Talk:Nanoparticle

Issues of Clarity

This is one phrase (below) that does not clearly state what the properties of nanoparticles are. Since I don't know how to edit it I Will leave it will this message, but I think something could be done to clarify.

"The interesting and sometimes unexpected properties of nanoparticles are not partly due to the aspects of the surface of the material dominating the properties in lieu of the bulk properties."

Cullen kasunic 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You talk about all aspects of characterization but it is not defined, actually. Charles Michael Collins October 17, 2007 5:34 (EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.203 (talk)

Silicon Nanopowder

Is this image magnified? If so, how much (and should it be put in the article)?

• Try clicking through the image in question for metadata information which may be relevant to your inquiry.

Also, please consider concluding your comments with a signature. Entering four consecutive tildes (~~~~) will automatically append a signature to your comments. Folajimi 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

nanoparticle

How safe are nanoparticles? What side effects are there to using them?

This reference on the Safety of Nanoparticles helps answer those questions: http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-0-387-78607-0 G2kdoe (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging nanoparticles and nanopowder

I, the author of the nanopowder article, support this merger. Iepeulas 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

References

There seems to be a lot of speculation in this under the section on safety. References should be provided for this section. Some of this information is stated as if it were fact, but the information is often not factual or unkown. Very little research has been done in this area to date. 198.124.230.2 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.124.230.2 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed Nonsense: "Usage of the lustre technique shows that craftsmen had a technological and empirical knowledge of materials science that was far ahead of their time." This is a purely verbal construction and a rather clumsy one. The concept of a material science comes much later and so in order to know something about it they had to be ahead of their times. To have 'empirical knowledge of a science' is the meaningless core of the sentence. Coupling 'empirical' with 'technological' only makes things worse.al (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the human body

Can a section be added about the possibility of nanoparticles' entering of the human body (and the possibility of crossing the blood-brain barrier and entering into the brain? Badagnani (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Amorphous/nanoparticle Si

What is Amorphous/nanoparticle Si ? --Mac (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Nanocrystalline silicon. Neither seem to be nanoparticles. - Rod57 (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

split out medical

Content on medical/injectable nanoparticles probably worth splitting out into separate article or move & refer to nanomedicine ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

single material and composite nanoparticles

Should we organise this article to separate single-material nanoparticles from complex/composite nanoparticles (eg re fabrication) ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Novel/original interpretation of referenced research

In the section on safety the following claim appears 'Diesel nanoparticles have been found to damage the cardiovascular system in a mouse model.', yet upon reviewing the linked reference, the word 'diesel'(or any specific alternate) is not used even once. Perhaps someone thought it reasonable to assume that all nano-particulate pollution on LA freeways is strictly the result of diesel fueled vehicles. I don't think that is the case, but even if it were, the substance probably shouldn't be called 'diesel nanoparticles'. Nanoparticles are generally solids. 'Diesel' at STP describes a liquid. If the article had been more specific about diesel fueled vehicles being mostly, or even partially responsible for the nano-particle pollution, then it might be reasonable to describe it as something like 'nano-particle pollution resulting from diesel combustions', but the article did not say anything like that. Please change the text to read something that is actually supported by the linked reference, find a more supportive reference to link, or simply drop the unsupported claim. 70.171.36.245 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)BGriffin

The link is now dead (404). If no one has any objections, I'm going to remove that sentence. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Old essay in userspace

User:Akhil9gupta/NANOPARTICLE AND ITS APPLICATION: - THE REVIEW was created in 2009 about nanoparticles and while it's largely not useful, it has some sources and text that could be useful here. Could someone take a look or else take it to MFD and put it away after all these years? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge Ultrafine particle article into this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. Discussion has been open for almost 2 years. Between the most recent opposition and the fact that no one did it in the last two years, consensus seems to be against this change. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

---

This article states:

... particles are the same as nanoparticles and between 1 and 100 nanometers in size...

If they are the same, it is a reason for merging the articles.

It appears that nanoparticles are the same as ultrafine particles, or overlap the entire Ultrafine particle size range, or alternately overlap most of it. The term "nanoparticle" is much better known to and understood by, the public than the term "ultrafine particle," by a factor of 40-to-1.

A comparison of Google hits in 2017, March 12, found that a search for nanoparticles returned over 40 times the hits as a search for ultrafine particles.

Nanoparticles 18,900,000 results

Ultrafine particles 450,000 results

On 2017 Sept 18,

Submicrometer returns 1,760,000 results

Ergo, 97.5% of those writing on the web seem to be discussing particles in this size range as nanoparticles, and not as ultrafine particles

It would be useful to discuss both in a single article to clarify confusion. The overwhelming bulk of the article would be common characteristics, as nanoparticles, overlap much or all of the size range of ultrafine particles, and visa-versa. If there are certain useful distinctions in chemical properties, as some sources suggest, those could be pointed out.

...nanoparticle, n—in nanotechnology, a sub-classification of ultrafine particle with lengths in two or three dimensions greater than 0.001 micrometer (1 nanometer) and smaller than about 0.1 micrometer (100 nanometers) and which may or may not exhibit a size-related intensive property.

DISCUSSION—This term is a subject of controversy regarding the size range and the presence of a size-related property. Current usage emphasizes size and not properties in the definition. The length scale may be a hydrodynamic diameter or a geometric length appropriate to the intended use of the nanoparticle.

http://www.horiba.com/scientific/products/particle-characterization/applications/what-is-a-nanoparticle/

The next source distinguishes based on size. Particles less than 10 nm are referred to as nanoparticles, those between 10 nm and 100 nm as ultrafine. This unusual size distinction may drive its conclusion that ultrafine and nano-particles have different chemical characteristics.

... particle data were classified to ultrafine particles (number concentration with size between 10 nm and 100 nm, NC0.01–0.1) and nano particles (number concentrations with size between 10 nm and 50 nm, NC0.01–0.05).

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2006/11001/Comparison_of_Ultrafine_and_Nanoparticles_in.404.aspx

... Ultrafine particles are airborne particulates of less than 100 nm in aerodynamic diameter. Examples of ultrafine particles are diesel exhaust particles, products of cooking, heating and wood burning in indoor environments, and more recently, products generated through the use of nanotechnology.

...

... Although there are many differences in the physico-chemical composition of UFPs and nanoparticles, one common feature is their extremely small size; this allows these particles to have unique characteristics that can cause harmful health effects to human subjects (Box 1 and Table II).1

The size distinctions in this next source may be an outlier opinion that does not reflect the mainstream views presented in the relevant Wikipedia articles or in the majority of sources.

Another term that should be referenced is "submicrometer", e.g.,

Personal exposure to submicrometer particles and heart rate variability in human subjects.

(Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jul;112(10):1063-7.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15238278

Ocdcntx (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ocdcntx: I was thinking about merging the two myself, given that they're usually given the same definition, but I've been holding off until I have time to do a literature search to get sources. My impression is that the terms are used to mean the same thing in different contexts: "ultrafine" for environmental monitoring of aerosols and for commodity materials, and "nanoparticle" for particles engineered for specialty uses. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the 'Ultrafine particle' article seems to be about nanoparticles as air pollution. It's a different concept than the general description of nanoparticles in science; I don't think it should be merged to nanoparticle. It could however be made clearer what "ultrafine particle" is about by retitling, changing that first sentence, or even merging into something like Particulates.Cyrej (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that merging the two articles is a very good idea. The division between nanoparticles and ultrafine particles is mainly historical. From the viewpoint of physics there is no difference between them whatsoever. Of course as the user above states there is still a historical difference between using these terms from field to field. However given the contents of both articles in question I would support merging them as they are really talking about the same thing and the nuances in terminology can be explained in a subsection of the merged article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.113.103 (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The Ultrafine particle article is all about the health/pollution effects, and is hence better thought of as PM0.1, part of a series with PM10 and PM2.5, both of which redirect to Particulates#Size, shape and solubility matter. My view is therefore that the current contents would fit better at Particulates. Alternatives include Health and safety hazards of nanomaterials#Respiratory and Nanotoxicology#Respiratory. Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Both articles are appropriately structured and with a quite well defined subject areas; ultrafine particle refer to these particles as air pollutants and nanoparticle refer to most other aspects of them. However the navigational situation is complicated with the current "Health and safety" section linking to three different relevant articles with ultrafine particles probably belonging up there as well. This many articles so closely linked is clearly suboptimal, but this merge is probably not the answer. Kilbrain's suggestion of merging to Particulates could work, but other mergers are probably necessary as well to clean up the larger situation, such as merging Pollution from nanomaterials into an appropriate target. Trialpears (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Since the initial merge proposal in 2017 both articles have gown substantially, and it is now clear that they are referencing two different things. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference. Google (as of 2019) returns ~7,030,000 results for ultrafine particle and ~41,500,000 for nanoparticle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectroChip123 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nanoparticles in nature

There are occurrences of nanoparticles in nature. They can be found in magmas, in rocks (for example "invisible gold"), on tectonic faults, etc. Will adding a short section about that be appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.94.236 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Definition of colloid is incorrect

The article says, "A colloid is a mixture which has solid particles dispersed in a liquid medium."

This simply is not true. A mixture which has solid particles dispersed in a liquid medium is an example of a colloid (if the size etc criteria are met). A colloid is simply one or more discontinuous phases of matter dispersed in a continuous phase of matter and that meets rather arbitrary size critera. Neither particles or liquids are a requirement. The incorrect definition in the article highlights the utter confusion that has arisen since "nano" has become the cash cow for R&D and the underpinning colloid science for nanodispersions etc has been usurped, misunderstood, reinvented and generally forgotten. 75.165.230.214 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a correction along these lines. Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Muslims were not allowed to use gold?

The History section included the passage

As Muslims were not allowed to use gold in artistic representations, they sought a way to create a similar effect without using real gold. The solution they found was using luster.

I cannot access the reference, but even if it contains the claim "Muslims were not allowed to use gold in artistic representations", I wonder whether that claim is true. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bh17128 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mariserge529 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirect of Micromeritics

The page Micromeritics is, IMO, highly inappropriate. In a quick search I only find a company by that name. The definition advocated, namely the study of small particles is rarely if ever used. I am posting here first and will wait a week before doing the redirect in case of comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that nanocluster be merged into nanoparticle. Reasons:

• nanocluster is ill-defined
• most clusters (in chemistry) are nanoscale.
• it is better to have one lightly curated article vs two
  • While we're at it, Characterization of nanoparticles would be suitable to merge into nanoparticle

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose for Characterization of nanoparticles. The target article is already fairly long and the proposed source article is not short. And it's also both a well-defined subtopic and an article that is 'good article' status. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Nanoclusters are 2 nm and below, whereas nanoparticles are 100 nm or below, so they seem to be separate topics. Cluster (chemistry) redirects to Nanocluster at the moment, so there's no redundancy there. I could possibly imagine moving the article to reverse the redirect, but I think that article mostly needs some cleanup.

Characterization of nanoparticles is not at all suitable for merging, as a GA that's already long and comprehensive. That article is ~4k words long, whereas Nanoparticle is ~7k words, so merging them would put the combined article well into the range where a split is recommended under WP:SIZERULE, and would make the article unbalanced. The best solution here is to do the work to improve Nanoparticle itself. (And honestly, I think a split to Synthesis of nanoparticles may be justified.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both. These are very different topics, and nanoparticle and nanoclusters are quite different. For instance, nanoparticle shapes are typically thermodynamic or kinetic Wulff construction shapes with a balance of bulk and surface energies. For nanoclusters bonding geometry etc is important, for instance the odd planar gold clusters. (No refs as it is Xmas, available if needed.) Nanoparticles characterisation is a very different page covering a broad range of methods quite well. There is room for improvements and updating, for instance the characterisation and nanoclusters pages could do with some images, there is a lot more theory that could (should?) be mentioned and other work such as XRD of single crystals of clusters. There is also a comment that more on non-metallic clusters should be added which I think is appropriate. I can do some of this in Jan, although I suspect that nanoparticle needs more than minor tweaking.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)