Assessment of Different Electron Microscopy Techniques for Particle Size Quantification of Potential Nanomaterials Philipp Müller 1 , Johannes Mielke 2 , Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba 2 , Ralf Kägi 3 and Martin Ryner 4 1. BASF SE, Department of Material Physics and Analytics, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 2. BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Berlin, Germany. 3. EAWAG aquatic research, Dübendorf, Switzerland. 4. Vironova AB, Stockholm, Sweden. NanoDefine is funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement-604347 M&M 2015, Portland (OR); Session A17.03 – Paper 155
23
Embed
Assessment of Different Electron Microscopy Techniques for ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Assessment of Different Electron Microscopy Techniques for Particle Size Quantification of Potential
NanomaterialsPhilipp Müller1, Johannes Mielke2, Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba2, Ralf Kägi3 and Martin Ryner4
1. BASF SE, Department of Material Physics and Analytics, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 2. BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Berlin, Germany.
3. EAWAG aquatic research, Dübendorf, Switzerland.4. Vironova AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
NanoDefine is funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement-604347
M&M 2015, Portland (OR); Session A17.03 – Paper 155
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Motivation: EC regulation
RECOMMENDATION on the definitionof nanomaterial (2011)
"Nanomaterial“ means a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and
where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm - 100 nm.
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
The NanoDefine approach
• Detailed assessment and benchmark of measuring techniques to develop a sustainable, flexible, cost efficient and easy to implement solution for nano-characterization
Among several other techniques; EM is evaluated by as potential gold standard for determination of number size distributions
• Field Flow Fractionation (FFF)• Centrifugal Liquid Sedimentation (CLS)
counting methods:• Electron Microscopy (EM)• Particle Tracking Analysis (PTA)• Nano Coulter counter• Single particle ICP-MS
check www.nanodefine.eu
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
FEI Tecnai G2TEM/STEM800k€/$
VironovaminiTEM250k€/$
FEI MagellanFEI BAM?TSEMJeol JSM7500SEM250k€/$
Phenom G2tabletopSEM50k€/$
7 samples, 7 imaging techniques, 4 institutions
EM round robin
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Samples
BaSO4
CaCO3
substances coated TiO2
Au
Ag
SiO2
mono- and bimodal calibrants
250 nm 200 nm
500 nm
500 nm
250 nm
BaSO4 (fine) MWCNT
CaCO3 (fine)
kaolin clay
coated TiO2
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Sample preparationCalibrants Au, Ag and SiO2: drying of one drop of the suspension on a TEM grid
Real life material:• Dispersion in 2mg/ml SHMP solution (sodium hexametaphosphate - calgon)• 3 min ultrasonic probe treatment• 5 min ultrasonic bath treatment• 3 µl drop on TEM-grid• Removal of excess solvent by a tissue after 5 min
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Approach of the round robinFind a cheap but comparable EM method for Particle size determination
manual measurement
… a pragmatic and (biased?) approach!
automated measurement usingparticle analyzer
• final version of public and free “imageJ” and “R” plugin will be released in ~2 years
• standard configuration!
10 nm 500 nm
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
the miniTEM processMiniTEM = BF TEM at 25 kV; low costs of ownershipEvaluation steps:1. Sample preparation for TEM (~15 min)2. Sample insertion + other manual steps (~10 min)3. Fully automated data acquisition (~2 h)4. Definition of analysis chain in the miniTEM Software (~1 h
but nearly the same protocol for all saples)5. Optional: manual optimization of results (5 min)
e.g. removing false positives
• 30 min of manual work/sample• Real- world price of 150 €/$ per sample possible
(reduction by factor 5-10) compared to TEM at BASF with manual evaluation
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
resultsGreen: <25% deviation from HAADF-TEM manual
Yellow: >25%<50% deviation
Red: >50% deviation
automatic evaluation of tabletop SEM images impossible
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
~100 nm
BF-TEM HAADF-STEMBF-miniTEM
BF-TSEM HAADF-TSEM SE-SEM TableTop -SEM
Comparison of the techniques- nano Au
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
~1µm
BF-TEM HAADF-STEMBF-miniTEM
BF-TSEM HAADF-TSEM SE-SEM TableTop -SEM
Comparison of the techniques- Kaolin
~ 1 µm
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
BF-TEM HAADF-STEMBF-miniTEM
BF-TSEM HAADF-TSEM SE-SEM TableTop -SEM
Comparison of the techniques- CaCO3
~ 500 nm
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
What do we learn for a pragmatic approach?• Spherical particles work perfect for automation• Even small particles are detected by all methods• Accuracy quickly drops for particles with a diameter of a few nm
particle size histogram of bimodal silicaautomated evaluation
100 nm
• manual: ~330 particles counted• auto.: several 1000 particles counted• Still not sufficient to reflect a bimodal distribution• No false negatives for all 80 studies
significant statistical error
Potentially even larger systematic error due to preparation artifacts
Benchmark with CRM needed;Error seems to be tolerable for threshold-based categorization
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Summary• TableTop SEM
does not meet requirements for EC definition
~100 nm
TableTop –SEM (nano Au)
30 nm
TSEM (nano Ag)• SEM and
especially TSEM safely detects particles < 5 nm
• Sufficient for threshold based decisions
• Main error seems to result from sample preparation (despite dispersion protocol)
• Pragmatic approaches in evaluation should be tolerable
500 nm
500 nm
• Automation works perfect for spherical samples and is sufficient for ~50% of real life material
• No false negatives at all!
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Thank you for your attention!
Funding:
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme(FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n°604347 – NanoDefine(www.nanodefine.eu)
Special thanks to:
Thorsten Wieczorek(lab work at BASF)Wendel Wohlleben(work on BET-based assesment)Thorsten Wagner (imageJ plugin + discussion)
Amusement in the poolAgglomerate of TiO2 nanoparticles as
used in sunscreen
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Backup
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Overview
1.Motivation – EC Regulation and the NanoDefine Project
2.Experimental section - The Electron Microscopy (EM) “round robin”
3.Results and take-home messages
4.Discussion of precision and remaining issues
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
Confidence interval of the medianbimodal silica Nano Au Nano Ag BaSO4 fine coated TiO2 MWCNT Kaolin CaCO3 fine
• Manual measurements on HAADF-STEM images• Despite low number of measurement: tolerable confidence interval• In all cases: clear assignment to nano/non-nano possible• All studies with a result of < 80 nm or >120 nm can be considered as clear cases
P. Müller; M&M 2015 Portland (OR), Session A17.03, Paper 155
What do we learn for a pragmatic approach?Kaolin- BF TEM
200 nm
• EM cannot measure the smallest dimension of the platelets
Possible solution:• Determine Volume Specific Surface Area (VSSA) by BET• Determine the number of small dimension by EM• Modify the cutoff value by which one would define a material as nano by BET: