NANOTECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH: SORTING THROUGH THE HYPE

my brain pleased to be here yeah I’ll be with you guys a captive audience I’ve never had an audience that can’t leave before so that’s a heck of a feature you guys should advertise that and we’re going to talk for the next hour and 45 minutes about this topic engineered nanoparticles and health sorting through the hype and rhetoric okay now my background is I’m originally an industrial hygienist okay and for the last almost eight years now I’ve worked the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as the facility and EH&S manager for this division the material sciences division and a lot of different groups through nanotechnology research at lbl but probably two-thirds of it does come out of our division so we have about a thousand people in our division that I interact with and a goodly chunk of those people are involved day in and day out in turn in terms of making nanoparticles studying nanoparticles during different kinds of things related to nanotechnology so so I got involved very early in this field back in the early 2000s the Department of Energy which actually funds the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the most part Department of Energy funded five regional nanotechnology user facilities including one Berkeley molecular foundry and what these are is staffed labs with expert scientists and state-of-the-art equipment that anybody can use if they can submit a proposal and get it except and it’s free for most people unless you’re a private company of your proprietary data you’re collecting for everybody else that’s willing to publish their data it’s free the government pays the expenses of the lab time and the supplies and researchers and stuff like that so we get people from all around the world come there to do nanotechnology research about a 100,000 square foot building just dedicated for that purpose and that’s only a fraction of the kind of nanotechnology stuff we deal so I’ve been immersed in this milieu of nanotechnology and health now for almost eight years so to me it all kind of seems old hat but the truth is for a lot of people this is still a pretty new topic okay and as this becomes more and more prevalent in industry and research facilities and stuff like that or more people are going to have to deal with this issue so occasional a couple of times if we’ve had students graduate from lbl because we’re a part of university california we have students graduate they go out and find jobs in corporations and then they’re called me six months later says we need to talk because we’re doing a bunch of work with nanoparticles and I’m not sure we know what we’re doing so I’m always glad to go through those things and get people presentation to give them a little bit of grounding so that’s what I want to do for you guys here and like anything else there’s always a lot of hype involved with new stuff especially where there’s potential for large quantities money involved and so there’s been a fair amount of hype both in terms of what nanoparticles might be due for us in the future and in terms of the potential health effects and like anything else we’ll talk about the hype cycle later on like anything else you have to sort of temper the most extreme statements that you read in any regard and we’re going to talk a lot about that as we go through this so if there’s any questions as I speak just go ahead and raise your hand and as long as I can stay pretty much on schedule i’ll try to answer your questions and maybe address your issues so all right let me get up to my computer here so it turns out that pretty much my whole career has been had to do with particulate matter so recall I originally started as an industrial hygienists and so industrial hygienists if you don’t know are people that are trained to deal primarily with chemical hazards but also other stuff like physical hazards and radiation hazards but the one of our biggest things is chemical hazard that turns out just by you know luck or whatever my career has been pretty much centered on particulate matter so out of graduate school my first job is at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in vallejo california and the i work for an organization called code 106 code 106 came into being pursuant to a 60-minute television segment we’re 60 minutes strongly criticized the Navy for failing to control asbestos exposures or the shipyard workers and in fact it was so Admiral rickover who was in charge of the Navy at that time was so incensed that he invented the code 106 is originally called 100x across all the Navy shipyards to put safety and health people in a line management type position rather than purely as off to the side staff that visits now and again and so asbestos was one of the major emphasis in the very beginning of my career and later on when I work for the

University I got an EPA grant we sent the first asbestos training center west of the Mississippi back it shows how old I am back in the day but since then seems like everywhere I go I’m neither dealing with silica or lead beryllium beryllium was a really big issue when i worked at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and in general building those big issue across the dealy complex because they had effectively poisoned thousands of people by beryllium exposure and some significant subfractions those people became sick and some smaller fracture those people died due to beryllium exposure I knew one guy I had met that actually died at Livermore when I was there and I met a bunch of people that were disabled but by that exposed just like when I work for the Navy I met a bunch of guys that were disabled because of the especially exposure very impressive to me is brand new and pressure boy young kid to meet these guys that really couldn’t do anything but sit a desk anymore because their lungs were so damaged by the materials they’ve been exposed to anyway so nanotechnology is just sort of along those same lines in my career so the last eight years this has been one of the main issues that i deal with up if the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab um so we have things like nano flowers which are complex nanocrystals nano deposition and nano machining so these things are done on the nano scale we’ll talk about what nano scale means is just a little bit individual nano particles which are the main thing I’m going to talk about today are these individual nanoparticles if you can see this picture right here you see those little dots on that picture those are actually individual atoms in that nanoparticle strictly speaking of their columns of atoms but as the microscopy us will always tell me but they are basically Adam skills you’re seeing the connections in the holes between the atoms in that picture and so this nanoparticle the whole thing across is only about five nanometers okay so a remarkable thing nan Obama’s lots of different nano things um so the in the world of nanotechnology there’s a lot of stuff we’re going to be mostly talking about the nanoparticles though because that’s where the health concerns so just what is nanotechnology and I’ll tell you right off the bat there are many many definitions of what is nanotechnology not one of them is anywhere near satisfactory so I work with all these high-level scientists and a premier research institution and any definition you’ll throw at them don’t find 50 examples that don’t fit the definition so I no longer try madness lies that way it’s kind of like the Supreme Court decision on pornography well we can’t define a bubble so you know always see it all right that is the supreme court decision well what we talked about a things that are extremely small this is a little bit of a crowd of graphic do I have a laser pointers is there not equipment laser pointer okay so we’re talking about things that are very small if you start at the top of this scale here you’re talking at the centimeter range so those are things like this big and you go down orders of magnitude and you get into the microscopic world and if you keep going down and down and down until you get to nominally 100 nanometers in scale okay um then you’re into the nanoworld not that’s totally arbitrary and I like to think really maybe one order of magnitude above there we should think at least as kind of nano but the most people when they say nano nano particles are referring to a particle that has at least one dimension that’s less than 100 nanometers okay now they can have other dimensions that are much longer than hundred nanometers are much bigger but at least one dimension that’s 100 mb/s or less down to basically down to about 1 animator when you go call one nanometer you know they’re not really particles anymore they start turning into gases and vapors question so a nanometer is there’s a yeah okay there’s a micrometer that’s a millionth of a meter so meter and one move that so if you’re chopped a meter into a million pieces that’s that’s a micrometer if you chop it down again by a factor of thousands then that’s a nanometer okay so we’re talking about you know 100 nanometers is the best optical microscopes in the world okay you know ten thousand dollars for a nikon microscope optical Mike shelf cannot see nanoparticles okay their sub microscopic and it’s not microworld there in the nanoworld you have to have electron microscopy or one of the other tools to see nanoparticles because they’re so small so we’re talking about things that are extremely extremely extremely small by the standards that most people have in their life okay that’s a good answer okay now a little bit of folklore review so many people trace the beginnings of nanotechnology to a speech given by the famous physicist from Caltech Richard Fineman back in nineteen fifty-nine he gave a speech is the title of which is pretty famous now there’s plenty of room

at the bottom okay and he was talking about the possible kind of things that can be done if you can work on the nano scale the final was an uber character um fav my favorite book of all time was his book called surely you’re joking mr feynman um and so he’s a funny guy but he he gave this presentation and people would think about this go back and say that was the beginning because somebody actually threw down the gauntlet of doing this kind of work what I want to talk about is the problem manipulating controlling things on a small scale why cannot be for example right the entire of 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a pin so hating this you know people in those days 50s but they can big all right he said well there’s an alternative think really small so here’s the Bible on the head of a pin so that’s pretty routine um the word nanotechnology was started to use in more in the 80s and there was this this author / popular is / out of what he was really Eric Drexler and he published a book called engines of creation becoming error of nanotechnology one of the first sort of public airing of the use of the term nanotechnology and it stuck pretty good he was predicting gagu from uncheck reproduction of self-replicating robots okay so that’s not actually our concern at this point we don’t have any risk of self-replicating military robots just yet the issues are a little more basic than that at this point as we go forward so there’s two things you can do in nanotechnology one is to end up with a nano scale thing one is you can take a bigger something and grind it or exit down to a nano scale something so now all so all CPUs and computers they have circuits on the nano scale can what are we down to 45 nanometers now and they keep getting smaller and smaller that’s an example of making a nano scale features on a surface by taking a big thing and grinding it down to the features you want the other alternative is to build something up from essentially atoms one atom at a time and that’s called bottoms up and machining is top down okay so you take something big and you basically make it into the nano scale you want or you take basically individual atoms and make it into a nanoscale object that you want so these are two sort of the two big approaches to nanotechnology now turns out none of this would have been very interesting we’re actually probably would have received as much attention except for the fact that there were significant advances in your ability to see nanoparticles back in the 80s in particular so in Fineman gave his speech in 1959 the resolution of a transmission the best transmission electron microscopes was 10 nanometers ok now any time I want to walk a couple floors down the building I live in I can walk in on the electron microscopy using an off-the-shelf commercial instrument whose imaging at least 10 times better and you can see the individual atoms in the material they’re looking at so it’s been at least a 10 fold now we actually I also involved with the National Center for electron microscopy which has the highest resolution TMS in world where you can see the bonds between atoms in those facilities some other devices have been developed the STM scanning tunneling microscope and the atomic force microscope that again these now give us the ability to actually image at the nano scale that didn’t exist before this error here so the ability to actually see what you’ve got has contributed a lot and actually made the nanotechnology thing possible here’s the famous 1958 1989 IBM advertisement where these two scientists Eichler in Schweitzer moves Xeon ions atoms is into place using scanning tunneling microscope to spell out IBM so each one of those Peaks corresponds to a single xenon Adam ok example of bottom-up nanotechnology so they’ve been two Nobel Prizes so far course where I work the the gold standard is Nobel Prize we’ve had two in the last four years and a long history of many Nobel prizes before that there have been two for nanotechnology so far the buckyball which is a c60 spiracle molecule named Bucky after buckminsterfullerene who had was the champion of geodesic domes this is essentially a geodesic dome on the nano scale a standards 60 carbon buckyball is one nanometer across and really sits at the bottom end of the nano scale if you think about so the Nobel Prize for that in 1996 i guess it was maybe a little bit late i think was 96 yeah and then just a couple of years ago we got the nobel prize for graphene which is another carbon nano scale material that can be big and flat but very nano scale thick inclusive including as thin as one layer of carbon apps these are two brand new forms of

