Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (3)
Schlagworte
Organisationseinheit der BAM
The minimum information requirements needed to guarantee high-quality surface Analysis data of nanomaterials are described with the aim to provide reliable and traceable Information about size, shape, elemental composition and surface chemistry for risk assessment approaches.
The widespread surface analysis methods electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) were considered. The complete analysis sequence from sample preparation, over measurements, to data analysis and data format for reporting and archiving is outlined. All selected methods are used in surface analysis since many years so that many aspects of the analysis (including (meta)data formats) are already standardized. As a practical analysis use case, two coated TiO2 reference nanoparticulate samples, which are available on the Joint Research Centre (JRC) repository, were selected. The added value of the complementary analysis is highlighted based on the minimum information requirements, which are well-defined for the analysis methods selected. The present paper is supposed to serve primarily as a source of understanding of the high standardization level already available for the high-quality data in surface analysis of nanomaterials as reliable input for the nanosafety community.
Nanoparticles have gained increasing attention in recent years due to their potential and application in different fields including medicine, cosmetics, chemistry, and their potential to enable advanced materials. To effectively understand and regulate the physico-chemical properties and potential adverse effects of nanoparticles, validated measurement procedures for the various properties of nanoparticles need to be developed. While procedures for measuring nanoparticle size and size Distribution are already established, standardized methods for analysis of their surface chemistry are not yet in place, although the influence of the surface chemistry on nanoparticle properties is undisputed. In particular, storage and preparation of nanoparticles for surface analysis strongly influences the analytical results from various methods, and in order to obtain consistent results, sample preparation must be both optimized and standardized. In this contribution, we present, in detail, some standard procedures for preparing nanoparticles for surface analytics. In principle, nanoparticles can be deposited on a suitable substrate from suspension or as a powder. Silicon (Si) Wafers are commonly used as substrate, however, their cleaning is critical to the process. For sample preparation from suspension, we will discuss drop-casting and spin-coating, where not only the cleanliness of the substrate and purity of the suspension but also its concentration play important roles for the success of the preparation methodology.
For nanoparticles with sensitive ligand shells or coatings, deposition as powders is more suitable, although this method requires particular care in fixing the sample.
Due to the extremely high specific surface area of nanoparticles and corresponding potential for adsorption, the results of surface analysis can be highly dependent on the history of the particles, particularly regarding sample preparation and storage. The sample preparation method has, therefore, the potential to have a significant influence on the results. This report describes an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) with the aim of assessing which sample preparation methods for ToF-SIMS analysis of nanoparticles provided the most intra- and interlaboratory consistency and the least amount of sample contamination. The BAM reference material BAM-P110 (TiO2 nanoparticles with a mean Feret diameter of 19 nm) was used as a sample representing typical nanoparticles. A total of 11 participants returned ToF-SIMS data,in positive and (optionally) negative polarity, using sample preparation methods of “stick-and-go” as well as optionally “drop-dry” and “spin-coat.” The results showed that the largest sources of variation within the entire data set were caused by adventitious hydrocarbon contamination or insufficient sample coverage, with the spin-coating protocol applied in this ILC showing a tendency toward insufficient sample coverage; the sample preparation method or the participant had a lesser influence on results.