Reading up on nanotechnology sometimes feels like trying to enter a conversation that’s taking place in code. I understand the English and the overall context but the meaning of significant chunks of the conversation sometimes eludes firm grasp. It’s gotten better over the years but there were a couple of announcements from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) which taken together mildly flummoxed me.
From the Feb. 17, 2011 news item on the Science Business Bulletin,
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has launched the first European repository of nanomaterials containing 25 different types of nanomaterials. [emphasis mine] This will support safety assessments, which will help to ensure consumer protection and confidence in applications and products based on these materials.
The repository will make it possible to carry out harmonised risk assessment, ensuring standardised methodologies and materials are available, and making it possible to obtain test results that are consistent with tests carried out worldwide. The repository will also provide reliable data for policy and regulatory decision making.
The repository was set up by the JRC in response to needs for safety-assessment testing from experts in the major international standardisation bodies. It contains most types of nanomaterials currently used in significant volumes in consumer products.
Some 8,000 test samples have already been distributed to European national authorities, and EU-funded research projects, and have also been used in international scientific co-operation initiatives. The nanomaterials in the repository are produced in collaboration with the German Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology under Good Laboratory Practice conditions. The 25 types of material include carbon nanotubes, silver nanoparticles, titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, zinc oxide, bentonite, gold and silicon dioxide.
You can get more details about the repository from the Joint Research Council (JRC),
Launching the repository officially today, Elke Anklam, Director of the JRC Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP), said: “This unique repository fosters standardisation in safety assessment and facilitates innovation by creating a common and consistent measurement framework for all stakeholders. This will both support international harmonisation bodies for standardising risk assessment as well as EU policy makers for regulatory issues.”
I’m inferring from this information that using the word nanoparticle isn’t definitive and, for example, the term silver nanoparticle has been used more loosely than I was aware. So logically, the repository holds the standard by which a silver nanoparticle is measured and the 8000 samples that have been sent out from the repository ensure that major players in Europe are using the same standard when analyzing a silver nanoparticle.
Then there was another announcement from the JRC. From the Feb. 18, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has developed the world’s first certified nanoparticle reference material based on industry-sourced nanoparticles. [emphasis mine] This new material will help ensure the comparability of measurements worldwide, thereby facilitating trade, ensuring compliance with legislation and enhancing innovation.
Nanotechnology offers a range of benefits over traditional materials and enables the development of innovative applications and products. However, there are often concerns about the safety aspects and to what extent these have been investigated. High-quality measurements are the basis for reliable safety assessments, process improvement, quality control and the development of new nanotechnology applications.
Until now, however, no certified benchmarks incorporating industrial nanoparticles were available. Some synthetic materials were available, but they were not fully representative for “real-life” measurements.
For this reason, the JRC’s Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) has produced the world’s first certified reference material based on real-world, industry-sourced nanoparticles. The material (ERM-FD100) consists of silica nanoparticles of a nominal diameter of 20 nanometers (nm). Silica nanoparticles are amongst the most widely used nanoparticles at the moment in products such as polish, whiteners and dispersants.
This material provides the basis for reliable hazard assessments and to check that nanomaterials conform to the internationally accepted definition, as laid down in the respective ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) technical specification. It will enable producers of nanoparticles to monitor production quality over time against a stable reference point, and to assess the impact of process improvements. Furthermore, the certified reference material will contribute to establishing market confidence, demonstrating that nanomaterial products meet the customers’ technical specifications.
If I understand this rightly, a new material has been created made up of silica nanoparticles with “nominal diameter of 20 nanometers” which can be used as benchmark for measuring nanoparticles of any type. What I don’t understand is the information about the nominal diameter of the silica nanoparticles. Why is this information included but no information about the size of the ‘benchmark’ material (ERM-FD100). Does the 100 stand for something? Also, if there’s a nominal diameter, doesn’t that mean the diameter of the constituent silica nanoparticles might be larger? Following that line of thought further, if the diameters vary, how can you ensure your new material is the size that you claim for it? My guess for the answer to that last question is that all measurements are subject to imperfections and that we get as accurate as we can. If anyone has any answers, thoughts, or guesses to any of my questions, please do make use of the comments section.