4.6 Article

Wavelength Dependence of the Fluorescence Quenching Efficiency of Nearby Dyes by Gold Nanoclusters and Nanoparticles: The Roles of Spectral Overlap and Particle Size

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 115, 期 41, 页码 20105-20112

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp204836w

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01GM080994]
  2. American Chemical Society [44470-AC4]
  3. NSF [CHE-079112, CHE-1012529]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Chemistry [1012529] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficiency of the glutathione monolayer-protected gold nanocluster (NC) Au-25 (1.2 nm metal core diameter (d)) in quenching the emission of dyes intercalated into DNA is compared with that of 2 and 4 nm gold nanoparticles (NPs). In all cases, the DNA/dye moieties and the gold particles are not covalently conditions, steady-state measurements reveal that the quenching efficiency of Au-25 is a factor of 10 lower than that of plasmonic 4 nm gold NPs but comparable to that of 2 nm particles, which do not show a distinct plasmon band. Nonetheless, significant emission quenching is observed even at very low (nanomolar) concentrations of Au-25. The quenching efficiency of the 4 nm NPs is significantly higher for dyes emitting near the wavelength of the plasmon peak, whereas that of the 2 nm gold NPs is well-described by the nanosurface energy transfer (NSET) model proposed by the Strouse group (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 3115). Interestingly, for Au-25, the maximum quenching efficiency occurs for dyes emitting in the same wavelength range as that of the 2 and 4 nm NPs (490-560 nm), where it shows no discrete absorption features, rather than for wavelengths coincident with its HOMO-LUMO, intraband, or interband transitions. The fluorescence quenching properties of Au-25 NCs are therefore found to be distinct from those of larger NCs and NPs but do not appear to conform to theoretical predictions advanced thus far.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据