Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (12)
- Zeitschriftenartikel (4)
- Forschungsbericht (2)
- Video (1)
- Posterpräsentation (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (20)
Schlagworte
- Interlaboratory comparison (20) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 6 Materialchemie (13)
- 6.1 Oberflächen- und Dünnschichtanalyse (11)
- 1 Analytische Chemie; Referenzmaterialien (2)
- 1.2 Biophotonik (2)
- 2 Prozess- und Anlagensicherheit (2)
- 2.0 Abteilungsleitung und andere (2)
- 6.5 Synthese und Streuverfahren nanostrukturierter Materialien (2)
- 4 Material und Umwelt (1)
- 4.2 Material-Mikrobiom Wechselwirkungen (1)
- 6.6 Physik und chemische Analytik der Polymere (1)
Scattering luminescent materials dispersed in liquid and solid matrices and luminescent powders are increasingly relevant for fundamental research and industry. Examples are luminescent nano- and microparticles and phosphors of different compositions in various matrices or incorporated into ceramics with applications in energy conversion, solid-state lighting, medical diagnostics, and security barcoding. The key parameter to characterize the performance of these materials is the photoluminescence/fluorescence quantum yield (Φf), i.e., the number of emitted photons per number of absorbed photons. To identify and quantify the sources of uncertainty of absolute measurements of Φf of scattering samples, the first interlaboratory comparison (ILC) of three laboratories from academia and industry was performed by following identical measurement protocols. Thereby, two types ofcommercial stand-alone integrating sphere setups with different illumination and detection geometries were utilized for measuring the Φf of transparent and scattering dye solutions and solid phosphors, namely, YAG:Ce optoceramics of varying surface roughness, used as converter materials for blue light emitting diodes. Special emphasis was dedicated to the influence of the measurement geometry, the optical properties of the blank utilized to determine the number of photons of the incident excitation light absorbed by the sample, and the sample-specific surface roughness. While the Φf values of the liquid samples matched between instruments, Φf measurements of the optoceramics with different blanks revealed substantial differences. The ILC results underline the importance of the measurement geometry, sample position, and blank for reliable Φf data of scattering the YAG:Ce optoceramics, with the blank’s optical properties accounting for uncertainties exceeding 20%.
This contributions shows the first results of the ongoing interlaboratory comparisons under VAMAS/TWA 34 Nanoparticle populations related on the determination of pasrticle size distribution and relative concentration of nanoparticles and an example of an ILC running under VAMAS/TWA 41 Graphene and Related 2D Materials on the determination of the lateral diemsnions of graphene oxide flakes by Scanning Electron Microscopy. The link to related standardisation projects at ISO/TC Nanotechnologies are explained.
Advanced materials, such as nanomaterials, 2D materials, or thin films, play a crucial role in driving economic development and addressing major challenges in the coming years. These challenges include mitigating the impact of climate change, advancing lightweight engineering, enhancing catalysis, and improving medical applications.
To comprehend the performance of these materials and ensure their acceptance across various sectors as safe and sustainable for both humans and the environment, the availability of reference procedures, materials, and data is essential. One versatile tool for establishing such references and evaluating the proficiency of individual laboratories and their competencies is through (international) interlaboratory comparisons (ILC). Notably, initiatives like the Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS) provide a platform for conducting ILCs.
This webinar will showcase various examples of interlaboratory comparisons, illustrating their impact on the development of reference products.
The progress of the VAMAS interlaboratory comparison Project P13 "Lateral size of graphene oxide flakes by SEM" within the Technical Working Area 41 "Graphene and Related 2D Materials" is presented. The challenges at sample preparation on substrates for accurate measurement and image analysis as well as two different analysis approaches, containing exact guidance how to measure the main descriptors for the lateral size measurement of the imaged graphene oxide flakes with Scanning Electron Microscopy are highlighted. The implementation of the results into the corresponding ISO technical specification AWI/TS 23879 is also discussed and planned, in relation with the AFM part.
The surface chemistry of nanomaterials controls their interaction with the environment and biological species and their fate and is hence also relevant for their potential toxicity. This has meanwhile led to an increasing interest in validated and preferably standardized methods for the determination and quantification of surface functionalities on nanomaterials and initiated different standardization projects within ISO/TC 229 and IEC/TC 113 as well as interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) of different analytical methods for the quantification of surface coatings by OECD. Here we present the results of a first ILC on the quantification of the amount of amino functionalities on differently sized inorganic nanoparticles done by division Biophotonics and the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the PWI 19257 on the Characterization and Quantification of Surface Functional Groups and Coatings on Nanoobjects approved by ISO/TC 229 (WG2) in fall 2022 that will result in a VAMAS study on this topic organized by division Biophotonics. Key words: nanoparticles, surface analysis, surface functional groups, quantification, optical assay, qNMR, VAMAS, standardization, ICL, quality assurance, reference material.
