It may be that WolframAlpha isn’t sure what to do with my input but new research published this week could help. I asked WA a simple question, “What is the worldwide production of nanomaterials.” Of course, I knew there was no good answer to the question but wanted to see if WA was accessing private sources of data or would attempt an answer based on unverified estimates that get bandied about periodically. WA demurred.
Quantifying production of nanoparticles is a tricky business, due in part to definitional issues and closely held industrial data. But understanding production volumes is a critical element in quantifying potential exposures to people or the environment. While nanoparticle hazard studies now abound, exposure studies lag far behind. Since risk must take into account both hazard and exposure, the lack of good exposure data hinders efforts to develop robust risk assessment protocols.
A new study from Duke University’s Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT, pronounced “saint”) approaches the problem of quantifying the production of nano-titania using a combination of science and engineering knowledge and economic modeling. Starting with the worldwide production of non-nanoscale titania, which is more easily quantified, graduate student Christine Robichaud, professor and CEINT director Mark Wiesner and colleagues applied a “rate of innovation” from the biotechnology industry to estimate how much of the 2.5 million metric tons of titania produced in the US is and will be at the nanoscale.
Here’s an estimated maximum nano-titania production as a fraction of total US titania production by year under the “most aggressive” scenario:
As is standard operating procedure for modeling papers that rely upon estimates and assumptions, caveats and qualifiers are sprinkled throughout the publication and I encourage you to read it for yourself. The paper’s abstract can be accessed here. The journal lists the paper as “Sponsored Access” which I’m hoping means you do not have to pay to read it.
P.S. What’s with these religious nano-acronyms, anyway? First ICON, now CEINT.
