Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 147–156 | Cite as

An examination of silver nanoparticles in socks using screening-level life cycle assessment

  • David E. MeyerEmail author
  • Mary Ann Curran
  • Michael A. Gonzalez
Research Paper


Screening-level life cycle assessment (LCA) can provide a quick tool to identify the life cycle hot spots and focus research efforts to help to minimize the burdens of a technology while maximizing its benefits. The use of nanoscale silver in consumer products has exploded in popularity. Although its use is considered beneficial because of antimicrobial effects, some attention must be given to the potential environmental impacts it could impart on the life cycle of these nanoproducts as production demands escalate. This work examines the environmental impact of including silver nanoparticles in commercially available socks using screening-level LCA. Initial results suggest washing during the use phase contributes substantially more than the manufacturing phase to the product life cycle impacts. Comparison of nanoparticles prepared by either chemical reduction, liquid flame spray (LFS), or plasma arc demonstrate how the type of manufacturing process used for the nanoscale silver can change the resulting life cycle impact of the sock product. The magnitude of this impact will depend on the type of process used to manufacture the nanoscale silver, with LFS having the most impact because of the need for large quantities of hydrogen and oxygen. Although the increased impacts for a single nanoproduct may be relatively small, the added environmental load can actually be a significant quantity when considered at the regional or global production level.


Silver nanoparticles Nanomanufacturing Screening-level life cycle assessment EH&S Sustainable design Consumer products 



The authors would like to acknowledge Jane Bare, U.S. EPA, for her help with the use of SimaPro and TRACI.


  1. Appliance life expectancy: how long should an appliance last? Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  2. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2002) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3):49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42(11):4133–4139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaser SA, Scheringer M, MacLeod M, Hungerbühler K (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nano-functionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 390(2–3):396–409Google Scholar
  6. Chen J, Lu G, Zhu L, Flagan RC (2007) A simple, versatile mini-arc plasma source for nanocrystal synthesis. J Nanoparticle Res 9(2):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushing BL, Kolesnichenko VL, O’Connor CJ (2004) Recent advances in the liquid-phase syntheses of inorganic nanoparticles. Chem Rev 104:3893–3946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cotton: from field to fabric. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  9. Durfee DJ, Tomlinson JJ (2001) Boston washer study. Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Geranio L, Heuberger M, Nowack B (2009) The behavior of silver nanotextiles during washing. Environ Sci Technol 43(21):8113–8118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guzmán MG, Dille J, Godet S (2009) Synthesis of silver nanoparticles by chemical reduction method and their antibacterial activity. Int J Chem Biomol Eng 2(3):104–111Google Scholar
  12. Hilliard HE (1998) Silver. U.S. Geological Survey Commodity ReportGoogle Scholar
  13. How long do you expect a pair of socks to last? Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  14. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  15. International Standards Organization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines principles and framework, ISO 14044Google Scholar
  16. Laundry detergent: full report. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  17. Lave LB, Cobas-Flores E, Hendrickson CT, McMichael FC (1995) Using input-output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharges. Environ Sci Technol 29(9):420A–426ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Makela JM, Keskinen H, Forsblom T, Keskinen J (2004) Generation of metal, metal oxide nanoparticles by liquid flame spray process. J Mater Sci 39:2783–2788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2009) An examination of existing data for the industrial manufacture and use of nanocomponents and their role in the life cycle impact of nanoproducts. Environ Sci Technol 43(5):1256–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42(12):4447–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. PRé Consultants (2009) SimaPro 7.1.8 LCA SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  22. Project on emerging nanotechnologies consumer products inventory. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  23. Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt W-P, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment. Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sahr RC (2009) Consumer price index (CPI) conversion factors 1774 to estimated 2019 to convert to dollars of 1998. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  25. Silverwear socks. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  26. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (2009) Ecoinvent v2 life cycle inventory databaseGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Census Bureau (2009) MQ315B(08)-5: socks production—summary 2008Google Scholar
  28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice, EPA/600/R-06/060Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy (2008) ENERGY STAR® program requirements for clothes washers, partner commitmentsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Meyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary Ann Curran
    • 1
  • Michael A. Gonzalez
    • 1
  1. 1.National Risk Management Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations