Metal sulfidenanoparticles synthesized via enzyme treatment of biopolymer stabilized nanosuspensions

Yi-Yeoun Kim b and Dominic Walsh *a
aCentre for Organized Matter Chemistry, School of Chemistry, Cantocks Close, Bristol, BS8 1TS, UK. E-mail: d.walsh@bristol.ac.uk; Tel: (+44)117 3316797
bSchool of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Received 19th July 2009 , Accepted 28th September 2009

First published on 2nd November 2009


Abstract

Nanoparticles of CuS, CuxS, Ag2S and CdS were successfully prepared using a novel general and green synthetic process to give dextranbiopolymer stabilised metal sulfifde nanosuspensions. Following preparation, dextranase enzyme was used to remove the bulk of the bound dextran to give pure stable metal sulfidenanocrystals for application in for example aspects of medicine, photonics and solar cells. Particles of good homogeneity were obtained and the CuSnanoparticle size was controlled to 9–27 nm by adjusting the reaction conditions. Cu2Snanoparticles were 14 nm, Ag2Snanoparticles were 20–50 nm and CdS nanoparticles were 9 nm is size. The complexing mechanism of nanoparticlesulfides to dextrans was further studied using carboxylmethyl dextran as a complexing agent and crosslinked Sephadex (dextran) `beads as substrate. Particles were characterized by TEM, XRD, TGA, FT-IR and zeta-potential measurement, and their UV–vis spectroscopic absorption properties were determined. Stabilization of the sulfidenanoparticles with soluble hydroxylated biopolymers such as dextran is previously unreported and is here interpreted in terms of viscosity, pH of the system and weak polar S–H or S(metal)OH2+ interactions with dextran depending on the material. Notably, the complexing mechanism appears to differ significantly from that taking place in known dextran–metal oxide systems. The process shown here has good potential for scale-up as a biosynthetic route for a range of functional sulfidenanoparticles.


1. Introduction

The fabrication of semiconductor nanostructures has been an important goal in recent years,1 and interest and research into semiconductor chalcogenides, in particular copper sulfides and silver sulfide (Ag2S) especially when formed as nanoparticles, has recently increased sharply.2Copper sulfides exist as a range of stable and metastable phases ranging between copper ‘poor’ CuS (covellite) to copper ‘rich’ Cu2S (chalcocite) at room temperature, common CuxS phases are Cu1.75S(anilite), Cu1.8S(digenite) and Cu1.94S (djurleite).3 Conductivity in copper sulfides arises due to copper vacancies and decreases from copper-poor to copper-rich CuxS.4Copper sulfides have an important application in photonics as a semiconductor material for new-generation solar cells,5 as a lithium battery cathode material,6 as a catalyst and as a polymer-coating material.7Covellite is also, at present, the only known superconducting naturally occurring mineral with a Tc of 1.63K.8Ag2S has recently been recognised as semiconductor with unique properties such as enhanced and rapid optical nonlinearity and high luminescence, and has been applied in new optical and electronic devices.9CuS and Cu2S are indirect semiconductors with bandgaps around 1.7 and 1.2 eV respectively. CuxS compounds have indirect bandgaps between 1.05 and 1.4 eV for values of x of 1.8 to 1.96.10Ag2Snanoparticles can be both a direct and an indirect band semiconductor, with bandgaps Eg,dir of ∼1 and Eg,ind of ∼2.3 eV.11 The bandgap varies depending on particle size with bulk Ag2S having Eg,dir of 1.1 eV. CdSnanocrystals have previously been prepared by a great many routes and have a wide bandgap of Eg,dir 2.41 eV.12 However there are few reports on the preparation of copper sulfide nanomaterials. Methods of synthesizing CuS include templating in liquid crystal phases,13 or spray pyrolysis.3 Copper-rich CuxS has been made using copper salts reacted under argon in a mixed solvent of a thiol and oleic acid,2 or thermolysis of a copper–dodecanethiol complex under argon.14CuxS can also been made by the heating of CuS, resulting in the loss of sulfurous gases, however, large and aggregated crystals are obtained by this route.15 Furthermore, preparation of Ag2S is complicated by the strong tendency of Ag2S clusters to aggregate to form bulk precipitates.16 Reverse micelle techniques have been employed,17 along with silver thiolate polymers18 and thermal decomposition under argon of a silver(I) dialkyldithiophosphate.9

Here we report a green and general route applied to the preparation of photonic chalcogenides with CuS (covellite), Cu∼1.9S, Ag2S (acanthite) and CdS (hawleyite) nanoparticles as examples. To our knowledge, the use and interaction of dextran with metal sulfides has not been reported. Here we describe the use of the biopolymerdextran as a stablising agent for the preparation of the sulfidenanoparticles in the form of nanosuspensions, or as nanoparticle-coated Sephadex beads. This was followed by use of the enzyme dextranase for the liberation of the nanoparticles from their biopolymer coat leaving high-purity nanoparticles with only a trace level of dextran on the sulfide materials that prevented subsequent aggregation and growth. Dextran is a biocompatible polysaccharide composed of a majority of α1-6 and a minority of α1-3 or α1-4 glycosdic linked glucose units. Crosslinked dextran is available commercially as Sephadex beads of various types and used widely for size-exclusion chromatography.19

Dextran has previously been employed as a bound coating on magnetite and other metal oxides and forms an important class of materials for use in medicine as MRI contrast agents and in targeted drug delivery.20 Previously, starch, polyurethane and polyacrylamide have been used as capping agents for preparation of Ag2S and CdS nanoparticles.21Starch provided a green synthesis route to nanocomposite solids of 8 wt% Ag2S, polymers dissolved in organic solvents or microwaved melts enabled polymer-coated nanoparticles to be synthesized. Previous polymer stabilisation routes to nanoparticles have a limitation in obtaining high-purity products and typically the nanoparticles can only be released from the polymer by calcination.

Here, synthesis of the metal sulfidenanoparticles was conducted by addition of Na2S solution to a solution of dissolved metal nitrate and dextran, followed by mild heating to assist the bonding of dextran to the precipitated sulfidenanoparticle. This gave stable coloured suspensions of the sulfidenanoparticles. In order to prepare the copper-rich CuxS, Cu+ as CuCl and Na2S in degassed distilled water were used as starting reagents. Since dextran is a natural substance, the enzyme dextranase was then used to remove the bulk of the biopolymer shell following the synthesis, this then liberated the surface to act effectively in photonic or other applications. Dextranase occurs in a number of fungi and is extracted and utilized by the sugar industry for the breakdown of unwanted dextrans in harvested sugar. Dextranase cleaves the glucosepolymer primarily into solubilized isomaltose and isomaltotriose by catalyzing the endohydrolysis of the α1-6 glycosidic linkages at any point in the polymer chain. Dextranase has been used for controlled drug release from core–shell polymer particles and for the characterization of dextran-coated polycaprolactonenanoparticles and more recently for the preparation of metal oxidenanoparticles.22 An important aspect and advantage of the methodology shown here is the potential to develop a green biosynthesis for production of a range of nanoparticles on a large scale. Dextranase enzyme bound to montmorillonite, calcium phosphate microparticles or acrylic beads can be used for nanoparticle liberation with a useful maltose byproduct, the enzyme-coated beads could then be easily extracted by filtration and re-used.23 The dextranbiopolymer component can be readily generated from sucrose solution using dextran synthase enzyme directly or viabioreactors inoculated with Leuconostoc mesenteroides bacteria.24 Also, it would be possible to control biopolymer/nanoparticle relative content by enzyme treatment time.

The results showed that dextran had two essential roles in the synthesis process, firstly in providing a moderately viscous environment for the initial precipitation of sulfide. The viscosity reduced diffusion of ions and inhibited aggregation of nanoparticles and growth of the embryonic nanoparticles. Secondly, subsequent mild heating increased binding of the dextran to the metal sulfide particles to give stable nanosuspensions of polymer-coated nanoparticles. The importance of dextranMr was shown, as dextran of 500[hair space]000 Mr was necessary to form stable nanoparticles. Attempts to synthesize the sulfides with dextran at Mr of 6000 and 70[hair space]000 gave only or almost entirely highly aggregated bulk precipitations upon addition of S2−, with the exception of Ag2S which formed stable and high-yield nanosuspensions with dextran of Mr 70[hair space]000.

Interestingly, in order to help elucidate the binding mechanism of biopolymer to sulfides, the stabilisation of copper sulfidenanoparticles with synthetically prepared fully carboxylated dextran, (where the dextran OH groups have been replaced by COOH) was studied. The capping effect was found to be very weak and nanoparticle yields very low. The pH of the system was 4.1 and the pKa of dextran carboxyls is reported to be 6.1,25 thus the carboxyl groups are largely protonated and interact only very weakly with the metal sulfide surface.

2. Results and discussion

Dextran (Mr 500[hair space]000) stabilized CuS (dexCuS) was prepared with stoichiometric concentrations of Cu and S ions. Preparations were also conducted using progressively lower concentrations of S2− to the point where dark-green coloured supernatant suspensions following centrifugation and SEC purification (Fig. 1A) were no longer obtained. With Cu+ as a starting reagent in the preparation of dextran-stabilized CuxS (dexCuxS) brown coloured suspensions were formed (Fig. 1B). Grey/black suspensions were obtained with dextran-stabilized Ag2S (dexAg2S) preparations (Fig. 1C) and lemon-yellow coloured nanosuspensions were formed with dextran-stabilized CdS (dex–CdS) preparations (Fig. 1D). When Sephadex beads were used in place of dextran for CuS preparations, dark-green Sephadex–CuS beads were formed (Fig. S1 of the ESI )
Photograph of dextran-stabilized nanosuspensions of A) CuS; B) CuxS; C) Ag2S; D) CdS.
Fig. 1 Photograph of dextran-stabilized nanosuspensions of A) CuS; B) CuxS; C) Ag2S; D) CdS.

2.1 Enzymatic liberation of nanoparticles

Treatment of nanosuspensions or Sephadex–CuS beads with dextranase enzyme resulted in a transformation into flocs of suspended particles in colourless solution after several hours treatment at 34 °C. Dex–CdS behaved somewhat differently to the other sulfides prepared, as floc formation occurred within 30 min. Furthermore, dextranase treatment of dex–CdS for 24 h (open to light) was observed to result in gradual dissolution of the suspended particles until a colourless solution was obtained. Control experiments of CdS nanoparticles stored in distilled water at pH 3.5 showed only very minimal dissolution compared to dextranase-treated dex–CdS systems which were at pH 6 gradually dropping to pH 4 due to dissolution of the CdS with liberation of acidic H2S. This result is in accordance with literature reports on the significantly enhanced photodissolution of CdS in the presence of complexing agents.26 With CdS, S0 is formed at the particle surface which readily reacts to give S–OH and S–H functional groups. Also CdS relative solubility (Ksp 10−27) is significantly greater than the other sulfide samples which have Ksp values ranging from 10−37 to 10−51. The results suggests that the combination of dextran as complexing agent and its binding to the surface S, followed by removal by the enzyme, results in a particularly efficient dissolution system for CdS. Control samples of all dextran–metal sulfidenanoparticle suspensions warmed under the same conditions without added enzyme showed no separation or any observable changes after 48 h. This showed that firstly separation from the dextran capping agent was not due to warming, and also it showed that the photocatalytic surface dissolution process only occurred significantly with dex–CdS systems.

Furthermore, it was noted that nanosuspensions of the dextran-capped CuS and Ag2S particles prior to enzymatic treatment left in daylight for several weeks were unchanged. Aqueous brown CuxS nanosuspemsions were observed to undergo gradual oxidation into green coloured CuS after approximately 7 days, however it was found that this transformation was inhibited by the addition of a single drop of hydrazine solution.

Dex–CdS nanosuspensions showed the gradual dissolution process in daylight until no yellow coloration was observable after 4 days. Conversely dex–CdS nanosuspensions stored in dark conditions showed no dissolution, remaining lemon-yellow in colour. Presumably this difference is due to the relatively higher solubility and surface photoactivity of CdS in the presence of the dextran complexing agent.

CuS, CuxS and Ag2S nanosuspensions were subjected to enzyme treatment for 24 h, CdS nanosuspensions had a reduced enzyme treatment of 5 h to minimize the dissolution effect. Upon light and brief centrifugation of the flocs, a coloured sediment and colourless supernatant liquid was obtained. The supernatant was found to consist of a mix of low-molecular-weight sugars.

2.1.1 TEM analysis. TEM of the thoroughly washed dark-green sediment from dexCuS (1 : 1 molar ratio) preparations showed the presence of irregular nanocrystals with an average size of 27 nm (Fig. 2A). Upon decreasing S2− a minimum Cu:S molar ratio of 1 : 0.625 that still resulted in the formation of green CuSnanoparticle suspensions was determined. Following the dextranase treatment the dark-green coloured particles were shown by TEM to be discrete and more monodisperse nanoparticles with an average size of 14 nm (Fig. 2B). Thus some degree of control over particle size was possible by reduction of the S2− reagent concentration. Sephadex–CuS preparations yielded nanoparticles of average size 9.5 nm. The degree of homogeneity was less than that obtained with dextran solution systems however (Fig. S2 of the ESI ). Copper-rich dexCuxS preparations using CuCl as a starting reagent and a molar ratio of 2 : 1 Cu:S gave dark-brown coloured sediments following enzyme treatment, shown by TEM to be discrete nanoparticles with an average size of 14 nm (Fig. 2C). Although CuCl has low solubility in water, dextran is known to have strong complexion ability with copper ions,27 which may enhance the salt solubility sufficiently for rapid precipitation of copper sulfide to occur. The presence of the weakly reducing long-chain dextran may also be beneficial in maintaining the Cu+oxidation state during the reaction. Ag2S preparations using dextran at both Mr of 70[hair space]000 and 500[hair space]000 were shown to be more polydisperse with nanocrystals approximately 20–50 nm in size (Fig. 2D). CdS nanoparticles were shown to be roughly cubic crystals with an average size of 9 nm (Fig. 2E). Fig. 2F shows a TEM micrograph of an example green coloured dextranCuS nanosuspension (see Fig. 1A) prior to any dextranase treatment. CuS crystals embedded within the dried dextran film are visible. (All TEM measurements were the average of 15 particle sizes).

              TEM micrographs of dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles (A–E). A) CuS (Cu:S of 1 : 1 molar ratio), B) CuS (Cu:S of 1 : 0.625 molar ratio), inset shows a high-resolution image of a single nanoparticle with d-spacings of 3.3 Å (100); C) CuxS (Cu:S of 2 : 1 molar ratio), inset shows a high-resolution image of single nanoparticle with d-spacings of 1.68 Å; D) Ag2S (Ag:S of 2 : 1 molar ratio); E) CdS (Cd:S of 1 : 1 molar ratio); F) Dextran–CuS nanosuspension (see Fig. 1A) prior to dextranase treatment showing crystals embedded in a dried dextran film (Cu:S of 1 : 0.625 molar ratio).
Fig. 2 TEM micrographs of dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles (A–E). A) CuS (Cu:S of 1 : 1 molar ratio), B) CuS (Cu:S of 1 : 0.625 molar ratio), inset shows a high-resolution image of a single nanoparticle with d-spacings of 3.3 Å (100); C) CuxS (Cu:S of 2 : 1 molar ratio), inset shows a high-resolution image of single nanoparticle with d-spacings of 1.68 Å; D) Ag2S (Ag:S of 2 : 1 molar ratio); E) CdS (Cd:S of 1 : 1 molar ratio); F) DextranCuS nanosuspension (see Fig. 1A) prior to dextranase treatment showing crystals embedded in a dried dextran film (Cu:S of 1 : 0.625 molar ratio).
2.1.2 X-Ray analysis . X-Ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was conducted for all nanosuspensions following dextranase treatment and washing and drying of the coloured sediments (Fig. 3). All CuS preparations using Cu(NO3)2 as a starting reagent and following dextranase treatment gave broad reflections corresponding to hexagonal CuS (covellite) with d-spacings (Å) at 3.21 (101), 3.03 (102), 2.79 (103), 1.89 (110), 1.74 (108) and 1.56 (116) (JCPDS: 01-078-0876). CuxS prepared with CuCl in degassed water gave broad reflections with d-spacings (Å) at 3.19, 2.76 and 1.96, characteristic of a number of copper-rich sulfides of Cu1.8–1.97S. Samples prepared as Ag2S gave multiple reflections, all corresponding to monoclinic Ag2S (acanthite) with major reflections with d-spacings (Å) at 3.074 (111), 2.83 (−112), 2.596 (−121) and 2.43 (112) (JCPDS: 00-014-0072). CdS nanoparticles gave broad reflections with d-spacings (Å) at 3.32 (111), 2.05 (220) and 1.76 (311) corresponding to cubic CdS (hawleyite) (JCPDS: 00-010-454). The broad reflections of the CuS, CuxS and CdS confirmed the nanoparticle nature of these products. In contrast, XRD of samples prior to enzymatic treatment gave only very weak reflections due to the high-polymer, low metal sulfide content.

              Powder X-ray diffractograms of dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles of CuS, CuxS, Ag2S and CdS.
Fig. 3 Powder X-ray diffractograms of dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles of CuS, CuxS, Ag2S and CdS.
2.1.3 FT-IR analysis. FT-IR spectroscopy of pure dextran (Mr 500[hair space]000) and also CuS, CuxS, Ag2S and CdS preparations following dextranase treatment and thorough washing are shown in Fig. 4. Native dextran itself showed characteristic bands around 1000–1100 cm−1 and further bands at 1430, 1630, 2920 and 3400 cm−1.28 Dried dex–metal sulfide samples showed near identical bands to native dextran due to the large excess of bound dextran present which obscured any sulfur–metal absorbance bands (not shown). Conversely, dextranase-treated nanoparticle samples showed weak metal–sulfur bands present over 500–600 cm−1 together with bands due to dextran at ca. 1000–1100 cm−1 of relative size that corresponded to the nanoparticle dimension. Smaller particles showed a higher level of residual surface-bound dextran oligomer due to the higher surface-to-volume ratio. Thus prominent dextran bands were found with the smaller sized CuS (1 : 0.625 molar ratio) CuxS and CdS nanoparticles. Weaker bands from residual oligomer were obtained with the larger sized CuS (1 : 1 molar ratio) and Ag2S samples.

              FT-IR spectra of pure dextran (Mr 500 000), other spectra are all dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles of: CuS (1 : 0.625 molar ratio, 14 nm), CuS (1 : 1 molar ratio, 27 nm), CuxS, Ag2S and CdS.
Fig. 4 FT-IR spectra of pure dextran (Mr 500[hair space]000), other spectra are all dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles of: CuS (1 : 0.625 molar ratio, 14 nm), CuS (1 : 1 molar ratio, 27 nm), CuxS, Ag2S and CdS.
2.1.4 Thermogravimetric analysis . Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) in air of dried dextran–metal sulfides showed significant onset of decomposition from around 300 °C due to decomposition of dextran into carbon with loss of water vapour and then removal of carbon as CO2. DexCuS nanosuspensions (Fig. S1 of the ESI ) then showed a further weight loss due to decomposition of CuS to CuO and copper sulfates that occurred up to around 430 °C. A residual mass of oxosulphates and CuO of 9.7 wt% was obtained. Cu2S showed a similar profile to CuS but had the lowest residual mass of the materials prepared with a yield of copper oxysulfates of 4 wt%. This perhaps reflected the quite low solubility of the CuCl reagent in solution. TGA of dried dexAg2S showed weight loss due to dextran removal and also decomposition of Ag2S to give a residual mass of Ag of 10 wt% from around 650 °C. XRD measurement of a sample heated to 400 °C showed major reflections due to Ag d-spacings (Å) at 2.35 (111), 2.04 (200) and 1.44 (220), showing decomposition of the Ag2S and carbothermal reduction to Ag had already largely taken place at this temperature (not shown). Upon heating in air therefore it is likely the acanthite converted to the higher temperature argentite phase around 180 °C followed by reduction of the Ag2S,29 with the loss of sulfurous gases to give Ag. Dex–CdS gave a similar profile to the dex–copper sulfides again showing biopolymer and sulfidedecomposition to give a residual mass of 6 wt% cadmium oxide and oxysulphates.

In contrast, TGA (with air flow) of dextranase-treated dexCuS, dexCuxS and dexAg2S did not show significant weight loss on heating to 400 °C and had far greater residual masses confirming that the bulk of the dextran coating was removed by the enzymatic hydrolysis prior to the TGA analysis (Fig. S2 of the ESI ). For the CuS sample, onset of conversion of the CuS into oxysulphates occurred around 300 °C with a weight gain to 108% before decomposition into CuO and mixed oxysulphates at around 620 °C. CuxS showed a weight loss of 2 wt% over the temperature range 100–400 °C which we attribute largely to decomposition of trace residual dextran, by 800 °C the sample weight had increased by 5 wt% overall due to conversion into oxosulphates with uptake of oxygen. Ag2S samples showed a gradual increase in mass during heating, showing the absence of significant amounts of carbon from associated dextran meant that reduction to Ag was not promoted and conversion to oxysulfates occurred with uptake of oxygen.

2.2 UV–vis spectroscopic analysis

UV–vis spectroscopy of enzyme dexCuS nanosuspensions showed the characteristic absorption in both the UV and near-IR regions of the spectrum (Fig. 5).30UV spectra of enzyme-treated Sephadex–CuS were near-identical to dex–CdS (not shown). The CuxS phase showed absorption only in the blue–UV region which is typical for CuxS with x = 1.7–2.0. Ag2S and dextran nanosuspensions show absorption in the blue–UV region with a quite broad absorption in the visible region due to overlap of absorption bands of differing energies from moderately polydisperse sized nanoparticles. CdS preparations show onset of absorption at 475 nm and an exciton peak at approximately 405 nm indicating the exciton Bohr radius (∼5 nm) is comparable to the radius of the prepared nanoparticles.31
Plots of UV–vis absorbance of the dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles of CuS (1 : 0.625 molar ratio), Ag2S, CuxS and CdS.
Fig. 5 Plots of UV–vis absorbance of the dextranase-treated and washed nanoparticles of CuS (1 : 0.625 molar ratio), Ag2S, CuxS and CdS.

