Nanomaterials: Modern Marvel or Recipe for Bedlam?

Nanotechnology is a new, revolutionizing science that has changed and will continue to change the world in almost every way imaginable. Nanotechnology involves the science of modifying materials at molecular levels in order to accomplish tasks in better, faster, stronger and smarter ways than ever before (Fu, Ray & Yu, 2009). Nanotechnology is an emerging field that spans across scientific disciplines including biology, medical science and engineering. Nanotechnology has made huge advances in the medical field and has created smaller and smaller computers and transistors which have already enabled more precise computing, engineering and mechanics. Nanomaterials have the advantage of small particle sizes that enable them to access parts of our world that larger particles cannot. However, there are major concerns regarding the safe, ethical and intelligent use, research and exploitation of nanotechnology; the small particle sizes that give nanoparticles the advantage can also cause significant damage to humans and the environment. The key to nanotechnology is identifying the necessity of exploring the science and balancing that need with finding the safest and most efficient ways to utilize nanotechnology and seize the opportunities that it provides.

Nanomaterials are microscopic particles that are between 1 and 100 nanometers, which is also expressed as 1 × 10-9 meters to 1 × 10-7 meters. To put this into perspective, a nanometer to a meter is comparable to the comparison of a marble to the Earth (Jennifer Khan, as cited by Petit, 2007). Nanotechnology either uses “bottom-up” or “top-down” methods to work with common substances at the atomic and cellular levels (Kahn, 2006). “Bottom-up” refers to building nanomaterials from the cellular level and arranging their composition in ways that enable scientists to control their physical, chemical and biological properties. “Top-down” is just the opposite and involves reducing the size of a substance, for example a metal, down to nanometer sizes, and observing the changes that the substance undergoes. Both of these methods involve modifying and rearranging the cellular composition of particles in order to generate a desired outcome, perhaps a stronger or lighter material.

Each nanoparticle differs greatly from another in relation to surface area, size, shape and composition; every nanoparticle and nanomaterial is unique in how it appears, moves, and acts. Once reduced to nanometer scales, the same substance’s chemical composition can be dramatically different. For example, gold nanomaterials can come in spherical forms, or in rod-like forms known as nanorods (Fu, Ray & Yu, 2009). Both of these nanomaterials differ greatly from one another, even though they both take the form of the metal gold when in larger forms. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “nanoparticles may differ from their larger counterparts in that they may have altered magnetic properties, altered electrical or optical activity, increased structural integrity, and altered chemical or biological activity” (U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2006, p.2).

Once reduced to nanometer sizes, nanoparticles can change their physical and chemical properties, creating even more opportunities for use. If you “arrange calcium carbonate molecules in a sawtooth pattern, for instance, and you get fragile, crumbly chalk. Stack the same molecules like bricks, and they help form the layers of the tough, iridescent shell of an abalone” (Kahn, 2006, p.1). An example of this using the “top-down” method is aluminum foil: when cut down into small pieces, the aluminum does not change its physical or chemical properties; however once reduced to nanometer sizes, the aluminum foil can explode – creating a potential source for rocket fuel (Kahn, 2006). An example of using the “bottom-up” method is being conducted in a Rice University lab, where Matteo Pasquali is using billions of carbon nanotubes to build fibers which, “in theory, should be stronger than Kevlar, the material in bulletproof vests” (Kahn, 2006, p.2).

In addition to structural changes, some nanomaterials have even exhibited toxic properties that are not seen when the materials are in larger forms. For example, the metal gold is not a toxic substance in regular sizes, but once reduced to nanoparticle sizes, the behavior of gold nanoparticles vary greatly not only from their larger forms, but different shapes of gold nanoparticles displayed different behaviors (Fu, Ray & Yu, 2009). In spherical shapes, gold nanoparticles did not exhibit toxic effects on human cells, but in elongated, cylindrical shapes called nanorods, they were highly toxic. Although the gold nanoparticles were still comprised of the same metals at the nanometer level, it was discovered that the chemicals used to shape the gold nanorods into cylinders was the toxic substance. This took an immense amount of research and shows that even nanoparticles of seemingly identical composition are not, in fact, identical and exhibit very different toxicological traits.

What makes some nanomaterials toxic is the fact that at nanometer sizes, particles behave differently than when in larger forms. The danger presented here is the fact that there is a lack of data on how, when and why nanomaterials change their composition. A major risk that nanomaterials create in our environment is the fact that we do not know how these materials may react to external stimuli. Once the nanoparticles are released and exposed to environmental conditions, the makeup of the nanomaterials and their reactivity to external is, for the most part, unknown for most nanomaterials. “Nanomaterials released into the environment may undergo transformation by environmental conditions such as temperature and salinity, biological conditions such as habitat, and the presence of co-contaminants” (Tsai, 2012, p.2) In addition to carcinogenic properties, some nanomaterials have caused damage to nervous systems, pulmonary systems and neurological systems (Fu, Ray & Yu, 2009) in tested animals and humans. The broad range of toxic effects that some of these nanomaterials can have is staggering; the toxicity of nanomaterials is largely unknown at this time, which is the most concerning aspect of this issue.

