Cross Richard K, Bossa Nathan, Stolpe Björn, Loosli Frédéric, Sahlgren Nicklas Mønster, Clausen Per Axel, Delpivo Camilla, Persson Michael, Valsesia Andrea, Ponti Jessica, Mehn Dora, Seleci Didem Ag, Müller Philipp, von der Kammer Frank, Rauscher Hubert, Spurgeon Dave, Svendsen Claus, Wohlleben Wendel
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Pollution, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
LEITAT Technological Center, Carrer de la Innovació 2, 08225 Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain.
NanoImpact. 2022 Jul;27:100410. doi: 10.1016/j.impact.2022.100410. Epub 2022 Jul 3.
Nanoforms (NFs) of a substance may be distinguished from one another through differences in their physicochemical properties. When registering nanoforms of a substance for assessment under the EU REACH framework, five basic descriptors are required for their identification: composition, surface chemistry, size, specific surface area and shape. To make the risk assessment of similar NFs efficient, a number of grouping frameworks have been proposed, which often require assessment of similarity on individual physicochemical properties as part of the group justification. Similarity assessment requires an understanding of the achievable accuracy of the available methods. It must be demonstrated that measured differences between NFs are greater than the achievable accuracy of the method, to have confidence that the measured differences are indeed real. To estimate the achievable accuracy of a method, we assess the reproducibility of six analytical techniques routinely used to measure these five basic descriptors of nanoforms: inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), Electrophoretic light scattering (ELS), Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area and transmission and scanning electron microscopy (TEM and SEM). Assessment was performed on representative test materials to evaluate the reproducibility of methods on single NFs of substances. The achievable accuracy was defined as the relative standard deviation of reproducibility (RSD) for each method. Well established methods such as ICP-MS quantification of metal impurities, BET measurements of specific surface area, TEM and SEM for size and shape and ELS for surface potential and isoelectric point, all performed well, with low RSD, generally between 5 and 20%, with maximal fold differences usually <1.5 fold between laboratories. Applications of technologies such as TGA for measuring water content and putative organic impurities, additives or surface treatments (through loss on ignition), which have a lower technology readiness level, demonstrated poorer reproducibility, but still within 5-fold differences. The expected achievable accuracy of ICP-MS may be estimated for untested analytes using established relationships between concentration and reproducibility, but this is not yet the case for TGA measurements of loss on ignition or water content. The results here demonstrate an approach to estimate the achievable accuracy of a method that should be employed when interpreting differences between NFs on individual physicochemical properties.
一种物质的纳米形态(NFs)可通过其物理化学性质的差异相互区分。在欧盟化学品注册、评估、授权和限制(REACH)框架下对物质的纳米形态进行注册评估时,需要五个基本描述符来识别它们:组成、表面化学、尺寸、比表面积和形状。为了高效地对相似的纳米形态进行风险评估,已提出了一些分组框架,这些框架通常需要评估各个物理化学性质的相似性,作为分组依据的一部分。相似性评估需要了解现有方法可达到的准确度。必须证明纳米形态之间测得的差异大于该方法可达到的准确度,才能确信测得的差异确实是真实的。为了估计一种方法可达到的准确度,我们评估了六种常用于测量纳米形态这五个基本描述符的分析技术的重现性:电感耦合等离子体质谱法(ICP-MS)、热重分析(TGA)、电泳光散射(ELS)、布鲁诺尔-埃米特-泰勒(BET)比表面积以及透射电子显微镜和扫描电子显微镜(TEM和SEM)。对代表性测试材料进行了评估,以评价这些方法对物质单个纳米形态的重现性。可达到的准确度定义为每种方法重现性的相对标准偏差(RSD)。诸如ICP-MS对金属杂质的定量分析、BET对比表面积的测量、TEM和SEM用于尺寸和形状分析以及ELS用于表面电位和等电点分析等成熟方法,都表现良好,RSD较低,一般在5%至20%之间,实验室之间的最大倍数差异通常<1.5倍。TGA等技术用于测量水分含量以及假定的有机杂质、添加剂或表面处理(通过灼烧减量),这些技术的技术成熟度较低,其重现性较差,但差异仍在5倍以内。对于未测试的分析物,ICP-MS的预期可达到准确度可利用浓度与重现性之间的既定关系进行估计,但对于TGA测量的灼烧减量或水分含量,目前还无法做到这一点。此处的结果展示了一种估计方法可达到准确度的方法,在解释纳米形态在各个物理化学性质上的差异时应采用该方法。