Why is Surface Chemistry a real "product" when buying Gold Nanoparticles?

When you order gold nanoparticles, you’re not really buying only “20 nm spheres.” You’re buying a surface. Surface chemistry is the real “product”, while the metal core is the scaffold that carries a specific surface state into your experiment.

In practice, what reaches the cells, proteins, or assay isn’t a bare gold core – it’s “gold + ligand shell + adventitious ions + protein corona.” Let’s imagine running the same uptake experiment with two “identical” 20 nm particles: one citrate‑capped, one PEGylated. The citrate particles rapidly adsorb serum proteins, form a thick, opsonin‑rich corona, and end up in macrophages, while the PEGylated ones largely evade recognition and stay longer in circulation, even though the TEM images of both nanoparticles’ cores look the same (Chandran et al., 2017, Zhang et al., 2020)

For many applications, surface chemistry matters more than size:

  • Protein corona and cell uptake are dominated by ligand chemistry and charge, not by a 5 nm difference in core diameter. Walkey et al., 2012 specifically noted that switching from a neutral PEG coating to an amine‑terminated, positively charged surface could increase uptake in many cell lines by an order of magnitude, whereas minor core size differences (like 20 nm vs 25 nm) did not significantly alter the corona’s functional biological impact.
  • Assay sensitivity and Limit of Detection (LOD) hinge on how the ligand shell controls aggregation and interparticle distance under real buffer conditions. Fukuzumi et al., 2025 have reported that the sensitivity of ssDNA-AuNPs for detecting target DNA could be affected by density and steric structure of the immobilized DNA in non-crosslinking aggregation-based nucleic acid detection. This and related works on DNA–AuNPs colorimetric assays (Sato et al., 2005, Enea et al., 2024) show that changing linker length and attachment geometry modulates interparticle spacing, plasmon coupling, and therefore color readout and LOD, at fixed core size. In their recent work, Park et al., 2025, have systematically varied PEG linker molecular weights on fixed-size AuNPs, confirming that linker length was a "critical factor" influencing the detection range and sensitivity of diagnostic strategies. These findings suggest that by fine-tuning the plasmonic probe parameters, the balance between sensitivity and detection range can be optimized, offering a versatile approach to the design of point-of-care diagnostic assays.
  • Even simple ions like chloride can transiently reorganize the gold surface, changing stability and reactivity in ways that aren’t obvious from the spec sheet. A good example is a formulation that is perfectly stable in low‑ionic‑strength buffer but suddenly flocculates when introduced into a saline or PBS environment, because chloride competes at the surface and weakly bound ligands desorb (Sibug-Torres et al., 2025).

Thus, thinking about ligand selection beyond the basic catalog labels becomes essential at this point.

  • For serum and complex media: strongly bound, hydrophilic ligands (for example PEG or zwitterionic coatings) tend to resist protein fouling and maintain a neutral or slightly negative zeta potential, which helps avoiding uncontrolled aggregation. A concrete case is a 20 nm PEGylated AuNP with a dense, high‑MW PEG shell that remains monodisperse for days in 10–50% serum, while a loosely capped citrate particle of the same size forms protein‑bridged clusters within minutes (Dridi et al., 2024, Mosquera et al., 2020, Overby et al., 2023)
  • For high‑salt or lateral‑flow‑type environments: densely packed thiols or polymers providing both electrostatic and steric repulsion often support robust performance; the stability needs to be evaluated at the actual ionic strength of use, not only in water. In this context, Gao et al., 2012 compared several thiolated ligands (including PEG‑SH and mixed PEG‑SH/MPA) and showed that appropriate thiol chemistry and surface coverage markedly improved AuNP stability in buffered high‑salt solutions. Zhang et al., 2012, used depletion stabilization in the presence of high molecular weight polyethylene glycol (PEG) to stabilize a diverse range of nanomaterials, including gold nanoparticles (from 10 to 100 nm), in the presence of Mg2+ (>1.6 M), heavy metal ions, extreme pH (pH 1–13), organic solvents, adsorbed nucleosides and drugs.
  • For extreme pH or harsh processing: multidentate ligands and crosslinked or polymeric shells with pKa values compatible with the working pH window help preserve surface charge and solubility through harsh pH and processing steps better than simple, weakly bound capping agents (Kairdolf & Nie, 2011, Gupta et al., 2016, Chopada et. Al., 2025)

In other words, “20 nm citrate AuNPs” and “20 nm PEG‑thiol AuNPs” are two completely different materials in a biological or analytical context – and they will give you different answers.

    If your gold nanoparticles behave “mysteriously” when you switch buffer, salt, or serum content, it’s often not a size problem. It’s a surface problem.

    Framed that way, treating “What is on my surface?” as a core design parameter, alongside “What is my core diameter?”, becomes a practical route to making results reproducible across experiments, instruments, and collaborators.

    References:

    1. Chandran, P., Riviere, J. E., & Monteiro-Riviere, N. A. (2017). Surface chemistry of gold nanoparticles determines the biocorona composition impacting cellular uptake, toxicity and gene expression profiles in human endothelial cells. Nanotoxicology, 11(4), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2017.1314036

    2. Zhang, J., Mou, L., & Jiang, X. (2020). Surface chemistry of gold nanoparticles for health-related applications. Chemical science, 11(4), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9sc06497d

    3. Walkey, C. D., Olsen, J. B., Guo, H., Emili, A., & Chan, W. C. (2012). Nanoparticle size and surface chemistry determine serum protein adsorption and macrophage uptake. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 134(4), 2139–2147. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja2084338

    4. Fukuzumi, N., Hirao, G., Ogawa, A. et al. (2025) Density and structure of DNA immobilised on gold nanoparticles affect sensitivity in nucleic acid detection. Sci Rep 15, 8222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-92474-y

    5. Sato, K., Hosokawa, K., & Maeda, M. (2005). Non-cross-linking gold nanoparticle aggregation as a detection method for single-base substitutions. Nucleic acids research, 33(1), e4. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gni007

    6. Enea, M., Leite, A., Franco, R., & Pereira, E. (2024). Gold Nanoprobes for Robust Colorimetric Detection of Nucleic Acid Sequences Related to Disease Diagnostics. Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 14(22), 1833. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano14221833

    7. Park, S., Lee, S., Park, J., Haam, S., & Hwang, J. (2025). Tuning the Aggregation of Plasmonic Probes to Shed Light on Diagnostic Strategies. ACS sensors, 10(6), 4083–4094. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.5c00113

    8. Sibug-Torres, S.M., Niihori, M., Wyatt, E. et al. (2025) Transient Au–Cl adlayers modulate the surface chemistry of gold nanoparticles during redox reactions. Nat. Chem. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-025-01989-4

    9. Dridi, N., Jin, Z., Perng, W., Mattoussi, H.  (2024) Probing Protein Corona Formation around Gold Nanoparticles: Effects of Surface Coating,  ACS Nano18 (12), 8649-8662. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c08005

    10. Mosquera, J., García, I., Henriksen-Lacey, M., Martínez-Calvo, M., Dhanjani, M., Mascareñas, J. L., & Liz-Marzán, L. M. (2020). Reversible Control of Protein Corona Formation on Gold Nanoparticles Using Host-Guest Interactions. ACS nano, 14(5), 5382–5391. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.9b08752

    11. Overby, C., Park, S., Summers, A., Benoit, D. S.W. (2023) Zwitterionic peptides: Tunable next-generation stealth nanoparticle modifications, Bioactive Materials 27, 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.03.020.

    12. Gao, J., Huang, X., Liu, H., Zan, F., Ren, J. (2012) Colloidal Stability of Gold Nanoparticles Modified with Thiol Compounds: Bioconjugation and Application in Cancer Cell Imaging, Langmuir 28 (9), 4464-4471. https://doi.org/10.1021/la204289k

    13. Zhang, X., Servos, M.R., Liu, J. (2012) Ultrahigh Nanoparticle Stability against Salt, pH, and Solvent with Retained Surface Accessibility via Depletion Stabilization, Journal of the American Chemical Society 134 (24), 9910-9913. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja303787e

    14. Kairdolf, B. A., & Nie, S. (2011). Multidentate-protected colloidal gold nanocrystals: pH control of cooperative precipitation and surface layer shedding. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 133(19), 7268–7271. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja2001506

    15. Gupta, A., Moyano, D. F., Parnsubsakul, A., Papadopoulos, A., Wang, L. S., Landis, R. F., Das, R., & Rotello, V. M. (2016). Ultrastable and Biofunctionalizable Gold Nanoparticles. ACS applied materials & interfaces, 8(22), 14096–14101. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6b02548

    16. Chopada, R., Sarwate, R., Kumar, V. (2025) Effect of mild to extreme pH, temperature, and ionic strength on the colloidal stability of differentially capped gold nanoparticles, Journal of Molecular Structure,1323,140751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.140751

    Retour au blog