5.1.1 Products of Substitution

These represent the lowest level of innovation. The consumer may not even be aware of any change; the main advantage is to the producer (lower manufacturing costs through a simplified process or design), and possibly to the environment (a smaller burden, due to the use of a smaller quantity of raw materials, hence less weight to transport and less waste to ultimately be disposed of). In this case the anticipated market is the same as the present market; if there is an increasing or decreasing trend it may be considered to continue (e.g., exponential, linear or logarithmic or a combination of all three, i.e. logistic) in the same fashion.

If the innovation reduces production costs, the enhanced profitability may attract other manufacturers (assuming that the innovation is not protected by patent or secrecy), which would tend to depress the price in the long term.

5.1.2 Incrementally Improved Products

Examples are tennis rackets reinforced with carbon nanotubes, making them stronger for the same weight. Very often this will make the product more expensive, so elasticity of demand is a significant factor. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the laborious compilations of demand elasticity that have been made in the past are really useful. What degree of improvement ranks as incremental? It might not take very much for the product to be considered as essentially new. Furthermore, how is one to quantify quality? If a laptop computer originally weighing 2 kg can be made to weigh only 1.5 kg with the same information processing performance, different users will value the difference in different ways.

5.1.3 Radically New Products

These are goods that, in their qualitative nature, did not exist before. Of course, it is perhaps impossible for something to be totally new. Polaroid “instant” film (which could be developed and made visible seconds after taking a snapshot) was certainly a radical concept, but on the other hand it was still based on a silver halide emulsion and the mode of actually snapping the shot was the same, essentially, as with a Kodak box camera.

The future is in this case very difficult to predict, and an ad hoc model (Section 12.6.1) is probably needed if any serious attempt at planning is to be made.

5.1.4 Carbon-Based Nanomaterials

Fullerenes (${\mathrm{sp}}^2$ hybridization), carbon nanotubes (CNT, ${\mathrm{sp}}^2$ hybridization) and graphene (${\mathrm{sp}}^2$ hybridization) are true children of the Nano Revolution: they did not exist as commercial commodities before. Although carbon black (${\mathrm{sp}}^2$ and ${\mathrm{sp}}^3$ hybridization) and diamond-like carbon (${\mathrm{sp}}^3$ hybridization) thin films have some nanofeatures, they are not atomically engineered and, moreover, existed before the era of nanotechnology; we do not propose to recruit them retrospectively. Figure 5.2 shows the striking growth (as measured by the annual number of publications) of carbon nanotubes, with a hint of saturation and the concomitant rise of graphene. A further member of the family, carbyne (a true 1-dimensional chain of ${\mathrm{sp}}^1$ hybridized carbon) would be barely visible, with only a handful of papers, but recently it has been successfully grown inside CNT [3].

Industrial problems associated with large-scale fullerene manufacture have been solved [4]; to date, their applications remain niche, however. Far more interest is associated with carbon nanotubes (CNT) [5], and even more with graphene [6]. Some of the extraordinary properties of CNT include: a very high aspect ratio (their diameter can be less than 1 nm, but they can be many micrometres long), making them suitable for field emission applications and as conducting additives to polymer matrices with a very low percolation threshold; very high electron mobility; the highest current density of any known material, approximately 10⁹ A cm⁻² (cf. copper with 10⁶ A cm⁻², and aluminum 10 times less); ballistic electron transport; the highest Young's modulus of any known material (approximately 1 TPa along the axis); the highest thermal conductivity of any known material (approximately 4000 W m⁻¹ K⁻¹). Manufacturing problems seem to be on the way to being solved (note that some key applications use only very small quantities); the main issue today is purity: nanotubes grown from a hydrocarbon feedstock such as acetylene using chemical vapor deposition require a metal catalyst (usually iron or nickel), which can be troublesome to remove afterwards; preparations are nearly always contaminated with amorphous carbon. The electrical properties will be revisited in Chapter 7; Table 5.1 summarizes some of the mechanical properties of carbon materials.

Because of their great strength, carbon nanotubes (CNT) are especially attractive nanocandidates for incorporation into a matrix for the purpose of mechanical reinforcement. Even more attractive than CNT are graphene fragments (nanoplatelets). The graphene is typically corrugated due to numerous defects introduced during preparation, which is excellent for locking the material into the polymer (whereas CNT surfaces are usually smooth and defect-free). Per unit mass, graphene anyway gives double the interfacial area compared with CNT (which are, essentially, rolled up graphene). An additional advantage is that small sheets are much better at intercepting cracks in the composite than small tubes. This kind of composite in effect overcomes the reverse Hall–Petch relationship that prevents grain size being usefully decreased down to the nanoscale in order to strengthen a material [7].

Their good field emission characteristics (including ultrahigh brightness and small energy dispersion) make carbon nanotubes outstandingly good electron sources for scanning electron microscopy—although the world market is very small in terms of mass. They are also useful in residual applications of vacuum tubes (e.g., high-power microwave amplifiers). There is obviously an enormous potential application as field emission displays, although parallel innovations are required here, including a convenient means of positioning the CNT. Furthermore, there is intense competition from organic light-emitting devices. The electronic properties (very high current densities) make CNT attractive for the vertical wires (VIAs) connecting layers of integrated circuits, although exactly how their fabrication will be integrated into existing semiconductor processing technology has not been worked out. They may also be used as gates in field effect transistors (recalling that they can be prepared as semiconductors or metals). This configuration can be used to construct sensors for substances, if the gate is modified such that it interacts with the substance to be sensed. An even simpler configuration is merely to measure the electrical resistance of a substance-sensitized nanotube.

The very low percolation threshold of these extremely elongated objects (a few volume percent) enables the preparation of electrically conducting polymers with such a low volume fraction of CNT that the composite is visually unaffected by their presence. The main product of Hyperion (Chapter 16) is conducting paint suitable for the mass-production lines of the automotive industry. Other applications include antistatic coatings and electromagnetic screening films. Of great interest is the possibility of preparing transparent conducting films that could be used as the counterelectrode in displays. At present, tin-doped indium oxide (ITO) is the main material used for this purpose, but not only is it too brittle to be usable in flexible displays, but the world supply of indium is expected to be exhausted within a few years at present rates of consumption.

CNT can also be used as the charge storage material in supercapacitors. All the atoms of single-wall nanotubes are on the surface, hence they have the highest possible specific surface area ($1.5\times {10}^3{\text{ m}}^2{\text{g}}^{-1}$), suggesting a theoretical upper limit for energy density of 20 W h kg⁻¹. Supercapacitors rated at 1000 F are commercially available. Nevertheless, carbon black, which is much cheaper, is almost as good, hence it is doubtful whether this application will be commercially viable.

The very small size of a single nanotube makes it an attractive electrode material in electrochemical applications, for which microelectrodes have already been shown to diminish transport-related overpotentials.

As far as composites are concerned, despite the extraordinarily high Young's modulus, mechanical performance has not been demonstrated to be superior to that already attainable with carbon fibers. The problem is how to disperse the CNT in the matrix.

The variable valence and the availability of electrons makes CNT attractive potential catalysts for certain reactions, for example in the petrochemical industry.

In many ways graphene, the newest carbon nanomaterial, is the most versatile of the three—fullerenes, nanotubes and graphene—and it is expected to overtake the others commercially. Although it only received its official name in 1986, graphene has a remarkably long history—its crystal structure by Debye and Scherrer in 1916, the band structure calculation (of graphite) by Wallace in 1947, the isolation and observation of freestanding graphene by Boehm et al. in 1962, and subsequently grown on many different transition metals and carbides. Graphene-based electronics were conceived at the start of the present century, with key achievements in transport and gatability and visions of large-scale integrated electronics based on ultrathin films of lithographically-patterned graphite. There has been good recent progress in tailoring the properties of graphene [8]; graphene-reinforced composites seems to be the area closest to technical maturity [9].

5.1.5 Noncarbon Nanomaterials

The main raw nanomaterials manufactured on a large scale are nanoparticles. The bulk of those typically included in market research reports are traditional particles, notably carbon black, synthetic amorphous silica, silver halide emulsion crystals, and pigments, which are in no sense engineered with atomic precision; some of them merely happen to fall within the accepted range of nano-objects [10]. These products are, in fact, typically quite polydisperse. Attempts to synthesize monodisperse populations on a rational basis have a considerable history [11]. Natural materials such as clays also provide a significant source of nanoparticles. Key parameters of nanoparticles are size (and size distribution), chemical composition, and shape (including porosity).

