Nanoparticle safety in doubt - Lung damage in Chinese factory workers sparks health fears.

Claims that seven Chinese factory workers developed severe lung damage from inhaling nanoparticles are stoking the debate over the environmental-health effects of nanotechnology.

A paper published in the European Respiratory Journal claims to be the first to document cases of ill health caused by nanoparticles in humans (Y. Song, X. Li and X.Â Du Eur. Respir. J. 34, 559 - 567; 2009). Other experts are sceptical as to whether nanoparticles are actually to blame, but the paper has triggered lively discussions.

"The study raises the bar for doing appropriate research as fast as possible to find out where the dangers might lie when working with nanomaterials," says Andrew Maynard, a nanotechnology expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC.

The study describes seven women, aged 18 - 47 years, who worked in an unidentified printing factory in China; two of them later died. They all had pleural granulomas — ball-like collections of immune cells in the lining of the lung that form when the immune system is unable to remove a foreign body. They also had excessive, discoloured fluid in the lung lining. Particles around 30Â nanometres in diameter were found in lung fluid and tissue.

The study says that the symptoms were caused by inhaling fumes produced when the workers heated polystyrene boards to 75 - 100°C. The boards had previously been sprayed with a 'paste material' made from a plastic identified as a polyacrylate ester.

The workroom, of around 70 square metres, had one door and no windows. The ventilation unit had broken down five months before symptoms started to manifest, and the door had been kept closed to keep the room warm. The workers wore cotton gauze masks only on an "occasional basis".

Electron microscopy found nanoparticles around 30 nanometres in diameter in the paste and in dust particles that had collected at the inlet of the broken ventilation unit. Lead author Yuguo Song, a clinical toxicologist at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, says "it is obvious the disease is not due to microparticles or vapours, because the pulmonary epithelial cells are full of nanoparticles".

Maynard says the symptoms seen in the patients are "similar" to those seen in animals exposed to nanoparticles. He adds that damage to the areas surrounding the lungs suggests that larger particles are not to blame, as these tend to be constrained within the lungs. But because the study does not identify what nanoparticles were involved or their concentration, he says, "we can't say what the link is or if there are other exacerbating circumstances".

Ken Donaldson, a respiratory toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh, UK, doubts that nanoparticles are to blame. He says the symptoms are more typical of chemical exposure. "I don't doubt that nanoparticles were present, but that does not mean they were the main arbiters," he says.

Donaldson says that the plastic material the patients worked with is the more likely culprit — as it would have been highly toxic at the levels they were probably exposed to given the size of the room they worked in and its lack of ventilation.

Anthony Seaton, an emeritus professor in environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Aberdeen, UK, agrees that the study does not pin down nanoparticles as the cause of the ill health. Rather than an insight into the toxicology of nanoparticles, he says, the study is an example of a "total failure in health and safety procedures".

"The study says that the symptoms were caused by inhaling fumes produced when the workers heated polystyrene boards to 75–100 °C."

100°C is the boiling point of water. Rule out horrendous working conditions first. I wouldn't be surprised if this company was owned by a ranking member of the Communist Party. IMHO, this sort of abuse will cause the Chicoms to lose the "mandate of heaven."

One of Greenpeace’s and Prince Charles’ big issues. Prince Charles has written a paper and editorial against nano-particles and Greenpeace and Friends of Earth have raised $500,000 for advertising against nanotechnology, so take with a grain of salt articles about this. Greenpeace and Friends of Earth are looking for additional things, other than Global Warming and GM technology (as these are getting old and not raising a lot of new funds) and nanotechnology is their new cause.

Buncha Hooey! We all have been inhaling nanoparticles all our lives. Diesel exhaust classic example. Soot from fires. Other nanoparticles from all sorts of sources.

Trouble is - you need a feild emission scanning electron microscope to image these and those bad boy$ are just now starting to reach the a critical price level where they become more prevalent.

The sky is falling!!

Wow! this study is unbelievable! And it is scaring that such a complete CRAP is featured in Nature. First, the work conditions are non-human: these people were working with EXTREMELY toxic materials (look at MSDS for each of these-scarring) without ANY means of protection “occasionally wearing gauze mask” - are you kidding me??? No ventilation, no proper chemical hoods. NOTHING! Like in a third world country.. so featuring it under the title of “Nanoparticles safety is in doubt”??? Come on... Maybe we should also say “In Africa you have higher chance to get malaria”- and feature it in Nature? Of cause you will, it’s a COMMON SENSE-there are a bunch of mosquitoes nobody is getting rid of! If you don’t protect yourself you’ll have even higher chances to this too I would say. OMG!!! :)
These guys even did not protect themselves at all, even did not put gloves on- they had extreme rashes all over the body and the problems they had could be also from their extreme allergic reactions to these toxic initial materials.
The nanoparticles were a byproduct of the production line with very toxic staff, the byproduct which is not biodegradable. I guess you can say in this case “size doesn’t matter”. Asbestosis is an example of an exposure to non-degradable microparitocles. But “nano” sounds more “cool”- right? So let’s blame it...
Other observation: they did not have a single control with unexposed patient. Moreover, the information they show in figures (very poor images, btw) does not correspond with what is written in the text.
To summarize: this is a crappy paper and somebody is trying to make a big story out of it!
These poor people were working in un-human environment and nanotechnology has nothing to do with the fact they got sick, if these were microparticles of any toxic material the same thing would happen.
I’m working in nanotechnology for more than 10 years and know hundreds of people in the field. NEVER heard about anyone who had health issues with that..
So the paper should be originally entitled “Working in unrecognized unsafe place with toxic materials: think twice before you do that”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.