Currently established and projected regulatory frameworks require the classification of materials (whether nano or non-nano) as specified by respective definitions, most of which are based on the size of the constituent particles. This brings up the question if currently available techniques for particle size determination are capable of reliably classifying materials that potentially fall under these definitions.
In this study, a wide variety of characterisation techniques, including counting, fractionating, and spectroscopic techniques, has been applied to the same set of materials under harmonised conditions.
The selected materials comprised well-defined Quality control materials (spherical, monodisperse) as well as industrial materials of complex shapes and considerable polydispersity. As a result, each technique could be evaluated with respect to the determination of the number-weighted median size. Recommendations on the most appropriate and efficient use of techniques for different types of material are given.
Evaluation of electron microscopy techniques for the purpose of classification of nanomaterials
(2016)
Electron microscopy techniques such as TEM, STEM, SEM or TSEM (transmission in SEM) are capable of assessing the size of individual nanoparticles accurately. Nevertheless, the challenging aspect is sample preparation from powder or liquid form on the substrate, so that a
homogeneous distribution of well-separated (deagglomerated) particles is attained. The systematic study in this work shows examples where the extraction of the critical, smallest particle dimension - as the decisive particle parameter for the classification as a NM - is possible by analysing the sample after ist simple, dry preparation. The consequences of additional typical issues like loss of information due to screening of smaller particles by larger ones or the (in)ability to access the constituent particles in aggregates are discussed.
The content of the paper is the assessment of the performance of (conventional) measurement techniques (MTs)with respect to the classification of disperse materials according to the EC recommendation for a definition of nanomaterial. This performance essentially refers to the accurate assessment of the number weighted median of (the constituent) particles. All data and conclusions are based on the analytical study conducted as real-world performance testing.
It comprised different types of MTs (imaging, counting, fractionating, spectroscopic and integral) as well as different types of materials. Beside reference materials with well-defined size distribution the study also included several commercial powders (variation of particle composition, morphology, coating, size range and polydispersity). In order to ensure comparability of measurement results, the participants were guided to use uniform protocols in sample preparation, conducting measurements, data analysis and in reporting results. Corresponding documents have been made public, in order to support the reviewing process of the paper, respectively to ensure the reproducibility of data by other users under the same conditions.
The scientific paper relies on a comprehensive set of revised measurement data reported in uniform templates, completely describes the experimental procedures and discusses the MTs’ performance for selected materials in detail. Even more, the study is summarised and evaluated, which leads to recommendations for the use of MTs within a tiered approach of NM characterisation. In addition, the paper critically examines the factors that may affect the outcome of such a comparison among different MTs.
Evaluation of electron microscopy techniques for the purpose of classification of nanomaterials
(2016)
One current and much-debated topic in the characterization of nanomaterials (NM) is the implementation of the recently introduced recommendation on a definition of a nanomaterial by the European Commission.
All currently available sizing techniques able to address nanoparticles were systematically evaluated. It was demonstrated that particle sizing techniques like: analytical centrifugation, particle tracking analysis, single-particle inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrometry, differential electrical mobility analysis, dynamic light scattering, small angle X-ray scattering, ultrasonic attenuation spectrometry, but also gas Adsorption analysis based on the BET-method can be applied for a screening classification. However, the quality of the results depends on the individual material to be classified. For well-dispersed, nearly spherical (nano)particles most of the sizing techniques can be applied in a quick and reliable way. In contrast, the classification of most real-world materials is a challenging task, mainly due to non-spherical particle shape, large polydispersity or strong agglomeration/ aggregation of the particles. In the present study it was shown that these issues can be resolved in most cases by electron microscopy as a confirmatory classification technique.
Electron microscopy techniques such as TEM, STEM, SEM or TSEM transmission in SEM) are capable of assessing the size of individual nanoparticles accurately (see Figures 1 and 2). Nevertheless the challenging aspect is sample preparation from powder or liquid form on the substrate, so that a homogeneous distribution of well-separated (deagglomerated) particles is attained. The systematic study in this work shows examples where the extraction of the critical, smallest particle dimension - as the decisive particle parameter for the classification as a NM - is possible by analysing the sample after its simple, dry preparation. The consequences of additional typical issues like loss of information due to Screening of smaller particles by larger ones or the (in)ability to access the constituent particles in aggregates are discussed.
