Nanotechnology in the real world: Redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory

Summary To document the marketing and distribution of nano-enabled products into the commercial marketplace, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies created the Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory (CPI) in 2005. The objective of this present work is to redevelop the CPI by leading a research effort to increase the usefulness and reliability of this inventory. We created eight new descriptors for consumer products, including information pertaining to the nanomaterials contained in each product. The project was motivated by the recognition that a diverse group of stakeholders from academia, industry, and state/federal government had become highly dependent on the inventory as an important resource and bellweather of the pervasiveness of nanotechnology in society. We interviewed 68 nanotechnology experts to assess key information needs. Their answers guided inventory modifications by providing a clear conceptual framework best suited for user expectations. The revised inventory was released in October 2013. It currently lists 1814 consumer products from 622 companies in 32 countries. The Health and Fitness category contains the most products (762, or 42% of the total). Silver is the most frequently used nanomaterial (435 products, or 24%); however, 49% of the products (889) included in the CPI do not provide the composition of the nanomaterial used in them. About 29% of the CPI (528 products) contain nanomaterials suspended in a variety of liquid media and dermal contact is the most likely exposure scenario from their use. The majority (1288 products, or 71%) of the products do not present enough supporting information to corroborate the claim that nanomaterials are used. The modified CPI has enabled crowdsourcing capabilities, which allow users to suggest edits to any entry and permits researchers to upload new findings ranging from human and environmental exposure data to complete life cycle assessments. There are inherent limitations to this type of database, but these modifications to the inventory addressed the majority of criticisms raised in published literature and in surveys of nanotechnology stakeholders and experts. The development of standardized methods and metrics for nanomaterial characterization and labelling in consumer products can lead to greater understanding between the key stakeholders in nanotechnology, especially consumers, researchers, regulators, and industry.

[1]  Diana M. Bowman,et al.  Nanomaterials in Cosmetics , 2017 .

[2]  Zsófia Osváth,et al.  DOI: 10 , 2011 .

[3]  Treye A Thomas,et al.  Characterization of silver nanoparticles in selected consumer products and its relevance for predicting children's potential exposures. , 2015, International journal of hygiene and environmental health.

[4]  Kiril Hristovski,et al.  The release of nanosilver from consumer products used in the home. , 2010, Journal of environmental quality.

[5]  Steven C. Currall,et al.  What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? , 2006, Nature nanotechnology.

[6]  Bernd Nowack,et al.  120 years of nanosilver history: implications for policy makers. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) , .

[8]  Milind Kandlikar,et al.  From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in U.S. regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials , 2007 .

[10]  Jorge L Gardea-Torresdey,et al.  Evaluation of exposure concentrations used in assessing manufactured nanomaterial environmental hazards: are they relevant? , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Brooks C. Holtom,et al.  Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research , 2008 .

[12]  Bengt Fadeel,et al.  Nanosafety in Europe 2015-2020: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology Innovations , 2013 .

[13]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[14]  Stefan Seeger,et al.  Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[15]  Bengt Fadeel,et al.  Nanosafety in Europe 2015-2025: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology Innovations. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health , 2013 .

[16]  Zhongyuan Mi,et al.  Modeling population exposures to silver nanoparticles present in consumer products , 2014, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[17]  Evan S. Michelson “The Train Has Left the Station”: The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Shaping of Nanotechnology Policy in the United States , 2013 .

[18]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[19]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products , 2008, Ecotoxicology.

[20]  Linsey C Marr,et al.  Silver nanoparticles and total aerosols emitted by nanotechnology-related consumer spray products. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  H. Kalantari,et al.  Nanotoxicology , 2013, Jundishapur journal of natural pharmaceutical products.

[22]  Paul J. Lioy,et al.  Potential for Inhalation Exposure to Engineered Nanoparticles from Nanotechnology-Based Cosmetic Powders , 2012, Environmental health perspectives.

[23]  Paul J Lioy,et al.  Potential for exposure to engineered nanoparticles from nanotechnology-based consumer spray products , 2011, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

[24]  Treye A Thomas,et al.  Release of silver from nanotechnology-based consumer products for children. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[25]  Lang Tran,et al.  Safe handling of nanotechnology , 2006, Nature.

[26]  John Pendergrass,et al.  Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[27]  Nirupam Aich,et al.  Research strategy to determine when novel nanohybrids pose unique environmental risks , 2015 .

[28]  Sean Becker,et al.  Nanotechnology in the marketplace: how the nanotechnology industry views risk , 2013, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[29]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preferences in regulating nanotechnology , 2010, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[30]  Arturo A. Keller,et al.  Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials , 2013, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[31]  Charles M. Lieber,et al.  Nanoelectronics from the bottom up. , 2007, Nature materials.

[32]  L. Theodore,et al.  Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) , 2006 .