Literature DB >> 26081166

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

Agnieszka Dudkiewicz1, Stephan Wagner, Angela Lehner, Qasim Chaudhry, Stéphane Pietravalle, Karen Tiede, Alistair B A Boxall, Guenter Allmaier, Dirk Tiede, Ringo Grombe, Frank von der Kammer, Thilo Hofmann, Kristian Mølhave.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 26081166     DOI: 10.1039/c5an00561b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Analyst        ISSN: 0003-2654            Impact factor:   4.616


  4 in total

1.  Combining gas-phase electrophoretic mobility molecular analysis (GEMMA), light scattering, field flow fractionation and cryo electron microscopy in a multidimensional approach to characterize liposomal carrier vesicles.

Authors:  Carlos Urey; Victor U Weiss; Andreas Gondikas; Frank von der Kammer; Thilo Hofmann; Martina Marchetti-Deschmann; Günter Allmaier; György Marko-Varga; Roland Andersson
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 5.875

2.  Native Nano-electrospray Differential Mobility Analyzer (nES GEMMA) Enables Size Selection of Liposomal Nanocarriers Combined with Subsequent Direct Spectroscopic Analysis.

Authors:  Victor U Weiss; Karin Wieland; Andreas Schwaighofer; Bernhard Lendl; Guenter Allmaier
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 6.986

3.  Facile synthesis of SnO2 shell followed by microwave treatment for high environmental stability of Ag nanoparticles.

Authors:  Anna Baranowska-Korczyc; Ewelina Mackiewicz; Katarzyna Ranoszek-Soliwoda; Jarosław Grobelny; Grzegorz Celichowski
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 4.036

4.  Nano electrospray gas-phase electrophoretic mobility molecular analysis (nES GEMMA) of liposomes: applicability of the technique for nano vesicle batch control.

Authors:  Victor U Weiss; Carlos Urey; Andreas Gondikas; Monika Golesne; Gernot Friedbacher; Frank von der Kammer; Thilo Hofmann; Roland Andersson; György Marko-Varga; Martina Marchetti-Deschmann; Günter Allmaier
Journal:  Analyst       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.616

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.