Nanosensors and particles: a technology frontier with pitfalls

Our plain-English summary of Nanosensors and particles: a technology frontier with pitfalls, by V. Vogel (Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2019).

The study

• Author: V. Vogel
• Journal: Journal of Nanobiotechnology
• Published: 2019;17(1):111
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

As we are approaching 20 years after the US National Nanotechnology Initiative has been announced, whereby most of that funding was spend to engineer, characterize and bring nanoparticles and nanosensors to the market, it is timely to assess the progress made. Beyond revolutionizing nonmedical applications, including construction materials and the food industry, as well as in vitro medical diagnostics, the progress in bringing them into the clinic has been far slower than expected. Even though most of the advances in nanosensor and nanoparticle research and development have been paid for by disease-oriented funding agencies, much of the gained knowledge can now be applied to treat or learn more about our environment, including water, soil, microbes and plants. As the amount of engineered nanoparticles that enter our environment is currently exponentially increasing, much tighter attention needs to be paid to assessing their health risk. This is urgent as the asbestos story told us important lessons how financial interests arising from a rapid build up of a flourishing industry has blocked and is still preventing a worldwide ban on asbestos, nearly 100 years after the first health risks were reported.

In plain English

This article is a short commentary, not a research study. It was written for a journal special issue on nanosensors, about 20 years after the US National Nanotechnology Initiative was announced. Citing other work, the author reviewed progress with engineered nanoparticles and nanosensors. The author wrote that bringing nanoparticles into clinical use has been far slower than expected. Citing other sources, the author stated that yearly production of engineered nanoparticles grew from less than 60 tons worldwide in 2005 to an estimated 1000-fold today, with many entering the environment and food chain. Asbestos appeared in the abstract and in one paragraph of the main text, as a cautionary comparison supporting the author's call to assess nanoparticle health risks. The author wrote that economic interests are still preventing a worldwide asbestos ban, despite early warnings of health risks going back to the 1920s. In Switzerland, the author noted, SUVA recognized asbestosis as a profession-related disease in 1939, but asbestos use was banned there only in 1995. The author concluded that major investment in studying the health risks of nanoparticles is urgently needed. The article presents no new data on asbestos.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary (opinion article in a journal special issue); no original research
• Exposure: Engineered nanoparticles and nanosensors in general. Asbestos is discussed only as a cautionary example of economic interests delaying a ban, including the continuing lack of a worldwide ban. The author uses it to argue that assessing nanoparticle health risks is urgent.
• Main results:
  • The author states, citing other sources, that annual worldwide production of engineered nanoparticles rose from less than 60 tons in 2005 to an estimated 1000-fold today.
  • The author states, citing other sources, that early warnings of severe health risks from asbestos go back to the 1920s.
  • The author states that in Switzerland SUVA recognized asbestosis as a profession-related disease in 1939, yet asbestos use was banned in Switzerland only in 1995.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that major investments into studying the health risks of nanoparticles and sensors entering the environment or the human body are urgently needed.

Related studies

• Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation — A. Seaton, L. Tran, et al. (2010)
• Predicting EMP hazard: Lessons from studies with inhaled fibrous and non-fibrous nano- and micro-particles — G. Oberdörster, U. Graham (2018)
• In vitro cytotoxicity of oxide nanoparticles: comparison to asbestos, silica, and the effect of particle solubility — T.J. Brunner, P. Wick, et al. (2006)
• Five years update on relationships between malignant pleural mesothelioma and exposure to asbestos and other elongated mineral particles — P. Andujar, A. Lacourt, et al. (2016)
• Necessity and approach to integrated nanomaterial legislation and governance — J. Wang, J.D. Gerlach, et al. (2013)
• Research on the societal impacts of nanotechnology: a preliminary comparison of USA, Europe and Japan — M. Matsuda, G. Hunt (2009)

Browse more research in Journal of Nanobiotechnology, or return to medical research.