- Muc-Off Nano Particles – Healthy or Not?
One for the scientists and bio-meds:
A few years ago Muc-off started added nano-particles to their pink spray cleaner. That means when you spray your bike with the stuff it not only enters your lungs, but the cells of your lungs. And your skin. And eyes.
I work at a Govt. lab that looks at human impacts on the marine environment. Over the last few years we’ve started wondering what all the nano-particles might do in the marine environment. I should state at this point there is no concern, just a scientific questioning of what the effect might be to marine life.
The scientific community knows little, if anything about what effect nano-particles might have on human (or otherwise) health.
For the non-scientific community think about MDF. You don’t want to breathe the dust in because it goes into your lungs and gives you cancer. Nano-particles are so small they can pass through your cell membranes into the cells themselves.Posted 6 years ago
Browsing the Muc-off website, I cannot even find what the nano-particles are, let alone what the health effects are. Is this something that needs more research??
you’re surrounded by nanoparticles everywhere. Would be nice to know what they are though but you should be able to request the MSDS from their importer or direct if they are UK based.
tbh I won’t be replacing my last can of GT85 when it runs out as i’m not sure how safe the micron sized PTFE is and I use it outdoors and stand upwind.
another thing to remember is most of the time nanoparticles will be ‘stuck’ together or to something else, especially when the solvent evaporates. In aPosted 6 years ago
I’m glad that you have mentioned this. Its a very interesting and relevant question. I think grilla is showing his ignorance as he has completely failed to see the full picture related to what you ask.
Nano-particles are one of those areas of research that has received a huge amount of interest in the last decade There has been a huge amount of work to try and use such particles in many applications. Just mentioning the word nano in a project proposal would have guaranteed you funding for research.
as you rightly say, the toxicologicl effects of using these particles has not been widely studied. It actually surprises me how they can be widely introduced in commercial products with such little knowledge about what they do. Asbestos is a material we should have learned from.
There is now starting to be some concern over the potential health effects on humans of nano-particles. It has been shown, as you have rightly said that these particles can migrate through the skin into cells. They can quite easily move into the blood stream and also end up in the brain and other vital areas. Research shows that they tend to build up in some areas. In animals several adverse health effects have been reported. Tumours in lungs, fibrosis and granulomas are a few. Some materials which are in normal forms not toxic, can have toxic effects in their nano form.
Like I said, as usual materials are being implemented without the full knowledge of how they will effect, humans or anything else on the planet. The general population always seem to think that, “its ok someone must have done the research” the answer is no they haven’t.
I guess given your area of work, you are now aware of the shocking effects that plastics are having on our oceans? They have been in use for about 100 years and studies related to their longterm stability in natural systems are few. The general consensus was that they were stable. However, only now has their instability been shown and their effect.Posted 6 years agoiain1775Member
I though nano particles where what made Jedi’sPosted 6 years ago
I’m sure that’s what they said in The Phantom Menace
Been covering myself in muc off before every ride in the hope I would ride like young master Tony, are you telling me that was actually quite dangerous and now I will die?
chief, talking about plastic in the oceans I have this website open on my browser as I am thinking of seeing if some engineering design students want to see if they can get involved http://www.boyanslat.com/in-depth/ (not decided on my opinion yet but it makes for an interesting student project theme).
I’ve worked with nanoparticles for the last 9 years. Diamond, CNTs, CSNTs, graphene, SiC, Al2O3…etc etc I took some good SEM images of paint fracture surfaces the other week which showed that the titanium dioxide pigement was about 160nm and quite clearly really poorly bonded to the paint (just stabilised). One of the things we do is ensure that particles are bonded into materials which makes them a lot safer when the material fails. But yes I do worry about what we do and what other people do and then make into commercial products.
As for nanoparticles dispersed in solvents – I won’t let my researchers spray such dispersions without the correct safety measures (which are confidential at the moment as they are build into some equipment but we are working with safety bodies to develop handling along with other organisations).
But going back to the muc-off I’m not sure if they are nanoparticles as we think of them so will see if you can get an MSDS.Posted 6 years ago
For the non-scientific community think about MDF. You don’t want to breathe the dust in because it goes into your lungs and gives you cancer.
it’s the softwood dust and formaldehyde binder that can be carcinogenic (classified as suspect human carcinogens). However the exposure limits set by HSE, NIOSH ACGIH, OSHA etc mean that, as with most toxicological effects you need dose and duration for ill health effects to manifest.
That said, any work with wood dusts or any suspect carcinogens should be controlled as far as is reasonably practicable to reduce exposure (via inhalation with regards to wood dusts so dust masks, don’t dry sweep etc..)
with regards to nano particles the risk is still under investigation and limited by the measurement technologies and lack of epidemiological data, however in may instances the nano particles themselves are still bonded into the carrier matrix and so exposure routes are limited.
interesting reading below if you interestedPosted 6 years ago
Sat through an interesting lecture at an occupational health conference on nano particles. Uptake comparisons were made with diesel particulates in lung tissue, and comparisons were made with asbestos in terms of potential long term damage
Scary prospect – decided breathing in general is just becoming far too dangerous :-OPosted 6 years agohousehusbandSubscriber
Whilst doing some research at uni several years ago I found an article regarding fire retardant fabrics used in furniture; the toxicity of the chemicals used is outweighed only by the potential of the lives said by the treated fabrics being fire retardant.
I now use Rhino Goo cleaner, for what its worth.Posted 6 years ago
I guess given your area of work, you are now aware of the shocking effects that plastics are having on our oceans? They have been in use for about 100 years and studies related to their longterm stability in natural systems are few. The general consensus was that they were stable. However, only now has their instability been shown and their effect.
Yes a colleague is now the European expert on the effects of micro-plastics in the marine environment. (seriously, join SAS and ditch exfoiliating face wash)
I’ve got the MSDS from Muc-Off. There is no mention of nano-particles at all. Nano-particles appear to be heralded as the next industrial revolution. But in reality we know nothing about them. Silver appears to have great healing properties (i.e. plasters). But are we are really prepared to just let anything enter our bodies because the manufacturer (with it’s vested interest) say it’s ok?Posted 6 years ago
Ever the optimist I’d love to believe it is. But I really think we need some science to back it up before we all start spraying it willy and indeed nilly about.
Silver appears to have great healing properties (i.e. plasters).
silver mebranes in wound dressing have shown antimicrobial properties against both gram negative and gram positive bacteria and by reducing bio-burden in wounds can help reduce deeper tissue infections. The silver itseslf is not in a form that can be absorbed into the body, unlike the craze for colloidal silver in the early 20th century.
interesting fact: did you know that the antimcrobial effect of certain metals is one of the many reasons for reduction in health amongst the higher classes due to brass door handles reducing the transfer of viable pathogens from person to person in times of poor hygine. (obviously better diet, higher standard of general cleanliness etc… before the pedants get in there) 😀Posted 6 years ago
yup, silver for anti-bacterial.
I was going to mention the brass door knobs too. The Victorians used to have brass knobs in hospitals but with all the modernisation we removed them for other materials – stainless steel, plastic coated metal, aluminium etc and it turns out the victorians had it right all along.
using reactions to materials like this to cut bacteria and viruses etc is a much better way in my eyes to reduce infection than using lots of nasty chemicals or treating with anti-biotics.Posted 6 years ago
Andyl and Tazzymtb,
Indeed in many of the applications in which nano particles are used, they are imbedded in a matrix material, whether it is a paint or a composite. However, I would not go as far as to say the risk is minimized. You could say minimised during the useful life of the part. Anyway, the point is that if that paint is eroded or composite fails there is a chance of release. More so at the end of the life of the component in which they reside. Such waste will have to be dealt with. Now if there is some kind of mechanical size reduction, particles are likely to be released, the next step is likely to be incineration. again another opportunity for realease and since incinerators are not designed to capture such particles it means release to atmosphere.
In terms of working safety, its also difficult to protect against such small materials since they can penetrate skin, and are odourless and will in mot cases make their way through the filter of most masks.
Andyl, that project looks interesting tho. I would personally encourage anything like that to get kids motivated and help them understand contribute and take ownership of their environment.
There is a very good website related to plastics and environment, listing very recent published research articles. If i come across it again I will let you have the link. Did you think about what you will o with all the plastic you will recover with this project? This i also a very interesting question. 🙂Posted 6 years ago
I bet the brass thing wouldn’t work if we had a copper based metabolism like horseshoe crabs .
wouldn’t need it copper is better than brass! the EPA have licensed over 400 copper based products for antimicrobial use and studies have shown that copper work surfaces in hospitals can kill all pathogenic bacteria including anti-biotic resistant stains and in trials hospital acquired infection were reduced by over 80%.
You don’t see an octopus with a sniffle, that copper based hemocyanin, works a treat.Posted 6 years ago
and it turns out the victorians had it right all along.
you haven’t read “the peoples common sense medical advisor” by R.V. pierce MD have you?
it has a chapter dedicated to the illness caused by erm “self love”
“The habit once established, is overcome with gravest difficulty”
(ok fair enough :D)
but then “statistics show that insanity is frequently caused by self relief”
SEE BONKERS! the Victorians were all mad, they just struck lucky with with the big knobs thing*
EDIT: *Brass ones….not the steam powered lady pleaser that was displayed at the great exhibitionPosted 6 years ago
Yes its the copper in the brass that gives it the magic – but as I like to muse over stupid things – if we did have a copper based metabolism our pathogens (as im sure there must be some out there that affect copper bssed creatures) would not be zapped by the brass
Sorry its late on friday after a hard week – I like to let my mind wander 🙂Posted 6 years ago
For things like CNTs incineration is the standard method of disposal as it destroys the structure. Other particles I don’t know as there is such a wide range. I normally work with diamond which is generally regarded as nice and safe (unless you attach something harmful to it).Posted 6 years ago
I guess that due to the lack of research assessing the potential negative health effects of nano-particles we cannot say concretely whether it is safe or not.
The research that has been carried out suggests that some particles can enter the human body through the skin and travel through the blood and into the brain. Some particles have been shown to cause tumours etc. however, with respect to mucoff and their particles we don’t know. Im pretty dam sure that they don’t have a clue either.
My recommendation is: Use normal soap and water. I mean who the F*** needs nano bike washing stuff? its just crap.
If you use regular items that you know are safe, you will be safe and there will be no question. Furthermore it will not fuel the further useless industrial use of this stuff which we know little about.Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Muc-Off Nano Particles – Healthy or Not?’ is closed to new replies.