Most important factors of variability and uncertainty in an LCA study of nanomaterials – Findings from a case study with nano titanium dioxide

Abstract Various review studies about Life Cycle Assessment in the area of nanotechnology in recent years have showed the same challenges for a coherent and sound application of this popular sustainability assessment tool in order to evaluate the (ecological) sustainability of nano-enabled applications – the use of an adequate functional unit, respective life cycle inventory data as well as the related impact assessment factors, especially those concerning the toxicity potential evaluation. Hence, in order to apply Life Cycle Assessment in a more efficient way in the area of nano-enabled applications it would make sense to identify those challenges that result in the largest variation of the results; then these factors would deserve the highest research priority in order to reduce their variability and/or uncertainty. To this end, a case study using nano titanium dioxide in facade coatings was chosen in order to examine in a very systematic manner, i.e. by calculating in total more than 200 different scenarios, the influence of variations on all levels (i.e. the total functionality of the applied nanomaterial, the used inventory data, the released amounts of nanoparticles and the related characterisation factors for their toxicity assessment). An analysis of the results of all these scenarios shows that the main factor for variation (and thus for the overall uncertainty of final Life Cycle Assessment results) is actually an adequate (and comprehensive) inclusion of the functionality of the applied nanomaterial. The adequate setting of these boundaries in an LCA study influences in the end all the subsequent steps – and the more precision that is applied here, the lower the resulting uncertainty of the results is; precondition is, of course, that adequate inventory data and impact assessment factors for the respective nanomaterial actually exist and can be taken into account. In the end, research in the area of LCA and nanotechnology needs to head for a more broader knowledge on all levels, then only a combination of adequate information on all the levels (i.e. functionality, LCI data, LCIA factors) lead in the end to a coherent and sound assessment of a nano-enabled application with the functionality being responsible for the highest variability in the results.

[1]  Jianbin Luo,et al.  TiO2–graphene sponge for the removal of tetracycline , 2015, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[2]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[3]  M. Fan,et al.  Review of the progress in preparing nano TiO2: an important environmental engineering material. , 2014, Journal of environmental sciences.

[4]  Beatrice Salieri,et al.  The challenges and the limitations in Life Cycle Impact Assessment for metal oxide nanoparticles, a case study on nano- TiO2 , 2013 .

[5]  Xiaobo Chen,et al.  Titanium dioxide nanomaterials: synthesis, properties, modifications, and applications. , 2007, Chemical reviews.

[6]  Roland Hischier,et al.  Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. , 2012, The Science of the total environment.

[7]  Dik van de Meent,et al.  Multimedia Modeling of Engineered Nanoparticles with SimpleBox4nano: Model Definition and Evaluation , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Vasilis Fthenakis,et al.  Life Cycle Energy and Climate Change Implications of Nanotechnologies , 2013 .

[9]  Ben A. Wender,et al.  Coordinating modeling and experimental research of engineered nanomaterials to improve life cycle assessment studies , 2015 .

[10]  Anna Maria Ferrari,et al.  Human health characterization factors of nano-TiO2 for indoor and outdoor environments , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  Anna Maria Ferrari,et al.  Environmental assessment of a bottom-up hydrolytic synthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles , 2015 .

[12]  Stefan Seeger,et al.  Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[13]  Mary Ann Curran,et al.  Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review , 2012 .

[14]  Arturo A. Keller,et al.  Critical Components of Uncertainty Communication in Life Cycle Assessments of Emerging Technologies , 2015 .

[15]  Stig Irving Olsen,et al.  Freshwater ecotoxicity characterisation factor for metal oxide nanoparticles: a case study on titanium dioxide nanoparticle. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[16]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Thermodynamic resource indicators in LCA: a case study on the titania produced in Panzhihua city, southwest China , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[17]  Sangwon Suh,et al.  Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[18]  Geoffrey F. Grubb Improving the Environmental Performance of Manufacturing Systems via Exergy, Techno-ecological Synergy, and Optimization , 2010 .

[19]  Mirko Miseljic,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a literature review of assessment status , 2014, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[20]  Richard J. Murphy,et al.  Uncertainty communication in the environmental life cycle assessment of carbon nanotubes. , 2015 .

[21]  A. Harris,et al.  Nanotechnology innovations for the construction industry , 2013 .

[22]  Manu Venugopal,et al.  Nanotechnology and Its Impact on Construction: Bridging the Gap between Researchers and Industry Professionals , 2012 .

[23]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Life cycle aspects of nanomaterials , 2013 .

[24]  R. Hischier,et al.  Life cycle assessment of façade coating systems containing manufactured nanomaterials , 2015, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[25]  Dominic A Notter,et al.  Are nanosized or dissolved metals more toxic in the environment? A meta‐analysis , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[26]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[27]  M. Eckelman,et al.  Integrating life cycle assessment into managing potential EHS risks of engineered nanomaterials: reviewing progress to date , 2015, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.