| Literature DB >> 35198881 |
Simei Darinel Torres Landa1, Naveen Kumar Reddy Bogireddy1,2, Inderbir Kaur3, Vandana Batra4, Vivechana Agarwal1.
Abstract
The discovery of carbon dots (CDs) for environmental remediation has gained awareness because of the diverse economically viable and environmental friendly green precursors generated from biowastes and biomass compared to the toxic inorganic quantum dots and CDs prepared from chemical precursors. This review presents the recent progress in green CDs, including their synthesis methods and sensing applications for the detection of heavy metal ions such as Iron (III), Mercury (II), Copper (II), Chromium (VI), Lead (II), Arsenic (III), Cobalt (II), Aluminum (III), Silver (I), and Gold (III) which are prominent environmental pollutants. The comparison based on selectivity, sensitivity, quantum yield, detection limit, linear concentration range, and sensing mechanisms are also reported. This review also covers the performance of doped green CDs using heteroatoms, toward the detection of heavy metal ions. Apart from the future perspectives, this review provides a general guide to use such environmental friendly CDs to detect harmful pollutants.Entities:
Keywords: Chemistry; Green chemistry; Materials science
Year: 2022 PMID: 35198881 PMCID: PMC8851085 DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.103816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: iScience ISSN: 2589-0042
Figure 1Carbon dots classification is based on the composition, structure, and dimensions
(Cayuela et al., 2016; Li et al., 2021a; Semeniuk et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2015).
Figure 2Twelve principles of Green Chemistry are based on the minimization of toxic solvents and non-generation of residues
(Adapted from de Marco et al., 2019).
Figure 3Main sources of biomass include plants and wastes from livestock, agriculture to algal
(Borghei et al., 2018; da Rosa and Ordóñez, 2022; Barbosa et al., 2015; Gao et al., 2021; Kang et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2017, p. 201).
Figure 4Some examples of CDs derived from different parts of the plant
(Bhatt et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2013; Lim et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2019d; Sachdev and Gopinath, 2015; Singh et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2015; Zulfajri et al., 2019).
Figure 5Major synthesis techniques and their classification
Main advantages and limitations of synthesis routes adopted for the production of carbon nanoparticles
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages | Synthesis route |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laser ablation | Tunable Surface states Easily Controllable morphology and size high purity Good reproducibility ( | Low quantum yield High cost Complicated operation limits large-scale production ( | Top-down |
| Arc discharge | Feasible to generate doped graphene carbon dots ( | undesirable carbon material generated requiring purification Large particle size distribution under the condition of high acidity, high potential, and high energy ( | Top-down |
| Electrochemical oxidation | Controllable size High purity Good reproducibility Process under the normal temperature and pressure ( | difficult to control complex purification process ( | Top-down |
| Hydrothermal | High purity Good dispersion Ease in particle size control Nontoxic ( | High vapor pressure (1 MPa ∼ 1 GPa) ( | Bottom-up |
| Solvothermal | Products are formed slowly CDs properties influenced by the kind of solvent ( | Low yield and purity, unsatisfactory uniformity of product size, and morphology ( | Bottom-up |
| Microwave | Homogeneous temperature distribution Direct heat of the target molecules lower reaction temperatures Possibility of very fast solid-state synthesis ( | Use of small reactors limit the large-scale production ( | Bottom-up |
| Thermal decomposition | Easy to operate Less time consuming Low cost Viability for large-scale production ( | Non fluorescent intermediates could be formed ( | Bottom-up |
