ON ASBESTOS AND NANOTUBES

Science is objective. Using methodologies that are beyond reproach due to verification, science is clad under a mantle of facts and data. Or is it just “Emperor’s Clothes”?

Science and technology are rhetorical phenomena comparable to political and public address. It’s simply a matter of degree.

When a scientific research article is written, the authors select from the available means of persuasion to craft their language and their claims. Often, they speak to many audiences other than their peers, and when speaking to the media and the public nothing speaks more loudly than strong imagery and rhetorical tropes.

We recently observed just such an occasion. The team from the PCOST (Public Communication of Science and Technology) Project at NCSU put their heads together and is offering this preliminary assessment of the debate “On Asbestos and Nanotubes.” Their collective heads are: Christopher Cummings, Grant Gardner, Kelly Norris, Nick Temple and yours truly—and what a team of doctoral students!

In the Poland et al. (2008) study the researchers are attempting to test whether long straight multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) induce similar early symptoms of mesothelioma to those caused by asbestos fibers. In examining any research study it is important to separate what the quantitative data is actually showing from the authors conjecture or discussion of implications. That is not to say interpreting and expounding scientific data is intrinsically fallacious, but the differences in validity of these assertions must be made clear. For the Poland study, readers must also temper their consideration of the power of the results by noting the relatively small sample size. The following is a brief discussion of interpretive pit-falls to be wary of prior to examining reports of this study.

Although the article relates carbon nanotube (CNT) exposure risks to airborne asbestos, the researchers make no claims as to how easily carbon nanotubes (CNTs) become airborne. In fact, most CNT-manufactured products are likely safe, as they are embedded in structures. The largest concern for airborne particulate CNTs would be in factories manufacturing these products. For the sake of argument if we were to ignore this assumption, if individuals were to be exposed to particulate CNTs, it is unknown how easily they can become lodged in lung tissue. Additionally, uncertainty surrounds how readily they would migrate to the mesothelium. The Poland study bypasses these questions by installing CNTs directly into tissue to examine their effect. It is important to note that the study tissue was not lung mesothelium, but closely-related abdominal peritoneum. In addition, another question is whether CNTs can remain anchored in the tissue and in a concentration significant enough in dosage to cause mesotheliomas. What the study can claim is that asbestos and CNT particles that are long and fibrous tend to induce pre-mesothelioma symptoms when directly injected into mesolthelial tissue layers. For more detail on the science, see the ICON Backgrounder at http://icon.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=12299.

A word that to most connotes deadly carcinomas and mesothelioma, asbestos can hardly enter a headline without raising concern in readers. However, the media inevitably have to make the comparison between multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) the highlight of their stories since this is how the experimental studies were designed. In addition, the media simply gets giddy when offered such a tantalizing headline.

One of the main purposes of the recent studies published in the Journal of Toxicological Sciences (Takagi et al., 1008) and Nature Nanotechnology (Poland et al., 1008) was to determine if mesothelial exposure (in mice) to the needle-like fibre shape of MWCNTs results in pathogenic behavior. The other main purpose, even more heavily marketed by researchers, was to determine if the pathogenic behavior of the MWCNTs was similar to asbestos fibres. This effort to compare the two is interesting since recommendations from the findings would be the same regardless of the comparison. If anything, by releasing the findings, demonstrating how the two are similar and then having to later make distinctions about how they are different only confuses the issue.

News regarding this study did not come from many sources the day it was released. A survey of world, national, and local print news sources revealed only thirteen highly redundant articles. In fact, four of these were the exact same articles simply reprinted in different Associated Press outlets. Other news outlets reporting this story included The New York Times, The Washington Post, and U.S. Newswire. Local reports were less common, including only a story by The Virginian Pilot out of Norfolk, VA and extremely brief three line blurb in Birmingham Evening Mail. Only one strictly web based news source, vnunet.com, ran the story.

The lack of stories may account for some of the redundancy found in the articles. However, this redundancy does set up a frame that may very likely be followed as more articles appear. One would expect the Associated Press to copy the same story to their various outlets. Since many large news outlets rely on the AP to break stories to them, rewrites of that material is also to be expected. As local news sources begin to pick the story up, they too will likely rely on the details from the original stories to guide their work. This is the way the news works.

As we have seen, however, the rhetoric of the original stories is confusing. The media have picked up on the metaphor of linking MWCNTs to asbestos. Considering that asbestos is something of a devil term in the rhetoric of industrial circles, such a metaphor has the power to be extremely powerful in the minds of a public still dealing with the aftermath its cancerous effects. The original study being cited is the one which originates the metaphor since the effects were so similar, but it is the media which carries this metaphor out and enacts its power.

To support this metaphor and discuss it, the media tend to be quoting the same two or three people. Andrew Maynard’s sound bite in which he says “This is a wakeup call for nanotechnology in general and carbon nanotubes in particular” is frequently used. One of the authors of the Poland study, Donaldson, is also frequently quoted as saying “It’s a good news story, not a bad one. It shows that carbon nanotubes and their products could be made to be safe.” Vicki Colvin was also quoted several times as saying that the benefits of nanotechnology are too powerful to ignore, but that this study emphasizes the importance of knowing how to handle it. These were the primary experts put into conversation with one another in the media and as such will logically lead the discussion of this issue as it progresses. It will be interesting to see how the public picks up the issue and what they do with it. The media has touted the metaphor of asbestos but at the same time has attempted to frame the issue as a cautionary tale in which science is on top of the issue now before it becomes a problem as opposed to when scientists dropped the ball on asbestos. However, the memory of asbestos may be too powerful to allow for public trust in anything linked to it, even if the link is primarily a metaphorical one.

Researchers say (even in their abstracts) that they are calling for further research and great caution so that long-term harm is to be avoided. However, the likely public reaction is do away with carbon nanotubes in products all-together in spite of any future research, even research touting positive findings (something we might want to test).

Also, by focusing attention on the similarities between carbon nanotubes and asbestos, less attention is paid to other interesting findings from the studies. For instance, the fact that short, tangled MWCNTs did not cause inflammation in mesothelial tissue, therefore did not suggest pathogenic behavior was not mentioned in most media articles.

Though most articles reporting the studies acknowledge that the greatest danger of exposure is to the workers involved in production of items containing carbon nanotubes and that researchers agree that there is no need to restrict the use of carbon nanotubes in products, by pushing the correlation between asbestos and MWCNTs the lay audience will certainly consider carbon nanotubes a public hazard. Even in the case of workers involved in manufacturing the particles, the articles report that precautions have already been put into place requiring workers to wear respirators. Towards the end of media articles, reporters point out that the study did not look at how likely and/or easily carbon nanotubes become airborne or whether they become lodged in the lungs if inhaled. But this consideration of dosage and exposure is now irrelevant to the public that is concerned with consequences and implications only.

As risk researchers Jenkins-Smith & Silva point out “members of the public appear to be more willing to believe risk increasing signals than risk-decreasing signals” —and pairing nanotubes with asbestos in the headline of a study or media article is definitely a “risk increasing” signal.

The articles continue to perplex as they state that on the one hand, there is minimal risk to consumers in handling products made of carbon nanotubes because the fibres are so embedded, but on the other hand, nanotubes should be subject to the same rules and regulations as asbestos.

Also puzzling, professors say they are “not alarmed” about the results of the studies but still insist products should be better labeled. They back this suggestion with the concern that, like asbestos, the nanotubes could be released later (i.e. construction workers or mechanics inhaling asbestos from concrete or automobile brake pads).

Here again, the language is confusing to the public because at the same time the articles tell people not to distress they also insist on the possibility that nanotubes are asbestos with a “coat of a different color.”

As a rhetorical strategy, telling people they are safe while at the same time making reference to a similar substance that lessened trust in industry and the government, only makes sense if the purpose is to actually heighten concerns and monger fear.

Slovic (1986) warns that merely mentioning possible adverse consequences to the public can make them appear more frightening. Therefore, the rhetorical force of mentioning the consequences of direct exposure to MWCNT while also establishing a direct association to a negatively explosive word like asbestos is enormous.

Because researchers are aware of the reactions the word asbestos triggers in the public, the actual motivation behind comparing the two substances, must be to first, attract the attention of the media and second, to position themselves as rescuers/saviors devoted to the public’s interest (unlike industries who are trying to sneak the hazardous materials into consumer products regardless of health or environmental risks).

Most often the media look for hot button issues while deconstructing academic research findings, in the case of the MWCNTs studies, the experiments were rhetorically designed so that the hot button issue was at the forefront, ensuring a lot of attention at the expense of some of the intricate findings and opportunity for a critical public.

The problem with this rhetorical approach is that the adverse reactions it could instill in the public could be more problematic than the media attention it draws.

Berube with New Pubs

You can get yours hands on the Intuitive Tox article since the Spring book is now out.

Nanotechnology and Society by Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin, Springer, 1st edition, June 2008, ISBN - 10: 1404062087.

The article examining risk profile shifts and the FOE report on sunscreens is also avialable from On Line Access at the Journal of Nanoparticle Research. "Rhetorical gamesmanships in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles," Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008. DOI: 10.1007/S11051-008-9362-7.

The article I co-authored with Paul Borm is also out in Nano Today. Me and Paul Borm. "A nanotale of opportunities, uncertainties, and risks, Nano Today, 3:1-2, Feb-Apr 2008, 56-59.

I will be reviewing some new publications soon. Right now, I am working on my new book and a set of articles on "fear".

Review of Nanodays

The Nanodays event held in Washington, DC was impressive. The informal education people are doing a remarkable job and need to be applauded. I had the opportunity to visit with friends from the Museum of Science in Boston and new friends at the Museum of Life and Science in Durham. Two days later I participated in the NanoDays project in Durham at the Museum and expect to have a long and productive relationship with them in the years ahead or as long as I stay st NCSU.

That evening (04/02/08) I went over to the Woodrow Wilson Center to watch the roll-out of the Fred Friendly seminars documentary and the review is in the next post. Generally, this is a start. It could have been better but it was a welcomed beginning though I still maintain we need a true documentary and soon.

To learn more about the day, go to http://www.astc.org/blog/2008/04/03/nanodays-in-washington-dc/. I thought there was no reason to be redundant.

Review of "Powers of the Small"

REVIEW OF THE POWER OF SMALL (http://powerofsmall.org/)

I watched every minute of these.

Overall, these three pieces do not qualify as documentaries in the popular understanding of the term. It has generally a mediocre production value. One of its primary drawbacks is the implicit assumption that the audience understands what nanotechnology is. The moderator, John Hockenberry, is correct these are hypothetical and that is not what we need at this point in time.

First, the Fred Friendly seminar model is a good one for talking heads in a panel format. I am challenging whether it was appropriate for what needed to be done.

Second, it is not a documentary in the tradition of Flaherty or Grierson’s “creative treatment of actuality”; it is an orchestrated interview (a seminar) in the mode of Sunday morning news shows. Put simply, it is not aesthetically sufficient given to low level of perception and understanding associated with all things nano. The excitement of what is “nano” is missing from this set of interviews.

Hypothetical applications have dominated the debate on applied nanoscience for far too long. What we need to do is introduce the technology and not focus on applications. This is a “horse before the cart” problem. A case can be made to do both simultaneously but these three pieces do not fit the bill. I speak in public a lot and the questions remain rudimentary and about the technology per se. Focusing on applications this early in the game reminds me of the claims about virtual reality a few decades ago.

WATCHING ME, WATCHING YOU.

The opening scenario about an Alzheimer patient and a tracking device and its impact on privacy is reasonably interesting but to the audience without an understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology it hardly scratches the surface of current applications. In addition, there is little distinction about how nanoscience will sufficiently increase the privacy concerns given microchips are already available. Nano is a piece of technology with a lot of functionality. As George Whitesides comments, nanoscience only makes it smaller. The impact on personal safety from predators was a clear example of irrelevancies introduced into the discussion. The discussion of data leakage was interesting but irrelevant. The terrorism attack on a rail line scenario bespeaks the CCTV trend in Europe link analysis notwithstanding. The National ID on steroids does not need nanoscience to be an invasion of individual privacy. While computation might be faster, this does not resolve the underlying ethical foundation upon which these concerns are constructed. I especially liked the remark: “Nanotechnology: Killer of Marriages.”

FOREVER YOUNG

Living to 150? Museum exhibits about medicine, communication, energy, health & safety…? There is a discussion of insurance, privacy, and the interface with biotechnology.

What follows is a discussion on sensor technology and quantities of information. This module seems more relevant than the one reviewed above since the digital doctor is not unlikely.

There is some indication developments in nanoscience supported sensing technology might expose us to a lot more false positive diagnoses due to the excessive data but the interview degenerates into a discussion on medical ethics far from nanoscience. Iatrogenic issues presumably aggravated by nanoscience are mentioned but totally undeveloped without a single illustration. Then the discussion reverts to pilots with sensors that might detect alcohol and whether this level of monitoring is justified.

Next we get Oscar and Parkinson’s treatment. We learn that technology may already exist. Oops! Where’s the nano?

Then we move to genetic switches that affect aging. We don’t need nano to engage in genetic engineering. Most of the panel seems fine with death. That’s good. Peter Singer does raise the important issues of the rich-poor gap when it comes to technological applications. Singer sees an ethical dilemma that might be helped by nanoscience. “Shouldn’t we just do it and face those problems?” asked Michael Roukes. This is an interesting question that deserved to be much better vetted. I was glad to hear him move back to this remark.

Eventually, the team got to intergenerational conflict and that does not get vetted as well.

