backtop


Print 26 comment(s) - last by foolsgambit11.. on Oct 3 at 12:46 PM

Are all those nanoparticle cosmetics really safe?

If there is one category of objects classed as the bleeding edge of modern science, it is nanoparticles. From the ever-popular carbon nanotube to the innocuous quantum dot, there doesn't seem to be anything that science can't find a useful nanoparticle for.

Many question the use of these microscopic heroes, however, as they are as of yet poorly understood in terms of what they may or may not do to human physiology after long term exposure. It is well-known that some nanoparticles can collect in various organs in the body and at least one study has shown that needle-like carbon nanotubes have a very similar effect to the much-feared asbestos particle when accumulated in the lungs.

A paper published by University of Rochester Medical Center researchers now confirms that at least one kind of nanoparticle can penetrate a human's most resistant line of defense against foreign particles: the skin. The group's study, which can be found in the September issue of Nano Letters, shows that quantum dots were able to pass through the skin of laboratory mice.

While quantum dots are some of the smallest manufacturable nanoparticles, the research raises concerns about the use of nanoparticles in consumer products like cosmetics and sunscreens. The research shows that not only can these dots pass through skin, but when skin has been exposed to ultraviolet light, like that from the Sun, it becomes much easier for them to do so. As many cosmetic products, especially sunscreen, are now harnessing the unique properties of nanoparticles, many are curious as to what effects may come of such seepage.

Though titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, two nanoparticles commonly used in cosmetics and sunscreens, are much large than quantum dots, Lisa DeLouise, Ph.D., the leader of the Rochester study, intends to continue studying how they may or may not be able to utilize the same vectors to enter the body. Funding from various centers and foundations has allowed DeLouise to expand her study for an additional three years.

Nanoparticle research will be important in the coming years as too little is understood about their affects on the body. As it stands, nanoparticles will be an important part of science in the next decade and it would be sincerely foolish to not understand all of the benefits and consequences their use may bring, intended or otherwise.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Duh
By kjboughton on 10/2/2008 8:50:08 AM , Rating: 4
Duh...anyone who's played Crysis knows this. ;)

But seriously, this is retarded. We all know skin is permeable to all types of chemical substances. Tell us something we don't already know.




RE: Duh
By on 10/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Duh
By TheBaker on 10/2/2008 12:36:39 PM , Rating: 4
I think I speak for everyone here when I say:

...

........

......................What?


RE: Duh
By bldckstark on 10/2/2008 12:52:43 PM , Rating: 4
The post above is not from FITCAMARAO. It is from F1TCAMARO. Someone copied his name and used a one in place of the I, in an effort to discredit him.

On a side note - solid tactics, and it will probably work.


RE: Duh
By Staples on 10/2/2008 1:21:02 PM , Rating: 1
Well it works. It could have fooled me. It is the same style of stupid right wing responses he always gives on DT articles.


RE: Duh
By B3an on 10/2/2008 6:53:08 PM , Rating: 1
Dont know why you got rated down for pointing out a fact. He does often post stupid comments like that.


RE: Duh
By BruceLeet on 10/2/2008 7:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it will probably. It almost slipped by me

I often see FITCamaro associated with the color RED and I thought "nothing special here" and quickly moved on to the next thread.


RE: Duh
By Fronzbot on 10/2/2008 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 5
I get it! You're making fun of the real FITCamaro with his conservative rants.
I feel proud of myself for figuring it out.

Oh, btw, it's not very funny at all


RE: Duh
By Orbs on 10/2/2008 3:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
The real FITCamaro should reply with "I'm a PC".

Will the real FITCamaro please stand up?


RE: Duh
By stirfry213 on 10/2/2008 12:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
I think I speak for myself when I say...

Take your mindless slanted comments to a forum that might appretiate your stupidity, because we don't.

Thanks


RE: Duh
By Emryse on 10/2/2008 6:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
DT staff should not be allowing someone to form an account with such a similar resemblance to the real guy when clearly the intent is just to discredit and slander.

DT staff - please consider removing this account. Everyone should be able to cite their own opinion, but if someone is malicously using this forum to damage someone else's rep, then that's a problem and shouldn't be tolerated.


RE: Duh
By foolsgambit11 on 10/3/2008 12:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
If FITCamaro's rep really hinges on a single post on DailyTech, he's got bigger problems than somebody parodying his posts. Also, I think the DT staff should leave it up to the reader to look critically at posts, and this example has shown that people notice, and mark posts that are disingenuous. It shouldn't be up to DT staffers to determine who's 'famous' enough on DT to deserve protection.

Incidentally, I don't think that's a proper use of 'cite'. Cite means to reference, or quote from an authoritative source. I think you mean 'state'. Because one's own opinion is certainly not a valid reference or authoritative source.


RE: Duh
By kayronjm on 10/2/2008 8:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
Maximum Speed!!!
Hahahaha well said! :P


RE: Duh
By Queonda on 10/3/2008 2:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We all know skin is permeable to all types of chemical substances. Tell us something we don't already know.


You're missing the whole point of the article...

People that are 100% tech/science nuts forget that they're just as vulnerable to disease as the 100% health nuts. I don't care how little you're concerned about your health, we're doing awful things as a society for the sake of convenience and technology. I'm not saying this, or other, technology is bad... just that we need to be careful about everything we decide to pump into the consumer market.


RE: Duh
By foolsgambit11 on 10/3/2008 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think the OP missed the point of the article. The point of the article was 'Quantum dots can penetrate skin'. There are plenty of things that can penetrate the skin. For instance, DMSO penetrates the skin, and can act as a carrier for a wide range of substances, facilitating their transfer through the barrier. While we technically didn't already know that quantum dots would go through skin, we did know that skin is permeable to many substances, and it's no surprise that something as small as a quantum dot is one of those substances.

While we know that some nanoparticles can be responsible for health risks, we don't have evidence that quantum dots are one of them. Just because we've grouped these things together doesn't mean they have similar effects on the body. For instance, H20 and H2SO4 are superficially similar. But the effects of drinking water and sulfuric acid are vastly different. It would be alarmist to jump to conclusions at this point. Granted, it would also be foolish not to test the health impacts of quantum dots, but we've got time before there are going to be quantum dots in large quantities in our environment.


I'm pretty sure...
By Hieyeck on 10/2/2008 8:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
A 12 year old could've told you that. Most of us call a prime example 'air'.




RE: I'm pretty sure...
By Regs on 10/2/2008 8:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's like news channel four, when they give me those cliff hangers before commercial breaks about some new health hazard . Eating too many carrots could lead to your head falling off, or over exposure to sun light could make my mouth reach to the back of my head and eat my brains out.

How many things can we be afraid of before even that becomes unhealthy?


RE: I'm pretty sure...
By SiN on 10/2/2008 12:37:51 PM , Rating: 4
7


RE: I'm pretty sure...
By snownpaint on 10/2/2008 1:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Its all unhealthy.. You just have to use it all in moderation.

To much nano-particles, your fingers fall off and your blood clots.. Too little and you can't cure cancer, or make cool clothes that change colors.


RE: I'm pretty sure...
By snownpaint on 10/2/2008 2:10:25 PM , Rating: 1
Its all unhealthy.. You just have to use it all in moderation.

To much nano-particles, your fingers fall off and your blood clots.. Too little and you can't cure cancer, or make cool clothes that change colors.


No worries mate
By Alias1431 on 10/2/2008 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 3
The HEV Mark IV will protect you.




RE: No worries mate
By Kilobyte on 10/2/2008 11:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's larger, not just large, BTW. ;)


Misinformation and poor wording
By drando on 10/2/2008 12:33:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is well-known that some nanoparticles can collect in various organs in the body and at least one study has shown that needle-like carbon nanotubes have a very similar effect to the much-feared asbestos particle when accumulated in the lungs.


The article mentioned:
http://www.dailytech.com/Research+Finds+Carbon+Nan...

And from said article:
quote:
In this most recent group of tests, researchers injected CNTs of varying lengths and wall configurations into the abdomens of laboratory mice. Along with the nanotubes, they injected another group with flat sheets of carbon and a third with asbestos fibers. The study produced mixed results for the CNTs. While shorter nanotubes produced little to no effect at all, longer, more needle-like tubes produced results exceptionally like that of the asbestos group's.


and
quote:
Another test, similarly using lab mice, but dealing with inhaled CNTs showed that the particles similarly caused inflammation in the lungs. Between one and two months, however, the mice had fully recovered. As of yet there is still no direct correlation between inhaled, blood-borne or otherwise ingested CNTs and cancer. Tests have not had the allowance of time that similar research with asbestos has.


The first quote from this article makes it sound like CNTs are as bad as asbestos fibers if inhaled when in fact there is not enough research to support that claim.




4 questions..
By MrPoletski on 10/2/2008 8:40:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah?
And?
So?
What?

wear your PPE, problem solved.




By Believer on 10/2/2008 11:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funding from various centers and foundations has allowed DeLouise to expand her study for an additional three years.


Good for her, 3 years of funding when everyone and their grandma already know that whatever conclusions her study will make in the end; it's gonna get bought, gaged and disposed of quickly if it ever-so slightly casts shading on this new multi billion lucrative market.




hmm
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/2/2008 1:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to go ahead and bet that this is where most cancers come from. Anyone wanna buy my imaginary stock for $700 billion on that bet?

No? ok well congress did just that so it has to be legit!

:)




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki