Cargando…

Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles

There can be a large variation in the measured diameter of nanoparticles depending on which method is used. In this work, we have strived to accurately determine the mean particle diameter of 30–40 nm colloidal silica particles by using six different techniques. A quantitative agreement between the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tuoriniemi, Jani, Johnsson, Ann-Cathrin J H, Holmberg, Jenny Perez, Gustafsson, Stefan, Gallego-Urrea, Julián A, Olsson, Eva, Pettersson, Jan B C, Hassellöv, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5090530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27877685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/15/3/035009
_version_ 1782464411539079168
author Tuoriniemi, Jani
Johnsson, Ann-Cathrin J H
Holmberg, Jenny Perez
Gustafsson, Stefan
Gallego-Urrea, Julián A
Olsson, Eva
Pettersson, Jan B C
Hassellöv, Martin
author_facet Tuoriniemi, Jani
Johnsson, Ann-Cathrin J H
Holmberg, Jenny Perez
Gustafsson, Stefan
Gallego-Urrea, Julián A
Olsson, Eva
Pettersson, Jan B C
Hassellöv, Martin
author_sort Tuoriniemi, Jani
collection PubMed
description There can be a large variation in the measured diameter of nanoparticles depending on which method is used. In this work, we have strived to accurately determine the mean particle diameter of 30–40 nm colloidal silica particles by using six different techniques. A quantitative agreement between the particle size distributions was obtained by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and electrospray-scanning mobility particle sizer (ES-SMPS). However, transmission electron microscopy gave a distribution shifted to smaller sizes. After confirming that the magnification calibration was consistent, this was attributed to sample preparation artifacts. The hydrodynamic diameter, d (h), was determined by dynamic light scattering (DLS) both in batch mode, and hyphenated with sedimentation field flow fractionation. Surprisingly the d (h) were smaller than the SEM, and ES-SMPS diameters. A plausible explanation for the smaller sizes found with DLS is that a permeable gel layer forms on the particle surface. Results from nanoparticle tracking analysis were strongly biased towards larger diameters, most likely because the silica particles provide low refractive index contrast. Calculations confirmed that the sensitivity is, depending on the shape of the laser beam, strongly size dependent for particles with diameters close to the visualization limit.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5090530
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50905302016-11-22 Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles Tuoriniemi, Jani Johnsson, Ann-Cathrin J H Holmberg, Jenny Perez Gustafsson, Stefan Gallego-Urrea, Julián A Olsson, Eva Pettersson, Jan B C Hassellöv, Martin Sci Technol Adv Mater Papers There can be a large variation in the measured diameter of nanoparticles depending on which method is used. In this work, we have strived to accurately determine the mean particle diameter of 30–40 nm colloidal silica particles by using six different techniques. A quantitative agreement between the particle size distributions was obtained by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and electrospray-scanning mobility particle sizer (ES-SMPS). However, transmission electron microscopy gave a distribution shifted to smaller sizes. After confirming that the magnification calibration was consistent, this was attributed to sample preparation artifacts. The hydrodynamic diameter, d (h), was determined by dynamic light scattering (DLS) both in batch mode, and hyphenated with sedimentation field flow fractionation. Surprisingly the d (h) were smaller than the SEM, and ES-SMPS diameters. A plausible explanation for the smaller sizes found with DLS is that a permeable gel layer forms on the particle surface. Results from nanoparticle tracking analysis were strongly biased towards larger diameters, most likely because the silica particles provide low refractive index contrast. Calculations confirmed that the sensitivity is, depending on the shape of the laser beam, strongly size dependent for particles with diameters close to the visualization limit. Taylor & Francis 2014-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5090530/ /pubmed/27877685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/15/3/035009 Text en © 2014 National Institute for Materials Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
spellingShingle Papers
Tuoriniemi, Jani
Johnsson, Ann-Cathrin J H
Holmberg, Jenny Perez
Gustafsson, Stefan
Gallego-Urrea, Julián A
Olsson, Eva
Pettersson, Jan B C
Hassellöv, Martin
Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
title Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
title_full Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
title_fullStr Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
title_full_unstemmed Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
title_short Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
title_sort intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles
topic Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5090530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27877685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/15/3/035009
work_keys_str_mv AT tuoriniemijani intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT johnssonanncathrinjh intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT holmbergjennyperez intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT gustafssonstefan intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT gallegourreajuliana intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT olssoneva intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT petterssonjanbc intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles
AT hassellovmartin intermethodcomparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionsofcolloidalsilicananoparticles