Life cycle assessment of façade coating systems containing manufactured nanomaterials
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanotechnologies are expected to hold considerable potential for the development of new materials in the construction sector. Up to now the environmental benefits and risks of products containing manufactured nanomaterials (MNM) have been quantified only to a limited extent. This study aims to assess the potential environmental, health and safety impacts of coatings containing MNM using Life-cycle assessment: Do paints containing MNM result in a better environmental performance than paints not containing MNM? The study shows that the results depend on a number of factors: (i) The MNM have to substitute an (active) ingredient of the initial paint composition and not simply be an additional ingredient. (ii) The new composition has to extend the lifetime of the paint for such a time period that the consumption of paint along the life cycle of a building is reduced. (iii) Releases of MNM have to be reduced to the lowest level possible (in particular by dumping unused paint together with the packaging). Only when all these boundary conditions are fulfilled, which is the case only for one of the three paint systems examined, is an improved environmental performance of the MNM-containing paint possible for the paint compositions examined in this study.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Sustainable Building Design and Assessment · Air Quality and Health Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Al-Kattan A, Wichser A, Vonbank R, Brunner S, Ulrich A, Zuin S, Nowack B (2013) Release of TiO2 from paints containing pigment-TiO2 or nano-TiO2 by weathering. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15:2186–219310.1039/c3em00331k ↗
2. Asmatulu E, Twomey J, Overcash MR (2012) Life cycle and nano-products: end-of-life assessment. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0720-0
3. Bauer C, Buchgeister J, Hischier R, Poganietz WR, Schebek L, Warsen J (2008) Environmental prospects in products—a framework for life cycle thinking on nano scales. J Clean Prod 16(8–9):910–92610.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.022 ↗
4. BMU (2008) Verantwortlicher Umgang mit Nanotechnologien: Bericht und Empfehlungen der NanoKommission der deutschen Bundesregierung. Bundesministerium für Umwelt (BMU), Berlin
5. Bolyard SC, Reinhart DR, Santra S (2013) Behavior of engineered nanopartilces in landfill leachate. Environ Sci Technol 47:8114–8122
6. Doka G (2007) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. EMPA St Gallen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf
7. EC (2011) Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial. 2011/696/EU. Official J Eur Union, Brussels (Belgium)
8. ECHA (2010) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Chap R.16: Environmental Exposure Estimation. ECHA-10-G-06-EN. European Chemicals Agency
9. ecoinvent Centre (2010) ecoinvent data v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf
10. 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/s11367-011-0368-510.1007/s11367-011-0368-5 ↗
11. 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 (the Netherlands)
12. Gottschalk F, Sun TY, Nowack B (2013) Environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials: review of modelling and analytical studies. Environ Pollut 181:287–30010.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.003 ↗
13. Hanus MJ, Harris AT (2013) Nanotechnology innovations for the construction industry. Prog Mater Sci 58:1056–110210.1016/j.pmatsci.2013.04.001 ↗
14. Hischier R (2014) Framework for LCI modelling of nanoparticle releases along the life cycle. Int J LCA 19(4):838–84910.1007/s11367-013-0688-8 ↗
15. Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Environmental sustainability assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of art & strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425:271–28210.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.001 ↗
16. Huijbregts MAJ, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Margni M, McKone T, Rosenbaum R, Van de Meent D (2010a) USEtox User Manual. USEtox Team
17. Huijbregts MAJ, Margni M, Jolliet O, McKone T, Van de Meent D, Rosenbaum R, Hauschild M (2010b) USEtox Chemical-specific database: inorganics. Report version 1.00. USEtox Team
18. ISO (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standardization Organization (ISO), European Standard EN ISO 14′040, Geneva (Switzerland)
19. ISO (2006b) environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standardisation Organisation (ISO), European Standard EN ISO 14′044, Geneva (Switzerland)
20. Khan IA, Berge ND, Sabo-Attwood T, Ferguson PL, Saleh NB (2013) Singe-walled carbon nanotube transport in representative municipal solid waste landfill conditions. Environ Sci Technol 47:8425–8433
21. 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):927–93710.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.007 ↗
22. Linkov I, Seager T (2011) Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life cycle assessment and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 45:5068–507410.1021/es100959q ↗
23. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–50810.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023 ↗
24. Nowack B (2009) Is anything out there? What life cycle perspectives of nano-products can tell us about nanoparticles in the environment. Nano Today 4(1):11–12. doi: 10.1016/j.nantod.2008.10.00110.1016/j.nantod.2008.10.001 ↗
25. Piccinno F, Gottschalk F, Seeger S, Nowack B (2012) Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. J Nanopart Res 14:1109. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-1109-910.1007/s11051-012-1109-9 ↗
26. Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt W-P, Suh S, Weidema B, Pennington D (2004) Life cycle assessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and application. Environ Int 30:701–72010.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 ↗
27. Roes AL, Tabak LB, Shen L, Nieuwlaar E, Patel MK (2010) Influence of using nanoobjects as filler on funtionality-based energy use of nanocomposites. J Nanopart Res 12(6):2011–202810.1007/s11051-009-9819-3 ↗
28. 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 13:532–54610.1007/s11367-008-0038-4 ↗
29. Salieri B, Righi S, Pasteris A, Olsen SI (2015) Freshwater ecotoxicity characterisation factor for metal oxide nanoparticles: a case study on titanium dioxide nanoparticle. Sci Total Environ 505:494–50210.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.107 ↗
30. Teizer J, Venugopal M, Teizer W, Felkl J (2012) Nanotechnology and its impact on construction: bridging the gap between researchers and industry professionals. J Constr Eng Manag 138:595–60410.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000467 ↗
31. 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 26:37–4710.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.018 ↗
32. Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver T-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45(10):4570–457810.1021/es2001248 ↗