View Online

Analyst, September, 1983, Vol. 108, $9. 1067-1071 1067

Relative Fluorescence Quantum Yields Using a

Com puter-controlled Luminescence Spectrometer*
Alun T. Rhys Williams and Stephen A. Winfield
Perkin-Elmer Ltd., Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, H P 9 lQA

and James N. Miller

Published on 01 January 1983 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/AN9830801067

Department of Chemistry, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, Leicestershire, L E 1 1 3T U

Relative fluorescence quantum yields are determined using a computer-

controlled luminescence spectrometer. The relative absorbances of the
standards and unknowns are measured using the same instrument as for the
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Science on 11 August 2011

fluorescence measurements. Relative quantum yields are presented for a

wide range of compounds a t room temperature.

Keywords : Relative quantum yields determination ; computer-controlled

luminescence spectrometer

The fraction of the number of quanta absorbed by a molecule that are emitted as fluorescence
is termed the fluorescence quantum yield. Its determination provides information con-
cerning radiationless processes in molecules and, for example, the determination of the
potential of fluorophores in assays. Quantum yields are measured either on a relative basis
with reference to a standard or by using an absolute method. Both methods have been
reviewed by Demas and Crosbyl and by Bridges2
Absolute quantum yields were measured by Weber and Teale3 by using the dipolar
scattering of monochromatic light from glycogen solutions as a standard unit of quantum
yield. A comparison was then made with the fluorescence from a solution with the same
apparent absorbance for the excitation light. Other methods for determining absolute
quantum yields include photoacoustic spectroscopy4 and calorimetric r n e t h ~ d s . ~
The most widely used method of determining quantum yields is by the relative method
and the quantum yield of the unknown, Qx,is calculated according to the following equation:

QX -- Q R *
- - EX_ I-R & ..
Ax * E R * I , ' ni
where QR is the quantum yield of the standard, A is the absorbance of the solution, E is the
corrected emission intensity, I is the relative intensity of the exciting light and n is the
average refractive index of the solution. Subscripts R and X refer to the reference and
unknown compound, respectively. When a Rhodamine quantum-corrected reference system
is used, the relative intensity of the excitation light a t different wavelengths is taken to be
unity, which simplifies equation (1) to

The following factors can affect the measurement of relative quantum yields : polarisation;
refractive index changes ; re-absorption of the emission ; internal reflection ; variation of
optical density with band width ; and calibration errors between ultraviolet absorption and
fluorescence spectrometers.
The use of an integrating sphere6 largely overcomes the errors associated with polarisation
and refractive index changes. Working at very dilute absorbances or extrapolating to zero
absorbance eliminates errors from re-absorption and internal reflection. The errors associ-
ated with measuring the absorbance values are based upon the difference in characteristics
between an ultraviolet - visible absorption spectrometer and a fluorescence spectrometer.
* Presented at the Pittsburgh Conference and Exposition on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectro-
scopy, Atlantic City, N J, USA, March, 1983.
 View Online

1068 RHYS WILLIAMS et al. : RELATIVE QUANTUM YIELDS USING Analyst, Vol. 108
Unless two identical monochromators are used errors may arise from two sources. Firstly,
the effect of spectral band width on the shape of the ultraviolet absorption spectrum, hence
absorbance value ; the shape of the fluorescence excitation spectrum, hence relative intensity.
For example, the ultraviolet absorption spectrum of pyrene in hexane for two different slit
widths is shown in Fig. 1. This illustrates the change in absorbance values and peak ratios,
which occur as the spectral band width is changed. Unless the fluorescence spectrometer
has an identical monochromator the excitation spectra will also be different.'
Published on 01 January 1983 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/AN9830801067

0.8

0.6
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Science on 11 August 2011

C
D
0

n
i Oa4
a
0.2

n
520 260 300 340 380 220 260 300 340 380
Wavelengthlnm
Fig. 1. Ultraviolet absorption spectra of
pyrene in hexane with (a) 2-nm band width and
(b) 4-nm band width.

Secondly, wavelength accuracy is particularly important especially where sharp

absorbance/excitation bands occur. For pyrene, a 0.5-nm error in the excitation wavelength
at 241 nm will result in a 7% intensity error. For a l-nm error the error is 15%.
Several methods have been proposed to overcome these deficiencies, including time-
correlated single-photon counting.* Britten et aL9 presented a method where the absorbance
of a solution was determined by measuring the fluorescent intensities at two points along the
absorbance path. Gains and DawsonlO used absorptivity-related constants derived from the
apparent approximately hyperbolic relationship between fluorescence and concentration.
In this paper a method is proposed that overcomes the errors associated with measuring
absorbances by using the same instrument to measure fluorescence spectra and absorbance
values. A mirror placed at the sample focus is used to reflect light into the emission mono-
chromator. A 10-mm path length cuvette is placed in the reflected beam and by synchron-
ously scanning the excitation and emission monochromators a t the same wavelengths, the
instrument is turned effectively into a single-beam absorption spectrometer.
The choice of primary quantum standard is particularly important. Quinine sulphate is
still regarded as the best available, although it has a number of disadvantages such as an
emission spectrum that is dependent upon the excitation wavelength and quantum yields,
which vary on the type and normality of acid concentration. Velapoldi and Mielenz,ll in a
National Bureau of Standards publication, suggest that quinine sulphate in 0.1 M perchloric
acid be used in certification measurements. A quantum yield of 0.59 is suggested at an
excitation of 347 nm. This is comparable to a value of 0.546 in 1.0 M sulphuric acid. When
measuring quantum yields in organic solvents, 9,lO-diphenylanthracene in cyclohexane has
been proposed.12 In this solvent the quantum yield is reported as being unity.
Experimental
All fluorescence spectra were measured on a Perkin-Elmer, Model LS-5, luminescence
spectrometer fitted with a red sensitive R928 photomultiplier. Data were recorded using a
 View Online

September, 1983 A COMPUTER-CONTROLLED LUMINESCENCE SPECTROMETER 1069

Perkin-Elmer, Model 3600, data station with the PECLS I1 applications software.
Absorption spectra were measured on a Perkin-Elmer, Model Lambda 5, spectrometer and
quantum yields were measured at room temperature. The Model LS-5 gives quantum-
corrected excitation spectra through the use of a Rhodamine 101 quantum-corrected reference
detector. Emission spectra were uncorrected and hence a correction graph must be generated.
A correction graph from 250 to 630 nm is obtained in the following manner. Over the region
250-410 nm the excitation system is used as a light source of known spectral distribution.
Light from the excitation monochromator is reflected into the emission monochromator by a
scatterer and the excitation and emission monochromator scanned synchronously at the
same wavelength. The excitation band pass is set at 5 nm with the emission band pass set
Published on 01 January 1983 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/AN9830801067

at 20 nm as recommended by Melhuish.13
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Science on 11 August 2011

200 300 400 500 600

Wavelengthlnm
Fig. 2. Emission correction graph for the Model
LS-5 fitted with a red sensitive photomultiplier.
In order to overcome errors associated with second-order radiation and the fact that the
sharp emission lines of xenon at ca. 470 nm make precise correction difficult, the correction
graph from 410 to 630nm is generated by comparing the emission spectrum of quinine
sulphate run under identical conditions with that published by Velapoldi and Mielenz .ll
Both correction graphs are merged to give the emission correction graph, Fig. 2. The shape
of this graph is determined in part by the efficiency of the emission grating and Fig. 3 shows
the grating response graph with the grating blazed for maximum efficiency at approximately
450 nm. This graph was generated by dividing the correction graph, generated by scanning
both monochromators synchronously at the same wavelength, by that obtained by placing a
plane mirror in front of the emission grating and scanning the excitation monochromator.
The resultant graph does not include the effect of the photomultiplier response. The latter,
also shown in Fig. 3, was obtained by dividing the correction graph by the grating

