Next Article in Journal
Lateral Control Calibration and Testing in a Co-Simulation Framework for Automated Vehicles
Previous Article in Journal
A Bridged-Switch Energy-Efficient Switching Scheme for Successive Approximation Register Analog-to-Digital Converters with a Low-Complexity Capacitor Drive Circuit
Previous Article in Special Issue
Overview of 3D Printed Exoskeleton Materials and Opportunities for Their AI-Based Optimization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 23
10.3390/app132312896
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Nanomaterials Applied in the Construction Sector: Environmental, Human Health, and Economic Indicators

by
Maria Teresa Ferreira
,
Eliana Soldado
,
Giovanni Borsoi
,
Maria Paula Mendes
and
Inês Flores-Colen
*
Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for Sustainability (CERIS), Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environment (DECivil), Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(23), 12896; https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312896
Submission received: 12 September 2023 / Revised: 22 November 2023 / Accepted: 23 November 2023 / Published: 1 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Review Papers in Materials Science and Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Over the past two decades, the application of nanostructured materials in construction, such as concrete, paint, coatings, glass, renders, plasters, thermal insulation, steel, and even sensors, has become increasingly prevalent. However, previous studies and reports have raised concerns about the ecotoxicity and long-term impact of nanomaterials on human health and the environment. National and international legislation and regulations are struggling to keep up with the rapid development of nanomaterials, taking into account their unique characteristics and essential requirements for application and commercialization. This paper, based on existing standards for conventional materials and bibliometric networks of papers focused on nanomaterials, conducts a critical review and proposes relevant indicators for the application of nanomaterials in the construction sector. These indicators should be mandatory and are divided into environmental, human health, and economic perspectives, providing a risk assessment framework for applying nanomaterial-based constructive solutions oriented to environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

1. Introduction

Advanced nanomaterials (NMs) have been widely used in several sectors, from medicine to electronics, aerospace, biotechnology, textiles, agriculture, and, most importantly, in the construction sector [1]. In fact, the nanomaterial market in the European Union (EU) increased from EUR 2.6 billion and 63.3 kilotons in 2016 to EUR 5.2 billion and 141 kilotons in 2020. Metal oxides were the most widely used NMs (88.4% by volume), followed by nanoclays (10.6%), carbon-based NMs (0.5%), dendrimers (0.4%), nanocellulose (0.2%), and metals (0.1%) [2].
Nanomaterials are considered relevant for future employment, financial growth, and technical innovation, as they are materials with high potential to replace (or be added to) conventional materials and chemicals [3,4,5,6]. In fact, nanotechnology has been identified as a Key Enabling Technology, providing the basis for further innovation and new products [7].
The International Organization for Standardization [8] defines a nanomaterial (i.e., size ranges from 1 to 100 nm) as a “material with any external dimensions in the nanoscale or having internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale” [1,8,9,10]. NMs have been designed with various sizes, shapes, crystalline structures, and surface functionalization. Synthesis methods, either bottom-up or top-down, involve physical, mechanical, and chemical processes [11], which can result in different material properties, sizes, and yields [11,12]. The chemistry and physics of nano-sized construction materials differ from ordinary materials [13] owing to quantum effects and a high surface-to-volume ratio [13]. In fact, the increased surface area of nanostructured materials enhances the availability and thus the reactivity of atoms for interaction with environmental factors or other materials [10,14]. This capability enables the development of multifunctional materials, such as natural hydraulic lime mortar with titanium dioxide (TiO2) addition, incorporating heterogeneous photocatalysis functionality. Such materials can be utilized to combat atmospheric pollution and contribute to the creation of more durable and low-maintenance building facades [15].
Despite the fine-tuning of synthesis methods in recent years, the production and integration of NMs remain more expensive compared to conventional materials. In certain cases, the high cost hinders their widespread application, as in the case of aerogel-based insulation materials [3]. Furthermore, the necessity for upscaling industrial production often poses challenges to the commercialization of nanomaterials [16]. Nevertheless, the growing demand and the optimization of production processes have spurred an increased search for nano-enabled materials [16,17,18,19,20,21].
Within this context, EU regulations such as REACH and CLP are challenged to keep up with the rapid development of nanomaterials [22]. Previous studies [23,24] examining the physical and chemical properties, environmental results, and ecotoxicology of nanoparticles used in construction materials (e.g., nanoclays, aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, silver nanoparticles, and carbon nanotubes) have concluded that the 2015 OECD report [25] on manufactured nanomaterials lacks comprehensive data and presents an incomplete portfolio [24]. In fact, there is limited literature available that explores the relationship between the physical–chemical properties and toxicity of NMs, which could facilitate the grouping of surface modifications [14]. Considering the current literature gap and the main sustainability pillars, the main objective of this article is to discuss and identify environmental, social (in this case human health), and economic indicators, comparing EU standards for general/conventional materials with a literature review for nanomaterials. The proposed indicators should be mandatory for nanomaterials and can also be employed to achieve a more accurate assessment of sustainability [19,26,27]. The systematic incorporation of these specific indicators for nanomaterials in construction will enable the evaluation of the long-term effects of nanomaterials on the environment and human health, as well as on overall costs during the life cycle (LCA), from manufacturing to end-of-life processes.

2. Nanomaterials in the Construction Sector

2.1. Overview

Several applications of nanomaterials can be identified in the construction sector, e.g., concrete, mortars and renders, thermal insulation materials, glass windows, solar panels, paintings, and coatings, among others [14]. Nanotechnology can either improve the properties of the final materials or extend their service life and life cycle [16,18]. Utilizing nanomaterials as construction materials has the potential to improve their inherent properties or introduce additional functionalities. For instance, the incorporation of SiO2 nanoparticles has been reported as an effective method for reinforced concrete [16,18]. Similarly, the inclusion of metal oxides, such as iron, titanium, aluminum, and zinc, in paints and surface coatings can serve to prevent corrosion and resist dirt accumulation [11]. The addition of small percentages of TiO2 and ZnO has also been used as UV filters in glass [2] or as photocatalytic additives [15]. Nanoclays have been introduced into cementitious matrixes for pervious concrete pavement [28]. Nanostructured (calcium, barium, or magnesium) hydroxides and alkoxides have been used for the conservation of porous calcareous materials, such as mural paintings, limestone, and historical mortars [29]. Carbon-based NMs (CNs) and graphene-based materials (GO) improve serviceability, including high thermal and electrical conductivity, proper elasticity and flexibility, low thermal expansion coefficient, and electron field emitter capabilities [30,31,32].
Table 1 summarizes several types of nanomaterials, as well as their compositions, applications, and functionalities, based on the literature review.
Although NMs can improve the properties and performance of construction materials, several NMs are not easily available due to restrictions on their use and commercialization, as well as to the availability of raw materials and, as previously stated, to high production costs [11]. Furthermore, nanoparticles (NPs) can have a low compatibility with some construction materials and are prone to aggregation phenomena, which hamper homogeneous dispersion [94,95,96,97]. Another relevant challenge is related to their potential toxicity and thus the risk to human health and the environment [98,99,100,101,102,103,104].

2.2. Impact on Human Health and on the Environment

The increasing use of NMs also leads to an increased production of waste and residues, with the relevant exposure of operators in the building sector [105]. Approximately 60% of nanomaterials are used in medical–pharmaceutical or industrial applications (e.g., in the textile and electronics industries) with several industrial processes which can lead to waste streams resulting from the cleaning of production chambers [106]. Thus, an in-depth understanding of human and environmental exposure and NPs’ toxicological effects is a necessary step to assess environmental and health impacts [107,108,109].
Exposure to NPs is often associated with inhalation or absorption through skin contact. Although the dosages required to induce these effects are rather high, toxicological health risks include lung damage, adverse effects on the immune system, disorders related to oxidative stress, and diseases such as cancer, as well as DNA damage, and changes in cell growth and renewal, processes which are essential for healthy organs and tumor prevention [3,30,110]. Therefore, there are numerous recommendations for handling NMs during their production, transport, application, and end-of-life disposal process, including the use of gloves, coveralls, air filter masks, and safety goggles [105,111].
Hallock et al. [112] reported that ultrafine particles (<100 nm) of TiO2, Al2O3, and carbon black NPs demonstrated higher toxicity than fine particles (<2.5 µm). The nano-size may act as an amplifier of the effects, resulting from a higher reactivity or dissolution rate, although the nanostructure is not a sufficient descriptor to correlate with toxicity in the aquatic medium. In fact, the potential toxic effects of NPs depend on their physicochemical characteristics (size, shape, composition, surface functional groups, and surface charges) and can be influenced by the surrounding matrix [113,114]. Therefore, the environmental impact of these NPs is contingent upon characteristics such as decreased size, which enables their entry into the cellular environment and interaction with proteins. The shape of the particle also influences the cellular uptake mechanism, and the presence of a coating can prevent the leaching of toxic metal ions [114].
Figure 1 shows the systemization of NMs’ impact on the environment and of human exposure during the life cycle stages. This release can occur during all stages of the life cycle: production, manufacturing, use of nanoproducts, and their disposal and recycling [23,102,115,116]. Most NMs are generally released to the environment through wastewater treatment plants, recycling processes (e.g., including dismantling, shredding, and thermal processes) [117], waste incineration, and landfills. As an example, solid sludge from pilot wastewater treatment plants can retain more than 80% of some types of NMs, while the remaining 20% cannot be generally processed and are therefore discharged to surface waters [118]. Furthermore, NPs’ durability can be affected by weathering, with substantial modifications throughout their life cycle [113], and, when released into the environment, can undergo complex biological, physical, or chemical reactions and modifications, depending also on the specific characteristics of the materials and the environmental conditions [119].
Wind and runoff can transport NPs from solid waste or accidental spills to other locations and water bodies, contaminating surface water and soil and lixiviating into groundwater [120]. Wastewater effluents and direct discharges can disperse particles into waterways, and, if hydraulically connected to saturated zones, transport them to aquifers. Furthermore, NPs can be released into the atmosphere and form aerosol suspensions, and thus dust, during the shredding processes of synesthetic or metallic composite materials [118] or during exposure to fire or combustion [3].
Waste containing NMs, such as concrete (which may contain CNTs, SiO2, Fe2O3), ceramics (SiO2, CNTs), antibacterial coatings and paints (AgNPs), self-cleaning coatings (TiO2), window coatings (SiO2), and improved anticorrosive steel (CuNPs), are currently disposed of along with conventional waste without specific precautions or treatment [118]. Silica-based aerogels are barely considered, as landfill is a common end-of-life destination [121]. It is worth noting that the emission of NMs into the air, water, and soil is strictly dependent on how landfills are organized and practiced, although the mechanisms and quantification of NMs’ release into the environment are not yet completely understood [118]. Thermal recycling/degradation and waste-to-energy combustion can be considered as two alternatives to landfill processes [122,123].
The toxicity of NMs can also be related to their cost. In fact, Gkika et al. [103] analyzed the impact of the materials’ cost by considering their toxicity, concluding that NMs with a low cost and low toxicity (e.g., titanium carbonitride and aluminum, multi-walled carbon nanotubes) have significant applicability and thus diffusion on a wider scale. Conversely, the use of NMs with a high cost and toxicity (e.g., titanium oxide, copper oxide, or even single-walled carbon nanotubes) should be reconsidered [103].
Although the toxicity of NMs presents certain concerns, nanotechnology can also act as an effective approach for environmental remediation [108,109]. In fact, manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) can decompose, eliminate, or neutralize harmful substances present in contaminated environments [108]. Furthermore, NMs can be designed to reduce interactions with the cell surface, e.g., by having a negative surface charge (electrostatic stabilization of NMs), or using ligands (e.g., polyethylene glycol) or morphologies that reduce protein binding. Less toxic elements can be used in NMs that also use shell materials (e.g., TiO2 with a silica or aluminum oxide coating [124]), which decrease the interaction with the core or the environment, or by introducing a chelating agent (which reduces the cytotoxicity of nanostructured metals) or antioxidant molecules (which prevent the degradation of the NMs) [125]. Finally, new green synthesis routes have been fine-tuned in recent years for different types of nanomaterials, including metal-oxide-based, inert-metal-based, carbon-based, and composite-based NPs [126].

3. Keyword Bibliometric Network: Nanomaterials

A literature review was carried out using the Scopus database, inserting the keywords “environment”, “nanomaterial or nanomaterials”, “impact”, and “risk”, and evaluating the bibliometric networks using the software VOSViewer version 1.6.20. In the timespan 2011–2022, in the areas of research of engineering and construction, 357 published documents were collected: 322 peer-reviewed articles and 35 conference papers, as shown in the bibliometric network in Figure 2 and the evolution of papers in Figure 3 (dark blue column).
It is worth noting that certain groups of NMs, such as AgNPs and TiO2 or GO nanoparticles, are strictly associated with keywords such as environmental impact, toxicity, human risk, risk assessment, and economic impact. As shown in Figure 3, the interest in nanomaterials has significantly increased over the last decade (+35% of peer-reviewed articles focused on this topic). Furthermore, in studies of NMs, health and environmental issues are often related to the risk assessment of NPs during their life cycle.
Searching the Scopus database between 2011 and 2022 with the keywords “environmental indicator” and “nanomaterial or nanomaterials”, a total of 105 documents (97 articles and 8 conference papers) were found, most of them related to environmental science, chemistry, and medicine; the number of publications has almost doubled in the last three years compared to previous years (Figure 3, light blue column). Using the same timeline metrics and database, we found 18 documents, including 14 articles and 4 conference papers, by adding the keywords “economic indicator”. This suggests the importance of addressing the balance between environmental and economic impacts.
It is worth mentioning that, despite recent progress, an interdisciplinary and reliable methodology, fulfilling EU regulatory requirements intended to manage environmental and health risks (e.g., REACH (chemicals) regulation 1907/2006, biocidal products regulation 528/2012, cosmetic products regulation 1223/2009, novel food regulation 2015/2283, food additives regulation 1333/2008, and the medical devices regulation proposal COM 542/2012), has been proposed but has not been widely accepted [22,127]. Moreover, specific proposals or standards aimed at correlating physicochemical properties and ecotoxicity are often lacking.

4. Critical Discussion of Environmental and Economic Indicators

Based on the previous extensive literature review (Section 3), as well as considering European standards (EN15804:2012+A2:2019 [128]; EN15643 [129] and international databases for conventional materials, the most relevant contributions of NMs to environmental, social, and economic impacts were identified. Based on these data, environmental, human health, and economic indicators were proposed and are summarized in Table 2.
Concerning the economic indicators, it is suggested to include not only the initial costs of the different NMs (in EUR/unit), but also further costs related to operation and maintenance (repair or replacement) and eventual deconstruction. Additionally, at the end of the life of NMs, costs related to their transport, waste processing for re-use, recovery and/or recycling should also be considered.
When an analysis of the environmental impacts of nanomaterials is carried out, we strongly recommend that the proposed environmental and human health indicators for NMs should be mandatory. In fact, there are significant concerns about the long-term effects on humans, both through inhalation and contact, and on ecosystems, especially for those NMs identified as being more toxic to human health, as in the case of CNTs, TiO2, AgNPs, and Al2O3. In fact, CNTs and TiO2 nanoparticles are among the most widely studied NMs due to their potential hazardous effects. TiO2 can cause inflammation, cytotoxicity, and damage to the DNA of mammalian cells due its photoactivity. Cu- and Zn-based NMs can also induce high toxicity, causing cellular toxicity via multiple mechanisms (e.g., the disruption of cell walls, nucleic acid damage, and the release of toxic metal ions) [145].
These relevant environmental indicators for NMs in construction include the potential incidence of disease due to particulate matter emissions, ecotoxicity (potential comparative toxic unit for ecosystems), human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer effects), potential comparative toxic unit for humans, and land-use-related impacts on soil quality.
The proposed NM indicators should also be taken into consideration for the Environmental Product Declarations, which provide life cycle assessment (LCA) impacts per material or categorized product in the construction sector. In fact, it is worth mentioning that the data available for materials or elements containing NMs in their composition are generally insufficient, even when considering large databases for ecological evaluations, as in the case of Ökobaudat [146]. However, there is currently an effort underway to change this reality. Efforts to develop testing guidelines for nanomaterials are ongoing, and the outcomes are becoming increasingly accessible [14].
This clarifies why the most crucial environmental indicators were identified as those related to human health and ecosystems, as these impacts must be prioritized over the economic aspects. These indicators, which identify NMs (e.g., CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, and CNTs used in concrete, asphalt concrete, and steel) with reported high toxicity and which are hazardous for the environment, should be considered with the main focus on particulate matter emissions into the air, potential toxicity for ecosystems and humans, and impacts on soil quality.
It is important to mention that the methods of determination could be adapted. In fact, high values for certain indicators could be related to the high degradation of construction materials in aggressive climate conditions due to a higher release rate of NPs. The detailed methods for the determination of each indicator are not within the scope of this paper.
Concerning the economic indicators, all parameters related to the whole life cycle cost should be considered. In fact, the initial costs of NMs are a critical factor. However, it is important not to neglect the potential benefits of using materials with NMs, such as improved performance and, in some cases, lower maintenance costs and increased durability, especially at optimized levels in cement and concrete composites [147].
The proposed indicators can be relevant for all nanomaterials, although some impacts strictly depend on the type of NM. For instance, silica aerogel can have a high end-of-life cost (when incorporated in thermal insulation materials, mortars, blankets, or windows [148]) due to the large amounts required to improve thermal insulation. Although silica aerogel is not a highly toxic material, it can still have a significant impact when deposited in landfills, which requires an evaluation and quantification of the environmental impact [149,150].
The existent European norms deal with regular building materials [129,151], and intend to achieve environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The proposed indicators for NMs in construction include the relevant environmental, human health, and economic impacts to be evaluated and quantified prior to the introduction of NMs into a constructive element in order to gain an accurate perception of their impact.