carbon that nobody knew about before this research and so the old forms graphite diamond and stuff like that have some new brothers in what are called allotropes of carbon in fact I just mentioned that to bucky balls on this discovery was out of university of texas of buckyballs are in fact a state molecule of texas it try to go to their black black gold texas in nanoparticles the other thing that’s true is people are making nanoparticles out of almost everything on the periodic table this is a slide i got from a university of new mexico chem references you but exactly what it was with this is one laboratory in one university this shows the diversity of chemistry they’re using to make all these different nanoparticles so now you can begin to get the idea that there’s a lot of things people are making that we have to ask questions about what will this do in at released environment what will happen if it’s injected to you into you for medical purposes what will happen if you breathe it in in a factory making tennis rackets okay tremendous diversity of materials out there this is one lap the whole nano technology revolution is going to impact everybody eventually right now it’s really impacting the scientists and medicine they have plans they’ve shown you can use nano scale things to enclose drugs and get those nano scale things inside a sale cells where the cell pops them up and releases the drug only inside the cell things like that um chemistry physics energy so you know one of the big emphasis where I work now is bad or research of course if we come up with better batteries be a lot of good things happening and a lot of that research on materials that go into batteries is at the nano scale these days so we’re involved in quite a bit of that so there’s all sorts of stuff energy hydrogen storage you know we’d like to have this hydrogen economy but you got to have a way to store it solid-state because you really don’t want compressed hydrogen in every car um and this is all the kind of research that our guys are involved in we deal primarily with energy research and so much was the nano scale environmental remediation using nanoparticles you’re going to release engineered nanoparticles in the environment to take care of other kinds of problems and you gotta hope that the materials you release don’t cause a problem that you’re not aware i spend a couple minutes to talking about one of the best characterized nanoparticles out there and that’s the carbon nanotube now I remember the buckyball so the buckyball is a sphere of sixty carbon atoms to range just like a soccer ball essentially okay now if you take that sphere and start pulling it apart and starting adding carbon atoms in the middle you start getting a long chain and this eventually develops into a carbon nanotube now they come in two varieties so I realized this picture is wrong that later have a better picture they can come in two varieties they come as independent carbon nanotubes one layer essentially one round layer of atoms okay and they come as multi-walled carbon tubes one layer inside of another inside of another like where those Russian dolls okay so we have two forms of carbon nanotubes so in terms of height in terms of toxicology research in terms of short fields short term applications carbon nanotubes are way at the top in terms of potential miracles carbon nanotubes away at the top so there’s been a lot of attention paid to them here are some of the things that’s our American scientists nature of different magazines this is nanotubes as chemical probes nanotubes as quantum wires nanotubes membranes that’s actually a near-term field here’s what I like a space ladder made out of a carbon nanotube wrote space side of the concept is it’s theoretically possible that if you can tether something to the ground and put a counterweight Norbit instead of blasting into orbit you can just climb the rope okay much more energy efficient but no material has ever been developed that is light enough and strong enough to do that theoretically carbon nanotubes are light enough is strong enough to do that if they can produce them in that form so there’s a whole lot of potential thing stronger than steel live in aluminum more conductive and copper except whether or not whether a semi conductor more powerful than speeding locomotive that may not be true but everything everything else is part of the hype on carbon nanotubes you can you buy these things on chip tubes com okay and cheap tubes is going to come up again later so remember that name cheap tube com you can log on and you can order up some carbon nanotubes here’s some electron micrographs of a single-wall carbon nanotubes and here’s electron micrograph through the side of a multi-walled carbon temperature that’s a drawing at the end showing the multi-layer structure inside of it kept two layers three layers four layers five layers and so therefore they can get pretty big of a mateur because the little one grows bigger one bigger one a bigger one outside whereas these are typically on the order of one nanometer across they’re very very small

single-walled carbon nanotubes of course in a real world they’re they’re complicated messes like this a lot of these little particles you see here those are contaminating catalysts that were used to make the material those real round things you see over there are really just other carbonaceous crap that you get when you make these things so typically from straight from the factory they’re not very pure or less improving and we’ll talk about how that screwed up the toxicology research in just a couple of minutes man I mentioned earlier the hype cycle so this is a generic concept for anything new where people think that it’s going to be the next big thing people want people to invest money in it and everybody thinks this could go big this the hype cycle the graphic down here and actually took that from the wikipedia entry on hype cycle ok so when some new technology is announced it looks promising everybody gets very excited this leads to the peak of inflated expectations where the whole world is going to change its going to happen tomorrow we’re all going to be millionaires okay over time there’s usually some problems that crop up like the nanotubes men they have big hype cycle but then it became pretty darn clear that they’re very toxic again all of a sudden well probably we can’t use them for everything we were going to use them for because it turns out if you inhale these are pretty toxic so then you get into the trough of disillusionment or so or God invested all that money I’m not to make any money and you start thinking maybe this isn’t going to pan out as is often the case with these things it’s somewhere in the middle right and then you eventually go up the slope of enlightenment and the plateau of productivity where these materials are being used on a regular basis and these things are getting a lot of use out there both in consumer products and in high-tech stuff I did one of our students went to a company does a lot of government military fabrication and stuff like that they’re very in carbon nanotubes because they have some very interesting properties that might be useful to the military so we are now for carbon nanotubes we are pretty close i think to the top of the slope of enlightenment or at least well up the slope of enlightenment towards the plateau of productivity as we go along this is the curve showing production capacity announced for carbon nanotubes and what they expect the growth curve going to be in terms of use of carbon nanotubes now will that really happen you know it’s like any other projection we’ll have to wait and see so we talked about nanoparticles as having some concerns so what are the issues with engineered nanoparticles note I used to turn engineered nanoparticles for enp for short that means nanoparticles that have been intentionally designed to be the way they are in other words not accidentally we’ll talk about axial nanoparticles later on so what are the concerns why are we worried what has been shown about the toxicity of engineered nanoparticles how can we control people’s exposure in here down two particles here’s a very early nanotechnologist is duty with shrinking kids so when we talk about now so we talk about engineered nanoparticles things intentionally made the way they are what we’re really concerned about our unbound engineered nanoparticles not firmly attached to a surface a lot of negative particles are growing on the surface is longing to see on the surface they’re not a problem but once they get released from that surface then they can be inhaled they can release environment they can go out the trash they can make it into the bay that’s what you have to worry about not part of a bigger items such as microchip or cell wall there’s a big issue there’s one of the hardest things to define or you’ll really big biological molecules like protein are nano scale molecules and so they fit into this or not it’s part of the reason I don’t even try to describe or define nanotechnology in four we’re talking about particulate matter that can become airborne this is a picture of the small scale up factory making carbon nanotubes and you can’t maybe see it so much i’m sorry but this cloud of dust there okay and so those workers wearing those disposable dust masks and two layers of gloves and stuff are potentially exposed to these carbon nanomaterials of uncertain toxicity so that’s what worried about we’re not worried about this mat this book published in I think was 19 or 2002 military Nana bucks BOTS run amok and reproducing themselves and killing you and all that stuff you know that may happen someday but that’s not the issue right now we’re talking about basic environmental toxicology and occupational toxicology and potential impact on consumers as well so the two there’s two issues to slightly different issues you one is going from a microscale particle to a nano scale particle the toxicity that you normally see associated with micro scale particle might get worse as the particles get smaller in other words a single gram of material that this month’s toxic in the micro scale might be this much toxic for the same material once you grind it down to the nanoscale that’s one concern okay the second concern is as you go from the micro scale to the nano scale entirely

new toxicity to show up that didn’t exist otherwise both of these are true to some extent okay and we’ll see examples of that so there’s the enhancement of the sort of ordinary expected toxicity and then there’s the absolutely new out of the blue toxicity and we’ll see examples of both people have been burned before of course that baby’s great graphics from the 30s and stuff on how LED is great for your health oh and might have been true in those days I don’t know but if you have a read the story of tetraethyl lead and ghastly you wouldn’t believe anything they say um you know mtbe and ghastly and amazing asbestos floss your teeth with it so people have been burned before and the question is that we’re going to add nano to that list going forward the other thing to consider is that nanotechnology is not all new so here are some stained glass windows from Europe and it turns out to get some of these colors they would use nano scale gold and nano scale silver and the artisans of the day knew how to fume those materials so they arrived in different nail sizes and the different nano sizes in part different colors okay so not everything about this is is new this is a carbon black factory and you can see maybe scale this is a guy here okay see gigantic vats making carbon black in massive quantities carbon black is a nano-scale material and to some extent it’s engineer you know and so that ain’t new they’ve been doing that for over a hundred years film silica iron oxide titanium dioxide nanoplates a lot of these things are on the market and happened for many years so not every sometimes people will act like this is totally new it’s not totally new of course a lot of nanoparticles are not engineered here’s a guy welding and when you weld you create billions of nanoscale particles okay especially if you’re like this guy and you got your face grinding and welding these are all these little ones are nano scale spheres of the metal question yeah the answer is you’re right the answer is you’re right at some point now scale particles and molecules are the same thing and there isn’t a difference so we talked about biological molecules approaching is a nanoscale King and it’s also a molecule a buckyball yeah by most accounts is a molecule but it’s also a nanoscale particle so there is no clear distinction that’s reason so hard to find this kind of thing so that’s that’s the truth well if you take you collect well there are particulate matter so if you run them through a filter and you can collect them on the filter and you can look them under electron microscope okay and in a sense they are molecules to go there they’re on depending upon the crystalline structure they you know their molecules to but the generally regarded as a nanoparticle because it’s solid you can see it under electron microscope that’s also true for biological molecule and we don’t really call those nanoparticles so the truth is that’s why I don’t even try to find I’m sorry haha wait a crush up front so yeah you know so all kinds of people you know every diesel truck that goes by and create billions and billions of nanoparticles in fact we used to have this terrible diesel buses in lbl when I be in lab monitoring for nanoparticles you can get this big Peaks just in the background now is because the bus went by two minutes before this is actually a picture of of carbonaceous nanoparticles from the exhaust from the diesel truck okay so we talked about environmental justice on these places were all like the Port of Oakland so you know otherwise not very affluent area and thousands of trucks are going in there spewing forth this stuff on these relative economically disadvantaged people that’s where we get this sort of concept of environmental justice that sort of thing what are the risks so so why do we have any a priori reasons on to be concerned do we have other examples where size and nanoscale matters the industry as we sure do okay so at the top you see some of the fellow suffering from asbestos like I said when I came out of graduate school and went to work at Mare Island I met these guys that were disabled because they had been exposed to asbestos and the same guy said oh yeah I’m just disabled my friend he’s dead okay so I was pretty impressive to a 26 year old kid coming out of a graduate school it turns out that the chemistry the molecules if you will that make up in this case let’s take a look at chris @ else messes one variety they come in multiple forms in a

non fibers form it doesn’t have those little fibers it’s called the state rocket California okay same chemistry different arrangement of atoms in the same chemistry and you have serpentine serpentine the state rocket California now if you just happen to have a deposit where it morphed at just the right rate and all the nice things were in place like we have lots of in California that crystalline structure changes and you get the crystal structure of Crisa to asbestos now it turns out the state rocket California is not particularly hazardous law the specif or another word asbestos shaped variety of the same elemental composition it’s very dangerous there’s a great BLM land in central California called I can’t marking what it’s called now but this is great BLM area that I really want to go to with my telescope north of there it’s a big b li Mary that’s all closed because there’s so much asbestos in Clear Creek clear creek they won’t let anybody in now because of the asbestos in soil but the point of this is it is the shape and the size of the particles in asbestos that makes them toxic not so much for the most part not the chemistry okay it’s not hard percent true but it’s mostly true so and these these asbestos crystals best in particular when you’re breathing these in almost all of them are nano parties okay which means if you look at them under the ordinary microscope like OSHA does you only see three or four percent of the particles you don’t see the other 95 96 97 percent because they’re too small even for the best optical microscope in the world you have to go to electron microscopy for the most part to be able to see those particles so we already know that well you go from one form to another and you go to the nail scale and we all set me see this sort of toxicity and it turns out it’s kind of a bus phenomenon mentioned what later on some picture down there is a is an X radiograph of a person with silicosis of the lungs so they have breathed in too much probably quartz either from working in mine jackhammering on the highway or working on building demolition or construction and they breathe in too much courts so it turns out quartz now when it occurs on the beach and when I go to the beach and lay out of each those particles are so big that if you if you accidentally inhaled one you gag it out or your lungs efficiently remove it and nothing bad happens you take those same particles exact same sand and grind it down and grind it down and grind it down into the microscale okay now when you breathe it in your lungs are unable to deal with it okay and it results in chronic inflammation and eventually scarring along which is what you see all that white stuff on the lung fields that’s all scarring lungs called silicosis and cancer same exact chemistry no change at all so if you’re a sandblaster and you shovel some sand and there’s no hazard when you’re showing sand it’s big particles but when you blast it and it bounces off of whatever it is a certain amount of that breaks down to the nano scale or micro scale and nano scale and that’s the material that causes the toxicity and then you know it’s a serious event there’s many many people in to be made sick by suppose your silicon I it’s kind of a little bit of a soapbox issue for me because in the outside of big organizations there’s absolutely no control of anybody’s exposure in silica you can go to any sort of construction thing little construction thing going on they’ll be in clouds of silica that i can predict by my industrial background or 30 times a safe exposure level it happens every single day in the state of California recently I saw this happening on a sidewalk thing and it went over and I told the guys you know this is very dangerous what you’re doing you’re breathing in all this the silica dust and they said well that’s why I’m worried the face shield so I left okay there’s another example of size-dependent toxicity and this is air pollution now the example I use down here is an old one but we’ll talk about in the new context ooh this is the famous London Fog of 1952 and there was a lot of coal being used in London at that point and there was a massive inversion and their huge concentrations of fine and ultrafine particles being accumulated in the atmosphere so they had had that called P supers really i mean there’s kind of a picture down there you can’t see down the street because of the because of the pollution and nobody thought it was that big of a deal because they’ve had pollution inversions before in london but when they were done with this incredibly bad inversion they went around the countryside and they added up the death toll and depending upon who you read for thousands of 12,000 people died because of that pollution crisis okay and since then it’s become pretty apparent and if you could if you can see this slide these draw a line for you guys to download these are the cons on any given day the concentrations of Iraq to the surface area which is another way to measure of small particles and this is a number of people have died

high end of the graph is 80 to 100 people dying a day and that’s just in selected areas too now it turns out remember they talked a lot about the air pollution in China I got the numbers from China I got the numbers from London I did a little bit of conversion factor kind of was very close okay so China was very close to the London Fog so undoubtedly many people have died in China because this air pollutant cry so we’ll probably never know that but that’s the case because it’s pretty much what happens when people were exposed to particulate matter and the small scale now we know it’s really the fine particle the very front ultra fine I guess an environmental speak that are the major source of this excess cardiovascular cardiovascular and respiratory tract built and say actually p 0 this goes on for a fair amount of weeks after the exposure so people are still dying at an accelerated rate farrah metal weeks after this particular air pollution bit I lived through a famous air pollution that once um that where they said 12 to 15 excess people died and it was bad I don’t know if I can answer that question in terms of duration like anything else time and concentration or what affects you so longer the time the higher the concentration I think this air pollution crisis lasted just shine a week in London yeah well I mean that was reported in the news for several weeks and now they’re actually allowing the US consulate to put out data which they never allowed to do them before put out ultrafine particle data PM 2.5 data never allowed at four so now I can do some conversions to what was measured in terms of total particulate there’s a there’s a fudge factor you throw in there and you hope for the best and and you get actually the numbers are pretty close pretty bad stuff so there’s all these examples aside the pending toxicology phenomena here’s another one so not so much now but in the recent past well there’s a lot of people getting artificial joints my wife actually has two artificial needs installed last year and people that got artificial hips for a while we’re using a couple of products that were so-called hard metal so basically hard steel with cobalt chromium molybdenum and this is an example of an artificial hip you can see one part pitching to the other they’re very nice to machined well the problem is it turns out save thousands of people that have been sealed maybe I’ll buy this that um this hard metal wears a way to form nanoparticles 30 to 100 nanometers in size of these kinds of materials those are all resultant persistent tissue installation bone loss joint failure in a few cases systemic cardiovascular neurotoxicity from the where products on your artificial hip okay so now the main bad actors in this are going being sued out of existence now all that stuff like that but here’s an example where people are suffering now in large numbers due to exposure to nanoparticles from their artificial hip so what about other people how are other people going to be exposed well it’s pretty clear that there’s going to be a whole cascade of people potentially exposed to nanoparticles started with the raw material production and the consumer product manufacturing that’s the worker exposure consumer exposure so most about most but any of the sunscreens you put on yourself contain zinc or titanium dioxide okay nanoparticles so the people be exposed there there’s going to be industrial emissions from the factories stuff is going to go to landfill into life someone’s going to go to incinerators and there’s going to be some exposure of the general population down blind they want to put carbon nanotubes and car tires okay turns out to be great except that you know as your tires were a way of releasing carbon nanotubes into the environment so it’s pretty clear that people are going to be exposed cosmetics that’s a big area for nanoparticles now and there’s all sorts of products out there that already have nanoparticles in of nano bats actually at the tail end to my son’s little league career he said dad they have a carbonyl too bad I want one of those now I said you wanted two hundred fifty dollar back your scandia mallu now he is not enough so he didn’t get his bat okay I Haley played one where you were anyway so I’ll washing machines that release silver nanoparticles okay that are supposed to be essentially kill bacteria and things like that this is a big deal with the EPA we’ll talk about that later on now filters and cigarettes dislike they split asbestos filters and cigarettes tennis rackets bicycles shirts these are dog bowls that release nano silver so your dog gets nice fresh water these are food containers they’ve released nano silver so your food stays fresh in there goodness knows what

happens to you baby binky with embedded dama particles question I haven’t heard about that but I would not be surprised if humidifiers use that technology to is all right you know this is all that we’ll talk about that little later on but we talk about free from EPA regulation of those kind of things um pente titanium dioxide a teddy bear my favorite socks you can wear for week and then your spouse can sniff them and there’s no problem I told my wife we need some of these you know for saving purposes you know you can buy health foods with embedded nanoparticles this guy was drinking a lot of nano silver and in addition to doing other things with nano silver and he actually turned blue there’s a clinical name for this I forgot exactly what’s called but this guy actually turned blue because of his excessive use of topical and ingested silver products some people think this guy went too far with his advocacy of nano no doubt this guy went too far though okay nothing what you farm now of course a lot of people don’t like this they see this as potentially very bad so there’s lots of people that are protesting say no to nanotech some people there that took over a conference nanotech it’s not big it’s not clear a website where you can pick your sunscreen and one of the selection criteria is no nanoparticles and it will spew forth the commercial products that don’t have nanoparticles so you can buy one of those then have my favorite up here however this is a group called thong topless humans organized for naturals and eggs and they protest by going around topless okay and if you study the backs of these women very carefully as I have what they’ve written on their back is there’s plenty of room at this bottom okay and that’s a reference to the original Fineman speech back in nineteen fifty-nine there’s plenty of room at the bottom so they process different kind of protest people here’s the reason one of the reason is going to be possible not only do we have spectacular range of chemistry’s involved the nanoparticles we have a spectacular range of morphology shape and shape matters as we’ve seen in the case of asbestos here these are all nano scale zinc materials a hoop rod filaments a forest whatever you want to call these things hexagonal things down here those are all nano zinc so though all the same chemistry but it’s very possible that give them dependent upon a shape they have different toxicology profiles all these things matter sigh shape chemistry crystalline structure water solubility surface area surface coating blahh oh blahh down the line so you test your one nano zinc may have absolutely nothing to do with the nano zinc the guys making over there which games it’s very difficult to get a handle on what sort of environmental and health effect these kind of materials can have we saw this slide for a broad range of chemistry’s now it was about 9 10 years ago the real research and am technology toxicology got rolling okay and it should be studied by i’m not sure what sort of social scientist but somebody should studied because just to look at the huge number of mistakes that were made in the early research projects the basically invalidated the research project over and over again these things were getting published but when you found out some detail things they all this is garbage can you throw it away okay and this happened for several years this was kind of an almost the norm it was very interesting from a social science perspective one test a lot of people are using a it’s an in vitro test called MTT test it’s a measure of mitochondrial toxicity and basically on this sort of graphic wherever it’s not red indicates that the cells are not working they’re dying okay so they did this test girl but carbon nanotubes and a lot of cells the work turning red from all of the stuff is really cytotoxic is really bad turns out the carbon nanotubes directly interfere with the MTT tested modality okay at least sending him so all those publications and there were many of them round file round file wrong time okay man this is one of my favorite so they had done a bunch of installation studies where they would instill carbon nanotubes into the lungs of rats and look for health effects and that’s fine as far as it goes but it ain’t the same as an inhalation study right were you actually at the end will breathe it in so everybody’s waiting with bated breath for the first inhalation studies to come out so this one came out of Albuquerque I forget the name of the organization it’s a big medical center down in Albuquerque and they said well carbon nanotubes we study these things and really we don’t see any problem like that and ahead put this picture in our article this represented a picture of our carbon nanotubes what’s the only problem that ain’t a carbon nanotube okay that’s entirely different species of nail product so the most shows you the researcher looking at the pictures under the microscope didn’t have the slightest idea what a carbon amateurs look like okay round fall right away okay now he got these carbon

nano tubes from tubes com so there’s a lot of garbage research rolling on in this process there’s another one I’ll show later on where they injected into the last long as I hold up the rats died at all it’s really bad they choked the rest to death so one of the drivers nano toxicity um so we have a couple of three different things actually so this is important we have three different semi-independent drivers of potential toxicity of nanoparticles the first one is the intrinsic elemental toxicity so we do a lot of work with quantum dots and quantum dots are typically made out of things that are intrinsically toxic like cadmium okay so if you get cadmium whether it’s nano or not if you get that into your body it’s going to cause bad stuff so these particles are intrinsically going to be talked to just because I’ve made out of toxic stuff okay lead cadmium fluoride things like this um then well let’s skip to the third one morphology driven toxicity we’ve already seen that you can take the state rock in California which is exactly the same chemically as Chris Achilles bestest and they have extremely diversion toxicity profiles okay so shape driven toxicity could make a big difference especially with respect to fibers but also other shapes maybe two okay then in the middle this is that this is a little bit new concept for a lot of people is this i guess is surface area driven toxicity and i’ll show us some good slides on this what this means is that it may not matter how many grams of material you’re being exposed to how many grams or milligrams interior inhaling what really is going to matter is what’s the surface area of that material so two identical materials one has four times the surface area the other could be a huge difference in toxicity course surface area scales with particle size as the particles get smaller you get more surface area so these are three sort of independent toxicological mechanisms that could drive this issue of nano toxicity here’s a nice publication where they looked at these quantum nanodots so we do a lot of actually one of our researchers um actually the director of the lab director of Lawrence Berkeley Lab he’s actually the guy that hired me many years ago and he does a lot of work with Quentin quantum nanodots and they have some cool features they fluoresce depending up different colors depending upon your size they can do things you can get inside of cells and go attach two parts inside the cell and they’ll stay there through divisions and you can track them through these whole life cycles and actually visualize on their microscope what’s going on because these things actually fluoresce there’s a lot of potential use for that this shows an example the different fluorescent colors just based on the same chemistry different particle size ok so here is a study where they said well winner these cadmium containing nanodots they’re going to be toxic by definition because they contain cadmium but is that the whole story so what they did was they was a in vitro study and what they did was they measured the amount of well let’s start the first day made a calibration curve ok and this is metabolic activity in other words how many cells are still alive one hundred percent are alive up here none or alive down here on this axis is the concentration of cadmium ions which is the toxic part of cadmium ok i made a calibration curve that means as the concentration of cadmium just using cadmium salts goes up cell viability goes down until you get up here around 160 and all the cells are dead can just using soluble cab noob salts okay so if the soluble salts were the sole part of the story this is exactly what you would expect if you expose these cells now to quantum nanodots to contain camera but what they actually found is that at much lower concentrations these things were much more toxic ok in other words they were so they were exhibiting toxicity that could not be ascribed to the dissolved can be my own all right so some sort of other toxicity in addition to the cabin my own toxicity so you say for exam and some dots cadmium telluride cadmium selenide these so some different features and if some of these things are killing all the cells that much lower concentrations of dissolved cabinet because they’re doing something else what it turns out they what else they do is the particle itself catalyzes various reactions inside your cell there’s a bunch of these reactions but the end point for all these things is they create what are called reactive oxygen species these are things like well basically these are things that can oxidize is free radicals these are peroxides things like that they can go around and chew up other molecules okay and do a lot of damage in your body so call you don’t know about antioxidants what this does is induces oxidation okay that’s a function of the particle itself that doesn’t actually happen for larger particles you only see that phenomenon we get high surface area associated with small particles okay so there’s two forms of toxic two of those mechanisms

elemental toxicity and surface area driven toxicity are happening at the same time in these quantum in amazon’s which means they’re much more toxic that would be expected just based on their cabin concentration here’s a nice graphic that I stole it from some guy old boy give them credit down there that shows if you take a small particle and start dividing it and dividing it and dividing and dividing it same mass but you get this big increase in number of particles so for example down here you’ve cut at eight times you have um eight times the surface area okay so you got this tremendous for the same mass you get this big increase in surface area and if there’s surface area driven catalysis of reactive oxygen species you get this new toxicity here’s actually a graphic that’s sort of you know rough graphic but it says for a given nano particle diameter this is the percentage of all the atoms in the mall or the call multiple nanoparticle really is the same thing ok this is the percent of those that are on the surface of the pop of the nanoparticle so by time you’re down below five nanometers on this axis almost all the particles from the surface remember the picture the buckyball or the picture carbon nanotube single-wall carbon hundreds how many of those atoms are on the surface of that particle all of them okay which means if those a delight if those atoms can catalyze a reaction that’s adverse they’re all there okay so that’s the idea of surface area driven toxicity and it turns out it pans out for some things though the one area where this has been studied the most is in with but these particles that or there’s an acronym for another acronym but typically metals metal oxide of low solubility and low elemental toxicity titanium zirconium barium gold polymers fluorines these are things that are not you’re not intrinsically toxic really titanium is pretty much a nerd cercone these things are not very intrinsically toxic and if you compare the nanoparticle version of it to the microparticle version of it in terms of toxic effects and lungs you got two different curves well yeah I could my microphone still on me um so if you compare these two things so this this is the think of this as toxicity so this is a measure of toxicity so the higher it goes the more toxic is this is concentration okay or massive exposure so this is concentration this is dose that’s a dose response curve okay if you if you plot it for micro scale particles you get this curve so by time you get out here there you know 30 toxic on the toxicity scale if you use the same chemistry but make this particles nano scale you see a vastly see / of curve okay which means the dose response curve is much deeper and therefore forgiving dose they’re much more toxic same chemistry different particle sizes things that are not very toxic to begin with all the sudden start showing this increased level of toxicity so you know here you get to this level at 500 micrograms here with the microparticles it’s basically four times less toxic just by this by virtue of the particle size it turns out though if you compare them not based on their size in terms of diameter but compare them based on their calculated surface area there’s no difference okay so this is the curve for the two sets of data ultra fine and fine titanium dioxide and they fall on the same curve same toxicity curve if instead of micrograms of this access you have surface area of this axis which means that the Micra the nanoscale particles are more toxic only because they have more surface area that can be involved in this adverse catalytic reaction so this is one of the big drivers of nano toxicity that make sense to everybody everybody’s doing okay it’s a little bit complicated topic let’s take a look at carbon nanotubes a little bit because I said these have been studied quite a bit we looked at what carbon nanotubes were earlier these long thin tubes that can be micro meters in length but are anywhere from one to ten or twenty nanometers in diameter okay so this is this is a one of my soapbox things so I’ve been following this one company it got bought out by another company and roughly once a year I go and I download their msds for carbon nanotubes I’ve been doing this for like eight years now I did not do it this year so this is from 2012 okay and the reason I do that is to this date when on the MS yes they quote an occupational exposure limit for carbon nanotubes they call the OSHA standard for synthetic graphite which is 15 milligram per cubic meter total dust and 5 milligrams per cubic meter has respirable dust they also give the acth standard for graphite okay now so is this carbon am sure that

