Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Screening for Toxic Nanoparticles

Researchers suggest a strategy that could weed out dangerous nanoparticles.

By Kevin Bullis

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The novel properties of nanoparticles mean they could find uses in applications as different as solar power and cancer treatment. Indeed, some nanoparticles have already made it into commercial products, notably, cosmetics.

Many experts worry, however, that the unique properties of these particles could make them toxic, and fear over the potential dangers of nanoparticles has led to increasing calls for tests and regulations (see New Nano Law? and Can EPA Regulate Nano?). But the sheer number of new nano materials will make evaluating all of them impossible. The result: either harmful materials could reach consumers, or, in an effort to play it safe, restrictive regulations could be created that clamp down on innovation.

The authors of a review of past studies published last week in the journal Science suggest a strategy for screening the most dangerous nanoparticles more efficiently, which could help avert potential disasters and allow the development of new technologies to continue. The strategy would use "predictive toxicology," which looks for subtle signs that the cells in a culture are starting to defend themselves, indicating that the particles they've been exposed to could be dangerous.

Andre Nel, professor of medicine at UCLA, and one of the authors of the paper, says that existing work on the toxicity of particles that are byproducts of industrial and natural processes should help researchers to identify the telltale danger signs in cell-culture screening of nanoparticles.

According to the review, researchers studying particle toxicology have already identified molecular mechanisms that are triggered when dangerous particles come into contact with living cells. They've found that dangerous particles create reactive forms of oxygen that damage cells. At low concentrations of these molecules, cells can defend themselves by producing anti-oxidants. As concentrations increase, however, cells become inflamed or die. At each stage, the cell produces signs that can be screened for, using cell cultures that have been exposed to these new particles.

Nel says that engineered nanoparticles are likely to produce similar effects, as was found with early studies on fullerenes. By testing engineered particles on cell cultures, he says, researchers could identify those particles that are most likely to be dangerous.

Nel's proposed screening method won't catch everything, though. "There may, in fact, be some novel mechanisms for toxicity that nanoparticles might produce," says Kevin Ausman, executive director of operations at the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University in Houston. This could mean that some dangerous particles get through.

But, for now, signs of reactive oxygen "seem to be a natural place to start looking," says Ausman, adding that others have suggested similar ideas. "Should it be looked at to the exclusion of all else? No. But given the fact that we have limited resources to look at this really huge field, with a wide-open set of questions, we have to be able to focus."

Indeed, Nel emphasizes that their tests won't prove that a particle is safe. But, as nanoparticles appear in more products, the need for some sort of efficient screening is growing. "We don't have the luxury at this stage to wait for a mature toxicology for each particle," Nel says. "We need to do something proactive."

Comments

  • Why Cosmetics First?
    Guest (CatoTheElderII) on 02/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I can understand using nano technology for things like solar panels that can be kept from contact with skin, and things of that kind.   But given the unknowns about potential toxicity of nano particals, that industry would have chosen to leap immediately to the use of nano technology for cosmetics seems rash, and potentially dangerous as cosmetics are used specifically on human tissue.  Where is the common sense in that?   Do these products get labelled so the public can at least avoid it?   Also do these cosmetic products include things like shampoo that everyone uses, or just specialty lipsticks that are used by a few people?  I would like to know the answers to these questions.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Nano Cosmetics
      Guest (Libby) on 06/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I couldn't agree more, why of all products would they choose to put nano particles in cosmetics and skin care. It is bad enough that most personal care and cosmetics are full of potential toxic chemicals...and now that have penetration enhancers (nano particles) that pull the chemicals even deeper into the body. Then these products are marketed to an unsuspecting public who are told that their skin care has Smart Cell Technology in it to take the wrinkles away at the cellular level. There definitly needs to be more disclosure to the public about what is really in the products they are purchasing.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Nano Cosmetics
        liladevi on 08/19/2006 at 1:39 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I have been learning about Arbonne Int'l products and
        feeling very conflicted about
        promoting a nano skincare
        anti-aging line when not
        much is known about the
        effect on humans over time
        I don't have a background in
        science so this has been a
        learning adventure for me.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Nano Cosmetics
        private on 10/06/2007 at 1:59 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I went to the local mall looking for foundation (cosmetics).  I was given a sample of a foundation by Christian Dior called "Diorskin".  I wore the sample for a week.  It did everything it said (lift the skin, give a younger look, etc.)  I went and bought the product.  Then I researched the ingredients on the Internet and they were all toxins.  When I read the product insert it bragged about the nanoparticle technology used in the product.  (The sales lady had said that the product didn't penetrate the skin - it "sat" on top of it.)  I was horrified and took the product back for a refund.  If I had not researched the ingredients and the nanoparticle technology I would still be using this product.  This is frightening stuff.  Consumers need to be warned.
        Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology