Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evaluating nanotechnology opportunities and risks through integration of life-cycle and risk assessment

Nature Nanotechnology volume 12, pages 734–739 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

It has been some 15 years since the topics of sustainability and nanotechnologies first appeared together in the scientific literature and became a focus of organizations' research and policy developments. On the one hand, this focus is directed towards approaches and tools for risk assessment and management and on the other hand towards life-cycle thinking and assessment. Comparable to their application for regular chemicals, each tool is seen to serve separate objectives as it relates to evaluating nanotechnologies' safety or resource efficiency, respectively. While nanomaterials may provide resource efficient production and consumption, this must balance any potential hazards they pose across their life-cycles. This Perspective advocates for integrating these two tools at the methodological level for achieving this objective, and it explains what advantages and challenges this offers decision-makers while highlighting what research is needed to further enhance integration.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Broad overview of the scope of life-cycle assessment (left) and of ecological or human health risk assessment (right).
Figure 2: Key aspects of life-cycle and risk assessment integration at the methodological level.
Figure 3: Two separate, one complementary and three integrated options for using of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment to evaluate nanotechnologies.

References

  1. Savolainen, K. et al. Nanosafety in Europe 2015–2025: Towards Safe and Sustainable Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology Innovations (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Busnaina, A. A., Mead, J., Isaacs, J. & Somu, S. Nanomanufacturing and sustainability: opportunities and challenges. J. Nanoparticle Res. 15, 1–6 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Greßler, S ; Nentwich, M. Nano and the environment. Part I: potential environmental benefits and sustainability effects. Nano Trust Dossiers 26, 1–4 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hellweg, S. & Mila i Canals, L. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344, 1109–1113 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Steinfeldt, M. & Petschow, U. Nanotechnologies, Hazards and Resource Efficiency (Springer, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Stone, V. et al. Engineered Nanoparticles: Review of Health and Environmental Safety (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aschberger, K. et al. Review of carbon nanotubes toxicity and exposure—appraisal of human health risk assessment based on open literature. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 40, 759–790 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston, H. J. et al. A review of the in vivo and in vitro toxicity of silver and gold particulates: Particle attributes and biological mechanisms responsible for the observed toxicity. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 40, 328–346 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Current Intelligence Bulletin 63: Occupational Exposure to Titanium Dioxide (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2011).

  10. Hristozov, D. & Ertel, J. Nanotechnology and sustainability: benefits and risks of nanotechnology for environmental sustainability. Forum Forsch 22, 161–168 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gavankar, S., Suh, S. & Keller, A. F. Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 295–303 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hischier, R. & Walser, T. Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci. Total Environ. 425, 271–282 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grieger, K. D. et al. 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. Nanoparticle Res. 14, 1–23 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Linkov, I. & Seager, T. P. Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5068–74 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Breedveld, L. Combining LCA and RA for the integrated risk management of emerging technologies. J. Risk Res. 16, 459–468 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meyer, D. E. & Upadhyayula, V. K. K. The use of life cycle tools to support decision making for sustainable nanotechnologies. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 16, 757–772 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Beaudrie, C. E. H., Kandlikar, M. & Satterfield, T. From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in U. S. regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 5524–5534 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Harder, R., Holmquist, H., Molander, S., Svanström, M. & Peters, G. M. Review of environmental assessment case studies blending elements of risk assessment and life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13083–13093 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Potting, Jose ; Hauschild, M. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 11–13 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenbaum, R. K. et al. 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 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pini, M., Salieri, B., Ferrari, A. M., Nowack, B. & Hischier, R. Human health characterization factors of nano-TiO2 for indoor and outdoor environments. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1452–1462 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Salieri, B., Righi, S., Pasteris, A. & Olsen, S. I. Freshwater ecotoxicity characterisation factor for metal oxide nanoparticles: a case study on titanium dioxide nanoparticle. Sci. Total Environ. 505, 494–502 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Eckelman, M. J., Mauter, M. S., Isaacs, J. A. & Elimelech, M. New perspectives on nanomaterial aquatic ecotoxicity: production impacts exceed direct exposure impacts for carbon nanotoubes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 2902–2910 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Miseljic, M. & Olsen, S. I. Life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a literature review of assessment status. J. Nanoparticle Res. 16, 1–33 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Darlington, T. K., Neigh, A. M., Spencer, M. T., Nguyen, O. T. & Oldenburg, S. J. Nanoparticle characteristics affecting environmental fate and transport through soil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 1191–1199 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meesters, J. A. J., Koelmans, A. A., Quik, J. T. K., Hendriks, A. J. & van de Meent, D. Multimedia modeling of engineered nanoparticles with SimpleBox4nano: model definition and evaluation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 5726–5736 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Klaine, S. J. et al. Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27, 1825–1851 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Walser, T. et al. Life-cycle assessment framework for indoor emissions of synthetic nanoparticles. J. Nanoparticle Res. 17, 1–18 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Li, D. et al. In vivo biodistribution and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of inhaled fresh and aged cerium oxide nanoparticles in rats. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 13, 45 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sonnemann, G. & Schuhmacher, M. Integrated Life-Cycle and Risk Assessment for Industrial Processes (CRC, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hinds, W. C. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles (Wiley-Interscience, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nigge, K.-M. Life Cycle Assessment of Natural Gas Vehicles: Development and Application of Site-Dependent Impact Indicators (Springer, 2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Shatkin, J. A. Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 278–281 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Barberio, G., Scalbi, S., Buttol, P., Masoni, P. & Righi, S. Combining life cycle assessment and qualitative risk assessment: the case study of alumina nanofluid production. Sci. Total Environ. 496, 122–131 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kikuchi, Y. & Hirao, M. Practical method of assessing local and global impacts for risk-based decision making: a case study of metal degreasing processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 4527–4533 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Walser, T., Juraske, R., Demou, E. & Hellweg, S. Indoor exposure to toluene from printed matter matters: complementary views from life cycle assessment and risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 689–97 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsang, M. P., Sonnemann, G. W. & Bassani, D. M. A comparative human health, ecotoxicity, and product environmental assessment on the production of organic and silicon solar cells. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 24, 645–655 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the financial support of the University of Bordeaux, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), LabEx AMADEus (ANR-10-LABX-42) in the framework of IdEx Bordeaux (ANR-10-IDEX-03-02) that is, the Investissements d'Avenir programme of the French government managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, and the LCA Chair of the French Region of Nouvelle-Aquitaine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255, Talence, F-33400, France

    Michael P. Tsang & Guido W. Sonnemann

  2. CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255, Talence, F-33400, France

    Michael P. Tsang & Guido W. Sonnemann

  3. Department of Chemical System Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan

    Emi Kikuchi-Uehara & Masahiko Hirao

  4. CNRS, Univ. Bordeaux, ICMCB, UPR 9048, Pessac, F-33600, France

    Cyril Aymonier

Authors
  1. Michael P. Tsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emi Kikuchi-Uehara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guido W. Sonnemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cyril Aymonier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masahiko Hirao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido W. Sonnemann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsang, M., Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Sonnemann, G. et al. Evaluating nanotechnology opportunities and risks through integration of life-cycle and risk assessment. Nature Nanotech 12, 734–739 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.132

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.132

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Find nanotechnology articles, nanomaterial data and patents all in one place. Visit Nano by Nature Research