for that second paragraph, it’s an example of scaremongering. ‘Inhaled nanoparticles become more toxic as their size decreases’—ok. Why mention nano-titanium oxide in pop tarts and sunblocks, which are not inhaled, in the followup sentence? As for the reference to DNA damage and corroded metals further on, this is straight out of the Friends of the Earth literature which often cites research in a misleading fashion including those two pieces.  There is research supporting part of Millar’s statement about carbon nanotubes—provided they are long and multiwalled. In fact, as they get shorter, the resemblance to asbestos fibers in the lungs or elsewhere seems to disappear as per my Aug 22, 2012 posting and my Jan. 16, 2013 posting.

You don’t need to read the article before listening to the fascinating Jan. 16, 2013 Orion magazine podcast with Millar (reading portions of her article) and expert guests, Mark Wiesner from Duke University and director of their Center for Environmental Implications of Nano Technology (CEINT was first mentioned in my April 15, 2011 posting), Ronald Sandler from Northeastern University and author of Nanotechnology: The Social And Ethical Issues, and Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment.

The discussion between Wiesner, Sandler, and Hanson about engineered and natural nanoparticles is why I’ve called the podcast fascinating. Hearing these experts ‘fence’ with each other highlights the complexities and subtleties inherent in discussions about emerging technologies (nano or other) and risk. Millar did not participate in that aspect of the conversation and I imagine that’s due to the fact that she has only been researching this area for six months while the other speakers all have several years worth experience individually and, I suspect, may have debated each other previously.

At the risk of enthusing too much about naturally occurring nanoparticles, I’m mentioning, again (my Feb. 1, 2013 posting), the recently published book by Nanowiki, Nanoparticles Before Nanotechnology, in the context of the stunning visual images used to illustrate the book. I commented previously about them and Victor Puntes of the Inorganic Nanoparticles Group at the Catalan Institute of Nanotechnology (ICN) and one of the creators of this imagery, kindly directed me to a machinima piece (derived from the NanoBosc Second Life community) which is the source for the imagery. Here it is,

NanoBosc from Per4mance MetaLES ..O.. on Vimeo.

Happy Weekend!

Flesh-eating fungus, ivy and other inspirations from nature

Leave a reply

Michael Berger has featured Dr. Mingjun Zhang’s team’s fascinating work on flesh-eating fungus in a Dec. 18, 2012 Spotlight article on Nanowerk,

“Most studies on naturally occurring organic nanoparticles have focused on higher organisms,” Mingjun Zhang, an associate professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, tells Nanowerk. “Given the earth’s rich biological diversity, it is reasonable to hypothesize that naturally occurring nanoparticles, of various forms and functions, may be produced by a wide range of organisms from microbes to metazoans.”

In his research, Zhang has focused on looking at nature for inspirations for solutions to challenges in engineering and medicine, especially in small-scale, such as bioinspired nanomaterials, bioinspired energy-efficient propulsive systems, and bioinspired nanobio systems for interfacing with cellular systems.

…

In new work, Zhang and his research associate Dr. Yongzhong Wang have turned their focus to Arthrobotrys oligospora, a representative flesh eater with a predatory life stage in the fungal kingdom.

The researchers have published their work in Advanced Functional Materials ((early online publication behind a paywall),

Naturally Occurring Nanoparticles from Arthrobotrys oligospora as a Potential Immunostimulatory and Antitumor Agent by Yongzhong Wang, Leming Sun, Sijia Yi, Yujian Huang, Scott C. Lenaghan, and Mingjun Zhang in Advanced Functional Materials

Article first published online: 4 DEC 2012 DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201202619

Here’s the abstract,

Arthrobotrys oligospora, a representative flesh eater in the fungal kingdom, is a potential source for natural-based biomaterials due to the presence of specialized 3D adhesive traps that can capture, penetrate, and digest free-living nematodes in diverse environments. The purpose of this study is to discover novel nanoparticles that occur naturally in A. oligospora and to exploit its potential biomedical applications. A new culture method, fungal sitting drop culture method, is established in order to monitor the growth of A. oligospora in situ, and observe the nanoparticle production without interfering or contamination from the solid media. Abundant spherical nanoparticles secreted from the fungus are first revealed by scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. They have an average size of 360–370 nm, with a zeta potential of –33 mV at pH 6.0. Further analyses reveal that there is ≈28 μg of glycosaminoglycan and ≈550 μg of protein per mg of nanoparticles. Interestingly, the nanoparticles significantly induce TNF-α secretion in RAW264.7mouse macrophages, indicating a potential immunostimulatory effect. The nanoparticles themselves are also found slightly cytotoxic to mouse melanoma B16BL6 and human lung cancer A549 cells, and show a synergistic cytotoxic effect upon conjugation with doxorubicin against both cells. This study proposes a new approach for producing novel organic nanoparticles secreted from microorganisms under controlled conditions. The findings here also highlight the potential roles of the naturally occurring nanoparticles from A. oligospora as an immunostimulatory and antitumor agent for cancer immunochemotherapy.

In more generalized language (from Berger’s Spotlight article),

“It is really exciting to use a natural microbe system to produce nanoparticles for potential cancer therapy,” says Zhang. “Originally, we were trying to understand how the fungus secretes an adhesive trap that can capture, penetrate, and digest free-living nematodes in diverse environments. By doing that we almost accidentally discovered the nanoparticles produced.”

…

Zhang’s team investigated the fungal nanoparticles’ potential as a stimulant for the immune system, and found through an in vitro study that the nanoparticles activate secretion of an immune-system stimulant within a white blood cell line. They also investigated the nanoparticles’ potential as an antitumor agent by testing in vitro the toxicity to cells using two tumor cell lines, and discovered nanoparticles do kill cancer cells.

Berger’s article in addition to giving more details about Zhang’s current work and his work with ivy and possible applications for ivy-based nanoparticles in sunscreens also provides some discussion of naturally occurring nanoparticles as opposed to engineered (or man-made)  nanoparticles.

The University of Tennessee’s Dec. 4, 2012 press release is also a good source of information on Zhang’s latest work on flesh-eating fungus. For the indefatiguable who are interested in Zhang’s work on ivy and potential nanosunscreens, there’s also my July 22, 2010 posting.

More questions about whether nanoparticles penetrate the skin

Leave a reply

The research from the University of Bath about nanoparticles not penetrating the skin has drawn some interest. In addition to the mention here yesterday, in this Oct. 3, 2012 posting, there was this Oct. 2, 2012 posting by Dexter Johnson at the Nanoclast blog on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website. I have excerpted the first and last paragraphs of Dexter’s posting as they neatly present the campaign to regulate the use of  nanoparticles in cosmetics and the means by which science progresses, i.e. this study is not definitive,

For at least the last several years, NGO’s like Friends of the Earth (FoE) have been leveraging preliminary studies that indicated that nanoparticles might pass right through our skin to call for a complete moratorium on the use of any nanomaterials in sunscreens and cosmetics.

…

This latest UK research certainly won’t put this issue to rest. These experiments will need to be repeated and the results duplicated. That’s how science works. We should not be jumping to any conclusions that this research proves nanoparticles are absolutely safe any more than we should be jumping to the conclusion that they are a risk. Science cuts both ways.

Meanwhile a writer in Australia, Sarah Berry, takes a different approach in her Oct. 4, 2012 article for the Australian newspaper, the  Sydney Morning Herald,

“Breakthrough” claims by cosmetic companies aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, according to a new study.

Nanotechnology — the science of super-small particles — has featured in cosmetic formulations since the late ’80s. Brands claim the technology delivers the “deep-penetrating action” of vitamins and other “active ingredients”.

You may think you know what direction Berry is going to pursue but she swerves,

Dr Gregory Crocetti, a nanotechnology campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, was scathing of the study. “To conclude that nanoparticles do not penetrate human skin based on a short-term study using excised pig skin is highly irresponsible,” he said. “This is yet another example of short-term, in-vitro research that doesn’t reflect real-life conditions like skin flexing, and the fact that penetration enhancers are used in most cosmetics. There is an urgent need for more long-term studies that actually reflect realistic conditions.”

Professor Brian Gulson, from Macquarie University in NSW, was was similarly critical. The geochemist’s own study, from 2010 and in conjunction with CSIRO [Australia’s national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization], found that small amounts of zinc particles in sunscreen “can pass through the protective layers of skin exposed to the sun in a real-life environment and be detected in blood and urine”.

Of the latest study he said: “Even though they used a sophisticated method of laser scanning confocal microscopy, their results only reinforced earlier studies [and had] no relevance to ‘real life’, especially to cosmetics, because they used polystyrene nanoparticles, and because they used excised (that is, ‘dead’) pig’s skin.”

