
Web Release Date: December 13,
Quantum Dot Fluorescence Quenching Pathways with Cr(III) Complexes. Photosensitized NO Production from trans-Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2+
#

and
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9510, and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4390
Received June 7, 2007
Abstract:
Described is the photoluminescence (PL) of water-soluble CdSe/ZnS core/shell quantum dots (QDs) as perturbed by salts of the chromium(III) complexes trans-Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ (1), trans-Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2+ (2), and trans-Cr(cyclam)(CN)2+ (3) (cyclam = 1,4,8,11-tetraazacyclo-tetradecane). The purpose is to probe the characteristics of such QDs as antennae for photosensitized release of bioactive agents (in the present case, the bioregulatory molecule NO) from transition metal centers. Addition of 1 or 2 to a QD solution results in concentration-dependent quenching of the band edge emission, but 3 has a minimal effect. Added KCl strongly attenuates the quenching by 1, and this suggests that the Cr(III) cations and the QDs form electrostatic assemblies via ion pairing on the negatively charged QD surfaces. Quenching by 2, a known photochemical NO precursor, was accompanied by photosensitized NO release. All three, however, do quench the broad red emission (~650-850 nm) attributed to radiative decay of surface trapped carriers. The effect of various concentrations of 1 on time-resolved PL and absorbance were explored using ultrafast spectroscopic methods. These observations are interpreted in terms of the Förster resonance energy-transfer mechanism for quenching of the band edge PL by multiple units of 1 or 2 at the QD surface, whereas quenching of the low-energy trap emission occurs via a charge-transfer pathway.
Nitric oxide (NO) has key regulatory roles in mammalian
biology, and there is considerable interest in designing compounds for controlled delivery to physiological targets.1 In this
context, our laboratory2,3
Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are attractive for this
application due to the strong visible absorption for the exciton,6
the large two photon absorption cross-sections,7 the ease of
tunability that allows optimizing energy overlap, and the simplicity of modifications to allow attachment of desired molecules
at the surface of the nanocrystal, and/or to impart water solubility
or biological specificity.8,9
Here, we describe studies that probe energy-transfer processes between water-soluble core/shell CdSe/ZnS quantum dots and several transition metal complexes. These studies were initiated with the goal of providing guidelines for the design of systems where QD photooptical properties facilitate the photochemical release of NO or other bioactive agent from a transition metal precursor. Aqueous solubility of the QDs was accomplished by exchanging surface capping groups with dihydrolipoic acid (which is ionized in moderately alkaline media),8 and we have probed the photoluminescence behavior of water-soluble CdSe/ZnS core/shell QDs in buffer solutions as affected by the Cr(III) complexes trans-Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ (1, Cl- salt), trans-Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2+ (2, BF4- salt), or trans-Cr(cyclam)(CN)2+ (3, ClO4- salt).3 The time-resolved PL and the temporal excited-state absorption behavior of the negatively charged QDs were monitored at various concentrations of added 1, 2, or 3. These studies indicate that the donor-acceptor interaction in solution is dominated by preassociation between the anionic CdSe/ZnS QDs and the cationic Cr(III) complexes prior to optical excitation. The photophysical and photochemical consequences of such interactions are described and discussed.
Synthesis of Water Soluble CdSe/ZnS Core/Shell QDs. A three-step procedure preparing the CdSe cores by pyrolysis of organometallic precursors, growing ZnS shells around the cores, and exchanging DHLA for the surface ligands8 was used for the synthesis of water-soluble core/shell QDs.
The CdSe cores were prepared by decomposition of dimethylcadmium (Me2Cd) and trioctylphosphine selenide (TOP-Se) in a 40:20:40 (mol %) melt of hexadecylamine (HDA), trioctylphosphine (TOP),
and trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO) according to published procedures.16 After several purification steps (see Supporting Information),
the QDs were dissolved in a solution of ~0.1 M HDA in hexanes, and
their size and concentration were estimated by correlating the peak
position and intensity of the lowest exciton transition (1S-1S3/2) with
the reported QD sizing curve17 and the size dependent extinction
coefficient6c of this transition. This preparation gave ~2.4
mol of CdSe
cores with a lowest excitonic transition centered at 541 nm and a narrow
photoluminescence (full width at half-maximum (fwhm = 29 nm)
centered at 555 nm (see Supporting Information Figure S1). On the
basis of the position of the 1S-1S3/2 absorption band, these CdSe core
QDs have diameters of ~3.8 nm.17 The PL quantum yield (
PL) was
11%.
A zinc sulfide shell was grown on the cores using established
procedures18
PL of ~15%.
The HDA/TOP/TOPO surface ligands were exchanged for dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA) (freshly prepared by the reduction of lipoic acid
with sodium borohydride19) according to published procedures with
slight modifications (see Supporting Information).8,20 Following purification, the DHLA capped core/shell QDs had a PL maximum centered
at 570 nm (fwhm = 45 nm) and a
PL of ~2% in 15 mM phosphate
buffer solution at pH 8.2.
Synthesis of Chromium(III) Complexes. trans-[Cr(cyclam)Cl2]Cl
(1) was prepared according to Bakac and Espenson21 and twice
recrystallized from hot aq. HCl (1 M). UV-vis (H2O):
max in nm (
in M-1 cm-1): 368 (27.1), 404sh (24.3), 570 (16.9)). trans-[Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2]BF4 (2) was prepared from 1 in 60% yield according to DeLeo
et al.22 UV-vis (H2O): 340 (246), 476 (32). trans-[Cr(cyclam)(CN)2]ClO4 (3) was prepared from 1 according to Kane-Maguire et al.23 UV-vis (H2O): 328 (54), 414(62).
Luminescence Quantum Yield and Quenching Experiments. All photophysical experiments with the water-soluble QDs were carried out in 15 mM phosphate buffer solution at pH 8.2. Photoluminescence spectra and intensities under continuous excitation were measured in a right angle configuration on a SPEX Fluorolog-2 spectrofluorimeter. The resolution was ~4 nm unless otherwise indicated. Absorption spectra were recorded on a Shimadzu Model UV-2401 spectrophotometer.
Samples used to determine the PL quantum yield of the water-soluble
core/shell QDs were excited at 450 nm in a 10 mm path length quartz
cuvette. The emission intensities were compared quantitatively to an
absorbance matched solution of [Ru(bpy)3](PF6)2 (bpy = 2,2'-bipyridine) in degassed acetonitrile (
PL = 0.062).24
Quenching experiments were carried out in pH 8.2 buffer solution. Samples of QDs or mixtures of QDs and varying concentrations of 1, 2, or 3 were entrained with Ar to remove O2. Measurements were taken in 10 mm cuvettes immediately after dilution. In mixtures with 1 or 3, samples were excited at 460 nm in a region of relatively low absorbance of the added Cr(III) salt to avoid inner-filter effects. For experiments with 2, samples were excited at 366, 460, or 546 nm, and the PL spectra were corrected for absorbance due to the chromium complex.
Luminescence Lifetime Measurements. These were performed in the UCSB Optical Characterization Facility using the time-correlated single-photon-counting technique (TCSPC).25 The sample was excited by 460 nm laser pulses (~120 fs, <1 nJ) produced via the second harmonic generation of the output from a Ti:sapphire laser (SpectraPhysics Tsunami). To avoid saturation of the chromophore, the repetition rate of the excitation pulses was reduced to 2 MHz by a custom-built acousto-optical pulse picker. The luminescence was dispersed in a monochromator (Acton Research SPC-300) and detected by a micro channel-plate photomultiplier tube (MCP PMT; Hamamatsu R3809U-51). The triggering signal for the correlator board was generated by a fast photodiode illuminated via a beam splitter introduced into the excitation beam. The MCP PMT output and triggering signal were connected to a SPC-630 time-correlated single photon counting board (Becker and Hickl) that performed statistical analysis of the photon flux and restored the fluorescence transients. The instrument response function (IRF) width was found to be ~55 ps by measurements with suspensions of nonfluorescent scatterers and the detector set at a wavelength close to the excitation wavelength. No fluorescence or scattering signal was seen for solutions of the QDs when the detector monochromator was set at a wavelength outside the PL band and more than 5 nm from the excitation wavelength. The TCSPC data were not deconvoluted with IRF.
Transient Absorbance (TA) Experiments. Femtosecond TA
experiments were performed in the UCSB Optical Characterization
Facility with a transient absorption spectrometer similar to that described
by Klimov and McBranch.26 The system utilizes a Ti:Sapphire
regenerative amplifier (SpectraPhysics Spitfire) producing 100 fs optical
pulses (1 kHz repetition rate, 800 nm central wavelength pulse energy
<1 mJ) from which 400 nm pulses were prepared by second harmonic
generation in a 1 mm thick
-BBO crystal for excitation of the sample.
The pulse energy was adjusted by a calibrated neutral density filter
wheel to ensure a QD excitation level <1 exciton per nanoparticle on
average. Photoinduced absorption changes were monitored by fs
continuum pulses generated by focusing low energy (<2
J) 800 nm
pulses onto a 2 mm thick crystalline sapphire plate. The delay between
pump and probe pulses was varied by a translation stage with a corner
cube reflector inserted into the pump beam. An optical chopper
synchronized with the laser repetition frequency was employed to
modulate the excitation beam and provided a synchronization signal
for the lock-in amplifier (SRS SR830). Solutions of QDs or mixtures
of QDs with varied concentrations of 1 were placed in 1 mm path length
quartz cuvettes and entrained with Ar to remove O2. The pump and
probe beams were focused on the sample in a near-collinear geometry
using a lens and a parabolic mirror, respectively. The probe light was
dispersed by a monochromator (Acton SpectraPro 300) and detected
by a silicon photodiode connected to a lock-in amplifier via a
transimpedance amplifier. The operation of the setup was controlled
by a LabView program running on a PC.
Continuous Photolysis and Nitric Oxide Detection. A NO-sensitive electrode (amiNO-700, Innovative Instruments, Inc.) was used for real-time detection of NO produced by photochemical decomposition of 2. All experiments were done under aerated conditions in pH 8.2 buffer solution. The electrode was polarized overnight in deionized H2O prior to use and then was allowed to equilibrate in the stirred buffer solution for ~10 min in the dark. The light (output of a high-pressure Hg arc lamp spectrally selected by band-pass filter) was turned on, taking care to ensure the electrode was not directly illuminated. Once the background signal was stable, an aliquot of 2 was added and the electrode response was monitored to determine NO release from 2 alone. Alternatively, an aliquot of QDs was introduced and allowed to mix for ~100-200 s followed by an aliquot of 2, and the electrode response was monitored to determine NO release from the mixture.
Cyclic Voltammetry. Cyclic voltammograms were collected using a Bioanalytical Systems Electrochemical Analyzer (Model 100A) with a glassy carbon working electrode (BAS), platinum wire counter electrode, and Ag/AgCl reference electrode (BAS) in solutions of degassed acetonitrile with 0.5 M [NBu4]PF6 for the supporting electrolyte.
This report is concerned with analyzing the effects of the Cr(III) cations trans-Cr(cyclam)X2+ on the photophysical behavior of water-soluble CdSe/ZnS core/shell QDs. The goal is to evaluate the nature of energy-transfer processes that might be utilized to sensitize the photochemical release of NO (or other bioactive agents) from appropriate precursors. Neither the dichloro complex 1 (X- = Cl-)27 nor its dicyano analog 3 show significant photoreactivity when directly excited in solution, in contrast to the dinitrito complex 2 (X- = ONO-), which releases NO with high quantum yields under similar conditions.3a,b Although 2 is photoactive, the Laporte forbidden, visible range, absorption bands are quite weak, so one goal of the present study is to examine the use of QDs as strongly absorbing antennae.
Figure 1 displays the absorption behavior of these three Cr(III) complexes in aqueous solution and the PL spectrum of
the water-soluble QDs under analogous conditions. For 1, there
is excellent overlap of the lowest energy quartet ligand field
absorption band (Q1) with the band edge PL of the QDs. This
feature suggests that QD
1 energy transfer via the Förster
mechanism would be favorable.28 In the same context, 2 shows
moderate overlap, but 3 shows very little. Static and time-resolved PL studies, as well as fs flash photolysis experiments
with time-resolved transient absorbance detection, were all
carried out in buffer solution.
QD PL Quenching by trans-Cr(cyclam)Cl2+. Figure 2A
shows the PL behavior of solutions containing a fixed concentration (~190 nM) of QDs and varied concentrations of 1 (0-1000
M). The PL intensity of the QD decreases with increasing
[1]. A Stern-Volmer analysis (Figure 2B; I being the intensity
at the
max) exhibits nonlinear behavior with the quenching effect
leveling off for [1] greater than 500
M. This behavior is
inconsistent with simple diffusional quenching of the optically
excited QDs and is indicative of a different type of photophysical
interaction between the QD and cyclam complex(es). Pure
diffusional quenching should exhibit a linear plot throughout
the concentration range according to the Stern-Volmer treatment (I0/I = 1 + KSV[Q], where KSV = kq
0).28b Instead, the
plots are nonlinear. Furthermore, if one takes the initial slope
of this plot at low [1] as KSV and calculates a kq value by using
the lifetime data (see treatment below), the value would be
greater than the limiting second-order rate constant for diffusion
in aqueous solutions. Thus, instead of invoking a diffusional
mechanism for quenching, which, if operational, would be a
minor contributor, the discussion below will lead to a model
where a nondiffusional process, involving ion pairing between
the anionic QD surface and multiple trans-Cr(cyclam)Cl2+
cations, appears more likely.
If such electrostatic assembly of Cr(III) cations on the QD surfaces is indeed responsible for the quenching, this effect should be attenuated by adding another electrolyte; Figure 2B shows that added KCl (250 mM) strongly reduces the impact of added 1 on the QD PL, presumably by screening the electrostatic interaction between the negatively charged QDs and the cationic Cr(III) complex. As a control, it should be noted that, under otherwise analogous conditions, there was little effect of added KCl (up to 1 M) on QD PL intensities in the absence of added 1 (Supporting Information Figure S2).
The complicated time-resolved PL behavior of the QD
solutions without added 1 is shown in Figure 3. The PL decay
is multiexponential, as is common for such QD systems.29 An
acceptable fit to these data (Figure 3, random noise in the
residuals) was obtained using the relationship described in eq
1 with n = 4. The multiexponential luminescence decay kinetics
indicate the heterogeneous excited-state behavior of QDs in an
ensemble measurement.30 Although one possibility is that the
QDs represent a distribution of sizes, the relatively narrow band
shapes of the absorption and emission bands belie this.

Figure 4 shows the effect of added 1 on the temporal PL
behavior. Qualitatively, it is seen that the decay is accelerated.
Again, these data can be fit to eq 1, and the lifetimes and
amplitude so generated are listed in Table 1
. In this analysis,
the lifetime (
1) of the shortest component was limited by the
instrument response function (~55 ps) and the amplitude
1,
calculated to be 0.39 in the absence of quencher, was assumed
to be invarient. The remaining resolvable components show
shorter lifetimes with increasing concentration of 1, whereas
the amplitude of the second component,
2, increases at the
expense of the longest lived component
4. Notably, quenching
of the
4 component accounts for over 75% of the total loss in
the integrated PL intensity, so any error induced by assuming
a constant value of a1t1 would be minor.
The steady state and time-resolved PL data demonstrate that
added 1 quenches the photoluminescence of the water-soluble
CdSe/ZnS core/shell quantum dots in a concentration-dependent
manner. As noted above, the initial slope of the plot shown in
Figure 2B gives an estimated KSV value of 1950 M-1. If this
were assumed to be due to dynamic quenching of the longest
lived component of the QD PL, (
0 =
4 = 15.4 ns), the
estimated kq (KSV/
) would be ~1.3 × 1011 M-1 s-1, an order
of magnitude faster than diffusion limits in this medium. Such
a high apparent kq suggests ground-state complex formation
between donor and acceptor prior to photoexcitation, that is, a
static quenching mechanism rather than dynamic quenching.31
One can attribute the quenching to electrostatic assemblies between the anionic QDs and the cationic complexes 1. Water solubility of the core/shell CdSe/ZnS QDs was accomplished by deprotonation of the dithiol dihydrolipoic acid ligands in the mildly basic medium. From the estimated number of Zn2+ centers on the surface,32 the QDs would accommodate up to 600 DHLA ligands,33 assuming a ratio of one DHLA per two zinc surface ions. Earlier studies have reported that >85% of surface ligand sites are exchanged during a typical recapping procedure.33a Although one might not expect complete ionization of these surface DHLA ligands even at pH 8.2, there is little doubt that the QD surfaces have multiple negative charges and should form electrostatic ion-pairing interactions with a number of the trans-Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ cations. Accumulation of multiple acceptors at the QD surface provides multiple channels for nonradiative excited-state decay following optical excitation.
