Posts Tagged ‘PEN’

« Older Entries

Safe use of nanotechnology for environmental remediation June 5 – 7, 2013 conference/workshop

Friday, May 24th, 2013

The inaugural conference/national workshop on the safe use of nanotechnology for environmental remediation is being held at Southeastern Louisiana University from June 5 – 7, 2013. A Southeastern Louisiana University May 23, 2013 news release provides more detail,

An increasing number of hazardous waste disposal sites are using nanotechnology and nanomaterials in their environmental remediation efforts, leaving open questions about the safety of such techniques.

“While applications and results of nano-enabled strategies for environmental remediation are promising, there is still the challenge of ensuring such applications are both safe and sustainable,” said conference organizer Ephraim Massawe. “The federal government has established different projects coordinated by different agencies, called signature initiatives. We plan on generating information supportive of some of these federal initiatives.”

The event, “Nano-4_Rem_Anseers2013: Applications of Nanotechnolgoy for Safe and Sustainable Environmental Remediations,” [sic] is a cooperative endeavor involving the university and agencies and institutions, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Louisiana Board of Regents is providing partial financial support.

The news release (which can also be viewed as a May 24, 2013 news item on Azonano) goes on to provide details about the keynote speakers,

Four keynote speakers are slated to address the three-day conference, which will be held on the Southeastern campus. Speakers and topics include:

– Patrick O’Shaughnessy, professor of occupational and environmental health in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Iowa, “Nanosafety: Current Issues and Guidance;”
– Dongye Zhao, Huff endowed professor of environmental engineering at Auburn University: “Application of Stabilized Nanoparticles for in situ Remediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater;”
– Souhail Al-Abed of the EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Cincinnati: “Nanotechnology and the Environment: an Overview of Sustainable and Safe Applications in Site Remediation.”

In addition, a representative of the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office will speak at the workshop.

Massawe had this to add about federal initiatives (from the news release),

Massawe said at least 30 EPA Superfund sites across the nation are currently using nanomaterials in remediation operations.

I have written about Nano-4_Rem_aNssERs2013: Applications of Nanotechnology for Safe and Sustainable Environmental Remediations before in a Nov. 7, 2012 posting when it was first announced and where you will find links to some of my other posts on nanotechnology and environmental remediation. Rather than add links to yet a few my other postings on the topic, here’s a link to the Project for Emerging Nanotechnologies Nanoremediation Map. I’m not sure how exhaustive the listings are or how recent but it should give you some idea about the activities occurring in the US and around the world.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in environment, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Danish nanotechnology-enabled product database

Friday, November 30th, 2012

It’s called the Nanodatabase according to the Nov. 30, 2012 news item on Nanowerk (Note: I have removed a link),

The Danish Consumer Council and the Danish Ecological Council has in cooperation with DTU Environment developed a database, which help consumers identify more than 1,200 products that may contain nanomaterials. The Nanodatabase gives consumers a choice. [emphasis mine]

…

”Most consumers have no idea if there are nanomaterials or not in the goods they’re buying. And they have no way of finding out, so that they can avoid the products if they are worried about the potentially harmful effects” says Claus Jørgensen, Senior Advisor at the Danish Consumer Council.

This is why the Danish Ecological Council and the Danish Consumer Council in cooperation with experts from DTU [Technical University of Denmark] Environment has decided to launch the Nanodatabase. Now consumers can search the database to see if a certain product contains nanomaterials or is marketed as ‘nano’. This way the consumers can choose if they want the nanomaterials or not.

The database contains more than 1,200 products which contain nanomaterials or are marketed using the nano-claim. [emphasis mine]

…

“Until we know for sure that the use of nanotechnology is safe and the legislation is in place, we need a label that can help consumers make informed choices”, says Lone Mikkelsen [chemical expert from the Danish Ecological Council].

The two organisations hope that the English version of the database will help consumers in other countries. The hope is that consumers will report products that contain ‘nano’ or claim to be a nano product to the database.

