Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr:22:100320.
doi: 10.1016/j.impact.2021.100320. Epub 2021 Apr 29.

Survey of industrial perceptions for the use of nanomaterials for in-home drinking water purification devices

Affiliations

Survey of industrial perceptions for the use of nanomaterials for in-home drinking water purification devices

Justin Kidd et al. NanoImpact. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

As businesses, specifically technology developers and industrial suppliers, strive to meet growing demand for higher quality drinking water, the use of engineered nanomaterials in commercial point-of-use (POU) in-home water purification devices are becoming an increasingly important option. Anecdotally, some businesses appear wary of developing and marketing nanomaterial-enabled devices because of concerns that they will face onerous regulation and consumer pushback. However, little of substance is known about business perceptions of and attitudes toward the use of engineered nanomaterials in POU water purification devices, or how these compare with consumer perceptions. To address this knowledge-gap, we administered a 14-question survey among 65 participants from US-based industrial companies focused on drinking water purification. Our results indicate that the dominant concerns for businesses are costs and public perceptions associated with nanomaterial-enabled POU devices for drinking water purification. Cost-specific barriers include competition from more conventional technologies, and tensions between operational versus capital costs. 57% of respondents were concerned or very concerned that public perceptions will influence the long-term viability of nanomaterial-enabled POU devices for drinking water purification. 49% of respondents stated that government regulation of nanomaterials would be the preferred approach to ensure public safety, followed by the certification of POU devices (28%). When asked about specific nanomaterials and their potential use in POU devices for drinking water purification, respondents ranked carbon nanotubes as the nanomaterial with highest concern for environmental health and safety, followed by silver, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and copper. Respondents ranked nanoclays as the nanomaterial with highest likelihood for public acceptance, followed by silica, cerium oxide, titanium dioxide, and aluminum oxide.

Keywords: Drinking water; Industry perception; Nanomaterials; Point-of-use; Public perception; Water treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Industry response when asked “How concerned are you about the following factors creating major barriers to bringing nanotechnology water treatment devices to market successfully?”
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Industry response rankings when asked “In your opinion please rank the following, from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important), in terms of what information you would want from vendors supplying you with nanomaterials to incorporate into nano-enabled water treatment devices for point-of-use drinking water?”
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Industry response when asked “In your opinion, what is the likelihood that members of public will accept nano-enabled water treatment devices used in the following water treatment sectors?”.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Industry response rankings when asked “In your opinion please rank the following, from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important), in terms of the information you think consumers would want before purchasing nano-enabled water treatment devices for point-of-use drinking water?”
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Industry response rankings when asked “If nano-enabled water treatment devices used these materials to treat drinking water, in your opinion how would you rank them, from 1 (highest) to 10 (lowest) in terms of their potential environmental and health risks and public acceptance”.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Industry response to the major barrier to successfully use silver nanomaterials to treat (A) drinking waters and (B) industrial waters when asked “Silver nanoparticles are being extensively studied for use in water treatment devices because of their antimicrobial properties. In your opinion, what is the major barrier to successfully using silver nanoparticles to treat industrial and potable water”.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Comparison of Industrial and Public Responses When Asked What Information Consumers Would Want Before Purchasing Nanomaterial-Enabled POU Devices for Drinking Water Treatment

References

    1. Anuj S, Gajera H, Hirpara D, and Golakiya B (2019). Bactericidal assessment of nano-silver on emerging and re-emerging human pathogens. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 51, pp. 219–225. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bain R, Cronk R, Hossain R, Bonjour S, Onda K, Wright J, … and Bartram J (2014). Global assessment of exposure to fecal contamination through drinking water based on a systematic review. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19(8), pp. 917–927. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown K, Gessesse B, Butler L, and MacIntosh DL (2017). Potential effectiveness of point-of-use filtration to address risks to drinking water in the United States. Environmental health insights, 11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crittenden J, Trussell R, Hand D, Howe K, and Tchobanoglous G (2012). MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design. In MWH’s Water Treatment, 3rd Edition, Wiley.
    1. Evans J and Mathur A (2018). The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Research.

Publication types