Bandgap energies and transition types were derived by using the following equation that describes the relationship for near-edge absorption:

α = [k(Eg)n/2]/hν
α is a constant that depends on transition probability, ν is the frequency, h is the Planck's constant, k equals a constant while n can be 1 or 4. The bandgap, Eg, can be obtained from a straight line plot of (αhν)2/n as a function of hν. Extrapolation of the line to the baseline, where the value of (αhν)2/n is zero, will give Eg. If a graph with a portion of straight line is obtained for n = 1, it indicates a direct electron transition between the semiconductor states, whereas an indirect transition is indicated if a straight-line graph is obtained for n = 4.

Direct transition plots for Ag2S gave straight-line portions that give a bandgap of Eg,dir 2.4 eV consistent with that reported.8 Plots of CdS samples extrapolate to zero () at Eg,dir 2.62 eV (∼475 nm) and show a blue shift of 40 nm relative to bulk CdS with a bandgap of 2.41 eV (515 nm), this gives a particle size of approximately 10 nm by calculation.20 For CuxSnanoparticles plots of (αhν)2 gave an Eg,dir of 1.8 eV quite close to the 1.7 eV reported for this direct transition (Fig. 6A). A plot of (αhν)1/2 against for absorption of CuS and CuxSnanoparticles gave straight-line portions that could be extrapolated to zero to give an indirect (Eg,ind) bandgap of 1.60 eV for the CuS which closely matches the 1.55 eV reported for the transition of this material (Fig. 6B).10 For CuxSnanoparticles, extrapolation gave an Eg,ind bandgap of 1.5 eV which is close to the value of 1.4 eV reported for bulk Cu1.96S (djurleite) (Fig. 6B).10 This suggest the CuxSnanoparticles obtained in this synthesis most closely match this polymorph of CuxS. The indirect plot for Ag2S could be extrapolated to give an Eg,ind of 1.1 eV (Fig. 6B).


Plots of (αhν)2 (direct transitions) as a function of photon energy (hν) for prepared CuxS, Ag2S and CdS nanoparticles. B. Plots of (αhν)1/2 (indirect transitions) as a function of photon energy (hν) for CuS, CuxS and Ag2Snanoparticles.
Fig. 6 Plots of (αhν)2 (direct transitions) as a function of photon energy () for prepared CuxS, Ag2S and CdS nanoparticles. B. Plots of (αhν)1/2 (indirect transitions) as a function of photon energy () for CuS, CuxS and Ag2Snanoparticles.

Overall it was observed that, except for Ag2S, bandgaps increased relative to bulk samples due to quantum size effects of the prepared nanoparticles. Also, the observed increase over bulk bandgaps corresponded to the relative sizes of nanoparticles obtained, with a marginal increase obtained with CuSnanoparticles and a more significant increase obtained with the smaller CdS nanoparticles. Sizes of prepared nanoparticles as measured by TEM after dextranase treatment and washing, the calculated surface areas and zeta-potentials are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Table of prepared nanoparticles following enzymatic treatment showing average sizes, calculated surface areas and zeta-potential
Sample Cation:anion molar ratio Size/nm Surface area/m2g−1 Zeta-potential/mV
CuS 1 : 1 27 47 −24.8
CuS 1 : 0.625 14 91 −27.4
CuS (onto Sephadex bead) 1 : 1 9.5 130 −23.2
CuxS 2 : 1 14 ∼75 −8.49
Ag2S 2 : 1 20–50 ∼25 +0.43
CdS 1 : 1 9 137 −8.08


2.2.1 Zeta-potential analysis . Zeta-potential measurements of dex–metal sulfide nanosuspensions all gave slightly negative surface charge indicating the surface charge was dominated by the bound dextran. Following dextranase treatment and washing of the sediment, zeta-potential measurements were in accordance with values reported for pure materials.32CuS suspensions at both molar ratios indicated a moderately negative surface charge of approximately −26 mV for 27 nm sized and for 14 nm sized CuS. This moderate negative charge was reflected in the stability of these suspensions which showed little or no aggregation upon standing for several weeks. The copper rich CuxS and CdS were measured as having significantly less negative charge of with zeta-potential of approximately −8.5 mV. For CuxS this reflects the higher positively charged copper content of this material’s surface. Upon standing, nanosuspensions of CuxS and CdS showed a tendency to flocculate, however, upon very brief sonication good redispersion occurred and TEM showed that discrete nanoparticles of unchanged dimension were present. It is likely that the small quantity of remnant surface-bound dextran oligomer prevents aggregation and growth of the nanocrystals (Table 1).

3. Conclusions

Overall we have demonstrated a simple and green methodology for the preparation of copper sulfide in copper ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ forms, silver sulfide and also cadmium sulfide nanoparticles as stable nanosuspensions, which can have medical application for fluorescence imaging of biological samples.30Dextranbiopolymer of Mr 500[hair space]000 was required to prevent aggregation of the precipitated sulfides during preparation. However, XRD, FT-IR and TGA data show that biopolymer-coated nanoparticles could subsequently be readily enzymatically liberated from the bulk of their biopolymer shells giving near-pure nanoparticles that were still stabilized by a remnant dextran oligomer coat.

