| Literature DB >> 26690460 |
Jana Navratilova1, Antonia Praetorius2, Andreas Gondikas3, Willi Fabienke4, Frank von der Kammer5, Thilo Hofmann6,7.
Abstract
Regulatory efforts rely on nanometrology for the development and implementation of laws regarding the incorporation of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) into industrial and consumer products. Copper is currently one of the most common metals used in the constantly developing and expanding sector of nanotechnology. The use of copper nanoparticles in products, such as agricultural biocides, cosmetics and paints, is increasing. Copper based ENMs will eventually be released to the environment through the use and disposal of nano-enabled products, however, the detection of copper ENMs in environmental samples is a challenging task. Single particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (spICP-MS) has been suggested as a powerful tool for routine nanometrology efforts. In this work, we apply a spICP-MS method for the detection of engineered copper nanomaterials in colloidal extracts from natural soil samples. Overall, copper nanoparticles were successfully detected in the soil colloidal extracts and the importance of dwell time, background removal, and sample dilution for method optimization and recovery maximization is highlighted.Entities:
Keywords: copper; nanoparticles; soil contamination; spICP-MS
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26690460 PMCID: PMC4690956 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph121215020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Schematic representation of the possible origins of a given single particle signal in the ICP-MS for a specific element. The intensity of the spike corresponds to a fixed mass of the analyzed element, which can be present in the sample as a single (nano-) particle (A), a particle aggregate (B) or as the given element distributed within a (natural) particle composed of a variety of elements (C–E). Note that with decreasing relative concentration of the analyzed element in the particle, the total size of the analyzed particle increases.
Elemental composition and pH of the colloidal extracts.
| Sample Code | Si | Al | Fe | Mg | Mn | Ni | Zn | Cu | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mg·L−1 | mg·L−1 | mg·L−1 | mg·L−1 | mg·L−1 | µg·L−1 | µg·L−1 | µg·L−1 | ||
| SG | 27.1 | 10 | 19.2 | 0.9 | 5.2 | 22.2 | 82.4 | 30 | 7.0 |
| LT1 | 334 | 644 | 130 | 29.8 | 1.1 | 139.9 | 613.7 | 102 | 6.8 |
| PS2 | 808 | 427 | 161 | 42.5 | 2.8 | 205.2 | 672.0 | 179 | 7.2 |
| PS3 | 668 | 371 | 190 | 39.1 | 1.6 | 224.2 | 743.2 | 217 | 6.6 |
Number of particle spikes, particle number concentration (mL−1) at 5 ms and 0.1 ms dwell time for the CuO NP suspension, unspiked and spiked soil extracts. Additionally, the average data for the blank measurements (in Milli-Q) are provided (for 5 ms nblanks = 13 and for 0.1 ms nblanks = 8).
| Sample | 5 ms | 0.1 ms | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NP Spikes | [NP] | µdiss | 7σdiss | NP Spikes | [NP] | µdiss | 7σdiss | |
| min−1 | mL−1 | (counts) | (counts) | min−1 | mL−1 | (counts) | (counts) | |
| 0.9 (±1.0) | 53 (±59) | 2.3 (±0.5) | 9 (±1.8) | 21 (±21) | 1.2 (±1.2) × 103 | 1.1 (±0.01) | 2 (±0.1) | |
| 286 | 1.6 × 104 | 10 | 63 | 816 | 4.7 × 104 | 1 | 5 | |
| 1 | 5.7 × 101 | 577 | 220 | 4 | 2.3 × 102 | 12 | 26 | |
| 8 | 4.6 × 102 | 221 | 135 | 60 | 3.4 × 103 | 4 | 15 | |
| 3 | 1.7 × 102 | 431 | 205 | 30 | 1.7 × 103 | 8 | 22 | |
| 2 | 1.1 × 102 | 460 | 202 | 20 | 1.1 × 103 | 9 | 23 | |
| 20 | 1.1 × 103 | 582 | 245 | 30 | 1.7 × 103 | 12 | 26 | |
| 63 | 3.6 × 103 | 224 | 169 | 192 | 1.1 × 104 | 5 | 16 | |
| 32 | 1.8 × 103 | 528 | 261 | 156 | 8.9 × 103 | 8 | 22 | |
| 42 | 2.4 × 103 | 442 | 229 | 106 | 6.1 × 103 | 9 | 23 | |
Figure 2Raw spICP-MS data of the natural colloidal extracts (black line) and colloidal extracts spiked with engineered nanoparticles (red line) at a dwell time of 5 ms (a) and 0.1 ms (b).
NP concentration (mL1) corrected by subtracting the concentration of false positives (blank) plus three times its standard deviation. CT confidence threshold, BCT = below confidence threshold.
| Sample | 5 ms | 0.1 ms | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPs above CT | [NP] above CT | NPs above CT | [NP] above CT | |
| mL−1 | mL−1 | |||
| CuO NPs | Yes | 1.6 × 104 | Yes | 4.2 × 104 |
| SG (unspiked) | No | BDL | No | BCT |
| LT1 (unspiked) | Yes | 2.3 × 102 | No | BCT |
| PS2 (unspiked) | No | BCT | No | BCT |
| PS3 (unspiked) | No | BCT | No | BCT |
| SG + CuO NPs | Yes | 9.1 × 102 | No | BCT |
| LT1 + CuO NPs | Yes | 3.4 × 103 | Yes | 6.2 × 103 |
| PS2 + CuO NPs | Yes | 1.6 × 103 | Yes | 4.1 × 103 |
| PS3 + CuO NPs | Yes | 2.2 × 103 | Yes | 1.3 × 103 |
Figure 3Raw spICP-MS data of the engineered CuO NPs (with the mean dissolved background subtracted) compared to the level of 7 of the different samples at a dwell time of 5 ms (a) and 0.1 ms (b).