Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
30.3
conclusions
Although no large-scale spills have been reported and documented to evaluate the real ecological impacts of NMs in the environ-
ment, there is a genuine concern by several groups claiming the implementation of international standard methods and proce-
dures for environmental, health, and safety testing, in order to establish solid arguments to confirm or deny the potential and
highly polemic hazards of NMs in actual or future use. There are several opportunities to develop new methods for experimen-
tally testing the potential impact of NMs on the environment, in particular, simple, cheap, and fast methods that may correlate
specific physical properties with biological activity. due to the lack of definitive information for most of the actual (and future)
available NMs, nanoecotoxicology seems to be a field of opportunities of research for scientists in materials and environmental
sciences. gross tests of cytotoxicity are still required to screen many effects, but there is a growing need to supplement them with
more subtle tests of metabolic pathway regulation and signaling and biological models, as the responses will vary with different
compounds. It is important to interpret in vitro results in terms of in vivo responses on the same or similar cells. However, the in
vitro system regularly lacks many factors that the in vivo system posesses, such as blood stream, blood pressure, O 2 /CO 2 pressure
and concentration, hormonal changes, and osmolality, among several others. The nature of the response has to be considered
carefully. A toxic response in vitro may be the result of changes in cell survival metabolism, whereas the major problem in vivo
may be a tissue response (e.g., inflammatory reaction, fibrosis, organ failure) or a systemic response (e.g., pyrexia, vascular dila-
tation). For in vitro testing to become effective, models of these responses must be developed and simulated in vitro .
Several environmental groups, nongovernmental organizations, and academic organizations have been involved in public
discussions about the fears surrounding the production, commercial use, and disposal of NMs, but we have no conclusive
information to definitively answer the central questions regarding the environmental impacts of ENMs.
In order to avoid a public rejection and misinformation of the topic, it is important to have a continuous and responsible
exchange of information between the society and scientists, discussing real scientific facts and not only fears instilled by sci-fi
topics, partial interpretation of facts, or pseudo-scientific ideas. In a way, it seems like the most real—and immediate—danger
for humanity, involving nanotechnology, has resulted from the misinterpretation of its real benefits and hazards. Some civil,
nongovernmental groups such as the ETC an international organization dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advance-
ment of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights, among several others follow very closely the development of new
technologies (including genomics, biotechnology, and nanotechnology), but sometimes share very limited and biased docu-
ments with their followers, exposing polemic points of view regarding problems related to such technologies [79]. A coalition
of this organization and other consumer safety and environmental groups (CTA International Center for Technology Assessment,
Center for Environmental Health, Food, and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy) even filed a lawsuit against the Food and drug Administration (FdA) over the health and environmental risks of nano-
technology and NMs [80]. It is likely that nanotechnology may become a double-edged sword if it falls in wrong hands.
Misconceptions have to be cleared to avoid public misinterpretation of their real utility—or danger [81].
acknowlEdgmEnts
Our thanks to xiomara g. Fernandez, violeta Fernández, Fernando Arteaga, Lizette A. Minjarez, Enrique gonzalez, and Astrid
Espinoza (UdLAP) for helping with the design and the making of graphic art for this manuscript.
rEfErEncEs
[1] Kahru A, duborguier H-C. From ecotoxicology to nanoecotoxicology. Toxicology 2010;269:105-119.
[2] Newman MC, Zhao y. Ecotoxicology nomenclature: LC, Ld, LOC, LOEC, MAC. In: Jorgensen SE, Fath B, editors. Encyclopedia of
Ecology . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2008. p 1187-1193.
[3] Nel A, xia T, Mädler L, Li N. Toxic potential of materials at nanolevel. Science 2006;311:622-627.
[4] Buzea C, Pacheco II, Robbie K. Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: sources and toxicity. Biointerphases 2007;2:MR17-MR71.
[5] ge y, Schimel JP, Holden PA. Evidence for negative effects of TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles on soil bacterial communities. Environ
Sci Technol 2011;45:1659-1664.
[6] Rousk J, Ackermann K, Curling SF, Jones dL. Comparative toxicity of nanoparticulate CuO and ZnO to soil bacterial communities.
PLOS ONE 2012;7:e34197. Available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034197 . Accessed
March 19, 2013.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search