4.4 Article

Environmental exposure assessment framework for nanoparticles in solid waste

Journal

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-014-2394-2

Keywords

Nanowaste; Nanomaterial; Environmental exposure; Solid waste; Quantification; Health effects

Funding

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7] under EC-GA [604305]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Information related to the potential environmental exposure of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in the solid waste management phase is extremely scarce. In this paper, we define nanowaste as separately collected or collectable waste materials which are or contain ENMs, and we present a five-step framework for the systematic assessment of ENM exposure during nanowaste management. The framework includes deriving EOL nanoproducts and evaluating the physicochemical properties of the nanostructure, matrix properties and nanowaste treatment processes as well as transformation processes and environment releases, eventually leading to a final assessment of potential ENM exposure. The proposed framework was applied to three selected nanoproducts: nanosilver polyester textile, nanoTiO(2) sunscreen lotion and carbon nanotube tennis racquets. We found that the potential global environmental exposure of ENMs associated with these three products was an estimated 0.5-143 Mg/year, which can also be characterised qualitatively as medium, medium, low, respectively. Specific challenges remain and should be subject to further research: (1) analytical techniques for the characterisation of nanowaste and its transformation during waste treatment processes, (2) mechanisms for the release of ENMs, (3) the quantification of nanowaste amounts at the regional scale, (4) a definition of acceptable limit values for exposure to ENMs from nanowaste and (5) the reporting of nanowaste generation data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available