Given that most of my information about Canada’s efforts with regard to nanomaterials and their safety and regulation comes from OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) documents, I was a little dismayed to see that Canada had not participated in a couple of recent initiatives.

The lack of participation is understandable with this initiative, Information gathering schemes on nanomaterials: Lessons learned and reported information, as it involves voluntary report schemes (Canada’s reporting scheme wasn’t voluntary). From the Dec. 21, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

This document (pdf) presents lessons learned from information gathering surveys carried out by OECD countries and summarises non-confidential business information and statistics on nanomaterials. It includes useful information on how to design/implement information gathering surveys and the most commonly used nanomaterials along with use patterns and volumes used among OECD countries.

One of the objectives of the OECD Project on Co-operation on Voluntary Schemes and Regulatory Programmes on Nanomaterials is to gather information on the lessons learned from countries that have completed information gathering initiatives, and summarise non-confidential business information and statistics on nanomaterials reported, to provide insight on global market activity.

Eight countries participated in this initiative:

• Australia
• Czech
• Denmark
• Germany
• Ireland
• Japan (2 programmes)
• UK
• USA

Here’s what they were reporting about (from the report),

5. Eight (8) countries (including 2 programmes from Japan) reported information under Part B of the Questionnaire on the types, volumes and uses of nanomaterials in their country. Fifteen (15) different categories of nanomaterials were reported by three (3) or more countries, twelve (12) of which have been identified in the Sponsorship Programme, including: aluminum oxide, cerium oxide, fullerenes, iron, iron oxide, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, nanoclay, silica/silicon dioxide, silver nanoparticles, single-walled carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide. Carbon black, silicates and pharmaceutical actives were also reported by three (3) or more countries, while a number of other nanomaterials including dendrimers, which are included in the Sponsorship Programme and polystyrene were reported by less than three (3) countries.

6. Of the fifteen (15) most commonly reported nanomaterials, titanium dioxide was reported by the most number of countries (7 countries) and by the most number of companies/institutions (43 companies/institutions). Zinc oxide, silver and silicon dioxide were also reported by a number of different countries and companies/institutions. Most companies worked with nanomaterials in volumes of less than 10 kg/yr (106 companies), and the next most common volume reported was over 1000 kg/yr (28 companies). The nanomaterials used at these volumes included; titanium dioxide (9 companies), carbon black (5 companies), silicon dioxide (5 companies), aluminum oxide (3 companies), zinc oxide (3 companies), iron oxide (2 companies) and cerium oxide (1 company).

7. It would appear that most companies/institutions from countries that collected and reported additional information, such as the availability of information on fate and exposure, physical chemical properties, human toxicity/ecotoxicity data, and risk management, had some data available and did have risk management measures in place. The information most likely to be available for the fifteen (15) most commonly reported nanomaterials was on physical chemical properties (reported by 51 companies/institutions) with the least amount of information available for ecotoxicity (reported by 33 companies/institutions). Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were the two nanomaterials reported to have the most amount of information available overall. (p. 13)

The next bits I found interesting were information about quantities of nanomaterials used by various companies and about how well informed they about risks and toxicity,

54. Most companies worked with nanomaterials in volumes of less than 10 kg/yr (106 companies), the next most common volume reported was over 1000 kg/yr (28 companies). The nanomaterials used at these volumes included titanium dioxide (9 companies); carbon black (5 companies) silicon dioxide (5 companies), aluminum oxide (3 companies), zinc oxide (3 companies), iron oxide (2 companies) and cerium oxide (1 company).

55. As a general observation, for the countries that collected and reported additional information, such as the availability of information on fate and exposure, physical chemical properties, human toxicity/ecotoxicity data, and risk management, it would appear that most companies did have some data available and did have risk management measures in place. The most available data for the fifteen (15) most commonly reported nanomaterials was on physical chemical properties (reported by 51 companies/institutions in total for all fifteen nanomaterials combined) followed by human toxicity data (reported by 45 companies/institutions). Data was least likely to be available on fate and exposure (reported by 39 companies/institutions) and ecotoxicity data (reported by 33 companies/institutions).

Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were the two nanomaterials reported to have the most amount of information available overall. Also for the fifteen (15) most commonly reported nanomaterials, 137 companies/institutions reported risk management measures in place.

This report all of 53 pages of it consists mostly of tables and while the data is interesting the response rate was relatively low overall so it’s not entirely clear how generalizable the information is. As well, I do know census data that is gathered under a voluntary scheme is considered less reliable than other data. I don’t know if that applies in this situation but I strongly suspect it does.

The other OECD report that was released roughly round Dec. 21, 2011 was the National activities on life cycle assessment of nanomaterials. From the Dec. 21, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

This document (pdf) provides a snapshot of information on national activities on the life cycle assessment of nanotechnologies provided by OECD countries. As a “living document”, it is expected to be updated as new information becomes available.

The compilation includes information from: Austria, Finland, Germany, Korea, Poland, the United Kingdom, United States [US], the European Commission, as well as from the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC).

Listed are a series of national programmes by each government. They do not provide an exhaustive list, for example, the US provided information mostly about EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)  projects but nothing about any FDA (Food and Drug Administration) projects.

On another note, I can’t tell from the description if the OECD is going to make the changes dynamically or if they will reissue the document, which means I don’t understand what they mean by ‘living document’. That terminology seems a little odd since the notion of updating information in a timely fashion is not new. For instance, Hansard has to be corrected immediately as it is a record of what took place in Parliament. When I worked in the library, we got corrections and updates regularly and were expected to immediately add those changes. We did not call Hansard a ‘living document’ (where did this term come from?) even though it was under constant revision.

I could better understand this term if the changes were being made dynamically, i.e., changes are instantly registered in all the copies of the document so that each time I click on the link I have the latest version.

As for Canada’s lack of participation in this second initiative, that too seems a bit odd in light of past efforts.