| Literature DB >> 33283084 |
Surendran Pandiyan1, Lakshmanan Arumugam1, Sakthy Priya Srirengan1, Rameshkumar Pitchan1, Pushpalatha Sevugan1, Karthik Kannan2, Geetha Pitchan3, Tejaswi Ashok Hegde4, Vinitha Gandhirajan4.
Abstract
In this work, the green synthesis of highly fluorescent carbon quantum dots (Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33283084 PMCID: PMC7711700 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c03290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1(a, b) HRTEM image with different magnifications, (c) size distribution chart for CQDs, and (d) XRD pattern of CQDs.
Figure 2FTIR spectrum of synthesized CQDs.
Figure 3Survey XPS spectra of CQDs (A) and high-resolution XPS data of (B) C 1s, (C) N 1s, and (D) O 1s.
Figure 4UV–visible absorption spectrum of CQDs.
Figure 5Linear refractive index of carbon quantum dots.
Figure 6Fluorescence emission spectrum of CQDs at different concentrations.
Figure 7(a) Sample at the focal point (Z = 0), (b) sample self-focusing (+n2), and (c) sample self-defocusing (−n2).
Figure 8(a) Closed and (b) ratio of closed and open aperture Z-scan patterns of as-prepared CQDs.
Figure 9Open aperture Z-scan pattern of as-prepared CQDs.
Third-Order NLO Measurement Values of Prepared CQDs
| third-order NLO parameters | values |
|---|---|
| laser beam wavelength (λ) | 532 nm |
| linear absorption coefficient (α) | 9.902 |
| linear refractive index ( | 1.2348 |
| nonlinear absorption coefficient (β) | 2.513 × 10–4 cm/W |
| nonlinear refractive index ( | 1.012 × 10–8 cm2/W |
| real part of the third-order susceptibility [Re(χ)(3)] | 3.917 × 10–7 esu |
| imaginary part of the third-order susceptibility [Im(χ)3] | 4.120 × 10–8 esu |
| third-order nonlinear optical susceptibility [χ(3)] | 3.939 × 10–7 esu |
Comparison of Third-Order NLO Susceptibility (χ(3)) Values for Other Nonlinear Optical Materials and CQDs
| materials | method | (χ(3)) (esu) | ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| sugarcane waste CQDs | hydrothermal | 3.939 × 10–7 | present work |
| orange waste CQDs | hydrothermal | 2.774 × 10–7 | ( |
| N-CDs | one-step wet chemical | 12.5 × 10–12 | ( |
| boron-doped C-dots | microwave heating | 5.0 × 10–15 | ( |
| carbon dots (CDs) | pyrolysis | 11.3 × 10–13 | ( |
| CDs | ultrasonication | 4.6 × 10–13 | ( |
Figure 10Antibacterial activities of as-prepared CQDs against (a) Bacillus cereus, (b) Staphylococcus aureus, (c) Pseudomonas aeruginosa, (d) Escherichia coli, and (e) Vibrio cholerae bacterial pathogens.
Antibacterial Activity of Carbon Quantum Dots against Bacterial Pathogenic Organisms
| tested organism | Gram reaction | zone of inhibition (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| +ve | 30 | |
| +ve | 22 | |
| –ve | 24 | |
| –ve | 25 | |
| –ve | 14 |
Figure 11Schematic diagram of the antimicrobial activity mechanism.
Comparison of Antibacterial Activity Obtained in the Present Work with That of Some Other Quantum Dots
| bacterial species | samples | zone of inhibition (mm) | ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZnS QDs | 3.1 | ( | |
| sugarcane CQDs | 30 | present work | |
| curcumin QDs | 14.1 ± 0.6 | ( | |
| henna CDs | 17 | ( | |
| nonylphenol CQDs | 13 | ( | |
| Lys-CQDs | 16 | ( | |
| sugarcane CQDs | 22 | present work | |
| curcumin quantum dots | 13.8 ± 1.1 | ( | |
| nonylphenol CQDs | 11 | ( | |
| Ag2S–N–CQD | 11.9 | ( | |
| sugarcane CQDs | 24 | present work | |
| ZCA | 23 | ( | |
| sugarcane CQDs | 25 | present work | |
| henna CDs | 12 | ( | |
| Ag2S–N–CQD | 11.7 | ( | |
| Cu QDs | 11 | ( | |
| sugarcane CQDs | 14 | present work |