PL Quenching by trans-Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2+. The band
edge PL of the QDs in buffered solutions was also quenched
when progressively higher concentrations of 2 (0-1000
M)
were added (Figure S3, Supporting Information), and a small
red-shift of the emission maximum (~3 nm) was observed
(Figure S4). This quenching occurs irrespective of the excitation
wavelength (366 or 546 nm), although the relative effect appears
somewhat stronger for the shorter wavelength.34 Again we
attribute the quenching by 2 to the formation of an electrostatic
assembly between multiple units of 2 and the anionic QD
surface. The Stern-Volmer type plot of I0/I vs [2] (Supporting
Information, Figure S5) is similar to Figure 2B, although there
are some quantitative differences, most significantly the quenching being ~20% larger for 2 than for equivalent concentrations
of 1. The effect again levels off at ~500
M, perhaps due to
saturation of the QD hydration sphere with the cationic metal
complexes.
Effect of Added trans-[Cr(cyclam)(CN)2]ClO4. For 3, the
quartet ligand field absorption bands are shifted strongly to the
blue with respect to those of 1 and 2, owing to the much greater
ligand field strength of the axial cyano groups (Figure 1). As a
consequence, there is virtually no spectral overlap between the
Q1 absorption band of 3 and the QD PL band centered at 570
nm. Thus, it is significant that added 3, unlike 1 and 2, does
not quench the band-edge PL (Figure S6). For example,
solutions containing ~210 nM QDs and up to 500
M 3 show
only slight variations in the band edge PL (<10%) from
solutions with no quencher present.
In addition to the very prominent band edge emission, the
PL spectrum of the water-soluble QDs also shows a weak broad
band centered at ~750 nm of the type that has been attributed35
to emission from a surface "trap" state. It is notable that this
trap emission is largely depleted by even the lowest concentration (100
M) of 1 utilized in the steady-state quenching
experiments (Figure 2). Similar depletion of this feature was
also seen (Figure S6) for the lower concentrations of 2 and 3
used to study the effects of the various Cr(III) complexes on
the QD PL.
FRET Mechanism for PL Quenching. Given the spectral
overlap between the QD PL and the Q1 absorbance bands of 1
and 2 and the absence of such overlap with 3 (Figure 1),
quenching by the first two but not the third suggests the
operation of Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) as the
likely quenching mechanism. The FRET formalism has been
used to describe the nonradiative energy transfer from QDs to
various acceptors, including other QDs, quantum wires, dye
molecules, and metalloproteins.36-38
where
PL is the PL donor quantum yield in the absence of
acceptor,
D(0) is the donor lifetime in the absence of acceptor,
is the dipole-dipole orientation factor (
2 = 2/3 for randomly
oriented dipoles), N is Avogadro's number, and n is the
refractive index of the medium. J(
) takes into account the
spectral overlap between the donor PL and the acceptor
absorption spectra as a function of the wavelength
. The Förster
radius R0 represents the D-A separation distance where the
rate of energy transfer, kEN, and the rate of excited-state
deactivation of D (1/
D(0)) are equal. By using the spectral data
of Figure 1 to calculate J(
), one obtains a value for R0 = 2.8
nm for the quenching of QDs by the Cr cyclam complex, if we
assume a
PL = 0.02 and
D(0) = 15.4 ns (i.e.,
4). (Details of
this calculation are described in the Supporting Information.)
To apply the FRET formalism in the current study, the D-A
distance r needs to be estimated. The QD core radius Rcore would
be 1.9 nm (spherical shape assumed). To this is added the
thickness of the ZnS shell (~6 × 0.31 nm/ZnS monolayer =
1.9 nm)18 and of the DHLA surface layer (~1 nm) to give an
overall radius RC+S+L of 4.8 nm (Figure 5). This can be
compared to the reported hydrodynamic radii of 6-7 nm for
similar water-soluble core/shell/ligand CdSe/ZnS/DHLA QDs
(
em = 570 nm) as determined by dynamic light scattering
measurements.39 One may assume that the electrostatic assembly
process draws the Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ cations into the hydration
sphere as conceptualized by Figure 5, so a distance of ~5 nm
from the center of the core or of ~3 nm from the core surface
would be a reasonable estimate.
Both the center37 and the surface40 have been used by others
to estimate distances for FRET in QD systems. If one uses the
former, eq 2 would give a calculated kEN in the range (0.42-2.6) × 106 s-1 for a single Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ cation lying within
the hydration sphere (~6.5 > r > 4.8 nm). (The longest lifetime
4 was used for this estimate, because changes in this PL decay
component account for 75% of the emission yield decrease upon
addition of 1.) On the other hand, if the distance from the core
surface were used (~4.6 > r > 2.9 nm), the estimated kEN values
would be higher, (0.34-5.4) × 107 s-1. Even these latter values
would be too small to account for the quenching effect on the
longest PL lifetimes by a single Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ cation.
However, it is important to reemphasize that the large QD
surface area can accommodate numerous acceptors. Thus, even
an r value based on the core center might be reasonable if there
is linear enhancement of the quenching kinetics due to the
multiple acceptors.37 This model is represented by eq 3, where
is the measured lifetime in the presence of the quencher and
the term Nq accounts for the number of acceptors intimately
associated with the QD.

4 seen for the highest [1] (Table 1) would
require N
18 for the kEN calculated for r = 4.8 nm and N
110 for that calculated for r = 6.5 nm. The latter number is
close to the capacity for Cr(cyclam)Cl2+ cations in the QD
hydration sphere.17,41
It is unclear why 2 is at least as effective a quencher as 1
given the former's lower spectral overlap of its Q1 band with
the CdSe/ZnS PL (Figure 1). One possible explanation lies in
the strong distance dependence of the rate of FRET (kEN
1/r6)
and, thus, its overall efficiency, predicted by eq 2. Even small
differences in the average donor/acceptor distance for assemblies
of QDs with 1 versus 2 may have large effects on the observed
PL quenching efficiency. Notably, we also observed quenching
of the QD PL lifetime with added 2 in analogy to that seen for
mixtures with 1, that is, shortening of the longer decay
components with a modest enhancement in the contribution of
2 (Table S1, Supporting Information). This observation suggests
that the nonzero spectral overlap of QD PL with the ligand field
absorption band of 2 facilitates quenching by a similar pathway,
namely via energy transfer.
Transient Absorbance Experiments. Figure 6 displays the
TA behavior initiated by fs flash photolysis of QD solutions
(1.9
M) in the presence of different concentrations of 1 (0, 5,
10 mM). Prompt transient bleaching of the band edge transition
was observed and the decay of this bleach displayed several
components. A fast process with a time constant of ~20-30
ps accounts for roughly 15% of the total signal for [1] = 0.
The remaining decay observable within the instrumentation
limits demonstrated a time constant of ~1-2 ns. (The dynamics
of the substantial residual bleach at the end of the latter time
frame were not accessed by this experiment.) Introduction of 1
diminished the longer component of the decay, which was
manifested in an increase of the relative amplitude of the fast
process to 35% at the highest quencher/QD ratio (Table S2,
see Supporting Information). These data suggest that 1 introduces a new, very fast, excited decay pathway in the QDs. The
residual bleach was also significantly decreased by added 1,
and this observation is consistent with the quenching of the
longer lived PL components noted in Table 1.
QD preparations are known to include "bright" and "dark"
species;42 the former display the band-edge PL whereas the latter
do not, owing to efficient charge carrier trapping. The ultrafast
TA experiment probes a time scale not accessible in the time-resolved PL data and samples the entire ensemble, whereas PL
only samples QDs that decay with a measurable luminescence.
Decay of the 1S bleach on the subnanosecond time scale has
been associated with surface trapping of charge carriers for a
portion of the QDs,30 and in the present case, it appears that 1
introduces a new component, or enhances an existing one, associated with this process. Although the increased contribution
to the very short-lived TA decay appears to be outside the expectation of a FRET mechanism, a recent study has demonstrated
bleach dynamics effects on a similar time scale (~30-50 ps)
for the interaction of pthalocyanines (Pcs) with CdSe QDs.40,43
One might postulate that the effects seen in the short time
regime of the TA experiment is associated with the surface-trapped carriers that give rise to the weak broad luminescence
band at ~750 nm, which is quenched by low concentrations
(100
M) of 1. Similar effects are seen for added 2 and 3, despite
failure by the latter to quench the band edge emission band.
Charge transfer between the trapped carrier(s) and complex at
or near the QD surface would be consistent both with quenching
of the deep trap luminescence and with acceleration of the bleach
dynamics observed in the TA experiment. In this context we
propose that while energy transfer is the dominant mechanism
for the band edge PL quenching by 1 or 2, another process is
active whereby the deep trap luminescence is quenched, perhaps
due to ultrafast charge transfer between the QD and surface-associated complex cations.
The latter conclusion is further supported by comparison of the reduction potentials of the Cr complexes and the QDs. As shown in Figure 7, the CrIV/III redox couple of each complex lies above the valence band potential of the QDs but below that of the conduction band. This characteristic would make hole injection from optically excited QD (from a shallow trap state) to the surface associated Cr(III) complex energetically feasible. Such hole transfer would quench the low-energy emission from such states.
Photosensitized NO Release from trans-Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2+. The quenching of QD PL by 2 was also accompanied
by sensitization of the photoreaction illustrated by Scheme 1,
as described in an earlier communication from this laboratory.15
The release of NO from 2 can be initiated by direct photolysis
of its weakly absorbing, visible range LF bands as illustrated
in Figure 8 for 200
M solutions of 2 in pH 8.2 buffer. However,
when the water-soluble CdSe/ZnS core/shell QDs (200 nM)
were added, NO generation was dramatically enhanced (Figure
8). This can be attributed to energy transfer from the excited
QDs to trans-Cr(cyclam)(ONO)2+ cations electrostatically bound
to the surface.
| Scheme 1 | |
Figure 8 Comparison of the NO detected (normalized signal) after
irradiation of solutions containing 2 (200 M in phosphate buffer pH 8.2)
without (white) and with (gray) QDs (200 nM).
|
The marked enhancement of the photochemical activity of 2 induced by adding QDs to the solution is similar regardless of whether the excitation with the mercury arc lamp used a filter that cut off wavelengths <350 nm or one that cut off wavelengths <460 nm. In both cases, ~15-fold enhancement in NO release is seen from the assemblies of QDs and 2 (the smaller absolute production of NO in the latter case is due to the lower intensity of light absorbed). This marked increase indicates that the quantum dots are acting as antennae, increasing the amount of light absorbed by 2 and thus the NO released, much the same as pendant chromophores have been used to stimulate photochemical NO release from analogs of 2.3c,d On the basis of these results, quantum dot constructs offer an interesting new approach for the design of photochemical drugs for the release of NO, as well as other bioactive agents, from an appropriate precursor.
The PL quenching behavior of the water-soluble QDs in response to added 1 or 2 is consistent with an energy-transfer mechanism involving electrostatic assemblies of these Cr(III) cations on the anionic quantum dot surfaces. The quenching of the emissive QDs was analyzed in terms of a FRET mechanism and could be attributed to the presence of a number of Cr(III) cations within the QD hydration sphere. The FRET analysis is consistent with the leveling of the PL quenching effect, owing to saturation of the QD surfaces with 1 or 2, as estimated by independent calculations based on steric effects.
This system confirms that QDs can function as effective sensitizers to photochemical reactions of transition metal complexes, notably NO release from 2, and clearly exemplifies the enhanced energy-transfer efficiency when there are multiple acceptors associated with the donor. Due to the strong absorbance of the QDs, photoinduced release of NO from the assemblies containing 2 is strongly enhanced at visible wavelengths. We are currently in the process of quantifying QD sensitized release of NO from 2 and from other photochemical NO precursors after single or two photon excitation. Meanwhile, studies are ongoing to develop more sophisticated QD/NO donor platforms in which derivatives of 2 or other NO donor compounds are strongly associated with the QD sensitizers via covalent surface attachment. We envision that such systems will present a new class of photochemical prodrugs for delivery of NO on demand.
These studies were supported by a grant to P.C.F. from the National Science Foundation (CHE-0352650), to G.F.S. from the National Institute of Health (NBIB 7 R01 EB000832), and by a UC-CARE grant from Los Alamos National Laboratory to P.C.F. and G.F.S. We thank Prof. Steve Buratto and Dr. Hedi Mattoussi for helpful discussions.
Figures S1-S6 display the optical properties of the QDs under various conditions discussed in the text. More detailed discussions of the methods used to prepare QDs and to determine the Förster radius, the energy-transfer rate, and the number of chromium complexes that can associate around a single QD are also presented. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
* In papers with more than one author, the asterisk indicates the name of the author to whom inquiries about the paper should be addressed.
University of California.
Florida State University.
# Present address: Wellman Laboratories for Photomedicine, Thier 224, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
1. (a) Saavedra, J. E.; Hoffman, A.; Bove, A. A.; Isaac, L.; Hrabie, J. A.;
Keefer, L. K. J. Med. Chem. 1991, 34, 3242-3247.
(b) Wang, P. G.; Xian,
M.; Tang, X.; Wu, X.; Wen, Z.; Cai, T.; Janczuk, A. J. Chem. Rev. 2002,
102, 1091-1134.
(d) Wheatley, P.; Butler, A. R.; Crane, M.; Fox, S.; Xiao, B.; Rossi,
A.; Megson, I. L.; Morris, R. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 502-509.
2. (a) Bourassa, J.; DeGraff, W.; Kudo, S.; Wink, D. A.; Mitchell, J. B.; Ford,
P. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 2853-2860.
(b) Ford, P. C.; Bourassa,
J.; Miranda, K. M.; Lee, B.; Lorkovic, I.; Boggs, S.; Kudo, S.; Laverman,
L. Coord. Chem. Rev. 1998, 171, 185-202.
(c) Works, C. F.; Ford, P. C.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 7592-7593
(d) Wecksler, S.; Mikhailovsky,
A.; Ford, P. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 13566-13567.
(e) Wecksler,
S. R.; Mikhailovsky, A.; Korystov, D.; Ford, P. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006,
128, 3831-3837.![]()
3. (a) DeLeo, M. A.; Ford, P. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 1980-1981.
(b) DeLeo, M. A.; Ford, P. C. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2000, 208, 47-59.
(c)
DeRosa, F.; Bu, X.; Ford, P. C. Inorg. Chem. 2005, 44, 4157-4165.
(d)
Ford, P. C. Acct. Chem. Res. in press.
4. (a) Tfouni, E.; Krieger, M.; McGarvey, B. R.; Franco, D. W. Coord. Chem.
Rev. 2003, 236, 57-69.
(b) Pavlos, C. M.; Xu, H.; Toscano, J. P. Curr.
Top. Med. Chem. 2005, 5, 635-645.![]()
5. (a) Dougherty, T. J; Marcus, S. L. Eur. J. Cancer 1992, 28A, 1734-42.
(b) Konig, K. J. Microscopy 2000, 200, 83-104.![]()
6. (a) Leatherdale, C. A.; Woo, W.-K.; Mikulec, F. V.; Bawendi,
M. G. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 7619-7622.
(b) Schmelz, O.; Mews,
A.; Basché, T.; Herrmann, A.; Müllen, K. Langmuir 2001, 17, 2861-2865.
(c) Yu, W. W.; Qu, L.; Guo, W.; Peng, X. Chem. Mater. 2003, 15, 2854-2860.![]()
7. Larson Daniel, R.; Zipfel, W. R.; Williams, R. M.; Clark, S. W.; Bruchez,
M. P.; Wise, F. W.; Webb, W. W. Science 2003, 300, 1434-1436.![]()
8. Mattoussi, H.; Mauro, J. M.; Goldman, E. R.; Anderson, G. P.; Sundar, V.
C.; Mikulec, F. V.; Bawendi, M. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 12142-12150.![]()
9. (a) Pinaud, F.; Michalet, X.; Bentolila, L. A.; Tsay, J. M.; Doose, S.; Li,
J. J.; Iyer, G.; Weiss, S. Biomatererials 2006, 27, 1679-1687.
(b) Alivisatos,
A. P.; Gu, W.; Larabell, C. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2005, 7, 55-76.
(c)
Gao, X.; Yang, L.; Petros, J. A.; Marshall, F. F.; Simons, J. W.; Nie, S.
Curr. Opin. Biotech. 2005, 16, 63-72.
(d) Medintz, I. L.; Tetsuo Uyeda,
H.; Goldman, E. R.; Mattoussi, H. Nat. Mater. 2005, 4, 435-446.![]()
10. Alivisatos, A. P. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 13226-13239.![]()
11. (a) Wijtmans, M.; Rosenthal, S. J.; Zwanenburg, B.; Porter, N. A J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 11720-11726.
(b) Warrier, M.; Lo, M. K. F.;
Monbouquette, H.; Garcia-Garibay, M. A. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2004,
3, 859-863.![]()
12. (a) Samia, A. C. S.; Chen, X.; Burda, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,
15736-15737.
(b) Shi, L.; Hernandez, B.; Selke, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2006, 128, 6278-6279.
(c) Clarke, S.; Hollmann, C. A.; Zhang, Z.; Suffern,
D.; Bradforth, S. E.; Dimitrijevic, N. M.; Minarik, W. G.; Nadeau, J. L.
Nat. Mater. 2006, 5, 409-417.
(d) Bakalova, R.; Ohba, H.; Zhelev, Z.;
Nagase, T.; Jose, R.; Ishikawa, M.; Baba, Y. Nano Lett. 2004, 4, 1567-1573.
(e) Dayal, S.; Krolicki, R.; Burda, C. Proc. SPIE 2005, 5705, 247-254.![]()
13. (a) Sykora, M.; Petruska, M. A.; Alstrum-Acevedo, J.; Bezel, I.; Meyer,
T. J.; Klimov, V. I. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 9984-9985.
(b) Sharma,
S. N.; Pillai, Z.; Kamat, P. V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 10088-10093.
(c) Landes, C.; Burda, C.; Braun, M.; El-Sayed, M. A. J. Phys. Chem. B
2001, 105, 2981-2986.![]()
14. (a) Rothrock, A. R.; Donkers, R. L.; Schoenfisch, M. H. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2005, 127, 9362-9363.
(b) Caruso, E. B.; Petralia, S.; Conoci, S.;
Giuffrida, S.; Sortino, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 480-481.![]()
15. Neuman, D.; Ostrowski, A. D.; Absalonson, R. O.; Strouse, G. F.; Ford,
P. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 4146-4147.![]()
16. (a) Murray, C. B.; Norris, D. J.; Bawendi, M. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993,
115, 8706-8715.
(b) Talapin, D. V.; Rogach, a. L.; Kornowski, A.; Haase,
M.; Weller, H. Nano Lett. 2001, 1, 207-211.
(c) de Mello, Donega, C.;
Hickey, S. G.; Wuister, S.; Vanmaekelbergh, D.; Meijerink, A. J. Phys.
Chem. B 2003, 107, 489-496.![]()
17. Mikulec, F. V.; Kuno, M.; Bennati, M.; Hall, D. A.; Griffin, R. G.; Bawendi,
M. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 2532-2540.![]()
18. Dabbousi, B. O.; Rodriguez-Viejo, J.; Mikulec, F. V.; Heine, J. R.;
Mattoussi, H.; Ober, R.; Jensen, K. F.; Bawendi, M. G. J. Phys. Chem. B
1997, 101, 9463-9475.![]()
19. (a) Uyeda, H. T.; Medintz, I. L.; Jaiswai, J. K.; Simon, S. M.; Mattoussi,
H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 3870-3878.
(b) Gunsalus, I. C.; Barton,
L. S.; Gruber, W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1956, 78, 1763-1766.
(c) Wagner,
A. F.; Walton, E.; Boxer, G. E.; Pruss, M. P.; Holly, F. W.; Folkers, K. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1956, 78, 5079-5081.![]()
20. Cheng, C.-T.; Chen, C.-Y.; Lai, C.- W.; Liu, W.- H.; Pu, S.- C.; Chou, P.-
T.; Chou, Y.- H.; Chiu, H.-T. J. Mater. Chem. 2005, 15, 3409-3414.![]()
21. Bakac, A.; Espenson, J. H. Inorg. Chem. 1992, 31, 1108-1109.![]()
22. De Leo, M. A.; Bu, X.; Bentow, J.; Ford, P. C. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2000,
300-302, 944-950.
23. Kane-Maguire, N. A. P.; Bennett, J. A.; Miller, P. K. Inorg. Chim. Acta
1983, 76, L123-L125.![]()
24. Caspar, J. V.; Meyer, T. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 5583-5590.![]()
25. O'Connor, D. V.; Phillips, D. Time Correlated Single Photon Counting; Academic Press: London, 1984.
26. Klimov, V. I.; McBranch, D. W. Opt. Lett. 1998, 23, 277-279.![]()
27. Kutal, C.; Adamson, A. W. Inorg. Chem. 1973, 12, 1990-1994.![]()
28. (a) Förster, T. Discuss. Faraday Soc. 1959, 27, 7-17.
29. (a) Kloepfer, J. A.; Bradforth, S. E.; Nadeau, J. L. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005,
109, 9996-10003.
(b) Selmarten, D.; Jones, M.; Rumbles, G.; Yu, P.;
Nedeljkovic, J.; Shaheen, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 15927-15932.
(c) Crooker, S. A.; Barrick, T.; Hollinsworth, J. A.; Klimov, V. I. Appl.
Phys. Lett. 2003, 82, 2793-2795.
