Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T19:23:09.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Xanthene-stained nanoparticles for phosphorescence anisotropy measurements

Subject: Physics and Astronomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2021

Markus J. Schmidt*
Affiliation:
Institute of Fluid Dynamics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Thomas Rösgen
Affiliation:
Institute of Fluid Dynamics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
*
*Corresponding author: Email: schmmark@ethz.ch

Abstract

For the measurement of flow-induced microrotations in flows utilizing the depolarization of phosphorescence anisotropy, suitable luminophores are crucial. The present work examines dyes of the xanthene family, namely Rhodamine B, Eosin Y and Erythrosine B. Both in solution and incorporated in particles, the dyes are examined regarding their luminescent lifetimes and their quantum yield. In an oxygen-rich environment at room temperature, all dyes exhibit lifetimes in the sub-microsecond range and a low intensity signal, making them suitable for sensing fast rotations with sensitive acquisition systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Experimental setup in polarization mode. The light’s polarization is defined by the polarizer (PL). A $ \lambda /2 $ waveplate (WP) can be inserted and alters the polarization direction by $ 9{0}^{{}^{\circ}} $. A laser sheet optic is used to create a light sheet in the test section. The camera is equipped with a series of filters ($ {F}_i $) to attenuate scattered laser light and other fluorescence from unwanted sources. The OptoSplit is operated with a linear polarizing beamsplitter cube (PBC), dividing the signal into perpendicular and parallel signals ($ {I}_{\parallel } $, $ {I}_{\perp } $). These signals are projected onto separate regions of the camera chip. The PBC is removed for lifetime measurements in bypass mode

Figure 1

Table 1. Fits of the lifetime analysis for solutions. Intensity values are normalized to the smallest value.

Figure 2

Table 2. Fits of the lifetime analysis for nanoparticles. Intensity values are normalized to the smallest value.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Semi-logarithmic plot of particle emission lifetime (dots) and the respective fits (lines)

Figure 4

Figure 3. Spatially resolved anisotropy of EY4 in a $ 3.5\hskip0.3em mL $ cuvette

Reviewing editor:  Stefano Camera 1Universita degli Studi di Torino, Physics, Via Pietro Giuria, 1, Torino, Italy, 10124 2University of the Western Cape, Physics & Astronomy, Bellville, South Africa, 7535
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Xanthene-Stained Nanoparticles for Phosphorescence Anisotropy Measurements

Conflict of interest statement

The reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: The authors present photoluminescene lifetime and anisotropy measurements of various commercially available chromophores and emissive nanoparticles. The results are very incremental but fit the scope of the journal.

Additional comments:

- The author should include the results with SbCD even if the cyclodextrin does not impact the photoluminescence properties

- The author refers to the PLQY as “low” throughout the text but they do not provide a number. Please, quantify the PLQY.

Presentation

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5

Review 2: Xanthene-Stained Nanoparticles for Phosphorescence Anisotropy Measurements

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: This article describes a useful work. It aims to extend application areas of flow-induced rotations’ measurement. Please consider the following suggestions.

1. The authors need to add the detailed setup for lifetime measurement. As far as I know, using a PCO camera can’t get a two-exponential lifetime result.

2. “The results show a successful measurement of the long-lived luminescence, the delayed fluorescence, and the phosphorescence.” Is there any delayed fluorescence in those dyes? Please provide more explanations.

3. The author need explain the anisotropy’s meaning in figure 3.

Presentation

Overall score 3.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3.4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5