Dynamic Light Scattering & Zeta Potential

 

Download WhitePaper PDF

Video Tutorial 

1.0 Introduction: The Paradox of Simplicity in Nanoparticle Analysis

Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) and Zeta Potential (ZP) have become ubiquitous, table-top techniques for characterizing nanoparticles in fields like nanomedicine and drug delivery. Their widespread adoption is largely due to their apparent simplicity: instruments are affordable and compact, offer user-friendly interfaces, require minimal sample preparation, and are non-invasive. However, this deceptive accessibility masks insidious complexities that can invalidate entire datasets. This white paper provides a critical evaluation of these techniques, moving beyond a basic recitation of principles to address common pitfalls in experimental design and data interpretation. The goal is to equip researchers with the nuanced understanding required to generate rigorous, reproducible, and translationally valuable data.

The core challenge faced by many researchers is that DLS and ZP have their origins in the specialized field of physical colloid chemistry. Yet, they are now routinely applied by scientists in biology and pharmacy who may lack a deep, formal training in their theoretical foundations and limitations. Dispersions of nanoparticles are complex, two-phase colloidal systems where particles are in constant Brownian motion, and charged surfaces interact with surrounding ions to form adsorbed layers. DLS and ZP are designed to probe these specific properties, but their outputs are only as reliable as the inputs and the interpretive framework applied to them.

The appeal of these techniques is undeniable. They offer a rapid means to ascertain the hydrodynamic size and an indication of the surface charge of nanoparticles, both of which are critical parameters influencing biological effects from cellular uptake to toxicity. Modern instruments further enhance this appeal by guiding users on data quality and providing seamless data export capabilities.

Nevertheless, without a critical eye, the simplicity of operation can lead to the generation of misleading data. A nuanced understanding of what these techniques measure—the hydrodynamic radius and the electrokinetic potential at the slipping plane—and, just as importantly, what they do not measure, is paramount. This document will deconstruct the core principles, assumptions, and critical variables of DLS and ZP to foster a more responsible and effective approach to nanoparticle characterization.

2.0 Deconstructing Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS): Beyond the Z-Average

Dynamic Light Scattering is strategically indispensable for nanoparticle sizing, providing a first-pass assessment of a formulation's average size and heterogeneity. However, its primary output is the hydrodynamic radius (Rₕ), a measure of how a particle diffuses in a fluid, not its physical or "core" size. This distinction is fundamental to correct data interpretation and highlights that DLS "sees" the particle as a composite of its core material plus any associated surface layers, such as adsorbed polymers or hydrated ions.

Core Principles and Inherent Assumptions

The foundational principle of DLS is the measurement of the translational diffusion coefficient (Dₜ) of particles undergoing random Brownian motion in a liquid. A laser illuminates the sample, and as particles diffuse, they cause constructive and destructive interference in the scattered light. A detector measures the resulting rapid fluctuations in scattered light intensity over time. An autocorrelation function is then generated from this fluctuating signal, which describes how quickly the signal is changing. Smaller particles diffuse more rapidly, causing faster signal fluctuations, while larger particles diffuse more slowly, leading to slower fluctuations.

This relationship is mathematically defined by the Stokes-Einstein equation, which is used to calculate the hydrodynamic radius (Rₕ) from the measured diffusion coefficient (Dₜ):

Dₜ = k₈T / 6πηRₕ

Here, k₈ is the Boltzmann constant, T is the absolute temperature, and η is the absolute viscosity of the dispersant. The equation's validity rests on the crucial assumption that the particles being measured are solid, non-interacting spheres diffusing in a continuous medium.

The link between the raw intensity fluctuations and the diffusion coefficient is the scattering vector (q). This vector is defined by the experimental setup:

q = (4πn₀ / λ₀) * sin(θ/2)

where n₀ is the refractive index of the solvent, λ₀ is the laser wavelength, and θ is the scattering angle. This equation provides the physical reason for the two scattering regimes: for very small particles, the scattering intensity is largely independent of q (and thus θ), but for larger particles, the intensity becomes strongly dependent on the measurement angle.

