Final Report Summary - LICARA (Life cycle approach and human risk impact assessment, product stewardship and stakeholder risk/benefit communication of nanomaterials)
Executive Summary:
Nanomaterials have a great market potential for SMEs due to the high added values and the reduced batch sizes compared to their corresponding conventional bulk materials. Unfortunately the introduction of nanomaterials is hampered due to the unknown human and ecological risks. It may take many years to fill all knowledge gaps. However, the SMEs have to address the various different aspects and perceptions of risks, in communication with their stakeholders. For this reason, SMEs need guidance to assess the risks and benefits of their nanoproducts in comparison with the conventional (non-nano) products.
The main goal of LICARA is to develop a structured life cycle approach for nanomaterials that (1) enables to balance health/environmental risks of nanomaterials in view of paucity of data against their benefits and (2) that further allows a comparison with the risks and the benefits of the conventional (non-nano) products.
Therefore the LICARA framework is developed based on a dual approach: (1) LICARA nanoSCAN: scanning of the risks and benefits, which can be performed by SMEs, and (2) in-depth assessment: comprehensive and thorough method to assess the risks and benefits, which is performed by professionals.
In the LICARA nanoSCAN, a general method is developed that is able to scan potential applications of specific nanomaterial-based innovations. It can take place in an early product development stage and with limited data, mostly of a qualitative nature. The approach is to identify the risks and benefits for the application of nanoproducts by answering pre-defined questions on the nanoproduct and its application. It is operationalized in a simple spreadsheet tool, which enables SMEs to perform this scanning method by themselves. In case the LICARA nanoSCAN result is positive or ambiguous, a company can (let) perform an in-depth assessment to obtain a better underpinned decision e.g. in case of large investments. For the in-depth assessment a more extensive method is being developed to assess the risks and benefits of a specific nanoproduct into detail, based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment (RA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data uncertainty in general and specifically regarding the risk and benefits of nanomaterials. In the in depth assessment, LICARA developed a method to aggregate risks across the entire life cycle of the product in combination with 'conventional' LCA assessment and its impact parameters. Therefore, workers and consumers exposure was integrated in the RA approach within the LCA. The method is based on six methodological steps to derive characterisation factors, which can be included in the LCA.
The LICARA nanoSCAN and in-depth assessment were applied to four case studies within the LICARA project: (1) an antibacterial coating on door handles (nano Ag), (2) a microfiber cloth (nano Ag), (3) an self-cleaning coating for outdoor façades (nanoTiO2) and (4) a catalyst for fuel cell applications (MWCNT).
The life cycle inventories for three of the most frequently used nanomaterials (nanoAg, MWCNT, nanoTiO2) have been compiled with a very high level of detail. In particular nanoAg and MWCNT data rely on industrial data gathered with our SME partners and it is fair to assume that uncertainties on these data are by far smaller than average uncertainties in life cycle inventory modelling.
Finally, LICARA guidelines were elaborated based on the conceptual framework and the case studies in order to deal with the specific questions on benefits and risks by SMEs.
For the SMEs and SME Associations, LICARA was also very successful. The SMEs are very happy with the LICARA nanoSCAN, the guidelines, the fact sheets on the case studies and the socio-economic valuation of the nanosilver coating on door handles. The outcome of the socio-economic valuation was that the benefit of the lower infection rate by applying a nanosilver coating on the door handles in hospitals to reduce the amount of hospital infections outweighs all direct and indirect costs. The LICARA results are beneficial to the whole nano community working with nanomaterials.
Project Context and Objectives:
Nanotechnology offers great economic and social opportunities. According to Lux Research (2010), the global nanotechnology market will touch over $2.5 trillion worth in 2015 (at $147 billion in 2007). According to a rough estimate, Europe accounted for 25% of these (Lux Research, 2007).
In addition to completely new applications such as transparent coatings that absorb ultra violet radiation, the bulk of nanomaterials are used to improve the properties of conventional products. For instance the use of nanocomposite body parts and frames for automobiles allow automakers to cut significant amounts of weight without sacrificing structural integrity – lowering fuel consumption by up to 10.7% (LUX Research 2011).
Another example is the use of nanosilver in hospitals. In 2002 the World health Organisation (WHO) published results on nosocomial infections: ‘A prevalence survey conducted under the auspices of WHO in 55 hospitals of 14 countries representing 4 WHO Regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia and Western Pacific) showed an average of 8.7% of hospital patients had nosocomial infections. At any time, over 1.4 million people worldwide suffer from infectious complications acquired in hospital. ‘Experts suggest, that in specific areas of medical devices (e.g. catheters, bone cement, coating for implants, wound dressing encasement of medical instruments and many more), the use of nanosilver can lead to a reduction of 90 % of the risk of getting nosocomial infection’ (Klein 2011).
The production of nanomaterials and nanoproducts is extremely attractive for SMEs. Firstly, the innovative functions of the product do have a high added value to the products, so SMEs can compete with large industry. Secondly, SMEs do not need much logistic infrastructure for handling large volumes of material, as the batch-size of nanomaterials is normally only up to 10% of that of the corresponding conventional bulk materials.
A key issue hampering the implementation of nanomaterials is unknown human and ecological risks of the applied nanomaterials during their life cycle. Many initiatives have been launched to obtain data about the safety of nanomaterials. However, it will take many years to gather and analyse all the data required to perform a comprehensive risk assessment for nanomaterials. From the point of view of the life cycle assessment framework, the lack of reliable inventory data prevents so far even the calculation of their production impact on “traditional issues” like e.g. depletion of abiotic resources, ozone depletion potential, use of fresh water and land, or the impact on global warming. When considering on toxicological issues (like ecotoxicity or human toxicity), the lack is even more important – as also the respective characterisation factors for such an assessment are missing. In several cases the application of new substances without a proper prior risk assessment has led to unexpected costs and considerable suffering for industry and society (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), asbestos (EEA 2002, EU 2001)). On the other hand, the introduction of new material, e.g. nanomaterials, and applications, might have less impact on for example energy consumption or use of raw materials compared to other materials or product systems with comparable functionality. In communication with the various stakeholders, e.g. regulators, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade organisations etc., the SMEs have to address the various different aspects and perceptions of risks. For this reason, SMEs do need guidance to assess the risk and benefits of their nanoproducts in comparison with the risks and benefits of conventional (non-nano) products.
LICARA will develop a life cycle approach and perform case studies to balance the risks and the benefits in the context of scarce data that contributes to the generation of solid guidelines for SMEs for specific products, despite scarcity of data (in the coming 10 years this can be assumed to be the case for nanomaterials!). This life cycle approach will be transferable to all kinds of nanomaterials and product systems. To do so, we will develop a new approach how to deal in a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with scarce life cycle inventory (LCI) data.
In specific case studies related to the nanoproducts of the involved SMEs, LCI data sets will be elaborated with the support of these involved SMEs as well as the involved SME-AGs. These LCA case studies serve to illustrate realistic environmental performance and the potential environmental benefits of nanoproducts and will indicate the priorities for information gathering/data gathering.
A challenge with respect to human risk assessment is to integrate or aggregate (1) the risks associated with the release of nanomaterials in (indoor) work environments or indoor use of nanoproducts (for specific subgroups like workers and consumer) and (2) the risks associated with emission (or release) to various environmental compartments for the general population. Pragmatic approaches for such aggregation of risks will be developed and applied for the case studies, indicated above.
In a further project step, the outcomes of the LCA and the Risk Assessment (RA) activities will be combined, resulting in this new life cycle approach mentioned above in which the risks and benefits can be balanced. Based on this balance the discussions between various stakeholders, e.g. governments, industry, NGOs, and research institutes about nanomaterials could be supported.
Finally, in a last step, guidelines and, if possible “best practices” will be deduced from this life cycle approach in order to enable SMEs, in the project and beyond the project, to develop and produce safe and sustainable products by gathering relevant information. This information supports SMEs in business decisions on the production or application of nanomaterials. Our results will show under which conditions the use of nanomaterials have a favourable risk/benefit balance and what information is relevant to evaluate the risks and benefits (i.e. priorities for information gathering/data generation). A risk/benefit balance is a must for SMEs in communication with investors, clients and regulators. In addition, SMEs are committed to take a proactive role in informing the society about the risks and benefits of nanomaterials and to use the nanomaterials in a sustainable way.
With SMEs making up for 18% of the innovation potential of Europe, the support of SMEs at the early stages of a product development cycle is of utmost importance. The SME participating in this project foresee an increase in turnover in medium or long term. The member companies of the SME-Associations expect to establish commercial advantages from the conduct and results of the LICARA project through the achievements:
1. Provision of case-studies in an iterative format, allowing for the detailed review of product- and SME-specific data by the world-leading experts in LCA involved in this consortium
2. Availability and conduct of a proof-of-principle assessment of a conceptual framework for nanomaterial, as well as guidelines of best practices.
The specific objects of LICARA are:
Objective 1: Development of a framework for life cycle assessment that properly addresses risks in data scarce situations
Objective 2: Application of the life cycle approach in case studies for 2 different types of nanomaterials in various applications
Objective 3: Compile guidelines for SMEs for nano-product risk-benefit balancing
Objective 4: Dissemination to SMEs of the developed conceptual framework, the case studies and guidelines.
To achieve these objectives, the consortium will use an iterative process, to address data paucity for a risk-benefit balancing framework to compare nanomaterials with conventional (non-nano) products that offer the same functionality. This process will start with a screening scenario using available data. If this scenario already shows that the nanomaterial clearly offers a superior risk/benefit balance, a conclusion can be offered, directly. Where the outcome is less straightforward, the iterative process proceeds, including mining for – and in exceptional cases generating of – more relevant data. After each iteration the quality of the conclusions are checked, i.e. whether they offer concrete guidelines for production and application leading to a superior risk/benefit balance.
As a proof of principle, the above-developed framework will be applied in 4 case studies for both RA and LCA. The specific context of these case studies will be selected by the SMEs at start of the project. The candidates for case studies are: nano-silver in antimicrobiological coatings, carbon nanotubes in composites, or textiles. These case studies are chosen as these materials are considered as high risk and will therefore be a good example for a whole range of other nanomaterials of which the risks are considered to be less. The whole life cycle of the nanoproduct will be taken into account, i.e. from the production of the ingredients, to the production of possible intermediates followed by the production of the actual nanoproducts, their use and the end-of-life treatment (disposal or recycling). The results for these nanomaterials and products will be compared to respective study results for mirror, conventional products, using the methods developed under 1. Objective.
The case studies will start in month 1 (detailing the context of the case studies by the SMEs) and continue until month 24. The main data resulting from the life cycle and risk assessment will become available in month 18.
Based on the conceptual framework and the cases studies, guidelines will be deduced for SMEs. Firstly, the guidelines will offer concrete information about the risk/benefit balance for the selected types of nanomaterials and use, and about which factors in production and application determine the balance. This should enable the SMEs to directly improve their current market proposition. Secondly, these guidelines describe how the life cycle approach can be applied for other types of the selected nanomaterials and uses. This should lower the barrier to implement new products for the SMEs.
At the start of the project the dissemination strategy will be developed. SMEs will be informed about the results of the project by a webinar workshop organised by TNO, an international workshop organised by AGPYME, by several national workshops organised by the national SME-Associations (AGPYME, NCB, SNT, and TNO (the latter on as coordinator of the Dutch nanonetwork), by newsletters of the SME Associations, and through the project website. The dissemination work will proceed during the lifetime of the project.
The whole LICARA approach is depicted in Figure 1.
Project Results:
The main results of LICARA are the following:
1) Framework to assess the benefit and the risks of nanoproducts compared to the conventional products. The framework consists of 2 tiers:
a. Tier 1: A screening of the risks and the benefits, which can be performed by SMEs with little data.
b. Tier 2: An in depth assessment of the risks and benefits, which is performed by professionals based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment and life cycle assessment as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data.
2) For Tier 1 of the framework a tool is developed, i.e. the LICARA nanoSCAN.
3) For Tier 2 of the framework a life cycle assessment method is developed in which the risks are aggregated across the entire LC of the product in combination with 'conventional' LCA assessment and its impact parameters. Therefore, workers and consumers exposure was integrated in the RA approach within the LCA.
4) An environmental assessment of selected nanomaterials.
5) LICARA nanoSCAN and in depth assessment for the 4 case studies.
6) Summary of the 4 case studies (see Fig 2) summarizing the results of TIER 1 and Tier 2 presented in a way which is easily understandable for SMEs:
- Case study nr 1: microfiber cloth based on nanosilver. Two microfiber cloth were compared using different biocides (i) nanosilver (nano-Ag) and (ii) triclosan. The biocides have an antimicrobial effect. Therefore the microfiber cloths will not smell upon wet storage.
- Case study nr 2: antibacterial coating based on nanosilver. Hospital door handles are coated with nanosilver in order to reduce the number of hospital infections. The coating is compared to the same coating without nanosilver (Tier 1) and to doing nothing (Tier 2).
- Case study nr 3: Self-cleaning coating for outdoor facades based on nanotitanium dioxide. A coating with nanotitanium dioxide (nanoTiO2) applied upon a faced paint was compared with facade paint without a coating.
- Case study nr 4: Catalyst for fuel cell applications based on multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). A fuel cell based on MWCNT was compared to a fuel cell based on carbon black (CB). MWCNT increase the effective surface area and allow a better distribution of platinum in the fuel cell.
7) LICARA Guidelines for the sustainable competitiveness of nanoproducts.
In the following sections the results are described into more detail.
2.1. Conceptual framework
We started with a review study on data paucity and uncertainty in Risk Assessment (RA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of nanomaterials as well as the methods that can be used to deal with these situations. For LCA the highest levels of uncertainty are found for the outputs in the inventory and in the impact assessment. In other words the emissions of the nanomaterials may be unknown and the environmental impacts of the emissions of nanomaterials may be unknown. For RA the highest levels of uncertainty are found for the developmental and reproductive toxicity data used in the hazard assessment and the population exposed used in the exposure assessment.
From the review it was concluded that the assessment of risks and benefits of products involving nanomaterials is highly complicated due to data scarcity. As LCA and RA are complex and so are the techniques to deal with data uncertainty and scarcity it would be difficult to “repair” data gaps in a meaningful time and budget. Since LICARA is aiming to support Small and Medium- sized Enterprises (SME) in making sound decisions on the use of nanomaterials, this poses a dilemma. On the one hand, SME’s have limited means (time, money, knowledge) to spend on decision-making on nanomaterials. On the other hand, sound decision-making in absence of data and standard methodologies is a predicament.
To face this issue we proposed a stepwise or tiered approach:
- Tier 1: A screening of the risks and the benefits, which can be performed by SMEs with little data;
- Tier 2: An in depth assessment of the risks and benefits, which is performed by professionals based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment and life cycle assessment as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data.
For Tier 1 the LICARA nanoSCAN is developed based on a general method that is able to scan potential applications of specific nanotechnology-based innovations. It can take place in an early product development stage and with limited data, mostly of a qualitative nature. The approach is to identify the risks and benefits for the application of nanoproducts by answering pre-defined questions on the nanoproduct and its application. It is operationalized in a simple spreadsheet tool, which enables SMEs to perform this scanning method by themselves.
The results of the LICARA nanoSCAN are a self-assessment of a product’s risk and benefit profile. This profile supports the user in constructing a consistent and convincing story on the benefits and risks of their product, for internal and external use. It also gives guidance on next steps. In case undesired risks are identified, a company seeking to commercialise the product can return to an earlier stage of R&D, in order to substitute those elements that caused the high-level of risk. In case the result is surrounded with a large bandwidth of uncertainty due to lacking information, the scan could be executed again after specific data collection.
In case the LICARA nanoSCAN result is positive or ambiguous, a company can (let) perform an in-depth assessment to obtain a better underpinned decision e.g. in case of large investments or government requirements. For the in-depth assessment a more extensive method is being developed to assess the risks and benefits of a specific nanoproduct into detail, based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment and life cycle assessment as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data uncertainty in general and specifically regarding the risk and benefits of nanomaterials. Generally speaking, this type of assessment will take place in a later development stage of a product since it has high knowledge, data and time requirements and usually can only be conducted by LCA and RA professionals. Nevertheless, it can be very well necessary to (let) perform such an in-depth assessment in order to be able to decide upon large investments in nanomaterial production.
2.2. LICARA nanoSCAN
The LICARA nanoSCAN supports decision making of SMEs on nanoproducts in different stages of development, is based upon the principles of Risk Assessment (RA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and is illustrated schematically in Figure 3. LCA is suited to assessing the environmental benefits of a new product over its full life cycle, in comparison to a reference product. RA is used to assess the risks (based upon hazard and exposure of certain activities or processes. MCDA is used, as it is a method particularly applicable when decisions need to be made; yet there is uncertainty and a paucity of data. This is especially the case when developing new innovative products such as nanoproducts.
The first building block or box characterises the nanomaterial and application and identifies the function of the nanoproduct and which conventional product it can be compared with. Furthermore, it will be determined whether the product at stake really includes nanoscale ingredients. Also, the user will be made aware of legislator issues. With regards to the assessment, this box has a preparatory function, hence it is labelled box 0.
In box 1 environmental impacts like resource depletion (energy/material), climate change and toxicity of conventional chemicals will be made over the complete life cycle. In box 2, economic benefits are being assessed, while box 3 addresses societal benefits, both for the complete value chain. In all three boxes on benefit, focus is on the differences between the nano-based system and the conventional system, being the present situation.
In box 4 to 6 the nanorisk assessment with respect to environment (ecological risks and public human health risks), consumer health and the occupational human health is covered. Hence, these boxes only assess the risks related to the nanomaterials. The ecological and public health risks of the conventional product are already covered in the ordinary LCA in box 1, so it is not included in box 4. The avoidance of these risks are benefits for the nanoproduct. In contrast, the consumer and occupational health impacts of the conventional product are not covered elsewhere.
Finally in the last box 7, the framework delivers decision support on the nanoproduct. Based on the information in the previous boxes, the main risks and benefits will be presented in reference to the conventional alternative. Since the uncertainties are very large, a transparent presentation of results is very important to be able to make a well-informed decision. This means that besides the resulting risk and benefits, also information is presented on the underlying factors, which are responsible for the result. This information is very important for judging the results, possible improvements as well as next steps. Furthermore, the user will be supported in the interpretation of the results.
In order to best take full advantage of all the relevant existing know-how and experiences concerning the assessment of nanoproducts, LICARA nanoSCAN is based upon parts of a number of existing tools :
Precautionary Matrix :
• Scope : nano characterization ( Box 0 ) and public health and environmental risk ( Box 4 ).
• By : Swiss Federal Office for Public Health and
Federal Office for the Environment.
Stoffenmanager Nano :
• Scope : occupational health risks ( Box 5 )
• By : TNO, ArboUnie, Beco.
NanoRiskCat :
• Scope : consumer health risks ( Box 6 ).
• By : Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the
Technical University of Denmark and National Research Centre for the Working Environment.
The LICARA conceptual framework is modular and can be used for different purposes. It supports in checking supplier risks, competing products, market opportunities or in making a complete internal risk and benefit analysis. The final result should not be regarded as the scientific truth (since scientific evidence on nanoproducts is still limited), but rather as a convincing set of arguments about a nanoproduct’s strengths and weaknesses, including uncertainties and knowledge gaps and their relevance. This supports manufacturers and their stakeholders in their decision-making on further assessment, research, development and production of a particular nanoproduct.
In-depth assessment: integration of Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment
The in-depth assessments looks at benefits and risks into more detail—using quantitative data and state-of-the art assessment methods. In this assessment, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is combined with Risk Assessment (RA) focussing on human risks in a situation of large data paucity and uncertainty. This approach provides a more accurate and detailed picture than the rather qualitative result given by the LICARA nanoSCAN. Due to its much higher resource requirements, in-depth assessment needs to be carried out by LCA/RA professionals.
Life Cycle Assessment
LCA is a technique to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with a product/service throughout its entire life cycle, usually every stage, from cradle to grave. Specific questions, stages or partial systems (e.g. gate-to-gate systems) can also be assessed using LCA. The ISO 14040 and 14044 standards describe the techniques for establishing a complete LCA and all the necessary details.
LCA is a ‘relative’ approach; all the system’s inputs and outputs are collected in relation to the specific function examined. This represents a benchmark for the comparison of alternatives that cannot be compared a priori.
The so-called ReCiPe method is used for impact assessment. In order to evaluate the relevance of the various environmental issues covered by this method, results are shown in a common ‘currency’ (e.g. ‘shadow prices’ or ReCiPe points), which allows the overall impact to be calculated as a single indicator.
Risk Assessment
RA’s focus on human health issues complements the results of LCA. RAs derive health effect factors and estimate the amount of exposure linked to specific activities and processes along the life cycle of nanoparticles; so far, this area is not covered by the existing impact assessment methods of LCA.
Combining the results of human health RA with those of LCA produces a more accurate and thus more realistic picture. Results are expressed using the same functional units as LCA calculations— disability-adjusted life years (DALY). This is a measure of the overall human health impacts from the releases analysed.
How should results be combined?
‘Shadow prices’ are used to combine the LCA results of a variety of different midpoint indicators with those of the RA approach described above. This approach uses the highest acceptable costs for mitigation measures as weighting factor, and allows an overall (impact) indicator to be calculated, as well as illustrating the relevance of various impact categories against each other.
For LCA results, ‘shadow prices’ equivalent to the ReCiPe midpoint indicators are used—based on data from CE Delft’s ‘Shadow Price Handbook’. For the RA result, a conversion factor of EUR 40,000/DALY is used (as established in the framework of the NEEDS project).
This combination allows an easy comparison of NP releases against the impacts of further releases during the life cycle.
Concluding
Together, the LICARA nanoSCAN and in-depth assessment form a conceptual framework to support decision making of SMEs on nanoproducts in different stages of development. The LICARA nanoSCAN is available in the form of an Excel tool; the framework is laid down for the general public in guidelines (www.LICARA.eu).
The conceptual framework has been applied and as a proof of principle for four selected case studies within the LICARA projects. The in-depth assessment is rather labour, knowledge and data intensive. This is often not feasible, particularly for SMEs. Furthermore, it is very focused on environmental benefits and risk assessment, and tends to neglect socio-economic aspects. It is relatively problem oriented.
On the LICARA nanoSCAN, it is concluded that the benefits are conservatively estimated, particularly when one benefit is much more important than the others. On the other hand, the risks are assessed on the basis of the precautionary principle, resulting in a careful overestimation of the risk. This seems a right principle for a self-assessment tool.
Furthermore, LICARA nanoSCAN seems to address the right issues, albeit positive or negative. That is exactly the purpose of the LICARA nanoSCAN, to give input and support to awareness, knowledge and dialogue of SMEs in the value chain, to select the most promising nanoproducts and improve their sustainability.
Since the communication on benefits and risks is such an important issue for nanoproducts, particularly when uncertainty is high and legislation is not giving guidance, the further development of LICARA nanoSCAN should be pursued in strong cooperation with SMEs and other industry as well as relevant NGOs and governmental bodies.
2.3. Human Health Risk Assessment in the view of Life Cycle Assessment
For the in depth assessment, a method has been developed to assess the human health risks of a specific nanoproduct in detail for nanomaterials, based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment (RA) in the context of life cycle assessment (LCA).
The major characteristics of regulatory risk assessment (RA) are (1) its substance- and population specificity, (2) that it is focusing on only two stages of the product life cycle (LC), i.e. workers and consumers, and (3) it usually neglects exposure of man via the environment. The human health RA within LCA, aggregates all substances emitted to an environmental compartment, however, it neglects workers and consumers exposure during production and use of products. The most important difference, however, is the metrics used to indicate the risk. Regulatory RA results in risk characterization ratios to demonstrate (un)safety, whereas LCA expresses risk rates, e.g. health end-points per unit of product or functionality. The latter enables comparison of the impact of different products.
LICARA developed a method to aggregate risks across the entire LC of the product in combination with 'conventional' LCA assessment and its impact parameters. Therefore, workers and consumers exposure was integrated in the RA approach within the LCA. The concepts of such an LCA-'integrated' RA' consists of a basic level RA for all LC-stages and it should aggregate RA over life cycle stages and include indoor exposures.
The major challenge was to test the feasibility of the concepts and more specifically the metric of the RA outcome, e.g. Disability-adjusted life years (DALY)/ kg or unit of functionality, which should be aligned with LCA to enable comparison. The testing of the proof of principle has taken place in four case studies, which have been prepared by the SME-partners of LICARA to compare the human RA within LCA of nano-enabled products with their non-nano counterparts.
