| Literature DB >> 26847691 |
Syed Rahin Ahmed1, Sangjin Oh2, Rina Baba3, Hongjian Zhou4, Sungu Hwang5, Jaebeom Lee6, Enoch Y Park7,8.
Abstract
The demand for biologically compatible and stable noble metal nanoparticles (NPs) has increased in recent years due to their inert nature and unique optical properties. In this article, we present 11 different synthetic methods for obtaining gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) through the use of common biological buffers. The results demonstrate that the sizes, shapes, and monodispersity of the NPs could be varied depending on the type of buffer used, as these buffers acted as both a reducing agent and a stabilizer in each synthesis. Theoretical simulations and electrochemical experiments were performed to understand the buffer-dependent variations of size and morphology exhibited by these Au NPs, which revealed that surface interactions and the electrostatic energy on the (111) surface of Au were the determining factors. The long-term stability of the synthesized NPs in buffer solution was also investigated. Most NPs synthesized using buffers showed a uniquely wide range of pH stability and excellent cell viability without the need for further modifications.Entities:
Keywords: Cell viability; Gold nanoparticles; Good’s buffer; MD simulation; Synthesis route
Year: 2016 PMID: 26847691 PMCID: PMC4742461 DOI: 10.1186/s11671-016-1290-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Fig. 1Molecular structures of buffers used. It is divided into four groups: a. piperizine/mopholine ring with an N-substituted alkyl sulfonate, b N-substituted alkyl sulfonate, c alkyl alkanol amine, and d miscellaneous (inorganic buffer)
Fig. 2Cyclic voltammograms of gold and buffers in aqueous 0.2 M sodium sulfate electrolyte; scan rate was 0.1 V/s
Redox potentials of buffers in a 0.2 M sodium sulfate electrolyte solution
| Group | Buffer | Reduction peak (V) | Oxidation peak (V) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | PIPES | 0.76 | 1.16 |
| MES | 0.72 | 1.15 | |
| PIPES-SS | 0.76 | 1.13 | |
| B | TAPSO | 0.73 | 1.08 |
| TAPS | 0.47/0.72 | 0.50/1.11 | |
| TES | 0.54/0.72 | 0.55/1.14 | |
| C | TEA | 0.36 | 0.73/0.89 |
| Bicine | – | 1.2 | |
| BTM | 0.51/0.68 | 1.09 | |
| BTP | 0.39 | 1.04 | |
| D | PSTT | 0.48 | 0.95 |
Fig. 3a UV-visible spectra and b solution photo images of Au NPs synthesized using different buffer solutions
Fig. 4TEM images of Au NPs formed using different buffer solutions (images are not on the same size scale)
Fig. 5Physical stability of Au NPs: a zeta potential (X-axis) vs. stability at 4 °C (Y-axis); b pH stability of NPs; visualizations of Au NPs with wide-range (c) and-short range (d) pH stability when stored at 4 °C (10~20 mL)
Fig. 6Molecular dynamic simulation: snapshots of reagent-Au models before (left) and after (right) MD simulation
Interaction energies between Au NPs and surfactants (units: kcal · mol−1)
| Models |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Au-PIPES | −2007.217 | −1738.508 | −184.083 | −84.626 |
| Au-MES | −1898.38 | −1739.591 | −103.473 | −55.316 |
| Au-PIPES SS | −1786.62 | −1739.174 | 19.564 | −67.01 |
| Au-TAPSO | −1824.456 | −1739.76 | −24.486 | −60.21 |
| Au-TAPS | −1937.396 | −1738.749 | −119.521 | −79.126 |
| Au-TES | −1854.747 | −1738.22 | −58.735 | −57.792 |
| Au-TEA | −1777.972 | −1740.113 | 5.0987 | −42.958 |
| Au-Bicine | −1728.022 | −1740.200 | −61.392 | −49.214 |
| Au-BTM | −1776.327 | −1739.937 | 9.235 | −45.625 |
| Au-BTP | −1719.565 | −1738.734 | 86.598 | −67.429 |
| Au-PSTT | −1750.056 | −1741.751 | 30.412 | −38.717 |
Fig. 7Cell viability of Au NPs in HEK 294 cells