5. Conclusions

Nanomaterials have been increasingly used and investigated by the scientific community, leading to a wide range of applications. The number of scientific reports has significantly increased in recent years, with several publications focusing on the synthesis, incorporation, or application of nanomaterials (NMs) in the construction sector. On the other hand, the keyword bibliometric network on NMs indicates that terms such as nanotoxicity, environmental risk, risk assessment, and human health risks are scarce in the literature.
This work intended to address the current concerns, evaluate the sustainability (environmental, social, economic) and viability, and thus contribute to the implementation of regulations on NMs, which are often commercialized and categorized similarly to regular construction materials. Based on an extensive literature review for nanomaterials and European standards for regular building materials, environmental, human health, and economic indicators were proposed as mandatory for nanomaterials to be applied in the construction sector.
A particular focus on toxicity (ecotoxicity and human toxicity), soil impacts (land-use-related impacts/soil quality), and emissions into the air (particulate matter emissions) was identified. The use of these indicators should be considered for nanomaterials such as copper, aluminum oxide, titanium nanoparticles, or carbon nanotubes which have significant levels of toxicity and are widely used in the construction sector.
Regarding the economic indicators, it was concluded that the evaluation of the cost impact throughout the various stages of the whole life cycle is essential, focusing not only on the initial cost but also on optimizing the less economically viable stages. These indicators would be particularly relevant for nanomaterials which are generally incorporated in large quantities (e.g., silica-aerogel in thermal insulation composites) and may cause economic problems during recycling processes. Furthermore, the lack of data on durability and end-of-life processes hinders the applicability on a larger scale of nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes, iron oxide, and graphene oxide.
These proposed indicators could be a good basis for their integration into a risk assessment framework of nanomaterials to be applied in construction.
Limitations of the proposed indicators can be identified in terms of their applicability to certain nanomaterials, functionalized and designed according to specific applications, presenting different physicochemical properties and thus environmental risks. Although the evaluation of the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials that may affect human health, and aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicology, has been widely debated, the categorization of a small number of nanomaterial groups was identified, which often resulted in specific tests being waived, creating consistent data gaps.
Further research on the in-service life of constructive solutions with the incorporation of nanomaterials and nanoparticles, as well as on end-of-life processes, is necessary. A proper evaluation of these impacts is critical, especially considering that landfill is a common final destination, by using appropriate methods. A deeper knowledge of toxicity-associated properties for nanomaterials in construction (i.e., size, shape, chemical composition, surface properties, agglomeration and/or aggregation state, and biodegradability) is needed, as well as a hazard ranking for each nanomaterial (e.g., the higher toxicity of nano-ZnO is closely associated with its dissolution into toxic Zn2+, in contrast to insoluble nano-TiO2 and the nontoxic degradation products of nano-SiO2). Similarly, when assessing the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in aquatic environments, several critical parameters, e.g., the size, crystal structure, surface charge, morphology, surface coating, presence of co-pollutants in the aquatic environment, duration of exposure, concentration, and any photoactive effects, should be considered.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.F., E.S. and I.F.-C.; methodology, M.T.F. and E.S.; investigation, all the authors; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.F. and E.S.; writing—review and editing, all the authors; supervision, I.F.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for Sustainability (CERIS - UI/DB/04625/2020) research unit from Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), and by doctoral grants numbers UI/BD/153398/2022 (scholarship of the first author) and 2021.05856.BD (attributed to the second author).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the CERIS research unit (University of Lisbon) and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Hornyak, G.; Tibbals, H.; Dutta, J.; Moore, J. Introduction to Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-1-4200-4779-0. [Google Scholar]
  2. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Study of the EU Market for Nanomaterials, Including Substances, Uses, Volumes and Key Operators; European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): Helsinki, Finland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jones, W.; Gibb, A.; Goodier, C.; Bust, P. Managing the Unknown—Addressing the Potential Health Risks of Nanomaterials in the Built Environment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017, 35, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Falinski, M.M.; Plata, D.L.; Chopra, S.S.; Theis, T.L.; Gilbertson, L.M.; Zimmerman, J.B. A Framework for Sustainable Nanomaterial Selection and Design Based on Performance, Hazard, and Economic Considerations. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 708–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lamy-Mendes, A.; Pontinha, A.D.R.; Alves, P.; Santos, P.; Durães, L. Progress in Silica Aerogel-Containing Materials for Buildings’ Thermal Insulation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 286, 122815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jindal, B.B.; Sharma, R. The Effect of Nanomaterials on Properties of Geopolymers Derived from Industrial By-Products: A State-of-the-Art Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 252, 119028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. European Comission. Communication from the Comission to the European Parliament, Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials; Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. ISO/TS 80004-1:2010; Nanotechnologies—Vocabulary—Part 1: Core Terms. International Organization for Standardization ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  9. Oberdörster, G.; Stone, V.; Donaldson, K. Toxicology of Nanoparticles: A Historical Perspective. Nanotoxicology 2007, 1, 2–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jones, W.; Gibb, A.; Goodier, C.; Bust, P.; Song, M.; Jin, J. Nanomaterials in Construction-What Is Being Used, and Where? Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Constr. Mater. 2019, 172, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saleem, H.; Zaidi, S.J.; Alnuaimi, N.A. Recent Advancements in the Nanomaterial Application in Concrete and Its Ecological Impact. Materials 2021, 14, 6387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Malhotra, B.D.; Ali, M.A. Nanomaterials in Biosensors. In Nanomaterials for Biosensors; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–74. [Google Scholar]
  13. Papadaki, D.; Kiriakidis, G.; Tsoutsos, T. Applications of Nanotechnology in Construction Industry. In Fundamentals of Nanoparticles; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 343–370. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hund-Rinke, K.; Nicke, C.; Kühnel, D. Considerations about the Relationship of Nanomaterial’s Physical-Chemical Properties and Aquatic Toxicity for the Purpose of Grouping. TEXTE 102/2017; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  15. Saeli, M.; Tobaldi, D.M.; Rozman, N.; Škapin, A.S.; Labrincha, J.A.; Pullar, R.C. Photocatalytic Nano-Composite Architectural Lime Mortar for Degradation of Urban Pollutants under Solar and Visible (Interior) Light. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 152, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hanus, M.J.; Harris, A.T. Nanotechnology Innovations for the Construction Industry. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2013, 58, 1056–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Borm, P.J.; Robbins, D.; Haubold, S.; Kuhlbusch, T.; Fissan, H.; Donaldson, K.; Schins, R.; Stone, V.; Kreyling, W.; Lademann, J.; et al. The Potential Risks of Nanomaterials: A Review Carried out for ECETOC. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2006, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Firoozi, A.A.; Naji, M.; Dithinde, M.; Firoozi, A.A. A Review: Influence of Potential Nanomaterials for Civil Engineering Projects. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. 2021, 45, 2057–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Garrido, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; Flores-Colen, I.; de Fátima Júlio, M.; Pedroso, M. Economic Assessment of the Production of Subcritically Dried Silica-Based Aerogels. J. Non Cryst. Solids 2019, 516, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carlson, G.; Lewis, D.; McKinley, K.; Richardson, J.; Tillotson, T. Aerogel Commercialization: Technology, Markets and Costs. J. Non Cryst. Solids 1995, 186, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Linhares, T.; Pessoa De Amorim, M.T.; Durães, L. Silica Aerogel Composites with Embedded Fibres: A Review on Their Preparation, Properties and Applications. J. Mater. Chem. A Mater. 2019, 7, 22768–22802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Isigonis, P.; Afantitis, A.; Antunes, D.; Bartonova, A.; Beitollahi, A.; Bohmer, N.; Bouman, E.; Chaudhry, Q.; Cimpan, M.R.; Cimpan, E.; et al. Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of Its Applicability to Nanomaterials. Small 2020, 16, e2003303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wigger, H.; Kägi, R.; Wiesner, M.; Nowack, B. Exposure and Possible Risks of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Environment—Current Knowledge and Directions for the Future. Rev. Geophys. 2020, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hansen, S.F.; Hjorth, R.; Skjolding, L.M.; Bowman, D.M.; Maynard, A.; Baun, A. A Critical Analysis of the Environmental Dossiers from the OECD Sponsorship Programme for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Nano 2017, 4, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. OECD. OECD Chemical Studies Show Way Forward for Nanomaterial Safety. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/nanosafety/news-nanomaterial-safety.htm (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  26. Stoycheva, S.; Zabeo, A.; Pizzol, L.; Hristozov, D. Socio-Economic Life Cycle-Based Framework for Safe and Sustainable Design of Engineered Nanomaterials and Nano-Enabled Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Menegaldo, M.; Livieri, A.; Isigonis, P.; Pizzol, L.; Tyrolt, A.; Zabeo, A.; Semenzin, E.; Marcomini, A. Environmental and Economic Sustainability in Cultural Heritage Preventive Conservation: LCA and LCC of Innovative Nanotechnology-Based Products. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2023, 9, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shakrani, S.A.; Ayob, A.; Rahim, M.A.A. A Review of Nanoclay Applications in the Pervious Concrete Pavement. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1885, 020049. [Google Scholar]
  29. Borsoi, G. Nanostructured Lime-Based Materials for the Conservation of Calcareous Substrates. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Utsev, T.; Tiza, T.M.; Mogbo, O.; Kumar Singh, S.; Chakravarti, A.; Shaik, N.; Pal Singh, S. Application of Nanomaterials in Civil Engineering. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 62, 5140–5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hou, P.-X.; Liu, C.; Cheng, H.-M. Field Emission from Carbon Nanotubes. In Nanomaterials Handbook, 2nd ed.; Gogotsi, Y., Ed.; Series: Advanced Materials and Technologies Series; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781315371795. [Google Scholar]
  32. Giovannelli, A.; Di Maio, D.; Scarpa, F. Industrial-Graded Epoxy Nanocomposites with Mechanically Dispersed Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Static and Damping Properties. Materials 2017, 10, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ismael, R.; Silva, J.V.; Carmo, R.N.F.; Soldado, E.; Lourenço, C.; Costa, H.; Júlio, E. Influence of Nano-SiO2 and Nano-Al2O3 Additions on Steel-to-Concrete Bonding. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 1080–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Palla, R.; Karade, S.R.; Mishra, G.; Sharma, U.; Singh, L.P. High Strength Sustainable Concrete Using Silica Nanoparticles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 138, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, D.; Li, G. Effect of Nano-SiO2/PVA Fiber on Sulfate Resistance of Cement Mortar Containing High-Volume Fly Ash. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Li, G. Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete Incorporating Nano-SiO2. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1043–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Saleh, H.M.; El-Saied, F.A.; Salaheldin, T.A.; Hezo, A.A. Macro- and Nanomaterials for Improvement of Mechanical and Physical Properties of Cement Kiln Dust-Based Composite Materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Varisha; Zaheer, M.M.; Hasan, S.D. Mechanical and Durability Performance of Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) and Nanosilica (NS) Admixed Cement Mortar. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 42, 1422–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gonzalez, M.; Tighe, S.L.; Hui, K.; Rahman, S.; de Oliveira Lima, A. Evaluation of Freeze/Thaw and Scaling Response of Nanoconcrete for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 120, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Narasimman, K.; Jassam, T.M.; Velayutham, T.S.; Yaseer, M.M.M.; Ruzaimah, R. The Synergic Influence of Carbon Nanotube and Nanosilica on the Compressive Strength of Lightweight Concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Atmaca, N.; Abbas, M.L.; Atmaca, A. Effects of Nano-Silica on the Gas Permeability, Durability and Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 147, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Silva, J.V.; Ismael, R.; Carmo, R.N.F.; Lourenço, C.; Soldado, E.; Costa, H.; Júlio, E. Influence of Nano-SiO2 and Nano-Al2O3 Additions on the Shear Strength and the Bending Moment Capacity of RC Beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 123, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xu, Y.; Gao, D.; Dong, Q.; Li, M.; Liu, A.; Wang, X.; Wang, S.; Liu, Q. Anticorrosive Behavior of Epoxy Coating Modified with Hydrophobic Nano-Silica on Phosphatized Carbon Steel. Prog. Org. Coat. 2021, 151, 106051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ghasemi, M.; Morteza Marandi, S.; Tahmooresi, M.; Jalalkamali, R.; Author, C.; Kamali, R.J.; Taherzade, R. Modification of Stone Matrix Asphalt with Nano-SiO2. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 2, 1338–1344. [Google Scholar]
  45. Amin, G.M.; Esmail, A. Application of Nano Silica to Improve Self-Healing of Asphalt Mixes. J. Cent. South Univ. 2017, 24, 1019–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khoshakhlagh, A.; Nazari, A.; Khalaj, G. Effects of Fe2O3 Nanoparticles on Water Permeability and Strength Assessments of High Strength Self-Compacting Concrete. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2012, 28, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nazari, A.; Riahi, S.; Riahi, S.; Fatemeh Shamekhi, S.; Khademno, A. Benefits of Fe2O3 Nanoparticles in Concrete Mixing Matrix. J. Am. Sci. 2010, 6, 102–106. [Google Scholar]
  48. Joshaghani, A.; Balapour, M.; Mashhadian, M.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Effects of Nano-TiO2, Nano-Al2O3, and Nano-Fe2O3 on Rheology, Mechanical and Durability Properties of Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC): An Experimental Study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 245, 118444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vipulanandan, C.; Mohammed, A. Smart Cement Modified with Iron Oxide Nanoparticles to Enhance the Piezoresistive Behavior and Compressive Strength for Oil Well Applications. Smart Mater. Struct. 2015, 24, 125020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Knetsch, M.L.W.; Koole, L.H. New Strategies in the Development of Antimicrobial Coatings: The Example of Increasing Usage of Silver and Silver Nanoparticles. Polymers 2011, 3, 340–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Guo, L.; Yuan, W.; Lu, Z.; Li, C.M. Polymer/Nanosilver Composite Coatings for Antibacterial Applications. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2013, 439, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cui, J.; Shao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, J. Development of a Novel Silver Ions-Nanosilver Complementary Composite as Antimicrobial Additive for Powder Coating. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 420, 127633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kumar, A.; Vemula, P.K.; Ajayan, P.M.; John, G. Silver-Nanoparticle-Embedded Antimicrobial Paints Based on Vegetable Oil. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, H.; Zhang, M.; Ou, J. Abrasion Resistance of Concrete Containing Nano-Particles for Pavement. Wear 2006, 260, 1262–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yu, X.; Kang, S.; Long, X. Compressive Strength of Concrete Reinforced by TiO2 Nanoparticles. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2036, 030006. [Google Scholar]
  56. Paz, Y.; Luo, Z.; Rabenberg, L.; Heller, A. Photooxidative Self-Cleaning Transparent Titanium Dioxide Films on Glass. J. Mater. Res. 1995, 10, 2842–2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Allen, N.S.; McIntyre, R.; Kerrod, J.M.; Hill, C.; Edge, M. Photo-Stabilisation and UV Blocking Efficacy of Coated Macro and Nano-Rutile Titanium Dioxide Particles in Paints and Coatings. J. Polym. Environ. 2018, 26, 4243–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. van Broekhuizen, P.; van Broekhuizen, F.; Cornelissen, R.; Reijnders, L. Use of Nanomaterials in the European Construction Industry and Some Occupational Health Aspects Thereof. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2011, 13, 447–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Otero, J.; Starinieri, V.; Charola, A.E. Nanolime for the Consolidation of Lime Mortars: A Comparison of Three Available Products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 181, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Masi, G.; Sassoni, E. Air Lime Mortar Consolidation by Nanolimes and Ammonium Phosphate: Compatibility, Effectiveness and Durability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 299, 123999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Normand, L.; Duchêne, S.; Vergès-Belmin, V.; Dandrel, C.; Giovannacci, D.; Nowik, W. Comparative in Situ Study of Nanolime, Ethyl Silicate and Acrylic Resin for Consolidation of Wall Paintings with High Water and Salt Contents at the Chapter Hall of Chartres Cathedral. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 1120–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Odgers, D. Nanolime: A Practical Guide to Its Use for Consolidating Weathered Limestone. Historic England Guidance; Liverpool University Press: Liverpool, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  63. Baglioni, P.; Chelazzi, D.; Giorgi, R. Nanotechnologies in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. A Compendium of Materials and Techniques, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 978-94-017-9303-2. [Google Scholar]