The nature of the light scattering itself is also size-dependent. The interaction between the incident laser and the nanoparticles falls into two main regimes:

• Rayleigh Scattering: Occurs when the particle size is less than approximately one-tenth of the laser's wavelength (λ/10). The scattering is elastic (no energy loss) and isotropic, meaning it is not dependent on the measurement angle.
• Mie Scattering: Occurs when the particle size exceeds λ/10. The scattering becomes inelastic and anisotropic, meaning it is highly dependent on the measurement angle, with the most intense scattering occurring in the forward direction.

The hydrodynamic radius (Rₕ) is therefore defined as the radius of a hypothetical hard sphere that diffuses at the same speed as the particle being measured. This means DLS measures the entire diffusing entity—the particle core plus any hydrated or solvated layers on its surface, including the "protein corona" that forms in biological fluids.

Critical Factors Influencing DLS Results

The accuracy of DLS data is exquisitely sensitive to a range of experimental parameters that must be controlled and reported. Mismanagement of these factors is a common source of erroneous and irreproducible results.

The Overlooked Importance of the Dispersant

One of the most critical and frequently overlooked sources of error is the incorrect input of dispersant properties into the instrument's software. The Stokes-Einstein equation relies directly on the viscosity (η) of the medium. For larger particles subject to Mie scattering, the refractive index (RI) of the dispersant and the material also become crucial for accurate calculations. As illustrated in the table below, analyzing the exact same sample of ~100 nm latex beads but instructing the software to use parameters for different dispersants yields dramatically different and incorrect results. This demonstrates that using default "water" settings for complex buffers or formulations is a primary cause of inaccurate data.

Solvent	Viscosity (cP)	Refractive Index (RI)	Reported z-average (nm)	PDI
40% sucrose	5.1178	1.4	15	0.008
Water	0.8872	1.33	87	0.009
Methanol	0.5476	1.326	122	0.011
Toluene	0.5564	1.496	153	0.005
Illustration of erroneous DLS data generated from a single sample of ~100 nm latex beads in water. The dramatic variation in reported z-average (15 nm to 153 nm) is caused solely by selecting incorrect dispersant parameters (viscosity and RI) in the analysis software, highlighting a critical and common source of experimental error. Data from Bhattacharjee (2016), Figure 5.

Other Crucial Experimental Factors

• Sample Concentration: This presents a dual challenge. If the concentration is too high, it can lead to multi-scattering, where light scattered from one particle is then scattered by another before reaching the detector. This artificially accelerates the signal decay, leading to an underestimation of particle size. Conversely, if the sample is too dilute, it may not generate a sufficient scattered light signal, resulting in a poor signal-to-noise ratio and unreliable data.
• Agglomeration: Because the intensity of scattered light is proportional to the sixth power of the particle radius (I ∝ r⁶), the DLS signal is overwhelmingly dominated by larger particles. The presence of even a small fraction of large agglomerates or dust can completely mask the signal from the primary nanoparticle population, leading to an incorrectly large average size and a high Polydispersity Index (PDI).
• Particle Shape: DLS assumes spherical particles. For non-spherical particles like nanotubes or nanorods, the technique provides the Rₕ of an "equivalent sphere"—a sphere that diffuses at the same rate. This value does not directly correspond to the actual dimensions (e.g., length and diameter) of the particle.
• Sample Preparation: The choice of dispersant is critical. Using deionized (DI) water is often not recommended because the lack of ions fails to shield long-range electrostatic interactions between particles, which can result in an apparent size that is 2-10 nm larger than the actual size. Sonication can help break up agglomerates but requires caution, as it can denature proteins or damage delicate nanoparticle structures.

Data Interpretation: Navigating the Outputs

DLS instruments typically employ two different mathematical algorithms to analyze the autocorrelation function and extract size information.

Algorithm	Description & Output	Best Use Case	Key Limitation
Cumulant Method	Fits a single exponential to the initial part of the autocorrelation function. Provides a single z-average size and a Polydispersity Index (PDI).	Best for monodisperse samples (PDI ≤ 0.1).	Can be misleading for heterogeneous or polydisperse samples, as it provides only a single average value.
CONTIN Algorithm	Fits the correlation function over a longer period. Provides a size distribution analysis with peaks for different populations.	Preferred for polydisperse and heterogeneous samples.	More sensitive to noise in the data compared to the cumulant method.

A common point of confusion is how to report the size distribution: by Intensity, Volume, or Number. DLS is fundamentally an intensity-based technique. The intensity distribution is the only direct measurement derived from the raw scattered light signal. Volume and number distributions are mathematical derivations that, due to the r⁶ relationship, amplify noise and modeling inaccuracies. They must be relegated to supplementary status, never presented as the primary result. The z-average and the intensity-weighted distribution are the most robust and defensible outputs from a DLS experiment.

In summary, DLS is highly sensitive to both experimental parameters and data analysis choices, which necessitates a similarly critical approach to interpreting surface charge via Zeta Potential.

3.0 Interrogating Zeta Potential (ZP): A Proxy for Stability, Not a Measure of Charge

Zeta Potential is defined as the electrokinetic potential at the slipping plane of a particle that is moving under the influence of an applied electric field. Its strategic importance in nanomedicine lies in its use as a key indicator of the stability of a colloidal dispersion against aggregation. A high magnitude ZP (either positive or negative) generally implies strong electrostatic repulsion between particles, which helps them remain dispersed. However, ZP is one of the most frequently misinterpreted parameters, often incorrectly conflated with surface charge and applied as an absolute rule for stability.

Fundamental Principles

To understand ZP, one must first understand the Electric Double Layer (EDL) that forms around a charged particle suspended in a liquid. This layer has two parts:

1. The Stern Layer: An inner layer of ions from the dispersant that are oppositely charged to the particle surface and are strongly bound to it.
2. The Diffuse Layer: An outer layer containing a mix of ions that are more loosely associated with the particle and extend out into the bulk dispersant.

When an electric field is applied (a process called electrophoresis), the charged particle and a portion of its tightly bound EDL move towards the oppositely charged electrode. The boundary that separates this mobile unit from the stationary bulk dispersant is known as the slipping plane. Zeta Potential is the electric potential at this specific plane, not the potential at the particle's true surface, which is known as the Nernst potential and cannot be measured directly.

ZP is not measured directly. Instead, instruments measure the velocity of the particles in an electric field to determine their electrophoretic mobility (μₑ). The ZP is then calculated from this mobility using Henry's equation. For most aqueous pharmaceutical preparations with moderate salt concentrations, the relevant simplification of this equation is the Helmholtz-Smoluchowski (HS) equation.

Debunking Common Misconceptions

The utility of ZP is often undermined by two pervasive misconceptions that can lead to flawed conclusions about nanoparticle behavior.

ZP is Not Surface Charge

A critical mistake is to use ZP to quantify or directly compare the surface charge density of different nanoformulations. ZP is a measure of surface potential at the slipping plane, a value that is influenced not only by the particle's intrinsic charge but by the properties of the entire system. Factors such as pH can dramatically alter the ZP value, even causing it to switch from positive to negative, by changing the protonation state of surface groups. The nature of the dispersant itself is paramount. For example, silica nanoparticles (εr = 3.9) are negatively charged when dispersed in water (εr = 80) but become positively charged when dispersed in benzene (εr = 2.27), demonstrating that the measured potential is a property of the entire system, not an intrinsic property of the particle alone. ZP provides an indication of the nature of the surface charge but must not be reported as a direct measurement of charge itself.

The ±30 mV Rule is a Guideline, Not a Law

It is common practice in the literature to classify dispersions based on ZP, with values greater than ±30 mV often cited as indicative of "high stability." While this can be a useful starting point, it is a guideline, not an immutable law. According to the widely accepted DLVO theory, colloidal stability is determined by the net balance between two primary forces: electrostatic repulsive forces (which ZP indicates) and van der Waals attractive forces (on which ZP provides no information).

In cases where the van der Waals attractive forces are inherently weak, a low ZP may still be sufficient to maintain stability. For instance, some materials like colloidal silica are known to be stable at very low ZP values. Furthermore, this guideline completely ignores steric stabilization, where polymers like polyethylene glycol (PEG) are attached to the nanoparticle surface. These polymer chains create a physical barrier that prevents particles from aggregating, ensuring stability even if the ZP is near zero.

Factors That Redefine ZP Measurements

The measured ZP value is not an intrinsic property of the nanoparticle alone but is highly dependent on the surrounding environment.

• pH: In aqueous systems, pH is arguably the most influential parameter. It alters the charge of surface functional groups and thus the ZP. A titration of ZP against pH can be used to determine the isoelectric point—the pH at which the ZP is zero and the colloidal system is least stable.
• Ionic Strength: Increasing the concentration of ions in the dispersant causes the EDL to become more compressed. This is mechanistically explained by the Debye-Hückel parameter (κ), which increases with ionic strength. The thickness of the diffuse layer, known as the Debye length, is the reciprocal of κ (1/κ). As ionic strength increases, κ increases, the Debye length decreases, and the EDL is compressed. This compression shifts the slipping plane closer to the particle surface, directly causing a decrease in the magnitude of the measured ZP.
• Ion Valency: Ions with a higher valency are more effective at compressing the EDL. For example, divalent ions like Ca²⁺ will reduce the ZP magnitude more significantly at the same molar concentration than monovalent ions like Na⁺.

The complexities of both DLS and ZP are amplified exponentially when moving from simple, well-defined buffers to the chaotic environment of biologically relevant media.

4.0 The Critical Challenge: Characterization in Physiologically Relevant Media

There is a strategic imperative to characterize nanoparticles under conditions that mimic their intended biological environment, such as blood plasma or cell culture medium. Data generated in simple aqueous buffers often have poor predictive power for in vivo behavior, as the physiological milieu introduces a host of confounding factors that fundamentally alter a nanoparticle's physical and chemical identity. Performing measurements in these complex media, however, presents significant analytical challenges for both DLS and ZP.

The Impact of the Protein Corona

Upon introduction into a biological fluid, proteins and other biomolecules rapidly adsorb onto the nanoparticle surface, forming a dynamic coating known as the "protein corona." This corona effectively becomes the new biological identity of the nanoparticle, mediating all subsequent interactions with cells and tissues.

The protein corona is typically described as having two components:

1. The "Hard Corona": An inner, stable layer composed of tightly bound, high-affinity proteins that forms over minutes to hours.
2. The "Soft Corona": An outer, more dynamic layer of loosely bound, low-affinity proteins that are in rapid exchange with the surrounding medium.

The formation of this corona has profound consequences for DLS and ZP measurements and, more importantly, for nanoparticle function.

• For DLS: The corona adds a layer several nanometers thick, dramatically increasing the particle's hydrodynamic radius (Rₕ). This size is not static; it can change over time as different proteins with varying affinities compete for binding sites on the surface.
• For ZP: The adsorbed protein layer completely masks the nanoparticle's original surface charge, creating a new surface with a ZP value determined by the charge of the corona proteins. This fundamentally alters the particle's electrostatic properties and its interactions with cell membranes.
• For Functionality: The corona can critically impair a nanoparticle's intended function. In a landmark study by Salvati et al. (2013), it was demonstrated that a protein corona that formed on transferrin-functionalized nanoparticles completely eliminated their receptor-targeting capabilities, as the targeting ligands were buried beneath the adsorbed protein layer.

Measurement Pitfalls in High-Conductivity Media

Performing DLS and ZP measurements in standard cell culture media is fraught with technical difficulties that can easily lead to artifacts and invalid data.

• For DLS, two primary issues arise. First, colored components like the phenol red pH indicator can absorb the instrument's laser, weakening the scattered light signal and interfering with the measurement. Second, proteins present in serum-containing media (e.g., FCS) can form small nano-agglomerates on their own, which can be misinterpreted by the instrument as a population of nanoparticles, creating aberrant readings.
• For ZP, the main challenge is the high ionic content of cell culture media, which results in high electrical conductivity. When a voltage is applied during the measurement, this high conductivity can generate significant heat (Joule heating), potentially degrading the sample or the instrument's electrodes and rendering the measurement unstable and unreliable.

