Nanotechnology Law Report

Nano & Biocidal Silver: Extreme Germ Killers Present a Growing Threat to Public Health

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:03:41 -0500

Friends of the Earth (FOE) released the above entitled report, written by Dr. Rye Senten and Ian Illuminato, in June of this year. As with their earlier report on nanotechnology and farming (discussed here ), Nano & Biocidal Silver comes to three conclusions:

1 Nanotechnology and its products, in this case, nanosilver, will destroy the environment and cause the death of humanity

2 Nanotechnology is the result of a conspiracy between government and big business against consumers

3 The only solution is an immediate moratorium on nano-anything.

This report, as with its earlier one, does raise some legitimate concerns:

The disposal of biocidal silver products into waste water raises a number of concerns as the resulting sewage sludge may be used on agricultural soils, disposed as solid waste into landfills or be incinerated. Biocidal silver may also disrupt the functioning of key soil microbial communities.

But for every legitimate concern raised or useful suggestion, such as changing la belling requirements so that products containing nanosilver or other nanoproducts have them clearly listed on the packaging so that consumers are aware of what they're buying and can either purchase the product or one that doesn't contain any nano-products, there are suggestions that the use of nanosilver in medicine or consumer products is the result of digital photography:

From an economic point of view, with the demise of the photographic industry, silver producers were desperately needing to find new markets for silver. It appears this quest has been successful, industrial and electronic applications of silver, along with the ever increasing uses for silver biocides, have easily made up for this loss.

In other sections of the report the discussion of the use of nanosilver gives way to a condemnation of capitalism and industrial production, suggesting that corporations and governments are allied in a conspiracy against workers and consumers:

In many respects, the increasing use of nanosilver is a typical example of what Gould (2005) has called "the technological treadmill of production". The purpose of this treadmill is growth in the form of an increased corporate profitability at the expense of workers and the environment and it "depends directly on technological innovation to replace human labor with capital and to increase the capacity for the transformation of natural resources into commodities". . . . the treadmill increases profits and environmental threats while reducing the generation of social benefits (employment, wages, etc) "ensuring constant increases in social and environmental inequality". . . . A hallmark of the technology treadmill of production is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economic benefits of any form of nanotechnology will accrue to corporations and governments, while the economic costs will be born by the citizens and the environment.

In other sections, there are discussions which are just downright bizarre:

One of the unanswered questions is, 'why has silver suddenly become so popular?'. By extension, we must also ask, 'why are we so afraid of bacteria and dirt?'. Tomes (2009) points out that our current obsession with germs has parallels with a similar period of intense anxiety about disease causing agents between 1900 and 1940. It is her contention that this 'new' fear of germs reflects our anxieties about globalization, the environment, suspicions of governmental authority, and distrust of expert knowledge.

I doubt that anyone pouring hydrogen peroxide over a cut is doing it because they don't trust the government or experts or because they're worried about globalization.

Throughout the report, the authors assert that exposure to nanosilver is dangerous and could lead to the nervous system being adversely affected, but then almost immediately cast doubt on their own assertions:

There is a risk to consumers if nanosilver particles could migrate from food contacts materials into food or drink and could be subsequently ingested. . . . preliminary work by Chaudhry et al (2008) does indeed indicate that some nanosilver particle migrate into food, but perhaps at an insignificant level.

. . . While readily absorbed into the human body through food and other means, silver is not an acknowledged trace element, but appears not to cause any major diseases.

. . . Clearly workers in industries using silver or increasingly nanosilver are most vulnerable to occupational exposure and strict occupational health and safety standards must be implemented and their compliance subsequently monitored.

It is presently no known how to determine if the human central nervous system is vulnerable to silver toxicity at at what dose. While there is some evidence that silver may cross the blood brain barrier . . . the evidence is inconclusive and silver deposits do not appear to result in detectable neurological damage.

The authors also state that

FDA's failure to take concurrent oversight action demonstrates the agency's lack of urgency in protecting the public from the potential health and environmental risks of nanotechnology.

This despite earlier stating that nanosilver and other nanoparticles have not so far been connected to any illness, organ failure or any other negative result.

The authors, at the end of the report, make a list of demands on governments:

Friends of the Earth calls for an immediate moratorium on the commercial release of products that contain manufactured nanosilver until nanotechnology specific regulation is introduced to protect the public, workers and the environment from their risks and until the public is involved in decision making.

Friends of the Earth United States and Australia have furthermore called for the recall of Samsung;s silver appliance range (washing machine, vacuum cleaner, refrigerator, air conditioner, etc). . . . We believe similar measures should be enacted for clothing and other products that contain nanosilver

While calling for involving the public in creating new regulations, FOE proposes no method of doing so. This seems rather irresponsible and cynical at best. How should the public be involved- plebiscite? Mass meeting? FOE seems to expect that it will happen spontaneously. The public can already be involved in creating new regulations. On both the state and federal levels, proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register and its state level equivalents; the prosed regulations and rules contain contact information and how to submit comments for or against the proposed regulations, either via e-mail or the old fashioned way, a letter. Citizens can also contact their elected representatives and express their opinion.

While the report does raise point that are areas of concern that should be further examined and while it does make one or two useful suggestions, on balance, the report fails. This is not by any means an objective report and ultimately it collapses under the weight of the socio-economic-political baggage that FOE has placed upon it.

Quantum Dots, Patent Infringement and Chapter 11

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:54:08 -0500

All of us have seen or directly experienced some effect of the recession, ranging from friends or co-workers losing their jobs to budget cut backs to bankruptcy.

Nanoindustries have not been immune to the recession's effects. Many. if not the majority of nanoindustries are small businesses and lack the depth of financial resources that older, more established companies have.

Evident Technologies, Inc, located in Troy NY and specializing in the production of quantum dots and nanocrystals, filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and reorganization in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York on Monday. Evident's press release cites as the major contributing factor to the bankruptcy a patent infringement case in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Invitrogen Corporation et al v Evident Technologies In 08cv163). Evident Technologies was also involved in a trademark infringement suit (Evident Technologies Inc v Everstar Merchandise Company LTD et al 08cv10230) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was dismissed with prejudice and with each party having to bare the cost of counsel. The cost of the cases and a lack of clients are, presumably, the reason that Evident's monthly income was $10,000 while monthly expenses added up to $200,000 a month. No business can last for long bleeding cash like that.

Evident Technologies has arranged DIP financing of either 2.7 million or 1.35 million (the article in the Albany Business Review gives the 2.7 million figure, while the press release gives the lower one) to enable it to continue in business while reorganizing. In addition to its financial problems, the bankruptcy petition indicates that there's been some instability among the corporate officers, with the former CEO and COO both resigning in May of 2009.

Nanotechnologies and nanoindustries have often been seen as one of the keys to a brighter economic future - a newspaper in Sri Lanka described nanoindustries as the way to solve the current global recession - but nothing prevents nanoindustries from suffering the same business problems as any other industry. Evident Technologies probably isn't the first nanoindustry to file for bankruptcy nor will it be the last. Some, as with other companies, will not emerge intact, either having to file Chapter 7 petitions or being merged into other companies. Others will survive the recession and the venture capitalists will look at them again as viable investments.

Here's hoping that Evident Technologies is one of them.

Private Spending on Nano Exceeds Government Spending for First Time

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:53:10 -0500

Chemical Business NewsBase recently published an article comparing global private funding to government funding for nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. The article cites Lux Research figures indicating that private funding for nanotechnology reached $9.6 billion in 2008, while government investment was $8.6 billion. According to the article, this was the first year that private spending exceeded public spending. Lux also estimates that nanotechnology-enabled products will constitute a $3.1 trillion market by 2015.

It is interesting to remember that a decade ago, advocates for dramatically increased federal funding of nanotechnology efforts argued that once nanotechnology is firmly established as a field of commerce, federal investment would be dwarfed by private research and development which was estimated would be 10% of ultimate sales revenues. Advocates of the National Nanotechnology Initiative took the position that the federal government should stimulate and support basic nanotechnology research until such time as private commercialization takes root at this level. Annual global government research, development, and commercialization was then estimated at a mere $432 million.

Nanotechnology, Nanocomposites and Renewable Energy

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:04:54 -0500

. . . Many tiny changes in the science of materials could generate a big future for renewable energy

The current issue of The Economist carries an interesting article, "New materials for renewable energy: The power of being made very small", looking at the role that nanoengineering and nanomaterials will play in the growing renewable energy industry.

Specifically, the article looks at the role nanocomposites will play in nuclear reactors, solar cells, and in wind and tidal generators, predicting that the use of nanocomposites will lead to an increase in the efficiency of power generation, lead to a reduction in waste materials, lower costs in building solar cells and the manufacture of turbine blades for wind and tidal generators.

Nanotechnology and the Social Inclusion Workshop

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:35:15 -0500

One of the frequent criticisms of government policies regarding nanotechnology, nanoindustry, or nanomaterials, is that the public is not involved in the decision making process or that the public is not informed about the risks, benefits, etc.

In December 2008, the Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) tried a new approach to that problem by creating a "Social Inclusion and Community Engagement Workshop". By inviting representatives from Government, Academia, Industry, NGOs, and the general public, the AON sought to create dialog and

. . . . a positive culture between key stake holders . . . . This workshop would help create a partnership approach to discussing, developing and delivering social inclusion and engagement policies and practices for AON and the stakeholders involved or interested in nanotechnology.

The report issued by AON about the workshop describes key points raised by each stakeholder group. Two key points emerge as common to all groups, although each group expressed it differently:

1) The need for a sharing of knowledge and information with each other in language that each group could understand and

2) A need to continue and expand the workshop as a way of building trust and overcoming divisions.

All too often, Industry, Government, Academia, Activist Groups/NGOs and the general public allow walls to develop, walls that block out communication and understanding with others. To paraphrase and disagree with Robert Frost, good walls do not good neighbors make.

The report is well worth reading and one can only hope that its findings are followed up on with more workshops in Australia and similar ones in the US and Europe as well.

Nanotechnologies and the Consumer: A Call for Papers

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:40:20 -0500

The Journal of Consumer Policy is an academic journal, publisher by Springer, that, as the title implies, focuses on consumer issues. The editors have issued a call for papers for a special issue, "Nanotechnologies and the Consumer". For more information on submitting a manuscript, please take a look here.

EPA Issues Significant New Use Rules for Multi-Walled and Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:15:33 -0500

In the June 24, 2009 federal register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two proposed Significant New Use Rules (SNUR) under Section 5(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for multi-walled and single walled carbon nanotubes. The SNURs followed up on the EPA's prior September 2008 consent orders entered into with Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. (Swan) for two of its Elicarb carbon nanotube products.

Under TSCA, the prior September 2008 consent orders were only binding on Swan. "Consequently, after signing a Section 5(e) Consent Order, EPA generally promulgates a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that mimics the Consent Order to bind all other manufacturers and processors to the terms and conditions contained in the Consent Order. The SNUR requires that manufacturers, importers and processors of certain substances notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning any activity that EPA has designated as a "significant new use. These new use designations are typically those activities prohibited by the Section 5(e) Consent Order."

Under the terms of the Septmeber 2008 consent orders which are incorporated into the new proposed SNURs, significant new uses of multi-walled and singled-walled carbon nanotubes are deemed to occur when employees do not “use gloves impervious to nanoscale particles and chemical protective clothing;” and/or fail to “use a NIOSH-approved full-face respirator with an N-100 cartridge while exposed by inhalation in the work area.”

Thus, the new proposed SNURs require these same conditions.

Manufacturers should also be aware that the EPA considers carbon nanotubes new chemical substances requiring full PMN notice, registration, and approval under Section 5 of TSCA, and has initiated at least one recent enforcement action against a carbon nanotube manufacturer who has failed to properly register its products.

Regulating Nanotechnologies

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:57:10 -0500

How to regulate nanomaterials, nanotechnologies, and nanoindustries has become and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a major focus of US and European regulatory agencies, legislatures on local and national levels and of NGOs.

This Fall in London, from 10-11 September, US and European regulators and researchers from NGOs such as the Woodrow Wilson Center's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, the London School of Economics, (a tidbit for the trivia buffs: Among the London School of Economics better know alumni, one Michael Philip Jagger, aka Mick Jagger) etc will meet and present a collaborative report and other papers. Attendance at the conference is by invitation only and e-mails should be addressed to nanotech@lse.ac.uk attention Ms. Carmen Gayson. For more information, look here.

The Woodrow Wilson Center's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is also presenting a meeting and webcast in connection with the conference on September 23, 2009. For more information, take a look here.

Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:48:16 -0500

In a recent speech to the IFT International Nanoscience Conference, Dr. Annette McCarthy of the FDA, is quoted as saying "We believe that the regulatory authority is sufficient to address nanotechnology. But there are further questions we need to address".

J. Clarence Davies, currently with the Woodrow Wilson International Center project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, might agree with the latter part of that statement, but certainly not with the former.

In the recently published "Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology", Davies looks at existing regulatory agencies that would have oversight of nanoproducts and finds them lacking:

The current oversight system was designed to deal with the problems of steam engine technology in the context of a pre-computer economy. . , ,

It was based on assumptions that most programs are local, that programs can be segmented and isolated from each other, that technology changes slowly and that all the important problems have been identified. All of these concepts are no longer valid. . . . The antiquated conceptual basis of the system has been made more evident by the massive erosion of money and manpower from a system that always suffered from inadequate resources.

The inadequacy of the current system to deal with new technologies is obvious. Especially in the United States, regulatory oversight has always been somewhat deficient, and over the past 30 years it has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where only major changes can rescue it. On both sides of the Atlantic, extreme free market ideologies have contributed to the erosion of oversight. Furthermore, there has been a failure to anticipate and analyze the new technologies that are being created and commercialized at an ever-increasing rate.

Mr. Davies offers what some might see as a radical solution, dissolving such agencies as EPA, CPSC, etc, and creating a new cabinet level Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection, which would have the authority to and be tasked with product and technology regulation, pollution control, etc.

No one will, I think, disagree with Davies observations on the current state of US regulatory agencies. Decades of decreasing budgets, decreasing staff, and the dominance of a political ideology that viewed government regulation of anything as evil effectively rendered agencies such as CPSC impotent and unable to perform their duties. This impotence extended to other agencies as well- we have only to look at the near collapse of the economy to see that agencies charged with regulating economic matters failed as well. With a change in administrations and public outrage the various failures of regulatory agencies, those agencies are finally beginning to see an increase in their budgets, manpower and authority.

Certainly also, one cannot disagree with Davies assertion that the agencies that he focuses on were designed to regulate products created by 19th and early 20th century technologies and industries and are in need of a review and updating. However, one has to wonder if Davies proposal of tearing the regulatory structure down and starting over is a practical solution.

Davies assumes that a new Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection's budget would equal the combined total of the budgets of the agencies and departments it would be replacing. Given the way that the federal budget process operates, that's an assumption that is unlikely to happen. Further, it's also unlikely that moving agencies from one department to another and merging agencies to create an new department would be a smooth and easy process. Each one would have it's own particular office culture which might create friction among personnel. Also, aside from the lobbying of various interest groups to contend with, Congressional Committees and Subcommittees that have budgetary control might not be willing to give that control and power up.

Having said this, Davies report does serve as a starting point for a long overdue discussion of needed changes in regulatory agencies that have and will have responsibility for regulation of nanotechnology and nanoindustry. As Davies points out early on in the report, the purposes of regulation are to safeguard the public and create conditions that allow for the safe growth of, in this case, nanoindustry, something that I think most of us reading and writing on this blog want to see.

Are Nanoparticles Released by Compounding or the Cutting of Nano-Composites?

