ArticleAnalytical chemistry2025
Derivation of Particle Number Concentration from the Size Distribution: Theory and Applications.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality Evaluation Considerations for Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles-Based Therapeutic Products in China.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The particle number concentration (PNC) in a suspension is a key measurand in nanotechnology. A common approach for deriving PNC is to divide the total mass concentration by the per-particle mass, calculated as density times volume. The volume is most frequently derived from the arithmetic mean diameter (AMD) of the size distribution. The harmonic mean volume (HMV) has also been used. Given a known size distribution, we show that the correct PNC is obtained by using the arithmetic mean volume (AMV). The AMD-based volume results in an overestimate in PNC that increases superlinearly with increasing coefficient of variation (CV), reaching 12% at CV = 0.2 for a normal distribution. HMV would yield a much greater overestimate, exceeding 50%. The error in the AMD-derived PNC shows only weak skew dependence, suggesting a simple approximate correction as a function of CV in the common situation where AMD and CV are known but the overall size distribution is unknown. Using published data sets of gold nanoparticles, we demonstrate an overall consistency of ±1.1% in comparing the PNC directly determined by single-particle inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (spICP-MS) and the PNCs derived from AMV using size distributions independently measured by high-resolution scanning electron microscopy and spICP-MS. We further compare AMV and AMD-derived PNCs for well-characterized polystyrene nanoparticle standards, illustrating sensitivity to distributional characteristics along with common errors to avoid. Nanoparticles in environmental samples, food additives, and nanomedicines often have CVs greater than 0.3, for which uncorrected AMD-derived PNC errors can exceed 35%.
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.