4.7 Article

A highly sensitive detection of carbendazim pesticide in food based on the upconversion-MnO2 luminescent resonance energy transfer biosensor

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 349, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129157

关键词

Carbendazim; Upconversion nanoparticles; Aptamer; Fluorescence; Sensor

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31801633]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20190100]
  3. Project of Faculty of Agricultural Equipment of Jiangsu University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sensitive biosensor based on luminescent resonance energy transfer (LRET) was developed for detecting carbendazim (CBZ) pesticide residues. The biosensor showed high sensitivity and specificity for quantifying CBZ within a range of 0.1-5000 ng.mL(-)(1). Validation of the biosensor's precision and accuracy was carried out using an HPLC method with no significant differences observed.
Carbendazim (CBZ) pesticide residues in food products have become a growing concern in recent years. Herein, a sensitive biosensor for detecting CBZ was developed based on luminescent resonance energy transfer (LRET) from aptamer labeled upconversion nanoparticles (UCNPs, donor) to manganese dioxide (MnO2, acceptor) nanosheets. The strong overlap between the absorption spectrum of MnO2 and the UCNPs fluorescence emission allowed the luminescence quenching. With the addition of CBZ, it tended to bind with specific aptamers, which culminated in the UCNPs-aptamer dropping off MnO2 nanosheets and restoring the fluorescence. A linear calibration plot between logarithmic CBZ concentration and fluorescence intensity was acquired in the range of 0.1-5000 ng.mL(-)(1), with a limit of detection 0.05 ng.mL(-)(1), indicating that the UCNPs-MnO2 aptasensor is a rapid, sensitive and specific quantitative detection platform for CBZ. Furthermore, the precision and accuracy of the developed LRET biosensor was validated by HPLC method with no significant differences.

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

4.7
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