Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/customer/www/hairsite.com/public_html/hair-loss/functions.php on line 155
Hair Loss Forum -

March 2017 - Trending Topics in our new forum

 Stem cell hair restoration results - Dr. Cole vs Histogen vs RepliCel.
 Dr. Paul Kemp, CEO of HairClone answers questions about follicle banking.
 RepliCel year 2017 forecast for RCH-01 cell based hair regeneration.
 Dr. Cole to start stem cell hair restoration trial in the US.
 Dr. Umar's 6500 grafts life saving repair procedure for transplant victim.
 FUE donor harvesting, what you must know when choosing a clinic.
 Dr. Koray Erdogan raises the standard in FUE artistry skills.
 Dr. Arvind on how to formulate your own toxic free shampoo.
 Conference & FREE hair restoration consultations; cities worldwide.

This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics that you are interested in. All contents and discussions have been transferred to our new forum at
  HairSite New Forum

Log in | User | Register

common sense and research Micronized vs. Nanosized (Hair Transplant)

posted by ObamamanIsStevieDee, 10.07.2014, 14:26

(The following is reproduced from the poster BYRG from essentialdayspa forum and can be googled to find the original post as hairsite won't allow a link)

Micronized vs. Nanosized

I've only ever seen these words used interchangeably with each other. However recently on here with the concern of Nanosized particles brought up, people have said that they have written companies and they told them that they don't use Nanosized minerals but only Micronized minerals or something. What is the difference between the two? They are both particles extremely reduced in size. Is there any significant difference in the size of each type of particle?

"The US Patent Office has defined a nanomaterial as a material with one dimension less than 100 nm, or 0.1 um. Nanomaterials are generally in the 1-100 nm range and can be composed of many different base materials (carbon, silicon, and metals such as gold, cadmium, and selenium)."

"Micronized titanium dioxide (40 nm) is currently being used in sunscreens and cosmetics as sun protection. The nm particles are transparent and do not give the cosmetics the white, chalky appearance that coarser preparations did. The nm particles have been found to penetrate into the stratum corneum and more deeply into hair follicles and sweat glands than um particles though they did not reach the epidermis layer and dermis layers (Laddeman et al., 1999). There is also a concern that nm titanium dioxide particles have higher photo-reactivity than coarser particles and may generate free radicals that can cause cell damage. Some manufacturers have addressed this issue by coating the particles to prevent free radical formation. The FDA has reviewed available information and determined that nm titanium dioxide particles are not a new ingredient but a specific grade of the original product (Luther, 2004)."

http://web.mit.edu/environment/ehs/topic/nanomaterial.html

"Consumer exposure to engineered nanoparticles presents another exposure route for these materials. Engineered nanoparticles are used in personal care products, ranging from cosmetics to sunscreens, where decreasing the size of active ingredients, typically pigments, yields better performance18, 19, 20. It is impossible to assess the quantities and types of nanoparticles in such products as such information is often protected from public disclosure by trade secrets. Moreover, the US Food and Drug Administration (Rockville, MD, USA) ruled in 1999 that for sunscreens, 'micronized' titania was not a new ingredient, thus providing little incentive for toxicological studies of particle additives21."

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n10/full/nbt875.html;jsessionid=C19B4C2F618E843C4607305CC9D09E25#B18

So unless all those "only micronized" mineral companies are using micronized minerals larger then 100 nm, I guess they are just blowing smoke at us that it is any different then "nano" size particles.

To say I am confused is an understatement. Maybe we should just be asking these companies exactly what particle size they use. What NM size is the ingredient and forget what they care to call or label it as to confuse us. Should be over 100nm I guess?




ObamamanIsStevieDee is located in [NA] and he is available to meet: NO


Complete thread:

120100 Postings in 12546 Threads, 6075 registered users
Hair Loss Forum | Admin contact

 
This is a READ ONLY forum.
Access our brand new platform at HairSite New Forum to continue the discussion on these topics. All contents and discussions have been transferred to
HairSite New Forum

Disclosure: This is an advertising site for our paid sponsors & advertisers. The contents, videos & photos on HairSite are provided by paid sponsors and are not endorsed by HairSite in any way. The recommendations, results, and representations made by our sponsors/advertisers do not reflect the opinions of HairSite. This site is to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations or complaint cases; comments of such nature, including external links, may be removed from the forum. Notify hairsite@aol.com any false, defamatory, misleading or inappropriate user generated contents for immediate removal from the forum. Also read Terms of Use & Privacy Statement |  HairSite advertisers: ASMED | Dr. Bhatti | Dr. Bisanga | Dr. Cole | Dr. Hakan Doganay | Dr.Epstein | Dr. Jones | Dr. Halder | Hasson & Wong | Dr. Klein | Dr. Madhu | Dr. Mwamba | Dr. Donald Ng| Dr. Poswal | Dr. Rahal | Dr. Razack | Dr. Reddy | Dr. Umar | Dr. Woods | DHI Global | HDC Clinic | |Lasercomb | Reviva Clinic | Ziering Medical|