| Literature DB >> 27928781 |
Liang Bian1,2,3, Hai-Long Li4,5, Hai-Liang Dong6, Fa-Qin Dong4, Mian-Xin Song4, Li-Sheng Wang7, Wen-Ping Hou5, Lei Gao4, Xiao-Yan Zhang4,5, Tian-Liang Zhou4, Guang-Ai Sun8, Xin-Xi Li8, Lei Xie8.
Abstract
Ferrites-bismuth ferrite is an intriguing option for medical diagnostic imaging device due to its magnetoelectric and enhanced near-infrared fluorescent properties. However, the embedded XFO nanoparticles are randomly located on the BFO membranes, making implementation in devices difficult. To overcome this, we present a facile bio-approach to produce XFe2O4-BiFeO3 (XFO-BFO) (X = Cr, Mn, Co, or Ni) membranes using Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. The perovskite BFO enhances the fluorescence intensity (at 660 and 832 nm) and surface potential difference (-469 ~ 385 meV and -80 ~ 525 meV) of the embedded spinel XFO. This mechanism is attributed to the interfacial coupling of the X-Fe (e- or h+) and O-O (h+) interfaces. Such a system could open up new ideas in the design of environmentally friendly fluorescent membranes.Entities:
Keywords: Ferrite; Fluorescence; Hematite; Heterostructures; Shewanella oneidensis MR-1
Year: 2016 PMID: 27928781 PMCID: PMC5143335 DOI: 10.1186/s11671-016-1747-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Fig. 1a Illustration of synthesis process of XFO–BFO membrane and its microscope picture (5 × 5 mm2). During the synthesis process, the first step is that Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 possesses a periplasmic [Fe]-hydrogenase that drives the microbial reduction of Fe3+ [Fe(OH)3: cuboid] and the release of Fe2+ ions to the aqueous solution. The second step is that the =Fe2+(OH)2 surfaces can absorb and immobilize X2+. The third step is that the functional =Fe2+(OH)2 groups provide high surface area and functional sites which allow the chemical complexation of X2+ [21, 22]. b SEM images (200 nm) of XFO–BFO membranes
Fig. 2a SEM–EDS, b XPS, c XRD and d Raman curves of XFO–BFO membranes. The curves are FO–BFO (yellow), CrFO–BFO (red), MnFO–BFO (green), CoFO–BFO (violet), and NiFO–BFO (blue)
Fig. 3a Fluorescence spectra and b images of XFO–BFO membranes. Therein, the excitation wavelength of a fluorescence spectra are 250 (left) and 550 (right) nm, respectively. The main emission peaks at 340–431 nm (green) and 449–496 nm (green and blue) correspond to the intrinsic blue and green emission of octahedral Fe3+–O2− (XFO and BFO) orbitals and tetrahedral Fe2+–O2− (XFO) orbitals, respectively. The excitation wavelengths of b fluorescence microscopies are 405 (green), 488 (blue), and 635 (gray) nm
Fig. 4a Dielectric functions, b PDOSs, and c surface potentials of XFO–BFO membranes by DFT simulation. Therein, the scissors were used to make rigid upward shift of conductive bands by 2.5 eV (BFO) and 2 eV (XFO) [19]
Fig. 5a Surface potential images and b the relative potential curves of XFO–BFO membranes by AFM–KPFM measurement. Therein, the scanning area is 5 μm × 5 μm. The particles are essentially in agreement with the differences of grain sizes in SEM images