Proceed, but with caution

April 9, 2008

As we all know, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals can spell biological doom when introduced to the environment, even in small concentrations. More and more we’re finding that excess metals can cause disruptions in the biological functions of all animals. But less clear is how nanoparticle metals—metallic particle that measure less than 100 nm in dia—will affect the environment. They are already in use in both medicine and consumer products, and will soon heavily populate air, water, and ground.

Do we have cause for worry? Well, even heavy metals and their true global environmental effect are still poorly understood. Scientists are studying mysteriously large concentrations of lead in Arctic ice crystals. Mercury is still being found in surprising concentrations in common loons on Maine lakes. Erin Brockovich became famous for exposing hexavalent chromium contamination in California. I wonder if she’s ever been to Jersey City, where two blocks from my home, a former industrial site is still being reclaimed where toxic chromium sat for years within yards of the Hudson River.

One of the earliest beneficiaries of the nano-revolution is the textile industry, which has taken advantage of the odor-killing properties of silver to create apparel embedded with silver nanoparticles. Theoretically, these nanoparticles are harmless, unlike conventional silver. A study at Arizona State Univ. gave mixed reviews, however, on the quality the nanosilver socks. Some of the socks lost the nanoparticles after just a few washes, indicating widely different manufacturing methods. The full results are being presented this week at the American Chemical Society’s annual meeting.

ASU is early to the party, but it’s not alone in this type of R&D. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Science to Achieve Results program, which funds research grants and graduate fellowships in environmental science and engineering disciplines, has devoted nine of the 27 recent EPA STAR Grant Awards to nanotechnology research, more than any other category. Studies include the effect of nanoparticles on human colons and skin absorption, the impact of surface coatings on nano-iron particles, and the photochemical fate of buckminsterfullerenes in aquatic environments.

If current progress is any indication, the number of potential R&D studies will explode in the coming years, requiring ever more federal attention. Given current trends in federal funding of both R&D and the EPA, I doubt they’ll be able to keep up. Which means that industry, once again, may end having to police itself. I just hope we can leverage more foresight now than we did 50 years ago.

There’s no question that nanotechnology can be a good thing. We just need to make sure there’s not so much, so fast, that it becomes a bad thing.

E-mail the editor