Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32865398›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2020

Particle Size Distributions for Cellulose Nanocrystals Measured by Transmission Electron Microscopy: An Interlaboratory Comparison.

Juris Meija, Michael Bushell, Martin Couillard, Stephanie Beck, John Bonevich, Kai Cui, Johan Foster, John Will, Douglas Fox, Whirang Cho and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical chemistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Juris MeijaNational Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada.
Michael BushellNational Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada.
Martin CouillardNational Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada.
Stephanie BeckFPInnovations, Pointe-Claire, Quebec H9R 3J9, Canada.
John BonevichMaterials Science and Engineering Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, United States.
Kai CuiNational Research Council Canada, Nanotechnology Research Centre, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2M9, Canada.
Johan FosterDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, United States.
John WillDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, United States.
Douglas FoxDepartment of Chemistry, American University, Washington, District of Columbia 20016, United States.
Whirang ChoDepartment of Chemistry, American University, Washington, District of Columbia 20016, United States.
Markus HeidelmannInterdisciplinary Center for Analytics on the Nanoscale, University of Duisburg-Essen, 47057 Duisburg, Germany.
Byong Chon ParkCenter for Nanocharacterization, Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science, Daejeon 34113, Republic of Korea.
Yun Chang ParkDivision of Measurement & Analysis, National Nanofab Center, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea.
Lingling RenNational Institute of Metrology, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China.
Li XuNational Institute of Metrology, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China.
Aleksandr B StefaniakNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, United States.
Alycia K KneppNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, United States.
Ralf TheissmannKRONOS INTERNATIONAL Inc., Peschstrasse 5, 51373 Leverkusen, Germany.
Horst PurwinKRONOS INTERNATIONAL Inc., Peschstrasse 5, 51373 Leverkusen, Germany.
Ziqiu WangElectron Microscopy Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Frederick National Laboratory, Frederick, Maryland 21702, United States.
Natalia de ValElectron Microscopy Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Frederick National Laboratory, Frederick, Maryland 21702, United States.
Linda J JohnstonNational Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9136-4920

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Particle size is a key parameter that must be measured to ensure reproducible production of cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) and to achieve reliable performance metrics for specific CNC applications. Nevertheless, size measurements for CNCs are challenging due to their broad size distribution, irregular rod-shaped particles, and propensity to aggregate and agglomerate. We report an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) that tests transmission electron microscopy (TEM) protocols for image acquisition and analysis. Samples of CNCs were prepared on TEM grids in a single laboratory, and detailed data acquisition and analysis protocols were provided to participants. CNCs were imaged and the size of individual particles was analyzed in 10 participating laboratories that represent a cross section of academic, industrial, and government laboratories with varying levels of experience with imaging CNCs. The data for each laboratory were fit to a skew normal distribution that accommodates the variability in central location and distribution width and asymmetries for the various datasets. Consensus values were obtained by modeling the variation between laboratories using a skew normal distribution. This approach gave consensus distributions with values for mean, standard deviation, and shape factor of 95.8, 38.2, and 6.3 nm for length and 7.7, 2.2, and 2.9 nm for width, respectively. Comparison of the degree of overlap between distributions for individual laboratories indicates that differences in imaging resolution contribute to the variation in measured widths. We conclude that the selection of individual CNCs for analysis and the variability in CNC agglomeration and staining are the main factors that lead to variations in measured length and width between laboratories.

Identifiers

PMID32865398
PMCPMC8262570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.