(Li et al. 2016). These emulsions provide additional benefits of having different
rheological properties with longer duration potential for storage and have remarkable
optical transparency to be used in beverages (Joung et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016).
3.5
Effects of Environmental Nanotechnology
Before evaluating nanotechnology for environmental applications on a commercial
scale we are required to confront questions regarding its impacts on one or another
section of ecosystem. To explore the probable impacts of nanomaterials on the health
of environment and its residents, various studies ranging from molecular level to
particle and macro-level have been conducted with the help of simulations and
modelling of mechanisms. Owing to tiny size dimensions of Nps, the complexity
of associated risks also increases many a times. Effects of Nps get intensified with
the symbiosis of toxins available in the environment irrespective of their origin. High
surface to volume ratio increases the affinity of the toxins to get adsorbed on the
surface of Nps and enhances complexity of the system to remediate (Hu et al. 2012).
The joint venture of toxicants with Nps of Ag (Völker et al. 2014), TiO 2 (Zhu et al.
2011), ZnO (Oleszczuk et al. 2015), and Al 2 O 3 (Li et al. 2016) has been explored in
literature.
The smaller dimensions of Nps leads them to undesirably interact with biological
units and the environment, thus leading to the generation of serious toxicity concerns
that need to be assessed. Number of studies have already reported the unique
properties of small dimensioned particles (reactivity, size, designing and shape) to
be the major culprit for imparting them toxic terms (Maynard et al. 2006; Handy and
Shaw 2007; Hillie and Hlophe 2007; Klaine et al. 2008). Many reports reflect the
unforeseen vulnerabilities of this technology towards environmental and human
health (Bianco 2013; Tonelli et al. 2015). It is impossible to find the connecting
link between toxic impacts of different Nps because of their different properties, thus
an urgent need of hour is to standardize the toxicity evaluation methods. A large
number of parameters of NPs like size dimensions, morphology, charge, nature
along with physicochemical properties decides the magnitude of toxicity (Yang
and Watts 2005). These NPs affects aquatic and terrestrial life along with the air
they are surrounded with by exerting complications in these systems. Thus in other
words, nano-size implicates their impacts on soil, plants, animals, humans, atmosphere and hydrosphere.
3.5.1 Effects on Hydrosphere
With the advancement in the field of nanotechnology, the dumping and release of
nanomaterials and their by-products in the water ecosystem is becoming inevitable.
Influx of nanomaterials in water bodies imposes remarkable footprints on the aquatic
life (Scown et al. 2010). The degraded by-products has also become an important
causative agent of many serious problems in water organisms, when ingested in large
58
T. Jasrotia et al.
rheological properties with longer duration potential for storage and have remarkable
optical transparency to be used in beverages (Joung et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016).
3.5
Effects of Environmental Nanotechnology
Before evaluating nanotechnology for environmental applications on a commercial
scale we are required to confront questions regarding its impacts on one or another
section of ecosystem. To explore the probable impacts of nanomaterials on the health
of environment and its residents, various studies ranging from molecular level to
particle and macro-level have been conducted with the help of simulations and
modelling of mechanisms. Owing to tiny size dimensions of Nps, the complexity
of associated risks also increases many a times. Effects of Nps get intensified with
the symbiosis of toxins available in the environment irrespective of their origin. High
surface to volume ratio increases the affinity of the toxins to get adsorbed on the
surface of Nps and enhances complexity of the system to remediate (Hu et al. 2012).
The joint venture of toxicants with Nps of Ag (Völker et al. 2014), TiO 2 (Zhu et al.
2011), ZnO (Oleszczuk et al. 2015), and Al 2 O 3 (Li et al. 2016) has been explored in
literature.
The smaller dimensions of Nps leads them to undesirably interact with biological
units and the environment, thus leading to the generation of serious toxicity concerns
that need to be assessed. Number of studies have already reported the unique
properties of small dimensioned particles (reactivity, size, designing and shape) to
be the major culprit for imparting them toxic terms (Maynard et al. 2006; Handy and
Shaw 2007; Hillie and Hlophe 2007; Klaine et al. 2008). Many reports reflect the
unforeseen vulnerabilities of this technology towards environmental and human
health (Bianco 2013; Tonelli et al. 2015). It is impossible to find the connecting
link between toxic impacts of different Nps because of their different properties, thus
an urgent need of hour is to standardize the toxicity evaluation methods. A large
number of parameters of NPs like size dimensions, morphology, charge, nature
along with physicochemical properties decides the magnitude of toxicity (Yang
and Watts 2005). These NPs affects aquatic and terrestrial life along with the air
they are surrounded with by exerting complications in these systems. Thus in other
words, nano-size implicates their impacts on soil, plants, animals, humans, atmosphere and hydrosphere.
3.5.1 Effects on Hydrosphere
With the advancement in the field of nanotechnology, the dumping and release of
nanomaterials and their by-products in the water ecosystem is becoming inevitable.
Influx of nanomaterials in water bodies imposes remarkable footprints on the aquatic
life (Scown et al. 2010). The degraded by-products has also become an important
causative agent of many serious problems in water organisms, when ingested in large
58
T. Jasrotia et al.