Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering Characterization of Bare and Surface-Modified Gold Nanoparticles Thi (Kathy) Nguyen Huynh Graduate student.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering Characterization of Bare and Surface-Modified Gold Nanoparticles Thi (Kathy) Nguyen Huynh Graduate student."— Presentation transcript:

1 Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering Characterization of Bare and Surface-Modified Gold Nanoparticles Thi (Kathy) Nguyen Huynh Graduate student mentor: Hyunjung N. Kim Advisor: Dr. Sharon Walker Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering University of California, Riverside

2 Background Objectives Experimental Approach Results -Bare Gold Nanoparticles (GNPs) -Surface-modified GNPs Conclusions to date Acknowledgements Outline

3 Background Nanostructures are popular for many industrial applications Ongoing studies investigating the interactions between nanostructures with living organisms Nanostructures are source of environmental contamination By the year of 2025, 48 countries will be short of fresh water water reuse/recycling will become standard Therefore, the ability to remove these nanostructures must be determined.

4 Overall projects objective: To determine what physical and chemical mechanisms control the transport and fate of nanostructures in aquatic environments. Task 1: Synthesis and Characterization of One-Dimensional Nanostructures Task 2: Radial Stagnation Point Flow (RSPF) experiments Task 3: Filtration experiments Specific objectives – initiating task 1: 1. To establish methods to characterize surfaces of Gold Nanoparticles (GNPs) 2. To compare characteristics of bare and surface-modified GNPs (S-GNPs) Objectives

5 Model nanoparticles (GNPs) Surface Modification (S-GNPs) Experimental Approach GNPs + 1mM 3-Mercapto-1-Hexanol 3hrs Wash with DI water for 7 times: centrifuge at 12000 rpm for 2 minutes each time (1mL) (2mL) S O H H - Procedure - 3-Mercapto-1-Hexanol (C 6 H 14 OS) - Synthesis done by SUNRISE student in Dr. Myungs lab - Diameter: 200 nm - Length: 2.5 – 4.0 µm

6 - Size Measurement (Inverted microscope Olympus IX70) Experimental Approach Surface Characterization - Hydrophobicity (VCA Optima Goniometer) - Electrokinetic properties (ZetaPALS)

7 What is Electrokinetic Property? A particles ability to move in the electromagnetic field ZetaPALS measures the particles mobility, and then calculates to give zeta potentials or the surface charge values Mechanism: Distance from surface Potential Stern layer Point of measurement

8 Results – Electrokinetic Properties of GNPs Effect of size Effect of concentration Mobility f (size) for these particles and in this condition Optimum concentration (OD 546nm ) : 0.15 - 0.30 pH: 5.8, DI water, 3 µm pH: 5.8, DI water

9 Effect of valence and ionic strength As ionic strength increased in the presence of salt solutions, mobility became less negative (charge on particle approached neutral) Valance had an important role on mobility: in the presence of divalent cations, mobility was less negative than that in the presence of monovalent cations. pH: 5.8 Results – Electrokinetic Properties of GNPs

10 What is Hydrophobicity? Hydrophobicity refers to a surfaces property of being water-repellent Task: To what degree are GNPs hydrophobic? Contact Angle Method SL SG ө Hydrophobic: ө>90 o Hydrophilic: ө<90 o Water droplet Solid surface LG

11 Contact angle measurement Glass 20 μL 70 μL 100 μL 200 μL - Solution concentration: OD 546nm : 1.684 (2.5x dilution) Optimum concentration - Contact angle of Bare GNPs : 130.6 3.2 O Surface of bare GNPs: Hydrophobic Results – Hydrophobicity of GNPs

12 - The mobility of S-GNPs was less negative than that of bare GNPs in the presence of KCl. However, the difference was not significant in the presence of CaCl 2. - Valence played an important role on GNPs mobility regardless of the presence of 3-mercapto-1-hexanol groups. pH: 5.8 Results – Electrokinetic Properties of Bare GNPs vs. S-GNPs Why surface-modified?

13 Results – Hydrophobicity of GNPs vs. S-GNPs Bare GNPsS-GNPs Contact angle of S-GNPs : 135.8 3.2 O Surface of S-GNPs: Hydrophobic Functional groups 3-mercapto-1-hexanol did not affect the hydrophobicity significantly.

14 Proposed Mechanisms Why did mobility of GNPs decrease in the presence of 3-mercapto-1-hexanol? SH end, hydrophilic with greater affinity to GNPs OH end, hydrophilic end Increase in mobility of GNPs and Surface becomes more hydrophilic Decrease in mobility of GNPs and Surface becomes more hydrophobic Modification Proposed Changes: -Increase in concentration of 3-mercapto-1-hexanol -Increase in amount of time suspending the GNPs in the solution -Reduce the length of the GNPs when keeping the same concentration

15 Conclusions to date 1. Methods to characterize the surface of GNPs has been established. Mobility of GNPs was not a function of concentration nor size, over a range investigated in this study. 2. Solution chemistries (Ionic strength and valence) considerably influenced mobility of bare and surface-modified-3-mercapto-1-hexanol GNPs. 3. Mobility of S-GNPs was less negative than that of bare GNPs in the presence of KCl, while the mobility was not sensitive to the presence of 3-mercapto-1- hexanol in the presence of CaCl 2. 4. The surface of bare GNPs was determined to be hydrophobic. 5. The modification of 3-mercapto-1-hexanol did not make a significant difference in hydrophobicity.

16 Acknowledgements - The Coordinators of BRITE Program - The bacterial adhesion research lab members - Dr. Nosang Myung and Heather Yang

17 Thank you !! Questions?


Download ppt "Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering Characterization of Bare and Surface-Modified Gold Nanoparticles Thi (Kathy) Nguyen Huynh Graduate student."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google