Worldwide, sales of nano-enabled products reached $50 billion in 2007 and are projected to hit $150 billion this year, according to New York City–based Lux Research, an industry consultant on emerging technologies. Nanomaterials make clothing resist stains and sunscreen turn clear on your skin. Manufacturers put microbe-killing nanosilver in washing machines and plastic food storage containers. We can buy faster computer chips, lighter and stronger bicycles, fleece without static cling—all thanks to nanotechnology.

With more than 500 nano-enabled consumer products on the market, some people worry about stray particles finding their way into our food, air and water. But history tells us the most likely to experience any ill effects are the people who make the products, not those who buy them.

Coal miners used to take a canary into the shaft to warn them of deadly methane: if the canary passed out, it was time to come up for air. Historically, workers have often played the role of canary with other toxics. From leaded gasoline to mercury in felt hats, laborers absorb the highest exposures and are the first to get sick.

No wonder, then, that NIOSH is pushing for better understanding of the health effects of nanoparticles. But as Schulte notes, far more is unknown than known.

And as his colleague Doug Trout points out, it is a mistake to talk about nanomaterials as a single entity. "They're a whole universe," with no one-size-fits-all answers.

It is clear that inhaled nanoparticles can make their way into the bloodstream and throughout the body. Can they also penetrate the skin? What happens when they are ingested? Nobody knows. The size and shape of the particle are critical variables. And what about the amount? Nobody knows. Also, which companies are using nanomaterials, especially in sprays or powders that can easily be inhaled? How many workers might be affected? Nobody knows.

The reason: nanomaterials are completely unregulated; industry is under no obligation to keep records on potential hazards or anything else. NIOSH is a research institute; it can recommend that employers reduce worker exposure—and ways they might do that—but it has no enforcement power. Although the Environmental Protection Agency is a regulatory agency, it, like NIOSH, is in the early stages of gathering data. Last week, it released a long-awaited proposal asking businesses to voluntarily report safety data on engineered nanomaterials. Of the more than $1.3 billion budgeted for federal nanotech research in fiscal year 2006, only $38 million was targeted at investigating environmental, health and safety risks; the rest was earmarked for research and development.

There's currently a push from both inside and outside the government for the feds to do more. A recent Congressional Research Service report urges the multiagency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to establish an environmental and safety research agenda with real priorities—something NNI has been promising to do since 2006. U.S.

Rep. Albert Wynn, a Maryland Democrat who chairs the House Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials, says he plans to hold hearings this year on "the serious gaps in the current statutory and regulatory framework." At the state level, Wisconsin legislator Terese Berceau (D-Madison) has asked her state's departments of Natural Resources, Health and Family Services, and Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to work with her to create a registry of businesses that make nanoparticles as a first step toward tracking their use and potential health effects.

NIOSH is also interested in the possibility of establishing registries of workers exposed to nanoparticles. It is unclear who would run these registries, what information they would collect, or how the information would be used.

"A registry is not an end in itself," Patrick Conner, medical director for the Germany-based chemical company BASF, said during a recent meeting held by NIOSH in Cincinnati to get input on its nanotech draft proposal. "If you're going to gather data, you have to act on it."

1 Comments

1. 1. Enrico C 04:55 AM 7/22/08

   From a chemical point of view carbon nano-tubes are part of the family of polycyclic aromatic condensed rings (see Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon ).
   These molecules are able to form stable radicals that can chemically interact with DNA and are capable of altering the chemical structure of DNA promoting DNA miss-functioning and cancer formation ( see for ex. Benzopyrene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene ).
   Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are formed during the synthesis of CNTs and are absorbed on the internal and external surfaces of the nano-tubes.
   These substances can be released when CNTs came in contact with human body.
   Also directly CNTs are able to for very stable radicals that could interact with DNA. More deep investigations are needed before use CNTs on a large scale.
   Enrico Costantini ( LyondellBasell Additives director )
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this