Nanotechnology: Tiny Particles, Big Risks?
Over the coming decades, nanotechnology – the science of controlling matter at near atomic scales to produce unique or enhanced materials, products and devices – is expected to transform science, technology and society. Concerns have been raised, however, that the properties of nanomaterials that make them so beneficial could also impart unknown health and environmental effects.
Contents |
Benefits of Nanotechnology
Nanoparticles are particles that measure at the nanoscale – one nanometre (nm) is a billionth of a metre – and are typically between 0.1 and 100 nanometres in thickness, diameter or total size. For comparison, a human hair is about 100,000 nm in width. Although nano-sized particles are commonly produced as a by-product of natural and industrial processes, it was only with the invention of the scanning tunnelling microscope in 1981 that the deliberate manufacture, manipulation and use of materials at the nanoscale became possible.
Nanotechnology is alluring because materials reduced to the nanoscale can have very different properties than those at the macroscale (i.e., a size observable to the naked eye). These include novel optical, electrical, thermal, magnetic and mechanical attributes. Because these unique properties can be used in thousands of applications, this “platform technology” may be as potentially transformative as electricity or the Internet.
Nanomaterials (materials with structured components with at least one dimension less than 100 nm) are found in over 600 commercial products, including paints, sporting goods, clothing, batteries and cosmetics. Nanomaterials are used to make tennis rackets stronger, pants wrinkle- and stain-resistant, and sunscreens more transparent. Perhaps, the most significant advances in nanotechnology, however, are in the fields of environmental monitoring and purification, renewable energy, medicine and compact electronics.
New “nanoproducts” and applications are not only being developed with increasing frequency, but are becoming increasingly complex. For example, small diagnostic “lab-on-a-chip” cartridges use nanoscale sensors (e.g., genetically modified bacteria) to quickly detect and analyze water pollutants, disease agents, and biological weapons. Scientists are also working on complex applications to repair nerve and skin damage, restore vision and hearing, and target cancerous tumours. While these applications hold the potential to provide important benefits to society, their increasing complexity complicates the evaluation of potential risks.
Concerns about Nanoproducts
Although the small size of nanoparticles can impart many useful properties, this same feature may make some nanomaterials harmful to humans and the environment. Because the surface area to volume ratio of nanoparticles is much higher than it is for substances at the macroscale, nanomaterials can be much more reactive. Furthermore, nanoparticles are so small that they can pass through cell membranes, including the protective blood-brain and placental barriers, with unknown health effects. The shape and surface characteristics of different kinds of nanoparticles can also affect their toxicity. Ingestion of or direct contact with some nanomaterials could pose long-term risks to workers and consumers.
Nanomaterials that find their way into the environment could have impacts on wildlife. For instance, silver nanoparticles impregnated into socks to combat odour- causing bacteria could be released when these articles are discarded or washed, possibly with toxic effects on soil bacteria and aquatic species.
Besides the potential health and ecological impacts, this revolutionary technology could cause great damage if used intentionally to inflict harm. For example, the ability to construct tiny weapons and surveillance electronics raises concerns about security and privacy, particularly with regard to terrorism.
Furthermore, some fear that self-replicating “nanomachines,” developed to disassemble physical structures or biological organisms at the molecular level, could wreak havoc if released. While such doomsday scenarios may sound alarmist, clearly the transformative potential of nanotechnology requires ethical standards to ensure that it is used to benefit society and safeguard environmental quality.
Although many of the ethical implications surrounding nanotechnology are not new, the public debate is hampered by a lack of information and general awareness.
Regulatory Challenges
The difficulty with regulating nanomaterials is that there is still no agreement – and, in some cases, even the technical capacity – on how to describe, measure, and test for these new materials. Because the structure and surface area of nanoparticles can impart an increase in chemical reactivity and biological activity independent of a discernible increase in quantity or mass, the measurement and regulation of toxicity levels is not easy. Little is known about the individual or combined toxicity of nanomaterials or their behaviour in the environment, including their propensity to bioaccumulate, disperse and degrade.
Given the complexity of regulatory issues, national and international organizations, including the International Standards Organization (ISO), are collaborating to develop standards and guides for regulators. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union (EU), as well as Canada and other countries, are involved in this technical work and are developing methods for scientific testing and risk assessment.
Canada’s Regulatory Approach
Despite the potential for nanomaterials to be more dangerous, Canada, the US and the EU initially treated nanomaterials like macroscale substances. In Canada, nanosilver and carbon nanotubes have been regulated like silver and carbon – simply as existing substances already in commercial use. There are no regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) specific to nanomaterials.
In June 2007, however, Environment Canada issued New Substances Program Advisory Note 2007-06, “Requirements for nanomaterials under the New Substances Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers).” According to the advisory, CEPA’s New Substances Notification Regulations would apply to materials having “unique structures or molecular arrangements,” thereby requiring new nanoscale versions of “existing” substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL) to undergo a risk assessment of their potential effects on the environment and human health. This includes carbon fullerenes or nanotubes, for example, but not other nanomaterials that have the same structural or molecular arrangement as existing materials on the DSL. Any new material that is not on the DSL, whether macroscale, nanoscale or a combination of both, would be subject to assessment under the regulations.
In September 2007, Environment Canada and Health Canada published the “Proposed Regulatory Framework for Nanomaterials under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.” This document describes a two-phased approach initially involving international collaboration and information-gathering.
During the second phase, additional changes to CEPA regulations would be considered as standards and information become available.
In early 2009, the Canadian government also announced pending requirements under CEPA for companies to report their quantities, usage, and toxicity of nanomaterials, which would make Canada the frst country to initiate such regulatory action.
The Ontario Government and Nanotechnology
To date, in Ontario, government efforts related to nanotechnology appear to have focused on encouraging economic growth, attracting investment to the province, and supporting development through universities and research grants.
Since 2003, the Ministry of Research & Innovation (MRI) has provided $63 million in funding to 123 nanotechnology projects with a range of applications, including information and communications technology, fuel cells, environmental remediation, and early disease detection. Of these projects, only six are designed to investigate the potential adverse impacts of nanomaterials. Ontario Investment and Trade Services, an offce of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, has produced a brochure designed to attract investors to Ontario by advertizing the province’s research talent, skilled workforce and commitment to commercializing nanotechnology. In comparison, Québec’s Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade funded a non-proft organization, NanoQuébec, which developed occupational health and safety guidelines for nanomaterials.
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) does not have a dedicated program area that focuses on nanotechnology policy or regulation. MOE is, however, involved with the activities of the ISO through representation on the Canadian committee reviewing and commenting on the development of international standards for nanotechnology. MOE also monitors other local and international activities related to nanotechnology through staff participation in meetings, presentations given by guest speakers at internal seminars, and the scanning of relevant literature.
Ontario’s Role
Despite the challenges in regulating nanotechnology, the ECO notes that many difficult-to-control technologies (e.g., genetically modified organisms, nuclear weapons) have already engendered novel and thoughtful regulatory frameworks. Nanotechnology is simply another field that requires the collaboration of scientific, ethical and social perspectives to develop a framework that proactively prevents, manages and reduces risk.
Because the Canadian government typically sets national standards for food and consumer product safety, including labelling requirements, it is most appropriate for the federal government to regulate the labelling and use of nanomaterials in consumer products and food. If the federal government, however, fails to implement adequate and timely regulations, the Ontario government should be prepared to take regulatory action. The province could act alone or in concert with other provinces at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to implement consistent regulation across the country.
The Ontario government, and particularly MOE, should closely monitor the development of different nanotechnologies and the growing body of research on their environmental and human health impacts. Moreover, because Ontarians could be exposed to potentially harmful nanomaterials via pathways other than through the use of consumer products, the ECO encourages MOE to be proactive in developing and implementing protective policies and building the technical capacity to evaluate potential risks.
Nanomaterials have the potential to enter the environment through air, water, sediment and soil as by- products of manufacturing processes, and in sewage sludge and waste. Given the unknown effects of nanomaterials on the environment, the ECO encourages MOE to investigate and regulate the safe disposal of nanomaterials from research labs and industry and from the consumer use of nanoproducts. Moreover, because some nanoparticles are known to escape sewage treatment processes, MOE should evaluate the effectiveness of current drinking water and sewage treatment processes for removing potentially toxic nanomaterials.
Once the impacts of nanomaterials are better understood, MOE should include appropriate limits for nanomaterials in Ontario’s air standards and regulations. In the meantime, MOE should monitor or implement its own research on the effectiveness of existing air pollution controls in treating nanomaterials. MOE also should consider monitoring which Ontario facilities use and produce nanoparticles and include nano-specific conditions in Certificates of Approval.
With regard to the promotion and funding of nanotechnology in the province, the government should favour innovative research that considers the life cycle and environmental impacts of nanoproducts or specifically investigates methods to evaluate those effects.
Because MRI is responsible for promoting and funding leading edge research like nanotechnology and developing a policy framework for research and innovation across government, there is the potential for MRI to make nanotechnology-related decisions that will have significant impacts on the environment. MRI should therefore be prescribed under the Environmental Bill of Rights to ensure that the environment, the purposes of the EBR, and public comment are considered in MRI’s environmentally significant decision-making.
| This is an article from the 2008/09 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2009. "Nanotechnology: Tiny Particles, Big Risks?." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 149-153.
