We have designed two metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) to efficiently convert X-ray to visible-light luminescence. The MOFs are constructed from M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 (M = Hf or Zr) secondary building units (SBUs) and anthracene-based dicarboxylate bridging ligands. The high atomic number of Zr and Hf in the SBUs serves as effective X-ray antenna by absorbing X-ray photons and converting them to fast electrons through the photoelectric effect. The generated electrons then excite multiple anthracene-based emitters in the MOF through inelastic scattering, leading to efficient generation of detectable photons in the visible spectrum. The MOF materials thus serve as efficient X-ray scintillators via synergistic X-ray absorption by the metal-cluster SBUs and optical emission by the bridging ligands.
We have designed two metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) to efficiently convert X-ray to visible-light luminescence. The MOFs are constructed from M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 (M = Hf or Zr) secondary building units (SBUs) and anthracene-based dicarboxylate bridging ligands. The high atomic number of Zr and Hf in the SBUs serves as effective X-ray antenna by absorbing X-ray photons and converting them to fast electrons through the photoelectric effect. The generated electrons then excite multiple anthracene-based emitters in the MOF through inelastic scattering, leading to efficient generation of detectable photons in the visible spectrum. The MOF materials thus serve as efficient X-ray scintillators via synergistic X-ray absorption by the metal-cluster SBUs and optical emission by the bridging ligands.
X-ray scintillators are widely
used in X-ray dosimetry and imaging. Sensitive detection of X-rays
reduces the patient exposure while maintaining or improving the image
quality. A number of solid-state inorganic materials with lanthanides
as light emitters, such as LaOBr:Tm, Gd2O2S:Tb,
and M′-YTaO4,[1,2] have been developed
as efficient X-ray-to-light convertors. Nanophosphors have also been
employed as molecular probes for a dual modality X-ray and optical
imaging, referred to as X-ray luminescence[3] computed tomography (XLCT).[4−6] By taking advantage of long penetration
depth of X-ray and low optical autofluorescence background, XLCT promises
to provide a highly sensitive molecular imaging technique. Additionally,
nanoparticles based on solid-state scintillators have been attached
with singlet oxygen sensitizers for X-ray induced photodynamic therapy
(PDT).[7−9]Organic crystals such as anthracene can also
serve as radiation
scintillators, particularly for detecting low-energy β-rays
and neutrons due to their high scattering cross sections for electron
and neutron and low rates of backscattering.[10−13] Organic scintillators are however
ineffective for X-ray detection (<100 keV) due to their low X-ray
scattering cross sections. Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs)
are a class of crystalline materials that are built from well-defined
molecular bridging ligands and metal/metal cluster connecting nodes.[14−28] MOFs thus provide a tunable platform for the co-assembly of organic
scintillator molecules and metal cluster nodes of high atomic numbers
(Z) within a highly ordered structure.[29] Allendorf et al. have examined several Zn MOFs
for radioluminescence induced by fast proton, neutron, electron, and
γ-rays.[30,31] They observed enhanced stability
of MOF-based scintillators to radiation damage when compared to corresponding
organic scintillators, presumably due to the spatial separation of
scintillator molecules in MOFs.[32−34] In a densely packed crystal,
excitations can become delocalized and migrate within the crystal.
As the defect sites resulted from radiation damage slowly accumulate,
the delocalized excitons can travel to the defect sites via random
walk and be efficiently quenched. In contrast, site separations in
open frameworks reduce the mobility of excitons, making the luminescent
sensing performance of the material more resilient to radiation damage.
The internal cavity of MOFs is also suitable for loading therapeutic
agents for the development of multifunctional theranostic systems. (35) MOFs have however not been reported to exhibit
X-ray induced luminescence, due to relatively small X-ray scattering
cross sections of the majority of MOFs that are built from first-row
transition-metal connecting nodes.Here, we synthesized MOFs with high Z metal clusters
M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 (M = Hf or Zr) as connecting
nodes and an anthracene-based emitter as the bridging ligand (Scheme 1). With Z = 72 for Hf and Z = 40 for Zr, they serve as efficient X-ray absorbers.