Measurements in these complex environments are undeniably challenging, yet they are essential for understanding how a nanoparticle will truly behave in a biological system. This necessity underscores the need for rigorous experimental protocols and a clear framework for reporting data.

5.0 Conclusion: A Framework for Rigorous and Responsible Characterization

This evaluation has demonstrated that while Dynamic Light Scattering and Zeta Potential are powerful and accessible tools, their apparent simplicity is deceptive. They are highly sensitive to experimental conditions, prone to misinterpretation, and, when used in isolation, are insufficient to fully predict the in vivo fate and efficacy of nanoformulations. Their true value is realized not when they are treated as standalone answers, but when they are used as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal characterization strategy guided by a deep understanding of their inherent limitations.

Best Practices for Reporting Data

There is an urgent need for improved and standardized reporting of DLS and ZP data in the drug delivery literature to ensure reproducibility and allow for meaningful comparison between studies. Adherence to established guidelines, such as those published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), must be considered a minimum standard for publication. This includes reporting:

• Mean z-average diameter and mean PDI with standard deviations and the number of replicate measurements.
• The size distribution algorithm used (e.g., Cumulant, CONTIN) along with any key parameter values.
• Full sample details: This must include particle concentration, the precise composition of the dispersion medium, and the viscosity and refractive index values used for both the particles and the medium in the analysis.
• Full instrument details: This includes the instrument make and model, measurement temperature, scattering angle(s), and laser wavelength.

Situating DLS and ZP in a Multi-Modal Approach

To generate a complete and reliable picture of a nanoparticle formulation, DLS and ZP data must always be corroborated by orthogonal techniques that measure different physical properties. Relying on a single method can lead to an incomplete or biased understanding.

Technique	Measurement Basis	Key Advantage over DLS	Key Disadvantage
TEM	Electron transmission (dry sample)	Provides direct visualization of particle shape and "core" size.	Analyzes a very small number of particles; requires ultrahigh vacuum.
NTA®	Tracks individual particle movement	Offers better resolution for polydisperse samples.	More complex sample preparation; less effective for particles <30 nm.
DCS	Sedimentation rate (density-based)	Provides excellent peak resolution (~2%) for size separation.	Cannot distinguish particles of different structures if density is the same.

By acknowledging the limitations of DLS and ZP, adhering to rigorous experimental and reporting protocols, and integrating these techniques into a broader analytical framework, the scientific community can leverage their strengths more effectively. This critical approach will help to accelerate, rather than misdirect, the development of nanomedicines that are both safe and effective, ultimately enhancing their translational impact.

References:

[1] L. Treuel, K.A. Eslahian, D. Docter, T. Lang, R. Zellner, K. Nienhaus, G.U. Nienhaus,

R.H. Stauber, M. Maskos, Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles and

their behavior in the biological environment, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16 (2014)

15053–15067.

[2] A. Akbarzadeh, M. Samiei, S. Davaran, Magnetic nanoparticles: preparation, physical

properties, and applications in biomedicine, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 144.

[3] S. Bhattacharjee, D. Ershov, K. Fytianos, J. van der Gucht, G.M. Alink, I.M. Rietjens,

A.T. Marcelis, H. Zuilhof, Cytotoxicity and cellular uptake of tri-block copolymer

nanoparticles with different size and surface characteristics, Part. Fibre Toxicol. 9

(2012) 11.

[4] S. Bhattacharjee, L.H. de Haan, N.M. Evers, X. Jiang, A.T. Marcelis, H. Zuilhof, I.M.

Rietjens, G.M. Alink, Role of surface charge and oxidative stress in cytotoxicity of

organic monolayer-coated silicon nanoparticles towards macrophage NR8383

cells, Part. Fibre Toxicol. 7 (2010) 25.

[5] P.M. Favi, M. Gao, L. Johana Sepúlveda Arango, S.P. Ospina, M. Morales, J.J. Pavon,

T.J. Webster, Shape and surface effects on the cytotoxicity of nanoparticles: gold

nanospheres versus gold nanostars, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 103 (2015)

3449–3462.