Characterisation of nanomaterial hydrophobicity using engineered surfaces
Source abstract
Abstract
Characterisation of engineered nanomaterials (NMs) is of outmost importance for the assessment of the potential risks arising from their extensive use. NMs display indeed a large variety of physico-chemical properties that drastically affect their interaction with biological systems. Among them, hydrophobicity is an important property that is nevertheless only slightly covered by the current physico-chemical characterisation techniques. In this work, we developed a method for the direct characterisation of NM hydrophobicity. The determination of the nanomaterial hydrophobic character is carried out by the direct measurement of the affinity of the NMs for different collectors. Each collector is an engineered surface designed in order to present specific surface charge and hydrophobicity degrees. Being thus characterised by a combination of surface energy components, the collectors enable the NM immobilisation with surface coverage in relation to their hydrophobicity. The experimental results are explained by using the extended DLVO theory, which takes into account the hydrophobic forces acting between NMs and collectors. Graphical abstractDetermination of hydrophobicity character of nanomaterials by measuring their affinity to engineered surfaces.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electrostatics and Colloid Interactions · Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies · Minerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Attard P (2003) Nanobubbles and the hydrophobic attraction. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 104:75–91. doi: 10.1016/s0001-8686(03)00037-x10.1016/s0001-8686(03)00037-x ↗
2. Balazs DJ, Hollenstein C, Mathieu HJ (2005) Fluoropolymer coating of medical grade poly(vinyl chloride) by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition techniques. Plasma Process Polym 2:104–111. doi: 10.1002/ppap.20040003910.1002/ppap.200400039 ↗
3. Boks NP, Norde W, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ (2008) Forces involved in bacterial adhesion to hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces. Microbiology 154:3122–3133. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2008/018622-010.1099/mic.0.2008/018622-0 ↗
4. Carstensen H, Müller BW, Müller RH (1991) Adsorption of ethoxylated surfactants on nanoparticles. I. Characterization by hydrophobic interaction chromatography. Int J Pharm 67:29–37. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(91)90262-m10.1016/0378-5173(91)90262-m ↗
5. Chompoosor A et al (2010) The role of surface functionality on acute cytotoxicity, ROS generation and DNA damage by cationic gold nanoparticles. Small 6:2246–2249. doi: 10.1002/smll.20100046310.1002/smll.201000463 ↗
6. Doktorovova S, Shegokar R, Martins-Lopes P, Silva AM, Lopes CM, Müller RH, Souto EB (2012) Modified Rose Bengal assay for surface hydrophobicity evaluation of cationic solid lipid nanoparticles (cSLN). Eur J Pharm Sci 45:606–612. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2011.12.01610.1016/j.ejps.2011.12.016 ↗
7. Gessner A, Waicz R, Lieske A, Paulke BR, Mäder K, Müller RH (2000) Nanoparticles with decreasing surface hydrophobicities: influence on plasma protein adsorption. Int J Pharm 196:245–249. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5173(99)00432-910.1016/s0378-5173(99)00432-9 ↗
8. Jaszewski RW, Schift H, Schnyder B, Schneuwly A, Gröning P (1999) The deposition of anti-adhesive ultra-thin teflon-like films and their interaction with polymers during hot embossing. Appl Surf Sci 143:301–308. doi: 10.1016/S0169-4332(99)00014-810.1016/S0169-4332(99)00014-8 ↗
9. Jones MC et al (2014) Quantitative assessment of nanoparticle surface hydrophobicity and its influence on pulmonary biocompatibility. J Control Release 183:94–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.02210.1016/j.jconrel.2014.03.022 ↗
10. Meyer EE, Rosenberg KJ, Israelachvili J (2006) Recent progress in understanding hydrophobic interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:15739–1574610.1073/pnas.0606422103 ↗
11. Monopoli MP, Åberg C, Salvati A, Dawson KA (2012) Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials. Nat Nanotechnol 7:779–786. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2012.20710.1038/nnano.2012.207 ↗
12. Moyano DF, Goldsmith M, Solfiell DJ, Landesman-Milo D, Miranda OR, Peer D, Rotello VM (2012) Nanoparticle hydrophobicity dictates immune response. J Am Chem Soc 134:3965–3967. doi: 10.1021/ja210890510.1021/ja2108905 ↗
13. van Oss CJ (1993) Acid-base interfacial interactions in aqueous media. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 78:1–49. doi: 10.1016/0927-7757(93)80308-210.1016/0927-7757(93)80308-2 ↗
14. van Oss CJ (1994) Interfacial forces in aqueous media. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York
15. Ruiz A, Valsesia A, Ceccone G, Gilliland D, Colpo P, Rossi F (2007) Fabrication and characterization of plasma processed surfaces with tuned wettability. Langmuir 23:12984–12989. doi: 10.1021/la702424r10.1021/la702424r ↗
16. Saha K, Moyano DF, Rotello VM (2014) Protein coronas suppress the hemolytic activity of hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanoparticles. Materials Horizons 1:102–105. doi: 10.1039/c3mh00075c10.1039/c3mh00075c ↗
17. Saptarshi SR, Duschl A, Lopata AL (2013) Interaction of nanoparticles with proteins: relation to bio-reactivity of the nanoparticle. J Nanobiotechnology 11. doi: 10.1186/1477-3155-11-2610.1186/1477-3155-11-26 ↗
18. Shima F, Akagi T, Uto T, Akashi M (2013) Manipulating the antigen-specific immune response by the hydrophobicity of amphiphilic poly(γ-glutamic acid) nanoparticles. Biomaterials 34:9709–9716. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.06410.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.064 ↗
19. Steitz R et al (2003) Nanobubbles and their precursor layer at the interface of water against a hydrophobic substrate. Langmuir 19:2409–241810.1021/la026731p ↗
20. Tenzer S et al (2013) Rapid formation of plasma protein corona critically affects nanoparticle pathophysiology. Nat Nano 8:772–781. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2013.181 http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v8/n10/abs/nnano.2013.181.html#supplementary-information10.1038/nnano.2013.181 ↗
21. Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF Jr, Rejeski D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology 6:1769–1780. doi: 10.3762/bjnano.6.18110.3762/bjnano.6.181 ↗
22. Walczyk D, Bombelli FB, Monopoli MP, Lynch I, Dawson KA (2010) What the cell “sees” in bionanoscience. J Am Chem Soc 132:5761–5768. doi: 10.1021/ja910675v10.1021/ja910675v ↗
23. Wood JA, Rehmann L (2014) Geometric effects on non-DLVO forces: relevance for nanosystems. Langmuir 30:4623–4632. doi: 10.1021/la500664c10.1021/la500664c ↗
24. Xiao Y, Wiesner MR (2012) Characterization of surface hydrophobicity of engineered nanoparticles. J Hazard Mater 215–216:146–151. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.02.04310.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.02.043 ↗
25. Zhu ZJ, Posati T, Moyano DF, Tang R, Yan B, Vachet RW, Rotello VM (2012) The interplay of monolayer structure and serum protein interactions on the cellular uptake of gold nanoparticles. Small 8:2659–2663. doi: 10.1002/smll.20120079410.1002/smll.201200794 ↗