| Pyrolysis | Simple process Economical Feasible for mass production of highly emissive CDs ( | High temperature is required Difficult to separate CDs and other small molecules of the raw materials ( | Bottom-up |
| Plasma treatment | Easy and low-cost process Able to generate functional groups on the surface of CDs by reactive gas plasma No additives are required Works at room temperature One-step and large-scale viability ( | Requires reactors with special configuration ( | Bottom-up |
Detection of Iron (II) / Iron (III) using green precursor derived CDs
| Precursor (Year) | Synthesis Technique | Limit of Detection (LOD), μM | Linear concentration range (LCR), μM | Quantum yield (QY), % | Metal ions screened for selectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrothermal | 0.4 | 0–60 | 6.48 | Co (II), Hg (II), Fe (II), | |
| Solvothermal | 1.7 × 10−3 | 5.0 × 10−31×102 | 19.8 | Hg (II), Fe (II), | |
| Hydrothermal | 52 × 10−3 | 0–0.18 ×109 | – | Na (I), K (I), Mg (II), Ca (II), Cr (III), Co (II), Ni (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), Ag (I), Hg (II), Cd (II), Pb (II), Fe (II), Al (III),and | |
| Autoclave | 0.31 | 0–20 | 28 | Na (I), K (I), Mn (II), Ba (II),Fe (II), Cu (II), Sn (II), Cr (III), Al (III), Pb (II), Ni (II), Mg (II), Zn (II), Hg (II), Cd (II), Ca (II), and | |
| Hydrothermal | 6.4 × 10−3 | 0–100 | 48 | Ag(I), Mn(II), Co(II), Fe(II), Cu(II), Cr(III), Al(III), Pb(II), Ni(II), Mg(II), Zn(II), Hg(II), Cd(II), Ca(II), and | |
| Hydrothermal | 1.46 | 0–20 | 5.8 | K(I), Ca(II), Mg(II), Cd(II), La(III), Pb(II), Mn(II), Co(II), Cr(III), Fe(II), Cu(II), and | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.32 | 1–100 | 8.64 | ||
| Pyrolysis | 3.12 | – | 18.2 | Cu (II), Al (III), Mg (II), K (I), Li (I), Na (I), Mn (II), Zn (II), Co (II), Ni (II), Cd (II), Sn (II), and | |
| Chemical Oxidation | 0.016 | 0.1–2.0 | 12.70 | Ba (II), Ca (II), Cu (II), Hg (II), Zn (II), Ni (II), Fe (II), Al (III), and | |
| 0.072 | 4.21 | ||||
| 0.065 | 2.76 | ||||
| Hydrothermal | 15.4 × 10−3 | 0–0.10 ×109 | – | K (I), Na (I), Mg (II), Zn (II), Ag (I), Cd (II), Ca (II), Pb (II), Co (II), Ni (II), Hg (II), Al (III), Cu (II), Fe (II), and | |
| Ultrasonic | 2.9 | 0–30 | 16.7 | Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cu (II), Cr (III), | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.11 | 0.5–80 | 12.4 | Ag (I), Na (I), K (I), Cd (II), Cr (III), Co (II), Cu (II), Ca (II), Fe (II), Hg (II), Mg (II), Mn (II), Zn (II), Ni (II), Pb (II), | |
| Hydrothermal | 21 × 10−3 | 0–30 | 17.2 | K (I), Li (I), Na (I), Zn (II), Ca (II), Cd (II), Cu (II), Mn (II), Pb (II), Mg (II), Co (II), Hg (II), Fe (II), Cr (III), Al (III), and | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.7462 | 3.3–32.2 | 23.48 | Ni (I), Ag (I), Cd (II), La (III), Pb (II), Co(II), Ce (III), K (I), Na (I), Ca (II), Y (III), Zr (IV), Al (III), Mg (II), Cu (II), Hg (II), | |
| D | Hydrothermal | 0.66 | 5–25 | 23.0 | Al (III), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), |
| Hydrothermal | 0.43 | 5–30 | – | Al (III), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.9 | 2–25 | 14 | Al (III), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.38 | 0.5–4 | 61.1 | Ag (I), Al (III), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cu (II), Cr (III), Hg (II), K (I), Mg (II), Pb (II), and | |
| L | Hydrothermal | 2.5 | 1–90 | – | Na (I), Al (III), Mn (II), Ag (I), Ni (II), Co (II), Zn (II), Cd (II), Hg (II), Mg (II), Pb (II), Cu (II), and |
| Hydrothermal | 70 | 0–2 | 9 | Al (III), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), Fe (II), | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.95 and 0.85 | 5–25 | 14 | Al (III), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (III), Cr (III), Cu (II), | |
| Hydrothermal | 0.135 | 0.3–3.3 | 4.21 | K (I), Cu (I), Na (I), Pb (II), Cu (II), Cr (VI), Zn (II), Fe (II), Cd (II), Ag (I), | |
| Hydrothermal | 0–30 | 0.77 | – | ||
| Hydrothermal | 10–200 ×10−6 | 121 × 10−6 | 27 | ||
| Hydrothermal | 0.088 | 0.2–100 | 8.13 | Ag (I), K (I), Na (I), Pb (II), | |
| 0.073 | 4.29 | ||||
| 0.080 | 7.72 | ||||
| 0.10 | 4.74 |
Commonly used salt for Fe(III) detection was FeCl3 and for Fe(II) was FeCl2 (Selectivity marked in bold letters; last column).
Denoted values were recalculated for uniformity in the corresponding units with respect to other reports.
Detection of Mercury (II) using green precursor derived CDs
| Precursor (year) | Quantum yield (%) | Synthesis Technique | Limit of Detection | Linear Concentration Range, μM | Metal ions screened for selectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.90 | Solvothermal | 9 | 0–40 | Na (I), K (I), Mg (II), Ca (II), Ba (II), Al (II), Sn (II), Pb (II), Cr (II), Mn (II), Fe (III), Fe (II), Co (II), Ni (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), Ag (I), Cd (II), and | |
| – | Solvothermal | 0.22 | 0.001–1 | Al (III), Fe (III), Cr (III), Cu (II), Mg (II), Pb (II), Zn (II), Ca (II), Cd (II), Mn (II), Co (II), Ag (I), Na (I), K (I), | |
| 19.0 | Microwave | 18.7 | 0.1–60 | ||
| 6.3 | Hydrothermal | 3 | 0.001–50 | Ca (II), Ag (I), Ni (II), Cr (III), Al (III), Cu (II), Ba (II), Fe (III), Pb (II), Zn (II), Fe (II), Co (II), Mg (II), Mn (II), Cd (II), and | |
| 6.9 | Hydrothermal | 0.23 | – | Ag (I), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cu (II), Fe (II), Mg (II), Mn (II), Ni (II), Pb (II), | |
| 19.9 | Microwave supported Hydrothermal | 14 | 0.014 -30 | Ag (I), Ba (II), Bi (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), Fe (III), Fe (II), | |
| 5.4 | Microwave | 0.5 | 0.0005–0.01 | Zn (II), Pb (II), Ni (II), Ca (II), Mg (II), Cu (II), Co (II), Cd (II), Fe (II), | |
| 10.7 | Thermal | 10 | 0–1 ×103 | Ag (I), Al (III), Ba (II), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), Fe (III), | |
| – | Hydrothermal | 1.02 | 0–10 ×10−3 | ||
| 14.4 | Hydrothermal | 480 | 10–160 | Cu (II), Mg (II), Co (II), Zn (II), Mn (II), Cd (II), Ca (II), Pb (II), Ba (II), and | |
| 24.8 ( | Pyrolysis | 10.3 | 0–1.2 | Ag (I), Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Al (III), Cu (II), | |
| 17.4 ( | 34.6 | 0.05–1.2 | |||
| 16.3 ( | 34.9 | 0–1.6 | |||
| – | Thermal Pyrolysis | 16.5 | 30.5 × 10−3 | Pb (II), Ni (II), Co (II), Cd (II), | |
| 42.0 | Hydrothermal | – | 0.1–100 | Ag (I), Al (III), Co (II), Cd (II), Cr (II), Cu (II), Ca (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), Pb (II), Mn (II), Mg (II), Ni (II), Zn (II), and | |
| – | Hydrothermal | 180 | 1–70 | ||
| 50.7 | Hydrothermal | 5.5 | 0.01–100 | Ag (I), Al (III), Ca (II), Co (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), Mg (II), Mn (II), Ni (II), Pb (II), Zn (II), Fe (II), | |
| 12.1 | Hydrothermal | 60 | 0.2–15 | ||
| 26.9 | Acid oxidation | 330 | 1.0–25 | ||
| 9.3 | Hydrothermal | 1.26 | 10–30 ×10−3 | ||
| 14 | Pyrolysis | 2.7 | 0–45 | Zn (II), Sr (II), Ba (II), Mn (II), Ca (II), Sn (II), Ni (II), Cu (II), Pd (II), Hg (II), | |
| 2.4 | Hydrothermal | 36 ×103 | 0–1.82 ×103 | ||
| 8 | Hydrothermal | 18 | 0.03–0.20 | Na (I), K (I), Fe (II), Fe (III), Cr (III), Ni (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), Cd (II), Hg (II), Mn (II), Mg (II), Co (II), As (II), Pb (II), Ag (I) , |
Commonly used salts for Hg(II) detection were Hg(NO3)2 and HgCl2 (Selectivity marked in bold letters; last column).
