0
Research Papers

Benchmark of Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis on Measuring Nanoparticle Sizing and Concentration

[+] Author and Article Information
Ciarán M. Maguire

Nanomedicine and Molecular Imaging Group,
AMBER Centre and CRANN Institute,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2, Ireland;
Department of Clinical Medicine,
Trinity Centre for Health Sciences,
Trinity Translational Medicine Institute,
St. James's Hospital,
James Street,
Dublin 8, Ireland
e-mail: cmmaguir@tcd.ie

Katherine Sillence

Malvern Instruments Ltd.,
Minton Park, London Road,
Amesbury SP4 7RT, Wiltshire, UK
e-mail: ksillence@hotmail.co.uk

Matthias Roesslein

Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Research and Testing,
Laboratory for Particles—Biology Interactions,
EMPA,
Lerchenfeldstrasse 5,
St. Gallen CH-9014, Switzerland
e-mail: matthias.roesslein@empa.ch

Claire Hannell

Malvern Instruments Ltd.,
Minton Park, London Road,
Amesbury SP4 7RT, Wiltshire, UK
e-mail: clairehannell@gmail.com

Guillaume Suarez

Particles and Health Unit,
Institute for Work and Health (IST),
Rte de la Corniche 2, 1066 Epalinges,
Lausanne 1011, Switzerland
e-mail: guillaume.suarez@chuv.ch

Jean-Jacques Sauvain

Particles and Health Unit,
Institute for Work and Health (IST),
Rte de la Corniche 2, 1066 Epalinges,
Lausanne 1011, Switzerland
e-mail: jean-jacques.sauvain@hospvd.ch

Sonja Capracotta

Malvern Instruments Ltd.,
1415 Washington Heights, Room 6611,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: sonja.capracotta@malvern.com

Servane Contal

Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN) Department,
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST),
41, rue du Brill,
Belvaux L-4422, Grand-duchy of Luxembourg
e-mail: servane.contal@list.lu

Sebastien Cambier

Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN) Department,
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST),
41, rue du Brill,
Belvaux L-4422, Grand-duchy of Luxembourg
e-mail: sebastien.cambier@list.lu

Naouale El Yamani

Health Effect Laboratory,
MILK, Norwegian Institute for Air Research,
Instituttveien 18, P.O. Box 100,
Kjeller NO-2027, Norway
e-mail: elyamani.naouale@nilu.no

Maria Dusinska

Health Effect Laboratory,
MILK, Norwegian Institute for Air Research,
Instituttveien 18, P.O. Box 100,
Kjeller NO-2027, Norway
e-mail: maria.dusinska@nilu.no

Agnieszka Dybowska

Department of Earth Sciences,
Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, UK
e-mail: a.dybowska@nhm.ac.uk

Antje Vennemann

IBE R&D Institute for Lung Health gGmbH,
Mendelstrasse 11,
Münster 48149, Germany
e-mail: vennemann@ibe-ms.de

Laura Cooke

Centre for Bio-Nano Interactions (CBNI),
Conway Institute,
University College Dublin,
Belfield,
Dublin 4, Ireland
e-mail: laura000cooke@gmail.com

Andrea Haase

Department of Chemicals and Product Safety,
German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR),
Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10,
Berlin 10589, Germany
e-mail: andrea.haase@bfr.bund.de

Andreas Luch

Department of Chemicals and Product Safety,
German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR),
Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10,
Berlin 10589, Germany
e-mail: andreas.luch@bfr.bund.de

Martin Wiemann

IBE R&D Institute for Lung Health gGmbH,
Mendelstrasse 11,
Münster 48149, Germany
e-mail: martin.wiemann@ibe-ms.de

Arno Gutleb

Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN) Department,
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST),
41, rue du Brill,
Belvaux L-4422, Grand-duchy of Luxembourg
e-mail: arno.gutleb@list.lu

Rafi Korenstein

Department of Physiology and Pharmacology,
Sackler School of Medicine,
Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
e-mail: korens@post.tau.ac.il

Michael Riediker

SAFENANO,
Institute of Occupational Medicine Singapore Pte. Ltd.,
30 Raffles Place, #17-08 Chevron House,
Singapore 048622, Singapore
e-mail: michael.riediker@iom-world.sg

Peter Wick

Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Research and Testing,
Laboratory for Particles—Biology Interactions,
Lerchenfeldstrasse 5,
St. Gallen CH-9014, Switzerland
e-mail: peter.wick@empa.ch

Patrick Hole

Malvern Instruments Ltd.,
Minton Park, London Road,
Amesbury SP4 7RT, Wiltshire, UK
e-mail: patrick.hole@malvern.com

Adriele Prina-Mello

Nanomedicine and Molecular Imaging Group,
AMBER Centre and CRANN Institute,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2, Ireland;
Department of Clinical Medicine,
Trinity Centre for Health Sciences,
Trinity Translational Medicine Institute,
St. James's Hospital,
James Street,
Dublin 8, Ireland
e-mail: prinamea@tcd.ie

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MICRO- AND NANO-MANUFACTURING. Manuscript received January 24, 2017; final manuscript received June 12, 2017; published online September 28, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Rajiv Malhotra.

J. Micro Nano-Manuf 5(4), 041002 (Sep 28, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: JMNM-17-1005; doi: 10.1115/1.4037124 History: Received January 24, 2017; Revised June 12, 2017

One of the greatest challenges in the manufacturing and development of nanotechnologies is the requirement for robust, reliable, and accurate characterization data. Presented here are the results of an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) brought about through multiple rounds of engagement with NanoSight Malvern and ten pan-European research facilities. Following refinement of the nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) technique, the size and concentration characterization of nanoparticles in liquid suspension was proven to be robust and reproducible for multiple sample types in monomodal, binary, or multimodal mixtures. The limits of measurement were shown to exceed the 30–600 nm range (with all system models), with percentage coefficients of variation (% CV) being calculated as sub 5% for monodisperse samples. Particle size distributions were also improved through the incorporation of the finite track length adjustment (FTLA) algorithm, which most noticeably acts to improve the resolution of multimodal sample mixtures. The addition of a software correction to account for variations between instruments also dramatically increased the accuracy and reproducibility of concentration measurements. When combined, the advances brought about during the interlaboratory comparisons allow for the simultaneous determination of accurate and precise nanoparticle sizing and concentration data in one measurement.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Nature Editorial, 2013, “ Announcement: Reducing Our Irreproducibility,” Nature, 496(7446), p. 398.
Nature Editorial, 2014, “ Journals Unite for Reproducibility,” Nature, 515(7525), p. 7.
Nature Editorial, 2016, “ Repetitive Flaws: Strict Guidelines to Improve the Reproducibility of Experiments Are a Welcome Move,” Nature, 529(7586), p. 256.
Baker, M. , 2016, “ 1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility,” Nature, 533(7604), pp. 452–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hole, P. , Sillence, K. , Hannell, C. , Maguire, C. , Roesslein, M. , Suarez, G. , Capracotta, S. , Magdolenova, Z. , Horev-Azaria, L. , Dybowska, A. , Cooke, L. , Haase, A. , Contal, S. , Manø, S. , Vennemann, A. , Sauvain, J.-J. , Staunton, K. , Anguissola, S. , Luch, A. , Dusinska, M. , Korenstein, R. , Gutleb, A. , Wiemann, M. , Prina-Mello, A. , Riediker, M. , and Wick, P. , 2013, “ Interlaboratory Comparison of Size Measurements on Nanoparticles Using Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA),” J. Nanopart. Res., 15(12), pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
ASTM, 2012, “ Standard Guide for Measurement of Particle Size Distribution of Nanomaterials in Suspension by Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E2834-12.
ISO, 2016, “ ISO 19430: Particle Size Analysis—Particle Tracking Analsyis (PTA) Method,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
European Commission, 2009, “ Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products,” Official Journal of the European Union, L342, pp. 59–209.
Bleeker, E. A. J. , Jong, W. H. , Geertsma, R. E. , Groenewold, M. , Heugens, E. H. W. , Koers-Jacquemijns, M. , Meent, D. , Popma, J. R. , Rietveld, A. G. , and Wijnhoven, S. W. P. , 2013, “ Considerations on the EU Definition of a Nanomaterial: Science to Support Policy Making,” Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 65(1), pp. 119–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Linsinger, T. P. J. , Roebben, G. , Gilliland, D. , Calzolai, L. , Rossi, F. , Gibson, N. , and Klein, C. , 2012, “ Requirements on Measurements for the Implementation of the European Commission Definition of the Term ‘Nanomaterial,’” EUR 25404 EN, Joint Research Centre Reference Report, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Walker, J. G. , 2012, “ Improved Nano-Particle Tracking Analysis,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 23(6), p. 065605. [CrossRef]
NIH, 2014, “ Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research,” National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, accessed Jan. 30, 2015, http://www.nih.gov/about/reporting-preclinical-research.htm
Tiede, K. , Hassellöv, M. , Breitbarth, E. , Chaudhry, Q. , and Boxall, A. B. A. , 2009, “ Considerations for Environmental Fate and Ecotoxicity Testing to Support Environmental Risk Assessments for Engineered Nanoparticles,” J. Chromatogr. A, 1216(3), pp. 503–509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Roco, M. , 2011, “ The Long View of Nanotechnology Development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 Years,” J. Nanopart. Res., 13(2), pp. 427–445. [CrossRef]
OECD, 2009, “ Guidance Manual for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials: OECD Sponsorship Programme: First Revision,” Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France, Report No. ENV/JM/MONO(2009)20/REV.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Areas of research where nanoparticle tracking analysis is being utilized. Data obtained from the Scopus database, searching nanoparticle tracking analysis, and NTA, and represents documents published from 2007 to 2016.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Preliminary concentration measurements of 100 nm polystyrene latex (PSL) particles by laboratory prior to interlaboratory comparison study. Initial measurements carried out using NTA identified a large degree of variation in calculated nanoparticle concentrations (101% CV) and a clear need for measurement improvement.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Concentration normalized particle size distribution of (a) 30 nm gold nanospheres in water and (b) 600 nm polystyrene latex spheres in water at concentrations suitable for NTA analysis. Solid line represents median value where dotted lines are for the upper and lower median absolute deviations (±MAD).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Robust statistical analysis of 30 nm gold particles in de-ionized water (a) and in 10% glycerol (b). Dashed line represents median value, solid line is mean value where dotted lines are for the upper and lower median absolute deviations (±MAD).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Multimodal size distribution graphs and comparisons of mixtures of 100, 200, and 300 nm PSL NPs. (a) and (b) Plots show the clear tri-modal quantification of PSL NPs (100, 200, and 300 nm) mixed at a ratio of 18:3:2, respectively. (c) and (d) Plots show clear quadri-modal quantification of PSL NPs (100, 200, 300, and 400 nm) at a ratio of 6:3:3:2, respectively. (a) and (c) Particle ratios are shown within each particle peak. (b) and (d) The interlaboratory variance around the chosen NPs in the mixtures.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Size distribution of a multimodal sample prior to implementation of finite track length adjustment (FTLA), and following applying FTLA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Confidence intervals of variance of monodisperse and multimodal samples. (a) Scatterplots of median and interquartile range of percentage coefficient of variance for all laboratories for 30–600 nm nanoparticles. (b) Scatterplots of median and interquartile range of percentage coefficient of variance for mixed population samples. Dashed boxplots represent 100, 200, and 300 nm mixed samples where solid boxplots are for 100, 200, 300, and 400 nm mixed samples.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Linearity of NTA concentration measurements for 100 nm PSL from 8.6 × 106 to 5.7 × 109 particles per ml. Solid line reflected best fit line following software correction (R2 = 0.991), with gray shading illustrating 95% confidence interval. Dashed line reflects the theoretically calculated particle concentration.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Concentration measurements: robust statistical analysis of 60, 100, 200, and 300 nm PSL particles before and after software correction for all participant laboratories. Solid line reflects the theoretically calculated particle concentration; gray shading represents 95% confidence interval. Error bars show the standard error of the mean (SEM) of the concentration measurement.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Hitting the bullseye—refining the reproducibility of NTA size and concentration measurements through three rounds of ILC for 100 nm PSL particles. Boxes indicate the primary aim for improvement of each round of ILC.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In