  64. Borsoi, G.; Santos Silva, A.; Menezes, P.; Candeias, A.; Mirão, J. Analytical Characterization of Ancient Mortars from the Archaeological Roman Site of Pisões (Beja, Portugal). Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 204, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Borsoi, G.; Lubelli, B.; van Hees, R.; Veiga, R.; Santos Silva, A. Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Compatibility of Nanolime Consolidants with Improved Properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 142, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. García-Vera, V.E.; Tenza-Abril, A.J.; Solak, A.M.; Lanzón, M. Calcium Hydroxide Nanoparticles Coatings Applied on Cultural Heritage Materials: Their Influence on Physical Characteristics of Earthen Plasters. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 504, 144195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jang, J.; Matero, F.G. Performance Evaluation of Commercial Nanolime as a Consolidant for Friable Lime-Based Plaster. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 2018, 57, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Baglioni, P.; Chelazzi, D.; Giorgi, R. Deacidification of Paper, Canvas and Wood. In Nanotechnologies in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 117–144. [Google Scholar]
  69. Chelazzi, D.; Poggi, G.; Jaidar, Y.; Toccafondi, N.; Giorgi, R.; Baglioni, P. Hydroxide Nanoparticles for Cultural Heritage: Consolidation and Protection of Wall Paintings and Carbonate Materials. J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 2013, 392, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Girginova, P.I.; Galacho, C.; Veiga, R.; Santos Silva, A.; Candeias, A. Study of Mechanical Properties of Alkaline Earth Hydroxide Nanoconsolidants for Lime Mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 236, 117520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Karozou, A.; Pavlidou, E.; Stefanidou, M. Enhancing Properties of Clay Mortars Using Nano-Additives. Solid State Phenom. 2019, 286, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hassan, A.; Elkady, H.; Shaaban, I.G. Effect of Adding Carbon Nanotubes on Corrosion Rates and Steel-Concrete Bond. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 6285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sharma, S.K.; Ali, K. (Eds.) Solar Cells, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-36353-6. [Google Scholar]
  74. Chiranjiakumari Devi, S.; Ahmad Khan, R. Influence of Graphene Oxide on Sulfate Attack and Carbonation of Concrete Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 250, 118883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, C.; Huang, X.; Wu, Y.-Y.; Deng, X.; Zheng, Z. The Effect of Graphene Oxide on the Mechanical Properties, Impermeability and Corrosion Resistance of Cement Mortar Containing Mineral Admixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 288, 123059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yu, L.; Wu, R. Using Graphene Oxide to Improve the Properties of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete with Fine Recycled Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 259, 120657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, C.; Hunag, X.; Wu, Y.-Y.; Deng, X.; Zheng, Z.; Yang, B. Studies on Mechanical Properties and Durability of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Incorporating Graphene Oxide. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 130, 104508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jena, G.; Anandkumar, B.; Vanithakumari, S.C.; George, R.P.; Philip, J.; Amarendra, G. Graphene Oxide-Chitosan-Silver Composite Coating on Cu-Ni Alloy with Enhanced Anticorrosive and Antibacterial Properties Suitable for Marine Applications. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020, 139, 105444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Arun, T.; Verma, S.K.; Panda, P.K.; Joseyphus, R.J.; Jha, E.; Akbari-Fakhrabadi, A.; Sengupta, P.; Ray, D.K.; Benitha, V.S.; Jeyasubramanyan, K.; et al. Facile Synthesized Novel Hybrid Graphene Oxide/Cobalt Ferrite Magnetic Nanoparticles Based Surface Coating Material Inhibit Bacterial Secretion Pathway for Antibacterial Effect. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 104, 109932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Al-Jethelah, M.; Tasnim, S.H.; Mahmud, S.; Dutta, A. Nano-PCM Filled Energy Storage System for Solar-Thermal Applications. Renew. Energy 2018, 126, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Biswas, K.; Lu, J.; Soroushian, P.; Shrestha, S. Combined Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of a Prototype Nano-PCM Enhanced Wallboard. Appl. Energy 2014, 131, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, D.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, S.; Yang, R.; Zhang, C.; Liu, C. Photothermal and Energy Performance of an Innovative Roof Based on Silica Aerogel-PCM Glazing Systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 262, 115567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pedroso, M.; Flores-Colen, I.; Silvestre, J.D.; Gomes, M.G.; Silva, L.; Ilharco, L. Physical, Mechanical, and Microstructural Characterisation of an Innovative Thermal Insulating Render Incorporating Silica Aerogel. Energy Build. 2020, 211, 109793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Soares, A.; de Fátima Júlio, M.; Flores-Colen, I.; Ilharco, L.M.; de Brito, J. EN 998-1 Performance Requirements for Thermal Aerogel-Based Renders. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 179, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gomes, M.G.; Flores-Colen, I.; da Silva, F.; Pedroso, M. Thermal Conductivity Measurement of Thermal Insulating Mortars with EPS and Silica Aerogel by Steady-State and Transient Methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Talebi, Z.; Soltani, P.; Habibi, N.; Latifi, F. Silica Aerogel/Polyester Blankets for Efficient Sound Absorption in Buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 220, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Nocentini, K.; Achard, P.; Biwole, P.; Stipetic, M. Hygro-Thermal Properties of Silica Aerogel Blankets Dried Using Microwave Heating for Building Thermal Insulation. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lee, K.-J.; Choe, Y.-J.; Kim, Y.H.; Lee, J.K.; Hwang, H.-J. Fabrication of Silica Aerogel Composite Blankets from an Aqueous Silica Aerogel Slurry. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 2204–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Berardi, U. Development of Glazing Systems with Silica Aerogel. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Buratti, C.; Moretti, E. Glazing Systems with Silica Aerogel for Energy Savings in Buildings. Appl. Energy 2012, 98, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zinzi, M.; Rossi, G.; Anderson, A.M.; Carroll, M.K.; Moretti, E.; Buratti, C. Optical and Visual Experimental Characterization of a Glazing System with Monolithic Silica Aerogel. Solar Energy 2019, 183, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, J.; Zou, Z.; Geng, G. Construction of Superhydrophobic Copper Film on Stainless Steel Mesh by a Simple Liquid Phase Chemical Reduction for Efficient Oil/Water Separation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 486, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ali, S.I.A.; Ismail, A.; Karim, M.R.; Yusoff, N.I.; Al-Mansob, R.A.; Aburkaba, E. Performance Evaluation of Al2O3 Nanoparticle-Modified Asphalt Binder. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2017, 18, 1251–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chanda, S.; Bajwa, D.S. A Review of Current Physical Techniques for Dispersion of Cellulose Nanomaterials in Polymer Matrices. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2021, 60, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Papanikolaou, I.; Ribeiro de Souza, L.; Litina, C.; Al-Tabbaa, A. Investigation of the Dispersion of Multi-Layer Graphene Nanoplatelets in Cement Composites Using Different Superplasticiser Treatments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 293, 123543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ali, R.A.; Kharofa, O.H. The Impact of Nanomaterials on Sustainable Architectural Applications Smart Concrete as a Model. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 42, 3010–3017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Gamal, H.A.; El-Feky, M.S.; Alharbi, Y.R.; Abadel, A.A.; Kohail, M. Enhancement of the Concrete Durability with Hybrid Nano Materials. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kant, R.; Sundriyal, P. Carbon-Based Nanomaterials for Perovskite Solar Cells: A Review. In Carbon Nanostructures; AIP Publishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  99. Adeleye, A.S.; Conway, J.R.; Garner, K.; Huang, Y.; Su, Y.; Keller, A.A. Engineered Nanomaterials for Water Treatment and Remediation: Costs, Benefits, and Applicability. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 286, 640–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ajith, S.; Arumugaprabu, V. Environmental and Occupational Health Hazards of Nanomaterials in Construction Sites. In Handbook of Consumer Nanoproducts; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  101. Singh, D.; Marrocco, A.; Wohlleben, W.; Park, H.-R.; Diwadkar, A.R.; Himes, B.E.; Lu, Q.; Christiani, D.C.; Demokritou, P. Release of Particulate Matter from Nano-Enabled Building Materials (NEBMs) across Their Lifecycle: Potential Occupational Health and Safety Implications. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 422, 126771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Santhosh, G.; Nayaka, G.P. Nanoparticles in Construction Industry and Their Toxicity. In Ecological and Health Effects of Building Materials; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 133–146. [Google Scholar]
