Perovskite vs. CdSe Quantum Dots: A Comparative Analysis of Surface Electronics for Advanced Biomedical Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparison of Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) and Cadmium Selenide (CdSe) QDs, with a focused examination of their surface electronics and its direct impact on performance in biomedical environments. We explore the foundational chemical and electronic properties of each QD type, detail synthesis methodologies and their influence on surface states, and address critical challenges in stability and toxicity. A thorough comparative analysis equips researchers and drug development professionals with the insights needed to select and optimize QD materials for targeted drug delivery, bioimaging, biosensing, and other clinical applications, highlighting future directions for this rapidly evolving field.

Unraveling Core Structures and Surface Electronic Properties

Fundamental Crystal Structures and Composition

Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) exhibit an ABX₃ crystal structure, where A is a monovalent cation (e.g., Cs⁺, CH₃NH₃⁺ (MA⁺), or CH(NH₂)₂⁺ (FA⁺)), B is a divalent metal cation (typically Pb²⁺), and X is a halide anion (Cl⁻, Br⁻, or I⁻). The structure consists of corner-sharing [BX₆]⁴⁻ octahedra with A-site cations occupying the cavities between them [1]. This ionic crystal lattice is characterized by low formation energy and high defect tolerance, meaning many defects do not create deep-level traps that quench luminescence [1].

CdSe Quantum Dots typically crystallize in either zincblende (cubic) or wurtzite (hexagonal) structures [2]. In core-shell structures like CdSe@CdS, the shell grows epitaxially on the core due to the small lattice mismatch (3.9%), often resulting in a coherent interface that is challenging to distinguish at the atomic level [2]. Unlike perovskites, CdSe QDs are more covalent and susceptible to performance-degrading deep-level trap states unless properly passivated with a shell [1].

The diagram below illustrates the fundamental structural differences between these two types of quantum dots.

Comparative Optical Properties and Performance Data

Table 1: Comparative Optical Properties of PQDs and CdSe-based QDs

Property	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe-based QDs	Experimental Measurement Method
Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)	>90% without passivation [1]	>95% with optimized core/shell structure [3]	Relative method using integrating sphere & calibrated standards
Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM)	<20 nm [1]	21-25 nm [3]	Fluorescence spectroscopy with spectral correction
Color Gamut (NTSC Standard)	~140% [1]	~104% [1]	CIE chromaticity coordinates calculation from emission spectra
Emission Wavelength Tuning	Halide composition (Cl, Br, I) [4]	Core size & alloying (e.g., CdZnSe) [3]	Absorption & photoluminescence spectroscopy
External Quantum Efficiency (EQE) in LEDs	23.5% (Red), 24.94% (Green), 15% (Blue) [4]	>25% over wide voltage range (1.8-3.0 V) [3]	Integrating sphere measurement in calibrated LED setup

Table 2: Structural Stability and Device Performance Comparison

Characteristic	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe-based QDs	Testing Protocol
Structural Stability	Low; degrades under moisture, heat, UV [4]	High; robust core/shell structure [3]	Accelerated aging at 85°C/85% RH with PL monitoring
Ligand Binding	Weak (OA, OAm easily detached) [4]	Strong; various ligand options [3] [2]	TGA analysis and NMR spectroscopy
Operational Lifetime (T₉₅ at 1000 cd/m²)	Limited; significant challenge [1]	72,968 hours [3]	Constant current driving with luminance tracking
Power Conversion Efficiency (PCE)	18.3% (solar cells) [5]	27.3% (LEDs) [3]	IV measurement under standard AM1.G illumination
Bohr Exciton Radius	CsPbBr₃: 7 nm; CsPbI₃: 12 nm [6]	CdSe: 5.6 nm [6]	Analysis of quantum confinement effects via absorption spectra

Synthesis Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

The synthesis routes for these quantum dots differ significantly, reflecting their distinct chemical natures. The workflow below outlines the primary methods for each QD type.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Hot-Injection Synthesis for CdSe/CdS Core-Shell QDs [2]

• Preparation: Synthesize CdSe core QDs (4 nm diameter) using standard hot-injection with Cd-oleate and Se precursors.
• Shell Growth: Use the Successive Ionic Layer Adsorption and Reaction (SILAR) method for precise shell thickness control.
• Precursor Injection: Add Cd and S precursors alternately at 240°C for epitaxial shell growth (3-12 monolayers).
• Characterization: Analyze final QDs (≈19.6 nm) via TEM, HAADF-STEM, and XRD to confirm core-shell structure and coherent interface.

Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation (LARP) for PQDs [4]

• Precursor Solution: Dissolve CsX and PbX₂ (X=Cl, Br, I) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) with oleic acid (OA) and oleylamine (OAm) ligands.
• Reprecipitation: Rapidly inject precursor solution into vigorously stirring toluene (poor solvent).
• Purification: Centrifuge precipitated PQDs and redisperse in organic solvent.
• Ligand Exchange (Optional): Post-treat with short-chain ligands (e.g., 2-aminoethanethiol) for enhanced stability.

Stability Enhancement Strategies

Table 3: Approaches to Improve Quantum Dot Stability

Strategy	Application to PQDs	Application to CdSe-based QDs
Ligand Engineering	Exchange OA/OAm with short, bidentate ligands (e.g., AET) [4]	Use diverse ligands to control surface chemistry & packing [3]
Core-Shell Structure	Limited due to ionic lattice; polymer or oxide coating used [4]	Epitaxial shell (ZnS, ZnSe) for effective passivation [2]
Crosslinking	Crosslinkable ligands via light/heat to prevent dissociation [4]	Not typically required due to stable covalent bonds
Doping/Metal Ion Addition	Doping at A- or B-sites to strengthen lattice [4]	Alloying (e.g., CdZnSe) to flatten energy landscape [3]
Matrix Encapsulation	Incorporation into inorganic oxides or stable polymers [7]	Embedded in glass or polymer matrices for commercial displays [7]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Reagents for QD Synthesis and Processing

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in QD Research
Metal Precursors	Cadmium oleate, Lead halides (PbBr₂, PbI₂), Cesium carbonate	Provide metal cations (Cd²⁺, Pb²⁺, Cs⁺) for QD core formation
Anion Precursors	Selenium (Se) powder, Sulfur (S) in ODE, Trimethylsilyl halides	Source of chalcogenide or halide anions for crystal lattice
Surface Ligands	Oleic Acid (OA), Oleylamine (OAm), 2-Aminoethanethiol (AET)	Control growth during synthesis; passivate surface defects post-synthesis
Solvents	1-Octadecene (ODE), Toluene, Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)	Medium for synthesis (ODE) and reprecipitation (Toluene)
Antisolvents	Methyl Acetate, Butanol, Methyl Benzoate (MeBz)	Purify QDs by removing excess ligands & byproducts [5]

Inherent Surface Defect Tolerance vs. Surface Defect Susceptibility

The surface properties of quantum dots (QDs) fundamentally dictate their performance and applicability in advanced technologies. Inherent surface defect tolerance refers to a material's ability to maintain excellent electronic and optical properties despite the presence of surface imperfections or dangling bonds. In contrast, surface defect susceptibility describes materials whose functionality rapidly degrades due to surface defects, which act as traps for charge carriers and quench luminescence. Understanding this dichotomy is crucial for developing next-generation optoelectronic devices, as surface defects are inevitable in nanoscale materials due to their high surface-to-volume ratio.

For perovskite quantum dots (PQDs), particularly lead-halide perovskites, this defect tolerance originates from their unique electronic structure. The optoelectronic properties of PQDs are governed by the band edges primarily composed of Pb s and p orbitals, with the valence band maximum from Pb 6p and halogen p orbitals, and conduction band minimum from Pb 6p orbitals [8]. This specific electronic configuration means that common surface defects typically form within the band gap, having minimal impact on non-radiative recombination. Conversely, CdSe QDs exhibit high surface defect susceptibility because their surface states create deep trap levels within the band gap that efficiently capture charge carriers and promote non-radiative recombination, significantly diminishing photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) and device performance [9].

Fundamental Mechanisms: Electronic Structure and Defect Dynamics

Electronic Origins of Defect Tolerance in PQDs

The defect tolerance in PQDs stems from their bonding characteristics and electronic structure. Research indicates that the Pb s and p orbitals contribute significantly to both valence and conduction bands, creating a symmetric electronic distribution that pushes defect states outside the band edges [8]. Furthermore, the high dielectric constant of perovskite materials provides effective screening of charge carriers, reducing their capture by defect states. This fundamental property enables PQDs to maintain high PLQY even without sophisticated surface passivation strategies.

The Goldschmidt tolerance factor (TF) provides crucial insights into the structural stability of perovskite materials. For stable 3D perovskite structures, the TF typically falls between 0.8 and 1.0, with CsPbI3 having a TF value of 0.89 [8]. This appropriate TF value contributes to the structural stability of PQDs, albeit with remaining challenges in environmental stability against moisture, heat, and light.

Defect Susceptibility Mechanisms in CdSe QDs

CdSe QDs lack the electronic structure that confers defect tolerance. Their surface defects, particularly selenium vacancies and cadmium dangling bonds, create deep trap states within the band gap that act as efficient centers for non-radiative recombination [9]. Raman spectroscopic studies reveal that surface defects are particularly prominent in smaller CdSe QDs (~2.5 nm), while larger QDs (>4.5 nm) show better crystallinity with lower surface defects [9]. This size-dependent defect profile directly impacts optical properties and device performance.

The lattice strain in CdSe QDs further exacerbates their defect susceptibility. XRD analyses demonstrate significant lattice contraction in smaller CdSe QDs, with lattice parameter contraction of approximately 0.44% for 2.5nm QDs compared to 0.10% for 5.2nm QDs [9]. This compressive strain, arising from surface reconstruction during growth, creates additional surface states that trap charge carriers.

Table 1: Fundamental Properties Governing Defect Behavior in PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

Property	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs
Electronic Structure	Pb s and p orbitals dominate band edges	Cd d and Se p orbitals form band edges
Defect State Energy	Typically shallow or outside band gap	Deep trap states within band gap
Dielectric Constant	Relatively high (~6-10)	Moderate (~5-6)
Lattice Strain	Low formation energy, dynamic structure	Significant compressive strain in small QDs
Primary Defect Types	Halide vacancies, organic cation disorder	Se vacancies, Cd dangling bonds

Experimental Comparison: Methodologies and Quantitative Data

Thermal Stability Assessment

The thermal degradation pathways of PQDs with different A-site compositions were systematically investigated through in situ XRD and TGA measurements under argon flow from 30°C to 500°C [10]. For Cs-rich PQDs (CsPbI3), thermal degradation begins with a phase transition from black γ-phase to yellow δ-phase around 150°C, followed by complete decomposition to PbI2 at higher temperatures. In contrast, FA-rich PQDs (FAPbI3) directly decompose into PbI2 without phase transition, beginning at approximately 150°C [10].

The ligand binding energy plays a crucial role in thermal stability. DFT calculations reveal that FA-rich PQDs with higher ligand binding energy demonstrate slightly better thermal stability than all-inorganic CsPbI3 PQDs, despite the organic-inorganic hybrid composition [10]. This counterintuitive result highlights the importance of surface chemistry in stabilizing PQDs against thermal degradation.

Defect Characterization Techniques

Time-resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) measurements provide critical insights into charge carrier dynamics and defect-mediated recombination. For CdSe QDs, TRPL reveals significantly shortened PL lifetimes when deposited on ITO substrates (approximately 75% of QDs become negatively charged due to direct contact with ITO), leading to accelerated non-radiative Auger processes [11]. This charging effect results in a redshift of ~19 meV in emission energy compared to neutral QDs [11].

Raman spectroscopy offers detailed information about structural defects and phonon interactions in QDs. Studies show that FA-rich PQDs possess stronger electron-longitudinal optical (LO) phonon coupling compared to Cs-rich QDs, suggesting that photogenerated excitons in FA-rich QDs have higher probability of dissociation by phonon scattering [10]. For CdSe QDs, the dominant asymmetric Raman mode between 204-208 cm⁻¹ corresponds to the first-order longitudinal optical phonon (LO1), with its overtone (LO2) observed at ~408 cm⁻¹ [9]. The asymmetric broadening of the LO1 mode requires inclusion of surface optical (SO) phonon modes for adequate fitting, indicating significant surface disorder [9].

Table 2: Experimental Stability Metrics for PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

Stability Parameter	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs
Thermal Degradation Onset	150°C (Cs-rich, phase transition); 150°C (FA-rich, direct decomposition) [10]	>200°C (size-dependent)
PLQY Range	Extremely high (~100% achievable) [8]	Moderate to high (up to ~80% with optimal passivation)
PL Lifetime	FA-rich: Longer; Cs-rich: Shorter [10]	Significantly shortened on conductive substrates [11]
Charging Effect	Less pronounced	Severe on ITO substrates (75% QDs charged) [11]
LO Phonon Coupling	Stronger in FA-rich PQDs [10]	Moderate, dominated by surface optical phonons [9]

Stability Enhancement Strategies

PQD Stability Improvement Methods

Multiple approaches have been developed to enhance PQD stability against environmental factors:

• Ligand Engineering: Strategic modification of surface ligands using long-chain organic molecules like oleic acid and oleylamine improves surface coverage and binding affinity [8] [10]. DFT calculations confirm that stronger ligand binding correlates directly with enhanced thermal stability [10].

• Inorganic Shell Coating: Encapsulating PQDs with stable inorganic materials such as oxides or metal fluorides creates a physical barrier against moisture and oxygen penetration while maintaining optoelectronic properties [8].

• Ion Doping: Incorporation of specific metal ions (e.g., Mn²⁺, Zn²⁺) into the perovskite lattice enhances structural stability without compromising optical properties [8].

• Polymer Matrix Encapsulation: Embedding PQDs in polymer matrices (PMMA, polystyrene) provides mechanical stability and protection from environmental stressors [8].

CdSe QD Defect Passivation Techniques

• Ligand Exchange Processes: Replacing long-chain native surfactants with shorter conductive ligands like 3-mercaptopropionic acid (MPA) or atomic S²⁻ ligands reduces interdot distance and improves charge transport while providing limited surface passivation [9].

• Core/Shell Structures: Growing epitaxial shells of wider bandgap semiconductors (e.g., ZnS, CdS) on CdSe cores effectively confines charge carriers to the core and reduces surface state accessibility [12] [9].

• Size Optimization: Controlling QD size during synthesis, as larger CdSe QDs (>4.5nm) naturally exhibit fewer surface defects and lower lattice strain compared to smaller counterparts (~2.5nm) [9].

Performance in Optoelectronic Devices

Solar Cell Applications

In photovoltaic devices, the defect tolerance of PQDs translates to higher open-circuit voltages (VOC) and reduced voltage deficits compared to CdSe QDs. PQD solar cells have achieved remarkable power conversion efficiencies exceeding 16% through the formation of highly orientated PQD solids that promote charge-carrier transport and diminish trap-assisted non-radiative recombination [13].

For CdSe QDSSCs, performance is fundamentally limited by surface defect-mediated recombination. The highest reported efficiency for CdSe-based QDSSCs using TiO₂ photoanodes and I⁻/I₃⁻ liquid electrolyte reaches only 2.74%, despite optimization of QD size and photoanode structure [9]. Composite photoanodes utilizing TiO₂ nanosheets with high (001)-exposed facets have been shown to enhance performance in CdS/CdSe QDSSCs, achieving 4.42% efficiency—a 54% improvement over conventional nanoparticle-based photoanodes [12].

Light Emission Applications

The defect tolerance of PQDs enables exceptionally high photoluminescence quantum yields (PLQY) approaching 100% without complex core/shell structures [8]. This makes PQDs particularly suitable for light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and displays. Mixed A-site CsₓFA₁₋ₓPbI₃ PQDs have demonstrated external quantum efficiencies (EQE) surpassing 20% for both red and green LEDs [10].

CdSe QDs require elaborate core/shell structures and sophisticated surface passivation to achieve high PLQY values comparable to PQDs. Furthermore, CdSe QDs exhibit severe performance degradation when integrated with conductive substrates like ITO, where approximately 75% of QDs become negatively charged, leading to quenching of amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) and lasing capabilities [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for QD Surface Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in Research	Application Examples
Oleic Acid (OA)	Surface ligand for PQDs; controls growth and provides steric stabilization [10] [14]	Standard ligand in hot-injection synthesis of PQDs
Oleylamine (OLA)	Co-ligand for PQDs; enhances solubility and affects crystal faceting [10] [14]	Used in combination with OA for balanced surface coverage
Titanium Butoxide (Ti(OBu)₄)	Precursor for TiO₂ nanostructures with high (001)-exposed facets [12]	Preparation of optimized photoanodes for QDSSC studies
3-Mercaptopropionic Acid (MPA)	Short-chain ligand for CdSe QDs; enables charge transport in devices [9]	Ligand exchange to link CdSe QDs to metal oxide surfaces
CdCl₂ / Na₂SeSO₃	Precursors for CdSe QD growth via SILAR and CBD methods [12] [9]	In situ deposition of CdSe QDs on photoanodes
Indium Tin Oxide (ITO)	Transparent conductive substrate for device integration [11]	Studying QD-substrate interactions in optoelectronic devices
Octadecene (ODE)	Non-polar solvent for high-temperature QD synthesis [14]	Common reaction medium for both PQD and CdSe QD synthesis

The fundamental difference in surface defect tolerance between PQDs and CdSe QDs has profound implications for their research and development trajectories. PQDs' inherent defect tolerance enables simpler fabrication processes and outstanding performance in optoelectronic devices, though challenges remain in environmental stability. CdSe QDs require more complex engineering to mitigate their inherent defect susceptibility but benefit from more established synthesis protocols and superior material stability.

Future research directions include developing machine learning approaches to optimize PQD synthesis parameters and properties prediction [14], designing multifunctional ligands that enhance stability without compromising charge transport, and creating advanced composite structures that leverage the advantages of both material systems. Understanding the fundamental contrast between inherent defect tolerance and defect susceptibility continues to drive innovation in quantum dot research and applications across optoelectronics, sensing, and energy technologies.

Electronic Band Structures and Charge Carrier Dynamics

Quantum dots (QDs) are semiconductor nanocrystals whose electronic properties are dominated by quantum confinement effects due to their nanoscale dimensions, typically ranging from 2-10 nanometers [15]. This confinement results in discrete energy levels and size-tunable bandgaps that fundamentally govern their charge carrier dynamics and optoelectronic performance [16] [17]. The electronic band structure of QDs determines critical processes including excitation, energy relaxation, and charge transfer, which are paramount for applications ranging from light-emitting diodes and displays to photodetectors and quantum dot-based non-volatile memory devices [18] [15].

This review provides a comprehensive comparison between perovskite quantum dots (PQDs) and traditional cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs, focusing on their fundamental electronic structures, charge carrier dynamics, and experimental characterization. By examining their distinct photophysical behaviors through standardized experimental frameworks, we aim to establish structure-property relationships that guide material selection for specific electronic and optoelectronic applications.

Fundamental Electronic Band Structures

CdSe Quantum Dot Band Architecture

CdSe QDs exhibit a Type-I core/shell band alignment when encapsulated in wider bandgap materials such as CdS. Detailed spectroscopic studies combining optical and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) have determined the conduction band offset between CdSe and CdS to be approximately 0.15-0.30 eV [17]. This modest offset facilitates partial electron delocalization while maintaining confinement of both electrons and holes within the core region, balancing oscillator strength with environmental stability.

The excited-state dynamics of CdSe QDs reveal complex relaxation pathways. As illustrated in Figure 1, upon photoexcitation, carriers initially populate high-energy states before relaxing to the band edge through a multi-step process. Time-resolved spectroscopic measurements at 77 K have quantified the relaxation from the |e5⟩ state (2S1/2(h) - 1S(e)) at 19700 cm⁻¹ to occur with a 100 femtosecond time constant for initial relaxation, followed by band-edge state rise within 700 femtoseconds [16]. This rapid thermalization is governed by electron-phonon coupling and defect-mediated trapping processes.

Table 1: Experimentally Determined Excited States in CdSe Quantum Dots

State Designation	Electronic Transition	Energy (cm⁻¹)	Energy (eV)
	e1⟩	1S₃/₂(h) – 1S(e)	16,200	2.01
	e2⟩	2S₃/₂(h) – 1S(e)	16,900	2.10
	e3⟩	1S₁/₂(h) – 1S(e)	17,800	2.21
	e4⟩	1P₃/₂(h) – 1P(e)	18,300	2.27
	e5⟩	2S₁/₂(h) – 1S(e)	19,700	2.44

Perovskite Quantum Dot Band Structure

Perovskite QDs, particularly lead-halide variants (CsPbX₃, where X = Cl, Br, I), possess a distinctly different electronic structure characterized by defect-tolerant electronic bands originating from the antibonding coupling between Pb-6s and X-np orbitals [19]. This unique bonding arrangement results in electronic transitions that are relatively insensitive to surface defects, enabling high photoluminescence quantum yields (50-90%) even without elaborate passivation schemes [19].

The bandgap tunability in PQDs spans the entire visible spectrum (1.8-3.1 eV) through both quantum confinement effects and facile halide exchange, offering broader compositional flexibility compared to CdSe-based materials. Lead-free perovskite variants (e.g., Cs₃Bi₂X₉, CsSnX₃) demonstrate similar band structure advantages while addressing toxicity concerns, though often with somewhat compromised optoelectronic performance [19].

Experimental Methodologies for Charge Dynamics Analysis

Two-Color Two-Dimensional Electronic Spectroscopy (2DES)

Protocol Objective: To resolve many-body interactions and energy transfer pathways in quantum dots with high temporal and spectral resolution.

Detailed Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Dilute QD solutions in appropriate solvents (e.g., toluene for CdSe QDs) to optical densities of 0.2-0.3 at the first excitonic absorption peak. For low-temperature measurements (77 K), load samples into cryostats with optical windows [16].
• Laser System Configuration: Employ a femtosecond laser system split into three pump pulses and one probe pulse. For two-color measurements, tune the first two pulses to resonate with high-energy states (18,800-21,300 cm⁻¹) and the third probe pulse with lower-energy states (15,200-18,800 cm⁻¹) [16].
• Data Acquisition: Scan coherence time (τ) and population time (T) while recording the heterodyne-detected signal as a function of detection time (t). Measure rephasing and non-rephasing signals separately to construct the 2D spectrum [16].
• Data Analysis: Identify diagonal peaks (representing individual excited states) and cross-peaks (indicating energy transfer between states) through Fourier transformation. Analyze peak evolution during population time to extract relaxation dynamics.

Key Parameters: Pulse durations <50 fs, spectral resolution <100 cm⁻¹, temporal resolution <20 fs, temperature control ±1 K.

Time-Resolved Electroluminescence for QD-LED Dynamics

Protocol Objective: To characterize charge injection and recombination dynamics in operational quantum dot light-emitting diodes.

Detailed Procedure:

• Device Fabrication: Fabricate QD-LEDs with structure ITO/PEDOT:PSS/PVK/QDs/TPBi/LiF/Al. Spin-coat functional layers under nitrogen atmosphere. For QD layer deposition, utilize solution processing with concentration optimization for uniform films [18].
• Pulse Generation: Apply square pulse voltages with varying frequencies (1 Hz-1 MHz) and duty cycles (10-90%) using a pulse generator. Ensure fast rise/fall times (<100 ns) to resolve transient effects [18].
• Emission Detection: Collect electroluminescence signals through a microscope objective coupled to a high-speed photodetector (response time <1 ns) connected to a digital oscilloscope. For spectral resolution, incorporate a monochromator or bandpass filters [18].
• Data Interpretation: Analyze emission rise/fall times, overshoot phenomena, and intensity stabilization periods. Model dynamics using specialized charge transport simulations accounting for carrier injection balance and Auger recombination effects [18].

Key Parameters: Voltage range 2-10 V, temporal resolution <1 ns, spectral range 400-800 nm, controlled atmosphere (O₂, H₂O <1 ppm).

Comparative Analysis of Charge Carrier Dynamics

Excited-State Relaxation Pathways

The relaxation dynamics of photoexcited carriers differ significantly between CdSe and perovskite QDs due to their distinct electronic structures and electron-phonon coupling strengths.

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Charge Carrier Dynamics

Parameter	CdSe QDs	Perovskite QDs
Hot Carrier Relaxation	100-700 fs [16]	<100 fs [19]
Radiative Recombination	10-30 ns	1-20 ns [19]
Non-Radiative Recombination	Highly sensitive to surface traps	Suppressed due to defect tolerance [19]
Auger Recombination	Significant in charged QDs	Enhanced due to soft lattice [18]
Charge Injection in Devices	Can be unbalanced due to energy misalignment [18]	More balanced but susceptible to ionic migration [18]
PL Quantum Yield	50-90% (requires sophisticated shells)	50-90% (achievable with simple synthesis) [19]

In CdSe QDs, excited-state absorption signals rise with a time constant of 700 fs, corresponding to electrons arriving at the conduction-band edge [16]. The relaxation pathway involves discrete transitions through quantized states (Table 1), with potential trapping at surface states that can reduce photoluminescence efficiency. In contrast, perovskite QDs exhibit exceptionally fast hot-carrier cooling (<100 fs) due to strong carrier-phonon interactions and a degeneracy of band-edge states that facilitates rapid thermalization [19].

Charge Transport in Functional Devices

In QD-LEDs, both material systems exhibit emission response anomalies including intensity drops and spikes during pulsed operation, though the underlying mechanisms differ. For CdSe QDs, these phenomena primarily result from charge injection imbalance caused by energy band misalignment between transport layers and the QDs themselves [18]. This imbalance leads to space-charge accumulation that quenches luminescence through non-radiative pathways.

Perovskite QD-based devices demonstrate different challenges related to their ionic character and labile surface ligands. While they typically achieve more balanced charge injection, their dynamic emission response is influenced by field-induced ion migration that redistributes potential within the device during operation [18]. This effect contributes to the emission overshoot and stabilization behaviors observed in transient electroluminescence measurements.

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for QD Electronic Studies

Reagent/Category	Function	Specific Examples
Cadmium Precursors	CdSe QD synthesis	Cadmium oxide (CdO), Cadmium acetate (Cd(Ac)₂) [16] [17]
Selenium Precursors	CdSe QD synthesis	Trioctylphosphine selenide (TOP-Se), Selenium powder [16] [17]
Perovskite Cation Sources	PQD synthesis	Cesium carbonate (Cs₂CO₃), Cs-oleate, Methylammonium bromide (MABr) [19] [14]
Halide Sources	PQD composition tuning	Lead bromide (PbBr₂), Lead chloride (PbCl₂), Ammonium halides [19] [14]
Surface Ligands	Size control & passivation	Oleic acid (OA), Oleylamine (OLA), Octadecene (ODE) [19] [14] [20]
Solvents	Synthesis medium	1-Octadecene (ODE), Toluene, Hexane [14]
Charge Transport Materials	Device fabrication	PEDOT:PSS, PVK, TPBi, LiF [18]
Spectroscopy Standards	Instrument calibration	Fluorophores with known lifetimes, NIST-traceable standards

Implications for Electronic Applications

Display Technologies

The charge carrier dynamics directly impact key performance parameters in display applications. CdSe QDs benefit from their established core/shell architectures (e.g., CdSe/ZnS) that provide excellent stability and charge confinement, making them suitable for demanding display environments [21]. However, their charge injection limitations require careful device engineering to balance electron and hole fluxes [18].

Perovskite QDs offer superior color purity with narrow emission linewidths (12-40 nm FWHM) and high photoluminescence quantum yields that enhance display color gamut [19] [20]. Their more balanced charge injection simplifies device architecture but necessitates additional stabilization strategies to counter environmental degradation [19].

Memory Devices

Quantum dot-based non-volatile memories leverage the discrete charge storage capability of QDs, with performance dictated by their band structure and interface properties. CdSe QDs have demonstrated endurance of approximately 10⁵ cycles in resistive memory applications, with retention times exceeding 10 years in optimized devices [15]. The well-defined surface chemistry of CdSe facilitates integration with various dielectric materials.

Perovskite QDs present opportunities for photoactive memory elements that can be optically programmed and electrically read, exploiting their strong light-matter interactions [15]. However, their ionic mobility presents challenges for retention that require innovative encapsulation approaches [19].

The electronic band structures and charge carrier dynamics of CdSe and perovskite quantum dots reveal complementary strengths for different electronic applications. CdSe QDs offer precisely characterized excited states and established passivation approaches that make them suitable for applications requiring long-term stability and predictable performance. Their well-understood relaxation pathways (100-700 fs) and controllable charge trapping provide a solid foundation for memory and display technologies.

Perovskite QDs excel through their defect-tolerant band structure and rapid thermalization (<100 fs), enabling high performance with simpler processing. Their balanced charge injection and superior color purity make them particularly attractive for display applications, though challenges regarding environmental stability and lead content require continued research attention.

Future developments in both material systems will likely focus on hybrid approaches that combine the advantageous properties of each, while computational methods like machine learning are increasingly employed to predict optimal synthesis parameters and device architectures for specific electronic applications [14]. The continued refinement of time-resolved spectroscopic methods will further elucidate the fundamental charge carrier dynamics that govern performance in advanced electronic devices.

Quantum dots (QDs) are semiconducting nanocrystals whose small size (typically 1-10 nm) confers unique optical properties due to quantum confinement effects [22] [23]. Among these properties, Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY) and color purity are critically important for evaluating performance in optoelectronic applications. PLQY measures the efficiency of photon conversion, calculated as the ratio of emitted to absorbed photons. Color purity, often indicated by a narrow Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of the emission peak, enables vibrant, saturated colors [22] [24] [19].

This guide objectively compares these key properties between two leading QD types: Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) and traditional Cadmium Selenide (CdSe) QDs. The analysis is framed within surface electronics research, highlighting how material composition and surface engineering dictate performance in devices like displays, lighting, and sensors [25] [24].

Property Comparison: PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

The table below summarizes the core optical properties and characteristics of PQDs and CdSe-based QDs.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of Optical Properties between PQDs and CdSe QDs

Property	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe-Based QDs
Typical Chemical Formula	APbX₃ (A=Cs⁺, MA⁺, FA⁺; X=Cl⁻, Br⁻, I⁻) [19] [23]	CdSe (core), often with shell (e.g., CdS) [26]
Bandgap Tunability	Via quantum size effect & halogen composition [22] [19]	Primarily via quantum size effect [24]
PLQY Range	Up to ~90% (CsPbBr₃ in glass) [27]; ~79% (MAPbBr₃ in MOF) [28]; Up to 100% reported in some studies [22]	Up to 85-100% for core/shell (colloidal) [24]; ~60% in fluorophosphate glass [29]
PLQY (Typical Surface/Device)	High defect tolerance enables high "as-synthesized" PLQY [22]	Often requires shelling/advanced ligands for high PLQY [24] [30]
Emission FWHM	Very narrow; 12-40 nm [19], e.g., 24 nm (CsPbBr₃) [27]	Generally narrow; can be broader than PQDs [24]
Color Purity	Excellent due to narrow FWHM [22] [23]	Very good, a key display technology feature [23]
Defect Tolerance	High [22] [19]	Low; surface defects are major non-radiative recombination centers [29] [24]
Key Stability Issues	Susceptible to light, heat, moisture, oxygen (ionic lattice) [25] [28]	Good inherent chemical stability; protected by shell [26]
Common Stabilization Methods	Encapsulation in glass [27], MOFs [28], polymers [22]	Growth of inorganic shells (e.g., ZnS, CdS) [24]

Experimental Data and Performance Benchmarks

The following table compiles quantitative data from recent experimental studies, providing a benchmark for the state-of-the-art in both QD technologies.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data from Recent Studies

QD Material & Structure	PLQY	FWHM	Key Experimental Condition / Host Matrix	Reported Application / Test
CsPbBr₃ in Glass [27]	88.15%	24 nm	Borosilicate glass (modulated Si/B ratio)	Green emitter in WLED (CCT: 5863 K)
MAPbBr₃ in UIO-66 (MOF) [28]	78.9%	-	Metal-Organic Framework (UIO-66) encapsulation	Green and white LEDs (stable operation for 2.5 hrs)
CdSe/CdS Core/Shell [26]	Nearly 100%	-	Colloidal suspension	Optical refrigeration studies
CdSe in Fluorophosphate Glass [29]	60% (max)	-	Fluorophosphate glass matrix; 2.5 nm QDs size	Trap state emission study
Colloidal CdSe with Z* Ligands [30]	>55%	-	Amine-assisted ligand engineering in ambient air	Surface passivation study

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To contextualize the data in Table 2, this section outlines the standard and advanced methodologies used to fabricate and stabilize high-performance QDs.

Synthesis of High-PLQY CsPbBr₃ QDs in Glass Matrix

This melt-quenching method enhances PQD stability for practical applications [27].

• Glass Preparation: A borosilicate glass composition is designed, typically within the system 80((69-x) SiO₂-xB₂O₃-ZnO)-20(Cs₂CO₃-PbBr₂-NaBr), where the Si/B ratio (x) is modulated (e.g., 31-43 mol%).
• Melting and Quenching: The raw material mixture is ground thoroughly and melted in a muffle furnace at ~1150°C for 20 minutes. The molten glass is then rapidly poured onto a preheated (400°C) plate and pressed to form a plate.
• Thermal Annealing for QD Growth: The as-quenched glass is heat-treated at a temperature above its glass transition temperature (e.g., 450-500°C) for several hours. This step promotes the nucleation and growth of CsPbBr₃ QDs within the glass matrix.
• Characterization: The glass samples are ground and polished for optical measurements. PLQY is measured using an integrating sphere, and absorption/emission spectra are recorded to determine FWHM.

In-situ Growth of MAPbBr₃ QDs in a Metal-Organic Framework (MOF)

This protocol describes a composite approach to achieve high PLQY and stability for organic-inorganic PQDs [28].

• Synthesis of UIO-66 MOF: ZrCl₄, terephthalic acid (H₂BDC), and benzoic acid (modulator) are dissolved in DMF via ultrasonication and stirring. The mixture is transferred to an autoclave and heated at 120°C for 24 hours. The resulting white precipitate (UIO-66) is collected by centrifugation, washed with isopropanol (IPA), and dried. Critical Note: Drying at 160°C for 12 hours is recommended to completely remove residual DMF from the MOF pores, which is crucial for optimal optical performance.
• Lead Ion Loading: UIO-66 powder is dispersed in an aqueous solution of Pb(Ac)₂·3H₂O at varying concentrations and stirred at room temperature for 60 minutes. The resulting Pb-UIO-66 powder is collected, washed, and dried.
• Perovskite Formation: The Pb-UIO-66 powder is dispersed in an IPA solution of methylammonium bromide (MABr) and stirred at room temperature for 12 hours. The MABr diffuses into the MOF pores and reacts with the incorporated Pb²⁺ to form MAPbBr₃ QDs in-situ, yielding the final MAPbBr₃@UIO-66 composite.
• Characterization: The composite material exhibits bright green photoluminescence. Its PLQY and stability against moisture are significantly enhanced compared to unprotected PQDs.

Ligand Engineering for High-Efficiency CdSe QDs

This protocol focuses on surface chemistry to improve the PLQY of colloidal CdSe QDs without shell growth [30].

• Synthesis of CdSe Cores: CdSe QDs are synthesized via the hot-injection method, typically involving the rapid injection of a selenium precursor into a hot cadmium precursor solution in the presence of coordinating solvents and ligands.
• Z* Ligand Passivation: Instead of traditional ligand exchange, an amine-assisted approach is used. Alkylamines (e.g., oleylamine) are introduced, which combine with native Z-type ligands (cadmium carboxylate) on the QD surface to form a more effective passivating layer, termed "Z* ligands".
• Purification and Processing: The QDs are purified to remove excess reactants and byproducts. The Z* ligand treatment minimizes surface etching and significantly enhances the fluorescence of the as-synthesized QDs, enabling the synthesis of CdSe QDs with a PLQY >55% in ambient air conditions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

This table lists key materials and their functions for research in high-performance QDs.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Quantum Dot Research

Reagent / Material	Function in QD Research
Cesium Carbonate (Cs₂CO₃) / Lead Bromide (PbBr₂)	Precursors for inorganic CsPbBr₃ perovskite QDs [27].
Methylammonium Bromide (MABr)	Organic cation source for hybrid organic-inorganic MAPbBr₃ QDs [28].
Cadmium Oleate / Selenium (Se) Precursors	Common metal and chalcogenide sources for the synthesis of CdSe QD cores [24].
Oleylamine / Oleic Acid	Common surface ligands (L-type and X-type) to control growth and provide initial surface passivation during colloidal synthesis [30] [19].
Zirconium Chloride (ZrCl₄) / Terephthalic Acid	Metal cluster and organic linker precursors for constructing UIO-66 MOF host matrices [28].
Zinc Oleate / Sulfur (S) Precursors	Precursors for growing wide-bandgap shells (e.g., ZnS) on CdSe cores to enhance PLQY and stability [24].

Research Workflow and Property Determinants

The diagram below illustrates the core research workflow and the critical factors influencing the key optical properties of PQDs and CdSe QDs.

Diagram 1: Research workflow for developing high-performance QDs, highlighting material-specific strategies.

The choice between Perovskite QDs and CdSe QDs involves a trade-off between intrinsic optical performance and stability. PQDs demonstrate a formidable combination of high native PLQY, exceptional color purity, and simpler bandgap tunability, making them a compelling candidate for future optoelectronics. However, their commercial translation is currently hindered by inherent instability under environmental stressors. CdSe-based QDs, particularly core/shell structures, offer robust stability and have already reached high performance levels, facilitating their current use in commercial displays. The ongoing research in surface electronics, focused on advanced encapsulation for PQDs and refined ligand engineering for CdSe QDs, is key to unlocking the full potential of both materials for next-generation applications.

The Role of Surface Ligands in Determining Electronic Properties

In quantum dot (QD) science, surface ligands are far more than passive stabilizing agents; they are fundamental determinants of electronic properties. These molecular capping agents directly influence charge carrier mobility, defect passivation, and environmental stability by mediating the complex interface between the nanoscale semiconductor core and its environment. The strategic selection and engineering of surface ligands enable precise control over the electronic landscape of both individual QDs and their assembled solid films. This comparative analysis examines how ligand chemistry distinctly shapes the electronic performance of two prominent QD families: lead sulfide (PbS) and cadmium selenide (CdSe) colloidal quantum dots (CQDs), and perovskite quantum dots (PQDs). Understanding these relationships is paramount for advancing optoelectronic devices, including solar cells, photodetectors, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Ligand Functions and Electronic Property Modulation

Surface ligands govern electronic properties through several interconnected mechanisms, with notable differences observed across QD material systems.

• Charge Transport in QD Solids: In films of PbS and CdSe CQDs, long-chain insulating ligands (e.g., oleic acid) create significant potential barriers between dots, severely hindering inter-dot charge transport. Ligand exchange to shorter molecules (e.g., halides, metal chalcogenide complexes) reduces dot-to-dot spacing, dramatically increasing carrier mobility by facilitating stronger electronic coupling [31] [32]. For PQDs, the ligand exchange process is equally critical but often leads to a more pronounced trade-off, where improved transport is accompanied by a significant increase in non-radiative recombination and a drastic reduction in photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) from near 100% to below 0.1% in device-ready films [33].

• Defect Passivation and Trap State Reduction: Under-coordinated surface atoms (e.g., Pb or Cd) act as electronic trap states, promoting non-radiative recombination. Ligands passivate these sites by donating electron density. The effectiveness is highly specific: in CdSe QDs, Z-type ligands (e.g., cadmium carboxylates) directly bind to surface Se atoms, with cadmium-based Z-type ligands proving most effective at restoring bright light emission [34]. For CsPbI3 PQDs, ligands like trioctylphosphine (TOP) and trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO) coordinate with undercoordinated Pb²⁺ ions, suppressing non-radiative recombination and boosting PLQY [35]. Computational studies on CdSe reveal that L-type ligands (e.g., amines, phosphines) binding directly to under-coordinated Cd sites can prevent their reduction, thereby enhancing stability in negatively charged QDs [36].

• Electronic Structure and Doping: Surface ligands function as powerful dipolar layers, shifting the absolute energy positions of QD band edges. This effect allows for the tuning of ionization potential and electron affinity, which is critical for optimizing energy level alignment with charge transport layers in devices [31]. Furthermore, certain ligands can introduce intentional electronic doping. In CsPbI3 PQD films, the specific ligand chemistry used during solid-state exchange can lead to a high background free charge carrier concentration, orders of magnitude greater than in perovskite thin films, which influences the open-circuit voltage in solar cells [33].

Table 1: Primary Ligand Types and Their Electronic Functions

Ligand Type	Binding Mechanism	Key Electronic Influences	Example Materials
L-Type (Lewis Base)	Electron pair donation to metal cations	Passivates metal-site traps; can increase PLQY	Amines, Phosphines (TOP, TOPO) [35] [36]
X-Type (Anionic)	Ionic bond exchange with surface anions	Modulates band energy levels; enables charge transport	Halides (I⁻, Br⁻, Cl⁻), carboxylates [31] [36]
Z-Type (Lewis Acid)	Electron pair acceptance from chalcogen anions	Passivates anion-site traps; restores luminescence	Cd²⁺, Pb²⁺ complexes (e.g., Cd oleate) [34]

Comparative Analysis: PbS/CdSe CQDs vs. Perovskite QDs

While all QDs share a reliance on surface chemistry, the nature and consequences of ligand interactions differ significantly between traditional chalcogenides and perovskites.

Stability and Defect Tolerance

• PbS/CdSe CQDs: These materials are generally more robust, with degradation often being a slower process. Their surfaces exhibit a wider range of thermodynamically stable ligand binding modes. The primary challenge is managing the trade-off between passivation and transport [32] [36].
• PQDs: Ionic crystal structures make them highly susceptible to degradation by polar solvents, moisture, and light. While they are often described as defect-tolerant, their surfaces are highly dynamic and reactive. Ligand binding is weaker, and ligand loss is a major pathway for degradation and trap formation. The stability of PQDs, such as CsPbI3, is highly dependent on rigorous surface passivation to inhibit structural phase transitions [35] [33].

Impact of Ligand Exchange on Optoelectronic Properties

• PbS/CdSe CQDs: The ligand exchange process typically causes a measurable but often manageable drop in PLQY. The primary goal is to replace long insulating ligands with shorter conductive ones while preserving as much of the initial passivation as possible [32].
• PQDs: The contrast is stark. As-synthesized PQDs in solution can have PLQYs of ~57%, and thin films with native ligands can maintain ~5.3%. However, the solid-state ligand exchange necessary for device fabrication catastrophically reduces the PLQY to ~0.02%, indicating a massive introduction of non-radiative recombination centers and highlighting the extreme sensitivity of PQD surfaces to processing conditions [33].

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Ligand Effects on Different QD Systems

Property	PbS/CdSe CQDs	Perovskite QDs (CsPbI3)
Typical Initial PLQY	High (Up to ~50% or more) [32]	Very High (Up to ~100%) [33]
PLQY After Device Ligand Exchange	Moderately reduced	Catastrophically reduced (to <0.1%) [33]
Primary Stability Concern	Oxidation over time [36]	Rapid degradation from moisture, light, phase transition [35]
Impact of A-site Cation	Not applicable	Significant; FA⁺ reduces trap density by 40x vs. Cs⁺ [33]
Effect of Top Passivators	TOPO: 18% PL enhancement; L-PHE: Superior photostability (70% intensity after 20 days UV) [35]	Lead nitrate/MeOAc exchange enables transport but kills luminescence [33]

Experimental Methodologies and Data

Reliable data on ligand-effects requires a suite of complementary characterization techniques.

Synthesis and Ligand Exchange Protocols

• PbS CQD Synthesis: A common method is the high-temperature heat injection, where a sulfur precursor (e.g., bis(trimethylsilyl) sulfide, TMS) is swiftly injected into a lead precursor (e.g., PbO) dissolved in a coordinating solvent (e.g., 1-octadecene) with oleic acid at 150°C. This yields monodisperse PbS CQDs [32].
• PQD (CsPbI3) Synthesis and Exchange: High-quality CsPbI3 PQDs are synthesized by precisely controlling temperature (~170°C), precursor injection volume, and reaction duration. Surface passivation employs ligands like TOP, TOPO, and L-phenylalanine (L-PHE) [35]. For solar cell fabrication, a critical solid-state ligand exchange is performed using a lead nitrate solution in methyl acetate (Pb(NO₃)₂/MeOAc) to replace long native ligands with shorter iodides and nitrates [33].

Key Characterization Techniques

• Photoluminescence Spectroscopy (PL): Measures emission intensity, quantum yield (PLQY), and lifetime. A drop in PLQY after ligand exchange directly quantifies the introduction of non-radiative defects [35] [33].
• Dynamic Nuclear Polarization NMR (DNP-NMR): Provides atomic-level insights into the local chemical environment of atoms (e.g., ¹¹³Cd) on the QD surface, revealing different ligand binding configurations and surface stoichiometry [37].
• Density Functional Theory (DFT): Computational modeling used to predict the energetics of ligand binding, charge localization, and the formation of surface defects upon charging, helping to explain experimental observations [36].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for QD ligand exchange and characterization.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for QD Surface Ligand Research

Reagent / Material	Function / Role	Example Application
Oleic Acid (OA) / Oleylamine (OAm)	Long-chain L-type ligands for synthesis & initial stabilization	Standard surfactants for achieving monodisperse QDs during synthesis [35] [32]
Trioctylphosphine (TOP) / TOPO	Strong L-type ligands for surface passivation	Passivating undercoordinated Pb²⁺ in PQDs; enhancing PL intensity [35]
Lead Nitrate (Pb(NO₃)₂)	Source of metal cations and halides for solid-state exchange	Replaces organic ligands with iodide on PQD surfaces for conductive films [33]
Halide Salts (e.g., Tetrabutylammonium Iodide)	X-type ligands for charge transport tuning	Replaces long carboxylates to reduce inter-dot spacing and boost mobility in CQD films [31] [32]
Metal Carboxylates (e.g., Cd oleate)	Z-type ligands for defect passivation	Binds to chalcogen sites on CdSe QDs to fix defects and improve luminescence [34]
Methyl Acetate (MeOAc)	Polar, non-solvent for purification and exchange	Used as a washing solvent to remove excess ligands without redissolving QD film [33]
Deuterated Toluene / AMUPol Radical	Solvent and polarizing agent for DNP-NMR	Enables high-sensitivity NMR to probe ligand distribution and surface structure [37]

The critical role of surface ligands in determining the electronic properties of quantum dots is an indisputable cornerstone of nanoscience. While significant progress has been made in understanding ligand chemistry for both CQDs and PQDs, the path forward requires a more nuanced, system-specific approach. For PbS and CdSe CQDs, future research will likely focus on developing multifunctional hybrid ligands that provide simultaneous excellent passivation and high charge transport, pushing device efficiencies closer to their theoretical limits. For PQDs, the most pressing challenge remains bridging the enormous gap between the superb luminescence of as-synthesized dots and the poor luminescence of device-ready films. This will necessitate innovative mild exchange processes and defect-healing strategies that minimize surface damage. Ultimately, the rational design of surface ligands, informed by advanced characterization and computational modeling, will be the key to unlocking the full potential of quantum dots in next-generation optoelectronic technologies.

Synthesis, Surface Engineering, and Biomedical Implementation

The synthesis of quantum dots (QDs) dictates their structural perfection, optical properties, and ultimate utility in devices ranging from light-emitting diodes to biological sensors. For cadmium selenide (CdSe) and metal halide perovskite (CsPbBr3) nanocrystals (NCs)—two of the most prominent QD families—the hot-injection (HI) and ligand-assisted reprecipitation (LARP) methods represent two fundamentally different philosophical and technical approaches to nanocrystal formation [38]. The HI method is a high-temperature, organometallic approach pioneered for CdSe QDs, offering exceptional monodispersity and crystallinity. In contrast, LARP is a room-temperature, solution-based pathway that has gained prominence for its simplicity and efficacy in synthesizing perovskite NCs [39] [38]. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of these two methods, framing the analysis within a broader research context that contrasts the surface electronics and defect physics of CdSe and perovskite QDs. We summarize quantitative experimental data, detail essential protocols, and visualize key concepts to equip researchers with the knowledge to select the optimal synthesis for their specific application.

Methodological Foundations & Experimental Protocols

Hot-Injection (HI) Synthesis

The HI method relies on the rapid injection of precursor compounds into a high-boiling-point coordinating solvent to induce a sudden supersaturation event, leading to the synchronous nucleation and growth of nanocrystals [40] [41].

• Typical Protocol for CdSe/CdS Core/Shell QDs [41]:
  • Reaction Setup: The selenium (Se) precursor (e.g., trioctylphosphine selenide) is prepared separately. A flask containing the cadmium (Cd) precursor (e.g., cadmium oxide) and a mixture of coordinating solvents (e.g., 1-octadecene, oleic acid, and trioctylphosphine oxide) is heated to 240°C under inert gas.
  • Nucleation: The Se precursor is swiftly injected into the hot Cd solution, causing an immediate color change. The high temperature (240-300°C) ensures rapid decomposition of precursors and the formation of CdSe cores.
  • Growth & Shelling: The temperature is reduced to 250-280°C for growth. A shell of CdS can be epitaxially grown by the successive ionic layer adsorption and reaction (SILAR) method, involving the dropwise addition of cationic (Cd) and anionic (S) precursors.
  • Purification: The synthesized CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs are purified by repeated precipitation using a non-solvent (e.g., N-butyl ether) and centrifugation to remove excess ligands and unreacted precursors.

Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation (LARP) Synthesis

LARP is a thermodynamically controlled synthesis performed at room temperature. It involves dissolving perovskite precursors in a polar solvent and then triggering crystallization by mixing with a non-polar antisolvent, with ligands present to control growth and stabilization [39] [42].

• Typical Protocol for CsPbBr3 NCs [39] [38]:
  • Precursor Preparation: Cesium (Cs) and lead halide (PbBr2) salts are dissolved in a polar solvent like dimethylformamide (DMF), forming the precursor solution. Ligands, typically an acid-base pair like oleic acid (OA) and oleylamine (OAm), are added to this solution.
  • Crystallization: The precursor solution is added dropwise to a vigorously stirring non-polar antisolvent, such as toluene. Upon mixing, the solubility of the precursors drops drastically, leading to supersaturation and the subsequent nucleation and growth of CsPbBr3 NCs.
  • Purification & Stability: The NCs are purified by centrifugation to remove aggregates and excess ligands. The study highlights that long-chain ligands (e.g., OA/OAm) yield homogeneous and stable NCs, whereas short-chain ligands or excessive amine can lead to a transformation into non-perovskite structures with poor emission [39].

Comparative Performance Analysis

The following tables synthesize key experimental data and characteristics from the literature to facilitate a direct comparison of the two synthesis methods.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Synthesis Method Characteristics

Parameter	Hot-Injection (HI)	Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation (LARP)
Reaction Temperature	High (240–320 °C) [41]	Room Temperature [39]
Synthesis Philosophy	Kinetic control, high supersaturation	Thermodynamic control, solubility shift
Energy Consumption	High	Low
Required Infrastructure	Schlenk line, high-temperature heating, inert atmosphere	Standard lab glassware, ambient conditions
Scalability Potential	Moderate, limited by heat/mass transfer	High, amenable to large-volume processing [39]
Typical QD Systems	CdSe, CdS, InP, core/shell structures [41]	CsPbBr3, other metal halide perovskites [38]
Key Ligands	Trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO), Oleic Acid, Alkylamines [43]	Oleic Acid, Oleylamine, Octanoic acid, Octylamine [39]

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Resultant Quantum Dot Properties

Property	Hot-Injection (HI)	Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation (LARP)
Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)	High (can exceed 80% for core/shell) [41]	Very High (can reach near-unity, >90%) [38]
Size Distribution (Monodispersity)	Excellent (narrow size distribution)	Good to Excellent, dependent on ligand control [39]
Crystallinity	Excellent, high-temperature annealing	Good, but may contain more surface disorder [38]
Sample Blinking	Suppressed with thick shells, but sensitive to surface traps [41]	Prevalent, with behavior linked to synthetic surface quenchers [38]
Surface Trap States	Effectively passivated by inorganic shells (e.g., CdS, ZnS) [41]	More prevalent; significant influence from ligand choice and stoichiometry [38]
Stability (Ambient)	Good for core/shell structures	Moderate to Poor; requires matrix encapsulation or ligand engineering [44]
Defect Tolerance	Low (requires careful surface passivation)	High (intrinsic property of perovskites)

The Surface Electronics and Defect Physics Perspective

The fundamental difference in the nature of CdSe and perovskite QDs is most apparent in their surface and defect physics, which is a direct consequence of the synthesis environment.

• CdSe QDs (via HI): CdSe QDs are defect-intolerant; even minor surface defects act as non-radiative recombination centers, quenching PL and causing photoluminescence blinking [41]. The high-temperature HI process facilitates the growth of thick, crystalline inorganic shells (e.g., CdS, ZnS), which structurally passivate these surface traps. However, the surface remains a critical vulnerability. Studies show that direct contact with conductive substrates like ITO can lead to QD charging, where electrons transfer from the substrate to the QD, forming negative trions (T⁻) that accelerate non-radiative Auger recombination and quench light amplification [11].
• Perovskite QDs (via LARP): Metal halide perovskites like CsPbBr3 are renowned for their defect tolerance, where certain intrinsic defects form within the bandgap without creating deep trap states [38]. However, the room-temperature LARP synthesis results in a dynamic and complex surface dominated by organic ligands. The choice of ligands (e.g., acid-base pair, chain length) directly determines surface quenchers' density and energy levels, which govern photophysical phenomena like blinking behavior. NCs synthesized by HI and LARP can have identical crystal structures but exhibit drastically different blinking statistics due to distinct surface quenchers introduced during synthesis [38].

The diagrams below illustrate the distinct workflows and the critical surface-related phenomena associated with each synthesis method.

Diagram 1: The Hot-Injection (HI) synthesis workflow for CdSe QDs. The high-temperature process yields high-crystallinity QDs, often with protective shells. A key subsequent challenge is surface-related, including the need for effective trap passivation and the avoidance of QD charging when integrated into devices on conductive substrates like ITO [11] [41].

Diagram 2: The Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation (LARP) synthesis workflow for CsPbBr3 nanocrystals. The room-temperature process is heavily governed by ligand chemistry. While the resulting NCs have a defect-tolerant bulk lattice, their optical stability at the single-particle level is critically determined by the nature of surface quenchers, which are a direct consequence of the synthesis parameters [39] [38].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table details key reagents and their functions in the synthesis of quantum dots via these two methods.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for HI and LARP Synthesis

Reagent Category	Example Compounds	Function in Synthesis
Metal Precursors	Cadmium Oxide (CdO), Cesium Carbonate (Cs₂CO₃), Lead Bromide (PbBr₂)	Source of metallic cations (Cd²⁺, Cs⁺, Pb²⁺) for the inorganic crystal lattice.
Chalcogen/Halide Precursors	Trioctylphosphine Selenide (TOP-Se), Elemental Sulfur (S), Bromide Salts	Source of anionic components (Se²⁻, S²⁻, Br⁻) for the crystal lattice.
Coordinating Solvents	1-Octadecene (ODE), Trioctylphosphine Oxide (TOPO)	High-boiling-point solvent medium (ODE); Strong coordinating ligand and solvent for HI (TOPO).
Acid Ligands	Oleic Acid (OA), Octanoic Acid	Binds to surface metal atoms, controlling growth and providing colloidal stability.
Amine Ligands	Oleylamine (OAm), Octylamine	Interacts with the precursor/anion complex; affects surface termination and particle morphology.
Polar Solvents	Dimethylformamide (DMF), Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)	Dissolves perovskite precursor salts in the LARP method.
Non-Polar Antisolvents	Toluene, Chloroform	Triggers supersaturation and crystallization in the LARP method by reducing precursor solubility.

The choice between Hot-Injection and Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation is not a matter of identifying a superior technique, but of selecting the right tool for the material system and application at hand. Hot-Injection is the established, robust route for high-quality CdSe and other II-VI QDs, offering unparalleled control over size, structure, and crystallinity, albeit with higher complexity and energy cost. Its primary challenge lies in meticulous surface passivation to mitigate charge trapping and Auger effects. Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation is a simpler, more accessible, and scalable method that has been instrumental in the rapid development of perovskite QDs, leveraging their intrinsic defect tolerance to achieve outstanding optical properties. Its main bottleneck is the control over surface ligand chemistry to ensure environmental stability and suppress dynamic disorder like blinking. For researchers, this comparison underscores that the synthesis pathway is inextricably linked to the core physical properties of the nanocrystals, especially their surface electronics, which must be carefully considered when integrating them into functional devices.

Surface Functionalization Strategies for Aqueous Stability and Biocompatibility

The integration of quantum dots (QDs) into biological and electronic applications represents a frontier in nanotechnology, offering unprecedented opportunities for imaging, sensing, and drug delivery. However, a fundamental challenge persists: as-synthesized QDs are typically incompatible with aqueous biological environments due to their hydrophobic surfaces stabilized by coordinating organic solvents [45] [46]. This incompatibility necessitates sophisticated surface functionalization strategies to bridge the gap between their exceptional innate properties and practical application requirements. The performance of functionalized QDs in biological milieus or electronic devices is not merely a function of their core composition but is predominantly dictated by their surface characteristics [47]. Consequently, surface engineering has emerged as a critical discipline within nanotechnology, determining the hydrodynamic size, colloidal stability, chemical reactivity, and ultimately, the biocompatibility and functionality of these nanoscale materials.

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of surface functionalization strategies for two prominent quantum dot classes: cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs, the well-established workhorses of the field, and emergent perovskite quantum dots (PQDs), noted for their superior optical properties [19]. We objectively analyze the performance of these functionalized QDs based on experimental data, focusing on their aqueous stability, biocompatibility, and performance in biological and electronic contexts. The discussion is framed within a broader thesis on performance comparison of PQD versus CdSe quantum dot surface electronics research, providing researchers with the necessary insights to select and optimize QD platforms for specific applications.

Comparative Analysis of Functionalization Strategies and Outcomes

Surface Functionalization Methodologies

The transition from hydrophobic to hydrophilic QDs can be achieved through several established methodologies, each with distinct advantages and limitations.

• Ligand Exchange: This method involves replacing native hydrophobic ligands with bifunctional hydrophilic molecules that coordinate with the QD surface via strong-binding groups (e.g., thiols, amines) while presenting hydrophilic groups (e.g., carboxylates, PEG) to the aqueous medium [45] [46]. A prominent example is the use of dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA) conjugated to poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) with terminal functional groups (biotin, carboxyl, amine). This approach creates a compact ligand shell, yielding QDs with hydrodynamic diameters only slightly larger than the core nanocrystal, which is beneficial for applications like FRET sensing [48]. These QDs demonstrate exceptional stability over extended periods and across a broad pH range [48].

• Amphiphilic Coating: This strategy encapsulates the native hydrophobic QD within an amphiphilic polymer or lipid layer. The hydrophobic components of the coating intercalate with the native ligands, while hydrophilic segments face outward, conferring water solubility [46]. Although this method better preserves the original photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) and provides a robust protective barrier, it significantly increases the hydrodynamic size of the QDs, which can hinder cellular uptake or affect signal transduction in FRET-based applications [46].

• Biosynthesis: An emerging environmental-friendly alternative, biosynthesis utilizes biological organisms like E. coli to produce QDs extracellularly in aqueous media. This process results in QDs naturally capped with biomolecular layers (e.g., proteins), granting immediate water solubility, stability, and biocompatibility without requiring post-synthetic modifications [49]. Biosynthesized CdSe QDs exhibit good crystallinity, strong fluorescence emission, and have been successfully used for bio-imaging in yeast cells [49].

Table 1: Comparison of Primary Surface Functionalization Strategies for Quantum Dots

Functionalization Strategy	Mechanism	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Representative QD Systems
Ligand Exchange	Direct replacement of native ligands with hydrophilic analogs	Compact final size; Direct surface functionalization	Potential for reduced QY; Stability dependent on ligand binding strength	DHLA-PEG-functionalized QDs [48]; Thiolated ligands (MPA, MUA) [46]
Amphiphilic Coating	Encapsulation of hydrophobic QD-polymer/lipid shell	High stability; Better preservation of initial QY	Large hydrodynamic diameter; Complex multi-step process	Amphiphilic polymer-coated CdSe/ZnS QDs [46]
Biosynthesis	In-situ biological synthesis & capping with biomolecules	Innate biocompatibility; Aqueous process	Less control over size distribution; Lower yield	E. coli-mediated CdSe QDs [49]

Performance Comparison: Aqueous Stability and Biocompatibility

The success of a functionalization strategy is ultimately measured by the performance of the QDs in real-world conditions, particularly their colloidal stability in physiological buffers and their interactions with biological systems.

• Aqueous Stability: QDs functionalized with compact multifunctional ligands like DHLA-PEG demonstrate remarkable stability, maintaining solubility over extended periods and across a broad pH range [48]. This stability is crucial for applications in drug delivery and bio-sensing where environmental conditions can vary. In contrast, QDs capped with simple monodentate thiols (e.g., mercaptopropionic acid, MPA) often suffer from colloidal instability over time and at non-neutral pH due to the dynamic nature of the thiol-metal bond, leading to ligand desorption and QD aggregation [46]. The PEG component in advanced ligands provides a steric barrier that significantly reduces non-specific protein binding and opsonization, extending circulation time in vivo [45].

• Cytotoxicity and Cellular Response: The surface charge and ligand structure are critical determinants of biocompatibility. A comprehensive analysis on primary human lung cells revealed that positively charged QDs are significantly more cytotoxic than their negative or neutral counterparts [47]. Furthermore, QDs functionalized with long ligands were found to be more cytotoxic than those with short ligands, with negative QDs showing size-dependent cytotoxicity [47]. The study concluded that the hierarchy of influence is charge > functionalization > size [47]. At a molecular level, different surface properties trigger distinct cellular pathways; relatively benign negative QDs can upregulate pro-inflammatory cytokines, while highly toxic positive QDs induce changes in genes associated with mitochondrial function [47].

• Optical Performance Retention: A principal challenge in functionalization is retaining the high photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) of the native QDs. Ligand exchange processes can sometimes lead to a significant drop in QY due to surface trap formation if the new ligands do not effectively passivate all surface sites [46]. Amphiphilic coatings generally perform better in preserving the initial QY, as they disturb the original ligand shell less [46]. Notably, lead-based PQDs like CsPbX3 can achieve high PLQY (50-90%) but often require additional engineering for aqueous stability [19].

Table 2: Experimental Performance Data of Functionalized Quantum Dots in Biological Contexts

QD System & Functionalization	Hydrodynamic Size (nm)	Quantum Yield (%)	Cytotoxicity / Cellular Response	Key Experimental Findings
CdSe/ZnS with DHLA-PEG ligands [48]	Compact, size slightly larger than core	Maintained high QY after functionalization	Biocompatible; Enabled cellular internalization and imaging	Stable over extended time and broad pH range; Allowed EDC coupling and specific avidin-biotin binding.
CdSe QDs with varying surface charge [47]	Varied by design	Not specified	Positively charged QDs significantly more cytotoxic	Cytotoxicity mechanism was independent of ROS; Gene expression changes varied with surface charge.
Biosynthesized CdSe (E. coli) [49]	~3.1 nm (core size)	Strong fluorescence emission at 494 nm	Biocompatible; Used for yeast cell imaging	Capped with surface protein layer; Good water solubility and stability; Simplified collection without cell disruption.
CdTe with Thiol Ligands (e.g., GSH) [46]	Tunable based on synthesis	Can be improved by post-synthesis treatments	Implied biocompatibility due to GSH	Glutathione (GSH) capping provides improved biocompatibility; QY depends on Cd:GSH ratio and pH.

Experimental Protocols for Key Functionalization and Assessment

Protocol 1: Ligand Exchange with DHLA-PEG Conjugates

This protocol describes the cap exchange process to render hydrophobic QDs water-soluble using engineered DHLA-PEG ligands, based on the work of Susumu et al. [48].

• Materials:

  • Core QDs: CdSe/ZnS core-shell QDs synthesized via organometallic route, dissolved in toluene or hexane.
  • Ligand Solution: DHLA-PEG conjugates (e.g., DHLA-PEG-COOH, DHLA-PEG-NH2, DHLA-PEG-biotin) dissolved in a compatible solvent like DMSO or water.
  • Solvents: Anhydrous toluene, tetrahydrofuran (THF), phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4).
  • Purification Equipment: Centrifuge, ultrafiltration devices (e.g., Amicon filters).

• Procedure:

  • Transfer a known quantity (e.g., 1 µmol) of purified hydrophobic QDs to a vial and evaporate the organic solvent under a nitrogen stream.
  • Redissolve the QD film in a minimal amount of anhydrous THF.
  • Add a substantial molar excess (e.g., 10,000:1 ligand-to-QD ratio) of the DHLA-PEG ligand solution to the QD solution. Vigorously stir the mixture for several hours (or overnight) under an inert atmosphere to allow complete cap exchange.
  • Slowly add PBS buffer (pH 7.4) to the mixture while stirring to induce the transfer of QDs into the aqueous phase.
  • Remove any residual organic solvent and unbound ligands by repeated centrifugation and washing with PBS or using ultrafiltration.
  • Filter the final aqueous QD solution through a 0.2 µm membrane filter and store at 4°C.

• Validation Metrics: Successful functionalization is confirmed by stable dispersion in aqueous buffers, characterization of hydrodynamic size via Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS), and measurement of PLQY using a fluorometer with a reference standard.

Protocol 2: Biosynthesis of CdSe QDs using E. coli

This protocol outlines an extracellular, green synthesis method for producing biocompatible CdSe QDs, as described in the study utilizing E. coli [49].

• Materials:

  • Bacterial Strain: Escherichia coli (E. coli).
  • Culture Media: Luria-Bertani (LB) medium and modified Czapek's (M9) medium.
  • Precursor Solutions: Cadmium chloride hemipentahydrate (CdCl₂·2.5H₂O, 0.04 M) and sodium selenite (Na₂SeO₃, 0.02 M) in water.
  • Additives: Mercaptosuccinic acid (MSA), sodium citrate tribasic dihydrate.
  • Equipment: Rotary shaker, centrifuge, UV-Vis spectrophotometer, fluorometer.

• Procedure:

  • Culture E. coli aerobically in LB medium at 37°C overnight.
  • Harvest the bacteria by centrifugation (4000 rpm, 15 min) and transfer to M9 medium. Continue incubation until the culture reaches an OD₆₀₀ of ~0.6.
  • Centrifuge again to harvest this "second-generation" E. coli.
  • Incubate the bacterial pellet in 100 ml of fresh M9 medium.
  • Add the precursor solutions sequentially: 8 ml of CdCl₂, 800 mg of sodium citrate, 1.5 ml of Na₂SeO₃, and an optimized amount of MSA (e.g., 80 mg).
  • Incubate the reaction mixture at 37°C on a rotary shaker (200 rpm) for the desired duration (e.g., 24-48 hours).
  • Centrifuge the reaction solution at 4000 rpm to remove bacterial cells.
  • Collect the supernatant and subject it to high-speed centrifugation (10,000 rpm, 30 min) to pellet the biosynthesized CdSe QDs.
  • Wash the QD pellet with 50% ethanol by repeated centrifugation to remove residual chemicals.

• Validation Metrics: Monitor QD growth using UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy. Characterize the QDs using photoluminescence spectroscopy, High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy (HR-TEM) for size and crystallinity, and FTIR spectroscopy to confirm the presence of the surface protein capping layer.

Schematic Workflow and Property Relationships

The following diagram illustrates the logical pathway from QD synthesis to functionalization and the resulting property-performance relationships that determine biological applicability.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents for Quantum Dot Functionalization and Characterization

Reagent / Material	Function / Purpose	Example Use Case
Dihydrolipoic Acid (DHLA)	Strong bidentate anchoring group for ZnS shells.	Core component of DHLA-PEG ligands for stable water solubilization [48].
Poly(Ethylene Glycol) (PEG)	Confers hydrophilicity and steric stability; reduces non-specific binding.	PEG chains in DHLA-PEG ligands extend circulation time and improve biocompatibility [45] [48].
Mercaptopropionic Acid (MPA)	Monodentate thiol ligand for water solubility via ligand exchange.	Classic cap-exchange ligand for CdSe/ZnS QDs; provides carboxylic acid for bioconjugation [46].
Oleic Acid (OA) / Oleylamine (OLA)	Native hydrophobic surfactants for QD synthesis and stabilization.	Standard ligands in organometallic synthesis of QDs and PQDs [19] [14].
Mercaptosuccinic Acid (MSA)	Thiol-based stabilizer and capping agent in aqueous synthesis.	Additive to enhance photoluminescence intensity in biosynthesized CdSe QDs [49].
Amphiphilic Polymers	Form a protective shell around hydrophobic QDs via hydrophobic interactions.	Used for polymer encapsulation to preserve QY and enhance aqueous stability [46].
Glutathione (GSH)	Tripeptide thiol ligand for aqueous synthesis and direct functionalization.	Used for synthesizing and capping CdTe QDs, offering improved biocompatibility [46].

The strategic functionalization of quantum dot surfaces is a prerequisite for their successful deployment in biological and electronic applications. The experimental data compiled in this guide demonstrates that while CdSe-based systems have a longer history and well-understood functionalization chemistries, PQDs offer a promising platform with exceptional optical properties that can be harnessed through continued surface engineering. The choice between ligand exchange, amphiphilic coating, or biosynthesis depends critically on the application's specific requirements for size, stability, and biocompatibility.

Current evidence suggests that compact, multifunctional ligands like DHLA-PEG offer an excellent balance of small hydrodynamic size, high stability, and functional versatility for CdSe QDs [48]. For PQDs, overcoming inherent instability in water remains a primary focus, with encapsulation and lead-free compositions being active research areas [19]. A critical finding from comparative studies is that surface charge and ligand structure often outweigh core composition in determining biological impact [47]. This underscores the paramount importance of surface chemistry. Future advancements will likely involve the development of even more robust ligand systems, the refinement of green synthesis pathways, and the application of machine learning models to predict optimal synthesis and functionalization parameters for targeted QD performance [14].

Applications in High-Resolution Bioimaging and Cellular Tracking

Quantum dots (QDs) have emerged as transformative probes in bioimaging and cellular tracking, offering significant advantages over traditional fluorescent dyes. Their unique optical properties, including size-tunable emission, exceptional brightness, and photostability, enable researchers to unravel biological processes at the molecular level with unprecedented clarity [50] [51]. This guide objectively compares the performance of two prominent QD classes—cadmium selenide (CdSe) and perovskite quantum dots (PQDs)—within the context of their surface electronic structure, which critically determines their functionality in biological environments. As the field of nanobiotechnology advances, understanding how surface engineering dictates performance in high-resolution imaging and tracking applications becomes paramount for selecting appropriate probes for specific research needs [52].

Fundamental Properties and Performance Comparison

The optical and electronic properties of quantum dots are fundamentally governed by quantum confinement effects, where the bandgap energy increases as particle size decreases [53]. This phenomenon enables precise tuning of fluorescence emission across the spectrum by controlling nanocrystal size during synthesis. For bioimaging applications, this size-tunability, combined with broad absorption spectra and narrow, symmetric emission profiles, makes QDs exceptionally suited for multiplexed experiments where multiple molecular targets must be visualized simultaneously [50] [51].

Table 1: Comparative Optical Properties of CdSe and Perovskite Quantum Dots

Optical Property	CdSe/ZnS Core-Shell QDs	Perovskite QDs (APbX₃)	Biological Application Impact
Quantum Yield	Up to 95% with optimized shells [53]	Typically >80%, can exceed 90%	Higher signal-to-noise ratio in detection
Emission Tunability	500-650 nm via size control [53]	400-800 nm via composition/size	Broad multiplexing capability across visible spectrum
Emission FWHM	20-30 nm [50]	20-30 nm (narrower with optimization)	Better spectral separation in multiplexing
Absorption Profile	Broad spectrum, increasing toward UV [50]	Broad spectrum with distinct excitonic peaks	Single wavelength excitation of multiple colors
Blinking Behavior	Present in single particles [51]	Can be suppressed with specific structures	Critical for single-molecule tracking applications
Stokes Shift	Large (~hundreds of nm) [52]	Large	Reduced autofluorescence in biological samples

Surface electronics play a crucial role in determining not only the optical properties but also the biological interactions of QDs. The surface chemistry of CdSe QDs has been extensively studied, with advanced characterization techniques like Dynamic Nuclear Polarization NMR providing atomic-level insights into ligand distribution and surface structure [37]. This detailed understanding has enabled sophisticated surface engineering strategies for CdSe QDs, while similar fundamental understanding of PQD surfaces is still emerging.

Table 2: Material Composition and Toxicity Profile Comparison

Characteristic	CdSe/ZnS Core-Shell QDs	Lead-Halide Perovskite QDs	Biological Considerations
Core Composition	CdSe (II-VI semiconductor)	APbX₃ (A=Cs, organic cation; X=Cl, Br, I)	Heavy metal content raises toxicity concerns
Shell Material	ZnS (common), CdS	Metal oxides, polymers, ligands	Shell quality determines stability and biocompatibility
Hydrodynamic Size	15-30 nm with coatings [51]	<20 nm achievable with compact ligands	Smaller size improves cellular penetration and clearance
Heavy Metal Content	Cadmium (known toxicity) [54]	Lead (known toxicity)	Limits in vivo applications without excellent encapsulation
Aqueous Stability	Excellent with polymer coatings [50]	Moderate to poor; requires sophisticated encapsulation	Determines longevity in biological environments
Surface Chemistry	Well-developed bioconjugation schemes [50] [53]	Less mature conjugation chemistry	Affects targeting specificity and non-specific binding

Experimental Performance in Bioimaging Applications

In Vitro Cellular Imaging and Tracking

Quantum dots excel in cellular imaging applications where photostability and brightness are paramount. CdSe/ZnS core-shell QDs have demonstrated exceptional performance in long-term cellular tracking due to their remarkable resistance to photobleaching, enabling researchers to monitor cellular processes over extended timeframes that would obliterate conventional fluorescent dyes [50] [51]. Their high brightness, derived from large molar extinction coefficients and high quantum yields, facilitates sensitive detection of low-abundance biomarkers and enables visualization at the single-molecule level [53].

A particularly powerful application of CdSe QDs is multiplexed cellular imaging. Researchers have developed multicolor, multicycle molecular profiling (M3P) technology that combines 5-10 colors of QD-antibody conjugates in a single cocktail for parallel multiplexed staining [50]. After imaging, the stains are completely removed without affecting cell morphology or biomarker antigenicity, allowing for sequential rounds of staining to generate comprehensive molecular profiles of up to 100 distinct biomarkers from a single specimen [50]. This approach dramatically expands the multiplexing capabilities beyond the 2-3 colors typically achievable with organic dyes.

Table 3: Quantitative Performance in Cellular Imaging Applications

Performance Metric	CdSe/ZnS QD Performance	Experimental Measurement Method	Biological Significance
Photostability	>1 hour continuous illumination [50]	Time-dependent fluorescence intensity measurement	Enables long-term live-cell imaging and tracking
Single-Particle Brightness	1-2 orders brighter than organic dyes [50]	Single-molecule fluorescence microscopy	Detection of low-copy-number biomolecules
Cellular Uptake Quantification	35,000-480,000 QDs per cell [55]	LA-ICP-SFMS single-cell analysis	Understanding nanoparticle-cell interactions
Multiplexing Capacity	5-10 colors simultaneously [50]	Spectral imaging and unmixing	Comprehensive molecular profiling
Subcellular Resolution	~4 μm spatial resolution [55]	LA-ICP-SFMS with optimized ablation	Precise localization of cellular targets
Single-Molecule Tracking	Enabled by blinking behavior [51]	Single-particle tracking microscopy	Studying molecular dynamics in live cells

In Vivo and Deep-Tissue Imaging

For in vivo applications, near-infrared (NIR) emitting QDs offer significant advantages due to reduced scattering, absorption, and autofluorescence of biological tissues in the NIR window (700-1700 nm) [56]. Cd-based QDs can be engineered for NIR emission through composition tuning, such as in HgₓCd₁₋ₓTe alloyed nanocrystals, which maintain compact size while offering fluorescence tunable across the NIR spectrum [51]. Similarly, silver chalcogenide QDs (Ag₂S, Ag₂Se) provide promising NIR emission with potentially lower toxicity compared to cadmium-containing alternatives [56] [54].

The hydrodynamic size of QDs significantly impacts their in vivo behavior. While larger QDs (15-30 nm) with polymer coatings exhibit prolonged circulation times, they may face challenges with tissue penetration and eventual clearance [51]. Recent advances have produced compact CdSe QDs with hydrodynamic sizes of 4-6 nm through multidentate polymer ligand designs, offering improved pharmacokinetic profiles [51]. For PQDs, achieving both small size and environmental stability remains a significant challenge requiring sophisticated encapsulation strategies.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Synthesis and Surface Functionalization Protocols

CdSe/ZnS Core-Shell Synthesis (High-Temperature Organometallic Method)

• Precursor Preparation: Combine cadmium oxide (CdO) and zinc oxide (ZnO) with fatty acids (e.g., oleic acid) in non-coordinating solvents at 150°C to form clear solutions [52]. For selenium precursor, dissolve elemental selenium in tri-n-octylphosphine (TOP) to form TOP-Se solution.
• Core Nucleation: Rapidly inject TOP-Se solution into the hot (300-350°C) cadmium precursor solution under inert atmosphere. The temperature drops immediately, initiating CdSe nanocrystal nucleation [52] [53].
• Core Growth: Maintain reaction temperature at 250-300°C for several minutes to allow controlled nanocrystal growth. Monitor growth by UV-Vis spectroscopy until desired absorption peak position is achieved [53].
• Shell Growth: Lower temperature to ~140°C and slowly add zinc and sulfur precursors (e.g., diethylzinc and hexamethyldisilathiane) dropwise to allow epitaxial growth of ZnS shell on CdSe cores [53]. The graded shell approach with some Cd incorporation helps relax lattice mismatch, achieving near-perfect shells with quantum yields >95% [53].
• Purification: Precipitate nanocrystals with polar non-solvents (e.g., methanol/butanol mixtures), then redisperse in organic solvents [50].

Aqueous Transfer and Biofunctionalization

• Ligand Exchange/Encapsulation: Replace hydrophobic surface ligands (TOPO/TOP) with amphiphilic polymers or bifunctional ligands (e.g., dihydrolipoic acid derivatives) [50] [51]. Multidentate polymer ligands can provide compact, stable water-soluble QDs of 4-6 nm [51].
• Bioconjugation: Covalently link biomolecules (antibodies, peptides, etc.) to QD surface using carbodiimide chemistry (for carboxylated QDs), maleimide-thiol coupling, or streptavidin-biotin interactions [50] [53]. Monovalent streptavidin enables preparation of monovalent QD probes that minimize target cross-linking [51].

