Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 288–296 | Cite as

Life Cycle Assessment of a Celery Paddy Macrocosm Exposed to Manufactured Nano-TiO2

  • Cristal Céspedes
  • Min-Kyeong YeoEmail author
Original article



This study analyzes the environmental effects of nano-TiO2 exposure using Life cycle assessment (LCA) within a modelled system of a celery paddy macrocosm through different trophic levels in order to complement existing risk assessment studies of bioaccumulation.


LCA in GaBi software was used to model a celery paddy macrocosm system that includes celery (Apium graveolens), with different trophic levels such as, fresh water, land use, algae (Chlorella vulgaris), and immature rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), as well as the use of electricity in the macrocosm system and exposure to nano-TiO2. A functional unit of 0.5 kg and exposure to nano-TiO2 was selected to analyze the different environmental impact categories.


The use of nano-TiO2 in freshwater was related to marine aquatic ecotoxicity, mainly because of the large amount of inorganic emissions in air and emissions of hydrogen fluoride and beryllium in fresh water. Normalized values show that from a global perspective, the greatest repercussions involve marine aquatic ecotoxicity and human toxicity, the latter mainly influenced by air emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Nano-TiO2 also had some effects on eutrophication impact category related to ammonia emissions.


The normalized global values also showed large effects in marine aquatic ecotoxicity and human toxicity. In addition, nano-TiO2 use in a macrocosm as nutrient showed repercussions in eutrophication. Therefore, a broader study that includes the material flow during feedstock processing of nano-TiO2 is necessary to determine the repercussions of this nanomaterial in other life-cycle stages, especially use and end of life.


Life cycle assessment Nano-TiO2 Celery paddy macrocosm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shea, C. M. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: a case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 22, 185–200 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linkov, I. & Steevens, J. (eds.) in Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security (Springer Netherlands 2009).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nanotech project,, (2016).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roco, M. C., Mirkin, C. A. & Hersam, M. C. Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: summary of international study. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 897–919 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wiesner, M. R. et al. Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk, and ecological implications of nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6458–6462 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shatkin, J. A. Informing environmental decision making by combining life cycle assessment and risk analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 278–281 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, H. & Yada, R. Nanotechnologies in agriculture: new tools for sustainable development. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22, 585–594 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hong, F. et al. Effect of nano–TiO2 on photochemical reaction of chloroplasts of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 105, 269–279 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang, F. et al. The improvement of spinach growth by nano–anatase TiO2 treatment is related to nitrogen photoreduction. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 119, 77–88 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joost, U. et al. Photocatalytic antibacterial activity of nano–TiO2 (anatase)–based thin films: Effects on Escherichia coli cells and fatty acids. J. Photoch. Photobio. 142, 178–185 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geng, H. R., Miao, S. S., Jin, S. F. & Yang, H. A newly developed molecularly imprinted polymer on the surface of TiO2 for selective extraction of triazine herbicides residues in maize, water, and soil. Anal. =Bioanal. Chem. 407, 8803–8812 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui, H., Jiang, P., Zhang, W. & Gu, Q. L. Application of nano–TiO2 sol in crop diseases control. Eur. Cell Mater. 20, doi: 10.1186/s11671–016–1721–1 (2010).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Asli, S. & Neumann, M. Colloidal suspensions of clay or titanium dioxide nanoparticles can inhibit leaf growth and transpiration via physical effects on root water transport. Plant Cell Environ. 32, 577–584 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christou, A., Eliadou, E., Michael, C., Hapeshi, E. & Fatta–kassinos, D. Assessment of long–term wastewater irrigation impacts on the soil geochemical properties and the bioaccumulation of heavy metals to the agricultural products. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 4857–4870 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sacristán, D., Recatalá, L. & Viscarra Rossel, R. A. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of Cu in an accumulator crop (Lactuca sativa L.) in different Australian agricultural soils. Sci. Hort. 193, 346–352 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghosh, M., Bandyopadhyay, M. & Mukherjee, A. Genotoxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles at two trophies levels: Plant and human lymphocytes. Chemospher. 81, 1253–1262 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yeo, M. K. & Nam, D. H. Influence of different types of nanomaterials on their bioaccumulation in a paddy microcosm: a comparison of TiO2 nanoparticles and nanotubes. Environ. Pollut. 178, 166–172 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, J. I., Park, H. G., Chang, K. H., Nam, D. H. & Yeo, M. K. Trophic transfer of nano–TiO2 in a paddy microcosm: a comparison of single–dose versus sequential multi–dose exposures. Environ. Pollut. 212, 316–324 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    GaBi ts. Software and database contents for Life Cycle Engineering, Education Version (Thinkstep AG,Stuttgart, 2014).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ecoinvent centre ecoinvent data and reports v3.1 (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switerland, 2015).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canals, L. M. Land Use in LCA: A New Subject Area and Call for Papers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 1 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    US National Plant Germplasm System. Taxonomy browse. https://npgsweb.ars– taxonomysimple.aspx, (2016).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shivashri, C., Rajarajeshwari, T. & Rajasekar, P. Hepatoprotective action of celery (Apium graveolens) leaves in acetaminophen–fed freshwater fish (Pangasius sutchi). Fish Physiol. Biochem. 39, 1057–1069 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang, Y. et al. Bioaccumulation and translocation of cadmium in cole (Brassica campestris L.) and celery (Apium graveolens) grown in the polluted oasis soil, Northwest of China. J. Environ. Sci. 23, 1368–1374 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Federici, G., Shaw, B. J. & Handy, R. D. Toxicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Gill injury, oxidative stress, and other physiological effects. Aquat. Toxicol. 84, 415–430 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramsden, C. S., Smith, T. J., Shaw, B. J. & Handy, R. D. Dietary exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles in rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): no effect on growth, but subtle biochemical disturbances in the brain. Ecotoxicolog. 18, 939–951 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hund–Rinke, K. & Simon, M. Ecotoxic effect of photocatalytic active nanoparticles (TiO2) on algae and daphnids. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 13, 225–232 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barrows, F. T. & Frost, J. B. Evaluation of the nutritional quality of co–products from the nut industry, algae and an invertebrate meal for rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquacultur. 434, 315–324 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Banaee, M., Sureda, A., Mirvaghefi, A. R. & Ahmadi, K. Effects of diazinon on biochemical parameters of blood in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 99, 1–6 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Samuel–Fitwi, B., Schroeder, J. P. & Schulz, C. System delimitation in life cycle assessment (LCA) of aquaculture striving for valid and comprehensive environmental assessment using rainbow trout farming as a case study. Int. J. Life Cycle. Assess. 18, 577–589 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gnansounou, E. & Kenthorai Raman, J. Life cycle assessment of algae biodiesel and its co–products. Appl. Energ. 161, 300–308 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hischier, R. et al. Life cycle assessment of façade coating systems containing manufactured nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 17, 68 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weidema, B. P. Multi–User Test of the Data Quality Matrix for Product Life Cycle Inventory. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 3, 259–265 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guinée, J. Handbook on life cycle assessment–operational guide to the ISO standards. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6, 255 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pelaez, M. et al. A review on the visible light active titanium dioxide photocatalysts for environmental applications. Appl. Catal. B–Environ. 125, 331–349 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruggieri, F., D’Archivio, A. A., Fanelli, M. & Santucci, S. Photocatalytic degradation of linuron in aqueous suspensions of TiO2. RSC Adv. 1, 611–618 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sadler, L. R. Apparatus, system, and method for removing ethylene from a gaseous environment (Google Patents 2013).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hu, Q., Fang, Y., Yang, Y., Ma, N. & Zhao, L. Effect of nanocomposite–based packaging on postharvest quality of ethylene–treated kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa) during cold storage. Food Res. Int. 44, 1589–1596 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine (Public Health Service. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Atlanta, GA,2003).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for Beryllium (Draft) (Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA,1992).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gondwe, M. J. S., Guildford, S. J. & Hecky, R. E. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus loadings from tilapia fish cages in Lake Malawi and factors influencing their magnitude. J. Great Lakes Res. 37, 93–101 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Environment and Climate Change Canada. Depletion of the Ozone Layer and its impacts. ozone/default.asp?lang=En&n=D57A0006–1 (2016).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pierson–Wickmann, A. C., Aquilina, L., Weyer, C., Molénat, J. & Lischeid, G. Acidification processes and soil leaching influenced by agricultural practices revealed by strontium isotopic ratios. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 73, 4688–4704 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Middlemas, S., Fang, Z. Z. & Fan, P. Life cycle assessment comparison of emerging and traditional Titanium dioxide manufacturing processes. J. Clean Prod. 89, 137–147 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    US EPA. Nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen. National Center for Environmental Assessment–RTP Division. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xie, W. et al. Short–term effects of copper, cadmium and cypermethrin on dehydrogenase activity and microbial functional diversity in soils after long–term mineral or organic fertilization. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 129, 450–456 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Environmental Risk Assessment and Health Science and Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, College of EngineeringKyung Hee UniversityYongin-si, Gyeonggi-doRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations