4.8 Article

Competition of Charge and Energy Transfer Processes in Donor-Acceptor Fluorescence Pairs: Calibrating the Spectroscopic Ruler

Journal

ACS NANO
Volume 12, Issue 6, Pages 5657-5665

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.8b01451

Keywords

energy transfer; nanocrystals; FRET; cross-talk; bleed through

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-1465052, CHE-1508501]
  2. Welch Foundation [U-0047]
  3. Asahi-Kasei Corp
  4. Division Of Chemistry [1465052, 1508501] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sensing strategies utilizing Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) are widely used for probing biological phenomena. FRET sensitivity to the donor acceptor distance makes it ideal for measuring the concentration of a known analyte or determining the spatial separation between fluorescent labels in a macro molecular assembly. The difficulty lies in extracting the FRET efficiency from the acceptor-induced quenching of the donor emission, which may contain a significant non FRET contribution. Here, we demonstrate a general spectroscopic approach for differentiating between charge transfer and energy transfer (ET) processes in donor-acceptor assemblies and apply the developed method for unravelling the FRET/non-FRET contributions in cyanine dye-semiconductor quantum dot (QD) constructs. The present method relies on correlating the amplitude of the acceptor emission to specific changes in the donor excitation profile in order to extract ET-only transfer efficiencies. Quenching of the donor emission is then utilized to determine the non-ET component, tentatively attributed to the charge transfer. We observe that the latter accounts for 50-99% of donor emission quenching in QD-Cy5 and QD-Cy7 systems, stressing the importance of determining the non-FRET efficiency in a spectroscopic ruler and other FRET-based sensing applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available