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:53:12 -0500

Perhaps the most overlooked issue when examining potential nano-related environmental, health, and safety concerns is whether there is any true likelihood of exposure in reasonably foreseeable use scenarios. While there should continue to be extensive toxicity testing for certain nanoscale materials, the most interesting research (from my perspective) relates to potential workplace and/or condumer exposure in realistic settings. We examine two studies along these lines below.

C. Su-Jung et al., "Control of Airborne Nanoparticles Releases During Compounding of Polymer Nanocomposites," 3 Nano: Brief Reports and Reviews 4, 301 - 309 (2008).

This study was conducted by researchers at the National Science Foundation-funded Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. The scientists examined potential nanoparticle release related to the twin-screw extruder compounding of polymer nanocomposites. The test was conducted because "commercial compounding (mixing) of nanocomposites is typically achieved by feeding the nanoparticles and polymer into a twin-screw extruder, the airborne particles associated with nanoparticles reinforcing agents are of particular concern, as they can readily enter the body through inhalation."

The nanoparticles in question were nano aluminum oxide particles acquired from Nanophase Technologies in commercially available form. The particles were spherical in shape and ranged from 27 to 53 nm in diameter. They were also specifically "engineered to form agglomerates with a nominal size of 200 nm."

Regarding the test itself, the scientists fed 2.3kg of polymer pellets and 0.16 kg of nano-alumina particles into a twin-screw extruder for processing and then measured potential nanoparticle release through two measurement techniques: (i) TSI Fast Mobility Particle Spectrometer for real time measurement; and (ii) personal air sampling using a special filter media designed to catch nanoparticles.

The study concluded that "[t]he twin-screw extrusion process for compounding polymer nanocomposites tends to break up nanoparticle aggregates and mechanically disperse particles thoroughly during the extrusion process." The study also found that "[nano]particle diffusion was enhanced by . . . poorly-performing local and general exhaust systems."

Interestingly, for part of the test the scientists applied a nominal engineering control by covering the open top of the extruder feeding tube throat with aluminum foil which they found "dramatically reduced" nanoparticle measurements. They also found that consistently cleaning the lab after each use "reduced laboratory background nanoparticle concentration."

D. Bello et al., "Exposure to nanoscale particles and fibres during machining of hybrid advanced composite containing carbon nanotubes," 11 J. Nanopart Res 231 - 249 (2009).

The researchers in this study investigated whether and to what extent airborne nanoparticles were generated by wet and dry cutting of two hybrid carbon nanotube composites. The dry cutting method employed a diamond coated band saw. The wet cutting was performed using a diamond grit rotary cutting wheel with water lubricating the cutting surfaces during the process. Because the scientists were interested in potential "worst case" scenarios, no vacuum or emission controls were used in tests.

The researchers found that wet cutting did not produce airborne nanoparticle emissions above background levels, but that dry cutting "generated statistically significant quantities of nanoscale and fine particles as compared to background (p<0.05), regardless of the composite type, . . . as expected."

Interestingly, the study also found that "CNTs, either individual or in bundles, were not observed in extensive microscopy of collected samples" for either wet or dry tests.

We will continue to track down and summarize these types of potential exposure studies. Right now, they are few and far between.

Investor Environmental Health Network Publishes New Nano Corporate Responsibility Paper

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:52:12 -0500

The Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN) claims to represents 20 investment organizations with $22 billion under management that are seeking to ensure that the companies they invest in are taking appropriate steps to reduce risks associated with the toxic chemicals used in their products. IEHN's ultimate objective is to use "public policy work regarding investor rights and disclosure, as well as dialog and shareholder resolutions, [to address] the risks and opportunities associated with toxic chemicals and safer alternatives in products." IEHN previously issued a report on the use of nanotechnology in cosmetics in February 2007.

IEHN's new report -- "Bridging the Credibility Gap: Eight Corporate Liability Accounting Loopholes that Regulators Must Close," Investor Environmental Health Network, 2009 -- focuses on corporate disclosure issues surrounding the commercialization of nanoscale materials. IEHN identifies eight "loopholes" that it believes companies and regulators must close to protect shareholder value.

IEHN's eight purported "loopholes" are:

1. Shortsightedness: Failing to make a full accounting of potential risks and liability be focusing solely on short term issues.

2. Concealed Science: "Concealing emergency science that forewarns of potential liabilities in the future."

3. The Known Minimum: Basing business decisions on low end risk assessments rather than true case "worst case" scenarios.

4. Privileging Secrecy: Using the attorney client privilege to shield against public disclosure of potential liability.

5. Inconsistent Estimates: Providing different risk estimates to insurers on the one hand, and investors on the other.

6. Hidden Assumptions: "Using hidden assumptions to minimize estimates of liability.

7. Missing Benchmarks: Failing to benchmark a company's potential liability against its competitors in the same business facing similar liability issues.

8. Risk-Free Proxies: Failing to allow shareholders to place EHS questions on annual proxy ballots.

These purported "loopholes" are not exclusive to nanotechnology. IEHN hypothetically compares the potential corporate liability of companies using nanoscale materials to the ruin faced by companies involved in asbestos manufacturing from the 1930s forward. Basically, IEHN argues that failing to close these eight identified "loopholes" destroyed the asbestos industry and the same thing might happen to the nanomaterials industry if it does not act differently.

Micelle, my micelle

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:49:18 -0500

There's been a sort of a medical theme running through this week's entries, so, to close out medical week, we turn to an article by David Peters et al, advanced published on PNAS website, "Targeting atherosclerosis by using modular, multifunctional micelles". Much as other nanoparticles may be targeted at tumors (see "Targeting Tumors"), so micelles may be targeted at plaque in blood vessels.

As the article describes, lab mice fed a high fat diet were treated for plaque formation using micelles with peptides that would seek out and attach themselves at the weakest point of the plaque, delivering anticoagulants to reduce the formations. The results of the experiments

Micelles coated with the CREKA peptide were able to specifically target diseased vasculature in ApoE-null mice. . . . micelles targeted with the CREKA peptide present a potentially useful approach to targeting atherosclerotic plaques.

. . . the CREKA micelle platform may be useful in reducing the clotting tendency in plaques and could potentially also reduce the risk of thrombus formation on plaque rupture. Also the targeting makes it possible to lower the dose, which should reduce the risk of bleeding complications.

This study, along with earlier ones on targeting nanoparticles to seek out tumors to more effectively deliver chemotherapy treatments, seems to indicate that the best use of nanoparticles in medicine is as delivery systems.

And for anyone below a certain age who didn't get the reference in the title, take a look here. Ah, Lennon and McCartney. They just don't write them like this anymore.

Interesting Nano-Regulatory Developments

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:39:24 -0500

Inside U.S. Trade reports three interesting nano-regulatory developments: (i) the "EPA has signaled that it may soon decide to regulate nano-silver as a pesticide under " FIFRA; (ii) the "EPA may rule favorably on some points" raised in the 2008 citizen's petition filed by 14 advocacy groups seeking more restrictive regulation of nanoscale silver; and (iii) Congresswoman Kathy DahlKemper (D-Pa) on the House Science and Technology Committee "is pursuing a Cosmetics Safety Bill that would require registration of cosmetics containing nanomaterials."

Are Nano Consumer Products Headed Underground?

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:28:00 -0500

EurActiv.com (EU News, Policy Positions, and EU Actions on line) published an article on June 15, 2009 entitled "Nanotech claims 'dropped' for fear of consumer recoil."

The article reported on a nanotechnology conference which took place in Brussels during the week of June 10 at which a scientist from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies maintained that some of the current environmental, health, and safety controversy accompanying certain nanoscale materials is not grounded in scientific fact, but has nonetheless led some manufacturers to remove "nano" from their product labels and advertising. He further stated that "we have seen some companies drop the 'nano' claim while continuing to use nanotechnology. This suggests nanotechnology is going underground."

Providing a counterpoint, the Director of the European Nanotechnology Industries Association said that "[v]arying definitions [of nanotechnology] leads to claims that the industry is not open to information. But nobody is lying and nobody is misleading the public or authorities. Let's agree on what we're talking about and work together to inform consumers."

