4.6 Article

Life Cycle Assessment of Magnetite Production Using Microfluidic Devices: Moving from the Laboratory to Industrial Scale

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 6932-6943

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c06875

关键词

life cycle assessment; magnetic nanoparticle; microfluidic; scaling-up; emerging technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetite nanoparticles have significant applications in various industries and scientific fields. Microfluidic techniques have been used to synthesize these nanoparticles with narrow size distribution, potentially meeting industrial requirements.
Magnetite nanoparticles (MNPs) have important applications in several industrial and scientific fields for the remediation of contaminated soil and water, for instance. Emerging technologies such as microfluidic techniques have been adapted to continuously synthesize MNPs showing appealing results, such as a narrower size distribution. Therefore, this approach might become important for producing MNPs to meet industrial requirements. In this study, a life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted to analyze and evaluate the impacts of the synthesis of MNPs performed in microfluidic devices. This LCA considers all of the steps required for MNP production at a laboratory and possible industrial scales. The LCA results showed that the rivets suitable for device inlets and outlets and the chemicals required for the synthesis process have the highest contribution to all impact categories, i.e., 80 and 90%, respectively. These results thus contribute to determining the overall environmental performance of each step during the synthesis of MNPs. The contribution analysis reveals that the manufacturing stage has a contribution of 97% at the lab scale, while the operation stage shows a contribution of 82% at the industrial scale. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed to identify the possible scenarios for replacing rivets required to manufacture microfluidic devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据