Interlaboratory comparison of size measurements on nanoparticles using nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA)
Source abstract
Abstract
One of the key challenges in the field of nanoparticle (NP) analysis is in producing reliable and reproducible characterisation data for nanomaterials. This study looks at the reproducibility using a relatively new, but rapidly adopted, technique, Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) on a range of particle sizes and materials in several different media. It describes the protocol development and presents both the data and analysis of results obtained from 12 laboratories, mostly based in Europe, who are primarily QualityNano members. QualityNano is an EU FP7 funded Research Infrastructure that integrates 28 European analytical and experimental facilities in nanotechnology, medicine and natural sciences with the goal of developing and implementing best practice and quality in all aspects of nanosafety assessment. This study looks at both the development of the protocol and how this leads to highly reproducible results amongst participants. In this study, the parameter being measured is the modal particle size.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Gold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications · Analytical chemistry methods development
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. ASTM (2012) ASTM E2834-12 Standard guide for measurement of particle size distribution of nanomaterials in suspension by nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/E2834-1210.1520/E2834-12 ↗
2. Casals E, Pfaller T, Duschl A, Oostingh G, Puntes V (2010) Time evolution of the nanoparticle protein corona. ACS Nano 4(7):3623–3632. doi: 10.1021/nn901372t10.1021/nn901372t ↗
3. Cedervall T, Lynch I, Lindman S, Berggård T, Thulin E, Nilsson H, Dawson K, Linse S (2007) Understanding the nanoparticle–protein corona using methods to quantify exchange rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(7):2050–2055. doi: 10.1073/pnas.060858210410.1073/pnas.0608582104 ↗
4. De Jong W, Borm P (2008) Drug delivery and nanoparticles: applications and hazards. Int J Nanomed 3(2):133–14910.2147/IJN.S596 ↗
5. Elsaesser A, Howard CV (2012) Toxicology of nanoparticles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64(2):129–137. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2011.09.00110.1016/j.addr.2011.09.001 ↗
6. Filipe V, Hawe A, Jiskoot W (2010) Critical evaluation of nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) by NanoSight for the measurement of nanoparticles and protein aggregates. Pharm Res 27(5):796–810. doi: 10.1007/s11095-010-0073-210.1007/s11095-010-0073-2 ↗
7. Frisken B (2001) Revisiting the method of cumulants for the analysis of dynamic light-scattering data. Appl Opt 40(24):4087–409110.1364/AO.40.004087 ↗
8. Fritz H, Maier M, Bayer E (1997) Cationic polystyrene nanoparticles: preparation and characterization of a model drug carrier system for antisense oligonucleotides. J Colloid Interface Sci 195(2):272–288. doi: 10.1006/jcis.1997.517210.1006/jcis.1997.5172 ↗
9. Gaumet M, Vargas A, Gurny R, Delie F (2008) Nanoparticles for drug delivery: the need for precision in reporting particle size parameters. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 69(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2007.08.00110.1016/j.ejpb.2007.08.001 ↗
10. Greish K, Thiagarajan G, Herd H, Price R, Bauer H, Hubbard D, Burckle A, Sadekar S, Yu T, Anwar A, Ray A, Ghandehari H (2012) Size and surface charge significantly influence the toxicity of silica and dendritic nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 6(7):713–723. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2011.60444210.3109/17435390.2011.604442 ↗
11. Hanna S, Miller R, Muller E, Nisbet R, Lenihan H (2013) Impact of engineered zinc oxide nanoparticles on the individual performance of Mytilus galloprovincialis. PLoS One 8(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.006180010.1371/journal.pone.0061800 ↗
12. Hassellöv M, Readman J, Ranville J, Tiede K (2008) Nanoparticle analysis and characterization methodologies in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17(5):344–361. doi: 10.1007/s10646-008-0225-x10.1007/s10646-008-0225-x ↗
13. ISO (1994) ISO 5725-2: 1994: Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 2. Methods for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility. International Organization for Standardization
14. ISO (1998) ISO 5725-5: 1998, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 5. Alternative methods for the determination of the precision of a standard measurement method. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
15. ISO (2013) Resolution 254 of the ISO TC24 Plenary meeting, April 2013, Germany
16. JGCM 100 (2008) Evaluation of measurement data: guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf
17. Jiang W, Kim B, Rutka J, Chan W (2008) Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol 3(3):145–150. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.3010.1038/nnano.2008.30 ↗
18. Kim D, Jeong YY, Jon S (2010) A drug-loaded aptamer-gold nanoparticle bioconjugate for combined CT imaging and therapy of prostate cancer. ACS Nano 4(7):3689–3696. doi: 10.1021/nn901877h10.1021/nn901877h ↗
19. Lin Y-S, Haynes C (2010) Impacts of mesoporous silica nanoparticle size, pore ordering, and pore integrity on hemolytic activity. J Am Chem Soc 132(13):4834–4842. doi: 10.1021/ja910846q10.1021/ja910846q ↗
20. Lison D, Huaux F (2011) In vitro studies: ups and downs of cellular uptake. Nat Nanotechnol 6(6):332–33310.1038/nnano.2011.81 ↗
21. Mohamed BM, Verma NK, Davies AM, McGowan A, Crosbie-Staunton K, Prina-Mello A, Kelleher D, Botting CH, Causey CP, Thompson PR, Pruijn GJM, Kisin ER, Tkach AV, Shvedova AA, Volkov Y (2012) Citrullination of proteins: a common post-translational modification pathway induced by different nanoparticles in vitro and in vivo. Nanomedicine 7(8):1181–1195. doi: 10.2217/nnm.11.17710.2217/nnm.11.177 ↗
22. Montes-Burgos I, Warczak D, Hole P, Smith J, Lynch I, Dawson K (2010) Characterisation of nanoparticle size and state prior to nanotoxicological studies. J Nanopart Res 12(1):47–53. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9774-z10.1007/s11051-009-9774-z ↗
23. Nel AE, Madler L, Velegol D, Xia T, Hoek EMV, Somasundaran P, Klaessig F, Castranova V, Thompson M (2009) Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat Mater 8(7):543–55710.1038/nmat2442 ↗
24. OECD (2009) Guidance manual for the testing of manufactured nanomaterials: OECD sponsorship programme: first revision. OECD environment, health and safety publications series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials, 25th edn. Paris
25. Prina-Mello A, Crosbie-Staunton K, Salas G, del Puerto Morales M, Volkov Y (2013) Multiparametric toxicity evaluation of SPIONs by high content screening technique: identification of biocompatible multifunctional nanoparticles for nanomedicine. Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on 49(1):377–382. doi: 10.1109/tmag.2012.222502410.1109/TMAG.2012.2225024 ↗
26. Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. J Nanopart Res 13(2):427–445. doi: 10.1007/s11051-010-0192-z10.1007/s11051-010-0192-z ↗
27. Roebben G, Ramirez-Garcia S, Hackley VA, Roesslein M, Klaessig F, Kestens V, Lynch I, Garner CM, Rawle A, Elder A, Colvin VL, Kreyling W, Krug HF, Lewicka ZA, McNeil S, Nel A, Patri A, Wick P, Wiesner M, Xia T, Oberdörster G, Dawson KA (2011) Interlaboratory comparison of size and surface charge measurements on nanoparticles prior to biological impact assessment. J Nanopart Res 13(7):2675–2687. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0423-y10.1007/s11051-011-0423-y ↗
28. Salvati A, Pitek AS, Monopoli MP, Prapainop K, Bombelli FB, Hristov DR, Kelly PM, Aberg C, Mahon E, Dawson KA (2013) Transferrin-functionalized nanoparticles lose their targeting capabilities when a biomolecule corona adsorbs on the surface. Nat Nanotechnol 8(2):137–143. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2012.23710.1038/nnano.2012.237 ↗
29. Schrurs F, Lison D (2012) Focusing the research efforts. Nat Nanotechnol 7(9):546–548. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2012.14810.1038/nnano.2012.148 ↗
30. Tenzer S, Docter D, Rosfa S, Wlodarski A, Kuharev J, Rekik A, Knauer SK, Bantz C, Nawroth T, Bier C, Sirirattanapan J, Mann W, Treuel L, Zellner R, Maskos M, Schild H, Stauber RH (2011) Nanoparticle size is a critical physicochemical determinant of the human blood plasma corona: a comprehensive quantitative proteomic analysis. ACS Nano 5(9):7155–7167. doi: 10.1021/nn201950e10.1021/nn201950e ↗
31. Tiede K, Hassellöv M, Breitbarth E, Chaudhry Q, Boxall ABA (2009) Considerations for environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing to support environmental risk assessments for engineered nanoparticles. J Chromatogr A 1216(3):503–509. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.09.00810.1016/j.chroma.2008.09.008 ↗
32. Tong L, Wei Q, Wei A, Cheng J-X (2009) Gold nanorods as contrast agents for biological imaging: optical properties, surface conjugation and photothermal effects. Photochem Photobiol 85(1):21–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2008.00507.x10.1111/j.1751-1097.2008.00507.x ↗
33. Tsao TM, Chen YM, Wang MK (2011) Origin, separation and identification of environmental nanoparticles: a review. J Environ Monit 13(5):1156–1163. doi: 10.1039/c1em10013k10.1039/c1em10013k ↗
34. Warheit DB (2008) How meaningful are the results of nanotoxicity studies in the absence of adequate material characterization? Toxicol Sci 101(2):183–185. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm27910.1093/toxsci/kfm279 ↗