backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 15 comment(s) - last by CvP.. on Jan 11 at 2:06 PM

To aid in nanoscale measurements and research, NIST cooks up a golden standard

With so much research being done on the affects of nanoparticles in biological studies, the field has been in need of marker or set of standards to measure against. NIST, together with the National Cancer Institute's Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, has come up with just such a standard in the form of three different sizes of gold nanoparticles.

While things like nanoparticle cancer-killing bombs might sound like a boon to science and medicine, some experts worry that the toxicity of nanoparticles could cause severe problems in the future. The problem has been a lack of standards for nanoparticles, such as the measurement of toxicity, as well as a way to ensure that instruments and analytic techniques are accurate from one study or lab to the next.

NIST's work towards a standard has materialized in the form of three sizes of citrate-stabilized gold nanoparticles. The 10nm, 30nm, and 60nm particles can be purchased in a colloidal suspension in water in sets of 5mL ampoules for the small sum of $225. The particles' size and distribution have been extensively tested with multiple techniques for dry-deposited, aerosol and liquid-borne forms.

Particle size was measured using six different methods including atomic force microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, differential mobility analysis, dynamic light scattering and small-angle X-ray scattering

Along with the fundamental tests for nominal dimensions, tests were performed to measure toxicity and chemical composition. The particles were analyzed for concentrations of gold, chloride ion, sodium and citrate along with pH, electrical conductivity and zeta potential, or the measure of stability in a colloidal solution.

Each sample is also tested for sterility and endotoxins and a report of measurements accompanies them to their destination.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So...
By InternetGeek on 1/10/2008 9:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
How long until I can buy canisters with pre-programmed upgrades for my mind/body?




RE: So...
By ImSpartacus on 1/10/2008 10:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Who says we need canisters? Everything is in pill form!


RE: So...
By roadrun777 on 1/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: So...
By Ringold on 1/10/2008 10:12:12 PM , Rating: 5
Does NIST have a standardized method of measuring paranoia?


RE: So...
By jtemplin on 1/10/2008 10:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
lol.


RE: So...
By jhinoz on 1/10/2008 10:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, the tin/hour ratio. the number of hours a day you've got your tin hat on vs number of hours in a day.


RE: So...
By NegativeEntropy on 1/11/2008 7:39:15 AM , Rating: 6
Actually NIST would create and verify the standards, not the standard measurement method.

So, for example, they might unthaw a clone of Nixon and use him as a standard. Or, in the previously mentioned tinfoil hat hours measurement one could just use a calibrated clock or stopwatch.

ASTM or ISO is the type of organization that would devise the actual test method, the measuring apparatus would then be calibrated against NIST's "Nixon" standard (actually you'd need a number of standards, covering the range of the instrument from low to highest end -- [insert witty examples of people that had/have a range of paranoia here]) /pedant


RE: So...
By Rolphus on 1/11/2008 8:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
"I want eyes that can see in every spectrum even magnetic waves."

I'd settle for eyes that can see in the visible spectrum properly. Damn short-sightedness. ;)


RE: So...
By CvP on 1/11/2008 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
dont be a fool!! if you want a modified eye...try an eye with built-in James Bond's "see-through" glasses...


RE: So...
By Radeon117X on 1/11/2008 1:38:40 PM , Rating: 1
So...if you could see everything...microwaves, radio waves, UV and gamma rays, magnetic waves etc, and the air is literally saturated with all of these, how would you even make sense of what you want to see? Especially radio waves, since theyd be blocking things so much. It'll all me meaningless really, unless you can switch between what kind you want to see.


RE: So...
By Schadenfroh on 1/10/2008 10:47:51 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, suppository.


RE: So...
By jhinoz on 1/10/2008 10:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the point of something that's designed
quote:
To aid in nanoscale measurements
more like the point of a set of scales or a tape measure than something you'd find in Bioshock??


RE: So...
By jhinoz on 1/10/2008 10:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
This can only be good especially in regard to the measure of toxicity. If we know that x is the acceptable limit and these 225 buck packets define x then we don't have to mess around with further testing only to find out "whoops, nope that killed it .. uhh lets try something else"


RE: So...
By InternetGeek on 1/10/2008 11:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind it's a reference. I reckon what it means that the vials are full of the given size particles for companies to compare their measurements. It's funny but true: Companies do have to invest a lot of resources making sure their scales are ok.


RE: So...
By InternetGeek on 1/10/2008 11:55:12 PM , Rating: 1
Keep in mind it's a reference. I reckon what it means that the vials are full of the given size particles for companies to compare their measurements. It's funny but true: Companies do have to invest a lot of resources making sure their scales are ok.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki