| Literature DB >> 35408267 |
Fabrizio Caroleo1, Gabriele Magna1, Mario Luigi Naitana2, Lorena Di Zazzo3, Roberto Martini1, Francesco Pizzoli1, Mounika Muduganti1, Larisa Lvova1, Federica Mandoj1, Sara Nardis1, Manuela Stefanelli1, Corrado Di Natale3, Roberto Paolesse1.
Abstract
Optical chemical sensors are widely applied in many fields of modern analytical practice, due to their simplicity in preparation and signal acquisition, low costs, and fast response time. Moreover, the construction of most modern optical sensors requires neither wire connections with the detector nor sophisticated and energy-consuming hardware, enabling wireless sensor development for a fast, in-field and online analysis. In this review, the last five years of progress (from 2017 to 2021) in the field of optical chemical sensors development for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) is provided. The operating mechanisms, the transduction principles and the types of sensing materials employed in single selective optical sensors and in multisensory systems are reviewed. The selected examples of optical sensors applications are reported to demonstrate the benefits and drawbacks of optical chemical sensor use for POPs assessment.Entities:
Keywords: biological sensors; chemical sensors; ecological monitoring; health risks assessment; multisensor analysis; optical transduction; persistent organic pollutants
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408267 PMCID: PMC9002670 DOI: 10.3390/s22072649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Scheme 1The structure of the present review on optical chemical sensors for POPs assessment.
Optical chemical sensors for POPs detection.
| Sensitive Material | Principle | Analyzed Compound | Application | Detection Limit | Concentration Range | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| UCNPs@COFs | Fluorescence quenching | PFOS | Tap water and food packing | 0.15 pM | 0.18 pM–18 nM | [ |
| NCDs | Fluorescence enhancement | PFOS | River and lake water | 0.3 nM | 3 × 10−10–1.6 × 10−8 M | [ |
| UMIR probe | Fluorescence quenching (ratiometric) | PFOS | Lake water, human serum, egg | 1 pM | 0.001–0.1 nM | [ |
| 0.1–1 nM | ||||||
| GC5A-6C | Fluorescence enhancement | PFOS | Tap water, lake water | 30 nM (PFOS) | 0–2 μM | [ |
| GC5A-12C | PFOA | 39 nM (PFOA) | ||||
| BowtieCyclo | Fluorescence enhancement | PFOS | In water | 47.3 nM | 0–0.6 μM | [ |
| Water-soluble copolymers based on thymine | Fluorescence enhancement | PAHs (BaP, Pyr) | Tap, ditch, and river water samples | 0.11 ng/mL (BaP); | 0.0–2.0 ng/mL (BaP) | [ |
| 0.06 ng/mL (Pyr) | 0.0–1.25 ng/mL (Pyr) | [ | ||||
| γ cyclodextrin-dye complex | Fluorescence enhancement | PAHs and metabolites | Human breast milk | 0.32–59.52 μM | - | [ |
| Ln-MOF | Fluorescence quenching | Polychlorinated aromatic compounds | - | - | 0–1000 nM | [ |
| BT-CTF | Fluorescence quenching | Primary aromatic amines (PAAs) | - | 11.7 nM (PA); | 3–33 μM | [ |
| 1.47 nM (PDA); | ||||||
| 26.2 nM (NPA) | ||||||
| ssDNA/L-cysteine capped ZnS QDs/GO sheets | Fluorescence quenching | Edifenphos (EDI) | In laboratory | 0.13 μg/L | 0.5–6 μg/L | [ |
| ZnO QDs@APTES | Fluorescence quenching | Aldrin, tetradifon, glyphosate, atrazine | In laboratory | - | - | [ |
| PLNPs | Fluorescence quenching | Nitrofurazone | Milk and lake water | 5 nM; 10 nM (TNP) | - | [ |
| PDI derivatives | Fluorescence quenching | Berberine chloride | Commercial medicine | 28 nM | 1.0–30.0 μM | [ |
| PDI derivatives | Fluorescence quenching | Polymyxins B | Meat | 18.5 nM | 1–2000 nM | [ |
| BA–LMOFs@MIP | Fluorescence enhancement (363 nm)/quenching (618 nm) | Ribaverin | Eggs and lake water | 7.62 ng/mL | 25–1200 ng/mL | [ |
| 3,3,5,5-tetramethylbenzidine (TMB)/MoS2 -Fe3O4 nanocomposite | Colorimetric (Absorbance) | PFOS | - | 4.3 ppb | 0.05–6.25 ppm | [ |
| Ethyl violet, ethyl acetate | Colorimetric (RGB) | PFOAPFOS | On field—real water samples | 10 ppb (Dual LPE); | 10–1000 ppb | [ |
| 0.5 ppb (SPE) | ||||||
| Toluidine blue TB | Dual-channel sensor: RRS (Rayleigh scattering) and colorimetric | PFOS | Real water samples | 4.2 (nmol/L) | 0.04–20.0 (μmol/L) | [ |
| α,α,α,α-5,10,15,20-tetra-(2-amido-phenyl-pentadecafluoro-octanoyl)porphyrin | Colorimetric (Absorbance) | PFOA | Spiked soil sample | 3 ppm | 3–30 ppm | [ |
|
| ||||||
| Microporous silica capsule/Au plasmonic films | SERS | DDT | Natural water | - | 1 ppb–3 ppm | [ |
| Ag NPs/non-woven fabric | SERS | several pesticides residues | In fruits | - | - | [ |
| Nanoporous silver sheet | SERS | Organochlorine, as lindane | In laboratory | 87 ppb | 87–364 ppb | [ |
| Au concave Nanocrystals | SERS | Lindane | In laboratory | - | 30–300 ppm | [ |
| MoO2 | SERS | Bisphenol A (BPA), dichloropheno (DCP), pentachlorophenol (PCP) | In laboratory | 10−7 M | 10−7–10−4 M | [ |
| AgNPs modified with organic p -acceptor molecules | SERS | PAH/PASH | In laboratory/fuel samples | Up to 10 × 10−9 M | 0.05 × 10−6–50 × 10−6 M | [ |
| Ag nanocubes/GO/AuNPs | SERS | Thiram, thiabendazole | Drinking-water | 0.37–8.3 ppb | 0.1–10 nM | [ |
| AgNPs | SERS | DBT | In laboratory/ | 10−6 M | 10−5–10−3 M | [ |
| petrol samples | ||||||
| AgNPs | SERS | Organochlorine pesticides | In laboratory | 10−5 M | - | [ |
| Au nanosheets/ | SERS | HCH | In laboratory | 0.3 ppb | 10−9 M–10−5 M | [ |
| 4-MBPA | ||||||
| AuNPs/cysteamine | SERS | PCP | In laboratory | 0.26 mg/L | 1 nM–100 μM | [ |
| AuNPs/HS-b-CD | SERS | anthracene, naphthalene | In laboratory | 1 ppb/10 ppb | 1 ppb–1 ppm | [ |
| AuNPs/DSNB | SERS | benzo[a]pyrene | In laboratory | 2 nM | - | [ |
| AuNPs | SERS | PAHs | In laboratory | 0.45 µg/L (PYR); | 0–100 µg/L | [ |
| 0.23 µg/L (PHE); | ||||||
| 1.38 µg/L (NaP) | ||||||
| AgNPs on Al2O3 nanotips | SERS | Ractopamine | Raw pork | 10 µg/L | 1.0 × 10−8–1.0 × 10−4 M | [ |
| Ag@Fe3O4@Ag/β-CD NPs | SERS | BBP | In laboratory/liquor | 1.3 mg/kg | 5 × 10−8–5 × 10−5 M | [ |
| Citrate-coated AuNPs | SERS | Chlordane | In laboratory/ | 1 ppm | 0.5 ppm–10 ppm | [ |
| crude oil | ||||||
| AgNpS | SERS | PAHs | In laboratory | 5 ng/L (pyrene) | 0–40 ng/L | [ |
| 50 ng/L (benzo[a]pyrene) | ||||||
| 100 ng/L (anthracene) | ||||||
| Au-Ag alloyed nanocrystal/ZIF8 | SERS | HCH | In laboratory | <1.5 ppb | 5 × 10−9–1 × 10−4 M | [ |
| Au-Ag/Si nanoporous—ZIF8 | SERS | PCP | In laboratory | 10−13 M | 10−13–10−7 M | [ |
| Au-MOF-5 | SERS | Paraoxon, fenitrothion | In laboratory | <10−12 M | 10−14–10−6 M | [ |
|
| ||||||
| Aptamers on AuNPs | Colorimetric | PCB 77 | On field—real water samples | 0.05 nM | 0.5–900 nM | [ |
| biosensor | ||||||
| Aptamers/cDNA and magnetic microspheres | Fluorescence | PCB72/106 | On field | 0.0035 ng/mL | 0.004–800 ng/mL | [ |
| biosensor | ||||||
| (LC)-based aptamer | Color intensity | PCB77 | Food quality assessment | 1.5 × 10−5 μg/L | 1.5 × 10−5–15 μg/L | [ |
| biosensor | ||||||
| Genetically engineered CSH cell | Luminescence cell biosensor | PBDEs | In laboratory | 0.01 µM | 0.05–6.0 µM | [ |
| Mono-specific antibodies | SPR–POF biosensor | PFOA/PFOS | In laboratory | 0.21 ppb | 0 -100 ppb | [ |
|
| ||||||
| Poly(styrene-acrylic acid) and TiO2 NPs | PhC, naked-eye or smartphone detection | Benzene (benz), toluene (tol), xylene (xyl), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (TMB) | In laboratory | 1.69 g/m3/410.9 ppm (tol); | 0.0–81.18 g/m3 (tol); | [ |
| 5.26 g/m3/1511.5 ppm (benz); | 0.0–300 g/m3 (benz); | |||||
| 0.47 g/m3/99.2 ppm (xyl); | 0.0–40 g/m3 (xyl); | |||||
| 0.079 g/m3/14.7 ppm (TMB) | 0.0–14 g/m3 (TMB) | |||||
| Silicon slab | Hexagonal structured PhC | DDT and PCB | Drinking water | - | RI–1.5795 (DDT); | [ |
| RI–1.491; (PCB) | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| SPR–POF-MIP | SPR | PFOA; PFOS; mixture of 11 perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAs, C4–C11 range) | In water | 0.13 ppb (PFOA); | 0–4 ppb | [ |
| 0.15 ppb (PFAs) | ||||||
| D-shaped POF-SPR | SPR | PFOA | In water | 0.5 ppb | 0–200 ppb | [ |
| Dual- channel solid silica/Au external coating | PCF-SPR | Compounds with | In laboratory | - | - | [ |
| RI 1.30–1.40 | ||||||
| Au/TiO2 thin film on glass | PCF | Compounds with | In laboratory | - | - | [ |
| I 1.33–1.41 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| CTAB encapsulated Cu NCs | Fluorescence quenching | Dithiocarbamates (DTCs) | On field | 0.63 mg/L | 1–100 mg/L | [ |
| Sensitivity 1.158 mg/L | ||||||
| Fluorescent QDs | Fluorescence | NACs—nitroaromatic compounds | - | - | Classification: 13 NAC (0.1 mM) | [ |
| Optical filter | ||||||
| LMOFs | Luminescence quenching | PFASs | - | - | Classification: 6 PFASs, (2 µg/mL) | [ |
| CD + PVA | Luminescence | PAHs | 0–200 μM | Classification: 16 PAHs (10 μM) | [ | |
| Inner filter | ||||||
| Conjugated polymers (CPs) | Fluorescence | Azo dyes | - | - | Classification:12 azo dyes (500 nM) in river—wastewaters6 azo dyes (15 μM) in seawater | [ |
| Inner filter | ||||||
| Acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE) | Fluorescence | Organophosphourus (OPs) and carbamate pesticides | - | 0–5 ppm | Classification: 30 OPs and carbamate up to concentrations equal to 0.2 ppm | [ |
Scheme 2Schematic representation of the main designs and working mechanisms of fluorescent sensors: (a) “turn-on”, (b) “turn-off”, (c) ratiometric, and (d) the easier system where the receptor is itself fluorescent. Of course, if the recognition unit is fluorescent, an easier sensing system is also exploitable (d).
Scheme 3Schematic representation of (a) the Indicator Displacement Assay (IDA) and (b) the Intramolecular Indicator Displacement Assay (IIDA) used in fluorometric sensors.
Figure 1Sensing system based on the fluorescence quenching of UCNPs@COFs by PFOS in the presence of SDBS. Reprinted from [16].
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the upconversion molecular imprinted ratiometric probe. Reprinted from [18].
Figure 3Illustration of the absorption and magnetic separation procedure of PFOS and PFOA by the MNP@GC5A-12C nanoparticle. Reported from [19].
Figure 4The (a) chemical structure and (b) the schematic representation of the development of BC as a fluorescence sensor for PFOS detection. Reported from [20].
Figure 5Representation of the structures of the main PAHs.
Figure 6Schematic representation of ZnO QDs interaction (a) Aldrin and (b) Glyphosate. Reported from [30].
Figure 7Schematic representation of PLNPs, adopted from [31].
Figure 8Schematic representation of PDI based sensors, adopted from [32].
Figure 9(a) Colorimetric sensing detection of PFOS; (b) UV–Vis absorbance variation at 652 nm with increasing concentrations of PFOS. Reported from [36].
Figure 10(a) The portable instrument setup, with the sample holder and the fixed LEDs. (b) The holder keeping the smartphone in a reading position. Reported from [37].
Figure 11Illustration of the sensing mechanism for PFOS detection based on a TB receptor.
Figure 12Schematic procedure of sensor assembly and BaP detection. Adopted from [50].
Figure 13(a) Molecular structure of 4-(1-Hydroxy-2-((4-(4-hydroxyphenyl)butan-2-yl)amino) ethyl)phenol (Ractopamine). (b) Molecular structure of Benzyl butyl benzene-1,2-dicarboxylate (BBP).
Figure 14(a) Scheme of the colorimetric aptasensor for detection of PCB. The aptamers were absorbed on the nanoparticles. Then, the addition of PCB and the binding with the aptamer induced the aggregation of AuNPS and changed the color of the solution from red to blue. (b) Representation of the fluorescent aptasensor for PCB detection with the development of a dual amplification strategy [83].
Figure 15The schematic structure of an aptamer-based LC biosensor for PCB. After the binding with the target, the structure of THMS is disassembled, and the STP binds STP’ on the LP cell with a change of optical response, from dark to bright. Reported from [84].
Figure 16(A) Optical biosensor system based on the POF–SPR platform. (B) Functionalization process of the gold surface. (C) Resonance spectra acquired in buffer solution obtained before and after the functionalization process with msAb anti-PFOA. Both measurements were obtained by dropping 50 μL of 20 sodium phosphate buffer pH 7.4 over the sensing surface, with and without the receptor layer. Reprinted from [92].
Scheme 4Schematic presentation of direct and reagent mediated FOCSs.
Figure 17(A) Production steps for realizing an SPR sensor in a D-shaped POF with an MIP receptor; 1, 2, 3 correspond to the production steps. (B) SPR spectra obtained at different concentrations of PFOA in water solution (0–4 ppb) by an SPR–POF–MIP sensor. Inset: zoom of the resonance wavelengths. Reprinted from [102].
Figure 18(a) Selectivity study of the CuNCs-based sensor. The concentration of DTCs and other pesticides is 50 and 125 mg/kg, respectively. (b) The discrimination of four DTCs by using hierarchical clustering. Image is rearranged from Figures 3b and 4 of [108].
Figure 19(a) Pristine and functionalized QDs. Surface functionalization occurs by the use of thiols bearing a benzene at the antipode. (b) Scheme of ON-OFF protocol utilized to improve the array performances. Three consecutive steps were performed consisting of NACs interaction, addition of a quencher (Q.A.) and finally addition of a masking agent (M.A.) to recover the signal of fluorescence. (c) PLS-DA projection using nine channels (three sensing QDS × three measurement steps). (d) Classification performances after NACs addition (three channels), NACs + Q.A. (six channels), and NACs + Q.A. + M.A. (nine channels). The histograms report both Jackknifed classification accuracy and unknown detection accuracy. Image is rearranged from Figures 1, 5 and 6 of [109].
Figure 20(a) Fluorescence spectra of PCN-224 suspension at λex 430 nm upon the addition of different PFASs at 2 µg/mL. (b) LDA canonical score plot and (c) HCA plot derived from fluorescence responses of PCN sensor array toward six PFASs at a concentration of 2 µg/mL. Eclipses represent 95% confidence. (d) LDA canonical score plot derived from fluorescence responses of PCN array toward standard (gray) and test (red, blue, and green) mixtures of PFOA and PFDA in surface water. Image is rearranged from Figures 2c, 3b,c and 7a of [110].
Figure 21(a) The process of discrimination pesticides against OPs profenofos and carbamates propoxur, by using a 12-element array. (b) The fluorescence emission mechanism in the original pattern and (c) the pesticide induced fluorescence quenching mechanism in the reaction pattern. Image is rearranged from Scheme 1 of [113].