HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Beth Stackpole
User Rank
Blogger
Double-edged sword
Beth Stackpole   1/24/2012 10:48:54 AM
NO RATINGS
I would imagine that potential legislation governing nanoscale materials has to be a good thing in terms of promoting a healthy and safe environment not only for workers using the new materials, but also end users of products that leverage the new technologies. That said, one can only imagine that legislation might curtail usage and further evolution of these important technologies. Is that the case, Ann? How widespread is nanomaterials so far?

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Double-edged sword
Ann R. Thryft   1/24/2012 11:52:56 AM
NO RATINGS

Nanomaterials are extremely widespread at present, Beth, and they're by no means monolithic in shape, size or constitution. They're in food and cosmetics, where much of the consumer-level concern is, but also in a lot of materials being produced in factories, like the industrial chemicals and medical devices mentioned in the article, so there's also concern about worker exposure. In fact, a coalition of consumer safety and environmental groups sued the FDA in December over possible risks from nanomaterials:

http://nanotech.lawbc.com/2011/12/articles/united-states/federal/coalition-sues-fda-over-alleged-risks-from-nanotechnology-and-nanomaterials/

During the reporting of this story, I was reminded of the parallel issues surrounding the maintenance and repair of carbon fiber composites in aircraft, most especially the absence of repair databases and procedures and the difficulty of determining whether damage has even occurred. But in the case of aircraft composites, much of the information is either gettable or available, since composites use in aircraft is not entirely new. In the case of nanomaterials, practically everything is new and very little is known about their effects on human health. 


Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Europe and Japan will likely go first
Rob Spiegel   1/24/2012 11:33:59 AM
NO RATINGS
Nice article, Ann. As with a lot of environmental legislation, the EPA may wait to see what Japan and Europe do before offering any significant regulation. Even then they may hang back. We still don't have a a U.S. RoHS. We don't really need one, since the electronics industry complied to Europe's regulation.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Europe and Japan will likely go first
Ann R. Thryft   1/24/2012 11:53:48 AM
NO RATINGS

Thanks, Rob, for weighing in with your expertise on related legislation. I think one of the problems here is that the subject potentially either bridges, or falls between the cracks of, some different interests and expertise areas: health, environmental and technological. That's why we're seeing FDA, EPA and NGOs involved, and that will make the legislative and regulatory situation a lot more complex.


Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Europe and Japan will likely go first
Rob Spiegel   1/24/2012 1:32:43 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree, Ann. The different entities each have their own communities to satisfy. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. There will also likely be political aspects to this since this is an election year.

Dave Palmer
User Rank
Platinum
Lack of information
Dave Palmer   1/24/2012 11:41:08 AM
NO RATINGS
The Inspector General's report points to the lack of good information about the health effects of nanomaterials.  Some recent studies have found possible heath risks associated with carbon nanotubes.  This is an area which needs further study.  We are only just beginning to learn how materials behave on this scale, never mind how they interact with complex biological organisms such as ourselves.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Ann R. Thryft   1/24/2012 11:54:39 AM
NO RATINGS

Dave, thanks for your comments and those links. I think you are totally right on. Much of the research I saw has to do with simply classifying and describing various different types of nanomaterials, and none with their effects. That pattern tells me that a field of study is in its infancy. I find that pretty scary, and am still amazed at how fast these technologies were allowed to grow without being studied first. The concern about their effects is by no means new: I read about it when I was covering this topic a decade ago for a different publication, and as usual, commercial interests trumped safety interests. 


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Charles Murray   1/24/2012 1:08:14 PM
NO RATINGS
Like so many other areas of technology today, this is a case of a technology developing too quickly for researchers and governing agencies to study it and come to any conclusions. We're seeing the same thing in the auto industry, where the pace of electronic development is exceeding the ability of governing agencies to understand the implications.  

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Ann R. Thryft   1/24/2012 2:38:27 PM
NO RATINGS

Chuck, I think you're right. I've seen the same pattern elsewhere to varying degrees, depending on the nature of the technology and its degree of comprehensibility or incomprehensibility to the average non-technical person. In nanomaterials it's been especially problematic because they're especially difficult to comprehend, rather like the early SoCs were to many average folks.


Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Rob Spiegel   1/24/2012 2:47:50 PM
NO RATINGS
Good points Chuck and Ann. You have to wonder whether the regulatory agencies have the expertise to develop reasonable regulations. RoHS received considerable criticism for not providing sufficient science behind its materials bans. The RoHS folks have made adjustments going forward to respond to scientific challenges.

I can't imagine how this is going work with nanomaterial.

Alexander Wolfe
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Alexander Wolfe   1/24/2012 3:22:45 PM
NO RATINGS
This is definitely one area where legislation could forestall innovation. As well, regulating nanomaterials as chemicals makes no sense in the case of MEMS devices. Under these proposed regulations, MEMS sensors could conceivably fall under these laws. Not a good idea, or one that makes any sense.

Dave Palmer
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Lack of information
Dave Palmer   1/24/2012 4:20:51 PM
NO RATINGS
@Alex: Looking at the EPA documents which Ann linked to, I didn't get the sense that MEMS devices would be likely to fall under the proposed regulations.  It seems like EPA is primarily looking at nanomaterials such as fullerenes and nanotubes.  I agree that any regulations made in the absence of good information have the potential do more harm than good.  On the other hand, the basic physics (let alone the biological activity!) of these materials is only partially understood at this point, so it makes sense to proceed with a certain amount of caution.  OSHA has a page with links to many resources on the health effects of nanomaterials.

Alexander Wolfe
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Alexander Wolfe   1/25/2012 11:26:37 AM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for that update, Dave. It's good to know that the proposed legislation don't seem to extend to MEMS devices. Perhaps this legislative effort will end up like the radiated-food stuff did several years back, which was that lawmaking was ahead of a technology which had yet to settle or to come into a common mode of usage. So the legislative process was being attempted too early on the adoption curve. Sounds like the same thing is happening here.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Ann R. Thryft   1/25/2012 12:43:25 PM
NO RATINGS

Thanks, Dave. It's important to clarify that MEMS are definitely not being considered here. MEMS and nanometer-level tech of various kinds are often mentioned in the same breath, and that's sometimes unfortunate because it's confusing. Generally speaking, MEMS are usually quite a bit larger--often another order of magnitude--and may be made of nano-sized components. 

That said, I also think it would be silly for the EPA to try to regulate all nanomaterials as chemicals, but I'm not sure that's actually what they intend. I think that's just a starting point and that all the regulatory bodies are flailing around. As Rob's comments indicate, regulators seem to have been blindsided by all this commotion. But they have to start somewhere.

As Dave points out, there's reason for concern with some nanomaterials. And I've always thought, if you introduce a new variable into any system, it's naive to work on a default assumption that there will be no effects. If the systems are individual, biological ones--like me or you--then it behooves us to know what we're doing.


William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Lack of information
William K.   1/25/2012 10:06:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Ron, I would certainly anticipate that even a total lack of understanding would prevent the regulatory agencies from creating all sorts of rules about how to handle things. It has not slwed them in the past, why should it slow them now. What evidence is there that the new nano materials are any more hazardous than dust has been for hundreds of years? Or aerosols, for that matter.

I would not anticipate that the first set of regulations will be rational at all. Nor that a lack of understanding will slow the rate of regulation.

Dave Palmer
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Lack of information
Dave Palmer   1/26/2012 10:50:24 AM
@William K.: Obviously nanomaterials have vastly different properties than common dust particles, otherwise they wouldn't have any scientific interest or commercial value.  Quantum size effects result in nanoscale materials behaving in radically different ways than bulk materials.  They have different mechanical properties, electrical properties, chemical reactivity, etc.  So why is it reasonable to assume that when it comes to their health effects, they behave the same as common dust?

Of course, common dust particles are far from benign themselves.  Effective regulation has nearly eliminated silicosis as a cause of death in the U.S., but it continues to kill thousands of people in China every year.  And silicosis is caused by micron-scale particles which can be easily stopped with a properly designed and fitted dust mask.  How do you effectively filter out nanoscale particles?

At any rate, the regulations which EPA is proposing would simply require companies to report where they are using nanomaterials, and how much.  They wouldn't impose any actual restrictions on the use of nanomaterials.  And the only reason why EPA is even considering mandatory reporting is that not enough companies are participating in an existing voluntary program.

Requiring companies to report their nanomaterials usage might help to address the lack of information which is currently the biggest impediment to assessing and managing nanomaterials risk.  The only companies which I would expect this to have a serious negative impact on would be the ones who claim to be using nanomaterials in their products and actually aren't.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Lack of information
Ann R. Thryft   1/26/2012 4:19:44 PM
NO RATINGS

Thanks, Dave, for the clarifications about legislation and regulation and for pointing out the particle size issues and enormous size differences, in turn causing behavioral differences. And of course, the effects of those differences are mostly unknown at present.


Research
User Rank
Iron
Re: Lack of information
Research   2/25/2012 11:01:07 AM
NO RATINGS
Your assessment is interesting. Aspects to be considered in classification require careful analysis. 1. Is the nano material an active or passive bio-component Dust is micron sizable material that activates predisposition human bio-systems. Drugs have been in the market, approved by FDA, to a specific volumetric concentration and contain aerobic nano particles, altering biosystememic tissue, organs and behavior. Chemicals (pool chemicals, herbicides, and even car pollution 50 microns size particles) are active human bio-component a Impacting materials. EPA & FDA Legislation or Guidance Disclosure or non disclosure 2. A great number of nano materials are active components of sealed and totally enclosed systems with potential for bio-analysis. i.e. Medical nano devices. Concerns? It is a component quality to process validation issue. 3. A number of newly bio- nano systems are fuel producing and cell generating systems Concerns? Less polluting biodegradable fuels ;) Reconstructive StemCell human tissue and organs ;) An Army of Nano-Drones ;) From Mouse to NanoDrones - It is a real legal & ethical question and concern. 4. The sky is the limit!

Dave Palmer
User Rank
Platinum
Legislation vs. regulation
Dave Palmer   1/25/2012 1:41:33 PM
Not to nit-pick excessively, but there is a big difference between legislation and regulation.  Legislation is done by the legislative branch.  Regulation is done by the executive branch, under authority granted to it by the legislative branch.  What's being discussed in this article is regulation, not legislation. (Thanks to partisan divisions, the U.S. Congress is not very likely to pass much legislation on any subject in the next twelve months).

The Inspector General's report basically says that EPA has the authority under existing law to regulate nanomaterials, but that they don't have enough information to do so in a meaningful way.

By the way, it's interesting to read the bickering between the EPA and the Inspector General's office in the appendix.  The report originally had a more scathing title.

Ozark Sage
User Rank
Silver
Re: Legislation vs. regulation
Ozark Sage   1/25/2012 3:56:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Dave agree with your comments, Wonder, and it will be extreamly interesting, to discover WHO will wind up doing all this work especially since manufacturing processes and safety testing is still in development world wide.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Nanomaterial legislation: is it coming soon?
William K.   1/26/2012 8:47:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Dave, I also, appreciate the clarification about nanomaterials. My comments about the EPA are due to their history of issuing edicts, however. A bad reputation is a difficult thing to lose, and while some applaude all of the EPA rules, I find that many of the assumptions appear to be built on questionable statistics, at least, on statistics that don't seem to be atributed to a recognized source. 

The first step in regulation is almost always to find out who would be regulated, so as to be able to apply force to all involved parties when laws are finally passed. So it looks obvious to me that regulation is going to happen in the fairly near future, probably before much long term data has been collected. IT just seems to work that way.

On the other side, are there any examples of anything being caused by people either breathing or becoming contaminated with any nanomaterials? A detailed pathological report on any instances would be quite worthwhile. A good writer could translate it into common language from the medical jargon and allow us to know "what really did happen".

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Nanomaterial legislation: is it coming soon?
Ann R. Thryft   1/30/2012 12:05:07 PM
NO RATINGS

Perhaps you missed Dave's earlier comment with a link to an OSHA page that has links to many resources regarding the health effects of nanomaterials. Here it is again:

http://www.osha.gov/dsg/nanotechnology/nanotech_healtheffects.html


Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
who will do all the work?
Ann R. Thryft   2/6/2012 2:06:22 PM
NO RATINGS

I think Ozark Sage has raised a very good question: who will do the testing and various types of assessments that result in regulation? So far, it looks like the state of knowledge is still stuck at the classification stage.




Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
This Gadget Freak review looks at a cooler that is essentially a party on wheels with a built-in blender, Bluetooth speaker, and USB charger. We also look at a sustainable, rotating wireless smartphone charger.
Texas Instruments is rolling out a new microcontroller that could make the design of sensor networks and data logging systems simpler and less costly.
Made By Monkeys highlights products that somehow slipped by the QC cops.
From pitchers and forwards to quarterbacks and defensemen, we offer a peek at some of the more memorable engineers in sports history.
IBM announced it is dedicating $3 billion of funding over the next five years to research and development of new processor technologies.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Jul 21 - 25, Design Products With Bluetooth Low Energy
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: August 12 - 14
Sponsored by igus
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service