| Literature DB >> 29934624 |
Paloma Arenas-Guerrero1, Ángel V Delgado1, Kevin J Donovan2, Kenneth Scott2, Tommaso Bellini3, Francesco Mantegazza4, María L Jiménez5.
Abstract
The in situ determination of the size distribution of dispersed non-spherical nanoparticles is an essential characterization tool for the investigation and use of colloidal suspensions. In this work, we test a size characterization method based on the measurement of the transient behaviour of the birefringence induced in the dispersions by pulsed electric fields. The specific shape of such relaxations depends on the distribution of the rotational diffusion coefficient of the suspended particles. We analyse the measured transient birefringence with three approaches: the stretched-exponential, Watson-Jennings, and multi-exponential methods. These are applied to six different types of rod-like and planar particles: PTFE rods, goethite needles, single- and double-walled carbon nanotubes, sodium montmorillonite particles and gibbsite platelets. The results are compared to electron microscopy and dynamic light scattering measurements. The methods here considered provide good or excellent results in all cases, proving that the analysis of the transient birefringence is a powerful tool to obtain complete size distributions of non-spherical particles in suspension.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29934624 PMCID: PMC6015062 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27840-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Birefringence signal of the goethite sample subjected to an electric field pulse of 30 ms. The points are the experimental data, and the black line a fitting of the decay to a stretched exponential function. In the inset, the data for short times (points) are presented in logarithmic scale, along with a linear fitting (black line), to show the linear dependence.
Figure 2(a) Electron microscope image of the goethite particles. (b) Volume size distribution obtained via the ME method (coloured squares and line) and WJ method (dotted black line), compared with the distribution determined from electron microscopy (grey bars).
Volume-averaged length of the major axis of the particles (and standard deviation of the distribution when available) obtained via EM and DLS measurements and with the SE, ME and WJ methods.
| Goethite | PTFE | |
|---|---|---|
| SE method | 0.67 | 0.50 |
| ME Method | 0.67 | 0.49 |
| WJ method | 0.68 | 0.46 |
| Microscopy | 0.64 | 0.50 |
| DLS | 0.99 | 0.24 |
|
|
| |
| SE method | 0.88 | 1.61 |
| ME method | 0.89 | 1.69 |
| WJ method | 0.94 | 1.60 |
| Microscopy | 0.89 | 0.86 |
| DLS | 0.58 | 1.10 |
|
|
| |
| SE method | 0.23 | 1.74 |
| ME method | 0.23 | 1.73 |
| WJ method | 0.24 | 1.61 |
| Microscopy | 0.25 | 1.62 |
| DLS | 0.18 | 0.42 |
Figure 3Same as Fig. 2 but for the PTFE rods.
Figure 4Same as Fig. 2 but for the SWNT suspension.
Figure 5Same as Fig. 2 but for the DWNT sample.
Figure 6Same as Fig. 2 but for the gibbsite platelets.
Figure 7Same as Fig. 2 but for the NaMt sample.