Soyoung E Seo1, Martin Girard1, Monica Olvera de la Cruz1, Chad A Mirkin1. 1. Departments of Chemistry and Materials Science and Engineering, International Institute for Nanotechnology, and Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States.
Abstract
Realizing functional colloidal single crystals requires precise control over nanoparticles in three dimensions across multiple size regimes. In this regard, colloidal crystallization with programmable atom equivalents (PAEs) composed of DNA-modified nanoparticles allows one to program in a sequence-specific manner crystal symmetry, lattice parameter, and, in certain cases, crystal habit. Here, we explore how salt and the electrostatic properties of DNA regulate the attachment kinetics between PAEs. Counterintuitively, simulations and theory show that at high salt concentrations (1 M NaCl), the energy barrier for crystal growth increases by over an order of magnitude compared to low concentration (0.3 M), resulting in a transition from interface-limited to diffusion-limited crystal growth at larger crystal sizes. Remarkably, at elevated salt concentrations, well-formed rhombic dodecahedron-shaped microcrystals up to 21 μm in size grow, whereas at low salt concentration, the crystal size typically does not exceed 2 μm. Simulations show an increased barrier to hybridization between complementary PAEs at elevated salt concentrations. Therefore, although one might intuitively conclude that higher salt concentration would lead to less electrostatic repulsion and faster PAE-to-PAE hybridization kinetics, the opposite is the case, especially at larger inter-PAE distances. These observations provide important insight into how solution ionic strength can be used to control the attachment kinetics of nanoparticles coated with charged polymeric materials in general and DNA in particular.
Realizing functional colloidal single crystals requires precise control over nanoparticles in three dimensions across multiple size regimes. In this regard, colloidal crystallization with programmable atom equivalents (PAEs) composed of DNA-modified nanoparticles allows one to program in a sequence-specific manner crystal symmetry, lattice parameter, and, in certain cases, crystal habit. Here, we explore how salt and the electrostatic properties of DNA regulate the attachment kinetics between PAEs. Counterintuitively, simulations and theory show that at high salt concentrations (1 M NaCl), the energy barrier for crystal growth increases by over an order of magnitude compared to low concentration (0.3 M), resulting in a transition from interface-limited to diffusion-limited crystal growth at larger crystal sizes. Remarkably, at elevated salt concentrations, well-formed rhombic dodecahedron-shaped microcrystals up to 21 μm in size grow, whereas at low salt concentration, the crystal size typically does not exceed 2 μm. Simulations show an increased barrier to hybridization between complementary PAEs at elevated salt concentrations. Therefore, although one might intuitively conclude that higher salt concentration would lead to less electrostatic repulsion and faster PAE-to-PAE hybridization kinetics, the opposite is the case, especially at larger inter-PAE distances. These observations provide important insight into how solution ionic strength can be used to control the attachment kinetics of nanoparticles coated with charged polymeric materials in general and DNA in particular.
Colloidal
crystals composed
of nanoparticles are structures that can be designed to have interesting
optical and electronic properties, based upon nanoparticle composition,
crystal lattice symmetry and spacing, and mesoscopic crystal habit
and size.[1−7] Because of their chemical programmability and sequence-specific
interactions, oligonucleotides have emerged as versatile ligands to
direct the assembly of nanoparticles into higher order crystalline
architectures.[8−11] Indeed, nanoparticles functionalized with a dense shell of upright
and oriented DNA behave as “programmable atom equivalents”
(PAEs) that can be assembled into a diverse set of crystalline structures
following well-established design rules.[8,9,11−15]The size of colloidal crystals is an important design parameter
for the preparation of device architectures, particularly those requiring
control over the optical path length (i.e., the distance that light
travels across the crystal in the orientation of interest);[1,2,16] however, methods for realizing
single crystals with tunable sizes have yet to be developed. Single
crystals generated by the slow cooling of PAEs typically fall in the
2 μm or less range when synthesized in solutions with monovalent
salt concentrations between 50 and 500 mM.[12] Silver ion[17] and molecular intercalators[18,19] have been used to postsynthetically strengthen DNA bonds within
such crystals, which have subsequently been utilized as seeds for
controlling the extended growth of crystals.[18]In atomic systems, large crystals can be realized by kinetically
impeding the formation of critical nuclei. This can occur by either:
(i) suppressing the formation of new nuclei, or (ii) expediting the
growth of existing crystals to deplete the solution of the atom source
(e.g., heterogeneous nucleation and growth).[20] In the context of colloidal crystal engineering with DNA, salt concentration
can be used to control the kinetics of DNA bond formation.[21] At moderate monovalent salt concentrations (below
0.5 M), the kinetics of PAE reorganization in superlattices change
as a function of solution ionic strength primarily because the additional
charge screening stabilizes the DNA linkages between adjacent PAEs
once formed.[22] Within this salt concentration
range, modified nonlinear Poisson–Boltzmann approaches can
be used to describe the electrostatic screening between PAEs.[12] However, at high salt concentrations (above
0.5 M), the kinetics of PAE interactions cannot be explained solely
by charge screening as the association of ions becomes favorable via
ionic correlations, resulting in the formation of ion clusters.[23−25] This has been explored experimentally where high salt concentration
causes long-range repulsion between nanoparticle surfaces[26] and stabilizes dispersions of charged colloids
in molten salts.[27] Furthermore, simulations
have shown that the strength of interparticle interactions depends
on the surface charge density of nanoparticles; at high salt concentration,
weakly charged nanoparticles have a depletion-type attraction, whereas
nanoparticles with moderate to high surface charge densities experience
long-range repulsion attributed to ionic correlations.[25] In particular, for DNA-mediated colloidal assemblies,
high salt concentration has been shown to induce phase transitions[28] and nanoparticle aggregation in the absence
of hybridization interactions.[29] However,
it is difficult with the current tools to gain a full understanding
of the mechanism of how surface grafting densities and electrostatic
energies cause salting out and affect crystal formation in systems
with complementary linkers. Full atom and implicit solvent coarse-grained
simulations show that the fraction of clusters with 5–8 ions
increase rapidly as the salt concentration increases from 0.3 to 1
M.[25] We hypothesize that these clusters
electrostatically interact with the DNA corona surrounding the nanoparticle
and incur a significant energetic penalty associated with charge repulsion
when the PAEs are in close proximity, resulting in a reduction of
the attachment kinetics during PAE crystallization.
Results and Discussion
To explore the free-energy landscape across which nucleation takes
place with varying salt concentrations, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations
were used to calculate PAE interaction potential energies (Figure A). These simulations
used a PAE design consisting of two 15 nm spherical gold nanoparticles,
each functionalized with one of two DNA sequences bound to linker
strands with complementary “sticky ends” (Figure ). These PAEs assemble into
bcc superlattices. The foundation for these simulations is based on
the assumptions that (i) the interaction between the complementary
PAEs is the main driving force for crystallization, (ii) the interaction
with the second nearest neighbors (i.e., noncomplementary PAEs) is
negligible, and (iii) similar trends in the free energy are observed
at room temperature (25 °C) and elevated temperature. Effective
pair potential energies were calculated by modeling two complementary
PAEs at 25 °C with the 3SPN force-field, which included DNA-hybridization
attraction, stacking interactions, excluded volume repulsion, and
electrostatic interactions between phosphate groups and explicit ions.[30,31] The strong parallels between the modeled and experimental results
(DNA melting temperature increases with increasing salt concentration)
indicate that the binding energy between the PAEs increases with increasing
salt concentration (Figures B, S4).
Figure 1
(A) A snapshot of two
complementary PAEs at different salt concentrations
in simulations. The centers of the 15 nm nanoparticles are 370 Å
apart in this snapshot. (B) Pair potential energies between complementary
PAEs were calculated across a range of interparticle distances. PAEs
exhibit a well-defined equilibrium interparticle distance at potential
minimum. At an interparticle distance of 380 Å, the attachment
barrier peaks; this increases with increasing salt concentration.
(C) Mean crystal size obtained without coarsening as a function of
the attachment rate to the surface.
(A) A snapshot of two
complementary PAEs at different salt concentrations
in simulations. The centers of the 15 nm nanoparticles are 370 Å
apart in this snapshot. (B) Pair potential energies between complementary
PAEs were calculated across a range of interparticle distances. PAEs
exhibit a well-defined equilibrium interparticle distance at potential
minimum. At an interparticle distance of 380 Å, the attachment
barrier peaks; this increases with increasing salt concentration.
(C) Mean crystal size obtained without coarsening as a function of
the attachment rate to the surface.The impact of salt concentration on the interaction potential
between
a pair of PAEs was studied by calculating the potential energies as
a function of interparticle distance (i.e., core-to-core distance)
ranging from 30 to 40 nm. Previous studies on nanoparticles with noncomplementary
DNA strands exhibit repulsion forces between nanoparticles that are
longer range than the repulsion predicted by DLVO theory when the
salt concentration increases above 0.3 M,[25] which is in agreement with experiments on repulsion between charged
surfaces at high monovalent salt concentrations.[26,27] This electrostatic interaction depends on multiple factors, including
grafting density, temperature, and ionic strength, and can even lead
to salting out.[25,29] For nanoparticles grafted with
strongly charged polymer chains at similar grafting densities (e.g.,
PAEs), the effective screening length was measured to be between 2
and 5 nm as opposed to the sub-nanometer length predicted by DLVO.[25] Consistently, above certain salt concentrations,
simulations that include hybridization interactions show short-range
attraction from hybridization interactions at distances where the
DNA coronae overlap and longer range repulsion extending to distances
where they do not overlap (Figure B). This results in an energetic barrier greater than
the thermal energy (kBT) (i.e., the thermal fluctuation of the system must cross over the
nucleation barrier to initiate crystallization), which slows the attachment
kinetics between complementary PAEs. Thus, we hypothesize that the
PAEs assemble to form larger crystals at higher solution ionic strengths
due to this nucleation barrier (Figures C, S1–S2).To investigate whether PAE assembly at elevated salt concentrations
leads to the growth of larger microcrystals, two sets of 15 nm spherical
PAEs with complementary DNA sequences were prepared. Each sample was
assembled in solution at three different salt concentrations (0.3,
0.5, and 1 M NaCl) and then slowly cooled. This process enables DNA-driven
crystallization that favors the formation of single-crystalline rhombic
dodecahedra with the gold nanoparticles in a bcc crystallographic
symmetry (over a polycrystalline assembly).[11,12] The effect of salt concentration on PAE assembly above 1 M NaCl
was not probed in this study because the PAEs no longer crystallize
into rhombic dodecahedron single crystals. Single crystals were chosen
as the subject of this study because the crystal domain size is easier
to identify and compare between samples. Superlattices were then characterized
by small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), electron microscopy (EM),
and selected area diffraction (SAD).First, SAXS line shape
analysis was used to deconvolute peak broadening
arising from grain size and microstrain (Figure S6), and the grain sizes were compared using Williamson-Hall
analysis (Figures A, S7). Stokes-Wilson strain broadening
can be combined with Scherrer size broadening in scattering peaks
to extract information about grain size (eqs S12–13).[32] Consistent with both the hypotheses
and the calculations of interaction potentials, a significant increase
in average grain size is observed when the salt concentration was
increased from 0.5 to 1 M for nanoparticle assemblies using both six-
and seven-base pair sticky ends (Figures A, S7). This further
confirms the assumption that similar trends in the free energy are
observed at different temperatures. Although the grain size generally
increases with increasing salt concentration, it decreases with increasing
particle concentration (Figure S8). A decrease
in mean crystal size with increasing particle concentration can be
attributed to the increase in chemical potential (eq S2). Since the nucleation rate is strongly dependent on
the chemical potential of the system, increasing the chemical potential
leads to a faster nucleation rate (i.e., a greater number of nuclei
forms), and thus, the formation of smaller microcrystals is expected.