Life prolongation may be advanced substantially by nanotechnology, but there was very little here linking the two beyond pure speculation.

CLEAN, GREEN AND UNSEEN

Sunnyville, USA. Welcome to a fictional city council and let’s play counterfactual. One of the problems with this model is resolved in earlier work of mine that criticizes the utility of counterfactuals as arguments and I may attach some of this at a later date.

Finally, we get a discussion about the real technology. We begin with solar panel technology. Jeff Grossman, Dan Kammen, and Clayton Teague actually offered a clear description of the technology and its relationship to nanoscience. Then we return to counterfactuals.

Richard Denison & Andrew Maynard bring us back to Earth when they begin to discuss shortcomings in regulations. What follows is a scenario involving Admiral Chicken and sensing technology to protect consumers from exposure to salmonella. Andrew Maynard keeps the discussion real by drawing the discussion back to nano-engineering. The discussion moves toward health-safety. Teague returns to present regulatory responses but is challenged again and again by Denison. Maynard actually attempts to explain encapsulation of favors using nanoscience and its potential relevance to a recipe for fried chicken. Teague adds use of encapsulation in chocolates.

The final scenario deals with a company dumping toxic wastes. Dan Kammen indicated some life cycle concerns when nanoparticles are released into an environment which is a lot more troubling than when nanoparticles are embedded in a polymer matrix. Kulinowski take zero valent ion to rust admitting we need to know a lot more. She admits nanorust might be problematic with Maynard and Denison in agreement. I did enjoy watching Kulinowski jumps to push nanomagnets under research at Rice. Hmmm?

Next the discussion moves to sunscreens and cosmetics. I have written enough on sunscreens in the next issues of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research. Kulinowski and Maynard offer guarded remarks. Kulinowski adds the industry is guarding research.

The debate on cosmetics is still ongoing and rightly so.

There is an animated discussion on labeling making this video of the three worth watching.

We still need a documentary that exposes the technology written and produced in a registry that is appropriate for public consumption.

Back again in the proverbial saddle

Sorry for the long delay in posting but I was moving into my new digs. My office is now in Winston 102 on the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh. I signed my condo lease through May 2009. I have been writing quite a bit (picture at right [Berube at 1]).
“Intuitive Toxicology: The Public Perception of Nanoscience,” Nanoethics: Emerging Debates, Allhoff, F. & Lin, P., eds., London: Springer, 2008, x-x.

“Future of Nano,” Nano-Predictions: Big Thinkers on the Smallest Technology, Burgess, S. & Lin, P., eds., NY: Wiley 2008, x-x.

“Stakeholder Participation in Nanotechnology Policy Debates” Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society, Bennett, D. ed. London: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis), 2008, x-x.

“Nanoscience, Water and Society: Public Engagement at and below the Surface," Nanotechnology Applications: Solutions for Improving Water Quality, Diallo, M., Duncan, J., Savage, N, Street, A., and Sustich, R., eds , NY: William Andrew Publishing, 2008, x-x.

"Public Acceptance of Nanomedicine: A Personal Perspective", Nanomedicine, J. Baker, ed., NY: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, 2008, x-x. In addition, I finished four grant proposals (S&S and a DRU) and two that were CEIN full proposals. We wait now to learn if we are invited for reverse site visits on the CEINs. It's a competitive field so we will have to hope for the best. I am in DC right now. Will be attending the 3PM program in the Rayburn Building to see what our museum friend are up to and at 5:30 I will get to the Woodrow Wilson Center for the roll out of the "Nanotechnology: The Power of Small" documentary. I will fly back to Raleigh tomorrow morning and will teach my grad. seminar in RISK COMMUNICATION at 3PM and will head to the Durham Museum of Life and Science for a forum on Nanotechnology and Alternative Energy. We are getting the NIRT together now that it was transferred to NCSU with U. South Carolina as a subaward. We are planning the opening workshop on August 7-8 in Raleigh. It will be advertised next week. I am finalizing the invitations and schedule over the weekend. "No rest for the wicked." Finally, I am fielding a lot of requests for conferences after the article I wrote for the recent issue of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research on risk profile shifts in the debate over nanoparticles in sunscreens. DOI 10.1007/s11051-008-9362-7. To date all the reviews were positive.

On EHS Nano and Water - A DRAFT

I am working on a WATER project right now and am sharing an early draft of the EHS section. Comments are always welcomed.

By the way, I have my office at NCSU now and will be posting regularly. I start teaching a graduate seminar in RISK next Thursday.

POST

We begin with the EHS footprint. This involves examining multiple exposure modalities associated with applied nanoscience and water.

First, we have the consequences of the waste streams generated when producing nanoparticles and using nanoparticles and its effects on potable surface water and in some cases groundwater. These could occur profoundly in the production and disposal ends of the nanoparticle life cycle.

Producing nanoparticles involves the use of chemicals which need disposal and result in quantities of product which either fail to meet product requirements or are the product of cleaning vessels and chambers associated with production. While some significant recycling does occur, there are some disposal issues.

There is very little research undergoing examining the effects of disposal and incineration of these waste stream products. Recent research undertaken by UCSB under a grant from ICON involved remarks indicating that some of these materials are turned over in a subcontract to a waste disposal firm. At a pollution prevention meeting in Washington in 2007 a representative from the waste disposal industry underlined the fact that the disposal and recycling industries have received little or no guidance from regulators.

Nanoparticles have been described as free or bound in a matrix. Presumably free nanoparticles as would occur during packing might be especially problematic for workers while those bound in a matrix such as carbon nanotubes in automobile runners would be less problematic. Nevertheless, there remain some end life cycle challenges when nanoparticles bound in matrices are disposed or recycled. Until there is a body of reliable data we may discover nanoparticles in soil samples as well as surface and groundwater. Our experience with leaking underground storage tanks should provide us a lesson when it comes to disposal of nanoparticles.

Second, we have the consequences of nanoparticles leaching down into groundwater resources from applications to remediate heavily polluted sites and topical applications in the agriculture and forestry industries which can runoff and drain into surface water and freshwater aquifers.

Nanoscale metals can render some chemicals inert and kill some microorganisms. Some research has demonstrated their capacity under certain circumstances to remove some salts and metals as well as decompose some organic pollutants. For example a cyclodextrin polymer has been shown to remove a range of contaminants, including benzene, polyaromatic hydropcarbons, fluorines, nitrogen-containing contaminants, acetone, pesticides, explosives and many others. It could be used for in situ groundwater treatment or for cleaning oil and organic chemical spills.[1]

In addition, research has considered the use of titanium, zinc, and silver to degrade volatile organic compounds. Titanium oxides react to ultraviolet light. “When water comes in contact with titanium oxide and is exposed to light, the chemical breaks down bacterial cell membranes, killing bacteria like the ubiquitous E col.”[2] A titanium dioxide granular media called Adsorbia™GTO™ was field tested in Bangladesh and is marketed by Dow to remove arsenic from water from its combined oxidative and adsorptive properties.[3]

Sulfate reducing bacteria can produce heavy metal particulates. Using bacterial metal-binding proteins a team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and UC Berkeley believe they can clean up heavy metal particulates like zinc sulfide.[4]

In 2007, a new group calling themselves AE Water Treatment™ is using iron nanoparticles and lanthanum chloride to develop new approaches to water treatment and ground water remediation.[5] Adedge Technologies also offers AD33, a nanostructured iron oxide media for the removal of arsenic as well as lead, zinc, chromium, copper, and other heavy metals.[6]

It seems the use of nanoscale zero valent iron (NZVI) can be injected into contaminated water sources for remediation and has been shown to degrade pesticides including DDT and lindane.[7] PARS Environmental manufactures zero-valent iron used for in-situ remediation of microbial and organic contamination in groundwater.[8] The list of common environmental contaminants NZVI could address includes chlorinated methanes, chlorinated benzenes, pesticides, organic dyes, thrihalomethanes, PCBs, arsenic, nitrate, and heavy metals such as mercury, nickel, and silver.[9]

Direct applications of agricultural products involving nanoparticles have been touted to reduce pesticide and water use, improve plant and animal breeding, and create nano-bioindustrial products.[10] The speculation is legion. “Think of a pesticide that would release its pest-killing properties only when it has been igested by the targeted insect and a nanoparticle that could be ingested by chickens and turkeys to remove a common poultry bacterium called campylobacter that causes about 1 million US residents to get sick each year.”[11] In reality, companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF are developing pesticides enclosed in nanocapsules or made of nanoparticles according to a joint OECD-Allianz Group report.[12] The same Allianz Report adds: “With funding from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Clemson University researchers are feeding bioactive polystyrene nanoparticles that bind with bacteria to chickens as an alternative to chemical antibiotics in industrial chicken production” and “One of the USA’s biggest farmed fish companies, Clear Spring Trout, is adding nanoparticle vaccines to trout ponds, where they are taken up by fish.”[13]

For example, a team from Iowa State claim they can use the pores of mesoporous silica nanoparticles to deliver a chemical trigger for gene expression in tobacco plants.[14] Monsanto claims this breakthrough result could find applications in plant biotechnology and might even be used to improve crops in the future.[15]

Applications include smart sensors and smart delivery systems which could help the industry combat viruses and other crop pathogens and increase the efficiency of pesticides and herbicides, allowing lower doses to be used.[16] For example, Syngenta already uses nanoemulsions in one of its pesticide products Primo MAXX^®. Called smart delivery system, this approach has attracted major players including LG, BASF, Honeywell, Bayer, Mitsubishi, and Dupont.[17]

Bioindustrial applications, sometimes called particle farming, have been demonstrated by a team at the University of Texas-Austin. For example, alfalfa plants grown in gold rich soil absorb gold nanoparticles through their roots and accumulate these in their tissues. The particles are mechanically separated following harvest.[18]

Since nanomaterials are more biological active than larger versions of the same chemical, the potential for inflammatory and pro-oxidant effects as well as anti-oxidant effects under some conditions they represent a class of materials about which there are many unknowns. How they interact with other nanomaterials and with organic material in the environment must be better understood. Some research has begun. For example, a Canadian research team led by Denis O’Carroll is using experimental conditions that parallel actual field conditions. According to O’Carroll, “there is considerable interest in pumping nanomaterials into the ground where they can flow with groundwater to a contaminated region and convert hazardous chemicals into benign products like ethane and butane.”[19] He expects findings within the next five years. Unfortunately, not enough of this type is research is underway leading the Meridian Institute to warn that “even though nanomaterials with certain coatings may be safe under laboratory conditions, it may be necessary to test these compounds under environmental conditions.”

Third, we have the consequences of nanoparticles from products such as washing machines, as well as industrial applications in agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture that find their way into the water treatment systems. In addition we may have residues of nanoparticles used in the water treatment process itself that could reach consumers.

Let’s begin with the tale of the Samsung Silver Care Health System referring to a suite of Samsung products including air conditioning and refrigerators. What got Samsung into hot water was the heart of the patented Silver Nano Health System technology of Samsung, an electrolysis unit in the washing machine. Silver ions are extracted from a silver plate and delivered during the washing process into the washing water. The silver ions act as an anti-bacterial and work in cooler water so the washer uses less energy. Samsung claims the silver ions will quickly bind to organic matter and become inactive in waste. The water treatment industry was so convinced claiming current treatment being able to remove only 50 to 90 percent of the silver. Silver could affect bacteria used in the waste treatment process. If not, the rest would remain in sludge which is commonly placed on farm land or in landfills. In addition, there is some concern bacteria may develop resistance to silver as well as antibiotics as has been suggested in birds and salmonella.

In America, two groups the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and Tri-TAC a waste treatment group from California wrote to the EPA concerned about this use of silver. In the end, the EPA demanded the INSERT.

In Europe, The German association for the protection of the environment and nature (BUND) alerted consumers on the presence of silver nanoparticles in these washing machines. BUND claimed the silver nano-particles contained in the machine were not tested. They claimed bioassays would have found nano-size silver can deleteriously affect liver and sex cells and the development of nerve cells. They warned Samsung and Media Markt were marketing the new washing machine as particularly health-friendly and for people with allergies and pregnant women.

An article in Eurip.com added that the use of considerable quantities of silver ions would remain in the waste water and make its way into the soil. As highly effective biocides, they could kill bacteria, which are used in biological purification plants, and so disturb waste water purification. In addition, the particles would contribute to the silver load of the sewage sludge, which was no more suitable for the agricultural fertilization afterwards.

Samsung’s response: "…the silver ions only function with the washing machines and are inactive as soon as they arrive in the waste water…. We speak here of only max. 0.05 grams silver per year arriving additionally in the waste water.”

It is unclear whether the silver ions are intentionally engineered nanoparticles with any special properties that might trigger concerns noted above. The washer releases silver ions involving the electro-shaving of two silver plates and no one outside Samsung has any idea what this means. Most experts agree silver ions are not silver nanoparticles for the purposes of assessing its risk profile and Samsung got itself into this controversy by misjudging the marketing value of the nano moniker.

Silver ions are used in brooms, food storage containers, drywall and point for surfaces to reduce mold, curtain coatings in hospitals, wound treatments, and coating for some surgical tools. LG Electronics and Daewoo are selling silver-lines refrigerators and vacuum cleaners. And the sports companies, including Adidas, Polartec, Brooks Sports, ARC Outdoors, have and are ready to mount silver particles as a disinfectant for clothing. Even a Yoga company, Plank, is selling silver particles as a disinfectant in their Cor soap. Some of it will get into water supplies and before we pass on its use, we might want to develop a research database which will allow regulatory agencies to determine how to effectively screen or regulate it.

The same could be said about the agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture industries who are becoming intrigued with applied nanoscience and its capabilities to reduce production expenses, add value, and maximize profitability.

INSERT

Indeed, when it comes to cleaning and filtering water the traditional way, “we’ve gotten as far as we can go on the larger scale,” says EPA’s Richard Sustitch.[20] “It’s not black and white” says Mamadou Diallo from Cal Tech’s Molecular Environmental Technology program. “No one wants to drink nanoparticles with their water.”[21] The perceived risks are especially problematic for this industry. As was somewhat evident from the Samsung washer issue, the water industry is typically conservative and risk adverse. Since most water companies are publicly owned, they aren’t allowed to make a profit. And if something went wrong, the water company could be held responsible for a public health crisis says Sustich.[22]

INSERT

Fourth, we have the consequences from nanoparticles used as anti-fouling coatings for water traversing vessels and offshore structures including FPSOs (floating production storage and offloading tanks), submerged and insulated pipelines, heat exchangers in desalination or power plants, oceanographic sensors, and swimming pools. Over time, the coatings degrade and are released into freshwater, saltwater, and recreational systems.

Algae and mussels foul submerged structures of all sorts. Algae is nearly everywhere we find water including community pools. Mussels are observable on wharf pilings and on the hulls of vessels. Fouling can be costly. For example, ships with fouled hulls require 40 percent more fossil fuel to travel at the same speed as unfouled vessels.[23]

Currently, organotin compounds are used as biocides for vessels and structures, but they have a formidable toxicity profile and may been banned by the EU in the near future. In addition, the current silicone-base treatment has drawbacks not the least of which is the fragile nature of the coating.

This has opened opportunities for companies like BASF to develop alternative coatings. According to BASF’s Harald Keller, “The nanostructuring of the surface alters the wetting properties and is intended to signal that the site is not suitable for the organisms to settle.” One of the more promising developments involves the use of alumina/titania coatings for salt water vessels to reduce corrosion. The electrodeposition of silanes on roughened titanium is also receiving some notice. Anticipated alternative from polymer blends that segregate to produce a mosaic surface to the use of nanoparticles that moderate surface rugosity.[24] A silicone-based fouling release coating using silicone and nanotubes developed by the University of Mons-Hainaut and Nanocyl promises to be stronger, more robust, and easier to apply.

The EU research project “AMBIO” is investigating how to prevent the buildup of organisms on surfaces under marine conditions, for example on ships' hulls. Scientists from BASF are collaborating on this project with 30 partners from business and science from 14 countries.[25] The EC covered paints of this sort under the Biocidal Products Directive EC 98/8/CE.

There are some much more intimate applications worth considering as well. Pools, both private and commercial, are a huge market. The National Swimming Pool and Spa Institute reports the market consists of approximately eight million pools and four million existing spas and hot tubs worldwide, with an additional 360,000 pools and approximately 260,000 spas and hot tubs being installed on a yearly basis.[26] Loncto et al report nanoscale lanthanum oxycarbonate particles can be used to stop algae buildup in swimming pools by binding with phosphates.[27] For example, Altair Nanotechnologies, a leader in nanotechnology, nanomaterials and material science reported safety and effectiveness of its NanoCheck™ swimming pool algae prevention compound has been validated in independent testing. Altair claims its nano-structured compound works in conventional pool filtration systems is highly insoluble in water and is not a biocide.[28]

These coatings tend to last for one to two years. When they are applied and after they degrade and are reapplied, there will be some incidental or collateral release into the immediate environment. As they degrade, the release would occur while the coating is submerged. Until we have some better idea how the nanoparticle impregnated coatings interact with the freshwater or seawater environments when they are released, we might want to temper the comparative claims being made by the industry and others. While there are some good reasons to believe the nano-alternative might be preferred to both current anti-biofouling compounds as well as the ancillary costs of biofouling, there remain many unknowns.

REFERENCES

---

[1] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 26.

[2] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[3] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 31.

[4] Microbes at work cleaning up the environment. (2007). June 14. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/dlnl-maw061407.php. Accessed June 19, 2007.

[5] American Elements combines nanoparticles, rare earths, and bulk chemical capabilities in launch of new AE Water Treatment Group. (2007). June 13. www.americanelememtns.com\news_6_13_07.htm. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[6] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 31.

[7] Zhang, W. (2003). Nanoscale iron particles for environmental remediation: An overview. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5: 323-332.

[8] Meridian Institute. (2007). Workshop on Nanotechnology Water & Development. 15. http://www.merid.org/nano/waterworkshop/assets/WorkshopSummary.pdf. Accessed August 7.

