4.6 Article

Detection, Mapping, and Quantification of Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes in Histological Specimens with Photoacoustic Microscopy

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035064

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Carol Baldwin Fund
  2. National Institutes of Health [1DP2OD007394-01, R01 EB000712, EB000712A2S1, R01 EB00071207S2, R01 EB008085, R01 CA113453901, U54 CA136398, 5P60 DK02057933]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: In the present study, the efficacy of multi-scale photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) was investigated to detect, map, and quantify trace amounts [nanograms (ng) to micrograms (mu g)] of SWCNTs in a variety of histological tissue specimens consisting of cancer and benign tissue biopsies (histological specimens from implanted tissue engineering scaffolds). Materials and Methods: Optical-resolution (OR) and acoustic-resolution (AR) - Photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) was employed to detect, map and quantify the SWCNTs in a variety of tissue histological specimens and compared with other optical techniques (bright-field optical microscopy, Raman microscopy, near infrared (NIR) fluorescence microscopy). Results: Both optical-resolution and acoustic-resolution PAM, allow the detection and quantification of SWCNTs in histological specimens with scalable spatial resolution and depth penetration. The noise-equivalent detection sensitivity to SWCNTs in the specimens was calculated to be as low as similar to 7 pg. Image processing analysis further allowed the mapping, distribution, and quantification of the SWCNTs in the histological sections. Conclusions: The results demonstrate the potential of PAM as a promising imaging technique to detect, map, and quantify SWCNTs in histological specimens, and could complement the capabilities of current optical and electron microscopy techniques in the analysis of histological specimens containing SWCNTs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available