Comparison of gold nanoparticle size using different measurement techniques and protocols

Botasini Santiago

Article ID: 1687
Vol 5, Issue 2, 2022

VIEWS - 348 (Abstract) 254 (PDF)


With the advancement of nanotechnology both in academically and commercially, the need for nanoparticle characterization techniques and protocols has grown. Although there are several methods of nanoparticle measuring, the “true” size of nanoparticles cannot be understood in absolute terms. It is related to the shape and type of nanomaterial. In addition to, the technique and protocols or criteria are all associated with measurements. In other words, when we talk about particle size, we must keep in mind two basic questions: what are we measuring and how do we measure it? From a metrological point of view, it is important to focus the discussion on the criteria to be taken into account and on the additional parameters to be reported when presenting a nanoparticle size result. By way of comparison, the present work shows the characterization of homogeneous gold nanoparticles using different techniques and measurement criteria for the routine methods DLS, UV-VIS and HR-TEM. The results show that when talking about particle size, it is necessary to refer to the model used, as well as to the criteria chosen at the time of counting.


Homogeneous Particles; Synthesis; Colloids; Nanometrology

Full Text:



1. Rasmussen K, Rauscher H, Mech A, et al. Physico-chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials—Characterisation and relevant methods. An outlook based on the OECD Testing Programme. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2018; 92: 8–28.

2. Eaton P, Quaresma P, Soares C, et al. A direct comparison of experimental methods to measure dimensions of synthetic nanoparticles. Ultramicroscopy 2017; 182: 179–190.

3. Rogers KR, Navratilova J, Stefaniak A, et al. Characterization of engineered nanoparticles in commercially available spray disinfectant products advertised to contain colloidal silver. Science of the Total Environment 2018; 619–620: 1375–1384.

4. Minelli C, Bartczak D, Peters R, et al. Sticky measurement problem: Number concentration of agglomerated nanoparticles. Langmuir 2019; 35(14): 4927–4935.

5. Tanaka LS. Soft regulation, technical standards and international regulatory harmonization, for nanotechnology. Nano World 2019; 13(24): 1–27.

6. Domingos RF, Baalousha MA, Ju-Nam Y, et al. Characterizing manufactured nanoparticles in the environment: Multimethod determination of particle sizes. Environmental Science & Technology 2009; 43: 7277–7284.

7. Bienert R, Emmerling F, Thünemann AF. The size distribution of “gold standard” nanoparticles. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2009; 395(6): 1651–1660.

8. Nelson BC, Petersen EJ, Marquis BJ, et al. NIST gold nanoparticle reference materials do not induce oxidative DNA damage. Nanotoxicology 2013; 7(1): 21–29.

9. Hinterwirth H, Wiedmer SK, Moilanen M, et al. Comparative method evaluation for size and size-distribution analysis of gold nanoparticles. Journal of Separation Science 2013; 36(17): 2952–2961.

10. Turkevich J. Colloidal gold. Part II. Gold Bull 1985; 18: 125–131.

11. Méndez E, Botasini S (editors). Synthesis of ultra-homogeneous gold nanoparticles. Proceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies, (NewTech19); 2019 Aug; Lisbon. Canada: International ASET; 2019. p. 11159.

12. National Institutes of Health and Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation. ImageJ [Internet]. Bethesda: NIH; 2019. Available from:

13. Origin Lab [Internet]. Northampton: Originlab; 2020. Available from:

14. ISO 22412. Particle size analysis—Dynamic light scattering (DLS).

15. Bohren CF, Huffman DR. Absorption and scattering of light by small particles. Derby: Wiley; 2004.

16. Laven P. Mie plot [Internet]. 2018. Available from:

17. Segelstein DJ. The complex refractive index of water [Master’s thesis]. Kansas: University of Missouri; 1981.

18. Amendola V, Meneghetti M. Size evaluation of gold nanoparticles by UV-vis spectroscopy. Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2009; 113(11): 42774285.

19. Brito-Silva AM, Sobral-Filho RG, Barbosa-Silva R, et al. Improved synthesis of gold and silver nanoshells. Langmuir 2013; 29(13): 4366–4372.

20. Rice SB, Chan C, Brown SC, et al. Particle size distributions by transmission electron microscopy: An interlaboratory comparison case study. Metrologia 2013; 50(6): 663–678.

21. Souza TGF, Ciminelli VST, Mohallem NDS. A comparison of TEM and DLS methods to characterize size distribution of ceramic nanoparticles. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2016; 733(1): 012039.

22. Meli F, Klein T, Buhr E, et al. Traceable size determination of nanoparticles, a comparison among European metrology institutes. Measurement Science and Technology 2012; 23(12): 125005.

23. Fissan H, Ristig, S, Kaminski H, et al. Comparison of different characterization methods for nanoparticle dispersions before and after aerosolization. Analytical Methods 2014; 6(18): 7324–7334.

24. Soliwoda K, Rosowski M, Tomaszewska E, et al. Synthesis of monodisperse gold nanoparticles via electrospray-assisted chemical reduction method in cyclohexane. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2015; 482: 148–153.

25. Khlebtsov BN, Khlebtsov NG. On the measurement of gold nanoparticle sizes by the dynamic light scattering method. Colloid Journal 2011; 73(1): 118127.

26. Liu X, Atwater M, Wang J, et al. Extinction coefficient of gold nanoparticles with different sizes and different capping ligands. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 2007; 58(1): 3–7.

27. Shard AG, Wright L, Minelli C. Robust and accurate measurements of gold nanoparticle concentrations using UV-visible spectrophotometry. Biointerphases 2018; 13(6): 061002.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.