| Literature DB >> 34873260 |
Mohammad Khavani1, Aliyeh Mehranfar2, Mohammad Izadyar3.
Abstract
Cadmium (Cd) as a toxic element that is widely present in water, soil, and air has important effects on human health, therefore proposing an accurate and selective method for detection of this element is of importance. In this article, by employing full atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and density functional theory dispersion corrected (DFT-D3) calculations, the effects of 6-mercaptonicotinic acid (MNA) and L-cysteine (CYS) on the stability of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and their sensitivity against Cd2+ were investigated. The obtained results indicate that pure AuNPs are not stable in water, while functionalized AuNPs with CYS and MNA groups have considerable stability without aggregation. In other words, the functional groups on the surface of AuNPs elevate their resistance against aggregation by an increase in the repulsive interactions between the gold nanoparticles. Moreover, functionalized AuNPs have considerable ability for selective detection of Cd2+ in the presence of different metal ions. Based on the MD simulation results, MNA-CYS-AuNPs (functionalized AuNPs with both functional groups) have the maximum sensitivity against Cd2+ in comparison with MNA-AuNPs and CYS-AuNPs due to the strong electrostatic interactions. DFT-D3 calculations reveal that the most probable interactions between the metal ions and functional groups are electrostatic, and Cd2+ can aggregate functionalized AuNPs due to strong electrostatic interactions with MNA and CYS groups. Moreover, charge transfer and donor-acceptor analyses show that molecular orbital interactions between the functional groups and Cd2+ can be considered as the driving force for AuNPs aggregation. A good agreement between the theoretical results and experimental data confirms the importance of the molecular modeling methods as a fast scientific protocol for designing new functionalized nanoparticles for application in different fields.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34873260 PMCID: PMC8648727 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02933-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1The initial and obtained structures of the pure and functionalized AuNPs after simulation time in water.
Figure 2The calculated RMSD (a), Rg (b), and SASA (c) of the pure and functionalized AuNPs during the simulation time and RDF plot (d) of the Au–Au pair of the corresponding nanoparticles.
Figure 3The proposed mechanism of Cd2+ detection by different functionalized AuNPs.
Figure 4The obtained structures of CYS-AuNPs (a), MNA-AuNPs (b), and MNA-CYS-AuNPs (c) after 50 ns MD simulations in the presence of different metal ions.
Figure 5The calculated RMSD and Rg values of CYS-AuNPs (a), MNA-AuNPs (b), and MNA-CYS-AuNPs (c) in the presence of different metal ions.
Figure 6The calculated average distance (a) and average EIE (b) between the O atoms (of COO− group of MNA and CYS) and different metal ions and the average H-bond (c) between the functional groups and water molecules and the calculated SASA of the functionalized AuNPs (d) in the presence and absence of different metal ions. The average values were calculated during 50 ns MD simulations and the error bars show the calculated standard deviation of the corresponding quantities.
Figure 7The calculated RDF plots of the O….metal ion (O atoms of CYS or MNA) pairs for the CYS-AuNPs (a), MNA-AuNPs (b) and MNA-CYS-AuNPs (c) and the calculated average number of different ions (d) around the functionalized AuNPs. The average values were calculated during 50 ns MD simulations and the error bars show the calculated standard deviation of the corresponding quantities.
The calculated thermodynamic parameters, quantum chemistry reactivity indices, ionic potential and stabilization energies of the functional group (MNA and CYS) complexes with different metal ions in water.
| − ∆Gbin (kcal mol−1) | − ∆Ebin (kcal mol−1) | − EHOMO (eV) | − ELUMO (eV) | ∆E(LUMO–HOMO) (eV) | − µ (eV) | ∑E(2) (kcal mol−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ba2+ | 1.53 | 17.49 | 7.35 | 1.34 | 6.01 | 4.34 | 11.64 |
| Ca2+ | 29.10 | 46.91 | 7.43 | 1.36 | 6.07 | 4.39 | 46.16 |
| Cd2+ | 22.43 | 41.07 | 7.32 | 1.40 | 5.92 | 4.36 | 154.18 |
| Mg2+ | 55.04 | 73.89 | 7.49 | 1.38 | 6.11 | 4.43 | 102.78 |
| Pb2+ | 85.93 | 157.43 | 7.35 | 1.39 | 5.96 | 4.37 | 99.30 |
| Cu2+ | 134.92 | 150.92 | 7.39 | 1.79 | 5.60 | 5.59 | 82.11 |
| Hg2+ | 1.55 | 20.92 | 7.42 | 1.36 | 6.06 | 4.39 | 69.25 |
| Receptor | … | … | 7.21 | 1.20 | 6.01 | 4.20 | … |
| Ba2+ | 0.73 | 17.06 | 7.21 | 1.40 | 5.81 | 4.30 | 9.85 |
| Ca2+ | 26.13 | 45.92 | 7.29 | 1.42 | 5.87 | 4.35 | 46.76 |
| Cd2+ | 19.73 | 39.35 | 7.18 | 1.48 | 5.70 | 4.33 | 158.81 |
| Mg2+ | 53.33 | 71.83 | 7.36 | 1.43 | 5.93 | 4.39 | 102.43 |
| Pb2+ | 85.77 | 102.59 | 7.40 | 1.46 | 5.94 | 4.43 | 97.33 |
| Cu2+ | 129.28 | 143.69 | 7.24 | 1.85 | 5.39 | 4.54 | 79.89 |
| Hg2+ | − 0.79 | 18.93 | 7.27 | 1.41 | 5.86 | 4.34 | 70.76 |
| Receptor | … | … | 7.12 | 1.37 | 5.75 | 4.24 | … |
| Ba2+ | 8.17 | 13.80 | 7.21 | 1.41 | 5.80 | 4.31 | 13.95 |
| Ca2+ | 35.98 | 43.82 | 7.29 | 1.42 | 5.87 | 4.35 | 46.25 |
| Cd2+ | 24.77 | 37.04 | 7.10 | 1.47 | 5.63 | 4.28 | 155.79 |
| Mg2+ | 60.84 | 69.35 | 7.37 | 1.43 | 5.94 | 4.40 | 99.52 |
| Pb2+ | 94.35 | 102.04 | 7.37 | 1.44 | 5.93 | 4.40 | 91.77 |
| Cu2+ | 140.39 | 146.59 | 7.24 | 1.79 | 4.45 | 4.51 | 84.48 |
| Hg2+ | 6.21 | 15.40 | 7.25 | 1.41 | 5.84 | 4.33 | 61.61 |
| Receptor | … | … | 7.03 | 1.35 | 5.68 | 4.19 | … |
I = 1.48, 2.00, 2.10, 2.77, 1.68, 2.73 and 1.96 for Ba2+, Ca2+, Cd2+, Mg2+, Pb2+, Cu2+ and Hg2+ respectively.
Figure 8The 2D (a) and 3D (b) NCI plots and ELF and LOL graphs (c) of the Cd2+ complexes with MNA and CYS groups.