Home | Contact

earch Box

Menu

• Home
• Information
• Agenda
• Speakers
• Application

Sponsors

• The National Science Foundation
• The Environmental Protection Agency

Intellectual Merit

This workshop will establish a research agenda that fills a critically important knowledge gap in present nanotechnology research efforts regarding the systemic environmental consequences of nanoproducts, nanostructured materials, and nanomanufacturing.

Life Cycle Aspects of Nanoproducts, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanomanufacturing: Problem Definitions, Data Gaps, and Research Needs

Chicago, Illinois: November 5-6, 2009

Todd Kuiken, Ph.D.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Revenue involving nanotechnologies is predicted to reach $2.5 trillion by 2015.  Two trillion of which will be directly attributable to nano-enabled products and about $3 billion associated with nanomaterials¹.   Recently the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) updated its consumer products inventory (CPI)² and showed over 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled consumer products have been made available to consumers around the world (see Figure 1).  This trend is predicted to continue with over 2,000 products potentially available in 2015. According to PENs CPI, nano-silver appears to be the most widely used nanomaterial in consumer products, representing nearly a quarter of all materials used in the consumer products listed.  Between 2006 and 2009 the number of nano-enabled consumer products nearly tripled.  During the same period the public’s awareness of nanotechnology remained stagnant, with about 70% of the population having heard little to nothing about nanotechnology (see Figure 2)³.  

                Figure 1. Total products listed on PENs consumer product inventory

Figure 2. Survey of 1,001 adults and asked, “How much have you heard about          nanotechnology before today?

The limited numbers of LCAs that have been performed on nanomaterials have focused on carbon nanofibers (CNFs), nanoclays and other nanocomposites producing varying results.  Khana et al. examined the life cycle energy consumption of carbon nanofibers compared to traditional materials like aluminum, steel and polypropylene.  Their results suggest that the energy requirements for CNFs are higher than that of traditional materials⁴.   The study was conducted on an equal mass basis however and cannot be extrapolated to potential products enhanced with these materials as the quantity used and resulting benefits across the entire life cycle of the product is unknown at this time. It is not however extreme to hypothesize that the amount of material needed will be less compared to traditional materials if the properties of nanomaterials hold true when incorporated into various products (i.e. CNTs strength/weight comparisons to steel).

In a separate study Satish Joshi looked at whether nanoclay composites improved the environmental sustainability of biopolymers. The study concludes that on a unit mass basis, nanoclay production results in lower environmental burdens compared to common biobased polymers across the life cycle of the material.  The study goes on to say that substituting nanoclays for certain polymers could improve the environmental performance however product life-cycle assessments are necessary⁵.   In another study looking at cellulosic nanowhiskers as an additive to polyactide, the LCA showed that the nanocomposite’s environmental footprint is comparable to the green plastic PLA and is an improvement over existing petroleum based materials⁶.

Joshi, 2008 suggests there are limitations to these studies because of lack of data to run rigorous LCAs. The study goes on to say that “comprehensive, transparent, representative, and publicly available data” is needed in order to carry out the requirements outlined in the ISO standards for LCA. The studies fail to capture the full life cycle of the product because they primarily follow a cradle to gate scenario of a specific material, leaving out the market use and end of life scenarios.  This, in no small part, has to do with the lack of environmental health and safety data available for nanomaterials and the products they are incorporated into. A major obstacle for determining the environmental effects of specific nanomaterials is the slow development of metrology.  Without proper instrumentation, the ability to monitor emissions and conduct full scale ecosystem and human health effect studies on nanomaterials will be hindered. Without this data full-scale LCAs cannot be properly performed.

Unfortunately since PEN held its two-day workshop on LCA of nanomaterials in 2006, little progress has occurred.  Many, if not all of the conclusions still remain and the recommendations have yet to be implemented.  The questions being raised at this workshop are critically important in being able to carry out effective LCAs of nanomaterials.  They are similar to the questions being asked from a policy perspective that the Agencies have yet to grapple with.  The answers to these questions lie in collecting the appropriate data from studies that are part of a larger strategy to examine the environmental health and safety aspects of nanomaterials.  Transatlantic cooperation will be needed in order to design such a strategy so studies are not repeated and all the available data is freely available. A recent report, Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies⁷ begins to analyze the issues surrounding cooperation and convergence of an EHS nanotechnology policy between the U.S. and Europe.  There are encouraging signs however, as various federal agencies begin to examine their policies more closely as it relates to EHS of nanomaterials and more EHS research begins to be published. 

© 2009 Institute for Environmental Science and Policy | Design by: styleshout      Home |  Contact