| Literature DB >> 30081585 |
Pengcheng Nie1,2,3, Tao Dong4,5, Shupei Xiao6,7, Lei Lin8,9, Yong He10,11, Fangfang Qu12,13.
Abstract
Thiabendazole (Entities:
Keywords: PLS; TBZ; biPLS; density functional theory; gold nanoparticle; soil; surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30081585 PMCID: PMC6222804 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23081949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1(a) Simulated molecular structure of Thiabendazole (TBZ) by density functional theory (DFT); (b) the theory calculation by DFT; (c) Raman spectroscopy (RS) of TBZ solid.
The proposed assignment of Raman peaks of TBZ.
| Calculation (cm−1) | Solid (cm−1) | SERS-Au (cm−1) | Assignments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 607 (vs) | 615 (w) | - | δ(C-C-C)opp + δ(S-C-N)ip |
| 623 (vs) | 632 (w) | 626 (w) | δ(C-C-C)opp + δ(S-C-N)ip |
| 767 (w) | 778 (m) | 784 (m) | δ(C-H)oop |
| 870 (vs) | 876 (w) | 850 (m) | δ (C-C-C)opp + δ(C-H)opp |
| - | 897 (w) | 903 (m) | δ (C-C-C)opp + δ(C-H)opp |
| 960 (w) | 985 (m) | - | υ(C-S) |
| 1006 (m) | 1011 (m) | 1008 (s) | δ(C-H)ip |
| 1135 (w) | 1118 (m) | 1115 (w) | δ(C-H)ip |
| 1150 (m) | 1154 (m) | 1146 (w) | δ(C-H)ip |
| 1208 (w) | 1199 (m) | 1198 (w) | υ ring |
| - | - | 1220 (w) | υ ring |
| - | 1255 (m) | - | υ ring + δ(C-H)ip |
| 1271 (s) | 1277 (s) | 1270 (m) | υ ring + δ(C-H)ip |
| 1311 (w) | 1303 (w) | 1328 (m) | δ(C-H)ip |
| 1400 (w) | 1403 (w) | 1408 (m) | υ(C=C) |
| 1432 (s) | 1456 (s) | - | υ(C=N) |
| 1487 (w) | 1493 (w) | 1496 (w) | υ(C=C) + δ(N-H)ip |
| 1567 (vs) | 1577 (vs) | 1567 (s) | υ(C=N) |
| 1583 (s) | 1591 (s) | 1595 (m) | υ(C=N) |
| 1623 (w) | 1623 (w) | 1620 (w) | υ(C=N) |
Note: vs = very strong; s = strong; m = medium; w = weak; υ = stretching; opp = outer surface bending; ip = inner surface bending; δ = deformable vibration.
Figure 2(a) Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) of TBZ solution; (b) RS of TBZ solution; (c) RS of acetonitrile.
Figure 3Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of: (a) AuNPs (200 nm scale) and (b) AuNPs (50 nm scale); (c) the UV/Visible spectra of AuNPs; (d) the SERS of AuNPs.
The average particle size of AuNPs.
| Types | Number | Min (nm) | Max (nm) | Average (nm) | Standard Deviation (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuNPs | 41 | 16.7 | 36.7 | 27.8 | 5.6 |
Figure 4The SERS of TBZ in red soil extracts: (a) 4 mg/L; (b) 2 mg/L; (c) 1 mg/L; (d) 0.5 mg/L; (e) 0.1 mg/L.
Figure 5The linear regression equations between Raman peak intensity and soil TBZ concentration at different Raman peaks: (a) 784 cm−1; (b) 1008 cm−1; (c) 1270 cm−1; (d) 1328 cm−1; (e) 1406 cm−1; (f) 1564 cm−1.
The results between the true and predicted value of TBZ in soil.
| Model | Sample | Predicted Value (mg/L) | Recovery (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| True Value (mg/L) | Number | Min | Max | Mean | Min | Max | ||
| y = 672.26x + 5748.4 (784 cm−1) | 2 | 3 | 1.91 | 2.33 | 2.12 | 8.02 | 95.90 | 116.65 |
| 6 | 3 | 6.00 | 6.18 | 6.07 | 1.36 | 100.46 | 103.16 | |
| y = 1155.4x + 8740.2 (1008 cm−1) | 2 | 3 | 1.91 | 2.22 | 2.07 | 5.96 | 95.73 | 110.83 |
| 6 | 3 | 5.92 | 6.28 | 6.08 | 2.41 | 98.66 | 104.59 | |
| y = 784.97x + 6935.2 (1270 cm−1) | 2 | 3 | 1.77 | 2.14 | 1.92 | 8.23 | 88.25 | 106.78 |
| 6 | 3 | 5.19 | 5.82 | 5.40 | 5.45 | 86.64 | 96.97 | |
| y = 535.17x + 6798 (1328 cm−1) | 2 | 3 | 1.87 | 2.27 | 2.11 | 8.34 | 93.25 | 113.33 |
| 6 | 3 | 5.01 | 5.67 | 5.26 | 5.58 | 83.46 | 94.57 | |
| y = 385.33x + 6277.3 (1406 cm−1) | 2 | 3 | 1.73 | 1.89 | 1.83 | 3.84 | 86.62 | 94.65 |
| 6 | 3 | 4.66 | 4.76 | 4.76 | 3.84 | 77.66 | 79.26 | |
| y = 607.13x + 6248.3 (1564 cm−1) | 2 | 3 | 1.44 | 1.71 | 1.56 | 7.39 | 71.87 | 85.57 |
| 6 | 3 | 4.99 | 6.19 | 5.39 | 10.45 | 83.13 | 103.19 | |
Figure 6300–1700 cm−1 SERS spectra of seven different concentrations of TBZ in red soil extracts: (a) 10 mg/L; (b) 8 mg/L; (c) 6 mg/L; (d) 4 mg/L; (e) 2 mg/L; (f) 1 mg/L; (g) 0.5 mg/L.
Figure 7Scatter diagram of calibration set and prediction set by PLS and biPLS using different preprocessing methods: (a) original plot; (b) S-G; (c) MSC; (d) SNV.
The results of pre-processing methods for calibration and prediction model.
| Methods | Pre-Processing Method | Calibration | Prediction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSEC (mg/L) |
|
| |||
| PLS | Original | 0.9600 | 0.607 | 0.9549 | 0.694 | 4.79 |
| S-G | 0.9580 | 0.622 | 0.9528 | 0.691 | 4.65 | |
| MSC | 0.9592 | 0.647 | 0.9683 | 0.678 | 4.62 | |
| SNV | 0.9493 | 0.711 | 0.9769 | 0.556 | 5.97 | |
| biPLS | Original | 0.9518 | 0.698 | 0.9746 | 0.523 | 6.13 |
| S-G | 0.9532 | 0.684 | 0.9657 | 0.605 | 5.39 | |
| MSC | 0.9633 | 0.600 | 0.9580 | 0.683 | 5.01 | |
| SNV | 0.9415 | 0.741 | 0.9754 | 0.561 | 6.29 | |
The results between the real values and predicted values of TBZ in red soil extracts.
| Sample | Ture Value (mg/L) | Predicted Value (mg/L) | Recovery (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1.12 | 12 | 112 |
| 2 | 2 | 2.119 | 5.9 | 105.95 |
| 3 | 2.5 | 2.253 | 9.8 | 90.12 |
| 4 | 5 | 4.46 | 10.8 | 89.2 |
| 5 | 7.5 | 7.57 | 0.93 | 100.93 |