4.6 Article

Etching triangular silver nanoparticles to initiate the fluorescent response of Ru@SiO2 for sensitive detection of glutathione

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2023.131686

关键词

Fluorescent Ru@SiO 2 nanopaeticles; Triangular Ag nanoparticles; GSH detection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, Ru@SiO2 NPs were synthesized and used as a fluorescent probe. SiO2 nanoparticles were used as carriers to prevent the leakage of probe. Triangular Ag nanoparticles were prepared as quenchers to construct a quenching system (Ru@SiO2-T-Ag NPs) with Ru@SiO2 NPs by inner filter effect. This method provides a new way for the fluorescent analysis of thiol biomolecules.
Fluorescent probes usually face the issue of photobleaching and premature leakage when they are directly exposed to exterior environment, causing poor photostability and low sensitivity. In this paper, Ru(bpy)32+ encapsulated fluorescent SiO2 nanoparticles (Ru@SiO2 NPs) were synthesized and used as fluorescent probe. The SiO2 nanoparticles were used as carriers to prevent the leakage of the probe. Triangular Ag nanoparticles (T-Ag NPs) were prepared as quenchers to construct a quenching system (Ru@SiO2-T-Ag NPs) with Ru@SiO2 NPs through inner filter effect (IFE). In this quenching system, T-Ag NPs were also designed as recognize units for glutathione (GSH) detection. When GSH existed, the GSH bond with T-Ag NPs to form Ag-S bonds, making the T-Ag NPs etched. In this case, the fluorescent signal of Ru@SiO2 NPs quenched by T-Ag NPs restored. The fluo-rescence recovery of the Ru@SiO2 NPs depended on GSH concentrations and thus it could realize the quantitative analysis of GSH. Under optimized conditions, the proposed assay had good analytical performance for the detection of GSH in the concentration range of 0.01-1 mu M with a limit of detection (LOD) as low as 2.8 nM. This assay was also used to measure GSH levels in human serum samples. This work provides a new way for the fluorescent analysis of thiol biomolecules.

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