A uniform measurement expression for cross method comparison of nanoparticle aggregate size distributions

Available measurement methods for nanomaterials are based on very different measurement principles and hence produce different values when used on aggregated nanoparticle dispersions. This paper provides a solution for relating measurements of nanomaterials comprised of nanoparticle aggregates deter...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Analyst (London) 2015-08, Vol.140 (15), p.5257-5267
Main Authors: Dudkiewicz, Agnieszka, Wagner, Stephan, Lehner, Angela, Chaudhry, Qasim, Pietravalle, Stéphane, Tiede, Karen, Boxall, Alistair B A, Allmaier, Guenter, Tiede, Dirk, Grombe, Ringo, von der Kammer, Frank, Hofmann, Thilo, Mølhave, Kristian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aggregates
Liquids
Nanomaterials
Nanostructure
NTA
Scanning electron microscopy
Sedimentation
Size distribution
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Available measurement methods for nanomaterials are based on very different measurement principles and hence produce different values when used on aggregated nanoparticle dispersions. This paper provides a solution for relating measurements of nanomaterials comprised of nanoparticle aggregates determined by different techniques using a uniform expression of a mass equivalent diameter (MED). The obtained solution is used to transform into MED the size distributions of the same sample of synthetic amorphous silica (nanomaterial comprising aggregated nanoparticles) measured by six different techniques: scanning electron microscopy in both high vacuum (SEM) and liquid cell setup (Wet-SEM); gas-phase electrophoretic mobility molecular analyzer (GEMMA); centrifugal liquid sedimentation (CLS); nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA); and asymmetric flow field flow fractionation with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry detection (AF4-ICP-MS). Transformed size distributions are then compared between the methods and conclusions drawn on methods' measurement accuracy, limits of detection and quantification related to the synthetic amorphous silca's size. Two out of the six tested methods (GEMMA and AF4-ICP-MS) cross validate the MED distributions between each other, providing a true measurement. The measurement accuracy of other four techniques is shown to be compromised either by the high limit of detection and quantification (CLS, NTA, Wet-SEM) or the sample preparation that is biased by increased retention of smaller nanomaterials (SEM). This study thereby presents a successful and conclusive cross-method comparison of size distribution measurements of aggregated nanomaterials. The authors recommend the uniform MED size expression for application in nanomaterial risk assessment studies and clarifications in current regulations and definitions concerning nanomaterials.
ISSN:0003-2654
1364-5528
DOI:10.1039/c5an00561b