they just synthetic graphite is that all they are toxic to logically speaking I don’t think so okay and we’ll see what where we’re at on that but nevertheless as of life here anyway this redacted name of a manufacturer arm is still putting out ms yes as its Ava so that’s a lesson to all you guys right off the bat many ms yes it’s for nanomaterials or rant round file quality stuff okay in fact half the time they wanted to tell you it’s nail scale and so you have to be very very careful when applying anything from any ms yes but certainly when as a nanomaterial so they’re recommending or not a record the same standard that you should apply is a synthetic graphite standard and 50 milligrams per cubic meter that’s basically a cloud okay like this kind of thing like who are you I can’t see you that sort of thing that’s what the saying is that’s what they say the standard for carbon nanotubes is I can’t believe they haven’t changed this in all the years now they do have a couple disclaimers later on saying well you should look into it I grow but they don’t haven’t changed this so here’s a couple of interesting micrographs electron micrographs this is a cross-section saw this earlier through a multi-walled carbon into you see the walls this is a side view that is drawn in here 3.4 angstroms across so that makes the whole thing for / / one of these so it makes the whole thing like 60 70 80 and screams across and has this multi-layer structure this is an electron microscope the first was ever published as far as i can tell cross-section through a fiber Chrissa teals bestest okay same diameter same lamellar structure okay so you really have to ask yourself odds are going to be similar toxicity this because they basically look the same okay they’re both very skinny very long and in case crystal has this multi-layer structure now this idea fiber toxicity is a study into itself it turns out and this hypothesis has been out there for 30 years now and has been moderately robust as a hypothesis that if you have any fibrous material that meets certain criteria with respect to shape size and durability once it’s inhaled into your lungs then you’re a risk of developing chronic illness from that fiber okay and ended so there’s a place in Turkey but i really want to visit but i can’t play anybody wants to go there with me um where they they have these weird hoodoos rahku dues and historically people have mind into those to build houses in fact they still have a hotel you’ve got a hotel lined out of these gras krewe dudes over there turns out these Rock hooters contain fibrous minerals Aaron a zeolite okay and so especially among the old people that were really that involved back in the day when they’re really drilling into the rock massive levels of mesothelioma among these people okay so this is not asbestos because asbestos is just a term of commerce anyway but these are materials that meet the size shape nano-sized long skinny shape and bio durability requirements to become toxic inside your lungs okay there’s many examples like this if you meet those criteria you are at high risk you really need to look at the possible chronic effects so then you ask yourself full carbon nanotubes how long do they last when they get your lungs that was answered originally you by a woman from belgium julie muller and she said 50 to 60 to 70 days it turns out that right around the cusp between not going to cause cancer and going to cause cancer right about in the middle so if and bway on one side you say oh we’re way on the other side but it’s right there in the greater down the middle one of the issues you get into is these long skating things cannot be effectively removed from your lungs and they killed the macrophages and your lungs that try to engulf them and this triggers a series of events that leads to scarring the lungs and cancer here’s a very classic picture of a macrophage choking on crystalline asbestos here is a more recent picture of a macrophage choking on a carbon nanotube bundle and you can see there’s no way those cells could actually Gulf those materials in fact they start leaking content to the cells am a creature design destroy so you’re releasing materials that are designed to destroy you get this problem so there’s all these things lined up to say that carbon nanotubes might be really bad so how’s that work out let me define a couple terms first one thing we’re going to see as carbon nanotubes cause granulomas so granulomas are these foreign body reactions basically your body builds barriers and walls and fiber and to close off some particle that’s causing some irritation here’s some really gory examples I got from the Internet of external granule on this imagine much smaller than that but inside your lungs and we’ll see that’s one of the things that carbon nanotubes causes pulmonary fibrosis in case you don’t know basically just discarding belongs asbestos causes that court cause that a lot of things cause that in case of asbestos is called asbestosis and we’ll see that the carbon nanotubes lease and animals do exactly the same

thing called scarring to the lungs mesothelioma mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of your your digestive tract in your lungs and fairly uniquely in the United States anyway it’s caused by asbestos exposure okay so most people that develop means we’ll have some significant history of Occupational asbestos exposure now turkey in that and a totally region of Turkey people have very high rates of mesothelioma because where they lived and the kind of work that they did in just the rock that’s there um I will see it work so I’m going to talk about these kinds of terms in context of carbon nanotubes lung cancer I think everybody knows with lung cancer is so I like 100 years old so here’s that first study i mentioned this briefly earlier on this was through 2004 by a guy from the ciit okay and he put out study saying no I don’t worry about these carbon nanotubes yeah we kill a bunch of rats but it’s because we’ve choked him to death okay and but other than that I’m worried about it we didn’t see any problems so I said what is ciit didn’t know what that was so I went to the website I searched for 10 minutes before I found out it was kennel is institute of industrial toxicology okay so this is a this is from the manufacturer of these kind of materials so so I’ll turns out his study turnt not only that but he was using incredibly impure carbon nanotubes they had up to fifty percent of the residual catalyst that was used to make them and the residual cabins is often in and of itself toxic so this guy was pretty much the first to market with this study you know pretty much around fall okay then there are better studies that came out these were all installation studies or whether it’s called um I’ll see how the term for it inspiration stunts where they make that rat or Mouse choke on the carbon nanotube solution and they gasped and they suck it into their lungs so these are not inhalation studies but these were nobody did inhalation studies for a long time so lamb from NASA NASA they’re using a lot of carbon nanotubes this of what’s going on land concluded the nanotubes reach along they’re much more toxic and carbon black and can be much more toxaphene quartz quartz is very toxic chef Devaux arm from NIOSH she’s still working as far as I know she’s still there if workers are exposed to respirable single-wall carbon nanotubes at the current Pete yell for graphite when we talked about the graphite ppl they may be at risk of developing some lung lesions Joey Mueller came up with his Bureau to Farkle 2005 if multi-walled carbon image was reached along there by a persistent she’s the first person to return of that and reduced lung inflammation and fibrosis go for 2005 he had earlier published an article saying don’t worry about it we did his research in Santa ho ho forget that and this stuff is actually very dangerous so we had early on a pretty strong indication this stuff was going to be toxic of course we want to really know what happens when you inhale these now we had that first study from Lovelace that’s the name of the place in in Albuquerque where they use the non carbon nanotubes carbon nanotubes in the study and so that isn’t too useful and suggests the authors are not very credible on this was the first useful inhalation state of a cup published by NIOSH and this was 2000 it gots been that long she an ANOVA there at the beginning and Vince castronovo Paul Baran he’s died since then and caden and their conclusion was when you allow the animals to inhale the carbon nanotubes rather than having them instilled much worse okay two to four times the lung inflation two or four times the diffused Fibrosis gene mutations based on the outcome of our inhalation study will be inferred that if work as a subject to long-term exposure of restful single-walled carbon nanotubes at the current ppl for synthetic graphite they be likely to have increased risk for pulmonary changes which I’m sure is very politically carefully state okay and so the bottom line is this is the first study now then in 2008 the EPA says well wait a minute people are putting these things in commerce and I don’t see them on the tosca list of registered chemicals carpet answers are not on that list so they started requiring people to have put these things into Commerce to do toxicologic ology studies only 90 days sub chronic exposure studies but they required it and the industry then started publishing some results and this is from basf which by the way has done a lot of really good work in this field I mean a lot of respect for the work they’ve done this is a mouse or whatever they were using that’s the wrong African carbon nanotube exposure and what they determined that let’s see what do they actually say increase long waits pronounced multifocal granulomatous inflammation diffuse histolytica neutrophilic inflammation int reveal your lipoprotein OSIS scarring and they were dosed offended but the lowest dose they used was zero point one milligram per cubic meter and they still found toxicity develop so they were not able to establish a no observed effect level because they didn’t go low enough now that’s just 0

point what that’s a point once will point one milligram per view agree to remember the standard on that they were having an MSDS depending upon the cut fraction 15 or five milligrams per cubic meter so even taking the five okay which is the respirable rink this shows that 50 times that pitch times lower than that they’re still seeing this toxic effect in a lousy 90 days done okay now been published himself and bears done some good work in this regard to and they basically concluded little hard for you guys to read but it said they found a no effect level and they identified there no effect level at point one milligram per cubic meter anything above that cause clear toxicity and they recommended an occupational exposure limit of half of that 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter now there was also an asterisk on this and I don’t know where that a stroke is but somewhere the particles they make or specifically designed to be short and how to table in other words does not fit the hypothesis for fiber induced low toxicity very well and so they tell you that yeah this is what we saw it may have nothing to do with your carbon nanotubes okay because ours are designed to be short and table which is the opposite of what you’d expect in terms of inducing toxicity so they’re recommending 0.05 okay so that’s a hundred times less than the standard that then the graphite standard so all these people are finding this inflammation these great aroma is this fibrosis is scarring all this bad stuff like that what about the question of cancer well a couple articles came out in 2008 okay and these are a very controversial what they did and the pair of this is pretty common in Europe is that they injected carbon nanotubes intraperitoneally other words into the gut of a ranch mice i guess it was mice okay the latter study they use mice that are predisposed to develop mesothelioma anyway okay and they said well you know this means of helium is good be exposed to these particles just like they would if you inhale them they migrate out of your lungs so what what might happen here so they had a couple of interesting results now just this method of study is controversial and not everybody thinks it’s valid but it’s actually in parks the world pretty standard um let me walk you through this slide a little bit this is from the first study this is from the Poland’s done and what they were looking at is inflammatory response at one day post exposure and granulomatous panse seven-day post exposure and what they were comparing here was the vehicle the liquid that they this was objected to the loans the vehicle itself this is a graph of toxicity okay and you see the vehicle caused very low toxicity this is carbon black so the light carbon nanotube accepted not long and skinny almost no toxicity short fiber amosite asbestos very low toxicity short fiber nanotube shrimp fiber nanotubes yeah little bit more but but not statistically significant difference okay now they said what about long fiber amosite and long fiber um carbon nanotubes you see this huge jump in inflammatory response both in right off the bat and a week down later you’re slightly different measures you see this huge jump in inflammation as soon as you go to the long skinny fibers so this strongly supports the notion that the shape has everything to do with this release not everything maybe but has a heck of a lot to do with this now this study this is perhaps in those controversial study this was involved mice that are predisposed to develop me so anyway and what they compared was crescenta line asbestos which is the most potent mesothelioma gin there were something it causes me so that we know about and they compared it to a long multi-walled carbon nanotubes and this is simply cumulative death through the mesothelioma one hundred percent at the top and days after exposure on the bottom so simple dose response curve how many how many animals die from me so over a given time this curve out here which only goes this high and take this long that’s for the Casilla light asbestos this much deeper in earlier and essentially almost one hundred percent curve is for the long carbon nanotubes okay now having shown that it’s very dramatic and all that be aware that there is a huge controversy surrounding this and some people think it’s relevant some people thinks it’s not relevant but to bid truth is nobody what you really want is a lifetime animal inhalation study where they look for these endpoints hasn’t been published yet so we have to go with what we have and right now long fiber multi-walled carbon nanotubes look at least as toxic as asbestos in terms of inducing mesothelioma as a form of cancer so

