Carcinogenic Evidence Against Nanotubes Continues To Mount



The World Trade Center dust cloud included nanotubes. Could nanotube use ultimately be severely restricted under RoHS?


Hailed as a major technological breakthrough with enormously positive implications for the future design of electronics, even to the point of perpetuating Moore’s Law, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are now being labeled as potentially carcinogenic.Medical research involving a small sample of people engulfed in the World Trade Center dust cloud has found CNTs in their respiratory systems, casting doubts upon their safety. Approximately 70,000 people were exposed to the dust cloud.

Seven people who spent time in the cloud have had lung biopsies at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Three of those people had absorbed CNTs. This surprising find was further augmented by evidence of CNTs in samples taken from the dust cloud. These results not only heighten health concerns but also raise the question of why CNTs were found in the dust samples.

Indeed, numerous crucial questions about CNTs need answering. First, is the evidence that they are cancerous conclusive? Second, in what situations would they become a serious risk to human health? And third, what should be done to control those risks to both the general public and people in industry who have to work with CNTs?

In 2011, I asked if the electronics industry, in its enthusiasm to capitalize on CNT technology, had fully recognized the potential health risks that nanotubes may present (see “Will Nanotubes Become The New Asbestos?” at

Back then, nanotechnology was already showing how it could radically affect electronic design. Nanotube activated transistors that could toggle on and off with the flow of a single electron were being demonstrated. Conventional transistors require the movement of millions of electrons, and that naturally causes heat, the natural enemy of electronic component efficiency.

However, even then researchers were concerned that CNTs could enter the human body via the lungs and digestive tract, like asbestos particles (Fig. 1). The worry was that if a CNT enters the lungs, the macrophages in our immune system would be unable to remove the unhealthy tissue once it had passed beyond the lung surfactant.

Where Is The Evidence?

But what evidence exists today that incontrovertibly condemns CNTs as cancerous? Obtaining conclusive results is not easy. Available information shows that, under some conditions, nanotubes can cross membrane barriers. Also, a research study led by Alexandra Porter from the University of Cambridge shows that CNTs can enter human cells and cause cell death.

Results of rodent studies demonstrate that regardless of the process by which CNTs were synthesized and the types and amounts of metals they contained, CNTs could produce inflammation, epithelioid granulomas, fibrosis, and biochemical and toxicological changes in the lungs. The hair-like shape of CNTs is similar to asbestos fibres, raising the concern that widespread use of CNTs may lead to pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs, or peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the abdomen.

A recent pilot study supports this prediction. Scientists exposed the mesothelial lining of the body cavity of mice to CNTs and observed asbestos-like pathogenic behaviour that included inflammation and formation of lesions known as granulomas.

“This study is exactly the kind of strategic, highly focused research needed to ensure the safe and responsible development of nanotechnology. It looks at a specific nanoscale material expected to have widespread commercial applications and asks specific questions about a specific health hazard,” said the study’s coauthor, Dr. Andrew Maynard, an expert in nanotechnology who served as the chief scientific advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

“Even though scientists have been raising concerns about the safety of long, thin carbon nanotubes for over a decade, none of the research needs in the current U.S. federal nanotechnology environment, health, and safety risk research strategy address this question,” he continued.  

Exhaustive and meticulous research must continue. But available data suggests that under certain conditions, especially for those people experiencing chronic exposure, CNTs can pose a serious risk to human health. Fortunately, nanotechnology experts are calling for urgent and cohesive government action to ensure that the use of CNTs is precisely regulated.

Research by Dr. David Brown and Professor Vicki Stone at Edinburgh Napier University shows that people manufacturing and disposing of nanotubes, produced in thousands of tonnes per year worldwide, are most likely to be at risk of an asbestos-like illness. However, it’s not yet known if inhaling nanotubes at typical exposure levels could harm workers.

Dangerous Lesions

Professor Ken Donaldson of the University of Edinburgh and the Safety of Nano-materials Interdisciplinary Research Centre and his team injected multi-walled CNTs and asbestos fibres between the membranes lining the lungs and abdominal organs in mice. They found that long, straight nanotubes caused inflammation and lesions in membrane cells of the sort that have been shown to lead to cancer, just like asbestos fibres.

Donaldson maintains that the problem is that macrophages, cells that usually swallow up invading objects, can’t stretch to engulf fibres that reach beyond about 20 µm (1 micrometre equals one-thousandth of a millimetre, 0.001 mm, or about 0.000039 of an inch). Consequently, researchers are urging caution when it comes to CNTs.

“Those tubes that resemble asbestos should be treated as though they were asbestos and regulated accordingly. In this way, workers involved in their manufacture, use, and ultimate disposal will be protected,” recommends chest physician Anthony Seaton in a statement that predictably infuriated nanoparticle manufacturers.

Nanotube manufacturers remain unconvinced that stricter health and safety precautions are needed. Del Stark, CEO of the European Nanotechnology Trade Alliance, says companies making CNTs already take the strictest possible safety precautions, so it’s hard to see how the research will change manufacturing practice.

Steffi Friedrichs, director of the Nanotechnology Industries Association in the U.K., says that it is not surprising that long insoluble fibres of any material should behave in this way. Glass wool has similar effects. Nanotube makers already take measures to minimize exposure.

Nonetheless, an important point here is to clearly define the risks to the general public using products that include nanotubes and those industrial workers who come into daily contact with CNTs.

Hypothetical Parallel

A hypothetical parallel can be drawn with asbestos when it comes to CNT safety. If, like asbestos, CNTs are included within a structure or product and are not free to enter the atmosphere, then the only possible danger to users of those products is when the structure is damaged.

Even if damage occurs, the CNTs may remain embedded within a compound that makes up the body of the product and therefore theoretically will still be contained. However, it is a completely different matter for people who are consistently exposed to loose CNTs over long periods.

Voluntary Reporting Schemes

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the U.K. has a voluntary reporting scheme for manufacturers that use nanoscale materials in their products. The United States has a similar system. But until this kind of reporting is legally mandatory and enforceable, it will be difficult to tell just what kinds of nanotubes that manufacturers are using and where they are being used.

This is important because aside from the need for more health and safety research, some studies clearly indicate that little is known about exactly what types of CNTs are used in commercial products.

“There are voluntary agreements for reporting in the U.K. and the U.S. that not too many companies have signed up to,” said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser with the U.S.-based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Maynard also warns that the nanotube industry and products using CNTs might suffer serious commercial loss if the public loses trust in the technology because of the stigma of asbestos and a lack of transparency.

More work is needed to determine which nanotubes constitute a lethal health risk. Size and how the nanotubes are used in industry both matter. Research has shown that nanotubes under 20 µm and long nanotubes that were tangled up into balls did not cause asbestos-like problems. It would seem that the higher risk is from single nanotubes that are straight and 20 µm or longer.

Japanese research has partially confirmed CNT similarity to asbestos by showing that long, straight CNTs injected into mesothelial tissues in mice cause the sort of lesions and inflammation that also develop as a result of asbestos. Such reactions are a strong indicator that cancer will develop with chronic exposure. One of the studies, which appeared in the Journal of Toxicological Study and was performed by researchers at Japan’s National Institute of Health Sciences, also showed cancerous tumors.

Potential RoHS Contravention

With this in mind it is potentially conceivable that CNTs could at some future point contravene Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive 2002/95/EC, which is legally enforceable in the member countries of the European Union. RoHS places stringent restrictions on the use of materials and substances such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium, which is a carcinogenic.

However, what still remains inconclusive in a manufacturing environment that uses and disposes of CNTs is just how airborne can they be and what quantities need to be inhaled to represent a health risk. Indeed, some research suggests that getting CNTs airborne is difficult, since they tend to clump together, although more comprehensive research is needed to confirm it.

Lucrative Temptation

So electronics companies beware. Pioneering technologies like CNTs could lead to quantum leaps forward in semiconductor design, tempting companies to rush into their development and stake a lucrative claim.

