ArticlePloS one2020
Adaptive methodology to determine hydrophobicity of nanomaterials in situ.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of deep eutectic solvents in environmentally-friendly dye-sensitized solar cells and their physicochemical properties: a brief review.RSC advances · 2024Review
- Recent advances in nanoformulation-based delivery for cancer immunotherapy.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2024Review
- Infliximab microencapsulation: an innovative approach for intra-articular administration of biologics in the management of rheumatoid arthritis-in vitro evaluation.Drug delivery and translational research · 2023Article
- Analytical Methods for Characterization of Nanomaterial Surfaces.Analytical chemistry · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The hydrophobicity of nanoparticles (NPs) is a key property determining environmental fate, biological partitioning and toxicity. However, methods to characterize surface hydrophobicity are not uniformly applied to NPs and cannot quantify surface changes in complex environments. Existing methods designed to evaluate the hydrophobicity of bulk solids, chemicals, and proteins have significant limitations when applied to NPs. In this study, we modified and evaluated two methods to determine the hydrophobicity of NPs, hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) and dye adsorption, and compared them to the standard octanol-water partitioning protocol for chemicals. Gold, copper oxide, silica, and amine-functionalized silica NPs were used to evaluate methods based on their applicability to NPs that agglomerate and have surface coatings. The octanol water partitioning and HIC methods both measured Au NPs as hydrophilic, but despite having a small size and stable suspension, NPs could not be fully recovered from the HIC column. For the dye adsorption method, hydrophobic (Rose Bengal) and hydrophilic (Nile Blue) dyes were adsorbed to the NP surface, and linear isotherm parameters were used as a metric for hydrophobicity. CuO was determined to be slightly hydrophilic, while SiO2 was hydrophilic and Ami-SiO2 was hydrophobic. The advantages and limitations of each method are discussed, and the dye adsorption method is recommended as the most suitable for application across broad classes of nanomaterials. The dye assay method was further used to measure changes in the surface hydrophobicity of TiO2 NPs after being suspended in natural water collected from the Alsea Rivers watershed in Oregon. TiO2 NPs adsorbed Rose Bengal when suspended in ultrapure water, but adsorbed Nile Blue after being incubated in natural water samples, demonstrating a shift from hydrophobic to hydrophilic properties on the outer surface. The dye adsorption method can be applied to characterize surface hydrophobicity of NPs and quantify environmental transformations, potentially improving environmental fate models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.