pretty pretty nasty stuff so is this 15 milligrams per cubic meter and five milligrams per could be vader valid what we’ve seen it really isn’t some countries have started proposing standards now so bear we saw a bear earlier they proposed the standard of 0.05 for their carbon nanotubes okay which is a specific brand of carbon m2’s bay tube okay japan is now proposed standard of 0.03 milligrams per cubic meter EU is kicking around a standard of 0.05 which i think is based basically on the beer stuff nosh has put forth a recommended exposure limit and now i should put that for that 0.007 milligrams per cubic meter they establish that as the exposure limit because that’s as low as you can monitor with routine industrial hygiene practices they say that there’s actually still pretty higher is it based on the tox tone it’s pretty high residual risk of lung damage even at that exposure level and if you look at the research really there’s no effect level is about an order of magnitude lower than that but the truth is the method that they proposed for doing this is not easily adapted to have that level of sensitivity so they essentially said it at the limit of detection ok 44 the readily available methodology that’s cheap and easy for people to do it doesn’t cost a thousand bucks a sample like some of these samples cost so all of these are heck about lower than 15 or five and this is the realm really a probably most appropriate for carbon nanotubes in this sort of scale now at lbl because we can that’s the main reason because we can our criteria is no detectable exposure to any engineered nanomaterials okay question but what are we yeah so we talked about a lot of the products that want to put it in tar tires that hasn’t happened yet but a lot of graphite a lot of composite materials they’re being manufactured so tennis racquets bicycles baseball bats all those kinds of things like that so there are literally hundreds now of applications of carbon nanotubes being used in industry the one company i went over did a presentation for that turns out is very useful in electromagnetic pulse shielding in military electronics it’s a lot of exactly how they’re using it I don’t want to know but they’re using it as a barrier to EMP effects because if you make these carbon nanotubes right they’re unbelievably electrically conductive so I imagine they’re shrouding their electronics in these these kind of blankets and things like that although I didn’t don’t know exactly what they’re doing and so they’re not more and more they’re still kind of expensive so they’re still mostly in high-end kind of application but as I said they want to put min car tires top car tires wear away and that’s going to release in the environment now there is some background level of carbon nanotubes from forest fires and stuff like that but is very low if you sample the air long enough you will find some carbon nanotubes and questions so now I should publish some data and all the people have published and data on carbon nanotubes and they find pretty significant potential for exposure in these little factories you know way above this I don’t have the up then I don’t have a slide for the mash data but they find factors with exposure is well above this okay there is a saving grace in that these carbon nanotubes stick to each other very aggressively and so they’re not that easily aerosolize but you can imagine the factory setting you slice off at the bag pour to the hopper it grinds it you know then its fuse it down some sort of hopper goes into the thing you open it up so in those kind of settings they are seeing some significant exposures not just carbon nanotubes but other nanomaterials so notch has a pretty aggressive program to go out into industry and look for these things and they and they have I have been to many presentations by a nosh and they have all sort of graphics electron micrograph showing particles they got out of the air some people are getting some pretty good exposures and as well see the EPA has actually intervened on carbon nanotubes and they’re establishing occupational protection standards because OSHA was never going to do it so the bottom line is is our potential for exposure in the current industry that’s happening out there absolutely question well like I said we allow zero exposure because we can and the reason we can is that our scale is so incredibly small that just using standard laboratory practices eliminates exposure so for example a guy that’s making carbon nanotubes is probably making three or four hundred micrograms if that so scale like this Oh got a bunch of it nanoparticles yeah you know he picks up a little by all that thing that’s his nanoparticles that’s pretty much a scale we operate on at LBL and as

at least so far and as a result of that it’s not hard to control using standard laboratory practices okay and it turns out is highly dependent as I said carbon nanotubes tend to stick together pretty aggressively so you have to do some work to get them to fly apart but we also make a lot of these nanowires and so I’m honored one operation in gallium nitride nanowire they grow it on a surface and you get this force to these vertical nanowire and then they wanted to transfer some of those to a called tem grid basically just scrape it with this piece of copper that they put the copper in the electron microscope when they did that there were fibers all over the place boom just like that so it’s very highly dependent upon the exact product you’re working with and the problem is and I won’t talk a lot about this because this gets to industrial hygiene II um you know if you use simple techniques to measure particles right now in this room there’s probably between two and five thousand nano particles per CC because the cars are making nanoparticles the ocean is making nanoparticles thunderstorms of making nanoparticles volcanoes are making any particles China is making the other particles so if i were a monitor in here right now with the direct reading instant i’d see at least 1,500 2,000 nano particles per cubic centimeter of air so now you want to measure an engineered nanoparticle you’ve got that huge background to deal with and you’ve got to find a way to overcome that huge background and there’s different ways to do that we’ve actually pioneered a method at lbl i have had a grad student she and i pioneered this method where people would say look i don’t want to work in a fume hood because my particles are so fine it’s too much wind in a few min i want to work at a bench top we have a glove box with no bottom so we’d say okay set up your experiment on the bench top so we give them a trade like a cafeteria tray and then set up what they want to do with their nanoparticles all that then we would drop this glove box over it and we’d use a hepa filter to completely get rid of all the particles inside the glove box so we’d have 0 background and web box now we tell the science is ok use the gloves and do whatever it is you’re going to do you know whatever you’re going to do to your nanoparticles and meanwhile we’re measuring with a direct reading instrument and instead of working against the background of 2,000 working against a background of serum and so we can see stuff that nobody else can see and so that’s the criteria we apply to our research labs is with the technology that’s better than anybody else’s we don’t want to see anything and that’s because we can in a factory that’s not realistic okay but in our setting we haven’t encountered an operation words not realistic yet question we’ll talk about that the answer is yes we’ll talk about that in just min question they’re going to break down yeah but we’ll talk about that a little bit later on too so the question of hazardous waste so now you’ve got a pile of nanoparticles what is the regulation in terms of hazardous waste and the answer is there really is nothing specific for nano okay which means if your particle is otherwise regulators as hazardous waste because it’s ignitable or reactive or contains capiam or something like that that is a hazardous waste if it doesn’t mean any of those criteria like certainly titanium dioxide doesn’t mean any of those criteria zinc oxide does mediated look well maybe zinc titanium oxide doesn’t me do to those criteria there’s nothing that says it has to be treated as hazardous waste now maybe maybe maybe um yeah but those aren’t regular this hazardous waste so now the University of California we were sort of the first the dealy was the first but now that spread the whole university and the state dtsc published a guidance document about 10 months ago and the recommendation is if it’s nano handle this hazardous waste we’ve been doing that for seven years so anybody that generates any nano even if it would not otherwise be regulars has this weighs it gets marked as toxic because the waist label stuck on there it gets put in the SAA gets transferred to the waa and it gets out and gets buried or burned or whatever it is they do with it on the other end so we do that whether it’s now a lot of it is hazardous if not because the particle because of the flammable solvent that it’s in but a lot of it without not otherwise be classified but at the University and certainly at the deal we lab complexes we long ago decided we don’t want to put that landfill and worry about that 20 years down the line so we treat it all his hazardous waste not only I don’t know some of the details for example I guess you can’t just wave your arm declare something hazardous waste it’s actually not legal um but you can treat it as hazardous waste and at the very end there’s probably some pay-per-view side really Taz it is with burnin anyway I don’t exactly know how that works but they receive can comment on that I don’t know but in any case we created as as hazardous waste all contaminated gloves contaminated coveralls contaminated respirator filters all the hazardous waste without any further fun

okay there’s other things you have to worry about it turns out that nanoparticles that land in your nose can to some extent be transported up the axons into your brain from that location intact nanoparticles okay um and at least in rats in studies they’ve done in rats they showed you can expose them to metal nanoparticles by the nose the particles themselves end up in the brain where they cause brain inflammation now those are rats whether or not that translates 100% to humans isn’t all that clear at this point rats have unusual brains and unusual noses but the bottom line is there a suggestion that there’s a route of exposure that don’t occur for microscope articles macroscale particles of n yer nose either dissolve where you spit them out we swallow them then they get removed from your body that way nanoscale particles can go intact into your nerves it turns out this happens in your bronchial tree two hands pictures of some very small fluorescent rhodamine beads being transported in a neuron cell body away from the lungs so nanoparticles that land your lung is among the other things they can do is they can end up being transported into the ganglia and long axons with frankly unknown health effects okay Plus this other phenomenon that’s very clear now and this is kind of predictable actually but it turns out it wasn’t clear until relatively recently is that if you inhale nanoparticles and they landed your lungs they cause systemic toxicity unrelated to any moving out of the lungs so in this case titanium doxa these animals were exposed to titanium Jacques so that’s the control animal this is the experimental animal to cut the titanium dioxide exposure into the lungs okay um and they these are indications of oxidative stress and basically vascular malfunction and vascular oxidation that happened just because of some cascade of events that initiates when these things land in your lungs used to be thought maybe this was caused by part of us that leave your lungs get into the bloodstream land in the arteries and conscious affect NH a case this causes some sort of a biological chemical cascade that actually reduces the compliance reduces the responsiveness of your vascular and causes this sort of information and in fact in this study this involved rats that were predisposed to develop atherosclerosis these are the controls on top the dark red or the bright red indicates atherosclerosis see a lot more of it on the bottom of the single-wall carbon nanotube exposed animals okay so you get this inflammation inflation is related atherosclerosis so you’re getting systemic toxicity from lung exposure without translocation out of the law now one of the newest things on the scene good for a Nobel Prize a couple of years ago is graphene graphene is just a single layer of graphite so why that’s new I don’t know but it is um and so if you man so graphite when you write with a pencil layers of graphene or coming off thick layers but they’re coming off and you make a mark of the page if you could separate it down to get a single layer or just a couple layers you’ve got this graphene material single layer of carbon the Dan apparently has some miraculous properties was good enough for a Nobel Prize possible using the positives polymers electrode supercapacitors all sorts of different things okay um now there’s only been a couple studies published but it indicates that those might be pretty toxic to now they’re kind of interesting because they’re not necessarily nano scale in length your width throating nanoscale depth okay and I advantage going to take a lot of studies these the two that I’ve seen that there’s latter one aspiration installation of micron scale graphene but very thin nanoscale thickness cause significant lung inflammation with evidence of frustrated phagocytosis other words making it so the macrophage just can’t survive okay so graphene maybe the next thing on the market to that we have to worry about talk a lot of about regulation so you guys have a lot to do with regulations let’s talk a little bit about that it’s not my area of expertise but I know enough about it to give you guys a start on this um actually Berkeley was about the first municipality to try to regulate nanoparticles okay and actually this happened tember 2006 I started there in the summer of two thousand five so I got a chance to consult with the city and make recommendations all of which of course they completely ignored and this is now an add-on to the H MVP process you have to disclose your nanoparticles and a bunch of things you have to do for the city now my advice to them was you know it’s both unnecessary and very difficult to do with this in our d setting where we make different nanoparticles every day of the week in skills through that big I told them that like everybody else they should exempt scales that are that big from the regulation which they did not do as a result the University and the lab will be partially comply we comply with the

