Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

With conventional chemicals, experience has allowed us to articulate general criteria based on chemical properties that identify chemicals of greatest concern.  For example, persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals are assigned a high priority, whereas chemicals that quickly degrade and don’t build up in blood or tissue are, as a rule, likely to be of lower priority.

Concerns about nanomaterials arise from observations that properties that emerge or are greatly enhanced at the nanoscale can alter behavior, including biological activity.  These properties make such materials different from conventional forms of the same chemicals.  But can a general principle that nanomaterials pose a greater concern than their conventional counterparts be supported?  Read more »

John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., is Chief Health Scientist.

EPA’s recently released draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) proposes a tiered testing system to evaluate human toxicity of nanomaterials.  It puts in vitro tests, or those done in test tubes and petri dishes as opposed to living animals, front and center.  EPA says the results of the first, in vitro tier will be used for guidance on “what health endpoints to monitor” and the second, in vivo tier will then help “identify those in vitro assays that correlate with in vivo nanomaterial toxicity or health effects.”

Wait a second.  If the in vivo testing is necessary in order to figure out what the in vitro testing results really mean, how can the agency use the in vitro testing results to figure out what health endpoints to monitor?  This cart and horse confusion is a serious matter. Read more »

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

Each year, the journal Environmental Science & Technology selects a list of Top Papers it has published that are “expected to have a significant and long-lasting impact on the field.” For 2007, its choice for the top environmental science paper addresses a curious facet of the behavior of certain metal oxide nanoparticles:  They can behave as “Trojan horses,” getting inside cultured lung cells and causing significant damage. Read more »

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

In the current regulatory environment, where there are no regulations that specifically take into account the unique properties of engineered nanomaterials, industry has by default the primary responsibility for their safe production and use. Is industry taking this responsibility seriously?

Two recent studies, one in Europe and one in the U.S., shed light on this question and reveal some reasons to be concerned. Read more »

John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., is Chief Health Scientist.

It’s been a worry for engineered nanoparticles. Now, a new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (Suglia et al., 2008) is the first to suggest that particulate air pollution not only damages the lungs and heart, but also may damage the developing brain.

Researchers measured cognitive function in over 200 children in Boston in relation to their residential exposure to traffic-related air pollution by measuring airborne carbon black particles. They found the IQ-lowering effect of higher exposure is comparable to a pregnant mother smoking 10 cigarettes a day or moderate lead exposure. Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Just when you thought it might never emerge, the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health and Safety Research [2.2 MB PDF] finally hit the streets last week.

It’s got good, bad and ugly. The good news is that here, at last, is a report from NNI that actually reads more like a strategy and less like yet another laundry list of research needs. The bad news is that key elements of a full strategy are still nowhere to be found. Read more »