4.6 Article

Eu3+-doped titanium oxide nanoparticles for optical thermometry in the first biological window

期刊

OPTICAL MATERIALS
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.optmat.2020.109770

关键词

Photoluminescence; Optical thermometry; TiO2; Fluorescence intensity ratio

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  4. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador (PUCE)
  5. Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (FSR-FNRS) under CDR contract [J23017F]
  6. Slovenian Research Agency [P1-0125]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lanthanide-based optical nanothermometers, operating in the physiological temperature range (288-323 K), with excitation and emission in the first biological transparent window have special interest for biological applications. In this context, trivalent europium doped titanium oxide (Eu3+:TiO2) nanoparticles were prepared via a sol-gel method and their spectroscopic properties were studied. In order to assess their potential for temperature sensing, excitation and luminescence spectroscopies were performed. We observed that the intensities of the excitation bands for the F-7(0)-> D-5(0) (576 nm) and F-7(2)-> D-5(0) (610 nm) transitions, monitoring the D-5(0)-> F-7(4) (700 nm) transition have a strong dependence on temperature. This dependence, which is explained in terms of a thermal coupling between the Eu3+:F-7(J) levels, was used for the construction of an optical nanothermometer. Relative sensitivity values between 1.78 and 1.41% K-1, when the temperature of the material increases from 288 to 323 K, were obtained. We show that the nanothermometer calibration can be obtained by a single luminescence room temperature measurement. Our results indicate the potential application of Eu3+:TiO2 nanoparticles for temperature sensing in the first biological window and physiological temperature range.

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