The article on toxicology methodologies we mentioned earlier has now been published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology and merits a brief write up in the New York Times.

“Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy” is by many of toxicology’s top experts such as Gunter Oberdorster and Ken Donaldson.

The 113 page article will take a little time to digest, but addressees the key issues of how to screen toxicity, defining nanoparticles and distinguishing between levels of risk. The article is more concerned about how to apply existing methodologies to nanoparticles rather than producing new tests, something that is mirrored in approaches to legislation.

With large numbers of nanomaterials coming into production, it is important that we distinguish between those which may present a hazard and those which may not. While the report doesn’t distinguish between different types of particle the authors agree with the recent Royal Society report as far as which forms of materials need special attention..

“Engineered nanomaterials presenting a potential risk to human health include those capable of entering the body and exhibiting a biological activity that is associated with their nanostructure. Nanomaterial-based products such as nanocomposites, surface coatings and electronic circuits are unlikely to present a direct risk as exposure potential will be low to negligible. Nanomaterials that are most likely to present a health risk are nanoparticles, agglomerates of nanoparticles, and particles of nanostructured material (where the nanostructure determines behavior). In each of these cases, exposure potential exists for materials in air and in liquid suspensions or slurries.”

According to the Foresight Institute, much of this work was unnecessary as apparently all of these issues (and many more relating to the toxicology of diamondoid flying nanobots if we remember correctly – which may explain why the work was not taken too seriously) have already been addressed by Robert Freitas in his book Nanomedicine.

Another nano miracle product pops up in the automotive world, with the Economist discussing a new fuel additive called Clap (which appears to work in a similar way to the nanoparticles in hair conditioners) while Autoblog has a bit of fun with both the name and its usefulness.

According to C|Net, “tests for Nanotoxicology are coming later this month” thanks to the snappily titled Nanomaterial Toxicity Screening Working Group of the International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute, or ILSI RF/RSI for short!

However, don’t expect a nanotox test to be available as widely as for example a pregnancy testing kit. The issue here is more related to standards rather than the tests.

Over the past few years, the need for standards in toxicology have been highlighted by numerous studies on, for example, carbon nanotubes, giving widely conflicting results. What we do know is that if we stuff a rat absolutely full of carbon nanotubes it will tend to drop dead, but perhaps it would exhibit a similar reaction to large quantities of soot.

What is clearly needed is some kind of standard that would allow researchers around the world to compare results and draw meaningful conclusions. However, with the number of similar initiatives ongoing, we may wind up as far from a standard toxicology test as we are from a single type of electrical plug.

After a few weeks running around Asia, from Mumbai to Beijing and Singapore to Tokyo, one of the areas that is attracting the most attention is the merger between nanotechnologies and textiles.

We are not just talking about stain resistant shirts here, and the embedding of sensors and electronics is really catching the imagination, with almost every government we talk to flagging this as a high interest area, along with a whole range of non apparel related applications, from medical to structural.

Back in Europe and the US , Chinese textile quotas have been hitting the headlines in the last few months, with companies trying to innovate themselves up the value chain, and we will be examining both sides of the issue in two global conferences over the coming month.

AsiaFutureTex in Singapore on October 20th provides an Asian perspective, while EuroFutureTex in Padua, Italy on November 8th and 9th looks at the European and US attempts to innovate and invigorate traditional industries.

A well-worn adage in investing circles is that the most value is to be captured where different disciplines and markets meet. In this case, a seven thousand year old industry is colliding with a technological revolution, at least in the field of materials.

It’s a pretty safe bet that given the pace of innovation across the sector, stain resistant nanotech pants will be as relevant to the fashion and textile industry of the 21st century as powdered periwigs were to the 20th century.

The good day for M&A continues with the news that Small Times, who were cut loose from founders and backers Ardesta at the beginning of the year after haemorrhaging staff and money finally got acquired by technology publishers Penn Well.

We’ve had a good time with Small Times over the years, and they have some excellent journalists, but with the magazine circulation of some 28,000 and advertising revenues have always been below what was envisioned from nanotech back in 2001.

Let’s hope that the journalistic integrity continues after the team are absorbed into “a highly diversified, business-to-business media company providing authoritative print and online publications, conferences and exhibitions, research, databases, online exchanges and information products to strategic global markets.”

A Rice University study compares “the environmental and health risks associated with the production of five nanomaterials — single-walled carbon nanotubes, buckyballs, zinc selenide quantum dots, alumoxane nanoparticles and titantium dioxide nanoparticles — with the risks of making six commonplace products — silicon wafers, wine, high-density plastic, lead-acid car batteries, refined petroleum and aspirin.”

It’s an interesting mix of products, and finds that the production of carbon nanotubes is less risky than producing wine (it would perhaps be more interesting to compare the effects of ingesting nanotubes and wine), and recommends not mixing quantum dots with aspirin.

The overall conclusion, at least according to this report, is that a random selection of nano materials is either less or more risky than a random selection of non nano materials, and that it is safer to make nanostuff than other stuff like plastics or petrol, perhaps with the exception pf of buckyballs (perhaps in close proximity to fish?).

The US National Science Foundation will be unveiling a $20m project today to “create public nanotechnology exhibits and educational programs for the public at US science museums.” A sort of a super nano jury.

Of course demonstrating the nanoscale is obviously challenging, so the museums involved will have to be a little creative.

Exhibits will likely focus on the products using such materials, or use atomic force microscopes with joysticks to enable museum-goers to view and manipulate nanoparticles.

Societal and ethical issues will also be addressed through plans to “sponsor forums that address social issues raised by the advance of nanotechnology, from its environmental impact — there are some concerns about toxicity — to the granting of patents for nanotech materials with medical applications that could limit use of nano-medicines in developing countries.”

There may not be much nanotech in a Boeing 747-400, but Singapore Airlines new inflight broadband system certainly helps us keep tabs on things while bouncing through thunderstorms over the Philippines.

Samsung India announced the launch this month of its health-friendly `MagicGreen’ monitor, which emits far-infrared rays and anion rich radiation that improves the user’s metabolism and makes the working environment bacteria-free.

It does make us wonder whether there is a better way to “remove odours from the environment, making the air fresh and clean” than buying a new LCD monitor.

According to Nanotechwire, someone at BMW has been looking closely at the applications of nanotechnologies (or at least reading some of the Drexlereian side of it) in the automotive industry and came up with the following scenario…

” Purchasing a new car in 2020 – the scenario: the showroom dealer, in addition to exhibiting BMW’s latest shiny new models, also sets up a stand with small, colourful seed packets. The packets, however, do not have pictures of exotic plants printed on them but instead car models. The customer chooses a car, pays for it, and is then handed over his dream car in a seed packet. He scatters the seed in his garden and waits, and at some point, just like a flower, his dream car sprouts up from the earth. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule.”

We can only wonder what that would do to BMWs business model over the next fifteen years. Fortunately the rest of the article looks at the more mundane applications such as coatings or catalysts, applications that we can use.