5.1.6 Consumer Products

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center created a list of consumer products containing nanotechnology that continued to be curated until March 2011, when it listed 1317 products [15]. Some of these are given in the next three tables, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4. These data provide a useful snapshot of the commercial market as it was in 2011. The project was essentially continued as the crowdsourced Consumer Products Inventory (http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/) [16]. Other, more specialized, inventories include the EU's inventory of nanomaterials in cosmetics, which was due to be published in 2014 but has only just been released (on 15 June 2017), although it is dated 31 December 2016. Perhaps the further delay was due to the need to translate it into the numerous official languages of the EU before its official release. It was based on submissions made by “responsible persons” to the “Cosmetics Products Notification Portal”. It is perhaps typical of official EU documents that they appear with great delay and are of extremely poor quality. This “Catalogue of nanomaterials used in cosmetic products placed on the EU market” is only 15 pages long and mostly consists of a four-column table with the headings “Name”, “Category of cosmetics”, “Exposure” (i.e., dermal, oral, etc.), and whether “Rinse off”, “Leave on”, or both. There is no verifiable indication whether the listed material is in the nanoscale. A less informative document could scarcely be imagined. It concludes with “less than 1% of cosmetic products notified in the CPNP [sic] were identified as containing nanomaterials.” There is no indication whether this is a percentage of the total quantity or of the number of distinguishable products.

Regarding Table 5.2, it is not always clear what the exact criteria for inclusion are, especially for products that could fit in multiple categories. For example, would a household appliance be included under “Appliances” or under “Home and garden”? Most appliances include some electronics, one imagines. And does an automobile (which may contain some on-board information processors with nanoscale features in their chips) count as a single product? Spray paint containing nanoparticles for use by owners to repair minor scratches presumably ranks as an automotive product, but does each available color count as a separate product? Furthermore, the compilers of the data have not themselves verified whether the manufacturers claims are correct. Moreover, one has no indication of the volumes sold: cellphones probably outranked all other members of its category, for example.

It is perhaps surprising that there are already so many food products at least containing, if not based on, nanotechnology—these, incidentally, might well have been included in the “Health and fitness” category. The list is anyway dominated by health and fitness products, which are further broken down in Table 5.3. Presumably medical products not available uncontrolled to consumers (e.g., prescription drug delivery nanomaterials) are not included in the list at all—or else none are currently available.

Finally, it is interesting to look at which elements dominate nanotechnology applications (Table 5.4). Presumably these are mostly in the form of nanoparticles. Carbon presumably means fullerenes. Silicon, titanium and zinc are presumably nanoparticles of their oxides. Since the database is of consumer products, presumably silicon-based integrated circuits are not included.

The consumer market is of course extremely fickle. The epithet “nano” is sometimes used as a marketing ploy, even if the product contains no nanomaterials at all [17]. Furthermore, it is evolving with amazing rapidity. A camera in 1960 contained no electronics, but now contains probably 80% or more, much of which is in, or heading towards, the nanoscale. A similar trend has occurred regarding personal calculators, the functional equivalent of which would have been a slide rule or a mechanical device in 1960. The personal computer did not even exist then. A motor-car typically contained about 10% (in value) of electronics in 1960; this figure is now between 30% and 50% and much of it is already, or fast becoming, nano.

A crucial point regarding consumer market volume is the renewal cycle. Whereas in other markets technical considerations dominate—for example, in many European cities the underground railway trains and trams might be of the order of 50 years old and still in good working order—psychosocial factors dominate the decision whether to replace a consumer product. It seems remarkable that those who have a mobile phone (i.e., the majority of the population) typically acquire a new one every 6 months (many are anyway lost or stolen). Other consumer electronics items such as a personal computer, video recorder or television receiver might be renewed every 1–2 years. Even a motor-car is likely to be changed at least every 5 years, despite the many technological advances that ensure that it is still in perfect working order at that age.

Here, deeper issues are raised. Without the frenetic pace of renewal, the hugely expensive infrastructure (e.g., semiconductor processing plants) supporting present technology could not be sustained, and though rapid “planned obsolescence” seems wasteful, without it innovation might grind to a halt, with possibly deleterious consequences for mankind's general ability to meet future challenges (including those associated with global warming).

