Committee Calls for Framework to Assess the Safety of Nanotechnology Materials
Authors: Mike Mitka
Journal: JAMA (2012)

NANOTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPS MAterials at the molecular level, creating structures with the potential to dramatically advance a variety of fields such as energy, electronics, and medicine. But such materials may also have the potential to harm the environment and humans. In the meantime, only small steps have been taken in developing risk assessment tools and manufacturing standards. In this uncertain environment, a committee created by the National Research Council (NRC)—which is administered jointly by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine—issued a report January 25 providing an approach for developing the research strategies and scientific infrastructure needed to address potential health and environmental risks of nanomaterials (http://tinyurl.com /6w7fd4v). The report was requested by Congress and sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency. Nanotechnology is the design, manipulation, and manufacturing of materials containing at least 1 structure between 1 and 100 nanometers in size. (A nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter; for example, the diameter of a strand of human DNA is 2.5 nanometers.) Engineered nanomaterials are already in some industrial and consumer products, including drugdelivery systems, cosmetics, and food additives. For example, ceramic nanoparticle-based coating is added to automotive engines to increase fuel economy, and carbon nanotubes are added to fuel lines to reduce the risk of fire. Nanotechnology generated about $225 billion in product sales in 2009, a figure that is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2015. Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS, chair of the NRC committee to develop a research strategy for environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials, said the members (which include representatives from academia, industry, and public interest groups) had to frame their suggestions in a way that would allow for many still-undetermined factors. “There is a lot we do not know about because of the diversity of these materials and the many ways they may be used,” said Samet, who is also director of the University of Southern California’s Institute for Global Health in Los Angeles. “We want to develop a framework that allows someone to ask what the potential is for a nanomaterial being released into the environment and, if it comes into contact with people or ecosystems, what is the potential for risk.” The committee’s report notes that there has been little research on key topics such as the effects that ingesting nanomaterials might have on human health or the potential health and environmental effects of more complex nanomaterials expected to be marketed in the next few years. The report said common themes emerged as the committee members met: the need for standardized materials, standardized methods to evaluate exposure both in the workplace and the environment, and harmonized methods for in vitro to in vivo validation in hazard assessments. Andrew D. Maynard, PhD, a committee member and director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, cited the difficulty of developing safety assessment models for materials that are yet to be created and that will be used in as-yet unknown applications. “This is a vexing problem for the nanomaterials community: how do you take preventive actions when you have hints of