[9] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 28.

[10] Analysis of early stage agrifood nanotechnology research and development. (2006). The A to Z of Nanotechnology. March 30. http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=2044. Accessed March 30, 2006.

[11] Rizzuto, P. (2006). Report says questions need to be addressed on use of nanotechnology in food, livestock. Daily Environment. September 7. Email communication.

[12] Allianz Group. (2005). Opportunities and risks of nanotechnologies. June 13. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/19/37770473.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2007. 17.

[13] Allianz Group. (2005). Opportunities and risks of nanotechnologies. June 13. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/19/37770473.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2007. 17-18.

[14] Dume, B. (2007). Porous nanoparticles deliver chemicals into plants. Nanotechweb. May 15. http://nanotechweb.org/particles/news/6/5/14?alert=1. Accessed May 22, 2007.

[15] Porous nanoparticles deliver chemicals into plants. (2007). http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=11594. Accessed November 12, 2007.

[16] Joseph, T. & Morrison, M. (2006). Nanoforum Report: Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food. May. http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/nanotechnology%20in%20agriculture%20and%20food.pdf?08122006200524. Accessed November 11, 2007. 5.

[17] Joseph, T. & Morrison, M. (2006). Nanoforum Report: Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food. May. http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/nanotechnology%20in%20agriculture%20and%20food.pdf?08122006200524. Accessed November 11, 2007. 5.

[18] Kalagher, L. (2002). Alfalfa plants harvest gold nanoparticles. Nanotechweb. August 16. http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/9690. Accessed November 11, 2007.

[19] New lab tackles tainted groundwater with nanotechnology. (2006). Lab Canada. June 28. http://www.labcanada.com/issues/PrinterFriendly.asp?story_id=&id=57675&RType=&PC=&issue=06282006. Accessed November 29, 2007.

[20] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[21] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[22] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[23] Biocide-free antifouling coatings thanks to nanostructured surfaces. (2005). Nano-Tsunami. August 18. http://www.voyle.net/Nano%20Coatings/Coatings%202005-0011.htm. Accessed October 26, 2007.

[24] Nanotechnology cleans up fouling. (2006). Nanotechweb. November 5. http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/indepth/31723. Accessed November 11, 2007.

[25] Biocide-free antifouling coatings thanks to nanostructured surfaces. (2005). Nano-Tsunami. August 18. http://www.voyle.net/Nano%20Coatings/Coatings%202005-0011.htm. Accessed October 26, 2007.

[26] National Swimming Pool and Spa Institute. (2002). Altair Nanotechnologies Files Patent on NanoCheck Algae Preventer for Prevention of Algae in Swimming Pools. Business Wire. December 16. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_16/ai_95454540. Accessed November 11, 2007.

[27] Loncto, J., Walker M., and Foster, L. (2007). Nanotechnology in the water industry. Nanotechnology Law & Business. June, 157-159. 159.

[28] NanoCheck Algae Prevention From Altair. (2004). The A to Z of Nanotechnology. March 11. http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleID=663. Accessed November 11, 2007.

New Nanoproducts

I'll be writing a lot more but I had to share some of the new products of nano. The web pages are great and one of the reasons I subscribe to AZoNano (http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/signup.php?cd=37721&ld=31).

There is Solar RX sunblock (http://www.keys-soap.com/solarrx.html), Greenyarn has a cloth beauty mask (has a Jim Carrey feel to it),(http://www.greenyarn.com/beauty.htm), and a mosquito repellent spray from J Internatl City in Korea (http://feeljune.en.ec21.com/GC01140798/CA01088554/Mosquito_Repellent_Spray.html).

Daewoo has a nano-enhanced refrigerator (http://www.daewoo-electronics.de/eu/products/cool_ref_glos.asp) (competition to that Samsung line).

Check out the Yamaha Waverunner (http://www.yamaha-motor.com/waverunner/nanoxcel.aspx) and Teak Guard Marine Products as well (http://www.teak-guard.com/products.htm).

In Raleigh and Utah

My blog will rise again now that I have a home address in Raleigh and have located to North Carolina State University. I am coordinating a project tentatively called Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST). We have 17 members from 5 universities and we are dedicated to completing social science research on science communication.

For what it is worth, I have been writing quite a bit, received a large grant which I had to transfer to NCSU, and attended a few meetings like the Grantees Award meeting in December. After the NCA in Chicago, moving, heading to DC for 4 days of a Grantees meeting, I am skiing in Park City. So far, I have been to the Canyons and today it is off to Solitude.

Expect to hear more from me on the nanofront very soon.