Monthly Archives: July 2010

Thailand’s National Nanotechnology Centre makes an announcement

3 Replies

In light of my recent posting (July 9, 2010) where I lamented the dearth of information from Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology, I feel obliged to note that I now have gotten more information from Thailand’s National Nanotechnology Center this year than I have from our own. There’s this news item on Nanowerk,

Researchers at Thailand’s National Nanotechnology Center (NANOTEC), Nanoscale Simulation Laboratory are investigating the thermodynamic and kinetic aspects of the methanolysis and hydrolysis reactions of glycerol triacetate or triacetin, using Density Functional Theory (DFT).

In a recent study, which was published in May 2010 by Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM (“A DFT investigation of methanolysis and hydrolysis of triacetin”), the authors demonstrated that twelve elementary steps of triacetin methanolysis were studied under acid-catalyzed and base-catalyzed conditions.

As to why this area is of interest, Dr Yuthana Tantirungrotechai, Head of NANOTEC Nanoscale Simulation Lab notes,

“We believe the basic understanding on the methanolysis and its competing hydrolysis reaction of triacylglycerol compounds at the molecular level is essential for the development of biodiesel production” said Dr Yuthana.

Congratulations!

Europeans to label engineered nano-scale ingredients in food

Leave a reply

According to a news item on Nanowerk,

The European Parliament has demanded mandatory labelling of all products containing nano ingredients and acknowledged that specific methods to test the safety of nanomaterials are needed. Until these methods are available, food containing nanomaterials should not enter the EU market.

More specifically, Members of the European Parliament voted on this measure July 7, 2010,

The European Parliament agreed that nano-sized ingredients and food from nanotech processes should be subject to novel foods regulations. They furthermore called for a moratorium until specifically-designed risk assessment of nanotechnology processes or nano-ingredients can prove them to be safe, expressing concerns that nanotechnology is already being used in food and food packaging. Any approved nano-ingredients should be mentioned on food labels.

I wonder what impact this legislation will have elsewhere including Canada.

Update on INSCX (Integrated Nano-Science and Commodity Exchange)

Leave a reply

They’ve been doing a lot of work on the INSCX (Integrated Nano-Science and Commodity Exchange)  since I interviewed the Chief Executive Officer, Charles McGovern this last May (part 1, part 2, part 3). The newly re-launched site features registration information (from the news release I received),

INSCX exchange is the world’s commodity market for trade in accredited, compliant and validated engineered nanomaterials. The exchange’s formal trade platform is scheduled for live launch first quarter 2011.

Registrations are currently being processed for organisations seeking to use exchange facilities.

…

Membership is defined into five categories;

Permit Holder:

Organisations seeking to supply and/or source engineered nanomaterials listed by the exchange. Permit Holder members are charged a once-off registration fee of GDP £550 to access exchange facilities. This category of membership will relate to commercial organisations active in the supply and/or purchase of materials for trade purposes.

Principal:

Organisations seeking to supply a materials specification for listing as a PCMS (Principal Materials Contract Specification) on the exchange. Principal memberships are set at GDP £5,000 per annum in addition to the registration fee. This category of membership will relate to commercial organisations active in the supply of materials for trade purposes.

Brokers:

Approved Commodity Brokerages accepted to provide agent execution and/or advisory services to customers of INSCX exchange. Broker memberships commence at GDP £10,000 per annum in addition to the registration fee.

Broker/Dealers:

Approved Securities & Commodity trading organisations accepted to act as agent and/or principal on behalf of customers of the exchange. This category of membership would be best suited to global investment banks active in the trading of commodities. Broker/Dealer memberships commence at GDP £25,000 per annum in addition to the registration fee.

Affiliate:

Category of membership reserved for institutes, insurance syndicates, professional organisations – accounting and law, and investment banks active in the research and/or provision of services to emerging nanobusiness. Affiliate memberships commence at GDP £2,500 per annum in addition to the registration fee.

I received this about the:  “summary guides  as to the exchange and a registration document “Web-PRQ” which needs to be completed by all market participants regardless of membership status” but I can’t find them on the website.  I didn’t spend a lot of time searching but did find a registration page here.