Within LICARA a methodological framework has been developed to derive characterisation factors for nanoparticles in workplaces and common scenarios to complement LCA with HHRA. Characterisation factors are used to quantitatively model the impact from each emission/resource that comes from the life cycle stages. Human exposure to nanoparticles is multiplied with Effect Factors, which eventually result in Characterization Factors for emissions. Neither nanoparticles in general nor their synthetic forms are covered in the current LCA framework. The nanospecific CF, once available, would quantify the total impacts on human health per unit of nanoparticle emitted. In total, six methodological steps can be divided:
1. Obtain engineered nanoparticle (ENP)/conventional particles emission factor to workplaces
2. Deriving a steady state concentration and uptake by modelling the indoor fate of ENPs
3. Nanoparticle intake and uptake via inhalation
4. Nanospecific human health effect factors
5. Calculation of a characterization factor for indoor exposure to ENPs
6. Uncertainty assessment
This methodological framework was applied to four case studies (see Fig 2) within the LICARA project:
1. Antibacterial coating (nano Ag)
2. Microfiber cloth (nano Ag)
3. Self-cleaning coating for outdoor façades (TiO2)
4. Catalyst for fuel cell applications (MWCNT)
The results from the four case studies are presented in the figures below in which the estimated realistic health effects (expressed in DALY’s per functional unit; and minimum and maximum) are given for each of the different life cycle stages. For all case studies the highest contribution for the health effects was observed for the production of the nanoparticle.
2.4. Environmental risk assessment
For the environmental risk assessment, two studies were performed on nanoparticles. In the first study a meta-analysis of three different nanomaterials (nano-Ag, nano-ZnO and nano-CuO) was performed by comparing data from ecotoxicity studies and published EC50 values for both the nano-form and the corresponding dissolved metal. From the study it was concluded that a reduction in existing metal concentration thresholds by a factor of 2 in current freshwater and soil regulations for ecotoxicity may be sufficient to protect organisms and the compartments from the nano-form of these metals as well.
The environmental risk of five engineered nano-materials (CNT, fullerenes, nano-Ag, nano- TiO2 and nano- ZnO) was quantified in soil, water and sediment using a probabilistic species sensitivity distribution method and probabilistic predicted environmental concentrations for the European Union in 2012. The results show that because of their toxicity and high production volumes, the materials of highest concern are nano- TiO2 and nano- ZnO, where risks for freshwater have reached 0.32% and 0.34% in the EU. Sediment is an even more critical compartment; the calculated risks were 18% and 57%. For soil only nano-TiO2 represents a risk of 11% in the EU scenario. Therefore, it can be concluded that ENM release are possibly causing adverse effects already on the environment, especially for the cases mentioned. The results still have a lot of room for improvement; the PSSD’s statistical stability is limited by the large variability of the eco-toxicity dose responses found in literature. Lack of proper characterization of the ENM used in the studies makes very difficult to explain and deal with said variability. Similarly, the exposure model can currently account only for concentrations in 2012, once the accumulation can be calculated during several years, these concentrations will most likely increase, and so will environmental risk.
2.5. Life Cycle Assessment
Four life cycle assessment (LCA) case studies have been conducted. For all case studies the required understanding of the relevant processes was developed and detailed life cycle inventories for the product systems – in particular to the nanomaterials – have been established. For three out of four case studies a reference product was defined and a life cycle inventory of equal quality allowing fair comparison was established. For one case study (NanoAg containing antibacterial coating) no reference product was defined. The coating with nanoAg provides a completely new function of a product. Hence there is no reference product available on the market today. Instead of a product comparison between an alternative nanomaterial product and a non-nanomaterial product this case study took another approach than comparative LCA. For this case study socio economic impacts have been assessed when the nanoAg coating was applied on door handles in a hospital. The antimicrobial efficacy of nanosilver coating can reduce recontamination of surfaces. For this reason the antimicrobial efficacy of a coated with an uncoated stainless steel surface was compared.
The first case study about the microfiber cloth compares two types of microfiber cloth treated with the biocide nanoAg or triclosan. For this case study a detailed life cycle inventories for nanoAg product (in collaboration with rent-a-scientist), triclosan and the production of microfibers and the cloth were gathered. The results show no benefit from the environmental perspective for the nanoAg, containing product. Integration of consumer and occupational health risks into the LCA results reveals that the risks are negligible compared to the total environmental burdens of a microfiber cloth. The case study concludes that the biocide – nanaoAg or triclosan - in the microfiber cloth has no influence on the environmental performance.
The second case study aimed to balance socio-economic benefits from prevention of hospital acquired infections versus drawbacks due to risks of a nanoAg coating applied to hospital door handles. The same life cycle inventory of nanoAg from the microfiber cloth case study could be used as antimicrobial agent in the coating. Detailed models were developed for the water-based polysiloxane matrix. The results revealed to highly depend on the amount of silver emissions released and to which compartment. Both parameters – amount of release and the release compartment – are based on assumption and may contain considerable uncertainty.
The nanosilver coating has been tested experimentally and subsequently its efficacy was evaluated. The bacterial reduction rate of the nanoAg coating was before and after an accelerated aging above 3 log10 units. This suggests a life-long high antibacterial activity and efficacy of the coating. But the coating never achieved a 5-log10 bacterial reduction, which is the required threshold for standard disinfectants. Therefore a nanosilver coating cannot replace regular disinfection of the surface under consideration. Nevertheless the coating is able to reduce the bacterial load significantly. Reported bacterial contaminations of hospital door handles are in the same range like the infections dose for infectious bacteria. But the nanoAg coating can reduce the bacterial contaminations between 2 disinfectant cycles to a minor critical bacterial load.
The third case study examines two different façade coating systems: A system containing an additional coating with nano-TiO2 (self-cleaning function and therefore prolonged life-time due) that is applied on the conventional paint is compared with a situation of not making use of such an additional coating on the paint (shorter lifetime). Detailed life cycle inventories for nanoTiO2 and the coating/paint matrix were gathered. The data for the production of the nanoTiO2 rely on the currently available literature. The results of this case study indicate that positive effects from an extended lifetime (on the wall) over-compensate higher impact in production but only if releases of nanoparticles could be limited to a minimum. The actual boundary conditions (e.g. application interval of the coating) have major influence on the result. However, integrating occupational and consumer risk reveals no more benefits for the nanoproduct.
The fourth case study aimed at a comparison of two types of fuel cells. A fuel cell with multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) as carbon substrate for the electro catalyst platinum allows a platinum reduction of about 30% compared to using carbon black as substrate. Detailed life cycle inventory data for the production of MWCNT, its cleaning and functionalization where gathered based on data from the Greek SME partner Nanothinx. In close collaboration with partners from Nanothinx the design of nanoplatinum production, the electro catalyst and all subsequent components up to the fuel cell unit could be established. The data partly rely on lab data and partly on literature. The benefits from platinum savings overweigh by far the risk from exposure to MWCNT.
2.6. Summary of the case studies
Case studies
As an integral part of the LICARA project, the four case studies were made in order to verify whether the proposed nanoSCAN concept was applicable.
What do the case studies show?
Each of these four case studies has been documented in its own short report, summarizing the results from the different steps along the nanoSCAN. Each case study starts with a short introduction to the case study. A second part summarizes the results from the LICARA nanoSCAN tool itself. The third part gives comparative results from the corresponding full assessments using LCA and RA, together with an overall evaluation of the particular case study. These reports will be available on the LICARA project website www.licara.eu and on www.tno.nl/licara.
2.7. Guidelines
The deliverable of this work package are guidelines that support the SMEs in their efforts to developing sustainable and responsible nanoproducts by optimizing the nanospecific benefits and mitigate the nanospecific risks.
In the current situation SMEs have the opportunity by producing and using nanomaterials to develop products with new or better functions. However, SMEs also face many open questions and issues such as “What are the specific advantages of nanomaterials?” “What is the legal situation?”, What are the nanospecific risks?, “How sustainable are the products?” and so on. The challenges to deal with these questions are:
i) uncertainties,
ii) the dispersed and segmented knowledge which is thus not available for SMEs,
iii) the fact that the processes to perform a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and a Risk assessment (RA) are often too costly for SMEs.
iv) Based on the conceptual framework developed and the case studies the LICARA guidelines were elaborated in order to deal with these challenges and offer specific assistance.
The LICARA guidelines contain in the first part a systematic and step by step proceeding (seven steps) on how to evaluate the benefits and risks qualitatively with low and manageable efforts (Fig 6). In addition this part contains integrated knowledge and key information on relevant topics: nano-relevance, legal framework, benefits, materials and functionality, product design, risks (human health, environment) and decision-making. This integrated knowledge and the key information was elaborated from the results of case studies and also based on the scientific experience in the consortium. The integrated knowledge of the consortium builds the basis for preselecting nanomaterial and design.
If an SME worked through this low effort qualitative proceeding, they achieve already a systematic overview on potential nanospecific benefits and risks and will be ultimately prepared to apply the accompanying tool, LICARA nanoSCAN. Therefore in the second part of the LICARA guidelines, the use and the benefit of applying the LICARA NanoSCAN are described. The LICARA NanoSCAN makes the evaluation of nanospecific benefits and risks transparent. In the first part of the LICARA guidelines the interfaces to the LICARA NanoSCAN are indicated (step 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7).
Potential Impact:
3.1. Impact of the case studies on assessing the benefits and risks
The short case study report can be found on the website www.licara.eu and www.tno.nl/licara. For three case studies the impact on the environment and the risks were assessed for the nanoproduct compared to a reference product.
Case study MWCNTs in PEM Fuel Cell
Producing energy so clean that water is the only direct emission from the exhaust pipe is just a part of the attractive concept behind the fuel cell (FC). However, the very expensive platinum catalyst required has long hindered the design and development of FCs: high demand for mining platinum resources diminishes both the environmental and economic advantages of FCs.
By replacing carbon black (CB) with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) it is expected to lead to an increased surface area and a much better distribution of the platinum particles. These two improvements should allow a substantial reduction in the amount of platinum necessary to maintain FC efficiency. Both FC systems should have the same useful life and energy efficiency (fuel to electricity). The benefits are thus expected to occur in the production phase.
The conclusion from both the LICARA nanoSCAN and the in-depth assessment are as follows:
From nanoSCAN: The use of MWCNTs in PEM fuel cells is a promising example of a nanomaterial application. The nanoSCAN shows considerable benefits across different stages of the life cycle. The risks are moderate and stem mainly from the high potential for MWCNT toxicity. Exposure, however, seems to be rather low.
From the in-depth LCA and RA: The LCA results reveal that the benefits of using MWCNTs are about 20% over the product’s life cycle (if the use phase is not taken into account). The results from RA show a moderate MWCNT health effect based on relatively low exposure, but a relatively high hazard.
What next? The nanoSCAN and the in-depth LCA and RA assessments confirm the benefits of the PEM fuel cell using MWCNTs. Exposure to MWCNTs during production should be reduced to an absolute minimum from the precautionary principle. If this can be ensured, the recommendation would be for product development to be given the go-ahead.
Case study on a microfiber cloth
A microfiber cloth is used to clean household (such as in kitchens or bathrooms.) or industrial surfaces. The biocides (nanosilver or triclosan) in the microfiber cloth inhibit the growth of micro-organisms (mould or bacteria) in a wet storage and use conditions. The microfiber cloth consists mainly of PET fibres and the biocide.
By applying nanosilver instead of triclosan to the microfibers it is expected to protect the cloth better and longer. Clear advantages were expected in the use phase since the cloth treated with nanosilver can be stored wet due to its resistance against microbes. The energy used for drying will thus be saved.
The conclusion from both the LICARA nanoSCAN and the in-depth assessment are as follows:
From the nanoSCAN: A microfiber cloth with nanosilver is a successful example of using nanomaterials. The benefits for the environment, the economy and society are high. The low risk comes from the potential effects on public health and the environment.
From the in-depth Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment: Analysis using the nanoSCAN leads to substantially higher environmental benefits, while the results from the full assessment show no benefits. The difference in the results between the two approaches to environmental benefits is explained by the greater systemic knowledge built up by the full assessment. The projected benefits for electricity savings during the use phase could not be confirmed since the triclosan provides a similar level of protection to the cloth as nanosilver.
What next? A potential next step would be to verify whether there are clear economic or societal benefits and whether the microfiber cloth treated with nano-Ag can provide better/additional functions in comparison to the microfiber cloth treated with triclosan.
Case study on self-cleaning façade coating
Paint is applied to a facade to protect a building from environmental weathering by wind, rain, ice and solar radiation. The paint’s functions can be enhanced so that the facade is partly “self-maintaining” by the application of a top coating containing nanotitanium dioxide. Nanotitanium dioxide (nano-TiO2) is able to decompose organic materials, pollutants, solids or gases in the presence of water, oxygen and solar radiation.
By applying a facade coated with an additional coating layer containing nano-TiO2 it is expected to require less maintenance (cleaning). The useful life of the paint layer should be substantially prolonged. Over the lifetime of a building this leads to a considerable reduction in paint consumption.
The conclusion from both the LICARA nanoSCAN and the in-depth assessment are as follows:
From the nanoSCAN: In this case study, the results from the nanoSCAN are not clear. This is due to the moderate benefits and high occupational health risks. The overall conclusion is somewhat unclear and does not permit an easy decision-making over the strategy to adopt with this product.
From the in-depth Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment studies: The nanoSCAN results are somewhat confirmed. The potential impacts on human health in the nano-TiO2 coating production phase by far outweigh the benefits found in the LCA calculation, even in the minimum configuration. This shows that the production stage is the coating’s most crucial life stage.
Conclusion using both analytical steps: The full assessment identifies all the relevant aspects within this system. A facade coating system based on nano-TiO2 may have an overall benefit when releases (and related exposure) of nano-TiO2 in the production stage can be limited to an amount well below the best case scenario used in this case study’s Risk Assessment calculations.
What next? The company needs to monitor and minimise human exposure to releases of nano-TiO2 in the production phase. Only a low exposure to nano-TiO2 could result in a go-ahead for this nanoparticle application.
3.2. Socio-economic valuation of nanosilver coating on door handles in hospitals
Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) require patients to receive additional medical treatment, lengthen hospital stays and can even lead to deaths. Microbes living on surfaces in hospitals and transferred by hand contact are one of the causes of infection. Applying an anti-microbial polysiloxane-nano silver surface coating can reduce the number of HAIs.
The socio-economic valuation brings together economic, environmental and health aspects of the use of a nanosilver coating for door handles. The socio-economic valuation uses the results of the in depth assessment and an additional assessment of the infection reduction to weigh the benefits and risks of this specific nanomaterial case. In this way it clearly goes beyond the results of the Tier 1 nanoSCAN. The risks in the socio-economic valuation are covered by the environmental life cycle assessment and the occupational health risk assessment and these risks are expressed in an economic value. Applying life cycle costing has covered the economic aspect. The benefits have been assessed by a literature review of the incidence and causes for hospital acquired infections and the costs associated with them.
The socio-economic valuation shows that, although there is an environmental impact and occupational health risks of coating door handles with a polysiloxane-nanosilver coating, the system has an expected net benefit for society due to the reduction of hospital infections. In fact, the external costs of the environmental impact and occupational health risks are negligible compared to the internal costs for material and personnel. In total the operating expenses for coating door handles in one average hospital every two years, are € 1,350 per year, including coating and application. The total preventable costs for infections are € 83,010 per year. This results in a net benefit of €81,660 per year. Even when assuming a limited infection reduction and high internal and external costs in the conservative scenario the net socio-economic result is positive (see Figure 7).
3.3. Impact for SMEs
The LICARA concept and fact sheets help SME’s to:
1. Make decisions about developing and producing safe, sustainable products by gathering relevant information to answer the pertinent questions;
2. Learn from best practices;
3. Build a coherent argument about nanoproducts for suppliers, clients, consumer groups, authorities and other stakeholders (a comprehensive guide to the nanoproduct).
The LICARA guidelines help to implement the concept itself and are directed at SMEs that:
• Produce nanoparticles for wide or narrow fields of application
• Produce intermediate products using nanoparticles
• Produce end products with nanoparticles and nanomaterial’s
The guidelines are accompanied by a first version of an analytical tool in Excel—the LICARA nanoSCAN—that facilitates the implementation of the guidelines themselves. If a SME worked through guidelines, they achieve already a systematic overview on potential nanospecific benefits and risks and will be ultimately prepared to apply the accompanying tool, LICARA nanoSCAN. The LICARA NanoSCAN makes the evaluation of nanospecific benefits and risks for a nanoproduct transparent. The results of the LICARA nanoSCAN should not be regarded as the scientific truth (since scientific evidence on nanoproducts is still limited), but rather as a convincing set of arguments about a nanoproduct’s strengths and weaknesses, including uncertainties and knowledge gaps and their relevance. This supports manufacturers and their stakeholders in their decision-making on further assessment, research, development and production of a particular nanoproduct.
The proposed systematic qualitative and semi-quantitative proceeding contributes to:
• Hedging against unwise investments at an early stage of product development;
• Better compliance with regulations;
• Improving product stewardship – stakeholder acceptance of nanomaterials and products;
• Identify opportunities that increase efficiency (material and energy savings) and innovation;
• Hedging against unintentional releases of substances that can lead to large external costs (e.g. long-term environmental effects).
Martin Bodmer, owner of SME FRESO, developed a concept to the needs of nanomaterials and SMEs working in this field based on the “Porter’s 5 forces” (a strategy model teached at executive MBA’s) (Fig 8):
- To the competitiveness of nanoproducts;
- To check the market and to support customers in sustainable products;
- To check which nanoproducts perform the best and have the lowest occupational health risks;
- For internal reflection to verify whether risks are at least counterbalanced by the benefits.
During the project, specific attention was paid that the results meets the needs of the SMEs by several feedback loops of the LICARA nanoSCAN, the guidelines and the fact sheets with the participating SMEs and SME Associations. In addition 2 times a 1-day workshop was done with an external consultant Jörgen Höck who is responsible for the precautionary matrix and is specialized in the needs of the SMEs.
Impact of the case studies and the guidelines - experience of SME FRESO
The impact of the LICARA results and being part of the LICARA project is for FRESO very high. FRESO continued intensive discussions with authorities, end user and potential clients to get the approval for Nanosilver in Switzerland and to find ways of making use of LICARA for anti-microbial coatings and textiles. It looks positive that LICARA results do help to create the expected market for coating containing nanosilver.
After the end of LICARA the documentation of results is sent to BAG (Bundesamt für Gesundheit) to get the approval for nanosilver as biocide in Switzerland.
FRESO and a specialized applicator are working with Novartis (www.novartis.ch) to use the nanosilver coating in cleanrooms. The results of LICARA are the door opener for such high tech applications. Of course Novartis and clean rooms are the “champions league” for coatings.
The Swiss Hospital interested in the nano-coating was informed about LICARA activities and we move forward with it since the results are available now and hospitals have data in hand for decision-making and starting test areas coated/uncoated.
LICARA is also used to educate companies who do the application of such coatings. As an example FRESO gave a presentation at general assembly of PCT Suisse – a specialised application company who is working with nanocoatings.
A specialised magazine for Hospitals printed an article on such coatings, mentioning the LICARA project (Jürgen Schickinger (2014), "Bakterienfeindliche Oberflächen optimieren Hygiene", Heime und Spitäler, Nr. 3, Page 16-17).
The edition is >4’000 and helps to raise interest in LICARA and about the technology available of anti-microbial coatings in general.
Based on the results of LICARA project FRESO is able to continue its market activities and push the products and technology investigated in the case studies.
Impact of the case studies and the guidelines - experience of SME Nanothinx
The results of the PEM fuel cell case study helped in the discussion with the cooperative company regarding their exploitation plans of the specific fuel cell. This company has published their results and they are planning to expand this technology to other energy applications too. At this moment the product is still in the development time and a medium time to market is expected.
3.4. Impact for SME Associations
The production and sales of nanomaterials allows SMEs to successfully compete with large industry as due to the effectiveness of nanomaterials only small quantities needs to be handled which is up to normally 90% less compared to bulk products. The reason is that SMEs are better prepared compared to large industry to handle effectively small quantities, while large industry is better prepared to handle large quantities for bulk production. However, for successful market introduction of nanomaterials, SMEs need a model for risk/benefit analysis for communication with clients, investors and regulators.
The national SME-AGs will use the project results as a basis for their national dialog platform in discussion with regulators, end-users, citizens, ngo’s etc. These discussions are useful in taking care of the acceptation of nanomaterials by European citizens, regulators, clients, investors and others.
In addition, the long-term goal is to build up a supportive environment for nanoproduct suppliers and for integrators of nano-enabled intermediates. The LICARA framework, guidelines, nanoSCAN and fact sheets are excellent guidance for SMEs to improve product stewardship and to build up this environment. Especially for the public acceptance of new technologies such as nanotechnology it is a must to be transparent about the benefits and the risks of such a technology. The LICARA guidelines and nanoSCAN are tools for which a widespread use will be beneficial for the complete nanotechnology sector.
SME-AGs expect that the results of LICARA will lead to an increase of the turnover for their member SMEs, as nanomaterials will be easier accepted when objective information about risks and benefits are given. This expectation is strongly supported by the research performed by the Dutch Dialog on Nanotechnology (Nanopodium, 2011).
3.5. Scientific dissemination and impact
LICARA delivered clearly scientific results. In particular the following result are very relevant:
1) Setup up of the conceptual framework:
o Tier 1: LICARA nanoSCAN
o Tier 2: LCA approach including a method to derive human health effect factors including worker risks and consumer’s risks.
2) The application of RA and LCA in the case studies will be relevant for the scientific community. The life cycle inventories for three of the most frequently used nanomaterials (nanoAg, MWCNT, nanoTiO2) have been compiled with a very high level of detail. In particular nanoAg and MWCNT data rely on industrial data gathered with our SME partners and it is fair to assume that uncertainties on these data are by far smaller than average uncertainties in life cycle inventory modelling.
3) Environmental risk assessment for 5 commonly used nanoparticles: CNT, fullerenes, nanoAg, nano- TiO2 and nano- ZnO
At this moment, 4 scientific publications are written and submitted for publication to a scientific journal or ready for submission. 3 additional papers are in preparation. At the nanoSAFE conference 2014, 5 oral presentations of LICARA are accepted!
3.6. Public impact
The authorities have identified the added value of the LICARA nanoSCAN.
Bernard Bennink for the ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands: “Guidelines and the LICARA nanoSCAN are of clear value for the SMEs and industry. It will be very valuable to make the Guidelines and NanoSCAN available via the arboportal.”
Dick Koster NanoNextNL: “Within NanoNextNL, start-ups can request money for making their business case. For nanomaterials with a risk the LICARA nanoSCAN is a good start to identify the benefits and the risks and this should be part of their business case.”
3.7. Dissemination specific for the benefits of the SMEs
During the project the following dissemination events were given:
- Webinar: easy accessible for SMEs for whole Europe as there is no traveling time and costs. Availability to look back at a specific preferred time by SMEs. There were 30 active participants at the moment of presentation from all over Europe. 45% of the viewers was SME. The other viewers were from industry, research organisations and authorities.
- National workshop in Switzerland organized by NCB and Empa:
o About 75 participant, mostly SMEs
Feedback:
„Thank you for the high effort to elaborate the LICARA guideline and the LICARA nanoSCAN….. This event is very interesting also for future discussion.”
„It became very clear the experts of this project are very engaged and with good governance.”
„It was excellent that the feasibility, the usability and the significance of the individual outcomes of the work through the guidelines and the tool were tested and illustrated by a SME partner (Freso). This is a very courageous step which is not done often….”
- National workshop in The Netherlands organized by TNO (including do it yourselves part)
o About 25 participants, mostly SMEs
LICARA guidelines and LICARA nanoSCAN is very useful.
We liked the modular approach of the LICARA nanoSCAN.
I did not know what to expect from the workshop but the results presented here exceeded by far all my expectations. The LICARA nanoSCAN is a very useful tool to assess the benefits and risks of nanoproducts and I will surely use the tool in communication with my management to check for good investments
- National workshop in Spain organized by AGPYME
Broad audience of scientist, industry and SMEs
15 Spanish SMEs did participate. Based on the workshop and the publicity, 30 Spanish SMEs expressed their interest in the guidelines and LICARA nanoSCAN.
- National workshop Scandinavia organized by SNT
70 attendants from academia and SMEs as well as from the local authorities. The LCA outputs will be a valuable tool for Scandinavian SMEs, according to the positive feedback.
- 1 International workshop: Micronora conference. The LICARA outputs (guidelines, NanoSCAN, case studies) were presented during the International workshop, Nano Clusters Clustered event, and the Nano Clusters Brokerage event and at the LICARA trade fair stand. Over 100 guidelines were delivered to SMEs who expressed an interest in receiving them directly.
In addition, the LICARA had a project website www.licara.eu and a video (YouTube LICARA) is made to inform stakeholders.
Results of LICARA were disseminated via the project website, the websites of TNO and Empa and newsletters of the SME Associations.
List of Websites:
www.tno.nl/licara
www.empa.ch/licara
Contact details:
TNO
Esther Zondervan-van den Beuken
Utrechtseweg 48
3704 HE Zeist
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 88 866 1581
M: +31 6 22428547
Mail: esther.zondervan@tno.nl
Nanomaterials have a great market potential for SMEs due to the high added values and the reduced batch sizes compared to their corresponding conventional bulk materials. Unfortunately the introduction of nanomaterials is hampered due to the unknown human and ecological risks. It may take many years to fill all knowledge gaps. However, the SMEs have to address the various different aspects and perceptions of risks, in communication with their stakeholders. For this reason, SMEs need guidance to assess the risks and benefits of their nanoproducts in comparison with the conventional (non-nano) products.
The main goal of LICARA is to develop a structured life cycle approach for nanomaterials that (1) enables to balance health/environmental risks of nanomaterials in view of paucity of data against their benefits and (2) that further allows a comparison with the risks and the benefits of the conventional (non-nano) products.
Therefore the LICARA framework is developed based on a dual approach: (1) LICARA nanoSCAN: scanning of the risks and benefits, which can be performed by SMEs, and (2) in-depth assessment: comprehensive and thorough method to assess the risks and benefits, which is performed by professionals.
In the LICARA nanoSCAN, a general method is developed that is able to scan potential applications of specific nanomaterial-based innovations. It can take place in an early product development stage and with limited data, mostly of a qualitative nature. The approach is to identify the risks and benefits for the application of nanoproducts by answering pre-defined questions on the nanoproduct and its application. It is operationalized in a simple spreadsheet tool, which enables SMEs to perform this scanning method by themselves. In case the LICARA nanoSCAN result is positive or ambiguous, a company can (let) perform an in-depth assessment to obtain a better underpinned decision e.g. in case of large investments. For the in-depth assessment a more extensive method is being developed to assess the risks and benefits of a specific nanoproduct into detail, based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment (RA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data uncertainty in general and specifically regarding the risk and benefits of nanomaterials. In the in depth assessment, LICARA developed a method to aggregate risks across the entire life cycle of the product in combination with 'conventional' LCA assessment and its impact parameters. Therefore, workers and consumers exposure was integrated in the RA approach within the LCA. The method is based on six methodological steps to derive characterisation factors, which can be included in the LCA.
The LICARA nanoSCAN and in-depth assessment were applied to four case studies within the LICARA project: (1) an antibacterial coating on door handles (nano Ag), (2) a microfiber cloth (nano Ag), (3) an self-cleaning coating for outdoor façades (nanoTiO2) and (4) a catalyst for fuel cell applications (MWCNT).
The life cycle inventories for three of the most frequently used nanomaterials (nanoAg, MWCNT, nanoTiO2) have been compiled with a very high level of detail. In particular nanoAg and MWCNT data rely on industrial data gathered with our SME partners and it is fair to assume that uncertainties on these data are by far smaller than average uncertainties in life cycle inventory modelling.
Finally, LICARA guidelines were elaborated based on the conceptual framework and the case studies in order to deal with the specific questions on benefits and risks by SMEs.
For the SMEs and SME Associations, LICARA was also very successful. The SMEs are very happy with the LICARA nanoSCAN, the guidelines, the fact sheets on the case studies and the socio-economic valuation of the nanosilver coating on door handles. The outcome of the socio-economic valuation was that the benefit of the lower infection rate by applying a nanosilver coating on the door handles in hospitals to reduce the amount of hospital infections outweighs all direct and indirect costs. The LICARA results are beneficial to the whole nano community working with nanomaterials.
Project Context and Objectives:
Nanotechnology offers great economic and social opportunities. According to Lux Research (2010), the global nanotechnology market will touch over $2.5 trillion worth in 2015 (at $147 billion in 2007). According to a rough estimate, Europe accounted for 25% of these (Lux Research, 2007).
In addition to completely new applications such as transparent coatings that absorb ultra violet radiation, the bulk of nanomaterials are used to improve the properties of conventional products. For instance the use of nanocomposite body parts and frames for automobiles allow automakers to cut significant amounts of weight without sacrificing structural integrity – lowering fuel consumption by up to 10.7% (LUX Research 2011).
Another example is the use of nanosilver in hospitals. In 2002 the World health Organisation (WHO) published results on nosocomial infections: ‘A prevalence survey conducted under the auspices of WHO in 55 hospitals of 14 countries representing 4 WHO Regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia and Western Pacific) showed an average of 8.7% of hospital patients had nosocomial infections. At any time, over 1.4 million people worldwide suffer from infectious complications acquired in hospital. ‘Experts suggest, that in specific areas of medical devices (e.g. catheters, bone cement, coating for implants, wound dressing encasement of medical instruments and many more), the use of nanosilver can lead to a reduction of 90 % of the risk of getting nosocomial infection’ (Klein 2011).
The production of nanomaterials and nanoproducts is extremely attractive for SMEs. Firstly, the innovative functions of the product do have a high added value to the products, so SMEs can compete with large industry. Secondly, SMEs do not need much logistic infrastructure for handling large volumes of material, as the batch-size of nanomaterials is normally only up to 10% of that of the corresponding conventional bulk materials.
A key issue hampering the implementation of nanomaterials is unknown human and ecological risks of the applied nanomaterials during their life cycle. Many initiatives have been launched to obtain data about the safety of nanomaterials. However, it will take many years to gather and analyse all the data required to perform a comprehensive risk assessment for nanomaterials. From the point of view of the life cycle assessment framework, the lack of reliable inventory data prevents so far even the calculation of their production impact on “traditional issues” like e.g. depletion of abiotic resources, ozone depletion potential, use of fresh water and land, or the impact on global warming. When considering on toxicological issues (like ecotoxicity or human toxicity), the lack is even more important – as also the respective characterisation factors for such an assessment are missing. In several cases the application of new substances without a proper prior risk assessment has led to unexpected costs and considerable suffering for industry and society (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), asbestos (EEA 2002, EU 2001)). On the other hand, the introduction of new material, e.g. nanomaterials, and applications, might have less impact on for example energy consumption or use of raw materials compared to other materials or product systems with comparable functionality. In communication with the various stakeholders, e.g. regulators, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade organisations etc., the SMEs have to address the various different aspects and perceptions of risks. For this reason, SMEs do need guidance to assess the risk and benefits of their nanoproducts in comparison with the risks and benefits of conventional (non-nano) products.
LICARA will develop a life cycle approach and perform case studies to balance the risks and the benefits in the context of scarce data that contributes to the generation of solid guidelines for SMEs for specific products, despite scarcity of data (in the coming 10 years this can be assumed to be the case for nanomaterials!). This life cycle approach will be transferable to all kinds of nanomaterials and product systems. To do so, we will develop a new approach how to deal in a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with scarce life cycle inventory (LCI) data.
In specific case studies related to the nanoproducts of the involved SMEs, LCI data sets will be elaborated with the support of these involved SMEs as well as the involved SME-AGs. These LCA case studies serve to illustrate realistic environmental performance and the potential environmental benefits of nanoproducts and will indicate the priorities for information gathering/data gathering.
A challenge with respect to human risk assessment is to integrate or aggregate (1) the risks associated with the release of nanomaterials in (indoor) work environments or indoor use of nanoproducts (for specific subgroups like workers and consumer) and (2) the risks associated with emission (or release) to various environmental compartments for the general population. Pragmatic approaches for such aggregation of risks will be developed and applied for the case studies, indicated above.
In a further project step, the outcomes of the LCA and the Risk Assessment (RA) activities will be combined, resulting in this new life cycle approach mentioned above in which the risks and benefits can be balanced. Based on this balance the discussions between various stakeholders, e.g. governments, industry, NGOs, and research institutes about nanomaterials could be supported.
Finally, in a last step, guidelines and, if possible “best practices” will be deduced from this life cycle approach in order to enable SMEs, in the project and beyond the project, to develop and produce safe and sustainable products by gathering relevant information. This information supports SMEs in business decisions on the production or application of nanomaterials. Our results will show under which conditions the use of nanomaterials have a favourable risk/benefit balance and what information is relevant to evaluate the risks and benefits (i.e. priorities for information gathering/data generation). A risk/benefit balance is a must for SMEs in communication with investors, clients and regulators. In addition, SMEs are committed to take a proactive role in informing the society about the risks and benefits of nanomaterials and to use the nanomaterials in a sustainable way.
With SMEs making up for 18% of the innovation potential of Europe, the support of SMEs at the early stages of a product development cycle is of utmost importance. The SME participating in this project foresee an increase in turnover in medium or long term. The member companies of the SME-Associations expect to establish commercial advantages from the conduct and results of the LICARA project through the achievements:
1. Provision of case-studies in an iterative format, allowing for the detailed review of product- and SME-specific data by the world-leading experts in LCA involved in this consortium
2. Availability and conduct of a proof-of-principle assessment of a conceptual framework for nanomaterial, as well as guidelines of best practices.
The specific objects of LICARA are:
Objective 1: Development of a framework for life cycle assessment that properly addresses risks in data scarce situations
Objective 2: Application of the life cycle approach in case studies for 2 different types of nanomaterials in various applications
Objective 3: Compile guidelines for SMEs for nano-product risk-benefit balancing
Objective 4: Dissemination to SMEs of the developed conceptual framework, the case studies and guidelines.
To achieve these objectives, the consortium will use an iterative process, to address data paucity for a risk-benefit balancing framework to compare nanomaterials with conventional (non-nano) products that offer the same functionality. This process will start with a screening scenario using available data. If this scenario already shows that the nanomaterial clearly offers a superior risk/benefit balance, a conclusion can be offered, directly. Where the outcome is less straightforward, the iterative process proceeds, including mining for – and in exceptional cases generating of – more relevant data. After each iteration the quality of the conclusions are checked, i.e. whether they offer concrete guidelines for production and application leading to a superior risk/benefit balance.
As a proof of principle, the above-developed framework will be applied in 4 case studies for both RA and LCA. The specific context of these case studies will be selected by the SMEs at start of the project. The candidates for case studies are: nano-silver in antimicrobiological coatings, carbon nanotubes in composites, or textiles. These case studies are chosen as these materials are considered as high risk and will therefore be a good example for a whole range of other nanomaterials of which the risks are considered to be less. The whole life cycle of the nanoproduct will be taken into account, i.e. from the production of the ingredients, to the production of possible intermediates followed by the production of the actual nanoproducts, their use and the end-of-life treatment (disposal or recycling). The results for these nanomaterials and products will be compared to respective study results for mirror, conventional products, using the methods developed under 1. Objective.
The case studies will start in month 1 (detailing the context of the case studies by the SMEs) and continue until month 24. The main data resulting from the life cycle and risk assessment will become available in month 18.
Based on the conceptual framework and the cases studies, guidelines will be deduced for SMEs. Firstly, the guidelines will offer concrete information about the risk/benefit balance for the selected types of nanomaterials and use, and about which factors in production and application determine the balance. This should enable the SMEs to directly improve their current market proposition. Secondly, these guidelines describe how the life cycle approach can be applied for other types of the selected nanomaterials and uses. This should lower the barrier to implement new products for the SMEs.
At the start of the project the dissemination strategy will be developed. SMEs will be informed about the results of the project by a webinar workshop organised by TNO, an international workshop organised by AGPYME, by several national workshops organised by the national SME-Associations (AGPYME, NCB, SNT, and TNO (the latter on as coordinator of the Dutch nanonetwork), by newsletters of the SME Associations, and through the project website. The dissemination work will proceed during the lifetime of the project.
The whole LICARA approach is depicted in Figure 1.
Project Results:
The main results of LICARA are the following:
1) Framework to assess the benefit and the risks of nanoproducts compared to the conventional products. The framework consists of 2 tiers:
a. Tier 1: A screening of the risks and the benefits, which can be performed by SMEs with little data.
b. Tier 2: An in depth assessment of the risks and benefits, which is performed by professionals based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment and life cycle assessment as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data.
2) For Tier 1 of the framework a tool is developed, i.e. the LICARA nanoSCAN.
3) For Tier 2 of the framework a life cycle assessment method is developed in which the risks are aggregated across the entire LC of the product in combination with 'conventional' LCA assessment and its impact parameters. Therefore, workers and consumers exposure was integrated in the RA approach within the LCA.
4) An environmental assessment of selected nanomaterials.
5) LICARA nanoSCAN and in depth assessment for the 4 case studies.
6) Summary of the 4 case studies (see Fig 2) summarizing the results of TIER 1 and Tier 2 presented in a way which is easily understandable for SMEs:
- Case study nr 1: microfiber cloth based on nanosilver. Two microfiber cloth were compared using different biocides (i) nanosilver (nano-Ag) and (ii) triclosan. The biocides have an antimicrobial effect. Therefore the microfiber cloths will not smell upon wet storage.
- Case study nr 2: antibacterial coating based on nanosilver. Hospital door handles are coated with nanosilver in order to reduce the number of hospital infections. The coating is compared to the same coating without nanosilver (Tier 1) and to doing nothing (Tier 2).
- Case study nr 3: Self-cleaning coating for outdoor facades based on nanotitanium dioxide. A coating with nanotitanium dioxide (nanoTiO2) applied upon a faced paint was compared with facade paint without a coating.
- Case study nr 4: Catalyst for fuel cell applications based on multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). A fuel cell based on MWCNT was compared to a fuel cell based on carbon black (CB). MWCNT increase the effective surface area and allow a better distribution of platinum in the fuel cell.
7) LICARA Guidelines for the sustainable competitiveness of nanoproducts.
In the following sections the results are described into more detail.
2.1. Conceptual framework
We started with a review study on data paucity and uncertainty in Risk Assessment (RA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of nanomaterials as well as the methods that can be used to deal with these situations. For LCA the highest levels of uncertainty are found for the outputs in the inventory and in the impact assessment. In other words the emissions of the nanomaterials may be unknown and the environmental impacts of the emissions of nanomaterials may be unknown. For RA the highest levels of uncertainty are found for the developmental and reproductive toxicity data used in the hazard assessment and the population exposed used in the exposure assessment.
From the review it was concluded that the assessment of risks and benefits of products involving nanomaterials is highly complicated due to data scarcity. As LCA and RA are complex and so are the techniques to deal with data uncertainty and scarcity it would be difficult to “repair” data gaps in a meaningful time and budget. Since LICARA is aiming to support Small and Medium- sized Enterprises (SME) in making sound decisions on the use of nanomaterials, this poses a dilemma. On the one hand, SME’s have limited means (time, money, knowledge) to spend on decision-making on nanomaterials. On the other hand, sound decision-making in absence of data and standard methodologies is a predicament.
To face this issue we proposed a stepwise or tiered approach:
- Tier 1: A screening of the risks and the benefits, which can be performed by SMEs with little data;
- Tier 2: An in depth assessment of the risks and benefits, which is performed by professionals based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment and life cycle assessment as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data.
For Tier 1 the LICARA nanoSCAN is developed based on a general method that is able to scan potential applications of specific nanotechnology-based innovations. It can take place in an early product development stage and with limited data, mostly of a qualitative nature. The approach is to identify the risks and benefits for the application of nanoproducts by answering pre-defined questions on the nanoproduct and its application. It is operationalized in a simple spreadsheet tool, which enables SMEs to perform this scanning method by themselves.
The results of the LICARA nanoSCAN are a self-assessment of a product’s risk and benefit profile. This profile supports the user in constructing a consistent and convincing story on the benefits and risks of their product, for internal and external use. It also gives guidance on next steps. In case undesired risks are identified, a company seeking to commercialise the product can return to an earlier stage of R&D, in order to substitute those elements that caused the high-level of risk. In case the result is surrounded with a large bandwidth of uncertainty due to lacking information, the scan could be executed again after specific data collection.
In case the LICARA nanoSCAN result is positive or ambiguous, a company can (let) perform an in-depth assessment to obtain a better underpinned decision e.g. in case of large investments or government requirements. For the in-depth assessment a more extensive method is being developed to assess the risks and benefits of a specific nanoproduct into detail, based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment and life cycle assessment as well as methods to deal with data paucity and data uncertainty in general and specifically regarding the risk and benefits of nanomaterials. Generally speaking, this type of assessment will take place in a later development stage of a product since it has high knowledge, data and time requirements and usually can only be conducted by LCA and RA professionals. Nevertheless, it can be very well necessary to (let) perform such an in-depth assessment in order to be able to decide upon large investments in nanomaterial production.
2.2. LICARA nanoSCAN
The LICARA nanoSCAN supports decision making of SMEs on nanoproducts in different stages of development, is based upon the principles of Risk Assessment (RA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and is illustrated schematically in Figure 3. LCA is suited to assessing the environmental benefits of a new product over its full life cycle, in comparison to a reference product. RA is used to assess the risks (based upon hazard and exposure of certain activities or processes. MCDA is used, as it is a method particularly applicable when decisions need to be made; yet there is uncertainty and a paucity of data. This is especially the case when developing new innovative products such as nanoproducts.
The first building block or box characterises the nanomaterial and application and identifies the function of the nanoproduct and which conventional product it can be compared with. Furthermore, it will be determined whether the product at stake really includes nanoscale ingredients. Also, the user will be made aware of legislator issues. With regards to the assessment, this box has a preparatory function, hence it is labelled box 0.
In box 1 environmental impacts like resource depletion (energy/material), climate change and toxicity of conventional chemicals will be made over the complete life cycle. In box 2, economic benefits are being assessed, while box 3 addresses societal benefits, both for the complete value chain. In all three boxes on benefit, focus is on the differences between the nano-based system and the conventional system, being the present situation.
In box 4 to 6 the nanorisk assessment with respect to environment (ecological risks and public human health risks), consumer health and the occupational human health is covered. Hence, these boxes only assess the risks related to the nanomaterials. The ecological and public health risks of the conventional product are already covered in the ordinary LCA in box 1, so it is not included in box 4. The avoidance of these risks are benefits for the nanoproduct. In contrast, the consumer and occupational health impacts of the conventional product are not covered elsewhere.
Finally in the last box 7, the framework delivers decision support on the nanoproduct. Based on the information in the previous boxes, the main risks and benefits will be presented in reference to the conventional alternative. Since the uncertainties are very large, a transparent presentation of results is very important to be able to make a well-informed decision. This means that besides the resulting risk and benefits, also information is presented on the underlying factors, which are responsible for the result. This information is very important for judging the results, possible improvements as well as next steps. Furthermore, the user will be supported in the interpretation of the results.
In order to best take full advantage of all the relevant existing know-how and experiences concerning the assessment of nanoproducts, LICARA nanoSCAN is based upon parts of a number of existing tools :
Precautionary Matrix :
• Scope : nano characterization ( Box 0 ) and public health and environmental risk ( Box 4 ).
• By : Swiss Federal Office for Public Health and
Federal Office for the Environment.
Stoffenmanager Nano :
• Scope : occupational health risks ( Box 5 )
• By : TNO, ArboUnie, Beco.
NanoRiskCat :
• Scope : consumer health risks ( Box 6 ).
• By : Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the
Technical University of Denmark and National Research Centre for the Working Environment.
The LICARA conceptual framework is modular and can be used for different purposes. It supports in checking supplier risks, competing products, market opportunities or in making a complete internal risk and benefit analysis. The final result should not be regarded as the scientific truth (since scientific evidence on nanoproducts is still limited), but rather as a convincing set of arguments about a nanoproduct’s strengths and weaknesses, including uncertainties and knowledge gaps and their relevance. This supports manufacturers and their stakeholders in their decision-making on further assessment, research, development and production of a particular nanoproduct.
In-depth assessment: integration of Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment
The in-depth assessments looks at benefits and risks into more detail—using quantitative data and state-of-the art assessment methods. In this assessment, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is combined with Risk Assessment (RA) focussing on human risks in a situation of large data paucity and uncertainty. This approach provides a more accurate and detailed picture than the rather qualitative result given by the LICARA nanoSCAN. Due to its much higher resource requirements, in-depth assessment needs to be carried out by LCA/RA professionals.
Life Cycle Assessment
LCA is a technique to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with a product/service throughout its entire life cycle, usually every stage, from cradle to grave. Specific questions, stages or partial systems (e.g. gate-to-gate systems) can also be assessed using LCA. The ISO 14040 and 14044 standards describe the techniques for establishing a complete LCA and all the necessary details.
LCA is a ‘relative’ approach; all the system’s inputs and outputs are collected in relation to the specific function examined. This represents a benchmark for the comparison of alternatives that cannot be compared a priori.
The so-called ReCiPe method is used for impact assessment. In order to evaluate the relevance of the various environmental issues covered by this method, results are shown in a common ‘currency’ (e.g. ‘shadow prices’ or ReCiPe points), which allows the overall impact to be calculated as a single indicator.
Risk Assessment
RA’s focus on human health issues complements the results of LCA. RAs derive health effect factors and estimate the amount of exposure linked to specific activities and processes along the life cycle of nanoparticles; so far, this area is not covered by the existing impact assessment methods of LCA.
Combining the results of human health RA with those of LCA produces a more accurate and thus more realistic picture. Results are expressed using the same functional units as LCA calculations— disability-adjusted life years (DALY). This is a measure of the overall human health impacts from the releases analysed.
How should results be combined?
‘Shadow prices’ are used to combine the LCA results of a variety of different midpoint indicators with those of the RA approach described above. This approach uses the highest acceptable costs for mitigation measures as weighting factor, and allows an overall (impact) indicator to be calculated, as well as illustrating the relevance of various impact categories against each other.
For LCA results, ‘shadow prices’ equivalent to the ReCiPe midpoint indicators are used—based on data from CE Delft’s ‘Shadow Price Handbook’. For the RA result, a conversion factor of EUR 40,000/DALY is used (as established in the framework of the NEEDS project).
This combination allows an easy comparison of NP releases against the impacts of further releases during the life cycle.
Concluding
Together, the LICARA nanoSCAN and in-depth assessment form a conceptual framework to support decision making of SMEs on nanoproducts in different stages of development. The LICARA nanoSCAN is available in the form of an Excel tool; the framework is laid down for the general public in guidelines (www.LICARA.eu).
The conceptual framework has been applied and as a proof of principle for four selected case studies within the LICARA projects. The in-depth assessment is rather labour, knowledge and data intensive. This is often not feasible, particularly for SMEs. Furthermore, it is very focused on environmental benefits and risk assessment, and tends to neglect socio-economic aspects. It is relatively problem oriented.
On the LICARA nanoSCAN, it is concluded that the benefits are conservatively estimated, particularly when one benefit is much more important than the others. On the other hand, the risks are assessed on the basis of the precautionary principle, resulting in a careful overestimation of the risk. This seems a right principle for a self-assessment tool.
Furthermore, LICARA nanoSCAN seems to address the right issues, albeit positive or negative. That is exactly the purpose of the LICARA nanoSCAN, to give input and support to awareness, knowledge and dialogue of SMEs in the value chain, to select the most promising nanoproducts and improve their sustainability.
Since the communication on benefits and risks is such an important issue for nanoproducts, particularly when uncertainty is high and legislation is not giving guidance, the further development of LICARA nanoSCAN should be pursued in strong cooperation with SMEs and other industry as well as relevant NGOs and governmental bodies.
2.3. Human Health Risk Assessment in the view of Life Cycle Assessment
For the in depth assessment, a method has been developed to assess the human health risks of a specific nanoproduct in detail for nanomaterials, based upon merely quantitative data and the state of the art methods available for risk assessment (RA) in the context of life cycle assessment (LCA).
The major characteristics of regulatory risk assessment (RA) are (1) its substance- and population specificity, (2) that it is focusing on only two stages of the product life cycle (LC), i.e. workers and consumers, and (3) it usually neglects exposure of man via the environment. The human health RA within LCA, aggregates all substances emitted to an environmental compartment, however, it neglects workers and consumers exposure during production and use of products. The most important difference, however, is the metrics used to indicate the risk. Regulatory RA results in risk characterization ratios to demonstrate (un)safety, whereas LCA expresses risk rates, e.g. health end-points per unit of product or functionality. The latter enables comparison of the impact of different products.
LICARA developed a method to aggregate risks across the entire LC of the product in combination with 'conventional' LCA assessment and its impact parameters. Therefore, workers and consumers exposure was integrated in the RA approach within the LCA. The concepts of such an LCA-'integrated' RA' consists of a basic level RA for all LC-stages and it should aggregate RA over life cycle stages and include indoor exposures.
The major challenge was to test the feasibility of the concepts and more specifically the metric of the RA outcome, e.g. Disability-adjusted life years (DALY)/ kg or unit of functionality, which should be aligned with LCA to enable comparison. The testing of the proof of principle has taken place in four case studies, which have been prepared by the SME-partners of LICARA to compare the human RA within LCA of nano-enabled products with their non-nano counterparts.
