Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Oct 19.
Published in final edited form as: Nanoscale. 2017 Oct 19;9(40):15379–15389. doi: 10.1039/c7nr02327h

Figure 2.

Figure 2

MNPs and Nanogel Characterizations. (a) TEM and SQUID characterization of MNPs revealing uniform size and superparamagnetic behavior respectively. (b) TEM and SEM of poly(NIPAM-co-AM)/MNP nanogels. (c) DLS comparing sized distribution of MNPs to poly(NIPAM-co-AM)/MNP nanogels. MNPs show a mean hydrodynamic diameter of 28 nm with a PDI of 0.40 while nanogels show a mean of 255 nm with a PDI of 0.21. (d) VPTT was determined to be 45°C from a temperature derivative of Dh.(e) TGA provides copolymer determination of approximately 80:20 (PNIPAM:AM) and MNP approx. 15 wt.%. Zeta potential of individual polymers compared to MNPs and nanocomposites demonstrates increased stability of nanocomposite.