Can Carbon Nanotubes Cause or Treat Cancer? Safety Tips

[CCatalyst]

TL;DR

How do I prevent cancer when handling carbon nanotubes?

I did a quick google search and there some places that say carbon nanotubes can CAUSE cancer, and other places say that doctors use it to TREAT cancer.
Nanotubes cause cancer.
Nanotubes can treat cancer.
So what do I do? If I were to handle them or make them myself, what do I need to do to prevent myself from getting cancer from this?

I get the feeling that this is just like radiation therapy, where if you keep the dosage low and focused it can treat cancer, but being too large and unfocused can cause it. So what do I do? Do I just avoid ingesting it? Or do I need to have a breath mask?

 

[Borek]

No idea if they are or are not dangerous, but if you want to be super safe some kind of a dust mask won't hurt.

My gut feeling is that the idea that they could trigger similar mechanisms as asbestos doesn't sound completely off. I can be completely wrong though.

 

[rbelli1]

My gut feeling is that the idea that they could trigger similar mechanisms as asbestos doesn't sound completely off. I can be completely wrong though.

Evidence says your gut might just be right.

BoB

 

[TeethWhitener]

Standard PPE should be adequate.

Edit: PPE = personal protective equipment. In a chemistry lab, this is latex or nitrile gloves, safety glasses, and a lab coat. If you’re generating large amounts of CNT dust, that’s another story, and you might consider an N95 mask.

 

[Borek]

Evidence says your gut might just be right.

Well, that's a link that OP posted and I read it before answering :) This is still one result, so I remain cautious.

 

[rbelli1]

Well, that's a link that OP posted and I read it before answering :)

Sorry. I just started Googling before reading the OP's links.

BoB

 

[robot6]

Speculating...

1. Asbestos generates cancer through the inflammation pathway (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936775/ )
Note that the inflammation pathway leads to cancer when the source of inflammation cannot be removed by the immune system. This process generally takes decades to produce a clinical tumor.

2. The reason for asbestos to last this long is its inertness (probably correlated to its being more or less inert in a fire). That is, asbestos cannot be digested by white blood cells. (As far as I know, asbestos does not intercalate into DNA and produce transcription errors, and it also does not generate free radicals, again both of which are the result of its inertness.) Inertness does not mean that it does not interact with antibodies and other cellular sensors, most of which operate through van der Waal's forces.

3. The friable nature of asbestos permits it to achieve particle sizes smaller than $2\mu \textrm{m}$, and the particles having such dimension can be delivered into the alveoli where there are no cilia to sweep the material out of the lung. (Asbestos that only makes it into the bronchi should be swept out with fluid, swallowed and then mostly excreted.)

4. Carbon nanofibres, if all dimensions are less than $2\mu\textrm{m}$, share the above characteristics and would be expected to generate the same response.

5. An N95 mask would be useless if the above is true, because it is not designed to capture particles of such small size.

But at this point, all of the above is speculation. The following questions require research:

1. Do carbon nanoparticles generate decade-long inflammation?
2. Are there other confounding effects?
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882688/)

One more interesting paper, which suggests that it's not the fact that it's a nanoparticle, but the fact that it's inflammatory.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2639757/)

So act wisely and wish you success.

 

[TeethWhitener]

QUOTE="robot6, post: 6253762, member: 669184"]
An N95 mask would be useless if the above is true, because it is not designed to capture particles of such small size.
[/QUOTE]
N95 blocks 95% of particles down to 100nm. If you can figure out how to make an aerosol of sub-100nm CNT crystals, you should publish the method.

Maybe I should be clearer. I’ve worked professionally with CNT’s and other nanocarbons for 15 years. You’ll be fine if you take my recommendations. Based on your other posts in the DIY forum, CNTs are the least of your safety concerns.

 

[robot6]

Cool, this I did not know. I thought they were only to 2 micrometers. Looks like it may be 300 nanometers. In any event, the capture is dependent on statistics and sealing.

https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/n95masks.html
Also, 15 years is not enough to develop cancer from asbestos (at least clinical signs of it).

https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/latency-period/

 

[TeethWhitener]

“N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron), but all were at least 95% efficient at that size for NaCl particles.”
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9487666/
My source is the American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. Yours is the Washington Post. I’ll trust mine.

Also, 15 years is not enough to develop cancer from asbestos (at least clinical signs of it).

A million years is not enough if it never gets in your system. That’s my point. Unless you’re generating large amounts of CNT dust (in which case, your lab is very well-funded at least, given their price), you are in more danger sitting next to a campfire and inhaling the smoke than you are working with CNTs.