The Benefits and Consequences of Utilising Nanotechnology Within a Society - Research Paper Example

The benefits and consequences of utilising na chnology within a society BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE The benefits and consequences of utilising nanotechnology within a society Introduction Nanotechnology, often referred to as molecular manufacturing, is a domain of engineering that considers design and production of technology, minute electronic circuits and machinery, constructed at the molecular level (Drexler 2013). Nanotechnology seeks to manipulate matter on an atomic or molecular scale, with an emphasis on engineering new controlling attributes at an extremely small scale. Nanotechnology is typically scaled at the nanometre, or one-billionth of a single metre, which equates to 1/80,000 the breadth of a single human hair (Cao and Wang 2011). Theoretically, the ability to construct multiple devices that maintain components of nano-scale would make it feasible to install, literally, billions of different minute-size transistors onto only a single chip that are able to operate at gigahertz frequencies (Drexler). Such chips represent the physical technology of nano-tech that have the capability of producing valuable information machinery. It was in the early 2000s that the functionality and opportunities of nanotechnology came into the forefront of the scientific community consciousness. In the year 2000, American President Bill Clinton enacted the National Nanotechnology Initiative which provided federal funding for nanotechnology research and development. This funding represented a $422 million budget allocated toward this research, illustrating a massive 56 percent funding increase from 1999 (Roukes 2002). This prompted the launch of 30 different nanotechnology research centres in the United States and prompted the development of inter-disciplinary teams to teach and develop nanotechnologies in universities (Roukes). Today, this nano-mania has spread beyond the United States with the European Union committing to a €100 billion investment through the year 2020 (Nanowerk 2012) and Japan investing 750 million USD to facilitate advancement in nanotechnology (The Daily Star 2012). Nanotechnology, theoretically, maintains many different opportunities in multiple domains of knowledge and science. Research is being conducted to utilise nanotechnology in the production of solar cells (for solar energy), to construct what are referred to as nano-pillars designed to contest the rising costs of Silicon commonly utilised in solar energy research. Nano-pillars consist of various nanostructures that are combined together in a lattice formation that is much more efficient in capturing solar light as compared to silicon (Heng 2011). Nanotechnology is also emerging in the medical field for more efficient drug delivery systems, to treat cancer victims, improve the effectiveness of visual imagery systems, and even engineer new tissues to advance the rapidity of human tissue repair (Gaurav, et al. 2013). Scientists are even working on the construction of nano-robots which have multiple theoretical benefits to society, such as facilitating more effective medical treatments and surgeries (Leary, Liu and Apuzzo 2006) or conducting maintenance on machinery at the molecular level. Whilst it appears that the potential opportunities for nanotechnology within a society are boundless, there are questions as to whether nanotechnology is safe, cost-effective and reliable in multiple domains of scientific research and knowledge. There have been some studies, which will be discussed in further detail later in the research, which indicate there might be health consequences and environmental consequences of utilising nanotechnologies. Hence, whilst there is considerable interest in developing nanotechnology, should society fully embrace the development of nanotechnology and feel secure that this research is non-toxic and harmless to human and environmental health? Based on research, it would appear that nanotechnologies should be more heavily regulated as there are substantial, empirically-supported consequences to the environment and human health, despite the many potential advantages that nanotechnology might provide for society. The benefit of nanotechnology in medicine In the medical field, nanotechnology appears to have the most significant advantages for improving human health. Nanotechnology research has recently allowed for production of dendrimers, multi-branched molecules that have been shown to serve as carrier molecules within the human body that sustain more valence than a naturally-occurring dendron. Dendrimers consist of an amalgamation of ethylene diamine, polyamidomine and diaminobutyl which, when combined, improve carrier capacity in the body of various imaging instruments (Barrett, et al. 2009). The highly multi-structured constructs of dendrimers give these synthetic molecules specific pharmokinetic properties that enhance efficiency of x-rays, optical imaging and MRIs (Barrett, et al.). Pharmokinetics is a branch of medicine that addresses how the human body absorbs and distributes drugs and chemicals and assesses the rate of excretion of various metabolites and enzymes in the body (Ruiz-Garcia, Bermejo, Moss and Casabo 2008). Dendrimers, as a nanostructure, can potentially treat cancer and other genetic diseases, such as providing recognition for cells that have become diseased, providing diagnoses related to cell death and even reporting on the consequences or benefits of various drug therapies administered to human patients (Bhattacharyya, et al. 2009). Dendrimers serve as drug carriers through two different processes, covalent and non-covalent interfacings. Non-covalent interaction facilitates more efficient solubility of various drugs in water or improves electro-static properties of charged drugs. Covalent interactions are facilitated through more stable bonding of molecules and controls pH disparities that complicate drug delivery methodologies (Caminade and Turrin 2014). Risks and consequences for medical nanotechnology disposal and handling Whilst the improvement of human health appears possible through nanotechnology research into the development of dendrimers, there are potentially health risks and consequences that have been illustrated in empirical human health research. Research has been conducted which shows that various nano-particles, when inhaled, become embedded in lung alveoli, facilitators of diffused gas exchanges of oxygen to carbon dioxide and pertaining to blood gas concentrations (Hensen, et al. 1975). Nanoparticle inhalation, in larger concentrations, is akin to symptoms of asbestos inhalation, with implications for damaging respiratory health (Vogel 2012). Currently, there is little or no international regulations for proper disposal and handling of nanoparticles related to dendrimers, which maintains implications that inhalation of these molecules could occur within a medical setting. A study conducted by Nunez-Anita, et al. (2014) found higher toxicology levels in humans as a result of exposure to various anti-microbial nanoparticles utilised in prosthetic devices. This study found not only higher skin absorption rates of nanoparticles, but also through inhalation of these particles (Nunez-Anita, et al.). It is the size and scope of nanoparticles, which are constructed at the atomic or molecular level, that appears to makes it even easier for these technologies to be absorbed into the human body in an environment with many porous surfaces (i.e. skin and mucus membranes). The complication is that an individual working directly with nanoparticles and dendrimers does not have the tools to identify these nanotechnologies without assistance of equipment that can assess the atomic and molecular level. Hence, how might an individual in the medical field, concerned with safe disposal and handling of nanoparticles, even be aware that their bodies and/or equipment are teeming with potentially toxic nanoparticles? Furthermore, not only are nanoparticles potentially detrimental to human health, but there are also empirically-supported consequences related to the environment. Because there are no best practices and regulations controlling the disposal of nanoparticles, there is significant likelihood that various nanomaterials utilised in the medicinal field will be released into aquatic environments, such as through industrial sewage systems. One empirical study found higher levels of toxicity when various nanoparticles were introduced into a controlled aquatic environment which suggested detriment to the ecosystem upon such introduction (Blaise, Gagne, Ferard and Eullaffroy 2008). Using phototrophic tests in the study, it was found that introduced nanoparticles in aquatic systems were highly toxic and impacted the algal and bacterial levels pre-existing in these systems (Blaise, et al.). Hence, the photosensitivity of various nanoparticles, when introduced into a marine environment, could have long-term implications for algae development and beneficial bacteria that sustains a healthy ecosystem. Furthermore, it was found that certain nanoparticles, common in medical applications, impacted photosynthesis of plant materials in a controlled ecosystem (Blaise, et al.). Concurrently, after 24 hours of exposure to nanoparticles, there was identified acute lethality for certain microscopic crustaceans in the aquatic ecosystem and cytotoxicity related to the skin cells in rainbow trout (Blaise and Ferard 2005). Simultaneously, this particular study found measurable growth inhibition of algal blooms in an aquatic system after 72 hours from introduction of nanoparticles into the system (Blaise and Ferard). Nanopollution, therefore, is a legitimate phenomenon and risk to the welfare of aquatic plants and animals that are beneficial to a region or society. There are even concerns that various nanoparticles that have the capability of transporting various toxic heavy metals could cause considerable problems with ecosystem contamination. Because nanotechnologies are at the molecular or atomic level, remediation of pollutants would be theoretically much more difficult to coordinate than with traditional heavy metal contaminations that do not require significant microscopic examination. There is current research, however, into the removal of contaminants in groundwater at the nano-scale using iron introduced into various groundwater environments (Mueller, et al. 2012), yet this research is in its infancy stage and has no practical application for real-world ecosystem contamination as a result of the introduction of various nanomaterials into the environment. Since 2008, there has also been research to utilise nanotechnology as a water treatment option. This is now referred to as nano-remediation which has potential applications for soil, water and wastewater removal in various natural environments. However, the capability to detoxify soil and water has yet to be reached effectively and supported through competent experimentation (Theron, Walker and Cloete 2008). Hence, when considering that rather inevitable introduction of medical industry nanoparticles into waste systems and other transfer mechanisms that feed into the natural environment, using nanotechnology as a means to combat other nanotechnologies with detrimental effects on the environment is uncertain. This aforementioned uncertainty and lack of empirical data showing best practices for soil and water remediation as a result of nanoparticle introduction illustrates a need for a better international regulatory system guiding disposal practices in the medical field and other areas of research and development. The main problem is that nano-machinery and other nanoparticles are difficult to identify without capabilities to assess and diagnose contaminations without equipment that can observe such minute particles at the atomic and molecular level. Current remediation practices and ecological surveys use traditional equipment that can examine changes in the soil and aquatic systems microscopically. To fully assess the genuine damage to an environment, complex and expensive equipment facilitated by laboratory and other scientific experts could be detrimental to a community or regional budget. It would also theoretically rely on cooperation with outsourced experts that have access to molecular imaging and other atomic assessment equipment, a system not currently supported in the field of nanotechnology. How a government or society would coordinate such collaborations is uncertain and clearly the financial implications of developing such a collaborative structure would be potentially substantial. Advantages of nanotechnology in product manufacture - nanotubes There is considerable research, today, into the development of nanotubes to facilitate more productive consumer products. Nanotubes are miniature, cylindrical carbon-based structures that have thickness the size of only a single atom. Nanotubes, when produced synthetically, have a structure similar to that of geodesic domes and sustain electrical properties and thermal properties that have considerable desirability in the production of consumer products. These tubes can potentially be utilised as replacements for much larger semiconductors, giving considerable promise in the computer chip-making industry. Nanotubes can also enhance carbon fibre durability, making them excellent resources in the production of baseball-related equipment, golf clubs, and even potentially as automobile parts with a longer life cycle (Gullapalli and Wong 2011). Nanotube structures have superior strength to even that of naturally-occurring diamonds, making them ideal substitutions to many different traditional materials utilised in products that require enhanced durability and functionality. Nanotubes can withstand significant external pressures, when applied, which surpasses many traditional metals and polymers in strength and robustness. Nanotubes are also excellent conductors of thermal energy, sustaining a property referred to as ballistic conduction. This is defined as the ability of a material to avoid electrical resistivity which allows for more efficient transfer and movement of electrical energy without substantial thermal loss. The potential opportunity for materials constructed of durable nanotubes to replace copper in such systems as home heating are enormous if the research is supported with significant research and investment. Whilst the structure of copper (and other thermal conducting materials) allows for and impeded flow of energy, nanotubes allow for a freer path for electron distribution that leads, ultimately, to a more efficient output of thermal energy as compared to initial input levels. Implications of nanotube utilisation in products However, research into human health have illustrated that carbon nanotubes, when introduced into the human body, have measurable health consequences. Because of their miniscule size, nanotubes can cross various membranes in the human body and become introduced internally in the blood stream and other tissues. Studies have found that when nanotubes reach the internal organs, it can produce tissue inflammations and even fibrotic responses. In the body, when foreign materials are introduced, it creates a response in an effort to destroy the invading materials. However, in a situation where a foreign material cannot be effectively eliminated, inflammatory responses continue indefinitely until the foreign invader becomes surrounded in the body’s production of a dense layer of tissues that occurs to avoid the body taking more radical immune system actions (Eberli 2011). Nanotube exposure and capability to enter external membranes (i.e. skin), maintains many implications for industrial workers and scientists that would be exposed to these synthetic raw materials used in many different consumer products. When there is a substantial build-up of carbon nanotubes in the body, is can cause cell destruction (Porter, et al. 2007). Studies have been conducted on rats that were exposed to carbon nanotubes that found development of cystic fibrosis and toxic alterations to the lungs. The problem is that carbon nanotubes can be inhaled in environments where exposure is not controlled which allows the nanotubes to build up, over time, in the lungs’ alveoli and combine with other inhaled metals. When this occurs, it creates needle-like fibres that can rupture lungs, reduce lung capacity and cause pain to the victim, in a capacity similar to asbestos inhalation. Continuous inhalation of these fibres can create symptoms similar to mesothelioma, a type of cancer in the lung lining. Chronic exposures, therefore, are highly detrimental to human health and well-being. With evidence that there are health consequences of multiple varieties in industries where nanotubes are utilised in product manufacture, this would also suggest implications on the environment. With limited regulations guiding best practice for human health and safety of these materials, it is likely that disposal systems and air ducting systems will introduce carbon nanotubes into the external environment. Not only this, similar to the risks of introducing nanoparticles into the environment in the medical field, the production process to create carbon nanotubes and facilitate their introduction into products has significant environmental hazards and consequences. A recent study examined the manufacturing processes utilising carbon nanotubes and found that during the thermal pre-treatment process of gases that produce multi-walled carbon nanotubes led to the production of 45 hazardous gases that included methane and benzene (Plata, et al. 2009). It is common practice today, to utilise a process known as chemical vapour deposition, a system designed to facilitate more effective chemical reactions when producing high-quality solids. This process, CVD, introduces a substrate material to other volatile compounds which react with the substrate materials desirable crystalline deposits, tungsten, titanium nitride and even synthetic diamonds. CVD is facilitated with controlled changes to atmospheric pressure in a reaction chamber, through aerosol introduction, using microwave radiation assistance, or through the introduction of plasma to the substrate and volatile reactive compounds (Gleason, et al. 2010). In factories using this common methodology of chemical vapour deposition, the release of many different toxic substances (volatile organic compounds) contributes to problems with the ozone and contribute to industrially-created smog problems in a society (Gleason, et al.). To gather data to determine the potential environmental effects of chemical vapour deposition in carbon nanotube manufacture, researchers placed 300mL canisters near reactors and pre-treatment chambers in a production environment. This was intended to capture gas samples in the manufacturing environment during the process of synthesising reactions of substrate and other compounds. Upon evaluation of the collected gas samples, it was found that pentane, butadiene, and ethane were present in moderately toxic concentrations (Gleason, et al.). When the researchers compared the levels found in the manufacturing environment with national output of benzene and butadiene, it was estimated that release of these toxic gases from a single factory producing nanotubes could surpass total industrial releases of these gases for all industries in a region the size of Houston, Texas (Gleason, et al.). The findings from the aforementioned study indicate the environmental implications in an environment with limited regulatory structures that guide best practice in manufacturing and disposal of toxic gases released during the manufacture of carbon nanotubes. Though there are many potential benefits of using this nanotechnology in the production of many consumer products, companies utilising the chemical vapour deposition process for manufacture of nanotubes are not utilising proper procedures to lessen such toxic gas output. Gleason, et al. asserted that toxic gas emissions were reduced with moderate temperature and atmospheric changes in the reaction chamber where substrate and other volatile materials combine and react. Hence, from an environmental perspective, this would point toward a need to further research into what constitutes best practice for lessen the environmental impact of carbon nanotube manufacture if smog, human respiratory problems, and ozone-depleting contributions are to be reduced. Research and government investment into advancing the production of carbon nanotubes to improve consumer product durability, thermal transfer and conductivity continues to escalate in contemporary society. However, improving reactor efficiency in the manufacturing process of nanotubes requires more research, along with increasing the purity of deposits formed through various reaction processes. Companies appear to understand that this domain of nanotechnology has significant profit implications and consumer lifestyle enhancement, yet they are not being held to rigid standards of environmental protectionism in the manufacturing processes necessary to produce viable and durable carbon nanotubes. Many nations and corporations resist government-imposed regulations for clean air initiatives and apply pressure to lawmakers to vote against such stringent guidelines for safer production systems and technologies. In fact, in the United States, (the major producer of carbon nanotubes), the Environmental Protection Agency has received numerous applications for corporate exemption from being forced to conduct what is referred to as pre-manufactured notices (PMNs) that illustrate a commitment to ensuring that certain standards are being adhered to as mandated by the Toxic Substances Control Act imposed by the American federal government (Rizzuto 2009). This is a type of loophole in U.S. federal law that allows companies, who produce smaller output of nanotubes, to be given permission for exemption against regulation and other inspection authorities. Furthermore, in this country, the fine for failing to meet standards enacted by the EPA subjects a corporation producing nanotubes to a meagre $37,500 USD fine for non-compliance. For companies that stand to achieve substantial profits as a result of manufacturing nanotubes or products utilising nanotubes as a raw material, such a fine is insignificant and does not represent a legitimate and harmful recompense. When assessing the potential long-term damage to the environment as a result of nanotube manufacture, higher penalties for non-compliance to standards (however insignificant) might improve the introduction of toxic gases into the environment that is common in the chemical vapour deposition process when creating carbon nanotubes. Efforts at assessing risk to the environment The World Health Organization, today, is becoming an instrumental force in applying pressure to multiple industries and R&D actors involved with nanotechnology research, development and manufacture. This organisation’s efforts have been influenced by recent action plans in Sweden to control various environmental and human health risks associated with nanotechnology advancement. In 2008, Sweden introduced to the international community an action plan deemed Synthetic Nanomaterials, which developed a precautionary risk assessment matrix to develop appropriate strategies to mitigate consequences of human-engineered nanomaterials and nanoparticles. This matrix includes recognition of consumers and producers as key stakeholders, as well as the environment. Matrix outputs include a points system that allows manufacturers to allocate points according to various risk criteria in numerical format. Factors considered in the matrix include the intrinsic reactivity and volatility properties of a particular nanomaterial, the degree of potential environmental and human exposure levels of the material (Vogel 2012). The World Health Organization has been instrumental in communicating the benefits and advantages of this risk assessment framework. However, despite the aforementioned actions on behalf of Sweden and the WHO, the matrix does not represent a framework that is mandated by international regulations for the production of nanomaterials. The matrix, whilst intended to be used by industry leaders and scientists as a type of early warning and mitigation system, it is a framework for complete self-supervision without any enforcement to regional or international environmental law. Hence, in an environment where fines and penalties for non-compliance to standards established for nanomaterial manufacture are insignificant and there are few legal consequences for not considering the environmental impact, should society consider the Swiss risk matrix sufficient to ensure that nanotechnologies do not, in the long-term, harm the environment? To answer this hypothetical question, one can consider the impact on the environment and for humans in relation to benzene exposure. The study by Gleason, et al. (2010) found that high concentrations of benzene were present in a manufacturing environment dedicated to nanotube production. A recent study measured low-level exposures to a sample population of 121 production workers exposed to benzene and 100 healthy control participants without benzene exposure. Over a period of five years, blood samples were taken from both participant groups with the researchers analysing blood platelet concentrations and platelet-related antibodies. The study found that significant disparities existed between both groups, with those exposed to low-levels of benzene having significantly less antibodies and platelets (Huang, et al. 2014). What implications do the results of the 2014 study by Huang, et al. have for society when environmental emissions as a result of nanomaterials production become an environmental risk? Blood platelets are instrumental facilitators of ceasing blood loss through blood coagulation necessary for self-healing at the site of a wound (haemostasis). Hence, without regulations controlling benzene exposure for workers, those exposed through nanomaterial production could face wounds that will not stop bleeding, spontaneous bleeding within the skin, nose bleeds and gum bleeding, or even more severe problems including thrombosis. Thrombosis is an obstruction of blood flow within an arterial vessel and, if severe enough, can create gangrene as a result of continued restricted blood flow (Roderick, et al. 2005). With evidence that even low-level exposure can create deficiency and abnormality in blood platelets with benzene-exposed individuals, this has significant implications for human health in an environment where regulations are minimal about toxic gas creation in the nanomaterials production process. Benzene exposure is also a cause of cancer in humans and animals (Huff 2007). Additionally, benzene exposure as a result of industrial activity is known to create negative consequences on the development of human sperm used in reproduction. A recent study collected sperm samples from a sperm bank in India which had been provided by fertile male donors. The study found that even small concentrations of benzene reduced sperm motility and viability after analysing the sperm samples under a microscope just one hour after deliberate benzene exposure (Mandani, Desai and Highland 2013). Hence, benzene exposure as a product of introduction into the environment maintains implications for human reproductive health and capability to procreate effectively. The study found that a sperm’s DNA integrity might also be impacted through benzene exposure (Mandani, et al.), which could have implications for a variety of genetic diseases for foetuses formed from male sperm with DNA abnormalities as a result of benzene. The main problem, as it pertains to human and environmental health as a result of benzene, is that benzene is produced in high concentrations as a result of producing nanomaterials, especially nanotubes utilised in consumer products. Benzene also maintains very low solubility in water, which would make the process of remediation in an ecosystem highly difficult to accomplish. Furthermore, one study found that there was a 27 percent deformity rate in Northwestern Salamanders and a 16 percent deformity rate in frogs in an aquatic system that had been exposed to benzene (Black, et al. 1982). These are substantial deformity rates which could have serious consequences for a regional ecosystem that is reliant on the healthy and productive activities of amphibians and other aquatic animals. In the study by Black, et al. (1982) the level of benzene introduced into the aquatic sample was not significant, indicating that even low levels of benzene can be harmful to amphibian reproductive outcomes. Benzene, however, is not the only by-product of creating nanomaterials, which was asserted by findings in the Gleason, et al. (2010) study which found 45 different toxic gases in the production environment where nanotubes were being constructed. These gases, when released into the atmosphere, are absorbed into aquatic ecosystems and the soil which could have significant negative consequences on animal and plant life necessary for sustaining a harmonious and beneficial ecosystem for other animals and general society. The Gleason, et al. study also found high levels of pentane as a result of carbon nanotube production. Pentane was once widely utilised in foam containers (plastic foams) that were known to create problems with the ozone layer in the 1970s and 1980s. Pentane creates ground-level ozone problems that has a negative impact on crops and other agriculture in a region. Though pentane does not have high solubility in water, which would be fortunate for remediation efforts in the event of introduction within an aquatic system, it is highly flammable and combination with common atmospheric gases creates an opportunity for an explosive reaction. In humans and animals, ingestion of pentane can cause digestive tract problems, breathing problems and even death. Hence, in an environment where various nanomaterials production is not effectively regulated with legal control standards, there appears to be substantial opportunities for causing environmental problems and long-term problems with human health. Whilst pentane is being controlled with regulations imposed by the UK National Air Quality Strategy legislation and the European Solvents Directive, companies that contribute to smaller-scale releases of pentane as a result of nanomaterial manufacture are not regulated according to these legalities. Benzene and pentane typically have high vapour pressures which allow them to be easily dispersed in the atmosphere, facilitating more risks of exposure to animals and humans. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that nanotechnology maintains many positive advantages for society in areas of medicine, consumer product manufacture, and in the energy industry. The ability of certain nanomaterials to increase thermal transfer and serve as semi-conductors could have monumental benefits for improving alternative energy opportunities within society and more efficiently heat human households. Nanotechnologies radically improve the durability and strength of certain composite materials utilised in recreational equipment and improving fibre resilience which could improve the life cycle of many different products utilised by consumers every day. It would be difficult, based on the evidence, to refute that increased research and investment into nanotechnology advancement could serve the interests of all members of global society. However, this research found that production of nanomaterials used in medicine and other manufacturing activities sustains opportunities for causing significant harm to the environment and to human health. Lack of best practices and regulatory forces ensuring proper disposal of medical nanotechnologies could lead to introduction of toxic nanomaterials into aquatic systems, the soil and the atmosphere. Even though there are some organizations, such as the WHO, that is working to distribute information about risk mitigation and assessment for nanotechnology research and production, it is not appearing to create important and viable international regulations that effectively control potential environmental contamination. Minimal fines being imposed by some international governments for non-compliance to less-than-stringent regulations serve as incentives for companies producing nanotechnologies to continue to avoid compliance. Concurrently, with empirical studies showing potential health and environmental impact not effectively supported through longitudinal studies on the long-term consequences of nanotechnology, it might be many years before international regulations become more stringent to make nanotechnology research, development and manufacture more efficient and viable for environmental sustainability. Based on all research, this study concludes that nanotechnology is a significant stride as a means of improving the human condition and human lifestyle in the years to come. Governments and industries willing to invest financial and labour-related resources into nanotechnology research are creating opportunities to build better societies and provide more efficient energy sources whilst also improving human health and well-being. However, many of the by-products that occur as a result of reactions with substrates and other volatile compounds absolutely critical to productive nanotechnology production pose serious problems for the environment and for human safety if they are not more effectively controlled and regulated by appropriate and influential legal authorities domestically and internationally. This research project would seem to provide justification that would allege that governments around the world, industries and the scientific community should be investing resources and labour into conducting quantitative studies about environmental and human health impact. Whilst there is significant labour and economic investment into nanotechnology development and research, the volume of studies available which measure potential nanotechnology impact are only beginning to be constructed and provide data to make comparisons that justify determinations about the long-term benefits or consequences of nanotechnologies. Such studies could potentially measure risks and legitimate negative consequences, in the same capacity as reinforcing the benefits of nanotechnology development, which could assist in creating new best practice procedures in manufacturing and disposal to ensure the safety of humans and animals alike. It would only be through such quantitative investigations that society could fully understand how to make nanotechnology advancements more efficient and non-toxic to ensure harmony between nanotechnology manufacture, the natural environment and human society. References Barrett, T., Ravizzini, G., Choyke, P.L. and Kobayashi, H. (2009). Dendrimers application to bioimaging, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 28(1), pp.12-22. Bhattacharyya, D., Singh, S., Satnalika, N., Khandelwal, A. and Jeon, S. (2009). Nanotechnology: big things from a tiny world – a review, International Journal of U- and E-Service, Science and Technology, 2(3), pp.29-37. Black, J., Birge, W., McDonnell, W., Westerman, A., Ramey, B. and Bruser, D. (1982). The aquatic toxicity of organic compounds to embryo-larval stages of fish and amphibians, Water Resources Research Institute, Report No.133. Blaise, C., Gagne, F., Ferard, J. and Eullaffroy, P. (2008). Eco-toxicity of selected nanomaterials to aquatic organisms, Environmental Toxicology, 23, pp.591-598. Blaise, C. and Ferard, J.F. (2005). Small-scale freshwater toxicity investigations. Dordrecht: Springer. Caminade, A. and Turrin, C. (2014). Dendrimers for drug delivery, Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2, pp.4055-4066. Cao, G. and Wang, Y. (2011). Nanostructures and nanomaterials: synthesis, properties and applications, 2nd edn. London: World Scientific. Daily Star. (2012). Apply nanotech to up industrial, agri output. [online] Available at: http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=230436 (accessed 4 January 2015). Drexler, K.E. (2013). Radical abundance: how a revolution in nanotechnology will change civilization. New York: Perseus Books. Gaurav, L., Henslee, A.M., Behzad, F., Liangjun, L., Kurtis, K.F., et al. (2013). Two dimensional nanostructure-reinforced biodegradable polymeric nanocomposites for bone tissue engineering, Biomacromolecules, 14(3), pp.900-908. Gleason, K., Asatekin, A., Barr, M., Baxamusa, S., et al. (2010). Designing polymer surfaces via vapour deposition, Materials Today, 13(5), pp.26-33. Gullapalli, S. and Wong, M. (2011). Nanotechnology: a guide to nano-objects, Chemical Engineering Progress, 107(5), pp.28-32. Heng, L.S. (2011). Nanopillars significantly boost the power conversion efficiency of thin-film solar cells, Science X Network. [online] Available at: http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nanopillars-significantly-boost-power-conversion.html (accessed 4 January 2015). Hensen, J., Ampaya, E., Bryant, G. and Navin, J. (1975). The branching patterns of airways and air spaces of a single human terminal bronchiole, Journal of Applied Physiology, 38(6), pp.983-989. Huang, J., Zhao, M., Wang, P., Liu, X., Li, M., Zhang, J. and Yuanling, Z. (2014). Effects of low concentrations of benzene exposure on levels of platelet-associated antibodies and platelet parameters, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(10), pp.e92-e97. Huff, J. (2007). Benzene-induced cancers: abridged history and occupational health impact, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13(2), pp.213-231. Leary, N., Lieu, C. and Apuzzo, M. (2006). Toward the emergence of nano-neurosurgery: part III – nanomedicine, targeted nanotherapy, nanosurgery and progress toward the realisation of nano-neurosurgery, Neurosurgery, 58(6), pp.1009-1025. Mandani, P., Dsai, K. and Highland, H. (2013). Cytotoxic effects of benzene metabolites on human sperm function: an in vitro study, ISRN Toxicology, October. Mueller, N., Braun, J., Bruns, J., Cernik, M., Rissing, P., Rickerby, D. and Nowack, B. (2012). Application of nanoscale zero valent iron for groundwater remediation in Europe, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 19(2), pp.550-558. Nanowerk. (2012). European nanoelectronics industry proposes to invest 100 billion Euros for innovation. [online] Available at: http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/newsid=27707.php (accessed 5 January 2015). Nunez-Anita, R., Acosta-Torres, L., Vilar-Pineda, J., Martinez-Espinosa, J., et al. (2014). Toxicology of antimicrobial nanoparticles for prosthetic devices, International Journal of Nanomedicine, 9, pp.3999-4005. Plata, D., Hart, A.J., Reddy, C.M. and Gschwend, P. (2009). Early evaluation of potential environmental impacts of carbon nanotube synthesis by chemical vapour deposition, Environmental Science and Technology, 43, pp.8367-8373. Porter, A., Mhairi, G., Muller, K., Skepper, J., Midgley, P. and Welland, M. (2007). Direct imaging of single-walled carbon nanotubes in cells, Nature Nanotechnology, 2(11), pp.713-717. Rizzuto, P. (2009). EPA official says carbon nanotubes will continue to be regulated case-by-case, BNA Daily Environmental Report. [online] Available at: http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=13768683&vname=dennotallissues&fcn=14&wsn=496461000&fn=13768683&split=0 (accessed 8 January 2015). Rolfe, B., Mooney, J., Zhang, B., Jahnke, S., et al. (2011). Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering – cells and biomaterials. InTech Publishing. Roderick, P., Ferris, G., Wilson, K., Halls, H., Jackson, D., Collins, R. and Baigent, C. (2005). Towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: systemic reviews of mechanical methods, oral anti-coagulation, dextran and regional anaesthesia as thromboprophylaxis, Health Technology Assessment, 9(49), pp.1-78. Roukes, M.L. (2002). Understanding nanotechnology. New York: Byron Preiss Visual. Ruiz-Garcia, A., Bermejo, M., Moss, A. and Casabo, V. (2008). Pharmokinetics in drug discovery, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 97(2), pp.654-690. Theron, J., Walker, J. and Cloete, T. (2008). Nanotechnology and water treatment: applications and emerging opportunities, Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 34(1), pp.43-68. Vogel, U. (2012). Pulmonary and reproductive effects of nanoparticles, World Health Organization Workshop on Nanotechnology and Human Health: scientific evidence and risk governance. Bonn Germany, December. Read More