Next Article in Journal
An IndoorGeoBML Model Based IORP Algorithm for Indoor Operation
Previous Article in Journal
Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction by Building a Robust Social-Emotional Preparedness Program
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/su14105786
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Public Awareness of Nanotechnology and Its Implications for Health in Jordan

by
Zeinab H. Arabeyyat
1,*,
Malek M. Jamaliah
2 and
Maroof A. Khalaf
1
1
Department of Marine Biology, The University of Jordan, Aqaba 77111, Jordan
2
Department of Tourism Management, The University of Jordan, Aqaba 77111, Jordan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 5786; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105786
Submission received: 5 February 2022 / Revised: 27 April 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 10 May 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nanotechnology is often described as an emerging technology, holding promise for a diverse range of fields. Public awareness may have a strong impact on public acceptance of nano-technology and its various implications. In Jordan, nano-education has only been introduced recently into universities and it is offered to students of pharmacy, engineering, biomedical sciences, and agriculture. However, there is no data available on nanotechnology awareness among the public in Jordan. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate Jordanian public awareness and concern about nanotechnology, nanomaterials, and nanoproducts and its implications for health related applications of nanotechnology. An online survey was developed consisting of 15 questions and separated into three domains. The study findings show that more than half of the respondents have a very low awareness with regards to nanotechnology and its various implications. Additionally, respondents show interest to learn more about nanotechnology and its implications, preferring several sources of information such as media, universities and research institutions.

1. Introduction

Recently, a new branch of technology based on the manipulation of materials measuring 100 nanometers or less has been developed. This new technology is called nanotechnology. This discovery was a true climax of the bioindustry activities and, as such, it brought high expectations for great potentials that emphasizes the need for social scientific explanations to understand possible future cases in nanotechnology industries [1,2] and an investigation of public understanding of nanotechnology in science [3,4].
Nanomaterials have been defined as materials with at least one dimension smaller than 100 nm [5,6,7]. These materials include produced nanomaterials, such as diesel exhaust materials or airborne combustion by-products, as well as nanosized materials which occur in the environment, such as viruses or volcanic ash [8]. In general, nanomaterials offer relative surface areas bigger than the parallel common forms. Furthermore, the small size often leads to increased reactivity and the change of surface properties of some consumer products such as paints, food, cosmetics, suntan lotions, medicines, and applications that directly release nanomaterials into the environment, like the remediation of polluted environments [9].
According to the European Commission in 2012, there are global uses of nanomaterials. For example, in aerospace they are used to produce lightweight materials, resistant paints and coatings for aerodynamic surfaces [10]. In the automotive industry and transport they are used in scratch-resistant paints and coatings, plastics, lubricants, fluids, and tires. In agri-food they are used in sensors to optimize food production. In construction they are used in insulation, stronger building materials and self-cleaning windows. While in energy generation they are used in photovoltaics and storage like fuel cells and batteries. Nanomaterials can be used also in the environment for soil and groundwater remediation. In cosmetics, they are used in sunscreens, toothpaste, and face creams, as well as in health, medicine and nanobiotechnology. In information and communication technologies, electronics and photonics they are used in semiconductor chips, new storage devices and displays [11]. In security they are used in sensors to detect biological threats, and in textiles they are used in protective clothing, stronger, self-cleaning or fire resistant fibers [11]. Nanomaterials are therefore very useful to the life sciences, as well as environment and human health applications, and are used as sensors for environmental monitoring, nano-drug-delivery systems, biorobotics, nanoarrays, and nanoscale implants in medicine [12,13]. Nanomaterials are thus used in many applications and are a common element of daily life. However, the rapid expansion of nanotechnology applications increases the need to increase public understanding of the risk of nanotechnology. Increased risk perceptions could lead to negative public reactions that might have a significant impact on industry [14].
The science-society interaction which focuses on public opinion toward emerging technologies has been given an increased emphasis over the past few years [15,16]. Recently, the new term “upstream engagement in nanotechnology” has been developed to diagnose upstream public engagement effects on the governance of new science and technology [17]. Public perception could have a strong impact on the progress of nanotechnology. Therefore, it is necessary to research the public perception and implication for health-related applications of nanotechnology.
Public perceptions of nanotechnology were investigated through surveys distributed to a representative sample of a national population worldwide. Studies of public opinions regarding nanotechnology have focused on the public’s knowledge and views of risks and benefits [16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Some studies have shown a need for an understanding of the fundamental concepts of nanotechnology [33,34,35]. Here in Jordan, the concept of nano-education has been introduced recently to Jordanian universities and is offered to students of pharmacy, engineering, biomedical sciences, and agriculture. So far, limited research has been conducted on this important topic, and we lack understanding about public awareness of nanotechnology and its implications among the Jordanian population. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate Jordanian public awareness and concern about nanotechnology, nanomaterials, and nanoproducts and their implications for health, food, the environmental industry, and energy in Jordan.
The purpose of this study is: (1) to describe Jordanians awareness about nanotechnology and its numerous implications; (2) to examine the public need for relevant information about nanomaterial and nanoproducts contained in products in Jordan; (3) to explore public preference of the best route to gain understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology contained in products in Jordan.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Measures

