Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cancer risk from carbon nanotubes, suggests study

Cutting a steerer? Maybe wear a mask

If you’ve ever needed to trim a carbon fibre steerer tube, the thought may already have crossed your mind. Researchers at the Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit believe that certain carbon nanotubes (CNT) used in manufacturing could pose the same cancer risk as asbestos.

According to the study, published in Current Biology, “Manufactured carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are similar to asbestos in terms of their fibrous shape and biopersistent properties and thus may pose an asbestos-like inhalation hazard.”

The researchers found that both long CNTs and long asbestos fibres in the pleural cavity of mice induced mesothelioma, a type of cancer that develops in the lining that covers the outer surface of some of the body's organs.

It is the first time the mesothelioma-causing effects of long and thin carbon nanotubes have been monitored in mice over many months.

“Long, thin nanotubes have a very similar structure to asbestos,” said Professor Anne Willis, director of the MRC Toxicology Unit, speaking to European Pharmaceutical Review. “The immune system does a good job of recognising shorter, thicker or tangled up nanotubes. Special cells break down these types of fibre and clear them out of the body, so not all nanofibres pose a hazard.”

This begs the question of what kinds of nanotubes are likely to be found in bike parts.

Benedict Pfender, who produced our ultimate guide to frame materials, says CNTs aren’t widely used in the bike industry yet.

“There’s still a lot of issues with large scale production of CNTs and controlling them for production. In terms of CNT use, it seems the only real application is as a toughener/strengthener for the matrix material in carbon composites – however it’s not super clear how widespread this is in the industry.

“However, we must also consider the safety of working with carbon fibre itself. Obviously cutting a steerer generates some dust – though I would be inclined to say that it’s not likely to be of an amount that will be of particular concern.

“All of these health hazards are about exposure and increasing risk with increasing exposure. Sawdust (wood) can be hazardous if you breathe in enough of it. Cutting a steerer is not really going to generate much debris – just do it in a well ventilated environment.”

Pfender says that cutting and sawing are likely to produce larger particulates, whereas the fine debris from sanding or grinding would be more worrying.

He adds that even if CNTs are present, it’s likely that a lot of them would remain “suspended” in the matrix material when cutting. “However it’s very difficult to say and it doesn’t seem a huge amount of research has been done into this.”

He concludes: “Long story short, it’s hard to say how much of a specific risks CNTs pose without knowing which manufacturers are using them. It may be worthwhile to wear even just a simple (and cheap) paper mask when cutting a steerer to protect yourself from the dust produced and to do it outside/in a well ventilated environment.”

Reflecting on the study, Professor Willis expressed her hope that the onus wouldn’t be solely on the consumer to know and understand the risks: “We want our research to inform manufacturers and regulators about safer options and contribute to a ‘Safe by Design’ approach when a nanofibre is being selected for the production of nanomaterials for emerging technologies.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

Jesus so much supposition on the part of the 'scientists' here. Whenever I see words like "could" and "may" with no levels or quantities of x that 'may' cause harm I'm immediately thinking bollocks.

So you've force fed mice specific carbon particles(which aren't widely used and not known by whom if at all, you don't say how much over a specified timedcale, you dont say if this is in an enclosed area or free/open area, you don't say what % of the tested got ill/showed signs of x so you end up putting loads of caveats in as well and basically say the square root of fook-all.
Yeah, great science boys!
Oh and one of my pet hates, use of the word "super", its not "super" clear, should be it's not 'VERY" clear, in cycling ranks this abomination does my nut in.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Jesus so much supposition on the part of the 'scientists' here. Whenever I see words like "could" and "may" with no levels or quantities of x that 'may' cause harm I'm immediately thinking bollocks. So youve force fed mice carbon particles, you don't say how much over a specified timedcale, you don't say what % of the tested got ill/showed signs of x so you end up putting loads of caveats in as well and basically say the square root of fook-all. Yeah, great dcience boys!

All those points are elucidated in the study, I suggest you read it.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Oh and one of my pet hates, use of the word "super", its not "super" clear, should be it's not 'VERY" clear, in cycling ranks this abomination does my nut in.

I don't like it either, but it's a perfectly valid use of the word in informal speech, c.f. M-W, Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries.

Avatar
nigerian prince replied to fukawitribe | 6 years ago
2 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Jesus so much supposition on the part of the 'scientists' here. Whenever I see words like "could" and "may" with no levels or quantities of x that 'may' cause harm I'm immediately thinking bollocks. So youve force fed mice carbon particles, you don't say how much over a specified timedcale, you don't say what % of the tested got ill/showed signs of x so you end up putting loads of caveats in as well and basically say the square root of fook-all. Yeah, great dcience boys!

All those points are elucidated in the study, I suggest you read it.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Oh and one of my pet hates, use of the word "super", its not "super" clear, should be it's not 'VERY" clear, in cycling ranks this abomination does my nut in.

I don't like it either, but it's a perfectly valid use of the word in informal speech, c.f. M-W, Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries.

 

BehindtheBikesheds again comes through with the reasoned and perfectly weighted arguments he is known for around here. . 

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to nigerian prince | 6 years ago
3 likes

lork wrote:

BehindtheBikesheds again comes through with the reasoned and perfectly weighted arguments he is known for around here. . 

..and looks like he's been tweaking his post some. Still quite frothy however..

Avatar
leqin | 6 years ago
2 likes

Glad I went tubeless now :.)

Avatar
cyclisto | 6 years ago
0 likes

So peloton crashes get even more dangerous. Maybe ban CF frames and parts?

Avatar
Morat replied to cyclisto | 6 years ago
1 like

cyclisto wrote:

So peloton crashes get even more dangerous. Maybe ban CF frames and parts?

Especially Carbon disk brakes!!  43

Avatar
srchar | 6 years ago
1 like

Is this the sort of thing that a home mechanic who cuts a fork steerer once in a blue moon needs to worry about?

Avatar
ashliejay | 6 years ago
2 likes

thought it was common knowledge that dust from cutting carbon can contribute to cancers, as well as lung diseases.

Avatar
earth | 6 years ago
0 likes

Assuming that the size of nano tubes is in the nanometer scale, I doubt a mask of any kind could filter them out.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

Cycling gets even more dangerous. If it's not enough that Honda Jazz and Vauxhall Corsas are out to get you, now your own bike is going to kill you. 

Avatar
DrG82 | 6 years ago
3 likes

Aren't carbon nano tubes different to carbon fibres?

And most people with any sense of self preservation would take precautions when cutting carbon composites.

Latest Comments