Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
Since my first post concerning EPA’s Consent Order, I’ve been reflecting further on the management conditions it imposes – or, more accurately, on what conditions it doesn’t impose. The Order’s only such conditions address potential worker exposure. What about the rest of the nanomaterial’s lifecycle? Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[Part II of this post is available here.]
Word hit the street today that EPA intends to make public a “sanitized” version of a Consent Order it has negotiated with a producer of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). [A link will be provided once available.] We obtained a copy of the Order, which has redacted all information claimed confidential by the company involved. What can we learn from this well-scrubbed Order? Read More
Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
Andrew Maynard, of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, recently blogged about an Australian study that documented an odd effect of sunscreens containing nanoscale titanium dioxide (TiO2). The study was prompted by the observation that installers of metal roofs who used these sunscreens inadvertently transferred the product onto the roofs. In places where the workers’ skin had touched the painted metal surfaces, the paint showed accelerated weathering. Why? Because the particular type of nanoscale TiO2 in the sunscreen (the anatase crystal form) is photoactive – when it absorbs UV light, it releases free radicals that speed up the oxidation of the underlying paint.
Cal Baier-Anderson, PhD, 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
