Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33227898›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Features of Sizing and Enumeration of Silica and Polystyrene Nanoparticles by Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA).

Zohair Usfoor, Katharina Kaufmann, Al Shahriar Hossain Rakib, Roland Hergenröder, Victoria Shpacovitch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zohair UsfoorLeibniz Institute for Analytical Sciences (ISAS), 44139 Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1040-7686
Katharina KaufmannLeibniz Institute for Analytical Sciences (ISAS), 44139 Dortmund, Germany.
Al Shahriar Hossain RakibLeibniz Institute for Analytical Sciences (ISAS), 44139 Dortmund, Germany.
Roland HergenröderLeibniz Institute for Analytical Sciences (ISAS), 44139 Dortmund, Germany.
Victoria ShpacovitchLeibniz Institute for Analytical Sciences (ISAS), 44139 Dortmund, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Analytical Sciences - ISAS · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) allows for the simultaneous determination of both size and concentration of nanoparticles in a sample. This study investigates the accuracy of particle size and concentration measurements performed on an LM10 device. For experiments, standard nanoparticles of different sizes composed of two materials with different refractive indices were used. Particle size measurements were found to have a decent degree of accuracy. This fact was verified by the manufacturer-reported particle size-determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM)-as well as by performed scanning electron microscopy (SEM) measurements. On the other hand, concentration measurements resulted in overestimation of the particle concentration in majority of cases. Thus, our findings confirmed the accuracy of nanoparticle sizing performed by the LM10 instrument and highlighted the overestimation of particle concentration made by this device. In addition, an approach of swift correction of the results of concentration measurements received for samples is suggested in the presented study.

Indexed as

nanoparticlesnanoparticle tracking analysisscanning electron microscopy

Identifiers

PMID33227898
PMCPMC7699299
OpenAlexW3105820872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.