This project reminds me of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and their consumer products inventory. I don’t believe they’re adding to that inventory any moreas the March 10, 2011 news release announcing over 1300 nanotechnology-enabled products (as claimed by manufacturers) in the inventory appears to have been PEN’s last. I think they, like the Danish Consumer Council and the Danish Ecological Council, were hoping to raise awareness.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in health and safety, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Women in Europe for a Common Future advises precautionary principle for manufacture nanomaterials

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Another organization advises the precautionary principle when dealing with nanomaterials. This time it’s the Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) organization and they’ve just released a position paper. From the March 30, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Women in Europe for a Common Future, an international network of over 100 women’s, environmental and health organisations implementing projects in 40 countries and advocating globally for a healthy environment, has released a position paper on nanoparticles and nanotechnology: Nano – The great unknown (pdf).

…

WECF recognizes that nanotechnologies could bring long-term profits and overall societal benefits. However, in order to make an overall judgment, data is needed regarding the hazards, exposure, risks and ethical consequences for humans, the environment and our society as a whole.

Maybe I’m getting grumpy these days but It seems to me that the time for describing ‘nanotechnology as the latest buzzword’ has passed. Here’s the opening sentence from the position paper,

Nanotechnology, the latest buzzword in the global technology revolution, is the science of ‘small things’: the de­signing, manipulating and engineer­ing of materials at nanoscale. (p. 1)

Also on page 1 is a claim as to the number of nanotechnology-enabled products on the market,

The number of consumer products on the world market claiming to contain nanomaterials exceeded 1300 already by 2010, and there are probably more, as the actual presence of nanomaterials is dif­ficult to identify.

The source for the number of nano products is not cited although WECF does list the Project for Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and its product inventory in the bibliography. PEN’s inventory has no oversight (PEN has always been quite frank about this); anyone can register a product and claim there are nanomaterials in it.

Further in the position paper, Canada and California are mentioned,

Other regulatory entities too are work­ing on developing the first laws that can address the concerns on nanomaterials. Canada and the state of California, for example, took the step of imposing mandated disclosure requirements on nanomaterial use and toxicity assess­ment. Canada’s law of January 2009 targets domestic companies and institu­tions that manufacture or buy more than 1 kilogram of nanomaterial per year. According to these new regulations, these entities must now reveal how much nanomaterial they use, how they use it, and what they know about its toxicity. (p. 3)

I’m not familiar enough with the situation in California to comment on it but I am somewhat puzzled by the description of a Canadian law targeting domestic companies and institutions that manufacture or buy more than 1 kilogram of nanomaterials per year. There was a one time only requirement to report on how much nanomaterial was being imported into Canada but, as far as I’m aware, there is no law or regulation which states that this must be done on an ongoing basis. (You can read more about the reporting scheme in my April 12, 2010 posting.) This statement was not cited and I can’t find anything in the bibliography that might be the source for this information.

My problem with this position paper is that I can’t trust any of the information because the little I am familiar with contradicts their statements and they don’t support those statements with sources that I can research.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology, regulation, risk | No Comments »

Phyto and nano soil remediation (part 2: nano)

Friday, March 30th, 2012

For Part 2, I’ve included part of my original introduction (sans the story about the neighbour’s soil and a picture of Joe Martin):

I’m pleased to repost a couple of pieces on soil remediation written by Joe Martin for the Mind the Science Gap (MTSG) blog.

I wrote about the MTSG blog in my Jan. 12, 2012 posting, which focussed on this University of Michigan project designed by Dr. Andrew Maynard for Master’s students in the university’s Public Health program. Very briefly here’s a description of Andrews and the program from the About page,

Mind the Science Gap is a science blog with a difference.  For ten weeks between January and April 2012, Masters of Public Health students from the University of Michigan will each be posting weekly articles as they learn how to translate complex science into something a broad audience can understand and appreciate.

Each week, ten students will take a recent scientific publication or emerging area of scientific interest, and write a post on it that is aimed at a non expert and non technical audience.  As the ten weeks progress, they will be encouraged to develop their own area of focus and their own style.

…

About the Instructor.  Andrew Maynard is Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, and a Professor of Environmental Health Sciences in the School of Public Health.  He writes a regular blog on emerging technologies and societal implications at 2020science.org.

Here’s a bit more about Joe Martin,

I am a second year MPH student in Environmental Quality and Health, and after graduation from this program, I will pursue a Ph.D. in soil science.  My interests lie in soil science and chemistry, human health and how they interact, especially in regards to agricultural practice and productivity.

Here’s part 2: nano soil remediation or Joe’s Feb. 10, 2012 posting:

Last week I wrote about phytoremediation, and its potential to help us combat and undo soil contamination. But, like any good advanced society, we’re not pinning all our hopes on a single technique. A commenter, Maryse, alerted me to the existence of another promising set of techniques and technologies: nano-remediation.

For those who don’t know, nano-technology is a science which concerns itself with manipulating matter on a very small scale.  Nano-particles are commonly described as being between 100 nanometers (nm) to 1nm, though this is hardly a hard and fast rule. (For perspective, a nanometer is one one-millionth of a millimeter. If you aren’t inclined to the metric system, there are roughly four hundred million nanometers per inch.) On such micro-scales, the normal properties of compounds can be altered without changing the actual chemical composition. This allows for many new materials and products, (such as Ross Nanotechnology’s Neverwet Spray,) and for new applications for common materials, (using graphene to make the well-known carbon nanotubes).

When we apply the use of nano-scale particles to the remediation of contaminated soil, we are using nano-remediation. Unlike phytoremediation, this actually encompasses several different strategies which can be broadly classes as adsorptive or reactive. (Mueller and Nowack, 2010) The use of iron oxides to adsorb and immobilize metals and arsenic is not a new concept, but nano-particles offer new advantages. When I wrote “adsorb”, I was not making a spelling error; adsorption is a process by which particles adhere to the surface of another material, but do not penetrate into the interior. This makes surface area, not volume, the important characteristic. Nano-particles provide the maximum surface area-to-weight ratio, maximizing the adsorptive surfaces onto which these elements can attach. These adsorptive processes a very effective at binding and immobilizing metals and arsenic, but they do not allow for the removal of the toxic components. This may be less-than-ideal, but in places like Bangladesh, where arsenic contamination of groundwater poses major health risks, it may be just short of a miracle.

Reactive nano-remediation strategies focus on organic pollutants, and seem to work best for chlorinated solvents such as the infamous PCBs. Nano-scale zero valent iron, or nZVI, is the most widely explored and tested element used in these methods. The nZVI, or sometimes nZVI bound to various organic molecules like polysaccharides or protein chains, force redox reactions which rapidly disassemble the offending molecules.

There are other advantages to these nano-molecular techniques aside from the efficiency with which they bind or destroy the offending pollutants. In reactive remediation, the hyper reactivity nZVI causes it to react with other common and natural elements, such as dissolved oxygen in ground water, or nitrate and sulfate molecules, and in the process this inactivates the nZVI. While this forces multiple applications of the nano-particle (delivered in slurry form, through an injection well), it also prevents unused iron from drifting out of the treatment zone and becoming a pollutant itself. For adsorptive and reactive remediation techniques, that active nano-particles are injected into a well dug into or near the contaminated soil and/or groundwater. When injected as a slurry, the nano-particles can drift along with the flow of ground water, effectively creating an “anti-pollution” plume. In other formulations, the active mixture is made to flow less easily, effectively creating a barrier to filter spreading pollution or through which polluted ground water can be pulled.

There are health risks and concerns associated with the production and use of nano-particles, so some caution and validation is needed before its used everywhere. However, there has already been some successes with nano-remediation. The example of PCB remediation with nZVI is taken from great success the US Air Force has had. (PCB contamination is a legacy of their use as fire-suppressants). Beyond this, while nano-remediation has not been widely applied on surface or near-surface soils, it does enable remediation in deeper soils normally only accessed by “pump-and-treat” methods, (which are expensive and can have decades-long time frames). When coupled with other techniques, (like phytoremediation), it does fit nicely into an expanding tool bag, one with which we as a society and species can use to reverse our impact on the planet, (and our own health).

Further Reading: There was no way for me to represent the full sum of nano-remediation, nevertheless nanotechnology, in this post. It has such potential, and is developing at such a rate that the attention it deserves is better measured in blogs (or perhaps decablogs). So if you are interested in nano-technology or nano-remediation, click through some of the links below.

List of popular blogs: http://www.blogs.com/topten/10-popular-nanotechnology-blogs/, including some very important ones on the health risks of nano-technology.

A cool site listing sites currently using nano-remediation: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/remediation_map/, and another post from the same site dealing with nano-remediation [PEN webcast on site remediation]: http://www.nanotechproject.org/events/archive/remediation/

An excellent peer-reviewed article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799454/

Citation: Mueller C and Nowack B. Nanoparticles for Remediation: Solving Big Problems with Little Particles. 2010. Elements, Vol. 6. pp 395-400.

You can read about the other MTSG contributors and find links to their work here.

I have mentioned remediation before on the blog,

soil remediation and Professor Dennis Carroll at the University of Western Ontario in my Nov. 4, 2011 posting

remediation and a patent for Green-nano zero valent iron (G-nZVI) in my June 17, 2011 posting

groundwater remediation and nano zero valent iron (nZVI) at the University of California at Santa Barbara in my March 30, 2011 posting

site remediation and drywall in my Aug. 2, 2010 posting

remediation technologies and oil spills my May 6, 2010 posting

my March 4, 2010 posting  (scroll down about 1/2 way) which is a commentary on the Project for Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) webcast about site remediation in Joe’s list of resources

Thank you Joe for giving me permission to repost your pieces. For more of Joe’s pieces,  Read his posts here –>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in agriculture, environment, nanotechnology | 1 Comment »

Globe and Mail discovers nanomedicine

Monday, October 10th, 2011

Business writer, Nick Rockel, has an October 4, 2011 article titled, Nano-technology [sic] coming to the doctor’s office, in The Globe and Mail newspaper. Dr. Jillian Buriak and her colleague, Dr.Lori West (my latest posting about their work was April 28, 2011) were heavily featured in it. From the Oct. 4, 2011 article in The Globe and Mail,

One of Dr. Buriak’s key collaborators on the transplantation project is Lori West, a U of A [University of Alberta] professor of pediatrics, surgery and immunology. Dr. West, a renowned cardiac transplant expert, is known for her discovery that children younger than two will not reject a heart from a donor with a different blood type.

That’s because the immune system is still developing during infancy. Even more remarkably, if a baby with Type A blood gets a Type B heart, it will develop a lifelong tolerance for B and AB blood.

The U of A team “functionalized” so-called stealth nano-particles with the antigens, or markers, that blood cells use to recognize each other. In animal tests, it introduced these particles into the bloodstream in an attempt to teach the body to tolerate every blood type.

Dr. Buriak, who hopes to move to more advanced models by 2015, says the nano-particles could eventually join the standard set of shots that children receive. “Later, if you ever had to have an organ transplant or a transfusion, you wouldn’t have to wait for the right one – you could just take any of them.”

Buriak’s and West’s strategy for avoiding organ rejection contrasts with the strategy used by a joint (Swedish/UK/US) team, which I featured in an August 2, 2011 posting about their work transplanting a synthetic windpipe coated with stem cells harvested from the patient receiving the new organ.

Rockel’s article goes on to provide descriptions of other nanomedicine initiatives (a mix of Canadian- and US-based projects). He employs the usual ‘war against disease’ rhetorical style common to articles about any kind of medicine even when he’s including a ‘kinder, gentler’ quote such as,

People keep asking when her field will deliver a killer app like the cure for cancer, Dr. Buriak says. “But what nanotechnology has done more than anything else is bring people together who normally would never talk to each other,” she explains. [emphases mine]

As one would expect from a business writer, the article concludes with a list of three commercially available nanomedicne products. I wish Rockel had stated whether or not he’s done additional research into these products since this list is culled from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) database. As I’ve noted before (my July 26, 2011 posting) there is no oversight provided by PEN nor does the organization require any description of how the product is nanotechnology-enable, as they openly admit.

I’m glad to see more coverage of nanotechnology and that writers from many specialties are learning about it. As for why I described Nick Rockel as a business writer, here’s his description of his work,

Market forces are one thing, but you can’t force somebody to read about the markets. Nick Rockel helps you connect with your audience. A veteran writer and editor, Nick knows how to grab people’s attention by giving them access to the financial and investment world. Whether it’s hedge funds or herding behaviour, he presents complex subjects in clear and simple terms, without any jargon or bafflegab. Most important, Nick finds the story behind the numbers and makes it resonate with readers.

He advertizes himself as providing Financial Wrting, Editing & Research.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, medicine, nanotechnology | 4 Comments »

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

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology | 4 Comments »

Green-nano zero valent iron (G-nZVI)

Friday, June 17th, 2011

I’m quite interested in patents and their possible impact on nanotechnology innovation so this item caught my attention. VeruTEK Technologies, Inc. just received notice of a patent allowance for the Green-nano zero valent iron (G-nZVI) product which was developed in collaboration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

From the June 15, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

The product is ideal for a broad range of remediation applications including treating produced water (wastewater) generated during oil and gas and other chemical production processes.

G-nZVI works more efficiently than conventional iron catalysts, significantly increasing the rate of oxidant activity and can be used under a wide range of conditions.  Unlike other catalysts which are typically sensitive to changes in pH, G-nZVI consistently delivers high performance over a wide pH range. G-nZVI is highly effective as an activator for VeruTEK’s patent-pending Surfactant-enhanced In Situ Chemical Oxidation (S-ISCO®) treatment of hydrocarbon and chlorinated solvent contamination. The product can also be used with conventional in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) to improve the effectiveness of traditional remediation chemistry.

The EPA works with VeruTEK on a variety of projects, concentrating on new field-proven approaches to address difficult environmental issues. According to John Leazer, Director of the Sustainable Technology Division at EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, “Patent awards are superb examples of what can be accomplished through collaborative research and development.” [emphases mine]

I have previously written about nano zero valent iron (nZVI) and site remediation in my March 30, 2011 posting which concerned a benchmarking study for nZVI and briefly in my March 4, 2010 posting (towards the end) where I summarized a Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies webcast (approximately 54 min.) on the topic.

As I understand it, the process (green or environmentally friendly) by which the nano zero valent iron is derived is the reason the VeruTek product has been awarded a patent and not because its remediation capabilities are superior to other nano zero valent iron products. From the VeruTEK’s G-nZVI product page,

GnZVI is a green synthesized nanoscale zero valent iron catalyst invented by VeruTEK and the US EPA. During the green synthesis process iron salts are exposed to naturally reductive plant material, the resultant nanoscale particles are coated in iron oxide and plant polyphenols which confer advantageous properties.  Research conducted by VeruTEK, the EPA and the University of Connecticut, published in peer reviewed journals, demonstrate the efficacy of the product and its unique chemical design.

So, in addition to being used to remove contamination, this product itself is manufactured in a relatively environmentally friendly fashion. Nice!

Of course, there’s a fair amount of discussion about how patenting impedes innovation. From Mike Masnick’s Feb. 17, 2011 article on Techdirt,

As with any “hot” technology area, it doesn’t take long for a massive, innovation hindering patent thicket to spring up. It effectively makes it impossible to bring anything to market unless you’ve got a huge patent portfolio yourself and deep pockets. Yet another example of patents harming the smaller players in the market. A new report is suggesting that the latest “hot” area to get patent crazy is nanotechnology.

However, the really worrying thing about the report is that it notes that the single largest “patent patron” in nanotechnology… is the federal government. [emphasis mine]

The report, The Big Downturn; Nanogeopolitics, that Masnick is referring to is from The ETC Group who released it on Dec. 17, 2010 so the material in it is relatively recent. They provide the only overview of the nanotechnology patent scene (Chapter 12, p. 43 PDF version and p. 36 print version) that I’ve come across so far. I find the reference to the federal government (US in this case) as being the largest patent patron interesting in light of the EPA’s collaborative relationship with VeruTEK.

One comment before you rush off to read The ETC Group’s report, the tone is very much ‘we are on the side of the angels; capitalists and governments and ‘anyone who disagrees with us in any way’ are not.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in environment, intellectual property, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Nano zero valent iron and groundwater remediation

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

My interest in nano zero valent iron (nZVI) and site remediation was piqued by a webcast from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). (I commented on the ‘cast in my March 4, 2010 posting [http://www.frogheart.ca/?p=792 {scroll down}]). Yesterday(March 29, 2011), I came across a news item on Business Wire (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110329005424/en/AECOM-University-California-Santa-Barbara-UCSB-Continue) about a collaboration between AECOM and the University of California at Santa Barbara for benchmark testing of nZVI. From the news item,

The new AECOM and UCSB bench-scale studies will test use of several zero valent iron (ZVI) products, including nano zero valent iron (nZVI), on the remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) a common contaminant at groundwater remediation sites. nZVI products were selected for the study because they have a much greater surface area than conventional iron powders, which make them more effective in certain site remediation scenarios.

