4.6 Article

Biological synthesis of gold nanoparticles using Magnolia kobus and Diopyros kaki leaf extracts

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 10, 页码 1133-1138

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2009.06.005

关键词

Biological synthesis; Gold; Nanoparticles; Plant extracts; Magnolia kobus; Diopyros kaki

资金

  1. Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE)
  2. Korea Industrial Technology Foundation (KOTEF) through the Human Resource Training Project for Strategic Technology
  3. Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE), Republic of Korea [2008-I10-030] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leaf extracts of two plants, Magnolia kobus and Diopyros kaki, were used for ecofriendly extracellular synthesis of metallic gold nanoparticles. Stable gold nanoparticles were formed by treating an aqueous HAuCl4 solution using the plant leaf extracts as reducing agents. UV-visible spectroscopy was used for quantification of gold nanoparticle synthesis. Only a few minutes were required for >90% conversion to gold nanoparticles at a reaction temperature of 95 degrees C. suggesting reaction rates higher or comparable to those of nanoparticle synthesis by chemical methods. The synthesized gold nanoparticles were characterized with inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICP), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and particle analysis using a particle analyzer. SEM and TEM images showed that a mixture of plate (triangles, pentagons, and hexagons) and spherical structures (size, 5-300 nm) were formed at lower temperatures and leaf broth concentrations, while smaller spherical shapes were obtained at higher temperatures and leaf broth concentrations. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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