Insights into the potential effects of released engineered nanomaterials from polymer nanocomposites: environmental issues and future activities for risk assessment and management
Source abstract
Abstract
The use, production, and disposal of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) raise concerns about their environmental impact at all stages of the life cycle, considering that nanostructured materials can be released to the air, soil, or water in common industrial processes and/or accidental events, and ultimately accumulate in the soil, water, or biota, endangering the health of living organisms and ecosystems. Within this context, the present study is focused on the analysis of the potential effects of common polymeric composites incorporating ENMs in relevant organisms from soil and aquatic compartments. To this end, a set of polymeric materials, including PET, PLA, and PP, were compounded with a list of ENMs to produce PP_Ag, PET_Ag, PET_ZnO, and PLA_SiO2 films that were aged in a weathering chamber using UV radiation to simulate the degradation effects of sunlight and other relevant environmental factors. Weathered samples were micronized to conduct ecotoxicity studies following adapted OECD protocols on the aquatic invertebrates Daphnia magna and Brachionus plicatilis, the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, and the soil invertebrate Eisenia foetida. The results showed a low level of toxicity for the nanocomposites studied, except in the case of the silver (Ag)-based nanocomposite (PP_Ag), where a high toxicity was found for the aquatic invertebrate Daphnia magna due probably to the effect of silver ions. The aging process of the polymer nanocomposites promotes the release of ENMs, with potential adverse effects expected in natural environments.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Microplastics and Plastic Pollution · Graphene and Nanomaterials Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Abu-Elala NM, AbuBakr HO, Khattab MS et al (2018) Aquatic environmental risk assessment of chitosan/silver, copper and carbon nanotube nanocomposites as antimicrobial agents. Int J Biol Macromol 113:1105–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.03.0410.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.03.04 ↗
2. Amorim MJB, Lin S, Schlich K, Navas JM, Brunelli A, Neubauer N, Vilsmeier K, Costa AL, Gondikas A, Xia T, Galbis L, Badetti E, Marcomini A, Hristozov D, von der Kammer F, Hund-Rinke K, Scott-Fordsmand JJ, Nel A, Wohlleben W (2018) Environmental impacts by fragments released from nanoenabled products: a multiassay, multimaterial exploration by the SUN. Approach Environ Sci Technol 52(3):1514–1524. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b0412210.1021/acs.est.7b04122 ↗
3. BAuA (2015) Safe handling of nanomaterials and other advanced materials at workplace. NANOVALID–Developing reference methods for nanomaterials. Lead author and project monitoring: M. Baron, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
4. Begum P, Ikhtiari R, Fugetsu B (2011) Graphene phytotoxicity in the seedling stage of cabbage, tomato, red spinach. and lettuce Carbon 49(12):3907–391910.1016/j.carbon.2011.05.029 ↗
5. Bhuvaneshwari M, Sagar B, Doshi S, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A (2017) Comparative study on toxicity of ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles on Artemia salina: effect of pre-UV-A and visible light irradiation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:5633–5646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8328-z10.1007/s11356-016-8328-z ↗
6. Brouwer DH, Spaan S, Roff M, Sleeuwenhoek A, Tuinman I, Goede H, van Duuren-Stuurman B, Filon FL, Bello D, Cherrie JW (2016) Occupational dermal exposure to nanoparticles and nano-enabled products: Part 2, exploration of exposure processes and methods of assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.05.00310.1016/j.ijheh.2016.05.003 ↗
7. Calipinar H, Ulas D (2019) Development of nanotechnology in the world and nanotechnology standards in Turkey. Procedia Comput Sci 158:1011–101810.1016/j.procs.2019.09.142 ↗
8. Camboni M, Hanlon J, Pérez García R, Floyd P (2019) European Chemicals Agency. A state of play study of the market for so called “next generation” Nanomaterials. https://euon.echa.europa.eu/documents/23168237/24095696/190919_euon_study_next_generation_nanomaterials_en.pdf/d5ecd96d-e016-720a-54ef-574fe392c82a. Accessed Aug 2020
9. Clark K, van Tongeren M, Christensen FM, Brouwer D, Nowack B, Gottschalk F, Micheletti C, Schmid K, Gerritsen R, Aitken R, Vaquero C, Gkanis V, Housiadas C, Lopez de Ipina JM, Riediker M (2012) Limitations and information needs for engineered nanomaterial-specific exposure estimation and scenarios: recommendations for improved reporting practices. J Nanopart Res 14:970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0970-x.10.1007/s11051-012-0970-x. ↗
10. Abdel-Latif HMR, Dawood MAO, Menanteau-Ledouble S, El-Matbouli M (2020) Environmental transformation of n-TiO2 in the aquatic systems and their ecotoxicity in bivalve mollusks: a systematic review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 200:110776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.11077610.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110776 ↗
11. Debia M, Bakhiyi B, Ostiguy C, Verbeek JH, Brouwer DH, Murashov V (2016) A Systematic Review of Reported Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials. Ann Occup Hyg 60:916–935. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mew04110.1093/annhyg/mew041 ↗
12. Dedman CJ, Newson GC, Davies G-L, Christie-Oleza JA (2020) Mechanisms of silver nanoparticle toxicity on the marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus under environmentally-relevant conditions. Sci Total Environ 747:141229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.14122910.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141229 ↗
13. Diamond SA, Kennedy AJ, Melby NL, Moser RD, Poda AR, Weiss CA, Brame JA (2017) Assessment of the potential hazard of nano-scale TiO2 in photocat-alytic cement: application of a tiered assessment framework. NanoImpact 8:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.06.00610.1016/j.impact.2017.06.006 ↗
14. Duncan TV (2014) Release of engineered nanomaterials from polymer nanocomposites: the effects of matrix degradation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7:20–39. https://doi.org/10.1021/am506275710.1021/am5062757 ↗
15. Froggett SJ, Clancy SF, Boverhof DR et al (2014) A review and perspective of existing research on the release of nanomaterials from solid nanocomposites. Part Fibre Toxicol 11:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-11-1710.1186/1743-8977-11-17 ↗
16. Giese B, Klaessig F, Park B et al (2018) Risks, release and concentrations of engineered nanomaterial in the environment. Sci Rep 8:1565. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19275-4.10.1038/s41598-018-19275-4. ↗
17. Horváth L, Magrez A, Burghard M, Kern K, Forró L, Schwaller B (2013) Evaluation of the toxicity of graphene derivatives on cells of the lung luminal surface. Carbon 64:45–6010.1016/j.carbon.2013.07.005 ↗
18. Hou J, Wu Y, Li X, Wei B, Li S, Wang X (2018) Toxic effects of different types of zinc oxide nanoparticles on algae, plants, invertebrates, vertebrates and microorganisms. Chemosphere 193:852–86010.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.077 ↗
19. Jan Kole P, Löhr AJ, Van Belleghem FGAJ, Ragas AMJ (2017) Wear and tear of tyres: a stealthy source of microplastics in the environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:1–4
20. Kabir E, Kumar V, Kim K, Yip ACK, Sohn JR (2018) Environmental impacts of nanomaterials. J Environ Manag 225:261–27110.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.087 ↗
21. Kingston C, Zepp R, Andrady A, Boverhof D, Fehir R, Hawkins D et al (2014) Release characteristics of selected carbon nanotube polymer composites. Carbon 68:33–5710.1016/j.carbon.2013.11.042 ↗
22. Lalwani G, D'Agati M, Khan AM, Sitharaman B (2016) Toxicology of graphene-based nanomaterials. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 105(Pt B):109–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.02810.1016/j.addr.2016.04.028 ↗
23. Lee J, Mahendra S, Alvarez PJ (2010) Nanomaterials in the construction industry: a review of their applications and environmental health and safety considerations. ACS Nano 4:3580–359010.1021/nn100866w ↗
24. Lehutso RF, Tancu Y, Maity A, Thwala M (2020) Aquatic toxicity of transformed and product-released engineered nanomaterials: an overview of the current state of knowledge. Process Saf Environ Protect 138:39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.03.00210.1016/j.psep.2020.03.002 ↗
25. Lei C, Zhang L, Yang K, Zhu L, Lin D (2016) Toxicity of iron-based nanoparticlesto green algae: effects of particle size, crystal phase, oxidation state and environ-mental aging. Environ Pollut 218:505–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.03010.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.030 ↗
26. Li L (2017) Fate and biological effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the aquatic environment. In: Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences. University of Helsinki, Finland
27. Li L, Sillanpää M, Risto M (2016) Influences of water properties on the aggregation and deposition of engineered titanium dioxide nanoparticles in natural waters. Environ Pollut 219:132–13810.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.080 ↗
28. Li M, Xu G, Yang X, Zeng Y, Yong Y (2020) Metal oxide nanoparticles facilitate the accumulation of bifenthrin in earthworms by causing damage to body cavity. Environ Pollut 263(Part A):114629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.11462910.1016/j.envpol.2020.114629 ↗
29. Marquis, D, Guillaume, E & Chivas-Joly, C. (2011). Properties of Nanofillers in Polymer. https://doi.org/10.5772/21694.10.5772/21694 ↗
30. Minh Kim Nguyen MK, Moon J-Y, Lee Y-C (2020) Microalgal ecotoxicity of nanoparticles: an updated review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 201:110781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.11078110.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110781 ↗
31. Mitrano DM, Motellier S, Clavaguera S, Nowack B (2015) Review of nanomaterialaging and transformations through the life cycle of nano-enhanced products. Environ Int 77:132–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.01.013.10.1016/j.envint.2015.01.013. ↗
32. Nguyen T, Pellegrin B, Bernard C, Gu X, Gorham JM, Stutzman P, Stanley D, Shapiro A, Byrd E, Hettenhouser R, Chin J (2011) Fate of nanoparticles during life cycle of polymer nanocomposites. J Phys Conf Ser 304:01206010.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012060 ↗
33. Nguyen T, Pellegrin B, Bernard C, Rabb S, Stuztman P, Gorham JM, Gu X, Yu LL, Chin JW (2012) Characterization of surface accumulation and release of nanosilica during irradiation of polymer nanocomposites by ultraviolet light. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 12:6202–621510.1166/jnn.2012.6442 ↗
34. Nowack B, David RM, Fissan H, Morris H, Shatkin JA, Stintz M, Zepp R, Brouwer D (2013) Potential release scenarios for carbon nanotubes used in composites. Environ Int 59:1–1110.1016/j.envint.2013.04.003 ↗
35. Pereira AC, Gonçalves BB, da Silva Brito R, Vieira LG, de Oliveira Lima EC, Rocha TL (2020) Comparative developmental toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles and ferric chloride to zebrafish (Danio rerio) after static and semi-static exposure. Chemosphere 254:126792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.12679210.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126792 ↗
36. Petersen EJ, Lam T, Gorham JM, Scott KC, Long CJ, Stanley D, Sharma R, Liddle JA, Pellegrin B, Nguyen T (2014) Methods to assess the impact of UV irradiation on the surface chemistry and structure of multiwall carbon nanotube epoxy nanocomposites. Carbon 69:194–20510.1016/j.carbon.2013.12.016 ↗
37. Pietroiusti A, Stockmann-Juvala H, Lucaroni F, Savolainen K (2018) Nanomaterial exposure, toxicity, and impact on human health [published online ahead of print, 2018 Feb 23]. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.151310.1002/wnan.1513 ↗
38. Polymer nanocomposites market by type (2020) (carbon nanotubes, nanoclays, metal oxide, ceramics), application (construction, automotive, electrical & electronics, packaging). Global Opportunity Anal Ind Forecast, 2014-2022. Accessed on August 17th.
39. Sommer F et al (2018) Tire abrasion as a major source of microplastics in the environment. Aerosol Air Qual Res 18:2014–202810.4209/aaqr.2018.03.0099 ↗
40. Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF Jr, Rejeski D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.18110.3762/bjnano.6.181 ↗
41. Vílchez, Alejandro & Fernández-Rosas, Elisabet & González Gálvez, D & Vázquez-Campos, Socorro. (2015). Nanomaterials release from nano-enabled products. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2015409.10.1007/698_2015409 ↗
42. Wang W-W, Man C-Z, Zhang C-M, Jiang L, Dan Y, Nguyen T-P (2013) Stability of Poly(L-lactide)/TiO2 nanocomposite thin films under UV irradiation at 254 nm. Polym Degrad Stab 98:885–89310.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.01.003 ↗
43. Wohlleben W, Neubauer N (2016) Quantitative rates of release from weathered nanocomposites are determined across 5 orders of magnitude by the matrix, modulated by the embedded nanomaterial. NanoImpact 1:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2016.01.00110.1016/j.impact.2016.01.001 ↗
44. Xia T (2015) Safety assessment of carbon nanotube nanocomposites: challenges and perspectives. JSM Nanotechnol Nanomed 33:1034