ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing particle count in electron microscopy measurements of nanomaterials to support regulatory guidance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracking Nano- and Microplastics in Plants: Uptake Pathways, Tissue Distribution, and Analytical Strategies from Microscopy to Spectroscopy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Physicochemical characterisation of iron oxides and hydroxides applied as food additive E 172.Food chemistry: X · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the European Union, nanomaterials are regulated through different pieces of sectoral legislation. This legislation often requires risk assessments and thus reliable characterization data, for which regulatory guidance generally recommend electron microscopy. The guidance provides best practices for measurements but lacks requirements on how many particles to measure. Using transmission electron microscopy data of nanomaterials, a strategy based on repeated subsampling is proposed to establish, for different particle size and shape measurands, mathematical relationships between particle count and precision, and subsequently to determine the minimum particle count. Our results confirm that the minimum particle count generally depends on the width of the size and shape distributions and that the median of the distribution can be determined with the highest precision compared to other percentiles. Upon combining the precision uncertainty related to particle number with uncertainties from other sources, such as sample preparation, calibration and trueness, we reach an optimal particle count above which additional particle measurements only yield negligible improvements to the combined measurement uncertainty. Our findings offer an experimental approach for determining the minimum particle count to measure particle size and shape by electron microscopy. It enables efficient analyses and facilitates compliance with legislation addressing nanomaterials across various application domains.
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.