{"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}
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.
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.