(NHI Nanoblog) As we wait on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to decide what to do about nanosilver — a popular new anti-stink ingredient in your gym socks — American and European researchers have outlined several suggestions for making nanotechnology-based pesticides safer.
In a paper published in a recent issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, scientists at Oregon State University and the Centre for BioNano Interactions say that more information from manufacturers about what’s in their products is a big part of regulating nanopesticides.
Nanotechnology, which uses super-small particles with hugely useful properties, is already in items like bike frames, skin creams and cancer treatments. Some nano-sized metal particles, especially nanosilver, are prized for their anti-bacterial properties, and are turning up in workout gear. Studies show that nanosilver turns up in the water we use to wash our smelly gym clothes — and sewage sludge.
The EPA wants to regulate anti-bacterial nanosilver as a pesticide. And, according to the paper, other nano-based pesticides are in development, such as a product that coats biodegradable plant-based fibers with a pesticide. The fibers are then buried in the soil.
But, the paper points out, some nanoparticles can be inhaled, while others can be absorbed through the skin. That means knowing whether these materials are in a pesticide is important when setting up guidelines for handling and usage of the product.
The authors lay out six recommendations:
• Manufacturers should disclose any nanoparticles — and their behavior — in a compound, so that regulators can assess the risks associated with them. This includes materials that might be used in processing or delivering the pesticide, not just the main ingredients.
• Operate using an “uncertainty factor” about nanoparticles, until more is known about what they do, both in the short and long term. That means manufacturers should be testing these ingredients and sharing that information, although this might make the registration process with the EPA longer.
• Use a “route-specific” approach to determining health hazards. For example, inhaling nanoparticles might be more dangerous to people than taking them in through the skin. It’s important, the researchers write, to understand those differences and address them.
• Regulators should require that pesticides containing nanomaterials be tested in their final form, not just as components. That way, they’ll have a better handle on what the entire product does, and how it interacts with people and the environment.
• Manufacturers should have to start a “health surveillance” program when they introduce new pesticides, so that they can track any health issues surrounding making the stuff and applying it, as well as what happens to air, water and soil.
* Since the possibility of a public outcry over nano-based pesticides is “high,” regulators and manufacturers should invest in education programs to inform the public about what’s in these compounds, and how to use them safely.