NANOTECHNOLOGY is one of the transformative technologies of the 21st century. This new technology, first developed by German scientists in 1984, involves the use of extremely small particles called nano particles to develop a wide range of products and processes. Nano particles can measure from around 1 to 100 nm, a nanometre being one billionth of a metre. To get a sense of the size of a nanoparticle, imagine a particle that is roughly 80,000 times thinner than a human hair. Nano technology essentially involves deconstructing materials and then reassembling the deconstructed atoms in different ways to create novel materials which were so far unknown.

Nano particles have shown great potential in the field of medicine and are used to manufacture a range of products from sports goods to cosmetics and food items, machinery and engineering products. The global market for nano products is estimated to reach over $1 trillion in another two years, by 2015.¹ In 2006, 300 nanotechnology based products were already on the market, mostly relating to healthcare, and the number increased to around 1100 by 2009.² This rate of growth in the release of nanotechnology products has only increased in recent years. It is estimated that roughly 10,000 products containing nano particles are already being sold.³ In the US alone, approximately 1,000,000 kg of nano sized titanium dioxide is produced each year. This gives an indication of the extent of the product range coming into the market using titanium dioxide alone.

Different types of nano particles are being used in thousands of consumer products around the world. Silver and titanium dioxide particles are the most popular. Silver nano particles exhibit disinfecting properties because they kill bacteria. They are therefore used in water purifiers, including those sold in the Indian market, and in washing machines, specially when washing smelly socks and undergarments since they get rid of the smell. In the fabrics and garments sector, nanotechnology has contributed water repellent fabrics that remain stain free and clothes that do not get crushed and wrinkled.

The cosmetics sector has perhaps made the most use of nanotechnology and is its biggest consumer. It has been putting out pastes, creams and ointments containing nano sized particles of zinc to protect the skin against ultra-violet radiation from the sun. Face powders and foundation, sunblock creams, eyeshadow and lipstick, anti-ageing creams are all being produced using nano particles, because they penetrate the skin deeper, their colours are more vibrant, last longer and the finish is good because particle size is so small.

 

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are used in sun protection and fairness creams because they can reflect sunlight away from the skin, thus preventing tanning and darkening and because they reflect UV light, the skin is protected against ageing and wrinkles. Both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were used in earlier versions of sun-block and fairness creams, but being white in colour they left a residue on the skin. Converting these chemicals into nano form changes their properties, making the creams transparent, thus doing away with the unattractive white deposits.⁴ Also on the market are toiletries containing nano particles like toothpaste, talcum powder and body lotions. Cosmetic firms claim that sunscreens with nano particles provide protection against UV rays without causing damage to the skin or any other adverse health impacts. This, as we will see, is not the whole story.

 

Carbon nano tubes are rod shaped and create materials that are stronger than steel but have only a fraction of the weight. They are used extensively in the sports sector, for example in tennis rackets to make them lighter, stronger and better able to take the pressure of a high velocity tennis ball. Nano golf balls are being made that can take the impact of the golf club in a focused manner without dispersing the energy of the strike. These golf balls fly straighter and faster. Ultralight bicycle frames are being used in competitive sports. Other sports items made from nano carbon are protective helmets, skis and sledges as well as tennis balls.

Nano facts

* Nanotechnology is technology on the atomic and molecular scale.

* A nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a metre.

* A nano particle is a particle with one or more external dimensions in the size range 1 nm-100 nm.

* The aspect ratio between a nano particle and a football is similar to that between a football and earth.

* Nanotechnology is working on a scale of 100 nm (which corresponds approximately to the size of a virus) down to the size of atoms, about 0.1 nm.

* Nano-scale materials and processes are present in nature, ranging from free molecules in gases and liquids to proteins and organic processes.

* Some substances are produced unintentionally, e.g., welding dust and diesel particulates.

Source: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, ‘Are Silver Nanoparticles Harmful? Science Daily.’⁵

New age household paints contain titanium dioxide in nano form because these particles confer the property of keeping the coat of paint fresh and free of dust. Nano paints are therefore easy to keep clean and retain their brightness longer. Other household products are treated windowpanes that are self-cleaning and interior paints, varnishes and polishes.

The use of nanotechnology in the food sector is growing rapidly. Bartenders have experimented with colourful nano solutions to make exotic cocktails and innovative chefs have used nanotechnology materials to make unusual and striking food presentations. Food scientists are working with nano structures to improve the appearance of food with respect to its colour and freshness and to enhance its flavour. Others are treating foods and food packaging with nano particles to delay biological decaying and increase the shelf life of processed and packaged food. There is a branch of nano science which is attempting to create artificial foods from scratch, using diverse assemblies of nano particles. Such foods could be completely novel, without having any connection to agriculture and food production as we know it and not derived from plants or animals.

