[Question]Fluorescence quenching and artificial photosynthesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter ironcross77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photosynthesis
AI Thread Summary
Fluorescence quenching is a process where the fluorescence of a molecule is reduced or extinguished, often due to interactions with other molecules, such as oxygen. In artificial photosynthesis, understanding fluorescence quenching is crucial for optimizing light absorption and energy conversion efficiency. Molecular oxygen, being a strong quencher, plays a significant role in studying the dynamics of energy transfer in photosynthetic systems. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity on the definitions of fluorescence quenching and artificial photosynthesis to facilitate deeper understanding. Overall, the relationship between fluorescence quenching and artificial photosynthesis is essential for advancing research in energy conversion technologies.
ironcross77
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Here is the situation. I know what Fluorescence quenching is. But what is its utility in the study of artificial photosynthesis ?

A simple explanation connectin the two will do fine
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you think fluorescence quenching is? This will tell us if you really do understand that correctly first.

What do you mean by "artificial" photosynthesis?

You need to show us your thoughts before we can help you.
 
Remember that molecular oxygen (O_{2}) is an excellent fluorescence quencher because of its triplet ground state.

What does oxygen have to do with photosynthesis?

Take a look at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=98930" . How does it use fluorescence quenching?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top