ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Size Uncertainty in Individual Nanoparticles Measured by Single Particle Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sizing and quantification of micro- and nanoplastics by single particle ICP-MS: a comparison between quadrupole and high-resolution instruments.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Article
- Qualitative Evaluation of Binding States of Lipid Membranes to Mesoporous Silica Microspheres via Single-Particle Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- ICP-MS-Based Characterization and Quantification of Nano- and Microstructures.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Particle Size Measurement and Detection of Bound Proteins of Non-Porous/Mesoporous Silica Microspheres by Single-Particle Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry has been used for size measurements of individual nanoparticles (NPs). Here, uncertainties in size analysis based upon two calibration approaches were evaluated: (i) the use of particle size standard and (ii) the use of ion standard solution. For particle size standard approach, the source of uncertainty to determine the target NP diameter was related to the variation in the signal intensities of both target NPs and particle size standard, and the size distribution of the particle size standard. The relative uncertainties of the 50 nm silver NP as the target were 15.0%, 9.9%, and 10.8% when particle size standards of 30 nm, 60 nm, and 100 nm silver NPs were used, respectively. As for the ion standard solution approach, the sources of uncertainty were the concentration of working standard solution, sample flow rate, transport efficiency, slope of calibration curve, and variation in the signal intensity of the ion standard solution and of the target NPs. The relative uncertainties for the 50 nm silver NP were 18.5% for 1 ng/g, 7.6% for 10 ng/g, and 4.7% for 100 ng/g solutions. The lower uncertainty obtained with a high concentration working standard solution is recommended to improve precision on particle size determinations by spICP-MS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.