But these companies would be very well advised to make sure stringent health and safety procedures are in place and are proven capable of protecting any employees working with nanotubes or products that contain them. Otherwise, the gold rush may well go into reverse as corporations find themselves having to pay huge compensation claims to employees suffering life-threatening disease.

Discuss this Blog Entry 8

on Jan 15, 2014

Cannabinoids have anti-tumor properties researcher Donald Tashkin has found . Too bad they are illegal. Because smoking or vaporizing them would be an near ideal way to deliver them to potential tumor sites in the lungs.

on Jan 22, 2014

Let me predict the future of CNT safety regulations. Just as with DDT, cigarettes, asbestos, climate change, and harmful food additives, the industries that profit from carbon nanotubes will deny the evidence of harm. They will hire corrupt "experts" and sponsor biased studies to create doubt, and of course they will push wheelbarrows full of contributions to the politicians responsible for public safety regulations, while crying that regulation violates the purity of free market capitalism.

Eventually, the evidence of harm will accumulate until denial is preposterous. But by then thousands will have been needlessly afflicted, and the corporate chiefs who engineered the denial campaign will have moved on, leaving their successors to "face the music."

on Jan 22, 2014

Oh, but we can trust corporations to be mindful of and careful with the health of the populace. We surely don't need all that regulation.
That's what some people keep telling me.

on Jan 22, 2014

Jallen, I couldn't have said it better! It's indeed sad to watch ethics in business fly out the window as big money becomes the only goal. Citizens in the US, through their apathy, have allowed big money to victimize them over and over again. The only glimmer of hope is that the general public is beginning to understand the "game" ... the Koch brothers and Wall Street are just the tip of the iceberg! If Republican extremists have their way, the days of robber barons will be back (some would say they already are) and minorities they don't like will be imprisoned or enslaved ... again.

on Jan 22, 2014

My personal experience, through work, is that when it comes to safety it won't necessary be a top priority as long as there's serious doh to make.
I used to be a QA tech and when I raised safety concerns that could affect our customers financial interest, as well as their customers' safety, it wouldn't matter much as long as the manufacturer's financial interest is at stake.

on Jan 22, 2014

Any new technology introduced to the world will be assumed to be safe until proven otherwise, despite the industry's war on its critics.
Alarm-bells have been sounding regarding the safety of nano-particles in general let alone CNTs. Of concern is their ability to penetrate into cells.
A most worrying development is their embrace by the cosmetics industry where they are well shielded by "proprietary formulation" protections. There is no law that requires labeling of their presence. Consumers Report in their last report on sunblock products found their unlabelled presence in the majority.
It is obvious that self regulation is unlikely to have the desired effect.

on Jan 22, 2014

The major difference between asbestos and CNTs should be that carbon is biochemically active, whereas asbestos is pretty inert---asbestos fibers get re-relased and go on killing cell after cell pretty much indefinitely, causing permanent inflammation, whereas carbon should deteriorate more quickly in the tissue. This makes sense to me but of course it would have to be verified by a broader epidemiological study for us to know for sure.

on Jan 23, 2014

News flash - living causes cancer!
Asbestos was replaced with silica which is equally as dangerous as asbestos but somehow asbestos is still the evil of evils and silica is "generally regarded as safe" despite the fact that more people are harmed by silica than asbestos. Lower the VOC's in paints and coatings just so it has to be added at the time of use when twice as much product has to be used to create a coating with an 80% shorter lifespan. In the end we are using eight times more VOC's while generating twelve times more waste. Don't eat stuff cooked on a grill because the smoke causes cancer ... can we imagine that this news comes after humans have survived by cooking food over fire and without mechanical refrigeration or antibacterial wipes. How can it be!?!?

Newsletter Signup

Please or Register to post comments.

What's London Calling?

Blogs on the electronics industry


Paul Whytock

Paul Whytock is European Editor for Penton Media's Electronics Division. From his base in London, England, he covers press conferences and industry events throughout the EU for Penton...
Blog Archive

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×