Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framework for LCI modelling of releases of manufactured nanomaterials along their life cycle

  • LCI METHODOLOGY AND DATABASES
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Numerous publications in the last years stressed the growing importance of nanotechnology in our society, highlighting both positive as well as in the negative topics. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is amongst the most established and best-developed tool in the area of product-related assessment. In order to use this tool in the area of nanotechnology, clear rules of how emissions of nanomaterials should be taken into account on the level of life cycle inventory (LCI) modelling are required—i.e. what elements and properties need to be reported for an emission of a nanomaterial. The objective of this paper is to describe such a framework for an adequate and comprehensive integration of releases of nanomaterials.

Methods

With a three-step method, additional properties are identified that are necessary for an adequate integration of releases of nanomaterials into LCA studies.

Result and discussion

In the first step, a comprehensive characterisation of the release of a nanomaterial is compiled—based on reviewing scientific publications, results from expert workshops and publications from public authorities and international organisations. In the second step, this comprehensive overview is refined to a list containing only those properties that are effectively relevant for LCA studies—i.e. properties that influence the impacts in the areas of human toxicity and ecotoxicity, respectively. For this, an academic approach is combined with a second, more practical, view point, resulting together in a prioritisation of this list of properties. Finally, in a third step, these findings are translated into the LCA language—by showing how such additional properties could be integrated into the current LCA data formats for a broader use by the LCA community.

Conclusions

As a compromise between scholarly knowledge and the (toxicological) reality, this paper presents a clear proposal of an LCI modelling framework for the integration of releases of nanomaterials in LCA studies. However, only the broad testing of this framework in various situations will show if the suggested simplifications and reductions keep the characterisation of releases of nanomaterials specific enough and/or if assessment is accurate enough. Therefore, a next step has to come from the impact assessment, by the development of characterisation factors as a function of size and shape of such releases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Nanomaterial‘ is defined in EC 2011, as ‘a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1–100 nm’.

  2. According to ISO 2010, releases having one or more dimensions in the nanoscale (i.e. in the range 1–100 nm) are defined as ‘nano objects’; and comprise ‘nanoparticles’ (all three dimensions in the nanoscale), ‘nanofibres’ (two dimensions in nanoscale) and ‘nanoplates’ (one dimension in nanoscale). As reported, e.g. in Klaessig et al. 2011, ‘several reports have been issued that differ in definitions used for nanotechnology’—therefore, here the term ‘manufactured nanomaterial’ (MNM) is used for both, the material as well as its releases along the life cycle.

  3. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)—published by EC-JRC in order to ‘to provide guidance for consistent and quality assured Life Cycle Assessment data and studies’.

  4. The term ‘bulk’ stands in this paper for materials that does not fit into the European Commission’s definition of (manufactured) nanomaterials; i.e. material that has <50 % of its particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range of 1–100 nm.

  5. Prof. Dr. Harald Krug, Dr. Peter Wick (both for human toxicity) and Prof. Dr. Bernd Nowack (for ecotoxicity) have been interviewed in the framework of these activities.

  6. Emissions to air: non-urban air or from high stacks/low population density, long term/lower stratosphere + upper troposphere/urban air close to ground/indoor/unspecified—emissions to water: ground-/ground-, long-term/ocean/surface water/unspecified—emissions to soil: agricultural/forestry/industrial/unspecified (more in Weidema et al. 2012)

  7. As in reality most (non-fibrous) particles are not of a spherical form (Merkus 2009b); Merkus suggests in his publication for a less ambiguous way of reporting the use of the ‘equivalent sphere concept’. However, within the ‘equivalent sphere concept’ various approaches exist (see, e.g. Fig. 2.2 in Merkus 2009b), which depend on the actual measurement technique used.

  8. According to Wikipedia, intrinsic means ‘an essential or inherent property of a system or of a material itself or within. It is independent of how much of the material is present and is independent of the form the material, e.g., one large piece or a collection of smaller pieces. Intrinsic properties are dependent mainly on the chemical composition or structure of the material’.

  9. SCENIHR: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

References

  • Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WCW (2012) The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:1–16. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez PJJ, Colvin VL, Lead JR, Stone V (2009) Research priorities to advance eco-responsible nanotechnology. ACS Nano 3(7):1616–1619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aschberger K, Micheletti C, Sokull Klüttgen B, Christensen FM (2011) 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 37(6):1143–1156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Asmatulu E, Twomey J, Overcash MR (2012) Life cycle and nano-products: end-of-life assessment. J Nanoparticle Res 14:720. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0720-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakand S, Hayes A, Dechsakulthorn F (2012) Nanoparticles: a review of particle toxicology following inhalation exposure. Inhal Toxicol 24(2):125–135. doi:10.3109/08958378.2010.642021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwmeester H, Lynch I, Marvin HJP, Dawson KA, Berges M, Braguer D, Bryne HJ, Casey A, Chambers G, Clift MJD, Elia G, Fernandes TF, Fjellsbo LM, Hatto P, Juillerat L, Klein C, Kreyling WG, Nickel C, Riediker M, Stone V (2011) Minimal analytical characterisation of engineered nanomaterials needed for hazard assessment in biological matrices. Nanotoxicology 5(1):1–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boverhof DR, David RM (2010) Nanomaterial characterization: considerations and needs for hazard assessment and safety evaluation. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:953–961. doi:10.1007/s00216-009-3103-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Card JW, Magnuson BA (2009) Letter to the editor: proposed minimum characterization parameters for studies on food and food-related nanomaterials. J Food Sci 74(8):vi–vii

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Charron A, Harrison RM (2009) Atmospheric nanoparticles. In: Lead JR, Smith E (eds) Environmental and human health impacts of nanotechnology. Blackwell, London, pp 163–209

  • Choi S-J, Choy J-H (2011) Effect of physico-chemical parameters on the toxicity of inorganic nanoparticles. J Mater Chem 21:5547–5554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark K, van Tongeren M, Christensen FM, Brouwer D, Nowack B, Gottschalk F, Micheletti C, Schmid K, Gerritsen R, Aitken R, Vaquero C, Gkanis V, Housiades C, López de Ipiña JM, Riediker M (2012) Limitations and information needs for engineered nanomaterial-specific exposure estimation and scenarios: recommendations for improved reporting practices. J Nanoparticle Res 14:970. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0970-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane M, Handy RD, Garrod J, Owen R (2008) Ecotoxicity test methods and environmental hazard assessment for engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17:412–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Figueirêdo MCB, Rosa MF, Ugaya CML, Moreira de Souza Filho MS, Carneiro da Silva Braid AC, Braid AC, de Melo LFL (2012) Life cycle assessment of cellulose nanowhiskers. J Clean Prod 35:130–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demou E, Stark WJ, Hellweg S (2009) Particle emission and exposure during nanoparticle synthesis in research laboratories. Ann Occup Hyg 53(8):829–838

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deorsola FA, Russo N, Blengini GA, Fino D (2012) Synthesis, characterization and environmental assessment of nanosized MoS2 particles for lubricants applications. Chem Eng J 195–196:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2012.04.080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson K, Tran CL (2004) An introduction to the short-term toxicology of respirable industrial fibres. Mutat Res 553(1–2):5–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2011) Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial. 2011/696/EU. Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels

  • EC-JRC (2010a) Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. ILCD handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System. European Commission—Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Ispra

  • EC-JRC (2010b) Framework and requirements for life cycle impact assessment models and indicators. ILCD handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System. European Commission—Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Ispra

  • EC-JRC (2010c) General guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. ILCD handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System. European Commission—Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Ispra

  • EC-JRC (2010d) Specific guide for life cycle inventory datasets. ILCD handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System. European Commission—Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Ispra

  • EC-JRC (2011) Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context—based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors. ILCD handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System. European Commission—Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Ispra

  • EC-JRC (2012) ILCD Format SDK 1.1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC). http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/developerDownload.vm. Accessed 3 Oct 2012

  • 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 46:2902–2910

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ecoinvent Centre (2010) EcoSpold v2 Data Format. http://www.ecoinvent.org/ecoinvent-v3/ecospold-v2/. Accessed 3 Jan 2011

  • ecoinvent Centre (2013) ecoinvent data v3.01. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

  • EC-SCENIHR (2009) Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. European Commission—Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (EC-SCENIHR), Brussels

  • ED, DP (2007) Nano risk framework. Environmental Defense/DuPont, Washington/Wilmington

  • Euliss LE, DuPont JA, Gratton S, DeSimone J (2006) Imparting size, shape, and composition control of materials for nanomedicine. Chem Soc Rev 35:1095–1104. doi:10.1039/b600913c

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farré M, Sanchís J, Barceló D (2011) Analysis and assessment of the occurrence, the fate and the behavior of nanomaterials in the environment. Trends Anal Chem 30(3):517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2007) Overview and methodology. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf

  • Fubini B, Ghiazza M, Fenoglio I (2010) Physio-chemical features of engineered nanoparticles relevant to their toxicity. Nanotoxicology 4(4):347–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AF (2012) Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:295–303. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0368-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, de Schreyver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition (revised)/Report I: Characterisation. VROM—Ministery of Housing Spatial Planning and Environment, Den Haag