Within LICARA a methodological framework has been developed to derive characterisation factors for nanoparticles in workplaces and common scenarios to complement LCA with HHRA. Characterisation factors are used to quantitatively model the impact from each emission/resource that comes from the life cycle stages. Human exposure to nanoparticles is multiplied with Effect Factors, which eventually result in Characterization Factors for emissions. Neither nanoparticles in general nor their synthetic forms are covered in the current LCA framework. The nanospecific CF, once available, would quantify the total impacts on human health per unit of nanoparticle emitted. In total, six methodological steps can be divided:
1. Obtain engineered nanoparticle (ENP)/conventional particles emission factor to workplaces
2. Deriving a steady state concentration and uptake by modelling the indoor fate of ENPs
3. Nanoparticle intake and uptake via inhalation
4. Nanospecific human health effect factors
5. Calculation of a characterization factor for indoor exposure to ENPs
6. Uncertainty assessment
This methodological framework was applied to four case studies (see Fig 2) within the LICARA project:
1. Antibacterial coating (nano Ag)
2. Microfiber cloth (nano Ag)
3. Self-cleaning coating for outdoor façades (TiO2)
4. Catalyst for fuel cell applications (MWCNT)
The results from the four case studies are presented in the figures below in which the estimated realistic health effects (expressed in DALY’s per functional unit; and minimum and maximum) are given for each of the different life cycle stages. For all case studies the highest contribution for the health effects was observed for the production of the nanoparticle.
2.4. Environmental risk assessment
For the environmental risk assessment, two studies were performed on nanoparticles. In the first study a meta-analysis of three different nanomaterials (nano-Ag, nano-ZnO and nano-CuO) was performed by comparing data from ecotoxicity studies and published EC50 values for both the nano-form and the corresponding dissolved metal. From the study it was concluded that a reduction in existing metal concentration thresholds by a factor of 2 in current freshwater and soil regulations for ecotoxicity may be sufficient to protect organisms and the compartments from the nano-form of these metals as well.
The environmental risk of five engineered nano-materials (CNT, fullerenes, nano-Ag, nano- TiO2 and nano- ZnO) was quantified in soil, water and sediment using a probabilistic species sensitivity distribution method and probabilistic predicted environmental concentrations for the European Union in 2012. The results show that because of their toxicity and high production volumes, the materials of highest concern are nano- TiO2 and nano- ZnO, where risks for freshwater have reached 0.32% and 0.34% in the EU. Sediment is an even more critical compartment; the calculated risks were 18% and 57%. For soil only nano-TiO2 represents a risk of 11% in the EU scenario. Therefore, it can be concluded that ENM release are possibly causing adverse effects already on the environment, especially for the cases mentioned. The results still have a lot of room for improvement; the PSSD’s statistical stability is limited by the large variability of the eco-toxicity dose responses found in literature. Lack of proper characterization of the ENM used in the studies makes very difficult to explain and deal with said variability. Similarly, the exposure model can currently account only for concentrations in 2012, once the accumulation can be calculated during several years, these concentrations will most likely increase, and so will environmental risk.
2.5. Life Cycle Assessment
Four life cycle assessment (LCA) case studies have been conducted. For all case studies the required understanding of the relevant processes was developed and detailed life cycle inventories for the product systems – in particular to the nanomaterials – have been established. For three out of four case studies a reference product was defined and a life cycle inventory of equal quality allowing fair comparison was established. For one case study (NanoAg containing antibacterial coating) no reference product was defined. The coating with nanoAg provides a completely new function of a product. Hence there is no reference product available on the market today. Instead of a product comparison between an alternative nanomaterial product and a non-nanomaterial product this case study took another approach than comparative LCA. For this case study socio economic impacts have been assessed when the nanoAg coating was applied on door handles in a hospital. The antimicrobial efficacy of nanosilver coating can reduce recontamination of surfaces. For this reason the antimicrobial efficacy of a coated with an uncoated stainless steel surface was compared.
The first case study about the microfiber cloth compares two types of microfiber cloth treated with the biocide nanoAg or triclosan. For this case study a detailed life cycle inventories for nanoAg product (in collaboration with rent-a-scientist), triclosan and the production of microfibers and the cloth were gathered. The results show no benefit from the environmental perspective for the nanoAg, containing product. Integration of consumer and occupational health risks into the LCA results reveals that the risks are negligible compared to the total environmental burdens of a microfiber cloth. The case study concludes that the biocide – nanaoAg or triclosan - in the microfiber cloth has no influence on the environmental performance.
The second case study aimed to balance socio-economic benefits from prevention of hospital acquired infections versus drawbacks due to risks of a nanoAg coating applied to hospital door handles. The same life cycle inventory of nanoAg from the microfiber cloth case study could be used as antimicrobial agent in the coating. Detailed models were developed for the water-based polysiloxane matrix. The results revealed to highly depend on the amount of silver emissions released and to which compartment. Both parameters – amount of release and the release compartment – are based on assumption and may contain considerable uncertainty.
The nanosilver coating has been tested experimentally and subsequently its efficacy was evaluated. The bacterial reduction rate of the nanoAg coating was before and after an accelerated aging above 3 log10 units. This suggests a life-long high antibacterial activity and efficacy of the coating. But the coating never achieved a 5-log10 bacterial reduction, which is the required threshold for standard disinfectants. Therefore a nanosilver coating cannot replace regular disinfection of the surface under consideration. Nevertheless the coating is able to reduce the bacterial load significantly. Reported bacterial contaminations of hospital door handles are in the same range like the infections dose for infectious bacteria. But the nanoAg coating can reduce the bacterial contaminations between 2 disinfectant cycles to a minor critical bacterial load.
The third case study examines two different façade coating systems: A system containing an additional coating with nano-TiO2 (self-cleaning function and therefore prolonged life-time due) that is applied on the conventional paint is compared with a situation of not making use of such an additional coating on the paint (shorter lifetime). Detailed life cycle inventories for nanoTiO2 and the coating/paint matrix were gathered. The data for the production of the nanoTiO2 rely on the currently available literature. The results of this case study indicate that positive effects from an extended lifetime (on the wall) over-compensate higher impact in production but only if releases of nanoparticles could be limited to a minimum. The actual boundary conditions (e.g. application interval of the coating) have major influence on the result. However, integrating occupational and consumer risk reveals no more benefits for the nanoproduct.
The fourth case study aimed at a comparison of two types of fuel cells. A fuel cell with multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) as carbon substrate for the electro catalyst platinum allows a platinum reduction of about 30% compared to using carbon black as substrate. Detailed life cycle inventory data for the production of MWCNT, its cleaning and functionalization where gathered based on data from the Greek SME partner Nanothinx. In close collaboration with partners from Nanothinx the design of nanoplatinum production, the electro catalyst and all subsequent components up to the fuel cell unit could be established. The data partly rely on lab data and partly on literature. The benefits from platinum savings overweigh by far the risk from exposure to MWCNT.
2.6. Summary of the case studies
Case studies
As an integral part of the LICARA project, the four case studies were made in order to verify whether the proposed nanoSCAN concept was applicable.
What do the case studies show?
Each of these four case studies has been documented in its own short report, summarizing the results from the different steps along the nanoSCAN. Each case study starts with a short introduction to the case study. A second part summarizes the results from the LICARA nanoSCAN tool itself. The third part gives comparative results from the corresponding full assessments using LCA and RA, together with an overall evaluation of the particular case study. These reports will be available on the LICARA project website www.licara.eu and on www.tno.nl/licara.
2.7. Guidelines
The deliverable of this work package are guidelines that support the SMEs in their efforts to developing sustainable and responsible nanoproducts by optimizing the nanospecific benefits and mitigate the nanospecific risks.
In the current situation SMEs have the opportunity by producing and using nanomaterials to develop products with new or better functions. However, SMEs also face many open questions and issues such as “What are the specific advantages of nanomaterials?” “What is the legal situation?”, What are the nanospecific risks?, “How sustainable are the products?” and so on. The challenges to deal with these questions are:
i) uncertainties,
ii) the dispersed and segmented knowledge which is thus not available for SMEs,
iii) the fact that the processes to perform a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and a Risk assessment (RA) are often too costly for SMEs.
iv) Based on the conceptual framework developed and the case studies the LICARA guidelines were elaborated in order to deal with these challenges and offer specific assistance.
The LICARA guidelines contain in the first part a systematic and step by step proceeding (seven steps) on how to evaluate the benefits and risks qualitatively with low and manageable efforts (Fig 6). In addition this part contains integrated knowledge and key information on relevant topics: nano-relevance, legal framework, benefits, materials and functionality, product design, risks (human health, environment) and decision-making. This integrated knowledge and the key information was elaborated from the results of case studies and also based on the scientific experience in the consortium. The integrated knowledge of the consortium builds the basis for preselecting nanomaterial and design.
If an SME worked through this low effort qualitative proceeding, they achieve already a systematic overview on potential nanospecific benefits and risks and will be ultimately prepared to apply the accompanying tool, LICARA nanoSCAN. Therefore in the second part of the LICARA guidelines, the use and the benefit of applying the LICARA NanoSCAN are described. The LICARA NanoSCAN makes the evaluation of nanospecific benefits and risks transparent. In the first part of the LICARA guidelines the interfaces to the LICARA NanoSCAN are indicated (step 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7).
Potential Impact:
3.1. Impact of the case studies on assessing the benefits and risks
The short case study report can be found on the website www.licara.eu and www.tno.nl/licara. For three case studies the impact on the environment and the risks were assessed for the nanoproduct compared to a reference product.
Case study MWCNTs in PEM Fuel Cell
Producing energy so clean that water is the only direct emission from the exhaust pipe is just a part of the attractive concept behind the fuel cell (FC). However, the very expensive platinum catalyst required has long hindered the design and development of FCs: high demand for mining platinum resources diminishes both the environmental and economic advantages of FCs.
By replacing carbon black (CB) with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) it is expected to lead to an increased surface area and a much better distribution of the platinum particles. These two improvements should allow a substantial reduction in the amount of platinum necessary to maintain FC efficiency. Both FC systems should have the same useful life and energy efficiency (fuel to electricity). The benefits are thus expected to occur in the production phase.
The conclusion from both the LICARA nanoSCAN and the in-depth assessment are as follows:
From nanoSCAN: The use of MWCNTs in PEM fuel cells is a promising example of a nanomaterial application. The nanoSCAN shows considerable benefits across different stages of the life cycle. The risks are moderate and stem mainly from the high potential for MWCNT toxicity. Exposure, however, seems to be rather low.
From the in-depth LCA and RA: The LCA results reveal that the benefits of using MWCNTs are about 20% over the product’s life cycle (if the use phase is not taken into account). The results from RA show a moderate MWCNT health effect based on relatively low exposure, but a relatively high hazard.
What next? The nanoSCAN and the in-depth LCA and RA assessments confirm the benefits of the PEM fuel cell using MWCNTs. Exposure to MWCNTs during production should be reduced to an absolute minimum from the precautionary principle. If this can be ensured, the recommendation would be for product development to be given the go-ahead.
Case study on a microfiber cloth
A microfiber cloth is used to clean household (such as in kitchens or bathrooms.) or industrial surfaces. The biocides (nanosilver or triclosan) in the microfiber cloth inhibit the growth of micro-organisms (mould or bacteria) in a wet storage and use conditions. The microfiber cloth consists mainly of PET fibres and the biocide.
By applying nanosilver instead of triclosan to the microfibers it is expected to protect the cloth better and longer. Clear advantages were expected in the use phase since the cloth treated with nanosilver can be stored wet due to its resistance against microbes. The energy used for drying will thus be saved.
The conclusion from both the LICARA nanoSCAN and the in-depth assessment are as follows:
From the nanoSCAN: A microfiber cloth with nanosilver is a successful example of using nanomaterials. The benefits for the environment, the economy and society are high. The low risk comes from the potential effects on public health and the environment.
From the in-depth Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment: Analysis using the nanoSCAN leads to substantially higher environmental benefits, while the results from the full assessment show no benefits. The difference in the results between the two approaches to environmental benefits is explained by the greater systemic knowledge built up by the full assessment. The projected benefits for electricity savings during the use phase could not be confirmed since the triclosan provides a similar level of protection to the cloth as nanosilver.
What next? A potential next step would be to verify whether there are clear economic or societal benefits and whether the microfiber cloth treated with nano-Ag can provide better/additional functions in comparison to the microfiber cloth treated with triclosan.
Case study on self-cleaning façade coating
Paint is applied to a facade to protect a building from environmental weathering by wind, rain, ice and solar radiation. The paint’s functions can be enhanced so that the facade is partly “self-maintaining” by the application of a top coating containing nanotitanium dioxide. Nanotitanium dioxide (nano-TiO2) is able to decompose organic materials, pollutants, solids or gases in the presence of water, oxygen and solar radiation.
By applying a facade coated with an additional coating layer containing nano-TiO2 it is expected to require less maintenance (cleaning). The useful life of the paint layer should be substantially prolonged. Over the lifetime of a building this leads to a considerable reduction in paint consumption.
The conclusion from both the LICARA nanoSCAN and the in-depth assessment are as follows:
From the nanoSCAN: In this case study, the results from the nanoSCAN are not clear. This is due to the moderate benefits and high occupational health risks. The overall conclusion is somewhat unclear and does not permit an easy decision-making over the strategy to adopt with this product.
From the in-depth Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment studies: The nanoSCAN results are somewhat confirmed. The potential impacts on human health in the nano-TiO2 coating production phase by far outweigh the benefits found in the LCA calculation, even in the minimum configuration. This shows that the production stage is the coating’s most crucial life stage.
Conclusion using both analytical steps: The full assessment identifies all the relevant aspects within this system. A facade coating system based on nano-TiO2 may have an overall benefit when releases (and related exposure) of nano-TiO2 in the production stage can be limited to an amount well below the best case scenario used in this case study’s Risk Assessment calculations.
What next? The company needs to monitor and minimise human exposure to releases of nano-TiO2 in the production phase. Only a low exposure to nano-TiO2 could result in a go-ahead for this nanoparticle application.
3.2. Socio-economic valuation of nanosilver coating on door handles in hospitals
Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) require patients to receive additional medical treatment, lengthen hospital stays and can even lead to deaths. Microbes living on surfaces in hospitals and transferred by hand contact are one of the causes of infection. Applying an anti-microbial polysiloxane-nano silver surface coating can reduce the number of HAIs.
The socio-economic valuation brings together economic, environmental and health aspects of the use of a nanosilver coating for door handles. The socio-economic valuation uses the results of the in depth assessment and an additional assessment of the infection reduction to weigh the benefits and risks of this specific nanomaterial case. In this way it clearly goes beyond the results of the Tier 1 nanoSCAN. The risks in the socio-economic valuation are covered by the environmental life cycle assessment and the occupational health risk assessment and these risks are expressed in an economic value. Applying life cycle costing has covered the economic aspect. The benefits have been assessed by a literature review of the incidence and causes for hospital acquired infections and the costs associated with them.
The socio-economic valuation shows that, although there is an environmental impact and occupational health risks of coating door handles with a polysiloxane-nanosilver coating, the system has an expected net benefit for society due to the reduction of hospital infections. In fact, the external costs of the environmental impact and occupational health risks are negligible compared to the internal costs for material and personnel. In total the operating expenses for coating door handles in one average hospital every two years, are € 1,350 per year, including coating and application. The total preventable costs for infections are € 83,010 per year. This results in a net benefit of €81,660 per year. Even when assuming a limited infection reduction and high internal and external costs in the conservative scenario the net socio-economic result is positive (see Figure 7).
3.3. Impact for SMEs
The LICARA concept and fact sheets help SME’s to:
1. Make decisions about developing and producing safe, sustainable products by gathering relevant information to answer the pertinent questions;
2. Learn from best practices;
3. Build a coherent argument about nanoproducts for suppliers, clients, consumer groups, authorities and other stakeholders (a comprehensive guide to the nanoproduct).
The LICARA guidelines help to implement the concept itself and are directed at SMEs that:
• Produce nanoparticles for wide or narrow fields of application
• Produce intermediate products using nanoparticles
• Produce end products with nanoparticles and nanomaterial’s
The guidelines are accompanied by a first version of an analytical tool in Excel—the LICARA nanoSCAN—that facilitates the implementation of the guidelines themselves. If a SME worked through guidelines, they achieve already a systematic overview on potential nanospecific benefits and risks and will be ultimately prepared to apply the accompanying tool, LICARA nanoSCAN. The LICARA NanoSCAN makes the evaluation of nanospecific benefits and risks for a nanoproduct transparent. The results of the LICARA nanoSCAN should not be regarded as the scientific truth (since scientific evidence on nanoproducts is still limited), but rather as a convincing set of arguments about a nanoproduct’s strengths and weaknesses, including uncertainties and knowledge gaps and their relevance. This supports manufacturers and their stakeholders in their decision-making on further assessment, research, development and production of a particular nanoproduct.
The proposed systematic qualitative and semi-quantitative proceeding contributes to:
• Hedging against unwise investments at an early stage of product development;
• Better compliance with regulations;
• Improving product stewardship – stakeholder acceptance of nanomaterials and products;
• Identify opportunities that increase efficiency (material and energy savings) and innovation;
• Hedging against unintentional releases of substances that can lead to large external costs (e.g. long-term environmental effects).
Martin Bodmer, owner of SME FRESO, developed a concept to the needs of nanomaterials and SMEs working in this field based on the “Porter’s 5 forces” (a strategy model teached at executive MBA’s) (Fig 8):
- To the competitiveness of nanoproducts;
- To check the market and to support customers in sustainable products;
- To check which nanoproducts perform the best and have the lowest occupational health risks;
- For internal reflection to verify whether risks are at least counterbalanced by the benefits.
During the project, specific attention was paid that the results meets the needs of the SMEs by several feedback loops of the LICARA nanoSCAN, the guidelines and the fact sheets with the participating SMEs and SME Associations. In addition 2 times a 1-day workshop was done with an external consultant Jörgen Höck who is responsible for the precautionary matrix and is specialized in the needs of the SMEs.
Impact of the case studies and the guidelines - experience of SME FRESO
The impact of the LICARA results and being part of the LICARA project is for FRESO very high. FRESO continued intensive discussions with authorities, end user and potential clients to get the approval for Nanosilver in Switzerland and to find ways of making use of LICARA for anti-microbial coatings and textiles. It looks positive that LICARA results do help to create the expected market for coating containing nanosilver.
After the end of LICARA the documentation of results is sent to BAG (Bundesamt für Gesundheit) to get the approval for nanosilver as biocide in Switzerland.
FRESO and a specialized applicator are working with Novartis (www.novartis.ch) to use the nanosilver coating in cleanrooms. The results of LICARA are the door opener for such high tech applications. Of course Novartis and clean rooms are the “champions league” for coatings.
The Swiss Hospital interested in the nano-coating was informed about LICARA activities and we move forward with it since the results are available now and hospitals have data in hand for decision-making and starting test areas coated/uncoated.
LICARA is also used to educate companies who do the application of such coatings. As an example FRESO gave a presentation at general assembly of PCT Suisse – a specialised application company who is working with nanocoatings.
A specialised magazine for Hospitals printed an article on such coatings, mentioning the LICARA project (Jürgen Schickinger (2014), "Bakterienfeindliche Oberflächen optimieren Hygiene", Heime und Spitäler, Nr. 3, Page 16-17).
The edition is >4’000 and helps to raise interest in LICARA and about the technology available of anti-microbial coatings in general.
Based on the results of LICARA project FRESO is able to continue its market activities and push the products and technology investigated in the case studies.
Impact of the case studies and the guidelines - experience of SME Nanothinx
The results of the PEM fuel cell case study helped in the discussion with the cooperative company regarding their exploitation plans of the specific fuel cell. This company has published their results and they are planning to expand this technology to other energy applications too. At this moment the product is still in the development time and a medium time to market is expected.
3.4. Impact for SME Associations
The production and sales of nanomaterials allows SMEs to successfully compete with large industry as due to the effectiveness of nanomaterials only small quantities needs to be handled which is up to normally 90% less compared to bulk products. The reason is that SMEs are better prepared compared to large industry to handle effectively small quantities, while large industry is better prepared to handle large quantities for bulk production. However, for successful market introduction of nanomaterials, SMEs need a model for risk/benefit analysis for communication with clients, investors and regulators.
The national SME-AGs will use the project results as a basis for their national dialog platform in discussion with regulators, end-users, citizens, ngo’s etc. These discussions are useful in taking care of the acceptation of nanomaterials by European citizens, regulators, clients, investors and others.
In addition, the long-term goal is to build up a supportive environment for nanoproduct suppliers and for integrators of nano-enabled intermediates. The LICARA framework, guidelines, nanoSCAN and fact sheets are excellent guidance for SMEs to improve product stewardship and to build up this environment. Especially for the public acceptance of new technologies such as nanotechnology it is a must to be transparent about the benefits and the risks of such a technology. The LICARA guidelines and nanoSCAN are tools for which a widespread use will be beneficial for the complete nanotechnology sector.
SME-AGs expect that the results of LICARA will lead to an increase of the turnover for their member SMEs, as nanomaterials will be easier accepted when objective information about risks and benefits are given. This expectation is strongly supported by the research performed by the Dutch Dialog on Nanotechnology (Nanopodium, 2011).
3.5. Scientific dissemination and impact
LICARA delivered clearly scientific results. In particular the following result are very relevant:
1) Setup up of the conceptual framework:
o Tier 1: LICARA nanoSCAN
o Tier 2: LCA approach including a method to derive human health effect factors including worker risks and consumer’s risks.
2) The application of RA and LCA in the case studies will be relevant for the scientific community. The life cycle inventories for three of the most frequently used nanomaterials (nanoAg, MWCNT, nanoTiO2) have been compiled with a very high level of detail. In particular nanoAg and MWCNT data rely on industrial data gathered with our SME partners and it is fair to assume that uncertainties on these data are by far smaller than average uncertainties in life cycle inventory modelling.
3) Environmental risk assessment for 5 commonly used nanoparticles: CNT, fullerenes, nanoAg, nano- TiO2 and nano- ZnO
At this moment, 4 scientific publications are written and submitted for publication to a scientific journal or ready for submission. 3 additional papers are in preparation. At the nanoSAFE conference 2014, 5 oral presentations of LICARA are accepted!
3.6. Public impact
The authorities have identified the added value of the LICARA nanoSCAN.
Bernard Bennink for the ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands: “Guidelines and the LICARA nanoSCAN are of clear value for the SMEs and industry. It will be very valuable to make the Guidelines and NanoSCAN available via the arboportal.”
Dick Koster NanoNextNL: “Within NanoNextNL, start-ups can request money for making their business case. For nanomaterials with a risk the LICARA nanoSCAN is a good start to identify the benefits and the risks and this should be part of their business case.”
3.7. Dissemination specific for the benefits of the SMEs
During the project the following dissemination events were given:
- Webinar: easy accessible for SMEs for whole Europe as there is no traveling time and costs. Availability to look back at a specific preferred time by SMEs. There were 30 active participants at the moment of presentation from all over Europe. 45% of the viewers was SME. The other viewers were from industry, research organisations and authorities.
- National workshop in Switzerland organized by NCB and Empa:
o About 75 participant, mostly SMEs
Feedback:
„Thank you for the high effort to elaborate the LICARA guideline and the LICARA nanoSCAN….. This event is very interesting also for future discussion.”
„It became very clear the experts of this project are very engaged and with good governance.”
„It was excellent that the feasibility, the usability and the significance of the individual outcomes of the work through the guidelines and the tool were tested and illustrated by a SME partner (Freso). This is a very courageous step which is not done often….”
- National workshop in The Netherlands organized by TNO (including do it yourselves part)
o About 25 participants, mostly SMEs
LICARA guidelines and LICARA nanoSCAN is very useful.
We liked the modular approach of the LICARA nanoSCAN.
I did not know what to expect from the workshop but the results presented here exceeded by far all my expectations. The LICARA nanoSCAN is a very useful tool to assess the benefits and risks of nanoproducts and I will surely use the tool in communication with my management to check for good investments
- National workshop in Spain organized by AGPYME
Broad audience of scientist, industry and SMEs
15 Spanish SMEs did participate. Based on the workshop and the publicity, 30 Spanish SMEs expressed their interest in the guidelines and LICARA nanoSCAN.
- National workshop Scandinavia organized by SNT
70 attendants from academia and SMEs as well as from the local authorities. The LCA outputs will be a valuable tool for Scandinavian SMEs, according to the positive feedback.
- 1 International workshop: Micronora conference. The LICARA outputs (guidelines, NanoSCAN, case studies) were presented during the International workshop, Nano Clusters Clustered event, and the Nano Clusters Brokerage event and at the LICARA trade fair stand. Over 100 guidelines were delivered to SMEs who expressed an interest in receiving them directly.
In addition, the LICARA had a project website www.licara.eu and a video (YouTube LICARA) is made to inform stakeholders.
Results of LICARA were disseminated via the project website, the websites of TNO and Empa and newsletters of the SME Associations.
List of Websites:
www.tno.nl/licara
www.empa.ch/licara
Contact details:
TNO
Esther Zondervan-van den Beuken
Utrechtseweg 48
3704 HE Zeist
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 88 866 1581
M: +31 6 22428547
Mail: esther.zondervan@tno.nl
