Table 4.

Environmental and sustainability assessments of antibacterial silver (in alphabetical order) paired with arguments in the Swedish public controversy and the method used (see Finnveden and Moberg, 2005, Ness et al., 2007).

Study	Method	Arguments assessed as main outputs of the assessment	Arguments assessed as minor outputs of the assessment
Arvidsson et al. (2011)	Substance flow analysis	(no) emission argument	high/low quantity is used argument
Arvidsson et al. (inpress)	Risk analysis	(no) polluted sludge argument (not) toxic argument (no) emission argument	low quantity suffice argument high/low quantity is used argument (no) silver sulfide argument non-biodegradable argument
Blaser et al. (2008)	Risk analysis	(not) toxic argument (no) emission argument (no) polluted sludge (no) increased level argument	low quantity suffice argument high/low quantity is used argument (no) silver sulfide argument non-biodegradable argument
Meyer et al. (2011)	Lifecycle assessment	(not) toxic argument avoids toxic substance argument (no) emission argument reduced environmental impact argument	low quantity suffice argument high/low quantity is used argument less detergent argument less energy argument (no) less washing argument non-biodegradable argument
Walser et al. (2011)	Lifecycle assessment	(not) toxic argument avoids toxic substance argument (no) emission argument reduced environmental impact argument low temperature argument	low quantity suffice argument high/low quantity is used argument less detergent argument less energy argument (no) less washing argument appropriate use argument non-biodegradable argument
Windler et al. (2013)	Multi-criteria analysis	high/low quantity is used argument bioaccumulation argument non-biodegradable argument safe in contact with body argument (in)effective argument ingenuous alternatives/unique argument	antibacterial argument