4.6 Article

Ultrasensitive fluorescent detection of pesticides in real sample by using green carbon dots

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230646

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pesticides, widely used in modern agriculture, could potentially cause environmental pollution and affect human lives. Hence, the development of a highly sensitive sensing element to detect pesticide residues is crucial for food safety and ecosystem protection. Optical methods based on fluorescence properties provide an ideal approach for screening and quantification of these compounds in different medias including water, plant, and nutritional products. The development of fluorescence emitting carbon dot-based sensors for monitoring pesticides has attracted great attention in recent years. In comparison to other fluorophores, carbon dots have more promising optical features, higher quantum yields and better biocompatibility. This article aims to present a novel fluorescent sensing method of diazinon, glyphosate, and amicarbazone using plant-based carbon dots. A comprehensive characterization of carbon dots obtained from cauliflower was performed by methods including UV-visible, FTIR spectroscopy, fluorometry, AFM, DLS, and zeta sizer. Following this step, carbon dots were used to detect pesticides. The fluorescence quenching property of carbon dots has been utilized to identify detection limit of 0.25, 0.5, and 2 ng ml(-1) for diazinon, amicarbazone, and glyphosate, respectively. Also, real sample study revealed that the detection of pesticides accompanied by our developed nano-sensor is repeatable and accurate. According to carbon dots specificity determination, the prepared nano sensor does not have the potential to identify bromacil and dialen super pesticides but the other three mentioned pesticides are detectable. The results confirm that synthesized green carbon dots are well qualified for application in food safety and environmental monitoring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据