Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2017 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 6

Naked eye and smartphone applicable detection of toxic mercury ions using uorescent carbon nanodots

Pages
931–943
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This smartphone applicable detection platform that uses carbon nanodots as cheap yet sensitive nanoprobes could lead to more advanced lab-on-site systems for water or food sample analysis that can be performed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Chitosan passivated carbon nanodots (C-Dots CHIT ) were synthesized from expired molasses via a simple and green thermal synthesis procedure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This sensing strategy using NC-Dots CHIT displayed a wide linear working range from 1.25 g/mL to 43.54 g/mL with a detection limit of 1.41 g/mL.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This smartphone applicable detection platform that uses carbon nanodots as cheap yet sensitive nanoprobes could lead to more advanced lab-on-site systems for water or food sample analysis that can be performed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Chitosan passivated carbon nanodots (C-Dots CHIT ) were synthesized from expired molasses via a simple and green thermal synthesis procedure. As-synthesized C-Dots were nitrogen-doped (NC-Dots CHIT ) by posttreatment with liquid ammonia and used as nanoprobes for uorometric detection of mercury ions (Hg(II) aq: ). Fluorescence response of NC-Dots CHIT in the presence of mercury was evaluated and compared with that of the polyethylene glycol passivated C-Dots PEG . This sensing strategy using NC-Dots CHIT displayed a wide linear working range from 1.25 g/mL to 43.54 g/mL with a detection limit of 1.41 g/mL. The uorescence of C-Dots PEG did not show any signi cant change upon mercury addition. Selectivity of as-synthesized NC-Dots CHIT to Hg(II) aq: was assessed by comparing the level ofuorescence quenching in the presence of four other divalent cations (cadmium(II), zinc(II), nickel(II), and copper(II)). Finally, synthesized nanoprobes were embedded into the cross-linked alginate hydrogels and test strips were formed on the FTO-coated glass. Images captured under a UV light source ( exc: 365 nm) were successfully processed by a smartphone application. Color codes generated by the app showed a close resemblance to the data gathered fromuorescence spectroscopy. The proposed detection system was applied satisfactorily to both a certi ed calibration standard and real water samples. The methodology developed within this study could be a potential candidate for detection of mercury concentration in water samples with high recovery rates reaching up to 98%. This smartphone applicable detection platform that uses carbon nanodots as cheap yet sensitive nanoprobes could lead to more advanced lab-on-site systems for water or food sample analysis that can be performed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

🔖

Cite This Article

GENÇ, R., BAÇ, B. (2022). Naked eye and smartphone applicable detection of toxic mercury ions using uorescent carbon nanodots. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 6, 931–943. https://ajindex.com/articles/601930

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Zahir, F.; Rizwi, S. J.; Haq, S. K.; Khan, R. H.Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol.2005,20, 351-360. 2.Stellman, J. M.; International Labour Office.Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety.; InternationalLabour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. 3.Wang, F.; Wang, S.; Zhang, L.; Yang, H.; Wu, Q.; Hao, J.J. Hazard. Mater.2016,302, 27-35. 4.Eisler, R.Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.2004,181, 139-198. 5.Nolan, M.; Tucker, I.Scand. Audiol.1981,10, 189-191. 6.Qi, Y. X.; Zhang, M.; Zhu, A.; Shi, G.Analyst2015,140, 5656-5661. 7.Jew, A. D.; Kim, C. S.; Rytuba, J. J.; Gustin, M. S.; Brown, G. E.Environ. Sci. Technol.2011,45, 412-417. 8.Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.; Chen, D.; Wu, D.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, J.; Chen, X.; Liu, S.; Yin, J.Sensors Actuators B Chem.2016,224, 907-914. 9.Fan, S. H.; Shen, J.; Wu, H.; Wang, K. Z.; Zhang, A. G.Chinese Chem. Lett.2014,26, 580-584. 10.Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Di Censo, D.; Humphry-Baker, R.; Gratzel, M.Adv. Funct. Mater.2006,16, 189-194. 11.Krejcova, L.; Dospivova, D.; Ryvolova, M.; Kopel, P.; Hynek, D.; Krizkova, S.; Hubalek, J.; Adam, V.; Kizek, R.Electrophoresis2012,33, 3195-3204. 12.Maity, D.; Kumar, A.; Gunupuru, R.; Paul, P.Colloid. Surface. A2014,455, 122-128. 13.Wu, G. W.; He, S. B.; Peng, H. P.; Deng, H. H.; Liu, A. L.; Lin, X. H.; Xia, X. H.; Chen, W.Anal. Chem.2014,86, 10955-10960. 14.Su, X. L.; Li, Y.Anal. Chem.2004,76, 4806-4810. 15.Wegner, K. D.; Lanh, P. T.; Jennings, T.; Oh, E.; Jain, V.; Fairclough, S. M.; Smith, J. M.; Giovanelli, E.; Lequeux,N.; Pons, T. et al.ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2013,5, 2881-2892. 16.Algar, W. R.; Malanoski, A. P.; Susumu, K.; Stewart, M. H.; Hildebrandt, N.; Medintz, I. L.Anal. Chem.2012,84, 10136-10146. 17.Gao, X.; Du, C.; Zhuang, Z.; Chen, W.J. Mater. Chem. C2016,4, 6927-6945. 18.Perez-Lopez, B.; Merkoci, A.Trends Food Sci. Technol.2011,22, 625-639. 19.Genc, R. InNanobiosensors in Nanotechnology in the Food Industry, Multi Volume Book Series; Grumezescu, A.M., Ed. Academic Press:
  2. New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 391-428. 20.Asokan, S.; Krueger, K. M.; Alkhawaldeh, A.; Carreon, A. R.; Mu, Z.; Colvin, V. L.; Mantzaris, N. V; Wong, M.S.Nanotechnology2005,16, 2000-2011.21.Nolan, E. M.; Lippard, S. J.Chem. Rev.2008,108, 3443-3480. 22.Li, H.; Kang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Lee, S. T.J. Mater. Chem.2012,22, 24230. 23.Choi, Y.; Kim, S.; Choi, M. H.; Ryoo, S. R.; Park, J.; Min, D. H.; Kim, B. S.Adv. Funct. Mater.2014,24,5781-5789. 24.Baker, S. N.; Baker, G. A.Angew. Chemie Int. Ed.2010,49, 6726-6744. 25.Yu, P.; Wen, X.;