Sunteți pe pagina 1din 48

Accepted Manuscript

Size and shape distributions of carbon black aggregates by transmission electron


microscopy

Eric A. Grulke, Stephen B. Rice, Jincheng Xiong, Kazuhiro Yamamoto, Tae Hyun
Yoon, Kevin Thomson, Meghdad Saffaripour, Greg Smallwood, Joshua W. Lambert,
Arnold J. Stromberg, Ryan Macy, Nico Briot, Dali Qian
PII: S0008-6223(18)30030-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2018.01.030
Reference: CARBON 12771

To appear in: Carbon

Received Date: 1 June 2017


Revised Date: 5 January 2018
Accepted Date: 6 January 2018

Please cite this article as: E.A. Grulke, S.B. Rice, J. Xiong, K. Yamamoto, T.H. Yoon, K. Thomson, M.
Saffaripour, G. Smallwood, J.W. Lambert, A.J. Stromberg, R. Macy, N. Briot, D. Qian, Size and shape
distributions of carbon black aggregates by transmission electron microscopy, Carbon (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.carbon.2018.01.030.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Size and shape distributions of carbon black aggregates by transmission electron microscopy

Eric A. Grulkea*, Stephen B. Riceb, Jincheng Xiongb, Kazuhiro Yamamotoc*, Tae Hyun Yoond,

Kevin Thomsone, Meghdad Saffaripoure, Greg Smallwoode, Joshua W. Lambertf, Arnold J.

PT
Strombergf, Ryan Macya, Nico Briotg, and Dali Qiang

RI
a
Chemical & Materials Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington,

KY, 40506-0046, USA

SC
b
Cabot Corporation, 157 Concord Rd, Billerica, MA, 01821, USA

U
c
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tsukuba Central 5,
AN
Higashi 1-1-1, Japan
d
Department of Chemistry, College of Natural Sciences, Hanyang University, Seoul, 133
M

791, South Korea


e
National Research Council Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Building M-9, Ottawa, ON Canada
D

K1A 0R6
TE

f
Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, 313 Multidisciplinary Science Building,

University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0082, USA


EP

g
Electron Microscope Center, College of Engineering, 004 ASTeCC Building, University of
C

Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0286, USA


AC

Corresponding author. Tel: +1-859-257-6097. Email: eric.grulke@uky.edu (Eric Grulke)

Corresponding author. Tel: +81-294361-9414. Email: k-yamamoto@aist.go.jp (Kazuhiro

Yamamoto)

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract
Carbon black aggregate size and shape affects its performance in many applications. In this

interlaboratory comparison, an industry reference carbon black, SRB8, was analysed with a

protocol based on ASTM D3849-14a, a method for morphological characterization of carbon

PT
black aggregates using electron microscopy. Multiple descriptor types (size, elongation,

ruggedness, plus those of ASTM D3849-14a) were assessed for repeatability, reproducibility,

RI
and measurement uncertainties. Carbon black aggregates have been characterized using

SC
descriptor correlations: two important such correlations are affinity coefficients and fractal

exponents. SRB8 aggregates appear to be self-affine, i.e., their width and length descriptors scale

U
anisotropically. ASTM D3849-14a derived descriptors have low interlaboratory reproducibilities
AN
and high measurement uncertainties. When these descriptors are used for projected area-based

fractal analysis, the estimated fractal exponents do not have realistic values. However, the use of
M

an average nodule diameter generated self-consistent values of fractal exponents with

measurement uncertainties of about 9%. Carbon black aggregates can be categorized using shape
D

descriptors into the categories: spheroidal, ellipsoidal, branched, and linear. These shape
TE

categories contribute non-uniformly to descriptor values across their data ranges and lead to
EP

multimodal distributions. These findings illustrate the importance of assessing data quality and

measurement uncertainty for particle size and shape distributions.


C
AC

Words = 199 (200)

1. Introduction
Carbon black (CAS Registry number 1333-86-4) and fumed silica are examples of industrial

aciniform aggregates (grape-like clusters of aggregated particles). World-wide carbon black sales

2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

were expected to reach 15 million metric tons in 20151, growing by a factor of two over the

previous decade[1]. Commercial products are available in a wide variety of morphologies, each

of which contributes to the economic value and applications of the carbon black grade. The

particle size distribution of a carbon black has been considered its single most important property

PT
[2], affecting its degree of blackness, rubber reinforcement, and UV protection. For example, the

RI
aggregate size and shape affect the viscosity and degree of dispersion of carbon black in

elastomers, as well as the stiffness of the final product [2].

SC
There are alternative methods for characterizing carbon blacks for composites, such as ASTM

U
D6556 – 16, which is based on multipoint nitrogen adsorption inclusive of micropores less than
AN
2 nm and the external surface area (based on the statistical thickness method)[3] . Other test

methods include sieve residue, surface area, structure (dibutyl phthalate adsorption number),
M

aggregate shape (spherical, ellipsoidal, linear, and branched), ash content, toluene extraction,
D

heat loss, fines, pellet hardness, and surface activity [4].


TE

Carbon black aggregate characteristics have been measured using electron microscopy [5, 6],
EP

including area-equivalent diameter of the aggregates, perimeter, area, fractal dimensions, and

branching coefficients [7-13]. Over the past decade, a number of researchers have measured
C

TEM-based aggregate descriptors using automated image analysis methods and linked these to
AC

carbon black performance in a variety of applications, particularly for tire compounds [1] [14-

19]. For example, Lu and Chung [20] related aggregate size and shape, as expressed by its

compression and connectivity, to the viscoelastic behaviour of carbon blacks. Specific

1
CBS, world wide carbon black sales, 2015. http://carbonblacksales.com/worldwide-carbon-
black-market-12-million-metric-tons-2015/

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

descriptors measured by electron microscopy are in common industrial use. Several derived

descriptors, such as equivalent circular aggregate diameter, area to perimeter ratio and

roundness, are popular choices for correlating carbon black morphology with its performance in

elastomer compounds. However, the measurement uncertainties of these descriptors have not yet

PT
been reported in the literature.

RI
ASTM D3849, initially published in 2007 and updated in 2014[2], characterizes carbon black

SC
morphology y using descriptors from TEM images. Aggregate area (nm2) and aggregate

perimeter (nm) are used to derive the area-equivalent aggregate diameter, an aggregation factor,

U
an average nodule size for a single aggregate, an aggregate volume, a nodule volume (often
AN
referred to as a primary particle), and the number of particles in the aggregate. Average values

and sample standard deviations are computed for each discrete distribution. Several round-robin
M

comparisons have been held for ASTM D3829-14a, apparently with little concurrence on
D

results.2. A focus of this work was to identify potential causes of the apparent low reproducibility
TE

of this protocol.

1.1 Study rationale


EP

This project is part a series of interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) to develop a generic protocol

for measuring size and shape distributions by TEM, coordinated through ISO/TC229
C

Nanotechnologies. The test samples include: unimodal, discrete spheroidal nanoparticles (gold)
AC

[21], a bimodal mixture of discrete nanoparticles (colloidal silicas), a mixture of discrete

nanoparticles with different shapes (gold nanorods), amorphous aciniform aggregates (carbon

black), and aggregates of primary crystallites (titania) [22]. These studies conform to guidelines

established by the Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS) [23] and

2
Stephen B. Rice, private communication.

4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ISO 5725 [24]. International Standards stakeholders and users expect: 1) measurement of ‘real

life’ materials, 2) highly automated protocol steps, including image acquisition, particle capture,

data quality assessments, 3) comparison of data to reference distribution models, 4) measurement

uncertainty assessments for evaluations by different laboratories, and 5) data visualization tools

PT
to compare methods, procedures, and descriptors. Many co-authors are members of Joint

RI
Working Group 2, Measurement and Characterization, of ISO/TC229 and IEC/TC113.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP

Figure 1 Image of carbon black aggregates, SRB 8, with good contrast between particles
and background. Courtesy of Cabot Corporation.
AC

1.2 The test sample


Carbon blacks and other aciniform aggregates come in a wide variety of surface areas, aggregate

complexities, and extents of aggregation. Figure 1 shows typical carbon black aggregates from

the sample used in this study. Aggregate size and shape distributions affect the performance of

carbon blacks in their applications. The typical aggregate is composed of nodules that are fused

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

together in the gas phase synthesis process[1]. In this study, one laboratory prepared and

distributed mounted test samples to the collaborating laboratories. Typical properties of SRB8

carbon black are shown in Table 1. Iodine numbers relate to the carbon black surface area.

Nitrogen adsorption methods (ASTM D6556) can be used to measure total Nitrogen Surface

PT
Area (NSA) and Statistical Thickness Surface Area (STSA), which is the external surface area

RI
accessible to rubber. Alternative methods include Compressed sample Oil Adsorption Number

(COAN) and Oil Adsorption Number (OAN). Tinting strength relates to the ability of the carbon

SC
black to reduce the reflectance of white pigments.

Table 1 Typical values of iodine number, surface area, and oil adsorption measurements

U
for SRB8. Courtesy of Cabot Corporation3
AN
Properties Iodine Number NSA STSA COAN OAN Tint Strength

Units g/kg m2/g m2/g cm3/100g cm3/100g tint strength


M

ASTM Method D1510 D6556 D6556 D3493 D2414 D3265

SRB-8B 135.6 142.0 123.5 99.4 123.5 131.4


D

Note 1: aggregate equivalent circular diameter typically reported as 54 nm.


TE

Note 2: nodule diameter (primary particle) typically reported as 18 nm.

Note 3: values in the 3rd row reflect the specific method for making the measurement, e.g., the specific surface area
EP

values (m2/g) differ because the methods differ.

1.3 Morphology information for carbon black aggregates


C

There are a number of methods for characterizing the morphologies of carbon blacks, including:
AC

1) distributions of size and shape descriptors, 2) descriptor-descriptor correlations, which include

affinity exponents that scale aggregates in the longitudinal and transverse dimensions and fractal

analysis, and 3) analysis of carbon black aggregate descriptors after they have been separated by

3
Jincheng Xiong, private communication

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

shape (spheroidal, ellipsoidal, branched, and linear). All of these methods can lead to improved

characterization of carbon black aggregates.

1.3.1 Distributions of size and shape descriptors

PT
Researchers have evaluated size and shape descriptors for carbon black aggregates for some time

[11-13, 25]. Size descriptors for two-dimensional images can be based on length (Category 1) or

RI
area (Category 2). Shape descriptors are often derived from size descriptors and can describe

SC
image elongation or image boundary irregularity (ruggedness). A minimal set of descriptors for

carbon black aggregates might include size, elongation, and ruggedness. Using powder data,

U
Hentschel and Paige [26] proposed a specific minimal set of shape descriptors: aspect ratio to
AN
represent elongation and form factor to represent ruggedness (boundary irregularities). Table 2

shows size, elongation, and ruggedness descriptors are based on ISO definitions [27] [21, 22].
M

ISO 9276-6 [27] provides some sketches for these descriptors.


D

Table 2 Size and shape descriptor table based on ISO 9276-6 definitions [27]
TE

Symbol Categorya Description / reference Equation


Size
A 2 Area of the particle
EP

AC 2 Area of the convex hull enclosing the


particle
4∙
ECD 1 Equivalent circular diameter / [28]
=
C
AC

Feret 1 Maximum Feret diameter, corresponds


to the maximum length of parallel
tangents (particle length) / [28]
MinFeret 1 Minimum Feret diameter, corresponds
to the minimum length of parallel
tangents (particle breadth) / [28]
P 1 Length of the perimeter
Shape/elongation

8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Aspect ratio 1 Ratio of the minimum Feret diameter


to the maximum Feret diameter
4∙
Compactness 1 Degree to which the projection area, A,


of the particle is similar to a circle,
considering the overall form of the
particle with the maximum Feret

4∙
diameter

PT
Roundness 2 Square of the compactness / [28]

Extent 2 Ratio of the particle area to the product

RI
of the Feret and minimum Feret
diameters
Shape/ruggedness
4∙ ∙

SC
Circularity 1 Degree to which the projected area of
the particle is similar to a circle, based

4∙ ∙
on its perimeter
Form factor 2 Square of the circularity

Solidity 2
U
Ratio of the projected area, A, to the
AN
area of the particle’s convex hull
a
– category 1 = length or length ratios; category 2 = area or area ratios
M

A key question for the community is: how repeatable and reproducible are the descriptors that

we have been using to report aggregate size and shape? Measurement uncertainties of carbon
D

black aggregate descriptors do not seem to be reported. Since the quality of the size and shape
TE

descriptors were not established, an expanded set of size, elongation, and ruggedness descriptors

were evaluated to determine which of these might have lower uncertainties in intra- and
EP

interlaboratory tests. Descriptors with low uncertainties might provide a good basis for preferred

size and shape distribution data. Carbon black manufacturers, customers, researchers, and
C

relevant regulatory agencies all have an interest in the repeatability, reproducibility, and
AC

measurement uncertainties of descriptor data. This interlaboratory comparison addresses not only

how much variation there might be in descriptor means as they are evaluated by a number of

laboratories, but differences in descriptor distributions as well.

9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The area-equivalent diameter, or equivalent circular diameter (ECD), is often used to report

carbon black aggregate size. For cases in which the aggregate is treated as an ellipse, the major

and minor ellipse axes can be used for size [25]. Elongation parameters include the aspect ratio,

compactness, roundness, extent (bulkiness), and the affinity exponent [29]. Roundness is the

PT
square of compactness and is considered not as robust as compactness [27]. Ruggedness

RI
parameters include circularity, form factor, and solidity. Prior researchers have used the ellipse

axes for size, the ellipse ratio for elongation, and bulkiness for ruggedness [25], or ECD for size,

SC
aspect ratio and roundness for elongation, and circularity, form factor, and solidity for

ruggedness [30]. All of these descriptors are evaluated for measurement uncertainties.

U
AN
1.3.2 Descriptor-descriptor correlations
Carbon black aggregates are known to grow anisotropically. Affinity exponents and fractal
M

analyses provide information on particle anisotropy and both have previously been applied to

carbon black aggregate data. Both methods are, at their basic level, descriptor-descriptor
D

correlations. As such, it is important to report the values of fitting parameters as well as their
TE

standard errors. The affinity exponent, H, describes the ratio of scaling coefficients for length

and width of aggregates, where nW and nL are the scaling factors in the transverse and
EP

longitudinal directions. H is defined as:

!" #$%$&
= ≈
#$%$&
Equation 1
C

ln = ∙ ln
AC

Equation 2

Equation 2 suggests that the natural logarithm of the minimum Feret diameter is linearly

correlated with the natural logarithm of the Feret diameter. The affinity exponent is not a

descriptor reported by ISO[27]but has been applied to carbon blacks [29, 31]. If H ~ 1, the

aggregate is considered to be self-similar, i.s., the scaling factors for length and width are the

10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

same. If H < 1, the aggregate is considered to be self-affine. The various shapes of carbon black

aggregates may have different values of H, depending on how their width and length dimensions

scale. Neimark, Koylu, and Rosner [29] estimated the values of H using the approximation

shown in Eq. 2, finding the slope, H, of a plot of the minimum Feret diameter logarithm (as the

PT
y-axis) against the Feret logarithm (as the x-axis). In this case, the reference lengths for width

RI
and length were both set to 1 (W0 = L0 = 1 nm), forcing the correlation through the origin in

logarithmic space. The size units need to be set such that width and length logarithms are

SC
positive. In addition to providing elongational information, the affinity exponent provides

information on particle self-similarity, which is relevant to aggregate fractal analysis.

U
AN
Analyses of fractal dimensions have been applied to carbon black aggregates and soots for some

time [32-40]. A number of methods have been proposed to evaluate the fractal dimensions of
M

carbon blacks and soot particles[30, 40-43]. Methods include: 1) projected area-based scaling,

radius of gyration scaling, and mobility diameter scaling[43] and 2) minimum bounding
D

rectangle [40] and 3) box counting techniques[41]. The projected area-based scaling method is
TE

convenient to use with TEM size distribution data [31, 44, 45]. For projected area-based scaling,
EP

the number of nodules (some references use the term, primary particle) in the aggregate, N, is

related to the ratio of the projected areas of the aggregate divided by that of a nodule by a power
C

law equation [25]:


01
AC

-
) = *+ ∙ , /
+.
Equation 3

where ka is the projected area prefactor, A is the projected area of the aggregate, ap is the average

area of a nodule, and Df is the fractal exponent. While ASTM D3849-14a does not compute a

fractal exponent, its derived parameters can be used to do so. In this study, nonlinear regression

11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

methods of SYSTAT© were used to determine values of the prefactor, ka, and fractal exponent,

Df, of Eq. 3. The aggregate area in Eq. 3, A, is measured directly with TEM images, but the

values of N and dp can be estimated in several ways. ASTM D3849-14a estimates N and dp via

derived parameters based on the measured aggregate areas and perimeters (see Table 3). Its

PT
workflow uses a correlation for the average nodule size, estimates the aggregate volume and

RI
nodule volumes, and computes a value for N. In this method, N is the ratio of the estimated

aggregate volume divided by the estimated nodule volume. When the scheme of ASTM D3849-

SC
14a is followed, the average nodule size in the aggregate is computed for each measured particle.

An alternative approach is to determine an average value for dp for the entire aggregate sample,

U
and use this value to estimate the volume of a nodule and the cross-sectional area of a nodule.
AN
This second method was previously reported by Tian et al. [45], justified by the modest size

distribution range for nodules compare to the large size range for aggregates. Nodule sizes for
M

the SRB8 sample varied from 7 to 52 nm, with an average of 21.6 ± 11 nm, while the Feret
D

diameter varied from 7 to 450 nm, with an average of 107 ± 66 nm.


