Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/91077
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSlotte, M.en
dc.contributor.authorMetha, G.en
dc.contributor.authorZevenhoven, R.en
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 2015; 6(3):233-243en
dc.identifier.issn2008-9163en
dc.identifier.issn2251-6832en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/91077-
dc.description.abstractWays to produce metallic nanoparticles and the scale-up of these processes have seen increased interest as the industrial application of nanoparticles continues to grow. Their feasibility from an environmental point of view can be assessed by means of life cycle analysis (LCA). In this work two methods of metallic nanoparticle production, by evaporation/condensation of metal using electrical arc discharge reactors or by chemical reduction of metal salts in aqueous solutions or dry solid/solid mixtures, are evaluated based on the life cycle indicators. The evaporation of metal using electrical discharge reactors is a method studied in the European Commission 7th Framework Program “BUONAPART-E.” The environmental impact of the two different nanoparticle production approaches is here compared for four metals: copper, silver, zinc and aluminum. The chemical routes of producing nanoparticles require several different chemicals and reactions, while the electrical discharge routes use electricity to evaporate metal in a reactor under inert atmosphere. The nanoparticle production processes were modeled using “SimaPro” LCA software. Data for both the chemical production routes and the arc routes were taken from the literature. The choice of the best route for the production of each metal is strongly dependent on the final yield of the metallic nanoparticles. The yields for the chemical processes are not reported in the open literature, and therefore the comparisons have to be made with varying yields. At similar yields the electrical process has in general a lower environmental footprint than the studied chemical routes. The step or chemical with the greatest environmental impact varies significantly depending on process and metal being studied.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityMartin Slotte, Gregory Metha, Ron Zevenhovenen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringeren
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2015. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.en
dc.subjectLCA; Nanoparticle production; Copper; Silver; Zinc; Aluminumen
dc.titleLife cycle indicator comparison of copper, silver, zinc and aluminum nanoparticle production through electric arc evaporation or chemical reductionen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0030027940en
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s40095-015-0171-3en
dc.identifier.pubid185182-
pubs.library.collectionChemistry publicationsen
pubs.library.teamDS01en
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.orcidMetha, G. [0000-0003-1094-0947]en
Appears in Collections:Chemistry publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_91077.pdfPublished version1.34 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.