电喷雾-扫描迁移率粒度仪(ES-SMPS)技术:与 NTA 和 DLS 相比,胶体纳米颗粒的粒度和多模态表征更出色

IF 6.7 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL
Ma Rahman, Qisheng Ou, David Pui
{"title":"电喷雾-扫描迁移率粒度仪(ES-SMPS)技术:与 NTA 和 DLS 相比,胶体纳米颗粒的粒度和多模态表征更出色","authors":"Ma Rahman, Qisheng Ou, David Pui","doi":"10.1021/acs.analchem.4c02891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study primarily employed three techniques─electrospray-scanning mobility particle sizer (ES-SMPS), nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and dynamic light scattering (DLS)─to assess multimodal samples. For monodisperse particles, both ES-SMPS (all sizes) and NTA (for particles larger than 40 nm) accurately determined the mean size, while DLS overestimated it. The ES-SMPS technique demonstrated precision in particle counting for multimodal samples, with a standard deviation of around 2.5–4%. Conversely, NTA’s ability to count particles potentially leads to misinterpretation. The ES-SMPS approach could identify particle peaks in multimodal (bimodal, trimodal, and tetramodal) samples and show the relatively accurate position of the mode diameter. In contrast to ES-SMPS, DLS and NTA have weaknesses in characterizing multimodal samples. While NTA’s performance depends on the optical properties of particles and cannot measure silica particles smaller than 30–40 nm, ES-SMPS is independent of light scattering and can handle particles as small as ∼13 nm. The ES-SMPS also excelled in separating particle peaks of the bimodal sample with a size interval gap of 10 nm, whereas NTA needs at least 20–50 nm depending on the particle type. To sum up, the ES-SMPS method performs better and provides more accurate measurements for characterizing multimodal samples compared to NTA and DLS.","PeriodicalId":27,"journal":{"name":"Analytical Chemistry","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electrospray-Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (ES-SMPS) Technique: Superior Sizing and Multimodal Characterization of Colloidal Nanoparticles Compared to NTA and DLS\",\"authors\":\"Ma Rahman, Qisheng Ou, David Pui\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.analchem.4c02891\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study primarily employed three techniques─electrospray-scanning mobility particle sizer (ES-SMPS), nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and dynamic light scattering (DLS)─to assess multimodal samples. For monodisperse particles, both ES-SMPS (all sizes) and NTA (for particles larger than 40 nm) accurately determined the mean size, while DLS overestimated it. The ES-SMPS technique demonstrated precision in particle counting for multimodal samples, with a standard deviation of around 2.5–4%. Conversely, NTA’s ability to count particles potentially leads to misinterpretation. The ES-SMPS approach could identify particle peaks in multimodal (bimodal, trimodal, and tetramodal) samples and show the relatively accurate position of the mode diameter. In contrast to ES-SMPS, DLS and NTA have weaknesses in characterizing multimodal samples. While NTA’s performance depends on the optical properties of particles and cannot measure silica particles smaller than 30–40 nm, ES-SMPS is independent of light scattering and can handle particles as small as ∼13 nm. The ES-SMPS also excelled in separating particle peaks of the bimodal sample with a size interval gap of 10 nm, whereas NTA needs at least 20–50 nm depending on the particle type. To sum up, the ES-SMPS method performs better and provides more accurate measurements for characterizing multimodal samples compared to NTA and DLS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":27,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytical Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytical Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c02891\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c02891","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究主要采用了三种技术--电喷雾扫描流动粒子测定仪(ES-SMPS)、纳米粒子跟踪分析(NTA)和动态光散射(DLS)--来评估多模式样品。对于单分散颗粒,ES-SMPS(所有尺寸)和 NTA(对于大于 40 纳米的颗粒)都能准确测定平均尺寸,而 DLS 则高估了平均尺寸。ES-SMPS 技术对多模态样品的颗粒计数非常精确,标准偏差约为 2.5-4%。相反,NTA 的颗粒计数能力可能会导致误读。ES-SMPS 方法可以识别多模态(双模态、三模态和四模态)样品中的颗粒峰,并显示模态直径的相对准确位置。与 ES-SMPS 相比,DLS 和 NTA 在表征多模态样品方面存在不足。NTA 的性能取决于颗粒的光学特性,无法测量小于 30-40 nm 的二氧化硅颗粒,而 ES-SMPS 则与光散射无关,可以测量小至 13 nm 的颗粒。ES-SMPS 在分离双峰样品的颗粒峰方面也表现出色,其粒度间隔间隙为 10 nm,而 NTA 根据颗粒类型的不同至少需要 20-50 nm。总之,与 NTA 和 DLS 相比,ES-SMPS 方法在表征多模态样品时性能更好,测量结果更准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Electrospray-Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (ES-SMPS) Technique: Superior Sizing and Multimodal Characterization of Colloidal Nanoparticles Compared to NTA and DLS

Electrospray-Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (ES-SMPS) Technique: Superior Sizing and Multimodal Characterization of Colloidal Nanoparticles Compared to NTA and DLS
This study primarily employed three techniques─electrospray-scanning mobility particle sizer (ES-SMPS), nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and dynamic light scattering (DLS)─to assess multimodal samples. For monodisperse particles, both ES-SMPS (all sizes) and NTA (for particles larger than 40 nm) accurately determined the mean size, while DLS overestimated it. The ES-SMPS technique demonstrated precision in particle counting for multimodal samples, with a standard deviation of around 2.5–4%. Conversely, NTA’s ability to count particles potentially leads to misinterpretation. The ES-SMPS approach could identify particle peaks in multimodal (bimodal, trimodal, and tetramodal) samples and show the relatively accurate position of the mode diameter. In contrast to ES-SMPS, DLS and NTA have weaknesses in characterizing multimodal samples. While NTA’s performance depends on the optical properties of particles and cannot measure silica particles smaller than 30–40 nm, ES-SMPS is independent of light scattering and can handle particles as small as ∼13 nm. The ES-SMPS also excelled in separating particle peaks of the bimodal sample with a size interval gap of 10 nm, whereas NTA needs at least 20–50 nm depending on the particle type. To sum up, the ES-SMPS method performs better and provides more accurate measurements for characterizing multimodal samples compared to NTA and DLS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analytical Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry 化学-分析化学
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.20%
发文量
1949
审稿时长
1.4 months
期刊介绍: Analytical Chemistry, a peer-reviewed research journal, focuses on disseminating new and original knowledge across all branches of analytical chemistry. Fundamental articles may explore general principles of chemical measurement science and need not directly address existing or potential analytical methodology. They can be entirely theoretical or report experimental results. Contributions may cover various phases of analytical operations, including sampling, bioanalysis, electrochemistry, mass spectrometry, microscale and nanoscale systems, environmental analysis, separations, spectroscopy, chemical reactions and selectivity, instrumentation, imaging, surface analysis, and data processing. Papers discussing known analytical methods should present a significant, original application of the method, a notable improvement, or results on an important analyte.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信