No abstract

The authors critically reviewed published lists of nano-objects and their physico-chemical properties deemed important for risk assessment and discussed metrological challenges associated with the development of nanoscale reference materials (RMs). Five lists were identified that contained 25 (classes of) nano-objects; only four (gold, silicon dioxide, silver, titanium dioxide) appeared on all lists. Twenty-three properties were identified for characterisation; only (specific) surface area appeared on all lists. The key themes that emerged from this review were: 1) various groups have prioritised nano-objects for development as "candidate RMs" with limited consensus; 2) a lack of harmonised terminology hinders accurate description of many nano-object properties; 3) many properties identified for characterisation are ill-defined or qualitative and hence are not metrologically traceable; 4) standardised protocols are critically needed for characterisation of nano-objects as delivered in relevant media and as administered to toxicological models; 5) the measurement processes being used to characterise a nano-object must be understood because instruments may measure a given sample in a different way; 6) appropriate RMs should be used for both accurate instrument calibration and for more general testing purposes (e.g., protocol validation); 7) there is a need to clarify that where RMs are not available, if "(representative) test materials" that lack reference or certified values may be useful for toxicology testing and 8) there is a need for consensus building within the nanotechnology and environmental, health and safety communities to prioritise RM needs and better define the required properties and (physical or chemical) forms of the candidate materials.

This paper is the fourth in a series dealing with reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes at 37 degrees C and the certification of reference preparations. Other parts deal with: Part 1. The Concept of Reference Procedures for the Measurement of Catalytic Activity Concentrations of Enzymes; Part 2. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Creatine Kinase; Part 3. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Lactate Dehydrogenase; Part 5. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Aspartate Aminotransferase; Part 6. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Gamma-Glutamyltransferase; Part 7. Certification of Four Reference Materials for the Determination of Enzymatic Activity of Gamma-Glutamyltransferase, Lactate Dehydrogenase, Alanine Aminotransferase and Creatine Kinase at 37 degrees C. A document describing the determination of preliminary upper reference limits is also in preparation. The procedure described here is deduced from the previously described 30 degrees C IFCC reference method. Differences are tabulated and commented on in Appendix 2.

This paper is the fifth in a series dealing with reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes at 37 degrees C and the certification of reference preparations. Other parts deal with: Part 1. The Concept of Reference Procedures for the Measurement of Catalytic Activity Concentrations of Enzymes; Part 2. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Creatine Kinase; Part 3. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Lactate Dehydrogenase; Part 4. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Alanine Aminotransferase; Part 6. Reference Procedure for the Measurement of Catalytic Concentration of Gamma-Glutamyltransferase; Part 7. Certification of Four Reference Materials for the Determination of Enzymatic Activity of Gamma-Glutamyltransferase, Lactate Dehydrogenase, Alanine Aminotransferase and Creatine Kinase at 37 degrees C. A document describing the determination of preliminary upper reference limits is also in preparation. The procedure described here is deduced from the previously described 30 degrees C IFCC reference method. Differences are tabulated and commented on in Appendix 3.

This publication describes the first international intercomparison of particle-size determination by single-particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (sp-ICPMS). Concentrated monodisperse silver nanoparticle suspensions with particle diameters of 20, 40 and 100 nm and a blank solution were sent to 23 laboratories in Europe, the USA and Canada. Laboratories prepared eight nanoparticle preparations in two food simulants (distilled water; 10% ethanol) and reported median particle size, Ag particle mass concentration and Ag particle number concentrations. Average repeatability and reproducibility standard deviation (sr and sR) for the median particle diameter were 1 and 14 nm, respectively. Relative precision was worse for Ag particle number concentrations (RSD r = 11%; RSD R = 78%). While further improvements of the method, especially with respect to software tools for evaluation, hardware options for shorter dwell times, calibration standards for determining nebuliser efficiency and further experience by laboratories are certainly desirable, the results of this study demonstrate the suitability of sp-ICPMS for the detection and quantification of certain kinds of nanoparticles.