journal article·2011-10

Quantifying nanoparticle dispersion: application of the Delaunay network for objective analysis of sample micrographs

D. J. Bray, S. G. Gilmour, F. J. Guild, T. H. Hsieh, K. Masania, A. C. Taylor

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 46· Issue 19
Publisher page

Abstract

Measuring quantitatively the nanoparticle dispersion of a composite material requires more than choosing a particular parameter and determining its correspondence to good and bad dispersion. It additionally requires anticipation of the measure’s behaviour towards imperfect experimental data, such as that which can be obtained from a limited number of samples. It should be recognised that different samples from a common parent population can give statistically different responses due to sample variation alone and a measure of the likelihood of this occurring allows a decision on the dispersion to be made. It is also important to factor into the analysis the quality of the data in the micrograph with it: (a) being incomplete because some of the particles present in the micrograph are indistinguishable or go unseen; (b) including additional responses which are false. With the use of our preferred method, this article investigates the effects on the measured dispersion quality of nanoparticles of the micrograph’s magnification settings, the role of the fraction of nanoparticles visible and the number of micrographs used. It is demonstrated that the best choice of magnification, which gives the clearest indication of dispersion type, is dependent on the type of nanoparticle structure present. Furthermore, it is found that the measured dispersion can be modified by particle loss, through the limitations of micrograph construction, and material/microscope imperfections such as cut marks and optical aberrations which could lead to the wrong conclusions being drawn. The article finishes by showing the versatility of the dispersion measure by characterising various different spatial features.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Asphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation · Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements · Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. Song YS, Youn JR (2005) Carbon 43:1378. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2005.01.00710.1016/j.carbon.2005.01.007 ↗
2. Kinloch AJ, Taylor AC (2006) J Mater Sci 41:3271. doi: 10.1007/s10853-005-5472-010.1007/s10853-005-5472-0 ↗
3. Pavlidou S, Papaspyrides CD (2008) Prog Polym Sci 33:1119. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.07.00810.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.07.008 ↗
4. Paul DR, Robeson LM (2008) Polymer 49:3187. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.04.01710.1016/j.polymer.2008.04.017 ↗
5. Manjunatha CM, Taylor AC, Kinloch AJ, Sprenger S (2009) J Mater Sci 44:4487. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-3653-y10.1007/s10853-009-3653-y ↗
6. Chen CH, Jian JY, Yen FS (2009) Composites Part A-Appl S 40:463. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.01.01010.1016/j.compositesa.2009.01.010 ↗
7. Gershon A, Cole D, Kota A, Bruck H (2010) J Mater Sci 45:6353. doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4597-y10.1007/s10853-010-4597-y ↗
8. Luo ZP (2010) J Mater Sci 45:3228. doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4330-x10.1007/s10853-010-4330-x ↗
9. Bakshi SR, Batista RG, Agarwal A (2009) Composites Part A-Appl S 40:1311. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.06.00410.1016/j.compositesa.2009.06.004 ↗
10. Berndt S, Bretschneider J, Helm H, Stoyan D (1996) Mater Charact 36:9310.1016/1044-5803(96)00020-4 ↗
11. Davy PJ, Guild FJ (1988) P Roy Soc Lond A Mat 418:9510.1098/rspa.1988.0075 ↗
12. Ghosh S, Nowak Z, Lee K (1997) Acta Mater 45:221510.1016/S1359-6454(96)00365-5 ↗
13. Li M, Ghosh S, Richmond O, Weiland H, Rouns TN (1999) Mater Sci Eng A 265:15310.1016/S0921-5093(98)01132-0 ↗
14. Heijman MJGW, Benes NE, ten Elshof JE, Verweij H (2002) Mater Res Bull 37:14110.1016/S0025-5408(01)00806-6 ↗
15. Hendriks MGHM, Heijman MJGW, van Zyl WE, ten Elshof JE, Verweij H (2002) J Am Ceram Soc 85:209710.1111/j.1151-2916.2002.tb00410.x ↗
16. Al-Ostaz A, Diwakar A, Alzebdeh KI (2007) J Mater Sci 42:7016. doi: 10.1007/s10853-006-1117-110.1007/s10853-006-1117-1 ↗
17. Zhu Y, Allen GC, Adams JM, Gittins D, Heard PJ, Skuse DR (2010) Compos Struct 92:2203. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009. 08.04510.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.045 ↗
18. Khare HS, Burris DL (2010) Polymer 51:719. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2009.12.03110.1016/j.polymer.2009.12.031 ↗
19. Yazdanbakhsh A, Grasley Z, Tyson B, Abu Al-Rub RK (2011) Composites Part A-Appl S 42:75. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.07110.1016/j.compositesa.2010.10.005 ↗
20. Bray DJ, Gilmour SG, Guild FJ, Taylor AC (2010) In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference of the ERCIM working group on computing & statistics. Elsevier, London, p 29
21. Bray DJ, Gilmour SG, Guild FJ, Taylor AC (2011) J Roy Stat Soc C-App. Submitted
22. Marcelpoil R, Usson Y (1992) J Theor Biol 154:35910.1016/S0022-5193(05)80176-6 ↗
23. Johnsen BB, Kinloch AJ, Mohammed RD, Taylor AC, Sprenger S (2007) Polymer 48:530. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2006.11.03810.1016/j.polymer.2006.11.038 ↗
24. Hsieh TH, Kinloch AJ, Masania K, Sohn Lee J, Taylor AC, Sprenger S (2010) J Mater Sci 45:1193. doi: 10.1007/s10853-009-4064-910.1007/s10853-009-4064-9 ↗
25. Dias A, Buono V, Vilela J, Andrade M, Lima T (1997) J Mater Sci 32:4715. doi: 10.1023/A:101861862802710.1023/A:1018618628027 ↗