Tag Archives: Michael Berger

Psychedelic illustration for a nanobioelectronic tongue

Leave a reply
A human tongue-like nanobioelectronic tongue. Illustration of the hTAS2R38-fucntionalized carboxylated polypyrrole nanotube. (Image: Dr. Park, Seoul National University)

A human tongue-like nanobioelectronic tongue. Illustration of the hTAS2R38-fucntionalized carboxylated polypyrrole nanotube. (Image: Dr. Park, Seoul National University)

This illustration accompanies a Dec. 14, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article by Michael Berger about the development of a nanobioelectronic tongue by Korean researchers (Note: I have removed links),

The concept of e-noses – electronic devices which mimic the olfactory systems of mammals and insects – is very intriguing to researchers involved in building better, cheaper and smaller sensor devices (read more: “Nanotechnology electronic noses”). Less well known is the fact that equivalent artificial sensors for taste – electronic tongues – are capable of recognizing dissolved substances (see for instance: “Electronic tongue identifies cava wines”).

“Even with current technological advances, e-tongue approaches still cannot mimic the biological features of the human tongue with regard to identifying elusive analytes in complex mixtures, such as food and beverage products,” Tai Hyun Park, a professor in the School of Chemical and Biological Engineering at Seoul National University, tells Nanowerk.

Park, together with Professor Jyongsik Jang and their collaborators, have now developed a human bitter-taste receptor as a nanobioelectronic tongue.

The team worked with a protein to develop the ‘tongue’,

The nanobioelectronic tongue uses a human taste receptor as a recognition element and a conducting polymer nanotube field effect transistor (FET) sensor as a sensor platform. Specifically, the Korean team functionalized carboxylated polypyrrole nanotubes with the human bitter taste receptor protein hTAS2R38. They say that the fabricated device could detect target bitter tastants with a detection limit of 1 femtomole and high selectivity.

…

“In the case of bitter taste, our nanobioelectronic tongue can be used for sensing quantitatively the bitter taste, for example, of coffee, chocolate drinks, drugs and oriental medicines,” says Park. “Our nanobioelectronic tongue can be used as an alternative to time-consuming and labor-intensive sensory evaluations and cell-based assays for the assessment of quality, tastant screening and basic research on the human taste system.”

Prachi Patel’s ??? 2012 article about the research for Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) provides more technical details about the testing,

The researchers tested their device’s response to four bitter compounds: phenylthiocarbamide, propylthiouracil, goitrin, and isothiocyanate. When these compounds bound to the protein-coated nanotubes, the researchers noted, the current through the transistors changed. For solutions of phenylthiocarbamide and propylthiouracil in buffer, the researchers could detect concentrations of 1 and 10 femtomolar, respectively. The device could sense goitrin and isothiocyanate, which are found in cruciferous vegetables, at picomolar concentrations in samples taken from vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, and kale.

The team also tested the sensor’s response to mixtures of bitter, sweet, and umami (or savory) flavor molecules. The device responded only when the bitter compounds were present in the mixtures, even at femtomolar concentrations. Park says that the researchers are now trying to make sensors for sweet and umami tastes by using human taste receptors that respond to those flavors.

Here’s a citation (not an official one) and a link to the researchers’ paper,

Human Taste Receptor-Functionalized Field Effect Transistor as a Human-Like Nanobioelectronic Tongue by Hyun Seok Song, Oh Seok Kwon, Sang Hun Lee, Seon Joo Park, Un-Kyung Kim, Jyongsik Jang, and Tai Hyun Park in Nano Lett., Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/nl3038147 Publication Date (Web): November 26, 2012 Copyright © 2012 American Chemical Society

Access to the full article is behind a paywall.

Nanotechnology scene in China

Leave a reply

There was a Dec. 5, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article by Michael Berger which focused on a review (Engineering Small Worlds in a Big Society: Assessing the Early Impacts of Nanotechnology in China [behind a paywall]) in a special issue of the Wiley journal, Policy Review. It seems timely given today’s (Dec. 10, 2012) earlier posting (Wanxiang America wins bid for most of A123 Systems’ assets) about a China-based company’s successful bid for a bankrupt US company that produced Li-ion (lithium-ion) batteries.

From Berger’s Dec. 5, 2012 article (Note: I have removed links),

A recent review (“Engineering Small Worlds in a Big Society: Assessing the Early Impacts of Nanotechnology in China”) analyzes the early impacts of nanotechnology on China’s economic and innovation development in six key areas. It concludes that the country’s effort to join the world leaders in nanoscale R&D has made significant progress. Although several effects are difficult to capture, cross-country and cross-regional collaborations, institutional development, regional spread, industrial and enterprise development, as well as research and education capabilities, have been influenced positively by the new programs in China’s nanotechnology initiative.

However, it seems difficult to estimate the role of particular policies in this process; in other words, what is the specific contribution of nanotechnology programs relative to the entire complex of new initiatives aimed at promoting indigenous innovation in China. The authors – Evgeny A. Klochikhin and Philip Shapira from the Manchester Institute for Innovation Research – find that nanotechnology policies are contributing to addressing existing innovation systems lock-ins and historical path dependencies in China.

In spite of that, many challenges remain, including those of separation of research and training, uneven distribution of science and technology across regions, poor mechanisms of technology transfer, and challenges for independent science-driven entrepreneurial development.

Berger’s article (illustrated with diagrams) lists six key areas assessed by Klochikhin and Shapira,

… [1] institutional development, knowledge flows, and network efficiency; [2] research and education capabilities; [3] industrial and enterprise growth; [4] regional spread; [5] cluster and network development; and [6] product innovation. They caution, though, that these areas do not cover the entire spectrum of the social and economic effects of a given technology on individual nations but can be used as a model for an initial estimate of such effects.

Berger’s and Klochikhin’s and Shapira’s articles come as no surprise given the intense interest in China. A Nov. 9, 2012 posting about the recent S.NET (Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies) 2012 conference highlighted a presentation by Denis Simon at a conference panel titled, Will China’s effort to become a high-tech innovator succeed? If you go to the conference presentations webpage and scroll down to the Weds., Oct. 24, 2012  9 am – 10:30 am slot, you can download one or all of the presentations from that session.

ETA Dec. 10, 2012 1330 PST: Philip Shapira has been mentioned here before, most recently in March 29, 2012 posting about nanotechnology’s economic impacts and lifecycle assessments.

Liquid solar blocker from Ontario’s Hy-Power Nano

Leave a reply

Hy-Power Nano, mentioned in my Aug. 15, 2012 posting, has announced its first nanotechnology-enabled product and it’s a coating product for windows. From the Sept. 3, 2012 news item by Will Soutter item on Azonano,

Hy-Power Nano, the subsidiary of South Ontario-based [Canada] Hy-Power Coatings, engaged in developing nanocoating products characterized by thermal insulation and a solar blocking capability has introduced its first product labeled the Hy-Power Clear Liquid Solar Blocker.

The launch of the solar blocker represents a significant milestone in the company’s endeavors towards the development of nanotechnology-based coating products. The product was demonstrated in Mississauga at the International Conference Centre to a group of customers. The product is the output of two-and-a-half years of labor initiated after Hy-Power Nano President and CEO, Joseph Grzyb, envisaged the potential of leveraging their 46 years of expertise in industrial coating in combination with nanotechnology.

Hy-Power Nano’s Aug. 31, 2012 product announcement offers this comment from the company’s president, Joseph Grzyb,

“While we all love sunlight, ultraviolet (UV) rays can be damaging and infrared (IR) rays are a source of energy costs,” says Joseph Grzyb, President and CEO of Hy-Power Nano. “Our Clear Liquid Solar Blocker is so clear you can’t see it on glass, yet it blocks 99.99 per cent of UV and 40 per cent of infrared rays. Since the product is liquid-based, it can be applied on a variety of glass surfaces and geometries.”

“There are many applications for this product. For example, for retailers, that means products in windows won’t fade from sunlight while allowing customers a completely unobstructed view of the goods in the window. Skylights coated with our product allow people to enjoy the comfort and natural light without any negative impacts. There are actually quite a range of needs addressed by this product,” adds Grzyb.

There’s a lot of research interest in windows these days and it’s not just in Canada. This Aug. 27, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight essay by Michael Berger offers an overview of some of the latest work,

Buildings and other man-made structures consume as much as 30-40% of the primary energy in the world, mainly for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting. In particular, air conditioners are responsible for a large proportion of the energy usage in the US: 13% in 2006 and 10% in 2020 (projected) of the total primary energy. Air conditioning in China is 40-60% of a building’s energy consumption (the exact figure depends on the area of the building), and overall, accounts for 30% of the total primary energy available. These figures will grow very rapidly with urbanization development.

…

“Smart window” is a term that refers to a glass window that allows intelligent control of the amount of light and heat passing though. This control is made possible by an external stimulus such as electrical field (electrochromic), temperature (thermochromic), ultraviolet irradiation (photochromic) and reductive or oxidizing gases (gasochromic). These technologies save energy, address CO2 concerns, improve comfort levels, and have economic benefits.

One of these days I’d like to see a study or two about the occupational health and safety issues for people who produce and apply coatings such as this one from Hy-Power.

Medicine, nanoelectronics, social implications, and figuring it all out

1 Reply

Given today’s (Aug. 27, 2012) earlier posting about nanoelectronics and tissue engineering, I though it was finally time to feature Michael Berger’s Aug. 16, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight essay, The future of nanotechnology electronics in medicine, which discusses the integration of electronics into the human body.

First, Berger offers a summary of some of the latest research (Note: I have removed  links),

In previous Nanowerk Spotlights we have already covered numerous research advances in this area: The development of a nanobioelectronic system that triggers enzyme activity and, in a similar vein, the electrically triggered drug release from smart nanomembranes; an artificial retina for color vision; nanomaterial-based breathalyzers as diagnostic tools; nanogenerators to power self-sustained biosystems and implants; future bio-nanotechnology might even use computer chips inside living cells.

A lot of nanotechnology work is going on in the area of brain research. For instance the use of a carbon nanotube rope to electrically stimlate neural stem cells; nanotechnology to repair the brain and other advances in fabricating nanomaterial-neural interfaces for signal generation.

…

International cooperation in this field has also picked up. Just recently, scientists have formed a global alliance for nanobioelectronics to rapidly find solutions for neurological disorders; the EuroNanoBio project is a Support Action funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union; and ENIAC, the European Technology Platform on nanoelectronics, has decided to make the development of medical applications one of its main objectives.

Berger cites a recent article in the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) Nano (journal) by scientists in today’s earlier posting about tissue scaffolding and 3-D electrnonics,

In a new perspective article in the July 31, 2012, online edition of ACS Nano (“The Smartest Materials: The Future of Nanoelectronics in Medicine” [behind a paywall]), Tzahi Cohen-Karni (a researcher in Kohane’s lab), Robert Langer, and Daniel S. Kohane provide an overview of nanoelectronics’ potential in the biomedical sciences.

…

They write that, as with many other areas of scientific endeavor in recent decades, continued progress will require the convergence of multiple disciplines, including chemistry, biology, electrical engineering, computer science, optics, material science, drug delivery, and numerous medical disciplines. ”

Advances in this research could lead to extremely sophisticated smart materials with multifunctional capabilities that are built in – literally hard-wired. The impact of this research could cover the spectrum of biomedical possibilities from diagnostic studies to the creation of cyborgs.”

Berger finishes with this thought,

Ultimately, and here we are getting almost into science fiction territory, nanostructures could not only incorporate sensing and stimulating capabilities but also potentially introduce computational capabilities and energy-generating elements. “In this way, one could fabricate a truly independent system that senses and analyzes signals, initiates interventions, and is self-sustained. Future developments in this direction could, for example, lead to a synthetic nanoelectronic autonomic nervous system.”

This Nanowerk Spotlight essay provides a good overview of nanoelectronics  research in medicine and lots of  links to previous related essays and other related materials.

I am intrigued that there is no mention of the social implications for this research and I find social science or humanities research on social social implications of emerging technology rarely discusses the technical aspects revealing what seems to be an insurmountable gulf. I suppose that’s why we need writers, artists, musicians, dancers, pop culture, and the like to create experiences, installations, and narratives that help us examine the technologies and their social implications, up close.

Toxicology convo heats up: OECD releases report on inhalation toxicity testing and Nature Nanotechnology publishes severe critique of silver toxicity overanalysis

2 Replies

This has to be one of the rawest reports I’ve seen and that’s not a criticism. The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has released no. 35 in its Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials titled, INHALATION TOXICITY TESTING: EXPERT MEETING ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO OECD TEST GUIDELINES AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.

This report is the outcome of a meeting which took place in fall 2011 according to the July 4, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

The expert meeting on Inhalation Toxicity Testing for Nanomaterials was held on 19-20 October 2011 in The Hague, hosted by the Netherlands, with the aim of discussing the results of the OECD Sponsorship Programme (under the responsibility of SG3) on this specific topic and addressing issues relevant to inhalation toxicity. Fifty experts from the WPMN as well as the OECD Working Group of the National Coordinators for the Test Guidelines programme (WNT) participated in the meeting.

This is a partial list of recommendations from the report,

Recommendations raised by the speakers for the discussion

7. Various recommendations were raised by the speakers that served as points for discussion. These recommendations do not necessarily reflect a general agreement. …

• “Provide explicit guidance for the generation of aerosols (sample preparation) based on the exposure scenario”. Hans Muijser

• “Generation of a test atmosphere should have workplace characteristics, but should be adapted to adjust for rodent respirability”. Günter Oberdörster

• “A choice for a dry aerosol or a liquid aerosol should depend on the given test substance and planned test approach (hazard- or risk driven)”. Otto Creutzenberg

• “Aerosol characterization should include size distribution, mass, number and morphology of the material”. Günter Oberdörster

• “Mass concentration is not sufficient for comparison of nanomaterials of the same chemical composition”. Flemming Cassee

• “Dry powders will appear as agglomerate upon aerosolization, which needs to be addressed in the sample preparation guidelines”. Flemming Cassee

• “Dissolution behaviour of the test substance should be assessed in physiological fluids mimicking various lung-specific pH ambiences (neutral, acid)”. Otto Creutzenberg

• “Data analysis should include interpretation of aerosol characteristics, NOAEL, risk assessment implications, mode of action and a strategy for dosimetric extrapolation to humans. The inclusion of biokinetic data is important”. Günter Oberdörster

• “Include biokinetics in the guidance, since different distribution patterns in the whole organism are likely dependent on physicochemical characteristics of nanoparticle aerosols and the dose at the target site will therefore be different. This will allow the assessment of accumulation of nanomaterials in the body at low exposure levels and long-term exposure. A way to perform it is by radiolabelled materials, chemical elemental analysis to determine organ concentrations and transmission electron microscopy”. Wolfgang Kreyling. Others who have suggested inclusion of biokinetics or recognized the importance were Otto Creutzenberg, Frieke Kuper, Günter Oberdörster and David Warheit. (p. 13)

You actually see who made the recommendations! Speakers discussed carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, zinc oxide and more, all of which you can read about in summary form in this 38 pp. report.

Meanwhile, Nature Nanotechnology has published an incendiary commentary about nanosilver and the latest request by the European Commission for another study.  Michael Berger has devoted a July 4, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article to the commentary,

A commentary by Steffen Foss Hansen and Anders Baun in this week’s Nature Nanotechnology (“When enough is enough”  [behind a paywall]) pointedly asks “when will governments and regulatory agencies stop asking for more reports and reviews, and start taking regulatory action?”

Hansen and Baun, both from the Technical University of Denmark’s Department of Environmental Engineering, take issue with yet another scientific opinion on nanosilver that has been requested by the European Commission in late 2011: “SCENIHR – Request for a scientific opinion on Nanosilver: safety, health and environmental effects and role in antimicrobial resistance” (pdf). Specifically, the EC wants SCENIHR to answer four questions under the general heading of ‘Nanosilver: safety, health and environmental effects, and role in antimicrobial resistance’.

“Most of these questions – and possibly all of them – have already been addressed by no less than 18 review articles in scientific journals, the oldest dating back to 2008, plus at least seven more reviews and reports commissioned and/or funded by governments and other organizations” Hansen tells Nanowerk. “Many of these reviews and reports go through the same literature, cover the same ground and identify many of the same data gaps and research needs.”

Here’s a prediction from Hansen and Baun as to what will be in the next report due in 2013  (from the Nature Nanotechnology commentary When enough is enough in 7, 409–411 (2012) published online  July 1, 2012 [Note: I have removed links and footnotes]),

… we predict that the SCENIHR’s upcoming review will consist of five main sections summarizing: the properties and uses of nanosilver; human and environmental toxicity; microbial resistance; risk assessment; and research needs. We also predict that the SCENIHR’s report will say something along the following lines: “Nanosilver is reportedly one of the most widely used nanomaterials in consumer products today but the scale of production and use is unknown. The antibacterial properties of nanosilver are exploited in a very diverse set of products and applications including dietary supplements, personal care products, powdered colours, textile, paper, kitchenware and food storage.” And like many previous reviews and reports, the new report is likely to cite the Consumer Product Inventory maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

…

We acknowledge that answering the question of how to regulate the use of nanosilver is not easy given the different views of the different stakeholders in this debate and the complex regulatory landscape associated with the many applications of nanosilver. …

…

Arguably, we all want that the pros and cons of regulatory policy options be based on the best available science while taking broader socio-economical and ethical aspects into consideration before deciding on the appropriate regulatory measures concerning human and environmental exposure to nanosilver. Although it is common for independent scientific experts to be commissioned to gather, analyse and review the available scientific information, and to provide recommendations on how to address a given risk, we do not see the need for further reviews. It is time for the European Commission to decide on the regulatory measures that are appropriate for nanosilver. These measures should then be implemented wholeheartedly and their effectiveness monitored.

I predict this commentary will provoke some interesting responses and I will try to add the ones I can find to this posting as they become available.

ETA July 6, 2012: Dexter Johnson weighed in with his July 5, 2012 posting (Note: I have removed a link),

What may make the matter even worse is that we may already have a pretty substantial framework—in the US, at least—on which to base nanosilver regulations, which dates back to the 1950s. It concerned what was called at the time collodial silver, which is essentially what today is called nanosilver.

But getting back to current stagnant state of affairs, it’s hard to know exactly what’s causing the paralysis. It could be concern over implementing regulations in a depressed economy, or just a fear of taking a position. But in both these instances, the lack of action is making the situation worse. …

Nanoparticles go boom!

Leave a reply

MIKE3 test apparatus. (image taken from "Fire and explosion properties of nanopowders", Research Report RR782, UK Health and Safety Executive)

Michael Berger at Nanowerk has written a Spotlight essay on the explosivity of nanoparticles. From the March 20, 2012 essay,

Recent studies have found that nanomaterials – in this case dusts and powders having nanosize particles – exhibit an explosion severity which is not disproportionate to micrometer-sized materials, but the likelihood of explosion is quite high due to very low ignition energies and temperatures.

…

The review concludes that nanomaterials present a dust explosion hazard, with metallic nanoparticles being particularly reactive. Nanomaterials have been shown to display lower ignition energy and temperature requirements than larger particles. Due to this high sensitivity, explosion hazards may exist for many processes including, but not limited to, mixing, grinding, drilling, sanding, and cleaning.

The essay is well worth a read as Berger synthesizes information from more than one study and he provides some technical detail.

Machine/flesh, robotic venus flytraps, and artificial muscles

Leave a reply

On the heels of yesterday’s musings about machine/flesh in the context of my Carbon nanotubes, neurons, and spinal cords … posting, there’s a new Spotlight essay (on Nanowerk) by Michael Berger titled, Robotic Venus flytrap aids artificial muscle research. From the essay,

Mohsen Shahinpoor, Richard C. Hill Professor & Chairman Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Maine, has created a robotic replica of the carnivorous Venus flytrap with nanosensors and a thin, pliable metal composite material that he invented as part of his ongoing artificial muscle research. The device offers promise in the development of electrically stimulated artificial muscle that could be implanted in people to help overcome muscular disease or paralysis.

It’s the Venus flytrap’s (Dionaea muscipula) trigger sensitivity to movement (when the plant feels movement along certain hairs, it snaps shut within milliseconds to trap its prey). Here’s an image from the Botanical Society of America’s Mysterious Venus Flytrap webpage which illustrates the hairs (cilia) that act as triggers,

Venus flytrap trigger hairs

I have briefly glanced at the research paper, Biomimetic robotic Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula Ellis) made with ionic polymer metal  composites (open access PDF), published by IOP Publishers in its Bioinspiration & Biomimetics journal (vol. 6, no. 4). The introduction, the conclusion, and the images are the most accessible for someone (like me) who doesn’t have a background in electrical engineering. Here’s a bit from the introduction (Note: I have removed the bibiographic notes),

The rapid closure of the VFT lobes in about hundreds of milliseconds is one of the fastest nastic movements in higher plants. Darwin described the VFT plant as ‘one of the most wonderful plants in the world’. Mechanical stimulation of trigger hairs in the lobes of the VFT by a prey causes the traps to close rapidly. The reader is referred to a number of studies on the mechanism of closing of lobes of the VFT as described in … Note that Batalin was the first to propose a possible mechanism for such nastic movements in higher plants. Sibaoka discussed the physiology of rapid movements in higher plants.

…

Here, we propose that the mechanisms of sensing of the prey wiggling in its lobes by the trigger hairs and the trap closing of VFT are very similar to sensing and actuation mechanisms in IPMCs and thus one can design, fabricate and operate a biomimetic robotic VFT equipped with IPMCs [ionic polymeric metal composite].

The researchers don’t mention any applications (none I could find in the paper) for these progenitors to artificial muscles but Berger notes at the end of his essay,

The development of artificial muscles is one of the key areas for bionic enhancements or replacements. Artificial muscles like these could find applications in the medical field or for engineering applications.

I suppose you can’t call the possible integration in medical applications of these artificial muscles machine/flesh so much as they are plant/machine/flesh.

New type of scaffolding for tissue engineering

Leave a reply

Since the international July 2011 coverage of Andemariam Teklesenbet Beyene’s synthetic trachea transplant (mentioned in my Aug. 2, 2011 posting), I’ve been quite interested in tissue engineering. Scientists at Northwestern University (US) have developed a new type of scaffolding for tissue engineering.

There’s a description in the Feb. 12, 2012 news release on EurekAlert of  tissue engineering and scaffolding and some of the disadvantages with the current technology,

Through tissue engineering, researchers seek to regenerate human tissue, such as bone and cartilage, that has been damaged by injury or disease. Scaffolds — artificial, lattice-like structures capable of supporting tissue formation — are necessary in this process to provide a template to support the growing cells. Over time, the scaffold resorbs into the body, leaving behind the natural tissue.

