There are nanoparticles used in over 1,000 everyday products and counting, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies . Three particles in particular are currently raising the most concern with regards to public health: nanosilver, titanium dioxide, and carbon nanotubes. The primary issue, as with nanotechnology in general, is not that these particles are inherently “bad” or should be banned from use full-stop, but that it would have been better to know far more about them before they were released into the world. Nonetheless, we’ve pulled together the information that is known about these three, what sorts of products they’re in, and their respective risks and benefits, in an effort to arm consumers with at least some knowledge. One caveat: With no labeling in place for nanomaterials, it can be difficult to determine whether a particular product does or doesn’t contain a given nanoparticle.

Because they are just smaller versions of existing particles, nanoparticles are not regulated as separate entities. In fact, according to Michael Vassar, a scientist and former collaborator for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, the term “nanoparticle” is more of a marketing ploy than anything else, essentially cooked up by scientists looking for research funding. “It’s not a question of ‘are nanoparticles dangerous?’,” he says. “But more, what is the size at which this or that particular particle becomes a risk to human health. Asbestos is a good example of that–it’s dangerous because at small sizes it grows fibers that can infiltrate the lungs. But no one talks about nano-asbestos.”

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology (PEN) has done a great job compiling a database of products with manufacturer-specified nanomaterials; you can find that database here, or download the PEN’s new “FindNano” app on your iPhone.

We start our series with nanosilver, not because it’s more or less worth studying than the others, but because it’s in such a wide range of products, and because the EPA seems to be the most comfortable with it being in consumer goods.

Nanosilver and Human Health

Nanosilver is added to products from pesticides to toothpaste to kitchen equipment because of its antibacterial properties. A key-word search for “nanosilver” in the PEN database delivers over 200 products, ranging from razors to food storage containers to slippers to soaps, shampoos and toothpastes.

As Vassar points out, people have been ingesting silver for its antibacterial properties since the Middle Ages. “Chances are, it’s not terrible for you,” he says. Vassar adds that because nano-sized silver particles are inert and don’t tend to form long fibers, they are likely less of a health risk than particles that do form fibers, like asbestos or carbon nanotubes. “Still, it would be great to see a reliable study done on it, and to see some sort of government oversight and labeling. Unfortunately, I just can’t see that happening in the United States.”

In fact, some nanosilver proponents go beyond saying “it’s not terrible for you,” and claim that nanosilver could be a cure for viruses ranging from MRSA (the so-called “superbug” Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) to HIV to cancer. In a study published in the Journal of Nanotechnology, scientists from the University of Texas at Austin and Mexico University Nuevo Leon found that silver nanoparticles one to 10 nanometers in size, when attached to HIV-1, prevented the virus from bonding to host cells. A study of nanosilver published in 2007 in International Immunopharmacology found that nanosilver particles can alter the production of immune signaling compounds known as cytokines. The authors’ conclusion: “These experimental data suggest that nano-silver could be used to treat immunologic and inflammatory diseases.”

That’s great if their use is very well-controlled, but opponents of nanosilver fear the consequences of poorly controlled use of nanosilver in medical settings. A number of studies released over the past two years have revealed that if it runs loose in the body, nanosilver can interfere with healthy cells, adversely affecting human immune systems. Christopher Perkins, a scientist at the University of Connecticut, began researching nanosilver’s effect on human cells when he learned that the particles were already used in various types of tubing used in hospitals. He found that at the 10nanometer or smaller size, the particles did in fact attack “bad” cells, but that they also increased the production of free radicals, which is not good. “You’ve got all of these free radicals that have to go somewhere,” he told Science News. “And they’re pretty nonspecific in what they target. Which means they’ll kill healthy cells as well as bacteria or other pathogens.”

Nanosilver and the Environment

In 2009, scientists began voicing concern that the volume of nanosilver unleashed on the world in the last few years could lead to negative impacts on ecosystems, including everything from degrading wetlands to causing fish kills. A new study by Bernd Nowack, published this month in Science, however, evaluated wastewater treatment plants and found that the wastewater treatment process converts potentially dangerous nanosilver into benign nano silver sulfide particles. He adds that more study is needed to determine how these particles behave in the environment, but concludes that, from an environmental standpoint, the use of silver nanoparticles in consumer products is no different from the use of silver in other forms.

The problem, according to Jennifer Sass at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), is that nanosilver isn’t simply replacing silver in various manufacturing applications, it’s being used for entirely new things. The environmental impact of increased silver–nano or otherwise–in groundwater and soil are as yet unknown, and should be better understood before more uses for nanosilver are found. Unfortunately, the pace of innovation in terms of using nanoparticles to make products better or to streamline manufacturing in some way far outstrips the pace of research and regulation.