Detection of Copper (II) using green precursor derived CDs
| Precursor (Year) | Quantum Yield % | Synthesis technique | LOD | Linear concentration range (μM) | Metals ion screened for selectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Pyrolysis | 7.78 | – | ||
| 10.58 | Pyrolysis | 4.8 | 0–5 | ||
| 7.7 | Thermal coupling | 0.047 | 0- 15 | ||
| 12.3 | Hydrothermal | 7 × 10−3 (CDs) | 1–12.5 | ||
| 4.2 | Hydrothermal | 1 × 10−3 | 0 -50 | ||
| 7.1 | Hydrothermal | 0.115 | 0–66 | Co (II), Ca (II), | |
| – | Brewing method | 51 × 10−3 | 0–22 | Al (III), Ba (II), Ca (II), Cd (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), Hg (II), K (I), Li (I), Mg (II), Mn (II), Na (I), Ni (II), Sr (II), Zn (II), and |
Commonly used salts for Cu(II) detection were CuCl2, CuSO4 and Cu(NO3)2 (Selectivity marked in bold letters; last column).
Detection of Chromium III/(VI) using green precursor derived CDs
| Precursor (Year) | Quantum yield (%) | Techniques Used | Limit of Detection, μM | Linear Concentration range, μM | Metal ions screened for selectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23.7 | Pyrolysis | 2 × 10−3 | 0.028–2.86 | Na (I), Li (I), Fe (II), Cu (II), Mg (II), Zn (II), Pb (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Ni (II), | |
| 10.06 | Hydrothermal | 0.052 | 0–18 | Ag (I), Mg (II), Al (III), Cd (II), Cu (II), Fe (II), K (I), Na (I), Sr (II), Pb (II), Zn (II), and | |
| 3.06 | Hydrothermal | 0.015 | 1.6–50 | ||
| 14 | Hydrothermal | 73 × 10−3 | 2.5–50 | Ni (II), Cd (II), Fe (II), Cu (II), Mn (II), Co (II), Ba (II), and | |
| – | Oxidation | 0.51 | 0–20 ×103 | Na (I), Ba (II), Mn (II), Cd (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), As (III), Ni (II), Pb (II), Co (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), and | |
| – | Hydrothermal | 14 | – | Na (I), Eu (III), Sn (II), Ba (II), Pb (II), Cd (II), Ni (II), Cr (III), | |
| 20.5 | Hydrothermal | 0.52 | 0.01- 50 | Mg (II), Ba (II), Cd (II), Hg (II), Fe (III), Cu (II), Mn (II), Zn (II), Al (III), Ag (I), Ca (II), Pb (II), and | |
| 17.6 | Hydrothermal | 1.9 | 2–8 | Ca (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Cr (III), | |
| 8 | Hydrothermal | 0.018 | 0.03–0.18 | Na (I), K (I), Fe (II), Fe (III), Cr (III), Ni (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), Cd (II), Hg (II), Mn (II), Mg (II), Co (II), As (III), Pb (II), and Ag (I), | |
| 28 | hydrothermal | 81 × 10−6 | 10–200 ×10−6 | Fe (III), Hg (II), Cu (II), Cr (III), |
Commonly used salts for Cr (VI) detection : K2Cr2O7, K2CrO4 and for Cr (III) detection : CrCl3 (Selectivity marked in bold letters; last column).
Denoted values were recalculated for uniformity in the corresponding units with respect to other reports.
