Advertisement

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, 14:1109 | Cite as

Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world

  • Fabiano Piccinno
  • Fadri Gottschalk
  • Stefan Seeger
  • Bernd Nowack
Perspectives

Abstract

Not much is known so far about the amounts of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) that are produced but this information is crucial for environmental exposure assessment. This paper provides worldwide and Europe-wide estimates for the production and use of ten different ENM (TiO2, ZnO, FeO x , AlO x , SiO2, CeO2, Ag, quantum dots, CNT, and fullerenes) based on a survey sent to companies producing and using ENM. The companies were asked about their estimate of the worldwide or regional market and not about their company-specific production, information that they would be less likely to communicate. The study focused on the actual production quantities and not the production capacities. The survey also addressed information on distribution of the produced ENM to different product categories. The results reveal that some ENM are produced in Europe in small amounts (less than 10 t/year for Ag, QDs and fullerenes). The most produced ENM is TiO2 with up to 10,000 t of worldwide production. CeO2, FeO x , AlO x , ZnO, and CNT are produced between 100 and 1000 t/year. The data for SiO2 cover the whole range from less than 10 to more than 10,000 t/year, which is indicative of problems related to the definition of this material (is pyrogenic silica considered an ENM or not?). For seven ENM we have obtained the first estimates for their distribution to different product categories, information that also forms the base for life-cycle based exposure analysis.

Keywords

Production quantities Nanomaterials Europe 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the respondents of the company survey who made this study possible. We also thank Martin Birtel from Empa for help with the SurveyMonkey online tool and Thomas Ruddy for correcting the English.

Supplementary material

11051_2012_1109_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (77 kb)
PDF 77 kb

References

  1. Aitken RJ, Chaudhry MQ, Boxall ABA, Hull M (2006) Manufacture and use of nanomaterials: current status in the UK and global trends. Occup Med 56:300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthel H, Heinemann M, Stintz M, Wessely B (1999) Particle sizes of fumed silica. Part Part Syst Charact 16:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berube DM, Searson EM, Morton TS, Cummings CL (2010) Project on emerging nanotechnologies—consumer product inventory evaluated. Nanotechnol Law Bus 7:152–163Google Scholar
  4. Blaser SA, Scheringer M, MacLeod M, Hungerbuhler K (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nano-functionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 390:396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleeker EAJ, Cassee FR, Geertsma RE, de Jong WH, Heugens EHW, Koers-Jacquemijns M, van de Meent D, Oomen AG, Popma J, Rietveld AG, Wijnhoven SWP (2012) Interpretation and implications of the European Commission Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial, RIVM Letter report 601358001/2012. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthove, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosch A, Maier M, Morfeld P (2012) Nanosilica? Clarifications are necessary! Nanotoxicology 6:611–613Google Scholar
  7. Borm PJA, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K, Schins R, Stone V, Kreyling W, Lademann J, Krutmann J, Warheit D, Oberdorster E (2006) The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Part Fiber Toxicol 3:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cientifica (2004) Nanotubes, executive summary. http://www.cientifica.com/www/summarys/Nanotubes_2004_ExSum.pdf
  9. Eklund PC, Ajayan P, Blackmon R, Hart AJ, Kong J, Pradhan B, Rao A, Rinzler A (2007) Assessment of international research and development on carbon nanotube manufacturing and applications. WTEC Panel Report. World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc. Available at http://www.wtec.org/cnm/CNM_final_report.pdf
  10. EU (2011) Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial (2011/696/EU). O. J. L 275:38–40Google Scholar
  11. Forster SP, Olveira S, Seeger S (2011) Nanotechnology in the market: promises and realities. Int J Nanotechnol 8:592–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) Release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 13:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43:9216–9222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottschalk F, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2010a) Probabilistic material flow modeling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: methodology and an application to engineered nano-TiO2 particles. Environ Model Softw 25:320–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2010b) Possibilities and limitations of modeling environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials by probabilistic material flow analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1036–1048Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton MB (2009) Online survey response rates and times background and guidance for industry. Ipathia, Inc./SuperSurvey. http://www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_paper_response_rates.htm
  17. Healy ML, Dahlben LJ, Isaacs JA (2008) Environmental assessment of single-walled carbon nanotube processes. J Ind Ecol 12:376–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendren CO, Mesnard X, Dröge J, Wiesner MR (2011) Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:2562–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. International Organization for Standardization ISO (2008) Technical specification ISO/TS 27687:2008(E): Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplateGoogle Scholar
  20. Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJJ, Batley GE, Fernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY, Mahendra S, McLaughlin MJ, Lead JR (2008) Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1825–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krug HF, Wick P (2011) Nanotoxicology: an interdisciplinary challenge. Angew Chem Int Ed 50:1260–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuzma J (2005) The nanotechnology–biology interface: exploring models for oversight. Workshop Report. Available at http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/9685/nanotech_jan06.pdf
  23. Lo LY, Li Y, Yeung KW, Yuen CWM (2007) Indicating the development stage of nanotechnology in the textile and clothing industry. Int J Nanotechnol 4:667–679Google Scholar
  24. Lövestam G, Rauscher H, Roebben G, Sokull Klüttgen B, Gibson N, Putaud JP, Stamm H (2010) Considerations on a definition of nanomaterial for regulatory purposes. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-79-16014-1. doi: 10.2788/98686
  25. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NanoCentral (2010) NanoPerspective—the nanotechnology resource library. NanoCentral, Sedgefield, Durham, UK. http://www.nanocentral.eu/nanoperspective
  27. Nightingale P, Morgan M, Rafols I, van Zwanenberg P (2008) Nanomaterials innovation systems: their structure, dynamics and regulation. A Report for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowack B, Bucheli TD (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowack B, Krug HF, Height M (2011) 120 years of nanosilver history: implications for policy makers. Environ Sci Technol 45:1177–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park B (2007) Current and future applications of nanotechnology. Environ Sci Technol 24:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ray PC, Yu HT, Fu PP (2009) Toxicity and environmental risks of nanomaterials: challenges and future needs. J Environ Sci Health Part C 27:1–35Google Scholar
  33. Robichaud CO, Uyar AE, Darby MR, Zucker LG, Wiesner MR (2009) Estimates of upper bounds and trends in nano-TiO2 production as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:4227–4233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaefer DW, Justice RS (2007) How nano are nanocomposites? Macromolecules 40:8501–8517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheringer M, MacLeod M, Behra R, Sigg L, Hungerbuhler H (2010) Environmental risks associated with nanoparticulate silver used as biocide. Household Pers Care Today 1:34–37Google Scholar
  36. Schmid K, Riediker M (2008) Use of nanoparticles in Swiss industry: a targeted survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:2253–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Som C, Berges M, Chaudhry Q, Dusinska M, Fernandes TF, Olsen SI, Nowack B (2010) The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology 269:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stark WJ, Pratsinis SE (2002) Aerosol flame reactors for manufacture of nanoparticles. Powder Technol 126:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone V, Nowack B, Baun A, van den Brink N, von der Kammer F, Dusinska M, Handy R, Hankin S, Hassellöv M, Joner E, Fernandes TF (2010) Nanomaterials for environmental studies: classification, reference material issues, and strategies for physico-chemical characterisation. Sci Total Environ 408:1745–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thayer AM (2000) Firms find a new field of dreams. Chem Eng News 78:36–38Google Scholar
  41. United Nations Environment Programme UNEP (2007) Chapter 7: emerging challenges—nanotechnology and the environment, Geo Year Book 2007Google Scholar
  42. US EPA (2010a) Nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen. US Environmental Protection Agency, Report EPA/600/R-09/057FGoogle Scholar
  43. US EPA (2010b) State of the science literature review: nano titanium dioxide environmental matters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Jones KL, Hochella MF, Di Giulio RT, Casman E, Bernhardt ES (2009) Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk, and ecological implications of nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 43:6458–6462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wijnhoven SWP, Dekkers S, Kool M, Jongeneel WP, De Jong WH 2010: Nanomaterials in consumer products. Update of products on the European market in 2010. RIVM Report 340370003/2010. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/340370003.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabiano Piccinno
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fadri Gottschalk
    • 1
  • Stefan Seeger
    • 2
  • Bernd Nowack
    • 1
  1. 1.Empa–Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and TechnologyTechnology and Society LaboratorySt. GallenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Physical ChemistryUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations