Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-don't-get-something-for-nothing dept.

A story today from Brown University (Rhode Island) reveals that the new 'wonder-material' graphene could be dangerous to humans and the environment Everybody's favorite nanomaterial may have a plethora of near-magical properties, but as it turns out, it could also be bad for the environment - and bad for you, too. It's easy to get carried away when you start talking about graphene. Comprised of single atom thick layers of carbon, graphene is incredibly light, incredibly strong, extremely flexible and highly conductive both of heat and electricity. Its properties hold the promise of outright technological revolution in so many fields that it has been called a wonder material.

Two recent studies give us a less than rosy angle. In the first, a team of biologists, engineers and material scientists at Brown University examined graphene's potential toxicity in human cells. They found that the jagged edges of graphene nanoparticles, super sharp and super strong, easily pierced through cell membranes in human lung, skin and immune cells, suggesting the potential to do serious damage in humans and other animals.

A second article indicates that graphene is shown to be very mobile in water and likely to cause negative environmental impacts if spilled.

From the article:

The use of graphene and other carbon-based nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes, are growing rapidly. At the same time, recent studies have suggested graphene oxide may be toxic to humans.

As production of these nanomaterials increase, it is important for regulators, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to understand their potential environmental impacts, said Jacob D. Lanphere, a UC Riverside graduate student who co-authored a just-published paper about graphene oxide nanoparticles transport in ground and surface water environments.

"The situation today is similar to where we were with chemicals and pharmaceuticals 30 years ago," Lanphere said. "We just don't know much about what happens when these engineered nanomaterials get into the ground or water. So we have to be proactive so we have the data available to promote sustainable applications of this technology in the future."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by lajos on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:37AM

    by lajos (528) on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:37AM (#38441)

    could be or could be not?

    is it or is it not?

    i mean come on guys wtf is this the dailymail?

    • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:00PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:00PM (#38448)

      The summary is pretty clear. Graphene is damaging to animal cells, so it's definitely dangerous if you inject it into your bloodstream or snort it like cocaine. As far as more reasonable exposure scenarios are concerned, like graphene getting into ground water, there has been exactly one study and it points toward bad news. How strong a conclusion do you expect people to make from one small-scale laboratory study?

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 2) by hatta on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:56PM

        by hatta (879) on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:56PM (#38517)

        Sounds like asbestos. Perfectly safe as long as no one touches it. But since you can never guarantee that no one will touch it, it's too dangerous to use. But asbestos has few unique properties, so it's not hard to find a replacement. Graphene might just be useful enough to justify the risks, minimizing those risks will be a great engineering and regulatory challenge.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:03PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:03PM (#38449) Journal

      is it or is it not?

      What do you expect, everything in black and white? What do you make of the following?

      1. juvenile largemouth bass exposed to 0.5-ppm aqueous uncoated fullerenes [nih.gov] (nC60) for 48 hr had a significant increase in lipid peroxidation of the brain, and glutathione (GSH) depletion in the gill.
        (hint: that's bad)
      2. Functionalized fullerenes [nih.gov] are one of the many different classes of compounds that are currently being investigated in the rapidly emerging field of nanomedicine. In this review, the focus is on the three categories of drug delivery, reactive oxygen species quenching, and targeted imaging for which functionalized fullerenes have been studied in depth.
        (hint: that's good)

      Note how both of the link point on the US "National Center for Biotechnology Information"? I wouldn't call them dailymail, though.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @01:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @01:52PM (#38478)

        >> glutathione (GSH) depletion in the gill

        I had that once. It hurt like a sonofabich.

      • (Score: 1) by Immerman on Thursday May 01 2014, @04:53PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday May 01 2014, @04:53PM (#38551)

        Except we're talking graphene, not fullerene. Yes, it's all carbon but graphene is far more similar to graphite than fullerene. Fullerene make 3D geodesics, whereas graphene is nothing but exceptionally large flakes of 2D graphite, which has long been accepted as a reasonably safe material. If the additional size of graphene causes toxicity then it's likely via rather different paths than fullerene, as the evidence suggests:
        *Fullerene - gets absorbed into cells where it doesn't break down like graphite, and can interfere with normal metabolic processes. Essentially it clogs up the works.
        *Graphene - exposure to the long jagged edges causes acute trauma to cell membranes and probably other large-scale structures.