  103. Gkika, D.A.; Vordos, N.; Nolan, J.W.; Mitropoulos, A.C.; Vansant, E.F.; Cool, P.; Braet, J. Price Tag in Nanomaterials? J. Nanoparticle Res. 2017, 19, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rodrigues, P.; Silvestre, J.D.; Flores-Colen, I.; Viegas, C.A.; de Brito, J.; Kurad, R.; Demertzi, M. Methodology for the Assessment of the Ecotoxicological Potential of Construction Materials. Materials 2017, 10, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. López-Alonso, M.; Díaz-Soler, B.; Martínez-Rojas, M.; Fito-López, C.; Martínez-Aires, M.D. Management of Occupational Risk Prevention of Nanomaterials Manufactured in Construction Sites in the EU. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kurwadkar, S.; Pugh, K.; Gupta, A.; Ingole, S. Nanoparticles in the Environment: Occurrence, Distribution, and Risks. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2015, 19, 04014039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lowry, G.V.; Gregory, K.B.; Apte, S.C.; Lead, J.R. Transformations of Nanomaterials in the Environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 6893–6899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Arsenov, D.; Beljin, J.; Jović, D.; Maletić, S.; Borišev, M.; Borišev, I. Nanomaterials as Endorsed Environmental Remediation Tools for the next Generation: Eco-Safety and Sustainability. J. Geochem. Explor. 2023, 253, 107283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Corsi, I.; Venditti, I.; Trotta, F.; Punta, C. Environmental Safety of Nanotechnologies: The Eco-Design of Manufactured Nanomaterials for Environmental Remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 864, 161181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Handy, R.D.; Shaw, B.J. Toxic Effects of Nanoparticles and Nanomaterials: Implications for Public Health, Risk Assessment and the Public Perception of Nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc. 2007, 9, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lee, J.; Mahendra, S.; Alvarez, P.J.J. Nanomaterials in the Construction Industry: A Review of Their Applications and Environmental Health and Safety Considerations. ACS Nano 2010, 4, 3580–3590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hallock, M.F.; Greenley, P.; DiBerardinis, L.; Kallin, D. Potential Risks of Nanomaterials and How to Safely Handle Materials of Uncertain Toxicity. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2009, 16, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lynch, I.; Weiss, C.; Valsami-Jones, E. A Strategy for Grouping of Nanomaterials Based on Key Physico-Chemical Descriptors as a Basis for Safer-by-Design NMs. Nano Today 2014, 9, 266–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ganguly, P.; Breen, A.; Pillai, S.C. Toxicity of Nanomaterials: Exposure, Pathways, Assessment, and Recent Advances. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 4, 2237–2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Keller, A.A.; Lazareva, A. Predicted Releases of Engineered Nanomaterials: From Global to Regional to Local. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gottschalk, F.; Sun, T.; Nowack, B. Environmental Concentrations of Engineered Nanomaterials: Review of Modeling and Analytical Studies. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 181, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hincapié, I.; Caballero-Guzman, A.; Hiltbrunner, D.; Nowack, B. Use of Engineered Nanomaterials in the Construction Industry with Specific Emphasis on Paints and Their Flows in Construction and Demolition Waste in Switzerland. Waste Manag. 2015, 43, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. OECD. Nanomaterials in Waste Streams: Current Knowledge on Risks and Impacts; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016; ISBN 9789264240612. [Google Scholar]
  119. EUON (European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials). How Nanomaterials Change in the Environment. Available online: https://euon.echa.europa.eu/how-nanomaterials-change-in-the-environment (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  120. Ray, P.C.; Yu, H.; Fu, P.P. Toxicity and Environmental Risks of Nanomaterials: Challenges and Future Needs. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part C 2009, 27, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Vareda, J.P.; García-González, C.A.; Valente, A.J.M.; Simón-Vázquez, R.; Stipetic, M.; Durães, L. Insights on Toxicity, Safe Handling and Disposal of Silica Aerogels and Amorphous Nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Nano 2021, 8, 1177–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rücker, C.; Kümmerer, K. Environmental Chemistry of Organosiloxanes. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 466–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Karatum, O.; Bhuiya, M.M.H.; Carroll, M.K.; Anderson, A.M.; Plata, D.L. Life Cycle Assessment of Aerogel Manufacture on Small and Large Scales: Weighing the Use of Advanced Materials in Oil Spill Remediation. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22, 1365–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Arvidsson, R.; Molander, S.; Sandén, B.A. Particle Flow Analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Buchman, J.T.; Hudson-Smith, N.V.; Landy, K.M.; Haynes, C.L. Understanding Nanoparticle Toxicity Mechanisms to Inform Redesign Strategies to Reduce Environmental Impact. Acc. Chem. Res. 2019, 52, 1632–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gupta, D.; Boora, A.; Thakur, A.; Gupta, T.K. Green and Sustainable Synthesis of Nanomaterials: Recent Advancements and Limitations. Environ. Res. 2023, 231, 116316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Miernicki, M.; Hofmann, T.; Eisenberger, I.; von der Kammer, F.; Praetorius, A. Legal and Practical Challenges in Classifying Nanomaterials according to Regulatory Definitions. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. EN 15804:2012+A2:2020; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  129. EN 15643:2021; Sustainability of Construction Works—Framework for Assessment of Buildings and Civil Engineering Works. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  130. McGillicuddy, E.; Murray, I.; Kavanagh, S.; Morrison, L.; Fogarty, A.; Cormican, M.; Dockery, P.; Prendergast, M.; Rowan, N.; Morris, D. Silver Nanoparticles in the Environment: Sources, Detection and Ecotoxicology. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Walters, C.R.; Pool, E.J.; Somerset, V.S. Ecotoxicity of Silver Nanomaterials in the Aquatic Environment: A Review of Literature and Gaps in Nano-Toxicological Research. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2014, 49, 1588–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Aruoja, V.; Dubourguier, H.-C.; Kasemets, K.; Kahru, A. Toxicity of Nanoparticles of CuO, ZnO and TiO2 to Microalgae Pseudokirchneriella Subcapitata. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 1461–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Joonas, E.; Aruoja, V.; Olli, K.; Kahru, A. Environmental Safety Data on CuO and TiO2 Nanoparticles for Multiple Algal Species in Natural Water: Filling the Data Gaps for Risk Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 647, 973–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Griffitt, R.J.; Luo, J.; Gao, J.; Bonzongo, J.-C.; Barber, D.S. Effects of Particle Composition and Species on Toxicity of Metallic Nanomaterials in Aquatic Organisms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Jackson, P.; Jacobsen, N.R.; Baun, A.; Birkedal, R.; Kühnel, D.; Jensen, K.A.; Vogel, U.; Wallin, H. Bioaccumulation and Ecotoxicity of Carbon Nanotubes. Chem. Cent. J. 2013, 7, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hou, J.; Wang, L.; Wang, C.; Zhang, S.; Liu, H.; Li, S.; Wang, X. Toxicity and Mechanisms of Action of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in Living Organisms. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 75, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mohanta, D.; Patnaik, S.; Sood, S.; Das, N. Carbon Nanotubes: Evaluation of Toxicity at Biointerfaces. J. Pharm. Anal. 2019, 9, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Saleemi, M.A.; Hosseini Fouladi, M.; Yong, P.V.C.; Chinna, K.; Palanisamy, N.K.; Wong, E.H. Toxicity of Carbon Nanotubes: Molecular Mechanisms, Signaling Cascades, and Remedies in Biomedical Applications. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2021, 34, 24–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Chou, C.-C.; Hsiao, H.-Y.; Hong, Q.-S.; Chen, C.-H.; Peng, Y.-W.; Chen, H.-W.; Yang, P.-C. Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Can Induce Pulmonary Injury in Mouse Model. Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ferdous, Z.; Nemmar, A. Health Impact of Silver Nanoparticles: A Review of the Biodistribution and Toxicity Following Various Routes of Exposure. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Assadian, E.; Zarei, M.H.; Gilani, A.G.; Farshin, M.; Degampanah, H.; Pourahmad, J. Toxicity of Copper Oxide (CuO) Nanoparticles on Human Blood Lymphocytes. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2018, 184, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Shah, S.N.; Mo, K.H.; Yap, S.P.; Radwan, M.K.H. Towards an Energy Efficient Cement Composite Incorporating Silica Aerogel: A State of the Art Review. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Guo, Z.; Yang, R.; Wang, T.; An, L.; Ren, S.; Zhou, C. Cost-Effective Additive Manufacturing of Ambient Pressure-Dried Silica Aerogel. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2021, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Inshakova, E.; Inshakova, A.; Goncharov, A. Engineered Nanomaterials for Energy Sector: Market Trends, Modern Applications and Future Prospects. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 971, 032031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Lanone, S.; Rogerieux, F.; Geys, J.; Dupont, A.; Maillot-Marechal, E.; Boczkowski, J.; Lacroix, G.; Hoet, P. Comparative Toxicity of 24 Manufactured Nanoparticles in Human Alveolar Epithelial and Macrophage Cell Lines. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2009, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. ÖKOBAUDAT. Sustainable Construction Information Portal. Federal Ministry for Housing Urban Development and Building. Available online: https://www.oekobaudat.de/no_cache/en/database/search/daten/db2.html#bereich2 (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  147. Abdalla, J.A.; Hawileh, R.A.; Bahurudeen, A.; Jittin; Syed Ahmed Kabeer, K.I.; Thomas, B.S. Influence of Synthesized Nanomaterials in the Strength and Durability of Cementitious Composites. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mohajerani, A.; Burnett, L.; Smith, J.V.; Kurmus, H.; Milas, J.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Kadir, A.A. Nanoparticles in Construction Materials and Other Applications, and Implications of Nanoparticle Use. Materials 2019, 12, 3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Wernery, J.; Mancebo, F.; Malfait, W.J.; O’Connor, M.; Jelle, B.P. The Economics of Thermal Superinsulation in Buildings. Energy Build. 2021, 253, 111506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Pinto, I.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Júlio, M.F. Environmental Impact of the Subcritical Production of Silica Aerogels. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Dodd, N.; Donatello, S. Level(s) Indicator 1.2: Life Cycle Global Warming Potential (GWP) User Manual: Overview, Instructions and Guidance (Publication Version 1.0); European Commission: Seville, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 13 12896 g001
Figure 1. Nanomaterials’ influence on the environment and human health during the life cycle stages.
Figure 1. Nanomaterials’ influence on the environment and human health during the life cycle stages.
Applsci 13 12896 g001
Applsci 13 12896 g002
Figure 2. Keyword bibliometric network of nanomaterials and their impact on human health and the environment.
Figure 2. Keyword bibliometric network of nanomaterials and their impact on human health and the environment.
Applsci 13 12896 g002
Applsci 13 12896 g003
Figure 3. Evolution of peer-reviewed papers (number per year) on nanomaterials and their impact on human health and the environment (timespan 2011–2022).
Figure 3. Evolution of peer-reviewed papers (number per year) on nanomaterials and their impact on human health and the environment (timespan 2011–2022).
Applsci 13 12896 g003
Table 1. Types, applications, and functions in the construction sector of several nanomaterials.
Table 1. Types, applications, and functions in the construction sector of several nanomaterials.
Nanomaterial Synthesis or Production MethodApplicationsFunctionality/ImprovementReferences
NanosilicaSol-gelMortars, concreteAbrasion resistance; Acceleration on cement hydration; Concrete-to-steel bonding; Improved freeze–thaw resistance; Mechanical improvement; Pozzolanic activity; Paste–aggregate bonding; Permeability reduction[33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]
CoatingsCorrosion inhibition efficiency[43]
Roads, footpathsMechanical improvement [44,45]
Iron oxide Mechanical milling; electro explosion; laser ablation; sol-gel; atomic condensation; template-assistedMortars, concreteElectrical conductivity; Enhanced ductility; Mechanical improvement; Piezoresistive property; Permeability reduction; Self-sensing[46,47,48,49]
NanosilverElectro-explosionPaints, coatingsBiocidal activity[50,51,52,53]
Titanium dioxideSol-gel; chemical vapor deposition; template-assistedMortars, concreteAbrasion resistance; Acceleration on cement hydration; Increased durability; Mechanical improvement; Self-cleaning[48,54,55]
GlassAnti-fogging; Fouling resistance; Self-cleaning[56]
Paints, coatingsAntimicrobial; Anti-pollution; Air-purifying surfaces; Coolant; Hydrophobic; UV resistance[57,58]
Calcium hydroxide and alkoxidesColloidal; microemulsion; micelle-assisted; solvothermal reaction; sol-gelWall paintingsBiocidal activity; De-acidification; Protection of cultural heritage[59,60,61,62,63,64,65]
Limestone
Lime-based mortars
Renders and plaster[66,67]
Cellulose-based materials (canvas/wood)[68]
Magnesium or barium hydroxidesColloidal; sol solutionsWall paintings,
Lime-based mortars		Biocidal activity; Protection of cultural heritage[69,70]
NanoclayMechanical millingMortars, concreteMechanical improvement[71]
Carbon nanotubesMechanical milling; laser ablation; chemical vapor deposition; template-assistedMortars, concreteCrack prevention; Concrete-to-steel bonding; Decreased porosity; Mechanical improvement; Self-sensing[38,40,72]
SensorsHealth monitoring in construction[16]
Solar cellsElectrical conductivity[73]
Graphene oxideMechanical milling; chemical vapor depositionMortars, concreteMechanical improvement[74,75,76,77]
Paints, coatingsBiocidal activity; Corrosion inhibition efficiency[78,79]
Phase change materialsSol-gelBuilding components, thermal insulation materials, wallboardsThermal resistance[80,81,82]
Silica
aerogel		Sol-gelMortars, concrete, rendersDecreased thermal conductivity[83,84,85]
BlanketAcoustic insulation; Thermal resistance[86,87,88]
Glazing, windowDispersion of the incident light[82,89,90,91]
Nano copperColloidal methodsSteel meshCorrosion inhibition efficiency; Formability; Weldability[92]
Aluminum oxideSol-gelAsphalt concreteIncreased serviceability[93]
ConcreteAcceleration on cement hydration; Mechanical improvement[33,42,48]
Table 2. Environmental, human health, and economic indicators proposed for nanomaterials.
Table 2. Environmental, human health, and economic indicators proposed for nanomaterials.
Impact CategoryIndicator NameIndicators AcronymFunctional UnitReferenced *
NM		Refs.
Environmental and human health indicatorsDepletion of abiotic resources,
minerals, and metals		Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resourcesADP-minerals and metalskg Sb eq.AqNPs
CuO
TiO2
CNTs		[130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141]
Depletion of abiotic resources,
fossil fuels		Abiotic depletion for fossil resources
potential		ADP-fossilMJ
Acidification Acidification potential,
accumulated
exceedance		APmol H+ eq.
Ozone depletionDepletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer ODP kg CFC-11 eq.
Photochemical ozone formationFormation potential of tropospheric
ozone 		POCPkg NMVOC eq.
Water useWater (user) deprivation potential, deprivation weighted water
consumption		WDPm3 world eq. deprived
Climate change, total Global warming potential, totalGWP-totalkg CO2 eq.
Climate change, fossilGlobal warming potential, fossilGWP-fossilkg CO2 eq.
Particulate matter emissions Potential incidence of disease due to PM emissions PMDisease incidence
Ecotoxicity (freshwater)Potential comparative toxic unit for
ecosystems 		ETP-fwCTUe
Human toxicity, cancer effectsPotential comparative toxic unit for humans HTP-cCTUh
Human toxicity, non-cancer effectsPotential comparative toxic unit for
humans 		HTP-ncCTUh
Land-use-related impacts/Soil qualityPotential soil quality index SQP(dimensionless)
Economic indicatorsCostInitial costsICEUR/m2 or EUR/unitTiO2
CuO
Silica aerogel
CNTs
Fe2O3
GO		[103,142,143,144]
Operation and maintenanceOM
RepairRE
ReplacementREP
DeconstructionDE
TransportTEUR/m2
End of lifeEoLEUR/m2
Waste processing for re-use, recovery,
and/or recycling		WEUR/m2
RecyclingRECEUR/m2
* Referenced NMs—includes the NMs that were most cited in the literature review for those impacts.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ferreira, M.T.; Soldado, E.; Borsoi, G.; Mendes, M.P.; Flores-Colen, I. Nanomaterials Applied in the Construction Sector: Environmental, Human Health, and Economic Indicators. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12896. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312896

AMA Style

Ferreira MT, Soldado E, Borsoi G, Mendes MP, Flores-Colen I. Nanomaterials Applied in the Construction Sector: Environmental, Human Health, and Economic Indicators. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(23):12896. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312896

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferreira, Maria Teresa, Eliana Soldado, Giovanni Borsoi, Maria Paula Mendes, and Inês Flores-Colen. 2023. "Nanomaterials Applied in the Construction Sector: Environmental, Human Health, and Economic Indicators" Applied Sciences 13, no. 23: 12896. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312896

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop