Coating thickness measurements on gas-borne nanoparticles by combined mobility and aerodynamic spectrometry

  • Frederik Weis
  • Martin Seipenbusch
  • Gerhard Kasper
Research Paper


An on-line method is described and validated to measure the thickness of coatings on gas-borne nanoparticles. The method is essentially a tandem technique which measures the aerodynamic diameter of a particle twice—before and after coating—by a single-stage low-pressure impactor (SS-LPI) for the same mobility equivalent diameter preselected via differential mobility analyzer (DMA). A shell thickness is then derived from the change in effective particle density determined by the SS-LPI. The method requires a difference in mass density between carrier particle and coating material. Its theoretical sensitivity is shown to range between about 0.1 and 1 nm, depending on the density ratio. One advantage of this approach is that both DMA and SS-LPI are situated in series but downstream of the coating step, so as not to interfere with the coating process. The method was validated against transmission electron microscopy (TEM) measurements, using spherical silica–titania particles coated with conformal shells of molybdenum and bismuth oxide by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). For such spherical particles, the agreement with TEM was excellent. The technique was able to provide layer thicknesses for sub-nanometer layers barely or not resolved by TEM. The paper also discusses the impact of ‘non-ideal’ phenomena such as the formation of doublet particles by coagulation, the effect of multiply charged particles, or the onset of homogeneous decomposition of the coating precursor. With supporting experimental data, it is shown that such phenomena can be interpreted reliably from certain features of the impactor penetration curve. The on-line method can thus be used for fast screening of process parameters and reliable process monitoring for gas-phase synthesis of composite nanopowders.


Core–shell nanoparticles Coating thickness Effective density Aerosol characterization Inertial impaction Process monitoring 



The authors want to thank Andreas Linnenbach for his great help on performing the experiments. Funding for this work was in part provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Grant Ka-18/1373. This project is part of the JointLab IP3, a joint initiative of KIT and BASF. Financial support by the ministry of science, research and the arts of Baden-Württemberg (Az. 33-729.61-3) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Arffman A, Yli-Ojanperä J, Keskinen J (2012) The influence of nozzle throat length on the resolution of a low pressure impactor—an experimental and numerical study. J Aerosol Sci 53:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binder A, Seipenbusch M (2011) Stabilization of supported Pd particles by the application of oxide coatings. Appl Catal A 396:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder A, Heel A, Kasper G (2007) Deposition of palladium nanodots of controlled size and density onto surface-modified SiO2 particles by an atmospheric pressure CVS/MOCVD process. Chem Vap Depos 13:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder A, Seipenbusch M, Muhler M, Kasper G (2009) Kinetics and particle size effects in ethene hydrogenation over supported palladium catalysts at atmospheric pressure. J Catal 268:150–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binder A, Seipenbusch M, Kasper G (2010) Sintering of Pd catalyst particles on SiO2-TiO2 carrier particles of different mixing ratios. J Phys Chem C 114:7816–7821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder A, Seipenbusch M, Kasper G (2011) Observation of structure-sensitive decomposition of Cp(allyl)Pd on Pd nanodots formed by MOCVD. Chem Vap Depos 17:54–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boies AM, Roberts JT, Girshick SL, Zhang B, Nakamura T, Mochizuki A (2009) SiO2 coating of silver nanoparticles by photoinduced chemical vapor deposition. Nanotechnology 20:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiang C-T, Roberts JT (2011) Surface functionalization of zinc oxide nanoparticles: an investigation in the aerosol state. Chem Mater 23:5237–5242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeCarlo PF, Slowik JG, Worsnop DR, Davidovits P, Jimenez JL (2004) Particle morphology and density characterization by combined mobility and aerodynamic diameter measurements. Part 1: theory. Aerosol Sci Technol 38:1185–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faust M, Enders M, Gao K, Reichenbach L, Muller T, Gerlinger W, Sachweh B, Kasper G, Bruns M, Bräse S, Seipenbusch M (2013) Synthesis of Pt/SiO2 catalyst nanoparticles from a continuous aerosol process using novel cyclo-octadienylplatinum precursors. Chem Vap Depos 19:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández de la Mora J, Rao N, McMurry PH (1990) Inertial impaction of fine particles at moderate reynolds numbers and in the transonic regime with a thin-plate orifice nozzle. J Aerosol Sci 21:889–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heel A (2006) Integriertes Verfahren zur Funktionalisierung der Oberfläche von gasgetragenen Partikeln durch MOCVS/MOCVD und dessen Anwendung auf die Herstellung von Pd/SiO2-Katalysatoren. PhD Thesis, Institut für Mechanische Verfahrenstechnik und Mechanik, Universität Karlsruhe (T.H.)Google Scholar
  13. Hering SV, Stolzenburg MR (1995) On-line determination of particle size and density in the nanometer size range. Aerosol Sci Technol 23:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasper G (1982) Dynamics and measurement of smokes I —size characterization of nonspherical particles. Aerosol Sci Technol 1:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kasper G, Wen HY (1984) Dynamics and measurement of smokes IV—comparative measurements with an aerosol centrifuge and an aerodynamic particle sizer APS33 using submicron chain aggregates. Aerosol Sci Technol 3:405–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katrib Y, Martin ST, Rudich Y, Davidovits P, Jayne JT, Worsnop DR (2005) Density changes of aerosol particles as a result of chemical reaction. Atmos Chem Phys 5:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly WP, McMurry PH (1992) Measurement of particle density by inertial classification of differential mobility analyzer-generated monodisperse aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol 17:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liao Y-C, Roberts JT (2006) Self-assembly of organic monolayers on aerosolized silicon nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 128:9061–9065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pratsinis SE (2010) Aerosol-based technologies in nanoscale manufacturing—from functional materials to devices through core chemical engineering. AIChE J 56:3028–3035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rennecke S, Weber AP (2013) The critical velocity for nanoparticle rebound measured in a low pressure impactor. J Aerosol Sci 58:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ristimäki J, Virtanen A, Marjamäki M, Rostedt A, Keskinen J (2002) On-line measurement of size distribution and effective density of submicron aerosol particles. J Aerosol Sci 33:1541–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schimmoeller B, Pratsinis SE, Baiker A (2011) Flame aerosol synthesis of metal oxide catalysts with unprecedented structural and catalytic properties. ChemCatChem 3:1234–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schleicher B, Künzel S, Burtscher H (1995) Insitu measurement of size and density of submicron aerosol particles. J Appl Phys 78:4416–4422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seipenbusch M, Heel A, Weber AP, Kasper G (2002) Determination of coating thickness of DEHS on submicron particles by means of low pressure impaction. Chem Eng Technol 25:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheen S, Yang S, Jun K, Choi M (2009) One-step flame method for the synthesis of coated composite nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 11:1767–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sigmund S, Yu M, Meyer J, Kasper G (2013) An aerosol-based process for electrostatic coating of particle surfaces with nanoparticles. Aerosol Sci Technol 48:142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sigmund S, Akgün E, Meyer J, Hubbuch J, Wörner M, Kasper G (2014) Defined polymer shells on nanoparticles via a continuous aerosol-based process. J Nanopart Res 16:1–9Google Scholar
  28. Torvela T, Lähde A, Mönkäre J, Riikonen J, Lehtinen KEJ, Järvinen K, Lehto V-P, Jokiniemi J, Joutsensaari J (2011) Low-temperature aerosol flow reactor method for preparation of surface stabilized pharmaceutical nanocarriers. J Aerosol Sci 42:645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Virtanen A, Ristimäki J, Keskinen J (2004) Method for measuring effective density and fractal dimension of aerosol agglomerates. Aerosol Sci Technol 38:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang H-C, John W (1988) Characteristics of the Berner impactor for sampling inorganic ions. Aerosol Sci Technol 8:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weis F, Gao K, Seipenbusch M, Kasper G (2011) An aerosol-process for the synthesis of nanostructured molybdenum oxide catalysts by integrated chemical vapour synthesis/chemical vapour deposition at atmospheric pressure. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 11:8313–8317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weis F, Schneider R, Seipenbusch M, Kasper G (2013) Synthesis of Bi2O3/SiO2 core–shell nanoparticles by an atmospheric CVS/CVD process and their modification by hydrogen or electron-beam induced reduction. Surf Coat Technol 230:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yook SJ, Fissan H, Engelke T, Asbach C, van der Zwaag T, Kim JH, Wang J, Pui DYH (2008) Classification of highly monodisperse nanoparticles of NIST-traceable sizes by TDMA and control of deposition spot size on a surface by electrophoresis. J Aerosol Sci 39:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zelenyuk A, Imre D (2007) On the Effect of Particle Alignment in the DMA. Aerosol Sci Technol 41:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zelenyuk A, Ezell MJ, Perraud VR, Johnson SN, Bruns EA, Yu Y, Imre D, Alexander ML, Finlayson-Pitts BJ (2010) Characterization of organic coatings on hygroscopic salt particles and their atmospheric impacts. Atmos Environ 44:1209–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederik Weis
    • 1
  • Martin Seipenbusch
    • 1
  • Gerhard Kasper
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Mechanical Process Engineering and MechanicsKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations