Investigating the Life Cycle Risks of a
Nanomaterial in Paint
using Nano LCRA
Jo Anne Shatkin1, Walker Larsen1, Robert Nick2, Jocelyn Hospital1 and Seth Coe-
Sullivan2
1CLF Ventures, Inc. and 2QD Vision
New England Nanomanufacturing SummitJune 22, 2010UMASS Lowell
CLF Ventures, Inc.
• We work at the intersection where organizations meet their stakeholders and the environment
• We help organizations implement projects with economic and environmental benefits.
Community Is Keyto Project Success
or Failure
Significant Financial Resources
and Profit at Risk
Leadership Highly ValuesMeeting Envtl Standards
CLFV
Not CLFV’s Mission
Communitiesand
Municipalities
Point Solutions
Project Partners
• QD Vision - Robert Nick, Seth Coe-Sullivan, Anne-Marie Baker, John Linton
• UMASS Lowell – Michael Ellenbecker, Candace Tsai
• Cold Spring Technologies- Rich Himmelwright
– Founded 2004 out of MIT - 50+ employees (2009)
– Focus on displays & lighting markets
– First to market with quantum dot product for solid state lighting
– Thought leader in QD EH&S and technology
Quantum Light™ optic
Nexxus PAR 30 LED Array
QD Vision – where color, power, and cost matter
5
Presentation Overview
• Nano LCRA Framework
• Problem formulation
• Case study first iteration walk-through
• Case study interim product testing
• Case study second iteration walk-through
• Process evaluation
6
Early Stage Life Cycle/Risk Analysis supports Sustainable Technology Development
• Can be proactive about identifying and reducing risk
– Promotes environmentally sustainable technology development
– If EHS concerns, need to develop approaches for assessment and management
• Engineering materials provides flexibility to address EHS concerns up-front, if identified
• Understanding impacts provides a competitive edge in efficiently managing them
– When risks are anticipated, can plan for them, rather than reacting
– Early stage analysis informs sound decisionmaking
7
NANO LCRA Streamlined Framework
• A screening tool to identify and prioritize health and environmental/ process issues
• Complement with regulatory/ market competition/ societal concern analysis
• Analysis identifies key uncertainties – can inform product development
• Revisits early decisions with new information
8
NANO LCRA Features
•Proactive, early stage, affordable, easily implementable process even with few available data.
•Develops risk management practices based on minimizing exposure and potential human health effects and environmental impacts.
•Applicable for NM research and development, product manufacturing, consumer applications, and evaluation of NM fate in the environment.
•Prioritizes future data needs.
9
NANO LCRAAdaptive Streamlined Life Cycle/ Risk Assessment Framework for Nano Materials (Shatkin 2008)
RAW
MATERIALSProcess USEPRODUCT Packaging
IDENTIFY AND
CHARACTERIZE
HAZARDS
EVALUATE
TOXICITY
ASSESS
EXPOSURE
CHARACTERIZE RISKRISK MANAGEMENT/
ASSESS
CONFIDENCE
ITERATE
END OF LIFEReuse/
Recycle/
Disposal
10
Project Summary
• Initial Risk Characterization– Hazard ID, Exposure Assessment, Toxicology Review, gap ID
• Exposure Assessment Collaboration • QD Vision-project sponsor, developed samples• CLF Ventures-testing design• Cold Spring Technologies- testing protocols and
sample weathering• UMASS Lowell- laboratory testing and equipment
design • Second Iteration Risk Characterization
– Updated Hazard ID– Revised exposure conclusions based on testing– Added recent studies
1111
NANO LCRAHazard Identification
IDENTIFY AND
CHARACTERIZE
HAZARDS
RAW
MATERIALSProcess APPLICATION/USEPRODUCT Packaging
Nanoparticle and
Binding
Reactions
(Stages 1&2)
Coating
Formulation
(Stage 3)
Storage and
Transport
(Stage 4)
Application
and
Use
(Stages 5 & 6)
disposal REUSE/
DISPOSAL
End-of-life
(Stage 7)
12
Min. Char. Physical-Chemical Properties Summary
Life
Cycle
Sta
ge
Descrip
tion
Sta
ge
Pro
du
ct
Mate
rial w
eig
ht (g
