A comparison between various methods for real-time measurements of lung deposited surface area (LDSA) using

spherical particles and powder dust with specific surface area ranging from 0.03 to 112 m2 g–1 was conducted. LDSA

concentrations measured directly using Nanoparticle Surface Area Monitor (NSAM) and Aerotrak and were compared to

LDSA concentrations recalculated from size distribution measurements using Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI)

and Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS). FMPS and ELPI measurements were also compared to dust surface area

concentrations estimated from gravimetrical filter measurements and specific surface areas.

Measurement of LDSA showed very good correlation in measurements of spherical particles (R2 > 0.97, Ratio 1.0 to

1.04). High surface area nanomaterial powders showed a fairly reliable correlation between NSAM and Aerotrak (R2 0.73–

0.93) and a material-dependent offset in the ratios (1.04–2.8). However, the correlation and ratio were inconsistent for

lower LDSA concentrations. Similar levels of correlation were observed for the NSAM and the FMPS for high surface

area materials, but with the FMPS overestimating the LDSA concentration. The ELPI showed good correlation with

NSAM data for high LDSA materials (R2 0.87–0.93), but not for lower LDSA concentrations (R2 0.50–0.72). Comparisons

of respirable dust surface area from ELPI data correlated well (R2 > 0.98) with that calculated from filter samples, but

materials-specific exceptions were present.

We conclude that there is currently insufficient reliability and comparability between methods in the measurement of

LDSA concentrations. Further development is required to enable use of LDSA for reliable dose metric and regulatory

enforcement of exposure.

volume-specific surface area (VSSA) for the implementation of the European Commission’s recommended definition of “nanomaterial”. In that paper, VSSA values were calculated for polydisperse particulate materials using a particle number-based averaging method which do not agree with earlier results of VSSA simulations of polydisperse materials reported in 2014 by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC). In this contribution, we explain the difference between traditional view of VSSA which was used by the JRC and the proposed model of Lecloux. Through the use of some simple examples for polydisperse materials, it is demonstrated that the latter produces values which neither correspond to the generally accepted definition of VSSA nor relate to the commonly used experimental methods for determining VSSA using gas adsorption. Lecloux’s model therefore does not constitute a basis for practical implementation of the EC’s definition of nanomaterial using gas adsorption techniques.

Use BET for specific surface area. Forget other routes.

you can use the X-ray reflectivity to find the thickness, then you calculate your molar volume to find the surface

I will suggest you to use BET surface area analyzer to calculate surface area of nanomaterials.

I think for surface area measurement only BET should be used. The other means can confuse you with inappropriate results.

You can find here the way of getting surface area by XRD

Please find the attached file.

I agree with others, use BET method for the determination of surface area. BET method is considered as a standard method for surface area measurements of nanoparticles. BET method uses Nitrogen gas, which forms a monolayer on the surface of the nanoparticles. Depending on the amount of nitrogen absorbed and desorbed, which changes with the samples porosity, the surface area is determined. Required amount of the sample is very less. 

Thank you @Vijay Kumar for the paper u send. I agree with @ Alan F. Rawle but I want to calculate it through XRD data and Mercury porosimeter for cross-confirmation. If you have any idea or mathematical calculation by which I can calculate surface area it will be grateful.