Two-photon absorbing block copolymer as a nanocarrier for porphyrin: Energy transfer and singlet oxygen generation in micellar aqueous solution

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Volumn 129, Issue 23, 2007, Pages 7220-7221

  Chen, Ching Yi ^a   Tian, Yanqing ^a   Cheng, Yen Ju ^a   Young, A Cody ^a   Ka, Jae Won ^a   Jen, Alex K Y ^a  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MACROGOL; PHOTOSENSITIZING AGENT; PORPHYRIN;

AQUEOUS SOLUTION; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; ENERGY TRANSFER; FLUORESCENCE RESONANCE ENERGY TRANSFER; LIGHT ABSORPTION; LIGHT SCATTERING; MICELLE; NEAR INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY;

DRUG CARRIERS; ENERGY TRANSFER; MICELLES; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; NANOSTRUCTURES; POLYMERS; PORPHYRINS; SINGLET OXYGEN; WATER;

EID: 34250793441     PISSN: 00027863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ja071057p     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. (a) Pandey, R. K.; Zheng, G. The Porphyrin Handbook; Academic Press: Boston, 2000; Vol. 6, Chapter 43, p 157.
2. (b) Allen, C. M.; Sharman, W. M.; Van Lier, J. E. J. Porphyrin Phthalocyanines 2001, 5, 161.
3. (c) Jang, W.-D.; Nishiyama, N.; Zhang, G.-D.; Harada, A.; Jiang, D.-L.; Kawauchi, S.; Morimoto, Y.; Kikuchi, M.; Koyama, H.; Aida, T.; Kataoka, K. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 419.
4. (d) Konan, Y. N.; Gurny, R.; Allemann, E. Photochem. Photobiol., B 2002, 66, 89.
5. (e) Haag, R.; Kratz, F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 1198.
6. Kruk, M.; Karotki, A.; Drobizher, M.; Kuzmitsky, V.; Gael, V.; Rebang, A. J. Lumin. 2003, 105, 45.
7. Cahalan, M. D.; Parker, I.; Wei, S. H.; Miller, M. J. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2002, 2, 872.
8. (a) Ahn, T. K.; Kim, K. S.; Kim, D. Y.; Noh, S. B.; Aratani, N.; Ikeda, C.; Osuka, A.; Kim, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 1700.
9. (b) Drobizhev, M.; Stepanenko, Y.; Dzenis, Y.; Karotki, A.; Rebane, A.; Taylor, P. N.; Anderson, H. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 15352.
10. For selected reviews, see: (a) Adronov, A.; Fréchet, J. M. J. Chem. Commun. 2000, 1701.
11. (b) Barigelletti, F.; Flamigni, L. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2000, 29, 1.
12. (c) Choi, M.-S.; Yamazaki, T.; Yamazaki, I.; Aida, T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 150.
13. (a) Dichtel, W. R.; Serin, J. M.; Edder, C.; Fréchet, J. M. J.; Matuszewski, M.; Tan, L.-S.; Ohulchanskyy, T. Y.; Prasad, P. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 5380.
14. (b) Oar, M. A.; Serin, J. A.; Dichtel, W. R.; Fréchet, J. M. J.; Ohulchanskyy, T. Y.; Prasad, P. N. Chem. Mater. 2005, 17, 2267.
15. (c) Oar, M. A.; Dichtel, W. R.; Serin, J. M.; Fréchet, J. M. J.; Rogers, J. E.; Slagle, J. E.; Fleitz, P. A.; Tan, L.-S.; Ohulchanskyy, T. Y.; Prasad, P. N. Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 3682.
16. Briñas, R. P.; Troxler, T.; Hochstrasser, R. M.; Vinogradov, S. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 11851.
17. Kim, S.; Ohulchanskyy, T. Y.; Pudavar, H. E.; Pandey, R. K.; Prasad, P. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 2669.
18. Even using this strategy, aggregation of chromophores in water was still observed, resulting in the low quantum yield in micellar water (0.39) as compared with that in THF (0.89).
19. McIlroy, S. P.; Cló, E.; Nikolajsen, L.; Frederiksen, P. K.; Nielsen, C. B.; Mikkelsen, K. V.; Gothelf, K. V.; Ogilby, P. R. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 1134.
20. The energy transfer efficiency was determined by studying the quenching of the donor fluorescence from 410 to 620 nm in the presence of the acceptor at the same excitation wavelength (380 nm).
21. It should be noted that the slight quenching effect of 1 to P1 (3, 5, and 10% for 1/P1 with the molar ratios of 0.1/1, 0.6/1, and 1/1, respectively) was observed in their THF mixtures without micellar structures, possibly due to charge or electron transfer. However, these quenching effects were much smaller than those in the micelles. Thus, we believe that the size confinement in micelles may facilitate the requirement of the distance between the donor and acceptor (less than 10 nm) for FRET, though we did not calculate the exact distance between the donor and acceptor in micellar centers.
22. (a) Lin, T. C.; Chung, S. J.; Kim, K. S.; Wang, X. P.; He, G. S.; Swiatkiewica, J.; Pudavar, H. E.; Prasad, P. N. Advances in Polymer Science; Springer: Berlin, 2003; Vol. 161, p 157.
23. (b) Woo, H. Y.; Korystov, D.; Mikhailovsky, A.; Nguyen, T. Q.; Bazan, G. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 13794.
24. (c) Albota, M.; Beljonne, D.; Brédas, J.-L.: Ehrlich, J. E.; Fu, J.-Y.; Heikal, A. A.; Hess, S. E.; Kogej, T.; Levin, M. D.; Marder, S. R.; McCord-Maughon, D.; Perry, J. W.; Rockel, H.; Rumi, M.; Subramaniam, G.; Webb, W. W.; Wu, X.-L.; Xu, C. Science 1998, 281, 1653.
25. (d) Ventelon, L.; Charier, S.; Moreaux, L.; Mertz, J.; Blanchard-Desce, M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 2098.
26. The amplification of 1/P1 determined by using 1/P2 as counterpart is affected by two factors: energy transfer efficiency and concentration of 1 within the micelles. The large amplification is observed in the molar ratio of 0.6/1 due to the fact that it has similar energy transfer efficiency but less aggregation of 1 within the micelles compared to that of a molecular ratio of 1/1.
27. Lindig, B. A.; Rodger, M. A. J.; Schaap, A. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 5590.
28. 2O. The solution was bubbled with oxygen for 5 min to get an oxygen-saturated aqueous solution.