4.4 Article

Self organization in oleic acid-coated CoFe2O4 colloids: a SAXS study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-1072-5

关键词

Magnetic colloids; Aggregation; Dipolar interaction; London-van der Waals interaction; Small angle X-ray scattering

资金

  1. LNLS synchrotron, Campinas, SP, Brazil [D11A-SAXS1-9293]
  2. CONICET [PIP 01111]
  3. ANPCyT of Argentina [PICT 00898]
  4. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [MAT2010-19326, CONSOLIDER NANOBIOMED CS-27 2006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report a structural study of magnetic colloids composed of CoFe2O4 nanoparticles (mean radii in the range 2-7 nm) synthesized by thermal decomposition of different high boiling temperature organic solvents in the presence of oleic acid and oleylamine, and subsequently re-suspended in hexane. Although the surfactant layer prevents permanent aggregation and precipitation of the disperse phase, competition between attractive interactions (i.e., dipolar and van der Waals) and repulsive steric interaction leads to self organization of the magnetic nanoparticles. Our small angle X-ray scattering results evidence the presence of distinctive self organized structures in the liquid colloid depending on the type of solvent used in the synthesis. A completely homogeneous dispersion is obtained for those colloids synthesized with benzyl-ether and octadecene. Bi-disperse systems, in which nanoclusters coexist with free nanoparticles, appear when phenyl-ether and trioctylamine are used. Chain-like structures are observed in a colloid containing the particles synthesized using phenyl-ether, while more compact 3D structures form in colloids prepared with particles synthesized with trioctylamine. The presented results have important implications in the design and selection of magnetic nanoparticles for those applications where the size dispersion determines the final efficiency of the material, such as magnetic fluid hyperthermia clinical therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据