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.

  • Article
  • Published:

A framework for sustainable nanomaterial selection and design based on performance, hazard, and economic considerations

Nature Nanotechnology volume 13, pages 708–714 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and ENM-enabled products have emerged as potentially high-performance replacements to conventional materials and chemicals. As such, there is an urgent need to incorporate environmental and human health objectives into ENM selection and design processes. Here, an adapted framework based on the Ashby material selection strategy is presented as an enhanced selection and design process, which includes functional performance as well as environmental and human health considerations. The utility of this framework is demonstrated through two case studies, the design and selection of antimicrobial substances and conductive polymers, including ENMs, ENM-enabled products and their alternatives. Further, these case studies consider both the comparative efficacy and impacts at two scales: (i) a broad scale, where chemical/material classes are readily compared for primary decision-making, and (ii) within a chemical/material class, where physicochemical properties are manipulated to tailor the desired performance and environmental impact profile. Development and implementation of this framework can inform decision-making for the implementation of ENMs to facilitate promising applications and prevent unintended consequences.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Portion of total National Nanotechnology Initiative funding dedicated to environment, health and safety.
Fig. 2: Performance of traditional antimicrobial chemicals and proposed nanomaterial substitutes.
Fig. 3: Co-optimization diagrams for chemical and nano-enabled antimicrobial agents.
Fig. 4: Selection charts for nano-enabled composites of polyaniline.
Fig. 5: Nanomaterial functional performance and embodied energy as a function of physical properties (size and shape).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schodek, D. L., Ferreira, P. & Ashby, M. F. Nanomaterials, Nanotechnologies and Design: An Introduction for Engineers and Architects (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2009).

  2. Eckelman, M. J., Zimmerman, J. B. & Anastas, P. T. Toward green nano. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 316–328 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gilbertson, L. M., Zimmerman, J. B., Plata, D. L., Hutchison, J. E. & Anastas, P. T. Designing nanomaterials to maximize performance and minimize undesirable implications guided by the Principles of Green Chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 5758–5777 (2015).

  4. Wacker, M. G., Proykova, A. & Santos, G. M. L. Dealing with nanosafety around the globe—regulation vs. innovation. Int. J. Pharm. 509, 95–106 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. NSTC/CoT/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2012 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2011 (NNI, 2011).

  6. NNI/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2013 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2012 (NNI, 2012).

  7. NNI/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2010 (NNI, 2010).

  8. NSTC/CoT/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2017 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2016 (NNI, 2016).

  9. NSTC/CoT/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2016 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2015 (NNI, 2015).

  10. NSTC/CoT/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2015 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2014 (NNI, 2014).

  11. NSTC/CoT/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2014 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2013 (NNI, 2013).

  12. NSTC/NNI/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2010 Budget: United States National Nanotechnology Initiative; 2009 (NNI, 2008).

  13. NSTC/NNI/NSET NNI Supplement to the President’s 2009 Budget; 2008 (NNI, 2008).

  14. Zimmerman, J. B. & Anastas, P. T. Toward substitution with no regrets. Science 347, 1198–1199 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lucht, J. M. Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7, 4254–4281 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Linkov, I. & Seager, T. P. Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5068–5074 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Seager, T. P. & Linkov, I. Coupling multicriteria decision analysis and life cycle assessment for nanomaterials. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 282–285 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van Harmelen, T. et al. LICARA nanoSCAN—a tool for the self-assessment of benefits and risks of nanoproducts. Environ. Int. 91, 150–160 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ashby, M. F. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992).

  20. Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P. Material considerations in product design: A survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers. Mater. & Des. 29, 1081–1089 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ashby, M. F. Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice (Elsevier, Oxford, 2012).

  22. Dicker, M. P. M. et al. Green composites: a review of material attributes and complementary applications. Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 56, 280–289 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin, S., Zhao, Y., Nel, A. E. & Lin, S. Zebrafish: an in vivo model for nano EHS studies. Small 9, 1608–1618 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chakraborty, C., Sharma, A. R., Sharma, G. & Lee, S.-S. Zebrafish: a complete animal model to enumerate the nanoparticle toxicity. J. Nanobiotechnol. 14, 65 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. FDA issues final rule on safety and effectiveness of antibacterial soaps (ed. Fischer, A.) (US FDA, 2016).

  26. Eftekhari, A., Li, L. & Yang, Y. Polyaniline supercapacitors. J. Power Sources 347, 86–107 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Beyth, N., Houri-Haddad, Y., Domb, A., Khan, W. & Hazan, R. Alternative antimicrobial approach: nano-antimicrobial materials. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 246012 (2015).

  28. Gust, K. A., Collier, Z. A., Mayo, M. L., Stanley, J. K., Gong, P. & Chappell, M. A. Limitations of toxicity characterization in life cycle assessment: can adverse outcome pathways provide a new foundation? Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 12, 580–590 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. National Research Council Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process Working Papers (National Academies Press, 1983).

  30. The Global Market for Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials (Future Markets, 2016).

  31. Lohan, S. et al. Studies on enhancement of anti-microbial activity of pristine MWCNTs against pathogens. AAPS PharmSciTech 17, 1042–1048 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zardini, H. Z., Amiri, A., Shanbedi, M., Maghrebi, M. & Baniadam, M. Enhanced antibacterial activity of amino acids-functionalized multi walled carbon nanotubes by a simple method. Colloids Surf. B 92, 196–202 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tayel, A. A. et al. Antibacterial action of zinc oxide nanoparticles against foodborne pathogens. J. Food Saf. 31, 211–218 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Agnihotri, S., Mukherji, S. & Mukherji, S. Size-controlled silver nanoparticles synthesized over the range 5-100 nm using the same protocol and their antibacterial efficacy. RSC Adv. 4, 3974–3983 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Misra, S. K., Dybowska, A., Berhanu, D., Luoma, S. N. & Valsami-Jones, E. The complexity of nanoparticle dissolution and its importance in nanotoxicological studies. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 225–232 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Upadhyayula, V. K. K., Meyer, D. E., Curran, M. A. & Gonzalez, M. A. Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 26, 37–47 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. CES Selector 2017 (Granta Design, 2017).

  38. Lu, X., Zhang, W., Wang, C., Wen, T.-C. & Wei, Y. One-dimensional conducting polymer nanocomposites: synthesis, properties and applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 36, 671–712 (2011).

  39. Caballero-Guzman, A. & Nowack, B. A critical review of engineered nanomaterial release data: are current data useful for material flow modeling? Environ. Pollut. 213, 502–517 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gilbertson, L. M. et al. Shape-dependent surface reactivity and antimicrobial activity of nano-cupric oxide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 3975–3984 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gilbertson, L. M., Goodwin, D. G., Taylor, A. D., Pfefferle, L. & Zimmerman, J. B. Toward tailored functional design of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs): electrochemical and antimicrobial activity enhancement via oxidation and selective reduction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 5938–5945 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Deng, Y. M. & Edwards, K. L. The role of materials identification and selection in engineering design. Mater. Des. 28, 131–139 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Richman, E. K. & Hutchison, J. E. The nanomaterial characterization bottleneck. ACS Nano 3, 2441–2446 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, E8/E8M-13 (ASTM International, 2016).

  45. Baker, N. A. et al. Standardizing data. Nat. Nanotech. 8, 73–74 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mulvaney, P., Parak, W. J., Caruso, F. & Weiss, P. S. Standardizing nanomaterials. ACS Nano 10, 9763–9764 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Klaine, S. J. et al. Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31, 3–14 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication was developed under Assistance Agreement No. RD83558001 (LCNano) awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors, and the EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Nanotechnology-Enabled Water Treatment (ERC-1449500; NEWT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Mark M. Falinski, Desiree L. Plata & Julie B. Zimmerman

  2. Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Shauhrat S. Chopra & Thomas L. Theis

  3. School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Shauhrat S. Chopra

  4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Leanne M. Gilbertson

  5. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Julie B. Zimmerman

Authors
  1. Mark M. Falinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Desiree L. Plata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shauhrat S. Chopra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas L. Theis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leanne M. Gilbertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julie B. Zimmerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.M.F., J.B.Z., D.L.P. and L.M.G. conceived and designed the reimagined framework. M.M.F. and S.S.C. performed the experiments and collected data. M.M.F. and S.S.C. analysed the data. M.M.F., S.S.C. and T.L.T. contributed materials/analysis tools. M.M.F., D.L.P., L.M.G. and J.B.Z. co-wrote the paper. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie B. Zimmerman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Text, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Tables 1–15

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Falinski, M.M., Plata, D.L., Chopra, S.S. et al. A framework for sustainable nanomaterial selection and design based on performance, hazard, and economic considerations. Nature Nanotech 13, 708–714 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-018-0120-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-018-0120-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing