Sample loss in asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation coupled to inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry of silver nanoparticles

Sötebier, Carina; Bierkandt, Frank S.; Rades, Steffi; Jakubowski, Norbert; Panne, Ulrich; Weidner, Steffen M.

doi:10.1039/c5ja00297d

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This separation principle works equally well for macromolecules and nanoparticles, but the loss of nanoparticles is often much larger than losses of proteins or polymers during AF4. − Particle agglomeration and membrane adsorption are commonly named as loss mechanisms, but the link between the fundamental colloidal mechanisms and the overall recovery rates is not well understood.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Particle adsorption on the membrane reportedly decreases with each sample injection. ,, It is not clear which species adsorb to the membrane and which interactions are modified by this “conditioning”. The membrane is apparently not the only surface that is relevant for particle loss by adsorption. ,,, Meisterjahn et al reported size-dependent total particle losses of gold nanoparticles on nonmembrane surfaces of 45–99% …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Colloidal Mechanisms of Gold Nanoparticle Loss in Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flow field-flow fractionation is a powerful method for the analysis of nanoparticle size distributions, but its widespread use has been hampered by large analyte losses, especially of metal nanoparticles. Here, we report on the colloidal mechanisms underlying the losses. We systematically studied gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) during asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) by systematic variation of the particle properties and the eluent composition. Recoveries of AuNPs (core diameter 12 nm) stabilized by citrate or polyethylene glycol (PEG) at different ionic strengths were determined. We used online UV-vis detection and off-line elementary analysis to follow particle losses during full analysis runs, runs without cross-flow, and runs with parts of the instrument bypassed. The combination allowed us to calculate relative and absolute analyte losses at different stages of the analytic protocol. We found different loss mechanisms depending on the ligand. Citrate-stabilized particles degraded during analysis and suffered large losses (up to 74%). PEG-stabilized particles had smaller relative losses at moderate ionic strengths (1-20%) that depended on PEG length. Long PEGs at higher ionic strengths (≥5 mM) caused particle loss due to bridging adsorption at the membrane. Bulk agglomeration was not a relevant loss mechanism at low ionic strengths ≤5 mM for any of the studied particles. An unexpectedly large fraction of particles was lost at tubing and other internal surfaces. We propose that the colloidal mechanisms observed here are relevant loss mechanisms in many particle analysis protocols and discuss strategies to avoid them.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Colloidal Mechanisms of Gold Nanoparticle Loss in Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Greatest sample loss was found to be Ag nanoparticle dissolution in the sample. 150 Deposition of nanoparticles on the membrane mainly in the region of the focus point area was also reported by Ulrich et al. During the focusing step nanoparticles experience a large force in the region of the focusing point downwards to the membrane.…”

Section: Membrane Selection and Nanoparticle Interactionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…This can be accomplished based on particle size information obtained either from the AF4 theory (although membrane swelling may decreases the channel height) 148 or from the retention time using calibration with certified particle size standards (refer to Table 1). However, as will be discussed in the following section, the influence of the carrier solution, membrane type and nanoparticle characteristics can result in a shift of the retention time, as reported for Au and SiO 2 nanoparticles under identical AF4 conditions 149 as well as for polystyrene and Ag nanoparticles 150 , which results in erroneous size information. Thus, Hagendorfer et al suggested a multi-detector approach using different detectors coupled sequentially in-line providing a multitude of information.…”

Section: ܴ =mentioning

confidence: 93%

ICP-MS for the analysis at the nanoscale – a tutorial review

Meermann

Nischwitz

2018

J. Anal. At. Spectrom.

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scope of this tutorial review is (i) to provide an overview on ICP-MS based techniques for the analysis of ENPs and natural nanoparticles/colloids by (a) “stand alone” ICP-MS and (b) hyphenated techniques; (ii) highlighting the benefits and pitfalls of each technique as well as providing practical advice regarding method development; (iii) illustrating the possibilities and limitations of each technique by practical applications from the recent literature.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, AF4-ICP-MS has some limitations when one wishes to apply it for (eco)toxicological studies. Apart from sample preparation, another limiting factor is that particle-membrane interactions often lead to poor recovery rates in AF4 fractionation (Sötebier et al, 2015). In (eco)toxicological studies, ENPs can be coated with natural organic matter or a protein corona.…”

Section: Asymmetric Flow Field Flow Fractionation Coupled With Inductmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical approaches for characterizing and quantifying engineered nanoparticles in biological matrices from an (eco)toxicological perspective: old challenges, new methods and techniques

Monikh

Chupani

Vijver

et al. 2019

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

License: Article 25fa pilot End User Agreement This publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act (Auteurswet) with explicit consent by the author. Dutch law entitles the maker of a short scientific work funded either wholly or partially by Dutch public funds to make that work publicly available for no consideration following a reasonable period of time after the work was first published, provided that clear reference is made to the source of the first publication of the work. This publication is distributed under The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) 'Article 25fa implementation' pilot project. In this pilot research outputs of researchers employed by Dutch Universities that comply with the legal requirements of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act are distributed online and free of cost or other barriers in institutional repositories. Research outputs are distributed six months after their first online publication in the original published version and with proper attribution to the source of the original publication. You are permitted to download and use the publication for personal purposes. All rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyrights owner(s) of this work. Any use of the publication other than authorised under this licence or copyright law is prohibited. If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons.

show abstract

Sample loss in asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation coupled to inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry of silver nanoparticles

Abstract: A systematic study on recovery rates and sample loss in AF4 including qualitative and quantitative LA-ICP-MS imaging of the membrane was performed.

Cited by 19 publications

References 36 publications

Colloidal Mechanisms of Gold Nanoparticle Loss in Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation

Colloidal Mechanisms of Gold Nanoparticle Loss in Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation

ICP-MS for the analysis at the nanoscale – a tutorial review

Analytical approaches for characterizing and quantifying engineered nanoparticles in biological matrices from an (eco)toxicological perspective: old challenges, new methods and techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About