Nanomaterials are emerging in products all over the world, ranging from food packaging to medical supplies (Kahn, 2006). Nanomaterials are found in “plastics, metals, ceramics, surface coatings, creams, sprays, cosmetics, electronics, clothing, drugs, medical devices, and medical imaging aids” (Tsai, 2012, p.1). There are various ways in which someone can be exposed to nanomaterials; employees in production can be exposed through inhalation or accidental skin contact, consumers are exposed to nanomaterials in their purchases, and finally, any expelled nanomaterials in the air or in waste treatment systems can cycle back to people unknowingly. Nanomaterials are also finding increasing applications in the medical field; nanotechnology is a huge player in the cancer detection and treatment fields; work is being done using nanomaterials to assist the grafting of veins and arteries (Kahn, 2006). According to Kahn, scientists are using nanomaterials to bind with certain proteins, working as an early-warning cancer detection procedure. Other nanomaterials are being used with infrared light to lodge into tumors to kill the cells, without damaging healthy cells. Jennifer West has conducted testing on laboratory mice using this new technique and stated “not a single mouse has died. We haven't even been able to induce any adverse effects. If we had injected these mice with the same amount of table salt, they would have keeled over long ago” (Kahn, 2006, p.4). In these instances, many patients and doctors are willing to accept the unknown risks associated with nanotechnology, in lieu of ineffective or grueling treatments such as chemotherapy.

It would be expedient to identify exposures to those nanomaterials that have been reported to become toxic in the environment (for example, expelled products in sewer systems). Since such a high amount of nanomaterials are currently being used every day all over the world, the best thing to do is assess the exposures that we readily can measure and identify. Nanomaterials exposure assessments will never be fully accurate or complete, as with most exposure assessments, so the most serious exposures and the exposures that can reasonably be assessed are where the focus should be. This can be done by surveying consumers, employees and communities that were exposed to known harmful nanomaterials, monitoring continued exposure and conducting physical examinations and possibly even Cohort studies to continue the data collection (Friis, 2012).

Exposure assessments are very difficult to obtain under normal circumstances, even with detectable agents like traditional chemicals and microbes (Friis, 2012); detecting exposure and assessing the exposure levels of nanomaterials is almost near to impossible. The best that can be done is to assess what types of nanomaterials that people are regularly in close proximity with, determine the exposure concentration, and finally the toxicity risk of those materials. The biggest issue with assessing exposure levels is that nanomaterials can be found in almost anything; as mentioned earlier, sunscreen, medical tools – even carbon fiber bicycles – have nanomaterials. How can any accurate assessment be accomplished that documents each product a person uses every day, and how much exposure to that material they had, and finally, whether or not that exposure was toxic?

Unfortunately, nanotechnology is so vast in its applications that individual studies on each nanomaterial need to be accomplished, and every study will differ in data acquisition and assessment. For example, nanotechnology used in the medical field is much more difficult to assess than beauty products; a rising number of medical procedures and treatments are using nanotechnology in increasingly different ways. In cancer research specifically, treatment centers and patients alike are trying new, innovative treatment options since there is no proven, fully effective, panacea for every form of cancer. Therefore, it is likely that more new nanomaterials and nanotechnologies are being used in the medical field without extensive testing and research than in other fields; in the race to find a cure, sometimes it isn’t realistic to wait for extensive testing. In the situations where uncontrolled exposure cannot be measured, voluntary epidemiological studies may fill the gap; patients or consumers using nanomaterials can be evaluated for signs of toxic exposure. This can be done in testing phases, such as in clinics, or can be done as after-the-fact self reporting, although this method isn’t always accurate (Friis, 2012).

There is a tremendous amount still unknown to us regarding what kinds of hazards nanomaterials pose to human health as well as our environment, and what can be done to reduce or prevent hazardous exposure to nanomaterials. The first and most obvious solution to bridging the gap of knowledge is to centralize research efforts, enabling developers and scientists to work together. At the moment, what seems to be happening is developers discover or create a new nanomaterial or technology and immediately put it into production, neglecting to perform necessary testing and remedial development of the material, if found to be toxic. Researchers are then left to conduct the extensive testing needed to fill in gaps of knowledge, and issue warnings if materials are discovered to be hazardous or unstable. Often, these researchers must fight with corporations, industries and nations that are already using hazardous or unstable materials, and convince them to halt production. So far, this system is not working; scientists and researchers must be allowed to test the nanomaterials before production starts, which would reduce or eliminate resistance from the affected industries.

Christina Jackiw 2015 Phi Kappa Phi Fellowship Writing Sample

It is a logical and often noble goal to get new technology into the world as fast as possible; after all, nanotechnology can save lives and the environment – but it can also destroy both if not developed safely. A centralized organization or forum where scientists, developers, engineers and inventors could collaborate would be tremendously beneficial for the safe development and assessment of nanotechnology; of course, industry and trade secrets, patents and copyright laws will preclude mandatory participation in such a forum, at least for the moment. Additionally, establishing control over any developing science could introduce the opportunity for nations or organizations to jeopardize the process of independent discovery that is so valuable to our society. However, it is imperative that nanomaterials be studied and tested before being produced in free industry. Human society has already made mistakes in using a new technology or innovation before truly understanding it; lead in gasoline was not accepted as dangerous until 1986 when it was finally outlawed because of its toxic nature (Kovarik, 2011). Although leaded gasoline had been a hotly debated issue, it took decades for it to be outlawed. Discovery before knowledge and implementation before evaluation are far from new concepts to science; nuclear science is also the descendant of pioneering minds experimenting with the unknown; however, today, nuclear science is a highly-regulated field due to the incredibly dangerous nature of nuclear waste and weapons. This gives evidence to the fact that regulation, or at the very least observation, is not an impossibility when the science or technology poses enough of a hazard.

The necessity to explore nanotechnology is too vital to our future to ignore; what must be done, rather than abandon nanotechnology due to its potential to be hazardous, is to educate ourselves about its hazards and develop responsible strategies to contain the distribution of unevaluated technology and restrict the production of nanomaterials that have not passed safety and security benchmarks. Nanotechnology has infinite applications and has the capacity to change virtually everything about our world; from pants to beauty cream, sports equipment to medical treatment, nanotechnology can make the things and systems we rely on better, more efficient, cheaper, lighter, more accurate, and faster. It is absolutely imperative, therefore, that controlled testing and exploitation of nanotechnology is headed up and funded by unbiased, politically unaffiliated and central organizations that will allow scientists to freely publish their findings. These findings will empower agencies to conduct epidemiology studies if necessary, create standards, impose regulations or bans on highly toxic materials and create a foundation to work on; once guidelines are implemented, a sense of control can be achieved that not only protects the environment and its people, but also enables safe and efficient research into nanotechnology.

As mentioned by Fu, Ray & Yu (2009), it is also fundamental to international environmental and human health that governments and agencies work together; breakthroughs in the safety of nanotechnology must be shared amongst developed and developing nations, for the protection of the planet and its people. It is not reasonable to expect that the technological advances be shared between nations, but any information relating to the safe manufacture and handling of nanomaterials is inarguably data that must be shared. It is interesting to note, however, that according to Stephen Empedocles (as cited by Kahn, 2006), the science is not as expensive to research and develop as previous multi-million dollar industries like nuclear power, which enables developing nations to have the same opportunities as their developed counterparts in making their own discoveries, thereby advancing the economic and political status of their countries.

Christina Jackiw 2015 Phi Kappa Phi Fellowship Writing Sample

Nanotechnology introduces an exciting new world in which our metals can be lighter and stronger, our beauty products more effective, and medical treatment more affordable, efficient and capable of unbelievable feats. Defeating cancer in a single doctor’s visit and healing major wounds in the blink of an eye are gifts that nanotechnology can give us; however nanotechnology can also give us cancer, new diseases, destroy ecological systems and can increase the occurrence of pulmonary or neurological disorders, if not safely and properly developed. Nanoparticles aren’t fully understood at this point; scientists have discovered that regular metals can turn deadly if built into the wrong nanomaterials, but still, toxic properties are being identified in nanomaterials that already in production. It is imperative not only that nanotechnology continues to grow for the sake of a better future, but that it is developed using the safest, most innovative and efficient ways that our brightest minds can come up with. Nanotechnology has great potential to do amazing things; it would be a shame to destroy our world in a haste to develop such a remarkable discovery.

References:

Friis, R.H. (2012). Essentials of Environmental Health (2nd Ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, Inc.

Fu, P.P., Ray, P.C. & Yu, H. (2009). Toxicity and environmental risks of nanomaterials: Challenges and future needs. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 27(1), 1-35. doi:10.1080/10590500802708267

Kahn, J. (2006, June). Nanotechnology’s big future. National Geographic. Retrieved 16 July, 2012 from http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/nanotechnology.html

Kovarik, B. (2011). Declaring victory: Getting rid of ETHYL leaded gasoline took too long and cost too much, but it's still a great achievement. Radford University. Retrieved 16 July, 2012 from http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/

Petit, C. (2007, December 14). Managing safely the gigantic future of very small things. Trust Magazine. Retrieved 15 July, 2012 from http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=32848

Tsai, C. (2012, March 1). The nanotechnology revolution: Ushering in a new wave of toxic torts?

Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 24(3), 20-24. Retrieved 15 July, 2012 from Business Source Complete

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2006, August 9). FDA forms internal nanotechnology task force. U.S. Food & Drug Administration News & Events. Retrieved 16 July, 2012 from http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108707.htm