 

Much is being spoken about the new era of nano agriculture – what is referred to here is the use of nanotechnology to increase yields and raise the productivity of the farm, both with respect to plants and livestock. Although agriculture scientists are painting this scenario, there is virtually no information or understanding about how nano particles will interact with crops like rice, wheat, legumes, tomatoes, corn and other kinds of food crops. What is known, however, is that nano particles will accumulate both in plants and in the environment, including the soil. Almost nothing is known about how nano particles will act and what impact they will have on the plants or on soil micro-organisms that maintain soil health or for that matter on the animals and humans that will eat those plants.

 

The greatest humanitarian attraction of nanotechnology is, however, in the field of medicine. The most appealing promise of nano medicine is in the field of cancer and hard to control viral infections where the use of the technology can refine treatment and prevent collateral damage. Scientists at the University of Illinois are developing nano particles for the treatment of brain cancer.⁶ The nano particles tagged to an antibody can identify the tumour cells and work is on that they should be able to destroy them selectively without harming healthy cells in the vicinity.

Research is ongoing on nano particles that can deliver drugs specifically to diseased cells while sparing healthy ones or those that can target specific tissues in the case of gene therapy. In fact, all drug delivery can be better targeted using nano particles with specific markers that will target specific cells.⁷ Nanotechnology can improve the effectiveness of treatments and gene therapy by transporting the intended molecule to the correct tissues in the body. Other applications can be regulating the release of drugs from drug deposits that are implanted for long-term release and monitoring its dosage. Futuristic medicine could also see the use of nano implements and scoping devices that could be implanted in the body to deliver medicine and monitor the response automatically. Taking this further, nano devices could even be programmed to set drug dosage and send the body’s health status directly to the doctor’s office.⁸ But all is not well in this utopian landscape.

Very little is known about the health impacts of these ultra-tiny particles. Nanotechnology and how it plays out on the health of living organisms and the environment is poorly understood. There is little research investment in this area and regulators of this technology have been notoriously lax. What is known from scientific studies that have already been done, however, is alarming and every consumer of nano products should take a step back till more information is available.

 

The most commonly seen health impact of nano particles is damage to lung tissues with studies showing that most nano particles ultimately land up in the lungs.⁹ However, other organs are not spared and there is sufficient evidence from animal studies that nano particles can enter the body in a number of ways. They can be inhaled and eaten, absorbed through the skin and eyes and through the nerves in the nose, they can reach the brain.¹⁰ After entering the body, nano particles get into cells and organs including the bloodstream, bone marrow, reproductive organs like ovaries, as well as muscles and lymph nodes. They can even cross the sacrosanct blood-brain barrier, the last defence of the body to protect its cognitive organ, the brain.¹¹ The blood-brain barrier is composed of membranes that do not allow molecules present in the blood to make any contact with the brain, but nano particles can breach this barrier. What are the long-term health impacts of this?

 

Nano particles have toxic properties because of their chemical composition and shape. Many particles are shaped like soccer balls, with many facets, which presents large reactive surfaces, with the potential for interacting with receptors and molecules in the body in a multitude of ways. This enhanced reactivity makes these particles highly interactive and unstable.

Animal studies with titanium dioxide, the most commonly used nano material on the market today, showed that when ingested, it causes damage to the animals’ chromosomes and destroys the DNA. These studies done at the School of Public Health at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), revealed that the nature and degree of the damage done to the DNA of test animals and the instability in the genetic material that this created was similar to what is found during ageing and in human diseases like cancer, cardiovascular disease and the ailments involving the brain and neuronal system.¹²

Researchers have also discovered that carbon nano tubes used extensively in the sports and sporting goods sector, are possibly more dangerous than asbestos because they can penetrate deeper into lung tissue where they can result in rapid damage that is often fatal. This has implications for workers who deal with nano particles during the manufacturing process when nano dust can be inhaled repeatedly over a prolonged period.

 

A study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that both nano titanium dioxide and silver result in damage to cells in the testes.¹³ Depending on the concentration of the particles and the duration of exposure, these nano particles were found to have a toxic effect on testicular cells, suppressing growth and multiplication, eventually leading to cell death resulting in infertility.

Both titanium dioxide and silver nano particles cause DNA damage in the cell, with obvious implications for the health of the environment and human beings. Of the two, the effect of silver particles was stronger and harsher than that of titanium dioxide. This would indicate that it is not only the size of the particle, but also the type of the nano particle, that will influence the kind of impact it could have on living tissue or living cells.¹⁴

Scientists working on nanotechnology often get carried away by the exciting potential of nano materials to do marvellous new things and forget to pay sufficient attention to the possible side effects of the technology which could be harmful. In the case of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), scientists had proceeded with some caution in the early years of the technology. Understanding the potential for harm, they advocated that the technology be regulated and biosafety tests be performed carefully to evaluate the impact on human health and the environment, especially biodiversity. It’s another matter that this caution is not being observed anywhere as stringently as it should, but the precautionary principle with respect to the technology was established early.

 

Regulation of nanotechnology is weak and ad hoc. As with many other technological breakthroughs, including genetic engineering, the US is the world leader in nanotechnology as well. This also means that it is setting the regulatory and safety standards which will eventually be accepted by the world, willingly or otherwise. Unfortunately the US Food and Drug Administration has a laid-back approach to the biosafety testing of nano products. The FDA spokesperson is on record saying: ‘If information were to indicate that additional safety evaluation or other regulatory action is warranted, we would work with all parties to take steps appropriate to ensure the safety of marketed products.’¹⁵ This in effect means that the FDA will be willing to act only once there is evidence of harm. But that is standing the problem on its head. Nano products are already in the market and the time to act is now, not later when the damage becomes visible and, so to speak, ‘the bodies start to pile up.’ We must learn our lessons from previous technology adoptions that have gone wrong, like for instance the health damage caused by DDT and asbestos.

Regulation of nanotechnology gets short shrift because it is not funded properly. The 2011 US budget allocation for nanotechnology was $1.8 billion and the money allotted to biosafety studies was just about $117 million.¹⁶ This is similar to the situation with GM technology where investments in research are huge and the money allotted to biosafety testing is pitifully small. Also, like GM technologies, there is no mandatory labelling required for products that contain nano particles. Under current US laws it is up to the producer to decide what to put on the labels.

In contrast to GM technology, however, where consumer awareness is high, there is little or no awareness among consumers about nano particles and nanotechnology and its pitfalls. The result is that the public is relatively unconcerned about the risks. A study done two years ago at North Carolina State University found that in the eyes of the consumer, getting a suntan was a greater public health risk than nanotechnology.¹⁷ In such a situation, there is no pressure on public authorities to put in place a better system to evaluate the risks of nanotechnology and to regulate it in a careful and transparent manner.

 

Consumers the world over and in India must inform themselves of the potential and risks of nanotechnology and demand greater restraint in allowing these products to reach the market before adequate and satisfactory testing has been done to assess their safety. Until sound systems are in place to protect the consumer and the workers where such products are manufactured, consumers must continue to demand that nano products should not be allowed for sale until proper risk assessment has been done and the safety of such products is certified.

 

* The author can be reached at mail@ genecampaign.org and www.facebook.com/drsumansahai.

Footnotes:

1. M.C. Roco, ‘Environmentally Responsible Development of Nanotechnology’, Environmental Science and Technology 39(5), 2005, pp. 106A-112A.

2. R. Dharmakumar, ‘Are Nanoparticles a Health Hazard?’ Forbes India, 18 June 2010. http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/14132

3. Andrew Schneider, ‘Amid Nanotech’s Dazzling Promise, Health Risks Grow.’ http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/24/amid-nanotechs-dazzling-promise-health-risks-grow/

4. T.G. Smijs and S. Pavel, ‘Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles in Sunscreens: Focus on Their Safety and Effectiveness’, Nanotechnology, Science and Applications 4, 2011, pp. 95-112.

‘Your Makeup Could Have an Ugly Effect on Your Health.’ Retrived on 20 April 2013. http://www.rodale.com/nanoparticles-and-cosmetics.

5. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, (2012) ‘Are Silver Nanoparticles Harmful?’ Science Daily. Retrieved on 21 April 2013. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120314100416.htm.

6. ‘Toward a Nanomedicine for Brain Cancer’, Science Daily, 2009. Retrieved 21 April 2013. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909103118.htm

7. Y.H. Bae and K. Park, ‘Targeted Drug Delivery to Tumors: Myths, Reality and Possibility’, J Control Release 153(3), 2011, pp. 198-205.

8. W.C. Zamboni, et al., ‘Best Practices in Cancer Nanotechnology: Perspective From NCI Nanotechnology Alliance’, Clin Cancer Res 18(12), 2012, pp. 3229-41.

9. C. Li, et al., ‘PAMAM Nanoparticles Promote Acute Lung Injury by Inducing Autophagic Cell Death Through the Akt-TSC2-mTOR Signaling Pathway’, J Mol Cell Biol 1(1), 2009, pp. 37-45.

10. V. Murashov and J. Howard, ‘Biosafety, Occupational Health and Nanotechnology’, Applied Biosafety 12(3), 2007, pp. 158-167.

11. M. Geiser, et al., ‘Ultrafine Particles Cross Cellular Membranes by Nonphagocytic Mechanisms in Lungs and in Cultured Cells’, Environ Health Perspect 113(11), 2005, pp. 1555-60.

12. B. Trouiller, et al., ‘Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Induce DNA Damage and Genetic Instability in Vivo in Mice’, Cancer Res 69(22), 2009, pp. 8784-9.

13. N. Asare, et al., ‘Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects of Silver Nanoparticles in Testicular Cells’, Toxicology 291(1-3), 2012, pp. 65-72.

14. N. Asare, et al., ibid, 2012.

15. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_nanotechnology20.htm.

16. Andrew Schneider, op cit., fn. 3.

17. D. Berube, et al., ‘Comparing Nanoparticle Risk Perceptions to Other Known EHS Risks’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(8), 2011, pp. 3089-3099.