Okay so it’s more of a list of nanotech-enabled products than a lifestyle tool, but at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, we’ve just released an iPhone version of our surprisingly successful web-based nanotech Consumer Products Inventory.

With findNano, it’s a piece of cake to search or browse through the 1000+ manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-enabled products in the inventory, directly from an iPhone or iPod Touch.  And the really cool part – if you come across something that isn’t in the inventory that you think should be, you can simply take a photo and email it to us directly from the app.  And if it passes muster, we’ll add it to the list.

The best way to discover what findNano is all about is probably to download it and take it for a spin (it’s free).  But here’s a quick overview for the curious:

The idea behind findNano is simply to give users a sense of where consumer product manufacturers are claiming to use nanotechnology, and how they are using it.  The app relies entirely on manufacturer claims (although claims that are too outlandish are ignored – Nano Ghiacciato didn’t make the cut for instance!), which means that listed products are only allegedly nanotech based – they have not been independently tested.  It also means that there are probably many products out there that are nanotech-enabled that haven’t been included, simply because manufacturers have been backward in being forward about the technology they are using.

That said, findNano does provide some insight into how nanotechnology is appearing in products that people are buying and using – something the US Environmental Protection Agency recognized when they used the web-based version to estimate the the range of engineered nanomaterials being produced (Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program Interim Report, January 2009. Downloadable from here.)

In a nutshell, findNano allows you to do three things from your iPhone (or iPod Touch) – browse nanotech-enabled products, search for particular products, or submit products for possible inclusion in the inventory.

Selecting “Browse Products” allows you to scan through all 1000+ products currently listed, or to browse products by category, country or company.

The “Search” function allows products with specific terms in their names to be found – either from the whole inventory, or within specific categories.

“Submit a Product” is perhaps the most innovative part of the app, and allows users to take a snap of new nanotech-enabled products they stumble across, and send it to the Product on Emerging Technologies for possible inclusion in the inventory.  Nanotech product crowd-sourcing, using a nanotech-enabled product! (Yes, the iPhone does what it does because several of its components are engineered at the nanoscale).

How useful users find findNano remains to be seen.  But even if it’s just searching for the most bizarre use of nanotechnology that’s hit the streets so far, the app’s certainly a lot of fun to play around with.

And my contender for the most bizarre use so far?  Quite possibly The Handler.  What’s yours?

________________________

For more information on the Consumer Products Inventory, check out the web-based version at www.nanotechproject.org/consumer

More information on the findNano iPhone app can be found at http://nanotechproject.org/iphone

Twenty years ago, Don Eigler became the first person to manipulate and position individual atoms, making the breakthrough that many consider a pivotal moment in modern nanotechnology.  Unknown to Don and the rest of IBM team though (I assume), they were pipped to the “nano” post a full ten years earlier… by an Italian sparkling wine…

Yes, “Nano Ghiacciato” – a Prosecco sparkling wine from San Pellegrino – was launched on the Italian market in 1979, a full decade before Eigler’s atom-moving experiments – and it’s still available!

The first "nano" product? Kees Brekelmans holding a bottle of "Nano Ghiacciato"

Having received an extensively researched account of “Nano Ghiacciato” from Cornelis  (Kees) Brekelmans this week, I couldn’t resist posting his account of the earliest “nano” product he’s come across – especially given the dual anniversary with Don Eigler’s work.

As Brekelmans notes,

San Pellegrino “Nano” is a white, sparkling wine, “Prosecco,” to be drunk “Ghiaciatto,” i.e. ice cold

It was launched in Italy in 1979, with an advertising campaign featuring the singer Amanda Lear. (scroll to the end of this post to see her in all her “nano” glory!)

In the presentation Kees emailed to me (“Nano – what’s in the name?”), he writes:

As Amanda explains, « nano è l’aperitivo ghiacciato per te » and « nano è il mio aperitivo con te »

“Nano is the iced drink for you” and “nano is the drink I’ll have with you” (a rather loose translation I’m afraid!)

