It’s Time to Move Forward on LCA of Nanomaterials

1. It’s Time to Move Forward on LCA of Nanomaterials Todd Kuiken, Ph.D. Research Associate Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Science and Technology Innovation Program

2. Overview • Size of the market • Where is nano • Public perception of nano • LCA studies • What’s missing • What’s next

3. Nano Market Size • Revenue involving nanotechnologies is predicted to reach $2.5 trillion by 2015 • Two trillion of which will be directly attributable to nano-enabled products and about $3 billion associated with nanomaterials. (Lux Research, 2009) • Nanomaterials associated with these end products will enter the waste stream at numerous points along the supply chain • All of which need to be evaluated from a LCA standpoint.

4. More than 1,200 companies, universities, government laboratories, and other organizations across all 50 U.S. states and in the District of Columbia are involved in nanotechnology • The top 3 sectors for companies working in nanotechnology (each with over 200 entries) are: materials; tools and instruments; and medicine and health • The top 6 Nano Metros (each with 30 or more entries) are: Boston; San Francisco; San Jose, Calif.; Raleigh; Middlesex-Essex, Mass.; and Oakland, Calif. Boston and San Francisco have taken the lead from San Jose. Raleigh has moved into the top 5 Nano Metros (displacing Oakland)

5. Nano for remediation • There are over 60 sites across the globe that have utilized nanomaterials to clean up hazardous waste sites • Nanoparticles are injected directly into the ground via wells

6. Nano is here and wide spread • Recently the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) updated its consumer products inventory and showed over 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled consumer products have been made available to consumers around the world • Between 2006 and 2009 the number of nano-enabled consumer products nearly tripled.

7. 2006-Survey of 1,014 adults and asked, “How much have you heard about nanotechnology before today? 2006 Total Heard Just a Little/Nothing = 75%

8. 2008-Survey of 1,003 adults and asked, “How much have you heard about nanotechnology before today? 2008 Total Heard Just a Little/Nothing = 69%

9. 2009-Survey of 1,001 adults and asked, “How much have you heard about nanotechnology before today? Total Heard Just a Little/Nothing = 68%

10. 2008-Public Is Unsure About the Risks Versus the Benefits Initial Impression Informed Impression 1003 adults polled

11. Limited Studies… • Khana et al.(2008) examined the life cycle energy consumption of carbon nanofibers compared to traditional materials like aluminum, steel and polypropylene. • Their results suggest that the energy requirements for CNFs are higher than that of traditional materials. • The study was conducted on an equal mass basis however and cannot be extrapolated to potential products enhanced with these materials • It is not however extreme to hypothesize that the amount of material needed will be less compared to traditional materials

12. …limited studies • Satish Joshi (2008) looked at whether nanoclay composites improved the environmental sustainability of biopolymers • On a unit mass basis, nanoclay production results in lower environmental burdens compared to common biobased polymers across the life cycle of the material • The study goes on to say that substituting nanoclays for certain polymers could improve the environmental performance however product life-cycle assessments are necessary

13. Lack of Data • “comprehensive, transparent, representative, and publicly available data” is needed in order to carry out the requirements outlined in the ISO standards for LCA (Joshi, 2008) • The studies fail to capture the full life cycle of the product because they primarily follow a cradle to gate scenario of a specific material, leaving out the market use and end of life scenarios. • Has to do with the lack of environmental health and safety data available for nanomaterials and the products they are incorporated into

14. No Instruments No Data • A major obstacle for determining the environmental effects of specific nanomaterials is the slow development of metrology • Without proper instrumentation, the ability to monitor emissions and conduct full scale ecosystem and human health effect studies on nanomaterials will be hindered • Without this data full-scale LCAs cannot be properly performed

15. We’ve been here before: A sample of the conclusions from 2006 LCA Workshop • Major efforts are needed to fully assess potential risks and environmental impacts • There is a need for protocols and practical methodologies for toxicology studies, fate and transport studies and scaling approaches • International cooperation is needed • Further research is needed to gather missing relevant data and to develop user-friendly eco-design screening tools, especially ones suitable for use by small and medium sized enterprises

16. Enough talk…time to get to work • Unfortunately since PEN held its two-day workshop on LCA of nanomaterials in 2006, little progress has occurred. • Many, if not all of the conclusions still remain and the recommendations have yet to be implemented. • The questions being raised at this workshop are critically important in being able to carry out effective LCAs of nanomaterials. • It’s time to stop the talking and start implementing LCAs of nanomaterials and the products utilizing them

17. Thank You…. Science and Technology Innovation Program www.nanotechproject.org www.synbioproject.org Todd Kuiken, Ph.D. Phone: (202) 691-4398 Email: todd.kuiken@wilsoncenter.org