Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials

  • Arturo A. KellerEmail author
  • Suzanne McFerran
  • Anastasiya Lazareva
  • Sangwon Suh


Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are now becoming a significant fraction of the material flows in the global economy. We are already reaping the benefits of improved energy efficiency, material use reduction, and better performance in many existing and new applications that have been enabled by these technological advances. As ENMs pervade the global economy, however, it becomes important to understand their environmental implications. As a first step, we combined ENM market information and material flow modeling to produce the first global assessment of the likely ENM emissions to the environment and landfills. The top ten most produced ENMs by mass were analyzed in a dozen major applications. Emissions during the manufacturing, use, and disposal stages were estimated, including intermediate steps through wastewater treatment plants and waste incineration plants. In 2010, silica, titania, alumina, and iron and zinc oxides dominate the ENM market in terms of mass flow through the global economy, used mostly in coatings/paints/pigments, electronics and optics, cosmetics, energy and environmental applications, and as catalysts. We estimate that 63–91 % of over 260,000–309,000 metric tons of global ENM production in 2010 ended up in landfills, with the balance released into soils (8–28 %), water bodies (0.4–7 %), and atmosphere (0.1–1.5 %). While there are considerable uncertainties in the estimates, the framework for estimating emissions can be easily improved as better data become available. The material flow estimates can be used to quantify emissions at the local level, as inputs for fate and transport models to estimate concentrations in different environmental compartments.


Life cycle Emissions TiO2 SiO2 ZnO CeO2 Al2O3 Nano-Ag Nano-Cu Nano-Fe CNTs Nanoclays 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement Number DBI-0830117. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF or USEPA. This work has not been subjected to USEPA review, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors thank Michael Bostok for the d3.js script used to produce the Sankey diagrams.

Supplementary material

11051_2013_1692_MOESM1_ESM.doc (55 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 55 kb)


  1. Adeleye AS, Keller AA, Miller RJ, Lenihan HS (2013) Persistence of commercial nanoscaled zero-valent iron (nZVI) and by-products. J Nanopart ResGoogle Scholar
  2. Alda J, Rico-García JM, López-Alonso JM, Boreman G (2005) Optical antennas for nano-photonic applications. Nanotechnology 16:S230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avasthi DK, Mishra YK, Kabiraj D, Lalla NP, Pivin CJ (2007) Synthesis of metal–polymer nanocomposite for optical applications. Nanotechnology 18:125604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baglioni P, Giorgi R (2006) Soft and hard nanomaterials for restoration and conservation of cultural heritage. Soft Matter 2:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baur J, Silverman E (2007) Challenges and opportunities in multifunctional nanocomposite structures for aerospace applications. MRS Bull 32:328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:4133–4139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigall NC, Herrmann A-K, Vogel M, Rose M, Simon P, Carrillo-Cabrera W, Dorfs D, Kaskel S, Gaponik N, Eychmüller A (2009) Hydrogels and aerogels from noble metal nanoparticles. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 48:9731–9734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blasco C, Picó Y (2011) Determining nanomaterials in food. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 30:84–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 390:396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boisseau P, Loubaton B (2011) Nanomedicine, nanotechnology in medicine. CR Phys 12:620–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borchardt JK (2003) Nanotechnology providing new composites. Reinf Plast 47:36–39Google Scholar
  12. Boxall A, Chaudhry Q, Sinclair C, Jones A, Aitken R, Jefferson B, Watts C (2007) Current and future predicted environmental exposure to engineered nanoparticles. York, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Coelho MC, Torro G, Emami N, Gracio J (2012) Nanotechnology in automotive industry: research strategy and trends for the future-small objects, big impacts. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 12:6621–6630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damoiseaux R, George S, Li M, Pokhrel S, Ji Z, France B, Xia T, Suarez E, Rallo R, Madler L, Cohen Y, Hoek EMV, Nel A (2011) No time to lose-high throughput screening to assess nanomaterial safety. Nanoscale 3:1345–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DEFRA (2002) Sewage treatment in the UK, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Dhakras PA (2011) Nanotechnology applications in water purification and waste water treatment: a review. In: 2011 International Conference on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (ICONSET), pp 285–291Google Scholar
