4.8 Article

Accuracy in multiangle light scattering measurements for molar mass and radius estimations. Model calculations and experiments

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 75, Issue 16, Pages 4279-4291

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac030128+

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiangle light scattering (MALS) is a well-established technique used to determine the size of macromolecules and particles. In this study, different extrapolation procedures used in MALS were investigated with regard to accuracy and robustness in the obtained molar mass and rms radius. Three different mathematical transformations of the light scattering function referred to as the Debye, Zimm, and Berry methods for constructing the Debye plot were investigated for two idealized polymer shapes, homogeneous spheres and random coils, with radii from 25 to 250 nm. The effect of the angular interval used for the extrapolation was investigated, as was the robustness of the different transformations toward errors in the measured light scattering intensity at low angles. For an rms radius less than 50 nm, the relative error in molar mass due to extrapolation was less than 1% independent of the method used. For larger radii, the error increased and the extrapolation procedure became more critical. For random coil polymers, the Berry method was superior in terms of accuracy and robustness. For spheres, the Debye method was superior. The Zimm method was inferior to the others. The different extrapolation methods were evaluated and compared on experimental data from a size exclusion chromatography-MALS analysis of an ultrahigh molar mass poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO). The PEO data qualitatively verified the calculations and stressed the importance of optimizing the extrapolation procedure after careful evaluation of the experimental data. A discussion of how to detect erroneous data in an experimental Debye plot is given.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available