Nano and the Environment: Boon or Bane? anoscience and nanotechnology have undergone rapid growth over the past decade, arguably because of three driving forces: advances in synthesis techniques that have made manufacturing of nanomaterials increasingly facile and accessible, refined and improved imaging/analysis tools that permit quantitative study at the nanoscale, and increased funding from myriad agencies to pursue nano research and innovation. The latter driver can, domestically, be largely attributed to the Clinton Administration’s National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), enacted in 2000, but that program was arguably a public recognition of scientific and technological advances over the previous two decades. The March 1, 2005, special issue of ES&T was entitled “Nanoscale Environmental Science and Technology: Challenges and Opportunities”. In that issue’s Feature, Mihail Roco spoke to the environmentally responsible focus of the NNI (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 [5], 106A-112A). Contributors to ES&T clearly continue to answer that call, as our papers explore the opportunities of nano while assessing the potential risks of its material and technological deployment. Analyses considering the utility and impact of new technologies bring the debate about implementing nano to our pages. To wit, a quick search of topics in ES&T finds that “nano*” appeared in >11% of the papers in 2008. This count almost doubles the average from 2005 to 2007 and is very nearly an order-of-magnitude increase since 2000. Echoing the sentiment expressed in an environmental context by Roco in 2005, the American Chemical Society has embraced the nano buzz and themed its 237th National Meetingsto be held in Salt Lake City, Utah, March 22-26, 2009s“Nanoscience: Challenges for the Future”. We are taking this opportunity to aggregate some of the papers on nano that have been accepted by the journal recently and consider topical issues in our front matter. Our intent is to both reflect on the advances and concerns raised in the past 4 years and reinforce our continued welcoming of nano-themed papers. Broadly speaking, the nano papers in ES&T fall into one of four categories: nanomaterials for environmental “good”, including remediation/degradation of pollutants, energy production/storage, and sensor platforms; nanoscale study of natural and environmentally relevant processes and mechanisms; the economic/societal impact of nano, including regulation and risk assessment; and nanotoxicology. This is true of the 15 research articles with titular references to “nano*” hereinsselected essentially at random as manuscripts were accepted between December 1, 2008, and January 9, 2009. Topics covered include photochemical remediation of pollutants, aggregation of nanoparticles and adsorption to mineral
N
10.1021/es9002313
2009 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 02/26/2009
surfaces, life-cycle analysis of nanomaterials, and nanomaterials’ (possible) inherent toxicity to organisms including possible exploitation as biocides. This group is representative of the papers that have appeared over the past many months and are certainly expected to continue to appear in ES&T. Such a breadth indicates that environmental scientists and engineers are progressing toward an agreed application of nanotechnologiessthough arguably a steady pace has not been established in this young (multi)discipline. In our front section, Rhitu Chatterjee explores what approaches the insurance industry is taking to assess nanomaterials in commercial products. Naomi Lubick profiles how nanotechnologies may benefit environmental cleanliness by judiciously using dendrimers and myriad reagents to green up synthetic chemistry. Dendrimers are a good example of the very uncertainty that the insurance industry feels when considering nanoproducts: multiple reaction sites mean that remediation of pollutants may be possible with minimal use of reagent but equally may spell toxicity at a dosage level not yet considered in commercial items. Clearly, nano researchers need to further study nanomaterials’ chemistry before recommending helpful implementation. This sentiment is evident in the Viewpoint by Fabio Belloni and coauthors, in which they consider the use of carbon nanotubes for cleansing and/ or sequestering waste streams from nuclear power plants. Be it under the banner of nano or not, confronting the molecular scale is proving revolutionary for environmental sciences and technologies. The “materials of the future” called for in years past to harness H2 or the sun for energy may be afforded by nanomaterials. Understanding nanoscale mechanisms could help us better regulate the release of toxicants and manage their cleanup upon unfortunate spills or tackle persistent plumes. Granted, nano appears to be a double-edged sword, but interrogating why some of its materials appear to be insidiously toxic may allow us to better understand toxicology in general and thus improve all aspects of engineered living. As environmental scientists, engineers, and policy makers continue to confront nano and its related technologies, ES&T welcomes the submission of nano-themed reports, assessments, and musings to ensure a more sustainable future.
Darcy J. Gentleman Managing Editor
[email protected] March 1, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 1239