  17. Dhoke SK, Sinha TJM, Khanna AS (2009) Effect of nano-Al2O3 particles on the corrosion behavior of alkyd based waterborne coatings. J Coat Technol Res 6:353–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ding B, Wang M, Wang X, Yu J, Sun G (2010) Electrospun nanomaterials for ultrasensitive sensors. Mater Today 13:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dionysiou D (2004) Environmental applications and implications of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. J Environ Eng 130:723–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Domina T, Koch K (1997) The textile waste lifecycle. Cloth Text Res J 15:96–102Google Scholar
  21. Du X, Graedel TE (2011) Uncovering the global life cycles of the rare earth elements. Sci Rep 1:145Google Scholar
  22. Duncan B, Elci SG, Rotello VM (2012) Beyond biomarkers: identifying cell state using unbiased nanosensor arrays. Nano Today 7:228–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fairbairn EA, Keller AA, Mädler L, Zhou D, Pokhrel S, Cherr GN (2011) Metal oxide nanomaterials in seawater: linking physicochemical characteristics with biological response in sea urchin development. J Hazard Mater 192:1565–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farokhzad OC, Langer R (2006) Nanomedicine: developing smarter therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58:1456–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Future_Markets (2012) The global market for nanomaterials 2002–2006: production volumes, revenues and end use markets. Future Markets Inc.,
  26. Gao J, Youn S, Hovsepyan A, Llaneza VL, Wang Y, Bitton G, Bonzongo J-CJ (2009) Dispersion and toxicity of selected manufactured nanomaterials in natural river water samples: effects of water chemical composition. Environ Sci Technol 43:3322–3328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geranio L, Heuberger M, Nowack B (2009) The behavior of silver nanotextiles during washing. Environ Sci Technol 43:8113–8118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gopalakrishnan K, Birgisson B, Taylor P, Attoh-Okine NO (2011) Nanotechnology in civil infrastructure: a paradigm shift. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 13:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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 Softwar 25:320–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Gruère GP (2012) Implications of nanotechnology growth in food and agriculture in OECD countries. Food Policy 37:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y (2004) Proposal of six indicators of material cycles for describing society’s metabolism: from the viewpoint of material flow analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 40:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hassellöv M, Kaegi R (2009) Analysis and characterization of manufactured nanoparticles in aquatic environments. Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Nanotechnology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 211–266Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Henkler F, Tralau T, Tentschert J, Kneuer C, Haase A, Platzek T, Luch A, Götz M (2012) Risk assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics: a European union perspective. Arch Toxicol 86:1641–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsu L-Y, Chein H-M (2007) Evaluation of nanoparticle emissions for TiO2 nanopowder coating materials. J Nanopart Res 9:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaegi R, Ulrich A, Sinnet B, Vonbank R, Wichser A, Zuleeg S, Simmler H, Brunner S, Vonmont H, Burkhardt M, Boller M (2008) Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment. Environ Pollut 156:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaiser J-P, Zuin S, Wick P (2013) Is nanotechnology revolutionizing the paint and lacquer industry? A critical opinion. Sci Total Environ 442:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keller AA, Wang H, Zhou D, Lenihan HS, Cherr G, Cardinale BJ, Miller R, Ji Z (2010) Stability and aggregation of metal oxide nanoparticles in natural aqueous matrices. Environ Sci Technol 44:1962–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Khanna AS (2008) Nanotechnology in high performance paint coatings. Asian J Exp Sci 22:25–32Google Scholar
  43. Khanna V, Bakshi BR (2009) Carbon nanofiber polymer composites: evaluation of life cycle energy use. Environ Sci Technol 43:2078–2084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kharisov BI, Kharissova OV (2010) Advances in nanotechnology in paper processing. Int J Green Nanotechnol Mater Sci Eng 2:M1–M8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khin MM, Nair AS, Babu VJ, Murugan R, Ramakrishna S (2012) A review on nanomaterials for environmental remediation. Energy Environ Sci 5:8075–8109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Khot LR, Sankaran S, Maja JM, Ehsani R, Schuster EW (2012) Applications of nanomaterials in agricultural production and crop protection: a review. Crop Prot 35:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kiser MA, Westerhoff P, Benn T, Wang Y, Pérez-Rivera J, Hristovski K (2009) Titanium nanomaterial removal and release from wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sci Technol 43:6757–6763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Lanone S, Rogerieux F, Geys J, Dupont A, Maillot-Marechal E, Boczkowski J, Lacroix G, Hoet P (2009) Comparative toxicity of 24 manufactured nanoparticles in human alveolar epithelial and macrophage cell lines. Part Fibre Toxicol 6:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee J, Mahendra S, Alvarez PJJ (2010) Nanomaterials in the construction industry: a review of their applications and environmental health and safety considerations. ACS Nano 4:3580–3590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liu HH, Cohen Y (2012) Multimedia environmental distribution of nanomaterials. In: Nanotechnology 2012: bio sensors, instruments, medical, environment and energy, Nanotech 2012 vol 3. pp 304–306Google Scholar
  52. Lopez-Moreno ML, de la Rosa G, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Castillo-Michel H, Botez CE, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2010) Evidence of the differential biotransformation and genotoxicity of ZnO and CeO2 nanoparticles on soybean (Glycine max) plants. Environ Sci Technol 44(19):7315–7320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lowry GV, Espinasse BP, Badireddy AR, Richardson CJ, Reinsch BC, Bryant LD, Bone AJ, Deonarine A, Chae S, Therezien M, Colman BP, Hsu-Kim H, Bernhardt ES, Matson CW, Wiesner MR (2012a) Long-term transformation and fate of manufactured Ag nanoparticles in a simulated large scale freshwater emergent wetland. Environ Sci Technol 46:7027–7036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lowry GV, Gregory KB, Apte SC, Lead JR (2012b) Transformations of nanomaterials in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 46:6891–6892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marín S, Merkoçi A (2012) Nanomaterials based electrochemical sensing applications for safety and security. Electroanalysis 24:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mu L, Sprando R (2010) Application of nanotechnology in cosmetics. Pharm Res 27:1746–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Musee N (2011) Simulated environmental risk estimation of engineered nanomaterials: a case of cosmetics in Johannesburg City. Hum Exp Toxicol 30:1181–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Navarro E, Baun A, Behra R, Hartmann NB, Filser J, Miao AJ, Quigg A, Santschi PH, Sigg L (2008) Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 17:372–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Brien N, Cummins E (2010) Ranking initial environmental and human health risk resulting from environmentally relevant nanomaterials. J Environ Sci Health A 45:992–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peckenham JM (2005) The use of biosolids in Maine: a review, prepared for Maine State Planning Office and the Maine Waste Water Control AssociationGoogle Scholar
  62. Peralta-Videa JR, Zhao L, Lopez-Moreno ML, de la Rosa G, Hong J, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2011) Nanomaterials and the environment: a review for the biennium 2008–2010. J Hazard Mater 186:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Petrov PD, Georgiev GL (2012) Fabrication of super-macroporous nanocomposites by deposition of carbon nanotubes onto polymer cryogels. Eur Polym J 48:1366–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Presting H, König U (2003) Future nanotechnology developments for automotive applications. Mater Sci Eng C 23:737–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Qian L, Hinestroza J (2004) Application of nanotechnology for high performance textiles. J Text Appar Technol Manag 4:1–7Google Scholar
  66. Reck BK, Graedel TE (2012) Challenges in metal recycling. Science 337:690–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sabitha M, Jose S, Raj S, Sumod U (2012) Nanotechnology in cosmetics: opportunities and challenges. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 4:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sahoo NG, Rana S, Cho JW, Li L, Chan SH (2010) Polymer nanocomposites based on functionalized carbon nanotubes. Prog Polym Sci 35:837–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Salonitis K, Stavropoulos P, Chryssolouris G (2010) Nanotechnology for the needs of the automotive industry. Int J Nanomanuf 6:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Savage N, Diallo MS (2005) Nanomaterials and water purification: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 7:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schmidt M (2008) The Sankey diagram in energy and material flow management. J Ind Ecol 12:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Serrano E, Rus G, García-Martínez J (2009) Nanotechnology for sustainable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:2373–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shafer MM, Overdier JT, Armstong DE (1998) Removal, partitioning, and fate of silver and other metals in wastewater treatment plants and effluent-receiving streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:630–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Mercer R, Murray AR, Johnson VJ, Potapovich AI, Tyurina YY, Gorelik O, Arepalli S, Schwegler-Berry D, Hubbs AF, Antonini J, Evans DE, Ku B-K, Ramsey D, Maynard A, Kagan VE, Castranova V, Baron P (2005) Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 289:L698–L708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Silvestre C, Duraccio D, Cimmino S (2011) Food packaging based on polymer nanomaterials. Prog Polym Sci 36:1766–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Singh P, Nanda A (2012) Nanotechnology in cosmetics: a boon or bane? Toxicol Environ Chem 94:1467–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Song L, Toth G, Vajtai R, Endo M, Ajayan PM (2012) Fabrication and characterization of single-walled carbon nanotube fiber for electronics applications. Carbon 50:5521–5524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Su S, Wu W, Gao J, Lu J, Fan C (2012) Nanomaterials-based sensors for applications in environmental monitoring. J Mater Chem 22:18101–18110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Subramanian V, Takhee L (2012) Nanotechnology-based flexible electronics. Nanotechnology 23:340201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Suh S, Yee S (2011) Phosphorus use-efficiency of agriculture and food system in the US. Chemosphere 84:806–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tan E, Yin P, Lang X, Wang X, You T, Guo L (2012) Functionalized gold nanoparticles as nanosensor for sensitive and selective detection of silver ions and silver nanoparticles by surface-enhanced Raman scattering. Analyst 137:3925–3928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomas CR, George S, Horst AM, Ji Z, Miller RJ, Peralta-Videa JR, Xia T, Pokhrel S, Mädler L, Gardea-Torresdey JL, Holden PA, Keller AA, Lenihan HS, Nel AE, Zink JI (2011) Nanomaterials in the environment: from materials to high-throughput screening to organisms. ACS Nano 5:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. United_Nations (2011) Municipal waste treatment. United Nations Statistics DivisionGoogle Scholar
  84. Weiss J, Takhistov P, McClements DJ (2006) Functional materials in food nanotechnology. J Food Sci 71:R107–R116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Windler L, Lorenz C, von Goetz N, Hungerbühler K, Amberg M, Heuberger M, Nowack B (2012) Release of titanium dioxide from textiles during washing. Environ Sci Technol 46:8181–8188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wong YWH, Yuen CWM, Leung MYS, Ku SKA, Lam HLI (2006) Selected applications of nanotechnology in textiles. AUTEX Res J 6:1–8Google Scholar
  87. Xia T, Kovochich M, Liong M, Mädler L, Gilbert B, Shi H, Yeh JI, Zink JI, Nel AE (2008) Comparison of the mechanism of toxicity of zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles based on dissolution and oxidative stress properties. ACS Nano 2:2121–2134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhao L, Peralta-Videa JR, Varela-Ramirez A, Castillo-Michel H, Li C, Zhang J, Aguilera RJ, Keller AA, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2012) Effect of surface coating and organic matter on the uptake of CeO2 NPs by corn plants grown in soil: insight into the uptake mechanism. J. Hazard Mater. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.008
  89. Zhou D, Keller AA (2010) Role of morphology in the aggregation kinetics of ZnO nanoparticles. Water Res 44:2948–2956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhou Z-Y, Tian N, Li J-T, Broadwell I, Sun S-G (2011) Nanomaterials of high surface energy with exceptional properties in catalysis and energy storage. Chem Soc Rev 40:4167–4185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arturo A. Keller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suzanne McFerran
    • 1
  • Anastasiya Lazareva
    • 1
  • Sangwon Suh
    • 1
  1. 1.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations