Comparison of nanoparticles’ characteristic parameters derived from SEM and SMPS analyses
Source abstract
Abstract
The aim of this study is to determine the usability of electron microscopy to assess the inhalation exposure and extract morphological information otherwise unobtainable. Generated graphite particles in the size range of 20–150 nm were used as test aerosol and were analyzed by scanning mobility particle spectrometer and collected on membrane filters for scanning electron microscopy analysis. Observations revealed large discrepancies between electromobility diameter and diameter obtained from SEM analysis, as well as changes in particles’ morphology. Particles have been quantitatively analyzed and grouped based on their morphological parameters such as solidity and circularity. This proves the feasibility of electron microscopy a complementary technique to real-time spectroscopy measurements, as it allows the identification of nano-objects with a detailed stereological description.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Air Quality and Health Impacts · Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting · Inhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Asbach C et al (2017) Review of measurement techniques and methods for assessing personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials in workplaces. Sci Total Environ 603–604:793–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.04910.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.049 ↗
2. Asbach C et al (2017) On the effect of wearing personal nanoparticle monitors on the comparability of personal exposure measurements. Environ Sci Nano 4(1):233–243. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6en00362a10.1039/c6en00362a ↗
3. Boccuni F, Gagliardi D, Ferrante R, Rondinone BM, Iavicoli S (2017) Measurement techniques of exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace for low- and medium-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Hyg Environ Health 220(7):1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.06.00310.1016/j.ijheh.2017.06.003 ↗
4. Brostrøm A, Kling KI, Koponen IK, Hougaard KS, Kandler K, Mølhave K (2019) Improving the foundation for particulate matter risk assessment by individual nanoparticle statistics from electron microscopy analysis. Sci Rep 9(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44495-710.1038/s41598-019-44495-7 ↗
5. Chen BT et al (2016) Performance of a scanning mobility particle sizer in measuring diverse types of airborne nanoparticles: multi-walled carbon nanotubes, welding fumes, and titanium dioxide spray. J Occup Environ Hyg 13(7):501–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2016.114826710.1080/15459624.2016.1148267 ↗
6. Chen C, Bai H, Chein HM, Chen TM (2007) Continuous generation of tio2 nanoparticles by an atmospheric pressure plasma-enhanced process. Aerosol Sci Technol 41(11):1018–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278682070169435510.1080/02786820701694355 ↗
7. DeCarlo PF, Slowik JG, Worsnop DR, Davidovits P, Jimenez JL (2004) Particle morphology and density characterization by combined mobility and aerodynamic diameter measurements. Part 1: Theory. Aerosol Sci Technol 38(12):1185–1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829090390710.1080/027868290903907 ↗
8. Fanti G et al 2021 Features and practicability of the next-generation sensors and monitors for exposure assessment to airborne pollutants: a systematic review, Sensors 21 13 https://doi.org/10.3390/s2113451310.3390/s21134513 ↗
9. Ghomrasni NB, Chivas-Joly C, Devoille L, Hochepied JF, Feltin N (2020) Challenges in sample preparation for measuring nanoparticles size by scanning electron microscopy from suspensions, powder form and complex media. Powder Technol 359:226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.10.02210.1016/j.powtec.2019.10.022 ↗
10. Gosens I et al (2010) Impact of agglomeration state of nano- and submicron sized gold particles on pulmonary inflammation. Part Fibre Toxicol 7(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-7-3710.1186/1743-8977-7-37 ↗
11. Grob B, Wolf JC, Kiwull B, Niessner R (2014) Calibration system with an indirect photoelectric charger for legislated vehicle number emission measurement counters in the single counting mode. J Aerosol Sci 70:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2014.01.00110.1016/j.jaerosci.2014.01.001 ↗
12. Ham S et al (2015) Comparison of nanoparticle exposure levels based on facility type—small-scale laboratories, large-scale manufacturing workplaces, and unintended nanoparticle-emitting workplaces. Aerosol Air Qual Res 15(5):1967–1978. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2015.03.014110.4209/aaqr.2015.03.0141 ↗