Several factors are responsible for the dimensions of the nanoparticles obtained; the pH of the system, the relative solubilities of the precipitated sulfides, the relative reagent concentration, and the particular affinity of the metal sulfide surface for dextran. Dextran-to-metal-ion interaction has been previously reported for metal oxide systems.21 Here the systems are strongly basic and COO bonds strongly with the metal ion surface. At higher dextranMr hydrogen bonding between the metal ion and dextranhydroxyls also becomes important.22

For copper ions, hydrogen bonding to dextranhydroxyls has been shown to only begin occurring at pH 7 or higher.27 For the systems prepared here, the pH of the reaction mixtures varied from pH 3–6 (due to the acidic nitrate salts), in this pH range dextranhydroxyls and terminal carboxyls will be protonated (the pKa of dextranhydroxyls is ∼11).33 Also, surface S is reported to exist as SH altering to include some S(metal)OH+ functionalities nearer to pH 6, due to the dissociative adsorption of water.34

Except for Ag2S, stabilisation of the nanoparticles during preparation was found to only become possible with dextran at a high Mr of 500[hair space]000, which suggests that in these systems complexation of the dextranbiopolymer to the sulfides was occurring by weak electrostatic interactions between surface S groups and dextranhydroxyls. The preparation steps and suggested metal sulfidebiopolymer interactions are represented in Scheme 1.


Diagrammatic representation of stabilised metal sulfidenanoparticle preparation steps. Top: metal ions complexed by dextranhydroxyls. Middle: suggested metal sulfide complexation by hydroxyls of high Mr or crosslinked polymervia weak polar interactions. Bottom: metal sulfides released from the bulk of the biopolymer shells by enzymatic treatment. A low level of remnant oligomer inhibits subsequent aggregation and growth of the nanocrystal products.
Scheme 1 Diagrammatic representation of stabilised metal sulfidenanoparticle preparation steps. Top: metal ions complexed by dextranhydroxyls. Middle: suggested metal sulfide complexation by hydroxyls of high Mr or crosslinked polymervia weak polar interactions. Bottom: metal sulfides released from the bulk of the biopolymer shells by enzymatic treatment. A low level of remnant oligomer inhibits subsequent aggregation and growth of the nanocrystal products.

Dextran polymer changes from an open-linear to tightly coiled structure in solution as its Mr increases from a few thousand to tens and hundreds of thousands.20 The results suggest that highly coiled dextran, tightly enwrapping the sulfidenanoparticles was necessary for the weak S–H bonding to be sufficient to stabilize the nanoparticles. This is supported by related experiments in which fully carboxylated dextran gave only weak stabilisation of the copper sulfides. Thus it is likely that binding to the terminal carboxyl group of dextran chains of high-Mrdextran (500[hair space]000) made only a very minor contribution to complexion of nanocrystals for copper and cadmium systems. Crosslinked dextran as Sephadex beads was also demonstrated to stabilise CuSnanoparticles. Here the open meshwork of interconnected polymer chains at the bead surface presents a similar environment to the coiled high-Mrpolymer, and is able to stabilise nanoparticles almost as effectively as uncrosslinked dextran.

Ag2S demonstrated a somewhat different complexing behaviour to the other materials prepared. It is possible that a silver sulfide–dextran complex of SAg2OH2+ at the pH 5 of this system exists, as although relatively larger and polydisperse particles were formed in this case, lower dextranMr stablisation was possible. Furthermore, zeta-potential measurements also suggested a weakly positively charged surface for dextranase de-shelled Ag2Snanoparticles.

For CuxS, resulting particle size may be complicated by the lower solubility of the CuCl reagent leading to smaller sized nanoparticles. For CdS, dextran in combination with dextranase enzyme appears to act as an enhanced dissolution system, here the smaller size of nanoparticles obtained may be partly the result of the continuous gradual dissolution of the capped nanoparticles. Zeta-potential measurements showed that dextran-capped nanoparticles all carried slightly negative surface charge at pH 6.3. Following dextranase treatment zeta-potential values were significantly altered and reflected the true surface charges of the native nanoparticles. TGA measurements also showed that prior to enzyme treatment the dried composites were ∼80–95 wt% biopolymer which was reduced to a few weight percent polymer by subsequent enzyme treatment. The materials prepared have application in photonics as materials for medical fluorescence imaging, nanoparticlebioassays , fourth generation nanoparticle and conductive polymer-based solar cells, and for use in conductive coatings. Further studies on developing the process into a large-scale general and green synthetic route to a range to useful nanoparticles are in progress.

4. Experimental

Dextran was purchased from Fluka Chemical Co and all other chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Co. Dextranase (1,6-α-D-glucanohydrolase) was purchased as Penicillium sp. partially purified lyophilized powder. All chemicals were used as supplied.

4.1 Preparation of CuSdextran nanosuspensions (dexCuS)

Dextran-stabilised CuS was prepared by a combined dextrancarboxylation and precipitation reaction by modification of a published method for preparation of dextran-stabilised metal oxides.22 2.5 g of Cu(NO3)·2.5H2O (0.01 M) and 8 g of dextran (Mr 500[hair space]000) were dissolved in 75 mL of deionised water with stirring. Then 2.4 g of Na2S·9H2O (0.01 M) was dissolved in 25 mL of distilled water and rapidly added with vigorous stirring. The black-brown mixture was stirred for 25 min, followed by heating in a standard 800 W microwave to 80 °C. The mixture was then cooled in an ice bath for 10 min followed by centrifugation at 5300 rpm for 30 min. The pH of the mixture was 3.0. The green coloured supernatant liquid was then purified by size exclusion chromatography (SEC). A Sephadex G-50 column was used with deionised water as an eluent. The initial 50 mL of coloured fraction was collected; the pH of the eluted solution was 6.5. The above process was then repeated using a lower reagent amount of 1.5 g Na2S·9H2O (0.00625 M). At lower concentrations of this reagent a green supernatant was not formed. (Microwave heating was employed to minimize heating time in order to eliminate the possibility of charring of the dextran reagent).