  • Gottschalk F, Nowack B (2011) The release of engineered nanomaterials to the environment. J Environ Monit 13:1145–1155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:9216–9222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Handy RD, Owen R, Valsami-Jones E (2008a) The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs. Ecotoxicology 17(5):315–325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Handy RD, Von der Kammer F, Lead JR, Hassellöv M, Owen R, Crane M (2008b) The ecotoxicology and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17(4):287–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen SF, Larsen BH, Olsen SI, Baun A (2007) Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1(3):243–250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hassellöv M, Kägi R (2009) Analysis and characterization of manufactured nanoparticles in aquatic environments. In: Lead JR, Smith E (eds) Environmental and human health impacts of nanotechnology. Blackwell, London, pp 211–266

  • Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Environmental sustainability assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of art & strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425:271–282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hischier R, Baitz M, Bretz R, Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Marheineke T, McKeown P, Oele M, Osset P, Renner I, Skone T, Wessman H, de Beaufort ASH (2001) Guidelines for consistent reporting of exchanges from/to nature within life cycle inventories (LCI). Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(4):192–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Horie M, Fujita K (2011) Toxicity of metal oxides nanoparticles. Adv Mol Toxicol 5:145–178

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standardization Organization (ISO), European Standard EN ISO 14′040, Geneva

  • ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Stanardisation Organisation (ISO), European Standard EN ISO 14′044, Geneva

  • ISO (2010) Nanotechnologies—vocabulary—part 1: core terms. International Stanardisation Organisation (ISO), Technical Specification ISO/TS 80004-1, Geneva

  • ISO (2012) Nanotechnologies—guidance on physico-chemical characterization of engineered nanoscale materials for toxicologic assessment. International Stanardisation Organisation (ISO), Technical Report ISO/TR 13014:2012, Geneva

  • Kendall M, Holgate S (2012) Health impact and toxicological effects of nanomaterials in the lung. Respirology 17:743–758. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2012.02171.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaessig F, Marrapese M, Shuji A (2011) Current perspectives in nanotechnology terminology and nomenclature. In: Murashov V, Howard J (eds) Nanotechnology standards. Springer, Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7853-0_2

  • Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N, Carley S, Handy RD, Kapustka L, Nowack B, Von der Kammer F (2012) Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):3–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler A, Som C, Helland A, Gottschalk F (2008) Studying the potential release of carbon nanotubes throughout the application life cycle. J Clean Prod 16(8–9):927–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krug HF, Wick P (2011) Nanotoxicology: an interdisciplinary challenge. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 50:1260–1278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krug HF, Wick P, Nowack B, Müller N (2013) Human and ecotoxicity of synthetic nanomaterials. Initial insights for major accident prevention. Environmental Studies No. 1301. Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern

  • Labille J, Brant J (2010) Stability of nanoparticles in water. Nanomedicine (Lond) 5(6):985–998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • LeCorre D, Hohenthal C, Dufresne A, Bras J (2013) Comparative sustainability assessment of starch nanocrystals. J Polym Environ 21(1):71–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin D, Tian X, Wu F, Xing B (2010) Fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials in the environment. J Environ Qual 39:1896–1908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love SA, Maurer-Jones MA, Thompson JW, Lin Y-S, Haynes CL (2012) Assessing nanoparticle toxicity. Annu Rev Anal Chem (Palo Alto, Calif) 5:181–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry GV, Hotze EM, Bernhardt ES, Dionysiou D, Pedersen JA, Wiesner MR, Xing B (2010) Environmental occurrences, behavior, fate and ecological effects of nanomaterials: an introduction to the special series. J Environ Qual 39:1867–1874

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merkus HG (2009a) Overview of size characterisation techniques. In: Merkus HG (ed) Particle size measurements: fundamentals, practice, quality. vol 17 of Particle Technology Series. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkus HG (2009b) Particle size, size distribution and shape. In: Merkus HG (ed) Particle size measurements: fundamentals, practice, quality. vol 17 of Particle Technology Series. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • MINChar Initiative (2008) Recommended minimum physical and chemical parameters for characterizing nanomaterials on toxicology studies: MINChar physiochemical parameters list. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Washington

  • Motzkus C, Chivas-Joly C, Guillaume E, Ducourtieux S, Saragoza L, Lesenechal D, Macé T (2011) Characterisation of aerosol emitted by the combustion of nanocomposites. J Phys Conf Ser 304:10. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanocap (2009) Measurement techniques for nanoparticles

  • Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):50–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster G, Stone V, Donaldson K (2007) Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1(1):2–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010) Guidance manual for the testing of manufactured nanomaterials: OECD Sponsorship Programme. Environment, Health and Safety Publications—series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials. OECD Environment Directorate Environment, Health and Safety Devision, Paris

  • OECD (2012) Important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. Environment, Health and Safety Publications—series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials. OECD Environment Directorate Environment, Health and Safety Devision, Paris

  • Ogilvie Hendren C, Mesnard X, Dröge J, Wiesner MR (2011) Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:2562–2569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peralta-Videa JR, Zhao L, Lopez-Moreno ML, de la Rosa G, Hong J, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2011) Nanomaterials and the environment: a review from the biennium 2008–2010. J Hazard Mater 186:1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pettitt ME, Lead JR (2013) Minimum physicochemical characterisation requirements for nanomaterial regulation. Environ Int 52:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccinno F, Gottschalk F, Seeger S, Nowack B (2012) Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. J Nanoparticle Res 14(1109):11

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum R, Bachmann TM, Swirsky Gold L, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, Van de Meent D, Hauschild M (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Salieri B (2013) The challenges and the limitations in life cycle impact assessment for metal oxide nanoparticles, a case study on nano-TiO2. Università di Bologna, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchís J, Farré M, Barceló D (2012) Analysis and Fate of Organic Nanomaterials in Environmental Samples. Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry 59 (Chapter 4):131-168

  • Sayes CM, Warheit DB (2009) Characterisation of nanomaterials for toxicity assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 1(6):660–670

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schrand AM, Rahman MF, Hussain SM, Schlager JJ, Smith DA, Syed AF (2010) Metal-based nanoparticles and their toxicity assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2(5):544–568

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scown TM, van Aerle R, Tyler CR (2010) Review: do engineered nanoparticles pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment? Crit Rev Toxicol 40(7):653–670

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SETAC Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a “Code of Practice”. SETAC Workshop, Sesimbra (Portugal), March 31 to April 3, 1993. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Brussels and Pensacola

  • Sharifi S, Behzadi S, Laurent S, Laird Forrest M, Stroeve P, Mahmoudi M (2012) Toxicity of nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev 41:2323–2343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smita S, Gupta SK, Bartonova A, Dusinska M, Gutleb AC, Rahman Q (2012) Nanoparticles in the environment: assessment using the causal diagram approach. Environ Health 11(Suppl 1):S13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Som C, Nowack B, Krug HF, Wick P (2013) Toward the development of decision supporting tools that can be used for safe production and use of nanomaterials. Acc Chem Res 46(3):863–72. doi:10.1021/ar3000458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnemann G, Vigon B (eds) (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases. A basis for greener processes and products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Paris

  • Starbova K, Petrov D, Starbov N, Lovchinov V (2012) Synthesis of supported fibrous nanoceramics via electrospinning. Ceram Int 38:4645–4651. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.02.046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stone V, Hankin S, Aitken R, Aschberger K, Baun A, Christensen F, Fernandes T, Foss Hansen S, Bloch Hartmann N, Hutchison G, Johnston H, Micheletti C, Peters S, Ross B, Sokull-Kluettgen B, Stark D, Tran L (2009) Engineered nanoparticles: review of health and environmental safety (ENRHES). Project final report. Napier University, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 408:1745–1754

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tiede K, Boxall ABA, Tear SP, Lewis J, David H, Hassellöv M (2008) Detection and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in food and the environment. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 25(7):795–821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:37–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver t-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45(10):4570–4578

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walser T, Hellweg S, Juraske R, Luechinger NA, Wang J, Fierz M (2012) Exposure to engineered nanoparticles: model and measurements for accident situations in laboratories. Sci Total Environ 420:119–126. doi:10.1016/J.scitotenv.2012.01.038

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Warheit DB, Sayes CM, Reed KL, Swain KA (2008) Health effects related to nanoparticle exposures: environmental, health and safety considerations for assessing hazards and risks. Pharmacol Ther 120(1):35–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Warheit DB, Reed KL, Sayes CM (2009) A role for nanoparticle surface reactivity in facilitating pulmonary toxicity and development of a base set of hazard assays as a component of nanoparticle risk management. Inhal Toxicol 21(S1):61–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B, Bauer C, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Wernet G (2012) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Final version (revision 2). ecoinvent Centre (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories), St. Gallen (Switzerland)

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was internally funded by Empa and externally by the project ‘NanoHouse’ (grant number 247′810), research project in the 7th Framework Program of the European Commission. Stefanie Hellweg (from ETH Zürich), Harald Krug, Dominic Notter, Bernd Nowack, Claudia Som and Peter Wick (all from Empa) are acknowledged for their valuable inputs during all the discussions for establishing the here described framework while Denise Mitrano (Empa) is acknowledged for the thorough English language check. Last but not least, I would acknowledge the very helpful comments from the reviewers, allowing me to present in the end a more consistent and more clear final version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), Technology & Society Lab (TSL)/Environmental Risk Assessment & Management Group, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Roland Hischier

Authors
  1. Roland Hischier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Hischier.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Berlan Rodriguez Perez

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 95 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hischier, R. Framework for LCI modelling of releases of manufactured nanomaterials along their life cycle. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 838–849 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0688-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0688-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation