Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (3)
- Vortrag (3)
- Posterpräsentation (2)
- Forschungsdatensatz (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (9)
Schlagworte
- Data (9) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (3)
Nanomaterials bring various benefits and have become a part of our daily lives. However, the risks emerging from nanotechnology need to be minimized and controlled at the regulatory level and therefore, there is a need for nanorisk governance. One of the prerequisites for successful nanorisk governance is the availability of high-quality data on nanomaterials and their impact with the human body and the environment. In recent decades, a countless number of publications and studies on nanomaterials and their properties have been produced due to the fast development of nanotechnology. Despite such a vast amount of data and information, there are certain knowledge gaps hindering an efficient nanorisk governance process. Knowing the state of the available data and information is an important requirement for any decision maker in dealing with risks. In the specific case of nanotechnology, where most of the risks are complex, ambiguous, and uncertain in nature, it is essential to obtain complete data and metadata, to fill knowledge gaps, and to transform the available knowledge into functional knowledge. This can become possible using a novel approach developed within the NANORIGO project (Grant agreement No. 814530) – the Knowledge Readiness Level (KaRL). In analogy to NASA’s Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), we define KaRLs as a categorization system of data, information, and knowledge which enables transformation of data and information into functional knowledge for nanorisk governance. Our approach goes beyond the technical curation of data and metadata and involves quality and completeness filters, regulatory compliance requirements, nanorisk-related tools, and most importantly, human input (inclusion of all stakeholder groups). With the KaRL approach we also address key issues in nanotechnology such as societal and ethical concerns, circular economies and sustainability, the Green Deal, and the traceability of data, knowledge, and decisions. The KaRL approach could be used for nanorisk governance by a nanorisk governance council (NRGC), which is currently under development by three EU projects (NANORIGO, GOV4NANO, and RISKGONE).
Microbeam analysis data are of continuously improving quality, this owing mainly to developments in instrumentation (hardware and software) and computer performance. The knowledge and skills of the operators must be also kept correspondingly updated. To be deemed as technically competent, the laboratories must be accredited according to an accreditation scheme, mostly following ISO/IEC 17025.
International standards are able to provide requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics of methods, instruments or samples with the final goal that these can be used consistently in accredited laboratories. In the field of electron microscopy and microbeam Analysis standardisation and metrology are terms that are encountered rather seldom at major conferences and scientific publications. Several ISO standards already published and used successfully by a large part of the electron microscopy and microbeam analysis community. For example, file formats such as EMSA/MSA for spectral-data exchange or tagged image file format (TIFF) for SEM images; procedures for the specification of X-ray spectrometers, the specification of certified reference materials (CRMs), and for measurement of average grain size by electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD); and guidelines for calibrating image magnification in SEM or TEM. A main task of ISO technical committee TC 202 ‘Microbeam Analysis’ is to identify feasible projects/proposals needed to be developed into new international standards, particularly in respect to recent technology, such the silicon drift detector (SDD).
As far as the metrological aspects are regarded, The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) through the Consultative Committee for the Amount of Substance (CCQM) is concerned with the metrological aspect in Chemistry and Biology. In particular, the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) assists in identifying and establishing inter-laboratory work to test the consistency as well as to improve the traceability of spatially resolved chemical surface analysis at the micro and nanoscale. Examples of recent projects on quantitative microbeam analysis at low energies, such as the quantification of light elements such as carbon and nitrogen will be presented.
The significant sources of measurement uncertainty will be emphasized. These are: quality of the unknown and the reference materials used, the quantification model, instrumental parameters like take-off-angle, spectrometer efficiency, and particularly the beam current. The crucial importance of working with uniform and well-defined measurement and data evaluation protocols will be discussed in compliance with the ISO document “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM)”.
Another international platform where pre-standardisation work can be organised is VAMAS (Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards). International collaborative Projects aim at providing the technical basis for harmonised measurements, testing, specifications, and standards to be further developed at ISO level. One key point of VAMAS activities is constituted by inter-laboratory comparisons for high-quality data. In the field of microbeam analysis, the technical working area (TWA) 37 Quantitative Microstructural Analysis deals with corresponding projects. Good ideas, e.g., on analysis at low energies, are particularly encouraged by directly contacting the author. Support and guidance will be supplied.
There are different ways how to prove the quality of the analytical results obtained in a laboratory, e.g. use of validated standard operation procedures, participation in proficiency testing exercises, use of certified reference materials, etc. International standards provide requirements, specifications, Guidelines or characteristics of methods, instruments or samples with the final goal that these can be used consistently in accredited laboratories. In the field of electron microscopy and microbeam analysis standardization and metrology are terms which are encountered rather seldom at major conferences and scientific publications. Nevertheless, spectra formats like EMSA/MSA for spectral-data exchange or tagged image file format (TIFF) for SEM, guidelines for performing quality assurance procedures or for the specification of X-ray spectrometers as well as of certified reference materials (CRMs) in EPMA, or measurement of average grain size by electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), or guidelines for calibrating image magnification in SEM or TEM are ISO standards already published and used successfully by a large part of the electron microscopy and microbeam analysis community. A main and continuous task of ISO/TC 202 and its subcommittees is to identify and evaluate feasible projects/proposals to be developed into new international standards, particularly with respect to recent but established technology, such the silicon drift detector (SDD) EDS.
An international platform in the frame of which pre-standardization work can be organized is VAMAS (Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards). International collaborative projects involving aim at providing the technical basis for harmonized measurements, testing, specifications, and standards to be further developed at ISO level. One key point of VAMAS activities is constituted by inter-laboratory comparisons for high-quality data. In the field of microbeam analysis, the technical working area (TWA) 37 Quantitative Microstructural Analysis deals with corresponding projects. Good ideas, e.g. on analysis of low-Z materials/elements and at low energies are particularly encouraged by directly contacting the author. Support and already available guidance will be supplied.
Regulatory decisions require reliable data and knowledge derived from this. Among stakeholders in nanotechnology, however, there is often uncertainty about the quality of data for regulatory purposes. In addition, the general public often finds itself excluded from nanoregulation and policy decisions. This creates uncertainty in the nanotechnology field and also in other branches of technology and leads to concerns among the society.
To address these issues, NANORIGO elaborates a framework to support decision making as well as data, information and knowledge sharing and use. We refer to “reliability” of data and knowledge as a degree of readiness or maturity. According to these criteria we worked out a 9-level scale in analogy to TRL (technology readiness level), the KaRL system (Knowledge, Data and Information Readiness Level). KaRL allows assessment of knowledge readiness for decision making by applying defined quality criteria for each level. It also provides guidance on how to enhance the readiness level by the help of available tools and procedures. KaRL addresses SEIN[1] principles, circular economy and thus involves the public concerns in regulation. A specialized nanorisk governance council (being under development in NANORIGO) is suggested to perform quality check of an actionable document, thus, aiding in consensus on the reliability (maturity) of knowledge for decision making. Moreover, KaRL facilitates traceability of knowledge before its use in decision making. This enables the transparency demanded by all stakeholders.
Nanomaterials may have brought many beneficial innovations with them in our daily lives and and have become indispensable for the society. However, one needs to be concerned of the risks which are still unknown and not sufficietly studied and therefore there is a need for a nanorisk governance. At the core of nanorisk governance is gathering, processing and analysing reliable data which will be used for decision making. The challenge is to assure data reliability and transform it into knowledge. To address this challenge, we used analogy to technology readiness level (TRL) approach (developed by NASA), and elaborated knowledge readiness level (KaRL). KaRL is a nine-scale system to categorize data and knowledge (documents) into levels of readiness for particular purposes and to enhance readiness level by using quality and completeness filters, compliance requirements, nanorisk-related tools, stakeholders’ input. By our approach we addressed key issues in nanotechnology such as societal and ethical concerns, circular economy and sustainability, traceability of data, knowledge and decisions.
The community-driven initiative Quality Assessment and Reproducibility for Instruments & Images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) wants to improve reproducibility for light microscopy image data through Quality control (QC) management of instruments and images. It aims for a common set of QC guidelines for Hardware calibration and image acquisition, management and analysis.
A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated, quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist’s experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments1. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique2,3. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g., DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE4), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common Standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility5.
In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative6 was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models7,8, and tools9,10, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research.
This White Paper 1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; 2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of Stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists11, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, Funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and observers of such; 3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREPLiMi initiative, and 4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC.
To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.
Test artifact for fs-LDW
(2023)