TY - JOUR
T1 - Safe(r) by design implementation in the nanotechnology industry
AU - Sánchez Jiménez, Araceli
AU - Puelles, Raquel
AU - Pérez-Fernández, Marta
AU - Gómez-Fernández, Paloma
AU - Barruetabeña, Leire
AU - Jacobsen, Nicklas Raun
AU - Suarez-Merino, Blanca
AU - Micheletti, Christian
AU - Manier, Nicolas
AU - Trouiller, Bénédicte
AU - Navas, Jose Maria
AU - Kalman, Judit
AU - Salieri, Beatrice
AU - Hischier, Roland
AU - Handzhiyski, Yordan
AU - Apostolova, Margarita D.
AU - Hadrup, Niels
AU - Bouillard, Jacques
AU - Oudart, Yohan
AU - Merino, Cesar
AU - Liguori, Biase
AU - Sabella, Stefania
AU - Rose, Jerome
AU - Masion, Armand
AU - Galea, Karen S.
AU - Kelly, Sean
AU - Štěpánková, Sandra
AU - Mouneyrac, Catherine
AU - Barrick, Andrew
AU - Châtel, Amélie
AU - Dusinska, María
AU - Rundén-Pran, Elise
AU - Mariussen, Espen
AU - Bressot, Christophe
AU - Aguerre-Chariol, Olivier
AU - Shandilya, Neeraj
AU - Goede, Henk
AU - Gomez-Cordon, Julio
AU - Simar, Sophie
AU - Nesslany, Fabrice
AU - Jensen, Keld Alstrup
AU - van Tongeren, Martie
AU - Rodríguez Llopis, Isabel
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was performed within the EU project NanoReg2, funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union under Grant Agreement Number 646221. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of all the industrial partners and the entire NanoReg2 consortium for their continuous support and advice on the case studies.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/10/21
Y1 - 2020/10/21
N2 - The implementation of Safe(r) by Design (SbD) in industrial innovations requires an integrated approach where the human, environmental and economic impact of the SbD measures is evaluated across and throughout the nanomaterial (NM) life cycle. SbD was implemented in six industrial companies where SbD measures were applied to NMs, nano-enabled products (NEPs) and NM/NEP manufacturing processes. The approach considers human and environmental risks, functionality of the NM/NEP and costs as early as possible in the innovation process, continuing throughout the innovation progresses. Based on the results of the evaluation, a decision has to be made on whether to continue, stop or re-design the NM/NEP/process or to carry out further tests/obtain further data in cases where the uncertainty of the human and environmental risks is too large. However, SbD can also be implemented at later stages when there is already a prototype product or process available, as demonstrated in some of the cases. The SbD measures implemented in some of the case studies did not result in a viable solution. For example the coating of silicon nanoparticles with amorphous carbon increased the conductivity, the stability and reduced the dustiness of the particles and therefore the risk of explosion and the exposure to workers. However the socioeconomic assessment for their use in lithium-ion batteries for cars, when compared to the use of graphite, showed that the increase in performance did not overcome the higher production costs. This work illustrates the complexities of selecting the most appropriate SbD measures and highlights that SbD cannot be solely based on a hazard and exposure assessment but must include other impacts that any SbD measures may have on sustainability including energy consumption and waste generation as well as all associated monetary costs.
AB - The implementation of Safe(r) by Design (SbD) in industrial innovations requires an integrated approach where the human, environmental and economic impact of the SbD measures is evaluated across and throughout the nanomaterial (NM) life cycle. SbD was implemented in six industrial companies where SbD measures were applied to NMs, nano-enabled products (NEPs) and NM/NEP manufacturing processes. The approach considers human and environmental risks, functionality of the NM/NEP and costs as early as possible in the innovation process, continuing throughout the innovation progresses. Based on the results of the evaluation, a decision has to be made on whether to continue, stop or re-design the NM/NEP/process or to carry out further tests/obtain further data in cases where the uncertainty of the human and environmental risks is too large. However, SbD can also be implemented at later stages when there is already a prototype product or process available, as demonstrated in some of the cases. The SbD measures implemented in some of the case studies did not result in a viable solution. For example the coating of silicon nanoparticles with amorphous carbon increased the conductivity, the stability and reduced the dustiness of the particles and therefore the risk of explosion and the exposure to workers. However the socioeconomic assessment for their use in lithium-ion batteries for cars, when compared to the use of graphite, showed that the increase in performance did not overcome the higher production costs. This work illustrates the complexities of selecting the most appropriate SbD measures and highlights that SbD cannot be solely based on a hazard and exposure assessment but must include other impacts that any SbD measures may have on sustainability including energy consumption and waste generation as well as all associated monetary costs.
KW - Life cycle assessment
KW - Nano-enabled products
KW - Nanomaterials
KW - Nanoparticle
KW - Nanotechnology
KW - Risk assessment
KW - Safe by design
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/b0be654d-43a8-3dcb-8a11-f8bcf8a72521/
U2 - 10.1016/j.impact.2020.100267
DO - 10.1016/j.impact.2020.100267
M3 - Article
SN - 2452-0748
VL - 20
JO - NanoImpact
JF - NanoImpact
M1 - 100267
ER -