Companies are now beginning to tread lightly around nanotechnology for fear of consumer backlash. Some are even specifically calling out nanotechnology, or particular nanoparticles, in their sustainability reports. In the 2010 Sustainability Report from Colgate, for example, there is an entire section on nanotechnology, in which the company states, “At the present time, Colgate does not use any such ingredients or materials in its products anywhere in the world, although from time to time it has such ingredients or materials under study.”

Regulation of Nanosilver

Scientists and environmentalists have been calling for better regulation of nanoparticles for at least the past five years. In 2007, the NRDC’s Sass authored a report outlining a three-part framework for regulating nanomaterials. Countless other organizations have released similar reports, including the National Research Council, which concluded in its 2008 report that 18 government agencies, including the EPA and the FDA, had failed to prove that nanoparticles were not dangerous, and thus shirked their duties in regards to protecting the American people. Also in 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment filed a legal petition with the EPA to halt the sale of consumer products containing nanosilver. At the time, Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said: “Nanosilver and its use as a pesticide has got to be better regulated. It seems to be slipping under the radar.”

But in the United States at least, the cautions of the scientific community seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Or at least on broke and politically powerless ears. It’s not that as though the EPA is sitting around and doing nothing. In fact the agency is currently researching the big three nanoparticles, producing detailed case studies of each. The case study on nanosilver (as used in disinfectant sprays) was released August 18, 2010. The agency plans to host a public meeting to discuss its findings this month, and to refine its case study, releasing a final study in June.

The problem is that the agency is continuing to make regulatory decisions about nanosilver in the meantime, which seems like quite a dangerous example of putting the cart before the horse. Case in point: On August 12, 2010, six days before releasing its draft case study of nanosilver, the EPA announced its intention to conditionally register a pesticide product containing nanosilver. This would allow this product to be sold in the US for 4 years on the condition that the company provides data now lacking on toxicology, exposure, and environmental impacts.

According to Sass, in order to “conditionally register” a product, EPA must show three things:

In the case of nanosilver, she says, EPA has failed to meet these criteria, which is why the NRDC plans to sue the agency should it choose to proceed with the conditional registration.

In case the agency does move forward with its plan, and the lawsuit doesn’t go anywhere, scientists at Oregon State University and Ireland’s Centre for BioNano Interactions have published a list of recommendations for ensuring public safety if nanosilver-based pesticides are widely employed:

Although comprehensive and sensible, their recommendations are wildly optimistic in parts. It seems ludicrous to think that, while regulators have no problem opening the gates to nanoparticles, manufacturers will be extra careful as they include them in products, because we just don’t know what they do yet.

The post The Big Three Nanoparticles, Part One: Hi-Ho Nanosilver appeared first on The Faster Times.

Earlier this week the Natural Resources Defense Council’s resident nanotech expert, scientist Jennifer Sass, sent us off in 10 new directions for more information. The thing about nanomaterials, according to Sass, is that, like most things, they have the potential to be both beneficial and dangerous. “When anyone talks about nanotech, it’s usually in terms of a major scientific breakthrough or in a terrified, the sky is falling sort of way, and really neither is substantiated by the research that’s out there,” Sass says.

Friends of the Earth’s latest report is a prime example. While Sass calls the fundamental information contained within the report extremely well-researched and valuable, she says some of the general conclusions, particularly that using nanomaterials is more energy-intensive than it’s worth, just aren’t borne out by the research. “They also didn’t really talk about anything that’s remotely good news in the nanotech sphere,” Sass says, pointing to cleantech wunderkind A123 Systems as a prime example. The company uses nanomaterials to build its super-small and energy-efficient lithium batteries, which are used in everything from consumer electronics to electric vehicles.

“They’re building batteries for everything from watches up to hydroelectric dams, and they aren’t using all the toxic materials usually used in batteries,” Sass notes. “Also they’re scaled up and going–their batteries are being used all over the world. Friends of the Earth just sort of off-handedly mentioned them, and that to me is very one-sided reporting. It doesn’t empower the public to evaluate these things.”

According to every environment expert out there, more study is required to ensure that we effectively regulate nanomaterials. Unfortunately, in the meantime, thousands of them are in products that are already on the market.

“Regulators will tell you they have it under control but they don’t even have chemicals under control so they’re addressing nanomaterials within a system that’s already out of control just in terms of dealing with conventional, non-nano chemicals,” Sass says.

The first order of business for those looking to understand and then regulate nanomaterials should be the study of nanoparticles used in food products and packaging, followed closely by cosmetics and personal care products, according to Sass. You read correctly: food products.

A fascinating and frightening series by Pulitzer-prize-winning investigative journalist Andrew Schneider on AOL News (they are, in fact, still around) hints at how many nanoparticles may be in the U.S. food supply. The Food and Drug Administration, which does not regulate cosmetics or nutritional supplements, says no nano-containing food is sold in this country. But according to Schneider, some of the agency’s own risk assessors say that’s not true, pointing to growing evidence that the particles are already showing up on grocer’s shelves in a number of products. Meanwhile, a U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist who has first-hand knowledge of Latin American food packers told Schneider that the packers routinely dip U.S.-bound produce in a nanocoating to increase its shelf life. “We found no indication that the nanocoating, which is manufactured in Asia, has ever been tested for health effects,” the researcher says.

Nanocoating, eh? In addition to dipping foods in the stuff, large food product companies are excited at the prospect of nanocoatings for processing equipment. “Nanocoatings can be applied to machinery to inhibit bacteria growth, which means they need less cleaning,” Kathy Groves, project manager of microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research told FoodProductionDaily.com. “They do not kill bacteria but prevent the microorganisms from adhering to surfaces.”

In so doing, nanocoatings could not only cut down on maintenance and down-time at factories, but also reduce the need for cleaning detergents. Germany-based company Nanopool notes that sales of its nano-scale silicon dioxide liquid glass product to the food industry have picked up over the past year. “We already have a number of clients in the food industry such as McDonalds, as well as other major players in the biscuit, drinks, ready meals, meat and fish processing sectors,” Neil McClelland, a U.K.-based product manager for the company has said. “There have been barriers to the uptake of nanotechnology in the food industry – but we are seeing those barriers fall daily as people recognize the value and benefits of our product.”

Nanopool’s product contains no carbon nanotubes or nanosilver, the two nanoparticles most associated with heath risks, but that’s not to say that its environmental or health impacts are known or understood.

Nanocoatings are also popular in the food packaging realm, where antimicrobial materials such as nano titanium dioxide are prized for their ability to keep bacteria out and freshness in. Yum.

Know anything about nanomaterials in consumer products? Know someone who knows something? Leave a comment here, or email us at investigations@thefastertimes.com.

The post Tiny Particles in Your Food – The TFT Investigation Continues… appeared first on The Faster Times.

Okay, so maybe “How scary is nanotechnology?” is a leading question. The truth is, nanotechnology, like most things, is neither all bad nor all good.

But first of all, what is nanotechnology? It’s one of those catch-all terms that refers to an extremely broad branch of science in which physicists study and then attempt to control matter on an atomic or molecular scale. Generally nanotech involves dealing with structures that are 100 nanometers or smaller, and producing materials that are of a similar size. One of the most commonly used and studied structures, for example, is the carbon nanotube, a nano-sized cylindrical structure made from carbon molecules. Because of their structure, carbon nanotubes are extremely strong, and are great thermal conductors. Those two properties would be handy in materials for all sorts of things, from body armor to solar panels.

Nanoparticles have already been released into the world en masse. Nanosilver imbues many Americans’ socks with antimicrobial properties. Quantum dots and nanocrystals are found in all sorts of self-cleaning appliances. Nano-iron (also known as Zero Valent Iron) has been tested in remediation fluids at Superfund sites.

According to a 2008 survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson Center at Princeton and Pew Charitable Trusts), products containing nanoparticles are already flooding the market, with more than 800 products on shelves today. This includes food packaging, disinfectants, and clothing with nanosilver; cosmetics and sunscreen with nano zinc oxide.

But you’re not likely to see “nanosilver” anywhere on those packages of tube socks at CostCo. Because nanosilver is not a new chemical or ingredient–it’s a smaller version of an existing, and already regulated, particle–there’s nothing that requires companies to list the inclusion of the chemical on their packaging.

Yep, that’s right. There is absolutely no regulation of nanoparticles. When I first read that fact, I thought it must be hyperbole. But, although there are (thankfully) plenty of researchers studying how nanoparticles behave, no one seems to regulate them. The EPA is allowed to regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act most nanomaterials don’t qualify as new materials.

This doesn’t necessarily mean nanotechnology is bad. Nanoparticles could be used to do all sorts of good things, like making solar panels more efficient. Unfortunately, there are also legitimate concerns, and they all basically boil down to this: We just don’t know enough about how nano-sized particles will behave in the real world.

