Xiongbin Wang1、2、†, Qiushi Wang3、†, Yulong Chen1、4、†, Jiagen Li5, Ruikun Pan3, Xing Cheng4, Kar Wei Ng1, Xi Zhu5, Tingchao He6、7、*, Jiaji Cheng3、8、*, Zikang Tang1、9、*, and Rui Chen2、10、*
Author Affiliations
1Institute of Applied Physics and Materials Engineering, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China2Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China3School of Materials Science and Engineering, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China4Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China5Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Society (AIRS), Shenzhen 518172, China6College of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China7e-mail: tche@szu.edu.cn8e-mail: jiajicheng@hubu.edu.cn9e-mail: zktang@um.edu.mo10e-mail: chenr@sustech.edu.cnshow less
DOI: 10.1364/PRJ.413592
Cite this Article
Set citation alerts
Xiongbin Wang, Qiushi Wang, Yulong Chen, Jiagen Li, Ruikun Pan, Xing Cheng, Kar Wei Ng, Xi Zhu, Tingchao He, Jiaji Cheng, Zikang Tang, Rui Chen. Metal-to-ligand charge transfer chirality-based sensing of mercury ions[J]. Photonics Research, 2021, 9(2): 213
Copy Citation Text
show less
Fig. 1. Illustration of the synthesis process of chiral Cys-MoO2 NPs and their application for Hg2+ sensing.
Fig. 2. (a) TEM image of D-Cys-MoO2 NPs. The corresponding scale bar is 100 nm. (b) Histogram distribution of the diameter of NPs. Measurements of (c) circular dichroism spectrum and (d) absorption spectrum of MoO3 (black line), L-Cys-MoO2 (red line), and D-Cys-MoO2 NPs (blue line). XPS spectra of (e) MoO3 NPs and (f) D-Cys-MoO2 NPs with deconvoluted molybdenum 3d peaks. The blue and orange peak areas are corresponding to the different valence states of Mo(VI) and Mo(IV), respectively.
Fig. 3. Chiroptical sensing of Hg2+ using Cys-MoO2 NPs. (a) CD and (b) absorption measurements for Hg2+ mixing with aqueous D-Cys-MoO2 and L-Cys-MoO2 NPs solution. The concentration of Hg2+ in the mixture varied from 0.1 nM to 30 nM. (c) Calculated g-factor curves of specimens in (a). (d) Differences of g-factor [values at 384 nm shown in (c)] versus Hg2+ concentration and corresponding fitting curve. The inset image is the calibration plot.
Fig. 4. (a) TGA curves of L-Cys-MoO2 NPs with different amounts of mercury after dialysis. (b) Ligand density varies with mercury ion concentrations. (c) CD and (d) absorption spectra of pure L-Cys-MoO2 NPs as well as L-Cys-MoO2 mixing with Hg2+ (10 nM in the mixture) under different reaction times.
Fig. 5. TD-DFT simulation for different amounts of D-Cys capped Mo4O8 nanoclusters. Calculated frontier molecular orbital of (a), (c) HOMO and (b), (d) LUMO for one Cys molecule capped and six Cys molecule capped Mo4O8 nanoclusters. Calculated (e) CD spectra and (f) absorption spectra.
Fig. 6. Selectivity of D-Cys-MoO2-based Hg2+ sensor. (a) CD spectra of D-Cys-MoO2 solution mixed with different heavy metal ions: Zn2+, Cd2+, Pb2+, Ag+, Cu2+, and Hg2+. (b) CD signal at 384 nm of mixtures measured in (a). The concentrations of all metal ions are settled at 10 nM.
Methods | System | Detection Range (nM) | LOD (nM) | Ref. |
---|
SERS | Au | 0.1–6000 | 0.1 | [42] | Au TNAs/graphene/Au NPs | 1–45,000 | 8.3 | [43] | 4-MPY-Ag NPs | 1–100 | 0.34 | [44] | Absorption | DNA-Au NPs | 0–5000 | 500 | [45] | -Au NPs | 50–250 | 0.8 | [46] | Hcy-SH | 0–1000 | 72 | [47] | PL | | 5–41,000 | 1.8 | [48] | -doped-CNDs | 0–300,000 | 80 | [49] | DNA-SWNTs | 50–8000 | 14.5 | [50] | Electrochemistry | | 2.5–750 | 1 | [51] | MSO-Au NPs | 0–100 | 0.5 | [52] | DNA-Fc | 1–2000 | 0.5 | [53] | CD | DNA-Au NRs | 0.25–50 | 0.15 | [54] | Ag-L-Cys NPs | 0–1000 | 9 | [55] | | 0.1–30 | 0.08 | This work | | 0.1–30 | 0.12 | This work |
|
Table 1. Comparison of the Proposed Probe with Previously Reported Sensors Based on Different Methodsa
Concentration (nM) | Mass Loss (%) | Ligand Density () |
---|
0 | 13.1 | 17.96 | 0.1 | 12.4 | 16.86 | 1 | 11.8 | 15.94 | 5 | 11.4 | 15.33 | 10 | 10.9 | 14.57 | 30 | 10.1 | 13.38 |
|
Table 2. Summary of Calculated Mass Loss and Ligand Density for NPs with Different Additions