Literature DB >> 32865398

Particle Size Distributions for Cellulose Nanocrystals Measured by Transmission Electron Microscopy: An Interlaboratory Comparison.

Juris Meija1, Michael Bushell1, Martin Couillard1, Stephanie Beck2, John Bonevich3, Kai Cui4, Johan Foster5,6, John Will5, Douglas Fox7, Whirang Cho7, Markus Heidelmann8, Byong Chon Park9, Yun Chang Park10, Lingling Ren11, Li Xu11, Aleksandr B Stefaniak12, Alycia K Knepp12, Ralf Theissmann13, Horst Purwin13, Ziqiu Wang14, Natalia de Val14, Linda J Johnston1.   

Abstract

Particle size is a key parameter that must be measured to ensure reproducible production of cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) and to achieve reliable performance metrics for specific CNC applications. Nevertheless, size measurements for CNCs are challenging due to their broad size distribution, irregular rod-shaped particles, and propensity to aggregate and agglomerate. We report an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) that tests transmission electron microscopy (TEM) protocols for image acquisition and analysis. Samples of CNCs were prepared on TEM grids in a single laboratory, and detailed data acquisition and analysis protocols were provided to participants. CNCs were imaged and the size of individual particles was analyzed in 10 participating laboratories that represent a cross section of academic, industrial, and government laboratories with varying levels of experience with imaging CNCs. The data for each laboratory were fit to a skew normal distribution that accommodates the variability in central location and distribution width and asymmetries for the various datasets. Consensus values were obtained by modeling the variation between laboratories using a skew normal distribution. This approach gave consensus distributions with values for mean, standard deviation, and shape factor of 95.8, 38.2, and 6.3 nm for length and 7.7, 2.2, and 2.9 nm for width, respectively. Comparison of the degree of overlap between distributions for individual laboratories indicates that differences in imaging resolution contribute to the variation in measured widths. We conclude that the selection of individual CNCs for analysis and the variability in CNC agglomeration and staining are the main factors that lead to variations in measured length and width between laboratories.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32865398      PMCID: PMC8262570          DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c02805

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Chem        ISSN: 0003-2700            Impact factor:   6.986


  18 in total

1.  The shape and size distribution of crystalline nanoparticles prepared by acid hydrolysis of native cellulose.

Authors:  Samira Elazzouzi-Hafraoui; Yoshiharu Nishiyama; Jean-Luc Putaux; Laurent Heux; Frédéric Dubreuil; Cyrille Rochas
Journal:  Biomacromolecules       Date:  2007-12-04       Impact factor: 6.988

2.  Estimation and prediction in linear mixed models with skew-normal random effects for longitudinal data.

Authors:  Tsung I Lin; Jack C Lee
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Model Selection in Continuous Test Norming With GAMLSS.

Authors:  Lieke Voncken; Casper J Albers; Marieke E Timmerman
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2017-06-29

Review 4.  Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites.

Authors:  Robert J Moon; Ashlie Martini; John Nairn; John Simonsen; Jeff Youngblood
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 54.564

Review 5.  Current characterization methods for cellulose nanomaterials.

Authors:  E Johan Foster; Robert J Moon; Umesh P Agarwal; Michael J Bortner; Julien Bras; Sandra Camarero-Espinosa; Kathleen J Chan; Martin J D Clift; Emily D Cranston; Stephen J Eichhorn; Douglas M Fox; Wadood Y Hamad; Laurent Heux; Bruno Jean; Matthew Korey; World Nieh; Kimberly J Ong; Michael S Reid; Scott Renneckar; Rose Roberts; Jo Anne Shatkin; John Simonsen; Kelly Stinson-Bagby; Nandula Wanasekara; Jeff Youngblood
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 54.564

6.  Particle size distributions by transmission electron microscopy: an interlaboratory comparison case study.

Authors:  Stephen B Rice; Christopher Chan; Scott C Brown; Peter Eschbach; Li Han; David S Ensor; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; John Bonevich; András E Vladár; Angela R Hight Walker; Jiwen Zheng; Catherine Starnes; Arnold Stromberg; Jia Ye; Eric A Grulke
Journal:  Metrologia       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.157

7.  Correlating Cellulose Nanocrystal Particle Size and Surface Area.

Authors:  Andreas Brinkmann; Maohui Chen; Martin Couillard; Zygmunt J Jakubek; Tianyang Leng; Linda J Johnston
Journal:  Langmuir       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.882

8.  How reliably can a material be classified as a nanomaterial? Available particle-sizing techniques at work.

Authors:  Frank Babick; Johannes Mielke; Wendel Wohlleben; Stefan Weigel; Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.253

9.  Differentiating gold nanorod samples using particle size and shape distributions from transmission electron microscope images.

Authors:  Eric A Grulke; Xiaochun Wu; Yinglu Ji; Egbert Buhr; Kazuhiro Yamamoto; Nam Woong Song; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Diane Schwegler-Berry; Woodrow W Burchett; Joshua Lambert; Arnold J Stromberg
Journal:  Metrologia       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.157

10.  Understanding nanocellulose chirality and structure-properties relationship at the single fibril level.

Authors:  Ivan Usov; Gustav Nyström; Jozef Adamcik; Stephan Handschin; Christina Schütz; Andreas Fall; Lennart Bergström; Raffaele Mezzenga
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 14.919

View more
  3 in total

1.  Calculating small-angle scattering intensity functions from electron-microscopy images.

Authors:  Batuhan Yildirim; Adam Washington; James Doutch; Jacqueline M Cole
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 4.036

2.  Benchmarking the ACEnano Toolbox for Characterisation of Nanoparticle Size and Concentration by Interlaboratory Comparisons.

Authors:  Ruud Peters; Ingrid Elbers; Anna Undas; Eelco Sijtsma; Sophie Briffa; Pauline Carnell-Morris; Agnieszka Siupa; Tae-Hyun Yoon; Loïc Burr; David Schmid; Jutta Tentschert; Yves Hachenberger; Harald Jungnickel; Andreas Luch; Florian Meier; Jovana Kocic; Jaeseok Kim; Byong Chon Park; Barry Hardy; Colin Johnston; Kerstin Jurkschat; Jörg Radnik; Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba; Iseult Lynch; Eugenia Valsami-Jones
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 4.927

3.  Workflow towards automated segmentation of agglomerated, non-spherical particles from electron microscopy images using artificial neural networks.

Authors:  Bastian Rühle; Julian Frederic Krumrey; Vasile-Dan Hodoroaba
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.