Literature DB >> 26361398

Particle size distributions by transmission electron microscopy: an interlaboratory comparison case study.

Stephen B Rice1, Christopher Chan2, Scott C Brown2, Peter Eschbach3, Li Han4, David S Ensor4, Aleksandr B Stefaniak5, John Bonevich6, András E Vladár6, Angela R Hight Walker6, Jiwen Zheng7, Catherine Starnes8, Arnold Stromberg8, Jia Ye9, Eric A Grulke9.   

Abstract

This paper reports an interlaboratory comparison that evaluated a protocol for measuring and analysing the particle size distribution of discrete, metallic, spheroidal nanoparticles using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The study was focused on automated image capture and automated particle analysis. NIST RM8012 gold nanoparticles (30 nm nominal diameter) were measured for area-equivalent diameter distributions by eight laboratories. Statistical analysis was used to (1) assess the data quality without using size distribution reference models, (2) determine reference model parameters for different size distribution reference models and non-linear regression fitting methods and (3) assess the measurement uncertainty of a size distribution parameter by using its coefficient of variation. The interlaboratory area-equivalent diameter mean, 27.6 nm ± 2.4 nm (computed based on a normal distribution), was quite similar to the area-equivalent diameter, 27.6 nm, assigned to NIST RM8012. The lognormal reference model was the preferred choice for these particle size distributions as, for all laboratories, its parameters had lower relative standard errors (RSEs) than the other size distribution reference models tested (normal, Weibull and Rosin-Rammler-Bennett). The RSEs for the fitted standard deviations were two orders of magnitude higher than those for the fitted means, suggesting that most of the parameter estimate errors were associated with estimating the breadth of the distributions. The coefficients of variation for the interlaboratory statistics also confirmed the lognormal reference model as the preferred choice. From quasi-linear plots, the typical range for good fits between the model and cumulative number-based distributions was 1.9 fitted standard deviations less than the mean to 2.3 fitted standard deviations above the mean. Automated image capture, automated particle analysis and statistical evaluation of the data and fitting coefficients provide a framework for assessing nanoparticle size distributions using TEM for image acquisition.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 26361398      PMCID: PMC4562322          DOI: 10.1088/0026-1394/50/6/663

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Metrologia        ISSN: 0026-1394            Impact factor:   3.157


  2 in total

Review 1.  Assessing nanoparticle risk poses prodigious challenges.

Authors:  Robert C MacPhail; Eric A Grulke; Robert A Yokel
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol       Date:  2013-04-08

2.  Biodistribution and biopersistence of ceria engineered nanomaterials: size dependence.

Authors:  Robert A Yokel; Michael T Tseng; Mo Dan; Jason M Unrine; Uschi M Graham; Peng Wu; Eric A Grulke
Journal:  Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 5.307

  2 in total
  20 in total

1.  Size and shape distributions of primary crystallites in titania aggregates.

Authors:  Eric A Grulke; Kazuhiro Yamamoto; Kazuhiro Kumagai; Ines Häusler; Werner Österle; Erik Ortel; Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba; Scott C Brown; Christopher Chan; Jiwen Zheng; Kenji Yamamoto; Kouji Yashiki; Nam Woong Song; Young Heon Kim; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; D Schwegler-Berry; Victoria A Coleman; Åsa K Jämting; Jan Herrmann; Toru Arakawa; Woodrow W Burchett; Joshua W Lambert; Arnold J Stromberg
Journal:  Adv Powder Technol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.833

2.  Improved Efficacy and Reduced Toxicity Using a Custom-Designed Irinotecan-Delivering Silicasome for Orthotopic Colon Cancer.

Authors:  Xiangsheng Liu; Jinhong Jiang; Ryan Chan; Ying Ji; Jianqin Lu; Yu-Pei Liao; Michael Okene; Joshua Lin; Paulina Lin; Chong Hyun Chang; Xiang Wang; Ivanna Tang; Emily Zheng; Waveley Qiu; Zev A Wainberg; Andre E Nel; Huan Meng
Journal:  ACS Nano       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 15.881

3.  Particle Size Distributions for Cellulose Nanocrystals Measured by Transmission Electron Microscopy: An Interlaboratory Comparison.

Authors:  Juris Meija; Michael Bushell; Martin Couillard; Stephanie Beck; John Bonevich; Kai Cui; Johan Foster; John Will; Douglas Fox; Whirang Cho; Markus Heidelmann; Byong Chon Park; Yun Chang Park; Lingling Ren; Li Xu; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Alycia K Knepp; Ralf Theissmann; Horst Purwin; Ziqiu Wang; Natalia de Val; Linda J Johnston
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 6.986

4.  How reliably can a material be classified as a nanomaterial? Available particle-sizing techniques at work.

Authors:  Frank Babick; Johannes Mielke; Wendel Wohlleben; Stefan Weigel; Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.253

5.  Differentiating gold nanorod samples using particle size and shape distributions from transmission electron microscope images.

Authors:  Eric A Grulke; Xiaochun Wu; Yinglu Ji; Egbert Buhr; Kazuhiro Yamamoto; Nam Woong Song; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Diane Schwegler-Berry; Woodrow W Burchett; Joshua Lambert; Arnold J Stromberg
Journal:  Metrologia       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.157

6.  How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Betty Y S Kim; Alan Trounson
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 25.671

Review 7.  Analytical Tools to Improve Optimization Procedures for Lateral Flow Assays.

Authors:  Helen V Hsieh; Jeffrey L Dantzler; Bernhard H Weigl
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-28

Review 8.  Bacterial-Derived Polymer Poly-y-Glutamic Acid (y-PGA)-Based Micro/Nanoparticles as a Delivery System for Antimicrobials and Other Biomedical Applications.

Authors:  Ibrahim R Khalil; Alan T H Burns; Iza Radecka; Marek Kowalczuk; Tamara Khalaf; Grazyna Adamus; Brian Johnston; Martin P Khechara
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 9.  Silver Nanoparticles: Technological Advances, Societal Impacts, and Metrological Challenges.

Authors:  Bryan Calderón-Jiménez; Monique E Johnson; Antonio R Montoro Bustos; Karen E Murphy; Michael R Winchester; José R Vega Baudrit
Journal:  Front Chem       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 5.221

10.  Challenges in the size analysis of a silica nanoparticle mixture as candidate certified reference material.

Authors:  Vikram Kestens; Gert Roebben; Jan Herrmann; Åsa Jämting; Victoria Coleman; Caterina Minelli; Charles Clifford; Pieter-Jan De Temmerman; Jan Mast; Liu Junjie; Frank Babick; Helmut Cölfen; Hendrik Emons
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.253

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.