Advertisement

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 7317–7329 | Cite as

Interlaboratory comparison for the measurement of particle size and zeta potential of silica nanoparticles in an aqueous suspension

  • Andrée Lamberty
  • Katrin Franks
  • Adelina Braun
  • Vikram Kestens
  • Gert Roebben
  • Thomas P. J. Linsinger
Discussion

Abstract

The Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements has organised an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) to allow the participating laboratories to demonstrate their proficiency in particle size and zeta potential measurements on monomodal aqueous suspensions of silica nanoparticles in the 10–100 nm size range. The main goal of this ILC was to identify competent collaborators for the production of certified nanoparticle reference materials. 38 laboratories from four different continents participated in the ILC with different methods for particle sizing and determination of zeta potential. Most of the laboratories submitted particle size results obtained with centrifugal liquid sedimentation (CLS), dynamic light scattering (DLS) or electron microscopy (EM), or zeta potential values obtained via electrophoretic light scattering (ELS). The results of the laboratories were evaluated using method-specific z scores, calculated on the basis of consensus values from the ILC. For CLS (13 results) and EM (13 results), all reported values were within the ±2 |z| interval. For DLS, 25 of the 27 results reported were within the ±2 |z| interval, the two other results were within the ±3 |z| interval. The standard deviations of the corresponding laboratory mean values varied between 3.7 and 6.5%, which demonstrates satisfactory interlaboratory comparability of CLS, DLS and EM particle size values. From the received test reports, a large discrepancy was observed in terms of the laboratory’s quality assurance systems, which are equally important for the selection of collaborators in reference material certification projects. Only a minority of the participating laboratories is aware of all the items that are mandatory in test reports compliant to ISO/IEC 17025 (ISO General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, 2005b). The absence of measurement uncertainty values in the reports, for example, hindered the calculation of zeta scores.

Keywords

Silica nanoparticles Methods for measurement of particle size Zeta potential Interlaboratory comparison Certification of reference materials International collaboration 

References

  1. ASTM (2009a) Research report to E2490 standard, RR:E56-1001. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM (2009b) ASTM E 2490-09, Standard guide for measurement of particle size distribution of nanoparticles in suspension by photon correlation spectroscopy (PCS). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun A, Couteau O, Franks K, Kestens V, Roebben G, Lamberty A, Linsinger TPJ (2011) Validation of dynamic light scattering and centrifugal liquid sedimentation methods for nanoparticle characterisation. Adv Powder Technol 22:766–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finsy R, De Jaeger N (1991) Particle sizing by photon correlation spectroscopy. Part II: Average values. Part Part Syst Charact 8:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finsy R, De Jaeger N, Sneyers R, Geladé E (1992) Particle sizing by photon correlation spectroscopy. Part III: Mono and bimodal distributions and data analysis. Part Part Syst Charact 9:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO (1994) ISO 5725, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. ISO (2001) ISO 13318–1, Determination of particle size distribution by centrifugal liquid sedimentation methods—Part 1: General principles and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO (2005a) ISO 13528, Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. ISO (2005b) ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. ISO (2006) ISO Guide 35, Reference materials: general and statistical principles for certification. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (2008a) ISO 22412, Particle size analysis—dynamic light scattering. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO (2008b) ISO/TS 27687, Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO (2009) ISO Guide 34, General requirements for the competence of reference material producers. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (2010) ISO/IEC 17043, Conformity assessment—general requirements for proficiency testing. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Linsinger TPJ, Pauwels J, Lamberty A, Schimmel H, van der Veen AMH, Siekmann L (2001) Estimating the uncertainty of stability for matrix CRMs. Fresenius J Anal Chem 370:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Linsinger TPJ, Roebben G, Solans C, Ramsch R (2011) Reference materials for measuring the size of nanoparticles. Trends Anal Chem 30:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roebben G, Ramirez-Garcia S, Hackley VA, Roesslein M, Klaessig F, Kestens V, Lynch I, Garner CM, Rawle A, Elder A, Colvin VL, Kreyling W, Krug HF, Lewicka ZA, McNeil S, Nel A, Patri A, Wick P, Wiesner M, Xia T, Obersdörster G, Dawson KA (2011) Interlaboratory comparison of size and surface charge measurements on nanoparticles prior to biological impact assessment. J Nanopart Res 13:2675–2687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R (2006) The international harmonized protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories. Pure Appl Chem 78:145–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van der Veen AMH, Linsinger TPJ, Pauwels J (2001) Uncertainty calculations in the certification of reference materials. 2. Homogeneity study. Accred Qual Assur 6:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrée Lamberty
    • 1
  • Katrin Franks
    • 1
  • Adelina Braun
    • 1
  • Vikram Kestens
    • 1
  • Gert Roebben
    • 1
  • Thomas P. J. Linsinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) GeelGeelBelgium

Personalised recommendations