Research Paper on Nanotech in Asia Pacific: Promises and Possibilities

Introduction

All over the world, the construct of nanotechnology is marketed as a technological awakening with the potential to provide solutions for a multitude of problems. According to Schulte, Geraci, Murashov, Kuempel, Zumwalde, Castranova, Hoover, Hodson & Martinez, (2014), the prevailing hype and extensive commercialization of nanotechnology is based on the promise to provide new avenues for tackling various chronic challenges within the Asia-Pacific region. The intense input into this technology within this region is attributed to the fact that the Asia-Pacific Region is vast geographically, covering 22% of the global land area, and is the home to approximately 60% of the world population (Geraci et al. 2014). This huge population in such a limited area calls for greater innovativeness in dealing with emergent social concerns. Kumar, Kumar, Anandan, Fernandes, Ayoko & Biskos (2014), lists the most prominent of these concerns as:

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

• Miniaturization and development of efficient information and communication technology (Sobolev & Gutierrez 2005).
• Healthcare advancement by utilizing them in diagnostics, cancer treatment and manufacture of biosensors, as well as treating infectious diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis (Roco 2003).
• Purification and production of water for drinking through nanofiltration.
• Food production and conservation, to tackle hunger issues.
• Diversification of energy sources.

Evidently, these extensive uses hold a great promise for the sprawling population of the Asian-Pacific. Nonetheless, the penetration of this technology to the public is largely limited, mostly due to lack of adequate sensitization.

Statement of Problem

The toxicity of nanoparticles affects both humans and other biological forms in the environment. Yokel & MacPhail (2011), states that the high levels of nanoparticles in higher forms of life is attributable to increased collection of nanoparticles within ecosystems, which are in turn transferred through food chains. Moreover, the workers are exposed to ambient indoor and outdoor environments away from work, which contain nanoscale particles in the air that are produced from exhaust and non-exhaust sources (Ramachandran, Ostraat, Evans, Methner, O'Shaughnessy, D'Arcy, Geraci, Stevenson, Maynard & Rickabaugh 2011). Notably, it is challenging to assess the fraction of nanoscale particulate matter that is found in the ambient environment, hence the difficulty with assessing the occupational risks and hazards comprehensively.

Currently, there is intensive investigation into nanotechnology, accompanied by overt commercialization of the nanoproducts, which contain engineered nanomaterials. According to Ramachandran et al. (2011), the Asia-Pacific Region (i.e. Japan, Korea, Australia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, and India) has registered the most significant strides in this sector. In these nations, nanotechnology has been elevated to a strategic sector of scientific and technological advancement, with strategic objectives, and intensive investment through the construction of research facilities to encourage advancement in this industry (Ramachandran et al. 2011). Despite this widespread uptake of the technology among countries, there is great variation in the level of commitment from one country to another. Notably, China, Japan and Korea possess the most advanced nanotechnology facilities, and have persistently registered the largest investments into this particular venture (Shatkin 2017). However, there is a consistent insufficiency of dedication to studying the possible risks and social impacts of nanotechnology (Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2010). Consequently, there is minimum availability of general sensitization and capacity to handle these issues, both in the public and in government.

Notably, engineered nanomaterials can be released directly into the atmosphere, water bodies or the soil media during their production, use or disposal (Wilson, Tran, Milev, Kannangara, Volk & Lu 2008). Moreover, nanoparticles are occasionally released into the air from day-to-day occurrences such as the burning of fossil fuels in motor vehicles and factories (Kuempel, Geraci & Schulte 2012). Despite the existence of literary evidence elucidating the potential health and environmental hazards of engineered nanomaterials, there are numerous knowledge gaps, which contribute to the little investment and efforts to research these risks further. Consequently, workers become the initial people who are predisposed to the potential dangers of any new developments in nanotechnology because of their extensive involvement in research, development, production, consumption, recycling and disposal of nanomaterials (Wilson, et al. 2008). This large capacity of exposure is worsened by the fact that it occurs early in the process, when hazards and risks are undetermined. Additionally, nanoproducts are marketed while still unregulated and unlabeled, thus propagating the problem of lack of information for the public at large (Hullmann 2007). As such, these knowledge gaps hinder public acceptance of this burgeoning technology, and limit the capacity for the assessment, formulation, and implementation of occupational safety and health measures in the industries dealing with nanomaterials.

Engineered nanomaterials enter the human body via the oral, ocular, inhalational and dermal routes of exposure (Foladori, Invernizzi & Bejarano 2012). According to Dusinska, Magdolenova & Fjellsbo (2013), the toxicity of the materials is dependent on a host of factors:

• Chemical makeup and crystalline structure.
• Reactivity, which is directly proportional to the surface area of the material.
• Size, which is inversely proportional to toxicity.
• Aspect ratio (the toxicity of fibers>particles).
• Shape, by dictating the degree of cellular interaction.

Surface coating of the material, because of its capacity to alter the physicochemical features of nanomaterials, which in turn influences toxicity (Balan, Moraru & Balan 2017).

Once inside the body, the minute size of these nanoparticles contributes to their capacity to translocate across cells and induce toxic effects on different organ systems. According to Bhushan (2017), prolonged exposure to nanomaterials accentuates intake, which culminates in increased concentration especially reticuloendothelial system and brain. This accumulation causes disruptions of the structural integrity in these organs, thus evoking physiological dysfunctionality. Moreover, these nanoparticles can cross the placenta into the fetal circulation, whereby they impair the development of the brain and the genital organs (Musee, Foladori & Azoulay 2012). Liu (2015), states that titanium oxide and silver particles interact with genetic material, to induce sporadic germinal mutations, which are inherited across generations. The resultant somatic mutations can be attributed to the common neoplastic conditions among workers, especially the mesotheliomas.

Plan of Action: Assessment of Exposure and Toxicity

To evaluate human exposure to nanomaterials comprehensively, there is the need to incorporate all the stages of the life cycle of nanomaterials, together with the toxicity-determining paradigms such as size, shape, surface coating, and chemical composition (Mazzola 2003). Traditionally, the assessment and monitoring was primarily centered on inhalation of airborne nanoscale particles, given their capacity to be disseminated by wind currents over long distances from the point of release (Arnall & Parr 2005). Therefore, there is the need to adopt a multi-pronged approach to assessment: optical and electrical mobility sensing techniques, to increase the chance of apportioning for the anthropogenic and natural nanosize particulate matter. An additional approach encompasses measuring the surface area instead of the concentration of particles, especially with regards to pulmonary exposure.

Conclusion

The high potential of nanotechnology in the context of Asia-Pacific's social issues has sparked intensive commercialization and subsequent ubiquity of nanosize matter in the environment of this region. As such, it is difficult to attain a comprehensive assessment of the occupational and health risks and hazards of nanotechnology, given the multiple paradigms of exposure. However, adopting a strategy encompassing all the stages of the life cycle of nanomaterials, together with the toxicity-determining aspects such as size, shape, surface coating, and chemical composition.

References

Arnall, A. and Parr, D., 2005. Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution. Technology in Society, 27(1), pp.23-38.

Balan, G., Moraru, R.I. and Balan, L., 2017. Occupational Safety and Health Risk Assessment in Engineered Nanoparticles Manufacturing Processes. In Materials Science Forum (Vol. 887, pp. 65-73). Trans Tech Publications.

Bhushan, B. ed., 2017. Springer handbook of nanotechnology. Springer.

Dusinska, M., Magdolenova, Z. and Fjellsbo, L.M., 2013. Toxicological aspects for nanomaterial in humans. In Nanotechnology for Nucleic Acid Delivery (pp. 1-12). Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.

Foladori, G., Invernizzi, N., & Bejarano, F. (2012). Social and Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. ReLANS / IPEN / CNS-UCSB.

Hullmann, A., 2007. Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), pp.739-758.

Kuempel, E.D., Geraci, C.L. and Schulte, P.A., 2012. Risk assessment and risk management of nanomaterials in the workplace: translating research to practice. Annals of occupational hygiene, 56(5), pp.491-505. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes040Kumar, A., Kumar, P., Anandan, A., Fernandes, T.F., Ayoko, G.A. and Biskos, G., 2014. Engineered nanomaterials: knowledge gaps in fate, exposure, toxicity, and future directions. Journal of Nanomaterials, 2014, p.5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/130198Liu, L., 2015. Overview on nanotechnology R&D and commercialization in the Asia Pacific region. The Nano-Micro Interface: Bridging the Micro and Nano Worlds.

Mazzola, L., 2003. Commercializing nanotechnology. Nature biotechnology, 21(10), p.1137.

Musee, N., Foladori, G., & Azoulay, D. (2012). Social and Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology Development in Africa. IPEN.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2010. Introduction to nanomaterials and occupational safety and health. William Marsh Rice University). SH-21008-10-60-F, 48.

Ramachandran, G., Ostraat, M., Evans, D.E., Methner, M.M., O'Shaughnessy, P., D'Arcy, J., Geraci, C.L., Stevenson, E., Maynard, A. and Rickabaugh, K., 2011. A strategy for assessing workplace exposures to nanomaterials. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 8(11), pp.673-685.

Roco, M.C., 2003. Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine. Current opinion in biotechnology, 14(3), pp.337-346.

Schulte, P.A., Geraci, C.L., Mur...