TE

Table 3 Derived parameters reported by ASTM D3849-14 [2]

Symbol Categorya Description / reference Equation


EP

4∙
D 1 Area-equivalent aggregate diameter, nm
C

α ~2 Aggregation factor; when α < 0.4, use α = 0.4 2


AC

;<.=
= 13.092 ∙ 9 :

2∙ ∙
>? =
dp 1 Average particle (nodule) size for a single

aggregate, nm

12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8
@- = , / ∙
VA 3 Aggregate volume, nm3
3

∙ >? C
@B =
VP 3 Particle (nodule) volume, nm3
6
@-
) =

PT
3 Number of particles (nodules) in the aggregate
@B
N

a
– category 1 = length or length ratios; category 2 = area or area ratios; category 3 = volume or

RI
volume ratios

SC
1.3.3. Separating aggregates by shape
Carbon black aggregates are known to have several characteristics shapes. Therefore, it seems

U
appropriate to separate aggregate datasets by shape as a way to interpret the size and shape
AN
distributions of the various descriptors. Hess and coworkers proposed classification systems for

carbon black morphologies [7, 8]. Shishido and coworkers [46] developed ranges of descriptors
M

that were used to categorize carbon black aggregates into spheroidal, ellipsoidal, branched and

linear configurations. Ono et al [47] used this classification system to evaluate aggregates shapes
D

as affected by temperature and residence time during vapour phase synthesis of carbon black.
TE

Figure 2 shows the aggregate classification scheme is based on an elongational shape (aspect

ratio) and two ruggedness descriptors, form factor and solidity. This set of descriptors are
EP

independent of each other: aspect ratio is based on Feret and minFeret, the form factor is the
C

projected area divided by the area of a circle with the same perimeter, and the solidity is the ratio
AC

of the projected area to that of the aggregate’s convex hull.

13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D

Figure 2 Each aggregate was sorted into a linear, branched, ellipsoidal, or spheroidal
TE

morphology category using this workflow[46], which is based on ISO descriptor definitions
[27].
Data analysis and morphology evaluations were focused on three core areas: data repeatability
EP

and reproducibility (critical to many stakeholders), measurement uncertainty of quantitative

fitted parameters (relevant for industrial quality control and regulatory use), and additional
C

morphology characterizations (relevant to developing new morphology understanding of carbon


AC

black aggregates).

1.4 Descriptor repeatability and reproducibility: qualitative comparisons


In general, descriptors that have high intralaboratory repeatability and high interlaboratory

reproducibility would be preferred for characterizing size and shape distributions. Such

descriptors can be identified by comparing sample means for intralaboratory data frames

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(ANOVA), interlaboratory datasets (ANOVA), and empirical descriptor distributions (bivariate

similarity). Common statistical protocols [21, 22] were used to reduce variability in analysing

and reporting data. Such tools can be critical to stakeholders wishing to optimize protocols for

specific materials and applications. P-values reported from ANOVA or bivariate analysis tests

PT
provide qualitative comparisons of datasets. Energy values (E-values) of bivariate analyses can

RI
be used to rank dataset pairs with respect to their similarity. However, neither the p-value or the

E-value provide information on the scale or the width of a descriptor distribution. Arithmetic

SC
means are often used to compute an average descriptor value.

1.5 Measurement uncertainties of fitted parameters

U
Measurement uncertainty estimates help reveal how well models and correlations describe size
AN
and shape distribution data. For example, descriptor distributions are fitted to reference models,

requiring a minimum of two parameters, scale and width, to define them. When descriptor
M

distributions are unimodal, it is straightforward to estimate the scale and width parameters of

reference models fitted to the data and calculate their measurement uncertainties. Normal,
D

lognormal, and Weibull models are considered empirical distributions and are used to find values
TE

of scale and width parameters. Direct comparisons of the measurement uncertainties of these
EP

scale and width parameters can help identify which ones have the highest repeatability and

reproducibility for the sample. Such descriptors might be preferred for developing additional
C

morphology information, such as descriptor correlations with affinity exponents or fractal


AC

analysis, and determining the contribution of different shape configurations to the observed

descriptor distributions. In addition, measurement uncertainty values can provide a basis for

improving size and shape distribution measurement protocols, as has been done with raw data

triage for this ILC study.

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Experimental
2.1 Sample preparation
A typical carbon black sample, ASTM reference material SRB8, was supplied by and mounted

on TEM grids by Cabot Corporation. The protocol used for this study is based on that of ASTM

D3849-14a [2], as modified by Cabot Corporation (Table 4).

PT
Table 4 Sample preparation for ASTM Reference Series 8 Sample B (SRB8)

RI
Step Procedure

1 Acquire approximately one quarter spatula (approximately 10 mg) of carbon black, and

SC
place into a vial (3 cm X 5.5 cm), add 15cc chloroform. This quantity of carbon black
gives a good representation of the entire black.
2 Immerse the vial into an ice-water bath set in a medium size plastic container. The ice
bath minimizes the heat introduced by ultra-sonic energy.

U
3 Insert the microtip probe to a depth of approximately 2.5cm into the mixture.
AN
4 Set timer on control box of W-385 Ultrasonic Processor for 10 minutes @ level 5 for and
output value of approximately 45 watts (see Notes).
5 Withdraw suspension with disposable pipette, and release (3) or more drops of the heavy
concentrated suspension into a clean vial, then add 15ml of chloroform (wipe probe tip)
M

and apply sonic energy for 3 minutes.


6 When sonication time is complete, check the concentration of the diluted dispersion by
extracting a small amount (approximately 1 mL) into a pipette and dropping the
D

suspension against a white background, (only a few drops on the filter paper). The
dispersion should be relatively transparent.
TE

7 Repeat the ultrasonic sonication for about 3 minutes at same power level. The volume of
carbon black and chloroform mixture should always be maintained during the dispersion
process. If considerable further dilution is required, the excess volume is disposed of into
EP

an appropriate solvent waste can.


8 Place a specimen grid (200 mesh copper with carbon substrate) on filter paper (carbon
film side up).
9 Extract 1ml of the final diluted dispersion using a fresh pipette and place a single drop on
C

the grid as close to the center as possible, from a height of about 12mm.
10 Allow specimen to dry for about 1 minute.
AC

11 Check the concentration of the diluted dispersion for agglomeration. If necessary, adjust
the concentration by adding more solvent as required and sonicate for three minutes.
Notes: Specific to the probe sonicator unit used at Cabot, Misonix (Qsonix) Sonicator
Ultrasonic Processor XL. The ultrasonic horn should be housed in a soundproof box set
inside the hood. Utilizing the ½” tip, output being drawn at level 5 is approximately 45
watts. Clean the ultrasonic probe by immersing the tip into a vial (3cm x 9cm) containing
30 ml of ethyl alcohol with output control at level (5) on ultrasonic control box. Subject
to sonic energy for 1 minute. Wipe tip with Kimwipes®.

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

All labs received mounted samples for their analysis. One experienced laboratory prepared the

samples, leading to high quality grids and low fractions of touching particles (generally to be

avoided). It is assumed that all particles in an image (Fig. 1, for example) are aggregates rather

PT
than agglomerates. As the protocol is one used by a manufacturer using TEM to size carbon

RI
black aggregates, it is thought to be the best available. The assessments of repeatability,

reproducibility, and measurement uncertainty help define the data quality available with this

SC
protocol.

2.2 Instrument magnification


U
AN
A challenge for developing EM protocols is that every lab seems to have different instruments or

set-ups. Rather than specify magnification, which can change between instruments, the protocol
M

suggested a magnification and labs reported the image resolution, pixels/nm. Laboratories

reported their calibration methods, which were shown by ANOVA analysis not to relate to
D

differences in descriptor distributions.


TE

ASTM D3849-14a provided guidelines on TEM image digital resolution setting, which depends
EP

on the nodule size range of the carbon black. The recommended image resolution setting is from

1.5 to 2.0 nm/pixel for SRB8B with its average nodule size of 18 nm. On the one hand, low
C

resolution setting allows the possibility of characterizing high number of aggregates on the same
AC

frame, reducing the cost of image capture and the bias of the TEM operator to pick out aggregate

fields. Conversely, high resolution allows better aggregate edge detection and improved accuracy

of the aggregate length and perimeter measurements. The ASTM recommended resolution

settings provide a balance between efficiency of image capture and precision of the image

analysis. ISO 9276-6 [27] recommends an image resolution of 100-200 pixels/aggregate to

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

reduce the error of the area measurement to less than 5%. Aggregates that did not meet this

criterion were removed from the datasets. At the resolution setting of 1.59 pixel/nm, the image

has adequate resolution for determining the aggregate size of SRB8B with its average area

equivalent diameter of 54 nm. In addition, at this digital resolution, the TEM image with 3072 X

PT
3670 pixels covers 4.9 µm by 5.8 µm area, leading to sufficient numbers of well-dispersed CB

RI
aggregates (~ 200-300) captured in a single image when appropriate CB concentration is used for

preparing the TEM sample (see the new TEM image at the end). At this setting, 10 images are

SC
enough for getting sufficient numbers of CB aggregates (over 2000) for the image analysis.

Standard bright-field TEM images with mass-thickness contrast are used for CB aggregate

U
analysis. After achieving best image resolution with minimal contrast through focus adjustment,
AN
a minimal level of defocus was added to enhance the contrast at the edge of the particles so that

the particles can be reliably segmented from background during image analysis.
M

2.3 Image capture


ImageJ, freeware from NIH 4 , was used to analyse the images generated by each lab. Other
D

software is used industrially, but software choice was not an element of the protocol design. In
TE

the carbon black industry, a norm has been to report ~ 2,000 aggregates.
EP

2.4 Descriptor selection


The descriptors reported by each laboratory included Feret diameter (the maximum length of the

aggregate), minimum Feret diameter (minFeret, the minimum width of the aggregate) and
C

particle area. Some labs reported more, including perimeter, circularity, form factor, and solidity.
AC

There are literature references for using ImageJ for carbon black [19].

4
https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.5 Statistical analysis


One of the findings from other case studies mentioned previously was that not all statistical tools

provide similar data analysis outputs. We have developed three statistical methods5, programmed

in R and implemented as Shiny Apps®, which were used to analyse all datasets. The approach

PT
has helped ensure that all statistical methods and reports were standardized. Distribution scale

and width parameters were determined by fitting reference models to the empirical cumulative

RI
distribution data. Two fitting techniques, maximum likelihood estimates and nonlinear regression

SC
estimates, were used for each distribution. One descriptor distribution was fitted with a bimodal

distribution using a nonlinear regression tool in Systat®. A bimodal fit requires two sets of

U
scales and widths, one set for each peak, plus a weighting factor, i.e., five parameters rather than
AN
two.

Descriptor distributions of each laboratory were fitted to distributions and the best values for
M

their scale and width parameters were reported; Measurement uncertainty values for the study

were determined using the scale and width parameters for all laboratories. For each parameter of
D

each descriptor, the average and the standard deviation of all reported parameter estimates were
TE

used to compute the relative coefficient of variation, Cv, Eq. 4:


F
E =

EP

Equation 4

Coefficients of variation are reported as percentages. These are converted to measurement


C

uncertainty values for the fitted parameters:

IJK = * ∙ ∙ L1 + 1/
AC

E Equation 5

where UILC is the measurement uncertainty (%), k is taken as 2, and n is the number of

observations (4 laboratories in this case). Equation 5 and its variations are often used to report

5
https://shiny.as.uky.edu/anova-app/; https://shiny.as.uky.edu/curve-fitting-app/;
https://shiny.as.uky.edu/bivariate-fitting-app/; developed by Lambert and Stromberg.

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the measurement uncertainty for reference materials; some examples are found in recent

Certification Reports [48, 49] [50]. When descriptor distributions are not unimodal, the

measurement uncertainty estimates may have large % differences. Eq. 5 can be modified to

include additional uncertainty factors related to the measurement protocol. Here, the UILC simply

PT
shows the parameter’s uncertainty across the ILC.

RI
3. Results
3.1 Raw data triage

SC
Raw data triage includes assessing image quality, assessing data quality, measuring

intralaboratory repeatability and measuring interlaboratory reproducibility. Some of the images

U
taken by laboratories had insufficient contrast between background and particle, leading to poor
AN
image quality. Poor thresholding can be detected by evaluating outlined images for the following

defects: poorly replicated aggregate outlines, particles that have fragmented after outlining,
M

creation of artefact particles, and gradients in background shading across the image. This was

corrected by providing examples of TEM images with good contrast to illustrate to the individual
D

operator the image quality they should be aiming to achieve. In other cases, some of the
TE

aggregates had less than 100-200 pixels, a recommended number to keep the area error less than
EP

5%[51]. Table 5 shows the image resolution and number of aggregates removed for each

laboratory’s dataset. ISO 9276-6 [27]recommends an image resolution of 200 pixels/particle to


C

reduce the error of the area measurement to less than 5%. With image resolution varying from
AC

1.0 pixel/nm to 2.3 pixel/nm, the minimum area for aggregates to be counted varied from 200 to

460 nm2.

Table 5 Criteria for removing aggregates below the minimum area, labs L1-L4

Factor L1 L2 L3 L4

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Image resolution, nm/pixel 1.0 1.59 1.96 2.2

Minimum area, nm2 [27] 100 253 380 460

Total particles reported 2061 2040 1929 12,493

% less than minimum area 0% 0.49% 21.6% 9.8%

PT
Average particle area for revised datasets, nm2 3576 4900 3261 3549

RI
Intralaboratory repeatability was good, with many frames having the same mean as the complete

SC
dataset for most descriptors. ANOVA analysis of interlaboratory reproducibility showed that

some dataset pairs did not have similar means. In particular, ANOVA pairwise comparisons with

U
the size data of laboratory L4 had p values less than 0.05, indicating that their means were
AN
different. The aspect ratio descriptor had similar means for all four laboratories. Only one of six
M

laboratory pairs had statistically similar ruggedness descriptors. Details of these findings are

given in Section 1 of Supplementary Material.


D
TE

3.2 Descriptor distributions


3.2.1 Distribution models
Size distributions were generally unimodal and could be fitted using lognormal models that had
EP

scale and width parameters with low uncertainties. However, shape distributions were

multimodal, which generally had greater measurement uncertainties and were fitted either by
C

normal or Weibull distributions. In the case that a specific descriptor was multi-modal, bivariate
AC

analysis of descriptor cumulative distributions6 was used to determine whether a pair of labs had

similar results. A similar workflow was used to analyse the descriptors specifically cited in

ASTM D3849-14a (Table 2).

6
https://shiny.as.uky.edu/bivariate-fitting-app/; developed by Lambert and Stromberg

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figures 3-5 show distributions of three classes of descriptors: size, elongation, and ruggedness.

The left hand side of each figure shows a smoothed density distribution of the raw data (black

curve) compared to the density distributions of the maximum likelihood (MLE: red curve) and

nonlinear regression (NLS: blue curve) fits. The right hand side of each figure shows the

PT
empirical cumulative distribution with the maximum likelihood and nonlinear regression fits.

RI
The lognormal distribution appears to be the preferred reference model for the Feret diameter

distribution (Figure 3). Bimodal fits can be done with the Feret diameter distributions, one of

SC
which is shown in Section 2 of the Supplementary Material. A different approach toward

understanding the multimodal nature of these distributions is to deconvolute them with respect to

U
aggregate shapes, which is done later in the Results Section.
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 3 The lognormal distribution provides a good fit to the Feret data of Lab L1. Black
curve = smoothed data, blue curve = model parameters fitted using nonlinear regression,
red curve = model parameters fitted using maximum likelihood.
Even though aspect ratio data had similar means across all labs, these elongational shape

distributions show multimodal peaks (Figure 4). The density distributions in the left hand plot

show that the highest peak of the data coincided with peaks of the unimodal models. However,

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the data shows evidence of minor peaks, to the left and right of the major peak, which are not

captured by unimodal models. Differences are also apparent in the cumulative distribution plot

in the upper right hand side. The other elongational descriptor, compactness, showed similar

multimodal peaks.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Figure 4 Normal distribution fits to the aspect ratio data of Lab L1. Both fitted curves give
maximum density values near that of the data; however, the smoothed density data (black
curve) shows three possible peaks near its maximum. Blue curve = fitted parameters using
nonlinear regression, red curve = fitted parameters using maximum likelihood.
EP

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the form factor, a ruggedness descriptor. It also has

multimodal peaks, and is better described by a normal or Weibull distribution. In this case, the
C

data peak is offset from those of the unimodal models, significantly increasing the measurement
AC

uncertainty of the model scale parameters. The solidity distribution data have a lower

measurement uncertainty and are shown in Section 3 of Supplementary Material.

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 5 Normal distribution fits to the form factor data of Lab L1. The maxima of the
fitted models are shifted to higher values of form factor than the smoothed data (black
curve), which shows multiple possible peaks above and below its maximum value. Blue
M

curve = fitted parameters using nonlinear regression, red curve = fitted parameters using
maximum likelihood.
D

3.2.2 Measurement uncertainties of distribution parameters


Table 6 shows the grand means of fitted parameter estimates for this study. Four types of
TE

descriptors are reported: size, elongational, and ruggedness descriptors plus descriptors

specifically used for ASTM D3849-14a. The aggregate size descriptors appear to be best
EP

represented by log normal distributions rather than normal or Weibull reference models. The
C

coefficients of variation for the scale parameters of these descriptors varying from 1.5% to 2.0%,
AC

with the exception of the aggregate equivalent circular diameter, which is a factor of 2 smaller.

The coefficients of variation for the widths of the size distributions vary from 2.5% to 4.0%,

which appears to be reasonably close agreement. With a scale parameter measurement

uncertainty of 9.1%, perimeter would seem to be the least accurate choice for aggregate size. The

equivalent circular diameter of the aggregates in Table 6, 52.9 nm based on a lognormal

24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

reference model with UILC = 1.6%, compares with favourably with the typical reported value of

54 nm for SRB8 (Table 1). ECD has the lowest measurement uncertainty of the size descriptors;

this value confirms that it is preferred choice for reporting aggregate size.

Table 6 Scale and width measurement uncertainties of descriptors across all data sets. Eq.

PT
4 is used to compute the coefficient of variation for each scale and width parameter, which
is used to compute the measurement uncertainty using Eq. 5. Unimodal models

RI
Grand means Scale Standar Width Standard Cv, Cv , UILC UILC
table [exp(scale), d error Scale width Scale width
nm] error
Descriptor Referenc size descriptors

SC
e
Model
Area, nm2 LRM 7.75 0.154 1.044 0.04101.99 3.92 4.46 8.77
[2310] % % % %

U
Perimeter, LRM 5.52 [249]
0.0859 0.696 0.0231 4.06 12.8 9.09 28.7
nm % % % %
AN
Feret, nm LRM 4.39 [80.9] 0.0698 0.586 0.0170 1.59 2.90 3.55 6.49
% % % %
minFeret, nm LRM 3.94 [51.5] 0.0777 0.570 0.0157 1.97 2.76 4.41 6.18
% % % %
M

ECD, nm LRM 3.97 [52.9] 0.0285 0.522 0.0205 0.72 3.93 1.60 8.79
% % % %
elongational descriptors
Aspect ratio NRM 0.642 0.0076 0.133 0.0042 1.18 3.19 2.64 7.14
D

% % % %
Compactness NRM 0.673 0.0098 0.097 0.0064 1.45 6.59 3.24 14.7
TE

7 % % % %
ruggedness descriptors
Form factor NRM 0.485 0.0496 0.212 0.0163 10.2 7.67 22.9 17.1
% % % %
EP

Solidity NRM 0.766 0.0218 0.112 0.0089 2.85 7.94 6.37 17.8
% % % %
ASTM D3849-14a descriptors
dp, nm LRM 2.89 [18.1] 0.167 0.465 0.055 5.77 12.2 12.9 27.3
C

% % % %
VP, nm3 LRM 8.03 [3077] 0.501 1.369 0.166 6.23 12.2 14.0 27.3
AC

% % % %
N LRM 2.87 [17.6] 0.391 1.695 0.070 13.6 4.15 30.5 9.30
% % % %
LRM = lognormal reference model; NRM = normal reference model; CV = coefficient of variance, % (Eq.

4); UILC = measurement uncertainty, % (Eq. 5); [xx, nm] gives the exponential of the scale estimate for

lognormal reference models.

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The parameters for aggregate shape descriptors are reported for the normal distribution as the

reference model. However, the Weibull model could also be used as the coefficients of variation

of the distribution scales and breadths are quite similar between these two choices. A preferred

choice for elongation descriptor is aspect ratio, which has the lowest scale and width

PT
uncertainties. The elongation scales have lower coefficients of variation than the ruggedness

RI
scales, while the coefficients of variation for the distribution widths are similar for both shape

types. The solidity descriptor might be preferred for ruggedness. Aggregate form factor, which is

SC
based on area and perimeter, has a relatively high measurement uncertainty for its scale

parameter, 22%. As shown in Figure 5, the form factor distributions are multimodal and the

U
computed curves do not represent the data well, in particular, the peaks predicted by the models
AN
are displaced from the actual peak in the data. Therefore, the coefficient of variation and the

measurement uncertainty of the form factor scale parameter is high compared to other scale
M

parameters of shape descriptors, which better match the central peak of their data (see Fig. 3, for
D

example).
TE

The measurement uncertainties of the scale and width for some of the derived descriptors of
EP

ASTM D3849-14a are shown in the lowest section of Table 2, which includes the average nodule

diameter of the aggregates (dp), the nodule volume (Vp), and the number of nodules in the
C

aggregate (N). The uncertainties of scale and width parameters of these descriptors are some of
AC

the highest of this ILC. All three descriptors are derived from different combinations of area and

perimeter, so it is not surprising that their scales have measurement uncertainties higher than any

of the size descriptors. The smallest measurement uncertainty for the scale parameters of this

descriptor trio is nearly 13% and that of N is ~ 30%. Since these descriptors are needed to

26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

compute the fractal dimension using the projected area approach, it might be expected that the

accuracy of a fractal dimension value based on the ASTM derived descriptors will be low.

Nonetheless, the average nodule diameter reported in Table 5, 18.1 nm based on a lognormal

reference model with UILC = 12.9%, compares favourably with the typical reported value of 18

PT
nm for SRB8 (Table 1).

RI
Prior work by Tian et al. [44] provides a possible explanation for the poor correspondence

SC
between N data and a unimodal model for soot aerosols. They noticed that a lognormal fit to N

did not coincide well with the data, particularly at low values of N. One approach to this issue

U
was to eliminate small values of N and consider only values of N > 5. A second approach was to
AN
fit the data with a bimodal distribution, which implicitly assumes a second particle population for

low values of N. Rather than demonstrate bimodal fit to N distributions, the approach has been
M

used on a Feret distribution, which is shown in Section 3 of Supplementary Material. The


D

bimodal fit clearly reduces the error between model and data.
TE

3.3 Deconvolution of aggregate descriptor distributions by shape


The workflow of Figure 2 was applied to deconvolute the L1 dataset into four shape categories.
EP

Three descriptor distributions, Feret (size), aspect ratio (elongation), form factor (ruggedness)

were reconstructed from their spheroidal, ellipsoidal, branched, and linear elements.
C

Generally, the shape morphology categories are non-uniformly distributed across the variable
AC

ranges of size, elongation, and ruggedness descriptors. Figure 6 shows the shape morphology

component contributions to the Feret diameter distribution. Spheroidal particles make modest

contributions to small sizes of the Feret diameter distribution. Ellipsoidal particles contribute to

Feret diameters starting at 25 nm and peaking near 60 nm. The long ‘tail’ is due to the broad

distributions of branched and linear aggregates.

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

150

125

PT
100 spheroidal
ellipsoidal
Count

75

RI
branched
linear
50

SC
all

25

U
AN
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Feret Diameter, nm
M
D

Figure 6 The aggregate Feret distribution of Lab 1 assembled from its morphology
category distributions, which are not uniformly distributed across the data range. Red
TE

circles = spheroidal, blue diamonds = ellipsoidal, green triangles = branched, orange bars =
linear, black curve = sum of all morphology categories.
Contributions of shape morphology components to the aspect ratio distribution (Figure 7) are
EP

linked to the workflow for morphology separation, Fig. 2. Linear aggregates contribute to aspect
C

ratios less than 0.533 per the workflow. All nonlinear aggregates have aspect ratios larger than
AC

this value. Ellipsoidal and branched aggregates contribute similar ranges of the aspect ratio; they

are separated by solidity in the Shishido scheme. Spheroidal aggregates make modest

contributions to high levels of the aspect ratio.

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

200
180
160
140

PT
120 spheroidal
Count

100 ellipsoidal

RI
80 branched
linear

SC
60
all
40

U
20
AN
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Aspect ratio
M

Figure 7 The aggregate aspect ratio distribution of Lab 1 assembled from its morphology
category distributions. Linear aggregates have low aspect ratios while spheroidal
D

aggregates had high aspect ratios. Red circles = spheroidal, blue diamonds = ellipsoidal,
green triangles = branched, orange bars = linear, black curve = sum of all morphology
TE

categories.
EP

Low values of the form factor are due solely to linear aggregates while branched and ellipsoidal

aggregates dominate the middle values. High values of the form factor are due mostly to
C

spheroidal particles. Figures 9-11 demonstrate that aggregates with different shapes contribute
AC

non-uniformly to descriptor distributions. This understanding can provide important

characterization cases when aggregate shapes can be linked to application performance, such as

discovered for carbon black viscoelastic properties [18]. These examples are shown for

illustration purposes; individual stakeholders need to evaluate whether the information is useful

to them.

29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

180

160

PT
140

120

RI
spheroidal
Count

100
ellipsoidal
80

SC
branched
60 linear
all

U
40 AN
20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
M

Form Factor
D

Figure 8 Aggregate form factor assembled from its morphology category distributions. Red
circles = spheroidal, blue diamonds = ellipsoidal, green triangles = branched, orange bars =
TE

linear, black curve = sum of all component types. Lab L1.


3.4 Descriptor-descriptor correlations
EP

3.4.1 Affinity exponents: aggregate distributions and deconvoluted aggregate distributions


Figure 9 shows the affinity exponent plot for Lab L1. The affinity exponent is distinctly less than
C

1 and the SRB8 test sample appears to be self-affine. Carbon black aggregates are known to
AC

grow anisotropically, probably due to flow patterns in the reaction systems. Table 7 shows the

average values of H for each laboratory and the measurement uncertainty of H for the ILC,

which is less than 1%.

30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Figure 9 Affinity exponent plot (Eq. 2) for the data of Lab L1; solid line = model equation
with H = 0.895 ± 0.00098
D

Table 7 Measurement uncertainty of the affinity exponent


TE

Lab H, affinity R2 Average


exponent standard
error
EP

L1 0.895 0.877 9.8e-04


L2 0.879 0.879 9.4e-04
L3 0.888 0.841 1.2e-03
C

L4 0.895 0.854 4.2e-04


Average 0.889
AC

St. dev. 0.00759


Cv 0.85%
UILC 1.9%

It would be useful to learn whether the different aggregate shapes have different affinity

exponents, i.e., different width-length scaling. Using the categories of Shishido [46], the particle

31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

data of Lab L1 was deconvoluted into the four morphologies using the workflow of Fig. 2. The

affinity exponent for each morphology was determined using plots similar to Fig. 8. For the Lab

L1 dataset, spheroidal aggregates are less than 2% with the other three morphologies distributed

about the same (Table 10). As expected, the affinity coefficient for spheroidal aggregates is the

PT
largest (0.937) and that of linear aggregates is the lowest (0.852). By ANOVA analysis, only the

RI
H values for ellipsoidal and branched morphologies are statistically similar. For comparison

purposes, average aspect ratios, estimated in a similar manner, are shown in Table 8. The rank

SC
order of both the affinity exponent and the aspect ratio average is the same. These data

demonstrate that the self-affine properties of carbon black morphologies vary with shape

U
category. Presumably, carbon black aggregate samples with different distributions of spheroidal,
AN
ellipsoidal, branched, and linear morphologies would be distinguishable by their affinity

exponents.
M

Table 8 Comparison of affinity exponent and aspect ratios for different aggregate
morphology categories; data of Lab L1
D

Aggregate morphology % of total H, affinity R2 Aspect R2


TE

exponent ratio
Spheroidal 1.72% 0.937 0.896 0.813 0.937
Ellipsoidal 36.8% 0.919 0.944 0.685 0.909
Branched 27.8% 0.922 0.953 0.689 0.943
EP

Linear 33.6% 0.852 0.944 0.494 0.925


C

3.4.2 Fractal analysis: distributions of aggregates and their morphology categories


Of the methods for evaluating fractal dimensions of carbon black aggregates given in Section
AC

1.3.2, projected area-based scaling could be done directly with the derived parameters of ASTM

D3849-14a in Table 2. A key assumption for fractal analyses is that the two-dimensional solid

projection is self-similar, that is, as the aggregate size increases, both the length and the width

dimensions increase at similar rates. This may not be the case for soots [29, 41] and other

32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

aggregates[52]. Kaye [52] showed that evaluation of carbon black texture and growth structure

yielded different fractal dimensions. Wozniak et al [41] point out that correlations like Eq. 11 are

only appropriate for self-similar aggregates, for which the images would have scale-invariant

properties [53]. These researchers noticed that the smallest aggregates of their soot samples had

PT
significantly greater fractal dimension than the largest ones.

RI
The derived descriptors of ASTM 3849-14a had the highest measurement uncertainties of this

SC
study, indicating that their use for computing the fractal characteristics of the aggregates might

be problematic. The fractal plot, as represented by Eq. 3, shows the ratios of aggregate to nodule

U
areas as the x-ordinant and the ratios of aggregate to nodule volumes as the y-ordinant (N). Both
AN
ratios depend on the nodule diameter, which had a scale parameter measurement uncertainty

(UILC) of 12.9%, compared to typical scale parameter measurement uncertainties of ~ 4% for size
M

descriptors. This high uncertainty value is a primary concern. A fractal curve can be fitted to the
D

ASTM D3849-14a descriptor data, but the fractal exponent is Df = 3.7 ± 0.14 with a prefactor of
TE

1.98e-04 ± 1.14e-05. This is not a reasonable value for Df , which should not be greater than 2 for

two-dimensional TEM image data.


EP

Using the descriptors of Table 2, the estimate of the average nodule diameter depends on the

calculation of an aggregation factor, α, by an empirical correlation, which specifies a minimum


C

value of α = 0.40. In a number of plots, the slope of the fractal curve changes when this
AC

minimum is enforced (an example is shown in Section 5 of Supplementary Material). Therefore,

the equation for α in Table 2 appears to be the most significant problem, as it develops

unrealistic values for the nodule diameter.

33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The method of Tian et al[45] for estimating dp is at least self-consistent and, as the nodule

diameter, area, and volume are all constants in this method, does not lead to unexpected changes

in slope. Table 9 shows the measurement uncertainties of the fractal analysis prefactors and

exponents using the method of Tian for an estimated nodule diameter of 21 nm. Coefficients of

PT
variation for the exponent are less than 0.54% for all labs, while coefficients of variation for the

RI
prefactor are less than 2.3% for all labs. For power law fits, it is typically the case that the

exponent has a lower coefficient of variation than the prefactor. For all datasets, the fractal

SC
exponent has a lower measurement uncertainty, 9.2%, than the prefactor, 35.3%.

Table 9 Measurement uncertainties of fractal prefactors and exponents (Eq. 3 with dp =

U
constant [45])
AN
Fractal
Prefactor Exponent
parameter
Dataset ka Cv, % Df Cv, %
L1 0.907 2.1% 1.355 0.44%
M

L2 1.052 2.0% 1.304 0.38%


L3 1.319 2.3% 1.226 0.54%
D

L4 1.060 0.94% 1.294 0.15%


Average 1.085 1.295
TE

St. dev. 0.171 0.053


Cv 15.8% 4.1%
UILC 35.3% 9.2%
EP

Fractal analysis was also performed on the datasets deconvoluted by aggregate shape. The fractal
C

exponents for the spheroidal, ellipsoidal, and linear shapes are statistically distinct from each
AC

other within 95% certainty (using ± two standard deviations from the means). However, the

fractal exponent for the branched aggregates has a relatively large standard deviation, and

overlaps the confidence intervals of fractal exponents for all other shapes. It is interesting to

note that the fractal exponents decrease as the aggregate morphologies become more elongated.

In summary, the use of a constant value for dp [45] and the use of Eq. 3 provides fractal

34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

exponents and prefactors that appear to be self-consistent, both for complete datasets and for

aggregate particles categorized by morphology. Table 10 shows the measurement uncertainties

of the fractal prefactors and exponents for the four shape morphologies across all laboratories.

The measurement uncertainties of the exponents are fairly low, except for the 12.8% value for

PT
the branched morphology.

RI
Table 10 Measurement uncertainties of fractal prefactors and exponents of different
aggregate morphology categories

SC
Shape Prefactor estimate Exponent estimate
morphology
ka UILC Df UILC
spheroidal 0.958 5.54% 1.49 0.57%

U
ellipsoidal 0.921 19.8% 1.41 3.08%
branched 0.898 60.5% 1.34 12.8%
AN
Linear 0.871 47.5% 1.30 4.08%
M

The specific surface area of a carbon black is often critical to its performance in its applications.

The Nitrogen Surface Area (NSA) from Table 1 is 142 m2/g. Using a density of carbon of 2100
D

kg/m3 and representing the nodules as individual spheres, this converts to an average nodule size
TE

of 20.1 nm, similar to both the typical reported value of 18 nm (see Note 2 of Table 1) and the

estimate of 21.6 nm used for the application of Eq. 3 to the data of this study. The contribution of
EP

spheroidal, ellipsoidal, branched, and linear categories to the specific surface area of the sample

can be estimated by converting the number balances of morphology particles to mass balances.
C

The number of nodules for each aggregate is proportional to the mass of the aggregate. The
AC

contribution of each category to the specific surface area is proportional to the total number of

nodules. For the data of Lab 1, the specific surface area contributions of the spheroidal,

ellipsoidal, branched, and linear aggregates is 0.204%, 25.0%, 37.3%, and 37.5%, respectively.

Thus, most of the mass of carbon black aggregates is made up of branched or linear shapes.

35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. Summary and conclusions


Triage of the raw data showed that the contrast between the image background and the aggregate

is critical to getting accurate and representative particle images. Example images with good

contrast would help labs identify instrument conditions conducive to quality image acquisition.

PT
Some labs reported particles with less than the suggested number of pixels needed to control the

accuracy of size estimates. Both of these elements need to be explicitly cited in a general

RI
protocol. ANOVA analysis of descriptors showed that interlaboratory reproducibilities were the

SC
best for the Feret and minFeret size descriptors and the aspect ratio shape descriptor. The

lognormal reference model provided the best representation of aggregate size descriptors; the

U
measurement uncertainties of its scale and breadth parameters were lower than those of other
AN
model choices. Shape descriptor distributions appear to be multimodal. SRB8 aggregates have an

affinity exponent of 0.895, suggesting that they are self-affine rather than self-similar. The
M

derived descriptors used for the ASTM D3849 standard have fitted parameters with the highest

measurement uncertainties of the study. In addition, the parameters of this standard do not appear
D

to generate realistic values for the fractal exponents. However, an estimate of the average nodule
TE

diameter can be used with Eq. 3 to generate self-consistent fractal exponents for the complete
EP

datasets as well as those for aggregates separated by shape morphologies. Size, shape, and

ruggedness descriptors have been re-constructed using morphology distributions deconvoluted


C

by shape, demonstrating that aggregate shapes distribute non-uniformly across descriptor ranges
AC

leading to multimodal descriptor distributions. Several categorization schemes have been

proposed for carbon black shapes[7, 8, 46, 47], but only one set of descriptor criteria have been

to SRB8 ([47], which is based on a carbon black produced by benzene pyrolysis). It is quite

possible that the set of descriptor value used are not the best for the SRB8 sample. For example,

this study did not examine how well or poorly these descriptor ranges differentiate between the

36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

four categories. Such analyses would constitute a separate study, which would be facilitated by

the measurement uncertainty methods and data analysis tools reported here. These results

illustrate the importance and utility of determining data quality and measurement uncertainties

for particle size and shape distributions.

