Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2021 (5) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (3)
- Vortrag (2)
Sprache
- Englisch (5)
Schlagworte
- X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (5) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
The fluorolytic sol–gel synthesis is applied with the intention to obtain two different types of core–shell nanoparticles, namely, SrF2–CaF2 and CaF2–SrF2. In two separate fluorination steps for core and shell formation, the corresponding metal lactates are reacted with anhydrous HF in ethylene glycol. Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) and dynamic light scattering (DLS) confirm the formation of particles with mean dimensions between 6.4 and 11.5 nm. The overall chemical composition of the particles during the different reaction steps is monitored by quantitative Al Kα excitation X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Here, the formation of stoichiometric metal fluorides (MF2) is confirmed, both for the core and the final core–shell particles. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis by synchrotron radiation XPS (SR-XPS) with tunable excitation energy is performed to confirm the core–Shell character of the nanoparticles. Additionally, Ca2p/Sr3d XPS intensity ratio in-Depth profiles are simulated using the software Simulation of Electron Spectra for Surface Analysis (SESSA). In principle, core–shell like particle morphologies are formed but without a sharp interface between calcium and strontium containing phases.
Surprisingly, the in-depth chemical distribution of the two types of nanoparticles is equal within the error of the experiment. Both comprise a SrF2-rich core domain and CaF2-rich shell domain with an intermixing zone between them. Consequently, the internal morphology of the final nanoparticles seems to be independent from the synthesis chronology.
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.
(1) First results show the suitability of IL as reference for quantification of XPS (at least for organic materials).
(2) Different quantification methods lead to similar results (with a slight advantage for “background method”).
(3)Promising reference material for a better understanding and traceable protocols for the quantification of organic materials with XPS.
The lead authors failed to name two collaborators as co-authors. The authors listed should include:
Miss Claudia L. Compean-Gonzalez (ORCID:
0000-0002-2367-8450) and Dr. Giacomo Ceccone (ORCID:
0000-0003-4637-0771).
These co-authors participated in VAMAS project A27, provided data that were analyzed and presented in this publication (and supporting information), and reviewed the manuscript before submission.