The bench-scale studies will use samples of these new products on groundwater and geologic materials collected from a former manufacturing site to evaluate the morphology or structure of the products as well as their mobility, persistence, and toxicity to aquatic organisms.

According to Dr. Dora Chiang, P.E. Project Design Engineer with AECOM’s environmental practice in Atlanta, “We have had an in situ bioremediation system in place for several years and will be using an nZVI or other ZVI products to supplement biodegradation of the CVOCs. Enhanced non-biological degradation, coupled with ongoing biodegradation of CVOCs, will likely result in a reduction in treatment time by remediating CVOCs to below their respective federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). This new treatment technology may save significant life-cycle cleanup costs while ensuring protection of human health and the environment.”

…

Dr. Arturo A. Keller, Co-Director of UC Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, will direct the research at UCSB, in coordination with Prof. Hunter Lenihan. Prof. Keller states that “there is great potential in using nZVI and related technologies to solve a wide range of contamination issues. However, we need to determine the potential risks to achieve safe implementation of this important technology.”

Nano zero valent iron is currently being used in site remediation in the US and elsewhere in the world. PEN has an interactive nanoremediation map here (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/remediation_map/). Just click on one of the ‘balloons’ to get a full description of where, which contaminant, and which type of nanomaterial (e.g. the site in Ontario, Canada lists nZVI) is being used for the cleanup operation.

You can find out more about AECOM here (http://www.aecom.com) from their About page,

AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, water and government.

With approximately 45,000 employees around the world, AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation, and technical excellence in delivering solutions that create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural, and social environments.

A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in more than 100 countries and had revenue of $7.0 billion during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010.

AECOM is ranked by Ethisphere as one of the world’s 110 most ethical companies for 2011.

That’s a very big company. As for their ethics, I like to see what they do when the going gets tough. After all, BP Oil had a very good reputation at one point and then they had the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and destroyed that reputation with their subsequent actions.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in environment, nanotechnology | 1 Comment »

Canada’s Bill C-494, Nanotechnology Safety in Canada: an update

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

Peter Julian, MP Burnaby-New Westminster, has kindly sent an update about Bill C-494′s progress (the bill on nanotechnology safety that he introduced in Canada’s House of Commons in March 2010).

One comment, I’m not entirely certain how some of conclusions in this update were reached  but my concerns are nits rather than picks and more about those after you read Peter Julian’s update,

Progress continues on Bill C-494, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (nanotechnology), with growing support towards nanotechnology’s safe introduction in Canada, including from the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). Exciting developments in Europe towards consumer product labeling and increased precaution for nanomaterials, such as the Swiss recommendation for a precautionary 1-500nm approach to risk assessment, coupled with improved workplace safety measures in the United States, are key drivers for change.

Over 1,000 nano-enabled products have now been released into the global marketplace, from toothpaste to socks, computers to cars, aeronautics to cement, and health care.

Although most nanotechnology applications are believed to be safe, the number of nano-enabled products or nanomaterials in use in Canada is not known, as there still is no public inventory to either monitor nanotechnology or assure its safety for Canadians. Testimonies and evidence presented to the House of Commons Health Committee raise additional concern and alarm towards the government’s slow response to emerging risk science and precautionary regulatory actions now implemented in other countries.

The Government of Canada now acknowledges regulatory “limitations” towards nanomaterials safety, and promises “possible amendments” to government policies that may be placing nanotechnology and Canadians at increased risk. Canada’s expected economic and societal benefit from this “platform” technology, across the 21st century, includes the automotive, construction, defence, energy, foods, health, and textile sectors. The federal government also acknowledged the importance of having a public inventory as advocated in bill C-494.

Canada must keep pace with international measures towards nanotechnology safety.

I will continue to work towards safe nanotechnology in Canada, through Bill C-494 and by encouraging the Harper government to fix both policy and regulatory “limitations”.

As for the nits, that “Over 1,000 nano-enabled products … ” comment is a stab in the dark. No one really knows how many nano-enabled products are out there and this number sounds like it’s based on a database maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). The PEN database (the best known and most respected) is voluntary and not vetted, in other words, anybody can claim and register a nano-enabled product.

ETA Feb.2.11: I received an email from Peter’s office citing the source of the statistic. From the email,

“In collaboration with Environment Canada, in February 2009 Industry Canada collected data on the number of consumer products on the Canadian market that incorporated nanotechnology-based components or technologies. These were estimated at over 1600 products, with 68% being imported into Canada from more than 11 different countries.”

Thank you, I’d forgotten about this source. This data is from an OECD report than I commented on in an April 12, 2010 posting. Here are the comments I made at the time,

Over 1600 ‘nano’ products are being imported into Canada? They know this because, from the report, p. 31,

In collaboration with Environment Canada, in February 2009 Industry Canada collected data on the number of consumer products on the Canadian market that incorporated nanotechnology-based components or technologies.

This data collection seems a bit odd given that Environment Canada’s definition of nanomaterials that need to be reported specifically excludes nano titanium dioxide which is a very popular nano material. (I have more about definitions in section following in this post.) Plus, I wonder where else this information about the number of products with nanomaterials is available and how many Canadians know about it?

I think my comments about the data still stand and this business about where we get data and how we get and whether or not it’s valid points to the difficulties anybody, no matter how hard they try,  has discussing nanotechnology-enabled products in Canada and elsewhere.

The June 2010 hearing of the House of Commons Health Committee (mentioned in the paragraph after the ’1000 products’) which ” … raise[d] additional concern and alarm towards the government’s slow response to emerging risk science and precautionary regulatory actions now implemented in other countries,” I’d like to know more about that concern and the hearing. I did send some email interview questions last summer to the hearing’s chair, Joyce Murray, MP Vancouver Quadra and, later, to one of the members, Cathy McLeod, MP Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, and have yet to hear back. After reading the June 10, 2010 evidence from the hearing, I did post my impressions and thoughts  on June 23, 2010.

I’m glad to hear that Peter Julian is persisting in his efforts and hope that this bill might open up a larger discussion (I know I’m being idealistic) on emerging technologies and sciences and how Canadians will be grappling with the implications as a society. In short,  I’d like to see some imagination, discussion, and engagement rather than a single-minded rush to legislation and hope that Julian’s bill will act as a catalyst to that end.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology, regulation | No Comments »

Socio-Technical Integration Research Workshop

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

The Synthetic Biology Project, a spin-off (of sorts) from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies based in Washington, DC, is hosting a two-day workshop (Feb. 16 and 17, 2011) called Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR). It is the fourth in the series. From the event page,

The Socio-Technical Integration Research project is conducting a coordinated set of 20 laboratory engagement studies to assess and compare the varying pressures on, and capacities for, laboratories to integrate broader societal considerations into their work. These studies will be conducted by ten doctoral students and will be aimed at guiding research decisions toward responsible innovation.

Please join us on February 16th and 17th to discuss these vital issues with a distinguished gathering of laboratory directors, embedded social scientists and research councils from around the world.

Discussion topics will include:

• Experiences in synergistically enhancing the creativity and responsibility of scientific research, • Responsible innovation from the viewpoints of natural scientists, social scientists and research agencies, and • The establishment of an international network of scientists and research agencies working toward responsible innovation.

STIR seeks to establish an International Network for Responsible Innovation and is organized under the auspices of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University.

They ask anyone who plans to attend to RSVP or you can watch the webcast live (no need to RSVP the webcast).

I looked at the agenda for the event and unexpectedly found a Vancouver connection. One of the sessions is titled: Political Science and Genetics in Vancouver. It’s scheduled to be given by Shannon Conley and Courtney Hanna (PhD student in the Robinson Lab at the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia).

If you happen to take a look at the event agenda for yourself, you’ll also notice a fair sprinkling of nanotechnology-tinged presentations included in this workshop.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in science communication, science policy, social implications | No Comments »

« Older Entries