Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Evolution of Gold Nanoparticles in Radiation Environments

Written By

Samuel A. Briggs and Khalid Hattar

Submitted: 18 May 2018 Reviewed: 18 July 2018 Published: 05 November 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.80366

From the Edited Volume

Gold Nanoparticles - Reaching New Heights

Edited by Mohammed Rahman and Abdullah Mohammed Asiri

Chapter metrics overview

1,310 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Gold nanoparticles are being explored for several applications in radiation environments, including uses in cancer radiotherapy treatments and advanced satellite or detector applications. In these applications, nanoparticle interactions with energetic neutrons, photons, and charged particles can cause structural damage ranging from single atom displacement events to bulk morphological changes. Due to the diminutive length scales and prodigious surface-to-volume ratios of gold nanoparticles, radiation damage effects are typically dominated by sputtering and surface interactions and can vary drastically from bulk behavior and classical models. Here, we report on contemporary experimental and computational modeling efforts that have contributed to the current understanding of how ionizing radiation environments affect the structure and properties of gold nanoparticles. The future potential for elucidating the active mechanisms in gold nanoparticles exposed to ionizing radiation and the subsequent ability to predictively model the radiation stability and ion beam modification parameters will be discussed.


  • radiation damage
  • gold nanoparticles
  • sputtering
  • radiation therapy
  • ion beam modification

1. Introduction

Ionizing radiation is known to have the ability to drastically alter material microstructure and performance primarily through the displacement of constituent atoms from their lattice sites, resulting in the generation of damage and point defects [1, 2]. These point defects tend to diffuse and coalesce into larger, ordered defect structures such as dislocation loops, cavities, and stacking faults, typically resulting in deleterious effects in structural materials such as radiation-induced hardening and embrittlement or void swelling [1, 2]. Irradiation can also cause solute redistribution in alloys and composite materials, encouraging the precipitation of secondary phases or promoting localized corrosion, which has been utilized in metal, ceramics, and polymers to provide added functionality not previously possible [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. The fundamental mechanisms of radiation damage and the subsequent effects on materials properties and performance have been and continue to be heavily studied in commonly used and candidate materials for nuclear reactor and extraterrestrial applications.

While the potential effects of ionizing radiation environments are not commonly considered when discussing nanoparticle performance, there are a subset of both current and potential future applications for gold nanoparticles that necessitate investigation and understanding of how their structure and properties change when exposed to energetic photons and particles. Radiation therapy is likely one of the most notable examples, in which gold nanoparticle injections in the vicinity of a tumor or conjugation to antibodies such that they preferentially bind to cancer cells have been shown to increase local radiation dose during X-ray irradiation through secondary photon interactions, thus lessening the absorbed dose in surrounding healthy tissue [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. A similar local dose enhancement effect has been shown for proton and heavy ion irradiation therapies, which are being pursued to further reduce dose to healthy tissue as a consequence of how energetic charged particles deposit a majority of their energy at the end of their range [14, 15, 16]. Furthermore, potential applications in satellites or space electronics would involve bombardment with high-energy cosmic radiation [17, 18].

The mechanism of radiation damage in materials with limited dimensions has been shown to be significantly different from bulk material behavior [19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. Due to the prodigious surface-to-volume ratio of nanoparticles compared to even thin films, they have emerged as an attractive material choice for many applications. However, this same surface-to-volume ratio results in sputtering and free surface effects ultimately dominating the radiation response [20, 21]. Put simply, instead of diffusing into organized defect structures, the generated point defects tend to annihilate at the particle surface, or material is ejected from the particle volume, as a result of the energetic collision [24, 25]. This can drastically alter the shape of individual particles and cause agglomeration of closely spaced particle groupings [26, 27, 28]. Such morphological changes have the potential to adversely affect their efficacy in applications where the high surface-to-volume ratio and local structure are essential for performance.

This chapter attempts to summarize the current body of work relating to interactions of ionizing radiation with gold nanoparticles. Broader reviews of the interaction of nanostructured materials can be found in the detailed reviews by A.V. Krasheninnikov and K. Nordlund titled “Ion and electron irradiation-induced effects in nanostructured materials” [21] and the more recent review by X. Zhang et al. titled “Radiation damage in nanostructured materials” [29]. As one might expect, the interactions of radiation with elemental gold is highly dependent on the species of the incident radiation. Both the length scales of interaction and energy transferred per interaction event can vary widely due to the energy, mass, and charge of incident radiation, as highlighted in Figures 1 and 2. As such, this chapter is organized according to the type of radiation environment a gold nanoparticle might encounter, and the subsequent sections highlight experimental studies of how the structure and properties of gold nanoparticles are altered by bombardment with specific types of energetic radiation. Section 2 discusses ionizing photon interactions, while Section 3 considers neutron environments. Sections 4–6 focus on different types of charged particle irradiation: beta particles (electrons/positrons), light ions (protons through alpha particles), and heavy ions. Section 6 also explores potential applications of ion beam modification in both freestanding and embedded gold nanoparticles from heavy ion bombardment. Finally, Section 7 discusses future experimental and modeling work needed to enhance our understanding of radiation effects in gold nanoparticles and speculates as to potential future applications combining gold nanoparticles with radiation environments.

Figure 1.

Illustration of the relative average interaction length scales for various types of radiation at an energy of 1 MeV incident on gold. Dotted lines indicate the mean free path of the incident particles. Positive and negative signs indicate ionization events, while blue highlighted areas denote displacement damage cascades.

Figure 2.

Plot showing the theoretical maximum fraction of incident particle energy transferred via a ballistic collision of various particle types with a gold atom.


2. Ionizing photon interaction with gold nanoparticles

The three primary interactions of photons with matter include the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production [30]. In a photoelectric event, a photon completely transfers its energy to an orbital electron, ejecting it from its shell and ionizing the atom. This is the dominant interaction mechanism for low-energy (E < ≈0.5 MeV) photons. In Compton scattering, an incident photon transfers a portion of its energy to an orbital electron, and both the electron and photon continue on, typically with different trajectories when compared to the incoming photon. This will be the dominant interaction mechanism for incident photons of intermediate energies (≈0.5 MeV < E < ≈2 MeV). Finally, pair production dominates for high-energy photons and can only occur for incident photons greater than 1.022 MeV. In pair production, a photon interacts with the electromagnetic field surrounding the atomic nucleus and is converted into an electron and a positron, with the total photon energy less the rest energy of the two particles (0.511 MeV each) being shared between them. It should be noted that for high photon energies (>≈8 MeV), photodisintegration can also occur, in which the incident photon causes the atom to emit one or more neutrons, potentially resulting in a radioactive isotope of gold [31].

Since incident photons interact primarily with the orbital electrons, the high atomic number (79) and density (19.32 g/cc) of gold significantly increase the likelihood of interaction compared to most other materials. The creation of secondary ionizing radiation through these photon interactions is the primary reason for the attractiveness of gold nanoparticles in radiation therapy applications [10]. Electrons and positrons resulting from the described interactions will lose their energy as Bremsstrahlung radiation (also known as braking radiation) as they slow down, and X-rays and Auger electrons will be produced as electrons shift from higher-energy orbitals to replace those ionized from lower-energy orbital positions. Furthermore, positrons generated from pair production will eventually annihilate with another electron, resulting in the generation of two 0.511 MeV photons. An illustration of these potential interaction mechanisms and resulting secondary radiation effects is shown inFigure 3 [10]. This secondary radiation will typically deposit its energy in the vicinity of the gold particles, which can be taken advantage of to increase dose to cancerous cells [10, 11].

Figure 3.

Schematic illustrating potential interactions of incident photons with a gold atom or other high-Z materials [10]. Source: AME Publishing Company. Republished with permission of Pioneer Bioscience Publishing Company, from D. Kwatra et al., Translational Cancer Research, 2(4), pp. 332, 2013; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Photon irradiation experiments involving gold nanoparticles are prevalent, as X-ray therapies for cancer treatment are a fairly common practice [32, 33, 34]. While these studies are predominantly focused on the biological effects in the vicinity of cancerous tissue, they highlight how photons interact with these high atomic number (high-Z) nanoparticles to deposit their energy locally. High-energy photons are also expected to cause Frenkel pair displacement damage (i.e., vacancy and interstitial defect pairs), primarily through the energetic electrons that they tend to generate. However, the effects of these displacement effects on the long-term stability of nanoparticle structures, if any, have not been studied to our knowledge.

In addition to understanding the role of radiation on the nanoparticle and the surrounding material, a few research groups have shown that gamma and other forms of ionizing photons can even be used to induce nucleation and growth of nanoparticles out of solution including far-from-equilibrium structures that might be difficult to obtain through other more classical chemical synthesis routes [35, 36]. Most studies and reviews of the response of gold nanoparticles to various stimuli limit themselves to ionizing radiation produced by photons [37]. To expand these previous reviews and studies, the remainder of this chapter will focus on neutron, beta, alpha, and heavier charged particle irradiation effects on gold nanoparticles.


3. Neutron interaction with gold nanoparticles

To understand the interactions that can possibly occur between an energetic neutron and a gold nanoparticle, one must first understand the well-studied interaction of a neutron and a gold atom. As gold is monoisotopic, Au-197 is assumed as a target for the purposes of gauging probable interactions. Thus, neutron interactions with gold atoms are dominated either by radiative capture (n,γ) reactions or by scattering. Capture reactions are most prevalent for thermal neutron spectra (E < 1 eV), though there is a notable resonance absorption peak for energies near 4.9 eV and several other resonances between 60 eV and 2 keV [38]. This absorption reaction coincides with emission of a gamma ray with an energy between 4.78 and 6.52 MeV [39] and results in an Au-198 nucleus that subsequently decays to stable Hg-198 via beta particle emission with an energy release of 1.37 MeV and a half-life of 2.7 days. The reaction can also potentially result in two metastable states of Au-198 that emit 312 and 811 keV gamma rays with half-lives of 124 ns and 2.3 days, respectively.

Scattering interactions are more common for higher energy neutron spectra. Due to the large difference in mass between neutrons and gold nuclei, neutrons undergoing elastic scattering interactions (i.e., ballistic collisions) only transfer approximately 1% of their energy to the nucleus [1]. Inelastic scattering interactions, though less common, can transfer significantly more energy, leaving the nucleus in an excited state that results in gamma ray production. With sufficiently energetic incident neutrons, both scattering mechanisms are capable of generating gold primary knock-on atoms (PKAs) and generating displacement damage in the material microstructure.

No evidence of experimental work investigating neutron effects on individual particle structure or morphology was found, likely due to the challenges associated with working with neutron beams or research reactors and the high fluences required to induce appreciable damage. The mean free path (average distance traveled before interaction) of a neutron is much higher than that of a charged particle due to the lack of Coulombic interaction (see Figure 2), such that a vast majority of neutrons incident on a gold nanoparticle are not expected to result in a damage event. However, local injection of gold nanoparticles has recently been shown to enhance the effectiveness of neutron radiation therapies [40].


4. Beta particle interaction with gold nanoparticles

Charged particles are common by-products of radioactive decay and nuclear reactions and are a primary component of cosmic radiation. Accelerators and ion beams are also common ion sources used in both research and industry. For example, ions are frequently used in radiation damage experiments to simulate material microstructures resulting from neutron radiation exposure in nuclear reactor environments primarily because it is much less costly and can achieve similar damaged microstructures in a fraction of the time [41]. Accelerators also have a slew of other potential applications ranging from materials analysis (e.g., electron microscopes, Rutherford backscattering) to ion beam modification.

Beta (electron or positron) radiation either incident on or produced in gold will primarily lose its energy via ionization and Bremsstrahlung radiation. As mentioned in the introduction, Bremsstrahlung radiation occurs due to electron acceleration from interaction with an atomic nucleus and results in the production of a photon of energy equal to the energy lost by the electron. This interaction is again Z-dependent and is quite common for high-Z materials like gold [42]. While displacement or knock-on damage resulting from electrons is commonly observed in transmission electron microscopy experiments [43], the significant difference in the masses of an electron and a gold nucleus requires electron energies in excess of 1.35 MeV to create a single Frenkel pair [44]. In many cases the role of the electron beam in altering the nanoparticle stability during these studies is not a result of interaction with the gold atoms itself, but with the organic capping ligands, as a result the stability of the gold nanoparticles to beta radiation is often dictated by the organic capping agent chosen [45]. One of the many examples of gold nanoparticle sintering due solely to electron beam effects can be seen in Figure 4 [68]. The details of the particle orientation, organic capping, support film, and electron beam condition will alter the sintering rate, particle reorientation, and possible grain boundary character formed during the sintering process. This area is well studied in the electron microscopy community and is not reviewed further in this chapter. Interested readers are referred to the newest edition of the classic Williams and Carter textbook, which contains significant additions discussing a range of electron beam effects [43].

Figure 4.

Bright-field TEM images of dodecanethiol-passivated gold nanoparticles with core diameter 4.8 nm (a) before and after focused 200 keV electron beam irradiation with a dose of (b) 7.1, (c) 16.4, (d) 33.7, (e) 73.7, and (f) 149.8 μC/μm2 [68]. Source: American Chemical Society. Reprinted with permission from Y. Chen et al., Langmuir, Vol. 22, pp. 2851, 2006. Copyright 2006 American Chemical Society.


5. Light ion interaction with gold nanoparticles

For the purpose of this chapter, light ions will be defined as energetic particles as light as proton or as heavy as helium ions (alpha particles). Alpha particles are common products of radioactive decay for actinides and other heavy radioactive isotopes, but, along with protons, deuterons, and tritons, they can also result from and induce a number of different nuclear reactions. For example, irradiation of Au-197 with protons with energies of 4.5 MeV or higher can cause a (p,n) reaction resulting in the production of metastable Hg-197m [46]. However, threshold energies of these reactions for gold are, in most cases, sufficiently high and reaction cross sections sufficiently low that these types of interactions rarely occur in practical applications. More often, light ions will interact via ionization and through Coulombic forces. Similar to the other types of interactions discussed, ionization has the potential to result in the emission of characteristic X-rays and other secondary radiations. Coulombic interactions with other atomic nuclei can tend to cause displacement damage, usually in the form of Frenkel pairs or small, isolated cascades.

Proton irradiation experiments have commonly been conducted in the context of increasing local dose for proton therapy-based applications [16, 47, 48]. Again, the primary mechanism for this dose enhancement comes from local energy deposition from ionization and secondary radiation that is produced. He irradiation experiments are not typically performed, but the effect can be assumed to be similar. Evidence of the effects of proton and He irradiation on individual gold nanoparticle structure is lacking in the literature.


6. Heavy ion interaction with gold nanoparticles

Energetic heavy ions, which will be defined as ions heavier than a helium atom, can result from recoil following a nuclear reaction, decay, or fission events, though sources relevant to gold nanoparticle applications will often likely come from particle accelerators. Initiation of nuclear reactions with heavy ion irradiation is improbable, and energy is typically deposited via ionization and Coulombic interaction similar to their less massive counterparts. The primary distinction is that, due to their size, heavy ions are capable of transferring much more energy to the gold atoms they interact with, resulting in large displacement damage cascades (see Figures 1 and 2). Cascade clustering, in which several point defects are formed as a result of a single interaction event and coalesce into larger and less mobile defect structures, results in a much more disordered microstructure and production of a smaller fraction of freely migrating defects. Complex interactions between these point- and multi-defect structures can significantly affect their stability and mobility [49]. As alluded to in the introduction, the effects of limited dimensions in the formation of surface cascades and sputtering in gold have been well known for over two decades [50]. At these limited dimensions, the effect of viscous flow during ballistic interactions is thought to have a significant role [50, 51]. These and many other size effects resulting from heavy ion irradiation in gold nanoparticles will be explored in greater detail in the following subsections.

6.1. Radiation stability of freestanding gold nanoparticles

In general, the response of nanostructured materials to radiation damage is still poorly understood [29]. Despite the limited understanding in the general field, freestanding gold nanoparticles (usually drop casted onto carbon or silicon nitride TEM grids) have been used as the model system for testing and validation of TEM with in-situ ion irradiation capabilities [52, 53, 54]. Expanding on the known enhanced sputtering rates observed in gold thin foils exposed to a range of noble gas ions [55], it was later shown by Ilinov et al. that gold nanorods irradiated with 80 keV Xe demonstrated sputtering rates with three orders of magnitude higher than predicted by classical sputtering simulations [27]. These results have been verified multiple times in various facilities around the world. A detailed qualitative example can be seen in Figure 5 [56]. By performing in-situ TEM experiments, individual nanoparticles, as well as the individual number of ion strikes on that particle, can be tracked for the duration of the experiment. This surprising set of results means that classical models and expectations no longer hold true when predicting the radiation response of gold nanoparticles.

Figure 5.

Changes to Au nanowire due to irradiation with 80 keV Xe ions. (a) Segmentation due to “necking” and breaking of nanowire at grain boundaries following irradiation to a fluence of 2.1 × 1014 cm−2, (b) nanorod at starting point for volume measurements—white arrow indicates projected direction of the ion beam which was incident at 60° to the specimen plane, (c) nanorod following irradiation to (additional) fluence of 1.6 × 1013 cm−2 (≈227 impacts on nanorod), (d) nanorod following irradiation to (additional) fluence of 5.5 × 1013 cm−2 (≈316 additional impacts on nanorod). All are bright-field TEM images and (e) plot of atom loss versus ion impacts for Au nanorod shown in panels (b)–(d) [56]. Source: American Physical Society. Reprinted figure with permission from G. Greaves et al., Physical Review Letters, Vol. 111, pp. 065504-1, 2013. Copyright 2013 by the American Physical Society .

These experimental results contradict the classic Monte Carlo-based simulations of sputtering effects [57]. A more catastrophic image of radiation damage in various sizes and morphologies of gold nanoparticles is predicted by molecular dynamic simulations of heavy ion irradiation [20, 26, 27, 56, 58]. An example of these types of simulations comparing the expected sputtering from a flat surface versus significantly increased sputtering from a nanoparticle can be seen in Figure 6 [58]. The recent work has correlated the in-situ TEM observation of nanorod evolution and sputtering with molecular dynamic simulations that provide greater insight into the role of local crystal orientation on the effects of individual ion strikes relative to the nanoparticle orientation [26, 56]. The sputtering of the nanoparticles has also been tied to sintering of clustered gold nanoparticles, which is not surprising due to the work imparted into such a small volume. This is best seen when the particles are examined via electron tomography, as can be seen in Figure 7 [28]. Despite the higher number of studies into the radiation stability of gold nanoparticles, few studies explore the effects of gold particle size and morphology or the myriad of irradiation environmental variables. One of the few systematic studies looked at the response of gold nanoparticles during self-ion irradiation. This study explored particles with average diameters of 5, 20, and 60 nm and altered the gold ion energy between 46 keV, 2.8 MeV, and 10 MeV [59]. It is very clear from the results presented in Figure 8 that the response and stability of nominally spherical gold nanoparticles are heavily dependent on the order of magnitude changes in particle diameter, as the diameter approaches that of the cascade volume. Another heavy ion irradiation effect that has been noted at an even higher energy regime (956 MeV Pb) is that the nanoparticles can be ejected or desorb from the surface as a result of ion irradiation [60]. The combination of the increased sputtering, sintering, ballistic destruction, and possible ejection demonstrates that the response of gold nanoparticles to heavy ion irradiation is far from that expected by classical theories and models based on bulk sample geometries. As such, significant further investigation is needed before any commercialization in displacement damage environments is considered.

Figure 6.

Perspective view of 16 keV Au impact on (a) plane surface and on (b) nanoparticle at time = 20 ps after impact. Color denotes the local temperature [58]. Source: Elsevier B.V. Reprinted from International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, Vol. 272, S. Zimmermann and H.M. Urbassek, “Sputtering of nanoparticles: Molecular dynamics study of Au impact on 20nm sized Au nanoparticles,” pp. 91-97, Copyright 2008, with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 7.

Source electron micrographs and discrete 4D electron tomograms of Au nanoparticles irradiated with 3 MeV Cu3+. (a, c, and e) Example micrographs from tilt series at increasing fluences up to ~1015 cm−2. (b, d, f) Corresponding 3-D tomogram reconstructions, rotated to a different angle from the source micrograph. Source:!divAbstract. The Royal Society of Chemistry. Reproduced from [28] with permission of The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Figure 8.

Effects of single 46 keV ions in gold nanoparticles of decreasing size. Note that the magnification is similar for all micrographs. Each pair of micrographs is separated by one frame, about 0.25 s here. (a–c) A single ion strike in a 60-nm nanoparticle created a surface crater, marked by the white arrow. (c) The difference image highlights the change between (a) and (b); features present only in (a) are dark, and newly formed features present only in (b) appear light. (d–f) A single ion creating a crater in a 20-nm nanoparticle. (f) The difference image and (g–i) ~5-nm teardrop-shaped nanoparticle was initially surrounded by a number of previously sputtered particles. (h) The nanoparticle exploded, leaving several particles nearby. (i) Difference image showing the locations of the old and new particles. The white arrow indicates a fragment from (h) that is difficult to see in (i) because it overlapped the original nanoparticle location. Source: Materials Research Society. Ref. [59], reproduced with permission.

6.2. Radiation stability of embedded gold nanoparticles

In addition to the work done on freestanding gold nanoparticles, there have been several studies exploring the response of heavy ion irradiation to particles embedded in a matrix. The most common matrix that has been used for these studies is amorphous SiOx, as it provides a stark contrast in composition, density, and properties to that of the gold nanoparticles. Similar to the observations in the freestanding nanoparticles, Rizza et al. [61, 62, 63] have shown that sputtering plays an important role in the evolution of the embedded particles. In addition to watching the size of the particles decrease, the matrix provides a medium that serves to slow down the travel of the sputtered gold resulting in a satellite structure of smaller gold nanoparticles surrounding the original. The example micrographs and size distributions of this transition from the original embedded nanoparticle through this satellite structure to the final clusters of smaller particles can be seen in Figure 9 [61]. The shape of the particles can also be altered depending on the irradiation condition. Mishra et al. showed that by irradiating gold nanoparticles embedded in SiOx with 120 MeV Au to a fluence of 3 × 1013 ions cm−2 with the ion beam tilted 45° off normal, elongated embedded nanoparticles can be formed, as seen in Figure 10 [64]. There are probably many more very unique far-from-equilibrium structures that can originate from embedded gold nanoparticles by varying environmental parameters during the ion irradiation. These structures can be further controlled by combining the radiation damage of the embedded particle with thermal diffusion to study classical Ostwald ripening and other diffusional steps [65, 66]. The evolution of these particles can be understood through a combination of rate theory and Monte Carlo modeling [63].

Figure 9.

(a–e) Bright-field TEM micrographs of the time sequence of an embedded nanoparticle evolution under 4 MeV Au irradiation at 300 K at increasing fluences up 8 × 1016 cm−2. (f–j) The corresponding size distributions of nanoparticle and resulting satellites [61]. Source: American Institute of Physics. Reprinted from G. Rizza et al., Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 101, pp. 014321, with the permission of AIP Publishing.

