4.6 Article

Ultrathin NiMn layered double hydroxide nanosheets with a superior peroxidase mimicking performance to natural HRP for disposable paper-based bioassays

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY B
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 983-991

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0tb02507k

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21975123, 61704076]
  2. Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi [2020JM-092]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20171018]
  4. Six Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province [XCL-024]
  5. Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [KYCX20_0997, SJCX20_0401]
  6. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By synthesizing NiMn LDH nanosheets, it was found that they exhibit excellent peroxidase mimicking performance, including good substrate affinity, high catalytic activity, and robustness in a wide pH range.
The major obstacle to developing nanozymes which are considered as promising alternatives to natural enzymes is their moderate performance, including poor affinity for substrates, low catalytic activity, and severe pH-dependence. To address these issues, herein, we synthesize ultrathin layered double hydroxide (LDH) nanosheets with a thickness of 1.4 nm and an average lateral size of 23 nm using a fast-precipitation method. Through the rational design of their compositions, it is found that NiMn LDHs exhibit the optimum peroxidase mimicking performance with excellent substrate affinity, high catalytic activity (a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.04 mu M H2O2) and robustness in a wide pH range (from 2.6 to 9.0), which is superior to that of natural horseradish peroxidase (HRP). The main active centers are identified as Mn sites because of their strong Lewis acidity and low redox potential. Furthermore, a series of disposable paper bioassays based on NiMn LDH nanozymes are designed and used for the highly sensitive detection of H2O2 and ascorbic acid (AA).

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