, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 287–294 | Cite as

Measurement Bias on Nanoparticle Size Characterization by Asymmetric Flow Field-Flow Fractionation Using Dynamic Light-Scattering Detection

  • Julien Gigault
  • Emmanuel Mignard
  • Hind El Hadri
  • Bruno Grassl


In this work, we highlight the influence of the particle–particle interaction on the retention behavior in asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (A4F) and the misunderstanding considering the size determination by a light-scattering detector (static and dynamic light scattering) by comparing fullerene nanoparticles to similar sized polystyrene nanoparticle standards. The phenomena described here suggest that there are biases in the hydrodynamic size and diffusion determination induced by particle–particle interactions, as characterized by their virial coefficient. The dual objectives of this paper are to (1) demonstrate the uncertainties resulting from the current practice of size determination by detectors coupled to an A4F system and (2) initiate a discussion of the effects of particle–particle interactions using fullerene nanoparticles on their characterization as well as their origins. The results presented here clearly illustrate that the simple diffusion coefficient equation that is generally used to calculate the hydrodynamic size of nanoparticles (NPs) cannot be considered for whole fractograms according to their size distribution. We tried to identify particle interactions that appear during fractionation and demonstrated using the fully developed diffusion coefficient equation. We postulate that the observed interaction-dependent retention behavior may be attributed to differences in the virial coefficient between NPs and between NPs and the accumulation wall (membrane surface) without quantifying it. We hope that our results will stimulate discussion and a reassessment of the size determination procedure by A4F-LS to more fully account for all the influential material parameters that are relevant to the fractionation of nanoscale particles by A4F.


Asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation Light scattering Nanoparticles Fullerenes Size characterization 



The authors wish to thank the PEPS funding program supported by the Initiative of Excellence (IDEX Initiative) of the University of Bordeaux and the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). The authors also gratefully acknowledge Gerald Clisson for the technical support and SOLVAY.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10337_2017_3250_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1149 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ashby J, Schachermeyer S, Pan S, Zhong W (2013) Dissociation-based screening of nanoparticle-protein interaction via flow field-flow fractionation. Anal Chem 85:7494–7501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolea E, Jiménez-Lamana J, Laborda F, Castillo JR (2011) Size characterization and quantification of silver nanoparticles by asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation coupled with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 401:2723–2732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gigault J, Pettibone JM, Schmitt C, Hackley VA (2014) Rational strategy for characterization of nanoscale particles by asymmetric-flow field flow fractionation: a tutorial. Anal Chim Acta 809:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gigault J, Zhang W, Lespes G et al (2014) Asymmetrical flow field–flow fractionation analysis of water suspensions of polymer nanofibers synthesized via RAFT-mediated emulsion polymerization. Anal Chim Acta 819:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gigault J, Nguyen T, Pettibone J, Hackley V (2014) Accurate determination of the size distribution for polydisperse, cationic metallic nanomaterials by asymmetric-flow field flow fractionation. J Nanopart Res 16:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrero P, Bäuerlein PS, Emke E et al (2015) Size and concentration determination of (functionalised) fullerenes in surface and sewage water matrices using field flow fractionation coupled to an online accurate mass spectrometer: method development and validation. Anal Chim Acta 871:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kato H, Nakamura A, Noda N (2014) Determination of size distribution of silica nanoparticles: a comparison of scanning electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering, and flow field-flow fractionation with multiangle light scattering methods. Mater Express 4:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen TM, Gigault J, Hackley VA (2013) PEGylated gold nanorod separation based on aspect ratio: characterization by asymmetric-flow field flow fractionation with UV-Vis detection. Anal Bioanal Chem 406:1651–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wahlund KG (2013) Flow field-flow fractionation: critical overview. J Chromatogr A 1287:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams SKR, Runyon JR, Ashames AA (2011) Field-flow fractionation: addressing the nano challenge. Anal Chem 83:634–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lespes G, Gigault J (2011) Hyphenated analytical techniques for multidimensional characterisation of submicron particles: a review. Anal Chim Acta 692:26–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baalousha M, Lead JR (2012) Rationalizing nanomaterial sizes measured by atomic force microscopy, flow field-flow fractionation, and dynamic light scattering: sample preparation, polydispersity, and particle structure. Environ Sci Technol 46:6134–6142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bednar AJ, Poda AR, Mitrano DM et al (2013) Comparison of on-line detectors for field flow fractionation analysis of nanomaterials. Talanta 104:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gigault J, Grassl B, Lespes G (2012) A new analytical approach based on asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation coupled to ultraviolet spectrometry and light scattering detection for SWCNT aqueous dispersion studies. Analyst 137:917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von der Kammer F, Legros S, Hofmann T et al (2011) Separation and characterization of nanoparticles in complex food and environmental samples by field-flow fractionation. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 30:425–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gigault J, Le Hécho I, Dubascoux S et al (2010) Single walled carbon nanotube length determination by asymmetrical-flow field-flow fractionation hyphenated to multi-angle laser-light scattering. J Chromatogr A 1217:7891–7897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gigault J, Hackley VA (2013) Observation of size-independent effects in nanoparticle retention behavior during asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:6251–6258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korgel BA, van Zanten JH, Monbouquette HG (1998) Vesicle size distributions measured by flow field-flow fractionation coupled with multiangle light scattering. Biophys J 74:3264–3272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehrhart J, Mingotaud A-F, Violleau F (2011) Asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation with multi-angle light scattering and quasi elastic light scattering for characterization of poly(ethyleneglycol-b-ɛ-caprolactone) block copolymer self-assemblies used as drug carriers for photodynamic therapy. J Chromatogr A 1218:4249–4256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    John C, Langer K (2014) Asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation for human serum albumin based nanoparticle characterisation and a deeper insight into particle formation processes. J Chromatogr A 1346:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moquin A, Winnik FM, Maysinger D (2013) Separation science: principles and applications for the analysis of bionanoparticles by asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4). Methods Mol Biol 991:325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tuoriniemi J, Johnsson ACJH, Holmberg JP et al (2014) Intermethod comparison of the particle size distributions of colloidal silica nanoparticles. Sci Technol Adv Mater 15:035009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jargalan N, Tropin TV, Avdeev MV, Aksenov VL (2015) Investigation of the dissolution kinetics of fullerene C60 in solvents with different polarities by UV–vis spectroscopy. J Surf Investig 9:12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alargova RG, Deguchi S, Tsujii K (2001) Stable colloidal dispersions of fullerenes in polar organic solvents. J Am Chem Soc 123:10460–10467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deguchi S, Alargova RG, Tsujii K (2001) Stable dispersions of fullerenes, C60 and C70, in water. Preparation and characterization. Langmuir 17:6013–6017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramakanth I, Patnaik A (2008) Characteristics of solubilization and encapsulation of fullerene C60 in non-ionic Triton X-100 micelles. Carbon 46:692–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prylutskyy YI, Buchelnikov AS, Voronin DP et al (2013) C60 fullerene aggregation in aqueous solution. Phys Chem Chem Phys 15:9351–9360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burchard W (1983) Static and dynamic light scattering from branched polymers and biopolymers. Light scatter polymer. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andersson M, Wittgren B, Wahlund K-G (2003) Accuracy in multiangle light scattering measurements for molar mass and radius estimations. Model calculations and experiments. Anal Chem 75:4279–4291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gigault J, Cho TJ, MacCuspie RI, Hackley VA (2012) Gold nanorod separation and characterization by asymmetric-flow field flow fractionation with UV–vis detection. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:1191–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beckett R, Giddings JC (1997) Entropic contribution to the retention of nonspherical particles in field-flow fractionation. J Colloid Interface Sci 186:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Felderhof BU (1978) Diffusion of interacting Brownian particles. J Phys Math Gen 11:929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cichocki B, Felderhof BU (1990) Diffusion coefficients and effective viscosity of suspensions of sticky hard spheres with hydrodynamic interactions. J Chem Phys 93(6):4427–4432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yadav S, Scherer TM, Shire SJ, Kalonia DS (2011) Use of dynamic light scattering to determine second virial coefficient in a semidilute concentration regime. Anal Biochem 411:292–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van den Broeck C, Bena I, Reimann P, Lehmann J (2000) Coupled Brownian motors on a tilted washboard. Ann Phys 9:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Becker T, Nelissen K, Cleuren B et al (2013) Diffusion of interacting particles in discrete geometries. Phys Rev Lett 111:110601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    27687:2008(E). I (2008) Nanotechnologies—Terminology and definitions for nano-objects—Nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplateGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SCENIHR (2010) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks : scientific basis for the definition of the term “nanomaterial.” European CommissionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Géosciences RennesCNRS, Université de Rennes 1RennesFrance
  2. 2.CNRS, LOF, UMR 5258PessacFrance
  3. 3.Material Measurement LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  4. 4.Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour/CNRS UMR 5254PauFrance

Personalised recommendations