Nanotech! WOOT! What?

September 29, 2012 2:18 PM

How can I tell if a product I'm about to buy contains nanotech materials? Are there labeling requirements (in the U.S.)? Can I tell by the chemical names? For any ingredient that's listed, can I tell if it's a nano-version of that material, as opposed to regular sized molecules? What consumer products are actually using these materials now?

I'm seeing many gee-whiz stories in science and product news of developments in nanotech materials that can potentially do truly amazing things. I'm duly impressed and excited, but: haven't we been here before, all excited about the wonderful things that a new technology could do before we stopped to think about the not-so-good things that it could also do? I grew up when using the fluoroscope in the shoe store was a great way to make sure my shoes fit right (and SO fun to play with while we waited), and I wore a plastic dry-cleaning bag with Donald Duck printed on it as a Halloween costume in the days before that bag was NOT A TOY). So I'm a little cautious and skeptical about this new nano-stuff which, along with all the very cool things it can do, can maybe go right through all those inconvenient cellular barriers in the skin, lungs, gut and brain. I already have enough autoimmune diseases, and I'd like to minimize additional, optional exposure to strange new substances.

When I buy something, I would like the opportunity to know whether or not it contains any nanomaterials, so I can choose whether or not the extra features in that product are worth the risk of exposure to something we don't yet really understand.

I'm getting a little nervous when I see all these common consumer products that are suddenly anti-bacterial, water repellant, wrinkle free, stainproof, smudgeproof, and otherwise magical. I've tried researching this a bit, and what I see makes me even more uncomfortable (and exhausted -- I've spent many hours reading at much greater depth than I want, without finding the seemingly simple answers I'm looking for). Can anyone with knowledge of the field tell me how to find this stuff out?

posted by Corvid to technology (19 answers total)

Atoms and molecules don't come in different sizes - nanotechnology is not about having smaller molecules than normal, but rather about operating on materials at the level where the properties of individual atoms and molecules and not just the bulk material become apparent.

You can see how this is not a very clear-cut definition and why it wouldn't be possible to rigorously label nanotech materials in a practical way. A lot of what is called nanotechnology today would have been ordinary chemistry or materials science some decades ago.
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:50 PM on September 29, 2012 [7 favorites]

One thing to remember is that terms like 'anti-bacterial' and 'wrinkle free' are added by marketing departments looking for the slimmest of pretexts to advertise some virtue in their product. The terms don't necessarily indicate that it's been soaked in something cancer-causing. Frequently they're present not because the product has been specially made so, but because some normal property of the product allows the claim (e.g., 'wrinkle free' is something polyester clothes have over cotton, though they're not really wrinkle free or 'no iron', they just wrinkle a bit less).

This is a topic on which you can easily make yourself crazy out of ignorance or miscommunication; it doesn't help that there are communities willing to believe in conspiracies about manufacturers. Be sceptical in both directions.
posted by fatbird at 3:05 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is sliding off in directions that are not really helpful -- "nano-stuff," whatever its technical definition, is clearly DIFFERENT in function than "ordinary" stuff, or no one would be making a fuss about how wonderfully better it is. Which they are. I don't have the time, expertise or need to know everything about it -- I just want to know when I'm using it, so I can maybe make a choice.

"Being skeptical in both directions" is EXACTLY what I'm trying to do, but I've been unable to find any solid information about what consumer products have nanotech materials in them, now, and how do I tell?

Is it in skin care products? vitamins? textiles? house paint? plastics? food wraps? foods? whatever they're using to line tin cans now that they're getting away from BPA? (I've seen reports that it is, or may soon be, in various products in each of those categories, so these concerns are not imaginary.)
posted by Corvid at 3:25 PM on September 29, 2012

It is in glass the Roman's made seventeen hundred years ago, and it's in the forged steel fire grate in your house -- both are materials that exhibit properties dependent on nanoscale structures (or, very often, micron scale structures, but the language that people use for this is often poorly applied). The problem here is a misconception about nanomaterials, as Dr Dracator explained.

There are new 'nanoscale' products that are being developed, and yeah, it's going to be stuff like stain resistant coatings on your pants. But we've always made things at this scale -- beauty products? I'd take an educated guess that a lot of moisturizers work by transporting some material inside a micelle. Some of this stuff is harmless. Some will be harmful. These are new materials, and as such require scrutiny -- but no more so than any other new materials.

Put it this way: let's say I start selling 1,4-Butanediol as a window cleaning agent. Is that nanotech? No. It's "just atoms and molecules," (to try to use the language of the distinction you're making -- sorry, I don't want to put words in your mouth). But it's a solvent with some health consequences, and you would be wise to ensure that this new product was properly tested for its acute and chronic health consequences. The same rigour is necessary in vetting any new nano-stuff.
posted by samofidelis at 3:37 PM on September 29, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think the point folks are trying to make is that it's no good trying to make a blanket judgement about "nanomaterials" or "nanotechnology" as there isn't really a single solid well-defined definition of such things, and also the properties that any given nanomaterial might have are going to vary wildly based less on the scale of the material (whether it is "nano" or not) and more on the specific properties of that particular item. Additionally, looking only at new materials/chemicals/devices that qualify as "nanotechnology" would pass over a lot of other interesting/potentially-dangerous new materials and technology that are equally revolutionary but which don't fall under the umbrella of nanotech.
posted by Scientist at 3:48 PM on September 29, 2012 [4 favorites]

"nano-stuff," whatever its technical definition, is clearly DIFFERENT in function than "ordinary" stuff, or no one would be making a fuss about how wonderfully better it is.

What people are trying to point out is that "nanotechnology" is a word that has been co-opted by marketing departments -- in terms of household products, there are few if any that involve anything that would be classified as nanotech by the original definition of the word. It's a bit like the "Organic" label on foods: it certainly means something, but it's very difficult to make a precise definition of what exactly that is, and the term is easily twisted and very often deliberately misused.

Take this for example -- literally the first thing I randomly googled up under "nanotech household product". "Nanoparticles used in common household items caused genetic damage in mice" is the headline -- except that the 'nanoparticle' in question is just titanium dioxide, which is just a chemical compound. Which has been in use since at least 1940. This is just not nanotechnology by any definition, unless you're writing a scare headline or trying to sell an "antibacterial" soap or whatever.

True nanotechnology and yes, I'm about to make a No True Scotsman argument is extremely expensive, since it involves building products one atom at a time but ok not literally so since that is actually impossible, "sticky fingers" etc, and you're highly unlikely to encounter it any time this decade unless you work in one of the labs trying to invent the stuff.
posted by ook at 3:57 PM on September 29, 2012 [3 favorites]

The wikipedia article on regulation of nanotechnology can give you an overview of what different countries are doing to regulate the use of nano materials. The short answer, as of right now, is "not much." There are no labeling requirements in the US for these products. That does not mean that companies that sell these products are not investigating the health and environmental risks (and communicating hazards appropriately on labels). It just means they don't have to tell you they are using nano materials.

Some do, though. For example, a bottle of sunscreen may say "micronized titanium dioxide" is an ingredient.
posted by cabingirl at 4:21 PM on September 29, 2012

As those above have said, there's no such thing as "nano-stuff". Broadly, any material could be said to be nano-stuff, in that we can control it's structure on a nanometre scale, by one technique or another. It's marketing.

Nanoparticles are something slightly more distinct, but not much better defined.
posted by firesine at 4:56 PM on September 29, 2012

Just to elaborate in a slightly less negative way: we are constantly getting better at making useful materials and chemicals. Many of the current developments involve understanding and manipulating matter on very small size scales. 'nanotechnology' is a loose, catch-all term to cover all of this research.

There are some things we should worry about (e.g. toxicity of some nanoparticles), but a fear of all 'nano-stuff' is a product of marketing and scaremongering.
posted by firesine at 5:21 PM on September 29, 2012

Actually according to what I've read, this is indeed a legitimate and not incorrectly expressed question, at least when it comes to topical skin products. For example, see this Consumer Guide for Avoiding Nano-Sunscreens from Friends of the Earth and a skincare product company's statement about their products not containing nano size zinc oxide particles (you can see how they definie "nano size"). I think it's a great and important question and well stated.
posted by Dansaman at 5:41 PM on September 29, 2012 [2 favorites]

I guess it's not just possible to pose this question clearly unless one already has quite a bit of relevant expertise. The stuff I'm asking about is, to give an example, whatever stuff it is that all the people associated with this large, apparently successful institution -- the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) of the University at Albany - State University of New York -- are producing. They're all excited about something new -- is that "something new" available in products at the supermarket?

The fact that the real issue is being confused by the use of the term "nano" as marketing hype is one of the factors which makes this all the more confusing. Even if I do see "nano" on a label, I can't know if it really means anything.

I am NOT afraid of all "nano-stuff," and I know that some nano-materials are found in nature (so are x-ays, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know when I'm using a radioactive material). I'm comfortable using x-rays for meaningful medical purposes, and I'd be comfortable using nano-materials for good reason, too. I just want to have the chance to avoid uses I would consider frivolous.

I don't want this question to be about the overall risks and benefits of nano-materials, or about whether or not I should be nervous about them. I'm just looking for a way to find the information I need to make choices about things I use every day.
posted by Corvid at 5:41 PM on September 29, 2012

You will not be able to know if you are using a product with ingredients which are "nano-stuff". In fact you have been using products with "nano-stuff" for years.

As a specific example, the size of "particles" in peanut butter dramatically effects the taste and texture. Food scientists have been manipulating nano scale particles for years to achieve different tastes and textures. In many cases they don't actually add anything "new", they just process the food differently to create an optimal distribution of sizes. In this case process might just mean they stir the peanut butter longer or faster.

The basic idea - which is also described above is that "nano-stuff" is not "new" materials, molecules, etc - it's just the ability to create/design structures on a very small (usually micron) length scale. Sometimes this takes lots of work and atom by atom precision, other times it just takes creative "cooking" to get the structures correct. These structures often have interesting properties since they may interact strongly with light (light has a wavelength around this size) as well as other biological cells (cells have lots of structure in this size regime as well).
posted by NoDef at 5:41 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]

whatever stuff it is that all the people associated with this large, apparently successful institution -- the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) of the University at Albany - State University of New York -- are producing. They're all excited about something new -- is that "something new" available in products at the supermarket?

Absolutely not. They are designing machines that are nano-scale, that can't at this time be replicated commercially (or at least not at the supermarket price point!)

You're not distinguishing between micronizing processes and nanotechnology, I think.

Micronizing is what people are concerned about with zinc oxide in sunscreen. Micronizing can reduce materials to nanoparticle size, but it is not itself creating nanomachines.

So you might, if you have concerns about nanoparticles' interaction with your body or with the environment, avoid things that advertised themselves as "micronized" or "with nanoparticles." (I do this with things that advertise themselves as "anti-microbial" like dishtowels or soap myself).
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:57 PM on September 29, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think you're looking for something like the Environmental Working Group's databases. (Warning: they are useful, but a bit paranoia-inducing. Read with a grain of salt.)
posted by instamatic at 12:51 AM on September 30, 2012

You might be interested in the work being done by some friends of mine at the Duke Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology. They've spent a lot of time studying nanosilver, which is in many of the sponges, clothes, dishwashers, etc that claim to be antimicrobial (other products contain triclosan, which is not a nanomaterial, but appears to be pretty bad stuff). The results of the CEINT work to date are complicated and not conclusive, but I believe they are doing the research that is closest to what you are asking about.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:59 AM on September 30, 2012

Oh, and the simplest answer to your question is no, there is no good way to find out if a consumer product contains these substances, however you define them. In the US, neither the FDA nor the EPA has any guidelines for their use, nor is product labeling required--they currently fall under intellectual property rules allowing manufacturers to protect their proprietary formulations and not tell consumers what materials are used in their products.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:01 AM on September 30, 2012

I think your concerns are well-founded.

For example:

Nanoparticles of cerium oxide diesel fuel additive can travel from the lungs to the liver

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. - Recent studies conducted at Marshall University have demonstrated that nanoparticles of cerium oxide—common diesel fuel additives used to increase the fuel efficiency of automobile engines—can travel from the lungs to the liver and that this process is associated with liver damage...

And even more to the point for you in particular (sorry):

Nanoparticles in polluted air, smoke & nanotechnology products have serious impact on health, Trinity College Dublin scientists establish link between autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and nanoparticles.

Dublin, June 11th, 2012 − New groundbreaking research by scientists at Trinity College Dublin has found that exposure to nanoparticles can have a serious impact on health, linking it to rheumatoid arthritis and the development of other serious autoimmune diseases. The findings that have been recently published in the international journal 'Nanomedicine' have health and safety implications for the manufacture, use and ultimate disposal of nanotechnology products and materials. They also identified new cellular targets for the development of potential drug therapies in combating the development of autoimmune diseases.

Environmental pollution including carbon particles emitted by car exhaust, smoking and long term inhalation of dust of various origins have been recognised as risk factors causing chronic inflammation of the lungs. The link between smoking and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis has also been established. This new research now raises serious concerns in relation to similar risks caused by nanotechnology products which if not handled appropriately may contribute to the generation of new types of airborne pollutants causing risks to global health. [Note the reference to a journal called Nanomedicine]

The site I got these two examples from after looking around yesterday thinking about answering your question, Nanotechnology Today, is well-written with a profusion of graphics, unafraid of technical detail, and generally very positive about the prospects of our nanotechnological future. Stories about the good things nanotech could do outnumber stories like the ones I've linked about 20:1, I'd guess.
posted by jamjam at 1:13 PM on September 30, 2012

If you're worried about nanoparticles, you would also do well to avoid micron or nanometer scale materials that have been around for years. For instance, ordinary flour has a small percentage of 10µm or less particles in it, similarly for wood dust generated by sanding. That's why you see a cancer warning on ordinary pine boards. Similarly, silicosis is believed to be caused by the inhalation of silica particles 10µm or less. Silica is, of course, a main ingredient of beach sand, but is perfectly harmless at that scale. It's only when crushed, ground, etc. that it becomes harmful. Talcum powder is also not a good substance to get in your lungs (or, apparently any mucus membrane), as it has very small particles. Apparently, freeway pollution is a major cause of athsma due to 180 nanometer (0.180 µm) particles that consequently have a very high surface area and cause lots of inflammation.

My guess is that taking simple precautions to reduce your exposure to dust from all sources will be more effective than trying to guess based on product labels. Wear a dust mask (or better yet, a respirator, which will protect against paint fumes as well as particles) while sanding wood or handling insulation, change the in-cabin air filter in your car, use a micron filter in your house's furnace, etc.

It's going to be tough to stay away from nanoparticles, unless, as noted before, they are explicitly marked as "micronized."
posted by wnissen at 8:35 PM on September 30, 2012

I see that quite a few hair styling products (conditioners, hair dryers, curling irons) have nanoparticles added. A hair dryer would seem to be a very efficient way to deliver tiny particles to the lungs. The asbestos thing worked out so well.
posted by Corvid at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2012