Carbon Nanotube‐Quantum Dot Nanohybrids: Coupling with Single‐Particle Control in Aqueous Solution
Source abstract
Abstract
A strategy is reported for the controlled assembly of organic‐inorganic heterostructures consisting of individual single‐walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) selectively coupled to single semiconductor quantum dots (QDs). The assembly in aqueous solution was controlled towards the formation of monofunctionalized SWCNT‐QD structures. Photoluminescence studies in solution, and on surfaces at the single nanohybrid level, showed evidence of electronic coupling between the two nanostructures. The ability to covalently couple heterostructures with single particle control is crucial for the design of novel QD‐based optoelectronic and light‐energy conversion devices.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Quantum Dots Synthesis And Properties · Conducting polymers and applications · Carbon Nanotubes in Composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Materials Research Institute and School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London Mile End Road London E14NS UK
Materials Research Institute and School of Physics and Astronomy Queen Mary University of London Mile End Road London E14NS UK
Department of Physics University of Naples “Federico II,” Via Cintia, 26 Ed. 6 80126 Napoli Italy
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign 1206 W. Green St., Urbana IL 61801 USA
Materials Science and Engineering Division National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8542 USA
Funding
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/adma.20130525410.1002/adma.201305254 ↗
2. 10.1021/cr900137k10.1021/cr900137k ↗
3. 10.1038/nmat381610.1038/nmat3816 ↗
4. 10.1021/cr400299t10.1021/cr400299t ↗
5. 10.1002/adma.20050041810.1002/adma.200500418 ↗
6. 10.1002/adma.20070112510.1002/adma.200701125 ↗
7. 10.1021/nn900993810.1021/nn9009938 ↗
8. 10.1038/srep0036810.1038/srep00368 ↗
9. 10.1002/smll.20140315510.1002/smll.201403155 ↗
10. 10.1002/anie.20046166610.1002/anie.200461666 ↗
11. 10.1021/nl403983u10.1021/nl403983u ↗
12. 10.1021/jacs.5b1208610.1021/jacs.5b12086 ↗
13. 10.1021/am401725x10.1021/am401725x ↗
14. 10.1039/b811424m10.1039/b811424m ↗
15. 10.1021/cr800433k10.1021/cr800433k ↗
16. 10.1021/nl062273j10.1021/nl062273j ↗
17. 10.1021/ac800992m10.1021/ac800992m ↗
18. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.22680410.1103/PhysRevLett.102.226804 ↗
19. 10.1021/nn800551s10.1021/nn800551s ↗
20. 10.1039/c1jm10516g10.1039/c1jm10516g ↗
21. 10.1039/C0EE00330A10.1039/C0EE00330A ↗
22. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b0133810.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01338 ↗
23. 10.1021/nl015651n10.1021/nl015651n ↗
24. Banerjee S. · Chem. Commun. · 2004 · 772
25. 10.1021/ja801720c10.1021/ja801720c ↗
26. 10.1039/b700857k10.1039/b700857k ↗
27. 10.1002/smll.20080193210.1002/smll.200801932 ↗
28. 10.1021/nl047851f10.1021/nl047851f ↗
29. 10.1021/ja065767r10.1021/ja065767r ↗
30. 10.1021/ja800233b10.1021/ja800233b ↗
31. 10.1021/nl100802510.1021/nl1008025 ↗
32. 10.1002/adma.20050152310.1002/adma.200501523 ↗
33. 10.1021/nl025799m10.1021/nl025799m ↗
34. 10.1021/nl025968310.1021/nl0259683 ↗
35. 10.1021/ja055073310.1021/ja0550733 ↗
36. 10.1021/jp065789010.1021/jp0657890 ↗
37. 10.1021/nl102045g10.1021/nl102045g ↗
38. 10.1021/nl201662510.1021/nl2016625 ↗
39. 10.1002/anie.20100727010.1002/anie.201007270 ↗
40. 10.1021/ja401807210.1021/ja4018072 ↗
41. 10.1021/jp066952u10.1021/jp066952u ↗
42. As a control experiment QDs were mixed with DNA‐wrapped SWCNT without any coupling reagents and no hybrid structures were observed (see Figure S3 Supporting Information) highlighting the selectivity of the coupling strategy presented here. We did not observe any difference in the selectivity of coupling with variation in length of SWCNT segments.
43. We ascribe this lack of significant presence of CNT/QD/CNT heterostructures mainly to steric hindrance effects and partial electrostatic repulsion between the DNA‐wrapped CNTs and the amino‐terminated QDs (see also Figure S4 Supporting Information).
44. 10.1021/cm802648m10.1021/cm802648m ↗
45. 10.1021/jp068920c10.1021/jp068920c ↗
46. 10.1021/nl034249110.1021/nl0342491 ↗
47. 10.1038/nature1056910.1038/nature10569 ↗
48. 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.20531610.1103/PhysRevB.63.205316 ↗
49. A widely accepted model describing the photoluminescence blinking of QDs is the Auger recombination model in the presence of an additional charge: a photoexited QD becomes positively charged due to electron ejection to trap sites and an Auger recombination keeps the now charged QD in the off state which returns to the on state when trapped electrons recombine with holes establishing again the neutrality. When QDs are coupled with energetically favorable electron acceptor complexes such as CNTs the intermittent trapping of an exciton's electron or hole is expected to change.
50. 10.1038/383802a010.1038/383802a0 ↗
51. 10.1002/adma.20110421610.1002/adma.201104216 ↗
52. 10.1021/nl901174410.1021/nl9011744 ↗
53. 10.1002/smll.20110164310.1002/smll.201101643 ↗