(d) Javier, A.; Magana, D.; Jennings,
T.; Strouse, G. F. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 83, 1423-1425.![]()
30. Klimov, V. I.; McBranch, D. W.; Leatherdale, C. A.; Bawendi, M. G. Phys.
Rev. B 1999, 60, 13740-13749.![]()
31. Maurel V.; Laferrière, M.; Billone, P.; Godin, R.; Scaiano, J. C. J. Phys.
Chem. B 2006, 110, 16353-16358.![]()
32. The number of Zn atoms on the surface (outermost monolayer of ZnS) was estimated based on the known bulk lattice parameters of ZnS assuming a spherical shell.
33. (a) Bowen Katari, J. E.; Colvin, V. L.; Alivisatos, A. P. J. Phys. Chem.
1994, 98, 4109-4117.
(b) Becerra, L. R.; Murray, C. B.; Griffin, R. G.;
Bawendi, M. G. J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 3297-3300.![]()
34. (a) It should be noted that in the former case, the samples were studied
under air atmosphere to approximate the conditions used during the
photochemical experiments. At this point it is unclear what effect air
(presumably O2) has on the PL of these particular QDs. It has been shown
in this laboratory34b and by others (see for example: (i) Nazzal, A. Y.;
Wang, X.; Qu, L.; Yu, W.; Wang, Y.; Peng, X.; Xiao, M. J. Phys. Chem.
B 2004, 108, 5507-5515.
(ii) Wang, Y.; Tang, Z.; Correa-Duarte, M. A.;
Pastoriza-Santos, I.; Giersig, M.; Kotov, N. A.; Liz-Marz
n, L. M. J. Phys.
Chem. B. 2004, 108, 15461-15469.
(iii) Myung, N.; Bae, Y.; Bard, A. J.
Nano Lett. 2003, 3, 747-749.
) that various QD preparations (solution and
solid state) undergo changes in PL spectral position and intensity as a
function of extended light irradiation in the presence of O2. Although similar
changes are not expected under the low light intensities used for the present
experiment, the influence of dioxygen on the PL behavior of the current
system has not been systematically evaluated. (b) Neuman, D. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara 2007.
35. Klimov, V. I., Ed. Semiconductor and Metal Nanocrystals-Synthesis and Electronic and Optical Properties; Marcel Dekker: New York, 2004.
36. (a) Kagan, C. R.; Murray, C. B.; Bawendi, M. G. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54,
8633-8643.
(b) Crooker, S. A.; Hollingsworth, J. A.; Tretiak, S.; Klimov,
V. I. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 186802-1-4.
(d) Lee, J.; Govorov, A. O.; Kotov, N. A. Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 2063-2069.![]()
37. (a) Clapp, A. R.; Medintz, I. L.; Mattoussi, H. Chem. Phys. Chem. 2006,
7, 47-57
and references therein. (b) Clapp, A. R.; Medintz, I. L.; Mauro,
J. M.; Fisher, B. R.; Bawendi, M. G.; Mattoussi, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2004, 126, 301-310.![]()
38. Ipe, B. I.; Niemeyer, C. M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 504-507.![]()
39. (a) Pons, T.; Medintz, I. L.; Mattoussi, H. Proc. SPIE 2006, 6096, 60961H-1-10.![]()
40. Dayal, S.; Królicki, R.; Lou, Y.; Qiu, X.; Berlin, J. C.; Kenney, M. E.;
Burda, C. Appl. Phys. B 2006, 84, 309-315.![]()
41. (a) Cebula, J.; Ottewill, R. H.; Ralston, J.; Pusey, P. N. J. Chem. Soc.,
Faraday Trans. 1981, I77, 2585-2612.![]()
42. Ebenstein, Y.; Maokari, T.; Banin, U. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2002, 80, 4033-4035.![]()
43. Dayal, S.; Lou, Y.; Cristina, A.; Samia, S.; Berlin, J. C.; Kenney, M. E.;
Burda, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 13974-13975.![]()
44. Sykora, M.; Petruska, M. A.; Alstrum-Acevedo, J.; Bezel, I.; Meyer, T. J.;
Klimov, V. I. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 9984-9985.![]()
45. As a reviewer has pointed out, flocculation of the QDs might be expected as the result of charge neutralization of the surface owing to the ion pairing with the cationic Cr(III) complexes. Such flocculation was indeed observed to occur very slowly upon standing for solutions at the highest quencher concentrations used. For this reason, photophysics measurements were only made with freshly prepared buffer solutions that did not indicate formation of insoluble particles.
|
[1]
( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
0.39 |
0.055 |
0.31 |
0.500 |
0.21 |
3.54 |
0.12 |
15.4 |
2.8 |
1.00 |
|
100 |
IRF |
0.33 |
0.499 |
0.20 |
3.17 |
0.10 |
14.1 |
2.2 |
1.27 |
|
|
200 |
IRF |
0.35 |
0.466 |
0.21 |
2.85 |
0.10 |
13.0 |
2.1 |
1.33 |
|
|
300 |
IRF |
0.36 |
0.454 |
0.20 |
2.67 |
0.09 |
12.1 |
1.8 |
1.56 |
|
|
500 |
IRF |
0.37 |
0.476 |
0.20 |
2.72 |
0.09 |
11.4 |
1.8 |
1.56 |
|
|
800 |
IRF |
0.36 |
0.467 |
0.20 |
2.38 |
0.09 |
9.9 |
1.6 |
1.75 |
|
|
1000 |
IRF |
0.36 |
0.469 |
0.20 |
2.30 |
0.09 |
9.4 |
1.5 |
1.87 |
|
a Measurement of the fastest detected decay process is limited by the
instrument response function (IRF
55 ps), and the value a1t1 is assumed
to be constant.b
0 = 
x
x in the absence of 1.
= 
x
x for various [1].