Using the Quartz Crystal Microbalance with Dissipation Monitoring to Evaluate the Size of Nanoparticles Deposited on Surfaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation (QCM-D) monitoring can be an alternative tool to characterize nanoparticle size by virtue of its acoustic principle to sense adsorbed mass. In this study, sizes obtained by QCM-D for polymer-coated metallic nanoparticles and polydisperse polystyrene latex particle suspensions were compared with those obtained by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and dynamic light scattering (DLS). We describe the obtained "QCM-D mass", which is weighted over surface area, by a general particle height distribution equation that can be used to determine the average particle diameter of a distribution of particles deposited on the QCM-D surface. Because the particle height distribution equation can be used for any particle geometry and surface packing geometry, it is described how the QCM-D can also be used to study the orientation of deposited nonspherical particles. Herein, the mean nanoparticle sizes obtained by QCM-D were generally in closer agreement with the primary particle size determined by TEM than with the sizes obtained by DLS, suggesting that primarily smaller particles within the particle population deposited on the sensor surface. Overall, the results from this study demonstrate that QCM-D could serve as an alternative and/or complementary means to characterize the size of nanoparticles deposited on a surface from suspensions of varying complexity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it