Core Size Interconversions of Au30(S-tBu)18 and Au36(SPhX)24

We report for the first time the interconversion between two nanomolecules: Au36(SPhX)24, (where X = -H or -tBu) and Au30(S-tBu)18. This is accomplished through thermochemical etching, with HSPhX on Au30(S-tBu)18 which converts the nanomolecule to Au36(SPhX)24. We further show that the conversion is...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of physical chemistry. C Vol. 121; no. 27; pp. 14914 - 14919
Main Authors Dass, Amala, Jones, Tanya C, Theivendran, Shevanuja, Sementa, Luca, Fortunelli, Alessandro
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Japanese
Published American Chemical Society 13.07.2017
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:We report for the first time the interconversion between two nanomolecules: Au36(SPhX)24, (where X = -H or -tBu) and Au30(S-tBu)18. This is accomplished through thermochemical etching, with HSPhX on Au30(S-tBu)18 which converts the nanomolecule to Au36(SPhX)24. We further show that the conversion is reversible from Au36(SPhX)24 to Au30(S-tBu)18 with tert-butyl thiol (HS-tBu) under the same thermochemical conditions. Not only is this the first reported interconversion between two nanomolecules, but this report further demonstrates the conversion from a smaller to a larger sized nanomolecule, which is a rare occurrence. Experimental evidence for the reversible conversion is provided using matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), nanoelectrospray ionization mass spectrometry (nESI-MS), and UV–vis–NIR spectroscopy. This discovery leads to valuable insight into the inherent nature of ligand dependency on the composition and atomic structure of gold–thiolate nanomolecules. The nanomolecules, Au36(SPhX)24 and Au30(S-tBu)18, have cuboctahedral atomic structures with fcc arrangement but have entirely different staple arrangements, with Au28 and Au20 cores, respectively. Theoretical studies show that the difference between Au30(S-tBu)18 and Au36(SPhH)24 resides in the different fragmentation energy of the two species: conjugation in Au36(SPhH)24 weakens the strength of ligand bonding to the Au cluster and thus makes it somewhat less stable than Au30(S-tBu)18. Furthermore, Au30(S-tBu)18 appears to be slightly more stable than Au36(SPhH)24 also in terms of atomization energy of the Au cluster and ligand/ligand interactions.
ISSN:1932-7447
1932-7455
DOI:10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b03860