Detection of Lead (II) using green precursors derived CDs
| Precursor (Year) | Quantum yield (%) | Techniques used | Limit of detection, nM | Linear concentration range, μM | Metal ions screened for selectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.3 | Hydrothermal | 0.59 | 10–1000 | Cu (II), Mg (II), K (I), Ca (II), Ni (II), | |
| 16.1 | Hydrothermal | 0.055 | 0.1–20 × 10−3 | Na (I), K (I), Co (II), Hg (II), Ag (I), Cu (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), Zn (II), Mg (II), and | |
| 9.0 | Microwave | 0.11 | 0–20 | Cr (III), Cu (II), | |
| 33.1 | Hydrothermal | 9.64 | 0–200 × 10−3 | Na (I), K (I), Mn (II), Ba (II), Fe (II), Cu (II), Sn (II), Cr (III), Al (III), | |
| – | Acid hydrolysis | 5.05 ×103 | 0–6 ×10−3 | Ag (I), Cu (II), Co (II), Hg (I), Ni (II), Mg (II), Ca (II), and | |
| – | Pyrolysis | 7.49 ×103 | 0.2–0.8 | Cr (II), Co (II), Ni (II), Al (III), Ca (II), Zn (II), Sn (II), Hg (II), | |
| – | Solvothermal | 0.14 | 0.6–800 × 10−3 | Al (III), Fe (III), Cr (III), Cu (II), Mg (II), Zn (II), Ca (II), Cd (II), Mn (II), Co (II), Ag (I), Na (I), K (I), | |
| 22.6 | Hydrothermal | – | 1.3–106.7 | Ni (II), Fe (III), Fe (II), | |
| 2.5 | Microwave | 67 | – | Cd (II), Hg (II), Cu (II), Fe (III), K (I), Na (I), Ni (II), Co (II), Cr (VI), Mn (II), Ca (II), Zn (II), and | |
| – | Hydrothermal | 12.7 | 0.033–1.67 |
Commonly used salts for Pb(II) detection : Pb(NO3)2, PbCl2, Pb(CH3COO)2 (Selectivity marked in bold letters; last column).
Detection of Arsenic (III), Cobalt (II), Aluminum (III), Gold (III), and Silver (I) using green precursors derived CDs
| Precursor (Year) | Quantum yield (%) | Techniques used | Limit of detection, μM | Linear concentration range, μM | Metal ions screened for selectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.7 | Hydrothermal | 2.3 × 10−3 | 2–12 × 10−3 | ||
| 8.55 | Microwave | 0.01 | 0.5–10 | ||
| 23.5 | Microwave | 0.39 | 1–200 | K (I), Mn (II), Cd (II), Fe (II), Ni (II), Cu (II), Na (I), Hg (II), Pb (II), Fe (III), Cr (III), Cr (VI), and | |
| 3.5 | Hydrothermal | 6.45 × 10−3 | 0–40 | Na (I), K (I), Ca (II), Cd (II), Ag (I), Mg (II), Cr (III), Mn (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), Ni (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), | |
| 10.80 | Hydrothermal | 2.5 × 10−3 | 0.005–50 | Hg (II), Ni (II), Ca (II), K (I), Ba (II), Cd (II), Cr (III), Cu (II), Pb (II), Zn (II), Fe (III), and | |
| – | Hydrothermal | 0.5 | 0–600 | Cr (III), Mn (II), Ni (II), | |
| 54 | Pyrolysis and Hydrothermal | 0.2–0.6 ×103 | – | Cu (II), Ni (II), Co (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), | |
| – | Hydrothermal | 38 × 10−3 | 8.3 × 10−4 | ||
| 17.91 | Microwave | 239 × 10−3 | 0–100 | Na (I), K (I), Ca (II), Mn (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), Co (II), Cu (II), Zn (II), Ag (I), Hg (II), Pb (II), and | |
| 28.46 | Hydrothermal carbonization | 0.64 | 0–50 | Na (I), Ag (I), Zn (II), Ca (II), Mn (II), Ni (II), Cd (II), Cu (II), Co (II), Pb (II), Fe (II), Fe (III), Pd (II), Pt (IV), and | |
| 66.74 | Hydrothermal | 2.69 | 0–100 | Na (I), | |
Commonly used salts for Cobalt (II), Aluminum (III), Gold (III), and Silver (I) detection were CoCl2, AlCl3, AuCl3 and AgNO3 respectively. (Selectivity marked in bold letters; last column).
Denoted values were recalculated for uniformity in the corresponding units with respect to other reports.
Figure 6Green vs chemical/physical synthesis of CDs
Comparison (green vs chemical/physical technique for CDs' preparation) chart represents the (A) qualitative estimation of total fabrication cost range and (B) parameters to be considered during CDs preparation process.