Limits...
Insight to Nanoparticle Size Analysis-Novel and Convenient Image Analysis Method Versus Conventional Techniques.

Vippola M, Valkonen M, Sarlin E, Honkanen M, Huttunen H - Nanoscale Res Lett (2016)

Bottom Line: However, particle shapes that are very different from spherical proved to be problematic also for the novel program.When compared to X-ray techniques, the main advantage of the small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) method is the average data it provides from a very large amount of particles.However, the SAXS method does not provide any data about the shape or appearance of the sample.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Materials Science, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 589, 33101, Tampere, Finland. minnamari.vippola@tut.fi.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to introduce a new image analysis program "Nanoannotator" particularly developed for analyzing individual nanoparticles in transmission electron microscopy images. This paper describes the usefulness and efficiency of the program when analyzing nanoparticles, and at the same time, we compare it to more conventional nanoparticle analysis techniques. The techniques which we are concentrating here are transmission electron microscopy (TEM) linked with different image analysis methods and X-ray diffraction techniques. The developed program appeared as a good supplement to the field of particle analysis techniques, since the traditional image analysis programs suffer from the inability to separate the individual particles from agglomerates in the TEM images. The program is more efficient, and it offers more detailed morphological information of the particles than the manual technique. However, particle shapes that are very different from spherical proved to be problematic also for the novel program. When compared to X-ray techniques, the main advantage of the small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) method is the average data it provides from a very large amount of particles. However, the SAXS method does not provide any data about the shape or appearance of the sample.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Silver nanoparticles, crystallite boundaries marked with arrows on the larger particle
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4814392&req=5

Fig8: Silver nanoparticles, crystallite boundaries marked with arrows on the larger particle

Mentions: The average crystallite sizes of nanomaterials were determined to compare them to the average particle sizes. The determination was made from WAXS patterns with the aid of the HighScore Plus software (version 3.0.5) and based on the well-known Scherrer equation with a typical crystallite shape factor value 0.9. This value is valid for spherical-shaped crystallites. Other possible shapes in the software are cubes, tetrahedrons, and octahedrons. Based on the measurements, the average crystallite size of silver nanoparticles is 20.5 nm calculated from the Ag (111) peak at 38.3° (2θ). The determined average diameter for the silver particles is 44–50 nm (Table 1) indicating that the larger particles consist of several crystallites which is also observed by TEM (Fig. 8). The average crystallite size of iron oxide whiskers is 18.8 nm calculated from the Fe2O3 (104) peak at 33.2° (2θ). The average length for the iron oxide whiskers was 128 nm and width 939 nm determined by Nanoannotator (Table 1). Remarkable difference between the average particle and crystallite sizes indicates that the whiskers also consist of several crystallites. However, individual crystallites in the strongly agglomerated whiskers are hard to recognize even by TEM. The average crystallite size of graphite is 3.6 nm calculated from graphite (100) peak at 42.5° (2θ). In the case of graphite, the average particle size and crystal size are similar indicating that the graphite nanoparticles are mainly single crystals.Fig. 8


Insight to Nanoparticle Size Analysis-Novel and Convenient Image Analysis Method Versus Conventional Techniques.

Vippola M, Valkonen M, Sarlin E, Honkanen M, Huttunen H - Nanoscale Res Lett (2016)

Silver nanoparticles, crystallite boundaries marked with arrows on the larger particle
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4814392&req=5

Fig8: Silver nanoparticles, crystallite boundaries marked with arrows on the larger particle
Mentions: The average crystallite sizes of nanomaterials were determined to compare them to the average particle sizes. The determination was made from WAXS patterns with the aid of the HighScore Plus software (version 3.0.5) and based on the well-known Scherrer equation with a typical crystallite shape factor value 0.9. This value is valid for spherical-shaped crystallites. Other possible shapes in the software are cubes, tetrahedrons, and octahedrons. Based on the measurements, the average crystallite size of silver nanoparticles is 20.5 nm calculated from the Ag (111) peak at 38.3° (2θ). The determined average diameter for the silver particles is 44–50 nm (Table 1) indicating that the larger particles consist of several crystallites which is also observed by TEM (Fig. 8). The average crystallite size of iron oxide whiskers is 18.8 nm calculated from the Fe2O3 (104) peak at 33.2° (2θ). The average length for the iron oxide whiskers was 128 nm and width 939 nm determined by Nanoannotator (Table 1). Remarkable difference between the average particle and crystallite sizes indicates that the whiskers also consist of several crystallites. However, individual crystallites in the strongly agglomerated whiskers are hard to recognize even by TEM. The average crystallite size of graphite is 3.6 nm calculated from graphite (100) peak at 42.5° (2θ). In the case of graphite, the average particle size and crystal size are similar indicating that the graphite nanoparticles are mainly single crystals.Fig. 8

Bottom Line: However, particle shapes that are very different from spherical proved to be problematic also for the novel program.When compared to X-ray techniques, the main advantage of the small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) method is the average data it provides from a very large amount of particles.However, the SAXS method does not provide any data about the shape or appearance of the sample.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Materials Science, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 589, 33101, Tampere, Finland. minnamari.vippola@tut.fi.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to introduce a new image analysis program "Nanoannotator" particularly developed for analyzing individual nanoparticles in transmission electron microscopy images. This paper describes the usefulness and efficiency of the program when analyzing nanoparticles, and at the same time, we compare it to more conventional nanoparticle analysis techniques. The techniques which we are concentrating here are transmission electron microscopy (TEM) linked with different image analysis methods and X-ray diffraction techniques. The developed program appeared as a good supplement to the field of particle analysis techniques, since the traditional image analysis programs suffer from the inability to separate the individual particles from agglomerates in the TEM images. The program is more efficient, and it offers more detailed morphological information of the particles than the manual technique. However, particle shapes that are very different from spherical proved to be problematic also for the novel program. When compared to X-ray techniques, the main advantage of the small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) method is the average data it provides from a very large amount of particles. However, the SAXS method does not provide any data about the shape or appearance of the sample.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus