journal article·2012-12

Nanotechnology patenting trends through an environmental lens: analysis of materials and applications

Megan E. Leitch, Elizabeth Casman, Gregory V. Lowry

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 14· Issue 12
Publisher page

Abstract

Many international groups study environmental health and safety (EHS) concerns surrounding the use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). These researchers frequently use the “Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies” (PEN) inventory of nano-enabled consumer products to prioritize types of ENMs to study because estimates of life-cycle ENM releases to the environment can be extrapolated from the database. An alternative “snapshot” of nanomaterials likely to enter commerce can be determined from the patent literature. The goal of this research was to provide an overview of nanotechnology intellectual property trends, complementary to the PEN consumer product database, to help identify potentially “risky” nanomaterials for study by the nano-EHS community. Ten years of nanotechnology patents were examined to determine the types of nano-functional materials being patented, the chemical compositions of the ENMs, and the products in which they are likely to appear. Patenting trends indicated different distributions of nano-enabled products and materials compared to the PEN database. Recent nanotechnology patenting is dominated by electrical and information technology applications rather than the hygienic and anti-fouling applications shown by PEN. There is an increasing emphasis on patenting of nano-scale layers, coatings, and other surface modifications rather than traditional nanoparticles, and there is widespread use of nano-functional semiconductor, ceramic, magnetic, and biological materials that are currently less studied by EHS professionals. These commonly patented products and the nano-functional materials they contain may warrant life-cycle evaluations to determine the potential for environmental exposure and toxicity. The patent and consumer product lists contribute different and complementary insights into the emerging nanotechnology industry and its potential for introducing nanomaterials into the environment.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Nanotechnology research and applications · Extraction and Separation Processes

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (76)

Show source-provided references
1. Alencar M, Porter A (2007) Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle. Technol Forecast Soc 74:1661–168010.1016/j.techfore.2007.04.002 ↗
2. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD (2004) Valuable patents. Georgetown Law J 92:435–479
3. Andersen MM (2011) Silent innovation: corporate strategizing in early nanotechnology evolution. J Technol Transf 36:680–69610.1007/s10961-011-9215-x ↗
4. ATSDR Website (2012) Agency for toxic substances & disease registry. In: Cent for Dis Control. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ . Accessed 1 May 2012
5. Bass SD, Kurgan La (2009) Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 82:217–24110.1007/s11192-009-0008-z ↗
6. Bawa R (2004) Nanotechnology patenting in the US. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1:1–21
7. Branstetter L (2001) Are knowledge spillovers international or intranational in scope? Microeconometric evidence from the US and Japan. J Int Econ 53:53–7910.1016/S0022-1996(00)00068-4 ↗
8. Brouwer E, Kleinknecht A (1999) Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent. An exploration of CIS micro data. Res Policy 28:615–62410.1016/S0048-7333(99)00003-7 ↗
9. Chen H, Roco MC, Li X, Lin Y (2008) Trends in nanotechnology patents. Nat Nanotechnol 3:123–12510.1038/nnano.2008.51 ↗
10. Cohen W, Nelson R, Walsh J (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or Not). NBER Working Paper 7552, Cambridge, MA10.3386/w7552 ↗
11. Dang Y, Zhang Y, Fan L et al (2010) Trends in worldwide nanotechnology patent applications: 1991 to 2008. J Nanopart Res 12:687–70610.1007/s11051-009-9831-7 ↗
12. Eckelman MJ, Zimmerman JB, Anastas PT (2008) Toward green nano. J Ind Ecol 12:316–32810.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00043.x ↗
13. Fabrega J, Luoma SN, Tyler CR et al (2011) Silver nanoparticles: behaviour and effects in the aquatic environment. Environ Int 37:517–53110.1016/j.envint.2010.10.012 ↗
14. Fernández-ribas A (2010) International patent strategies of small and large firms: an empirical study of nanotechnology. Rev Policy Res 27:457–47310.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00451.x ↗
15. Fifarek BJ, Veloso FM, Davidson CI (2008) Offshoring technology innovation: a case study of rare-earth technology. J Oper Manag 26:222–23810.1016/j.jom.2007.02.013 ↗
16. Finardi U (2011) Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics 89:37–5010.1007/s11192-011-0443-5 ↗
17. Gort M, Klepper S (1982) Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. Econ J 92:630–65310.2307/2232554 ↗
18. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO(2), ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43:9216–922210.1021/es9015553 ↗
19. Gottschalk F, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2010) Probabilistic material flow modeling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO2 particles. Environ Modell Softw 25:320–33210.1016/j.envsoft.2009.08.011 ↗
20. Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J Econ Lit 28:1661–1707
21. Grimpe C, Patuelli R (2009) Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach. Ann Regional Sci 46:519–54110.1007/s00168-009-0355-y ↗
22. Grupp H, Schmoch U (1999) Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Res Policy 28:377–39610.1016/S0048-7333(98)00125-5 ↗
23. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G et al (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor 11:10–1810.1145/1656274.1656278 ↗
24. Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2011) Market value and patent citations. Rand J Econ 36:16–38
25. Hansen D, Shneiderman B, Smith MA (2010) Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: insights from a connected world, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
26. Holdren JP (2011) Nanotechnology regulation and oversight principles. National Academic Press, Washington DC
27. Huang Z, Chen HC, Yip A et al (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: country, institution and technology field. J Nanopart Res 5:333–36310.1023/A:1025556800994 ↗
28. Huang Z, Chen HC, Chen ZK, Roco MC (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanopart Res 6:325–35410.1007/s11051-004-4117-6 ↗
29. Hullmann A (2006) Who is winning the global nanorace? Nat Nanotechnol 1:81–8310.1038/nnano.2006.110 ↗
30. IARC Website (2012) International Agency for Research on Cancer. In: World Health Organization. http://www.iarc.fr/ . Accessed 1 May 2012
31. Igami M (2008) Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications. Scientometrics 77:289–30810.1007/s11192-007-1973-8 ↗
32. Islam N (2010) An empirical analysis of nanotechnology research domains. Technovation 30:229–23710.1016/j.technovation.2009.10.002 ↗
33. Johnston HJ, Hutchison G, Christensen FM et al (2010) A review of the in vivo and in vitro toxicity of silver and gold particulates: particle attributes and biological mechanisms responsible for the observed toxicity. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol 40:328–34610.3109/10408440903453074 ↗
34. Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N et al (2012) Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:3–1410.1002/etc.733 ↗
35. Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D et al (2006) The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 8:301–32110.1007/s11051-005-9035-8 ↗
36. Kostoff RN, Koytcheff RG, Lau CGY (2007) Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 9:701–72410.1007/s11051-007-9224-8 ↗
37. Kryder M (2009) After hard drives—what comes next? IEEE T Magn 45:3406–341310.1109/TMAG.2009.2024163 ↗
38. Lemley MA (2001) Rational ignorance at the patent office. Northwest Univ Law Rev 95:1495–1532
39. Lemley MA (2005) Patenting nanotechnology. Stanford Law Rev 58:601–630
40. Levard C, Hotze EM, Lowry GV, Brown GE (2012) Environmental transformations of silver nanoparticles: impact on stability and toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 46:6901–691410.1021/es2037405 ↗
41. Li X, Lin Y, Chen H, Roco MC (2007) Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). J Nanopart Res 9:977–100210.1007/s11051-007-9273-z ↗
42. Li X, Hu D, Dang Y et al (2009) Nano mapper: an internet knowledge mapping system for nanotechnology development. J Nanopart Res 11:529–55210.1007/s11051-008-9491-z ↗
43. Lide DR (2005) The CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 85th edn. Section 14, Geophysics, astronomy, and acoustics. CRC Press, Boca Raton
44. Liu X, Zhang P, Li X et al (2009) Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. J Nanopart Res 11:1845–186610.1007/s11051-009-9698-7 ↗
45. Lowry GV, Espinasse BP, Badireddy AR et al (2012) Long-term transformation and fate of manufactured Ag nanoparticles in a simulated large scale freshwater emergent wetland. Environ Sci Technol 46:7027–703610.1021/es204608d ↗
46. Maghrebi M, Abbasi A, Amiri S et al (2010) A collective and abridged lexical query for delineation of nanotechnology publications. Scientometrics 86:15–2510.1007/s11192-010-0304-7 ↗
47. Makker A (2011) The nanotechnology patent thicket and the path to commercialization. South Calif Law Rev 84:1163–1203
48. Marambio-Jones C, Hoek EMV (2010) A review of the antibacterial effects of silver nanomaterials and potential implications for human health and the environment. J Nanopart Res 12:1531–155110.1007/s11051-010-9900-y ↗
49. Menéndez-Manjón A, Moldenhauer K, Wagener P, Barcikowski S (2011) Nano-energy research trends: bibliometrical analysis of nanotechnology research in the energy sector. J Nanopart Res 13:3911–392210.1007/s11051-011-0344-9 ↗
50. Meyer M, Debackere K, Glänzel W (2010) Can applied science be “good science”? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics 85:527–53910.1007/s11192-009-0154-3 ↗
51. Money ES, Reckhow KH, Wiesner MR (2012) The use of Bayesian networks for nanoparticle risk forecasting: model formulation and baseline evaluation. Sci Total Environ 426:436–44510.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.064 ↗
52. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–445310.1021/es7029637 ↗
53. Pakes A, Schankerman M (1984) The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestation lags, and the private rate of return to research resources. In: Griliches Z (ed) R & D, patents, and productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 73–88
54. PEN Website (2012a) The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology (PEN) Consumer Product Inventory. In: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/ . Accessed 30 Nov 2011
55. PEN Website (2012b) PEN Consumer Product Inventory Disclaimer. In: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/disclaimer . Accessed 15 Oct 2012
56. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2007) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:715–72810.1007/s11051-007-9266-y ↗
57. Powell J (2008) The quantum limit to Moore’s law. Proc IEEE Micr Elect 96:1247–124810.1109/JPROC.2008.925411 ↗
58. Rejeski D (2009) Nanotechnology and consumer products. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/nanotechnology_consumer_products/ . Accessed 1 Jan 2012
59. Robichaud CO, Uyar AE, Darby MR et al (2009) Estimates of upper bounds and trends in nano-TiO(2) production as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:4227–423310.1021/es8032549 ↗
60. Rocks S, Pollard S, Dorey R et al (2009) Risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. In: Lead J, Smith E (eds) Environmental and human health impacts of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 389–42110.1002/9781444307504.ch10 ↗
61. Roco MC, Harthorn B, Guston D, Shapira P (2011) Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. J Nanopart Res 13:3557–359010.1007/s11051-011-0454-4 ↗
62. Schultz LI, Joutz FL (2010) Methods for identifying emerging general purpose technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics 85:155–17010.1007/s11192-010-0244-2 ↗
63. Som C, Wick P, Krug H, Nowack B (2011) Environmental and health effects of nanomaterials in nanotextiles and façade coatings. Environ Int 37:1131–114210.1016/j.envint.2011.02.013 ↗
64. Takeda Y, Mae S, Kajikawa Y, Matsushima K (2009) Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 80:25–3810.1007/s11192-007-1897-3 ↗
65. Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes—patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand J Econ 21:172–18710.2307/2555502 ↗
66. USGS Website (2012) Rare earths statistics and information. In: U.S. Geological survey minerals information. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/ . Accessed 1 Apr 2012
67. USPTO (2012) United States Patent and Trademark Office. In: US Department of Commerce. www.uspto.gov . Accessed 30 Nov 2011
68. Walter C (2005) Kryder’s law. Sci Am 293:32–3310.1038/scientificamerican0805-32 ↗
69. Wang G, Guan J (2011) Measuring science–technology interactions using patent citations and author-inventor links: an exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 13:6245–626210.1007/s11051-011-0549-y ↗
70. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Jones KL et al (2009) Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk, and ecological implications of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 43:6458–646210.1021/es803621k ↗
71. Wijnhoven SWP, Herberts CA, Heugens EHW et al (2009) Nano-silver—a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology 3:109–13810.1080/17435390902725914 ↗
72. WIPO (2012a) WIPO PCT Applicant’s Guide. http://www.wipo.int/pct/guide/en/gdvol1/pdf/gdvol1.pdf . Accessed 7 Jun 2012
73. WIPO (2012b) World Intellectual Property Organization. www.wipo.int . Accessed 30 Nov 2011
74. Wohlleben W, Brill S, Meier MW et al (2011) On the lifecycle of nanocomposites: comparing released fragments and their in vivo hazards from three release mechanisms and four nanocomposites. Small 7:2384–239510.1002/smll.201002054 ↗
75. Youtie J, Iacopetta M, Graham S (2007) Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? J Technol Transf 33:315–32910.1007/s10961-007-9030-6 ↗
76. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Furner J et al (2007) Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Res Policy 36:850–86310.1016/j.respol.2007.02.007 ↗