Regulating nanomaterials according to the US GAO and EPA

Leave a reply

It’s been a banner week for information about nanomaterials regulation. As I noted yesterday, the US General Accountability Office has just released its  report titled Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk. Hats off to the authors: Anu Mittal, lead author, and Elizabeth Erdmann, David Bennett, Antoinette Capaccio, Nancy Crothers, Cindy Gilbert, Gary Guggolz, Nicole Harkin, Kim Raheb, and Hai Tran.

In discussing some of the oversight and regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology and other emerging technologies they had this to say (from the report),

Nanotechnology is an example of a fast-paced technology that poses challenges to agencies’ policy development and foresight efforts. We have conducted past work looking at the challenges of exercising foresight when addressing potentially significant but somewhat uncertain trends,5 including technology-based trends that proceed at a high “clockspeed,” that is, a (1) faster pace than trends an agency has dealt with previously or (2) quantitative rate of change that is either exponential or exhibits a pattern of doubling or tripling within 3 or 4 years, possibly on a repeated basis.6 As our prior work has noted, when an agency responsible for ensuring safety faces a set of potentially significant high-clockspeed technology-based trends, it may successfully exercise foresight by carrying out activities such as

• considering what is known about the safety impact of the trend and deciding how to respond to it;

• reducing uncertainty as needed by developing additional evidence about the safety of the trend; and

• communicating with Congress and others about the trends, agency responses, and policy implications.

Similarly, our 21st Century Challenges report raised concern about whether federal agencies are poised to address fast-paced technology-based challenges. [GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005)] Other foresight literature illustrates the potential future consequences of falling behind a damaging trend that could be countered by early action. These analyses suggest that unless agencies and Congress can stay abreast of technological changes, such as nanotechnology, they may find themselves “in a constant catch-up position and lose the capacity to shape outcomes.” (p.7/8 print version, p. 11/2 PDF)

(Seems to me the Canadian government could also do with some thoughtful consideration of fast-changing technologies and the challenges they pose to the institutional oversight mechanisms currently in place.)

The report goes on to describe various nano-enabled product categories in various industry sectors. It’s an overview that includes products (e.g. nano-enabled cell phones) currently or soon-to-be on the market. I was particularly taken with an image of a cell phone  that tagged parts  already nano-enabled (on some models) along with parts that may, in the future, become nano-enabled (p. 14 print version or p. 18 PDF).

The toxicity roundup is one of the best presentations I’ve seen. For example,

  • Size. Research assessing the role of particle size on toxicity has generally found that some nanoscale (<100 nanometers) particles are more toxic and can cause more inflammation than conventionally scaled particles of the same composition. Specifically, some research indicates that the toxicity of certain nanomaterials, such as some forms of carbon nanotubes and nanoscale titanium dioxide, may pose a risk to human health because these materials, as a result of their small size, may be able to penetrate cell walls, causing cell inflammation and potentially leading to certain diseases. For example, the small size of these nanomaterials may allow them to penetrate deeper into lung tissue, potentially causing more damage, according to some of the studies we reviewed. In addition, some nanomaterials may disperse differently into the environment than conventionally scaled materials of the same composition because of their size. However, according to EPA, the small particle size may also cause the nanomaterials to agglomerate, which may make it more difficult for them to penetrate deep lung tissue. (pp. 23/4 print version, pp. 27/8 PDF)

This a much more measured but still cautious approach to the toxicology issues as they relate to size and this approach is maintained throughout.

There’s more than one way to be exposed,

In addition to toxicity, the risk that nanomaterials pose to humans and the environment is also affected by the route and extent of exposure to such materials. Nanomaterials can enter the human body through three primary routes: inhalation, ingestion, and dermal penetration. (p. 25 print version, p. 29 PDF)

They also make the distinction between exposure as a consequence of consuming products and exposure due to occupation.

Moving on from toxicity, their section on the international scene wowed me because this is the only report I’ve seen which notes that Canada’s nanomaterials inventory has yet to occur.

One thing I hadn’t realized was how similar Environment Canada’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s approach to nanomaterials has been. From my April 2, 2010 posting,

Here’s what Environment Canada has to say about nanomaterials (the information on this page is dated from 2007 …) NOTE: The page originally cited is no longer available, go to this page,

The Domestic Substances List (DSL) is the sole basis for determining whether a substance is new. Any chemical or polymer not listed on the DSL is considered to be new to Canada and is subject to the notification requirements under the Regulations. Substances listed on the DSL do not require notification1 in advance of manufacture in or import into Canada.

The Act and the Regulations apply to new nanomaterials just as any other substance, whether a chemical or a polymer.

…

Substances listed on the DSL whose nanoscale forms do not have unique structures or molecular arrangements are considered existing. Existing nanomaterials are not subject to the Regulations and do not require notification. For example, titanium dioxide [emphasis mine] (CAS No. 13463-67-7) is listed on the DSL and since its nanoscale form does not have unique structures or molecular arrangements, it is not subject to the Regulations.

Compare,

In its 2008 document, EPA stated that a nanomaterial is a new chemical for purposes of regulation under TSCA only if it does not have the same “molecular identity” as a chemical already on the inventory. Under TSCA, a chemical is defined in terms of its particular molecular identity.

…

Thus, because titanium dioxide is already listed on the TSCA inventory, nanoscale versions of titanium dioxide, which have the same molecular formula, would not be considered a new chemical under TSCA, despite having a different size or shape, different physical and chemical properties, and potentially different risks. [emphasis mine] (p. 34 print version, p. 38 PDF)

I gather the EPA adopted the strategy one year after Environment Canada. Given how often the various jurisdictions copy each other’s approaches, I wonder which country (or possibly a jurisdiction such as the European Commission) actually set this strategy.

The report offers an excellent summary of Canada’s current regulatory approach and plans. I’ve reproduced the passage in full here,

Canadian officials have proposed but have not implemented a one-time requirement for companies to provide information on nanomaterials produced in or imported into Canada. Canadian importers and manufacturers would be required to report their use of nanomaterials produced or imported in excess of 1 kilogram. In 2009, Canadian officials reported to the OECD that information required would include chemical and trade name; molecular formula; and any available information on the shape, size range, structure, quantity imported or manufactured, and known or predicted uses. Also required would be any available information on the nanomaterial’s physical and chemical properties—such as solubility in water and toxicological data, among others. Under the proposal, companies could claim information as confidential, but regulators would publish a summary of information provided. Canada plans to use this information to help develop a regulatory framework for nanomaterials and to determine which information requirements would be useful for subsequent risk assessments. Canadian officials stated they originally hoped to issue this requirement in the spring of 2009 but could not predict when it would be implemented.

With regard to current law, a report prepared for the government of Canada in 2008 stated that Canada has no specific requirements for nanomaterials and is considering whether they are needed. However, Health Canada and Environment Canada—two agencies responsible for health and the environment—have taken the first steps in recognizing the potentially unique aspects of nanomaterials. These regulatory agencies are currently relying on existing authority delegated to them through legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to address nanomaterials. Specifically, in June 2007, Environment Canada released a new substances program advisory announcing that nanomaterials will be regulated under the act’s new substances notification regulations. Per this advisory, any nanomaterial not listed on Canada’s chemical inventory—the Domestic Substances List—or with “unique structures or molecular arrangements” compared to their non-nano counterparts, requires a risk assessment. A review panel of the Canadian Academies found that, while it is not necessary to create new regulatory mechanisms to address the unique challenges presented by nanomaterials, the existing regulatory mechanisms could and should be strengthened in a variety of ways, such as by creating a specific classification for nanomaterials and by reviewing the regulatory triggers that prompt review of the health and environmental effects. (pp. 45/6 print version, pp. 49/50 PDF)

As far as I’m aware, there are no comparable summaries available in Canadian reports available to the public. No doubt there are nits to be picked but all I can say is thank you for giving me the most comprehensive and succinct overview I’ve seen yet of the emerging Canadian regulatory framework for nanomaterials.

For interested parties, there is some additional information about Health Canada’s public consultation on their interim definition of nanomaterials in my April 28, 2010 posting.

US Government Accountability Office chimes in on the nanomaterials regulatory debate

1 Reply

Yet another jurisdiction (US) and government agency (Government Accountability Office [GAO]) has released a report about regulating nanomaterials. From the news item on Nanowerk,

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report “Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk” (pdf) in which it recommends that EPA complete its plans to modify its regulatory framework for nanomaterials as needed.

As usual, Canada is mentioned for its ‘nanomaterials inventory plan’ but for the first time it’s described as a plan and not a fait accompli,

Australia and the United Kingdom have undertaken a voluntary data collection approach whereas Canada plans to require companies to submit certain types of information.

Thank you to whoever authored the GAO report for getting it right. Meanwhile, I wonder when the Canadian government will choose to notify Canadians (or at least our companies) of this plan.

If you want an overview of the report do go to Nanowerk; I’ve started reading the report and will comment on it tomorrow.

One last note, I remember (having worked in a library and filed their documents) when GAO stood for Government Accounting Office.

Europe’s definition of nanomaterials for regulatory purposes? Maybe not so much.

1 Reply

The European Commission has just released a reference report for a definition of nanomaterials which will set the base for a regulatory framework in Europe. From the news item on Nanowerk,

Despite the growing utilisation of engineered nanomaterials in consumer products and innovative technological applications, there is at present no widely accepted definition of the term “nanomaterial” that is suitable as a basis for legislation on their safe use. Responding to a request of the European Parliament, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) published today a reference report entitled “Considerations on a definition of nanomaterial for regulatory purposes” (pdf download).

The report discusses possible elements of a definition aiming at reducing ambiguity and confusion for regulators, industry and the general public. It recommends that the specific term “particulate nanomaterial” should be employed in legislation to avoid inconsistencies with other definitions and that size should be used as the only defining property. [emphases mine]

I have to say I’m a little underwhelmed, especially so after reading (very quickly) the report. The best I can say about the report is that it provides a good summary of the definitions for nanomaterials that have been proposed by various international organizations, government entities, and countries in Europe, as well as, including the US, Canada, and Australia. (I have my fingers crossed that one day there’ll be a report that mentions some other jurisdictions as well.)

Here’s the definition as recommended in the report,

For a definition aimed for regulatory purposes the term ‘nanomaterial’ in its current general understanding is not considered appropriate. Instead, the more specific term ‘particulate nanomaterial’ is suggested.

The term ‘material’ is proposed to refer to a single or closely bound ensemble of substances at least one of which is a condensed phase, where the constituents of substances are atoms and molecules.

For a basic and clear definition of ‘particulate nanomaterial’, which is broadly applicable and enforceable, it is recommended not to include properties other than size.

For the size range of the nanoscale, a lower limit of 1 nm and an upper limit of 100 nm or higher should be chosen.

The questions of size distribution, shape, and state of agglomeration or aggregation, may need to be addressed specifically in subsequently developed legislation. It is also likely that certain particulate materials of concern that fall outside a general definition might have to be listed in specific legislation.

Additional qualifiers, like specific physico-chemical properties or attributes such as ‘engineered’ or ‘manufactured’ may be relevant in the scope of specific regulations. (p. 31 print version, p. 33 PDF)

Given the work in the report, this seems a remarkably modest recommendation that could almost have been written prior. It’s almost as if they made a survey of the current recommendations and pulled together the most commonly occurring and least contentious versions to create a relatively innocuous definition.

A couple comments about science in Japan and China

Leave a reply

A few weeks ago there was a new global research report (written by Jonathan Adams, Christopher King, Nobuko Miyairi, and David Pendlebury) from Thomson Reuters that focused on Japan. From the news release,

This latest report, Global Research Report: Japan, found that:

For the period 2005-2009, physics proved to be Japan’s focus, with roughly 54,800 papers constituting just over 11 percent of the field

The average rate of citation is significantly below those of the other G7 nations. Japan scores 2 percentage points below the world average for the period 2005-2009

Regional collaboration with China and South Korea are likely to be of increasing significance as their domestic research bases grow – another illustration of an emerging Asia/Pacific regional network

This report suggests that Japan is underperforming. From the report,

We now turn to Japan, a G7 economy and the traditional scientific leader of Asia. Japan drove its post-war reconstruction at a phenomenal pace. The post-war baby-boomers, shaped by the nation’s industrious character, provided a committed labor force that enabled strong economic growth into the 1960s and 1970s. However, by the time Japan established its well-founded reputation for excellence based on the quality of its innovative industrial products, the nation was falling into a so-called “Lost Decade” after the economy peaked in the 1980s. This was followed by chronic economic stagnation which continues until today. (p. 3)

There are some opportunities,

The quality of research has improved markedly in some institutions across the Asia-Pacific region and that pattern is likely to become pervasive. The leading institutions will want to partner with established regional centers of excellence. Japan could benefit enormously in gaining access by joining with new partners with new ideas who are just a few hours’ flight away.

Is there a threat here for Japan? The lack of impetus in what has evidently been a very strong research base must be worrying for any policy maker. But regional diversification may be just the stimulus that is needed to rebuild the momentum that enabled Japan to do so well in the post-war period. There is no doubt about the national capacity for rapid and dynamic intellectual and technological advancement. The research challenges of disease, ageing, food security, information technology and social inclusion are all targets to which that capacity could be applied collaboratively with enormous mutual benefit across the region.

I was particularly interested in this report since Japan has been one of the leaders in nanoscience/nanotechnology research. Strangely there’s no mention of either. Here’s the list of main science fields which were included (and which I excerpted) in Table 1 on page 6 of the report,

Physics
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Materials Science
Biology & Biochemistry
Chemistry
Molec. Biology & Genetics
Microbiology
Neuroscience & Behavior
Clinical Medicine
Immunology
Engineering
Space Science
Plant & Animal Science
Geosciences
Agricultural Sciences
Computer Science

I assume research in nanoscience/nanotechnology has been included in several of these classifications. Personally, I think it would be useful to analyse a nanoscience/nanotechnology data subset to find out if it is consistent with or contradicts the conclusions.

You can check out other global reports from Thomson Reuters here. Note: I had to sign up in order to access the reports. It’s free and you do get announcements of newly published reports.

On the China front, there was a June 29, 2010 posting by Dave Bruggeman at Pasco Phronesis about scientific research in China. Dave was responding to an article in the Washington Post by John Pomfret,

Last year, Zhao Bowen was part of a team that cracked the genetic code of the cucumber. These days, he’s probing the genetic basis for human IQ.

Zhao is 17.

Centuries after it led the world in technological prowess — think gunpowder, irrigation and the printed word — China has barged back into the ranks of the great powers in science. With the brashness of a teenager, in some cases literally, China’s scientists and inventors are driving a resurgence in potentially world-changing research.

Unburdened by social and legal constraints common in the West, China’s trailblazing scientists are also pushing the limits of ethics and principle as they create a new — and to many, worrisome — Wild West in the Far East.

First, some of Dave’s response as he unpacks part of this article,

As I suspect this article could get some play in science advocacy and debates over economic competitiveness, I’ve read it a few times, closely. I find it a bit of a puzzle, because it manages to hint at a lot more than it explains. That the headline fails to note the complexity of the issue, which the article tries to express, is no surprise. Where things fall short is in the lack of a consistent theme to the piece and in the continued emphasis on the quantitative in assessing scientific output. [emphases mine]

Since Dave goes on to talk about some of the ethical issues as well I’m going to focus on one of the dominant and damning metaphors used to set this piece.

Conflating cucumbers and IQs is interesting but the kicker (a three word paragraph)  is the 17 year old researcher. We then have China “barging” into research with the “brashness of a teenager” who is “unburdened by social and legal constraints”  and “pushing the limits of ethics and principles” in a “Wild West.”  In case anyone should miss the point, Pomfret’s article ends with this,

“If I had stayed in America, the chances of making a discovery would have been lower,” he said. “Here, people are willing to take risks. They give you money, and essentially you can do whatever you want.” [emphasis mine]

The article carries a somewhat patronizing tone and a blithe disregard for attitudes commonly found in scientists (and others) everywhere not just in China. As for why there are more research checks and balances in what he describes as “The West,” that’s very simple. Researchers crossed ethical lines and public outcry necessitated changes.

For example, there’s the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment. In the 1920’s a charitable organization approached the US Public Health Service (PHS) about providing medication for men suffering from syphillis in parts of the US South. The project started and then the money ran out so someone decided to change the project. It now became an experiment where doctors could observe the effects of untreated syphillis. No one informed the men. The Tuskegee experiment was continued until the 1970s. From the Tuskegee University website,

While study participants received medical examinations, none were told that they were infected with syphilis. They were either not treated or were treated at a level that was judged to be insufficient to cure the disease.

Over the course of the project, PHS officials not only denied study participants treatment, but prevented other agencies from supplying treatment.

During World War II, about 50 of the study subjects were ordered by their draft boards to undergo treatment for syphilis. The PHS requested that the draft boards exclude study subjects from the requirement for treatment. The draft boards agreed.

In 1943, the PHS began to administer penicillin to patients with syphilis. Study subjects were excluded.

Beginning in 1952, the PHS began utilizing local health departments to track study participants who had left Macon County. Until the end of the study in the 1970s, local health departments worked with the PHS to keep the study subjects from receiving treatment.

The project was finally brought to a stop 1972 when Peter Buxton told the story of the Tuskegee Study to an Associated Press reporter.

Jaw dropping, isn’t it?

To get back to my point, ‘The West’ is not inherently more ethical and while Pomfret does indicate the source for at least some of the funding for this ‘Wild West-type’ (or is it adolescent?) research in China, I’m willing to bet that at least some of it comes from ‘Western’ business interests.

There’s also some implied criticism of the ‘West’ from the Chinese researchers. After all, we’re afraid to “take risks.”

I’d like to see some open and honest discussion (i.e., let’s abandon the imagined moral superiority on anyone’s part) about some of these issues around ethics, competitiveness, and risktaking.

When is a nano-enabled product not nano-enabled?

1 Reply

Dietram Scheufele over at nanopublic has highlighted some research that David Berube (author of Nanohype—book and blog and professor at the University of North Carolina) and colleagues have published in Nanotechnology Law & Business (research article is behind a paywall). From Dietram’s July 3, 2010 blog posting (I’m unable to link to the specific post, so please scroll to or hunt for the date) about Berube’s research into the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ (PEN) Consumer Products Inventory (CPI),

The article takes a critical look at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) consumer product inventory. The inventory has been used widely as a gauge of the number and types of nano consumer products currently on the U.S. market.

… [the authors concluded]

“that the CPI is not wholly reliable, and does not have sufficient validity to justify its prominence as evidence for claims associated with the pervasiveness of nanotechnology on the U.S. and global markets. In addition, we caution researchers to approach the CPI with care and due consideration because using the CPI as a rhetorical flourish to amplify concerns about market intrusions seems unjustified.”

In other words, use the CPI with care. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to read Berube’s paper but I did go to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website and looked at the criteria for inclusion in the CPI where PEN clearly states the inventory’s limitations,

Selection of products

Most products in this inventory satisfy three criteria:

1. They can be readily purchased by consumers, and

2. They are identified as nano-based by the manufacturer OR another source, and

3. The nano-based claims for the product appear reasonable.

In every instance, we have tried to identify specific products from specific producers. However, since nanotechnology has broad applications in a variety of fields, we have included a number of “generic” products that you can find in many places on the market such as computer processor chips. These are clearly labeled in the inventory. In some cases, companies offer several similar nanotechnology-based products and product lines. To reduce redundancy, we have just included a few samples in this inventory and hope that they will provide an initial baseline for understanding how nanotechnology is being commercialized.

There are probably some products in the inventory which producers allege are “nano,” but which may not be. We have made no attempt to verify manufacturer claims about the use of nanotechnology in these products, nor have we conducted any independent testing of the products. We have tried to avoid including products that clearly do not use nanotechnology, but some have undoubtedly slipped through.

Finally, some products are marked “Archive” to indicate that their availability can no longer be ascertained. When these products were added to the inventory we included live links, but since then the company may have discontinued the product, gone out of business, removed a self-identifying “nano” claim or simply changed their web address. In these instances we have attempted to locate a cached version of the product website using The Internet Archive.

I imagine that despite PEN’s clearly statements some folks have referenced it carelessly hence the concern about using it as hype from Berube and his colleagues.

The bit about manufacturers removing the ‘nano’ claim hit home since I did some research into washers that use nanosilver. A friend was disturbed by a recent article about them and I remembered that the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had made a special designation for these types of washers. As it turns out, I got it 1/2 right. From the December 4, 2006 article by Susan Morissey in Chemical and Engineering News,

Silver—claimed to be nanoparticles—employed to kill bacteria in washing machines will now be regulated as a pesticide, EPA announced late last month. Currently, washers that generate silver ions are classified as devices and are not required to be registered with EPA.

The products at issue are Samsung washing machines that are advertised as using silver ions to kill 99.9% of odor-causing bacteria. This technology, called SilverCare, generates ions by applying current to two silver plates housed next to the machine’s tub. The ions are then directed into the tub during the wash cycle.

“EPA has determined that the Samsung silver ion-generating washing machine is subject to registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act,” according to an EPA statement. The agency decided to change the classification of the washer because it releases silver ions into the laundry “for the purpose of killing microbial pests,” the statement explains.

For its part, Samsung has pledged to comply with the change of policy. “Samsung has and will continue to work with EPA and state regulators regarding regulation of the silver washing machine,” the company says.

Several groups concerned about the environmental impact of nanoparticles of silver had asked EPA to reevaluate the way products containing such materials are regulated. For example, environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted in a letter to EPA that there are currently more than 40 products on the market in addition to Samsung’s washing machine that have made or implied claims of using nanoparticles of silver to kill bacteria.

NRDC praised EPA for taking what it called a “step in the right direction” by reclassifying nanosilver generated in a washer as a pesticide. The group also said this revised policy should lead to EPA reassessing other products that use nanoparticles of silver for their biocidal qualities.

A pesticide is not exactly a special designation but it certainly is unique as applied to clothes washers. The EPA announcement was made around the US Thanksgiving period (late November) according to a December 6, 2006 article by Scott E. Rickert in Industry Week. From Rickert’s article,

First, let’s backtrack and get the facts behind the headline. The trigger for the EPA decision was a Samsung washing machine. The “SilverWash” contains silver nanoparticles and claims that it helps to kill bacteria in clothes by releasing silver ions into the water during the wash.

Various U.S water authorities became concerned that discharged nanosilver might accumulate in the water system, particularly in wastewater treatment plants where beneficial bacteria are used to purify water of its toxins. This opinion means that nanosilver could be viewed as an environmental pesticide, requiring the product to be registered and tested under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In the words of EPA spokesperson Jennifer Wood, “The release of silver ions in the washing machines is a pesticide, because it is a substance released into the laundry for the purpose of killing pests.”

So what does this really mean to nano-industry? Specifically, we’re not sure yet. It will take several months for the final rules to be detailed in the Federal Register. But some of the early responses have me scratching my head.

One company has removed any reference to nanosilver from their marketing information for antimicrobial devices. Apparently, in the short run, that excludes them from any ruling. As Jim Jones, director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, said, “Unless you’re making a claim to kill a pest, you’re not a pesticide.”

This is not a simple ‘good guy vs. bad guy’ situation. Defining nanotechnology, nanoparticles, nanomaterials, etc. is a work in progress which makes attempts to regulate products and production in this area an even earlier work in progress. This situation is not confined to the US or to Canada. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be confined to any one country, which makes the situation applicable globally.

There is work being done and changes instituted, for example, the EPA has announced (from the PEN website),

At an April 29 presentation to the Pesticide Programs Dialogue Committee in Washington, D.C. EPA’s William Jordan announced a new working definition of nanomaterials as “an ingredient that contains particles that have been intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.” In addition EPA is preparing a Federal Register Announcement due out in June which announces a new interpretation of FIFRA/regulations and proposes a new policy stating that the presence of a nanoscale material in a pesticide product is reportable under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) and applies to already registered products as well as products pending registration.

As well, statements from the NanoBusiness Alliance suggest (in a previous posting on this blog) that there is some support within the business community for thoughtful regulation. As to what thoughtful means in this context, I think that’s something we, as a a society, need to work out.