Nano screen: Like all nanomaterials, iron-based nanoparticles (above) like these can vary in their toxicity, depending on their chemical composition, coating, size, and shape. To better assess the biological effects of nanomaterials, researchers have developed a rapid screening tool that can evaluate large numbers of nanomaterials and identify groups of materials that are more likely to pose a risk.
Ralph Weissleder, Massachusetts General Hospital¹s Center for Systems Biology

Biomedicine

Testing the Toxicity of Nanomaterials

A fast screening method could help separate the good from the bad.

  • Thursday, June 5, 2008
  • By Alexandra M. Goho

In light of mounting concerns regarding the potential toxicity of some nanomaterials, scientists have designed a rapid screening tool to help predict which ones are likely to be harmful. Hundreds of nanotechnology-based products are already on the market--in everything from sunscreens and cosmetics to paints and car bumpers--and many more are in the pipeline. However, studies assessing the safety of nanomaterials are limited. As a result, scientists and policy makers have been calling for more systematic reviews of the risks that these nanoscale materials might pose to human health.

Given the large diversity of engineered nanomaterials, which can vary in their chemical makeup, size, shape, and coating, assessing their toxicity has been a challenge. Studies in animals are expensive and time consuming, and although testing nanomaterials in cell cultures can yield useful information, different cell types can respond differently to the same nanomaterial.

"Nanomaterials are really complex, and if you just carry out one or two tests, you're going to miss something," says Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, DC. What's more, results from experiments in cells often don't match those from animal studies.

To address these challenges, Stanley Shaw, a chemical biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Systems Biology, and his colleagues at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT designed a high-throughput screening method. Inspired by cancer studies in which scientists classify different types of cancer based on patterns of gene expression, Shaw and his colleagues sought to develop a tool that could screen large numbers of different nanomaterials and classify them based on their toxicity.

Advertisement

As a proof of concept, the researchers tested 50 different nanoparticles--mainly particles used for medical imaging. These included mostly iron-based particles, as well as several types of quantum dots. The particles also had various chemical coatings.

The researchers tested each of the nanoparticles in four different types of cells--immune cells from mice, two types of human blood-vessel cells, and human liver cells--and at four different dosages. To create the different combinations, a robotic system similar to that used for drug screening placed the nanoparticles inside tiny wells on a plate containing hundreds of separate wells. Each well contained one cell type. The screening system then detected changes in the cells' metabolism in response to the nanomaterial. Computer software analyzed the data, looking for relationships between the different particles.

Print

Related Articles

Some Nanotubes Could Cause Cancer

New studies suggest that long carbon nanotubes behave like asbestos.

Nano Safety Alert

Concerns over the safety and environmental impact of nanomaterials mustn't be ignored.

Facing the Dangers of Nanotech

A new report warns about the dangers of nanotechnology. Its author explains why it's important to act now.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

nekote

139 Comments

  • 1349 Days Ago
  • 06/05/2008

How to detect unimagined dangers?

Historically, human beings have a fairly poor track record of perceiving new dangers - until detective work unveils the cause of tragedies.

So this detection effort is extremely laudable!!!

Humans perceiving the unperceived?
The Romans used lead.
Addictive aspect of opioids and other drugs.
Pasteur found microbials.
Typhoid Mary as a carrier.
Madam Curie and radioactivity.
X-rays.  Cosmic rays.
Caissons disease - the bends.
Cyrogenic embrittlement of metals.
Thalidomide.
Asbestos.
Tobacco and lung disease.

So, heavy metals, addiction, microbials, decompression, radioactivity, pharmaceuticals and brain / placental barriers, particulate inhalants ... are today all recognized.

That cover everything?
Or, there are unknown dangers yet?

We can't imagine what we can't imagine, any better than our ancestors?
Doomed to tragedy, until after the fact detective work uncovers the new phenomena?

How to know the unknowable?

Reply

bj

50 Comments

  • 1349 Days Ago
  • 06/05/2008

Re: How to detect unimagined dangers?

Yeah, someone always has to get sick before they regulate this kind of stuff. I'm sure the reason this sort of testing has developed is BECAUSE the nanostuff is already out in the wild, and causing havoc. Gotta wonder if the U Oklahoma has turned up any nanomaterial in their Morgellon's testing . . .

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

The Virtual Nurse Will See You Now

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Joule Unlimited

Twitter

Silver Spring Networks

Facebook

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement