A general perspective of the characterization and quantification of nanoparticles: Imaging, spectroscopic, and separation techniques

1 A General Perspective of the Characterization and Quantification of Nanoparticles. Imaging, Spectroscopic and Separation Techniques A. Lapresta-Fernández,a* A. Salinas-Castillo,a S. Anderson de la Llana,b J.M. Costa- Fernández,c S. Domínguez-Meister,d R. Cecchini,e L.F. Capitán-Vallvey,a M.C. Moreno- Bondi,f M.-Pilar Marco,g J.C. Sánchez-López,d and I. S. Anderson h a ECsens, Department of Analytical Chemistry, Campus Fuentenueva, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain b Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Service de Néonatologie et des Soins Intensifs Pédiatriques, Departement de l’Enfant et de l’Adolescent, rue Willy Donzé 6, Genève rue Micheli du Crest 22, Geneve, GE, CH 1205 Switzerland. c Department of Physical and Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Oviedo, 33006 Oviedo, Spain. d Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Sevilla (CSIC – Univ. Sevilla), Avda. Américo Vespucio 49, CIC Cartuja, 41092-Sevilla, Spain e Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto per lo, Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati, (CNR-ISMN) - via P. Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy f Optochemical Sensors and Applied Photochemistry Group (GSOLFA), Department of Analytical Chemistry, Universidad Complutense, CEI-Moncloa, 28040 Madrid, Spain g Nanobiotechnology for Diagnostics group (AMRg), IQAC-CSIC, CIBER de Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina (CIBER-BBN), Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain h Neutron Sciences Directorate. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Building 8600, MS 6477, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA * Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 ABSTRACT This review gives an overview of the different techniques used to identify, characterize and quantify engineered nanoparticles (ENPs). The state-of-the-art of the field is summarized, the different characterization techniques have been grouped according to the information they can provide. In addition some selected applications are highlighted for each technique. The classification of the techniques has been carried out according to the main physical and chemical properties of the nanoparticles such as morphology, size, polydispersity characteristics, structural information and elemental composition. Microscopy techniques including optical, electron and X-ray microscopy and separation techniques with and without hyphenated detection systems are discussed. For each of these groups, a brief description of the techniques, the specific features and concepts, as well as several examples are described. Table of contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 2. Morphology, size and polydispersity characteristics ............................................................. 6 2.1. Microscopy techniques .................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Hydrated, liquid or gas samples by electron microscopy ........................................ 12 2.1.2 Cryo-electron microscopy ....................................................................................... 16 2.1.3 Cryo-electron tomography ...................................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Scanning probe microscopy: AFM ......................................................................... 17 2.1.5 X-ray microscopy (XRM) ....................................................................................... 18 2.2 Spectroscopic techniques ............................................................................................... 20 2.2.1. X-ray and neutron spectroscopy ............................................................................. 24 2.3 Chromatography and related separation techniques. Size exclusion chromatography (SEC), capillary electrophoresis (CE), hydrodynamic chromatography (HDC) and fieldflow fractionation (FFF). ...................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Centrifugation, filtration and dialysis techniques. ......................................................... 30 3. Structural information and chemical composition. Single or hyphenated techniques ......... 31 3.1 X-ray spectroscopy ......................................................................................................... 32 3.1.1 Non hyphenated X-ray techniques .......................................................................... 33 3.2 Other techniques coupled to EM .................................................................................... 35 3.3 X-ray microscopy (XRM) .............................................................................................. 36 3.5. AFM and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller technique (BET) ................................................... 38 3.6. Spectroscopic techniques for chemical identification ................................................... 39 4. Elemental composition and concentration. .......................................................................... 41 4.1 Mass spectrometry (MS) ................................................................................................ 41 4.2 Chromatography and related separation techniques. ...................................................... 43 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 44 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFM Atomic force microscopy ADF Annular dark-field AE Auger electron AES Auger electron spectroscopy AgNPs Silver nanoparticles AUC Analytical ultracentrifugation AuNPs Gold nanoparticles BF Bright field detector BP Breakdown probability BSEs Backscattered electrons CE Capillary electrophoresis CEND Coherent electron nanodiffraction CFF Cross flow filtration CFM Chemical force microscopy CFUF Cross flow ultrafiltration CHA Concentric hemispherical analyzer CLSM Confocal laser scanning microscopy CMA Cylindrical mirror analyzer CNT Carbon nanotube CRM Confocal Raman microscopy CuNPs Copper nanoparticles CXDI Coherent X-ray diffraction imaging DLS Dynamic light scattering DF Dark field detector DIMs Diffraction imaging microscopes DMA Differential mobility analysis EDAX/ EDS/ EDX Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy EDXRF Energy dispersive x-ray EELS Electron energy-loss spectroscopy EFTEM Energy-filtered TEM EM Electron microscopy EPR Electron paramagnetic resonance ESEM Environmental SEM ESI Electrospray ionization ETEM Environmental TEM EXAFS Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure FCS Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy FE Field emission FFF Field-flow fractionation FIB-SEM Focused ion beam SEM FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy GISAXS Grazing incidence SAXS HAADF High-angle ADF HDC Hydrodynamic chromatography HPLC High performance liquid chromatography HRTEM High-resolution transmission electron microscopy ICP-MS Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry LDI Laser desorption/ionization LIBD Laser induced breakdown detection LIBS Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy LIF Laser-induced fluorescence LSPR Localized surface plasmon resonance MALDI Matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization MALS or MALLS Multi angle (laser) light scattering MEMS Micro-electromechanical systems MoNPs Molybdenum nanoparticles MWCNT Multi-walled carbon nanotubes 4 NEXAFS Near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance NPs Nanoparticles NSOM Near-field scanning optical microscopy PCS Photon correlation spectroscopy PEELS Parallel acquisition systems PIMs Projection imaging microscopes POM Polyoxometalates PtNPs Platinum nanoparticles QDs Quantum dots RPLC Reversed-phase liquid chromatography SAED Selected Area Electron Diffraction SAM Scanning Auger microscopy SANS Small-angle neutron scattering SAXS Small angle X-ray scattering SEC Size exclusion chromatography SEM Scanning electron microscopy SERS Surface-enhanced Raman scattering SEs Secondary electrons SLS Static light scattering SPM Scanning probe microscopy SPR Surface plasmon resonance STEM Scanning TEM STM Scanning tunnelling microscope STXMs Scanning transmission X-ray microscopes SWCN Single-walled carbon nanotubes SXM Scanning X-ray microscopes TAD Thin annular detector TADBF Thin annular detector used with bright-field TADDF Thin annular detector used with dark-field TEM Transmission electron microscopy TPL Two-photon luminescence TOF Time of flight TSEM SEM in transmission mode TXMs Transmission X-ray microscopes WAXS Wide angle X-ray scattering WDS Wavelength dispersive X-ray spectrometry WDXRF Wavelength dispersive Fluorescence X-ray spectrometry XANES Near-edge x-ray absorption spectra XAS X-ray absorption spectroscopy XFEL X-rays from upcoming free-electron lasers XMCD X-ray magnetic circular dichroism XPS X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy XRD X-ray diffraction XRF X-ray fluorescence XRM X-ray microscopy XRR X-ray reflectometry Z Atomic number 5 1. Introduction Nowadays, engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) can be synthesized out of a large variety of different materials and possess a wide range of properties including size, shape, physical or chemical characteristics and elemental composition. Furthermore, interactions with the surrounding media can determine the colloidal stability of the particles, hence influencing their final state. Therefore, unexpected properties and interactions which are not solely dependent on elemental composition and state of aggregation,1,2 but are more likely to be governed by surface area,3 surface chemistry,4 charge particle number,2 size and size distribution,5 aggregation,6 structure7 and shape5,8 can lead to complex nano-systems whose properties differ from simple model theories. This review deals with the use of different techniques, used either individually or in combination, to identify and characterize NPs depending on the desired property to be studied. Considering size distribution, degree of aggregation and morphology, imaging techniques based on different types of microscopies (optical, electronic, X-ray) and scattering (light, X-ray, neutron) techniques are described along with chromatography and related separation techniques. Elemental composition, structural information, and concentration are typically provided by spectroscopic techniques (e.g., UV-vis absorption, luminescence and X- ray emission). Combining various characterization techniques (e.g., electronic microscopy coupled with X-ray detectors) can provide information that cannot be obtained from each of the techniques individually. These so called hyphenated techniques can lead to a more complete characterization of NPs. In the following sections a classification of different analytical techniques regarding the properties of the NPs, such as morphology, size, polydispersity characteristics, structural information and elemental composition is presented along with some related examples of application. 6 2. Morphology, size and polydispersity characteristics As mentioned above, NPs show different properties depending on their morphology and size. Nowadays, the knowledge on materials composed of nanometer-sized entities is largely related to electron microscopy (EM) and scattering phenomena determining size and shape characteristics. Furthermore NPs separation has long been a key step in characterizing complex polydisperse nano/micromaterials. Although several analytical techniques can be used for these characterization purposes,9 all available EM methods are limited by spatial resolution and/or the related detection limits. 2.1. Microscopy techniques Since the nanoparticle is a nano-object with all three external dimensions in the nanoscale, the detection limit of optical microscopy does not often cover the NPs size since the visible wavelengths (λ) are comparable to the dimensions of the particles. To solve this limitation, a modified technique called near-field scanning optical microscopy (NSOM) can be used in its different configurations. NSOM is a scanning probe microscopy technique (SPM)10 with a typical resolution between 50 and 100 nm, reaching 20 nm and 2-5 nm of lateral and vertical spatial resolution, respectively,11 and even sub-20 nm for stripped gold pyramids.12 It can be used to image aggregates of nanoparticles with a theoretical spatial resolution limited to λ/2 (see below). To detect fluorescent NPs, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) is applied with resolutions of the order of 200 nm13 and it enables the visualization of the different accumulation of polymeric NPs in time at (sub)-cellular resolution in tumours.14 Fluorescence imaging is restricted to intrinsically fluorescent NPs or fluorescently labelled NPs. The latter technique can introduce potential problems such as: label instability (leaching), modification of physicochemical properties or photobleaching.15 Confocal Raman microscopy (CRM), which does not require labelling, allows, for example, the visualization of 7 toxicological effects of polymeric NPs in HepG2 cells and cellular NP uptake.16 Moreover, by using the surface plasmon resonance (SPR) of metallic NPs (e.g., gold nanorods) it is possible to image individual particle locations with optical microscopy by using Two-Photon Luminescence (TPL) and dark-field optical microscopes.17 The latter technique provides a means of characterizing the size of gold NPs (AuNPs) by colour, since different colours such as violet, blue, green, and red are correlated with a size of 30, 50, 70, and 90 nm, respectively.18 Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) uses confocal optics (a confocal microscope)19 to evaluate diffusion coefficients of fluorescent NPs20 or NPs with fluorescent coatings whose fluorescence fluctuations depend on the NP shape.21 FCS allows to determinate size distributions in a very small laser illuminated volume (focal volume of approx. 10−15 µL) of very diluted solutions (10−8 to 10−15 mol·L-1). Electron microscopy (EM) techniques including transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM); and scanning probe microscopies (atomic force microscopy (AFM)22) are particularly suitable for the characterization of NPs due to their intrinsic subnanometer scale resolution. These techniques are widely applied for NPs visualization.19,23-25 EM techniques require vacuum conditions (~10-4 Pa) to allow both the operation of the electron source and to minimize scattering other than from the samples. The wavelength of electron beams depends on the acceleration voltage and is much shorter than the wavelength of light, hence allowing much higher spatial resolution down to single atoms in some cases. Thus, for an optical microscope operating at wavelengths, λ from 400 to 800 nm and numerical aperture (NA) of ~ 1, Abbe’s diffraction limit d = λ/2NA, gives a resolution of approx. 200 nm26 up to 10 nm with some improvement,27 while for an EM working with an acceleration voltage from 100 to 1000 keV, the theoretical value of the wavelength will be from 0.0037 to 0.00087 nm28 (See Table 1). Nevertheless, in the current 8 state-of-the-art, the best TEM resolution, by using double aberration correction, is 0.047 nm29 while SEM microscopes achieve resolutions in the range of 1 nm (high resolution) to 3 nm (conventional).28 In TEM, the electron beam (80-200 keV) passes through the sample and only NPs with a sufficient combination of electron density and size can be detected, being imprecise for cores smaller than 2 nm. At this point, high-resolution-TEM (HRTEM, 300 keV) reaches a 0.047 nm spatial resolution (see above), can image the crystallographic structure,30 e.g., edge length distributions or image 3D structures by combining different angular views, (the electron diffraction patterns can also provide structure information (see section 3)) and contributes to clarify the different behaviour of NPs from the bulk and free molecular state.31 For biological materials, acceleration voltage is limited up to 100 keV, due to the damage caused in the sample by higher energy beams. SEM produces images of the surface (or near surface) of a sample by scanning it with a focused beam of electrons (1 - 30 keV) and detecting the various signals that are produced when the electron beam interacts with electrons in the sample. The different signals that are detected (secondary electrons (SE), back-scattered electrons (BSE), characteristic X-rays, light (cathodeoluminescence (CL)), and transmitted electrons) provide complementary information concerning the near surface structure of the sample), though are rarely available all together. Accordingly, information of the surface topography is given by low energy secondary electrons (SEs), which are very sensitive to the sample charge and contamination. With high-energy backscattered electrons (BSEs), a mapping contrast based on differences in atomic number of elements as low as 0.128 is provided; consequently good contrast for heavy and light elements (e.g., AgNPs in cells) is obtained.32 Depending on the electron source used it is possible to change the spatial resolution, for instance, a low brightness tungsten electron source typically provides 50-100 nm resolution while brighter sources such as LaB6 filaments allow a resolution below 5-10 nm. Using field emission guns (sharply-pointed Müller-type 9 emitter), the electron beam is more coherent reaching more intense beam of high energy than in conventional thermionic emitters such as tungsten and LaB6 filaments. Table 1 shows the usual voltage range for SEM and TEM with the related relativistic and non-relativistic electron wavelength calculations. Table 1 Conventional SEM can be operated in transmission mode (TSEM)33,34 at low voltage (10 keV) for dimensional characterization of NPs with a minimum size of the order of 10 nm. Here, the detection of transmitted electrons can improve the signal-to-noise ratio, when comparing with detection modes that use only BSEs or SEs (the latter electron detection is less sensitive to the charge of the NPs.35 In a focused ion beam SEM (FIB-SEM), an ion beam substitutes for the incident electron beam and either secondary electrons or secondary ions, or both, can be detected and used for imaging. The technique is destructive in that it sputters the surface. Resolution is not as good as SEM, but using the milling and analysis technique it is possible to obtain a depth image in principle, 3D.36 Focused charged particles (electrons, ions, and more recently clusters) can be used in scanning mode to reach sub-10 nm resolution allowing the observation of the milling process in situ. This technique is applied in a wide range of nanostructures for photonic purposes (e.g., semiconductor NPs, carbon nanotubes (CNT)).37 Some common drawbacks are known when using TEM or SEM: (i) they may be destructive techniques either due to sample preparation or beam damage. (ii) Only allow the sample to be analyzed once (particularly in the case where the sample may be degraded by the beam, with the implication that it may be necessary to adjust beam energy (and hence resolution) to mitigate damage. 16 2.1.2 Cryo-electron microscopy To avoid dehydration artifact, NPs are kept frozen by cryo-TEM and cryo-SEM using a cryostage in the microscope under high vacuum. Thus, the glutaraldehyde for sample immobilization or chemical treatment (both involving sample alteration) are not necessary because of the physical fixation by freezing.28 Cryo-TEM can reach a resolution of 0.2 nm imaging the gold plane (111).68 In AgNPs, the lattice fringes spacing (0.207 nm) is also visualized in ionic liquid media (due to its low vapour pressure).69 A resolution of 0.6-0.8 nm 70 can be reached when imaging AuNPs-protein arrays in 3D. Replacement reactions can also be visualized, e.g., the electrostatic citrate shell is substituted by self-assembled polyoxometalates (POM) monolayers on the 5 nm AuNPs surface.71 Working with cryo-SEM technique72 (3-5 keV, -160 ºC, using SE and BSE imaging modes) it is possible to obtain a resolution from 1 to 3 nm28 imaging the cellular internalization of polymeric NPs (250-300 nm). 2.1.3 Cryo-electron tomography Cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) is an emerging structural technique which uses a combination of both cryo-TEM and tomographic methods. Here, the NPs are imaged by sections in three dimensions (3D) to an approximate 5 nm resolution.73 This technique preserves samples at liquid-nitrogen temperatures, so the cells freeze without needing chemical fixing or additional staining.74 Taveau et al., have used Cryo-ET to observe the nucleation and growth of polystyrene (PS) nodules on 170 nm silica seeds 75 being useful to visualize the growth of AgNPs by cathodic sputtering in ionic liquid.69 Cryo-ET provides high resolution regarding information of pleiomorphic structures76 or silica and AuNPs uptake by liposomes.77 To observe the NPs in biological samples (frequently 80 keV or less), higherthan-normal microscope voltages (200–400 keV) are typically used to obtain higher specimen 17 penetration without losses in electron detection. The thickness for a 300 keV electron in organic materials is approximately 0.35 µm.73 Several examples of NPs measured with different devices are shown in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 2.1.4 Scanning probe microscopy: AFM Atomic force microscopy (AFM), is a technique that belongs to the broader family of scanning probe microscopies (SPM).78 In a cantilever (a very sharp probe tip) scans the sample and allows imaging of NPs (surface structure) in their natural environment with atomic resolution (approx. 0.5 nm for DNA height).13 It is also possible to apply AFM to nonconductive samples in a wide range of media, including nanomaterials in liquid conditions (environments), hence overcoming the limitation of scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) in which only conducting samples can be imaged.79 AFM resolution is limited by the size and geometry of the tip, which can be larger than the nanomaterial being studied and hence leading to an overestimation of the lateral dimension of the NP. There are several modes of AFM, (i) contact, (ii) non-contact80 and (iii) tapping scanning or intermittent mode.81 Contact mode (frequently used in static mode: without frequency modulation) is the most conventional imaging mode where the cantilever is deflected as it moves over the surface. The tip is constantly adjusted to maintain a constant deflection to "read" the sample topography. Due to the dragging motion of the tip, biomolecules or objects that are weakly attached to the substrate surface can be damaged or removed82 and may eventually stick to the cantilever, hence leading to possibility of imaging artifacts. In an attempt to minimize those undesirable effects, (ii-iii) non-contact and tapping mode (typically with frequency modulation), where the tip only touches the surface momentarily, hence minimizing the physical contact, were 18 developed. In AFM different substrates are used such as mica, clean silicon (Si) and chemically treated silicon to deposit NPs. AFM allows the analysis of particles in their own environment23 e.g., natural aquatic colloids83 in different types of water such as watershed (tapping mode),84,85 drinking water,24 or to image a size fractionation of natural aquatic NPs.86 AFM is also successfully applied to the characterization of TiO2, ZrO2 and Al2O3 NPs,87 semiconductor NPs such as CdSe/ZnS with 5–8 nm diameters and colloidal AuNPs with 15 nm diameter.88 Furthermore, AFM has been used to study the effects of functionalized NiNPs on cancer cells89 and the influence in the morphology of the cross-linker agent in thermoresponsive Au@NIPAM NPs.90 AFM can also give chemical information about the sample (see section 3.5). Table 3 shows some of the properties related to the techniques used to characterize NPs in near native state by usual EM and AFM with some examples of applicability. Table 3 2.1.5 X-ray microscopy (XRM) Microscopy techniques based on X-ray photons can not only provide information on chemical composition and binding (See section 3) but also on structure and morphology. As with EM techniques, the spatial resolution achievable with a microscope is limited by the wavelength of the radiation and the optical elements used. We can classify two types of microscopes depending on whether focusing optical elements are used to focus the light by diffraction or not. The typical focusing element for X-ray wavelengths is a Fresnel zone plate. Microscopes that do not require focusing optics are classified as lensless projection imaging microscopes (PIMs) or diffraction imaging microscopes (DIMs).91 As there are no lenses between the sample and the detector, higher resolution can be obtained, but it is limited by both the wavelength of the incident beam (synchrotron X-ray source) and by the strong decay of the 19 diffraction intensity.92 In biological samples, these techniques also allow good resolution (11- 13 nm) when labelling cells with AuNPs of 1.8 nm as used by Nelson et al..93 3D images can also be taken by high-contrast coherent X-ray diffraction patterns of Ag/Au nanoboxes (>100 nm) with spatial resolution of 4.2 nm92 by Takahashi et al., while Newton et al., obtained 3D images of ZnO nanorods with 40 nm of spatial resolution.94 By using coherent X-ray diffraction imaging (CXDI), where oversampled diffraction patterns can be inverted to obtain real space images, the facetted morphology of Pb nanocrystals95 and single ZnO nanorods96 have been imaged. Previously Isaacs et al., showed a diffraction pattern of a 160 nm silver cube.97 Recently, the same research team, have been able to measure 400 nm diameter gold nanocrystal in higher resolution. The three-dimensional morphology and evolution of the strain under pressures up to 6.4 GPa were obtained with better than 30 nm spatial resolution.98 Under low pressure, the edges of the nanocrystal became strained as expected, while under higher compression the strains disappeared, suggesting that the pressurised material is undergoing "plastic flow". Two types of microscopes using optic elements are available: full-field transmission X-ray microscopes (TXMs) and scanning transmission X-ray microscopes (STXMs). TXM is mainly used for imaging while scanning X-ray microscopes (SXM) are used as an elemental analysis technique.99 By the end of the 90´s, the structure of humic substances was visualized in situ for liquid samples reaching a resolution of 43 nm.100 NPs preparation such as fixation, staining or sectioning are not necessary since the organic matter of some NPs (e.g., iron oxides NPs) provides a much higher X-ray absorption than water. Although the TXM beam has higher energy than in STMX, causing more sample damage, it is more suitable than STMX for tomographic measurements since it takes faster images.91 (STXM acquisition takes approximately 2 min per image). TXM is used for in-situ observation of the sulfidation process (hollowing effect) from Cu2O crystals to Cu2S cages into liquid phase for the first 20 time (photon energy range of 8–11 keV).101 On the other hand STXM permits the analysis of structural changes due to aggregation effects in magnetite NPs (50 nm)102 and the morphology of core-shell semiconducting polymer NPs (shell thickness around 10 nm and a core of 50–60 nm).103 Quantitative compositional maps can be obtained by near-edge X-ray absorption spectra (XANES) (see section 3.1). Finally, 3D images with a resolution from 40 nm104 up to 20 nm105 are obtained by inversion of the coherent X-ray diffraction. With lower photon energies (from ~250 eV (~5 nm wavelength) to 1.8 keV (~0.7 nm)), typically called soft-XRM, the X-rays reach a condenser zone plate giving a partially coherent hollow-cone illumination. This zone plate, in combination with a central stop and a pinhole, provides a monochromatic beam on a CCD camera. A spatial resolution below 15 nm is offered.106 Soft-XRM in liquid media using a wet sample chamber (photon energy of 430 eV) gives a 40 nm resolution when imaging CdTe nanowires and hyperbranched PbS nanocrystals.107 Extremely low energies (ca. 100 eV), used in Soft X-ray STXM, are useful for investigations of actinide dioxides of uranium (UO2), neptunium (NpO2) and plutonium (PuO2). This technique also allows near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) for elemental mapping of actinide elements (see section 3.1) and imaging with 30 nm spatial resolution.108 Finally, resolution at interatomic scale is possible by applying intense but brief pulses of X-rays from upcoming free-electron lasers (XFEL)105 extending the X-ray microscopy to the femtosecond time domain. Nevertheless, FEL pulses are very bright and could involve sample destruction. 2.2 Spectroscopic techniques The interaction between NPs and the electromagnetic radiation (electromagnetic waves, photons or electron beams) provides unequivocal characteristics. These characteristics involve composition information (See section 3), as well as NPs size and size distribution. Latter two 21 are presented in this section and can be studied by spectroscopy (mostly through scattering). Different sources of light such as laser, X-rays or neutrons can be used. By using a laser, light scattering helps determine particle size in a short time (minutes). The contrast in scattering light arises from the difference of the refractive index between the particle and water. To determine the size distribution profile and NPs aggregation in suspension, dynamic light scattering (DLS),109 also called photon correlation spectroscopy (PCS) or quasi-elastic light scattering, is used. Fluctuations in the scattered light measured in DLS, can be originated from both (i) the Brownian motion and (ii) from the constructive or destructive interferences of the scattered light from the neighbouring particles. Although it is a rapid and simple method, this technique should be used in combination with another technique such as SEM or TEM110 because of aggregates or dust, that can lead to underestimation or overestimation of results, involving a limitation in the interpretation, (especially for polydisperse systems).111 Therefore, it is not possible to separate out the contributions coming from NPs of different sizes in the total population to the total correlation function. This is because the signal from larger particles dominates over that of smaller ones. Hence mathematical conversions to volume or number distributions from the intensity data, derived of DLS, can be erroneous and should only be properly provided with good knowledge of the particle shapes, polydispersity and underlying assumptions.112 DLS is widely applied for the determination of average size, size distribution and polydispersity of e.g., AgNPs,113 AuNPs below 2 nm,114 coated iron oxide NPs115,116 or fluorescent polyacrylamide NPs.117 Moreover, DLS measurements can be used to monitor the variation of the hydrodynamic diameter of the termoresponsive polymeric NPs (see figure 2). FIGURE 2 22 Static light scattering (SLS), also called multi angle (laser) light scattering (MALS or MALLS), requires cleaner or sufficiently diluted samples compared to DLS. Here, the experimental variable is the time-average intensity of scattered light while in DLS it is the fluctuations in light intensity. SLS provides information on particle morphology for instance in suspension of triaxial cellulose nanocrystals isolated from cotton.118 Laser induced breakdown detection (LIBD) allows to detect both mean particle size and their concentration (See Section 3.6) in aqueous samples. Here, a laser beam with a fixed pulse is focused on the colloids reaching high temperature involving the dissociation of the material (breaks down) into excited ionic and atomic species. The analytical signal (the breakdown probability (BP)) can be related with the size of the NPs.119 LIBD resolution is down to the 10 nm range.120 In order to not saturate the breakdown probability, most samples have to be diluted, making it impossible to discriminate between different types of NPs. The most frequently used detection systems are CCD cameras (intensified (ICCD), non-intensified (CCD121)) or piezoelectric crystals. As example, colloidal particles of hexavalent uranium (205-215 nm) can be determined. Surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) is a surface sensitive technique which measures the enhancement of Raman signals of Raman-active species due to the presence of NPs. Differences in the intensity of SERS signals reveal differences in morphologies and sizes (e.g., between Ag nanospheres, nanorods and nanostars122 or between Au nanoprisms showing a higher Raman enhancement than nanorods).123 SERS was also applied to detect biocompatible and nontoxic PEGylated AuNPs for in vivo tumour targeting.124 Noticeable is the contribution of the Liz-Marzán group in SERS field.125-127 UV-vis spectroscopy allows to determine not only composition information but also the NPs size and shape from the absorbance spectra.128 The NPs size can be determined by studying the shape and position of the localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) peak.129 Some 23 examples are now discussed. In the case of gold, the SPR for spherical AuNPs smaller than 2 nm is placed at 505 nm130 while for 15-20 nm in size it is placed at 520 nm and for 100 nm it is around 575 nm. The longitudinal SPR mode for different Au nanorods aspect ratio (length: width) is placed from 650 to1000 nm. On nanorods the SPR band observed splits in two modes due to the different orientations of the rod in respect to the electric field of the incident light. Thus electron oscillation is produced across (transverse mode) and along (longitudinal mode) the long axis of the nanorod. The transverse SPR mode (at around 500 nm) only shows a minor shift when the Au nanorod aspect ratio varies. In contrast, the longitudinal SPR mode is significantly affected by the modification of the aspect ratio.131 Similarly, spherical AgNPs present an absorbance band placed at 420 nm while Ag nanorods offer two bands placed at 420 and 615 nm.122 Moreover, UV-vis has been used to detect biomolecular interactions taking place at the surface of the noble metal nanoparticles.132 Thus, the SPR peak is also influenced by the refractive index at the adjacent surface interface of the nanoparticle, and this is affected by biofuncionalization or by binding interactions. An overview of functionalized gold nanorods used in a variety of analytical and biomedical applications is reviewed in details by Mannelli et al..133 UV-vis spectroscopy can be easily combined with different techniques such as chromatographic systems to enable size separation134,135 or even with MALLS for the same purpose.136 In combination with SEM, SAXS and XANES (see section 3), UV-vis spectroscopy has been applied to observe the size behaviour of AuNPs during different synthesis procedures.137 Finally, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) can be used for measuring the size of metal NPs encapsulated within dendrimers (differing in size by just a few tens of atoms)138 as well as the size of colloidal matter.13 24 2.2.1. X-ray and neutron spectroscopy Other sources of light such as neutrons and X-rays are used to determine sizes near (0.01–1 nm) and (1–1000 nm), respectively. Small or wide angle X-ray scattering (SAXS or WAXS) use flexible X-ray scattering to provide information of monodisperse samples about shape, size and structure. The size distribution is possible only in polydispersed samples via the form factor, P(q). SAXS does not show very good contrast between elements that are close in the periodic table since the contrast in X-ray scattering arises from the variation in electron density within the sample. In that case, it is possible to cause damage to the sample as a result of the large amount of energy applied (particularly at synchrotron sources). The NPs diameter and the size distribution are obtained from a scattering pattern. With near monodispersed particles, the scattering pattern of the X-ray shows concentric rings with a diameter directly related to the mean diameter of the NPs. SAXS has been employed to observe how the silica NPs interactions are decreased by the progressive dissolution of the tetrapropylammonium hydroxide functionalized surface (decreasing the surface charge when the NPs size decreases).139 This technique is also useful to reveal core-shell structures, e.g., in polymer coated iron oxide nanocrystals due to the high difference in electron density between the core and the polymer shell.140 Suspensions of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) NPs with low polydispersity and diameters of 108 nm and 192 nm also have been imaged by SAXS.141 X- ray reflectometry (XRR) combines small angle scattering with the reflection geometry to obtain dimensional properties of nanostructured surfaces. Here, by grazing incidence SAXS (GISAXS) structural parameters for 10 nm AuNPs142 are determined. X-ray scattering coupled with UV-vis128 allow to measure the mean size of AuNPs from the scattering data within 10% error.143 SAXS also enables online analysis of the nucleation and growth of AuNPs avoiding uncertainties in the interpretation of UV-vis spectra.137 This technique is also used to follow the growth of thiol-covered AuNPs at different reaction times.144 Long 25 exposure times are used to obtain high-quality data sets (≈1 h) while shorter times predominate in case of high scattering intensity of the sample (e.g., sizing distribution of AuNPs (reference materials)).145 By small-angle neutron scattering (SANS), the contrast arises from the different changes in the energy of the neutrons from different NPs (density and composition) and the magnetic moments of atoms involving a possible determination of both the chemical and the average spatial distributions of magnetic, e.g., Fe3O4 NPs.146 Moreover, it has been applied for the insitu determination of the mean core diameter, the ligand length, and ligand solvation from dodecanothiol-AgNPs in gas expanded liquids.147 Combining SANS and SAXS, it is possible to measure the size of carboxylic acid modified zirconia (ZrO2) NPs in different solvents.148 Table 4 displays some of the features related to the techniques used to characterize NPs depending on of size, structure and morphology among with some useful applications. Table 4 2.3 Chromatography and related separation techniques. Size exclusion chromatography (SEC), capillary electrophoresis (CE), hydrodynamic chromatography (HDC) and fieldflow fractionation (FFF). NPs size characterization can be made by different separation techniques such as size exclusion chromatography (SEC), hydrodynamic chromatography (HDC), capillary electrophoresis (CE) and field-flow fractionation (FFF). All these techniques can be applied with other techniques or detection devices for further sample analysis. SEC is a widely used technique for NPs isolation. The column is packed with porous packing materials, which form the flow channels. Particles which have a diameter smaller or equal than the pore size of the packing materials can permeate deep inside the column, while larger particles can only transfer through bigger pores or be excluded to extra-particular region. This 32 imaging techniques to give elemental and structural information. In the following sections, several individual or hyphenated techniques are discussed along with some applications to characterise NPs by these techniques. 3.1 X-ray spectroscopy The generated X-rays from a sample are characteristic of each element or are related to the atomic structure. Therefore, the use of X-ray spectroscopic techniques enables us to detect subtle differences in atomic structure or chemical bond. These X-rays are obtained when an outer electron placed in a higher-energy shell is transferred to a lower energy level to fill the inner electron hole that has been excited by an incident electron beam. Energy dispersive X- ray spectroscopy (EDS, EDX, XEDS or EDAX,) identifies the atomic composition of the NPs by the generation of X-rays. EDX can be hyphenated to TEM or SEM to analyze the chemical composition of e.g., dust NPs,193 Pt@Fe2O3 core-shell NPs194 or even to determine the possible antibacterial effect of silver ions.195 The combination of STEM and HAADF is suitable to identify structural variations of the AgPd@Pt NPs composition196 or the concentration of gold in AuNPs using, interestingly, hair fibre as nanoreactor.197 In fully liquid conditions, it is also possible to develop elemental analysis by using liquid sample holders or microchips. EDS coupled with liquid-TEM helps confirming the growth of Pt nanocrystals by coalescence as an alternative to simple growth54 and the in situ formation of tellurium NPs by microorganisms (see section 3.1.1.). In special conditions such as high temperatures and gaseous atmospheres, the visualization of PtNPs on Al2O3 is also possible.66 Coupled with wet-SEM, the elemental identification of Au, TiO2, ZnO and Fe2O3 NPs is reached.6 Moreover, EDS coupled with ESEM has been used to monitor the biomedical 33 effects of several NPs such as metals (Ni, Co), ceramics (TiO2 and SiO2), and PVC64 in rats muscles.198 Figure 4 displays the EDX analysis of of Au/Ag alloy NPs imaged by TEM. FIGURE 4 Wavelength dispersive X-ray spectrometry (WDS, also called WDXRF when using X-ray fluorescence) measures the X-rays coming from a specific and diffracted wavelength of the NPs. WDS is more precise than EDX and shows several improvements such as (i) a better energy resolution (ii) a peak-to-background capability to detect smaller amounts of elements199 and (iii) a better detection of light atomic number (Z) elements. Combined with STEM,200 the composition of Molybdenum NPs (MoNPs) can be given. As single technique, it is useful for the determination of Bismuth composition as residual synthesis component of magnetic metal oxide nanocrystals.201 Furthermore, it is used to identify the residual Br– and Cl– capping agents on palladium nanowires in the catalysis of acetylene.198 3.1.1 Non hyphenated X-ray techniques X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measures the kinetic energy of photoemitted (ejected) electrons when irradiating a sample with focused soft X-rays (typically below 1,5 keV).202 As the X-ray photon energy is known, it is possible to determine the electron binding energy and identify the atomic core-level where the electron was extracted. XPS is useful to characterize NPs surfaces and coatings (e.g., the evolution in the composition of Au/Cu NPs along the time in catalysis).202 It is also used for the identification of encapsulated AuNPs into Cu2S nanocages101 and even for checking different chemical states of elements present in NPs (e.g., the concentration of Au(I) in Au@Au(I) NPs and Ag in silica nanocomposites).203,204 In X-ray diffraction (XRD),140 X-ray beams are projected over the NPs in a determined angle, called theta “θ”, and the diffracted X-rays are collected in an angle of 2θ (See Table 5). XRD 34 allows structural phase identification of the NPs cristallinity (e.g., between magnetite and maghemite NPs)115,116 giving also the average particle size by using the Scherrer equation. Furthermore, different chemical states and elemental composition (e.g., Ag into silica nanocomposites204 or in nanocubes205) can be provided. X-ray fluorescence (XRF)206 results from the atom-localized emission when incident X-rays have higher energy than the ionization potential of the atoms in the NPs. Different types such as Wavelength X-ray separation (WDXRF) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDXRF)13 can be used. Elemental composition of nanomaterials such as Ru-Pt bimetallic NPs207 or ZnO nanoplates208 is obtained. (Table 5) X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) studies local atomic arrangements when intense and collimated X-ray beams (synchrotron radiation) reach the sample (See Figure 2). XAS can be divided in four energy regions: (i) pre-edge region < (ii) "rising edge" referred to XANES < (iii) NEXAFS < (iv) Extended X-ray Absorption Fine Structure (EXAFS) (corresponding to the scattering of the ejected photoelectron of neighbouring atoms). The combination of XANES and EXAFS is called XAFS. NEXAFS measurements allow further characterization of the organic material, identifying phenolic, carboxylic and carbonyl carbons. This specific characterization is possible due to the fact that each type of carbon is assigned to different eV peaks.24 This improves the TEM-EDX analysis where all these analytes are grouped as only one carbon peak. XAS is used to detect small differences in the structure of colloidal nanocrystals209 which can be difficult to discern using EM and XRD.206 Nevertheless, structural evaluation of bimetallic NPs (Ru-Pt NPs)207 is clarified by using EXAFS, XANES and XRD.7 Moreover, it is possible to monitor different reaction steps137 by checking both the 35 NPs surface passivation and the different oxidation states of CdSe quantum dots.210 Moreover, latex particles are also imaged.211 Interestingly, using a photoemission electron microscopy, electronic and magnetic properties of single FeNPs (6-25 nm) can be measured with XAS and X-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) spectra.212 3.2 Other techniques coupled to EM Electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) is based on the energy analysis of the sample’s inelastically scattered electrons (transmitted electron beam). EELS provides information on the electronic structure, surface properties, oxidation states and chemical composition at an atomic or subnanometer scale. EELS spectra are influenced by both the coordination chemistry (environment surrounding the atom) and the valence state of the atomic species (atomic core electron excitations). Parallel acquisition systems (PEELS) allow the simultaneous collection of data over a range of energy losses. Elemental analysis is possible for most elements, although in practice, the quantification is mostly applicable to the lighter elements with Z greater than 3. PEELS has superior detection efficiency for low Z elements compared with EDX (generally better suited for detecting elements of high Z). Both techniques show clear advantages for identifying and analysing higher Z components. EELS and EDX are complementary techniques and can be used to map composition in 2D or 3D.213 Coupled with TEM or STEM they are successfully applied to elemental analysis (e.g., of the oxide shell on the surface of FeNPs)214 or to differentiate carbon nanotubes by metallic or semiconducting nature.215 With the aim of increasing the energy-resolution in elemental analysis by SEM-EDX (usually limited between 100 and 150 eV and nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the energy resolution of EELS in TEMs/STEMs) a successful 36 combination between SEM and EELS is developed to acquire structural information with 4 eV of energy-resolution.216 EELS hyphenated to STEM38 is useful to obtain maps of the SPR modes of single molecule SERS-active nanostructures.217 Energy-filtered TEM (EFTEM) forms images using only electrons coming from a particular energy-loss. EFTEM is useful for lighter elements218 as well as to distinguish different materials in composites (e.g., Nylon (22 eV)) from the nanotube (27 eV).213 Regarding nanodiffraction techniques, with STEM it is possible to obtain nanodiffraction patterns which provide nanostructure and morphology information from individual nanocomponents by coherent electron nanodiffraction (CEND). CEND is the only technique that gives full diffraction information about individual NPs, and is applied for instance to AgNPs smaller than 3 nm.38 Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED) paired with TEM or STEM gives information about crystalline properties of NPs,23 e.g., pattern of atomic Fe3O4 magnetic layer deposition on carbon nanocoils,219 and allows to obtain atomic order information. Moreover, comparing with X-ray diffraction, bigger sample fields can be monitored.150 All techniques described from sections 3.1 to 3.2 are shown in Table 6, among with several characteristics and applications. 3.3 X-ray microscopy (XRM) XRM uses soft X-ray beams to image the samples, allowing both absorption and fluorescence signals to map the elemental and chemical composition of the NPs. XRM reaches a resolution between optical microscopy and EM in the so-called water window. Two types of microscopes are used in X-ray microscopy (i) full-field transmission X-ray microscopes for standalone and synchrotron sources (TXM and laboratory TXM (LTXM) where experiments 37 can be performed in the user's home lab) mainly used for imaging and particularly well suited for tomography, and the (ii) scanning X-ray microscope (STXM), mainly used for microanalysis and magnetization with high spatial resolution. In both techniques, Fresnel zone plates lenses for diffractive and spatially focused coherent X-rays are used. By TXM, it is possible to reach 3D images of Ag/Au nanoboxes (up 100 nm) not obtained by X-ray tomography with lenses nor atom probe microscopy or electron tomography.92 STXM can be used to monitor the presence of zinc in human cells exposed to ZnO NPs,220 as well as to provide spatially resolved chemical state information of FeNPs221 or to characterize actinide particles (100 to 1000 nm).108 When combined with NEXAFS, the electronic and structural properties obtained by chemical mapping allow to distinguish core-shell structures in polymer NPs.103 Different CNTs (from onion like or carbon NPs) and nanotubes synthesized by different growth methods222 can also be distinguished. Notice that the analytical signal is 100-1000 times smaller for STXM than for techniques based on spectromicroscopy such as TEM-EELS, decreasing the radiation damage (See Table 6).222 Figure 5 displays a schematic representation of electronic and X-ray microscopes. FIGURE 5 3.4. Auger electron and Mössbauer spectroscopies. A highly surface-sensitive technique such as Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) offers information about the surface topography and the surface composition of the NPs by collecting or analyzing Auger electrons (AE) emitted from the NPs surface (similar information is obtained with secondary electrons, SE). When an incident electron beam excites an inner electron, an outer electron can migrate to the created void in the inner shell. In consequence, energy is emitted, which is different to X-ray emission, and it is transferred 38 to a third electron on a further outer shell, leading to its ejection. AES was used to evaluate surface oxidative chemistry of AuNPs3 and combined with SEM or STEM allows also chemical-composition analysis.150 In STEM, sub-nanometer surface details can be observed at high-resolution SE images. AES can give qualitative and, in some cases, quantitative information about the surface composition of NPs consisting of multiple components.38 For instance, it is applied to different types of chemical depositions such as diamond-like carbon on metal substrates (used as catalyst templates for the growth of CNTs)223 and Prussian-blue analogues (PBA) NPs (from 6 to 25 nm) on silicon surfaces.224 In Scanning Auger microscopy (SAM)38 an image resolution <1 nm can be obtained which allows to detect as few as 15 silver atoms in AgNPs of a diameter smaller than 1 nm.225 Mössbauer spectroscopy is based on the resonant absorption and emission of gamma rays giving information about physical, chemical and magnetic properties of NPs. Gold-coated magnetic nanoparticles show the ability to yield high magnetic moments with the simplicity of bioconjugation on the gold surface. This type of NPs are suitable targets to be measured by Mössbauer spectroscopy,226 which provides detailed information about magnetite NPs formation.227 3.5. AFM and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller technique (BET) AFM allows to measure surface forces of the NPs for physicochemical characterization. AFM helps to identify chemical elements placed on the NPs surface by comparing with atomic force patterns228,229 or by chemical force microscopy (CFM)22 where functionalized probe tips are used.230 BET method is used for characterizing the porosity and surface area of solids, allowing the determination of the specific surface area by means of gas adsorption. For instance, it is 39 applied to measure the surface area of FeNPs221 and the pore size distribution in SWCNTs231 as well as to conduct toxicity studies.232,233 3.6. Spectroscopic techniques for chemical identification LIBS belongs to the atomic emission spectroscopy techniques and consists in a short laser pulse irradiated on a sample creating highly energetic plasma that emits light at a specific wavelength peak according to the material. By identifying different peaks for the analyzed samples, their chemical composition can be rapidly determined. The number of plasmas (dielectric breakdowns) per number of total laser pulses and their spatial distribution in the laser focus can reveal both the colloidal concentration and size.24 The LIBS plasmas depend strongly on the ambient conditions, the matrix effects and the signal to noise ratio.234 LIBS reaches a low limit of detection (LOD) in the range of ppt (ng·L-1) allowing to analyze the NP size between 10 nm and 1 μm235,236 as well as the particle number density (concentration) (see section 4) of colloids237 and NPs (20 nm).24 By using double-pulse LIBS, some signals can be enhanced, such as for Al and Ca lines, up to five times compared to the single-pulse signal.238 Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and Raman spectroscopy allow the molecular structure characterization.13 Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) detects unpaired electrons existing in a sample239 and offers the possibility to analyze the particle surface reactivity. Due to the high sensitivity of EPR towards surface variations, it is possible to determine ligands in mixed monolayers which are covering AuNPs and also impurities on CdSe QD.240 EPR is largely applied to NPs toxicity studies.241 UV-vis spectroscopy allows to obtain the NPs size and concentration (see section 4) depending on the position of the surface plasmon peak as Haiss et al., demonstrated for AuNPs.242 Several chemical effects, that modify the optical behaviour of small metal 40 particles, can be studied by optical measurements focusing on the SPR displacement.243 This displacement depends on both the surrounding environment of the NPs and the different types of surface functionalization.244,245 Moreover, the particle concentration can be measured by using the molar extinction coefficient at the wavelength of the maximum absorption band (e.g., in gold colloids).246 Here, due to the difference in absorbance it is possible to determine Langmuir isotherms for the replacement of citrate by POM anions at the gold surface.71 For AgNPs, the SPR shifts towards a longer wavelength as the solvent refractive index increases.247 Depending on the composition of Ag/Au nanocages, different positions of the SPR of the metal nanocages248 and hollow metal nanostructures249 can be observed at the near-infrared region. Similarly, silver and gold can be used to form alloyed NPs which offer different SPR peaks at the visible range of wavelengths (See figure 6). Finally, the effect of both humic acids attached to citrate-stabilized AuNPs and the pH can be observed by the reduction/displacement of the gold plasmon peak, leading to NPs agglomerations.245 FIGURE 6 Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is useful to identify chemicals or to determine structural properties e.g., in silver nanocomposites.204 FTIR is used to identify the typical peaks for organic and inorganic NPs,250,251 but often presenting an overlap between peaks that makes difficult to identify properly the different species or functional groups.115 Changes in the absorbance bands of the NPs give details about composition. For instance, the presence of bovine serum albumin (BSA) shows a red shift of the AgNPs plasmon peak and the oxidation of AgNPs produces a broadening of the band width and a decrease in absorbance.252 41 SERS allows detecting single molecules by the enhancement of the Raman scattering signal (from a molecule) when it is located next to a nanostructured metal. Gold and silver nanoaggregates with attached reporter molecules can be identified by the Raman signature32,253,254 as well as the ligand conformation on AuNPs.255 In this field the contribution of Liz-Marzán et al. is of relevant interest.256,257 All these techniques are displayed in Table 6. Table 6 4. Elemental composition and concentration. From a toxicological point of view, in addition to all the explained above characteristics, chemical composition is an essential issue to NPs identification. Specific techniques are related to characterize NPs, providing chemical composition of targeted NPs including if any, the core material and/or the surface layer composition. Moreover, several cases based on the NPs characterization by these techniques are also discussed. 4.1 Mass spectrometry (MS) It is an analytical technique for element determination in which the sample is vaporized, ionized and measured by mass-to-charge ratio for quantitative purposes. Different ionization modes such as electrospray ionization (ESI) and laser desorption/ionization (LDI) can be used. ESI can be used e.g., for the characterization of Au nanoclusters258 while laser desorption/ionization of individual particles by soft ionization called matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) can be applied to detect products of ligand exchange reactions of the nanoparticles.259 Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) uses high temperatures to dry, vaporize, atomize, and ionize the sample and generally is used for metal analysis. LDI can be applied to aerosol characterization by aerosol time-of-flight mass spectrometer (ATOF-MS),13 providing valuable insights for functionalized NPs also by using time of flight 48 Table 4. X-ray and spectroscopic techniques to characterize NPs in terms of size, size distribution, structure and morphology. Some selected examples are discussed. Technique Main characteristic measured phenomenon Spatial resolution comments Applications in materials science X-Ray Microscopy XRM X-rays pass through the sample towards a CCD detector. For hydrated samples, both phase and amplitude contrast are maximized when working in the “water window,” the spectral region between the carbon and oxygen K-shell energies. [O (K: 543 eV) ~ C (K: 284 eV)] Large penetration depth of soft X-rays into the liquid media in comparison to electrons. Better than 15 nm; spectral range from a photon energy of 250 eV (~5 nm λ) to 1.8 keV (~0.7 nm), so primary K and L atomic resonances of elements such as C, N, O, Al, Ti, Fe, Co and Ni can be probed106. Resolution: 40 nm in studies of the growth of CdTe nanowires and hyperbranched dried PbS nanocrystals 107. Soft- XRM TXM Nanostructure evolution from Cu2O crystals to Cu2S cages in liquid phase, using a photon energy range of 8–11 keV 101. Resolution: Cu2S wall thickness of 10–20 nm. STXM It focuses a highly monochromatic synchrotron X- ray beam by using Fresnel zone plates. Sample imaging by scanning the focal spot over the sample and measuring the transmission point by point sub-10 nm Structural changes in magnetite NPs (50 nm) due to aggregation at 1 keV 102 Core (50-60 nm)-shell (10 nm) polymer NPs 103 Soft X-ray STXM It operates at ambient pressure removing influence of vacuum, uses fully sealed sample holders, requires a small amount of sample Resolution around 500 nm for actinide dioxides of U, Np, and Pu 108. Nevertheless, differences between the apparent size and the images are due to slightly different STXM focal settings CXDI Scattering from the entire volume of the crystal at the Bragg reflection condition will interfere in the far-field, producing a three-dimensional (3D) diffraction pattern Measured (111) for Pb and (010) orientation for ZnO nanorods 40 nm Growing Pb nanocrystals inside the vacuum chamber95 4.2 nm Ag/Au nanoboxes 92 40 nm ZnO nanorods (7.2 keV corresponding to a wavelength of 1.72 Å) 94,96 30 nm 400 nm diameter gold nanocrystal 98 11-13 nm 750 eV photon energy. Labelling cell with 1.8 nm AuNPs 93 SAXS X-ray scattering depending on the electron density of the NPs. It requires intense, monochromatic X- rays of low divergence. Iron oxide core-polymer shell NPs 140. 100-200 nm PMMA NPs using synchrotron radiation (photon energies from 6 to 10 keV) 141 GISAXS AuNPs size (10-30 nm)128,142. Wavelength range below 1 nm corresponds to a photon energy of 1.24 keV, reaching 10 keV using monochromatized synchrotron radiation Spectroscopic Techniques DLS Scattered light due to the interaction between the NPs and the source of light is related to the hydrodynamic NPs diameter 0.15 nm Ag 113 AuNPs 114, polymeric NPs 278, Iron oxide (7-8 nm) silica coated NPs 115,116 SLS 5 nm Cellulose nanocrystals 109 SANS NPs scattered beam of neutrons as a function of scattering angle. 0.01 nm Spatial distributions of magnetic moments of Fe3O4 NPs (9 nm).,magnetic shells 1.0 to 1.5 nm 146. Dodecanothiol-AgNPs in-situ ligand solvation measurements147 and ZrO2 NPs 148 (SANS/SAXS). LIBD Pulsed and focused laser excites the sample which atomically emits. < 10 nm- 1000 nm Traces of hexavalent uranium (U(VI)) colloidal particles 119 e.g., pulsed Nd:YAG laser and pulse repetition rate = 20-100 Hz UV-vis Plasmon peak is related with the shape and size of the NPs AuNPs of different shapes and sizes, including nanospheres, nanocubes, nanobranches, nanorods, and nanobipyramids 279 SERS Inelastic scattering of photons from the incident laser light due to an electromagnetic and a chemical enhancement SERS due to different shapes of Au or Ag NPs 122,123 Gold nanorods as SERS substrates for detection of scrambled prions 127 NMR 1H NMR integral values of the innermost protons are modified by the NPs 1H NMR experiment can be used to readily distinguish between dendrimers capsulated NPs 138 a For abbreviations see text. Atomic distances: ~ 0.1 nm 49 Table 5. Hyphenated techniques in electron microscopy and X-ray detectors. Information about structure and elemental composition of NPs (only selected examples are described) Technique Main characteristic measured phenomenon Combined comments Applications in materials science X-Ray Spectroscopy EDS, EDX, XEDS or EDAX High-energy beam of charged particles, such as electrons or protons or a beam of X-rays, is focused into the sample, registering the X-ray spectra. Elemental composition related to generated X-rays of an imaged NPs or their aggregates can be obtained HRTEM NPs composition 280 FE-SEM UHV STEM Pt@Fe2O3 core-shell NPs 194 TEM Antibacterial effects Ag(I) by interacting with thiol groups in proteins and inactivating the enzyme activity due the presence of sulphur 195 ETEM Liquid-Cell: PtNPs growth54. By Microchip-TEM TNPs51. Specimen holder allows high temperature and gaseous atmospheres, Pt over Al2O3 66 WetSEM Au, TiO2, ZnO and Fe2O3 NPs 6 ESEM Ni , Co, TiO2,SiO2, and PVC 64 in rat muscle STEM HAADF, morphology and composition of AgPd@Pt NPs in catalysis196 and Au concentration in fluorescent AuNPs197 WDS, WDXRF Displays X-ray of a single wavelength at time without giving a broad spectrum of wavelengths or energies simultaneously as EDX. STEM MoNPs (25keV) 200 SP Bi composition as residual synthesis component of magnetic metal oxide nanocrystals 201. residual Br– and Cl– capping agents on Pd nanowires198 XPS Kinetic energy of photoemitted electrons when irradiated a sample with focused X-rays with photon energy range of 8–11 keV Synchrotron 101 SP Au-CuNPs evolution 202. Confirmation of Au(I) on Au@Au(I) 203., chemical states of Ag into silica nanocomposites 204 Cu2S nanocage composition with encapsulated AuNPs 101 XRD Impinging X-rays over the sample satisfies the Bragg’s equation, constructive interference occurs, sample rotates in the path of the collimated X-ray beam at an angle θ while the detector rotates 2θ SP Magnetite 115 and maghemite 116 core composition into fluorescence silica shell NPs Ag nanocubes patterns 205, Iron oxides composition encapsulated in polymer 140 XRF Short X-ray or gamma -ray with energy higher than the ionization potential of atoms in the sample induces emission of characteristic fluorescence. SP Composition of Ru-Pt bimetallic NPs 207 or purity of ZnO nanoplates 208 XAS Incident photon interacts with the electrons bound in an atom. The energy of the incident photons is sufficient to cause excitation of a core electron of the absorbing atom to a continuum state to produce a photoelectron. 1s: k-edge; 2s, 2p:L-edge; 3s,3p,3d: M-edge Synchrotron Pre-edge; XANES; NEXAFS; EXAFS. Latex particles and microballoons dispersed in water 211. Structural determination of Ru-Pt NPs 207, QD surface passivation 210 Others techniques coupled to EM, elemental information EELS Measure of the energy-loss of incident electron when passing through the sample TEM Electronic structure of the oxide shell on the surface of FNPs 214. Differences in metallic or semiconducting CNTs 215 SEM Carbon film at 30 keV beam energy 216 STEM Image SERS hot spot 217 EFTEM Discrimination in a composite the different plasmon excitation energies of the nylon (~22 eV) and the nanotube (~27 eV) CEND Diffraction information about structure and morphology STEM <3 nm in diameter AgNPs 38 SAED Diffraction patterns of the impinging electrons due to the atoms of the sample act as a diffraction grating TEM Atomic layer deposition is applied to coat carbon nanocoils with magnetic Fe3O4 or Ni 219, SAED pattern of Ag nanocubes patterns 205 a For abbreviations see text. Atomic distances: ~ 0.1 nm. SP: Spectrometer 50 Table 6. X-ray microscopy, spectroscopic techniques and Auger, Mössbauer and BET techniques. The most important issues related to some NPs applications are described for each technique Technique Main characteristic measured phenomenon Applications in materials science X-RAY Microscopy STXM Use radiation in the energy range 250 to 3000 eV, focused by Fresnel Lens, being then the sample scanned perpendicular to the optical axis, while the intensity of the transmitted X-rays is detected at the same time. ZnO NPs in cells 220, down to ~20 nm in carbon nanotubes 222, Polymer NPs compositional maps 103. Chemical state information of Fe and actinide NPs (100 to 1,000 nm)108. TXM 3D electron density mapping of Au/Ag nanoboxes ~ 100 nm 92 Other techniques AES Surface-sensitive technique related to the inelastic scattering that occurs for electrons; Most of the emitted Auger electrons are produced within a very short distance from the sample surface, typically 0.3–3 nm. Catalyst layers and the CNT systems 223 Prussian-blue analogues (PBA) NPs (from 6 to 25 nm) over silicon surfaces 224. Mössbauer spectroscopy Resonant absorption and emission of gamma rays for energy level transitions gives information about the atom's local environment Fe3O4 NPs pathway formation 227 BET Physical adsorption of gas molecules on a solid surface. Specific surface area and pore size distribution of SWCNTs 231 and on FNPs (gas adsorption 3 m2·g-1 with a diameter (Ф) between 38-45 nm) 221 Spectroscopic techniques to determine NPs concentration LIBS The strong heating of the sample leads to a ionized light (plasma) related to the chemical elements Quantification of particle number density 24. LIF Excited NPs by a laser and the fluorescence spectrum is analyzed Structural species characterization 13 EPR Detection of unpaired electron in or related to NPs. Impurities on CdSe QDs240 Induced OH- species by iron oxide NPs 241 UV-vis spectroscopy Position of the UV-vis peaks are related with size, shape and NPs composition Ag/Au nanocages composition 248 Hollow metal nanostructures 281 FTIR Chemical bonds in a molecule results in absorption peaks Structural properties of e.g., Ag nanocomposites 204. Iron oxide core-shell silica NPs115 SERS Enhancement of a Raman intensity peak through changing the composition and the morphology of the NPs Ligand conformation on AuNPs 255 Au nanostructures modified with silver 256 a For abbreviations see text. Atomic distances: ~ 0.1 nm 51 FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1. (a) and (b) cryo-TEM of silica NPs. (b) It shows an self-assembly of nanoparticles in higher-order and defined structures in 2D. (c) TEM of magnetite (Fe3O4) NPs. (d) Cryo-TEM of core-shell NPs (magnetic core@silica shells). (e) TEM of Carbon Dots. (f) FIB-SEM of Au NPs where it can be seen the laser size effect, involving an important limitation to observe the interior of the NPs. (g) TSEM of hybrid NPs (gold@polymer), (h) TEM image of gold NPs (Φ =30 nm) (i) HRTEM of seed and grown AuNPs (Φ =100 nm). (j) and (k) are TEM of Au nanorods and branched morphologies. Figure 2. TSEM of polymeric termoresponsive NPs (a) and (b) TEM image of a dilution of NPs imaged by the picture "a". (c) Variation of the hydrodynamic diameter of stimuli-responsive polymeric NPs, with temperature. Closed and open symbols denote the cooling and the heating cycles, respectively. Continuous (Cooling) and dashed (Heating) lines correspond to the Boltzmann fit of the experimental values. The inset is a typical view of the size distribution of the NPs by DLS. Figure 3. Normal operation mode in FFF. (Reprinted from publication ref. 174, Copyright (2005), with permission from Elsevier.) Figure 4. Information obtained by a EDX coupled to a TEM. (a)TEM image for alloy Au/Ag 15:85 ratio NPs, (b) corresponding EDX spectrum. Peak at (8.04 keV) are from the copper of the support grid. Figure 5. Schematic diagram of electron microscopy (EM) and scanning transmission X-ray microscopes (STXM) together with generated signals for high-resolution images, nanodiffraction patterns or spectroscopic related to NPs characteristics. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), focused ion beam SEM (FIB-SEM), scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) and scanning Auger microscopy (SAM), secondary electron microscopy (SEM), wavelength dispersive X-ray spectrometry (WDS) electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS), coherent electron nano-diffraction (CEND) and selected area electron diffraction (SAED). Bright field (BF) and large angle BF (LABF), darkfield (DF), annular dark-field (ADF) and high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF); Into STXM: Lensless projection imaging microscopes (PIMs) or diffraction imaging microscopes (DIMs) Figure 6. TEM images of (a) AgNPs ( size around 40-60 nm), (b) AuNPs (size around 20-30 nm) (c) . Uv-Vis- spectra of AgNPs (416 nm), AuNPs (521 nm) and alloys NPs made of different Au:Ag ratios, being 15, 25 and 50% content of Au placed at 426, 442 and 463 nm, respectively (sizes 40-60 nm). (d) Observed visual range for Au/ Ag alloy NPs. 52 Figure 1 53 Figure 2 54 Figure 3 55 Figure 4 56 Coherent X-Rays Fresnel Zone Plates Fluorescence Photons Photoelectrons STXM X-Ray detector SEM TEM Electron beam 123 FIB-SEM STEM BF/LABF EELS ADF ADF HAADF HAADF CEND EDX AEM SAM SEM SAED WDS PIM and DIM Without Zone Plates Figure 5 57 Figure 6 64 82. Keller, D., Bustamante, C., Attaching molecules to surfaces for scanning probe microscopy, Biophys. J ., 64, 896, (1993). 83. Lead, J. R., Muirhead, D., Gibson, C. T., Characterization of Freshwater Natural Aquatic Colloids by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM), Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 6930, (2005). 84. Muirhead, D., Lead, J. R., Measurement of the size and structure of natural aquatic colloids in an urbanised watershed by atomic force microscopy, Hydrobiologia, 494, 65, (2003). 85. Doucet, F. J., Maguire, L., Lead, J. R., Size fractionation of aquatic colloids and particles by cross-flow filtration: analysis by scanning electron and atomic force microscopy, Anal. Chim. Acta, 522, 59, (2004). 86. Baalousha, M., Lead, J. R., Size fractionation and characterization of natural aquatic colloids and nanoparticles, Sci. Total Environ., 386, 93, (2007). 87. Rao, A., Schoenenberger, M., Gnecco, E., Glatzel, Th., Meyer, E., Brändlin, D., Scandella, L., Characterization of nanoparticles using Atomic Force Microscopy, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 61, 971, (2007). 88. Suenne Kim, Farbod Shafiei, Daniel Ratchford, Xiaoqin Li, Controlled AFM manipulation of small nanoparticles and assembly of hybrid nanostructures, Nanotechnology, 22, 115301, (2011). 89. Guo, D., Wu, C., Li, X., Jiang, H., Wang, X., Chen, B., In Vitro Cellular Uptake and Cytotoxic Effect of Functionalized Nickel Nanoparticles on Leukemia Cancer Cells, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol., 8, 2301, (2008). 90. Contreras-Cáceres, R., Pacifico, J., Pastoriza-Santos, I., Pérez-Juste, J., Fernández- Barbero, A., Liz-Marzán, L. M., Au@pNIPAM Thermosensitive Nanostructures: Control over Shell Cross-linking, Overall Dimensions, and Core Growth, Adv. Funct. Mater., 19, 3070, (2009). 91. Le Gros, M. A., McDermott, G., Larabell, C. A., X-ray tomography of whole cells, Curr Opin Struct Biol, 15, 593, (2005). 92. Takahashi, Y., Zettsu, N., Nishino, Y., Tsutsumi, R., Matsubara, E., Ishikawa, T., Yamauchi, K., Three-Dimensional Electron Density Mapping of Shape-Controlled Nanoparticle by Focused Hard X-ray Diffraction Microscopy, Nano Lett., 10, 1922, (2010). 93. Nelson, J., Huang, X., Steinbrener, J., Shapiro, D., Kirz, J., Marchesini, S., Neiman, A. M., Turner, J. J., Jacobsen, C., High-resolution x-ray diffraction microscopy of specifically labeled yeast cells, PNAS, (2010). 94. Newton, M. C., Leake, S. J., Harder, R., Robinson, I. K., Three-dimensional imaging of strain in a single ZnO nanorod, Nat Mater, 9, 120, (2010). 65 95. Pfeifer, M. A., Williams, G. J., Vartanyants, I. A., Harder, R., Robinson, I. K., Threedimensional mapping of a deformation field inside a nanocrystal, Nature, 442, 63, (2006). 96. Xiaojin, G., Huang, X., Leake, S., Newton, M. C., Harder, R., Robinson, I. K., Coherent x-ray diffraction imaging of ZnO nanostructures under confined illumination, New J. Phys, 13, 033006, (2011). 97. Isaacs, E. D., Microscopy: X-ray nanovision, Nature, 442, 35, (2006). 98. Yang, W., Huang, X., Harder, R., Clark, J. N., Robinson, I. K., Mao, H. k., Coherent diffraction imaging of nanoscale strain evolution in a single crystal under high pressure, Nat. Commun., 4, 1680, (2013). 99. Thieme, J., McNult, I., Vogt, S., Paterson, a. D., X-Ray Spectromicroscopy Tool for Environmental Sciences, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 6885, (2007). 100. Myneni, S. C. B., Brown, J. T., Martinez, G. A., Meyer-Ilse, W., Imaging of Humic Substance Macromolecular Structures in Water and Soils, Science, 286, 1335, (1999). 101. Kuo, C. H., Chu, Y. T., Song, Y. F., Huang, M. H., Cu2O Nanocrystal-Templated Growth of Cu2S Nanocages with Encapsulated Au Nanoparticles and In-Situ Transmission X-ray Microscopy Study, Adv. Funct. Mater., 21, 792, (2011). 102. Auernhammer, G. K., Fauth, K., Ullrich, B., Zhao, J., Weigand, M., Vollmer, D., Time-resolved X-ray microscopy of nanoparticle aggregates under oscillatory shear, J Synchrotron Radiat, 16, 307, (2009). 103. Burke, K. B., Staplenton, A. J., Vaughan, B., Zhou, X., Kilcoyne, A. L. D., Belcher, W. J., Dastoor, P. C., Scanning transmission x-ray microscopy of polymer nanoparticles: probing morphology on sub-10-nm length scales, Nanotechnology, 22, 265710, (2011). 104. Robinson, I., Harder, R., Coherent X-ray diffraction imaging of strain at the nanoscale, Nat. Mater., 8, 291, (2009). 105. Chapman, H. N., X-ray imaging beyond the limits, Nat. Mater., 8, 299, (2009). 106. Chao, W., Harteneck, B. D., Liddle, J. A., Anderson, E. H., Attwood, D. T., Soft X- ray microscopy at a spatial resolution better than 15 nm, Nature, 435, 1210, (2005). 107. Benk, M., Bergmann, K., Querejeta-Fernandez, A., Srivastava, S., Kotov, N. A., Schaefer, D., Wilheim, T., Soft X-Ray Microscopic Investigation on Self Assembling Nanocrystals, AIP Conf. Proc., 1365, 433, (2011). 108. Nilsson, H., Tyliszczak, T., Wilson, R., Werme, L., Shuh, D., Soft X-ray scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM) of actinide particles, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 383, 41, (2005). 109. Brar, S. K., Verma, M., Measurement of nanoparticles by light-scattering techniques, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 30, 4, (2011). 66 110. Bootz, A., Vogel, V., Schubert, D., Kreuter, J. r., Comparison of scanning electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering and analytical ultracentrifugation for the sizing of poly(butyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm., 57, 369, (2004). 111. Hassellöv, M., Readman, J., Ranville, J., Tiede, K., Nanoparticle analysis and characterization methodologies in environmental risk assessment of engineered nanoparticles, Ecotoxicology, 17, 344, (2008). 112. Finsy, R., Particle sizing by quasi-elastic light scattering, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 52, 79, (1994). 113. Panáek, A., Krvítek, L., Prucek, R., Kolár M., Veerová, R., Pizúrová, N., Virender K.Sharma, V., Nevená, T., Zboril, R., Silver Colloid Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, and Their Antibacterial Activity, J. Phys. Chem. B, 110, 16248, (2006). 114. Yu, L., Andriola, A., Quantitative gold nanoparticle analysis methods: A review, Talanta, 82, 869, (2010). 115. Lapresta-Fernández, A., Doussineau, T., Dutz, S., Steiniger, F., Moro, A. J., Mohr, G. J., Magnetic And Fluorescent Core-Shell Nanoparticles For Ratiometric pH Sensing, Nanotechnology, 22, 415501(10 pp), (2011). 116. Lapresta-Fernández, A., Doussineau, T., Moro, A. J., Dutz, S., Steiniger, F., Mohr, G. J., Magnetic core-shell fluorescent ph ratiometric nanosensor using a Stöber coating method, Anal. Chim. Acta, 707, 164, (2011). 117. Lapresta-Fernández, A., Cywinski, P., Moro, A., Mohr, G., Fluorescent polyacrylamide nanoparticles for naproxen recognition, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 395, 1821, (2009). 118. Urena-Benavides, E. E., Kitchens, C. L., of triaxial nanoparticle suspensions in the Rayleigh-Gans-Debye regime: application to cellulose nanocrystals, RSC Adv., 2, 1096, (2012). 119. Jung, E., Cho, H. R., Park, K., Yeon, J. W., Song, K., Nanoparticle sizing by a laserinduced breakdown detection using an optical probe beam deflection, Appl. Phys. B- Lasers O, 97, 867, (2009). 120. Latkoczy, C., Kagi, R., Fierz, M., Ritzmann, M., Gunther, D., Boller, M., Development of a mobile fast-screening laser-induced breakdown detection (LIBD) system for field-based measurements of nanometre sized particles in aqueous solutions, J. Environ. Monit., 12, 1422, (2010). 121. Mueller, M., Gornushkin, I. B., Florek, S., Mory, D., Panne, U., Approach to Detection in Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy, Anal. Chem., 79, 4419, (2007). 122. Tiwari, V. S., Oleg, T., Darbha, G. K., Hardy, W., Singh, J. P., Ray, P. C., Nonresonance SERS effects of silver colloids with different shapes, Chem. Phys. Lett., 446, 77, (2007). 67 123. Ming Li and Scott, Shape-dependent surface-enhanced Raman scattering in gold Raman-probesilica sandwiched nanoparticles for biocompatible applications, Nanotechnology, 23, 115501, (2012). 124. Qian, X., Peng, X. H., Ansari, D. O., Yin-Goen, Q., Chen, G. Z., Shin, D. M., Yang, L., Young, A. N., Wang, M. D., Nie, S., In vivo tumor targeting and spectroscopic detection with surface-enhanced Raman nanoparticle tags, Nat Biotech, 26, 83, (2008). 125. Tsoutsi, D., Montenegro, J. M., Dommershausen, F., Koert, U., Liz-Marzán, L. M., Parak, W. J., Álvarez-Puebla, R. A., Quantitative Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Ultradetection of Atomic Inorganic Ions: The Case of Chloride, ACS Nano, 5, 7539, (2011). 126. Jimenez de Aberasturi, D., Montenegro, J. M., Ruiz de Larramendi, I., Rojo, T., Klar, T. A., Álvarez-Puebla, R., Liz-Marzán, L. M., Parak, W. J., Optical Sensing of Small Ions with Colloidal Nanoparticles, Chem. Mater., 24, 738, (2012). 127. Álvarez-Puebla, R. A., Agarwal, A., Manna, P., Khanal, B. P., Aldeanueva-Potel, P., Carbó Argibay, E., Pazos-Pérez, N., Vigderman, L., Zubarev, E. R., Kotov, N. A., Liz- Marzán, L. M., Gold nanorods 3D-supercrystals as surface enhanced Raman scattering spectroscopy substrates for the rapid detection of scrambled prions, PNAS, 108, 8157, (2011). 128. Nakamura, K., Kawabata, T., Mori, Y., Size distribution analysis of colloidal gold by small angle X-ray scattering and light absorbance, Powder Technol., 131, 120, (2003). 129. Wellsted, H., Sitsen, E., Caragheorgheopol, A., Chechik, V., Polydisperse Composition of Mixed Monolayer-Protected, Spin-Labeled Au Nanoparticles, Anal. Chem., 76, 2010, (2004). 130. Link, S., El-Sayed, M. A., Shape and size dependence of radiative, non-radiative and photothermal properties of gold nanocrystals, Int Rev Phys Chem, 19, 409, (2000). 131. Yu, C., Irudayaraj, J., Multiplex Biosensor Using Gold Nanorods, Anal Chem, 79, 572, (2006). 132. Hu, M., Chen, J., Li, Z. Y., Au, L., Hartland, G. V., Li, X., Marquez, M., Xia, Y., Gold nanostructures: engineering their plasmonic properties for biomedical applications, Chem. Soc. Rev., 35, 1084, (2006). 133. Mannelli, I., Marco, M. P., Recent advances in analytical and bioanalysis applications of noble metal nanorods, Anal Bioanal Chem, 398, 2451, (2010). 134. Blom, M. T., Chmela, E., Oosterbroek, R. E., Tijssen, R., van den Berg, A., On-Chip Hydrodynamic Chromatography Separation and Detection of Nanoparticles and Biomolecules, Anal. Chem., 75, 6761, (2003). 135. Wei, G. T., Liu, F. K., Separation of nanometer gold particles by size exclusion chromatography, J. Chromatogr. , A, 836, 253, (1999). 68 136. Dubascoux, S., Von der Kammer, F., Le Hécho, I., Gautier, M. P., Lespes, G., Optimisation of asymmetrical flow field flow fractionation for environmental nanoparticles separation, J. Chromatogr. , A, 1206, 160, (2008). 137. Polte, J., Erler, R., Thüenemann, A. F., Sokolov, S., Ahner, T. T., Rademann, K., Emmerling, F., Kraehnert, R., Nucleation and Growth of Gold Nanoparticles Studied via in situ Small Angle X-ray Scattering at Millisecond Time Resolution, ACS Nano, 4, 1076, (2010). 138. Gomez, M. V., Guerra, J., Myers, V. S., Crooks, R. M., Velders, A. H., Nanoparticle Size Determination by 1H NMR Spectroscopy, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 131, 14634, (2009). 139. Follens, L. R. A., Aerts, A., Haouas, M., Caremans, T. P., Loppinet, B., Goderis, B., Vermant, J., Taulelle, F., Martens, J. A., Kirschhock, C. E. A., Characterization of nanoparticles in diluted clear solutions for Silicalite-1 zeolite synthesis using liquid 29Si NMR, SAXS and DLS, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 10, 5574, (2008). 140. Moller, J., Cebi, M., Schroer, M. A., Paulus, M., Degen, P., Sahle, C. J., Wieland, D. C. F., Leick, S., Nyrow, A., Rehage, H., Tolan, M., Dissolution of iron oxide nanoparticles inside polymer nanocapsules, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 13, 20354, (2011). 141. Gleber, G., Cibik, L., Haas, S., Hoell, A., Müller, P., Krumrey, M., Traceable size determination of PMMA nanoparticles based on Small Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS), Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 247, 012027, (2010). 142. Krumrey, M., Gleber, G., Scholze, F., Wernecke, J., Synchrotron radiation-based xray reflection and scattering techniques for dimensional nanometrology, Meas. Sci. Technol., 22, 094032, (2011). 143. Y.Mori, M.Furukawa, T.Hayashi, K.Nakamura, Size Distribution of Gold Nanoparticles Used by Small Angle X-ray Scattering, Part. Sci. Technol., 24, 97, (2006). 144. Hino, K., Shingai, R., Morita, T., Toku, K., Hirano, T., Yoshikawa, H., Nakano, H., Nishi, N., Size distribution of gold nanoparticles covered with thiol-terminated cyanobiphenyl-type liquid crystal molecules studied with small-angle X-ray scattering and TEM, Chem. Phys. Lett., 460, 173, (2008). 145. Bienert, R., Emmerling, F., Thünemann, A., The size distribution of 'gold standard' nanoparticles, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 395, 1651, (2009). 146. Krycka, K. L., Booth, R. A., Hogg, C. R., Ijiri, Y., Borchers, J. A., Chen, W. C., Watson, S. M., Laver, M., Gentile, T. R., Dedon, L. R., Harris, S., Rhyne, J. J., Majetich, S. A., Core-Shell Magnetic Morphology of Structurally Uniform Magnetite Nanoparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 207203, (2010). 147. Von White, G., Kitchens, C. L., Small-Angle Neutron Scattering of Silver Nanoparticles in Gas-Expanded Hexane, J. Phys. Chem. C, 114, 16285, (2010). 69 148. Wang, S. H., Sun, Y. S., Chiang, A. S.-T., Hung, H. F., Chen, M. C., Wood, K., Carboxylic Acid-Directed Clustering and Dispersion of ZrO2 Nanoparticles in Organic Solvents: A Study by Small-Angle X-ray/Neutron Scattering and NMR, J. Phys. Chem. C, 115, 11941, (2011). 149. Barth, H. G., Boyes, B. E., Size exclusion chromatography, Anal. Chem., 64, 428R, (1992). 150. Weinberg, H., Galyean, A., Leopold, M., Evaluating engineered nanoparticles in natural waters, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 30, 72, (2011). 151. Liu, F. K., SEC Characterization of Au Nanoparticles Prepared through Seed-Assisted Synthesis, Chromatographia, 66, 791, (2007). 152. Liu, F. K., Wei, G. T., Effect of Mobile-Phase Additives on Separation of Gold Nanoparticles by Size-Exclusion Chromatography, Chromatographia, 59, 115, (2004). 153. Porsch, B., Welinder, A., K÷rner, A., Wittgren, B., Distribution analysis of ultra-high molecular mass poly(ethylene oxide) containing silica particles by size-exclusion chromatography with dual light-scattering and refractometric detection, J. Chromatogr. , A, 1068, 249, (2005). 154. Al-Somali, A. M., Krueger, K. M., Falkner, J. C., Colvin, V. L., Recycling Size Exclusion Chromatography for the Analysis and Separation of Nanocrystalline Gold, Anal. Chem., 76, 5903, (2004). 155. Wei, G. T., Liu, F. K., Wang, C. R. C., Shape Separation of Nanometer Gold Particles by Size-Exclusion Chromatography, Anal. Chem., 71, 2085, (1999). 156. Small, H., Langhorst, M. A., Hydrodynamic chromatography, Anal. Chem., 54, 892A, (1982). 157. Williams, A., Varela, E., Meehan, E., Tribe, K., Characterisation of nanoparticulate systems by hydrodynamic chromatography, Int. J. Pharm., 242, 295, (2002). 158. Liu, J. f., Yu, S. j., Yin, Y. g., Chao, J. b., Methods for separation, identification, characterization and quantification of silver nanoparticles, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 33, 95, (2012). 159. McGowan, G. R., Langhorst, M. A., Development and application of an integrated, high-speed, computerized hydrodynamic chromatograph, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 89, 94, (1982). 160. Yegin, B. A., Lamprecht, A., Lipid nanocapsule size analysis by hydrodynamic chromatography and photon correlation spectroscopy, Int. J. Pharm., 320, 165, (2006). 161. Chmela, E., Tijssen, R., Blom, M. T., Gardeniers, H. J. G. E., van den Berg, A., A Chip System for Size Separation of Macromolecules and Particles by Hydrodynamic Chromatography, Anal. Chem., 74, 3470, (2002). 162. Tiede, K., Boxall, A. B. A., Tiede, D., Tear, S. P., David, H., Lewis, J., A robust sizecharacterisation methodology for studying nanoparticle behaviour in 'real' 70 environmental samples, using hydrodynamic chromatography coupled to ICP-MS, J. Anal. At. Spectrom., 24, 964, (2009). 163. Liu, F. K., Chang, Y. C., Using reversed-phase liquid chromatography to monitor the sizes of Au/Pt core/shell nanoparticles, J. Chromatogr. , A, 1217, 1647, (2010). 164. Song, Y., Heien, M. L., Jimenez, V., Wightman, R. M., Murray, R. W., Voltammetric Detection of Metal Nanoparticles Separated by Liquid Chromatography, Anal. Chem., 76, 4911, (2004). 165. Pyell, U., Characterization of nanoparticles by capillary electromigration separation techniques, ELECTROPHORESIS, 31, 814, (2010). 166. López-Lorente, A. I., Simonet, B. M., Valcárcel, M., Electrophoretic methods for the analysis of nanoparticles, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 30, 58, (2011). 167. Lo, C. K., Paau, M. C., Xiao, D., Choi, M. M. F., Application of capillary zone electrophoresis for separation of water-soluble gold monolayer-protected clusters, Eletrophoresis, 29, 2330, (2008). 168. Lin, K. H., Chu, T. C., Liu, F. K., On-line enhancement and separation of nanoparticles using capillary electrophoresis, J. Chromatogr. , A, 1161, 314, (2007). 169. Helfrich, A., Bruchert, W., Bettmer, J., Size characterisation of Au nanoparticles by ICP-MS coupling techniques, J. Anal. At. Spectrom., 21, 431, (2006). 170. Surugau, N., Urban, P., Electrophoretic methods for separation of nanoparticles., J Sep Sci., 32, 1889, (2009). 171. Liu, F. K., Analysis and applications of nanoparticles in the separation sciences: A case of gold nanoparticles, J. Chromatogr. , A, 1216, 9034, (2009). 172. Buffle, J., Leppard, G. G., Characterization of Aquatic Colloids and Macromolecules. 2. Key Role of Physical Structures on Analytical Results, Environ. Sci. Technol., 29, 2176, (1995). 173. Giddings, J. C., Field-flow fractionation: analysis of macromolecular, colloidal, and particulate materials, Science, 260, 1456, (1993). 174. Reschiglian, P., Zattoni, A., Roda, B., Michelini, E., Roda, A., Field-flow fractionation and biotechnology, Trends Biotechnol., 23, 475, (2005). 175. Messaud, F. A., Sanderson, R. D., Runyon, J. R., Otte, T., Pasch, H., Williams, S. K. R., An overview on field-flow fractionation techniques and their applications in the separation and characterization of polymers, Progress. in Polymer Science, 34, 351, (2009). 176. Hassellöv, M., der Kammer, F. v., Beckett, R., Characterisation of Aquatic Colloids and Macromolecules by Field-Flow Fractionation, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 223,(2006). 71 177. Wyatt, P. J., Submicrometer Particle Sizing by Multiangle Light Scattering following Fractionation, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 197, 9, (1998). 178. Kammer, F., Baborowski, M., Friese, K., Field-flow fractionation coupled to multiangle laser light scattering detectors: Applicability and analytical benefits for the analysis of environmental colloids, Anal. Chim. Acta, 552, 166, (2005). 179. Baalousha, M., Kammer, F. V. D., Motelica-Heino, M., Le Coustumer, P., Natural sample fractionation by FlFFF-MALLS-TEM: Sample stabilization, preparation, preconcentration and fractionation, J. Chromatogr. , A, 1093, 156, (2005). 180. Sermsri, W., Jarujamrus, P., Shiowatana, J., Siripinyanond, A., Flow field-flow fractionation: a versatile approach for size characterization of -tocopherol-induced enlargement of gold nanoparticles, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 396, 3079, (2010). 181. Pace, H. E., Lesher, E. K., Ranville, J. F., Influence of stability on the acute toxicity of CdSe/ZnS nanocrystals to Daphnia magna, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 29, 1338, (2010). 182. Field-Flow Fractionation in Biopolymer Analysis, Springer,(2012). 183. Moon, M. H., Kang, D., Jung, J., Kim, J., Separation of carbon nanotubes by frit inlet asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation, J. Sep. Science, 27, 710, (2004). 184. Bouby, M., Geckeis, H., Geyer, F. W., Application of asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AsFlFFF) coupled to inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) to the quantitative characterization of natural colloids and synthetic nanoparticles, Anal Bioanal Chem, 392, 1447, (2008). 185. Klaine, S. J., Alvarez, P. J. J., Batley, G. E., Fernandes, T. F., Handy, R. D., Lyon, D. Y., Mahendra, S., McLaughlin, M. J., Lead, J. R., Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 27, 1825, (2008). 186. Machtle, W., Borger, L., Analytical Ultracentrifugation of Polymers and Nanoparticles, Berlin,(2006). 187. Colfen, H., Analysis of Nanoparticles <10 nm by Analytical Ultracentrifugation, in Particle Sizing and Characterization, American Chemical Society, 119,(2004). 188. Lead, J. R., Wilkinson, K. J., Aquatic Colloids and Nanoparticles: Current Knowledge and Future Trends, Environ. Chem., 3, 159, (2006). 189. Gimbert, L. J., Haygarth, P. M., Beckett, R., Worsfold, P. J., Comparison of Centrifugation and Filtration Techniques for the Size Fractionation of Colloidal Material in Soil Suspensions Using Sedimentation Field-Flow Fractionation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 1731, (2005). 190. Morrison, M. A., Benoit, G., Filtration Artifacts Caused by Overloading Membrane Filters, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 3774, (2001). 191. Liu, R., Lead, J. R., Partial Validation of Cross Flow Ultrafiltration by Atomic Force Microscopy, Anal. Chem., 78, 8105, (2006). 72 192. Franklin, N. M., Rogers, N. J., Apte, S. C., Batley, G. E., Gadd, G. E., Casey, P. S., Comparative Toxicity of Nanoparticulate ZnO, Bulk ZnO, and ZnCl2 to a Freshwater Microalga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata): The Importance of Particle Solubility, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 8484, (2007). 193. Lu, S. G., Zheng, Y. W., Bai, S. Q., A HRTEM/EDX approach to identification of the source of dust particles on urban tree leaves, Atmos. Environ., 42, 6431, (2008). 194. Teng, X., Yang, H., Synthesis of Face-Centered Tetragonal FePt Nanoparticles and Granular Films from Pt@Fe2O3 Core-Shell Nanoparticles, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 125, 14559, (2003). 195. Feng, Q. L., Wu, J., Chen, G. Q., Cui, F. Z., Kim, T. N., Kim, J. O., A mechanistic study of the antibacterial effect of silver ions on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 52, 662, (2000). 196. Yang, J., Yang, J., Ying, J. Y., Morphology and Lateral Strain Control of Pt Nanoparticles via Core-Shell Construction Using Alloy AgPd Core Toward Oxygen Reduction Reaction, ACS Nano, 6, 9373, (2012). 197. Haveli, S. D., Walter, P., Patriarche, G., Ayache, J., Castaing, J., Van Elslande, E., Tsoucaris, G., Wang, P. A., Kagan, H. B., Hair Fiber as a Nanoreactor in Controlled Synthesis of Fluorescent Gold Nanoparticles, Nano Lett., 12, 6212, (2012). 198. He, Y. F., Feng, J. T., Du, Y. Y., Li, D. Q., Controllable Synthesis and Acetylene Hydrogenation Performance of Supported Pd Nanowire and Cuboctahedron Catalysts, ACS Catal., 2, 1703, (2012). 199. Lyman, C. E., Williams, D. B., Goldstein, J. I., X-ray detectors and spectrometers, Ultramicroscopy, 28, 137, (1989). 200. Tanaka, M., Takeguchi, M., Furuya, K., Wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy of thick and thin samples for electron microscopes, Surf. Interface Anal., 40, 1684, (2008). 201. Bogle, K. A., Anbusathaiah, V., Arredondo, M., Lin, J. Y., Chu, Y. H., O´Neil, C., Gregg, J. M., Castell, M. R., Nagarajan, V., Synthesis of Epitaxial Metal Oxide Nanocrystals via a Phase Separation Approach, ACS Nano, 4, 5139, (2010). 202. Yin, J., Shan, S., Yang, L., Mott, D., Malis, O., Petkov, V., Cai, F., Shan Ng, M., Luo, J., Chen, B. H., Engelhard, M., Zhong, C. J., GoldCopper Nanoparticles: Nanostructural Evolution and Bifunctional Catalytic Sites, Chem. Mater., 24, 4662, (2012). 203. Corthey, G., Giovanetti, L. J., Ramallo-López, J. ü. M., Zelaya, E., Rubert, A. A., Benitez, G. A., Requejo, F. G., Fonticelli, M. H., Salvarezza, R. C., Synthesis and Characterization of Gold@Gold(I)Thiomalate Core@Shell Nanoparticles, ACS Nano, 4, 3413, (2010). 204. Senoy T, Nair SK, Jamal EMA, S H Al-Harthi, Varma MR, Anantharaman R. Sizedependent surface plasmon resonance in silver silica nanocomposites. Nanotechnology 19[7], 075710. 2008. 73 205. Yu, D., Yam, V. W.-W., Hydrothermal-Induced Assembly of Colloidal Silver Spheres into Various Nanoparticles on the Basis of HTAB-Modified Silver Mirror Reaction, J. Phys. Chem. B, 109, 5497, (2005). 206. Yuhas, B. D., Habas, S. E., Fakra, S. C., Mokari, T., Probing Compositional Variation within Hybrid Nanostructures, ACS Nano, 3, 3369, (2009). 207. Christensen, S. T., Feng, H., Libera, J. L., Guo, N., Miller, J. T., Stair, P. C., Elam, J. W., Supported RuPt Bimetallic Nanoparticle Catalysts Prepared by Atomic Layer Deposition, Nano Lett., 10, 3047, (2010). 208. Hong, J. I., Choi, J., Jang, S. S., Gu, J., Chang, Y., Wortman, G., Snyder, R. L., Wang, Z. L., Magnetism in Dopant-Free ZnO Nanoplates, Nano Lett., 12, 576, (2012). 209. Moreau, L. M., Ha, D. H., Bealing, C. R., Zhang, H., Hennig, R. G., Robinson, R. D., Unintended Phosphorus Doping of Nickel Nanoparticles during Synthesis with TOP: A Discovery through Structural Analysis, Nano Letters, 12, 4530, (2012). 210. Lee, J. R. I., Whitley, H. D., Meulenberg, R. W., Wolcott, A., Zhang, J. Z., Prendergast, D., Lovingood, D. D., Strouse, G. F., Ogitsu, T., Schwegler, E., Terminello, L. J., van Buuren, T., Ligand-Mediated Modification of the Electronic Structure of CdSe Quantum Dots, Nano Lett., 12, 2763, (2012). 211. Ade, H., Stoll, H., Near-edge X-ray absorption fine-structure microscopy of organic and magnetic materials, Nat. Mater., 8, 281, (2009). 212. Rodríguez, A. F., Kleibert, A., Bransmann, J., NBolting, F., Probing single magnetic nanoparticles by polarization-dependent soft x-ray absorption spectromicroscopy, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 43, 474006, (2010). 213. Midgley, P. A., Dunin-Borkowski, R. E., Electron tomography and holography in materials science, Nat. Mater., 8, 271, (2009). 214. Wang, C., Baer, D. R., Amonette, J. E., Engelhard, M. H., Antony, J., Qiang, Y., Morphology and Electronic Structure of the Oxide Shell on the Surface of Iron Nanoparticles, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 131, 8824, (2009). 215. Rossouw, D., Botton, G. A., Najafi, E., Lee, V., Hitchcock, A. P., Metallic and Semiconducting Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Differentiating Individual SWCNTs by Their Carbon 1s Spectra, ACS Nano, 6, 10965, (2012). 216. Khursheed A, Luo T. Transmission EELS attachment for SEM. Physical and Failure Analysis of Integrated Circuits, 2005.IPFA 2005.Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the. Physical and Failure Analysis of Integrated Circuits, 2005.IPFA 2005.Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the , 298-301. 2005. 217. Mirsaleh-Kohan, N., Iberi, V., Simmons, P. D., Bigelow, N. W., Vaschillo, A., Rowland, M. M., Best, M. D., Pennycook, S. J., Masiello, D. J., Guiton, B. S., Camden, J. P., Single-Molecule Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering: Can STEM/EELS Image Electromagnetic Hot Spots?, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 3, 2303, (2012).