In October 2011 the European Commission (EC) published a "Recommendation on the definition of na-nomaterial" (2011/696/EU), to promote consistency in the interpretation of the term "nanomaterial" for legislative and policy purposes in the EU. The EC NM Definition includes a commitment to its review in the light of experience and of scientific and technological developments. This review is ongoing in 2017 and as a contribution to the review the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) has already developed a series of three scientific-technical reports with the title: “Towards a review of the EC Recommendation for a definition of the term nanomaterial” which provides to the EC policy services sci-ence-based options on how the definition could be revised or supported with additional guidance.
The overarching nature and wide scope of the EC NM Definition, as it does not exclude a priori any particulate material regardless the state, form and size, creates many analytical challenges in its imple-mentation for all stakeholders, including enterprises and regulators.
The NanoDefine project has as core objective to support the implementation of the EC NM Definition. In an earlier report1 key aspects of the EC NM Definition were addressed, with the goal to improve the implementability of the EC NM Definition. Based on further developments and results obtained in NanoDefine project that first report was updated and is presented here. The key aspects are discussed based on the results of four years of research performed within the framework of the project. As a result this report assesses how well the requirements of the EC NM Definition can be fulfilled with currently available analytical possibilities. It presents recommendations and options on a revision of the EC NM Definition to improve the implementability of the definition based on currently available analytical possi-bilities, according to the state of the art in 2017. Of the technical issues considered in this report, the following seem to deserve the most attention in terms of clarification of the definition and/or provision of additional implementation guidance: 'external dimension', ‘number based particle size distribution‘, ‘polydispersity‘ and ‘upper size limit‘, the term ‘particle’, the ‘means to prove that a material is not a nanomaterial‘ and ‘the role of the volume specific sur-face area (VSSA)‘, and "particulate materials'.
Recommendations on a Revision of the EC Definition of Nanomaterial Based on Analytical Possibilities
(2015)
In October 2011 the European Commission (EC) published a "Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial" (2011/696/EU), to promote consistency in the interpretation of the term "nanomaterial" for legislative and policy purposes in the EU. The EC NM Definition includes a commitment to its review in the light of experience and of scientific and technological developments. This review is ongoing in 2015 and as a contribution to the review the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) has already developed a series of three scientific-technical reports with the title: “Towards a review of the EC Recommendation for a definition of the term nanomaterial” which provides to the EC policy services science-based options on how the definition could be revised or supported with additional guidance.
The overarching nature and wide scope of the EC NM Definition, as it does not exclude a priori any particulate material regardless the state, form and size, creates many analytical challenges in its imple-mentation for all stakeholders, including enterprises and regulators.
The NanoDefine project has as core objective to support the implementation of the EC NM Definition. In this report key aspects of the EC NM Definition are addressed, with the goal to improve the implement-ability of the EC NM Definition. These aspects are presented and discussed based on the results of two years of research performed within the framework of the project. As a result this report assesses how well the requirements of the EC NM Definition can be fulfilled with currently available analytical possi-bilities. It presents recommendations and options on a revision of the EC NM Definition to improve the implementability of the definition based on currently available analytical possibilities, according to the state of the art of mid-2015.
Of the technical issues considered in this report, the following seem to deserve the most attention in terms of clarification of the definition and/or provision of additional implementation guidance:
The term ‘external dimension’.
A clear definition of 'External dimension' should be included in the text of the EC NM definition and more precise guidance on what is considered as an external dimension and how to properly character-ise it should be provided.
The ‘number based particle size distribution‘.
The EC NM Definition uses a threshold related to the number based size distribution of particles. Yet most of the easily available techniques provide a mass-, volume- or scattered light intensity-based size distribution which needs to be converted into a number based distribution to be used for regulatory pur-poses. A specific guidance on the conditions under which these methods can be used to identify a na-nomaterial by employing appropriate quantity or metrics conversion should be provided.
The ‘polydispersity‘ and ‘upper size limit‘
Polydispersity is a challenge for the measurement of particle size distribution for the EC NM definition, specifically for materials with high polydispersity index and broad size distribution especially when the volume or mass of the fraction containing particles below 100 nm is very small. Therefore a dedicated guidance should be provided that allows applying an upper size limit in measurements and particle statistics.