It is this lack of knowledge that sparked the latest TFT Investigation. We hope you find the topic as important as we do, because we need your help researching it. Have you read anything interesting about nanoparticles or nanotechnology lately? Send us links. Know anyone doing nanotechnology research? Introduce us, please! Discover a nanoparticle ingredient in a product? Let us know – we’ll add it to the chart we’re working on, which lists various common household items that contain nanoparticles.

I can’t stress enough that we’re not interested in just freaking out about nanotechnology: nanomaterials have a huge potential to solve some of our most pressing problems. Our interest is to educate ourselves and our readers about what’s out there and about the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology. All contributions welcome!

Okay, so maybe “How scary is nanotechnology?” is a leading question. The truth is, nanotechnology, like most things, is neither all bad nor all good.

But first of all, what is nanotechnology? NEED SHORT ANSWER

Nanoparticles have already been released into the world en masse. Nanosilver imbues many Americans’ socks with antimicrobial properties. Quantum dots and nanocrystals are found in all sorts of self-cleaning appliances. Nano-iron (also known as Zero Valent Iron) has been tested in remediation fluids at Superfund sites.

According to a 2008 survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson Center at Princeton and Pew Charitable Trusts), products containing nanoparticles are already flooding the market, with more than 800 products on shelves today. This includes food packaging, disinfectants, and clothing with nanosilver; cosmetics and sunscreen with nano zinc oxide.

But you’re not likely to see “nanosilver” anywhere on those packages of tube socks at CostCo, though. Because nanosilver is not a new chemical or ingredient–it’s a smaller version of an existing, and already regulated, particle–there’s nothing that requires companies to list the inclusion of the chemical on their packaging.

Yep, that’s right. There is absolutely no regulation of nanoparticles. When I first read that fact, I thought it must be hyperbole. But, although there are (thankfully) plenty of researchers studying how nanoparticles behave, no one seems to regulate them. The EPA is allowed to regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act most nanomaterials don’t qualify as new materials.

This doesn’t necessarily mean nanotechnology is bad. Nanoparticles could be used to do all sorts of good things, like making solar panels more efficient. Unfortunately, there are also legitimate concerns, and they all basically boil down to this: We just don’t know enough about how nano-sized particles will behave in the real world.

It is this lack of knowledge that sparked the latest TFT Investigation. We hope you find the topic as important as we do, because we need your help researching it. Have you read anything interesting about nanoparticles or nanotechnology lately? Send us links. Know anyone doing nanotechnology research? Introduce us, please! Discover a nanoparticle ingredient in a product? Let us know – we’ll add it to the chart we’re working on, which lists various common household items that contain nanoparticles.

I can’t stress enough that we’re not interested in just freaking out about nanotechnology: nanomaterials have a huge potential to solve some of our most pressing problems. Our interest is to educate ourselves and our readers about what’s out there and about the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology. All contributions welcome!

The post The New TFT Investigation: How Scary Is Nanotechnology? appeared first on The Faster Times.

The post Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies appeared first on The Faster Times.

“Despite claims that nanotechnology can limit climate change and promote energy efficiency, we’ve found that the use of nanotechnology actually comes at a large environmental cost,” said Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth U.S., a coauthor of the report. “Rather than substantively reducing our environmental footprint, it instead allows people to continue with ‘business as usual’ and avoid serious improvements in energy efficiency and behavioral changes.”

In essence the report accused the nanotechnology industry of greenwashing. While nanoparticles could be helpful in the advancement of renewable energy, they’re most often being used by the petrochemical industry to find more oil and create more chemicals. Moreover, any manufacturing process making use of nanoparticles requires a large amount of energy. So no matter what the result, the process itself is energy-intensive.

“Very few people have looked beyond the shiny promise of nanotechnology to try and understand how this far-reaching new technique is actually developing,” says 350.org founder Bill McKibben.

Above and beyond the energy costs associated with nanotechnology, the report delved further into public health risks and came out with some disturbing conclusions.

“Early research has shown that nanotubes – for use in electronics, specialty car parts and the like – can cause mesothelioma, the deadly cancer associated with asbestos exposure,” the report’s authors wrote.

They also found that, in addition to concerns over its toxicity to humans, nanosilver is fairly toxic to the environment. “The release of nanomaterials, particularly nanosilver, into the environment, drastically increases greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere,” according to the report.

The post Friends of the Earth on Nanotech: It’s No Friend of the Earth appeared first on The Faster Times.