4.2 Preparation of CuS using Sephadex bead substrates (Sephadex–CuS)

CuS nanosuspensions were prepared as in section 4.1 using a 1 : 1 Cu:S molar ratio with the following modifications: 8 g of Sephadex G-50 (fine) beads were hydrated with 170 mL of water for use as a biopolymer substrate. After addition of reagents, stirring, microwave treatment and cooling, the flask was sonicated for 30 s. The contents was then filtered using a 90 micron mesh with thorough washing with distilled water. The retained material consisted purely of dark-green coloured Sephadex beads.

4.3 Preparation of CuxSdextran nanosuspensions (dexCuxS)

The above process was repeated with following modifications, firstly, nitrogen degassed water was used throughout the synthesis and 1.5 g of Na2S·9H2O (0.0625 M) was added to 1.25 g (0.0126 M) of CuCl to give a brown coloured solution. Following the centrifugation a single drop of hydrazine was added to the brown coloured supernatant liquid to inhibit oxidation into CuS. The pH of the mixture was 6, following SEC, the brown coloured eluent was pH 5.96.

4.4 Preparation of Ag2Sdextran nanosuspensions (dexAg2S)

The dex–CuS preparation method was used (using both dextran of Mr 70[hair space]000 or 500[hair space]000) with 1.5 g Na2S·9H2O (0.00625 M) added to 2.13 g AgNO3 (0.0125 M) that formed a black coloured solution. The pH of the mixture was 5.1. Following SEC the grey coloured eluent was pH 5.6.

4.5 Preparation of CdS–dextran nanosuspensions (dex–CdS)

The dex–CuS preparation method was used with modifications. 1.5 g Na2S·9H2O (0.0625 M) was added to 1.93 g of Cd(NO3)2·4H2O (0.0625 M) to form an orange coloured mixture, the mixture was then warmed to 60 °C by microwave heating. Note: Due to dissolution of CdS by enzyme treatment, filtration of the nanosuspension through the SEC column was found to be unnecessary. The pH was adjusted to 6 with dilute acetic acid solution and the suspension treated directly with enzyme.

4.6 Dextranase enzymatic de-shelling of dextran-stabilised sulphidenanoparticles

25 mL of the eluted sulfide nanosuspension, (or unfiltered dex–CdS nanosuspension) was warmed in a water bath to 34 °C. 250 units of freeze-dried dextranasePenicillium sp. was then added and the mixture held at 34 °C with gentle stirring for 24 h for dexCuS, dexCuxS and dexAg2S nanosuspensions. For Sephadex–CuS 0.4 g of hydrated beads were subjected to enzyme treatment. Dex–CdS nanosuspensions were observed to sediment within 30 min. Treatment was limited to 5 h as longer dextranase treatment resulted in gradual dissolution of the CdS particles. After the respective time periods the mixtures were centrifuged and the supernatant removed. A coloured sedimented pellet was obtained in each case that was washed and centrifuged several times in deionised water.
Instruments. TEM was conducted for samples prepared on carbon-coated cooper grids using JEOL 1200EX and JEOL 2010FX microscopes with attached digital cameras. Thorough washing of enzyme-treated samples was necessary to remove residual supernatant maltoses and dextran oligomers that would otherwise coat onto nanoparticles upon drying of grids. Particle sizes were measured as the average of 10 crystals. Powder X-ray diffraction was recorded on a Bruker D8 Diffractometer. UV–vis absorbances were recorded on a Perkin-Elmer Lambda 25 spectrometer. The zeta-potentials of dextran-stabilized nanosuspensions and dextranase-treated suspensions, adjusted to pH 6.3 with dilute acetic acid or ammonia, were recorded on a Malvern Instruments Zetasizer Nano 2.

Acknowledgements

We thank the EPSRC (UK) ARF (Grant No. EP C544803) (DW) for financial support of this study and Lawrence C. Thomson for technical assistance.

References

  1. W.-T. Yao and S.-H. Yu, Adv. Func. Mat., 2008, 18, 1 Search PubMed.
  2. Yu. Wu, C. Wadia, W. Ma, B. Sadtier and A. P. Alivisatos, Nano Lett., 2008, 8, 2551 CrossRef CAS.
  3. L. Isac, A. Duta, A. Kriza, S. Manolache and M. Nanu, Thin Solid Films, 2007, 515, 5755 CrossRef CAS; I. Grozdanov, C. K. Barlingay and S. K. Dey, Integr. Ferroelectr., 1995, 6, 205 CAS.
  4. I. Grozdanov and M. Nadjoski, J. Solid State Chem., 1995, 114, 469 CrossRef CAS; K. S. Leschkies, R. Divakar, J. Basu, E. Enache-Pommer, J. E. Boercker, C. B. Carter, U. R. Kortshagen, D. J. Norris and E. S. Aydil, Nano Lett., 2007, 7, 1793 CrossRef CAS.
  5. B. Tian, X. Zheng, T. J. Kempa, Y. Fang, N. Yu, G. Yu, J. Huang and C. M. Lieber, Nature, 2007, 449, 885 CrossRef CAS; W. J. E. Beek, M. M. Wienk and R. A. J. Janssen, Adv. Mater., 2004, 16, 1009 CrossRef CAS; J. S. Chung and H. J. Sohn, J. Power Sources, 2002, 108, 226 CrossRef CAS.
  6. S. Y. Kuchmii, A. V. Korzhak, A. E. Raevskaya and A. I. Kryukov, Theor. Exp. Chem., 2001, 37(1), 36 CrossRef CAS.
  7. M. H. Kunita, E. M. Girotto, E. Radovanovic, M. C. Gonçalves, O. P. Ferreira, E. C. Muniz and A. F. Rubira, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2002, 202, 223 CrossRef CAS.
  8. F. Di Benedetto, M. Borgheresi, A. Caneschi, G. Chastanet, C. Cipriani, D. Gatteschi, G. Giovanni Pratesi, M. Romanelli and R. Sessoli, Eur. J. Mineral., 2006, 18, 283 CrossRef CAS.
  9. R. Chen, N. T. Nuhfer, L. Moussa, H. R. Morris and P. M. Whitmore, Gas. Nanotech, 2008, 19, 1 Search PubMed; X. B. Wang, W. Liu, J. Hao, X. Fu and B. Xu, Chem. Lett., 2005, 34, 1664 CrossRef CAS.
  10. M. T. S. Nair, L. Guerrero and P. K. Nair, Sci. Technol, 1998, 13, 1164 CAS.
  11. A. Nuñez Rodríguez, M. T. S. Nair and P. K. Nair, Semicond. Sci. Technol., 2005, 20, 576 CrossRef CAS.
  12. M. Salavati-Niasari, M. R. Loghman-Estarki and F. Davar, Chem. Eng. J., 2008, 145, 346 CrossRef CAS; C. Li, B. Yang, Y. Y. Yang and Y. T. Qian, J. Cryst. Growth, 2006, 291, 45 CrossRef CAS; P. Sreekumari Nair, N. Revaprasadu, T. Radhakrishnana and Kolawolea, J. Mater. Chem., 2001, 11, 1555 RSC.
  13. P. S. Khiew, S. Radiman, N. M. Huang and M. Soot Ahamd, J. Cryst. Growth, 2004, 268, 227 CrossRef CAS.
  14. T. Kuzuya, S. Yamamuro, T. Hihara and K. Sumiyama, Chem. Lett., 2004, 33, 352 CrossRef CAS.
  15. C. M. Simonescu, V. S. Teodorescu, O. Carp, L. Patron and C. Capatina, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 2007, 88, 71 CrossRef CAS.
  16. F. Gao, Q. Lu and D. Zhao, Nano Lett., 2003, 3, 85 CrossRef CAS; D. Brühwiler, S. Leiggener, S. Glaus and G. Calzaferri, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2002, 106, 3770 CrossRef.
  17. M. P. Pileni, L. Motte, F. Billoudet, J. Mahrt and F. Willig, Mater. Lett., 1997, 31, 255 CrossRef CAS.
  18. G. T. Schaaff and A. J. Rodinon, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2003, 107, 10416 CrossRef.
  19. J. Porath and P. Flodin, Nature, 1959, 183, 1657 CrossRef CAS.
  20. T. Kawaguchi, T. Hanaichi, M. Hasegawa and S. Maruno, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 2001, 12, 121 CrossRef CAS.
  21. Q. Wei, S. Z. Kang and J. Mu, Colloids Surf., A, 2004, 247, 125 CrossRef CAS; B. K. Božanić, V. Djoković, J. Blanuša, P. S. Nair, M. K. Georges and T. Radhakrishnan, Eur. Phys. J. E, 2007, 22, 51 CrossRef; J. F. Zhu, Y. J. Zhu, M. G. Ma, L. X. Yang and L. Gao, J. Phys. Chem., 2007, 111, 3920 Search PubMed; S. H. Liu, X. F. Qian, J. Yin, L. Hong, X. L. Wang and Z. K. Zhu, J. Solid State Chem., 2002, 168, 259 CrossRef CAS.
  22. C. Lemarchand, R. Gref, S. Lesieur, H. Hommel, B. Vacher, A. Besheer, K. Maeder and P. Couvreur, J. Controlled Release, 2005, 108, 97 CrossRef CAS; Y.-Y. Kim, K. Hore, S. R. Hall and D. Walsh, Small, 2009, 5, 913 CrossRef CAS.
  23. F. A. Erhardt and H.-J. Jordening, Immobilization J. Biotech., 2007, 131, 440 Search PubMed; Y. Aslan and A. Tanriseven, Biochem. Eng. J., 2007, 34, 8 CrossRef CAS.
  24. S. A. U. Qader, A. Abid Azhar, L. Iqbal, A. Aman and E. Shireen, Turk. J. Biochem., 2005, 31, 21 Search PubMed.
  25. R. Zhang, M. Tang, A. Bowyer, R. Eisenthal and J. Hubble, Biomaterials, 2005, 26, 4677 CrossRef CAS.
  26. A. P. Davis, Y. H. Hsieh and C. P. Huang, Chemosphere, 1995, 31, 3093 CrossRef CAS.
  27. E. Norkus, J. Vaiciuniene, T. Vuorinen and M. Heikkilä, Carbohydr. Polym., 2002, 50, 159 CrossRef CAS.
  28. A. N. J. Heyn, Biopolymers, 1974, 13, 475 CrossRef CAS.
  29. S. Ding and W. T. Petuskey, Solid State Ionics, 1992, 58, 123 CrossRef CAS.
  30. P. Zhang and L. Gao, J. Mater. Chem., 2003, 13, 2007 RSC.
  31. D. R. Larson, W. R. Zipfel, R. M. Williams, S. W. Clark, M. P. Bruchez, F. W. Wise and W. W. Webb, Science, 2003, 300, 1434 CrossRef CAS.
  32. J. C. Liu and C. P. Huang, Langmuir, 1992, 8, 1851 CrossRef CAS.
  33. C. Larsen, Int. J. Pharm., 1989, 52, 55 CrossRef CAS.
  34. L. Ronngren, S. Sjoberg, Z. Sun, F. Willis and P. W. Schindler, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 1991, 145, 396 CrossRef.

Footnote

Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Figs. S1–S4. See DOI: 10.1039/b9nr00194h

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2010
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.