Inter-laboratory comparison of nanoparticle size measurements using dynamic light scattering and differential centrifugal sedimentation

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10146/618232
Title:
Inter-laboratory comparison of nanoparticle size measurements using dynamic light scattering and differential centrifugal sedimentation
Authors:
Langevin, D.; Lozano, O.; Salvati, A.; Kestens, V.; Monopoli, M.; Raspaud, E.; Mariot, S.; Salonen, A.; Thomas, S.; Driessen, M.; Haase, A.; Nelissen, I.; Smisdom, N.; Pompa, P.P.; Maiorano, G.; Puntes, V.; Puchowicz, D.; Stępnik, M.; Suárez, G.; Riediker, M.; Benetti, F.; Mičetić, I.; Venturini, M.; Kreyling, W.G.; van der Zande, M.; Bouwmeester, H.; Milani, S.; Rädler, J.O.; Mülhopt, S.; Lynch, I.; Dawson, K.
Abstract:
Nanoparticle in vitro toxicity studies often report contradictory results with one main reason being insufficient material characterization. In particular the characterization of nanoparticles in biological media remains challenging. Our aim was to provide robust protocols for two of the most commonly applied techniques for particle sizing, i.e. dynamic light scattering (DLS) and differential centrifugal sedimentation (DCS) that should be readily applicable also for users not specialized in nanoparticle physico-chemical characterization. A large number of participants (40, although not all participated in all rounds) were recruited for a series of inter-laboratory comparison (ILC) studies covering many different instrument types, commercial and custom-built, as another possible source of variation. ILCs were organized in a consecutive manner starting with dispersions in water employing well-characterized near-spherical silica nanoparticles (nominal 19 nm and 100 nm diameter) and two types of functionalized spherical polystyrene nanoparticles (nominal 50 nm diameter). At first each laboratory used their in-house established procedures. In particular for the 19 nm silica particles, the reproducibility of the methods was unacceptably high (reported results were between 10 nm and 50 nm). When comparing the results of the first ILC round it was observed that the DCS methods performed significantly worse than the DLS methods, thus emphasizing the need for standard operating procedures (SOPs). SOPs have been developed by four expert laboratories but were tested for robustness by a larger number of independent users in a second ILC (11 for DLS and 4 for DCS). In a similar approach another SOP for complex biological fluids, i.e. cell culture medium containing serum was developed, again confirmed via an ILC with 8 participating laboratories. Our study confirms that well-established and fit-for-purpose SOPs are indispensable for obtaining reliable and comparable particle size data. Our results also show that these SOPs must be optimized with respect to the intended measurement system (e.g. particle size technique, type of dispersant) and that they must be sufficiently detailed (e.g. avoiding ambiguity regarding measurand definition, etc.). SOPs may be developed by a small number of expert laboratories but for their widespread applicability they need to be verified by a larger number of laboratories.
Affiliation:
Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine
Citation:
NanoImpact 2018, 10:97-107
Journal:
NanoImpact
Issue Date:
Apr-2018
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10146/618232
DOI:
10.1016/j.impact.2017.12.004
Additional Links:
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2452074817300903
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
24520748
Sponsors:
This work has been supported by the EU FP7 Capacities project QualityNano (grant no. INFRA-2010-262163). We are grateful to Sergio Anguissola, M. Zeghal, A. Dybowska, E. Isak, S. Schaaf, M. Cieślak, A. Wenk, S. Lucas, M. Nocuń, A. Jacobs, S.K. Misra, J. Forsgren, M. Giesberg, E. Rojas, S. Patel, S. Lawson and K. Steenson for their help during the measurements. We also acknowledge the participation of the following laboratories (not in the authors' list): Natural History Museum, London; Angstrom Microstructure Laboratory Myfab, Uppsala University, Sweden; Bayer Technology Services GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany; CIC biomaGUNE, Unidad Biosuperficies, San Sebastián, Spain; Institute of Particle Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Leeds, England. The authors also thank E. Duh (JRC) for proofreading this manuscript.
Appears in Collections:
Articles

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorLangevin, D.en
dc.contributor.authorLozano, O.en
dc.contributor.authorSalvati, A.en
dc.contributor.authorKestens, V.en
dc.contributor.authorMonopoli, M.en
dc.contributor.authorRaspaud, E.en
dc.contributor.authorMariot, S.en
dc.contributor.authorSalonen, A.en
dc.contributor.authorThomas, S.en
dc.contributor.authorDriessen, M.en
dc.contributor.authorHaase, A.en
dc.contributor.authorNelissen, I.en
dc.contributor.authorSmisdom, N.en
dc.contributor.authorPompa, P.P.en
dc.contributor.authorMaiorano, G.en
dc.contributor.authorPuntes, V.en
dc.contributor.authorPuchowicz, D.en
dc.contributor.authorStępnik, M.en
dc.contributor.authorSuárez, G.en
dc.contributor.authorRiediker, M.en
dc.contributor.authorBenetti, F.en
dc.contributor.authorMičetić, I.en
dc.contributor.authorVenturini, M.en
dc.contributor.authorKreyling, W.G.en
dc.contributor.authorvan der Zande, M.en
dc.contributor.authorBouwmeester, H.en
dc.contributor.authorMilani, S.en
dc.contributor.authorRädler, J.O.en
dc.contributor.authorMülhopt, S.en
dc.contributor.authorLynch, I.en
dc.contributor.authorDawson, K.en
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-04T09:39:13Z-
dc.date.available2018-12-04T09:39:13Z-
dc.date.issued2018-04-
dc.identifier.citationNanoImpact 2018, 10:97-107en
dc.identifier.issn24520748-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.impact.2017.12.004-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10146/618232-
dc.description.abstractNanoparticle in vitro toxicity studies often report contradictory results with one main reason being insufficient material characterization. In particular the characterization of nanoparticles in biological media remains challenging. Our aim was to provide robust protocols for two of the most commonly applied techniques for particle sizing, i.e. dynamic light scattering (DLS) and differential centrifugal sedimentation (DCS) that should be readily applicable also for users not specialized in nanoparticle physico-chemical characterization. A large number of participants (40, although not all participated in all rounds) were recruited for a series of inter-laboratory comparison (ILC) studies covering many different instrument types, commercial and custom-built, as another possible source of variation. ILCs were organized in a consecutive manner starting with dispersions in water employing well-characterized near-spherical silica nanoparticles (nominal 19 nm and 100 nm diameter) and two types of functionalized spherical polystyrene nanoparticles (nominal 50 nm diameter). At first each laboratory used their in-house established procedures. In particular for the 19 nm silica particles, the reproducibility of the methods was unacceptably high (reported results were between 10 nm and 50 nm). When comparing the results of the first ILC round it was observed that the DCS methods performed significantly worse than the DLS methods, thus emphasizing the need for standard operating procedures (SOPs). SOPs have been developed by four expert laboratories but were tested for robustness by a larger number of independent users in a second ILC (11 for DLS and 4 for DCS). In a similar approach another SOP for complex biological fluids, i.e. cell culture medium containing serum was developed, again confirmed via an ILC with 8 participating laboratories. Our study confirms that well-established and fit-for-purpose SOPs are indispensable for obtaining reliable and comparable particle size data. Our results also show that these SOPs must be optimized with respect to the intended measurement system (e.g. particle size technique, type of dispersant) and that they must be sufficiently detailed (e.g. avoiding ambiguity regarding measurand definition, etc.). SOPs may be developed by a small number of expert laboratories but for their widespread applicability they need to be verified by a larger number of laboratories.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work has been supported by the EU FP7 Capacities project QualityNano (grant no. INFRA-2010-262163). We are grateful to Sergio Anguissola, M. Zeghal, A. Dybowska, E. Isak, S. Schaaf, M. Cieślak, A. Wenk, S. Lucas, M. Nocuń, A. Jacobs, S.K. Misra, J. Forsgren, M. Giesberg, E. Rojas, S. Patel, S. Lawson and K. Steenson for their help during the measurements. We also acknowledge the participation of the following laboratories (not in the authors' list): Natural History Museum, London; Angstrom Microstructure Laboratory Myfab, Uppsala University, Sweden; Bayer Technology Services GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany; CIC biomaGUNE, Unidad Biosuperficies, San Sebastián, Spain; Institute of Particle Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Leeds, England. The authors also thank E. Duh (JRC) for proofreading this manuscript.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2452074817300903en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to NanoImpacten
dc.subjectNanoparticlesen
dc.titleInter-laboratory comparison of nanoparticle size measurements using dynamic light scattering and differential centrifugal sedimentationen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentNofer Institute of Occupational Medicineen
dc.identifier.journalNanoImpacten
All Items in ECNIS-NIOM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.