Figure 10.

(a) Cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy image of pristine film and (b) cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy image of an irradiated film at 45° beam incident normal with 120 MeV Au [64]. Source: American Institute of Physics. Reprinted from Y.K. Mishra et al., Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 91, pp. 063103, with the permission of AIP Publishing.

In addition to the embedding of gold nanoparticles in a ceramic matrix, an effort has also been made to explore the radiation response of polymer matrices embedded with gold and other heavy metal nanoparticles. It has been shown that such materials can serve as easily processible and portable radiation shields [67]. With further study developing on the concepts presented in these examples of ion irradiated embedded gold nanoparticles, a range of complex far-from-equilibrium structures can be envisioned with an even greater number of potential novel applications.


7. Future directions

Clearly, the response of both freestanding and embedded gold nanoparticles is drastically different than gold in bulk or thin-film morphologies and is highly dependent on the radiation environment, particle morphology, and surface conditions. Additional work is needed to elucidate the underlying physics governing the increased sputtering and other scaling effects observed in gold nanoparticles [26, 27, 56]. Without a detailed understanding of the mechanisms active when the displacement damage length scale of the radiation event approaches that of the size of the nanoparticle exposed, it will be challenging to employ gold nanoparticles in most radiation environments. If the significant enhancement of sputtering is inherent and cannot be overcome, then the application of gold nanoparticles subject to ionizing radiation may be limited to those environments that produce minimal dose or sputtering yields. Conversely, if properly understood and controlled, the enhanced sputtering yields may also open new fields of study and possible applications utilizing the rapid degradation or the satellite morphology in the irradiated embedded nanoparticles seen in Figure 8 [23, 61]. If not, the field may explore the response of other types of nanoparticles and nanostructured materials for inclusion in the next generation of devices that must withstand complex radiation environments. To be able to understand the effects of enhanced sputtering, systematic and thorough experimental and modeling efforts are needed along the lines of those presented in Figure 6 [59].


8. Conclusion

Predicting the response of nanostructured materials for radiation environments is a new and rapidly developing field that is still poorly understood. The exposure to a range of ionizing photon irradiation has already found application in medical radiation therapies and will continue to gain traction in the coming years. In contrast, much less has been done to study neutron and charged particle irradiation effects on gold nanoparticles. The initial studies that have been done to study the radiation response of gold nanoparticles to charged particle irradiation indicate that a significant enhancement of sputtering yield is present. This enhanced sputtering leads to the rapid disintegration of the original nanoparticle and the formation of unique satellite nanoscale arrangements. Further modeling and experimental efforts are needed prior to the trusted incorporation of gold nanoparticles into other radiation environments (medical, space, or nuclear) being considered.



The authors would like to thank Prof. Jonathan Hinks for his insightful discussion and Ms. Macy Vereb for her assistance with the manuscript. This work was performed, in part, at the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, an Office of Science User Facility operated for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-mission laboratory managed and operated by the National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the US DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA-0003525. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the US DOE or the US Government.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests or conflicts.