A self-administered survey was used for data collection. The survey was developed based on the relevant literature [15,23,36] and contained approximately 15 different questions. Items assessing awareness of nanotechnology and the source of knowledge were extracted from the literature or generated by an expert group. Content validity and face validity of the newly developed survey were established through the evaluation of four expert researchers in this field.
The first domain of the survey included 11 questions that were designed to measure public awareness of nanotechnology, nanoproducts, nanomaterials, nanotechnology implications in industry and health-related applications of nanotechnology using a three-point Likert scale (1 = good, 2 = fair, 3 = poor) for the first seven questions and a five-point Likert scale (where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) for the remaining seven questions. The second domain included three questions that were used to assess the public perspectives on nanotechnology knowledge using a five-point Likert scale (where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The last domain included a question about the best possible source for gaining understanding about nanotechnology. The survey also includes some demographic variables, including gender, age, income, and education.

2.2. Data Collection

The study was conducted between April and May of 2020. Due to the sudden emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the widespread use of social media platforms in Jordan, the use of an online survey was the most appropriate method for data collection. An online survey entitled “Awareness of Nanotechnology among Consumers in Jordan” was created in Arabic using Google Forms and circulated via social media by sharing a direct link of the survey and posting an invitation on social media platforms including Facebook inviting the public to participate in the study. According to StatCounter data, Facebook is the most popular social media platform in Jordan. Participants were eligible to participate in this study if they were over 18 years, living in Jordan, and able to read and understand Arabic.

2.3. Data Analysis

Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 20.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used to summarize and describe the study variables regarding the awareness and understanding of nanotechnology and its implications. Given the small sample size, we used Fisher’s exact test instead of the Chi-square test to examine the influence of education, age, and gender on public awareness of nanotechnology and its implications. Furthermore, a bar chart was used to display the public preference of best route to gain understanding and knowledge on nanotechnology contained in products in Jordan.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

In total, 248 surveys were collected. Six surveys were completed by participants under 18 years of age and therefore were excluded.
The final sample included 242 respondents. As shown in Table 1, more than half (60%) of the respondents were female and 43% had an income of less than 500 Jordanian Dinars ($705) per month. Regarding education, the vast majority of respondents (95%) had at least a bachelor’s degree or higher. The high percentage of highly educated respondents is attributable to two main reasons: the high levels of education in the Jordanian population, and the lack of knowledge about the research topic, especially among people who are less educated. In addition, over half (55%) of the respondents were between 18 and 39 years old. This high percentage of young respondents reflects the current Jordanian population, of which almost 80% is under the age of 39 [37].

3.2. Public Awareness

As shown in Table 2, most respondents (67%) reported poor knowledge and understanding of nanotechnology, nanomaterials, and nanoproducts, and almost 41.8% reported poor knowledge of its implications in food, medicine, environment, energy, in medicine, and generally. There were no significant differences in participants’ awareness of nanotechnology, nanomaterials, and nanoproducts or their use in food, medicine, environment, and energy based on the respondents’ gender, age, or education level. However, there was a significant difference in participants’ awareness of nanomaterials based on gender (p-value = 0.019). There was also a significant difference in participants’ knowledge about nanoproducts based on age (p-value = 0.043), and a significant difference in their familiarity with the nanotechnology application used in the health or medicine industry based on education level (p-value = 0.026). Finally, there was a significant difference in respondents’ familiarity with the implications of nanotechnology based on age (p-value: 0.043).

3.3. Public Outreach

As shown in Table 3, at least 83.8% revealed the need for continued outreach of in-formation. Almost 76.9% reported a need for better communication about the risks of nanoproducts and 77.1% reported that promotion and education with regard to nanoproducts are necessary.

3.4. Routes to Gain Information about Nanotechnology and Its Implications

As shown on Figure 1, research institutions, media and universities are the most preferable methods by respondents to gain new information about nanotechnology and its various implications.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to evaluate Jordanian public awareness and concern about nanotechnology, nanomaterials, nanoproducts, and their implications. It also aimed to verify the public need for education and relevant information about nanomaterials and nanoproducts contained in products in Jordan, and to understand public concerns with regard to potential problems that may be caused by nanotechnology. Our findings showed that the public as represented by the sample in this survey is generally poorly informed about nanotechnology and its implications. This could be the main reason for the non-significant difference among respondents regarding the variables included. In this study, we surveyed public awareness of nanotechnology and the need for education about nanotechnologies. Our findings are consistent with earlier studies that have also found that the public had very little knowledge or awareness of nanotechnology [1,5,6,29,38,39,40,41,42]. Overall, 67% of participants in this study reported poor knowledge of nanotechnology, compared to 79.8% in Iran [43], 49% in America [44] and 23% in Germany [45]. Our findings also revealed that variables such as gender, education and age were all significantly relevant to perspectives on nanotechnology knowledge. Our finding is similar to the results of several valuable studies done in Iran [43]. Approximately 81% of participants in our study reported that “research institutions” are the suitable routes of information on nanotechnology, nanomaterials, or nanoproducts contained in products in Jordan. In addition, the increasing awareness of nanotechnology can be led by courses and workshops offered at educational institutions such as schools and universities. Experimental designs can also be used to provide participants with more information about nanotechnology [46].
The majority of respondents in our study were slightly or moderately afraid of potential problems that nanotechnology may cause, and no significant differences were found regarding to how afraid the public are of the potential problems that may be caused by nanotechnology. This could be due to the public’s modest knowledge about nanotechnology. Therefore, government agencies may be motivated to perceive and implement knowledge about nanotechnology and its implications for health in particular.

5. Implications

Considering the large percentage of participants with poor knowledge about nano-technology but mild fears about it, it can be concluded that there are many informative actions to be taken to inform the general public of Jordan on the nature and potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Our findings can be used to develop strategies that help Jordanians to understand nanotechnology and to enable them to differentiate between the different fields of its application. An educational system should be established to address public expectations and concerns. Moreover, a safety assessment system must be established, and its results should be handled by a professional team of experts so that they can be disseminated to the public. Therefore, governmental agencies and experts in the field of nanotechnology from universities, research institutes, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) must provide accurate information on nanotechnologies and their applications to the public [46].

6. Limitations

First, related to the small sample size, we suggest that this study should be regard-ed more as a feasibility study of a general community population in Jordan. Related to the limited number of participants, this study does not represent the true population, and therefore further research is needed to clearly identify how the public perceives nanotechnology, as well as the risks and benefits of the technology by utilizing a larger representative sample.
Second, the survey used in this study was not previously validated; additionally, because of the relatively small number of responses, there might have been a selection bias among our participants. For example, some participants who refused to participate added a note that because they were not knowledgeable enough about nanotechnology they have declined the study’s invitation and eventually the survey was mainly completed by highly educated people. Finally, this is more of an initial study, and further research with a more rigorous methodology is needed to support our findings. This is important since some of the answers from respondents can be perceived as individual and may reflect feelings rather than actual knowledge or level of information.

7. Conclusions

While nanotechnology has shown promising applications in several bio-industrial and medical fields, further studies are needed to obtain an accurate overview of the public’s awareness, understanding and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Our findings show that more than half of the respondents have a very low awareness with regards to nanotechnology and its various implications. Additionally, respondents showed interest in learning more about nanotechnology and its implications, preferring several sources of information such as media, universities and research institutions. This suggests the need for more efforts to increase public awareness of this field so as to avoid unwanted counterattack. Both researchers and governmental bodies need better engagement with their industrial partners, the media and consumers to increase their understanding of this new field of technology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.H.A. and M.M.J.; methodology, Z.H.A. and M.M.J.; software, M.M.J.; validation, Z.H.A., M.M.J. and M.A.K.; formal analysis, M.M.J.; investigation, Z.H.A.; resources, Z.H.A. and M.M.J.; data curation, M.M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.H.A.; writing—review and editing, Z.H.A., M.M.J. and M.A.K.; visualization, Z.H.A.; supervision, Z.H.A.; project administration, Z.H.A. and M.M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the lack of ethics committee in our faculty. However, all participants in our study were informed of the anonymity assurance why the research was being conducted, and how their data will be used prior to enrolment in the study. All participants were assured their responses are confidential and finishing this survey will be considered as a consent to participate.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gehrke, P.J. Public Understanding of Nanotechnology: How Publics Know. In Nano-Publics; Palgrave Pivot: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  2. Schummer, J. Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: Meanings, interest groups and social dynamics. Nanotechnol. Chall. 2006, 2006, 413–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Joubert, I.A.; Geppert, M.; Ess, S.; Nestelbacher, R.; Gadermaier, G.; Duschl, A.; Bathke, A.C.; Himly, M. Public perception and knowledge on nanotechnology: A study based on a citizen science approach. NanoImpact 2019, 17, 100201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Retzbach, A.; Marschall, J.; Rahnke, M.; Otto, L.; Maier, M. Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: The roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J. Nanopart. Res. 2011, 13, 6231–6244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, X.; Sun, J. Endothelial cells dysfunction induced by silica nanoparticles through oxidative stress via JNK/P53 and NF-kB pathways. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 8198–8209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aschberger, K.; Micheletti, C.; Sokull-Klüttgen, B.; Christensen, F.M. Analysis of currently available data for characterising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environment and human health—Lessons learned from four case studies. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 1143–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hartl, M.G.J.; Gubbins, E.; Gutierrez, J.; Fernandes, T.F. Review of Existing Knowledge—Emerging Contaminant: Focus on Na-nomaterials and Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment’ CREW—Centre of Expertise for Waters. 2015. Available online: https://www.crew.ac.uk/sites/www.crew.ac.uk/files/sites/default/files/publication/CREW_Emerging%20Contaminants.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2021).
  8. US Environmental Protection Agency. Nanotechnology White Paper’ EPA 100/B-07/001. 2007. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-01/documents/nanotechnology_whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2021).
  9. Aitken, R.J.; Chaudhry, M.Q.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Hull, M. Manufacture and use of nanomaterials: Current status in the UK and global trends. Occup. Med. 2006, 56, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Klaine, S.J.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Batley, G.E.; Fernandes, T.F.; Handy, R.D.; Lyon, D.Y.; Mahendra, S.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Lead, J.R. Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 1825–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. European Commission. EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises 2012, 586 final. 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/resilience/com_2012_586_resilience_en.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  12. Roco, M.C. Nanotechnology: Convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2003, 14, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Freitas, R.A. What is nanomedicine? Nanomedicine 2005, 1, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Peters, E.M.; Burraston, B.; Mertz, C.K. An Emotion-Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Ap-praisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 1349–1367. [Google Scholar]
  15. An, S.S.A.; Kim, Y.-R.; Lee, E.J.; Park, S.H.; Kwon, H.J.; Son, S.W.; Seo, Y.R.; Pie, J.-E.; Yoon, M.; Kim, J.-H.; et al. Comparative analysis of nanotechnology awareness in consumers and experts in South Korea. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Cobb, M.D.; Macoubrie, J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. 2004, 6, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Krabbenborg, L.; Mulder, H.A.J. Upstream Public Engagement in Nanotechnology: Constraints and Opportunities. Sci. Commun. 2015, 37, 452–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Altarawneh, M. Knowledge and Perception of Nanotechnology Among Students of Agricultural Faculties’ in Jordan. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 12, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Besley, J.C. Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerg. Health Threat. J. 2010, 3, 7098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Corley, E.A.; Kim, Y.; Scheufele, D.A. Public challenges of nanotechnology regulation. Jurimetrics 2012, 52, 371–381. [Google Scholar]
  21. European Commission. Eurobarometer: Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission. 2001. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr0612en-report.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2014).
  22. Gaskell, G.; Eyck, T.T.; Jackson, J.; Veltri, G.A. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst. Sci. 2005, 14, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. An, S.S.A.; Kim, Y.-R.; Lee, E.J.; Park, S.H.; Kwon, H.J.; Son, S.W.; Seo, Y.R.; Pie, J.-E.; Yoon, M.; Kim, J.-H.; et al. Interactive survey of consumer awareness of nanotechnologies and nanoparticles in consumer products in South Korea. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kim, J.; Yeo, S.K.; Brossard, D.; Scheufele, D.A.; Xenos, M.A. Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public. Risk Anal. 2013, 34, 965–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Larsson, S.; Boholm, Å. Den svenska allmänhetens inställning till nanoteknik. In Sprickori Fasaden; Andersson, U., Carlander, A., Lindgren, E., Oskarson, M., Eds.; Göteborgs universitet, SOM-institutet: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2018; pp. 293–303. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, C.J.; Scheufele, D.A.; Lewenstein, B.V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the inter-active effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci. Commun. 2005, 27, 240–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Macnaghten, P. Researching Technoscientific Concerns in the Making: Narrative Structures, Public Responses, and Emerging Nanotechnologies. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2010, 42, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Scheufele, D.A.; Lewenstein, B. The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies. J. Nanopart. Res. 2005, 7, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pidgeon, N.; Harthorn, B.H.; Bryant, K.; Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2008, 4, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Priest, S.; Lane, T.; Greenhalgh, T.; Hand, L.J.; Kramer, V. Envisioning Emerging Nanotechnologies: A Three-Year Panel Study of South Carolina Citizens. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 1718–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Siegrist, M.; Cousin, M.E.; Kastenholz, H.; Wiek, A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food pack-aging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Su, L.Y.-F.; Cacciatore, M.A.; Brossard, D.; Corley, E.A.; Scheufele, D.A.; Xenos, M.A. Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 43, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Batt, C.A.; Waldron, A.M.; Broadwater, N. Numbers, scale and symbols: The public understanding of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 2008, 10, 1141–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Castellini, O.M.; Walejko, G.K.; Holladay, C.E.; Theim, T.J.; Zenner, G.M.; Crone, W.C. Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006, 9, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Waldron, A.M.; Spencer, D.; Batt, C.A. The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006, 8, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rahimpour, M.; Rahimpour, M.; Gomari, H.; Shirvani, E.; Niroumanesh, A.; Kamelia, S.; Soroush, S. Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology: A Survey in the Mega Cities of Iran. Nanoethics 2012, 6, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Higher Population Council (Jordan). The demographic Opportunity in Jordan: A Policy Document. 2009. Available online: https://www.hpc.org.jo/sites/default/files/PDFs//temp_pdf_44.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2021).
  38. Crow, M.M.; Sarewitz, D. Nanotechnology and societal transformation. In AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001; Teich, A.H., Ed.; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 89–101. [Google Scholar]
  39. Priest, S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006, 8, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ronteltap, A.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tobi, H. Societal response to nanotechnology: Converging technologies–converging societal response research? J. Nanopart. Res. 2011, 13, 4399–4410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Satterfield, T.; Kandlikar, M.; Beaudrie, C.E.; Conti, J.; Harthorn, B.H. Anticipating the perceived risk of nano-technologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4, 752–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Siegrist, M. Predicting the Future: Review of Public Perception Studies of Nanotechnology. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2010, 16, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farshchi, P.; Sadrnezhaad, S.K.; Nejad, N.M.; Mahmoodi, M.; Ghavamabadi, L.I. Nanotechnology in the public eye: The case of Iran, as a developing country. J. Nanopart. Res. 2011, 13, 3511–3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peter, D. Hart Research Associates. Awareness of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology: A Report of Findings. Hart Research Associates, 2008. Available online: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/nanotechnologies/finalsynbioreportpdf.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  45. Vierboom, C.; Harlen, I.; Simons, J. Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology. Representative Survey and Basic Morphological-Psychological Study; Zimmer, R., Hertel, R., Bol, G.F., Eds.; Wissenschaft: Berlin, Germany, 2008; Available online: http://bfr.bund.de/cm/290/public_perceptions_about_nanotechnology.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2022).
  46. Gupta, N.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Van Der Lans, I.A.; Frewer, L.J. Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: An expert stakeholder analysis. J. Nanopart. Res. 2012, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 05786 g001 550
Figure 1. Public preference of best route to gain understanding and knowledge on nanotechnology contained in products.
Figure 1. Public preference of best route to gain understanding and knowledge on nanotechnology contained in products.
Sustainability 14 05786 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
ClassificationFrequency (Percent %)
Gender
Male96 (39.7)
Female146 (60.3)
Total242 (100.0)
Age
18–35 years old131 (54.2)
36–55 years old102 (41.1)
Above 55 years old9 (3.7)
Total242 (100.0)
Education level
High school and less9 (3.7)
Bachelor’s degree136 (56.2)
Master’s degree or diploma50 (20.7)
Doctorate47 (19.4)
Total242 (100.0)
Average monthly household income
Less than 500 JD *105 (43.4)
500–1500 JD98 (40.5)
More than 1500 JD39 (16.1)
Total242 (100.0)
* JD: Jordanian Dinar.
Table
Table 2. The public awareness of nanotechnology according to gender, age, and education level.
Table 2. The public awareness of nanotechnology according to gender, age, and education level.
AllGenderp-ValueAge (Year)p-ValueEducationp-Value
MaleFemale18–3535–55>55>High SchoolBachelorMasterPhD
General awareness of nanotechnology
How would you describe your knowledge about nanotechnology? 0.072 0.253 0.81
Good33 (13.6)132020103114117
Fair 108 (44.6)5157574922592720
Poor101 (41.7)3269544343632020
How would you describe your knowledge about nanomaterial? 0.019 0.412 0.328
Good28 (11.6)820188211287
Fair 88 (36.4)4543444131472119
Poor126 (52.1)4383695347742121
How would you describe your knowledge about nanoproducts? 0.253 0.043 0.905
Good 16 (6.6)7910330853
Fair82 (33.9)3844453522441818
Poor144 (59.5)5193756447842726
Awareness of general nanotechnology Implications
How familiar you are you with the nanotechnology application used in food industry? 0.603 0.043 0.585
Good12 (5)668310543
Fair66 (27.3)2838392252331615
Poor164 (67.8)62102847737983029
How familiar you are you with the nanotechnology application used in health or medicine industry? 0.965 0.566 0.026
Good30 (12.4)1218209101767
Fair88 (36.4)3652444042432914
Poor124 (51.2)4876675347671526
How familiar you are with the nanotechnology application used in the environment industry? 0.076 0.091 0.286
Good26 (10.7)818186211384
Fair71 (29.3)3635343612331917
Poor145 (59.9)5293796066902326
How familiar you are with the nanotechnology application related to future energy needs? 0.084 0.228 0.986
Good29 (12)1514207211855
Fair79 (32.6)3643423522421916
Poor134 (55.4)4589696056762626
Awareness of nanotechnology implications in health
Nanotechnology is safe for human body 0.218 0.204 0.469
Strongly disagree 2 (0.8)116220200
Disagree 7 (2.9)34342420331
Neutral 161 (66.5)56105847258972927
Agree 60 (24.8)31294301281516
Strongly agree 10 (4.1)552000523
Nanotechnology is safe in treating cancer patients 0.591 0.233 0.819
Strongly disagree 2 (0.8)112000200
Disagree 2 (0.8)021100101
Neutral 134 (55.4)5282626666802226
Agree 85(35.1)3352523123422416
Strongly agree 19 (7.9)1019144101144
Nanotechnology is safe in diagnosing some of human diseases 0.587 0.924 0.805
Strongly disagree 3 (1.2)21 210 0300
Disagree 9 (3.7)49 450 0423
Neutral 137 (56.6)4988 71602 6832523
Agree 81 (33.5)3546 47322 3412017
Strongly agree 12 (5.0)66 741 0534
Nanotechnology is safe to treat addicts 0.852 0.318 0.939
Strongly disagree 1 (0.4)011010101
disagree3 (1.2)121200111
Neutral 143 (59.1)6083696566812531
Agree 82 (33.9)3052503023442114
Strongly agree 13 (5.4)5810210931
Table
Table 3. The respondents’ perspectives toward nanotechnology knowledge.
Table 3. The respondents’ perspectives toward nanotechnology knowledge.
ClassificationStrongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree
More relevant information regarding nanotechnology is needed.103 (41.5)105 (42.3)36 (14.5)3 (1.2)1 (0.4)
Public need for developing appropriate communication about the risks of nanoproducts.98 (39.5)92 (37.1)53 (21.4)2 (0.8)3 (1.2)
Promotion and education on nanotechnology and nanoproducts are necessary.91 (36.7)106 (42.7)47 (19.0)2 (0.8)2 (0.8)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arabeyyat, Z.H.; Jamaliah, M.M.; Khalaf, M.A. Public Awareness of Nanotechnology and Its Implications for Health in Jordan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105786

AMA Style

Arabeyyat ZH, Jamaliah MM, Khalaf MA. Public Awareness of Nanotechnology and Its Implications for Health in Jordan. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):5786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105786

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arabeyyat, Zeinab H., Malek M. Jamaliah, and Maroof A. Khalaf. 2022. "Public Awareness of Nanotechnology and Its Implications for Health in Jordan" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 5786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105786

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop