| Literature DB >> 35498306 |
Mohammed M Rahman1,2, Mohammad Musarraf Hussain1,2,3, Muhammad Nadeem Arshad1,2, Abdullah M Asiri1,2.
Abstract
In this study, noble ligands of (E)-N'-(benzo[d]dioxol-5-ylmethylene)-4-methyl-benzenesulfonohydrazide (BDMMBSH) were prepared via a simple condensation method using benzo-[d][1,3]-dioxole carbaldehyde, benzenesulfonylhydrazine (BSH), and 4-methyl-benzenesulphonylhydrazine (4-MBSH) in good yield, which were crystallized in acetone, EtOAc, and EtOH. The BDMMBSH derivatives were characterized using different spectroscopic techniques, such as 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR, FTIR, and UV-Vis spectroscopy, and their crystal structures were analyzed using the single crystal X-ray diffraction method (SCXRDM). Subsequently, the BDMMBSH compounds were used for the significant detection of the carcinogenic heavy metal ion, lead (Pb2+), via a reliable electrochemical approach. A sensitive and selective Pb2+ sensor was developed via the deposition of a thin layer of BDMMBSH on a GCE with the conducting polymer matrix Nafion (NF). The sensitivity, LOQ, and LOD of the proposed sensor towards Pb2+ were calculated from the calibration curves to be 2220.0 pA μM-1 cm-2, 320.0 mM, and 96.0 pM, respectively. The validation of the BDMMBSH/GCE/NF sensor probe was performed via the selective determination of Pb2+ in spiked natural samples with a satisfactory and rational outcome. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35498306 PMCID: PMC9049008 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra09080k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Scheme 1Synthesis of BDMMBSH molecules.
Crystal data and structure refinement of the as-synthesized molecules
| Parameter | BDMBSH (4) | BDMMBSH (5) |
|---|---|---|
| ID | 17075 | 17076 |
| CCDC |
|
|
| EF | C14H12N2O4S | C15H14N2O4S |
| FW | 304.32 | 318.34 |
| Crystal system | Monoclinic | Hexagonal |
| Temperature/K | 296(2) | 296(2) |
| Space group |
|
|
|
| 10.3559(8) | 11.4162(4) |
|
| 12.2616(9) | 11.4162(4) |
|
| 10.7523(8) | 20.9435(7) |
| Volume/Å3 | 1364.84(18) | 2363.87(18) |
|
| 90 | 90 |
|
| 91.528(7) | 90 |
|
| 90 | 120 |
|
| 4 | 6 |
|
| 1.481 | 1.342 |
| Crystal size/mm3 | 0.48 × 0.29 × 0.20 | 0.40 × 0.31 × 0.24 |
|
| 632.0 | 996.0 |
|
| 0.255 | 0.224 |
| 2 | 6.458 to 58.3° | 6.356 to 58.142° |
| Reflections collected | 6171 | 5104 |
| Index range | −8 ≤ | −5 ≤ |
| Independent reflections | 3236 [ | 3354 [ |
| Goodness-of-fit on | 1.020 | 1.011 |
| Data/restraints/parameters | 3236/0/193 | 3354/1/201 |
| Final |
|
|
| Largest diff. peak/hole/eÅ−3 | 0.28/−0.39 | 0.28/−0.16 |
| Final |
|
|
| Flack parameter | — | 0.07(12) |
Fig. 1Molecular structures of the as-synthesized compounds.
Fig. 2Hydrogen bonding pattern of the as-prepared molecules.
Hydrogen bonds in the prepared compounds
| D | H | A |
|
|
| D–H–A/° | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| C5 | H5 | O2 | 0.93 | 2.57 | 3.282(2) | 133.2 | |
| N1 | H1N | O1 | 0.80(2) | 2.21(2) | 3.000(2) | 168.8(19) | |
|
| |||||||
| C14 | H14B | O1 | 0.97 | 2.60 | 3.273(9) | 126.3 | |
1 − X, 1/2 + Y, 1/2 − Z.
1 − X, 1 − Y, 1 − Z.
1 + X, Y, Z.
Scheme 2Proposed mechanism of BDMMBSH–Pb2+ complex formation and the respective electrochemical responses.
Fig. 3Optimization of the sensor: (a) pH examination, (b) electrochemical response of BDMBSH and BDMMBSH compounds, (c) bar diagram presentation of BDMBSH and BDMMBSH molecule optimization at +1.2 V with error bars of 10.0%, and (d) comparison of the electrochemical response with the bare and coated electrodes.
Fig. 4Sensor performances. (a) Selectivity investigation, (b) control experiment with the two synthesized compounds, (c) bar diagram presentation of the control experiment at +1.2 V with an error limit of 10.0%, and (d) control experiment in the presence of lead ions with the bare and coated electrodes.
Fig. 5Sensor optimization. (a) Concentration variation study, (b) calibration curve at +0.7 V with error bar = 10.0%, (c) linear dynamic range plot with confidence interval, and (d) response time of Pb2+ towards the BDMMBSH/GCE/NF sensor.
Fig. 6Sensor performance evaluation. (a) Reproducibility and (b) repeatability.
Detection of Pb2+ using different compound-modified sensors via electrochemical methodsa
| Sensor | Method | LDR (μg L−1) | Sensitivity (Ma L μg−1) | LOD (μg L−1) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPTE | CV | 1–200 | 0.087 | 0.3 |
|
| Graphene/PATE | — | 1–300 | 0.035 | 0.1 |
|
| Bi/C composite SPE | — | 1–50 | 0.025 | 2.3 |
|
| Bi/PSS/SPCE | — | ∼45 | 0.39 | 0.27 |
|
| Paper/SPCE | — | 10–100 | 0.009 | 2.0 |
|
| CMTE | — | 5–110 | 0.47 | 0.87 |
|
| Bi citrate/SPE | CV | 10–80 | 0.040 | 0.9 |
|
| BDMMBSH/GCE/NF |
| 100–10 (pM–mM) | 2220.0 (pA μM−1 cm−2) | 96.0 pM | This work |
SPTE: stencil-printed transparency electrode, PATE: polyaniline transparency electrode, SPE: screen-printed electrode, SPCE: screen-printed carbon electrode, CMTE: carbon micro-thread electrode, and I–V: current–voltage.
Fig. 7Sensor optimization. (a) Interference effect study and (b) bar diagram of the interference effect study at +0.7 V with error bars of 10.0%.
Interference effect study of interference metal ions towards the proposed Pb2+ sensora
| IMI | Observed current (μA) | IEF (%) | SD ( | RSD% ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Average | ||||
| Pb2+ | 3.06 | 1.07 | 1.10 | 1.74 | 100 | 1.14 | 65.41 |
| Cd2+ | 1.35 | 1.18 | 1.22 | 1.25 | 72 | 0.09 | 7.11 |
| Ce2+ | 1.22 | 1.20 | 1.26 | 1.23 | 71 | 0.03 | 2.49 |
| Co2+ | 1.67 | 1.27 | 1.33 | 1.42 | 82 | 0.22 | 15.16 |
| Cu2+ | 1.29 | 1.28 | 1.33 | 1.30 | 75 | 0.03 | 2.04 |
| Ni2+ | 1.73 | 1.36 | 1.34 | 1.48 | 85 | 0.22 | 14.87 |
| Sn2+ | 1.27 | 1.31 | 1.34 | 1.30 | 75 | 0.04 | 2.69 |
| Zn2+ | 1.27 | 1.31 | 1.34 | 1.31 | 75 | 0.04 | 2.69 |
IEF of Pb2+ was considered to be 100.0%, IMI: interfering metal ions, R: reading, IEF: interference effect, SD: standard deviation, and RSD: relative standard deviation.
Fig. 8Validation of real samples with the BDMMBSH/GCE/NF sensor probe via the electrochemical (recovery) method.
Performance of the sensor with natural samples via the electrochemical (recovery) methoda
| ME | AC, Pb2+ (25.0 μL, μM) | OC, Pb2+ (μA) | RSA (25.0 μL) | ROC (RSA, μA) | FC (μM) |
| SD ( | RSD (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| 1 | 1.0 | 2.98 | CW | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.13 | 13 | 0.01 | 2.91 |
| 2 | 1.0 | 3.66 | IE | 1.70 | 1.64 | 1.67 | 1.67 | 0.46 | 46 | 0.03 | 1.80 |
| 3 | 1.0 | 3.50 | RSW | 1.98 | 2.02 | 2.05 | 2.02 | 0.60 | 60 | 0.02 | 1.59 |
| 4 | 1.0 | 2.96 | RW | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.14 | 14 | 0.02 | 2.79 |
| 5 | 1.0 | 3.52 | TW | 2.02 | 2.03 | 2.07 | 2.04 | 0.58 | 58 | 0.03 | 1.30 |
| 6 | 1.0 | 2.49 | WW | 1.71 | 1.68 | 1.65 | 1.68 | 0.44 | 44 | 0.03 | 2.23 |
ME: modified electrode, AC: added concentration, OC: observed current, RSA: real sample added, CW: coal water, IE: industrial effluent, RSW: Red sea water, RW; rice water, TW: tap water, WW: well water, R1–R3: reading, A: average, R: recovery, ROC: respective observed current, FC: found concentration, SD: standard deviation, and RSD: relative standard deviation.