ram
s)
Ag
glo
mera
tion
Sta
te/
Ag
gre
gatio
n
Co
mp
os
ition
Cry
sta
l Stru
ctu
re
Partic
le S
ize/S
ize
Dis
tribu
tion
Po
ros
ity
Pu
rity
Sh
ap
e
So
lub
ility
Sta
bility
Su
rface A
rea
pe
r pa
rticle
(m2)
Nan
om
ate
rial S
urfa
ce
Are
a
tota
l pe
r ba
tch
(m2)*
Su
rface C
he
mis
try
Su
rface C
ha
rge
1 QD reaction Dots
2Binding
reaction
Bound
dots
3Product
formulation Coating
4Storage and
Transport Coating
5 Application
Coated
surface
6 Use
Coated
surface
7 End-of-life Unknown
1313
NANO LCRAExposure Assessment
Event Substrate Pathway Receptor Type
RAW
MATERIALSProcess APPLICATION/USEPRODUCT Packaging disposal REUSE/
DISPOSAL
ASSESS
EXPOSURE
Nanoparticle
and Binding
Reactions
(Stages 1&2)
Coating
Formulation
(Stage 3)
Storage and
Transport
(Stage 4)
Application
and
Use
(Stages 5 & 6)
End-of-life
(Stage 7)
14
Potential Exposure – Stage 1 (In-lab example)
Event
Substrate
Pathway
Receptor Type
Spill Vaporize Direct Contact Transformation (oxidation/state change)
Indoor
surfaceAir Water SoilClothing Skin
Inhalation Ingestion/
water
Ingestion/
soil
Ingestion/
biota
Human Environmental
Dermal
15
Potential Exposure – Stage 6 (Out-of-lab example)
Event
Substrate
Pathway
Receptor Type
Spill Vaporize Direct Contact Transformation (oxidation/state change)
Indoor
surfaceAir Water SoilClothing Skin
Inhalation Ingestion Water/soil/
sediment
Biota
Human Environmental
Dermal
Likelih
ood
Magnitude
HazardScenario 5.1
Scenario 5.2
Scenario 5.3
Scenario 5.4
Scenario 5.5
Scenario 5.6
Scenario 5.7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Application Phase
Scenario 5.1
Scenario 5.2
Scenario 5.3
Scenario 5.4
Scenario 5.5
Scenario 5.6
Scenario 5.7
Likelihood
Magnitude
Hazard
Scenario 6.1
Scenario 6.2
Scenario 6.3
Scenario 6.4
Scenario 6.5
Scenario 6.6
Scenario 6.7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Use Phase
Scenario 6.1
Scenario 6.2
Scenario 6.3
Scenario 6.4
Scenario 6.5
Scenario 6.6
Scenario 6.7
Toxicity Review
• Limited data on toxicology of NPs– Lack of standardized assays– Issues with measurement– Absorption, distribution, excretion data– Mixture
• data on components• at every stage
• Generally, coated particles are less toxic– depends on media– Possible toxicity beyond components
• Contains metals– assume material is toxic– Possible additional toxicity of particle and mixture
First Iteration Risk Characterization
• Exposure Assessment suggested only a few high concern scenarios
– Lab/production stages are well controlled
– Designed and conducted product testing, to inform second iteration Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization
20
Exposure Assessment Initial Product Testing
• Tested highest concern exposure scenarios
– Inhalation during coated product application
– Wear testing of applied/dried coating product
• Prepared coated plaques
• 1 year accelerated aging simulation
• Specially designed test lab
• Real time and electron microscopy
Measured Background Levels of Nanoparticles
Nanoparticle counts - individual runs and average during spraying
Nanoparticle counts – sanding tests
Transmission Electron Micrograph of Sprayed Paint Sample
Second Iteration Risk Characterization
• Test results demonstrated very low exposure risk for application and use
• Risk Characterization updated – developed safe handling instructions
• Further review of recent literature lead to similar toxicity conclusions
• Overall product risk characterized as low
Findings
• Life cycle exposure
– Manufacturing and production phases well controlled
– Exposure during application not distinguishable from background
– Aggressive “wipe” testing produced no detectable exposure
– End of life exposures uncontrolled
• Toxicity data extremely limited
– recommendations for testing product as used
• Risk management focus on exposure prevention
Questions?
THANK YOU!
Jo Anne Shatkin, Ph.D.
CLF Ventures, Inc.
62 Summer St.
Boston, MA 02110
