Size characterization of airborne SiO2 nanoparticles with on-line and off-line measurement techniques: an interlaboratory comparison study

Results of an interlaboratory comparison on size characterization of SiO2 airborne nanoparticles using on-line and off-line measurement techniques are discussed. This study was performed in the framework of Technical Working Area (TWA) 34—“Properties of Nanoparticle Populations” of the Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS) in the project no. 3 “Techniques for characterizing size distribution of airborne nanoparticles”. Two types of nano-aerosols, consisting of (1) one population of nanoparticles with a mean diameter between 30.3 and 39.0 nm and (2) two populations of non-agglomerated nanoparticles with mean diameters between, respectively, 36.2–46.6 nm and 80.2–89.8 nm, were generated for characterization measurements. Scanning mobility particle size spectrometers (SMPS) were used for on-line measurements of size distributions of the produced nano-aerosols. Transmission electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy were used as off-line measurement techniques for nanoparticles characterization. Samples were deposited on appropriate supports such as grids, filters, and mica plates by electrostatic precipitation and a filtration technique using SMPS controlled generation upstream. The results of the main size distribution parameters (mean and mode diameters), obtained from several laboratories, were compared based on metrological approaches including metrological traceability, calibration, and evaluation of the measurement uncertainty. Internationally harmonized measurement procedures for airborne SiO2 nanoparticles characterization are proposed.

[1]  J. James,et al.  Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part IV: risk assessment of nanoparticles. , 2006, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[2]  E. Zervas,et al.  Interlaboratory Test of Exhaust PM Using ELPI , 2005 .

[3]  Detlef Hummes,et al.  Experimental Comparison of Four Differential Mobility Analyzers for Nanometer Aerosol Measurements , 1996 .

[4]  R. Vecchi,et al.  PIXE and XRF analysis of particulate matter samples: an inter-laboratory comparison , 2008 .

[5]  Thomas M. Peters,et al.  Nanoparticle collection efficiency of capillary pore membrane filters , 2010 .

[6]  Cheol-Heon Jeong,et al.  Inter-Comparison of a Fast Mobility Particle Sizer and a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Incorporating an Ultrafine Water-Based Condensation Particle Counter , 2009 .

[7]  G. Oberdörster,et al.  Pulmonary effects of inhaled ultrafine particles , 2000, International archives of occupational and environmental health.

[8]  P. Mcmurry,et al.  Intercomparison of three methods to determine size distributions of ultrafine aerosols with low number concentrations , 1993 .

[9]  Tony J Collins,et al.  ImageJ for microscopy. , 2007, BioTechniques.

[10]  Harald Bosse,et al.  Characterization of nanoparticles by scanning electron microscopy in transmission mode , 2009 .

[11]  J. Chow,et al.  Results of the "Carbon Conference" International Aerosol Carbon Round Robin Test Stage I , 2001 .

[12]  Yifang Zhu,et al.  Determining Ultrafine Particle Collection Efficiency in a Nanometer Aerosol Sampler , 2010 .

[13]  R. Countess Interlaboratory Analyses of Carbonaceous Aerosol Samples , 1990 .

[14]  T. Xia,et al.  Toxic Potential of Materials at the Nanolevel , 2006, Science.

[15]  Ws. Rasband ImageJ, U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA , 2011 .

[16]  G. Leopold The Federal Register. , 1979, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[17]  P. Hopke,et al.  Performance Comparison of Scanning Electrical Mobility Spectrometers , 2007 .

[18]  Dirk Dahmann,et al.  Comparison of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary exposure measurements , 2009 .

[19]  Heinz Fissan,et al.  Development of an Electrostatic Precipitator for Off-Line Particle Analysis , 1999 .

[20]  Otto G. Raabe,et al.  Slip correction measurements of spherical solid aerosol particles in an improved Millikan apparatus , 1985 .

[21]  K. Spurny Sampling, analysis, identification and monitoring of fibrous dusts and aerosols , 1994 .

[22]  Lang Tran,et al.  Safe handling of nanotechnology , 2006, Nature.

[23]  Rajan K. Chakrabarty,et al.  An Inter-Comparison of Instruments Measuring Black Carbon Content of Soot Particles , 2007 .

[24]  K. T. Knapp,et al.  Comparison of sampling methods for carbonaceous aerosols in ambient air , 1990 .

[25]  C. Durand,et al.  Recommandations en matière de caractérisation des potentiels d'émission et d'exposition professionnelle aux aérosols lors d'opérations mettant en oeuvre des nanomatériaux , 2013 .

[26]  Julie W. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy , 2005, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[27]  P. Mulawa,et al.  Atmospheric Carbonaceous Species Measurement Methods Comparison Study: General Motors Results , 1990 .

[28]  Chunsheng Zhao,et al.  Mobility particle size spectrometers: harmonization of technical standards and data structure to facilitate high quality long-term observations of atmospheric particle number size distributions , 2010 .

[29]  Jon Andersson,et al.  Particle Measurement Programme (PMP) Light-Duty Inter-Laboratory Exercise: Repeatability and Reproducibility of the Particle Number Method , 2008 .

[30]  G. Mulholland,et al.  Determination of Arbitrary Moments of Aerosol Size Distributions from Measurements with a Differential Mobility Analyzer , 2000 .

[31]  A. Wiedensohler,et al.  An approximation of the bipolar charge distribution for particles in the submicron size range , 1988 .

[32]  D. Pui,et al.  Nanotechnology and occupational health: New technologies – new challenges , 2006 .

[33]  A. Maynard,et al.  Airborne Nanostructured Particles and Occupational Health , 2005 .