        I imagine the constant undulating motion of graphene as the double-bonds migrate around the surface doesn't help either, probably makes those edges oscillate like an electric carving knife.

  • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:37AM

    by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:37AM (#38442)

    Sounds pretty easy to test. Since we're talking about mechanical damage to cells, rather than any kind of infectious agent, it can be tested on lab rats. If it's going to damage our cells it'll damage their cells.

    --
    Hurrah! Quoting works now!
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 01 2014, @01:56PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @01:56PM (#38480) Journal
      The carbon nanotubes (pointy thingies, not razor shaped) have already demonstrated negative effects [nih.gov] on human skin.

      We investigated adverse effects of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) using a cell culture of immortalized human epidermal keratinocytes (HaCaT). After 18 h of exposure of HaCaT to SWCNT, oxidative stress and cellular toxicity were indicated by formation of free radicals, accumulation of peroxidative products, antioxidant depletion, and loss of cell viability. Exposure to SWCNT also resulted in ultrastructural and morphological changes in cultured skin cells. These data indicate that dermal exposure to unrefined SWCNT may lead to dermal toxicity due to accelerated oxidative stress in the skin of exposed workers.

      Fortunately, using soap seems to be enough to neutralize them [nih.gov]

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:43PM

        by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:43PM (#38506)

        Of course the effects of graphine will certainly be different from carbon nanotubes. Might be more harmful, might be less.

        --
        Hurrah! Quoting works now!
    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:01PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:01PM (#38584)

      More research needed

      This. We have the opportunity to research the impacts of graphene while it is being developed and before it is established in commercial products. We have rarely done this in the past and sometimes we end up regretting it. If we can understand how this material will interact with our own biology as well as the ecosystem at large we can head off problems while still being able to take advantage of graphene in a responsible way. The other benefit of doing this early on is that there is not going to be a built up industry resistance to regulation.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:41AM (#38443)

    Does graphene appear in nature naturally?
    Can graphene break down naturally and if so how long does it take to be non toxic?
    Are there other substances like asbestos which simulate what graphene will do to the lungs?

    • (Score: 1) by plnykecky on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:25PM

      by plnykecky (4276) on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:25PM (#38458)

      - Does graphene appear in nature naturally?

      what about graphite, whatever you burn (produces a bunch of other carcinogenic PAHs) it forms on the most transition metals upon annealing. If you ask for living cells, I don't recall anything out there as biological graphene synthesis. In the text they mention graphene oxide which is a way different material from pure graphene or hydrogenated graphene.

      - Can graphene break down naturally and if so how long does it take to be non toxic?
      Don't know, some chemist may know. My guess is that any substance/enzyme that can break down the pi-conjugated bond of graphene. 100eV protons break it down reportedly, too.

      - Are there other substances like asbestos which simulate what graphene will do to the lungs?
      May I suggest using directly graphene for such experiments (although creepy indeed) because it is already made in macroscopic quantities? We could use plants or some simple organisms to check it first, anyway they are the base of any ecosystem which we depend upon.

      -

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday May 02 2014, @03:00AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Friday May 02 2014, @03:00AM (#38731) Homepage

      That was my first thought... microfragments of this stuff may operate an awful lot like what makes asbestos fibres dangerous. As you say, best get to testing. Yonder are the lab mice.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 2) by dublet on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:43PM

    by dublet (2994) on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:43PM (#38507)

    that the scientists would turn to graphene. For this is a remarkable material.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47kMfYQY0HI [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:10PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:10PM (#38522)

      indeed. It is likely that graphene occurs naturally and the current caution is a response to the rise in its utility.

      As with most things you probably shouldn't inject, bathe or chug it and you'll be fine.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:21PM (#38630)

      reminds me of the comercials where doctors were promoting cigarette smoking for health.