| Literature DB >> 35479481 |
Mohd Junaedy Osman1, Jahwarhar Izuan Abdul Rashid1, Ong Keat Khim1,2, Wan Md Zin Wan Yunus3,4, Siti Aminah Mohd Noor1, Noor Azilah Mohd Kasim1,2, Victor Feizal Knight2, Teoh Chin Chuang5.
Abstract
Acephate (Ac) is an organophosphate (OP) compound, which is able to inhibit the activity of acetylcholinesterase. Thus, the aim of this study was to optimize the detection of Ac using a thiolated acephate binding aptamer-citrate capped gold nanoparticle (TABA-Cit-AuNP) sensor that also incorporated an image processing technique. The effects of independent variables, such as the incubation period of TABA-Cit-AuNPs (3-24 h) for binding TABA to Cit-AuNPs, the concentration of phosphate buffer saline (PBS) (0.001-0.01 M), the concentration of thiolated acephate binding aptamer (TABA) (50-200 nM), and the concentration of magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) (1-300 mM) were investigated. A quadratic model was developed using a central composite design (CCD) from response surface methodology (RSM) to predict the sensing response to Ac. The optimum conditions such as the concentration of PBS (0.01 M), the concentration of TABA (200 nM), the incubation period of TABA-Cit-AuNPs (3 h), and the concentration of MgSO4 (1 mM) were used to produce a TABA-Cit-AuNPs sensor for the detection of Ac. Under optimal conditions, this sensor showed a detection ranging from 0.01 to 2.73 μM and a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.06 μM. Real sample analysis demonstrated this aptasensor as a good analytical method to detect Ac. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35479481 PMCID: PMC9037117 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra04318h
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Experimental factor in coded and actual units
| Standard run number |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.010 | 200 | 3.0 | 1.0 |
| 2 | 0.005 | 125 | 3.0 | 150.5 |
| 3 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 4 | 0.010 | 50 | 3.0 | 300.0 |
| 5 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 1.0 |
| 6 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 300.0 |
| 7 | 0.001 | 200 | 3.0 | 1.0 |
| 8 | 0.001 | 50 | 3.0 | 300.0 |
| 9 | 0.010 | 200 | 3.0 | 300.0 |
| 10 | 0.010 | 200 | 24.0 | 1.0 |
| 11 | 0.001 | 50 | 24.0 | 300.0 |
| 12 | 0.005 | 200 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 13 | 0.010 | 50 | 24.0 | 300.0 |
| 14 | 0.001 | 50 | 3.0 | 1.0 |
| 15 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 16 | 0.005 | 125 | 24.0 | 150.5 |
| 17 | 0.010 | 200 | 24.0 | 300.0 |
| 18 | 0.010 | 50 | 3.0 | 1.0 |
| 19 | 0.010 | 50 | 24.0 | 1.0 |
| 20 | 0.001 | 50 | 24.0 | 1.0 |
| 21 | 0.001 | 200 | 24.0 | 1.0 |
| 22 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 23 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 24 | 0.001 | 200 | 3.0 | 300.0 |
| 25 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 26 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 27 | 0.010 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 28 | 0.005 | 50 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
| 29 | 0.001 | 200 | 24.0 | 300.0 |
| 30 | 0.001 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 |
Fig. 1Schematic of experimental set-up for detection of Ac assisted by image processing technique.
Experimental factors in coded and actual units and experimental responses
| Experimental run |
|
|
|
| Response (RVs) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental data | Predicted data | |||||
| 1 | 0.010 | 200 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 33.97 ± 0.68 | 33.09 |
| 2 | 0.005 | 125 | 3.0 | 150.5 | 38.13 ± 0.32 | 38.32 |
| 3 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 43.10 ± 1.45 | 43.14 |
| 4 | 0.010 | 50 | 3.0 | 300.0 | 44.25 ± 0.11 | 44.29 |
| 5 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 1.0 | 36.99 ± 0.41 | 37.55 |
| 6 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 300.0 | 43.65 ± 1.04 | 43.13 |
| 7 | 0.001 | 200 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 37.91 ± 0.67 | 38.37 |
| 8 | 0.001 | 50 | 3.0 | 300.0 | 43.11 ± 1.38 | 43.34 |
| 9 | 0.010 | 200 | 3.0 | 300.0 | 43.32 ± 0.41 | 43.69 |
| 10 | 0.010 | 200 | 24.0 | 1.0 | 36.10 ± 2.07 | 36.20 |
| 11 | 0.001 | 50 | 24.0 | 300.0 | 37.64 ± 2.12 | 38.17 |
| 12 | 0.005 | 200 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 46.89 ± 1.84 | 47.73 |
| 13 | 0.010 | 50 | 24.0 | 300.0 | 41.18 ± 0.33 | 41.06 |
| 14 | 0.001 | 50 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 38.07 ± 1.91 | 37.84 |
| 15 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 43.57 ± 1.73 | 43.14 |
| 16 | 0.005 | 125 | 24.0 | 150.5 | 37.45 ± 0.07 | 37.29 |
| 17 | 0.010 | 200 | 24.0 | 300.0 | 41.95 ± 0.52 | 41.84 |
| 18 | 0.010 | 50 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 35.07 ± 2.33 | 35.35 |
| 19 | 0.010 | 50 | 24.0 | 1.0 | 36.95 ± 0.49 | 37.07 |
| 20 | 0.001 | 50 | 24.0 | 1.0 | 37.66 ± 1.11 | 37.62 |
| 21 | 0.001 | 200 | 24.0 | 1.0 | 39.92 ± 1.27 | 39.54 |
| 22 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 42.48 ± 1.17 | 43.14 |
| 23 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 43.66 ± 1.43 | 43.14 |
| 24 | 0.001 | 200 | 3.0 | 300.0 | 45.98 ± 2.40 | 45.53 |
| 25 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 42.70 ± 2.37 | 43.14 |
| 26 | 0.005 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 43.43 ± 0.12 | 43.14 |
| 27 | 0.010 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 42.72 ± 0.33 | 42.93 |
| 28 | 0.005 | 50 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 47.87 ± 1.44 | 47.07 |
| 29 | 0.001 | 200 | 24.0 | 300.0 | 41.69 ± 0.60 | 41.75 |
| 30 | 0.001 | 125 | 13.5 | 150.5 | 44.31 ± 2.11 | 44.13 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for response surface quadratic model for RVs
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 377.00 | 14 | 26.93 | 77.39 | <0.0001 |
|
| 6.44 | 1 | 6.44 | 18.52 | 0.0006 |
|
| 1.95 | 1 | 1.95 | 5.61 | 0.0317 |
|
| 4.79 | 1 | 4.79 | 13.76 | 0.0021 |
|
| 139.75 | 1 | 139.75 | 401.65 | <0.0001 |
|
| 7.77 | 1 | 7.77 | 22.33 | 0.0003 |
|
| 3.76 | 1 | 3.76 | 10.79 | 0.0050 |
|
| 11.80 | 1 | 11.80 | 33.92 | <0.0001 |
|
| 1.93 | 1 | 1.93 | 5.54 | 0.0326 |
|
| 2.74 | 1 | 2.74 | 7.87 | 0.0133 |
|
| 24.52 | 1 | 24.52 | 70.48 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.4059 | 1 | 0.4059 | 1.17 | 0.2972 |
|
| 47.10 | 1 | 47.10 | 135.38 | <0.0001 |
|
| 73.58 | 1 | 73.58 | 211.47 | <0.0001 |
|
| 20.25 | 1 | 20.25 | 58.21 | <0.0001 |
|
| 5.22 | 15 | 0.3479 | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 4.05 | 10 | 0.4055 | 1.74 | 0.2809 |
| Pure error | 1.16 | 5 | 0.2329 | — | — |
|
| 382.22 | 29 | — | — | — |
|
|
|
| C.V. = 1.44% | ||
Significant.
Not significant.
Fig. 2Response surface plot showing the effect of (a) concentration of PBS and concentration of TABA, (b) concentration of PBS and incubation period of TABA–Cit-AuNPs, (c) concentration of PBS and concentration of MgSO4, (d) concentration of TABA and incubation period of TABA–Cit-AuNPs, (e) concentration of PBS and concentration of MgSO4 and (f) incubation period of TABA–Cit-AuNPs and concentration of MgSO4.
Fig. 3Numerical optimisation parameter of RVs.
Results for detection of various concentrations of Ac at the optimum conditions
| Concentration of Ac (μM) | Blank | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.55 | 1.36 | 2.73 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cropped images |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean RVs | 145.5 | 143.1 | 140.2 | 138.7 | 135.4 | 127.1 | 115.6 | 82.3 | 36.2 |
| Standard deviation | 0.80 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.44 | 0.27 | 0.15 | 0.80 | 0.15 |
| Relative standard variation (%) | 0.55 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.98 | 0.42 |
|
| — | 0.037 | 0.008 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Fig. 4Standard curve of Ac by optimised colorimetric aptasensor coupled with image processing.
Fig. 5Schematic illustration of the mechanism detection of acephate using AuNPs based-aptasensor.
Fig. 6Detection of Ac in different spiked water samples.
Detection results of tap water and lake water spiked with Ac
| Water sample | Tap water | Lake water | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spiked concentration (μM) | 2.73 | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 2.73 | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.05 |
| Cropped images |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Calculated mean concentration (μM) | 2.744 | 0.553 | 0.273 | 0.054 | 2.765 | 0.597 | 0.329 | 0.053 |
| Standard deviation | 0.029 | 0.027 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.031 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Relative standard deviation (%) | 1.043 | 4.833 | 1.416 | 3.277 | 1.137 | 1.970 | 3.666 | 4.056 |
| Percentage recovery (%) | 100.5 | 100.5 | 101.3 | 108.4 | 101.3 | 108.6 | 121.8 | 106.0 |