Characterization Techniques for Surface Electronics

Advanced characterization methods are essential for understanding the surface electronic structure that governs QD performance:

• Dynamic Nuclear Polarization NMR: Provides atomic-level insights into local cadmium environments and ligand distribution on cluster surfaces through enhanced ¹¹³Cd NMR signals [37]. This technique reveals how ligand distribution is stabilized through inter-ligand hydrogen bonds while minimizing steric clashes.
• Laser Ablation ICP-SFMS: Enables quantitative bioimaging of QD uptake in single cells with subcellular spatial resolution (<4 μm) [55]. This method allows precise quantification of cellular QD numbers (e.g., 35,000-480,000 QDs per cell) and distribution patterns.
• Z-Contrast STEM: Visualizes shell growth uniformity at atomic resolution, critical for identifying lattice mismatch issues and optimizing core-shell structures for maximum fluorescence quantum yield [53].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated process of QD synthesis, characterization, and application in bioimaging:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Reagents for Quantum Dot Bioimaging Research

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Examples/Specific Types
Core Precursors	Source of metal and chalcogen/halide components	CdO, Cd(Ac)₂, Se-TOP, PbBr₂, Cs₂CO₃, oleic acid, oleylamine [52] [53]
Shell Precursors	Epitaxial shell growth for enhanced quantum yield	ZnS, CdS precursors; diethylzinc, hexamethyldisilathiane [53]
Surface Ligands	Provide solubility, stability, and bioconjugation sites	TOP/TOPO (synthesis), DHLA, PEG, multidentate polymers, amphiphilic polymers [50] [51]
Bioconjugation Reagents	Covalent attachment of biological targeting molecules	EDC, sulfo-SMCC, maleimide compounds, streptavidin, click chemistry reagents [50] [53]
Targeting Molecules	Specific recognition of biological targets	Antibodies, peptides, aptamers, small molecule ligands [50] [51]
Cell Culture Media	Maintenance of cellular systems for imaging studies	DMEM, RPMI with serum supplements, buffer solutions [55]
Characterization Standards	Calibration and quantification of QD properties	Size standards, elemental standards for ICP-MS, reference QDs [55]

The performance comparison between CdSe and perovskite quantum dots in high-resolution bioimaging and cellular tracking reveals a complex landscape where surface electronics play a decisive role. CdSe-based QDs currently offer superior performance in most bioimaging applications, benefiting from decades of surface engineering optimization, well-established bioconjugation protocols, and proven performance in multiplexed cellular imaging and tracking [50] [51]. Their main limitations stem from cadmium toxicity concerns, particularly for in vivo applications.

Perovskite QDs show remarkable optical properties with high quantum yields and facile tunability, but face significant challenges in aqueous stability and biocompatibility due to their ionic nature and sensitivity to environmental factors [54]. While promising for specialized applications, their surface chemistry requires further development to match the biological utility of CdSe-based systems.

The choice between these quantum dot classes ultimately depends on specific application requirements. For demanding in vitro applications requiring maximum brightness, photostability, and multiplexing capability, CdSe/ZnS core-shell QDs remain the preferred option. As surface engineering research advances for both material systems, researchers can expect further improvements in performance and expansion of application possibilities in bioimaging and cellular tracking.

Designing QD-Based Fluorescent Sensor Arrays for Pathogen Detection

The rapid and accurate detection of pathogenic microorganisms is a critical challenge in public health, food safety, and clinical diagnostics. Traditional detection methods often involve complex procedures, lengthy incubation times, and sophisticated laboratory equipment. Quantum dot (QD)-based fluorescent sensor arrays have emerged as a transformative technology that addresses these limitations by enabling multiplexed, sensitive, and rapid pathogen detection through unique fluorescence fingerprinting. This guide provides a performance comparison between two leading QD materials—Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) and Cadmium Selenide (CdSe) QDs—focusing on their application in pathogen detection systems. The analysis is framed within a broader thesis on surface electronics research, examining how the surface properties and electronic structures of these nanomaterials dictate their performance in biosensing applications. We evaluate these materials based on sensitivity, stability, toxicity, and integration potential for point-of-care diagnostic platforms.

Performance Comparison: PQDs vs. CdSe QDs for Pathogen Detection

The selection between perovskite and CdSe quantum dots involves significant trade-offs between performance, stability, and environmental impact. The table below provides a systematic comparison of their key characteristics for pathogen detection applications.

Table 1: Performance comparison of PQDs vs. CdSe QDs for pathogen detection applications

Characteristic	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs
Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)	50-90% [19]	>80% (with core-shell structures) [57]
Emission Tunability	Wide range via halide composition and quantum confinement [19]	Size-dependent tuning (1.7-2.5 eV) [57]
Detection Sensitivity	Sub-femtomolar for miRNA [58]; Machine-learning-assisted complete discrimination of multiple bacteria [58]	Information not specifically available for pathogen detection
Aqueous Stability	Poor (degradation in water); weeks with surface passivation [58]	Good with proper surface encapsulation [57]
Toxicity Concerns	Significant for lead-based compositions; lead-free alternatives (e.g., Cs₃Bi₂Br₉) available [58] [19]	High due to cadmium; requires core-shell structures to mitigate [57] [59]
Pathogen Detection Applications	Demonstrated for Salmonella in milk/juice [58]; Multiplexed bacterial discrimination in tap water [58]	Less explicitly documented for pathogens; extensive energy storage research [57]
Key Advantages	High sensitivity, tunable optics, rapid response, defect tolerance [58] [19]	Well-established synthesis, high quantum yield, good photostability [57]
Major Limitations	Lead toxicity (for Pb-based), aqueous instability, regulatory barriers [58]	Cadmium toxicity, environmental concerns [57] [59]

Material Properties and Sensing Mechanisms

Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs)

PQDs are characterized by the general formula ABX₃, where A is a monovalent cation (e.g., Cs⁺, MA⁺, FA⁺), B is a divalent metal cation (e.g., Pb²⁺, Sn²⁺, Bi³⁺), and X is a halide anion (e.g., Cl⁻, Br⁻, I⁻). Their crystal structure consists of [BX₆]⁴⁻ octahedra forming a three-dimensional framework, with A cations occupying the voids [19]. This structure contributes to their exceptional optoelectronic properties, including high absorption coefficients (10⁵ to 10⁶ cm⁻¹) and narrow emission spectra (FWHM 12-40 nm) [19].

For pathogen detection, PQDs operate primarily through fluorescence modulation mechanisms. The primary sensing mechanisms include:

• Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET): Pathogen binding brings acceptors (quenchers or other fluorophores) in close proximity to PQDs, enabling energy transfer and fluorescence quenching or enhancement [60].
• Photoinduced Electron Transfer (PET): Pathogen recognition events trigger electron transfer processes that quench or restore PQD fluorescence [60].
• Cation Exchange: Particularly for lead-based PQDs, the similarity in ionic radius between Pb²⁺ and metal ions like Hg²⁺ facilitates cation exchange, leading to fluorescence quenching [19].

CdSe Quantum Dots

CdSe QDs belong to the II-VI semiconductor group with a zinc blende or wurtzite crystal structure. Their optical properties are dominated by quantum confinement effects, which enable precise size-tuning of emission wavelengths from 470-630 nm by varying crystal diameter from approximately 2-6 nm [57]. The high surface-to-volume ratio of CdSe QDs provides numerous active sites for surface functionalization with pathogen recognition elements.

While more extensively studied for energy applications, CdSe QDs employ similar fluorescence modulation mechanisms for sensing:

• FRET-based detection: CdSe QDs serve as efficient donors in FRET pairs due to their high quantum yields and broad absorption spectra.
• Surface charge modification: Pathogen binding alters surface charge distribution, affecting recombination dynamics and fluorescence intensity.
• Electron transfer processes: Similar to PQDs, electron transfer to/from surface states can modulate fluorescence output.

Table 2: Experimental pathogen detection performance of QD-based sensor arrays

QD Type	Target Pathogen/Analyte	Detection Mechanism	Limit of Detection	Response Time	Reference
PQDs	Salmonella in milk/juice	Dual-mode fluorescence and electrochemiluminescence in lateral-flow assays	Not specified	Rapid	[58]
PQDs	Bacterial discrimination in tap water	Machine-learning-assisted fluorescent arrays	Complete discrimination of multiple bacteria	Not specified	[58]
PQDs	miRNA	Photoelectrochemical sensing	Sub-femtomolar	Not specified	[58]
CdSe QDs	General biosensing	FRET and electron transfer	Information not specifically available for pathogens	Information not specifically available	[57]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful development of QD-based sensor arrays requires careful selection of materials and reagents. The following table outlines essential components and their functions for constructing these detection platforms.

Table 3: Essential research reagents for QD-based fluorescent sensor arrays

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Sensor Development
QD Core Materials	CsPbBr₃, CsPbI₃, CdSe, CdSe/ZnS core-shell	Fluorescent signal generation with tunable properties
Lead-Free Alternatives	Cs₃Bi₂Br₉, CsSnI₃, InP, CuInS₂	Reduced toxicity while maintaining performance
Surface Ligands	Oleic acid (OA), Oleylamine (OLA), Polyethylenimine (PEI)	Surface passivation, stability enhancement, and biofunctionalization
Recognition Elements	Antibodies, aptamers, molecularly imprinted polymers	Target-specific pathogen binding
Matrix Materials	Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), polymers, silica	Encapsulation for enhanced stability and selectivity
Signal Amplification	Enzymes (HRP, AP), secondary antibodies	Enhanced detection sensitivity
Substrate Materials	Lateral flow membranes, microplates, microfluidic chips	Sensor platform and fluidic control

Experimental Protocols for QD-Based Pathogen Detection

Protocol 1: Machine-Learning-Assisted Fluorescent Array for Bacterial Discrimination

This protocol adapts methodology from recent research achieving complete discrimination of multiple bacteria in tap water using PQD-based sensor arrays [58].

Materials and Reagents:

• Perovskite QDs with varying surface chemistries (e.g., CsPbBr₃, CsPbI₃, Cs₃Bi₂Br₉)
• Bacterial samples (target pathogens)
• Phosphate buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4)
• Microplate reader with fluorescence detection
• Machine learning algorithms (e.g., Support Vector Machine, Random Forest)

Procedure:

• QD Synthesis and Functionalization: Synthesize PQDs via hot-injection method [14] [19]. Functionalize with varied surface ligands (OA, OLA, PEI) to create differential recognition elements.
• Array Fabrication: Deposit functionalized PQDs in patterned arrays on substrate (e.g., glass slide or microfluidic channel).
• Sample Exposure: Introduce bacterial suspensions (10³-10⁶ CFU/mL) to array and incubate for 10-15 minutes.
• Fluorescence Measurement: Acquire fluorescence spectra from each array element before and after bacterial exposure using microplate reader.
• Data Processing: Calculate fluorescence response patterns (quenching/enhancement ratios) across array.
• Machine Learning Analysis: Train classification models using fluorescence response patterns to identify and discriminate bacterial species.

Validation: Spiked recovery experiments in relevant matrices (e.g., milk, juice, tap water) [58].

Protocol 2: Dual-Mode Lateral-Flow Assay for Salmonella Detection

This protocol outlines the development of a dual-mode (fluorescence and electrochemiluminescence) lateral-flow assay for Salmonella detection in food samples [58].

Materials and Reagents:

• PQDs (CsPbBr₃ or lead-free alternatives)
• Anti-Salmonella antibodies
• Nitrocellulose membrane
• Conjugate pad
• Sample pad
• Absorption pad
• Electrochemiluminescence detection equipment

Procedure:

• QD-Probe Conjugation: Conjugate PQDs with anti-Salmonella antibodies using EDC-NHS chemistry or similar coupling methods.
• Assay Assembly: Construct lateral flow strips with test and control lines pre-coated with capture antibodies and antigens.
• Sample Preparation: Pre-enrich food samples (milk, juice) following standard microbiological methods.
• Assay Execution: Apply sample to strip, allow capillary flow for 10-15 minutes.
• Dual Detection:
  • Fluorescence Mode: Visualize or quantify test line fluorescence under UV illumination.
  • Electrochemiluminescence Mode: Apply voltage to strips and measure generated light signals.
• Quantification: Compare signal intensities to calibration curves for quantitative analysis.

Performance Metrics: Record limit of detection, specificity against competing microorganisms, and total assay time.

Visualizing Sensor Mechanisms and Workflows

Signaling Pathways in QD-Pathogen Interactions

The following diagram illustrates the primary fluorescence modulation mechanisms employed in QD-based pathogen detection.

Experimental Workflow for Sensor Development

This workflow outlines the comprehensive process for developing and validating QD-based fluorescent sensor arrays for pathogen detection.

PQDs and CdSe QDs each offer distinct advantages for fluorescent sensor arrays in pathogen detection. PQDs demonstrate superior sensitivity, with demonstrated capabilities for sub-femtomolar detection and machine-learning-assisted complete bacterial discrimination. However, their practical implementation is challenged by aqueous instability and toxicity concerns with lead-based formulations. CdSe QDs benefit from more mature synthesis protocols and excellent photostability but face significant regulatory hurdles due to cadmium toxicity. The future development of both material systems will focus on lead/cadmium-free alternatives, enhanced aqueous stability through advanced encapsulation strategies, and integration with portable detection platforms and machine learning algorithms for point-of-care diagnostic applications. Surface engineering remains the critical frontier for optimizing both performance and biocompatibility of QD-based pathogen sensors.

Surface Chemistry for Targeted Drug and Gene Delivery Systems

The surface chemistry of quantum dots (QDs) serves as the fundamental interface between nanocarriers and biological systems, dictating their behavior in targeted drug and gene delivery applications. Surface chemistry encompasses the composition, structure, and functional groups present on the QD exterior, which directly controls critical parameters including biocompatibility, colloidal stability, targeting specificity, and drug release kinetics [61] [62]. For cadmium selenide (CdSe) and perovskite quantum dots (PQDs), their intrinsic core materials exhibit exceptional optical properties suitable for bioimaging and therapeutic tracking, but present significant challenges for biomedical applications in their native states [44] [63]. Proper surface modification transforms these nanocrystals from inert materials into dynamic platforms capable of navigating the complex biological environment to deliver therapeutic payloads with precision.

This performance comparison guide examines how surface engineering strategies differentially address the limitations and enhance the capabilities of PQD and CdSe QD systems. While CdSe QDs have undergone extensive surface chemistry development over decades, emerging PQDs present unique opportunities and challenges due to their distinct material composition and degradation pathways [44]. The strategic application of ligand exchange, polymer encapsulation, and biomolecular conjugation enables researchers to tailor QD surfaces to overcome barriers such as aqueous insolubility, rapid clearance, offtarget accumulation, and potential ion toxicity [64] [65]. By objectively comparing the surface electronic properties and their resultant performance in drug delivery contexts, this analysis provides researchers with a foundation for selecting and optimizing QD platforms for specific therapeutic applications.

Quantum Dot Core Properties and Surface Interactions

The electronic structure and composition of QD cores fundamentally influence their surface chemistry and biological interactions. CdSe QDs represent well-established semiconductor nanocrystals with tunable emission across the visible spectrum, high quantum yields, and extensive surface modification protocols [65] [11]. In contrast, PQDs typically comprise halide perovskites (e.g., CsPbBr3, CsPbI3) with exceptionally high photoluminescence quantum yields (PLQY), narrow emission peaks, and composition-dependent bandgaps, but face challenges regarding environmental stability [44]. The surface atoms of both QD types coordinate with organic ligands to satisfy dangling bonds and stabilize the crystal structure, yet their different chemical compositions lead to distinct behaviors in biological contexts.

Table 1: Fundamental Properties of CdSe and Perovskite Quantum Dots

Property	CdSe QDs	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)
Core Composition	Group II-VI semiconductor [62]	Halide perovskite (e.g., CsPbX3, X=Cl, Br, I) [44]
Tunable Emission Range	450-650 nm [66]	400-800 nm [66]
Quantum Yield	50-90% (core-shell) [66]	Up to near-unity [44]
Primary Strengths	Excellent photostability, established synthesis [67]	High brightness, narrow FWHM, facile synthesis [44]
Stability Concerns	Cadmium ion leakage [63]	Degradation under moisture, heat, air [44]
Surface Chemistry Basis	Coordination of S, N, O to Cd atoms [65]	Ionic interactions with organic cations [44]

The surface electronics of QDs significantly influence their optical behavior and applicability in drug delivery. Research demonstrates that direct contact with conductive surfaces like indium tin oxide (ITO) can lead to QD charging through electron transfer, forming trions (charged excitons) that exhibit redshifted emission and accelerated non-radiative decay through Auger processes [11]. This phenomenon is particularly relevant for CdSe QDs, where approximately 75% of QDs in direct contact with ITO substrates become negatively charged, resulting in shortened photoluminescence lifetime and weakened intensity [11]. Such surface-induced charging effects must be considered when designing QD-based theranostic platforms, as similar electron transfer processes may occur in biological environments rich in redox-active molecules.

Surface Modification Strategies: Methodologies and Comparative Performance

Surface modification represents the most critical step in transforming synthesized QDs into biologically relevant platforms. These strategies not only impart water solubility and biocompatibility but also provide functional handles for conjugating therapeutic cargo and targeting moieties. The following experimental protocols and performance comparisons highlight key differences between CdSe and PQD surface engineering.

Ligand Exchange Processes

Ligand exchange involves replacing native hydrophobic ligands with hydrophilic alternatives to confer water solubility and additional functionality.

Protocol for CdSe QD Ligand Exchange with Butyl Amine [65]:

• Starting Material: Begin with CdSe QDs synthesized using TOPO/TOP or oleic acid/TOP capping methods with sizes ranging from 5-12 nm.
• Ligand Solution Preparation: Prepare a 10 mM solution of butyl amine in anhydrous toluene.
• Reaction Setup: Add the ligand solution to the CdSe QD dispersion in a 10:1 molar ratio (ligand:CdSe) under nitrogen atmosphere.
• Incubation: Stir the reaction mixture at 60°C for 6 hours.
• Purification: Precipitate modified QDs using excess hexane, followed by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 10 minutes.
• Washing: Redisperse the pellet in deionized water and repeat precipitation/centrifugation three times to remove excess ligands.
• Characterization: Analyze successful ligand exchange via FTIR spectroscopy (disappearance of TOPO peaks at 2920 cm⁻¹ and 2850 cm⁻¹, appearance of N-H stretch at 3300 cm⁻¹), and confirm maintained photoluminescence using fluorescence spectroscopy.

Performance Outcomes for CdSe QDs [65]:

• Ligand exchange efficiency was higher for TOPO-capped CdSe QDs compared to oleic acid-capped counterparts due to weaker binding of TOPO to CdSe surfaces.
• Butyl amine-modified CdSe QDs maintained strong yellow fluorescence emission and demonstrated stability in aqueous solution for over 30 days.
• The fraction of accessible fluorophores (fa) was significantly higher for TOPO-capped CdSe after butyl amine modification, indicating more effective surface coverage.

For PQDs, ligand exchange processes must account for their ionic crystal structure and heightened sensitivity to polar solvents. Common approaches incorporate shorter-chain alkylammonium salts (e.g., butylammonium bromide) and zwitterionic ligands that provide electrostatic stabilization without inducing dissociation of the perovskite crystal lattice [44].

Polymer Encapsulation and Matrix Integration

Polymer encapsulation provides a protective barrier around QDs, shielding them from the biological environment while reducing potential toxicity.

Protocol for CdSe QD Encapsulation with Poly(D,L-lactide) (PLA) [64]:

• Materials Preparation: Dissolve PLA (Mw = 20 kDa) in dichloromethane at 10 mg/mL concentration. Prepare separate aqueous phase containing 1% w/v poloxamer 188.
• Nanoprecipitation: Add the PLA solution dropwise to the aqueous phase under constant sonication (100 W, 10 minutes) using a probe sonicator.
• Solvent Evaporation: Stir the resulting emulsion overnight at room temperature to evaporate organic solvent.
• Purification: Centrifuge the nanoparticles at 15,000 rpm for 20 minutes and resuspend in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS).
• Characterization: Determine particle size (~150 nm) and zeta potential (-25 mV) using photon correlation spectroscopy. Confirm encapsulation efficiency (>85%) via fluorescence measurement against standard curve.

Performance Outcomes for CdSe-PLA Nanocomposites [64]:

• PLA-encapsulated CdSe QDs exhibited spherical morphology with relatively uniform size distribution.
• The modified QDs demonstrated strong yellow fluorescence both in vitro and in vivo.
• Fluorescence stability was maintained in aqueous solution for over 30 days, indicating effective protection from the environment.
• Biodegradable PLA coating provided biocompatibility while enabling sustained release applications.

For PQDs, similar polymer encapsulation strategies often employ amphiphilic block copolymers or in situ polymerization approaches that form protective shells without destabilizing the ionic core. The integration of PQDs into nanocomposite matrices such as silica, metal-organic frameworks, or cross-linked polymers has shown particular promise for enhancing environmental stability while maintaining optical properties [44] [66].

Surface Modification Pathways for Biological Application

Comparative Performance in Drug Delivery Applications

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Surface-Modified CdSe and PQD Systems

Performance Metric	Surface-Modified CdSe QDs	Surface-Modified PQDs
Aqueous Stability	>30 days (PLA encapsulated) [64]	Limited by shell stability [44]
Biocompatibility	FDA-approved polymer coatings available [64]	Requires additional barrier layers [44]
Drug Loading Capacity	High via surface conjugation & encapsulation [62]	Primarily surface-dependent [44]
Targeting Efficiency	Excellent (established conjugation chemistry) [61]	Promising but less developed [44]
Optical Tracking Capability	Stable fluorescence for tracking [68]	High brightness but stability concerns [44]
Toxicity Profile	Concerns about Cd²⁺ leakage [63]	Pb²⁺ leakage potential [44]

Experimental Data: Surface Chemistry-Dependent Performance Metrics

Rigorous experimental evaluation provides critical insights into how surface modifications influence QD performance in biological contexts. The following datasets highlight key differences between CdSe and PQD systems.

Photoluminescence Stability Under Biological Conditions

Time-resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) studies offer valuable information about how QD surfaces interact with their environment. For CdSe QDs, research demonstrates that surface charging significantly impacts emission properties. When CdSe QDs directly contact ITO substrates, approximately 75% become negatively charged, leading to a shortened average PL lifetime and weakened intensity due to formation of trions [11]. Under high pump fluence conditions, this charging percentage increases further due to the photo-charging effect, depleting the biexciton state through accelerated non-radiative Auger processes [11]. This has direct implications for drug delivery applications where QDs may interface with biological membranes or conductive tissues.

For PQDs, the primary stability concern involves environmental degradation from moisture, oxygen, and light exposure. Studies show that unprotected PQDs can rapidly lose their photoluminescence intensity when exposed to aqueous environments, with complete quenching occurring within minutes to hours depending on the specific composition [44]. This fundamental limitation necessitates robust surface protection strategies for biomedical applications, typically involving core-shell architectures or composite matrices that provide barrier properties while maintaining optical functionality.

Drug Loading and Release Kinetics

Surface chemistry directly influences drug loading capacity and release profiles through determining available conjugation sites and degradation behavior.

Protocol for Evaluating Doxorubicin Loading and Release on CdSe QDs [62]:

• QD Functionalization: Carboxylate-functionalized CdSe/ZnS QDs prepared via ligand exchange with mercaptoundecanoic acid.
• Drug Conjugation: Activate carboxyl groups with EDC/NHS chemistry for 30 minutes, then add doxorubicin (1:10 molar ratio, QD:drug) in PBS (pH 7.4) for 12 hours at 4°C.
• Purification: Remove unconjugated drug using centrifugal filtration (100 kDa MWCO).
• Quantification: Determine loading efficiency via fluorescence measurement (Ex/Em: 480/560 nm for doxorubicin) against standard curve.
• Release Kinetics: Inculate conjugated QDs in PBS at pH 7.4 and 5.0 at 37°C with continuous shaking. Collect supernatant at predetermined intervals and measure released drug via fluorescence.

Experimental Results [62]:

• CdSe QDs conjugated via pH-sensitive hydrazone bonds demonstrated pH-dependent release with >80% doxorubicin released at pH 5.0 (endosomal pH) versus <20% at pH 7.4 (physiological pH) over 48 hours.
• CdSe QDs incorporated into PLA nanoparticles showed sustained release profiles extending over 2-3 weeks, following Higuchi kinetics indicative of diffusion-controlled release.
• PQD systems have primarily been utilized for imaging rather than drug delivery, with limited quantitative data available on drug loading and release kinetics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for QD Surface Modification and Evaluation

Reagent/Category	Function	Specific Examples
Capping Ligands	Provide initial solubility & surface termination	TOPO, oleic acid, alkyl amines [65]
Exchange Ligands	Confer water solubility & functionality	Mercaptoacetic acid, butyl amine, PEG-thiols [65]
Polymeric Carriers	Biocompatibility & drug encapsulation	PLA, PLGA, PEG, chitosan [64]
Coupling Agents	Facilitate biomolecule conjugation	EDC, NHS, sulfo-SMCC, click chemistry reagents [62]
Targeting Moieties	Enable specific cell/tissue recognition	Folic acid, RGD peptides, antibodies, aptamers [61]
Characterization Tools	Analyze surface chemistry & performance	FTIR, PL spectroscopy, TEM, DLS [65]

The comparative analysis of surface chemistry approaches for CdSe and perovskite QDs reveals distinct advantages and limitations for targeted drug and gene delivery applications. CdSe QDs benefit from extensively developed surface modification protocols, established conjugation chemistry, and predictable in vivo behavior, making them suitable for complex delivery systems requiring precise biofunctionalization [61] [62]. However, concerns regarding cadmium toxicity necessitate thorough encapsulation and long-term fate studies [63]. Perovskite QDs offer exceptional optical properties with high quantum yields and narrow emission, but require more sophisticated surface protection strategies to overcome inherent instability in biological environments [44].

The selection between these QD platforms should be guided by specific application requirements: CdSe systems currently present more viable options for complex, multifunctional drug delivery vehicles where stable performance over extended durations is essential, while PQDs show promise for diagnostic and short-term tracking applications where maximum brightness and color purity are prioritized. Future developments in surface chemistry will likely focus on hybrid approaches that combine the strengths of both materials while mitigating their respective limitations, potentially through core-shell architectures or advanced composite matrices that provide enhanced functionality for the next generation of nanomedicines.

Addressing Instability, Toxicity, and Surface Degradation

Mitigating PQD Instability under Air, Heat, and Moisture

The integration of quantum dots (QDs) into advanced electronic and biomedical applications represents a frontier in nanomaterials research. Among the various QD materials, perovskite quantum dots (PQDs) and cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs have emerged as leading candidates due to their exceptional optoelectronic properties. However, their practical deployment faces a significant hurdle: environmental instability. When exposed to ambient conditions—particularly air, heat, and moisture—these nanomaterials undergo degradation that compromises their performance and longevity. This review provides a systematic comparison of the instability mechanisms affecting PQDs and CdSe QDs and evaluates the most effective stabilization strategies documented in recent scientific literature. The performance comparison is framed within the broader thesis of surface electronics research, where the surface chemistry and interface engineering ultimately determine the functional reliability of these quantum-confined systems.

For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these degradation pathways and mitigation approaches is crucial for selecting appropriate materials for specific applications, whether in display technologies, sensing platforms, or biomedical imaging. The following sections present experimental data on degradation thresholds, analyze quantitative performance metrics, and detail methodological protocols for enhancing quantum dot stability under environmental stressors.

Comparative Degradation Mechanisms and Stability Performance

Thermal Instability Mechanisms

Table 1: Thermal Degradation Thresholds of PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

Quantum Dot Type	Composition	Degradation Onset Temperature	Primary Degradation Products	Key Experimental Findings
Perovskite QDs	CsxFA1-xPbI3 (FA-rich)	~150°C	Direct decomposition to PbI2	FA-rich PQDs with higher ligand binding energy decompose directly to PbI2 at 150°C [10].
Perovskite QDs	CsxFA1-xPbI3 (Cs-rich)	<150°C	Phase transition to yellow δ-phase	Cs-rich PQDs undergo phase transition before decomposition; thermal degradation induced by γ-phase to δ-phase transition [10].
CdSe QDs	CdSe/CdS core/shell	>100°C	Gradual PL intensity loss	CdSe/CdS QDs retained ~20% initial emission at 100°C; significant thermal quenching observed [41].
CdSe QDs	CdSe/CdS@ZnO	>100°C	Reduced thermal quenching	CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs showed ~63% initial emission at 100°C, 3x improvement over pristine QDs [41].

Thermal degradation pathways differ substantially between PQD and CdSe QD systems. For PQDs, the degradation mechanism depends critically on A-site cation composition and surface ligand binding energy. In situ XRD and PL studies of CsxFA1-xPbI3 PQDs reveal that Cs-rich compositions undergo a crystallographic phase transition from the black γ-phase to a non-perovskite yellow δ-phase, while FA-rich PQDs with stronger ligand binding decompose directly into PbI2 at elevated temperatures [10]. The grain growth and merging of PQDs are observed at temperatures between 150-300°C before complete decomposition at 350°C [10].

In contrast, CdSe QDs experience thermal degradation primarily through surface defect formation and progressive photoluminescence quenching. Conventional CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs exhibit significant emission loss at 100°C, retaining only approximately 20% of their initial intensity. This thermal instability is dramatically improved through inorganic surface passivation strategies, with CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs maintaining about 63% of their initial emission under identical conditions—representing a threefold enhancement in thermal stability [41].

Moisture and Ambient Air Instability

Table 2: Stability under Ambient and Humid Conditions

Material System	Experimental Conditions	Stability Metrics	Key Findings
CsPbBr₃ PQDs	Ambient atmosphere	Complete degradation in days	Rapid photoluminescence quenching and structural decomposition under ambient conditions [69].
CsPbX₃ in NaYF₄ matrices	Ambient atmosphere (>60 days)	Stable PL maintained	Encapsulated PQDs maintained stable photoluminescence for >60 days in ambient air [69].
CsPbBr₃ PQDs	Humid air	Rapid degradation in hours	Unprotected PQDs rapidly degrade in highly humid environments [69].
CsPbX₃ in NaYF₄ matrices	Highly humid air	Significant stability improvement	HMNP-PQD composites showed much higher long-term stability in highly humid air [69].
CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs	Solution storage	Long-term colloidal stability	Maintained superior monodispersity and long-term storage stability in solution [41].

Moisture and oxygen represent particularly aggressive degradation factors for PQDs. Bare CsPbX₃ PQDs typically degrade within days or even hours when exposed to ambient atmospheric conditions, with humidity dramatically accelerating this decomposition [69]. The encapsulation of CsPbX₃ PQDs within hollow mesoporous NaYF₄:Yb,Tm nanoparticles (HMNPs) significantly enhances their stability, with composites maintaining stable photoluminescence for over 60 days under ambient conditions and exhibiting markedly improved resistance to highly humid environments [69].

CdSe-based QDs generally demonstrate superior intrinsic stability against ambient exposure compared to PQDs. The CdSe/CdS@ZnO QD system maintains excellent monodispersity and long-term storage stability in solution, indicating robust resistance to ambient degradation factors [41]. This inherent stability advantage positions CdSe QDs favorably for applications requiring prolonged environmental exposure.

Optical Performance Under Environmental Stressors

Table 3: Optical Performance Metrics Under Environmental Stress

QD System	Optical Property	Environmental Stressor	Performance Change	Experimental Details
CdSe/CdS QDs	PL Intensity	Heat (100°C)	Decreased to ~20% of initial	Heating treatment showing significant thermal quenching [41].
CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs	PL Intensity	Heat (100°C)	Maintained ~63% of initial	3x improvement due to ZnO sol surface passivation [41].
CdSe/CdS QDs	ASE Threshold	Continuous operation	Increase due to degradation	Auger process and surface defects increase ASE threshold [41].
CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs	ASE Threshold	Continuous operation	Stable at ~28 μJ cm⁻²	Effective surface passivation maintains low ASE threshold [41].
CsPbBr₃ PQDs	PL Quantum Yield	Ambient atmosphere	Rapid quenching	Unencapsulated PQDs show rapid PL degradation in air [69].
CsPbX₃ in NaYF₄	PL Quantum Yield	Ambient atmosphere	Maintained over 60 days	Encapsulation preserves optical properties [69].
CdSe QDs on ITO	PL Lifetime	Substrate charging	Shortened lifetime	75% of QDs negatively charged by ITO contact [11].

The optical performance under environmental stressors reveals critical differences between material systems. CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs demonstrate dramatically improved photostability and thermal stability compared to their pristine counterparts, with the ZnO sol providing effective surface passivation that suppresses Auger recombination and PL blinking [41]. This results in stable amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) with a threshold of approximately 28 μJ cm⁻² that persists under operational conditions [41].

For PQDs, the exceptional initial photoluminescence quantum yield is notoriously vulnerable to ambient exposure. Unprotected CsPbBr₃ PQDs exhibit rapid PL quenching when exposed to air and moisture, while encapsulated systems maintain their optical performance for extended periods [69]. This highlights the critical importance of encapsulation strategies for PQD-based applications.

A particularly interesting phenomenon is observed in CdSe QDs deposited on ITO substrates, where approximately 75% of QDs become negatively charged due to electron transfer from the ITO, resulting in shortened PL lifetime and weakened PL intensity [11]. This substrate-induced charging effect represents an additional instability mechanism that must be considered in device design.

Experimental Protocols for Stability Enhancement

Surface Passivation and Ligand Engineering

Surface Passivation of CdSe QDs with ZnO Sol Ligands

The preparation of CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs involves a facile all-solution process at room temperature. First, CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs are synthesized through a sequential cation exchange and shell growth process. The as-synthesized QDs are then purified by N-butyl ether to remove excess organic ligands from the QD surface. The ZnO sol ligands are prepared separately by hydrolyzing zinc acetate in alkaline solution. The purified CdSe/CdS QDs are subsequently mixed with the ZnO sol under controlled stirring conditions, allowing the ZnO to coordinate with the QD surface. The resulting CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs are finally purified and dispersed in non-polar solvents for characterization [41].

This surface passivation approach provides multiple benefits: the ZnO sol acts as both surface ligands and electron acceptors, effectively passivating surface defects and suppressing charged states of QDs. This results in enhanced photostability, prolonged biexciton lifetime, and suppressed Auger recombination and PL blinking [41].

Ligand Engineering for Perovskite QDs

For CsxFA1-xPbI3 PQDs, ligand binding energy plays a crucial role in thermal stability. Experimental studies combining in situ spectroscopic measurements with theoretical calculations demonstrate that FA-rich PQDs with higher ligand binding energy possess better thermal stability compared to Cs-rich compositions [10]. The stronger ligand binding in FA-rich PQDs is attributed to enhanced bonding between organic ligands (oleylamine and oleic acid) and the perovskite surface.

Encapsulation Strategies for Enhanced Stability

Encapsulation of PQDs in Mesoporous Matrices

The encapsulation of CsPbX3 PQDs in hollow mesoporous NaYF4 matrices involves a multi-step process. First, the hollow mesoporous NaYF4:Yb,Tm nanoparticles (HMNPs) are synthesized through a template-assisted method. The CsPbX3 PQDs are then prepared separately using hot-injection methods. The encapsulation is achieved by immersing the HMNPs in a concentrated solution of PQDs, allowing the QDs to infiltrate the mesoporous structure through capillary forces. The resulting HMNP-PQD composites are purified to remove surface-adsorbed QDs [69].

This confinement strategy significantly enhances PQD stability by physically isolating the QDs from environmental factors while maintaining their optical properties. The composites exhibit stable photoluminescence that can be maintained for more than 60 days under ambient atmospheric conditions and show much higher stability in highly humid air compared to naked CsPbBr3 PQDs [69].

Core/Shell Structure Engineering

CdSe/CdS Core/Shell Heterostructures

The synthesis of CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs follows a typical two-step process. First, CdSe cores are synthesized by the heat-injection method at 240°C. Then, the CdS shell with controlled thickness is epitaxially grown on the surface of CdSe cores by the successive ionic layer adsorption and reaction (SILAR) approach. The shell thickness can be precisely controlled by varying the number of SILAR cycles, with typical shells ranging from 5 to 11 monolayers [41].

This core/shell structure significantly improves the optical properties and stability of CdSe QDs by passivating surface trap states and providing a physical barrier against environmental stressors. The additional ZnO sol passivation further enhances these benefits, creating a robust, all-inorganic protection system [41].

Visualization of Stability Enhancement Strategies

PQD Stabilization Mechanisms

CdSe QD Surface Engineering

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for Quantum Dot Stabilization

Reagent/Material	Function in Stability Enhancement	Application Examples
ZnO Sol	Inorganic surface ligand providing passivation and electron acceptor capability	CdSe/CdS@ZnO QDs for enhanced thermal and photostability [41]
Mesoporous NaYF₄	Host matrix for physical encapsulation and isolation of QDs	CsPbX₃ PQD encapsulation for ambient stability [69]
Oleylamine (OAm)	Surface ligand for enhanced binding energy in PQDs	CsxFA1-xPbI3 PQDs with improved thermal stability [10]
Oleic Acid (OA)	Surface ligand for coordination with metal cations	Surface passivation for both PQDs and CdSe QDs [10] [41]
CdS Shell Precursors	Inorganic shell growth for surface defect passivation	CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs for improved optical properties [41]
AMUPol Biradical	Polarizing agent for DNP NMR studies	Signal enhancement for atomic-level structure analysis of CdSe clusters [37]

The comprehensive comparison of stability mitigation strategies for PQDs and CdSe QDs reveals distinct advantages and limitations for each material system. PQDs offer exceptional initial optical properties but require sophisticated encapsulation or matrix integration to achieve operational stability under environmental stressors. The development of lead-free compositions and advanced encapsulation methodologies represents a promising direction for future PQD research.

CdSe-based QDs demonstrate superior intrinsic stability, particularly when engineered with inorganic surface passivation strategies such as ZnO sol ligands. The all-inorganic CdSe/CdS@ZnO system exemplifies how surface engineering can dramatically enhance thermal and photostability while maintaining excellent optical performance.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the selection between these quantum dot platforms involves careful consideration of the specific application requirements and environmental exposure conditions. PQDs may be preferable for applications where ultimate performance can be maintained in controlled environments, while CdSe-based systems currently offer more robust solutions for applications requiring prolonged stability under challenging conditions. Future research directions will likely focus on hybrid approaches that combine the advantageous properties of both material systems while addressing their respective limitations through advanced surface and interface engineering.

Strategies for Reducing Cadmium Leaching from CdSe QDs

Cadmium Selenide Quantum Dots (CdSe QDs) are renowned for their exceptional optoelectronic properties, including size-tunable bandgaps and high quantum yields, making them invaluable in applications from displays to biological sensing [57] [70]. However, the potential leaching of toxic cadmium ions (Cd²⁺) from these nanomaterials poses significant environmental and health risks, limiting their commercial application and raising regulatory concerns [71] [59]. This challenge has catalyzed extensive research into strategies to encapsulate the core and prevent cadmium release.

Framing this research within a performance comparison against Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs), particularly CsPbBr₃, is highly instructive. PQDs have emerged as a prominent alternative, often lauded for their high quantum yield and defect-tolerant structure [71] [72]. A critical comparison of how surface stabilization strategies mitigate the leaching of their respective toxic elements (cadmium in CdSe, lead in PQDs) provides a crucial metric for evaluating their suitability for different technologies. This guide objectively compares the experimental performance of surface-engineered CdSe QDs against PQDs, providing structured data and methodologies to inform researchers and development professionals.

Core Stabilization Strategies and Experimental Performance

The primary defense against cadmium leaching is the creation of a physical barrier around the CdSe core. The two dominant approaches are the formation of core/shell structures and surface passivation with inorganic layers.

Core/Shell Structures and Inorganic Passivation

This strategy involves growing a shell of a wider bandgap semiconductor material over the CdSe core. This shell acts as a physical barrier, inhibiting the exposure of the core to the environment and thereby reducing the pathways for cadmium ion release [57] [71]. The shell material must be chosen for its lattice compatibility and chemical stability.

Key Experiment: ZnS Shell Coating A foundational experiment involves synthesizing CdSe/ZnS core/shell QDs and quantifying their resistance to cadmium leaching under harsh conditions compared to bare CdSe QDs [57] [59].

• Experimental Protocol:

  • Synthesis: CdSe cores are synthesized via the hot-injection method. A ZnS shell is then grown by slowly adding zinc and sulfur precursors (e.g., zinc stearate and hexamethyldisilathiane) to the CdSe core solution at elevated temperatures (280-310 °C) in an inert atmosphere [59].
  • Aging/Weathering: Bare CdSe and CdSe/ZnS QDs are subjected to accelerated aging. This involves dispersing them in an acidic buffer (e.g., pH 4.0) or an oxidizing solution (e.g., H₂O₂) and stirring for a set period (e.g., 24 hours) [71].
  • Leaching Quantification: The concentration of leached Cd²⁺ in the supernatant is measured using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) after removing the QDs via centrifugation.
  • Performance Monitoring: Parallel samples undergo optical characterization (photoluminescence quantum yield - PL QY) before and after aging to correlate leaching with functional degradation.

• Data and Performance Comparison:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of CdSe and CsPbBr₃ QDs after Accelerated Aging

Quantum Dot Type	Core Structure	Shell/Coating	Leached Metal (Cd/Pb) (ppb) *	PL QY Retention (%) *	Reference
CdSe (Bare)	Core-only	None	> 5000	< 20%	[71]
CdSe/ZnS	Core/Shell	ZnS (3 monolayers)	~ 50	> 80%	[57] [59]
CdSe/CdS	Core/Shell	CdS (5 monolayers)	~ 150	> 70%	[57]
CsPbBr₃ (Bare)	Core-only	None	> 4000 (Pb)	< 30%	[71] [72]
CsPbBr₃ w/ SiO₂	Core/Shell	SiO₂ coating	~ 200 (Pb)	> 60%	[71]

Note: *Values are representative and can vary based on specific experimental conditions (e.g., aging solution, temperature, and QD size).

The data demonstrates that a robust ZnS shell drastically reduces cadmium leaching by nearly two orders of magnitude while preserving optical performance. The CdSe/ZnS structure outperforms a bare CsPbBr₃ QD in preventing metal release, though lead leaching from PQDs can also be significantly mitigated with appropriate encapsulation, such as a silica (SiO₂) shell [71].

Surface Ligand Engineering and Functionalization

The organic ligand shell surrounding QDs is critical for colloidal stability and determining surface reactivity. Engineering these ligands can provide a chemical barrier that passivates surface defects and sterically hinders attacks by chelators or protons that promote dissolution [57] [71].

Key Experiment: Thiol-Based Ligand Exchange This experiment evaluates how replacing standard ligands with more robust, multi-dentate ones enhances stability.

• Experimental Protocol:

  • Starting Material: Prepare CdSe/ZnS QDs capped with standard ligands like trioctylphosphine oxide (TOPO).
  • Ligand Exchange: Purify the QDs and redisperse them in a solution containing the new ligand, such as dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA) or mercaptoundecanoic acid (MUA), in polar solvents like ethanol or DMF. The mixture is stirred for several hours to allow the thiol groups of the new ligands to bind strongly to the ZnS surface [71].
  • Stability Testing: Subject the ligand-exchanged QDs to a long-term stability test, dispersing them in aqueous solutions at physiological pH (7.4) and monitoring them over weeks.
  • Analysis: Use techniques like Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) to confirm ligand exchange. Periodically measure PL QY and use ICP-MS on filtered samples to detect leached cadmium.

• Data and Performance Comparison:

Table 2: Effect of Surface Ligands on Long-Term Stability in Aqueous Buffer

Quantum Dot Type	Surface Ligand	Projected Cd²⁺ Leaching after 2 weeks	PL QY Retention after 2 weeks	Key Function
CdSe/ZnS	TOPO (Standard)	High	< 30%	Basic stabilization in organic solvents
CdSe/ZnS	MPA (Mercaptopropionic Acid)	Medium	~ 50%	Aqueous solubility, short-chain thiol
CdSe/ZnS	DHLA (Dihydrolipoic Acid)	Low	> 75%	Chelating effect, strong bidentate thiol binding
CsPbBr₃	Oleic Acid/Oleylamine	Very High	< 20%	Basic synthesis ligands, highly labile
CsPbBr₃	Didodecyldimethyl-ammonium bromide	Medium	~ 40%	Improved electrostatic stabilization

The results indicate that multi-dentate thiol ligands like DHLA form a more stable and protective layer on the CdSe/ZnS surface, significantly reducing cadmium leaching and maintaining optical properties over time. In contrast, PQDs often suffer from highly dynamic and labile surface ligands, making them inherently less stable without further post-synthetic treatment [71].

Visualizing the Strategic Framework

The following diagram synthesizes the multi-faceted strategies for reducing cadmium leaching from CdSe QDs and positions them against the common challenges faced by PQDs.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful experimentation in this field relies on a specific set of reagents and materials. The following table details key components for synthesizing and stabilizing CdSe QDs.

Table 3: Essential Reagent Solutions for CdSe QD Surface Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Role	Key Consideration
Cadmium Precursor (e.g., Cadmium Oxide, CdO)	Provides the Cd²⁺ source for core synthesis.	Purity affects nanocrystal reproducibility and defect formation.
Selenium Precursor (e.g., Trioctylphosphine Selenide, TOP-Se)	Provides the Se source for core synthesis.	Reactivity and temperature control nucleation and growth kinetics.
Zinc Precursor (e.g., Zinc Acetate, Zn(OAc)₂)	Source of Zn²⁺ for ZnS shell growth.	Choice of anion (e.g., acetate, stearate) influences precursor reactivity.
Sulfur Precursor (e.g., Hexamethyldisilathiane, (TMS)₂S)	Source of S²⁻ for ZnS shell growth.	Highly reactive; requires careful control of addition rate and temperature.
Multi-dentate Ligands (e.g., Dihydrolipoic Acid, DHLA)	Forms a stable, protective layer on the QD surface.	The chelating effect provides stronger binding than mono-thiols, reducing desorption.
Inert Atmosphere Glovebox	Provides oxygen- and moisture-free environment for synthesis.	Critical for handling air-sensitive precursors and preventing surface oxidation.
High-Temperature Solvent (e.g., 1-Octadecene, ODE)	Acts as a non-coordinating solvent for high-temperature reactions.	Thermal stability and purity are essential for achieving high-quality crystals.

The strategic encapsulation of CdSe QDs through inorganic shells and advanced organic ligands presents a highly effective pathway for mitigating toxic cadmium leaching. Experimental data confirms that core/shell structures like CdSe/ZnS can reduce cadmium release by over 98% compared to bare cores, while sophisticated ligand shells ensure long-term stability in aqueous environments.

When compared to Perovskite QDs, stabilized CdSe QDs demonstrate superior performance in preventing core metal leaching, a direct result of their more covalent and stable crystal lattice. While PQDs offer excellent initial optical properties and ease of synthesis, their inherent ionic character and labile ligand interactions pose a greater challenge for long-term encapsulation and environmental safety [71] [72]. Therefore, the choice between these two materials for a specific application must carefully weigh the required optical performance against the stringency of environmental and health safety standards. For applications demanding minimal environmental impact and long-term operational stability, surface-engineered CdSe QDs currently hold a significant advantage.

The performance and stability of quantum dots (QDs) are fundamentally dictated by their surface chemistry. Defects on the QD surface, such as uncoordinated lead or cadmium atoms, act as traps for charge carriers, promoting non-radiative recombination that quenches photoluminescence and reduces quantum yields. This challenge is particularly acute for perovskite quantum dots (PQDs), which, despite their exceptional optoelectronic properties, suffer from intrinsic instability issues, including ion migration and susceptibility to environmental factors. Similarly, CdSe QDs require careful surface management to achieve high performance in applications ranging from energy storage to light emission. Within this context, two advanced surface passivation strategies have emerged as particularly powerful: pseudohalogen engineering for PQDs and core-shell structures for CdSe QDs. This guide provides a performance comparison of these distinct approaches, framing them within the broader thesis that the optimal passivation strategy is inherently linked to the QD material's composition, intended application, and the specific nature of its surface defects. We will objectively compare these techniques by examining experimental data on performance metrics, detailing the requisite methodologies, and analyzing their implications for research and development.

Performance Comparison: Pseudohalogen Engineering vs. Core-Shell Structures

The following tables summarize key performance data and characteristics for these two surface passivation strategies, drawing from recent experimental studies.

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics of Passivated Quantum Dots

Performance Parameter	Pseudohalogen Passivated PQDs	Core-Shell CdSe/CdS/ZnS QDs
Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)	Significantly enhanced, precise values not reported in search results [73]	Effectively enhanced for photocatalytic performance [74]
External Quantum Efficiency (EQE) in LEDs	22.1% (peak) for pure-red PeLEDs [73]	Not Applicable (focus on energy storage & photocatalysis)
Operational Stability (T50 lifetime)	1020 min, fivefold better than pristine PeQDs [73]	Excellent recyclability demonstrated in photocatalytic H2 production [74]
Key Improvement Mechanism	Suppression of halide migration and non-radiative recombination [73]	Enhanced light harvesting and inhibited electron-hole recombination [74]
Primary Application Demonstrated	Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) for displays [73]	Photocatalytic Hydrogen Generation [74]

Table 2: Characteristics of the Passivation Strategies

Characteristic	Pseudohalogen Engineering	Core-Shell Structures
Targeted QD Material	Perovskite QDs (e.g., CsPb(Br/I)3) [73]	CdSe QDs [74]
Passivation Approach	Chemical post-treatment with inorganic ligands	Successive inorganic shell growth
Defect Targeting	Lead-rich surface defects and halide vacancies [73]	Surface dangling bonds and core instability [74]
Toxicity Consideration	Retains lead-based core; toxicity concerns persist [58]	ZnS outer shell can help contain toxic Cd2+ ions [57]
Aqueous Stability	Major challenge for lead-based PQDs [58]	Designed for aqueous phase and photocatalytic applications [74]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Pseudohalogen Engineering for Perovskite QDs

The enhancement of mixed-halide CsPb(Br/I)₃ QDs for pure-red light-emitting diodes (PeLEDs) via pseudohalogen engineering involves a precise post-synthesis treatment protocol [73].

• 1. QD Synthesis: CsPbI₂Br QDs are first synthesized using a modified hot-injection method. This involves the high-temperature injection of a precursor into a coordinating solvent, leading to the instantaneous nucleation and controlled growth of the nanocrystals [73].
• 2. Surface Etching and Passivation: The as-synthesized QDs are then treated with a solution of pseudohalide ligands, such as potassium thiocyanate (KSCN) or guanidinium thiocyanate (GASCN), in acetonitrile. Acetonitrile acts as a mild etching agent that selectively removes lead-rich surface defects without dissolving the QD. Simultaneously, the SCN⁻ ligands, with their dual coordination sites (S and N), strongly bind to the newly exposed undercoordinated Pb²⁺ sites. This robust binding passivates halide vacancies, which are the primary pathways for halide ion migration and non-radiative recombination [73].
• 3. Device Fabrication: The passivated QDs are integrated into a PeLED device structure. A typical architecture includes an indium tin oxide (ITO) anode, a hole-injection layer (e.g., PEDOT:PSS), a hole-transport layer (e.g., PTAA), the emissive layer of passivated PeQDs, an electron-transport layer, and a metal cathode (e.g., LiF/Al). The performance is characterized by measuring external quantum efficiency (EQE), luminance, and operational stability [73].

Core/Shell/Shell Structure Synthesis for CdSe QDs

The development of water-soluble CdSe/CdS/ZnS core/shell/shell QDs for photocatalytic hydrogen generation follows a multi-step aqueous synthesis route [74].

• 1. Core Formation: CdSe QDs are first precipitated in a silicate glass matrix or synthesized in solution. In the glass matrix, this is achieved by heat-treating a base glass composition containing CdO and ZnSe, which leads to the dissociation of these compounds and the diffusion-controlled formation of CdSe nanocrystals [75] [74].
• 2. Shell Growth: A CdS shell is grown epitaxially onto the CdSe core. This intermediate shell has a lattice structure between that of the core and the final shell, which helps to reduce strain. Subsequently, an outer ZnS shell is grown. The ZnS shell provides a wide bandgap, which strongly confines charge carriers within the core and passivates the surface of the CdS shell. This complex structure effectively enhances light absorption, facilitates the separation and transfer of photoinduced electrons and holes, and, most critically, inhibits the recombination of photogenerated electron-hole pairs [74].
• 3. Photocatalytic Testing: The photocatalytic activity of the core/shell/shell QDs is evaluated by dispersing them in an aqueous solution containing a sacrificial reagent. The solution is illuminated with visible light, and the amount of hydrogen gas produced is quantified using gas chromatography. The recyclability of the photocatalyst is assessed by repeated testing cycles [74].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials essential for implementing the described surface passivation strategies.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Surface Passivation

Reagent/Material	Function in Passivation	Associated Strategy
Potassium Thiocyanate (KSCN)	Pseudohalide ligand; passivates uncoordinated Pb²⁺ sites, suppresses halide migration [73]	Pseudohalogen Engineering
Guanidinium Thiocyanate (GASCN)	Pseudohalide ligand; provides simultaneous etching and passivation for enhanced film conductivity [73]	Pseudohalogen Engineering
Acetonitrile	Solvent for post-treatment; gently etches lead-rich surface defects [73]	Pseudohalogen Engineering
Zinc Sulfide (ZnS)	Wide-bandgap shell material; passivates surface traps and confines charge carriers in the core [74]	Core-Shell Structures
Cadmium Sulfide (CdS)	Intermediate shell material; bridges lattice mismatch between CdSe core and ZnS outer shell [74]	Core-Shell Structures
Oleylamine / Oleic Acid	Common surface ligands; stabilize QDs during synthesis and prevent aggregation [73]	Both Strategies

Visualizing Workflows and Material Architectures

The following diagrams illustrate the core experimental workflow for pseudohalogen engineering and the structural architecture of a core/shell/shell quantum dot.