This is a remote presentation I gave at the 2022 Small-angle Scattering conference in Campinas, Brazil. The video has been obtained from the conference organisers with their explicit permission for use on YouTube. I've tried to spruce up the audio from the remote recording the best I could.
The conference abstract for this talk was:
"How much do we, the small-angle scatterers, influence the results of an investigation? What uncertainty do we add by our human diversity in thoughts and approaches, and is this significant compared to the uncertainty from the instrumental measurement factors?
After our previous Round Robin on data collection, we know that many laboratories can collect reasonably consistent small-angle scattering data on easy samples[1]. To investigate the next, human component, we compiled four existing datasets from globular (roughly spherical) scatterers, each exhibiting a common complication, and asked the participants to apply their usual methods and toolset to the quantification of the results (https://lookingatnothing.com/index.ph....
Accompanying the datasets was a modicum of accompanying information to help with the interpretation of the data, similar to what we normally receive from our collaborators. More than 30 participants reported back with volume fractions, mean sizes and size distribution widths of the particle populations in the samples, as well as information on their self-assessed level of experience and years in the field.
While the Round Robin is still underway (until the 25th of April, 2022), the initial results already show significant spread in the results. Some of these are due to the variety in interpretation of the meaning of the requested parameters, as well as simple human errors, both of which are easy to correct for. Nevertheless, even after correcting for these differences in understanding, a significant spread remains. This highlights an urgent challenge to our community: how can we better help ourselves and our colleagues obtain more reliable results, how could we take the human factor out of the equation, so to speak?
In this talk, we will introduce the four datasets, their origins and challenges. Hot off the press, we will summarize the anonymized, quantified results of the Data Analysis Round Robin. (Incidentally, we will also see if a correlation exists between experience and proximity of the result to the median). Lastly, potential avenues for improving our field will be offered based on the findings, ranging from low-effort yet somehow controversial improvements, to high-effort foundational considerations."
International standards describing reliable protocols will facilitate the commercialization of graphene and related 2D materials. One physico-chemical key property next to flake size and thickness is the chemical composition of the material. Therefore, an ISO standard is under development with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy having a prominent role. With its information depth of around 10 nm which is the similar length scale as the thickness as of particles of 2D materials consisting of a few monolayer XPS seems to be highly suitable for this purpose. Different sample preparation methods like pressing the powders onto adhesive tapes, into recesses, or into solid pellets result in inconsistencies in the quantification. For the validation of the quantification with XPS an interlaboratory comparison was initiated under the auspice of the “Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards” (VAMAS). First results confirm that the sample preparation method (pellet vs. powder) influences the quantification results clearly. Considering this effect, a good agreement of the results from the different participants were observed. Similar results were observed for raw, N- and F-functionalized graphene.
International standards describing reliable protocols will facilitate the commercialization of graphene and related 2D materials. One physico-chemical key property next to flake size and thickness is the chemical composition of the material. Therefore, an ISO standard is under development with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy having a prominent role. With its information depth of around 10 nm which is the similar length scale as the thickness as of particles of 2D materials consisting of a few monolayer XPS seems to be highly suitable for this purpose. Different sample preparation methods like pressing the powders onto adhesive tapes, into recesses, or into solid pellets result in inconsistencies in the quantification. For the validation of the quantification with XPS an interlaboratory comparison was initiated under the auspice of the “Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards” (VAMAS). First results confirm that the sample preparation method (pellet vs. powder) influences the quantification results clearly.
Since its isolation, graphene has received growing attention from academia and industry due to its unique properties. Promising opportunities for applications are discussed in different field like electronics and optoelectronics, detection, and sensing devices, biosystems or chemical and environmental corrosion inhibition. Here, functionalization with elements like oxygen, nitrogen or fluorine can broaden the application, for example in composite materials. However, lack of generally accepted operation procedures hinders the commercialization, the so-called “what is my material” barrier. Therefore, first efforts were done to develop common, reliable, and reproducible ways to characterize the morphological and chemical properties of the industrially produced material.
In this contribution, our efforts in the development of reliable chemical characterizations protocols for functionalized graphene are presented. An ISO standard for the chemical characterization of graphene-related (GRM) is under development with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) having a prominent role. With its information depth of around 10 nm, which is the similar length scale as the thickness of particles of 2D materials consisting of a few monolayers, XPS seems to be highly suitable for the quantitative analysis of (functionalized) GRM. Thereby, different sample preparation methods like pressing the powders onto adhesive tapes, into recesses, or into solid pellets result in inconsistencies in the quantification. Furthermore, different morphologies like stacks of graphene layers (left figure) or irregular particles (right figure) lead to different analysis results for the chemical composition.
For the validation of the quantification with XPS and the further development of standards an international interlaboratory comparison was initiated under the head of the “Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards” (VAMAS). First results are reported showing the suitability of the protocols. Finally, the XPS results are compared with the elemental composition results obtained after quantification with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) as a fast analytical method which is usually combined with electron microscopy.