Upon photoelectric absorption of X-rays in the 20–200 keV range,
outer-shell electrons of Hf4+ and Zr4+ ions
are ejected as fast electrons which interact with the anthracene-based
linkers to generate luminescence signals from their electronic excited
states. The high Z metal clusters and emissive bridging
ligands thus work synergistically to lead to highly efficient X-ray
induced luminescence in the easily detectable visible spectrum.
Scheme 1
(a) Synthesis of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF and
(b) Scheme Showing X-ray Induced Generation of Fast Photoelectrons
from Heavy Metals Followed by Scintillation of the Anthracene-Based
Linkers in the Visible Spectrum
Structural
models of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF. Structures viewed from the (a) [100]
and (b) [110] directions. (c) Ball–stick model of M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 (M = Hf or Zr) SBU. (d) Tetrahedral and
(e) Octahedral cavities. Blue polyhedra: Hf4+ or Zr4+ with eight coordinating oxygen atoms; red ball: oxygen;
gray ball: carbon; white ball: hydrogen.We targeted the synthesis of UiO frameworks (Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF) built from a linear dicarboxylate ligand
and the M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 SBU (M = Hf or
Zr) because of their high chemical stability and structural predictability.[36−39] The 9,10-anthacenyl bis(benzoic acid) (H2L) was prepared in a high yield following a literature procedure.[40]Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF were
synthesized by treating H2L with HfCl4 or ZrCl4 in DMF at 100 °C for 2 days (Scheme 1). The resulting white crystalline solids were washed
with copious amounts of DMF, methanol, and water. The crystal structures
of these two MOFs were revealed by the similarities of their PXRD
patterns to the simulated pattern from a UiO MOF that is built from
the amino-terphenyldicarboxylate ligand of the same length as L (Figure 1).[38] Both MOFs adopt the UiO framework structure of the fcu topology by connecting the M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 SBU with the linear L linkers (Figure 1a,b). Within every SBU, M4+ was placed on the six
cortexes of an octahedron. The faces of the octahedron were bridged
by a μ3-O2– or a μ3-OH– alternately. The edges of the octahedron were
bridged by a carboxylate group with each oxygen coordinating to one
M4+, finishing an eight-coordinated environment for each
M4+ ion (Figure 1c). Because of
the steric bulk of the L ligand, noninterpenetrated structures
were obtained based on systematic absences of the PXRD patterns (Figures 2c and S4).[41] The open-framework possesses a 60.5% void space,
as calculated by PLATON[42] and a triangular
open channel with 1.2 nm edge length. For every SBU, there are one
octahedral cavity with a diameter of 0.8 nm and two tetrahedral cavities
with a diameter of 0.6 nm (Figure 1d,e). TEM
and SEM images of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF showed
octahedral microcrystals of ∼1 μm in dimensions (Figures 2a,b and Figure S3). Nitrogen
adsorption measurements on the MOFs gave BET surface areas of 2187
and 2776 m2/g for Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF, respectively (Figure 2d). The pore-size
distribution functions of both MOFs showed maxima at around 0.6, 0.8,
and 1.2 nm (Figure S2), consistent with
the cavity and channel sizes derived from the crystal structural models.
Figure 1
Structural
models of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF. Structures viewed from the (a) [100]
and (b) [110] directions. (c) Ball–stick model of M6(μ3-O)4(μ3-OH)4(carboxylate)12 (M = Hf or Zr) SBU. (d) Tetrahedral and
(e) Octahedral cavities. Blue polyhedra: Hf4+ or Zr4+ with eight coordinating oxygen atoms; red ball: oxygen;
gray ball: carbon; white ball: hydrogen.
Figure 2
TEM images
of (a) Hf-MOF and (b) Zr-MOF. (c) PXRD patterns
of Hf-MOF (red) and Zr-MOF (blue) along
with the simulated pattern. (d) N2 adsorption
and desorption curves at 77 K for Hf-MOF (red) and Zr-MOF (blue).
TEM images
of (a) Hf-MOF and (b) Zr-MOF. (c) PXRD patterns
of Hf-MOF (red) and Zr-MOF (blue) along
with the simulated pattern. (d) N2 adsorption
and desorption curves at 77 K for Hf-MOF (red) and Zr-MOF (blue).Fluorescence spectra of suspensions of Hf-MOF (0.04
mM of L ligand) in water, DMF, and THF were taken with
an excitation wavelength of 368.8 nm (Figures 3a, S5, and S7). The maxima of the emission
spectra shift to longer wavelengths as the polarity of the solvent
increases (430 nm in THF, 435 nm in DMF, and 469 nm in water, Figure S9), as predicted by the general solvent
effect.[43] Such an observation supports
the accessibility of the anthracene sites in the MOFs to solvent molecules.
The excitation spectra of the MOFs in more polar solvents also exhibit
less defined vibrational fine structure due to stronger coupling of
the solvent bath modes to the molecular electronic and vibrational
coordinates (Figures 3a, S5, and S7). Suspensions of Zr-MOF (0.04 mM of L ligand) in water and DMF showed similar emission spectra
as Hf-MOF (Figures 3a and S5). In contrast, H2L particles which are insoluble in water showed only moderate dependence
of emission on solvent (Figure S10), due
to the inability of solvent molecules to access the interiors of the
ligand particles. Fluorescence lifetimes of Hf-MOF, Zr-MOF, and H2L suspensions in water
were also examined. All of the suspended samples showed bi-exponential
fluorescence decays, and the weighted lifetimes of the samples were
calculated based on the fittings (Table S1). Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF possess significantly
longer lifetimes (6.19 and 5.96 ns, respectively, Figure 3b) than H2L particles (2.0
ns, Figure S11). This difference probably
results from a combination of a solvent effect on excited-state lifetime
and the exciton migration in the densely packed H2L particles. The mobile excited state can move and be trapped
and quenched at a defect site in a H2L particle,
while site isolation of anthracene moieties in the MOFs reduces the
excited-state mobility, leading to an enhanced lifetime of the excited
state. Consistent with this, the DMF solution of H2L exhibits longer excited state lifetimes (5.34 ns) than those
of DMF suspensions of Hf-MOF (4.06 ns) and Zr-MOF (3.92 ns) (Figures S6 and S11). Previous
studies indicated that the free rotation of anthracene in the structure
can reduce its luminescence signal. Such effect needs to be considered
for a full evaluation of the luminescent properties of the MOFs.[31]
Figure 3
(a) Fluorescence spectra of Hf-MOF (red, solid), Zr-MOF (blue, solid), and H2L ligand
(insoluble particle, black, solid) suspensions in water (0.04 mM L) excited at a wavelength of 368.8 nm. The corresponding
excitation spectra monitored at 469 nm are shown in dashed lines.
(b) Time-dependent fluorescence decay traces of Hf-MOF (red), Zr-MOF (blue), and H2L ligand (black) suspensions in water excited at 368.8 nm and monitored
at 469 nm, together with instrument response function (IRF, gray).
We proposed that the heavy metal clusters
in the MOF structure
could serve as an effective X-ray antenna due to their high Z numbers. The outer-shell electrons of Hf4+ and
Zr4+ ions are ejected as fast electrons upon the X-ray
absorption through the photoelectric effect. The generated photoelectrons
then experience inelastic scattering in a framework and transfer their
energy to the L ligands, bringing them to excited states
which decay and emit the visible photons for detection (Scheme 1b). X-ray luminescence of the MOF particles (200
μL suspensions in water) were tested with clinical superficial
therapy system. Both Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF exhibit
bright radioluminescence in the visible spectrum upon X-ray excitation
(Figure 4a).
Figure 4
(a) Radioluminescence
signals of Hf-MOF, Zr-MOF, and control samples
(from left to right): HfO2 and ZrO2 colloidal
nanoparticles, H2L alone,
H2L + HfO2 colloid, H2L + ZrO2 colloid, Hf-MOF, and Zr-MOF. The concentrations of H2L or
Hf or Zr in the samples are 1.2 mM. The X-ray dosages are 1 Gy/10
s with effective X-ray energy ∼18.9 keV (40 kV tube voltage,
0.08 mA tube current) and detection gain of 200. (b) Radioluminescence
signals of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF with different
concentrations and different radiation tube voltages.
(a) Fluorescence spectra of Hf-MOF (red, solid), Zr-MOF (blue, solid), and H2L ligand
(insoluble particle, black, solid) suspensions in water (0.04 mM L) excited at a wavelength of 368.8 nm. The corresponding
excitation spectra monitored at 469 nm are shown in dashed lines.
(b) Time-dependent fluorescence decay traces of Hf-MOF (red), Zr-MOF (blue), and H2L ligand (black) suspensions in water excited at 368.8 nm and monitored
at 469 nm, together with instrument response function (IRF, gray).As expected, Hf-MOF exhibited higher radioluminescence
signal than Zr-MOF under the same experimental conditions
due to higher X-ray scattering cross section of Hf than Zr (e.g.,
the average energy attenuation coefficient ranges for Hf from ∼110
to 18 cm2/g and for Zr ∼ 23 to 16 cm2/g in the 15–30 keV range).[44] As
control experiments, neither the anthracenyl ligand H2L by itself nor metal oxide (HfO2 or ZrO2) nanoparticles produce significant amount of optical signal, indicating
the important synergistic roles played by both heavy metal antenna
and organic emitters in the MOF assemblies. Hf-MOF (1.2
mM L or Hf) produced a signal that is ∼24
times of the signal generated by H2L alone,
while the Zr-MOF produced as signal of ∼11 times
the amount. For comparison, the widely used inorganic scintillator
NaI(Tl) has a light output of 2.3 times of that of the anthracene
crystal, while practical organic liquid and plastic scintillators
all have lower light outputs than the anthracene crystal.[45] In contrast, a physical mixture of colloidal
metal oxide (HfO2 or ZrO2) and ligand H2L only generates luminescence slightly higher
than that of H2L (∼1.3 times for HfO2 + H2L and ∼1.2 times for ZrO2 + H2L). Additional control experiments
with HfOCl2 and ZrOCl2 solutions and Me2L (methyl ester of the L ligand)
were also performed (Figure S14). Again
negligible luminescence was generated by the solution samples as compared
to that of the MOF samples.Radioluminescence of MOF suspensions
in ethanol was also measured
with slightly lower luminescence as compared to that obtained in aqueous
solution under the same experimental condition (Figure S15). Such solvent dependence indicates the importance
of interactions between solvent molecules and the generated fast electrons
which determine the overall X-ray-to-photon conversion efficiency.
To eliminate the solvent effect, we measured the radioluminescence
of dry MOF samples in the absence of any solvent molecules (Figure S16). We have to use ∼15 times
more MOFs than those used in suspension measurements, to get sufficient
volumes of the materials for the measurements. The resulting luminescence
signals of the MOFs are ∼1200 times more intense for the Hf-MOF and ∼2400 times more intense for the Zr-MOF than those signals obtained from aqueous suspensions. Note that
we need to decrease the integration time (or dosage) of the measurement
from 10 to 0.01 s and reduce the detection gain from 200 to 50 to
avoid saturating the detector. Although it is difficult to quantitatively
compare the results from solid samples and those from suspensions,
we can at least qualitatively conclude that the solid samples can
generate much more (80 to 160 times) radioluminescence in the absence
of solvent molecules, consistent with a secondary fast electron induced
luminescence as the major mechanism of X-ray to visible light conversion.(a) Radioluminescence
signals of Hf-MOF, Zr-MOF, and control samples
(from left to right): HfO2 and ZrO2 colloidal
nanoparticles, H2L alone,
H2L + HfO2 colloid, H2L + ZrO2 colloid, Hf-MOF, and Zr-MOF. The concentrations of H2L or
Hf or Zr in the samples are 1.2 mM. The X-ray dosages are 1 Gy/10
s with effective X-ray energy ∼18.9 keV (40 kV tube voltage,
0.08 mA tube current) and detection gain of 200. (b) Radioluminescence
signals of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF with different
concentrations and different radiation tube voltages.Different concentrations of Hf-MOF and Zr-MOF samples in aqueous suspensions were exposed
to X-rays with effective
energies of 14.8, 16.2, and 29.8 keV (with the delivered dose of ∼0.025,
0.25, and 0.05 Gy per 10 s based on the tube voltage of 30, 50, and
80 kV and the tube current 7.6, 30, and 8 mA) for a further systematic
study. As shown in Figure 4b, the observed
radioluminescence signals of MOFs vary linearly with the nanoparticle
concentrations for all the three X-ray energies. It was also confirmed
that increase of dose leads to the increase of signal from MOFs; the
more X-ray photons absorbed, the more visible photons generated. The
spectrum of X-ray induced luminescence from these MOF samples was
measured with a custom-made system (SI).
Samples showed radioluminesecnce peaks ranging between 400 and 600
nm (Figure 5), similar to the optical fluorescence
spectrum shown in Figure 3. Optical stability
of the radioluminescence against X-ray damage was also examined (SI). The cumulative dose of up to 300 Gy was
delivered to Zr-MOF and Hf-MOF samples,
and X-ray luminescence was examined by very low-dose X-ray irradiation
(∼0.25 μGy) before and after ultrahigh-dose delivery.
No substantial decrease of the X-ray induced luminescence was observed
(Figure S17).
Figure 5
Optical spectra of (a) Hf-MOF and (b) Zr-MOF induced by X-ray irradiation
at a dose of 6 Gy/min. Spectra were
recorded using an EM-CCD with the Lightfield software.
Optical spectra of (a) Hf-MOF and (b) Zr-MOF induced by X-ray irradiation
at a dose of 6 Gy/min. Spectra were
recorded using an EM-CCD with the Lightfield software.In summary, two X-ray scintillating MOFs based
on Hf and Zr clusters
and anthracene-based bridging ligands as emitters have been designed
and synthesized. The resultant MOF materials exhibit superior X-ray-to-light
converting capabilities compared to the components themselves, thanks
to a synergistic function of heavy SBUs as X-ray antenna and of bridging
ligands as light emitters. This work highlights the opportunity of
designing highly efficient sensory materials by taking advantage of
the ability to synergistically integrate multiple functionalities
into MOFs.
Authors: Angelique Ale; Vladimir Ermolayev; Eva Herzog; Christian Cohrs; Martin Hrabé de Angelis; Vasilis Ntziachristos Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2012-05-06 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Bryan P Quigley; Corey D Smith; Shih-Hsun Cheng; Jeffrey S Souris; Charles A Pelizzari; Chin-Tu Chen; Leu-Wei Lo; Chester S Reft; Rodney D Wiersma; Patrick J La Riviere Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kaiyuan Ni; Ziwan Xu; August Culbert; Taokun Luo; Nining Guo; Kaiting Yang; Erik Pearson; Ben Preusser; Tong Wu; Patrick La Riviere; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Michael T Spiotto; Wenbin Lin Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 29.234
Authors: Xuan Zhang; Megan C Wasson; Mohsen Shayan; Ellan K Berdichevsky; Joseph Ricardo-Noordberg; Zujhar Singh; Edgar K Papazyan; Anthony J Castro; Paola Marino; Zvart Ajoyan; Zhijie Chen; Timur Islamoglu; Ashlee J Howarth; Yangyang Liu; Marek B Majewski; Michael J Katz; Joseph E Mondloch; Omar K Farha Journal: Coord Chem Rev Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 22.315