| Literature DB >> 17328812 |
Aleksandr B Stefaniak1, Mark D Hoover, Robert M Dickerson, Gregory A Day, Patrick N Breysse, Ronald C Scripsick.
Abstract
Accurate characterization of the physicochemical properties of aerosols generated for inhalation toxicology studies is essential for obtaining meaningful results. Great emphasis must also be placed on characterizing particle properties of materials as administered in inhalation studies. Thus, research is needed to identify a suite of techniques capable of characterizing the multiple particle properties (i.e., size, mass, surface area, number) of a material that may influence toxicity. The purpose of this study was to characterize the morphology and investigate the size distribution of a model toxicant, beryllium. Beryllium metal, oxides, and alloy particles were aerodynamically size-separated using an aerosol cyclone, imaged dry using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), then characterized using phase contrast microscopy (PCM), a liquid suspension particle counter (LPC), and computer-controlled SEM (CCSEM). Beryllium metal powder was compact with smaller sub-micrometer size particles attached to the surface of larger particles, whereas the beryllium oxides and alloy particles were clusters of primary particles. As expected, the geometric mean (GM) diameter of metal powder determined using PCM decreased with aerodynamic size, but when suspended in liquid for LPC or CCSEM analysis, the GM diameter decreased by a factor of two (p < 0.001). This observation suggested that the smaller submicrometer size particles attached to the surface of larger particles and/or particle agglomerates detach in liquid, thereby shifting the particle size distribution downward. The GM diameters of the oxide materials were similar regardless of sizing technique, but observed differences were generally significant (p < 0.001). For oxides, aerodynamic cluster size will dictate deposition in the lung, but primary particle size may influence biological activity. The GM diameter of alloy particles determined using PCM became smaller with decreasing aerodynamic size fraction; however, when suspended in liquid for CCSEM and LPC analyses, GM particle size decreased by a factor of two (p < 0.001) suggesting that alloy particles detach in liquid. Detachment of particles in liquid could have significance for the expected versus actual size (and number) distribution of aerosol delivered to an exposure subject. Thus, a suite of complimentary analytical techniques may be necessary for estimating size distribution. Consideration should be given to thoroughly understanding the influence of any liquid vehicle which may alter the expected aerosol size distribution.Entities:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17328812 PMCID: PMC1810321 DOI: 10.1186/1743-8977-4-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
Figure 1Representative SEM images of the different particle sizing preparations of beryllium metal and beryllium oxide evaluated in the study. (A1) shows the dry metal powder illustrating compact morphology with smaller sub-micrometer size particles attached to the surface of larger particles; (A2) metal powder suspended in liquid for sizing with a LPC illustrating detachment of smaller submicrometer size metal particles from the surface of larger particles and/or detachment of particle agglomerates; and (A3) metal powder suspended in liquid for sizing with CCSEM illustrating similar morphology as observed for the LPC suspension. Similarly, (B1) shows the dry oxide powder having cluster morphology; (B2) oxide powder suspended in liquid for LPC analysis illustrating similar morphology to dry oxide powder; and (B3) oxide powder suspended in liquid for CCSEM analysis illustrating similar morphology to dry oxide powder and powder for LPC analysis.
Geometric mean diameter of beryllium powders and process-sampled particles
| Cyclone | Geometric mean, μm (GSD)A | ||||
| Material | Stage | D50 (μm) | PCM | CCSEM | LPC |
| Be metal powder | 2 | 2.5 | 3.0 (1.8) | NPB | 1.5 (1.8) |
| 3 | 1.7 | 2.7 (1.7) | NP | 1.3 (1.5) | |
| 4 | 0.9 | 2.0 (1.5) | 1.1 (1.9) | 1.1 (1.6) | |
| BeO powder | 2 | 2.5 | 1.0 (1.3) | NP | 1.1 (1.3) |
| 3 | 1.7 | 1.2 (1.5) | NP | 1.0 (1.3) | |
| 4 | 0.9 | 1.0 (1.4) | 0.9 (1.5) | 1.0 (1.3) | |
| Process BeO | 2 | 2.3 | 1.2 (1.6) | NP | --C |
| 3 | 1.5 | 1.1 (1.6) | NP | -- | |
| 4 | 0.7 | 1.2 (1.6) | 1.0 (1.9) | -- | |
| Process alloy | 2 | 2.3 | 2.1 (1.9) | NP | 1.1 (1.3) |
| 3 | 1.5 | 1.9 (1.7) | NP | 1.0 (1.3) | |
| 4 | 0.7 | 1.6 (1.7) | --D | 0.9 (1.3) | |
A GSD = geometric standard deviation
B NP = analysis not performed for this size-fraction
C For the sake of efficiency in experimental design, separate LPC analyses were not performed for the process BeO material because the BeO powder material was considered representative of the process BeO material.
D Greater than 60% of these particles were 0.4–0.7 μm precluding graphical determination of the GM