Rheological and dielectric properties of different gold nanoparticle sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) have found themselves useful for diagnostic, drug delivery and biomedicine applications, but one of the important concerns is about their safety in clinical applications. Nanoparticle size has been shown to be an extremely important parameter affecting the nanoparticle uptake and cellular internalization. The rheological properties assume to be very important as it affects the pressure drop and hence the pumping power when nano-fluids are circulated in a closed loop. The rheological and dielectric properties have not been documented and identified before. The aim of the present study was to investigate the rheology and the dielectric properties of different GNPs sizes in aqueous solution. METHODS: 10, 20 and 50 nm GNPs (Product MKN-Au, CANADA) was used in this study. The rheological parameters were viscosity, torque, shear stress, shear rate, plastic viscosity, yield stress, consistency index, and activation energy. These rheological parameters were measured using Brookfield LVDV-III Programmable rheometer supplied with temperature bath and controlled by a computer. RESULTS: The shear stress and shear rate of GNPs have shown a linear relationship and GNPs exhibited Newtonian behaviour. The GNPs with larger particle size (50 nm) exhibited more viscosity than those with smaller particle sizes (10 and 20 nm). Viscosity decreased with increasing the temperature for all the examined GNP sizes. The flow behaviour index (n) values were nearly ≤ 1 for all examined GNP sizes. Dielectric data indicated that the GNPs have strong dielectric dispersion in the frequency range of 20-100 kHz. The conductivity and relaxation time decreased with increasing the GNP size. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the GNP size has considerable influence on the viscosity of GNPs. The strong dielectric dispersion was GNP size dependent. The decrease in relaxation time might be attributed to increase in the localized charges distribution within the medium confirmed by the conductivity data. This study suggests that further experiments are required to be done after the administration of GNPs through different routes in rats in vivo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".