The number of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) entering the market in everyday products is continuously increasing. These products range from health care to electronics, cosmetics and foodstuff. This increased use of MNMs results in greater environmental release and the potential long-term environmental impact of MNMs still remains poorly understood. As a result, concerns regarding the exposure to humans and other organisms arise. To ensure the safe advancement of market available nano-enabled products, a strong legislative framework is required. However, one of the major difficulties for developing this legislative framework is the ability to obtain reliable and reproducible characterisation information about the MNMs and their behaviour. This information is vital in order to simplify and facilitate hazard and exposure descriptions and allow for the development of a MNM grouping framework. Obtaining this information requires skillful and exceptionally knowledgeable operators who are familiar with the entire panoply of techniques available. These techniques include DLS, UV-VIS, ICP-OES, NTA and BET, among many others. Indeed, even “simple” characterisation of inter-laboratory comparisons produce astonishingly inconsistent data amongst participants. The main difficulty encountered producing these inconsistencies is ambiguity in method interpretation between instrument operators. Consequently, this methods collection series invites researchers with well-established standard operating procedures for analytical characterisation methodologies to submit their method focused contributions to help reduce method interpretation ambiguity and increase standardisation between operators and laboratories.
0 Views
•
Cited by 11
•
2020
•
Sophie M. Briffa1, Jo Sullivan2, Agnieszka Siupa2, Pauline Carnell-Morris2, Michele Carboni2, Kerstin Jurkschat3, Ruud J. B. Peters4, Carolin Schultz5, Kang Hee Seol6, Sook-Jin Kwon6, Sehee Park7, Tae Hyun Yoon6,7, Colin Johnston3, Stephen Lofts8, Eugenia Valsami-Jones1
1School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, 2Malvern Panalytical, 3Department of Materials, University of Oxford, 4Wageningen Food Safety Research, 5UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 6Institute for Next Generation Material Design, Hanyang University, 7Department of Chemistry, College of Natural Sciences, Hanyang University, 8UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
0 Views
•
Cited by 33
•
2021
•
Ana C. Quevedo1, Emily Guggenheim1, Sophie M. Briffa1, Jessica Adams2,3, Stephen Lofts2, Minjeong Kwak4, Tae Geol Lee4, Colin Johnston5, Stephan Wagner6, Timothy R. Holbrook6, Yves U. Hachenberger7, Jutta Tentschert7, Nicholas Davidson1, Eugenia Valsami-Jones1
1School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, 2UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 3Natural England, 4Center for Nanosafety Metrology, Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), 5Department of Materials, University of Oxford, 6Department of Analytical Chemistry, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, 7Department of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)