4.6 Article

Coadsorbed Species with Halide Ligands on Silver Nanoparticles with Different Binding Affinities

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 126, 期 20, 页码 8692-8702

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c01092

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment of New Zealand (MBIE) [LSRX-1801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the variations in adsorbed species on silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) when different halide ligands are introduced. It also reveals the interference between anionic surfactants (AS) and cationic protein (collagen) on AgNPs.
Understanding ligand binding on silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) is crucial regarding its behavior in photocatalytical and bioanalytical applications. However, the preferentially adsorbed species on AgNPs and their relative binding affinities are uncertain when halide ligands are involved. Herein, we demonstrate the variations in the adsorbed species on citrate-reduced AgNPs upon ligand exchange to Cl-, Br-, and I- and propose a mechanism based on surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) results. When Cl- is introduced to the AgNPs, citrate anion desorbs, but its decomposition product, acetoacetate (AAc(-)), is relatively preferred for coadsorption. When the halide ligands are bulkier (Br- or I-) AAc(-) is also displaced due to stronger repulsion, while residual anionic surfactants (AS) can bind to the AgNPs presumably through the gaps between the bulky halide ions. Further, the above-mentioned coadsorbed species are present together with a cationic protein (type I collagen). AS persist in their coadsorption when I- ligands coat the AgNPs, resulting in the interference SERS spectra of AS overlapping with collagen. In contrast, collagen outperforms AS on Br- ligand coated AgNPs, and thus, no interference was observed. This study will bring attention to the potential pitfalls during precise surface functionalization of AgNPs or other plasmonic nanostructures for interfacial properties and applications.

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