5.2.1 Nanotechnology Statistics

A huge number of statistics about nanotechnology are floating around the world. Websites, electronic newsletters and reports of commercial research are the main secondary sources. Hullman compiled a summary of some of the secondary sources to create a tertiary report [18], which well highlights the two main (related) problems: the huge variation among numerical estimates for most quantities (“indicators”), and the difficulty of defining categories. The main reason for the huge variation appears to be the wide variety of definitions of the indicators that are employed. The more easily accessible secondary sources (e.g., electronic newsletters) rarely, if ever, carefully define how they arrive at the quantities given. Reports that are supposed to be based on primary research might be more reliable, but this cannot be established without scrutinizing them in detail, and since they are rather expensive (typically costing several thousand US dollars) few people or organizations acquire a number of different ones and critically compare them. The best solution is probably to undertake the primary research oneself. The nanotechnology industry is still small enough to make this feasible at a cost reasonable compared with that of acquiring the commercial reports, and with a considerable gain in reliability.

One of the most glaring ambiguities regarding market size is whether the quoted value refers solely to the sale price of the raw (nano) ingredient or to the sale price of the final product incorporating that ingredient. The latter price might be one or more orders of magnitude greater than the former. For example, the world semiconductor market is presently considered to be worth about $40\times {10}^9$ USD annually, whereas the world computer market is worth about $400\times {10}^9$ USD annually. Since many nanomaterials are upstream additives in the production process, this consideration is very pertinent when assessing the size of the nanotechnology industry. If the final finished product is a true system, in which every part relies on every other part, then it is anyway not meaningful to separate out the values of the discrete ingredients, although it can of course be done in a narrow accounting sense. Nevertheless, if one were to omit one ingredient, the value of the final product would not simply be lessened by the cost of that ingredient.

Adding to the confusion surrounding the so-called quantitative indicators is the fact that two of the most widely used terms in the commercial predictions, “billion” and “trillion”, have parallel definitions differing respectively by three and six orders of magnitude from one another. Although the geographical origin of the number and its context usually allow one to decide what is meant, it is regrettable that this ambiguity has been allowed to persist. Usage in the UK is currently the most confusing because although located in Europe, it shares the same language as the USA. The definitions are summarized in Table 5.5. To avoid confusion, in this book we shall wherever possible write out the numbers explicitly.

5.2.2 The Market in 2006

Figure 1 of the Hullman report [18] shows the predicted evolution of the world nanotechnology market (presumably defined as sales). Predictions for the year 2010 ranged from about $10¹¹ to over $$1.4\times {10}^{12}$—in other words, roughly the same as the entire present manufacturing turnover in the USA ($1.1 $\times {10}^{12}$ in 2007, one (US) trillion in round numbers; the Taylor Report [19] predicted a global nanotechnology market exceeding $2 $\times {10}^{12}$ around 2012).

As mentioned, a major ambiguity is whether the entire value of a consumer product containing upstream nanotechnology is counted towards the market value; often the nanotechnology only constitutes a small part of the total. Another major ambiguity (see Figure 2 of the Hullman report) is the possibility of double counting. Frequently, the nanotechnology market is divided into different sectors without a clear indication of the criteria for belonging to each division. For example, much of nanobiotechnology is concerned with medical devices, and the devices themselves may contain nanomaterials, yet these are all given separate categories; most aerospace applications involve materials, yet these are two separate categories.

Yet another problem is that it is rarely clear to what extent “old” nanotechnology is included. The world market forecast for nanotechnology given in Figure 1 of the Hullman report starts from zero in the year 2001 (but other data given in the same report suggests that in 1999 the world market was already of the order of $10¹²!). This report is, in fact, unusual insofar as nanotools or nanobiotechnology are given as the dominant sectors (e.g., Figure 3 of the Hullman report) whereas elsewhere it is generally accepted that the overwhelming part of the nanomarket is at present constituted from nanomaterials, with nanodevices and nanotools occupying an almost negligible part [20]. A more reasonable estimate is that the background level of nanomaterials valid at least up to about 2005 is a global turnover of $\mathrm{\$}5\times {10}^9$ per annum. This is relatively minor—for comparison, the annual sales of Procter & Gamble in 2007 were $\mathrm{\$}75\times {10}^9$. The nanomaterials market is dominated by nanoparticles, which includes (i) a very large volume of carbon black (2006 revenue was approximately $$1.25\times {10}^9$), chiefly used as a reinforcing additive for the rubber used to make the tyres for motor vehicles; (ii) silver halides used in the photographic industry to sensitize the emulsions with which photographic film is coated (a sector that has sharply declined); and (iii) titanium dioxide used as a white pigment in paint—in other words, “old” nanotechnology (which should therefore not be considered as nanotechnology at all—according to the definitions in Chapter 1).

Furthermore, one almost never sees any uncertainties associated with these estimates. They must often be of the same order of magnitude as the estimates. For example, Figure 12 of the Hullman report shows the distribution of company sizes (measured by turnover) in different countries; in the USA and the UK the overwhelming majority of companies do not reveal their sizes.

Another criticism is that in many cases a per capita comparison would be more relevant than an absolute one; for example, Figure 14 of the Hullman report compares the numbers of institutions active in nanotechnology for European countries—at first glance the graph simply seems to follow the populations of the countries. Even when normalized by population, though, the distribution of institute sizes might vary widely from country to country.

Given these deficiencies, we can only repeat what was already stated above—the best recommendation we can give in this book is that if a company wishes to forecast the market in its particular niche, it had better attempt it by itself—the results are likely to be more reliable than those taken from elsewhere, and the assumptions used in compiling the data can be clearly stated and, hence, will be transparent and accessible to the users of the information.

5.2.3 The Market in 2013

In 2003, total global demand for nanoscale materials, tools and devices was estimated at $$5\text{–}8\times {10}^9$ and forecast to grow at an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of around 30%. Five years ago, the global market value for all of nanotechnology was expected to increase to nearly $$27\times {10}^9$ in 2015 [21]. The largest segment of the market, namely nanomaterials, was expected to have reached nearly $$20\times {10}^9$ by the end of that year; the second-largest segment, nanotools, a value of about $$7\times {10}^9$; and the smallest segment, nanodevices, was projected to reach about $230 million in 2015. Note that in 2007 the largest end-user markets for nanotechnology were environmental remediation (56% of the total market), electronics (1%) and energy (14%). Electronics, biomedical, and consumer applications had much higher projected growth rates than other applications over the following 5 years (30%, 56% and 46%, respectively.) In contrast, energy applications were projected to grow at a CAGR [22] of only 12.5% and environmental applications were predicted to decline by an average of 1.5% per annum. The global market for nanotechnology-enabled products was forecast to reach $$2.4\times {10}^{12}$ by 2015. It was predicted that by 2016 the global market for nanomedicine should have reached about $$130\times {10}^9$, of which anticancer products were expected to comprise about 35% and products for diagnosing disorders of the central nervous system about 23%.

Hence, comparing nanotechnology at that time to other key emerging technologies, the global nanotechnology market is roughly comparable in size to the biotechnology sector, but far smaller than the $$3.6\times {10}^{12}$ (2012 estimate) global informatics market. However, the nanotechnology market is believed to be growing more than twice as fast as either of the other two.

As stressed in Section 5.2.1, numbers of this nature are necessarily somewhat approximate, not least because of the lack of uniformity regarding the criteria for inclusion; that is, the answer to the question, what is nanotechnology (cf. Chapter 1)? The global personal computer market was expected to yield revenues (from the microprocessors used in the devices) of about $$40\times {10}^9$ in 2013; in line with Moore's law continuing its march, most of this market could reasonably be included in the nanotechnology sector on the basis of current device feature sizes.

Nanoscale metal oxide nanoparticles are already very widely used. Typical applications include sunscreens (titanium oxide and zinc oxide), abrasion-resistant coatings, barrier coatings (especially coatings resistant to gas diffusion), antimicrobial coatings, and fuel combustion catalysts. Applications of fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, and graphene, which are “true” nanotechnology products, still constitute essentially niche markets. In 2008 the fastest-growing nanomaterials segments were nanotubes (with an amazing projected AAGR of 170–180% over the following five years) and nanocomposites (about 75% AAGR). These predictions were somewhat upset by the growing prominence of graphene, which is displacing carbon nanotubes in many applications, including composites [6].

The nanomaterials segment, which, as already mentioned, includes several long-established markets (“old” nanotechnology) such as carbon black (used as reinforcing filler for rubber, especially in automotive applications such as tires), synthetic amorphous silica (used as a polymer filler, in toothpaste, and as an anticoagulant in comestible powders), catalytic converter materials, and silver nanoparticles used in photographic films and papers (this sector is now greatly diminished), until fairly recently accounted for almost all (i.e., in excess of 95%) of global nanotechnology sales. By 2008, however, the nanomaterials share of the market had shrunk to around 75% of total sales, and further decline is occurring as nanotools and nanodevices establish a major presence in the market.

5.2.4 Tonnages in 2013

it might be thought that tonnages are expected to be more reliable indicators of market volume then price. Piccinno et al. have assembled some data for the materials most widely produced in the nanoscale (Table 5.6) [23]. The wide uncertainties of each estimate are indicative of the problems in assessing production. The data was obtained by asking companies either producing or consuming nano-objects to estimate regional or worldwide production. Notwithstanding the higher median tonnage of silica, titanium dioxide is probably the most-produced material in the nanoscale, given the difficulty in precisely defining nanosilica. For comparison, annual world production of carbon black is about 12 million tonnes, but annual production of all forms of titanium dioxide is about 1.7 million tonnes in the USA alone [24].

Piccinno et al. also obtained estimates of the nanoproduct end-uses (Table 5.7) [23]. Note that, for consistency, the values given here are consolidated and adjusted from Piccinno et al.'s values. Crude as they are, these data seem to represent the best available estimates.

5.2.5 The Market in 2017

The global nanomaterials market is presently estimated to be worth about $4\text{–}10\times {10}^9$ USD. The biggest share is taken by nanoparticles (30%), followed by nanotubes (25%), nanoclays (20%), and nanofibers and nanowires (each 10%). “Nanoparticles” includes all dendrimers and nanoclays. In terms of sectors of end use, the biggest is electronics (30%), followed by healthcare (22%), transport (8%), aerospace and defense (6%), construction (5%), water filtration (3%), consumer goods (1%), and numerous smaller sectors. In terms of regional output, we have North America (40%), boosted by the large electronics industry there, followed by Europe (35%) and the Asia–Pacific region (APAC) on about 25%; the rest of the world takes less than 10%. The global nanodevices market is reckoned to be about a third of the size of the nanomaterials market.

5.2.6 Company Activity

Table 5.8 shows the top 20 institutions in the world, ranked according to the number of granted US patents classifiable as nanotechnology. Most are commercial corporations; the University of California is a multicampus academic institution with about 250,000 students. Most of the top 20 are electronics companies; only a few focus on materials. One is a cosmetics company; none are pharmaceutical companies.

Figure 5.3 shows the exponential-looking growth in the total number of nanotechnology patents. Up to 1992, only 277 patents classifiable as nanotechnology has been granted by the USPTO.

5.2.7 Future Projections

Most estimates of the current growth rate of the nanotechnology market converge on around 20% CAGR over the next decade. The most optimistic projections suggest that the total worldwide annual nanotechnology market will exceed $40\times {10}^9$ USD by the end of the decade. Interestingly, there is not much expectation of change of the distributions of production and end-use (Section 5.2.5).

Projections naturally depend on a great many imponderables, including the general level of economic activity and economic growth. One highly debatable matter is the influence of government spending. Opinions range from unfavorable (i.e., government spending is a narcotic that hinders rather than facilitates technical progress), to favorable (i.e., it is makes an indispensable contribution to national competitiveness). We return to this theme in Chapters 12 and 13.

A significant imponderable is parallel technical developments. For example, the realization of printed electronics is heavily dependent on the availability of various kinds of nanoinks formulated with nano-objects. But if development of the non-nano aspects of the technology is delayed, there would be correspondingly diminished demand for the nano-objects.

It is clear that the range of applications for nanomaterials is growing rapidly. Whereas until recently nanomaterials have tended to be associated with niche consumer segments such as bouncier tennis balls, a new trend of serious large-scale applications is emerging, such as tires and other rubber products, other automotive components, advanced pigments, and synthetic bone. This last-named is a biomedical application, in which there is intense interest, but at the same time the challenges are greater than originally envisaged, and products have been very slow to gain approval from the regulatory authorities.

It is often not clear exactly what is included as nanotechnology and what is not. Sometimes what is included within nanotechnology is in effect merely a relabeled traditional product [26].

Very often these near-nano products enhance the attributes of the materials to which they are added to close to the theoretical limit, in which case the almost inevitably higher expense associated with substituting them by real nanomaterials would not result in any significantly increased added value, and hence there is no driver to make their substitution.

Predictions for the healthcare market are considered separately in Section 6.10.