Note that the chemical potential difference is a thermodynamic driving
force for crystallization.
Figure 2
(A) Williamson-Hall analysis of SAXS data (Figures S5–S6) can be used to deconvolute
peak broadening
arising from grain size (intercept) and microstrain (slope). (B) Scheme
(top) showing the dimension that was measured for the statistical
analysis of crystal size distribution using SEM images. (i), (ii),
and (iii) are schematic representations of three different orientations
of the microcrystals commonly observed on the substrate. The length
“a” (edge length) was measured and
mathematically converted to convey the length shown in the top drawing.
Size analyses of approximately 150 microcrystals, assembled at (C)
0.3, (D) 0.5, and (E) 1 M NaCl, show an increase in average crystal
size with increasing salt concentration. SEM images of silica-encapsulated
bcc gold nanoparticle microcrystals, interlinked with DNA and assembled
at (F) 0.3, (G) 0.5, and (H) 1 M NaCl confirm faceted rhombic dodecahedra.
For this set of data, nanoparticle assemblies were done using complementary
seven-base pair sticky ends. Scale bars are 2 μm.
(A) Williamson-Hall analysis of SAXS data (Figures S5–S6) can be used to deconvolute
peak broadening
arising from grain size (intercept) and microstrain (slope). (B) Scheme
(top) showing the dimension that was measured for the statistical
analysis of crystal size distribution using SEM images. (i), (ii),
and (iii) are schematic representations of three different orientations
of the microcrystals commonly observed on the substrate. The length
“a” (edge length) was measured and
mathematically converted to convey the length shown in the top drawing.
Size analyses of approximately 150 microcrystals, assembled at (C)
0.3, (D) 0.5, and (E) 1 M NaCl, show an increase in average crystal
size with increasing salt concentration. SEM images of silica-encapsulated
bcc gold nanoparticle microcrystals, interlinked with DNA and assembled
at (F) 0.3, (G) 0.5, and (H) 1 M NaCl confirm faceted rhombic dodecahedra.
For this set of data, nanoparticle assemblies were done using complementary
seven-base pair sticky ends. Scale bars are 2 μm.To further examine the effect of salt concentration
on crystal
size along with crystal habit (e.g., facet), we used SEM to determine
the size distribution of approximately 150 microcrystals for each
salt concentration. Since the formation of microcrystals mediated
by the slow cooling approach is similar to conventional homogeneous
nucleation (i.e., the crystallization starts from dispersed precursors),
a broad range of crystal sizes is expected from classical theory.
To prepare samples for SEM imaging, slow-cooled samples were encapsulated
in silica using a sol–gel process,[33] dispersed in 50% EtOH in water, and slowly dried on a silicon substrate.
Although microcrystals generated in solution with different salt concentrations
are all rhombic dodecahedra (Figure F–H, S9–S10), the overall crystal size increases with increasing salt concentration
(Figure C–E).
Because the microcrystals dried on a substrate lie in different orientations
on the substrate, mathematical corrections on each measurement of
“a” (edge length) were performed (Figures B, S11, Table S2). SEM results show similar size distributions
for the 0.3 and 0.5 M salt concentration samples with mean sizes of
3.6 ± 1.6 and 3.5 ± 1.3 μm, respectively (Figure D, E). However, similar
to the conclusions drawn based on the SAXS data, a noticeable increase
in the crystal size distribution is observed for the 1 M NaCl sample
with a calculated mean size of 4.9 ± 2.6 μm (Figure F). As noted earlier, a wide
distribution of crystal sizes is predicted for crystal growth via
homogeneous nucleation and growth. However, it is worthwhile to note
that in addition to the average crystal size analyzed from both SEM
and SAXS (Figures C–E, S7), the number of crystals that are smaller than 2 μm decreases
drastically with increasing salt concentration; i.e., there were no
crystals below 2 μm in the 1 M NaCl sample (Figure C–E). Remarkably, these
crystals can grow up to 21 μm (the length shown in Figure B, top) when the
PAEs are assembled at high solution ionic strength (Figure H).The crystallization
process is usually described by the formation
of critical nuclei (i.e., nucleation) followed by subsequent growth.
Generally, the nucleation rate is dependent on both the energy barrier
of nanoparticle cluster formation and the attachment rate of the interacting
nanoparticles. An emergence of long-range repulsion at high salt concentration
(Figure B) results
in a reduction of the attachment rate A, which can
be understood from the following relationship:where j is
the frequency at which two nanoparticles come together, ν0 is the trial rate (a constant, units in 1/time), and
Δ is the repulsion
barrier that nanoparticles must overcome to initiate crystallization
(see Simulation section in the Supporting Information for detailed discussion). Thus, from this equation, one can extract
that the frequency of nanoparticle attachment events decreases exponentially
with an increasing energy barrier. In the case where the long-range
diffusion is required, two rate-limiting processes, interface- and
diffusion-limited growth, affect the growth rate. The initial stage
of crystal growth is limited by interfacial attachment barriers. In
this regime, crystal size increases linearly with time (crystal size
≈ At, where A is the growth
rate proportional to j and t is
the time).[34] In the case where the nanoparticle
attachment occurs extremely fast (i.e., nanoparticle interactions
are extremely favorable and j is large), no interface-limited
regime is present, and crystals with irregular shapes and disordered
nanoparticles form.[35] However, in the case
of slow attachment rates (i.e., j is small), faceted
microcrystals form. When most of the nanoparticles are consumed, diffusion
can no longer sufficiently transport materials to the crystal–solution
interface. Beyond this regime, crystal growth is limited by diffusion,
where the growth rate is significantly slowed (crystal size ≈ t1/2).[36] The growth
rate in this regime is entirely determined by the diffusion constant
and the supersaturation, given by c – ceq, where c and ceq are the current and equilibrium concentrations of the
free nanoparticles in solution, respectively. The transition between
interface-limited to diffusion-limited regimes has been reported for
colloidal crystals using MD simulations.[37]The combination of MD simulations and experiments suggests
that
the reduction in the PAE attachment rate at 1 M NaCl likely impedes
the formation of stable clusters/critical nuclei and drastically slows
the interface-limited regime, meaning the system at high salt conditions
enters the diffusion-limited regime much later than the other two
systems. Thus, by suppressing nuclei formation, large single crystals
are realized. Since this phenomenon occurs at a large interparticle
distance (i.e., before the particles are fully locked into a particular
structure) and solely depends on the interactions between salt ions
and the DNA corona, this approach can be generalized for different
particle cores and lattice symmetries. We presume that a similar trend
will be observed when the rate of cooling is changed. It is worth
noting that there is a possibility of large crystal growth occurring
through coalescence and restructuring processes, where two or more
stable crystals merge to form a single crystal. In atomic systems,
coarsening typically occurs by Ostwald-like ripening processes;[38] however, this process is very slow and unlikely
to occur in colloidal systems. On the other hand, it has been shown
that the coarsening in colloidal systems could happen by grain-rotation
induced coalescence.[39] Similar coarsening
has been observed for PAE systems in MD simulations (see Simulation section in the Supporting Information for further discussion).[37]Because
defects and inhomogeneity in the superlattice can affect
the optical response of these materials, it is crucial to produce
high-quality crystals.[40] Each SAXS pattern
shows, regardless of the solution ionic strength, a high degree of
single-crystalline ordering of nanoparticles arranged into a bcc crystallographic
symmetry (Figure S5). The crystallinity
was further characterized by performing SAD using a transmission electron
microscope (TEM) (Figure ). This characterization technique provides a diffraction
pattern of a thin crystalline specimen within a selected area, which
can be used to identify local crystal structures and examine defects,
such as twinning and dislocations. Here, we used SAD to qualitatively
evaluate the crystallinity of local areas within these microcrystals.
