As of now, several hundred commercially available products contain engineered nanomaterials, and there are many more to come. By manipulating molecules down to a size that’s smaller than a human cell, nanotech is viewed as a key technology for the development of lighter, stronger and more bacteria-resistant materials.

More than $32 billion in products containing nanomaterials were sold globally last year. Lux Research projects that number to grow to $2.6 trillion by 2014.

As of now, several hundred commercially available products contain engineered nanomaterials — including sunscreens, light-diffracting cosmetics, penetration-enhanced moisturizers, the iPod Nano, tennis racquets, socks that keep you cool or warm, stain- and odor-repellent fabrics, dirt-repellent coatings, long-lasting paints, industrial catalysts, a washing machine that sanitizes clothes with billions of tiny ions, and even canola oil intended to block cholesterol and some food products.

Nanotechnology research under way at universities is looking at pathogen detection in food. The packaging itself could warn the consumer that the contents inside are potentially deadly — such as a bag of spinach with E. coli. Hamburger could be encased in nanofilm that would alert to problems. Nanotechnology could produce vaccines that bring stability to the developing world. Nano-based medicines could help tag errant genes, allowing for more precise chemotherapies.

There is much more to come. By manipulating molecules down to a size that’s smaller than a human cell, nanotech is viewed as a key technology for the development of lighter, stronger and more bacteria-resistant materials that could result in energy, fuel and materials savings, and development of considered-spectacular materials with complete control over structure and properties at a subatomic level not hitherto known to scientists and engineers.

Yet with this “promise” come unease and the spreading of safety warnings.

In April, a German company pulled a tile sealant called Magic Nano from the shelves after dozens of consumers suffered breathing problems while using it, Popular Science recently recalled. Despite later tests showing that, despite the name, the product contained no nanoparticles, the incident heightened public awareness that nano-related products might carry unforeseen risks.

In June, an EPA study found that titanium nanoparticles commonly used in sunscreens cause neurological changes in mice. Since then, at least eight organizations have called for safety assessments of 116 personal care products on the U.S. market, many of which required no FDA approval before entering the market.

Lack of regulation and risk assessment very well could hamper continued strong growth in the nanotechnology sector. Indeed, a huge debate is raging right now. The U.S. and Europe have not yet even agreed to a fundamental regulation approach: Europe tends to regulate from the process side; in the U.S., regulations apply to the product side of the industry.

There are moves to address the situation. The EPA and the U.K. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are exploring options whereby companies would voluntarily report risk findings. The FDA recently assembled a task force to determine regulatory approaches to safeguard products using nanotechnology, the journal Nature recently reported.

Due to the current lack of regulations anywhere in the world to govern nanotech-related products, many companies are acting on their own initiative. Chemical firm DuPont, for one, has joined forces with the New York-based nonprofit group Environmental Defense to develop a framework for companies to assess nanotech risk.

It is the nanotech industry itself that seems to be self-regulating more than most emerging technologies. These companies don’t want another genetically modified organism fiasco. “The nanotech industry wants to build a world market for their products, and are therefore being much more careful than an emerging industry normally would be because they have such a recent and vivid example of the very problems they want to avoid,” Christine Peterson, founder and VP of Public Policy for the Foresight Institute, recently told Popular Science.

As nanoproducts develop beyond films and coating to more novel nanostructures, analysts suggest that more risk research is in the industry’s best interest. The EPA approved its first nanoproduct, the manufacture of a specific carbon nanotube, last autumn under a clause of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Carbon nanotubes have revolutionized materials science, with their combination of exceptional mechanical strength and unique electrical properties, according to the journal Nature. Yet many problems must be tackled before nanotubes can be incorporated into composite materials successfully. The three biggest issues are the fact that nanotubes tend to clump together during processing, the difficulty of controlling their diameter and the way the carbon sheet is rolled, and the high cost of production.

China and the U.K. have produced nanocarbon fibers that offer the potential of using the woven reinforcement as body armor. In the future, a soldier’s uniform could incorporate soft-woven, ultra-strong fabric with capabilities to become rigid when a soldier breaks his legs and would protect him against pollution, poisoning and enemy hazards.

Australia-based company Nanovations offers a new nanotech product: a silver nanoparticle-based paint that can kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The product is intended for hospitals and other facilities that have serious problems with infections caused by such bacteria.

Nanotech is even affecting the way engineers use simulations and animations. Having acquired Nano-Hive, a developer of a powerful open-source tool that speeds up nanoscale simulation, molecular simulation software maker Nanorex and its new acquisition are set to produce open-source nanotechnology CAD with distributed computing, shortening the time it takes waiting for a nanoscale simulation program to perform all the necessary calculations.

The technology is touted as offering revolutionary improvements and efficiencies in materials, industry and consumerism.

But how much do we the public really know about it? In fact, how much does the American care?

According to findings released this month from the first major national poll on nanotechnology in more than two years, the percentage of Americans who know at least something about (i.e., are aware of) the emerging science has doubled in the past two years. The Project of Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which commissioned the poll of 1,014 American adults, also noted that more people believe that nanotechnology has more risks than benefits.

Even more, the poll found that the public trusts the federal government and independent parties (e.g., universities) more than companies when it comes overseeing nanotechnology research and development.

References

Small Stuff — Big Trouble
by Josh Condon
Popular Science, July 2006

Nanotech’s Big Issue
Nature, Sept. 14, 2006

Materials Science: Carbon sheet solutions
by Nicholas A. Kotov
Nature, July 20, 2006

Nanotech Nightmare?
by Connie Cone Sexton
The Arizona Republic, Sept. 19, 2006

Public Awareness of Nanotechnology Grows, but Majority Unaware
press release
The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Sept. 18, 2006