Price tag in nanomaterials?
Source abstract
Abstract
With the evolution of the field of nanomaterials in the past number of years, it has become apparent that it will be key to future technological developments. However, while there are unlimited research undertakings on nanomaterials, limited research results on nanomaterial costs exist; all in spite of the generous funding that nanotechnology projects have received. There has recently been an exponential increase in the number of studies concerning health-related nanomaterials, considering the various medical applications of nanomaterials that drive medical innovation. This work aims to analyze the effect of the cost factor on acceptability of health-related nanomaterials independently or in relation to material toxicity. It appears that, from the materials studied, those used for cancer treatment applications are more expensive than the ones for drug delivery. The ability to evaluate cost implications improves the ability to undertake research mapping and develop opinions on nanomaterials that can drive innovation.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. Allhoff F (2009) The coming era of nanomedicine. Am J Bioeth 9(10):3–11. doi: 10.1080/1526516090298502710.1080/15265160902985027 ↗
2. Archakov AI (2010) Nanobiotechnologies in medicine: nanodiagnostics and nanodrugs. Biomeditsinskaia Khimiia 56(1):7–25
3. Baer DR, Amonette JE, Engelhard MH, Gaspar DJ, Karakoti AS, Kuchibhatla S, Nachimuthu P et al (2008) Characterization challenges for nanomaterials. Surf Interface Anal 40(3–4):529–537. doi: 10.1002/sia.272610.1002/sia.2726 ↗
4. Bawa R, Johnson S (2007) The ethical dimensions of nanomedicine. Med Clin N Am 91(5):881–887. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2007.05.00710.1016/j.mcna.2007.05.007 ↗
5. Bos P, Gottardo S, Scott-Fordsmand J, van Tongeren M, Semenzin E, Fernandes T, Hristozov D et al (2015) The MARINA risk assessment strategy: a flexible strategy for efficient information collection and risk assessment of nanomaterials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(12):15007–15021. doi: 10.3390/ijerph12121496110.3390/ijerph121214961 ↗
6. Bosetti R (2014) Medical nanotechnology: the obstacles hampering a future dominant market. Chemistry Today 32(1):50–53
7. Bosetti R (2015) Cost–effectiveness of nanomedicine: the path to a future successful and dominant market? Nanomedicine 10(12):1851–1853. doi: 10.2217/nnm.15.7410.2217/nnm.15.74 ↗
8. Bosetti R, Marneffe W, Vereeck L (2013) Assessing the need for quality-adjusted cost–effectiveness studies of nanotechnological cancer therapies. Nanomedicine 8(3):487–497. doi: 10.2217/nnm.13.1510.2217/nnm.13.15 ↗
9. Bruce D (2006) The question of ethics. Nano Today 1(1):6–7. doi: 10.1016/S1748-0132(06)70002-010.1016/S1748-0132(06)70002-0 ↗
10. Chenel V, Boissy P, Cloarec J-P, Patenaude J (2015) Analyses of acceptability judgments made toward the use of nanocarrier-based targeted drug delivery: interviews with researchers and research trainees in the field of new technologies. NanoEthics 9(3):199–215. doi: 10.1007/s11569-015-0241-210.1007/s11569-015-0241-2 ↗
11. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ (2009) Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302(13):1437. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.140910.1001/jama.2009.1409 ↗
12. Drummond, Michael F., ed. 2007. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3. ed., Reprint. Oxford Medical Publications. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
13. “ESF Forward Look on Nanomedicine 2005”. 2004. European Medical Research Councils (EMRC). http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report53.pdf
14. Farokhzad O, Langer R (2006) Nanomedicine: developing smarter therapeutic and diagnostic modalities☆. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58(14):1456–1459. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2006.09.01110.1016/j.addr.2006.09.011 ↗
15. Gkika DA, Kontogoulidou C, Nolan JW, Mitropoulos AC, Vansant EF, Cool P, Braet J (2016a) Nano-patents and literature frequency as statistical innovation indicator for the use of nano-porous material in three major sectors: medicine, energy and environment. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 9(5):24–2510.25103/jestr.095.03 ↗
16. Gkika DA, Nolan JW, Vansant EF, Vordos N, Kontogoulidou C, Mitropoulos AC, Cool P, Braet J (2016b) A framework for health-related nanomaterial grouping. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects, August. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.08.01410.1016/j.bbagen.2016.08.014 ↗
17. Haase A, Tentschert J, Luch A (2012) Nanomaterials: a challenge for toxicological risk assessment? In: Luch A (ed) Molecular, clinical and environmental toxicology, vol 101. Springer Basel, Basel, pp 219–250 http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_810.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_8 ↗
18. Handy RD, Owen R, Valsami-Jones E (2008) The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs. Ecotoxicology 17(5):315–325. doi: 10.1007/s10646-008-0206-010.1007/s10646-008-0206-0 ↗
19. Hartz S, John J (2008) Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: a methodological and empirical review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(4):465–472. doi: 10.1017/S026646230808061610.1017/S0266462308080616 ↗
20. Hett A (2004) Nanotechnology. Small matter, many unknowns. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report93.pdf
21. Jones, Richard. 2004. The future of nanotechnology. nanotechweb. August. http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/indepth/19980
22. Kubik T, Bogunia-Kubik K, Sugisaka M (2005) Nanotechnology on duty in medical applications. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 6(1):17–33. doi: 10.2174/138920105316724810.2174/1389201053167248 ↗
23. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/macoubriereport1.pdf
24. Malin N (2000) The cost of green materials. Building Research & Information 28(5–6):408–412. doi: 10.1080/09613210041856410.1080/096132100418564 ↗
25. Meynen V, Cool P, Vansant EF (2009) Verified syntheses of mesoporous materials. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 125(3):170–223. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2009.03.04610.1016/j.micromeso.2009.03.046 ↗
26. Nijhara R, Balakrishnan K (2006) Bringing nanomedicines to market: regulatory challenges, opportunities, and uncertainties. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 2(2):127–136. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2006.04.00510.1016/j.nano.2006.04.005 ↗
27. Nogueira D, Mitjans M, Rolim C, Vinardell M (2014) Mechanisms underlying cytotoxicity induced by engineered nanomaterials: a review of in vitro studies. Nano 4(2):454–484. doi: 10.3390/nano402045410.3390/nano4020454 ↗
28. Oomen A, Bleeker E, Bos P, van Broekhuizen F, Gottardo S, Groenewold M, Hristozov D et al (2015) Grouping and read-across approaches for risk assessment of nanomaterials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(10):13415–13434. doi: 10.3390/ijerph12101341510.3390/ijerph121013415 ↗
29. Peijnenburg WJGM, Baalousha M, Chen J, Chaudry Q, Von der kammer F, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Lead J et al (2015) A review of the properties and processes determining the fate of engineered nanomaterials in the aquatic environment. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45(19):2084–2134. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2015.101043010.1080/10643389.2015.1010430 ↗
30. Renn, Ortwin, and Peter Graham. 2005. Risk governance towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council. https://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_version_.pdf
31. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5(3):181–189. doi: 10.1023/A:102554851243810.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
32. Stix, Gary. 2001. Little Big Science Nanotechnology is all the rage. But will it meet its ambitious goals? And what the heck is it? Scientific American. September 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/little-big-science-2001-09/
33. Vansant E, Mitropoulos A, Nolan J (2015) Exciting nanoporous materials fundamentals, characterisation, applications and trends. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20150604296
34. Wagner, Volker, Hüsing Bärbel, Gaisser Sibylle, and Anne-Katrin Bock. 2008. Nanomedicine: drivers for development and possible impacts. European Communities. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC46744.pdf