Dynamic light-scattering measurement comparability of nanomaterial suspensions
Source abstract
Abstract
Increased use of nanomaterials in everyday products leads to their environmental release and therefore, the information need on their fate and behaviour. Nanomaterials have to be suspended with high repeatability and comparability for studies on environmental effects. They also have to be well characterised with a focus on the state of agglomeration and particle size distribution. Dynamic lightscattering (DLS) is a common technique used for these measurements. If suspensions are prepared in different laboratories, then concern has risen about the comparability of the measured results, especially when different DLS instruments are used. Therefore, for quality assurance, a round-robin test was conducted to assess the comparability of different DLS instruments and a dispersion protocol in ten independent laboratories. Polystyrene and TiO2 were chosen as test (nano)materials. For the comparability of the DLS instruments, the average sizes of the PSL and a stabilised TiO2 suspension were measured. The measured average hydrodynamic diameter shows an overall good inter-laboratory comparability. For the PSL suspension, an average hydrodynamic diameter of 201 ± 13 nm and for the TiO2 suspension an average diameter of 224 ± 24 nm were detected. For the TiO2 suspension that was prepared at each laboratory following an established suspension preparation protocol, an average hydrodynamic diameter of 211 ± 11 nm was detected. The measured average particle size (mode) increased up to 284 nm with a high standard deviation of 119 nm if the preparation protocol could not established and different procedures or different equipment were employed. This study shows that no significant differences between the employed DLS instrument types were determined. It was also shown that comparable measurements and suspension preparation could be achieved if welldefined suspension preparation protocols and comparable equipment can be used.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Microplastics and Plastic Pollution · Air Quality and Health Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Tech 42:4133–413910.1021/es7032718 ↗
2. Berber S, Tomanek D (2009) Hydrogen-induced disintegration of fullerenes and nanotubes. An ab initio study. Phys Rev B 80(7):75421–7542510.1103/PhysRevB.80.075427 ↗
3. Chen G, Liu X, Su C (2012) Distinct effects of humic acid on transport and retention of TiO2 rutile nanoparticles in saturated sand columns. Environ Sci Tech 46:7142–715010.1021/es204010g ↗
4. Cornelis G, Hund-Rinke K, Kuhlbusch T, Van den Brink N, Nickel C (2014) Fate and bio-availability on engineered nanoparticles in soils: a review, Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol, in press10.1080/10643389.2013.829767 ↗
5. Gartiser S, Nickel C, Stintz M, Damme S, Schaeffer A, Erdinger L, Kuhlbusch TAJ (2014) Behaviour of nanoscale titanium dioxide in laboratory wastewater treatment plants according to OECD 303 A, Chemosphere, in press10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.11.015 ↗
6. Gasser M, Wick P, Clift MJD, Blank F, Diener L, Yan B, Gehr P, Krug HF, Rothen-Rutishauser B (2012) Pulmonary surfactant coating of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) influences their oxidative and pro-inflammatory potential in vitro. Part Fibre Toxicol 9:1710.1186/1743-8977-9-17 ↗
7. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Tech 43(24):9216–922210.1021/es9015553 ↗
8. Hassellöv M, Readman J, Ranville J, Tiede K (2008) Nanoparticle analysis and characterization methodology in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles. Ecotoxicology 17:344–36110.1007/s10646-008-0225-x ↗
9. Hsu LJ, Chein HM (2007) Evaluation of nanoparticle emission for TiO2 nanopowder coating materials. J Nanopart Res 9:157–16310.1007/s11051-006-9185-3 ↗
10. Huang YY, Knowles TPJ, Trentjev EM (2009) Stregth of nanotubes, filaments, and nanowires from sonication-induced scission. Adv Mater 21(38–39):3945–394810.1002/adma.200900498 ↗
11. Kaegi R, Ulrich A, Sinnet B, Vonbank R, Wichser A, Zuleeg S, Simmler H, Brunner S, Vonmont H, Burkhardt M, Boller M (2008) Synthetic TiO2 nanoparticle emission from exterior facades into the aquatic environment. Environ Poll 156:233–23910.1016/j.envpol.2008.08.004 ↗
12. Kaegi R, Sinnet B, Zuleeg S, Hagendirfer H, Mueller A, Vonbanj R, Boller M, Burkhardt M (2010) Release of silver nanoparticles from outdoor facades. Environ Poll 158:2900–290510.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.009 ↗
13. Kaszuba M, McKnight D, Connah MT, McNeil-Watson FK, Nobbmann U (2008) Measuring sub nanometre sizes using dynamic light scattering. J Nanopart Res 10:823–82910.1007/s11051-007-9317-4 ↗
14. Kim H-J, Phenrat T, Tilton RD, Lowry GV (2012) Effect of kaolinite, silica fines and pH on transport of polymer-modified zero valent iron nano-particles in heterogeneous porous media. J Colloid Interface Sci 370:1–1010.1016/j.jcis.2011.12.059 ↗
15. Koppel DE (1972) Analysis of macromolecular polydispersity in intensity correlation spectroscopy: the method of cumulants. J Chem Phys 57(11):4814–482010.1063/1.1678153 ↗
16. Kuhlbusch TAK, Nickel C, Hellack B, Gartiser S, Flach F, Schiwy A, Maes H, Schaeffer A, Erdinger L, Gabsch S, Stintz M (2012) Fate and behaviour of TiO2 nanomaterials in the environment, influenced by their shape, size and surface area, UBA Final Report 25/2012, Environmental Protection Agency, Germany, pp. 163. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4301.pdf
17. Provencher SW (1982) CONTIN. A general purpose constrained regularization program for inverting noisy linear algebraic and integral equations. Comput Phys Commun 27:229–24210.1016/0010-4655(82)90174-6 ↗
18. Roebben G, Ramirez-Garcia S, Hackley VA, Riesslein 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) An interlaboratory comparison of size and surface charge measurements on nanoparticles prior to biological impact assessment. J Nanopart Res 13:2675–268710.1007/s11051-011-0423-y ↗
19. Taurozzi JS, Hackley VA, Wiesner MR (2011) Ultrasonic dispersion of Nanoparticles for environmental, health and safety assessment—issues and recommendations. Nanotoxicology 5(4):711–72910.3109/17435390.2010.528846 ↗
20. von der Kammer F, Ottofuelling S, Hofmann T (2010) Assessment of the physico-chemical behavior of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in aquatic environments using multi-dimensional parameter testing. Environ Pollut 158:3472–348110.1016/j.envpol.2010.05.007 ↗
21. Wang R, Hughes T, Beck S, Vakil S, Li S, Pantano P, Draper RK (2013) Generation of toxic degradation products by sonication of Pluronic® dispersants: implications for nanotoxicity testing. Nanotoxicology 7:1272–128110.3109/17435390.2012.736547 ↗
22. Wise J, Wise JP Sr (2011) A review of the toxicity of chemical dispersants. Rev Environ Health 26(4):281–30010.1515/REVEH.2011.035 ↗
23. Xu R (2000) Particle characterization: light scattering methods. Particle technology series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London