4.4 Review

Using Nanomaterials in Colorimetric Toxin Detection

期刊

BIOCHIP JOURNAL
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 123-134

出版社

KOREAN BIOCHIP SOCIETY-KBCS
DOI: 10.1007/s13206-021-00013-4

关键词

Colorimetric biosensors; Toxin detection; Point-of-care testing; Noble metal nanoparticle; Nanozyme

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government [Ministry of Science and ICT] [NRF-2019R1A2C1087459]
  2. Gachon University [GCU-2019-0812]
  3. NRF [NRF-2019K2A9A2A06020985]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detection of toxins in contaminated food is a serious concern, and traditional methods are expensive and laborious. On-site toxin detection methods are needed for simple, rapid, and reliable identification, and nanomaterials show great potential in colorimetric toxin detection.
Exposure to toxins through contaminated food is a serious concern. For the detection of toxins in complex matrices, there are many analytical instrumentation-based methods; however, these approaches are generally expensive, laborious to perform, and require skilled technicians. Thus, they can only be utilized in centralized laboratories. To efficiently prevent the contamination by toxins and improve food safety, the use of on-site toxin detection methods enabling simple, rapid, sensitive, specific, reliable, and affordable identification of toxins is required. A colorimetric toxin detection strategy providing a naked-eye readout platform suits these requirements. Notably, the implementation of nanomaterials in the colorimetric strategy has proven to rapidly generate a higher capacity for detectable color responses owing to their unique physicochemical and catalytic properties. In this review, recent research on colorimetric toxin detection utilizing diverse nanostructures including noble metal nanoparticles and enzyme-like catalytic nanomaterials (nanozymes) is reviewed and discussed. Current challenges and future prospects for the utilization of nanomaterials in colorimetric toxin detection are also discussed.

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

4.4
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