DataVXJournal of Nanoparticle ResearchPaper
journal article·2022-09

Life cycle assessment of large-scale production of MoS2 nanomaterials through the solvothermal method

Mouad Hachhach, Hanane Akram, Achraf El Kasmi, Mounir Hanafi, Ouafae Achak, Tarik Chafik

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 24· Issue 9
Publisher page
Source abstract

Abstract

The potential large-scale production of the MoS2 engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) may raise concerns regarding environmental and health impacts. This issue has been investigated; in the present work, through life cycle assessment (LCA) of the scaled-up production of MoS2 ENM via solvothermal process, the LCA was performed by combining Aspen Plus and LCIA IMPACT 2002 + (from cradle-to-gate), considering a functional unit of 1 kg of MoS2 ENM. The obtained results show a majority of impact categories are associated with the production process and subprocesses of lithium hydroxide (LiOH). In this regard, the substitution of LiOH by NaOH (sodium hydroxide) is suggested as a solution, not only to cope with the limited availability of resources but also for related processing environmental impacts. Thus, this replacement allows the decrease of the estimated impacts estimated up to 56%. Hence, this study might provide relevant valuable guidance for scientific committees and stakeholders to help decision-making regarding the selection and the development of various nanomaterial production processes in general, and MoS2 in particular.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

Nanomaterials

OpenAlex topics: Recycling and Waste Management Techniques · Corrosion Behavior and Inhibition · Sustainable Supply Chain Management

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (91)

