4.7 Article

Use of Carbon Nanotubes as a Solid Support To Establish Quantitative (Centrifugation) and Qualitative (Filtration) Immunoassays To Detect Gentamicin Contamination in Commercial Milk

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 64, Issue 41, Pages 7874-7881

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b03332

Keywords

gentamicin; MWCNTs; filtration

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31502118, 31170386, 31570414]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M541606]
  3. Natural Science Fund Project of Jiangsu Province [BK20130507]
  4. Scientific Research Funds in Jiangsu University [13JDG016]
  5. Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology State Key Laboratory Fund [KF2014-02]
  6. Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Technology and Material of Water Treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current methods to detect gentamicin (GEN), a broad-spectrum antibiotic that causes ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity when present in excess, have several limitations. Hence, we have developed two methods using multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) as a solid support to detect GEN. Hybridoma cells (2D12) producing high-sensitivity antibodies against GEN were established. The goat anti-mouse antibody was immobilized on MWCNTs directly or using bifunctional polyethylene glycol as a linker. On the basis of the physical characteristics of MWCNTs, a quantitative method involving centrifugation separation and a qualitative method involving filtration separation were established. Various experimental parameters were optimized for GEN detection, and recovery tests were performed. For the quantitative method, the limit of detection (LOD) was 0.048 ng/mL, whereas for the qualitative method, a LOD of 0.1 ng/mL was observed by the naked eye. The proposed immunoassays were applied to commercial milk samples. Thus, these methods show potential application for the detection of GEN.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available