# Talk:Characterization of nanoparticles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Characterization of nanoparticles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this review. Give me some time to read through it.  HaEr48 (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
In general, I think this article is close to the GA criteria. For the most part, it is well written and reasonably understandable given the technical topic, but please see feedback below which I hope can improve clarity. It is well-referenced. I did spot-check several citations and they seem to check out. It doesn't seem to have original research, neutrality, or copyvio problem. It addresses the main topics without getting distracted by unnecessary details. Images are appropriately licensed and relevant.

In the very first sentence, can we say a few words about what "characterization" means, for accessibility? E.g. "that deals with characterization, or measurement of physical and chemical …" if that makes sense?  Done
Nanoparticles have at least one primary external dimension of less than 100 nanometers: Can we say something like "nanoparticles measure less than 100 nanometers in at least one of its dimensions", which IMO sounds less intimidating than "primary external dimension"?  Done
"from those of their bulk components": can we clarify what is meant by the properties "of their bulk components"?  Done
"This article uses the broader definition of nanoparticles which includes ...": "broader" compared to the definition in the previous passage? Or just broader compared to other definitions? Consider rewording to clarify.  Done
These properties influence the health effects of exposure to nanoparticles of a given composition: before discussing the effect of these properties in this one specific field, can we first discuss the their more general effects?  Done
nanoparticles may be characterized in complex matrices: is it possible to wikilink " complex matrices" or "matrices", or use a more accessible word? I have a hard time understanding this sentence.  Done
Some miscellaneous methods are electrophoresis for surface charge, the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller method for surface area, and X-ray diffraction for crystal structure,[4] as well as mass spectrometry for particle mass, and particle counters for particle number: why are they enumerated in two separate lists (before and after "as well as"), instead of just one list?
The lists come from separate sources, and the wording is intended to clarify that the entire first list come from [4] rather than just the item immediately preceding it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Dispersion is the degree to which particles clump together into weakly bound agglomerates or strongly bound aggregates: Is the picture of agglomerates or of aggregates?  Done
Several size factors can be used, such as sphericity or circularity, aspect ratio, elongation, convexity, and fractal dimension: What does "size factor" mean here? Can it be clarified, e.g. can the sentence start with "Shape-related properties that are characterized include …"?  Done
though others such as Raman spectroscopy exist: Just wondering, why this is contrasted from the previous methods? Is it less commonly used?
This reflects the wording of the source. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
However, standardized "assay cascades” have been developed to assist with this: Is it possible to elaborate what "assay cascades" mean and how it relates to standardized methods in nanomedicine?  Done
Surface area: The first paragraph duplicates "Different methods measure different aspects of surface area", please remove one.   Done
Surface chemistry measurements are particularly sensitive to contamination on particle surfaces, and quantitative analyses are difficult and spatial resolution can be poor: Is there a reason for having two and's in this sentence'?  Done
Surface potential is difficult to directly measure: Link "surface potential" or at least "potential" so we know in which sense the word is used in this sentence?  Done
Link "Henry function" or add context about what it has to do in the sentence it's in?  Done
It is used as an indicator of colloidal stability: Does "it" refer to Zeta potential? Suggest spelling it out because there have been many other nouns before it.  Done
Image caption: The instruments shown here include a condensation particle counter, aerosol photometer, and two air sampling pumps for filter-based analysis: Is it possible to add something like (left), (right), etc. in the caption so that we know which one in the picture is which?  Done
It is a vital step in mitigating the health and safety hazards of nanomaterials in workplaces where they are handled: How about "It is intended to mitigate …." for neutrality?  Done
The NIOSH Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (NEAT 2.0): Would it be more useful to introduce the full form of NIOSH in this first mention, as well as mentioning it comes from the United States? Also, shouldn't it be "(NEAT) 2.0" rather than "(NEAT 2.0)"  Done
Also, down in the last paragraph of this section you do spell out "U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health". You can use the acronym here once the first mention is spelled out.  Done
The NEAT 2.0 approach uses two filter samples in the worker's personal breathing zone and as area samples: Does this mean 2 personal samples + 2 area samples? Or 1+1? Or 2 samples acting as both? Please clarify  Done
Some NIOSH methods developed for other chemicals can be used for off-line analysis of nanoparticles,[1] including their morphology and geometry,[18] elemental carbon content (relevant for carbon-based nanoparticles),[19][20] and elemental analysis for several metals: This seems to be a plug because all references come from NIOSH, are there secondary sources that talk about them?  Done
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): I didn't see any secondary source get added for this? HaEr48 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@HaEr48: I've added secondary sources for this and the NEAT paragraph. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
300 μg/m<sup href="National Institute of Standards and Technology">3</sup>: The href is  mistakenly pasted, correct?  Done
Thank you for this well-researched and informative article. I hope my feedback above helps. If any of my suggestions does not help, feel free to discuss or push back. HaEr48 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for the very thorough review!  I'll try to make the requested revisions in the next week or so. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I just did a first batch of revisions, more to come later. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@HaEr48: I've gotten all of them now. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Thank you for the responses. I'm happy with all of them now. I'll pass this review now. Good work on the article. HaEr48 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)