Show source-provided references
1. Feijoo S, González-García S, Moldes-Diz Y et al (2017) Comparative life cycle assessment of different synthesis routes of magnetic nanoparticles. J Clean Prod 143:528–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.12.07910.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.12.079 ↗
2. Danyliuk NV, Tatarchuk TR, Shyichuk AV (2020) Batch microreactor for photocatalytic reactions monitoring. Phys Chem Solid State 21:338–346. https://doi.org/10.15330/PCSS.21.2.338-34610.15330/PCSS.21.2.338-346 ↗
3. Tatarchuk T, Shyichuk A, Lamkiewicz J, Kowalik J (2020) Inversion degree, morphology and colorimetric parameters of cobalt aluminate nanopigments depending on reductant type in solution combustion synthesis. Ceram Int 46:14674–14685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.02.26910.1016/j.ceramint.2020.02.269 ↗
4. Duc Truong Q, Kempaiah Devaraju M, Nakayasu Y et al (2017) Exfoliated MoS 2 and MoSe 2 Nanosheets by a supercritical fluid process for a hybrid Mg−Li-Ion battery. ACS Omega 2:18. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b0037910.1021/acsomega.7b00379 ↗
5. Ho W, Yu JC, Lin J et al (2004) Preparation and photocatalytic behavior of MoS2 and WS 2 nanocluster sensitized TiO2. Langmuir 20:5865–5869. https://doi.org/10.1021/la049838g10.1021/la049838g ↗
6. Liu Y, Hu K, Hu E et al (2017) Double hollow MoS2 nano-spheres: synthesis, tribological properties, and functional conversion from lubrication to photocatalysis. Appl Surf Sci 392:1144–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APSUSC.2016.09.13210.1016/J.APSUSC.2016.09.132 ↗
7. Saidi MZ, Pasc A, El Moujahid C et al (2020) Improved tribological properties, thermal and colloidal stability of poly-α-olefins based lubricants with hydrophobic MoS2 submicron additives. J Colloid Interface Sci 562:91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCIS.2019.12.00710.1016/J.JCIS.2019.12.007 ↗
8. Saidi MZ, El Moujahid C, Pasc A et al (2021) Enhanced tribological properties of wind turbine engine oil formulated with flower-shaped MoS2 nano-additives. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem Eng Asp 620:126509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.12650910.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.126509 ↗
9. Akram H, Mateos-Pedrero C, Gallegos-Suárez E et al (2012) Low solvothermal synthesis and characterization of hollow nanospheres molybdenum sulfide. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 6679–6685. https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2012.456110.1166/jnn.2012.4561 ↗
10. Zak A, Feldman Y, Alperovich V et al (2000) Growth mechanism of MoS2 fullerene-like nanoparticles by gas-phase synthesis. J Am Chem Soc 122:11108–11116. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja002181a10.1021/ja002181a ↗
11. Vollath D, Szabó DV (1998) Synthesis of nanocrystalline MoS2 and WS2 in a microwave plasma. Mater Lett 35:236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-577X(97)00247-410.1016/S0167-577X(97)00247-4 ↗
12. Li B, Jiang L, Li X et al (2017) Preparation of monolayer MoS2 quantum dots using temporally shaped femtosecond laser ablation of bulk MoS2 targets in water. Sci Rep 7:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10632-310.1038/s41598-017-10632-3 ↗
13. Lu J, Lu JH, Liu H et al (2014) Improved photoelectrical properties of MoS2 films after laser micromachining. ACS Nano 8:6334–6343. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn501821z10.1021/nn501821z ↗
14. Hong S, Sheng C, Krishnamoorthy A et al (2018) Chemical vapor deposition synthesis of MoS 2 layers from the direct sulfidation of MoO 3 surfaces using reactive molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem C 122(13):7494–7503. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b1203510.1021/acs.jpcc.7b12035 ↗
15. Lee YH, Zhang XQ, Zhang W et al (2012) Synthesis of large-area MoS 2 atomic layers with chemical vapor deposition. Adv Mater 24:2320–2325. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.20110479810.1002/adma.201104798 ↗
16. Rosentsveig R, Gorodnev A, Feuerstein N et al (2009) Fullerene-like MoS 2 nanoparticles and their tribological behavior. Tribol Lett 36:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11249-009-9472-010.1007/s11249-009-9472-0 ↗
17. Wen S, Liu Y, Zhu F et al (2018) Hierarchical MoS 2 nanowires/NiCo 2 O 4 nanosheets supported on Ni foam for high-performance asymmetric supercapacitors. Appl Surf Sci 428:616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.09.18910.1016/j.apsusc.2017.09.189 ↗
18. Wu P-R, Li W, Feng Y-M et al (2019) Fabrication and tribological properties of oil- soluble MoS2 nanosheets decorated by oleic diethanolamide borate. J Alloys Compd 770:441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2018.08.15610.1016/J.JALLCOM.2018.08.156 ↗
19. Jing L, Lian G, Niu F et al (2018) Few-atomic-layered hollow nanospheres constructed from alternate intercalation of carbon and MoS2 monolayers for sodium and lithium storage. Nano Energy 51:546–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NANOEN.2018.06.08410.1016/J.NANOEN.2018.06.084 ↗
20. Borm PJA, Robbins D, Haubold S et al (2006) (2006) The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Part Fibre Toxicol 31(3):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-3-1110.1186/1743-8977-3-11 ↗
21. Colvin VL (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol 21:1166–117010.1038/nbt875 ↗
22. Fabrega J, Luoma SN, Tyler CR et al (2011) Silver nanoparticles: Behaviour and effects in the aquatic environment. Environ Int 37:517–53110.1016/j.envint.2010.10.012 ↗
23. Giese B, Klaessig F, Park B et al (2018) Risks, release and concentrations of engineered nanomaterial in the environment. Sci Rep 8:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19275-410.1038/s41598-018-19275-4 ↗
24. Kaegi R, Ulrich A, Sinnet B et al (2008) Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment. Environ Pollut 156:233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.08.00410.1016/j.envpol.2008.08.004 ↗
25. Thomas SP, Al-Mutairi EM, De SK (2013) Impact of nanomaterials on health and environment. Arab J Sci Eng 38:457–47710.1007/s13369-012-0324-0 ↗
26. Adam V, Loyaux-Lawniczak S (2015) Quaranta G (2015) Characterization of engineered TiO 2 nanomaterials in a life cycle and risk assessments perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2215(22):11175–11192. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-015-4661-X10.1007/S11356-015-4661-X ↗
27. Pu Y, Laratte B, Marks RS, Ionescu RE (2017) Impact of copper nanoparticles on porcine neutrophils: ultrasensitive characterization factor combining chemiluminescence information and USEtox assessment model. Mater Today Commun 11:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MTCOMM.2017.02.00810.1016/J.MTCOMM.2017.02.008 ↗
28. Rajput V, Minkina T, Ahmed B et al (2019) Interaction of copper-based nanoparticles to soil, terrestrial, and aquatic systems: critical review of the state of the science and future perspectives. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 252:51–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/398_2019_3410.1007/398_2019_34 ↗
29. Pu Y, Laratte B, Ionescu RE (2017) Freshwater sediment characterization factors of copper oxide nanoparticles. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 51:012020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/51/1/01202010.1088/1742-6596/51/1/012020 ↗
30. Grieger KD, Laurent A, Miseljic M et al (2012) 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0958-610.1007/s11051-012-0958-6 ↗
31. ISO - ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed 20 May 2022
32. Garvey T, Moore EA, Babbitt CW, Gaustad G (2019) Comparing ecotoxicity risks for nanomaterial production and release under uncertainty. Clean Technol Environ Policy 21:229–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10098-018-1648-6/FIGURES/810.1007/S10098-018-1648-6/FIGURES/8 ↗
33. De Brito J, Evangelista L, Silvestre JD (2019) Equivalent functional unit in recycled aggregate concrete. New Trends Eco-efficient Recycl Concr 293–327.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102480-5.00011-710.1016/B978-0-08-102480-5.00011-7 ↗
34. Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.01210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012 ↗
35. Salieri B (2013) The challenges and the limitations in Life Cycle Impact Assessment for metal oxide nanoparticles, a case study on nano-TiO 2.Dissertation, Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna
36. Arvidsson R, Kushnir D, Sandén AS, Molander S (2014) Prospective life cycle assessment of graphene production by ultrasonication and chemical reduction. Environ Sci Technol 48(8):4529–4536. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405338k10.1021/es405338k ↗
37. Salieri B, Turner DA, Nowack B, Hischier R (2018) Life cycle assessment of manufactured nanomaterials: Where are we? NanoImpact 10:108-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.12.00310.1016/j.impact.2017.12.003 ↗
38. Greijer H, Karlson L, Lindquist SE, Hagfeldt A (2001) Environmental aspects of electricity generation from a nanocrystalline dye sensitized solar cell system. Renew energy 23:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00111-710.1016/S0960-1481(00)00111-7 ↗
39. Osterwalder N, Capello C, Hungerbühler K, Stark WJ (2006) Energy consumption during nanoparticle production: How economic is dry synthesis? J Nanoparticle Res 8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11051-005-8384-710.1007/S11051-005-8384-7 ↗
40. Hischier R (2021) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials. Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering, Health and Environmental Safety of Nanomaterials (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820505-1.00001-810.1016/B978-0-12-820505-1.00001-8 ↗
41. Tsuzuki T (2013) Nanotechnology commercialisation. In: Tsuzuki T (ed) Nanotechnology Commercialisation. Pan Stanford Publishing Pte, Ltd., pp 73–138
42. Tsang MP, Philippot G, Aymonier C, Sonnemann G (2018) Supercritical fluid flow synthesis to support sustainable production of engineered nanomaterials: case study of titanium dioxide. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 6(4):5142–5151. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b0480010.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04800 ↗
43. Grubb GF, Bakshi BR (2011) Life cycle of titanium dioxide nanoparticle production. J Ind Ecol 15:81–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00292.x10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00292.x ↗
44. Babaizadeh H, Hassan M (2013) Life cycle assessment of nano-sized titanium dioxide coating on residential windows. Constr Build Mater 40:314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2012.09.08310.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2012.09.083 ↗
45. Buist HE, Hischier R, Westerhout J, Brouwer DH (2017) Derivation of health effect factors for nanoparticles to be used in LCIA. NanoImpact 7:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.05.00210.1016/j.impact.2017.05.002 ↗
46. Garvey T (2016) Identifying the Potential environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials. Dissertation, Rochester Institute of Technology
47. Miseljic M, Olsen SI (2014) Life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a literature review of assessment status. J Nanoparticle Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2427-x10.1007/s11051-014-2427-x ↗
48. Salieri B, Kaiser JP, Rösslein M et al (2020) Relative potency factor approach enables the use of in vitro information for estimation of human effect factors for nanoparticle toxicity in life-cycle impact assessment. Nanotoxicology 14:275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2019.171087210.1080/17435390.2019.1710872 ↗
49. Bobba S, Deorsola FA, Blengini GA, Fino D (2016) LCA of tungsten disulphide (WS2) nano-particles synthesis: state of art and from-cradle-to-gate LCA. J Clean Prod 139:1478–1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.09110.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.091 ↗
50. Temizel-Sekeryan S, Wu F, Hicks AL (2021) Global scale life cycle environmental impacts of single- and multi-walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:656–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01862-110.1007/s11367-020-01862-1 ↗
51. Eckelman MJ, Mauter MS, Isaacs JA, Elimelech M (2012) New perspectives on nanomaterial aquatic ecotoxicity: production impacts exceed direct exposure impacts for carbon nanotoubes. Environ Sci Technol 46:2902–2910. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203409a10.1021/es203409a ↗
52. Rodriguez-Garcia G, Zimmermann B, Weil M (2014) Nanotoxicity and Life Cycle Assessment: First attempt towards the determination of characterization factors for carbon nanotubes. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 64:012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/64/1/01202910.1088/1757-899X/64/1/012029 ↗
53. Hijazi O, Abdelsalam E, Samer M et al (2020) Life cycle assessment of the use of nanomaterials in biogas production from anaerobic digestion of manure. Renew Energy 148:417–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2019.10.04810.1016/J.RENENE.2019.10.048 ↗
54. Ingrao C, Vesce E, Evola RS et al (2021) Chemistry behind leather: life cycle assessment of nano-hydroxyapatite preparation on the lab-scale for fireproofing applications. J Clean Prod 279:123837. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.12383710.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.123837 ↗
55. Walser T, Demou E, Lang DJ, Hellweg S (2011) Prospective environmental life cycle assessment of nanosilver T-shirts. Environ Sci Technol 45:4570–4578. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200124810.1021/es2001248 ↗
56. Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425:271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.00110.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.001 ↗
57. Akram H, Achak O, Haffane S et al (2014) Comparison of synthesis routes of inorganic fullerene-like nano-additives for wind turbine lubrication: application of Life Cycle Assessment approach. 2014 International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC). https://doi.org/10.1109/IRSEC.2014.705981110.1109/IRSEC.2014.7059811 ↗
58. Righi S, Baioli F, Dal Pozzo A, Tugnoli A (2018) Integrating life cycle inventory and process design techniques for the early estimate of energy and material consumption data. Energies 11:970. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1104097010.3390/en11040970 ↗
59. Han D, Yang X, Li R, Wu Y (2019) Environmental impact comparison of typical and resource-efficient biomass fast pyrolysis systems based on LCA and Aspen Plus simulation. J Clean Prod 231:254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.09410.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.094 ↗
60. Gezae Daful A, Görgens JF (2017) Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of lignocellulosic lactic acid production. Chem Eng Sci 162:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2016.12.05410.1016/j.ces.2016.12.054 ↗
61. Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R, et al (2007) Life cycle inventories of energy systems: results for current systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries
62. Althaus H, Chudacoff M, Hischier R, et al (2007) Life cycle inventories of chemicals. ecoinvent report No.8, v2.0. Final Rep ecoinvent data … 1–957
63. Aresti L, Christodoulides P, Florides GA (2021) An investigation on the environmental impact of various Ground Heat Exchangers configurations. Renew Energy 171:592–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.12010.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.120 ↗
64. Bueno G, de Blas M, Pérez-Iribarren E et al (2021) The environmental and social footprint of the university of the Basque Country UPV/EHU. J Clean Prod 315:128019. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.12801910.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.128019 ↗
65. Nitschelm L, Flipo B, Auberger J et al (2021) Life cycle assessment data of French organic agricultural products. Data Br 38:107356. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DIB.2021.10735610.1016/J.DIB.2021.107356 ↗
66. Bahlawan H, Poganietz WR, Spina PR, Venturini M (2020) Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of energy systems for residential applications by accounting for scaling effects. Appl Therm Eng 171:115062. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2020.11506210.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2020.115062 ↗
67. Ding GKC (2020) Lifecycle assessment of building materials – a cradle-to-gate approach. Encycl Renew Sustain Mater 476–488. Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10542-910.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10542-9 ↗
68. Kim HC, Fthenakis V (2013) Life cycle energy and climate change implications of nanotechnologies: A Critical Review. J Ind Ecol 17:528–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1530-9290.2012.00538.X10.1111/J.1530-9290.2012.00538.X ↗
69. Arvidsson R, Nguyen D, Svanström M (2015) Life cycle assessment of cellulose nanofibrils production by mechanical treatment and two different pretreatment processes. Environ Sci Technol 49:6881–6890. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.5B0088810.1021/ACS.EST.5B00888 ↗
70. Vural Gursel I, Dijkstra JW, Huijgen WJJ, Ramirez A (2019) Techno-economic comparative assessment of novel lignin depolymerization routes to bio-based aromatics. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 13:1068–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.199910.1002/bbb.1999 ↗
71. Magdeldin M, Kohl T, Järvinen M (2017) Techno-economic assessment of the by-products contribution from non-catalytic hydrothermal liquefaction of lignocellulose residues. Energy 137:679–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.06.16610.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.06.166 ↗
72. Bartolozzi I, Daddi T, Punta C et al (2020) Life cycle assessment of emerging environmental technologies in the early stage of development: a case study on nanostructured materials. J Ind Ecol 24:101–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.1295910.1111/jiec.12959 ↗
73. Hachhach M, Akram H, Hanafi M et al (2019) Simulation and sensitivity analysis of molybdenum disulfide nanoparticle production using Aspen plus. Int J Chem Eng: Article ID 3953862. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/395386210.1155/2019/3953862 ↗
74. Deorsola FA, Russo N, Blengini GA, Fino D (2012) Synthesis, characterization and environmental assessment of nanosized MoS2 particles for lubricants applications. Chem Eng J 195–196:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2012.04.08010.1016/J.CEJ.2012.04.080 ↗
75. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles RR et al (2003) IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology Olivier. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0297850510.1007/BF02978505 ↗
76. Bonton A, Bouchard C, Barbeau B, Jedrzejak S (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of water treatment plants. Desalination 284:42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.03510.1016/j.desal.2011.08.035 ↗
77. Scalbi S, Fantin V, Antolini F (2017) Environmental assessment of new technologies: production of a Quantum Dots-Light Emitting Diode. J Clean Prod 142:3702–3718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.09810.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.098 ↗
78. Visentin C, da Trentin AWS, Braun AB, Thomé A (2019) Lifecycle assessment of environmental and economic impacts of nano-iron synthesis process for application in contaminated site remediation. J Clean Prod 231:307–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.23610.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.236 ↗
79. European Commision, Joint Research Center I for E and S (2012) ILCD Handbook: analysing of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Handbook-LCIA-Background-analysis-online-12March2010.pdf
80. Deng Y, Li J, Li T et al (2017) Life cycle assessment of high capacity molybdenum disulfide lithium-ion battery for electric vehicles. Energy 123:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.01.09610.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.01.096 ↗
81. Igbokwe IO, Igwenagu E, Igbokwe NA (2020) Aluminium toxicosis: a review of toxic actions and effects. Interdiscip Toxicol 12:45–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/intox-2019-000710.2478/intox-2019-0007 ↗
82. Rosseland BO, Eldhuset TD, Staurnes M (1990) Environmental effects of aluminium. Environ Geochem Health 12:17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0173404510.1007/BF01734045 ↗
83. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:339–34810.1007/BF02978681 ↗
84. Ochoa-Hueso R, Delgado-Baquerizo M, An King PT et al (2019) Ecosystem type and resource quality are more important than global change drivers in regulating early stages of litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 129:144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.00910.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.009 ↗
85. Frascoli F, Hudson-Edwards K (2018) Geochemistry, mineralogy and microbiology of molybdenum in mining-affected environments. Minerals 8:42. https://doi.org/10.3390/min802004210.3390/min8020042 ↗
86. MetalPedia (2021) Molybdenum: effects on health and the environment-Metalpedia. http://metalpedia.asianmetal.com/metal/molybdenum/health.shtml. Accessed 29 Apr 2021
87. Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S et al (2017) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:853–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-110.1007/s11367-016-1199-1 ↗
88. Unger N, Beigl P, Wassermann G (2004) General requirements for LCA software tools. Vienna: Institute of Waste Management, BOKU–University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. Saatavissa: www.iemss.org/iemss2004/pdf/infotech/ungegene.pdf. Accessed 10.06.2021
89. Castellani V, Benini L, Sala S, Pant R (2016) A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1159–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1079-810.1007/s11367-016-1079-8 ↗
90. Huppes G, van Oers L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC67215. Accessed 10.06.2021
91. Sala S, Cerutti AK, Pant R (2018) Development of a weighting approach for the Environmental Footprint. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/documents/2018_JRC_Weighting_EF.pdf. Accessed 10.06.2021