While it may turn out that the statement is correct, this report does not support the statement, in fact it seems to somewhat refute the statement. It raises many important questions that most likely should be investigated, but it clearly is too early to make a blanket statement that nanosilver is: “#2 Nano-silver (while safe for humans) is absolutely deadly in lakes/river ecosystems.”

From the report:

“There are no examples of adverse effects from nanosilver technologies occurring in the environment at the present.”

“Silver concentrations in natural waters, even those contaminated by human activities, range from 0.03 to 500 nanograms/liter (ng/L). Even substantial proliferation of silver nanotechnologies is unlikely to produce pollutant concentrations in excess of the ng/L range.”

“Silver is highly toxic to bacteria, and that toxicity seems to be accentuated when silver is delivered by a nanoparticle.” Based upon this, bacterial concentrations would be the first to be affected and should act as the canary in the mine. To the best of my knowledge, there are no studies that support or suggest that the microbial load in any waterway has been affected by nanosilver to date. If anything most waterways have had an increase in bacterial loads due to poorly functioning water treatment plants and an increase in run-off due to urban/surban development.

“No known cases exist of people or the environment being harmed specifically by nanomaterials
or nanosilver.”

Scientific investigation is critical when evaluating the impact of any compound on the environment. However, merely raising the question of the potential/possible impact should not be construed as an indictment or proof that a compound is adversely affecting anything, no less the environment which extremely complex.

Pete