4.7 Article

A functionalized gold nanoparticles and Rhodamine 6G based fluorescent sensor for high sensitive and selective detection of mercury(II) in environmental water samples

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 599, 期 1, 页码 134-142

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2007.07.074

关键词

gold particles; Rhodamine 6G; fluorescence sensor; Mercury(II)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A gold-nanoparticles (Au NPs)-Rhodamine 6G (Rh6G) based fluorescent sensor for detecting Hg(II) in aqueous solution has been developed. Water-soluble and monodisperse gold nanoparticles (An NPs) has been prepared facilely and further modified with thioglycolic acid (TGA). Free Rh6G dye was strongly fluorescent in bulk solution. The sensor system composing of Rh6G and An NPs fluoresce weakly as result of fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) and collision. The fluorescence of Rh6G and Au NPs based sensor was gradually recovered due to Rh6G units departed from the surface of functionalized Au NPs in the presence of Hg(II). Based on the modulation of fluorescence quenching efficiency of Rh6G-Au NPs by Hg(II) at pH 9.0 of teraborate buffer solution, a simple, rapid, reliable and specific turn-on fluorescent assay for Hg(II) was proposed. Under the optimum conditions, the fluorescence intensity of sensor is proportional to the concentration of Hg(II). The calibration graphs are linear over the range of 5.0 x 10(-10) to 3.55 x 10(-8) mol L-1, and the corresponding limit of detection (LOD) is low as 6.0 x 10(-11) mol L-1. The relative standard deviation of 10 replicate measurements is 1.5% for 2.0 x 10(-9) mol L-1 Hg(II). In comparison with conventional fluorimetric methods for detection of mercury ion, the present nanosensor endowed with higher sensitivity and selectivity for Hg(II) in aqueous solution. Mercury(H) of real environmental water samples was determined by our proposed method with satisfactory results that were obtained by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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