spirit if not the letter of the law because we’re not subject to regulation by berkeley in this arena okay we have to submit hazardous materials business plans but this part of it is city of berkeley only so we’re not actually subject to that although we do comply with the bulk of it we just don’t give all the nuances of today’s doing that tomorrow is doing that the next day he’s doing that which the city otherwise seems the one they seem happy enough with that so this is the first nano ordinance which incredible eyes criticized because there’s no de minimis quantities the reporting format is pretty vague um you know actually I get asked we are coming to the locker founder we’ve a lot of people that if they can develop something while the research molecular founders are going to get seven million dollars of venture capital we’re going to go out and start a pilot factory I’ve been asked several times well where do you think we should start our factory basically say not in Berkeley and they tell what we already figured that so in Cambridge Massachusetts consider something with this but they never follow through on it so that’s the only place that has that sort of local ordinance now the state of California DTSC has done some work and they have actually done some pretty good work I give them a lot of credit um they have this ability to do Collins basically demand from people information on materials they’re working with including nanoparticles and it had a couple of college for nanoparticles carbon nanotubes and then an assortment of metal of metal oxide nanoparticles quantum dots and things like that they’ve had a couple of these they had a bunch of meetings many of which I went to some wood for productive arm so they gather this fairly big data set with the idea being that they wanted to know what they were missing some of the people that submitted date all the data that people submitted got published online some it was very good so some people did a good job other people didn’t respond at all I don’t know how they compel them to respond I think they can I don’t know how they do it no um so they’ve got this database that they’re working on but their current activities in terms of moving towards regulation have been pretty limited they are working on nano silver because nano silver is mostly used as a pesticide okay so they have the whole another line of potential authority to regulate there so they actually have some activities going on on nano silver though they’re long way from regulation it’s going to be years before we see anything in the way of regulation then the other thing they’ve worked on they work collaboratively with a bunch of universities including a bunch of the UC campuses to come up with a safety and health guideline for nanotechnology research which they published about ten months ago arm which is very good it’s a very nice document really not very much different from what we’ve been doing since 2005 a little bit different you know tonight it’s a nice document so if you if you’re working that sort of setting it’s a good reference tool for looking at how to protect people in a research setting it’s not really very applicable to a factory setting like a lot of you guys might visit so that’s pretty much all that’s happening as far as I can tell at the GCSE level in the state of California o Shah well she hasn’t neither federal or state OSHA has done anything with respect to nanoparticles now look they’ll tell you what meaning oh well the breastplate of requirement applies the PPE standard appliance all the standard still apply like anybody else but nothing specific for 4 nanoparticles and you know I know some ocean people that involved in standard setting and there’s nothing that you could expect in the rest of my career anyway so that was nothing there EPA the EPA has a number of different authorities by which they can potentially regulate nanoparticles they can regulate them under tosca which they’ve been doing for carbon answers we’ll talk about that later on they can regulate them as a pesticide under fifra which they are working on for nano silver I looked up the due date when they figure they’ll be done studying in 2017 so they better be ready for some regulatory action in 2017 so there’s nothing you would expect to happen in terms of regulation before then they can prohibit releases to air clean water and clean air act or water clean water act safe drinking water act they can classify it as a hazardous waste under Rick row I don’t really know of any activity in those categories there might be something but whatever it is it’s pretty low-key the main one has been Tosca and different so let’s talk about Tosca a little bit talk to substance control light so you can only market chemical compounds that are on the inventory of the EPA talk see something control line so it’s something like eighty six hours and they’re 90,000 whatever it is materials on that inventory and I said wait a minute what about nana the EPA decided that if you have nano scale titanium dioxide or nano scale zinc or nano scale most things that they are fundamentally no different from micro scale of the exact same chemical and therefore not subject to selectively regulation under Tosca so if you’re making most nano things that are just lower versions of the bigger stuff no Tosca requirements okay for the most part there are exceptions that but they say carbon nanotubes I don’t think those

are those are fundamentally new so they started regulating carbon nanotubes all right because they could and so in 2008 they publish this announcement of regulation on import and manufacturing and this basically requires now people that want to manufacture and distribute these materials to do a bunch of different things basically step over one is they have to submit a notice to the EPA that says yeah we’re going to start making the stuff and we’re going to start selling this stuff then the EPA will enter into a consent decree with them and so these pms pre-manufactured notices which they submit now to the EPA and the EPA will look at their data and I’ll enter into this consent decree with that particular company okay so called 5e consent decree and for the for the carbon nanotube stealth they did a couple things one is your only approved to use it for whatever you wrote down in your application so if you’re approved use it for polymer composite materials electronics catalyst support which is some of the early applications that’s what it said that’s all they were proving and as we’ll see if you want to do anything else with it you’re back to the beginning okay you’re required to conduct an a 90-day rat inhalation toxicity study hence BASF and all the corporations that are now doing toxicity studies because they have to because you can’t market them in the United States without doing that they are look that part of the problem is EPA has recognized there is no one thing such as carbon nanotubes as hundreds probably of variations on the theme we’ve already seen short tangled are much less talk to the long skinny then you’ve got multiple 5 volt 6 volt 10 wall you go a whole different lot of variation of the theme so they’re pretty much approving these things on a manufacturer by manufacturer basis here’s the cool part since oceans not doing anything part of the consent decree is they require employers who may be exposed to use specified types of personal protective equipment including full face respirators protected coveralls and gloves that’s something that should come out of ocean right that’s not going to happen but that came out as part of the consent decree for carbon nanotubes here’s I like the one in the bottom and read only allowed distributes and materials to persons who agree to comply with all the restrictions in other words you can’t sell it to anybody who’s good at easier for something else you can’t tell it to anybody who’s not going to use a full face respirator protect your coveralls and gloves where there’s potential for exposure you’re not permitted to sell it those people so you actually just trying to go online to get some of the MS yeses from some of these more sophisticated companies you go online saying what your carbon entry of em is yes you gotta call what do you want and I said why you’re not carbon nanotubes what kind of research what kind of work do you do who are you have any background you get grilled because they’re subject to this consent decree limitations on who they sell this stuff too I mean someone is pretty funny actually oh yeah I heard about toxicity I heard about that now after after issuing these consent decrees that only apply to that manufacturer they then issue what’s called a snow and we have to get new use rules and that means that anybody is going to use carbon nanotubes from that particular manufacturer have to follow the same rules okay so supplies into everybody and the interesting thing is let’s say you start making carbon nanotubes they may or may not be different from that one that’s already been approved so you have to then submit on to the EPA and ask them actually it’s sort of an informal process are these the same can I work under this snir or do I have to go through the process again on my own they’ll make a determination sometimes they’ve required a new slur or new consent decree sometimes they’ve said yeah it falls under that same category kind of depends they look at I don’t know what they look at but look at something so they said but if you’re going to use this stuff and you’re going to have any new uses and you’ve got to go through a big review what our new uses will one of a using it for something you wasn’t listed on the original application and be significant new uses or deemed or carbon employee does not use gloves impervious nails nanoscale particles chemical protective clothing and an honours full face respirator within 100 cartridges so if you’re going to go to work with this and not use those protective devices you’ve got us you got submit to the UK for permission to do that because I significantly use that has not been previously permitted so this is interesting and now that’s pretty much it well I’ll say there’s an exemption for research so at lvl we fall under this exemption because we use small quantities for R&D standard lab procedures only hailed by technical qualified people um so we fall under the exemption which is perfectly reasonable for the kind of scale work we do and that’s pretty much where the EPA is at on these things remember they can’t regulate under tosca most of these stuff things because they’re not new enough to be called new but for carbon nanotubes and a certain number of other nanoparticles they can regulate them under Tosca and they are pursuing this regulation of nano silver under FIFRA but again there I read their timeline they’ll be done in 2017 so maybe then something will happen by then I’ll be

retiring on the beach course the lawyers are out there looking to see if they can make a buck honest to god this happened I got I got subpoenaed for some work i did when i worked for UC berkeley back in 87 and it was for one line on a training outline i put together they wanted to grill me for hours based on one line i had put an asbestos training out last I hired her tech and this was not one for training the new tech and that doesn’t matter too much but the part that was interesting is I worked one day the university hired to defend us he had gone online figured out who I was and downloaded one of my presentations that were online on carbon nanotubes toxicity hey Lawson you know I got three kids to put through college this going to be big for the future am I going to be able make some money on this that’s our guy I said that’s the kind of lawyer once a real shyster okay Oh Harry was thinking putting his kids through college on carbon nanotubes and I think basically he beat the armor than this poor guy with mesothelioma was making it was unimaginably weak argument I couldn’t imagine that even the United States that can hold me water and I guess it didn’t anyway ah so somebody asked about safety controls believe it or not when I went to my first nanotechnology and health conference back in 05 oh there are all these questions will respirator filters work well hepa filters work what about gloves what about all these things are they actually going to work there were this there was this model out there that this guy published saying that filters hepa filters were not going to work for nanoscale particles even pretty big nanoscale particles like 10 nanometers they just weren’t going to work based on theory okay now since that time that’s all been debunked so the I’ll tell you why they well okay since that time that’s all been the boat and so the easy answer is pretty much respirators work pretty much like you’d expect there are some nuances will look at briefly but pretty much they work fine the imprimatur of involves pretty much work fine you know coveralls you know they never work well I mean that’s just by definition so you can’t really expect coveralls to keep things off of people completely but they help but the whole thing about filters and hepa filters and blowers and helpful design group that’s all been resolved this is this is a filtration curve for much any mechanical filter let’s just imagine for a minute that it’s a HEPA filter even though it’s not okay this shows the effect in that so up here means it’s very effective as this curve drops down it means it becomes less effective okay and this is graphed on the particle diameter this is one micrometer this is a tenth of my clear 100 nanometers that’s one hundredth of a micrometer 10 nanometers and for a typical filter what you see is that the larger particle sizes very high efficiency and then that tails off into your in this range of about point one point two point three nanometers in size that’s the low point in filtration efficiency okay that’s why if you know anything about HEPA filters they’re tested at what particle size 0.03 micrometers that’s because that’s right here that’s the worst point on the filtration curve as the particles get smaller the efficiency becomes better okay now notice this curve stops at around 20 or 30 nanometers so this curve doesn’t going further down that so there have been some studies one thing I’ll tell you for mechanical filter like a HEPA filter forget about it it works fine if you can get down to nanoparticles on the order of one and half to two nanometers in size then it starts to fall apart but the truth is in the real world getting independent nanoparticles two nanometers in size stam you’re impossible okay so in the real world HEPA filters work exactly like you expect them to very high efficiency even the crowd like in the building I work in the crappy housekeeping filters in the ventilation system cut down the nano particle concentration by a factor of three okay because it turns out nanoparticles are easy to collect buy filters much more easier than these 300 nanometer sized particles that are hard to collect by filters now it turns out respirators are a little bit different especially in the case not in the case of HEPA filter respirators but in the case of filtering facepiece a–‘s and things like that they’re mostly not so called mechanical filters there are electrostatic filters they depend upon electrostatic attraction within the filter to hold the dust there turns out this data from NIOSH rather than the most penetrating particle size being 300 anomie they’re the most penetrating particle sizes around 30 or 40 nanometers so this means is there is a shift to smaller particles in terms of their ability to penetrate these filters so if you’re wearing a disposable dust mask it’s almost certainly electric like left.rip filter on let me the smaller particle is going to preferentially get through but

even considering that the efficiency at worst was ninety-eight percent which is more than you can count on any way for that kind of respirator so it works to the level that you should be counting on to work to count on it for more than ninety five percent you do it wrong okay so it turns out all these things clubs respirators there was even a thought that ventilation systems wouldn’t work I’m thinking to myself you have been behind us world is your ventilation not work when it works for welding fume what are you guys talking about you crazy I ready the big scientists come to and say ventilation would work so I don’t know what you’re talking about um turns on ventilation works exactly as you’d expect it to okay so if you want to this is some nice pictures really went out in the field and they install this local exhaust ventilation system and it greatly reduced concentration some data from UMass Lowell when they looked at the effectiveness a few hood incredibly effective hip few hugs when their property operated very effective so there’s nothing weird about capturing nanoparticles in ventilation on filters any of that stuff it’s all pretty much ordinary and again personally I didn’t think there was any reason to think it would be other than that but there was a lot of confusion at first ok so that’s pretty much the presentation I’ll show you a bunch of guidance documents up here some of these there might be slightly newer version to these things these are the kind of things you can go on the web some some of them you can download some of them you have to pay for um and these are useful documents i said in april two thousand i pick up in april 2012 GCSE and the universities put out a guidance document for R&D that’s the best document for rd NIOSH approaches the safe nanotechnology ASTM standard got died for handling unbound injured nanoscale particulates and occupational settings current intelligence bulletin from NIOSH the record this is the medical screening document I think the final one of these has come out now where they don’t actually say all that much I saw technical report from 2008 a whole bunch of different guidance documents out there so when I started this business in 2005 there were no guidance documents and I worked in a group that developed the first one ever okay um and but now there’s many so we stopped making our own because it’s not needed anymore but for several years we maintain that now I’m sort of the standard document that everybody referred to turn out to be a problem it was a guidance document which means it’s just good practice but the deal we decided well it’s all there is so we’re going to make a mandatory we said we would have written it that way if it was necessary that’s always the risk you take working for the government here’s actually a picture those are carbon nanotubes being poured back and forth between buckets with an air monitoring filter up here looking for exposure sees people wear respirators in coveralls that’s probably study that NIOSH did and I think that’s pretty much it so questions that guy’s got real habit huh questions for you guys yeah so I didn’t talk too much about the environmental stuff okay but there are a fair number of studies suggesting that some of these nanoparticles released into the environment are going to have adverse effects okay um and so there’s a reason I don’t follow about literature very closely but there’s a reasonably big literature saying that these days on the other hand they want to use nano part in a part of the environment for environmental remediation purposes so that’s you know well it’s a rock and a hard place um so yeah they want to put carbon nanotubes and tires well that’s going to wash off the roads into the bay into the rivers and lakes and here they happen to these documented effects it pretty low concentrations too so that so from an environmental perspective that’s real risk and remember a lot of these nanoparticles are not strictly speaking regulated as waste and so the corporation and businesses are free to put a lot of in the garbage so they’re going to go to the landfill and if they flee childhood landfill they’re going to end up in the rest of the environment so yeah there’s a lot of those kind of questions out there and there’s no quick moves to come to any real quick conclusions on any of that oh yeah yeah there’s lots people study yeah yeah yeah go on if you go on PubMed you can pull up a lot of those articles there’s a lot of place where you can read about this so the EPA has a whole website on nanotechnology stuff that they’re doing and you have those are all very good questions question well the answer is it depends so when you’re printing with your inkjet printer you’re printing with nano scale ink particles okay at least a lot of them do you don’t know that it doesn’t say that anywhere in package in fact they were doing everything they can that industry not to

say that okay because they’ve been using nanoparticles and inks for years and years and years and they don’t want anybody to think now all of a sudden that I never had a lot of nano enable products they crumpet the man Alyssa because that’s the thing that’s going to make you buy it that’s why my kid wanted that nano back that carbon nanotube that because hall it’s got carbon nanotubes dad that’s better than the carbon fiber that they made last year yeah so cosmetics or big you a big scale use of nanoparticles now and there has been a little bit of research on that I haven’t fought about literature very closely but you can imagine if using with powdered cosmetics and certainly the sunscreens now they’re having a fair amount of studies of sunscreens and if there’s adverse health effects to that it’s not all that obvious in other words it’s not clear that that’s any kind of a problem at this time at least for you because you take a shower and now it all runs off into the drain the drain goes to a lot of treatment plant is there may be a problem there is a problem when it gets dumped out into the bay those are questions that are less clear I think it’s I’m pretty comfortable putting on nanoparticle sunscreen so I don’t have that problem except for the spray-on sunscreen that contains an apparent yeah that alert all right yeah there’s a lot of studies out there when i started this back in 2005 I read every article was ever published now of course that’s totally impossible to do that it was so nice to be completely on top of the literature for two or three years cuz I read every single one that you could be found but that those days are long gone tremendous amount of nano toxicology research coming out of China these days i don’t know if i count the numbers but in terms of volume of papers they might lead the world you know i’m not convinced that a lot of it’s very simple research and I’m a strong believer that simple research is not necessarily going to get us to the right answer so these are cell culture type studies or even cell-free studies you know I went to a conference in zurich my only international conference ever went to and the Europeans are saying they are not willing to pay for whole animal lifetime toxicity studies were big expensive animal studies and so they’re desperately scrambling to develop complex in vitro models where they maybe get these cells to grow some sort of tissue like thing so it’s not just cells maybe two or three kinds of cells mixed together they try to basically mimic party a body and then they expose that to nanoparticles because it’s a hundred times cheaper and much quicker so they’re really desperate to avoid these big inhalation studies which pretty much for this point over the United States is funding for a lot of it anyway a lot of suck coming out of China is very simple in vitro stuff nowadays lots of it but pretty simple stuff well as I said they do occur naturally as well in very low concentration so I mean at some point your gas-burning stove is producing some amount of carbon nanotubes but in terms of significant concentrations and production for use in industry and research and all that those are being made by people usually there’s a bunch of different ways to make them but now things like bear itself they’re making full industrial capacity reactors to make these things so big scale you’ve got a whole range of thousands and thousands nanoparticles that could be introduced into commerce almost no regulations organizations that range from the dl e which treated all his has its ways to organizations probably to think about that so it’s a pretty child pretty tough challenge now for you guys going out if you if you go to places that are making the hell particles okay the one thing you got to do is protect yourself okay that’s really important tell the story of the bay or air quality management district inspector the one of the years ago years ago want to go into an asbestos work area and she said I don’t have to wear a respirator I said well you don’t have to but you have to get pied to guard that i’m going to call in one minute to cut block you from the door and she that should note that there was a law requiring two reviews recipes once she found that out she was very indignant with the barrier Quality Management District and I filed a complaint against them too but so the bottom line is you guys got to protect yourself if you’re going into these sort of settings and as I said the usual protections work fine and you know like when I went to one of the factories I went to that using carbon nanotubes for this government research I thought they were handling it pretty well ok and now ash has a lot there’s a lot of nice things you can see online where they show you what factories look like they’re doing a good job and they show you what factories look like they do it a bad job okay and there are definitely factories that are doing a bad job I mean these guys I talked to these up

people and some my own people and other people I’ve met in the industry they for example a lot of these people came out at University of Texas cuz that’s where a lot of this really stuff to run the stories out here is they blew their nose and it came out black when they were work in the laboratory that kind of thing can’t happen anymore okay because that’s it’s not safe any of the questions well thank you so much for attending if you want to talk to me you can always reach me up at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab I’m in the book as I say