PT
Acknowledgements

RI
We acknowledge the support of the University of Kentucky’s College of Arts and Sciences in

hosting the Shiny Apps on their research server. The work by AIST was part of the research

SC
program, Strategic International Standardization Acceleration Projects, supported by the

Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) of Japan.

U
AN
References
[1] Gray CA, Muranko H. Studies of robustness of industrial aciniform aggregates and
agglomerates--carbon black and amorphous silicas: a review amplified by new data. J Occup
Environ Med. 2006;48:1279-90.
M

[2] ASTM. D3849-14a Standard test method for carbon black - morphological
characterization of carbon black using electron microscopy West Conshohocken, PA: American
Society for Testing and Materials 2014.
D

[3] ASTM. ASTM D6556-16 Standard test method for carbon black - total and external
surface area by nitrogen adsorption. West Conshohacken, Pa: American Society for Testing and
TE

Materials 2016, p. 6.
[4] Cancarb-Limited. Physical and Chemical Properties. 2017 October 2, 2017 [cited;
Available from: http://www.cancarb.com/docs/pdf/Physical_Chemical_Properties.pdf
[5] Donnet J-B, Bansal RC, Wang M-J. Carbon Black. Microstructure, morphology and
EP

general physical properties. 2nd ed. Basel, Switzerland: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1993.
[6] Wang M-J. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 5th ed. New York:
John Wiley 2001, p. 761-803.
C

[7] Herd CR, McDonald GC, Hess WM. Morphology of carbon-black aggregates: fractal
versus Euclidean geometry. Rubber Chem Technol. 1992;65:107-29.
AC

[8] Herd CR, McDonald GC, Smith RE, Hess WM. The use of skeletonization for the shape
classification of carbon-black aggregates. Rubber Chem Technol. 1993;66:491-509.
[9] Gruber TC, Herd CR. Anisometry measurements in carbon black aggregate populations.
Rubber Chem Technol. 1997;70:727-46.
[10] Hess WM, Herd CR, McDonald GC. Influence of carbon black morphology and surface
activity on vulcanizate properties. Rubber World. 1993;208:26-32.
[11] Hess WM, McDonald GC. Morphological analysis of carbon black. ASTM Spec Tech
Publ. 1974;553:3-18.
[12] Hess WM, McDonald GC. Improved particle size measurements on pigments for rubber.
Rubber Chem Technol. 1983;56:892-917.

37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[13] Janzen J, Goodarz-Nia I. Stereological functions for estimating surface areas and
volumes of random flocs. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1979;69:476-85.
[14] Castellano M, Conzatti L, Turturro A, Costa G, Busca G. Influence of the Silane
Modifiers on the Surface Thermodynamic Characteristics and Dispersion of the Silica into
Elastomer Compounds. J Phys Chem B. 2007;111:4495-502.
[15] Castellano M, Falqui L, Costa G, Turturro A, Valenti B, Castello G. Investigation on
elastomer-silica interactions by inverse gas chromatography and image analysis aided

PT
transmission electron microscopy. J Macromol Sci, Phys. 2002;B41:451-71.
[16] Conzatti L, Costa G, Castellano M, Turturro A, Negroni M, Gerard JF. Morphology and
viscoelastic behaviour of a silica filled styrene/butadiene random copolymer. Macromol Mater

RI
Eng. 2008;293:178-87.
[17] Costa G, Dondero G, Falqui L, Castellano M, Turturro A, Valenti B. Investigation into
the interactions between filler and elastomers used for tires production. Macromol Symp.

SC
2003;193:195-207.
[18] Falqui L, Costa G, Castellano M, Turturro A, Valenti B. A morphometric investigation
by TEM/AIA on elastomer-based compounds filled with an untreated precipitated silica. Rubber
Chem Technol. 2003;76:899-911.

U
[19] Jiang Z-H, Jin J, Xiao C-F, Li X, Kong L-X. Characterization of carbon black particles
mixing in polymeric matrix by direct methods. J Test Eval. 2012;40:227-37.
AN
[20] Lu S, Chung DDL. Viscoelastic behavior of carbon black and its relationship with the
aggregate size. Carbon. 2013;60:346-55.
[21] Rice SB, Chan C, Brown SC, Eschbach P, Han L, Ensor DS, et al. Particle size
distributions by transmission electron microscopy: An interlaboratory comparison case study.
M

Metrologia. 2013;50(6):663-78.
[22] Grulke EA, Yamamoto K, Kumagai K, Hausler I, Oesterle W, Ortel E, et al. Size and
shape distributions of primary crystallites in titania aggregates. Advanced Powder Technology.
D

2017 - accepted.
[23] VAMAS. VAMAS guidelines for the design and operation of interlaboratory
TE

comparisons (ILCs). Washington, DC: VAMAS; 2001.


[24] ISO. ISO 5725 Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results -
Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva: ISO 1998.
EP

[25] Medalia AI, Heckman FA. Morphology of aggregates. II. Size and shape factors of
carbon black aggregates from electron microscopy. Carbon. 1969;7(5):567-82.
[26] Hentschel ML, Page NW. Selection of descriptors for particle shape characterization. Part
Part Syst Charact. 2003;20(1):25-38.
C

[27] ISO. ISO 9276-6 Representation of results of particle size analysis - Part 6: Descriptive
and quantitative representation of particle shape and morphology. Geneva: ISO 2008, p. 23.
AC

[28] ASTM. ASTM F1877-16 Standard practice for characterization of particles. West
Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials International 2016, p. 15.
[29] Neimark AV, Koylu UO, Rosner DE. Extended characterization of combustion-generated
aggregates: self-affinity and lacunarities. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1996;180(2):590-7.
[30] Chakrabarty RK, Moosmuller H, Arnott WP, Garro MA, Slowik JG, Cross ES, et al.
Light scattering and absorption by fractal-like carbonaceous chain aggregates: comparison of
theories and experiment. Appl Opt. 2007;46(28):6990-7006.

38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[31] Koeylue U, Xing Y, Rosner DE. Fractal Morphology Analysis of Combustion-Generated


Aggregates Using Angular Light Scattering and Electron Microscope Images. Langmuir.
1995;11(12):4848-54.
[32] Bezot P, Hesse-Bezot C. Fractal structure of carbon black agglomerates. Carbon.
1998;36(4):467-9.
[33] Chakrabarty RK, Moosmuller H, Garro MA, Arnott WP, Walker J, Susott RA, et al.
Emissions from the laboratory combustion of wildland fuels: particle morphology and size. J

PT
Geophys Res, [Atmos]. 2006;111(D7):D07204/1-D/16.
[34] Ehrburger-Dolle F, Lahaye J, Misono S. Percolation in carbon black powders. Carbon.
1994;32(7):1363-8.

RI
[35] Ehrburger-Dolle F, Tence M. Determination of the fractal dimension of carbon black
aggregates. Carbon. 1990;28(2-3):448-52.
[36] Ferraro G, Fratini E, Rausa R, Fiaschi P, Baglioni P. Multiscale Characterization of Some

SC
Commercial Carbon Blacks and Diesel Engine Soot. Energy Fuels. 2016;30(11):9859-66.
[37] Lapuerta M, Ballesteros R, Martos FJ. A method to determine the fractal dimension of
diesel soot agglomerates. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2006;303(1):149-58.
[38] Li Q, Manas-Zloczower I, Feke DL. A simple methodology for the modeling of carbon

U
black aggregate structure. Rubber Chem Technol. 1996;69(1):8-14.
[39] Richter R, Sander LM, Cheng Z. Computer simulations of soot aggregation. J Colloid
AN
Interface Sci. 1984;100(1):203-9.
[40] Sachdeva K, Attri AK. Morphological characterization of carbonaceous aggregates in
soot and free fall aerosol samples. Atmos Environ. 2008;42(5):1025-34.
[41] Wozniak M, Onofri FRA, Barbosa S, Yon J, Mroczka J. Comparison of methods to
M

derive morphological parameters of multi-fractal samples of particle aggregates from TEM


images. J Aerosol Sci. 2012;47:12-26.
[42] Gwaze P, Schmid O, Annegarn HJ, Andreae MO, Huth J, Helas G. Comparison of three
D

methods of fractal analysis applied to soot aggregates from wood combustion. J Aerosol Sci.
2006;37(7):820-38.
TE

[43] Eggersdorfer ML, Kadau D, Herrmann HJ, Pratsinis SE. Aggregate morphology
evolution by sintering: Number and diameter of primary particles. J Aerosol Sci. 2012;46:7-19.
[44] Tian K, Thomson KA, Liu F, Snelling DR, Smallwood GJ, Wang D. Determination of
EP

the morphology of soot aggregates using the relative optical density method for the analysis of
TEM images. Combust Flame. 2006;144(4):782-91.
[45] Tian K, Liu F, Thomson KA, Snelling DR, Smallwood GJ, Wang D. Distribution of the
number of primary particles of soot aggregates in a nonpremixed laminar flame. Combust Flame.
C

2004;138:195-8.
[46] Shishido F, Hashiguchi H, Matsushita Y, Morozumi Y, Aoki H, Miura T. An
AC

investigation of primary particle growth and aggregate formation of soot using a numerical
model considering the sintering of primary particles. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu.
2007;33(4):306-14.
[47] Ono K, Yanaka M, Tanaka S, Saito Y, Aoki H, Fukuda O, et al. Influence of furnace
temperature and residence time on configurations of carbon black. Chem Eng J. 2012;200-
212:541-8.
[48] NIST. Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement
results: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 1994.