And as she further elaborates,

« Il tuo nuovo aperitivo … grande come te,fresco con tefrizzante naturale, come te »

or “your new appetizer … big as you, naturally sparkling fresh with you, like you” (okay, so it’s a Google translation – my Italian’s a little rusty!).

To cap things off, Kees notes

“Nano Ghiacciato” does not figure in the Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory of the Woodrow Wilson Institute.  And neither does Amanda.

Guess we have some work to do – Italy and Amanda Lear, here we come!

Sadly, unlike Don’s work, “Nano Ghiacciato” isn’t nanotechnology – it’s just a small bottle of wine.

But it did spawn what is quite possibly the first “nano” song.  Amanda, play us out please…

(The video can also be viewed here)

Update 10/13/09:  At Cornelis’ request, I’ve revised his details in the post, and added the name of the presentation he sent through to me (“Nano – what’s in the name?”)

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) – a US-based non-profit organization committed to using public information to protect public health and the environment – has just released what is probably the most comprehensive evaluation to date of the safety and effectiveness of using titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens.  And their conclusion?

On balance, EWG researchers found that zinc and titanium-based formulations are among the safest, most effective sunscreens on the market based on available evidence.

In other words, not only are zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticle-based sunscreens OK, but they are safer and more effective than many non nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens.

What makes this statement so startling is that EWG is not known for treating regulators and industry with kid gloves.  This is how the organization describes it’s way of working:

Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know. It shames and shakes up polluters and their lobbyists. It rattles politicians and shapes policy. It persuades bureaucracies to rethink science and strengthen regulation.

EWG is about as far as you can get from a bunch of industry lackeys.  Yet here they are endorsing one of the more controversial products of nanotechnology…

For the past few years, the safety of using nanometer-scale particles in sunscreens has been hotly debated.  As manufacturers have  turned increasingly to nanoscale mineral UV-blocking agents in place of more conventional chemicals, speculative questions over whether the nanometer-scale particles of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide being used could penetrate through the skin and harm people have been asked.  In the absence of conclusive safety-focused research, some groups have suggested that nanoparticle-based sunscreens should be avoided in favor of more conventional products, where there we have a clearer idea of the possible risks.  In 2007, Friends of the Earth published “A consumer guide for avoiding nano-sunscreens,” kicking off with:

Sun worshippers beware.  While slathering up with sunscreens to block dangerous ultra-violet (UV) rays you may be exposing yourself to a new danger.  Sunscreen manufacturers are adding nanoparticles to sunscreens to make sun-blocking ingredients like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rub on clear instead of white. These nanoparticles are being added without appropriate labeling or reliable safety information.

Even EWG admit that their researchers were skeptical about the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens, and thought the organization would end up advising against their use.

Over the past few years, there has been a growing body of published data addressing the effectiveness and safety of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens.  EWG researchers ploughed through nearly 400 studies in their quest to assess what the upsides and downsides might be for consumers.  Importantly, they also compared these data to what is known about conventional UV-blocking agents like octinoxate and oxybenzone.

The result is a comprehensive, robust analysis that wouldn’t be out of place in a peer reviewed scientific journal.  The conclusions are highly relevant to consumers concerned over which sunscreens to use, companies paranoid over how they present their products, and governments wondering how to regulate nanotech-enabled sunscreens.  The report states:

Our study shows that consumers who use sunscreens without zinc and titanium are likely exposed to more UV radiation and greater numbers of hazardous ingredients than consumers relying on zinc and titanium products for sun protection. We found that consumers using sunscreens without zinc and titanium would be exposed to an average of 20% more UVA radiation — with increased risks for UVA-induced skin damage, premature aging, wrinkling, and UV-induced immune system damage — than consumers using zinc- and titanium-based products. Sunscreens without zinc or titanium contain an average of 4 times as many high hazard ingredients known or strongly suspected to cause cancer or birth defects, to disrupt human reproduction or damage the growing brain of a child. They also contain more toxins on average in every major category of health harm considered: cancer (10% more), birth defects and reproductive harm (40% more), neurotoxins (20% more), endocrine system disruptors (70% more), and chemicals that can damage the immune system (70% more) (EWG 2007).

We also reviewed 16 peer-reviewed studies on skin absorption, nearly all showing no absorption of small-scale zinc and titanium sunscreen ingredients through healthy skin. In a 2007 assessment the European Union found no evidence of nano-scale particles absorbing through pig skin, healthy human skin, or the skin of patients suffering from skin disorders (NanoDerm 2007). Overall, we found few available studies on the absorption of nano-scale ingredients through damaged skin, but nearly all other sunscreen chemicals approved for use in the U.S. also lack these studies.

In contrast to zinc and titanium, the common sunscreens octinoxate and oxybenzone absorb into healthy skin — in large amounts according to some studies. These 2 sunscreens can cause allergic reactions, can lead to hormone-driven uterine damage, and can act like estrogen in the body, raising potential concerns for breast cancer.

On balance, EWG researchers found that zinc and titanium-based formulations are among the safest, most effective sunscreens on the market based on available evidence. The easy way out of the nano debate would be to steer people clear of zinc and titanium sunscreens with a call for more data. In the process such a position would implicitly recommend sunscreen ingredients that don’t work, that break down soon after they are applied, that offer only marginal UVA protection, or that absorb through the skin.

EWG acknowledge that more research is still needed, alongside effective oversight, to ensure that nanotech-enabled sunscreens are as safe as possible.  But the key message is that the current balance of evidence supports their use as a safe and effective alternative to more conventional sunscreens.

I cannot emphasize enough how important this report is.  The analysis is credible and the conclusions drawn are supported by the current state of the science.  It should reduce consumer concerns over using nanoparticle-based sunscreens, and allow them to make informed decisions that will result in better UV protection.  It should also encourage companies developing and selling nanoparticle-enabled sunscreens to stop obscuring  the fact – either by avoiding any mention of nanoparticles, hiding behind silly euphamisms alike “micronized,” or coming up with elaborate explanations of why their product doesn’t actually contain any nanoparticles.  These are good products using an effective technology, and companies shouldn’t be shy to let people know!

That said, there is still work to be done.  There are gaps in our understanding of how titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles behave on the skin and in the environment that it would be good to fill.  Approaches to testing these materials need to be fully evaluated. And regulators need to clarify the rules concerning the safe use of these materials.

Given what still isn’t known, EWG cautioned against the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics at the moment, where they are not being used to protect the wearer’s health.  But when it comes to protecting the skin the organization was clear – nanoparticle-based sunscreens.

End Notes

The full EWG report on “Nanotechnology & Sunscreens” can be read here.

This is part of a larger review of sunscreens, which is accessible here.

Something not covered in the EWG report is nanoparticle agglomeration.  Some companies have claimed that, while the basic size of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide particles they use is in the range of 1 – 100 nm, they form much larger agglomerates in the products and should therefore not be considered “nanoparticles.”  While this may be the case for some products, it isn’t universal, and there are still questions over whether large agglomerates could disaggregate when applied to the skin.  However, given the EWG’s findings and conclusions, the question of agglomeration doesn’t seem to be that important from a consumer’s perspective.

One concern over the use of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens is that these materials are photoactive, and could become more harmful when exposed to sunlight.  As the EWG report notes, most manufaturers treat the nanoparticles to supress their photoactivity.  Howere, there is some evidence that products containing photoactive particles could still be entering the market.   Whether this is important from a health perspective is unknown, although the indications are that it probably isn’t a significant concern when the particle-containing sunscreens are appolied to healthy skin.

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/07/03/nanotechnology-sunscreens/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2008/08/21/8821-a-consumer%e2%80%99s-guide-to-nanotechnology/ http://2020science.org/2008/08/21/8821-a-consumer%e2%80%99s-guide-to-nanotechnology/#comments Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:15:11 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.wordpress.com/?p=251

How cool is this: A nanotech-enabled labcoat to protect the user against… well, nanomaterials presumably, amongst other things!  

The labcoat—which uses Nanotex technology to make it stain resistant—is part of a major update to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory that tracks manufacture-identified nano-products.  Other eye-catchers in the update include a hunting shirt that resists bloodstains, a nanotech-based adhesive for McDonald’s burger containers, and an oven-like device for sanitizing whiffy shoes.

Of course, there are plenty of people who feel that consumer products represent an altogether too trivial side of nanotechnology.  And I have to agree that on the scales of virtue, a nano-silver bidet would find it hard to compete with the next generation of nano-enabled solar cells or targeted cancer drugs.  Yet trivial as many of the 800+ products in the updated inventory may seem, this is where most people will probably first come across the technology, and start to form their early opinions on whether it’s a good thing, or not so good.  

And in this bizarrely-connected world within which we live, good experience with nano-bidets (for example) are more likely than not to make the introduction of nano-cancer drugs go just that little bit smoother.

But beyond initial impressions, consumer products in their broadest sense are where some of the first widespread exposures to engineered nanomaterials are likely to occur.  And this means that care is needed over how nanomaterials are used in these products, and how that use is monitored and regulated.  

In the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products.  But recently, the CPSC has been struggling with low-tech problems like lead in children’s toys, and there is concern that this doesn’t bode well for the agency’s ability to tackle high tech nanotechnology-based products.

This is the conclusion of a new report by E. Marla Felcher of Harvard University’s Kennedy School.  In “The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Nanotechnology,” published by the Project on Nanotechnologies, Felcher paints a picture of CPSC as an agency of lofty ideals, crippled by a lack of political support, dwindling resources, inadequate scientific expertise and inadequate authority.  In the report’s executive summary, she writes

“CPSC’s inability to carry out its mandate with respect to simple, low-tech products such as Thomas the Tank Engine toy trains, Barbie dolls and Easy-Bake Ovens bodes poorly for its ability to oversee the safety of complex, high-tech products made using nanotechnology. The agency lacks the budget, the statutory authority and the scientific expertise to ensure that the hundreds of nanoproducts now on the market, among them baby bottle nipples, infant teething rings, teddy bears, paints, waxes, kitchenware and appliances, are safe. This problem will only worsen as more sophisticated nanotechnology-based products begin to enter the consumer market.”

The critique is harsh—all the more so because CPSC staff are clearly trying hard to get their heads around the challenges that nanotechnology is presenting them with.  Yet according to Felcher, the problems lie not so much with the staff as with the agency’s lack of information, resources and authority.  To ensure CPSC is nano-ready (and more broadly, emerging technology-ready), she recommends that:

• The agency’s knowledge-base is built-up,
• that CPSC work closely with other health and safety agencies,
• that information on nano-products is solicited from companies,
• that a Chronic Health Advisory Panel is convened to evaluate potential risks associated with nano-products for children,
• that the agency appeal to industry to develop voluntary safety standards for children’s products,
• and that the US congress take action on the Consumer product Safety Act bill to increase CPSC’s authority to address products based on new and emerging technologies.

There’s a good chance that many of the allegedly nanotechnology-enabled products entering the market are harmless (or at least, mostly harmless).  But a combination of novel and sometimes unpredictable material behaviour, few checks and balances to use and an inadequately resourced and empowered regulator seems like a dangerous combination; when a potentially harmful nano-product does come along, there aren’t, it seems, many barriers to prevent problems from occurring.  

And we are still dealing with very simple nanotechnologies—nanoparticles of silver, titania and carbon in the main.  What happens when consumer product manufacturers start to use more complex nanotechnologies?

OK so nano-consumerism may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things.  But the impacts of nano-consumerism gone wrong could be far from inconsequential.  So if we want to see the less trivial products of nanotechnology—the renewable energy sources, the high performance batteries, the smart drugs—now might be a good time to make sure the first waves of products perform well without causing harm.

Now, back to that shoe de-whiffer—I think my “nano  silver far infrared  anti-odor healthy socks” need a little help…

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in August 2008

Last December I highlighted the case of Benny the Bear—a soft toy using nano-silver to give it antimicrobial properties (Benny the Bear, and the case of the disappearing nanoparticles). It appeared at the time that the manufacturer was being rather coy about the use of nanotechnology, leading to me suggesting: “perhaps it’s time for Benny to come clean.”

Well, come clean he has.  And the revelation: Benny really is silver-free—uncertainty over risks, regulation and public acceptance led to the manufacturer to find a non-nano alternative.

In last Friday’s broadcast of Living On Earth—a U.S. weekly environmental news and information radio program—reporter Jeff Young interviewed Roy Sharda, a partner in Pure Plushy; the Chicago-based company that makes Benny.  According to Sharda,

“We have used nano silver in the past there’s a lot of speculation as to how much nano silver technology is accepted. Anytime you see controversy you try to sort of avoid it.”

Pure Plushy stopped using nano-silver because there were just too many questions about the material, how people will respond to its use, and how the government might regulate it.

So in the “case of the disappearing nanoparticles,” they really did disappear; to be replaced by a (presumably) more conventional EPA-approved antimicrobial.

Sharda says he still believes in nanotechnology, but clearly felt that a lack of safety information and clarity of oversight made investing in such a new and uncertain technology too much of a business risk.

Mmm.  I wonder how many other companies—small and large—are shying away from investing in nanotech because of similar concerns?

(The complete Living On Earth article “Small Technology, Big Questions” can be found here.)

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in June 2008

Labeling – is there anything more contentious in the safe nanotech debate?  Some are fearful that too much knowledge will confuse and worry muddle-headed consumers.  Others can only see the marketing opportunities of a “nano-inside” label. Then you have the nano-doomsday merchants, who seemingly would like nothing better than to slap a bright yellow nano-hazard sticker on all things small.

And of course, we cannot forget those “magic” nano products – not the surface treatment that allegedly messed people’s lungs up (which was neither magic, nor nano) – but those items which miraculously change from “nano-enabled” to “nano-no-more” at the wave of a marketing executive’s wand.

Into this fray comes the British standards body, BSI.  Published this week as part of the BSI “nano-nine” , the document “Guidance on the labelling of manufactured nanoparticles and products containing manufactured nanoparticles” does just what the title claims.

In a bold attempt to put the issue of nano-labelling on a rational footing, the stated purpose of PAS130 (to use its more succinct title) is:

• to promote a standardized approach to labelling;
• to ensure that users of MNPs [manufactured nanoparticles] and PCMNPs [products containing manufactured nanoparticles] can correctly identify the MNP contents for the purposes of making informed decisions in selection, purchase, distribution, handling, use and disposal;
• to inform regulatory authorities and assist healthcare professionals, technicians, health and safety officers and others to make informed decisions in relation to matters of occupational, consumer, public and environmental health and safety;
• to standardize the use of the term “nano” in labels;
• to provide guidance on the use of other specific terms in these labels.

What a sensible idea!  Even more impressive is the list of organizations that have contributed to the document—everyone from the Soil Association (of recent “no-nano in organic produce” fame) to the Nanotechnology Industries Association to the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association – strange bedfellows indeed for such a potentially divisive topic.  One might be forgiven for fearing an outbreak of reasonable thinking in old Britannia!

This is actually a very useful guide.  It systematically addresses the multiple purposes of labels, and provides sound recommendations on how to go about developing and using them.

In part, the debate over labelling has been polarized because people have been talking at cross purposes.  At times discussions have taken on the surreal feel of a movement to ban cats because they bark: misguided and rather badly informed!

Labels can and do serve multiple purposes. The trick is to work out what type of labelling is being discussed, and how it might help users, industry and regulators make informed and effective decisions on different nanotechnologies.

The BSI document does an admirable job of untangling the confusion, and stating clearly and concisely the purposes of labelling; what the limitations are, and how nano-specific labels might be used effectively in different circumstances.  I’m sure it will not be the last word on the issue, but at least it sets the scene for making real progress.