Scaffolds are typically engineered with pores that allow the cells to migrate throughout the material. The pores are often created with the use of salt, sugar, or carbon dioxide gas, but these additives have various drawbacks; They create an imperfect pore structures and, in the case of salt, require a lengthy process to remove the salt after the pores are created, said Guillermo Ameer, professor of biomedical engineering at the McCormick School of Engineering and professor of surgery at the Feinberg School of Medicine.

The new scaffolds are more flexible and can be tailored to ‘resorb’ at different times,

The new scaffolds, created from a combination of ceramic nanoparticles and elastic polymers, were formed in a vacuum through a process termed “low-pressure foaming” that requires high heat, Ameer said. The result was a series of pores that were highly interconnected and not dependent on the use of salt.

The new process creates scaffolds that are highly flexible and can be tailored to degrade at varying speeds depending on the recovery time expected for the patient. The scaffolds can also incorporate nano-sized fibers, providing a new range of mechanical and biological properties, Ameer said. [emphasis mine]

I wonder what “new range of mechanical and biological properties” will be enabled; I was not able to find any speculation.

In the meantime, here’s an image of the scaffolding from the McCormick School (at Northwestern University) http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/article_1043.html,

For anyone who’s interested in an update on Andemariam Teklesenbet Beyene, according to this Dec. 9, 2011 posting on StemSave, he’s doing well.

ETA Feb. 14, 2012: Michael Berger at Nanowerk has written an article titled, Tissue engineering of 3D tubular structures, which provides some insight into another aspect of creating scaffolding, the tubular nature of many of our organs.

Nano and food: don’t ask, don’t tell

1 Reply

Michael Berger’s Nanowerk Spotlight Feb. 2,2012 article ‘What’s happening with nanofoods?‘ answers a question I’ve been asking myself lately. As he points out (I have removed the links, please visit Berger’s article to pursue them),

Back in the early 2000’s, food nanotechnology seemed to be a very hot topic and large industrial food companies were eager to explore new opportunities offered by nanotechnology applications. Then, as critical voices from NGOs (see for instance FoE’s report: “Out of the laboratory and on to our plates: Nanotechnology in food and agriculture”) and regulators (UK House of Lords report: “Nanotechnologies and Food”) appeared, the food industry went into silent mode (see our Nanowerk Spotlight: “Food nanotechnology – how the industry is blowing it”). But that doesn’t mean that food nanotechnologies aren’t being researched and developed in labs around the world.

He goes on to describe the state of nanofood research on an application by application basis (culled from an article inTrends in Food Science & Technology “Food applications of nanotechnologies: An overview of opportunities and challenges for developing countries” [behind a paywall]). Here’s my excerpt from Berger’s article,

Application Status
Processed nanostructured or -textured food (e.g. less use of fat and emulsifiers, better taste) A number of nanostructured food ingredients and additives understood to be in the R&D pipeline; eg. mayonnaise
Nanocarrier systems for delivery of nutrients and supplements in the form of liposomes or biopolymer-based nanoencapsulated substances A number are commercially available in some countries and over the internet
Organic nanosized additives for food, supplements and animal feed Materials range from colors, preservatives, flavorings to supplements and antimicrobials
Inorganic nanosized additives for food, health food, and animal feed A range of inorganic additives (silver, iron, silica, titanium dioxide, selenium, platinum, calcium, magnesium) is available for supplements, nutraceuticals, and food and feed applications

Berger goes on to enumerate more applications and extends the discussion into the area of public perceptions, industry fears of another ‘Frankenfoods/GM” panic, and corporate social responsibility.

On reading Berger’s article, I was reminded of my Oct. 11, 2011 posting abut a Coca Cola executive’s response to criticisms of corporate secrecy regarding nanofood research and applications from the UK’s House of Lords,

Lord Krebs, chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, scolded the sector over its “reluctance to put its head above the parapet and declare openly what kind of research was going on to develop nanotechnology in food”. The report [Nanotechnologies and Food: Science and Technology Committee Report] backed the introduction of a public register on the nano-research to assuage consumer anxiety.

But Dr Knowles [Dr. Mike Knowles, global scientific and regulatory affairs vice president for Coca-Cola] rejected the criticisms and said it was a failure of the committee to grasp basic commercial realities.

I’m pretty sure that Lord Krebs wasn’t suggesting that food and beverage companies reveal industrial secrets giving away competitive advantages but that they should let the public know what’s cooking in their labs. For anyone who’s interested in the current state of nanofood research, Berger’s recent Spotlight is an excellent place to start.

Short mention of Nanowerk and the Shorty

Leave a reply

Congratulations to Michael Berger and Nanowerk;s Nanotechnology News for being in the running for a Shorty Award. It’s still possible to nominate (vote) for the website through to Feb. 17, 2012.  Here’s a brief description of the Shorty awards (from the Rules page on the Shorty Awards website),

The Shorty Awards honor the best of social media, by recognizing the people and organizations producing real-time short form content on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, Foursquare, and the rest of the social Web.

There are specific rules,

How to Make Nominations

  • To make a nomination, fill out the nomination form at ShortyAwards.com or send a tweet like this: I nominate @TwitterUser for a Shorty Award in #category because… [must add reason here].
  • You can also tweet shorter nominations like this: #shortyawards @username #category [must add reason here].
  • Be as creative with the reason. A tweet without a reason for the nomination will not be counted.
  • The nomination must be relevant to the category.
  • Vote for as many different people as you want, in as many categories as you want, as often as you want.
  • Only one nominee and one category per tweet.
  • Voting for the same person in the same category more than once simply replaces the text of your original vote; it does not count as an additional vote.
  • You can vote in any of the featured categories or create a community category. If a community category becomes popular and has enough compelling finalists, it could become a featured category.
  • Nominees and potential nominees (everyone on earth) are welcome to campaign and encourage friends to vote for them. Nominees are encouraged to take the Shorty Interview and embed campaign videos to help both voters and members of the Academy get to know them.
  • If you change your Twitter username, any votes you received under your old user name won’t carry over.
  • Nominees can delete any nomination received by logging into the Shorty Awards profile page and clicking the “delete” link next to that nomination.
  • Nominations in certain Special Awards categories may have special instructions. Read each Special Award page to find out how to make nominations in one of those categories. Please note that there may also be exceptions to the rules for certain featured categories that supercede the general Shorty Awards rules.
  • The Shorty Awards use several algorithms to automatically disqualify nomination activity that appears to be intended to game the system. We also perform periodic audits to check if our system is being gamed. Contact us if you see any suspicious activity.
  • Nominators must be active Twitter users prior to the start of the competition. Votes originating from new Twitter accounts or accounts used mainly for Shorty Awards voting will automatically be disqualified and will not count toward the rankings.
  • We reserve the right to disqualify nominees that do any of the following: violate trademarks, infringe copyrights, impersonate others (except in the #fakeaccount  category, where this is encouraged), invade privacy, make threats of violence, promote illegal activities, promote pornography, spam others, use bots, scripts or other automated means for voting, engage in abusive behavior, promise anything of value in exchange for a nomination, or otherwise violate the friendly spirit of the awards.

This is the 4th annual event for the Shorty Awards and they do seem to have made a splash (from the About page),

“Hollywood has the Oscars. Broadway has the Tonys. Now Twitter has the… Shorty Awards” [New York Times]

I was a little curious as to who (awkward grammar choice, eh?) is hosting/promoting these awards (from the About page),

The Shorty Awards are produced by Sawhorse Media, a New York technology startup. Our sites include the leading destination for journalists on Twitter and social media, Muck Rack, the brand new Muck Rack Pro tools for communications professionals looking to connect with journalists on social media, and the directory of Twitter people and lists Listorious.

It’s a classic public relations ploy to promote your company, create an award and competition. It’s hard work so bravo to the Sawhorse Media folks for being successful with this.

Good luck to Michael Berger and Nanowerk!