I missed the fact that this study was an in vitro test, which is always less convincing than in vivo testing. In my Nov. 29, 2011 posting about some research into nano zinc oxide I mentioned in vitro vs. in vivo testing and Brian Gulson’s research,

I was able to access the study and while I’m not an expert by any means I did note that the study was ‘in vitro’, in this case, the cells were on slides when they were being studied. It’s impossible to draw hard and fast conclusions about what will happen in a body (human or otherwise) since there are other systems at work which are not present on a slide.

…

… here’s what Brian Gulson had to say about nano zinc oxide concentrations in his work and about a shortcoming in his study (from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] Feb. 25, 2010 interviewwith Ashley Hall,

BRIAN GULSON: I guess the critical thing was that we didn’t find large amounts of it getting through the skin. The sunscreens contain 18 to 20 per cent zinc oxide usually and ours was about 20 per zinc. So that’s an awful lot of zinc you’re putting on the skin but we found tiny amounts in the blood of that tracer that we used.

ASHLEY HALL: So is it a significant amount?

BRIAN GULSON: No, no it’s really not.

ASHLEY HALL: But Brian Gulson is warning people who use a lot of sunscreen over an extended period that they could be at risk of having elevated levels of zinc.

BRIAN GULSON: Maybe with young children where you’re applying it seven days a week, it could be an issue but I’m more than happy to continue applying it to my grandchildren.

ASHLEY HALL: This study doesn’t shed any light on the question of whether the nano-particles themselves played a part in the zinc absorption.

BRIAN GULSON: That was the most critical thing. This isotope technique cannot tell whether or not it’s a zinc oxide nano-particle that got through skin or whether it’s just zinc that was dissolved up in contact with the skin and then forms zinc ions or so-called soluble ions. So that’s one major deficiency of our study.

Of course, I have a question about Gulson’s conclusion  that very little of the nano zinc oxide was penetrating the skin based on blood and urine samples taken over the course of the study. Is it possible that after penetrating the skin it was stored in the cells  instead of being eliminated?

It seems it’s not yet time to press the panic button since more research is needed for scientists to refine their understanding of nano zinc oxide and possible health effects from its use.

What I found most interesting in Berry’s article was the advice from the Friends of the Earth,

The contradictory claims about sunscreen can make it hard to know what to do this summer. Friends of the Earth Australia advise people to continue to be sun safe — seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, a hat and sunglasses and using broad spectrum SPF 30+ sunscreen.

This is a huge change in tone for that organization, which until now has been relentless in its anti nanosunscreen stance. Here they advise using a sunscreen and they don’t qualify it as they would usually by saying you should avoid nanosunscreens. I guess after the debacle earlier this year (mentioned in this Feb. 9, 2012 posting titled: Unintended consequences: Australians not using sunscreens to avoid nanoparticles?), they have reconsidered the intensity of their campaign.

For anyone interested in some of the history of the Friends of the Earth’s campaign and the NGO (non governemental organization) which went against the prevailing sentiment against nanosunscreen, I suggest reading Dexter’s posting in full and for those interested in the response from Australian scientists about this latest research, do read Berry’s article.

Sunscreen from coral

Leave a reply

It’s a fascinating project they’re working on at King’s College London (KCL), converting an amino acid found in coral into a sunscreen for humans. The researchers have just signed an agreement to work with skincare company, Aethic but the  research was first discussed when it was still at the laboratory stage in an Aug. 2011 video produced by KCL,

The Sept. 12, 2012 news item on physorg.com makes the latest announcement about the project,

King’s College London has entered into an agreement with skincare company Aethic to develop the first sunscreen based on MAA’s (mycosporine-like amino acids), produced by coral.

It was last year that a team led by Dr Paul Long at King’s discovered how the naturally-occurring MAA’s were produced. Algae living within coral make a compound that is transported to the coral, which then modifies it into a sunscreen for the benefit of both the coral and the algae. Not only does this protect them both from UV damage, but fish that feed on the coral also benefit from this sunscreen protection.

The KCL Sept. 11, 2012 news release (which originated the new item) notes,

The next phase of development is for the researchers to work with Professor Antony Young and colleagues at the St John’s Institute of Dermatology at King’s, to test the efficacy of the compounds using human skin models.

Aethic’s Sôvée sunscreen was selected as the best ‘host’ product for the compound because of its existing broad-spectrum UVA/UVB and photo-stability characteristics and scientifically proven ecocompatibility credentials.

Dr Paul Long, Reader in Pharmacognosy at King’s Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, said: “While MAA’s have a number of other potential applications, human sunscreen is certainly a good place to begin proving the compound’s features. If our further studies confirm the results we are expecting, we hope that we will be able to develop a sunscreen with the broadest spectrum of protection.  Aethic has the best product and philosophy with which to proceed this exciting project.” [emphasis mine]

I went to the Aethic website and found this on the Be Aethic page,

Being Aethic means you are one with nature through our products. It means your skin lives better, feels better and looks better.

It means you do too.

…

Your skin is your largest organ. It’s worth looking after from within, with a good diet, and from the outside by protecting it from daily life and the sun’s harmful rays, by keeping it nourished.

Aethic Sôvée has the most photostable sun filters – anywhere. It has organic moisturisers. It contains a skin anti-oxidant. We developed this formula to treat your skin like royalty. And nature will love you for it as well.

People have been telling us that doing less damage to your skin and the ocean are amazing things to do together

Be loved by nature even more – share this with your friends. The more people you tell, the bigger the difference you make. Here’s why.

Deep down, most people probably suspected that the many ingredients they put on their skin from other sunscreens, must do some harm somewhere. Sure enough, in 2008 it was proven by Prof Roberto Danovaro, from Marche Polytechnic University in Italy, that these products can seriously damage coral. He has since discovered they do damage to clams too.

When you use Aethic Sôvée, you know that you’re leaving nothing behind to harm the ocean. In fact, with your contribution to The Going Blue Foundation’s coral nursery fund, you are going positive. Marine Positive – the certification Aethic Sôvée has received.

Unfortunately this copy is a bit of heavy on the sanctimonious side but the possibility of minimizing one’s negative impact on the  world’s oceans while preventing damage to skin can’t be ignored.

In any event, I found the information about the sunscreen making its way up the food chain and benefitting predators amused me when I considered the possibility of a bear or cougar benefitting should they happen to eat me while I’m using this new sunscreen. Given that this solution is not based on metal oxides perhaps it will find more favour with the ‘anti-nanosunscreen’ crowd.

A couple of starter articles on nanotechnology and its good/bad possibilities

1 Reply

It’s been a long time since I’ve featured  any explanations of nanotechnology. Julie Deardorff in her July 10, 2012 article for the Chicago Tribune offers an excellent introduction to nanotechnology and the benefits and risks associated with it,

Improved sunscreens are just one of the many innovative uses of nanotechnology, which involves drastically shrinking and fundamentally changing the structure of chemical compounds. But products made with nanomaterials also raise largely unanswered safety questions — such as whether the particles that make them effective can be absorbed into the bloodstream and are toxic to living cells.

Less than two decades old, the nanotech industry is booming. Nanoparticles — measured in billionths of a meter — are already found in thousands of consumer products, including cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, anti-microbial infant toys, sports equipment, food packaging and electronics. In addition to producing transparent sunscreens, nanomaterials help make light and sturdy tennis rackets, clothes that don’t stain and stink-free socks.

The particles can alter how products look or function because matter behaves differently at the nanoscale, taking on unique and mysterious chemical and physical properties. Materials made of nanoparticles may be more conductive, stronger or more chemically reactive than those containing larger particles of the same compound.

If you would like more information and another perspective (Deardorff’s article is US-focussed), you can read the July 11, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article submitted by NanoTrust, Austrian Academy of Sciences (Note: I have removed footnotes),

Nanotechnology is often referred to as being a “key technology” of the 21st century, and the expectations for innovative products and new market potentials are high. The prediction is that novel products with new or improved functionality, or revolutionary developments in the field of medicine, will improve our lives in the future. Importantly, these technical innovations have also raised great hopes in the environmental sector.

…

Rising prices for raw materials and energy, coupled with the increasing environmental awareness of consumers, are responsible for a flood of products on the market that promise certain advantages for environmental and climate protection. Nanomaterials exhibit special physical and chemical properties that make them interesting for novel, environmentally friendly products.
…

Emphasis is often placed on the sustainable potential of nanotechnology. Nonetheless, this usually reflects unsubstantiated expectations7. Determining the actual effects of a product on the environment – both positive and negative – requires examining the entire life cycle from production of the raw material to disposal at the end of the life cycle. As a rule, the descriptions of environmental benefits fail to consider the amount of resources and energy consumed in producing the products.

While it’s not as friendly as Deardorff’s, this is a good companion piece as it offers a broader range of  nanotechnology topics and issues and a healthy selection of resources. In addition, Nanotrust has a number of dossiers available for more nanotechnology reading.

Caution and nanoscale zinc oxide in sunscreens

Leave a reply

While I’ve had my reservations about the anti-nanoscreen campaigning, it is important to remember that safety research into the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens is ongoing. A new piece of research on nanoscale zinc oxide and sunscreens has been performed at the Missouri University of Science and Technology and this is something I would put under the category of interesting, possibly disturbing, and not at all definitive.

From the May 8, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

… researchers at Missouri University of Science and Technology are discovering that sunscreen may not be so safe after all. Cell toxicity studies by Dr. Yinfa Ma, Curators’ Teaching Professor of chemistry at Missouri S&T, and his graduate student Qingbo Yang, suggest that when exposed to sunlight, zinc oxide, a common ingredient in sunscreens, undergoes a chemical reaction that may release unstable molecules known as free radicals. Free radicals seek to bond with other molecules, but in the process, they can damage cells or the DNA contained within those cells. This in turn could increase the risk of skin cancer.

…

“Zinc oxide may generate free radicals when exposed to UV (ultraviolet) sunlight,” May [sic] says, “and those free radicals can kill cells.”

Ma studied how human lung cells immersed in a solution containing nano-particles of zinc oxide react when exposed to different types of light over numerous time frames. Using a control group of cells that were not immersed in the zinc oxide solution, Ma compared the results of light exposure on the various groups of cells. He found that zinc oxide-exposed cells deteriorated more rapidly than those not immersed in the chemical compound. Even when exposed to visible light only, the lung cells suspended in zinc oxide deteriorated. But for cells exposed to ultraviolet rays, Ma found that “cell viability decreases dramatically.”

I categorized this research as mildly disturbing for a couple of reasons. (a) It’s never good to hear about lung cells deteriorating. (b) I never slather sunscreen on my lungs. (c) Why didn’t the researcher test skin cells? (d) The cells were immersed in a solution; what concentration of zinc oxide nanoparticles were present in the solution and is that the same concentration found in my sunscreen?

As the researcher notes this work is just part of a longer scientific inquiry (from the May 8, 2012 news item),

Ma’s research on zinc oxide’s effect on cells is still in the early stages, so he cautions people from drawing conclusions about the safety or dangers of sunscreen based on this preliminary research.

“More extensive study is still needed,” May says. “This is just the first step.”

For instance, Ma plans to conduct electron spin resonance tests to see whether zinc oxide truly does generate free radicals, as he suspects. In addition, clinical trials will be needed before any conclusive evidence may be drawn from his studies.

In the meantime, Ma advises sunbathers to use sunscreen and to limit their exposure to the sun.

“I still would advise people to wear sunscreen,” he says. “Sunscreen is better than no protection at all.”

I suspect that last comment is an indirect reference to a recent study (mentioned in my Feb. 9, 2012 posting) that found 13% of Australians said they weren’t using any sunscreens due to their fears about nanoparticles in those products.

At this point, nanosunscreens get a very cautious pass given the information at hand.

For anyone who’s interested in how stories about science and risk, specifically concerning nanosunscreens, can get reported, I’d advise a glance at the 2020 Science blog. (Andrew Maynard, Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan, has been writing on his 2020 blog for years and covered nanosunscreens on more than one occasion.) In his May 3, 2012 posting he recounts his experience trying to refine comments about nanosunscreens and safety as a reporter is getting his story, with quotes from Andrew, to press.

ETA Aug. 17, 2012: I’d forgotten but was recently reminded that lung cells and skin cells are the same base cell until they differentiate themselves at a later stage of development. (I’m sure scientists are silently screaming but that’s my best description of the process.) So, I better appreciate why the researchers used lung cells for their study but my comment remains, I don’t slather sunscreen on my lungs. While the results of the study are interesting, they don’t seem applicable to a real world experience.

Unintended consequences: Australians not using sunscreens to avoid nanoparticles?

4 Replies

Friends of the Earth (FoE) Australia has waged a campaign against the use of nanosunscreens. It seems to have been somewhat successful but in a way that I imagine is upsetting. From the Feb. 9, 2012 news item on physorg.com,

The Cancer Council of Australia reports that we have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, with over 440,000 people receiving medical treatment for skin cancers each year, and over 1,700 people dying of all types of skin cancer annually.

The survey of public attitudes towards sunscreens with nanoparticles, commissioned by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education and conducted last month, showed that about 17% of people in Australia were so worried about the issue, they would rather risk skin cancer by going without sunscreen than use a product containing nanoparticles. [emphasis mine] [please see correction at the end of this posting]

The survey along with three research papers were presented at the 2012 International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICONN) in Perth,Feb. 5-9.

One of the research studies indicates that claims of  ‘nano-free’ sunscreen products may be wrong, from the Feb. 9, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Scientists from Australia’s National Measurement Institute and overseas collaborators reported on a technique using the scattering of synchrotron light to determine the sizes of particles in sunscreens. They found that some commercial sunscreens that claim to be ‘nano-free’ do in fact contain nanostructured material. The findings highlight the need for clear definitions when describing nanomaterials.

…
The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration has released a statement on safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles that concluded: “… the current weight of evidence suggests that TiO2 (titanium dioxide) and ZnO (zinc oxide) nanoparticles do not reach viable skin cells, rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer of the skin…”

You can get more information about the studies in either linked news item. The Australian government’s sunscreen use survey is available on this page; the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoscale (nanoparticulate) titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens is available on this page; and the Cancer Council of Australia has information about sunscreens and nanoparticles on this page.

One can’t lay the blame for *13%* of the population’s hesitance to use any sunscreens at one door but I hope that civil societies like FoEAustralia will give a little thought to the unintended consequences of their campaigns.

The campaign was against nanosunscreens not all sunscreens but presumably coupled with other influences, it seems to have upset a significant percentage of the population to the point that they refuse to use any sunscreens at all for fear of inadvertently being exposed to nanoparticles.

Feb. 10, 2012 update: It’s a very interesting response from FoEAustralia (from the Feb. 10, 2012 article by Simon Lauder for ABC  [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] News),

“We’ve decided to recall the safe sunscreen guides that we have produced this summer until we can revise them based on new information that comes in,” Elena McMaster, the nanotechnology campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said.

“What we see with this research is that in the absence of government regulation, the nanotech industry is able to more or less make up their own rules about what constitutes a nano material,” she said.

“We are obviously probably as shocked as people in the industry about the NMI research results.

“I can’t emphasise enough how urgent we think it is that the Government regulates.”

The best FoEAustralia can offer in the face of the rather shocking information that 17% of the adult population are avoiding sunscreens altogether is a plea for more government regulation of a product that doesn’t seem to be dangerous according to research.

Dexter Johnson in his Feb. 10, 2012 Nanoclast posting noted this about the study which found that sunscreens claiming ‘no nanomaterials/nanoparticles’ did contain some,

“What we see with this research is that in the absence of government regulation, the nanotech industry is able to more or less make up their own rules about what constitutes a nano material,” said Elena McMaster, a FoE spokesperson.

That’s one interpretation, I suppose. But it could also be that traditional sunscreens might contain nanoscale particles even though no attempt had been made to manufacture or add them to the mix. Unintentional nanoparticles, if you will, not unlike those created when the tires of your car drive over the pavement.

I wonder what kind of government regulations the FoE will request. Will each container of sunscreen have to be opened and its contents examined with a scattering of synchrotron light to determine particle size?

In fact, there’s some evidence that nanoparticles are all over the place, some of them created by nature, from the May 11, 2012 article New Evidence for Natural Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles on Nanowiki,

“this creates the idea that there may be some sort of natural cycle returning some of the ions to nanoparticles.” [said Robert MacCuspie at NIST {US National Institute of Standards and Technology}] It also helps explain the discovery, over the past few years, of silver nanoparticles in locations like old mining regions that are not likely to have been exposed to man-made nanoparticles, but would have significant concentrations of silver ions. [emphasis mine]

My respect for FoEAustralia is seriously damaged by this stance they’ve taken. As far as I’m concerned they should admit they’ve made a mistake by using scare tactics to force some sort of confrontation over nanosunscreens and their strategy to force regulation of nanomaterials has backfired seriously.

Feb.21.12 correction: According to the information in the Feb. 20, 2012 posting on 2020 Science, the percentage of Australians likely to avoid using sunscreens is 13%,

This has just landed in my email in box from Craig Cormick at the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education in Australia, and I thought I would pass it on given the string of posts on nanoparticles in sunscreens on 2020 Science over the past few years:
…

“An online poll of 1,000 people, conducted in January this year, shows that one in three Australians had heard or read stories about the risks of using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them,” Dr Cormick said.

“Thirteen percent of this group were concerned or confused enough that they would be less likely to use any sunscreen, whether or not it contained nanoparticles, putting them selves at increased risk of developing potentially deadly skin cancers.

“The study also found that while one in five respondents stated they would go out of their way to avoid using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them, over three in five would need to know more information before deciding.”

*’17%’ corrected to ‘13%’ on Sept. 22, 2016.

Misunderstanding the data or a failure to research? Georgia Straight article about nanoparticles

4 Replies

It’s good to see articles about nanotechnology. The recent, Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem, article written by Alex Roslin for the Georgia Straight (July 21, 2011 online or July 21-28, 2011 paper edition) is the first I’ve seen on that topic in that particular newspaper. Unfortunately, there are  some curious bits of information included in the article, which render it, in my opinion, difficult to trust.

I do agree with Roslin that nanoparticles/nanomaterials could constitute a danger and there are a number of studies which indicate that, at the least, extreme caution in a number of cases should be taken if we choose to proceed with developing nanotechnology-enabled products.

One of my difficulties with the article is the information that has been left out. (Perhaps Roslin didn’t have time to properly research?) At the time (2009) I did read with much concern the reports Roslin mentions about the Chinese workers who were injured and/or died after working with nanomaterials. As Roslin points out,

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

Left undescribed by Roslin are the working conditions; the affected people were working in an unventilated room. From the European Respiratory Journal article (ERJ September 1, 2009 vol. 34 no. 3 559-567, free access), Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma,

A survey of the patients’ workplace was conducted. It measures ∼70 m2, has one door, no windows and one machine which is used to air spray materials, heat and dry boards. This machine has three atomising spray nozzles and one gas exhauster (a ventilation unit), which broke 5 months before the occurrence of the disease. The paste material used is an ivory white soft coating mixture of polyacrylic ester.

Eight workers (seven female and one male) were divided into two equal groups each working 8–12 h shifts. Using a spoon, the workers took the above coating material (room temperature) to the open-bottom pan of the machine, which automatically air-sprayed the coating material at the pressure of 100–120 Kpa onto polystyrene (PS) boards (organic glass), which can then be used in the printing and decorating industry. The PS board was heated and dried at 75–100°C, and the smoke produced in the process was cleared by the gas exhauster. In total, 6 kg of coating material was typically used each day. The PS board sizes varied from 0.5–1 m2 and ∼5,000 m2 were handled each workday. The workers had several tasks in the process including loading the soft coating material in the machine, as well as clipping, heating and handling the PS board. Each worker participated in all parts of this process.

Accumulated dust particles were found at the intake of the gas exhauster. During the 5 months preceding illness the door of the workspace was kept closed due to cold outdoor temperatures. The workers were all peasants near the factory, and had no knowledge of industrial hygiene and possible toxicity from the materials they worked with. The only personal protective equipment used on an occasional basis was cotton gauze masks. According to the patients, there were often some flocculi produced during air spraying, which caused itching on their faces and arms. It is estimated that the airflow or turnover rates of indoor air would be very slow, or quiescent due to the lack of windows and the closed door. [emphases mine]

Here’s the full text from the researchers’ conclusion,

In conclusion, these cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs. It is impossible to remove nanoparticles that have penetrated the cell and lodged in the cytoplasm and caryoplasm of pulmonary epithelial cells, or that have aggregated around the red blood cell membrane. Effective protective methods appear to be extremely important in terms of protecting exposed workers from illness caused by nanoparticles.

There is no question that serious issues about occupational health and safety with regards to nanomaterials were raised. But, we work with dangerous and hazardous materials all the time; precautions are necessary whether you’re working with hydrochloric acid or engineered nanoparticles. (There are naturally occurring nanoparticles too.)

Dr. Andrew Maynard (at the time he was the Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, today he is the Director of the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center) on his 2020 Science blog wrote a number of posts dated Aug. 18, 2009 about this tragic industrial incident, including this one where he culled comments from six other researchers noting some of the difficulties the Chinese researchers experienced running a clinical study after the fact.

The material on silver nanoparticles and concerns about their use in consumer products and possible toxic consequences with their eventual appearance in the water supply seem unexceptionable to me. (Note:  I haven’t drilled down into the material and the writer cites studies unknown to me but they parallel information I’ve seen elsewhere).

The material on titanium dioxide as being asbestos-like was new to me, the only nanomaterial I’d previously heard described as being similar to asbestos is the long carbon nanotube. I am surprised Roslin didn’t mention that occupational health and safety research which is also quite disturbing, it’s especially surprising since Roslin does mention carbon nanotubes later in the article.

