2021
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26175315
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmarking the ACEnano Toolbox for Characterisation of Nanoparticle Size and Concentration by Interlaboratory Comparisons

Abstract: ACEnano is an EU-funded project which aims at developing, optimising and validating methods for the detection and characterisation of nanomaterials (NMs) in increasingly complex matrices to improve confidence in the results and support their use in regulation. Within this project, several interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) for the determination of particle size and concentration have been organised to benchmark existing analytical methods. In this paper the results of a number of these ILCs for the characteris… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, the PNC data were also compared to an aqueous suspensions, prepared according to a protocol described previously. 31 Here, only sunscreen “B” was analysed after dilution by ∼10 5 (water), ∼5.5 × 10 6 (mesitylene), ∼3.5 × 10 6 (toluene). Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, the PNC data were also compared to an aqueous suspensions, prepared according to a protocol described previously. 31 Here, only sunscreen “B” was analysed after dilution by ∼10 5 (water), ∼5.5 × 10 6 (mesitylene), ∼3.5 × 10 6 (toluene). Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to compare size and particle number concentration of sunscreen lotion, sunscreen sample was directly diluted into water, following the evaluated sample preparation procedure used for interlaboratory comparisons. 31…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to miscommunication a number of potential co-authors were not listed in the original publication [ 1 ]. The actual list of authors should be as follows:…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%