4.7 Article

Carbon dot-based fluorescent and colorimetric sensor for sensitive and selective visual detection of benzoyl peroxide

期刊

CHINESE CHEMICAL LETTERS
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 1632-1636

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cclet.2021.09.086

关键词

Carbon dots; Benzoyl peroxide; Colorimetric; Fluorescent probe; Food safety

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61805287, 62175262]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China [2019JJ50824]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central South Universities [2020CX021, 2020zzts387]
  4. Basic Research Foundation of Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation [JCYJ20180307151245919]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a carbon dot-based fluorescent and colorimetric probe was developed for the visual, sensitive, and selective detection of benzoyl peroxide (BPO). The probe showed a short response time and high sensitivity, and demonstrated good applicability in wheat, noodle, and starch samples.
Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) has been added in wheat flour because of its bleaching effect. However, the abnormal used BPO has caused increasing concern due to its strong oxidization capability which may have adverse effects on living organisms. Herein, we present a carbon dot (CD)-based fluorescent and colorimetric probe for visually, sensitively and selectively sensing BPO. The addition of BPO could quench the red fluorescence of CDs peaked at 622 and 677 nm, and decrease the absorbance at 613 nm, while increase the absorbance at 450 nm, resulting in a fluorescence turn-offand colorimetric spectral response. Moreover, the CDs had short response time of 10 min and high sensitivity towards BPO with a low limit of detection of 28 nmol/L. The applicability of the CDs in detecting BPO in wheat, noodle and starch samples was further demonstrated, and good recovery results were obtained. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chinese Chemical Society and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

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