NanoBiotech 2009

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:12:39 -0500

Mark your calendar for the one-day conference “NanoBiotech 2009” set for October 19, 2009 which is being co-sponsored by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY) and Bawa Biotechnology Consulting LLC (Ashburn, VA). This is the sixth in a series of international conferences they have conducted dating back to 2003 on the converging areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology.

From the conference's website: "The conference will feature 20+ speakers, including 2 keynotes and a networking luncheon. All presentations (20-30 minute Power Points) will be fast-paced, focused and will rely upon extensive color graphics and animations to reach the diverse audience. Raffle drawings will be held throughout the day."

You can find the agenda from last year's highly recommended conference here.

Nanoscience Teacher Education

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:19:50 -0500

The Danville (Virginia) Register & Bee newspaper reported on June 9 that the U.S. Department of Education is funding a week-long training program for high school and middle school teachers to teach them about "the creation, measurement, manipulation and use of objects at the nanoscale." The course will be offered at the University of Virginia in July. Food, lodging, and tuition is covered for teachers who take the class.

For more information, contact Laura Holloway at (434) 766-6772 or laura.holloway@ialr.org.

Samsung Nanosilver Computer Keyboards

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:16:00 -0500

The June 10, 2009 edition of AME Info - Company News (Dubai) reports that Samsung is launching a new line of anti-bacterial keyboards for its laptop computers using embedded nanoscale silver particles to kill germs and bacteria. Other computer keyboard manufacturers have marketed similar products in the past. The article stated that the keyboard kills 99% of all bacteria within 24 hours.

Also, for anyone interested, my daughter's fifth grade science fair project "tested" the effectiveness of another manufacturer's nanosilver computer keyboard. :)

Nano Cerium Oxide EHS Study

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:41:11 -0500

Advanced Ceramics Report (ACR) recently ran an article about a Swiss-based nanotoxicity experiment using cerium oxide nanoparticles. According to the article, the researchers selected cerium oxide for the test because it is heavily used in the semiconductor industry as an abrasive to etch computer chips. The scientists simulated aerosol exposure of lung epithelial cells by spraying the particles on cells for 10, 20, and 30 minute intervals. "The longer the cultures were sprayed . . . the more nanoparticles were deposited on the lung cells. The scientists observed that the cells did not die. However, the permeability of the cell layer increased." Additionally, the cells apparently produced a precursor indication of potential oxidative stress.

ACR, June 1, 2009, "Cerium oxide nanoparticles toxicity on lungs examined."

Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits

jmonica@porterwright.com (John C. Monica, Jr.) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:13:00 -0500

Springer recently published Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits which is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Science for Peace and Security Series. The 460 page text was edited by Igor Linkov and Jeffery Steevens and contains 34 articles divided into 5 sections:

Human Health Risks
Environmental Risk
Technology and Benefits
International Perspectives
Policy and Regulatory Aspects

The full table of contents can be seen here. I co-authored an article in the Policy and Regulatory Aspects section entitled Considerations for Implementation of Manufactured Nanomaterial Policy and Governance for those readers who might be interested.

PAMAMS and Cell Death

roszakiewski@porterwright.com (Robert Oszakiewski) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:03:34 -0500

As has been discussed on this blog and in other forums, nanoparticles are increasingly being used in an ever increasing variety of products and industries, and, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, there has been a corresponding rise in concern about exposure to nanoparticles and the possible toxic effects such exposure could result in.

The Journal of Molecular Cell Biology last week published, on their website, an article by Chenggang Li et al, "PAMAM Nanoparticles Promote Acute Lung Injury by Inducing Autophagic Cell Death Through the Akt-TSC2-mTOR Signaling Pathway", which examined the toxicity of a particular type of nanoparticle, the Starburst Polyamidoamine dendrimer (PAMAN), a nanoparticle that that pharmaceutical industry has shown a great deal on interest in, and how PAMAM causes cell death to occur.

This study and its results will add to the growing body of research which should lead to discussions and establishment of safety protocols for the nanoindustry , protocols that will keep workers and consumers from unnecessary harm and allow the nanoindustry to grown and develop.