| Literature DB >> 32548367 |
Negar Alizadeh1, Abdollah Salimi1,2,3, Tsun-Kong Sham2, Paul Bazylewski4, Giovanni Fanchini4.
Abstract
Artificial enzyme mimics have gained considerable attention for use inEntities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32548367 PMCID: PMC7271032 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b03252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Scheme 1(A) Mimicking Three Different Enzymes Peroxidase, Catalase, and Oxidase by Individual Material Cerium Oxide, (B) Schematic Representation and Photograph of Lab-on-a-Chip Setup for the Electrocatalytic Reduction of H2O2
Figure 1(A) TEM image and (B) EDS spectra of cerium oxide NSs.
Figure 2(A) XRD patterns. (B) TGA analysis. (C) FTIR spectra of (a) urea, (b) terephthalic acid, and (c) cerium oxide NSs.
Figure 3(A) UV–vis spectra and photographs of (a) cerium oxide NSs solution, (b) cerium oxide NSs + TMB + H2O2, and (c) cerium oxide NSs + TMB + H2O2 + H2SO4 (concentration of enzyme: 2 mg·mL–1, reaction time: 5 min). (B) Effect of O2 concentration on the direct oxidation of TMB by cerium oxide without H2O2 ((a) N2, (b) air, (c) O2). (C) Dissolved oxygen generation catalyzed by cerium oxide NSs at different concentrations (a) 0 mg·mL–1, (b) 1 mg·mL–1, (c) 2 mg·mL–1, and (d) 4 mg·mL–1. (D) UV–vis spectra of (a) NBT and (b) NBT + cerium oxide NSs + H2O2.
Figure 4Steady-state kinetic analyses using the Michaelis–Menten model and Lineweaver–Burk model (insets) for cerium oxide NSs by (A) TMB as substrate and (B) H2O2 as substrate.
Figure 5Experimental EPR spectra recorded at room temperature after the reaction of cerium oxide NSs with H2O2 in the presence of DMPO spin trap. (The nitroxide degradation product of the spin trap is indicated by black dots.) EPR spectrum of the liquid phase separated from the (A) cerium oxide NSs at varying pH: (a) control (without cerium oxide NSs), (b) pH = 11, (c) pH = 7.0, and (d) pH = 3; (B) various cerium oxide NS concentrations: (a) 0 mg·mL–1, (b) 4 mg·mL–1, (c) 8 mg·mL–1, and (d) 12 mg·mL–1; and (C) various H2O2 concentrations: (a) 0%, (b) 4%, (c) 8%, and (d) 12%.
Figure 6EPR spectra of 15N-PDT (A) in the presence of 2 mg of cerium oxide NSs and H2O2 (5%) at different pH values, and (B) in the presence of H2O2 (5%) and different concentration of cerium oxide NSs.
Figure 7(A) Cyclic voltammograms of (a) bare Au electrode, (b) Au electrode/cerium oxide, (c) Au electrode + H2O2, and (d) Au electrode/cerium oxide + H2O2. (B) Cyclic voltammograms of Au electrode/cerium oxide + H2O2 at different pH values: (a) 5, (b) 7, and (c) 9. (C) Cyclic voltammograms of Au electrode/cerium oxide in the presence of varied H2O2 concentrations, recorded in N2-purged PBS (0.1 M) at a scan rate of 0.03 V·s–1.
Figure 8(A) Chronoamperometric responses of Au electrode/cerium oxide upon addition of different H2O2 concentrations. Applied potential: −0.5 V. (B) Logarithmic relationship between the concentrations of H2O2 (0.1, 0.5, 10, 100, 1000, 2000, and 20 000 μM). (C) Interference studies of cerium oxide-based lab-on-a-chip device on addition of 1 mM UA, DA, AA, GLU, GSH and 0.2 mM H2O2. (D) Chronoamperometric responses of Au electrode/cerium oxide for the reduction of H2O2 released from 106 PC 12 cells in 1 mL of 1 × PBS (pH = 7.4): (a) PC12 cells, (b) AA (4 μM), and (c) PC12 cells upon injection of 4 μM AA.
Comparison of the Performance of Various Hydrogen Peroxide Sensors
| electrode materials | linear range (μM) | detection limit (μM) | refs |
|---|---|---|---|
| MnO2 nanosheets | up to 454 | 0.005 | ( |
| graphene/Pt nanocomposite | 0.5–3475 | 0.2 | ( |
| Se/Pt nanocomposites | 10–15 000 | 3.1 | ( |
| RGO–Au–PTBO | 5.0–25 362 | 0.2 | ( |
| rGO@CeO2-AgNPs | 0.5–12 000 | 0.21 | ( |
| TiO2@Cu2O | 1–15 mM | 0.15 | ( |
| Au/GS/HRP/CS | 5–5130 | 1.7 | ( |
| cerium oxide NSs | 0.1–20 000 | 0.01 | this work |