There is a Canadian expert, Dr. Claude Ostiguy, who consults internationally on the topic of nanotechnology and occupational health and safety. I wonder why he wasn’t consulted. (Note: He testified before Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health meeting in June 2010 on this topic. You can find more about this in my June 23, 2011 posting, Nanomaterials, toxicity, and Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.)

Quoted quite liberally throughout the article is researcher, Dr.Robert Schiestl (professor of pathology and radiation oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA]). This particular passage referencing Schiestl is a little disconcerting,

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Since Schiestl isn’t linking the nanoparticles to any specific cancers, why mention those statistics? Using that kind of logic I could theorize that the increase in the number and use of cell phones (mobiles) may have something to do with these cancers. Perhaps organic food has caused this increase? You see the problem?

As for the number of nanotechnology-enabled products in use, I’m not sure why Roslin chose to cite the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ inventory which is not scrutinized, i. e., anyone can register any product as nanotechnology-enabled. The writer also mentioned a Canadian inventory listing over 1600 products  cited in an ETC Group report, The Big Downturn? Nanogeopolitics,

Has anyone ever seen this inventory? I’ve been chasing it for years and the only time the Canadian government reports on this inventory is in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report (cited by the ETC Group [no. 79 in their list of references] and noted in both my Feb. 1, 2011 posting and my April 12, 2010 posting). Here’s the OECD report, if you’d like to see it for yourself. The top three questions I keep asking myself is where is the report/inventory, how did they determine their terms of reference, and why don’t Canadian taxpayers have easy access to it? I’d best return to my main topic.

As for the material Roslin offers about nanosunscreens I was surprised given the tenor of the article to see that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) was listed as an information source since they recommend mineral sunscreens containing nanoscale ingredients such as titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide as preferable to sunscreens containing hormone disruptors.  From the EWG page on sunscreens and nanomaterials,

Sunscreen makers offer mineral and non-mineral formulations, as well as products that combine both mineral and non-mineral active ingredients. Mineral formulations incorporate zinc oxide or titanium dioxide in nano- and micro-sized particles that can be toxic if they penetrate the skin. Most studies show that these ingredients do not penetrate through skin to the bloodstream, but research continues. These constitute one in five sunscreens on the market in 2010 and offer strong UVA protection that is rare in non-mineral sunscreens.

The most common ingredients in non-mineral sunscreens are oxybenzone, octisalate, octinoxate, and avobenzone found in 65, 58, 57, and 56 percent of all non-mineral sunscreens on the market, respectively. The most common, oxybenzone, can trigger allergic reactions, is a potential hormone disruptor and penetrates the skin in relatively large amounts. Some experts caution that it should not be used on children. Three of every five sunscreens rated by EWG are non-mineral, and one in five sunscreens combines both mineral and non-mineral active ingredients.

EWG reviewed the scientific literature on hazards and efficacy (UVB and UVA protection) for all active ingredients approved in the U.S. Though no ingredient is without hazard or perfectly effective, on balance our ratings tend to favor mineral sunscreens because of their low capacity to penetrate the skin and the superior UVA protection they offer. [emphasis mine]

(I did find some information (very little) about Health Canada and sunscreens which I discuss in June 3, 2011 posting [if you’re impatient, scroll down about 1/2 way].)

There was some mention of Health Canada in Roslin’s article but no mention of last year’s public consultation, although to be fair, it seemed a clandestine operation. (My latest update on the Health Canada public consultation about a definition for nanomaterials is May 27, 2011.)

I find some aspects of the article puzzling as Roslin is an award-winning investigative reporter. From the kitco bio page,

Alex Roslin is a leading Canadian investigative journalist and active trader based in Montreal. He has won a Canadian Association of Journalists award for investigative reporting and is a five-time nominee for investigative and writing prizes from the CAJ and the National Magazine Awards. He has worked on major investigations for Canada’s premier investigative television program, the fifth estate, and the CBC’s Disclosure program. His writing has appeared in Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, The Financial Post, Toronto Star and Montreal Gazette. He regularly writes about investing for The Montreal Gazette.

I notice there’s no mention of writing in either science or health matters so I imagine this is an early stage piece in this aspect of Roslin’s career, which may explain some of the leaps in logic and misleading information. Happily, I did learn a few things from reading the article and while I don’t trust much of the information in it, I will investigate further as time permits.

In general, I found the tenor of the article more alarmist than informational and I’m sorry about that as I would like to see more information being shared and, ultimately, public discussion in Canada about nanotechnology and other emerging technologies.