Tag Archives: James E. Hutchison

Stabilizing or destabilitizing gold nanoparticles

Every once in a while I stumble across a ‘nanotechnology’ news release from Oregon (either Oregon State University or the University of Oregon) and as I recall it’s always environment-focused. The latest in an almost complete change-of-pace is, a Dec. 9, 2013 University of Oregon news release (also on EurekAlert) profiling some work on gold nanoparticles and nanoelectronics,

University of Oregon chemists studying the structure of ligand-stabilized gold nanoparticles have captured fundamental new insights about their stability. The information, they say, could help to maintain a desired, integral property in nanoparticles used in electronic devices, where stability is important, or to design them so they readily condense into thin films for such things as inks or catalysts in electronic or solar devices.

The news release goes on to detail the work,

They focused on nanoparticles less than two nanometers in diameter — the smallest studied to date — to better understand structural stability of these tiny particles being engineered for use in electronics, medicine and other materials. Whether a nanoparticle needs to remain stable or condense depends on how they are being used. Those used as catalysts in industrial chemical processing or quantum dots for lighting need to remain intact; if they are precursors for coatings in solar devices or for printing ink, nanoparticles need to be unstable so they sinter and condense into a thin mass.

For their experiments, Smith and Hutchison produced gold nanoparticles in four well-controlled sizes, ranging from 0.9 nanometers to 1.5 nanometers, and analyzed ligand loss and sintering with thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, and examined the resulting films by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. As the nanoparticles were heated at 5 degrees Celsius per minute, from room temperature to 600 degrees Celsius, the nanoparticles began to transform near 150 degrees Celsius.

The researchers found that smaller nanoparticles have better structural integrity than larger-sized particles that have been tested. In other words, Hutchison said, they are less likely to lose their ligands and bind together. “If you have unstable particles, then the property you want is fleeting,” he said. “Either the light emission degrades over time and you’re done, or the metal becomes inactive and you’re done. In that case, you want to preserve the function and keep the particles from aggregating.”The opposite is desired for Hutchison and others working in the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Sustainable Materials Chemistry, a multi-universities collaboration led by the UO and Oregon State University. Researchers there are synthesizing nanoparticles as precursors for thin films.

“We want solution precursors that can lead to inorganic thin films for use in electronics and solar industries,” said Hutchison, who also is a member of the UO Materials Science Institute.

“In this case, we want to know how to keep our nanoparticles or other precursors stable enough in solution so that we can work with them, using just a tiny amount of additional energy to make them unstable so that they condense into a film — where the property that you want comes from the extended solid that is generated, not from the nanoparticles themselves.”

The research, Hutchison said, identified weak sites on nanoparticles where ligands might pop off. If only a small amount do so, he said, separate nanoparticles are more likely to come together and begin the sintering process to create thin films.

“That’s a really stabilizing effect that, in turn, kicks out all these ligands on the outside,” he said. “The surface area decreases quickly and the particles get bigger, but now all the extra ligands gets excluded into the film and then, over time, the ligands vaporize and go away.”

The coming apart, however, is a “catastrophic failure” if protecting against sintering is the goal. It may be possible to use the findings, he said, to explore ways to strengthen nanoparticles, such as developing ligands that bind in at least two sites or avoiding volatile ligands.

The process, as studied, produced porous gold films. “A next step might be to study how to manipulate the process to get a more dense film if that is desired,” Hutchison said. Understanding how nanoparticles respond to certain conditions, such as changing temperatures, he added, may help researchers reduce waste in the manufacturing process.

As I hinted earlier, this work retains an ‘environment focus’,

“Researchers at the University of Oregon are re-engineering the science, manufacturing and business processes behind critical products,” said Kimberly Andrews Espy, vice president for research and innovation and dean of the UO Graduate School. “This research analyzing the structural stability of nanoparticles by Dr. Hutchison and his team has the potential to improve the engineering of electronics, medicine and other materials, helping to foster a sustainable future for our planet and its people.” [emphasis mine]

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Transformations during Sintering of Small (Dcore < 2 nm) Ligand-Stabilized Gold Nanoparticles: Influence of Ligand Functionality and Core Size by Beverly L. Smith and James E. Hutchison. J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117 (47), pp 25127–25137 DOI: 10.1021/jp408111v Publication Date (Web): October 24, 2013
Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society

This paper is behind a paywall.

Nanoparticle size doesn’t matter

Does size matter when regulating nanomaterials? As I’ve noted (more than once), I waffle on this issue. Earlier this week, I featured my thoughts on Health Canada’s definition of nanomaterial (Oct. 24, 2011)  and posted an interview with Dr. Andrew Maynard (Oct. 24, 2011) where he expressed reservations about basing nanomaterial regulations on definitions which rely on  nanoparticle size.

Hours after posting my thoughts and the interview with Andrew, I came across this Oct. 24, 2011 news item on Nanowerk titled, Nanoparticles and their size may not be big issues. From the news item,

If you’ve ever eaten from silverware or worn copper jewelry, you’ve been in a perfect storm in which nanoparticles were dropped into the environment, say scientists at the University of Oregon.

Since the emergence of nanotechnology, researchers, regulators and the public have been concerned that the potential toxicity of nano-sized products might threaten human health by way of environmental exposure.

Now, with the help of high-powered transmission electron microscopes, chemists captured never-before-seen views of miniscule metal nanoparticles naturally being created by silver articles such as wire, jewelry and eating utensils in contact with other surfaces. It turns out, researchers say, nanoparticles have been in contact with humans for a long, long time. [emphasis mine]

“Our findings show that nanoparticle ‘size’ may not be static, especially when particles are on surfaces. For this reason, we believe that environmental health and safety concerns should not be defined — or regulated — based upon size,” said James E. Hutchison, who holds the Lokey-Harrington Chair in Chemistry. [emphasis mine] “In addition, the generation of nanoparticles from objects that humans have contacted for millennia suggests that humans have been exposed to these nanoparticles throughout time. Rather than raise concern, I think this suggests that we would have already linked exposure to these materials to health hazards if there were any.”

This discussion is becoming quite interesting.