Pseudohalogen Passivation Process

Core-Shell-Shell Quantum Dot Structure

The comparative analysis presented in this guide clearly demonstrates that both pseudohalogen engineering and core-shell structuring are highly effective, yet fundamentally different, approaches to surface passivation. Pseudohalogen engineering excels in the domain of perovskite-based optoelectronics, particularly for light-emitting diodes, where its ability to suppress halide migration directly addresses a critical failure mode, leading to remarkable gains in efficiency and spectral stability [73]. In contrast, the core-shell structure approach, particularly the CdSe/CdS/ZnS architecture, provides a robust solution for enhancing the photocatalytic performance and aqueous-phase stability of CdSe QDs, effectively separating charge carriers and protecting the core from the environment [74].

The choice between these strategies is not a matter of superiority but of application-specific suitability. For researchers developing high-performance displays and lighting with PQDs, pseudohalogen engineering offers a powerful tool to tackle intrinsic ion migration. For those working on energy applications like photocatalysis or batteries with CdSe QDs, core-shell structures provide the necessary stability and charge management. Future research will likely focus on mitigating the toxicity of both systems—through lead-free perovskites [58] and improved shell encapsulation—and on scaling these sophisticated passivation techniques for commercial application. Ultimately, the continued advancement of QD technology hinges on such deep, material-specific understanding and control of the surface interface.

Optimizing Charge Transfer and Minimizing Non-Radiative Recombination at Surfaces

The performance of quantum dots (QDs) in optoelectronic devices is profoundly influenced by their surface chemistry. Optimizing charge transfer and minimizing non-radiative recombination at QD surfaces are critical for enhancing the efficiency of applications ranging from solar cells to light-emitting diodes. This guide provides a comparative analysis of surface electronic research between two prominent QD systems: Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) and Cadmium Selenide (CdSe) QDs. By examining recent experimental data and methodologies, we aim to equip researchers with a clear understanding of the strategies and performance characteristics of each system.

Performance Comparison: PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

The following tables summarize key experimental findings and optimized performance metrics for PQD and CdSe QD systems, highlighting their behavior concerning charge transfer and non-radiative recombination.

Table 1: Comparative Experimental Data on Charge Transfer and Recombination

Performance Parameter	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs
Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)	Up to 99% achieved via surface ligand engineering [76]	Increased from 2.2% to 5.2% via surface passivation with halides [77]
Charge-Separated State Lifetime	Information not specified in search results	Record ~24 µs half-life in CdS nanorods via covalent hole acceptor binding [78]
Ligand Exchange Efficacy	~2x conventional conductive ligands via alkaline-hydrolyzed ester treatment [79]	Controlled via partial ligand stripping with Meerwein's salt [77]
Dominant Quenching Mechanism	Suppressed Auger recombination via surface passivation [76]	Efficient hole transfer (HT) to molecular acceptors [77]
Key Surface Optimization Strategy	Alkaline-augmented antisolvent hydrolysis for conductive capping [79]	Covalent binding of hole acceptors and controlled ligand density [78] [77]

Table 2: Optimized Device Performance Metrics

Device / System Metric	Optimized PQD System	Optimized CdSe QD System
Solar Cell Efficiency (Certified)	18.3% (FA0.47Cs0.53PbI3 PQD) [79]	Primarily highlighted for energy storage (batteries/supercapacitors) [57]
Amplified Spontaneous Emission (ASE) Threshold	Reduced by 70% (from 1.8 to 0.54 µJ·cm-2) [76]	Information not specified in search results
Hole Transfer Efficiency	Information not specified in search results	Quantitatively tuned via controlled ligand stripping; enhanced by increased surface accessibility [77]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Surface Ligand Engineering in Perovskite QDs

1. Optimization of Cesium Precursor and Ligands:

• Objective: To achieve high-purity CsPbBr₃ QDs with minimal defects and suppressed Auger recombination [76].
• Synthesis: A novel cesium precursor recipe was used, combining dual-functional acetate (AcO⁻) and 2-hexyldecanoic acid (2-HA).
• Protocol:
  • AcO⁻ acts as both a surface ligand and a precursor enhancer, raising cesium precursor purity from 70.26% to 98.59% and passivating dangling bonds.
  • 2-HA, a short-branched-chain ligand with stronger binding affinity than oleic acid, replaces OA to further passivate surface defects.
• Characterization: The resulting QDs exhibited a narrow emission linewidth (22 nm), a high PLQY of 99%, and a 70% reduction in the ASE threshold [76].

2. Alkaline-Augmented Antisolvent Hydrolysis (AAAH):

• Objective: To replace pristine insulating oleate ligands with conductive short ligands during solid-state film processing [79].
• Method:
  • Methyl benzoate (MeBz) was selected as the antisolvent for its suitable polarity.
  • Potassium hydroxide (KOH) was introduced to create an alkaline environment during the interlayer rinsing of PQD solid films.
  • The alkaline condition renders ester hydrolysis thermodynamically spontaneous and lowers the reaction activation energy by approximately ninefold, facilitating rapid substitution of ligands.
• Outcome: This method doubled the amount of conductive short ligands on the PQD surface, leading to films with fewer traps, homogeneous orientation, and a certified solar cell efficiency of 18.3% [79].

Surface Manipulation in CdSe/CdS QDs

1. Covalent Binding of Molecular Hole Acceptors:

• Objective: To extend charge-separated lifetimes for improved photocatalysis [78].
• Functionalization:
  • CdS QDs and nanorods were functionalized with a carboxylate derivative of phenothiazine (PTZCOOH).
  • The carboxylic acid group enables strong covalent binding to the CdS surface.
• Characterization: Transient absorption spectroscopy revealed unity efficiency of hole transfer to PTZCOOH. The covalent binding resulted in a 43-fold increase in electron lifetime for CdS QDs and a 295-fold increase (to 24.2 µs half-life) in CdS nanorods, a record for Cd-chalcogenide NCs [78].

2. Partial Ligand Stripping for Hole Transfer Tuning:

• Objective: To control hole transfer efficiency by modulating surface ligand density [77].
• Method:
  • Oleic acid-capped CdSe QDs were treated with stoichiometric equivalents of Meerwein's salt (trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate), a gentle ligand-stripping agent.
  • Meerwein's salt removes oleate ligands via methyl cation transfer, producing methyl oleate, which was quantified by ¹H NMR spectroscopy.
• Analysis: Time-resolved photoluminescence and transient absorption spectroscopy showed that reduced ligand density increased the accessibility for molecular acceptors (polyoxovanadate alkoxides), thereby quantitatively enhancing the hole transfer efficiency [77].

Visualization of Core Concepts and Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the key strategies for surface optimization in PQDs and CdSe QDs.

Diagram 1: Workflow for surface optimization in Perovskite QDs, showing two main strategies and their outcomes.

Diagram 2: Workflow for surface optimization in CdSe/CdS QDs, showing two main strategies and their outcomes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for QD Surface Optimization

Reagent/Material	Function in Research	Application Context
Methyl Benzoate (MeBz)	Ester antisolvent for interlayer rinsing; hydrolyzes to conductive benzoate ligands [79]	PQD Surface Engineering
Potassium Hydroxide (KOH)	Creates alkaline environment to catalyze ester hydrolysis during antisolvent rinsing [79]	PQD Surface Engineering
Acetate (AcO⁻) & 2-Hexyldecanoic Acid (2-HA)	Short-chain ligands for surface passivation; enhance purity and suppress Auger recombination [76]	PQD Synthesis & Passivation
PTZCOOH	Carboxylated phenothiazine hole acceptor; covalently binds to NC surfaces for long-lived charge separation [78]	CdS/CdSe Charge Transfer
Meerwein's Salt	Gentle ligand-stripping agent for quantitative removal of surface oleate ligands [77]	CdSe Surface Accessibility
Polyoxovanadate Alkoxides	Molecular hole acceptors used to study hole transfer kinetics from stripped QDs [77]	CdSe Charge Transfer Studies

The optimization of surface electronics in PQDs and CdSe QDs employs distinct yet convergent strategies rooted in sophisticated ligand engineering. PQD research has demonstrated remarkable success in achieving near-perfect PLQY and high solar cell efficiencies through approaches like alkaline-augmented antisolvent hydrolysis, which maximizes conductive capping. In contrast, CdSe QD studies excel in precisely controlling charge separation lifetimes and hole transfer efficiency via covalent acceptor binding and quantitative ligand stripping. The choice between these two systems depends on the specific application requirements, whether prioritizing ultimate luminescent properties and facile processability (PQDs) or exquisite control over charge separation for catalysis (CdSe). Future research will likely continue to bridge insights from both fields, driving forward the performance of quantum-dot-based technologies.

Analyzing Surface Charge and Its Impact on Biofouling and Non-Specific Binding

The performance of quantum dots (QDs) in biological environments is critically governed by their surface electronic properties. For researchers and drug development professionals, two material classes are pivotal: traditional cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs and the emerging halide perovskite quantum dots (PQDs). The surface charge of these nanomaterials directly dictates their interactions with biological systems, influencing two major challenges: biofouling (the non-specific accumulation of biological materials on surfaces) and non-specific binding (undesired interactions with non-target biomolecules). A profound understanding of how surface charge controls these phenomena is essential for developing reliable biosensors, diagnostic assays, and therapeutic agents. This guide provides a comparative analysis of PQD and CdSe QD surface electronics, supported by experimental data and methodologies, to inform material selection and experimental design for biomedical applications.

Surface Charge Fundamentals and Measurement

Origins and Significance of Surface Charge

The surface charge of quantum dots arises from their core composition, surface ligands, and the chemical environment (e.g., pH, ionic strength). It is quantitatively measured as zeta potential, which indicates the electrostatic potential at the slipping plane of a nanoparticle in suspension. A high absolute zeta potential value (typically above ±30 mV) confers colloidal stability by preventing aggregation due to electrostatic repulsion.

• CdSe QDs: Often stabilized with organic ligands like dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA), yielding a negative surface charge. The surface is susceptible to oxidation, which can alter charge over time [80] [11].
• PQDs: Feature an ionic crystal structure (ABX₃) where the surface chemistry is dominated by the A-site cation and halide anion. Their surface charge is highly tunable via ligand engineering (e.g., oleylamine, poly(ethylenimine) and compositional variation [58] [19]. Lead-based PQDs (e.g., CsPbBr₃) can be engineered with positive or negative charge, while lead-free variants (e.g., Cs₃Bi₂Br₉) often present different charge profiles [19].

Experimental Protocol: Zeta Potential Measurement

Objective: To determine the surface charge of PQD and CdSe QD suspensions. Key Reagents: Purified QD samples, appropriate aqueous buffer (e.g., 1 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.4). Instrumentation: Zeta potential analyzer with dynamic light scattering (DLS) capability.

• Sample Preparation: Dilute purified QD stock solutions to a standard concentration (e.g., 0.1 mg/mL) in a low-salt buffer to minimize interference. Filter the solution through a 0.22 μm membrane to remove particulates.
• Instrument Calibration: Calibrate the instrument using a standard zeta potential reference (e.g., -50 mV polystyrene beads).
• Measurement: Load the sample into a clear, disposable zeta cell. Set the temperature to 25°C. Perform at least 3 runs per sample, with each run consisting of 10-15 sub-measurements.
• Data Analysis: The instrument software calculates the zeta potential from the electrophoretic mobility. Report the average value and standard deviation from all runs. The pH of the solution must be recorded and reported alongside the zeta potential value.

Table 1: Representative Zeta Potential Values for Different QD Types

Quantum Dot Type	Core Composition	Common Surface Ligand	Typical Zeta Potential in Water (pH ~7)	Colloidal Stability Inference
Cadmium-Based	CdSe/ZnS	Carboxylic acid (COOH)	-30 mV to -50 mV [81]	Good stability
Indium-Based	InP/ZnS	Carboxylic acid (COOH)	-30 mV to -50 mV [81]	Good stability
Carbon Dots (Negative)	Carbon	Citric acid derivatives	-20 mV to -40 mV [82]	Moderate to Good stability
Carbon Dots (Positive)	Carbon	Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA)	+15 mV to +25 mV [82]	Moderate stability (may aggregate)
Perovskite QDs (Tunable)	CsPbBr₃	Oleylamine / Oleic Acid	Can be tuned from negative to positive [19]	Varies with functionalization

Impact of Surface Charge on Biofouling

Biofouling occurs when proteins, cells, and other biomolecules non-specifically adhere to a surface, often degrading the performance of sensors and therapeutic nanoparticles. Surface charge is a primary factor governing these interactions, as most biological constituents are charged in physiological environments.

Comparative Analysis: PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

• PQDs and Antifouling Properties: The integration of aminated carbon quantum dots (CQDs), which carry a positive charge, into polyamide membranes for water softening demonstrates a key antifouling principle. The modification increased membrane hydrophilicity and created a smoother selective layer surface. These changes, influenced by the positive surface charge, significantly enhanced antifouling properties against negatively charged organic foulants commonly found in water [83]. This illustrates how engineered positive charge can be utilized to reduce fouling in complex environments. Furthermore, PQDs' high photoluminescence quantum yield (50-90%) allows for highly sensitive monitoring of fouling processes [84] [19].
• CdSe QDs and Fouling Propensity: CdSe QDs with standard negative carboxylate coatings are prone to fouling by positively charged proteins and cellular debris. A study on CdSe QDs spin-coated on ITO substrates revealed that direct contact with the conductive surface led to electron transfer and QD charging, which altered their photoluminescence dynamics [11]. This underscores how the local environment and surface-state interactions can promote undesirable "electrofouling" type phenomena, potentially impacting device performance.

Experimental Protocol: Evaluating Protein Fouling Using Fluorescence Quenching

Objective: To quantify the degree of non-specific protein adsorption on QD surfaces. Key Reagents: QD samples, model protein solution (e.g., 1 mg/mL Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) in PBS), PBS buffer. Instrumentation: Fluorescence spectrophotometer.

• Baseline Measurement: Dispense 1 mL of a standardized QD solution into a cuvette. Measure the initial fluorescence intensity (F₀) at the QD's emission peak.
• Exposure to Protein: Add a small volume of concentrated BSA solution to the cuvette to achieve a final protein:QD molar ratio of 100:1. Mix gently and incubate for 30 minutes at room temperature.
• Final Measurement: Measure the fluorescence intensity (F) again under identical conditions.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the percentage of fluorescence quenching as (F₀ - F)/F₀ × 100%. A higher quenching percentage indicates greater protein adsorption and biofouling. Control experiments with buffer alone should be performed to account for any dilution or intrinsic quenching effects.

Impact of Surface Charge on Non-Specific Binding

Non-specific binding (NSB) is a critical concern in assay development and diagnostics, leading to increased background noise and reduced sensitivity. Surface charge plays a dominant role in mediating these non-selective interactions.

Cellular Uptake and Immune Activation

Direct evidence of surface charge impact comes from studies on carbon dots, which serve as excellent models for understanding QD biological interactions:

• Cellular Uptake: A pivotal study demonstrated that negatively charged carbon dots (synthesized from citric acid, CA-CDs) exhibited approximately six times higher cellular uptake (~6.25%) in RAW 264.7 macrophage cells compared to positively charged carbon dots (synthesized from bovine serum albumin, BSA-CDs, ~1.24%) [82]. This highlights how negative charge can promote non-specific internalization, which could be detrimental for targeted delivery but advantageous for macrophage-specific imaging or therapy.
• Inflammatory Response: The same study revealed a critical difference in immune activation. Positively charged BSA-CDs elicited a significant, dose-dependent release of inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and IL-6) from macrophages. In contrast, negatively charged CA-CDs showed no such effect [82]. This suggests that positive charge can trigger non-specific immune signaling, a major consideration for in vivo applications.

Conjugation and Assay Performance

The method of conjugating biological capture molecules (e.g., antibodies) to QDs is heavily influenced by surface charge and is crucial for minimizing NSB.

• Conjugation Methods: Site-nonspecific conjugation, often driven by electrostatic interactions between the QD's ligand shell and the antibody, is simple but can lead to random antibody orientation and partial denaturation, increasing the potential for NSB and loss of activity [80].
• Advanced Strategies: To mitigate this, site-specific conjugation and the use of high-affinity adapters like the streptavidin-biotin pair are preferred. For instance, functionalizing QDs with streptavidin allows for controlled, oriented binding of biotinylated antibodies. This approach preserves antibody activity and reduces NSB by presenting the binding domain optimally [80].

Experimental Protocol: Quantifying NSB in an Immunoassay Format

Objective: To measure the degree of non-specific binding of QD-antibody conjugates to a non-target surface. Key Reagents: QD-Antibody conjugates (prepared via site-specific or nonspecific methods), blocking solution (e.g., 1-5% BSA in PBS), target antigen, negative control protein. Instrumentation: Microplate reader, ELISA plate washer.

• Plate Coating: Coat a microplate well with a negative control protein (e.g., BSA, casein) that is not the target of the antibody.
• Blocking: Thoroughly block the well with a suitable blocking agent to passivate any remaining reactive sites.
• Incubation with Conjugate: Add the QD-antibody conjugate to the well and incubate for 1 hour.
• Washing: Wash the well multiple times with a wash buffer containing a mild detergent (e.g., Tween-20) to remove unbound conjugates.
• Signal Measurement: Measure the fluorescence signal from the well. A high signal indicates significant NSB of the conjugate to the non-target surface or the plate itself. This signal should be compared to a negative control (blocking buffer only) and a positive control (well coated with the target antigen).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents for QD Surface Charge and Interaction Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Explanation	Example Use Case
Carboxylic Acid-Terminated QDs	Provides a negative surface charge for electrostatic stabilization and conjugation via EDC/NHS chemistry.	Standard starting point for bioconjugation; used in cytotoxicity studies [81].
Aminated Ligands (e.g., PEI)	Imparts a positive surface charge; can enhance interaction with negatively charged cell membranes.	Creating positively charged membranes for ion separation [83] or immune-stimulatory agents.
Streptavidin-Coated QDs	Enables high-affinity, site-specific conjugation to biotinylated antibodies, reducing non-specific binding.	Preparing sensitive and specific detection probes for immunoassays [80].
Oleylamine / Oleic Acid	Common ligand pair for synthesizing and stabilizing PQDs; ratio tunes surface charge and dispersibility.	Colloidal stabilization of CsPbBr₃ PQDs during synthesis [19].
Cytokine ELISA Kits	Quantifies secretion of inflammatory markers (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6) to assess immune response to QDs.	Evaluating the inflammatory potential of positively charged BSA-CDs [82].
Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) & Zeta Potential Analyzer	Characterizes hydrodynamic size distribution and measures surface zeta potential of QDs.	Routine quality control of QD batches and stability assessment under different buffers.

Signaling Pathways and Biological Interactions

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between QD surface charge and its subsequent biological impacts, integrating findings from the cited research.

Diagram 1: Surface charge dictates biological interactions and applications. Negative charge promotes uptake with low inflammation, ideal for imaging. Positive charge can trigger immune responses, useful for therapies, but may reduce uptake. Antifouling is context-dependent.

The experimental workflow for preparing, characterizing, and testing QDs in a biological context is outlined below.

Diagram 2: Key steps for developing and testing quantum dots for bio-applications.

The comparative analysis of PQD and CdSe QD surface electronics reveals a complex interplay between material composition, surface charge, and biological interactions. CdSe QDs are a well-established platform where negative surface charge is common, but this can lead to significant non-specific cellular uptake. In contrast, PQDs offer exceptional tunability of their optoelectronic and surface properties, presenting a powerful opportunity to engineer surface charge for specific applications, such as in the design of antifouling membranes.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the key takeaways are:

• Surface charge is a critical design parameter that directly influences biofouling, non-specific binding, cellular uptake, and immune activation, as demonstrated by controlled studies on carbon dots [82].
• PQDs offer a versatile platform for surface engineering due to their compositional flexibility, which can be leveraged to create surfaces that minimize non-specific interactions [83] [19].
• Conjugation chemistry must be carefully selected. Site-specific methods like streptavidin-biotin pairing are superior to non-specific electrostatic conjugation for minimizing NSB and preserving biorecognition element function [80].

Future research should focus on standardizing surface charge characterization protocols and systematically correlating zeta potential values with quantitative metrics of biofouling and NSB across different biological models. The development of robust, lead-free PQDs with engineered surface ligands will be crucial for translating these promising materials into clinically viable diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Benchmarking Performance and Selecting the Right QD for the Application

Direct Comparison of Optical Stability and Photobleaching Resistance

The performance and commercial viability of quantum dots (QDs) in applications ranging from bioimaging to optoelectronics are critically dependent on their optical stability and resistance to photobleaching. These properties determine the functional lifespan and reliability of QD-based devices and assays. This guide provides a direct comparison between two leading QD types—perovskite quantum dots (PQDs) and cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs—with a specific focus on their performance under optical excitation and thermal stress. The analysis is framed within the broader context of surface electronics research, which posits that the surface chemistry and ligand interactions of a QD are the primary determinants of its optical stability, often outweighing the influence of its core composition.

Quantitative Comparison of Optical Properties and Stability

The following tables summarize key performance metrics and stability parameters for PQDs and CdSe QDs, based on current experimental data.

Table 1: Key Optical Performance Metrics for PQDs and CdSe/ZnS QDs

Optical Property	Perovskite QDs (CsPbBr₃)	Core-Shell CdSe/ZnS QDs	Experimental Context
Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)	Can exceed 90% [10] [85]	50% to 100% (for high-quality core-shell structures) [86] [87]	Measured in colloidal solutions or solid-state films.
Fluorescence Lifetime	Tunable based on confinement; can be long-lived in optimized structures [10]	Generally long fluorescence lifetimes [86]	Time-resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) measurements.
Emission Tunability	Entire visible spectrum (400-700 nm) via halide exchange [10]	450-650 nm via size control [86] [66]	Adjustment via composition (PQDs) or size (CdSe).
Photobleaching Resistance	Extraordinary photostability demonstrated in optimized systems (12 hours continuous operation) [85]	Pronounced resilience against photobleaching compared to organic dyes [87]	Under continuous laser illumination.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Stability Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Stability Factor	Perovskite QDs (CsPbBr₃)	Core-Shell CdSe/ZnS QDs	Key Evidence
Photoluminescence Blinking	Nearly non-blinking single photon emission achieved with tailored surface ligands [85]	Blinking can be suppressed by coating with a wide-bandgap semiconductor shell (e.g., ZnS) [85]	Single-dot spectroscopy.
Thermal Stability	Mixed; FA-rich PQDs can directly decompose to PbI₂, while Cs-rich PQDs undergo a phase transition [10]	Generally high thermal stability; ZnS shell enhances robustness [87]	In-situ XRD and TGA during heating.
Degradation Mechanism	Labile surface lattices, ligand detachment, and photoionization [85]	Less susceptible to ionic metathesis compared to ionic PQDs [85]	Spectroscopic and structural studies.
Primary Mitigation Strategy	Nearly epitaxial ligand coverage driven by intermolecular interactions (e.g., π-π stacking) [85]	Inorganic shell passivation (e.g., ZnS) to reduce surface defects [86] [85]	Surface energy calculations and PLQY measurement.

Experimental Protocols for Stability Assessment

To ensure the data presented in the comparison tables is reproducible, this section outlines the standard experimental methodologies used to quantify QD stability.

Single Quantum Dot Photostability Assay

This protocol is designed to measure photobleaching and blinking at the single-particle level, free from ensemble averaging effects [85].

• Sample Preparation: Dilute the QD colloidal solution to a very low concentration (~1-10 nM) in a suitable solvent. Spin-coat a small volume onto a clean, flat substrate (e.g., glass or silicon) to achieve a sparse distribution of isolated QDs.
• Optical Setup: Use a confocal or wide-field fluorescence microscope equipped with a high-numerical-aperture (NA > 1.0) objective. A laser source with a wavelength suitable for exciting the QDs (e.g., 405 nm) is required.
• Data Acquisition: Focus the laser on a single, isolated QD. Record its fluorescence emission intensity using a sensitive detector (e.g., an avalanche photodiode or EMCCD camera) with a time resolution of milliseconds over a prolonged period (minutes to hours).
• Data Analysis: Analyze the fluorescence trajectory to identify "on" and "off" events (blinking). The fraction of time the QD spends in the "on" state and the frequency of blinking events are key metrics. Photobleaching is recorded as an irreversible drop in fluorescence to the background level.

Thermal Degradation Profiling

This protocol assesses the structural and optical stability of QDs under thermal stress, as performed in studies like that of CsₓFA₁₋ₓPbI₃ PQDs [10].

• In-situ Characterization Setup: Place a solid film of QDs in a stage equipped with a heater and temperature controller inside an X-ray diffractometer (XRD) and/or a spectrometer.
• Ramped Heating: Under an inert atmosphere (e.g., argon flow), increase the temperature at a controlled rate (e.g., 5-10 °C/min) from room temperature to a target (e.g., 500 °C).
• Simultaneous Measurement: At set temperature intervals, acquire both XRD patterns and photoluminescence (PL) spectra.
• Data Analysis: Correlate the loss in PL intensity with changes in the XRD pattern. Identify the temperature at which the perovskite structure decomposes to PbI₂ or a non-perovskite phase, or at which the CdSe/ZnS QDs show significant PL quenching.

Ensemble Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY) Measurement

This protocol quantifies the efficiency of photon conversion, which is sensitive to surface defects [10] [85].

• Setup Calibration: Use an integrating sphere attached to a fluorescence spectrometer. Follow manufacturer guidelines to calibrate the system.
• Sample Measurement: Place a cuvette containing the QD solution (or a solid QD film on a substrate) inside the integrating sphere.
• Spectral Acquisition: Excite the sample at a wavelength where it has significant absorption. Measure the emission spectrum using the integrated sphere detector.
• Calculation: The absolute PLQY is calculated from the integrated intensities of the emitted light and the scattered excitation light, as per standard protocols. A high PLQY (>70%) often indicates effective surface passivation.

Surface Stabilization Pathways and Mechanisms

The fundamental difference in stability between PQDs and CdSe QDs lies in their surface stabilization mechanisms. The following diagram illustrates the two dominant pathways identified in recent research.

Diagram: Two Primary Pathways for Quantum Dot Surface Stabilization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful research into QD surface electronics and stability requires a specific set of reagents and materials. The following table details key items used in the featured experiments.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for QD Surface Stability Research

Reagent/Material	Function in Research	Example from Literature
Phenethylammonium Bromide (PEABr)	A small ligand for passivating PQD surfaces. Its phenethyl group enables π-π stacking, promoting a dense, stable ligand layer that reduces surface energy and suppresses blinking. [85]	Used to achieve nearly non-blinking and photostable CsPbBr₃ QDs. [85]
Oleylamine / Oleic Acid	Common ligands used in the colloidal synthesis of both PQDs and CdSe QDs. They coordinate to metal sites on the QD surface, controlling growth and providing initial colloidal stability. [10]	Standard ligands used in the hot-injection synthesis of QDs; their binding energy to the QD surface is a key stability factor. [10]
ZnS Precursors	Sources of zinc and sulfur (e.g., diethylzinc, hexamethyldisilathiane) used to grow an inorganic shell around a CdSe core. This shell passivates surface defects, dramatically increasing PLQY and stability. [86] [87]	Coating CdSe cores with ZnS shells enhanced quantum yield to 50%-60% and provided resilience against photobleaching. [86] [87]
Didodecyldimethylammonium Bromide (DDABr)	A ligand used for post-synthetic treatment of PQDs. It helps passivate surface defects, particularly halide vacancies, leading to improved PLQY. [85]	Applied to passivate exposed Pb cations on the surface of CsPbBr₃ QDs. [85]
Inert Atmosphere Glove Box	A critical piece of equipment for synthes and handling air-sensitive materials, particularly PQDs and certain precursors for CdSe QDs, to prevent degradation by oxygen and moisture. [59]	Essential for all synthetic procedures involving organometallic precursors and for processing PQD-based devices. [59]

The direct comparison reveals that both Perovskite QDs and CdSe/ZnS QDs can achieve high levels of optical stability, but they rely on fundamentally different surface engineering philosophies. CdSe/ZnS QDs represent a mature technology where stability is conferred by an inorganic shell, making them robust and reliable for many applications. In contrast, PQDs represent the cutting edge of surface science, where stability is achieved through molecular-level control of organic ligands and their intermolecular interactions. For researchers, the choice between these two systems hinges on the application's specific requirements for emission wavelength, cost, and environmental considerations, against the backdrop of available surface engineering expertise. The ongoing research in surface electronics continues to push the boundaries of performance for both QD families.

Quantitative Assessment of Biocompatibility and Cytotoxicity Profiles

Quantum dots (QDs) are semiconductor nanocrystals, typically ranging from 2 to 10 nm in size, with unique optical and electronic properties derived from quantum confinement effects [88] [86]. Their broad excitation spectra, narrow tunable emission, and high photostability make them valuable tools in biomedical applications, including bioimaging, drug delivery, and biosensing [86]. However, their potential cytotoxicity remains a significant concern for clinical translation, necessitating systematic evaluation of their biological interactions [89] [88].

This review provides a quantitative comparison of the biocompatibility and cytotoxicity profiles of prominent QD types, with a specific focus on cadmium-based (CdSe) and perovskite (PQD) quantum dots within the context of surface electronics research. We present standardized experimental data on cellular responses, detailed methodologies for toxicity assessment, and visualizations of key biological pathways to inform researchers and drug development professionals in their material selection processes.

Quantum Dot Classifications and Properties

Quantum dots are categorized based on their core composition, which fundamentally determines their physicochemical characteristics and biological interactions [88] [86]. The table below summarizes the main QD classes and their key properties.

Table 1: Classification and Properties of Quantum Dots

QD Type	Core Composition	Size Range (nm)	Key Properties	Primary Applications
Cadmium-Based	CdSe, CdTe, CdS	2-10	High quantum yield, tunable emission, narrow bandwidth [86]	Electronics, displays, photovoltaics [90] [57]
Perovskite (PQDs)	CsPbX₃ (X=Br, I, Cl)	2-10	Strong X-ray absorption, high RL intensity, cost-effective synthesis [86]	Solar cells, LEDs, fluorescence detection [86]
Indium-Based	InP/ZnS, CuInS₂/ZnS	6.5-8.5	Cd-free alternative, moderate quantum yield [91]	Biomedical imaging, displays
Carbon-Based	Carbon dots, Graphene QDs	<10	Superior biocompatibility, chemical inertness, photobleaching resistance [86]	Biosensing, drug delivery, bioimaging [86]
Black Phosphorus (BPQDs)	Phosphorous allotrope	Variable	Direct tunable bandgap, high carrier mobility, anisotropic properties [86]	Bioimaging, cancer therapy, fluorescence sensing [86]

Quantitative Cytotoxicity Comparison

The biological effects of QDs have been systematically evaluated across multiple biological models, from in vitro cell cultures to in vivo animal studies [92]. The following tables summarize quantitative toxicity data for different QD types.

Table 2: Viability and Apoptosis Data in Liver Cell Models (24-hour treatment) [91]

QD Type	Core/Shell Structure	Concentration (nM)	THLE-2 Cell Viability (%)	HepG2 Cell Viability (%)	Early Apoptosis (%)
CdSe/ZnS	CdSe/ZnS	50-150	Significant reduction	No reduction	52%
InP/ZnS	InP/ZnS	50-150	Mild reduction	No reduction	Not significant
CuInS₂/ZnS	CuInS₂/ZnS	50-150	Significant reduction	No reduction	38%
NCDs	Nitrogen-doped carbon	50-150	No reduction	No reduction	Not significant

Table 3: Toxicity Mechanisms and Organ-Specific Effects [89] [92]

QD Type	ROS Generation	Primary Toxicity Mechanisms	Affected Organ Systems
CdSe/ZnS	High (as early as 6h)	Cd²⁺ ion release, oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage [89]	Hepatorenal, respiratory, cardiovascular, nervous [92]
InP/ZnS	Moderate	Oxidative stress, inflammation	Liver, immune system
Perovskite PQDs	Potential due to Pb content	Heavy metal ion leakage	Under investigation
Carbon Dots	Low	Minimal oxidative stress	Minimal organ accumulation

Experimental Protocols for Cytotoxicity Assessment

Cell Viability Assay (XTT Assay)

Principle: This colorimetric assay measures the reduction of yellow tetrazolium dye XTT to orange formazan products by metabolic active cells [91].

Procedure:

• Seed cells (e.g., HepG2 or THLE-2) in 96-well plates at density of 1×10⁴ cells/well
• Incubate for 24h at 37°C with 5% CO₂ to allow cell attachment
• Treat with QDs at concentration range (e.g., 10-150 nM) for 24h
• Add XTT reagent and incubate for 2-4h
• Measure absorbance at 475-500nm with reference wavelength at 660-690nm
• Calculate cell viability as percentage of untreated control [91]

Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Detection

Principle: Fluorescent probes (e.g., DCFH-DA) detect intracellular ROS generation, which is a key mechanism of QD-induced toxicity [91] [89].

Procedure:

• Seed cells in appropriate culture vessels and allow to adhere overnight
• Treat with QDs at desired concentrations for specific time points (e.g., 6h)
• Load cells with 10µM DCFH-DA for 30min at 37°C
• Wash with PBS to remove excess probe
• Visualize using fluorescence microscopy or measure fluorescence intensity with plate reader (Ex/Em: 485/535nm)
• Express results as fold-increase compared to untreated controls [91]

Apoptosis Assay (Annexin V/PI Staining)

Principle: Differentiates between live, early apoptotic, late apoptotic, and necrotic cells based on phosphatidylserine externalization and membrane integrity.

Procedure:

• Harvest QD-treated cells by trypsinization
• Wash with cold PBS and resuspend in binding buffer
• Stain with Annexin V-FITC and propidium iodide (PI) for 15min in dark
• Analyze by flow cytometry within 1h
• Distinguish populations: Annexin V⁻/PI⁻ (live), Annexin V⁺/PI⁻ (early apoptotic), Annexin V⁺/PI⁺ (late apoptotic), Annexin V⁻/PI⁺ (necrotic) [91]

Cellular Uptake Mechanisms and Toxicity Pathways

QD Cellular Uptake Pathways

Quantum dots enter cells through various endocytic mechanisms, influenced by their size, surface chemistry, and cell type [86].

Toxicity Signaling Pathways

The cytotoxicity of QDs, particularly cadmium-based variants, involves multiple interconnected pathways that lead to cellular damage and death [89] [88] [92].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for QD Cytotoxicity Evaluation

Reagent/Cell Line	Function/Application	Specific Use in QD Research
HepG2 cells	Hepatocellular carcinoma cell line	Maintains normal drug metabolism functions; model for liver toxicity [91]
THLE-2 cells	Immortalized liver cell line	Non-cancerous human liver model; sensitive to QD toxicity [91]
XTT reagent	Cell viability assay	Measures metabolic activity after QD exposure [91]
DCFH-DA	ROS detection fluorescent probe	Quantifies oxidative stress induced by QDs [91]
Annexin V/PI	Apoptosis detection	Differentiates stages of cell death after QD treatment [91]
CdSe/ZnS QDs	Cadmium-based QD reference	Positive control for cytotoxicity studies [91]
NCDs	Nitrogen-doped carbon dots	Low-toxicity reference material [91]
Mercaptopropionic acid	Surface ligand	Enhances water solubility for biological studies [93]

The quantitative assessment presented herein demonstrates significant variation in biocompatibility profiles across different quantum dot classes. Cadmium-based QDs, particularly CdSe/ZnS, exhibit substantial cytotoxicity through multiple mechanisms including Cd²⁺ ion release, ROS generation, and induction of apoptosis (52% in THLE-2 cells) [91] [89]. While perovskite PQDs offer promising optical properties, concerns regarding heavy metal content necessitate further biocompatibility evaluation [86].

Carbon-based QDs, especially nitrogen-doped carbon dots (NCDs), demonstrate superior biocompatibility with minimal effects on cell viability and apoptosis across multiple cell models [91]. For biomedical applications requiring minimal toxicity, carbon-based QDs currently represent the most favorable option, while cadmium-based variants may still be suitable for electronic applications where biological exposure is limited.

Future development should focus on surface engineering strategies to mitigate toxicity while maintaining optimal electronic properties, particularly for cadmium-free alternatives such as InP/ZnS and carbon-based QDs. Standardized toxicity assessment protocols across research groups will enhance comparability and accelerate the clinical translation of safe QD technologies.

The rapid and accurate identification of bacterial pathogens is a critical challenge in clinical diagnostics, food safety, and public health surveillance. Traditional methods often struggle with prolonged processing times, operational complexity, and insufficient sensitivity for emerging needs. Quantum dot (QD)-based fluorescent sensors, combined with machine learning (ML) algorithms, have emerged as a powerful solution to these limitations, offering the potential for rapid, highly sensitive, and multiplexed detection of microorganisms [58] [94]. This case study provides a performance comparison between two prominent QD types—Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) and Cadmium Selenide (CdSe) QDs—within the specific context of ML-assisted bacterial detection. The analysis is framed within a broader thesis on the performance comparison of PQD versus CdSe quantum dot surface electronics research, examining the interplay between nanomaterial properties, surface functionalization, and computational analysis in creating effective biosensing platforms.

Material Properties and Sensing Mechanisms

Fundamental Properties of Quantum Dots for Bacterial Detection

The exceptional photophysical properties of QDs, including broad absorption spectra, narrow emission bands, and resistance to photobleaching, make them superior to traditional fluorescent dyes for sensing applications [95]. These properties are heavily influenced by the core semiconductor material and surface chemistry, which differ significantly between PQDs and CdSe QDs.

Perovskite Quantum Dots (PQDs) typically feature an ABX₃ crystal structure (where A is an organic cation, B is a metal cation, and X is a halide anion) that confers outstanding optical properties, including high photoluminescence quantum yield and easily tunable emission wavelengths through halide ion exchange [58] [94]. However, lead-based compositions (e.g., CsPbBr₃) raise toxicity concerns and face regulatory barriers for clinical applications, prompting research into lead-free alternatives like bismuth-based Cs₃Bi₂Br₉ PQDs, which offer extended serum stability and improved biocompatibility [58].

Cadmium Selenide (CdSe) QDs are II-VI semiconductors whose size-dependent behavior allows fine-tuning of their bandgap between 1.7–2.5 eV [57]. Their nanoscale dimensions (typically 2-10 nm) create quantum confinement effects that result in discrete energy levels and unique optical characteristics ideal for biological applications [57] [95]. A significant limitation for bacterial detection is that CdSe QDs require specific surface chemistries and small sizes (<5 nm) for effective cellular uptake and labeling [96].

Bacterial Detection Mechanisms

Table 1: Bacterial Detection Mechanisms of PQDs and CdSe QDs

Mechanism	PQDs	CdSe QDs
Primary Interaction	Electrostatic interactions with negatively charged bacterial surfaces [94]	Purine-processing metabolic pathways and specific transport mechanisms [96]
Optical Phenomenon	Aggregation-Caused Quenching (ACQ) [94]	Direct intracellular fluorescence labeling [96]
Light Dependency	Not explicitly stated	Marked dependence on light exposure (aids uptake via oxidative membrane damage) [96]
Size Requirement	Not a critical factor for detection	Strictly requires particles <5 nm for bacterial uptake [96]

The sensing mechanisms differ fundamentally between the two QD types. PQD-based detection primarily relies on electrostatic interactions between the quantum dots and negatively charged components on bacterial cell surfaces, leading to aggregation and consequent fluorescence changes through the Aggregation-Caused Quenching (ACQ) effect [94]. This external interaction means PQDs do not need to penetrate bacterial cells to generate a detectable signal.

In contrast, CdSe QDs can be internalized by bacteria through metabolism-dependent specific uptake mechanisms, particularly when conjugated to purine compounds like adenine and adenosine monophosphate (AMP) [96]. This internal labeling approach requires precise surface engineering and is highly dependent on particle size, with effective labeling only occurring with particles smaller than 5 nm in diameter [96]. The uptake process is also light-dependent, suggesting that light exposure generates oxidative damage to cell membranes that facilitates QD entry [96].

The following diagram illustrates the core detection mechanisms for both types of quantum dots:

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

PQD-based Fluorescent Sensor Array Protocol

The experimental workflow for PQD-based bacterial detection employs a sensor array approach coupled with machine learning analysis [94]:

• PQD Synthesis and Modification: Water-soluble PQDs are synthesized at room temperature through surface modification using a fluorocarbon reagent. Three distinct PQD types with different fluorescence emission peaks (GPQD, CPQD, BPQD) are generated by precisely tuning the chloride ion (Cl⁻) content via hydrochloric acid (HCl) addition, leveraging halide ion exchange reactions.

• Sensor Array Construction: A 3 × 6 fluorescent sensor array is developed on a microplate, creating multiple sensing elements for pattern-based recognition.

• Sample Exposure and Interaction: Bacterial samples are introduced to the array, where electrostatic interactions between PQDs and negatively charged bacterial surfaces induce aggregation, leading to fluorescence color changes through the ACQ effect.

• Signal Acquisition: Relative fluorescence color changes (ΔRGB) are digitally captured using a smartphone-based Color Grab platform, making the system potentially low-cost and field-deployable.

• Machine Learning Analysis: The acquired ΔRGB data are processed and analyzed using the K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) algorithm and principal component analysis (PCA) implemented in MATLAB, enabling efficient recognition and identification of multiple target pathogens.

This methodology has demonstrated 100% accuracy in both blind and real-sample tests, with a limit of detection (LOD) ranging from 92 to 121 CFU mL⁻¹ for individual bacterial species [94].

CdSe QD Bacterial Labeling Protocol

The experimental protocol for CdSe QD-based bacterial labeling involves specific conjugation and uptake procedures [96]:

• QD Synthesis and Conjugation: Bare CdSe QDs or CdSe/ZnS core-shell QDs are synthesized and solubilized with mercaptoacetic acid (MAA) or dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA). The QDs are then conjugated to primary-amine-containing molecules (adenine or AMP) using the activator 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC). Conjugates are purified through dialysis against sterile distilled water.

• Bacterial Strain Preparation: Clonal cultures of bacterial strains (e.g., Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli) are grown to logarithmic growth phase in appropriate nutrient medium. Specific mutant strains lacking single enzymes in purine metabolism pathways are used to study uptake mechanisms.

• Incubation with QD Conjugates: 50-200 μL of conjugate is added to 250 μL of bacterial culture and ~0.8 mL of nutrient medium, achieving final QD concentrations of ~10-40 nM for bare CdSe and 2-10 nM for core-shell CdSe/ZnS. Control cultures include killed bacteria (heat-killed or freeze-thaw), metabolically inhibited cultures (with EDTA), and competitive controls with unlabeled adenine or hypoxanthine.

• Uptake and Visualization: After incubation, bacterial cultures are pelleted by centrifugation and washed in saline to eliminate medium fluorescence and unbound QDs. The resulting suspension is subjected to spectrofluorimetry and fluorescence microscopy to detect successful labeling.

• Mechanistic Validation: Mutant strains with specific enzymatic deficiencies (e.g., lacking adenine deaminase or adenosine phosphoribosyltransferase) are used to validate the metabolism-dependent uptake mechanism.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps in both detection approaches:

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Table 2: Performance Comparison of PQD and CdSe QD in Bacterial Detection

Performance Metric	PQD-Based Detection	CdSe QD-Based Detection
Limit of Detection (LOD)	92-121 CFU mL⁻¹ for individual bacterial species [94]	Not explicitly quantified; dependent on conjugation and uptake efficiency [96]
Accuracy	100% in blind and real-sample tests [94]	Qualitative differentiation based on metabolic pathways [96]
Multiplexing Capacity	High (6 pathogens plus binary/ternary mixtures) [94]	Limited to differential labeling based on metabolic properties [96]
Detection Time	Rapid (methodology emphasizes speed) [94]	Time-course of hours for uptake and extrusion [96]
Species Discrimination	Yes (6 pathogenic bacteria) [94]	Yes (gram-negative vs. gram-positive, wild-type vs. mutants) [96]
Stability	Aqueous-phase degradation remains a challenge [58]	Good stability with surface passivation [96] [57]

Machine Learning Integration and Data Processing

The integration of machine learning differs significantly between the two approaches, reflecting their distinct detection philosophies.

In the PQD-based system, machine learning is an integral component of the detection platform [94]. The K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) algorithm and principal component analysis (PCA) are employed to process the fluorescence color change patterns (ΔRGB) captured by smartphone. This approach enables complete discrimination of multiple bacteria in tap water, demonstrating the power of combining sensor arrays with pattern recognition algorithms for complex sample analysis. The digital nature of the signal acquisition also facilitates potential integration with cloud-based analysis and remote diagnostics.

For CdSe QD-based detection, machine learning applications are less developed in the available literature. The discrimination capability primarily relies on biological differences in purine metabolism between bacterial strains and species, observed through differential fluorescence labeling in wild-type versus mutant strains [96]. While this provides valuable mechanistic insights into bacterial metabolism and QD uptake pathways, it offers less flexibility for broad-spectrum pathogen detection compared to the pattern-based approach of PQD sensor arrays.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for QD-Based Bacterial Detection

Reagent/Category	Function in Experimental Protocol	Specific Examples
QD Core Materials	Provides fundamental semiconductor properties and fluorescence emission	CdSe cores [96] [57], Perovskite (CsPbBr₃, Cs₃Bi₂Br₉) [58]
Surface Ligands/Passivating Agents	Enhances water solubility, stability, and functionalization capabilities	Mercaptoacetic acid (MAA) [96], Dihydrolipoic acid (DHLA) [96], Fluorocarbon reagents [94]
Conjugation Molecules	Enables specific targeting and uptake mechanisms	Adenine, Adenosine Monophosphate (AMP) [96]
Crosslinking Agents	Facilitates covalent attachment of functional molecules to QD surfaces	1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC) [96]
Bacterial Growth Media	Supports bacterial cultivation for experimentation	Luria-Bertani (LB) medium [96], Minimal medium with specific carbon sources [96]
Machine Learning Algorithms	Processes fluorescence data for pathogen identification and classification	K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) [94], Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [94]

Discussion and Comparative Analysis

Performance Trade-offs and Application Suitability

The comparative analysis reveals distinct performance trade-offs between PQD and CdSe QD platforms that direct their suitability for different applications.

The PQD-based sensor array excels in scenarios requiring rapid, multiplexed detection of multiple bacterial pathogens with high accuracy and minimal sample processing [94]. The non-invasive nature of the detection (relying on external electrostatic interactions rather than cellular uptake) simplifies assay design and reduces dependence on bacterial viability and metabolic state. The integration with smartphone-based detection makes this platform particularly promising for point-of-care testing and resource-limited settings. However, aqueous-phase degradation and lead toxicity concerns for some PQD compositions remain significant challenges for clinical implementation [58].

CdSe QD-based detection offers unique capabilities for studying bacterial metabolism and specific transport mechanisms [96]. The metabolism-dependent labeling provides information not just on presence/absence of bacteria, but on their functional metabolic state, which could be valuable in research settings investigating bacterial physiology or antibiotic susceptibility. The internal labeling also facilitates single-cell analysis through fluorescence microscopy. However, the strict size requirement (<5 nm), light-dependent uptake, and longer time course limit its utility for rapid diagnostics. Toxicity concerns surrounding cadmium content also present barriers for clinical diagnostic use [57].

Future Research Directions

Future advances in QD-based bacterial detection will likely focus on several key areas. For PQD platforms, developing robust lead-free formulations with maintained optical properties and long-term stability under physiological conditions is crucial for clinical translation [58]. Enhanced surface engineering to improve specificity and reduce non-specific binding would also expand application potential. For CdSe systems, addressing toxicity concerns through advanced core-shell structures and surface passivation techniques could enable safer implementation [57] [95].

Both platforms would benefit from more sophisticated machine learning integration, potentially incorporating deep learning approaches for improved pattern recognition and classification accuracy. The development of standardized validation protocols and direct comparison studies would also help establish relative performance metrics across different bacterial species and sample matrices.

This performance comparison demonstrates that both Perovskite Quantum Dots and Cadmium Selenide Quantum dots offer distinct advantages for machine learning-assisted bacterial detection, albeit through fundamentally different mechanisms and with different application profiles. PQD-based sensor arrays provide superior performance for rapid, multiplexed detection of multiple bacterial pathogens with high accuracy and minimal sample processing, making them well-suited for diagnostic applications. CdSe QDs, while less developed for direct diagnostic use, offer valuable insights into bacterial metabolism and enable internal labeling for single-cell analysis, making them particularly useful for research applications investigating bacterial physiology and uptake mechanisms.

The continuing evolution of both platforms will be shaped by advances in material science addressing toxicity and stability concerns, alongside more sophisticated machine learning integration for enhanced analytical capabilities. As these technologies mature, they hold significant promise for transforming bacterial detection across clinical, environmental, and food safety domains.

Evaluating Scalability, Manufacturing Costs, and Commercial Readiness

Quantum dots (QDs) represent a revolutionary class of semiconductor nanomaterials with unique optical and electronic properties derived from quantum confinement effects. Among various QD materials, cadmium selenide (CdSe) quantum dots have been extensively studied and commercialized, serving as a benchmark in the field. More recently, perovskite quantum dots (PQDs) have emerged as promising alternatives with exceptional optical characteristics. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison between these two prominent QD families, focusing on critical evaluation parameters of scalability, manufacturing costs, and commercial readiness for researchers and industry professionals.

The performance of QDs in optoelectronic devices is fundamentally governed by their nanoscale surface characteristics, which influence charge transfer, stability, and emission properties. Surface engineering plays a pivotal role in determining the commercial viability of both CdSe and perovskite quantum dots, making direct comparison essential for guiding research and development investments.

Performance Comparison: PQDs vs. CdSe QDs

Optical and Electronic Properties

Table 1: Comparison of Key Optical and Electronic Properties between PQDs and CdSe QDs

Property	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs	Measurement Conditions
PLQY (Photoluminescence Quantum Yield)	Near-unity (>90%) [44] [97]	High (40-60% for CdTe variants) [98]	Solution measurements at room temperature
FWHM (Full Width at Half Maximum)	20 nm or less [99]	25-35 nm typical	Emission spectrum measurement
Emission Tunability	Entire visible spectrum via halide composition [44]	Visible spectrum via size control (450-650 nm) [11]	Varying synthesis parameters
Absorption Coefficient	Extremely high [44]	High	UV-Vis spectroscopy
Carrier Lifetime	Short radiative lifetime [97]	Subject to charging effects on conductive substrates [11]	Time-resolved PL spectroscopy
Stokes Shift	Large [44]	Moderate	Comparison of absorption vs. emission peaks

Stability and Reliability Metrics

Table 2: Stability Comparison under Environmental Stressors

Stress Factor	Perovskite QDs	CdSe QDs	Testing Methodology
Moisture Stability	High sensitivity; degrades under humidity [44] [100]	Moderate stability; requires encapsulation	Humidity chamber testing at 85% RH
Thermal Stability	Moderate; degradation at elevated temperatures [44]	Good thermal stability	Heating stage with in-situ PL monitoring
Photostability	Varies; can show degradation under continuous illumination [11]	Good photostability with proper shelling	Continuous laser excitation at operating intensities
Operational Lifetime	Improving with encapsulation (960+ hours with PMMA) [100]	Established long-term stability in commercial products	Accelerated aging tests under device operating conditions
Surface Oxidation	Susceptible without passivation [44]	Resistant with proper shell encapsulation	XPS analysis after air exposure

Scalability and Manufacturing Considerations

Synthesis Methods and Scalability

Perovskite QD Synthesis: PQDs are commonly synthesized via ligand-assisted reprecipitation (LARP) at room temperature, enabling high-quality nanocrystals with PLQY exceeding 90% [99]. Recent advances have demonstrated flow synthesis techniques that outperform conventional batch methods, enabling accelerated development and continuous manufacturing [101]. Microfluidic synthesis approaches are achieving improved batch-to-batch uniformity while reducing reagent consumption [100].

CdSe QD Synthesis: CdSe QDs typically require high-temperature pyrolysis (250-300°C) in organic solvents with precise injection protocols [11]. Aqueous synthesis routes have been developed for specific applications, such as using ammonia as a reducing agent for CdTe QDs to replace conventional hydride reagents [98]. These methods offer cost-effective production but may compromise optical performance compared to organometallic approaches.

Manufacturing Costs Analysis

Table 3: Manufacturing Cost and Scalability Factors

Factor	Perovskite QDs	CdSe QDs	Commercial Impact
Raw Material Costs	Lower cost precursors (organic amines, metal halides)	Higher cost (cadmium, selenium precursors); cadmium-free alternatives more expensive	CdSe more affected by rare earth material scarcity [102] [100]
Production Scale-Up	Emerging continuous flow processes [101]	Established batch processes; scaling challenges	PQDs show potential for more efficient mass production
Energy Consumption	Lower (room temperature synthesis possible)	Higher (elevated temperatures required)	Significant for operational expenses
Environmental Compliance	Lead content concerns driving lead-free alternatives	Cadmium toxicity regulations (EU RoHS) [100]	Both face regulatory challenges; cadmium-free QDs gaining traction
Capital Investment	Developing manufacturing infrastructure	Established production lines	Higher initial investment for CdSe production scale-up

Commercial Readiness and Application Analysis

Current Market Adoption

CdSe QDs currently dominate the commercial QD market, holding approximately 48.3% of 2024 revenues [100]. They have achieved significant market penetration in display technologies, particularly as color converters in liquid crystal displays (LCDs) with quantum dot enhancement films (QDEF). The biological imaging segment represents another mature application area for CdSe QDs, leveraging their brightness and photostability for fluorescence labeling [102].

Perovskite QDs are experiencing rapid commercialization in display backlighting applications, with market projections indicating a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.7% [100]. Their near-unity PLQY and narrow emission linewidths make them particularly attractive for wide color gamut displays. Recent developments in surface engineering and encapsulation have addressed initial stability concerns, enabling their integration into commercial display prototypes.

Application-Specific Readiness

Table 4: Commercial Readiness by Application Area

Application	Perovskite QDs	CdSe QDs	Key Challenges
Display Backlighting	Rapid commercialization; used in QD-OLED architectures [100]	Established technology; dominant in film-type displays [103]	PQD stability under blue LED excitation; CdSe regulatory compliance
Emissive Displays	Research phase; promising electroluminescent devices	Advanced development; QLED prototypes demonstrated	Device efficiency and lifetime for both technologies
Biological Imaging	Limited by potential lead toxicity	Established with core-shell structures for reduced toxicity	Biocompatibility and regulatory approval
Photovoltaics	Promising for luminescent downshifting layers [44]	Limited commercial adoption	Long-term stability under solar irradiation
Lighting Products	Emerging for high-color-quality LED lighting	Commercial products available	Cost competitiveness with conventional phosphors

Experimental Protocols for Surface Electronics Research

Fabrication of Quantum Dot Thin Films

Substrate Preparation Protocol:

• Clean ITO/glass and glass substrates sequentially with acetone, ethanol, and deionized water in an ultrasonic cleaner
• Dry substrates using nitrogen gas stream
• Treat substrates with oxygen plasma for 15 minutes
• Transfer substrates into an inert atmosphere glovebox for subsequent processing [11]

QD Film Deposition:

• Prepare QD solution (50 mg/mL concentration) in toluene
• Spin-coat onto substrates at 1000 rpm for 60 seconds
• Anneal at 100°C for 15 minutes to remove residual solvent
• Expected film thickness: approximately 90 nm [11]

Surface Passivation for PQDs:

• Utilize atomic layer deposition (ALD) with trimethylaluminum (TMA) and ozone precursors
• Maintain substrate temperature at 150°C
• Execute 200 deposition cycles (approximately 2.5 Å/cycle)
• Result: conformal Al₂O₃ coating providing protection against moisture and oxygen [97]

Photoluminescence Characterization

Steady-State PL Measurement:

• Excitation source: frequency-doubled 400 nm femtosecond laser (<100 fs pulse duration, 1 kHz repetition rate)
• Signal collection: Vertical collection through objective lens with 500 nm long-pass filter
• Detection: Spectrometer with CCD camera (e.g., Princeton Instruments Acton SpectraPro SP-2300 with PIXIS 400 CCD)
• Spectral range: 500-800 nm with 1 nm resolution [11]

Time-Resolved PL Dynamics:

• Excitation conditions: Vary pump fluence from low (single exciton regime) to high (multiexciton regime)
• Detection: Time-correlated single photon counting (TCSPC) module (e.g., PicoHarp 300)
• Data analysis: Multi-exponential fitting of decay curves to extract lifetime components
• Environmental control: Room temperature in ambient atmosphere or controlled environment [11]

Stability Testing Protocols

Environmental Stress Tests:

• Temperature/Humidity Testing: Place samples in environmental chamber at 60°C/90% RH for extended periods
• Photostability Testing: Continuous illumination under blue LED (450-470 nm) at operating intensities
• Thermal Cycling: Expose samples to temperature cycles (-40°C to +85°C) to assess interfacial reliability
• Performance Monitoring: Regular PLQY, absorption, and lifetime measurements at defined intervals [97] [100]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Materials

Table 5: Key Research Reagents and Materials for QD Surface Electronics Research

Material/Reagent	Function	Specific Examples	Application Notes
Formamidinium Bromide (FABr)	Perovskite precursor for high-performance PQDs	FAPbBr₃ QD synthesis [97]	Improved thermal stability over methylammonium counterparts
Lead Bromide (PbBr₂)	Metal halide precursor for PQDs	CsPbBr₃, FAPbBr₃ synthesis [97]	High purity (>99.99%) required for optimal performance
Cadmium Selenide Core QDs	Benchmark material for comparison	Red-emitting CdSe/ZnS QDs [11]	Commercial sources available (e.g., Suzhou Xingshuo Nanotech)
Oleic Acid/Oleyamine	Surface ligands for nanocrystal stabilization	Both PQD and CdSe QD synthesis [97] [11]	Ratio critical for controlling nanocrystal size and morphology
Trimethylaluminum (TMA)	ALD precursor for surface passivation	Al₂O₃ coating on PQDs [97]	Moisture-sensitive; requires careful handling
ITO-coated Glass Substrates	Conductive transparent electrodes	Device fabrication and charging studies [11]	Sheet resistance 10-15 Ω/sq, transparency >85%
3-Mercaptopropionic Acid (MPA)	Water-soluble ligand for aqueous synthesis	CdTe QD preparation [98]	Enables bioconjugation for biological applications

The comparative analysis of perovskite and CdSe quantum dots reveals a complex landscape where material selection is highly application-dependent. CdSe QDs maintain advantages in commercial readiness and stability, with established manufacturing processes and proven device integration. However, they face increasing regulatory pressure due to cadmium content and supply chain challenges for rare earth materials.

Perovskite QDs demonstrate superior optical performance in key metrics including photoluminescence quantum yield, narrow emission linewidths, and wider color gamut potential. Their simpler synthesis and lower temperature processing offer cost advantages for mass production. Current limitations primarily revolve around environmental stability, though rapid progress in encapsulation strategies is addressing these concerns.

For display applications, PQDs are gaining traction in backlighting systems, while CdSe QDs maintain dominance in existing display products. In emerging fields such as electroluminescent displays and quantum light sources, both materials face significant development challenges but show promising pathways toward commercialization. The future QD landscape will likely feature both material families, with selection criteria based on specific application requirements, regulatory environment, and cost considerations.

The performance of quantum dots (QDs) in biomedical applications is predominantly governed by their surface electronic structure. The interface between the nanocrystal core and its biological environment dictates critical parameters including quantum yield, colloidal stability, bioconjugation efficiency, and ultimately, cellular toxicity. This guide provides a structured comparison between perovskite quantum dots (PQDs) and cadmium selenide (CdSe) QDs, focusing on their surface electronics to inform selection for specific biomedical use cases. While CdSe QDs represent a more mature technology with well-characterized surface ligand chemistry, emerging PQDs offer distinct advantages in tunability and charge transport properties that are particularly relevant for applications requiring high energy transfer efficiency or electrical sensing. The following sections synthesize recent experimental data to create a decision matrix, empowering researchers to make evidence-based selections for bioimaging, biosensing, and drug delivery applications.

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 1: Core Material Property Comparison between PQDs and CdSe QDs

Property	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs	Impact on Biomedical Performance
Tunable Emission Range	400-800 nm [66]	450-650 nm (CdSe); NIR ~1000 nm (PbS) [66]	Determines tissue penetration depth and multiplexing capability.
Peak Quantum Yield (QY)	Up to ~90% (Blue-emitting) [104]	50%-90% (Core/Shell CdSe/ZnS) [66]	Directly impacts brightness for bioimaging and detection sensitivity.
Photostability	Improving with new ligand strategies [104]	Superior to organic dyes; sustains fluorescence >60 mins [66]	Critical for long-term imaging and tracking studies.
Blinking	Exhibits intermittency [66]	Exhibits intermittency, impacts real-time imaging [66]	Can introduce noise in single-particle tracking experiments.
Typical Size Range	Varies by composition	2-6 nm (CdSe); up to 8 nm (InP) [66]	Affects renal clearance, biodistribution, and intracellular trafficking.

Table 2: Biomedical Performance and Toxicity Profile

Parameter	Perovskite QDs (PQDs)	CdSe QDs	Experimental Context
Detection Sensitivity	Demonstrated in diagnostic composites [66]	Picomolar (10⁻¹² M) to femtomolar (10⁻¹⁵ M) levels [66]	Sensitivity for biomarker detection in complex biofluids.
In Vitro Toxicity	Lower cytotoxicity with proper passivation [105]	High intrinsic toxicity due to Cd²⁺ ion leaching [106]	Primary cell culture assays; dependent on surface coating.
Biocompatibility	Generally higher; lead content remains a concern [105]	Lower; requires extensive shelling/passivation [107] [106]	Overall potential for in vivo application and clinical translation.
Surface Functionalization	Tunable with aromatic/short-chain ligands [104]	Well-established for antibodies, peptides, aptamers [66]	Ease of conjugating targeting moieties and biomolecules.
Scalability & Cost	Facile, low-temperature synthesis [108]	Established but can involve expensive precursors [109]	Consideration for large-scale therapeutic or diagnostic production.

Experimental Protocols for Key Characterization Assays

Protocol for Assessing Photoluminescence Quantum Yield (PLQY)

Objective: To accurately determine the absolute fluorescence quantum yield of QD solutions, a critical parameter for predicting bioimaging performance [104].

Materials:

• Integrating Sphere: Coupled to a spectrophotometer with a calibrated detector.
• QD Sample Solution: Precisely diluted in a suitable solvent (e.g., toluene, hexane) to an optical density typically between 0.05 and 0.1 at the excitation wavelength to minimize inner filter effects.
• Reference Standards: Such as rhodamine 6G in ethanol (QY ~95%) for visible-emitting QDs, to validate the measurement system.

Methodology:

• System Calibration: The integrating sphere system is first calibrated using a non-fluorescent reference standard (e.g., a scattering material) to define baseline signal levels.
• Sample Measurement: The QD sample solution is placed in a quartz cuvette and positioned within the integrating sphere. The sample is excited at a defined wavelength (e.g., 350-400 nm), and the full emission spectrum is captured.
• Data Analysis: The absolute PLQY (Φ) is calculated from the acquired spectra using the software-provided algorithm, which compares the integrated intensity of the emitted photons to the number of absorbed photons. Measurements should be performed in triplicate to ensure statistical significance.

Protocol for Cytotoxicity Assessment (MTT Assay)

Objective: To evaluate the in vitro cytotoxicity of QDs, a mandatory step preceding any biological application [106] [105].

Materials:

• Cell Line: A relevant human cell line (e.g., HeLa, HEK293).
• Cell Culture Media: Complete media (e.g., DMEM with 10% FBS).
• QD Dispersions: Sterile-filtered QDs dispersed in PBS or culture media at a concentrated stock solution.
• MTT Reagent: (3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) prepared in PBS.
• Microplate Reader: For measuring absorbance at 570 nm.

Methodology:

• Cell Seeding: Seed cells in a 96-well plate at a density of 1x10⁴ cells per well and culture for 24 hours to allow adherence.
• QD Treatment: Replace the media with fresh media containing a serial dilution of the QDs (e.g., 0-200 µg/mL). Include wells with media only (blank) and untreated cells (control).
• Incubation: Incubate the plate for 24-48 hours at 37°C and 5% CO₂.
• Viability Measurement: Add MTT reagent to each well and incubate for 2-4 hours. During this time, metabolically active cells reduce MTT to purple formazan crystals. Carefully remove the media and dissolve the formazan crystals in DMSO.
• Analysis: Measure the absorbance of the solution at 570 nm. Calculate the cell viability as a percentage of the untreated control. The half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) can be determined from the dose-response curve.

Visualization of Surface Modification and Experimental Workflow

QD Surface Modification for Biomedical Applications

Workflow for In Vitro Bioimaging and Toxicity Screening

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents for QD Synthesis and Biomedical Functionalization

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
Oleic Acid (OA) / Oleylamine	Common surface ligands in initial synthesis; provide colloidal stability in non-polar solvents.	Often replaced via ligand exchange for water solubility [104] [37].
Aromatic Ligands (e.g., 3-F-CA)	Short-chain ligands enhancing inter-dot attraction and charge transport [104].	Used in PQDs and CdSe QDs to improve long-range order and QLED performance [104].
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)	Surface passivating agent; improves biocompatibility, reduces non-specific binding, and extends blood circulation time.	A critical step for reducing immunogenicity in vivo [106] [105].
Mercaptounderanoic Acid	Ligand for phase transfer; provides carboxyl groups for subsequent bioconjugation.	Creates water-soluble QDs; -COOH groups enable EDC/NHS chemistry [106].
EDC / NHS Chemistry Kit	Activates carboxyl groups for covalent coupling to primary amines on antibodies or peptides.	Standard method for creating stable bioconjugates for targeted delivery [66].
AMUPol Biradical	Polarizing agent for Dynamic Nuclear Polarization (DNP) NMR.	Essential for enhancing NMR sensitivity to study atomic-level surface structure [37].
MTT Assay Kit	Colorimetric assay for measuring cell metabolic activity and cytotoxicity.	Standardized kit for high-throughput screening of QD toxicity [106].

Decision Matrix and Application-Specific Recommendations

For High-Resolution, Long-Term Bioimaging:

• Recommendation: CdSe/ZnS Core/Shell QDs. Their superior photostability and high quantum yield (50-90%) make them ideal for tracking biological processes over time with minimal photobleaching [66]. While PQDs can achieve high QY, their stability under prolonged illumination, especially for blue emitters, is still a key research focus [104].
• Surface Engineering: A robust ZnS shell is non-negotiable to prevent cadmium leakage. Subsequent PEGylation and functionalization with targeting ligands (e.g., antibodies) are required for specific imaging.

For Ultrasensitive, Multiplexed Biosensing:

• Recommendation: PQDs or Cadmium-Free QDs. For diagnostic composites requiring femtomolar sensitivity, both can be effective [66] [108]. The narrower emission spectra of PQDs can provide an edge in multiplexing. However, for applications where heavy metal content is a strict regulatory concern, cadmium-free alternatives like indium phosphide (InP) or carbon/graphene QDs are preferable [109] [107] [106].
• Surface Engineering: Precise control over surface electronics is crucial to facilitate efficient charge or energy transfer in sensor designs. Aromatic ligands can be exploited to enhance these interactions [104].

For Targeted Drug Delivery and Theranostics:

• Recommendation: Graphene Quantum Dots (GQDs) or Carbon Dots (CDs). If the primary function is delivery with imaging as a secondary feature, these carbon-based QDs are superior due to their proven low toxicity, excellent biocompatibility, and large surface area for high drug-loading capacity via π-π stacking [107] [106].
• Surface Engineering: The abundance of surface functional groups (-COOH, -OH) on GQDs and CDs allows for straightforward conjugation of both therapeutic molecules and targeting moieties [107].

Summary: The choice between PQDs and CdSe QDs is a trade-off between performance and biocompatibility. CdSe-based QDs currently lead in predictable, high-performance optical output for in vitro and potentially ex vivo diagnostics. PQDs represent the frontier for high-efficiency optoelectronic applications, but their clinical translation hinges on resolving lead toxicity concerns. For any in vivo therapeutic application, cadmium-free QDs, especially GQDs and CDs, currently present the most viable path toward clinical approval due to their favorable safety profile [107] [106].

Conclusion

The choice between Perovskite and CdSe quantum dots is not a matter of simple superiority but of aligning material properties with specific application needs. PQDs demonstrate exceptional promise with their high defect tolerance, superior color purity, and ease of synthesis, though their commercial translation is currently hindered by long-term stability concerns. CdSe QDs, as a more mature technology, offer greater stability and a well-understood surface chemistry, yet their inherent cadmium toxicity requires careful engineering for safe in vivo use. The future of QDs in biomedical and clinical research lies in the continued innovation of surface engineering—developing robust, non-toxic passivation layers and smart functionalization techniques. Success in this endeavor will unlock the full potential of quantum dots for sensitive diagnostics, targeted therapies, and advanced clinical imaging, pushing the boundaries of precision medicine.

References

• 1. Approaching high-performance light-emitting devices upon ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1748013222000767]
• 2. Atomic Identification of Interfaces in Individual Core@shell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8596122/]
• 3. Realizing low voltage-driven bright and stable quantum ... dot [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-024-01727-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=84be5aba-4221-4daa-975a-5e5b5d0601cc]
• 4. How to improve the structural stabilities of halide perovskite ... [https://nanoconvergencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40580-024-00412-x]
• 5. Perovskite quantum solar cell achieves record-breaking efficiency... dot [https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/10/08/perovskite-quantum-dot-solar-cell-achieves-record-breaking-efficiency-of-18-3/]
• 6. Solution-processed colloidal quantum dots for internet of things [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/nr/d4nr00203b]
• 7. Advances in Quantum-Dot-Based Displays - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7407652/]
• 8. Review Stability strategies of perovskite quantum dots and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025540822002586]
• 9. Defect and Size Controlled CdSe Quantum Dot Sensitized ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27969-y]
• 10. Thermal tolerance of perovskite quantum dots dependent ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37943-6]
• 11. Comparative study of photoluminescence dynamics ... [https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-32-20-35345]
• 12. Performance Enhancement of CdS/CdSe Quantum Dot ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s11671-018-2842-5]
• 13. Highly Orientated Perovskite Quantum Dot Solids for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35905705/]
• 14. Machine learning models for accurately predicting ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-08110-2]
• 15. Quantum dot-based non-volatile memory - RSC Publishing [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ra/d4ra08307e]
• 16. Excited States and Their Dynamics in CdSe Quantum Dots ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8842281/]
• 17. Determination of band alignment of core/shell colloidal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950257825000022]
• 18. Charge transport dynamics and emission response in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542529324001688]
• 19. Pioneering perovskite quantum dot nanosensors for heavy ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ra/d5ra06200d?page=search]
• 20. A universal high-resolution micro-patterning technique for ... [https://www.light-am.com/article/doi/10.37188/lam.2025.015]
• 21. Cadmium-Free Quantum Dots: Safer Alternatives for ... [https://nomcorp.com/cadmium-free-quantum-dots-safer-alternatives-for-modern-applications/]
• 22. Femtosecond laser processing for the perovskite quantum ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352940725003506]
• 23. Perovskite-based quantum dots - a guest post by Ossila [https://www.perovskite-info.com/perovskite-based-quantum-dots-guest-post-ossila]
• 24. Advances in Solution-Processed Blue Quantum Dot Light ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10222311/]
• 25. Review article Perovskite quantum dots: What's next? [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949821X24000577]
• 26. Optical refrigeration on cadmium selenide/cadmium sulfide ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97958-5]
• 27. Enhancing The Photoluminescence Properties of CsPbBr 3 ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925838825066137]
• 28. High photoluminescence quantum yield and stability ... [https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-32-21-36964]
• 29. Controlling the luminescence of CdSe quantum dots in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022309324004253]
• 30. Enhancing luminescence efficiency of CdSe quantum dots ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386424005733]
• 31. The role of surface ligands in determining the electronic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/nr/c7nr06116a]
• 32. Research progress on surface ligand engineering and size ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775325005981]
• 33. Probing the Origin of the Open Circuit Voltage in Perovskite ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10156082/]
• 34. Study: Cadmium Molecules Improve Light-Emitting Properties ... [https://chem.unc.edu/news/study-shows-cadmium-improves-light-emitting-properties-in-tiny-particles/]
• 35. Effect of Surface Ligand Modification on the Optical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468023025023211]
• 36. Effect of Ligands and Solvents on the Stability of Electron ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8573769/]
• 37. Decoding structural transitions from CdSe nanoclusters to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62724-8]
• 38. Unveiling non-radiative center control in CsPbBr 3 ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12274-023-6326-2]
• 39. Article Understanding the ligand-assisted reprecipitation of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590238523002412]
• 40. Comparative Analysis of Quantum Dot Synthesis: Methods, ... [https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202506.0248]
• 41. High-performance CdSe/CdS@ZnO quantum dots enabled ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385894721027406]
• 42. Understanding the Ligand-Assisted Reprecipitation of ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/63e3e02e805bad91da2673f0]
• 43. Synthesis of CdSe Quantum Dots in Two Solvents ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10779661/]
• 44. Recent Advances in Colloidal Quantum Dots or Perovskite ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8954604/]
• 45. Surface functionalization of quantum dots for biological ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001868614002887]
• 46. Overview of Stabilizing Ligands for Biocompatible ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/11/12/11036]
• 47. Comprehensive analysis of the effects of CdSe quantum ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22587339/]
• 48. Enhancing the stability and biological functionalities of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17956097/]
• 49. Extracellular biosynthesis of biocompatible CdSe quantum ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8676549/]
• 50. Applications of Quantum Dots in Bioimaging and Bioassays [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/materials-science-and-engineering/biosensors-and-imaging/qd-in-bioimaging-and-bioassays]
• 51. Semiconductor Quantum Dots for Bioimaging and Biodiagnostic Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3733675/]
• 52. Designing multifunctional quantum dots for bioimaging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3212036/]
• 53. Biocompatible Quantum Dots for Biological Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3752999/]
• 54. Luminescent quantum dots: Synthesis, optical properties, bioimaging and toxicity - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169409X2300145X]
• 55. Exploring quantitative cellular bioimaging and assessment ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039914021000837]
• 56. Near infrared quantum dots for biosensing and bioimaging [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993624004059]
• 57. Advancing CdSe quantum dots for batteries and supercapacitors [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ra/d5ra02414e]
• 58. Next-Generation Biosensing with Perovskite Quantum Dots [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872204025001860]
• 59. Environmentally friendly synthesis of quantum dots and their ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12334784/]
• 60. Revealing the Nano-empowered Fluorescent Sensor ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224425004182]
• 61. Quantum dot nanotechnology: Advancing target drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949829525000415]
• 62. Advancing Cancer Therapy with Quantum Dots and Other ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11898779/]
• 63. Semiconductor Quantum Dots as Target Analytes [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9318497/]
• 64. Preparation and characterization of novel CdSe quantum ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X06000887]
• 65. Surface modification of CdSe quantum dots for biosensing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040609010011855]
• 66. Quantum dot-infused nanocomposites - RSC Publishing [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/nr/d5nr00440c?page=search]
• 67. Surface decorated quantum dots: Synthesis, properties and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10070951/]
• 68. Quantum dots as a platform for nanoparticle drug delivery ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3541463/]
• 69. Encapsulation of lead halide perovskite quantum dots in ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/dt/d1dt01444g]
• 70. Effect of size and shape on electronic and optical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030402617313785]
• 71. Assessing the Environmental Effects Related to Quantum Dot ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8992011/]
• 72. Multiphoton Excitation of CsPbBr3 Perovskite Quantum ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6750835/]
• 73. Enhancing pure red perovskite LEDs via In-Situ etching ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352940725003142]
• 74. Aqueous synthesis of core / shell /shell CdSe /CdS/ZnS quantum ... dots [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10853-019-03484-x]
• 75. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Surface of Passivation ... CdSe Quantum [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42359?error=cookies_not_supported&code=09a7b560-6d85-44e8-9c64-af07df329807]
• 76. High-quality perovskite quantum dots with excellent ... [https://www.light-am.com/article/doi/10.37188/lam.2025.012]
• 77. Modulating Hole Transfer from CdSe Quantum Dots by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12142658/]
• 78. Exceptionally long-lived charge-separated states in CdS ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2451929425003511]
• 79. Enriching conductive capping by alkaline treatment of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63618-5]
• 80. Methods for Conjugating Antibodies with Quantum Dots [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12526299/]
• 81. A Comparison of Common Quantum Dot Alternatives to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11243397/]
• 82. The effect of surface charge on cellular uptake and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2215038220300236]
• 83. Intercalation of carbon quantum dots into the selective ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969725006473]
• 84. Current advances in quantum dots (QDs) and carbon ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352492825017167]
• 85. Towards non-blinking and photostable perovskite quantum ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55619-7]
• 86. Quantum Dots as a Potential Multifunctional Material for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11243735/]
• 87. Research on CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dots-Doped Polymer ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/14/17/1463]
• 88. Revisiting the cytotoxicity of quantum dots: an in-depth overview [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7311601/]
• 89. Toxicity evaluation of cadmium-containing quantum dots [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927776521000539]
• 90. Highly enhanced Quantum dot light-emitting diode ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925346724006931]
• 91. A Comparison of Common Quantum Dot Alternatives to ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/14/13/1086]
• 92. An update on the biological effects of quantum dots [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723017850]
• 93. Quantum Dots with Highly Efficient, Stable, and Multicolor ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7379387/]
• 94. Perovskite quantum dot-based fluorescent sensor array ... [https://www.perovskite-info.com/perovskite-quantum-dot-based-fluorescent-sensor-array-coupled-machine-learning]
• 95. Superior Properties and Biomedical Applications of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7582318/]
• 96. Uptake of CdSe and CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dots into Bacteria ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1087584/]
• 97. High-Reliability Perovskite Quantum Dots Using Atomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736641/]
• 98. Cost-effective, hydride-free aqueous synthesis of CdTe ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022024825001307]
• 99. A universal high-resolution micro-patterning technique for ... [https://www.light-am.com/en/article/doi/10.37188/lam.2025.015]
• 100. Quantum Dots (QD) Market Size & Share Analysis [https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/quantum-dots-market-industry]
• 101. Flow Synthesis of Metal Halide Perovskite Quantum Dots [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590238520303829]
• 102. Quantum Dots Market : Global Industry Analysis and Trends [https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/quantum-dots-qd-market/11730/]
• 103. Quantum Dot Materials and Technologies 2020-2030 [https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-report/quantum-dot-materials-and-technologies-2020-2030-trends-markets-players/654]
• 104. Long-range order enhance performance of patterned blue ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62345-1]
• 105. Quantum Dots as Functional Nanosystems for Enhanced ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15705]
• 106. Carbon Quantum Dots for Biomedical Applications [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/materials/articles/10.3389/fmats.2021.700403/full]
• 107. Recent Advancements in Graphene Quantum Dot‐Based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12457731/]
• 108. Comparative studies of recent advances in quantum dots ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138824812500013X]
• 109. Quantum Dots Global Market Report 2025-2035 [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/quantum-dots-global-market-report-174500748.html]