39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[49] NIST. Report of Investigation. Reference Material 8012. Gold nanoparticles, nominal 30
nm diameter. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2007 13
December 2007.
[50] Kestens V, Roebben G. Certification Report - The certification of equivalent diameters of
a mixture of silica nanoparticles in aqueous solution: ERM-FD102. Geel, Belgium: IRMM;
2014.
[51] ISO. ISO 9276-3 Representation of results of particle size analysis - Part 3: fitting of an

PT
experimental cumulative curve to a reference model. Geneva: ISO 2008.
[52] Kaye BH. Chaotic perspectives in powder technology: A review. Part Sci Technol.
2001;19(4):301-26.

RI
[53] Theiler J. Estimating fractal dimension. Journal of Optical Society of America A.
1990;7(6):1055-73.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lists of table and figure captions, CARBON-D-17-01878R2


Table caption
1 Typical values of iodine number, surface area, and oil adsorption measurements for
SRB8. Courtesy of Cabot Corporation1
2 Size and shape descriptor table based on ISO 9276-6 definitions [27]
3 Derived parameters reported by ASTM D3849-14 [2]

PT
4 Sample preparation for ASTM Reference Series 8 Sample B (SRB8)
5 Criteria for removing aggregates below the minimum area, labs L1-L4
6 Scale and width measurement uncertainties of descriptors across all data sets. Eq. 4 is
used to compute the coefficient of variation for each scale and width parameter,

RI
which is used to compute the measurement uncertainty using Eq. 5. Unimodal models
7 Measurement uncertainty of the affinity exponent
8 Comparison of affinity exponent and aspect ratios for different aggregate morphology

SC
categories; data of Lab L1
9 Measurement uncertainties of fractal prefactors and exponents (Eq. 3 with dp =
constant [45])

U
10 Measurement uncertainties of fractal prefactors and exponents of different aggregate
morphology categories
AN
Figures
1 Image of carbon black aggregates, SRB 8, with good contrast between particles and
background. Courtesy of Cabot Corporation
M

2 Each aggregate was sorted into a linear, branched, ellipsoidal, or spheroidal


morphology category using this workflow[46], which is based on ISO descriptor
definitions [27]
D

3 The lognormal distribution provides a good fit to the Feret data of Lab L1. Black
curve = smoothed data, blue curve = model parameters fitted using nonlinear
regression, red curve = model parameters fitted using maximum likelihood.
TE

4 Normal distribution fits to the aspect ratio data of Lab L1. Both fitted curves give
maximum density values near that of the data; however, the smoothed density data
(black curve) shows three possible peaks near its maximum. Blue curve = fitted
EP

parameters using nonlinear regression, red curve = fitted parameters using maximum
likelihood.
5 Normal distribution fits to the form factor data of Lab L1. The maxima of the fitted
models are shifted to higher values of form factor than the smoothed data (black
C

curve), which shows multiple possible peaks above and below its maximum value.
Blue curve = fitted parameters using nonlinear regression, red curve = fitted
AC

parameters using maximum likelihood.


6 The aggregate Feret distribution of Lab 1 assembled from its morphology category
distributions, which are not uniformly distributed across the data range. Red circles =
spheroidal, blue diamonds = ellipsoidal, green triangles = branched, orange bars =
linear, black curve = sum of all morphology categories.
7 The aggregate aspect ratio distribution of Lab 1 assembled from its morphology
category distributions. Linear aggregates have low aspect ratios while spheroidal

1
Jincheng Xiong, private communication
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

aggregates had high aspect ratios. Red circles = spheroidal, blue diamonds =
ellipsoidal, green triangles = branched, orange bars = linear, black curve = sum of all
morphology categories.
8 Aggregate form factor assembled from its morphology category distributions. Red
circles = spheroidal, blue diamonds = ellipsoidal, green triangles = branched, orange
bars = linear, black curve = sum of all component types. Lab L1.

PT
9 Affinity exponent plot (Eq. 2) for the data of Lab L1; solid line = model equation
with H = 0.895 ± 0.00098

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Properties Iodine Number NSA STSA COAN OAN Tint Strength

Units g/kg m2/g m2/g cm3/100g cm3/100g tint strength

ASTM Method D1510 D6556 D6556 D3493 D2414 D3265

SRB-8B 135.6 142.0 123.5 99.4 123.5 131.4

PT
Note 1: aggregate equivalent circular diameter ~ 54 nm

Note 2: nodule diameter ~ 18 nm

RI
Note 3: values in the 3rd row reflect the specific method for making the measurement,

SC
e.g., the specific surface area values (m2/g) differ because the methods differ.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Symbol Categorya Description / reference Equation


Size
A 2 Area of the particle
AC 2 Area of the convex hull
enclosing the particle
4∙
ECD 1 Equivalent circular diameter /
[28] =

PT
Feret 1 Maximum Feret diameter,
corresponds to the maximum

RI
length of parallel tangents
(particle length) / [28]
MinFeret 1 Minimum Feret diameter,

SC
corresponds to the minimum
length of parallel tangents
(particle breadth) / [28]
P 1 Length of the perimeter

U
Shape/elongation
Aspect ratio 1 Ratio of the minimum Feret
AN
diameter to the maximum Feret
diameter
4∙
Compactness 1 Degree to which the projection


M

area, A, of the particle is similar


to a circle, considering the
overall form of the particle with

4∙
D

the maximum Feret diameter


Roundness 2 Square of the compactness / [28]

TE

Extent 2 Ratio of the particle area to the


product of the Feret and ∙
minimum Feret diameters
EP

Shape/ruggedness
4∙ ∙
Circularity 1 Degree to which the projected
area of the particle is similar to a

4∙ ∙
circle, based on its perimeter
C

Form factor 2 Square of the circularity


AC

Solidity 2 Ratio of the projected area, A, to


the area of the particle’s convex
hull
a
– Category 1 = length or length ratios; Category 2 = area or area ratio
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Grand means Scale Standard Width Standard Cv , Cv , UILC UILC


table [exp(scale)] error error scale width scale width
Descriptor Reference size descriptors

PT
Model
Area, nm2 LRM 7.75 [2310] 0.154
1.044 0.0410 1.99% 3.92% 4.46% 8.77%
Perimeter, nm LRM 5.52 [249] 0.0859
0.696 0.0231 4.06% 12.8% 9.09% 28.7%

RI
Feret, nm LRM 4.39 [80.9] 0.0698
0.586 0.0170 1.59% 2.90% 3.55% 6.49%
minFeret, nm LRM 3.94 [51.5] 0.0777
0.570 0.0157 1.97% 2.76% 4.41% 6.18%

SC
ECD, nm LRM 3.97 [52.9] 0.0285
0.522 0.0205 0.72% 3.93% 1.60% 8.79%
elongational descriptors
Aspect ratio NRM 0.642 0.0076 0.133 0.0042 1.18% 3.19% 2.64% 7.14%

U
Compactness NRM 0.673 0.0098 0.0977 0.0064 1.45% 6.59% 3.24% 14.7%
ruggedness descriptors

AN
Form factor NRM 0.485 0.0496 0.212 0.0163 10.2% 7.67% 22.9% 17.1%
Solidity NRM 0.766 0.0218 0.112 0.0089 2.85% 7.94% 6.37% 17.8%
ASTM D3849-14a descriptors

M
dp, nm LRM 2.89 [18.1] 0.167 0.465 0.055 5.77% 12.2% 12.9% 27.3%
VP, nm3 LRM 8.03 [3077] 0.501 1.369 0.166 6.23% 12.2% 14.0% 27.3%
N LRM 2.87 [17.6] 0.391 1.695 0.070 13.6% 4.15% 30.5% 9.30%

D
LRM = lognormal reference model; NRM = normal reference model; CV = coefficient of variance, % (Eq. 4); UILC = measurement uncertainty, %

TE
(Eq. 5); [xx, nm] gives the exponential of the scale estimate for lognormal reference models.
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Shape Prefactor estimate Exponent estimate


morphology
ka UILC Df UILC
spheroidal 0.958 5.54% 1.49 0.57%
ellipsoidal 0.921 19.8% 1.41 3.08%

PT
branched 0.898 60.5% 1.34 12.8%
Linear 0.871 47.5% 1.30 4.08%

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

S-ar putea să vă placă și