It’s not as much fun as the ETC Group’s bright yellow nano-hazard labels, but it’s probably a tad more useful

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in February 2008

Let me introduce you to Benny the Bear. Benny is a rather cute cuddly toy sold by the U.S. company Pure Plushy—we met at a meeting of the U.S. Congressional Nanotech Caucus a few weeks back. His claim to fame is a resistance to moulds, mites and bacteria.

To quote Benny’s creators:

“… Using scientifically proven technologies, Pure Plushy has created a longer lasting, antimicrobial stuffed animal. Now children everywhere have a “clean way to play!””

And what is it that gives Benny his near-miraculous properties? Well, that takes a little detective work. From the “Our Technology” Web page at Pure Plushy”

“Specially treated Memory Foam makes Pure Plushy an innovative product. All of our products have been treated with our special EPA Approved formula.”

But what is this special treatment? To answer this, you have to go deep. The first clue comes from a reference on the Pure Plushy website to the ABC show “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”, where Benny’s creators suggest you:

“Ask us why the designers of ‘Extreme Makeover’ keep choosing our Plush Plushy’s NanoTechnology Bear!!!”

Aha, so Benny’s secret is nanotech—but what sort of nanotech? Further digging unearths a small paragraph buried in Giftware News, that describes Pure Plushy as:

“the first company of its kind, that through the use of a patented technology, is offering anti-mite anti-mold and anti-microbial plush toys. The technology involves infusing silver, a natural anti-mite, anti-mold and anti-microbe agent, nanoparticles—25 nanometers thick, about one 200 thousandth of a human hair—inside memory foam.”

And according to the South Suburban Family Time Magazine:

“The Pure Plushy toys focus on eliminating mold, household bacteria and microorganisms by combining Silver Nanotechnology with memory foam, for a product that is clinically proven to fight against germs.”

So there we have it—Benny is stuffed with memory foam that has been infused with 25 nanometre diameter silver particles.

All these quotes appear on the Pure Plushy Web site, but you have to work hard to discover what it is that makes Benny special. Rather than being up-front about the technology, details of the silver nanotechnology being used by Pure Plushy have been all but expunged from the company’s literature and web site.

But it wasn’t always like that. Pull up a copy of the company’s Web site from earlier this year (www.archive.org does a great job here), and the story is very different. Some excerpts from the archived Web page:

“Pure Plushy—Soft, Fresh and Cuddly™ Silver nanotechnology infused memory Foam”

“Our Secret… Pure Silver + Memory Foam = Pure Plushy”

“Scientific Research has proven that Silver is a natural Anti-Mite, Anti-Mold and Anti-Microbe agent. Recent advances in Nanotechnology have demonstrated exciting new ways in which to put tiny microscopic particles of silver inside substances such as Memory Foam. Nanotechnology is the process of infusing nanoparticles (about 25 nanometers thick) which is about one 200 thousandths of a human hair into a substance. Using this safe, medically proven technology in Memory Foam, Pure Plushy can bring Soft, Fresh & Cuddly to Kids everywhere!”

If the nanotechnology used here is so good, why hide it? And if there are issues to be resolved, what good will burying the information do?

I don’t know whether Benny is safe or not. Silver is pretty non-toxic to people at low levels, and so I would doubt whether Benny presents a problem if used sensibly. But you always have to think a little more carefully when it comes to things kids could put in their mouths. (And it’s not just cuddly toys – check out Rob Aitken’s recent blog for the low-down on silver colloids). What I find more concerning is how hard it’s getting to track the use of nanomaterials in products like this.

Benny is the latest in a series of products where “nano” has mysteriously disappeared from the marketing information. That makes it difficult for consumers to make informed choices. It prevents a clear picture emerging of where engineered nanomaterials are being used (and in what quantities). It confounds attempts to study the potential impact of commercially relevant materials. And if problems do arise, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify the cause—think Magic Nano.

Nanotechnology has great potential, but its success will depend on trust and engagement between all stakeholders—including consumers. It’s hard to see how hiding the technology will achieve this. And ironically, the one think that consumers really really don’t like, is being kept in the dark.

If you’ll forgive the pun, perhaps it’s time for Benny to come clean.

________________________________________

This post was first published on the SAFENANO blog in December 2007