  1. 1. Was GS. Fundamentals of Radiation Materials Science. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2017
  2. 2. Rodriguez P, Krishnan R, Sundaram CV. Radiation effects in nuclear reactor materials—Correlation with structure. Bulletin of Materials Science. 1984;6(2):339-367
  3. 3. Busby JT, Was GS, Kenik EA. Isolating the effect of radiation-induced segregation in irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steels. Journal of Nuclear Materials. 2002;302:20-40
  4. 4. Jiao Z, Was GS. Novel features of radiation-induced segregation and radiation-induced precipitation in austenitic stainless steels. Acta Materialia. 2011;59(3):1220-1238
  5. 5. Was GS et al. Assessment of radiation-induced segregation mechanisms in austenitic and ferritic–martensitic alloys. Journal of Nuclear Materials. 2011;411(1-3):41-50
  6. 6. Mazzoldi P, Arnold GW. Ion Beam Modification of Insulators. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 1987
  7. 7. Lee EH. Ion-beam modification of polymeric materials—Fundamental principles and applications. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 1999;151(1-4):29-41
  8. 8. Dearnaley G. Ion beam modification of metals. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 1990;50(1-4):358-367
  9. 9. Ferrari M. Cancer nanotechnology: Opportunities and challenges. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2005;5:161-171
  10. 10. Kwatra D, Venugopal A, Anant S. Nanoparticles in radiation therapy: A summary of various approaches to enhance radiosensitization in cancer. Translational Cancer Research. 2013;2(4):330-342
  11. 11. Liu Y et al. Metal-based nanoenhancers for future radiotherapy: Radiosensitizing and synergistic effects on tumor cells. Theranostics. 2018;8(7):1824-1849
  12. 12. Rahman WN et al. Enhancement of radiation effects by gold nanoparticles for superficial radiation therapy. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2009;5(2):136-142
  13. 13. Stathakis S. The physics of radiation therapy. Medical Physics. 2010;37(3):1374-1375
  14. 14. Kim JK et al. Therapeutic application of metallic nanoparticles combined with particle-induced X-ray emission effect. Nanotechnology. 2010;21(42):425102
  15. 15. Lin Y et al. Biological modeling of gold nanoparticle enhanced radiotherapy for proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60(10):4149-4168
  16. 16. Polf JC et al. Enhanced relative biological effectiveness of proton radiotherapy in tumor cells with internalized gold nanoparticles. Applied Physics Letters. 2011;98(19):193702
  17. 17. Holmes-Siedle A, Adams L. Handbook of Radiation Effects. New York, NY (United States): Oxford University Press Inc; 1993
  18. 18. Ma T-P, Dressendorfer PV. Ionizing Radiation Effects in MOS Devices and Circuits. New York, NY (United States): Wiley-Interscience; 1989
  19. 19. Järvi TT et al. Damage production in nanoparticles under light ion irradiation. Physical Review B. 2009;80(13):132101-1-132101-4
  20. 20. Järvi TT, Nordlund K. Sputtering of freestanding metal nanocrystals. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2012;272:66-69
  21. 21. Krasheninnikov AV, Nordlund K. Ion and electron irradiation-induced effects in nanostructured materials. Journal of Applied Physics. 2010;107(7):071301-1-071301-70
  22. 22. Li J et al. In situ heavy ion irradiation studies of nanopore shrinkage and enhanced radiation tolerance of nanoporous Au. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:39484
  23. 23. Knystautas E. Engineering Thin Films and Nanostructures with Ion Beams. Boca Raton, FL (United States): CRC Press; 2005
  24. 24. Hoppe SM et al. Application of in-situ ion irradiation TEM and 4D tomography to advanced scintillator materials. In: SPIE 8509, Penetrating Radiation Systems and Applications XIII, 85090F; 19 October 2012
  25. 25. Donnelly S, Birtcher R. Heavy ion cratering of gold. Physical Review B. 1997;56(21):13599
  26. 26. Hinks JA et al. Effects of crystallographic and geometric orientation on ion beam sputtering of gold nanorods. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):512
  27. 27. Ilinov A et al. Sputtering yields exceeding 1000 by 80 keV Xe irradiation of Au nanorods. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2014;341:17-21
  28. 28. Bufford DC et al. In situ TEM ion irradiation and implantation effects on Au nanoparticle morphologies. Chemical Communications. 2014;50(57):7593-7596
  29. 29. Zhang X et al. Radiation damage in nanostructured materials. Progress in Materials Science. 2018;96:217-321
  30. 30. Martin JE. Physics for Radiation Protection. Weinheim, Germany: WILEY-VCH; 2006
  31. 31. Ermakov AN et al. Multineutron photodisintegration of the Au-197 nucleus behind the giant dipole resonance. Physics of Atomic Nuclei. 2008;71:397
  32. 32. Hainfeld JF, Slatkin DN, Smilowitz HM. The use of gold nanoparticles to enhance radiotherapy in mice. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2004;49(18):N309-N315
  33. 33. Mesbahi A. A review on gold nanoparticles radiosensitization effect in radiation therapy of cancer. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy. 2010;15(6):176-180
  34. 34. Shrestha S et al. Gold nanoparticles for radiation enhancement in vivo. Jacobs Journal of Radiation Oncology. 2016;3(1):026
  35. 35. Gachard E et al. Radiation-induced and chemical formation of gold clusters. New Journal of Chemistry. 1998;22(11):1257-1265
  36. 36. Nenoff TM et al. Radiological control of gold octahedral and prism nanoparticles. MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive. 2007;1056:1056-HH02-07
  37. 37. Daniel M-C, Astruc D. Gold nanoparticles: Assembly, supramolecular chemistry, quantum-size-related properties, and applications toward biology, catalysis, and nanotechnology. Chemical Reviews. 2004;104(1):293-346
  38. 38. Chadwick MB et al. ENDF/B-VII.1: Nuclear data for science and technology: Cross sections, covariances, fission product yields and decay data. Nuclear Data Sheets. 2011;112:2887
  39. 39. Wasson OA et al. Au197(n,γ)Au198 reaction mechanism. Physical Review. 1968;173(4):1170-1184
  40. 40. Kim EH et al. Gold nanoparticles as a potent radiosensitizer in neutron therapy. Oncotarget. 2017;8(68):112390-112400
  41. 41. Was GS et al. Emulation of reactor irradiation damage using ion beams. Scripta Materialia. 2014;88:33-36
  42. 42. Hippler R et al. Z dependence of bremsstrahlung radiation from free atoms. Physical Review Letters. 1981;46(25):1622-1625
  43. 43. Williams DB, Carter CB. Transmission Electron Microscopy: A Textbook for Materials Science. New York: Springer; 2009
  44. 44. Bauer W, Sosin A. Point defect studies in gold by electron irradiation at low temperatures. I. Threshold displacement energy and displacement cross section. Physical Review. 1964;135(2A):A521-A526
  45. 45. Egerton R, Li P, Malac M. Radiation damage in the TEM and SEM. Micron. 2004;35(6):399-409
  46. 46. Elmaghraby EK et al. Production of the mercury-197 through proton induced reaction on gold. Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 2010;68(9):1694-1698
  47. 47. Kwon J et al. Dose distribution of electrons from gold nanoparticles by proton beam irradiation. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 2015;04(01):49-53
  48. 48. Li S et al. LET-dependent radiosensitization effects of gold nanoparticles for proton irradiation. Nanotechnology. 2016;27(45):455101
  49. 49. Han W et al. Design of radiation tolerant materials via interface engineering. Advanced Materials. 2013;25(48):6975-6979
  50. 50. Birtcher RC, Donnelly SE. Plastic flow induced by single ion impacts on gold. Physical Review Letters. 1996;77(21):4374-4377
  51. 51. Ghaly M, Averback RS. Effect of viscous flow on ion damage near solid surfaces. Physical Review Letters. 1994;72(3):364-367
  52. 52. Hinks J. A review of transmission electron microscopes with in situ ion irradiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2009;267(23-24):3652-3662
  53. 53. Hinks JA. Transmission electron microscopy with in situ ion irradiation. Journal of Materials Research. 2015;30(9):1214-1221
  54. 54. Hattar K, Bufford DC, Buller DL. Concurrent in situ ion irradiation transmission electron microscope. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2014;338:56-65
  55. 55. Birtcher RC, Donnelly SE, Schlutig S. Nanoparticle ejection from gold during ion irradiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2004;215(1-2):69-75
  56. 56. Greaves G et al. Enhanced sputtering yields from single-ion impacts on gold nanorods. Physical Review Letters. 2013;111(6):065504
  57. 57. Ziegler JF, Ziegler MD, Biersack JP. SRIM—The stopping and range of ions in matter (2010). Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2010;268(11-12):1818-1823
  58. 58. Zimmermann S, Urbassek HM. Sputtering of nanoparticles: Molecular dynamics study of Au impact on 20 nm sized Au nanoparticles. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry. 2008;272(1):91-97
  59. 59. Bufford DC, Hattar K. Physical response of gold nanoparticles to single self-ion bombardment. Journal of Materials Research. 2014;29(20):2387-2397
  60. 60. Baranov I et al. Desorption of gold nanoclusters (2-150 nm) by 1 GeV Pb ions. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2005;230(1-4):495-501
  61. 61. Rizza G et al. Ion beam irradiation of embedded nanoparticles: Toward an in situ control of size and spatial distribution. Journal of Applied Physics. 2007;101(1):014321-1-014321-7
  62. 62. Rizza G et al. Chemically synthesized gold nanoparticles embedded in a SiO2 matrix: A model system to give insights into nucleation and growth under irradiation. Physical Review B. 2007;76(24):245414
  63. 63. Rizza G et al. Ion irradiation of gold inclusions in SiO2: Experimental evidence for inverse Ostwald ripening. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2001;178(1-4):78-83
  64. 64. Mishra YK et al. Synthesis of elongated Au nanoparticles in silica matrix by ion irradiation. Applied Physics Letters. 2007;91(6):063103-1-063103-3
  65. 65. Ramjauny Y et al. Controlling the size distribution of embedded Au nanoparticles using ion irradiation. Journal of Applied Physics. 2010;107(10):104303-1-104303-8
  66. 66. Pivin J et al. Diffusion process of metals in silica during ion irradiation. EPL (Europhysics Letters). 1997;39(6):623
  67. 67. Nambiar S, Yeow JT. Polymer-composite materials for radiation protection. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. 2012;4(11):5717-5726
  68. 68. Chen Y, Palmer RE, Wilcoxon JP. Sintering of passivated gold nanoparticles under the electron beam. Langmuir. 2006;22(6):2851-2855

Written By

Samuel A. Briggs and Khalid Hattar

Submitted: 18 May 2018 Reviewed: 18 July 2018 Published: 05 November 2018