Indeed, the appearance of distinct spots in the diffraction patterns
of a large single crystal indicates high-quality crystals and that
the microstrain is mostly isotropic without random defects (Figure C).
Figure 3
(A) and (B) Transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) images of a
thin (∼100 nm) section of silica-encapsulated microcrystals,
initially crystallized in 1 M NaCl. (C) Well-defined SAD patterns
were obtained by subjecting a parallel beam of high-energy electrons
to a thin section of one of the large microcrystals shown in (B).
Scale bars are 5 μm, 200 nm, and 100 μm–1 for (A), (B), and (C), respectively.
(A) and (B) Transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) images of a
thin (∼100 nm) section of silica-encapsulated microcrystals,
initially crystallized in 1 M NaCl. (C) Well-defined SAD patterns
were obtained by subjecting a parallel beam of high-energy electrons
to a thin section of one of the large microcrystals shown in (B).
Scale bars are 5 μm, 200 nm, and 100 μm–1 for (A), (B), and (C), respectively.Furthermore, it is important to have independent control
over the
interparticle distance, while retaining crystallinity and habit, because
each structural control can be used to influence material properties.
A uniform shift in peak position, however, indicates that there is
a 5% decrease in the DNA bond length as the salt concentration is
raised from 0.3 to 1 M (Figure A). However, since the interactions between the DNA bonds
and ions are electrostatic in nature, the lattice parameters of these
superlattices can be altered simply by salt exchange (Figure B). By changing the salt concentration
after the crystals are grown, the salt-induced transition in interparticle
spacing is fully reversible, and SAXS patterns collected before and
after salt exchange do not show noticeable changes in the SAXS peak
widths (Figures , S13).
Figure 4
(A) The bcc unit cell lattice parameter at different
salt concentrations.
(B) The change in lattice parameters induced by salt is reversible.
The arrows from (i) to (ii) and (iii) to (iv) show the changes in
lattice parameters after 1 to 0.3 M and 0.3 to 1 M salt exchange,
respectively.
(A) The bcc unit cell lattice parameter at different
salt concentrations.
(B) The change in lattice parameters induced by salt is reversible.
The arrows from (i) to (ii) and (iii) to (iv) show the changes in
lattice parameters after 1 to 0.3 M and 0.3 to 1 M salt exchange,
respectively.Taken together, the conclusions
presented here reveal the properties
of polyelectrolyte brushes of nanoparticle-based DNA bonds and provide
a powerful way to alter the attachment kinetics of PAEs to control
mesoscale crystal size. Importantly, PAE crystallization at elevated
salt concentrations can be used to synthesize colloidal single crystals
over a significantly larger length scale. Furthermore, through postsynthetic
salt exchange process, the salt-induced transition is fully reversible.
The extension of this work to different annealing conditions, multivalent
cations, and DNA loading should enhance our fundamental understanding
of tuning kinetics to control materials properties and lead to new
possibilities for the realization of kinetically controlled superlattice
structures. The high-level of structural control over colloidal single
crystals will enable researchers to probe the effect of crystal size
on the optoelectronic and mechanical properties of these materials.[1,3]
Safety
Statement
No unexpected or unusually high safety
hazards were encountered.
Authors: Robert J Macfarlane; Byeongdu Lee; Matthew R Jones; Nadine Harris; George C Schatz; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Science Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Sung Yong Park; Abigail K R Lytton-Jean; Byeongdu Lee; Steven Weigand; George C Schatz; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Nature Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962