Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:42:43.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fabrication, Characterization, and Nanotoxicity of Water stable Quantum Dots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2020

Eduardo A. Chaparro Barriera  and
Sonia J. Bailón-Ruiz
Eduardo A. Chaparro Barriera
Affiliation:
Department of Biology University ofPuerto Rico at Ponce
Sonia J. Bailón-Ruiz
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Physics, University of Puerto Rico at Ponce
Get access

Abstract

Quantum Dots (QDs) like Cadmium Sulphide have exciting applications, consequent to their size-dependent optical properties. This compound is used as a pigment in papers, paint, and it can also be found in solar cells. Due to the high use of nanoparticles in society, there is a significant concern in the scientific community about the potential toxicity of these nanomaterials in aquatic environments. According to this main problem, we have a theoretical assumption that Cadmium Sulphide (CdS) particles at nanoscale are more toxic than those in macroscale (bulk), and a higher concentration means higher toxicity. To verify its toxicity in the aquatic environment, first, we need to make sure the nanoparticles are soluble in water. Based in the mentioned before, the objectives of this research were: (i) synthesize Cadmium Sulphide QDs in aqueous phase in presence of biocompatible molecules like L-Glutathione and N-Acetyl-L-cysteine, (ii) characterize the quantum dots optically, structurally and morphologically and; (iii) evaluate the toxicity of Cadmium Sulphide in biological systems. CdS, L-Glutathione-covered CdS and N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine-covered CdS evidenced shoulder peaks at 473 nm (2.40 eV), 450 nm (2.62 eV) and, 381 (3.03 eV) nm, respectively. A broad and high emission peak centered at 545 nm was observed for CdS Nps covered with N-acetyl-L cysteine; whereas as QDs without cover and those covered with L-glutathione showed weak peaks in the visible range (470 nm-650 nm). The presence of L-Glutathione or N-Acetyl-L-cysteine on the quantum dots surface was verified by Infrared Spectroscopy. Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDX) assays evidenced the chemical composition of produced nanostructures having 57.91% of S and 42.09% of Cd. The morphology and the size were carried out by High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy (HR-TEM). In this way, nanoparticles were spherical and with a size of ~3 nm. Toxicity results evidence that nanoparticles covered with N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine had a negative interaction in marine organisms at concentrations higher than 700 ppm, after 24 or 48 hours of contact. Also, CdS bulk showed absence of toxicity to marine crustaceans.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 5 , Issue 43: Nanoscale and Quantum Materials , 2020 , pp. 2231 - 2239
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Medintz, I., Mattoussi, H., Clapp, A., Int J Nanomedicine. 3(2), 151–167 (2008).Google Scholar
Vasudevan, D., Gaddam, R., Trinchi, A., Cole, I., J. Alloys Compd. 636, 395-404 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malathi, A., Jagannathan, M., J. Nano. Res-Sw. 48, 49-61 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shangxi, L., Wong, M. K., Pat, P. K., Wong, C. Y., Chiu, S. K., Pun, E., J. Phys. Chem. 115 (44), 21604-21609 (2016).Google Scholar
Cinteza, L. O., J. Nanophotonics. 4(1) (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrahi, R., Movafeghi, A., Khataee, A., Rezanejad, F., Gohari, G., Molecules. 24(3): 410 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandow, N., Simon, F. G., Environ Sci Eur. 28(1) (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardman, R., Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 115-172 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneau, A., Fortier, M., Gagne, F., Gagnon, C., Turcotte, P., Tayabali, A., Davis, T. L., Auffret, M., Fournier, M., Environ. Sci. Process Impacts. 15(3), 596-607 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotomskis, R., Jurgelėnė, Ž., Stankevičius, M., Stankevičiūtė, M., Kazlauskienė, N., Jokšas, K., Montvydienė, D., Kulvietis, V., Karabanovas, V., Sci. 63, 1280-1291 (2018).Google Scholar
Domingos, R. F., Simon, D. F., Hauser, C., Wilkinson, K. J., Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(18), 7664-7669 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velázquez, J., & Bailón-Ruiz, S., MRS Adv. 4(38-39), 2095-2102 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borovaya, M. N., Naumenko, A. P., Matvieieva, N. A., Blume, Y. B., Yemets, A. I., Nanoscale Res Lett. 9 (686), (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrucci, F., Caimi, S., Mura, G. & Caroli, S., Microchem J. 51(1–2), 181-186 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar