Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (4)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (3)
- Sonstiges (2)
- Posterpräsentation (2)
- Zeitschriftenartikel (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
Schlagworte
- Nano (10)
- OECD (8)
- Nanomaterial (6)
- Prüfrichtlinie (5)
- Guideline (3)
- Nanoparticle (3)
- Test guideline (3)
- Nano particle (2)
- Nanofasern (2)
- Nanopartikel (2)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (4)
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 light-scattering (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 well-defined suspension preparation protocols and comparable equipment can be used.
The particle size distribution is considered the most relevant information for nanoscale property identification and material characterization. The current OECD test guideline on particle size and size distribution (TG 110) is not applicable to ‘nano-sized’ objects. In this project we thus develop a new OECD test guideline for the measurement of the size and size distribution of particles and fibers with at least one dimension in the range of 1 - 1000 nm. A fiber is defined as an object having an aspect ratio of length/diameter l/d >3. The width and length of each fiber should be measured concurrently.
In order to measure the particle size distributions, many techniques are available. 9 methods for particles and 2 methods for fibres have been tested in a prevalidation study and appropriate methods will be compared in an interlaboratory round robin test starting in February 2019.
The particle size distribution is considered the most relevant information for nanoscale property identification and material characterization. The current OECD test guideline on particle size and size distribution (TG 110) is not applicable to ‘nano-sized’ objects. In this project we thus develop a new OECD test guideline for the measurement of the size and size distribution of particles and fibers with at least one dimension in the range of 1 - 1000 nm. A fiber is defined as an object having an aspect ratio of length/diameter l/d >3. The width and length of each fiber should be measured concurrently.
In order to measure the particle size distributions, many techniques are available. 9 methods for particles and 2 methods for fibres have been tested in a prevalidation study and appropriate methods will be compared in an interlaboratory round robin test starting in February 2019.
The properties of nanomaterials are influenced not only by their chemical composition but also by physical properties (such as size, geometry and crystal structure). For the reliable determination and assessment of behaviour and effects of nanomaterials as well as for the determination of the exposure of humans and environment a comprehensive physical-chemical characterization of nanomaterials is essential. This is an important prerequisite to identify them as nanomaterials and to interpret and compare test results and - in future – to forecast interaction and effects of nanomaterials.
In 2006, the OECD launched a sponsorship program for the testing of nanomaterials in which 11 nanomaterials were thoroughly investigated using a variety of methods. The aim of the project was, among other things, to find out where problems occur and where there are gaps in the measurement and test procedures and where are changes required. An important outcome of the sponsorship program was the finding that the OECD Test Guidelines should in several cases be extended to the specific needs in testing of nanomaterials. The existing standardized test methods of the OECD for physical-chemical characterization have not been developed for nanomaterials in particular. A high demand for an extension of the test guidelines was identified. Germany complied with the OECD's request in 2017 and has agreed to extend the “Test Guideline on Particle Size Distribution / Fiber Length and Diameter Distributions Test Guideline” for Manufactured Nanomaterials (MN). UBA commissioned BAM and BAuA with the preparation of the Test Guideline. The aim of the project is the development of a harmonized test protocol for a valid and reproducible determination of particle size and size distribution which is one of the most relevant physical-chemical properties for MNs.
Different measuring methods provide different results for the size distribution of the particles. This is caused by the different measuring principles of the methods. Each method measures a specific parameter that ultimately determines particle size. First, the measured quantity differs for each method (Scattered light intensity, 2D image / projection, electric mobility, etc.). Second, the calculated diameters of the MN may differ (Feret Diameter, Area Projection, Mobility Diameter, Aerodynamic Diameter, Hydrodynamic Diameter). Third, a measuring method provides a size distribution which is measured either mass-based, surface-based or number-based. A conversion between the results requires additional parameters and thus possibly increases the measurement error.
In addition to the technical differences, the individual parameters are strongly influenced by the structure and material of the nanoparticles. For example, a surface functionalization can lead to very different results in the size distribution. The suitability of measurement methods differs with the material of the MN. As a result, two very different results can be measured for the particle size distribution using two different methods, which are nevertheless both correct. Several large projects in recent years therefore concluded that nanomaterials should be characterized by at least two complementary method. Imaging techniques are regarded as one of these methods for the characterization, the complementary methods are supposed to be statistical methods.
The different results for the size distribution of nanomaterials become problematic for the registration of new MN. A comparable and reproducible size distribution is a prerequisite for a standardized registration. In the future, the particle size distribution in the EU will also decide on the classification of a substance as a nanomaterial or as a non-nanomaterial. Especially in borderline cases, a standardized and comparable measurement methodology is therefore essential.
The new OECD test guideline will address the following four main steps in the determination of the length and width distributions of fibers: sample preparation, image acquisition, data evaluation and uncertainty analysis. As the sample preparation has to be optimized for each material, general quality criteria will be given in the protocol. For full visibility of a fiber the appropriate resolution has to be chosen. In the data evaluation the length and diameter of each fiber will be determined concurrently to allow for application of different regulatory definitions. The quality of the results critically depends on the sample preparation as well as the data evaluation. In this step the classification rules have to be formulated and followed accurately in order to optimize reproducibility of the method. The SOP will be validated in an international round robin test, which is planned for 2018/2019.
The OECD test guidelines (TGs) for testing chemicals have been widely used for regulatory purposes all over the world since the establishment of the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) principle in 1984. This MAD principle ensures that, if a chemical is tested under the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) conditions accordingly to an OECD TG, the data should be accepted in all OECD countries. The TGs have been developed, harmonized, internationally validated (round robin tests) and adopted by OECD countries to be used for the physical-chemical characterisation, fate estimation, and hazard identification for risk assessment of various chemicals. In addition to the TGs, OECD Guidance Documents (GDs) usually provide guidance on how to use TGs and how to interpret the results. These GDs do not have to be fully experimentally validated, and hence they are not under MAD, but they are based on relevant published scientific research.
But are the existing TGs and the related GDs applicable and adequate for the regulatory testing of nanomaterials? In general, for nanomaterials it is accepted that most of the "endpoints" or more precisely measurement variables are applicable. However, for some endpoints new or amended TGs are needed. In addition, several GDs are needed to give more precise advice on the test performance in order to gain regulatory relevant data on nanomaterials.
In this research project, a new OECD Test Guideline (TG) for the determination of “Particle Size and Particle Size Distributions of Nanomaterials” was developed as the existing OECD TG 110 is considered to be outdated in terms of applicable size range (not covering sizes <200 nm) and methods. By its scope with an applicable size range from 1 to 1000 nm the new Test Guideline (TG PSD) covers the whole nanoscale. The TG PSD is applicable for particulate and fibrous nanomaterials. The prescribed, pairwise measurement of fibre diameter and length in the TG PSD allows for the first time to differen-tiate fibres with regard to their size-dependent hazard properties. Measurement instructions for each included method were validated within two separated interlaboratory comparisons, as a distinction between near spherical particles and fibres when applying the methods has to be made.
Besides information on content and structure of the TG PSD, this final report outlines essential steps, considerations and organisational aspects during the development of the TG. Insights into the selec-tion, preparation and prevalidation of test materials used in the interlaboratory comparison are given. Finally, main results of the interlaboratory comparisons and their impacts on the TG PSD are pre-sented.
Vorstellung der Ergebnisse bei der Entwicklung einer neuen OECD Prüfrichtlinie zur Bestimmung der Partikelgröße und Anzahlgrößenverteilung von Nanomaterialien. (Projektteil Fasern.)
Ergebnisse:
Abweichungen zwischen SEM and TEM insbesondere bei langen Fasern
Die Anwendung von TEM auf kurze Fasern < 5 µm beschränkt
Für SEM wurde keine signifikante Abhängigkeit der Bestimmung der Faserdurchmesser von der Pixelgröße der Aufnahmen festgestellt
Für TEM wurde eine Abhängigkeit der Bestimmung der Faserdurchmesser von der Pixelgröße festgestellt
Der Einfluss der Bildauswertenden auf die Varianz der Ergebnisse ist klein im Vergleich zu der gesamten Varianz.
Nanofasern können mit TEM und SEM bestimmt werden!