13. Iavicoli I, Fontana L, Pingue P, Todea AM, Asbach C (2018) Assessment of occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials in research laboratories using personal monitors. Sci Total Environ 627:689–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.26010.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.260 ↗
14. Kopanja L, Lončar B, Žunić D, Tadić M (2019) Nanoparticle shapes: quantification by elongation, convexity and circularity measures. J Electr Eng 70(7):44–50. https://doi.org/10.2478/jee-2019-004010.2478/jee-2019-0040 ↗
15. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Asbach C, Fissan H, Göhler D, Stintz M (2011) Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: a review. Part Fibre Toxicol 8(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-8-2210.1186/1743-8977-8-22 ↗
16. Lee JH, Moon MC, Lee JY, Yu IJ (2013) Challenges and perspectives of nanoparticle exposure assessment. Toxicol Res 26(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2010.26.2.09510.5487/TR.2010.26.2.095 ↗
17. Lim C-H, Kang M, Han J-H, Yang J-S (2012) Effect of agglomeration on the toxicity of nano-sized carbon black in Sprague-Dawley rats. Environ Health Toxicol 27:e2012015. https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.2012.27.e201201510.5620/eht.2012.27.e2012015 ↗
18. Meuller BO et al (2012) Review of spark discharge generators for production of nanoparticle aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol 46(11):1256–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2012.70544810.1080/02786826.2012.705448 ↗
19. Murugadoss S et al (2020) Agglomeration of titanium dioxide nanoparticles increases toxicological responses in vitro and in vivo. Part Fibre Toxicol 17(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00341-710.1186/s12989-020-00341-7 ↗
20. Ogura I, Kotake M, Sakurai H, Honda K (2016) Surface-collection efficiency of Nuclepore filters for nanoparticles. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(8):846–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.120000710.1080/02786826.2016.1200007 ↗
21. Orihuela MP, Haralampous O, Chacartegui R, Torres García M, Martínez-Fernández J (2019) Numerical simulation of a wall-flow particulate filter made of biomorphic silicon carbide able to fit different fuel/biofuel inputs. Processes 7(12):945. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr712094510.3390/pr7120945 ↗
22. Pandey A, Chakrabarty RK, Liu L, Mishchenko MI (2015) Empirical relationships between optical properties and equivalent diameters of fractal soot aggregates at 550 nm wavelength. Opt Express 23(24):A1354. https://doi.org/10.1364/oe.23.0a135410.1364/oe.23.0a1354 ↗
23. Park JY, Ramachandran G, Raynor PC, Eberly LE, Olson G (2010) Comparing exposure zones by different exposure metrics using statistical parameters: contrast and precision. Ann Occup Hyg 54(7):799–812. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq04310.1093/annhyg/meq043 ↗
24. Roth C et al (2004) Generation of Ultrafine Particles by Spark Discharging. Aerosol Sci Technol 38(3):228–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278682049024763210.1080/02786820490247632 ↗
25. Rühle B, Krumrey JF, Hodoroaba VD (2021) Workflow towards automated segmentation of agglomerated, non-spherical particles from electron microscopy images using artificial neural networks. Sci Rep 11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84287-610.1038/s41598-021-84287-6 ↗
26. Schindelin J et al (2012) Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):676–682. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.201910.1038/nmeth.2019 ↗
27. Schmid O, Stoeger T (2016) Surface area is the biologically most effective dose metric for acute nanoparticle toxicity in the lung. J Aerosol Sci 99:133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.12.00610.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.12.006 ↗
28. Shapiro M et al (2012) Characterization of agglomerates by simultaneous measurement of mobility, vacuum aerodynamic diameter and mass. J Aerosol Sci 44:24–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2011.08.00410.1016/j.jaerosci.2011.08.004 ↗
29. Todea AM et al (2017) Inter-comparison of personal monitors for nanoparticles exposure at workplaces and in the environment. Sci Total Environ 605–606(June):929–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.04110.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.041 ↗
30. Wohlleben W, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Schnekenburger J, Lehr CM (2014) Safety of nanomaterials along their lifecycle: release, exposure, and human hazards; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA10.1201/b17774 ↗