100
From excitation To emission
80 monochromator monochromator
%
0
2 60
2
Q)

-$ 40 10-nm path length

-
Q)
cuvette
[L

20 Plane
mirror

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the trans-

200 300 400 500 600 mission cell holder used for the determina-
Wavelengthinm tion of absorbance values.
Fig. 3. (A) Grating response graph and (B)
photomultiplier response graph for the Model LS-5.
 View Online

1070 RHYS WILLIAMS et al. : RELATIVE QUANTUM YIELDS USING Analyst, VoZ. 108
response graph. All of these procedures were performed on the Model 3600 data
station.
The Model LS-5 luminescence spectrometer was used as a single-beam ultraviolet - visible
absorption spectrometer by placing a mirror at the sample focus to reflect the excitation
light into the emission monochromator. The light needs to be heavily attenuated with a
wire-mesh gauze to prevent overloading of the sample photomultiplier. A 10-mm path-
length cuvette was placed in the reflected beam (Fig. 4) and by synchronously scanning both
monochromators at the same wavelength, a transmission spectrum was obtained. By
dividing a sample spectrum by the solvent spectrum the transmission spectrum of the solute
was obtained. The latter was converted to an absorbance spectrum. Fig. 5 compares the
Published on 01 January 1983 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/AN9830801067

absorbance spectrum of pyrene in hexane, as measured on the Model LS-5, with the excita-
tion spectrum. Table I compares the ratios of the main peaks as measured on the ultra-
violet absorption spectrometer and on the Model LS-5. Excellent agreement between the
ultraviolet absorption and fluorescence excitation spectra is observed. In addition, the
absorbance value falls midway between the values observed on the ultraviolet spectrometer
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Science on 11 August 2011

run at 2- and 4-nm band widths.

O.*

I
0.6 -

8
0
n
5 0.4
n
a

0.2 -

Wavelengthlnm
Fig. 5. (a)The absorbance spectrum and (b)
the excitation spectrum of pyrene in hexane as
measured on the Model LS-5.

Results and Discussion

A series of compounds in a variety of solvents were prepared and the ultraviolet absorption
was measured using the method described under Experimental. The solutions were diluted
to give absorbances in the range 0.02-0.35 absorbance unit, i.e., within the expected linear
TABLE
I
COMPARISON
OF PEAK HEIGHTS OF PYRENE IN HEXANE USING AN ULTRAVIOLET
ABSORPTION SPECTROMETER AND LS-5 LUMINESCENCE SPECTROMETER
Lambda 5
, - A - , Luminescence spectrometer
Band width I A \
Absorption Fluorescence
Ratio of peaks 2 nm 4 nm 2.5 nm 2.5 nm
241/273nm .. .* 1.733 1.851 1.786 1.779
2411335nm .. .. 1.585 1.632 1.632 1.634
 View Online

September, 1983 A COMPUTER-CONTROLLED

LUMINESCENCE SPECTROMETER 1071

calibration range of fluorescence emission ‘uemws concentration. The solutions were not
de-gassed before measurement. The emission spectra were measured using a 2.5-nm band
width and corrected using the correction graph in Fig. 2 and the areas under the corrected
spectra calculated. The quantum yields were calculated according to equation (2) and the
results by this method compared with some literature values, which are given in Table 11.
The reproducibility of measuring and calculating the quantum efficiency of the same solution
is within *3-5%.
Published on 01 January 1983 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/AN9830801067

TABLE
I1
ROOMTEMPERATURE FLUORESCENCE QUANTUM YIELDS
The following abbreviations are used : 9,10-DPA, 9,lO-diphenylanthracene ; 9-MA,
9-methylanthracene; TPB, tetraphenylbutadiene; QS, quinine sulphate; C, cyclohexane;
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Science on 11 August 2011

H, hexane ; MCH, methylcyclohexane ; PA, photoacoustic spectroscopy ; and W, water.

Literature values
Excitation1 Emission Standard I A >
Compound Solvent nm rangelnm QR QP QP Solvent Ref.
Anthracene .. .. .. MCH 252 360-510 DPA (1.00) 0.31 0.33 H 14
Benzene .. .. .. MCH 254 270-360 DPA (1.00) 0.03 0.05 H 15
Coronene .. .. .. MCH 303 400-500 DPA (1.00) 0.18 - - -
Fluorene .. . . .. MCH 265 280-400 DPA (1.00) 0.71 0.54 H 3
Pyrene .. .. _. C 241 350-550 DPA (1.00) 0.31 0.32 C 16
9,lO-DPA .. .. .. C 262 360-540 QS (0.59) 1.00 1.00
-
C
-
12
-
9-MA . . . . .. .. C 256 300-500 DPA (1.00) 0.42
TPB .. .. .. .. C 346 360-580 DPA (1.00) 0.84 0.86 PA 4
Sodium salicylate .. .. 1 M NaOH 302 340-550 QS (0.59) 0.25 0.25 NaOH 17
Lucifer Yellow .. .. W 430 460-630 QS (0.59) 0.20 0.24 W 18
Fluorescein . . .. .. 0.1 M NaOH 460 470-620 QS (0.59) 0.82 0.84 0.1 M N ~ O H 5

The method proposed for calculating relative fluorescence quantum yield was found to
produce results that compare favourably with those previously published. The discrepancy
between the observed and literature value for fluorene is probably the result of a relatively
low value observed by Weber and Teale3 because Dawson and Windsor15 observed a value
of 0.68. The main advantage of this technique is the ability to measure absorbance values
on a fluorescence spectrometer thus eliminating errors associated with the use of an absorption
spectrometer. The use of a desk-top computer greatly simplifies the experiment and routine
quantum yield measurements are easily performed by automating the control of the instru-
ment and data calculation.

References
1. Demas, J . N., and Crosky, G. A., J . Phys. Chem., 1971, 75, 991.
2. Bridges, J . W., in Miller, J. N., Editor, “Standards in Fluorescence Spectroscopy” Chapman and
Hall, London, 1981, p. 68.
3. Weber, G., and Teale, F. W. J., Trans. Faraday Soc., 1957, 53, 646.
4. Adams, M. J., Highfield, J. G., and Kirkbright, G. F., Anal. Chem., 1980, 52, 1260.
5. Olmsted, J., J . Phys. Chem., 1979, 83, 2581.
6. Ware, W. R., and Rothman, W., Chern. Phys. Lett., 1976, 39, 449.
7. Bendig, J., Kreysig, D., and Schoneich, R., Opt. Spectrosc. U S S R , 1980, 49, 29.
8. Upton, L. M., and Cline Love, L. J., Anal. Chem., 1979, 51, 1941.
9. Britten, A., Archer-Hall, J., and Lockwood, G., Analyst, 1978, 103, 928.
10. Gains, N., and Dawson, A. P., Analyst, 1979, 105, 481.
11. Velapoldi, R. A., and Mielenz, K. D., Natl. Bur. Stand. Spec. Publ., 1980, No. 260.
12. Heinrich, G., Schoof, S., and Gasten, H., J . Photochem., 1974/75, 3, 315.
13. Melhuish, W. H., J . Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. Sect. A , 1972, 76, 547.
14. Guilbault, G. G., “Practical Fluorescence, Theory, Methods and Techniques,” Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1973.
15. Dawson, W. R., and Windsor, M. W., J . Phys. Chem., 1968, 72, 3251.
16. Berlman, I. B., “Handbook of Fluorescence Spectra of Aromatic Molecules,’’ Academic Press, New
York, 1965.
17. Inokuchi, H., Harada, Y., and Kondow, T., J . Opt. SOG.A m . , 1964, 54, 842.
18. Stewart, W. W., Nature (London), 1981, 242, 17.

Received March 4th, 1983

Accepted March 28th, 1983