4.8 Article

Mixed-Linkage Donor-Acceptor Covalent Organic Framework as a Turn-On Fluorescent Sensor for Aliphatic Amines

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 95, 期 47, 页码 17400-17406

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c03985

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amine determination is crucial for various applications, and the construction of a mixed-linkage donor-acceptor covalent organic framework (DSE-COF) has shown great potential in this field. DSE-COF displays superior fluorescent responses to different types of aliphatic amines and can quantitatively detect cadaverine content in actual pork samples. The use of DSE-COF-based test papers enables rapid monitoring of cadaverine in real pork samples, showcasing the potential application of COFs in food quality inspection.
Amine determination is crucial to our daily life, including the prevention of pollution, the treatment of certain disorders, and the evaluation of food quality. Herein, a mixed-linkage donor-acceptor covalent organic framework (named DSE-COF) was first constructed by the polymerization between 2,4-dihydroxybenzene-1,3,5-tricarbaldehyde (DTA) and 4,4 '-(benzo-[c]-[1,2,5]-selenadiazole-4,7-diyl)-dianiline (SEZ). DSE-COF displayed superior turn-on fluorescent responses to primary, secondary, and tertiary aliphatic amines, such as cadaverine, isopropylamine, sec-butylamine, cyclohexylamine, hexamethylenediamine, di-n-butylamine, and triethylamine in absolute acetonitrile than other organic species. Further experiments and theoretical calculations demonstrated that the combination of intramolecular charge transfer (ICT) and photoinduced electron transfer (PET) effects between the DSE-COF and aliphatic amines resulted in enhanced fluorescence. Credibly, DSE-COF can quantitatively detect cadaverine content in actual pork samples with satisfactory results. In addition, DSE-COF-based test papers could rapidly monitor cadaverine from real pork samples, manifesting the potential application of COFs in food quality inspection.

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

4.8
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