Advertisement

Integrating life cycle assessment into managing potential EHS risks of engineered nanomaterials: reviewing progress to date

  • William C. Walker
  • Christopher J. BossoEmail author
  • Matthew Eckelman
  • Jacqueline A. Isaacs
  • Leila Pourzahedi
Perspectives

Abstract

The 2011 National Nanotechnology Initiative’s Environmental Health and Safety Research Strategy stressed the need for research to integrate life cycle considerations into risk management and, then, to better integrate risk assessment into decisionmaking on environmental, health, and safety (EHS) dimensions of nanomanufacturing. This paper reviews scholarly articles published 2010–2015 that in some way apply life cycle analysis to nanotechnology to assess the extent to which current research reflects the priorities lain out in the NNI report. As the NNI’s focus was primarily on the “responsible development of nanotechnology” we also focus our examination on the ways in which LCA, in concert with other methodologies, can provide utility to decision makers facing the challenge of implementing that broad goal. We explore some of the challenges and opportunities inherent in using LCA, a tool built to optimize manufacturing decisions, as a guide for policy formulation or tool for policy implementation.

Keywords

Engineered nanomaterials Sustainable nanomanufacturing Life cycle assessment Risk management Responsible development Decision-making Environmental and health effects 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Scalable Nanomanufacturing award (CMMI-1120329). The views expressed are those of the authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arvidsson R, Molander S, Sandén BA (2011) Impacts of a silver-coated future. J Ind Ecol 15(6):844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvidsson R, Kushnir D, Sandén BA, Molander S (2014) Prospective life cycle assessment of graphene production by ultrasonication and chemical reduction. Environ Sci Technol 48(8):4529–4536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aven T, Zio E (2014) Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management: perspectives. Risk Anal 34:1164–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babaizadeh H, Hassan M (2013) Life cycle assessment of nano-sized titanium dioxide coating on residential windows. Constr Build Mater 40:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer C, Buchgeister J, Hischier R, Poganietz WR, Schebek L, Warsen J (2008) Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology. J Clean Prod 16:910–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaudrie CEH, Kandlikar M, Satterfield T (2013) From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in U.S. Regulatory Oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. Environ Sci Technol 47:5524–5534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boldrin A, Hansen SF, Baun A, Hartmann NIB, Astrup TF (2014) Environmental exposure assessment framework for nanoparticles in solid waste. J Nanopart Res 16(6):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosso C (2013) The enduring embrace: the regulatory Ancien Régime and governance of nanomaterials in the U.S. Nanotechnol Law Bus 9(4):381–392Google Scholar
  10. Bottero JY, Auffan M, Borschnek D, Chaurand P, Labille J, Levard C, Wiesner MR (2015) Nanotechnology, global development in the frame of environmental risk forecasting. A necessity of interdisciplinary researches. Comptes Rendus Geosci 347(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breyer SG (1982) Regulation and its reform. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Coglianese C (2010) Engaging business in the regulation of nanotechnology. In: Bosso C (ed) Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology. Earthscan Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlben LJ, Eckelman MJ, Hakimian A, Somu S, Isaacs JA (2013) Environmental life cycle assessment of a carbon nanotube-enabled semiconductor device. Environ Sci Technol 47(15):8471–8478Google Scholar
  14. Dale AL, Casman EA, Lowry GV, Lead JR, Viparelli E, Baalousha M (2015) Modeling nanomaterial environmental fate in aquatic systems. Environ Sci Technol 49(5):2587–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Figueirêdo MCB, de Freitas Rosa M, Ugaya CML, de Sá Moreira de Souza M, da Silva Braid ACC, de Melo LFL (2012) Life cycle assessment of cellulose nanowhiskers. J Clean Prod 35:130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deorsola FA, Russo N, Blengini GA, Fino D (2012) Synthesis, characterization and environmental assessment of nanosized MoS2 particles for lubricants applications. Chem Eng J 195–196:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhingra R, Naidu S, Upreti G, Sawhney R (2010) Sustainable nanotechnology: through green methods and life-cycle thinking. Sustainability 2:3323–3338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckelman MJ, Mauter MS, Isaacs JA, Elimelech M (2012) New perspectives on nanomaterial aquatic ecotoxicity: production impacts exceed direct exposure impacts for carbon nanotubes. Environ Sci Technol 46:2902–2910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Espinoza VS, Erbis S, Pourzahedi L, Eckelman MJ, Isaacs JA (2014) Material flow analysis of carbon nanotube lithium-ion batteries used in portable computers. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2(7):1642–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao T, Jelle BP, Sandberg LIC, Gustavsen A (2013) Monodisperse hollow silica nanospheres for nano insulation materials: synthesis, characterization, and life cycle assessment. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5:761–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garner KL, Keller AA (2014) Emerging patterns for engineered nanomaterials in the environment: a review of fate and toxicity studies. J Nanopart Res 16(8):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AF (2012) Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbertson LM, Busnaina AA, Isaacs JA, Zimmerman JB, Eckelman MJ (2014) Life cycle impacts and benefits of a carbon nanotube-enabled chemical gas sensor. Environ Sci Technol 48(19):11360–11368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 13(5):1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(24):9216–9222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graedel TE, Harper EM, Nassar NT, Nuss P, Reck BK (2015) Criticality of metals and metalloids. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(14):4257–4262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grieger KD, Laurent A, Miseljic M, Christensen F, Baun A, Olsen SI (2012) Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals? J Nanopart Res 14(7):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths OG, O’Byrne JP, Torrente-Murciano L, Jones MD, Mattia D, McManus MC (2013) Identifying the largest environmental life cycle impacts during carbon nanotube synthesis via chemical vapour deposition. J Clean Prod 42:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grubb GF, Bakshi BR (2011) Appreciating the role of thermodynamics in LCA improvement analysis via an application to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 45:3054–3061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansson SO, Aven T (2014) Is risk analysis scientific? Risk Anal 34:1173–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hassan MM (2010) Quantification of the environmental benefits of ultrafine/nanotitanium dioxide photocatalyst coatings for concrete pavement using hybrid life-cycle assessment. J Infrastruct Syst 16:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hendren CO, Lowry M, Grieger KD, Money ES, Johnston JM, Wiesner MR, Beaulieu SM (2013) Modeling approaches for characterizing and evaluating environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials in support of risk-based decision making. Environ Sci Technol 47(3):1190–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holden PA, Klaessig F, Turco RF, Priester JH, Rico CM, Avila-Arias H, Mortimer M, Pacpaco K, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) Evaluation of exposure concentrations used in assessing manufactured nanomaterial environmental hazards: are they relevant? Environ Sci Technol 48(18):10541–10551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holdren JP (2014) Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President of the United States, to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives on September 17, 2014Google Scholar
  36. International Standards Organization (2006) ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Standards Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller AA, Lazareva A (2013) Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1(1):65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keller AA, McFerran S, Lazareva A, Suh S (2013) Global life cycle releases of engineered nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 15(6):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Khanna V, Bakshi BR, Lee LJ (2008) Carbon nanofiber production. J Ind Ecol 12:394–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim HC, Fthenakis V (2013) Life cycle energy and climate change implications of nanotechnologies. J Ind Ecol 17:528–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li Q, McGinnis S, Sydnor C, Wong A, Renneckar S (2013) Nanocellulose life cycle assessment. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1:919–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindblom C (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm Rev 19:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Linkov I, Seager TP (2011) Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 45:5068–5074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu HH, Cohen Y (2014) Multimedia environmental distribution of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 48:3281–3292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liu HH, Bilal M, Lazareva A, Keller A, Cohen Y (2015) Simulation tool for assessing the release and environmental distribution of nanomaterials. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6(1):938–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lloyd SM, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2005) Life cycle benefits of using nanotechnology to stabilize platinum-group metal particles in automotive catalysts. Environ Sci Technol 39:1384–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 43:1256–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2011) An examination of silver nanoparticles in socks using screening-level life cycle assessment. J Nanopart Res 13:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miseljic M, Olsen SI (2014) Life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a literature review of assessment status. J Nanopart Res 16(6):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mohr NJ, Meijer A, Huijbregts MAJ, Reijnders L (2012) Environmental life cycle assessment of roof-integrated flexible amorphous silicon/nanocrystalline silicon solar cell laminate: environmental life cycle assessment. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 21:802–815Google Scholar
  51. Money ES, Reckhow KH, Wiesner MR (2012) The use of Bayesian networks for nanoparticle risk forecasting: model formulation and baseline evaluation. Sci Total Environ 426:436–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42(12):4447–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2008) National Nanotechnology Initiative 2008 Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety. National Nanotechnology Initiative, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2011) National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy. National Nanotechnology Initiative, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  55. National Research Council (2007) Models in environmental regulatory decision making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology (2014) Progress review on the Coordinated Implementation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy. National Science and Technology Council Committee on TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  57. Nowack B, Ranville JF, Diamond S, Gallego-Urrea JA, Metcalfe C, Rose J, Horne N, Koelmans AA, Klaine SJ (2012) Potential scenarios for nanomaterial release and subsequent alteration in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nowack B, Mueller NC, Krug HF, Wick P (2014) How to consider engineered nanomaterials in major accident regulations. Environ Sci Eur 26(1):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Petersen EJ, Zhang L, Mattison NT, O’Carroll DM, Whelton AJ, Uddin N, Nguyen T, Huang Q, Henry TB, Holbrook RD, Chen KL (2011) Potential release pathways, environmental fate, and ecological risks of carbon nanotubes. Environ Sci Technol 45(23):9837–9856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers: attributional LCA can mislead policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pourzahedi L, Eckelman MJ (2014) Environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver-enabled bandages. Environ Sci Technol 49(1):361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Quik JT, de Klein JJ, Koelmans AA (2015) Spatially explicit fate modelling of nanomaterials in natural waters. Water Res 80:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sarewitz D (2010) Not by experts alone. Nature 466(5):688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Şengül H, Theis TL (2011) An environmental impact assessment of quantum dot photovoltaics (QDPV) from raw material acquisition through use. J Clean Prod 19:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Sun TY, Gottschalk F, Hungerbühler K, Nowack B (2014) Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Pollut 185:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sun TY, Conroy G, Donner E, Hungerbühler K, Lombi E, Nowack B (2015) Probabilistic modelling of engineered nanomaterial emissions to the environment: a spatio-temporal approach. Environ Sci  Nano 2:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Upadhyayula VKK, Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2012) Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review. J Clean Prod 26:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Upadhyayula VKK, Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2014) Evaluating the environmental impacts of a nano-enhanced field emission display using life cycle assessment: a screening-level study. Environ Sci Technol 48:1194–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver t-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45:4570–4578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walser T, Meyer D, Fransman W, Buist H, Kuijpers E, Brouwer D (2015) Life-cycle assessment framework for indoor emissions of synthetic nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 17(6):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weimer DL, Vining AR (1999) Policy analysis: concepts and practice, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Wender BA, Foley RW, Guston DH, Seager TP (2012) Anticipatory governance and anticipatory life cycle assessment of single wall carbon nanotube anode lithium ion batteries. Nanotechnol Law Bus 9:201Google Scholar
  74. Wiek A, Foley RW, Guston DH (2012) Nanotechnology for sustainability: what does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? J Nanopart Res 14(9):1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Witik RA, Payet J, Michaud V, Ludwig C, Månson J-AE (2011) Assessing the life cycle costs and environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications. Composites Part A Appl Sci Manuf 42:1694–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Walker
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Bosso
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew Eckelman
    • 2
  • Jacqueline A. Isaacs
    • 3
  • Leila Pourzahedi
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Public Policy and Urban AffairsNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations