Something that it would be good to see this website used for is an exchange between instrument manufacturers and users – both to help people realize what is available (together with the abilities and limitations of devices), and to help manufacturers get a better handle on what researchers etc. are looking for.

Bob Carr from NanoSight has just posted a comment on their product for sizing nanoparticles in liquid suspensions – it would be great if other manufacturers felt free to share information, and users to share experiences.

I would add that Bob was reticent to post anything for fear of it sounding too much like a commercial – and only did so after asking whether I thought it was appropriate. Speaking to several people, it seemed that the information that could be gained from an informal dialogue with instrument manufacturers would most likely far outweigh any fears of inappropriate advertising. That said, it seems that some guidelines might be helpful for such a dialogue. These are my suggestions for guidelines – they are in no way binding, and are open to being modified, but hopefully will underpin useful exchange of information:

  1. Instrument manufacturers should feel free to post information on products and techniques that are relevant to nanomaterial characterization in toxicology studies, as long as the information is accurate, applicable, and useful to readers. Blatant advertising should be avoided.
  2. Manufacturers posting information should be prepared to field questions about their products and how to use them to obtain good data.
  3. Instrument users (and potential users) should be free to question manufacturers on their instruments and their use. However, unfounded and unhelpful criticism of instruments/manufacturers/suppliers is strongly discouraged.

If there’s enough interest in exchanging information here, I’ll look at setting up a separate page on this website for the dialogue.

Cheers,

Andrew

cnt-handling-smallThis week’s issue of C&E News has a great article on the MINChar initiative by Britt Erickson.

You can access the article here

(Note: the article is from Volume 86, Number 50, pp. 25-26 (Dec 15 2008).  C&E News is a publication of the American Chemical Society.  This link is provided with the permission of ACS, and does not infer any rights to the article.  For example, the article may not be linked to or otherwise distributed without express permission from ACS)

Just as a taster, two quotes from the article:

Clayton Teague, director of the National nanotechnology Coordination Office:

“There is a great need for improved characterization of the nanomaterials used in toxicity studies. Everyone recognizes that the materials used in many of the earlier studies were not adequately characterized, and some of the conclusions should not have been drawn,” says E. Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which coordinates federal nanotechnology R&D activities.

Kristen Kulinowski, director of ICON:

Kristen M. Kulinowski, director of the International Council on Nanotechnology at Rice University, agrees. “All of these allied efforts, each doing something a little bit different, will someday advance the quality of nanotechnology-risk-relevant research and help decision-making at the policy level,” she says.

At the October 28-29 workshop, a number of criteria and recommendations formed the basis of discussions on a minimum set of characterization parameters for nanotoxicology studies.

This presentation (PDF, 284 KB) put together by Nigel Walker (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), Richard Pleus (Intertox Inc) and Richard Canady (FDA) provided a starting point for discussions.

081024-characterizationparameters_working_slide13

Comparison of possible parameters from ISO, OECD, NIST, Warheit and Ray. Excepted from the presentation.

Attendees at the Oct 28-29 workshop, held in Washington DC, included:

Andrew Atkinson, Environment Canada
Barbara Beck, Gradient Corporation
Darrell Boverhof,Dow
Rick Canady, FDA
Shaun Clancy, ISO
Vicki Colvin, Rice University
Ray David, BASF
Britt Erickson, ACS
Gregory Fritz, EPA
Bill Gulledge, ACC
Mark Hoover, NIOSH
Fred Klaessig, Pennsylvania Bio Nano Systems, LLC
Steve Klaine, Clemson University
Kristen Kulinowski, Rice University
Daniel Chuantung Lin, EPA
Igor Linkov, US Army
Laurie Locascio, NIST
Chris Long, Gradient Corporation
Martha Marrapese, Keller and Heckman
Andrew Maynard, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
Jeff Morris, EPA/ORD
Vladimir Murashov, NIOSH
Anil Patri, NIH
Rick Pleus, ISO
Mike Postek, NIST
Ashutosh Riswadkar, Zurich North America
Aaron Roberts, University of North Texas
Steve Roberts, University of Florida
Nora Savage, EPA
Ralph Sturgeon, National Research Center
Canada Geoff Sunahara, National Research Center Canada
Clayton Teague, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
Sally Tinkle, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Nigel Walker, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
Angela R. Hight Walker, NIST
Karen Weinch, BASF
Mark Weisner, Duke University
Jim Willis, EPA