Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (7)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (3)
- Posterpräsentation (3)
- Sonstiges (2)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (16)
Schlagworte
- OECD (16) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (7)
Coating, stabilization layers, functionalization of particles or simple contamination are common variants of a core-shell system. For smaller nanoparticles this is of major importance. A particle with 16 nm diameter and a usual surface layer of 2 nm will have the same volume for the core as for the shell. In this case the material of the particle doesn’t have a clear definition. It is a common case that a particle consists of four different layers: Core, shell, stabilization layer and contamination. The properties of the particles differ according to this structure. For example silver particles might have a different dissolution rate for pure particles and for particles which are grown on top of a core.
Different solubility or defined other properties of materials is a common reason for producing core-shell systems. Gold cores are surrounded by silica to stabilize them or to get a defined distance between the cores. Silica might be surrounded by gold and the silica dissolved afterwards. This delivers hollow shells. Another important example for core-shell systems are quantum dots. A small core is surrounded by a different material for increasing the photoluminescence. Furthermore there a stabilization layer is needed. The smallest part of the final particles is the initial core. The photoluminescence is based on this core, but the shells contain much more material. Categorization should address this.
Core-shell systems are not covered by most of the existing decision trees for grouping. They are either regarded as special case or a singular layer. This disqualifies core-shell systems for grouping within the common models. There might be a very easy way to avoid this problem and even to combine some of the different decision trees. Starting the decision tree with the solubility of the outer shell and subsequently addressing the inner layers will be a pragmatic approach to solve the problem. If there is no shell, the categorization can start with a tiered approach or with the proposed “stawman” chemical categorization. If a shell is covering the surface there is a need to check if the shell is stable. If it is stable, the particle can be categorized based on this shell. If it is soluble, the ions need to be addressed as in the classic case. Furthermore the shell might increase the uptake by the cells. If the ions and the uptake are not critical the categorization can continue with the next layer.
With this not perfect but pragmatic approach, the surface layers can be addressed with very limited additional efforts. Most criteria are based on classically tabulated data. Including a rating system like the precautionary matrix approach might even address the fact that some parameters are not always Yes/No, e.g. solubility, ion toxicity and uptake.
Mit nicht-konformen oder schlecht dokumentierten Prüfergebnissen können weder Behörden noch Unternehmen etwas anfangen. Belastbare und eindeutige Informationen aus den Registrierungsdossiers sind entscheidend, damit industrielle und gewerbliche Verwender der Stoffe das Gefahrenpotenzial einschätzen und ggf. Maßnahmen zum Schutz von Menschen und Umwelt treffen können.
Darüber hinaus benötigen die Behörden verlässliche Daten aus den Registrierungen, um ihrer Verantwortung bei der Identifizierung regulierungsbedürftiger Stoffe nachkommen zu können.
Mit nicht-konformen oder schlecht dokumentierten Prüfergebnissen können weder Behörden noch Unternehmen etwas anfangen. Belastbare und eindeutige Informationen aus den Registrierungsdossiers sind entscheidend, damit industrielle und gewerbliche Verwender der Stoffe das Gefahrenpotenzial einschätzen und ggf. Maßnahmen zum Schutz von Menschen und Umwelt treffen können.
Darüber hinaus benötigen die Behörden verlässliche Daten aus den Registrierungen, um ihrer Verantwortung bei der Identifizierung regulierungsbedürftiger Stoffe nachkommen zu können.
Mit nicht-konformen oder schlecht dokumentierten Prüfergebnissen können weder Behörden noch Unternehmen etwas anfangen. Belastbare und eindeutige Informationen aus den Registrierungsdossiers sind entscheidend, damit industrielle und gewerbliche Verwender der Stoffe das Gefahrenpotenzial einschätzen und ggf. Maßnahmen zum Schutz von Menschen und Umwelt treffen können.
Darüber hinaus benötigen die Behörden verlässliche Daten aus den Registrierungen, um ihrer Verantwortung bei der Identifizierung regulierungsbedürftiger Stoffe nachkommen zu können.
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 nanoscale. 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.
In 1981 the OECD published the Test Guideline on Particle size and size distribution. This TG is still a valid document for the measurement of particles all over the world.
When nanomaterials gained importance, ISO set up a technical commitee for Nanotechnologies in 2005 and the OECD followed this step in 2006 with the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials.
In the following years ISO and OECD published several documents about nanomaterials and the systematisation developed.
In 2017 it was finally clear that nanomaterials need to be adressed in another way than chemicals and in 2020 ECHA revised the REACH-Annexes accordingly and included nanomaterials.
Unfortunately there is a little problem with this: Only a few applicable test guidelines exit for the measurement of the nanomaterials. Several test guidelines date from 1981 and do not address nanomaterials.
The logical next step for the OECD would be to publish a series of test guidelines which are indeed currently prepared and will be shown in this talk.
Finally there is an additional need for the future of NM standardisation: Digitalisation.
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.
Ergebnisse:
Ideal sphärische Partikel sind gut und verlässlich mit vielen Methoden charakterisierbar.
Reale (Nicht ideale) Materialien sind gut charakterisierbar, wenn eine gewisse Homogenität und Stabilität vorliegt.
Stark inhomogene und stark agglomerierende Partikel liefern deutlich unterschiedliche Ergebnisse für verschiedene Methoden.
Partikel mit geringen Größenunterschieden lassen sich mit allen Methoden gut charakterisieren.
Partikel mit sehr deutlichen Größenunterschieden führen häufig zu einer Unterbewertung der kleineren Partikel.
Vollautomatische Partikeldetektion bei elektronenmikroskopischen Aufnahmen ist z.Zt. noch stark fehleranfällig und kann daher nicht empfohlen werden.
Es hat sich gezeigt, dass alle Methoden zur Bestimmung der Partikelgrößenverteilung Vor- und Nachteile haben. Es ist dringend zu empfehlen Größenverteilungen immer mit mindestens zwei unterschiedlichen Methoden zu bestimmen: Bildgebend und mit gute Anzahlstatistik.
Verschiedene Durchmesser wurden in der TG-PSD mit einem Indexsystem versehen, welches zukünftig Verwechslungen zwischen unterschiedlichen Durchmessern vermeiden soll.
Wird ein bestimmter Durchmesser benötigt (z.B. hydrodynamisch, aerodynamisch), muss die Methode passend gewählt werden. Eine Umrechnung von einem Durchmesser in einen anderen ist in der Regel fehlerbehaftet.
Es wurde ein einheitliches Reporting-System in der TG-PSD eingeführt.