| Literature DB >> 35520113 |
Junbo Liu1, Wensi Zhao2, Jin Liu1, Xuhong Cai1, Dadong Liang1, Shanshan Tang1, Bao Xu3.
Abstract
Quartz crystal microbalances (QCMs) have been widely used in the food industry, environmental monitoring, and biomedicine. Here, a molecularly imprinted QCM sensor was prepared and used for formaldehyde detection. Using polyvinyl chloride as the embedding material and tetrahydrofuran as the solvent, a QCM electrode was modified with HCHO molecularly imprinted polymers (HCHO-MIPs). The detection conditions of the sensor were optimized, and its selectivity was investigated. The theoretical calculation results revealed that the acrylamide and pentaerythritol triacrylate were potential candidate functional monomer and cross-linking agent, respectively, in the preparation of HCHO-MIPs with high adsorbability, superselectivity, and stability. According to the calculated results, a sensor had been prepared. When the pH was 7, the added mass of the HCHO-MIPs (or NIPs) was 20 mg, and the amount of PVC coating was 20 μL, the sensor exhibited good adsorption, selectivity, repeatability, high sensitivity, high accuracy, and a short response time. The lowest detection limit was 10.72 ng mL-1. The sensor exhibited higher selectivity for HCHO than for propionaldehyde and benzaldehyde. The HCHO contents in fresh shrimp samples were detected using the sensor for four cycles, and the detection rates were in the range of 97.56-98.60%. This study provided a theoretical and experimental basis for the rapid detection of HCHO. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35520113 PMCID: PMC9063693 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra01705a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Optimal stable complex configurations of (a) HCHO and IA, (b) 4-VPY (c) AM functional monomers.
The relevant parameters of the stable complexes formed from HCHO and IA, AM and 4-VPY, respectively
| Complex | Action site |
| Imprinted ratio | Hydrogen bonds | ΔECP (kJ mol−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCHO–IA | C16–H17⋯O6 | 0.2354 | 1 : 3 | 5 | −71.16 |
| C16–H18⋯O25 | 0.2315 | ||||
| O7–H8⋯O19 | 0.1797 | ||||
| O26–H27⋯O19 | 0.1805 | ||||
| O41–H42⋯O19 | 0.2379 | ||||
| HCHO–4-VPY | C16–H17⋯N15 | 0.2415 | 1 : 1 | 1 | −33.50 |
| HCHO–AM | C11–H12⋯O16 | 0.2189 | 1 : 4 | 5 | −109.51 |
| C11–H13⋯O2 | 0.2338 | ||||
| N37–H38⋯O14 | 0.2329 | ||||
| N3–H4⋯O14 | 0.2141 | ||||
| N27–H28⋯O14 | 0.2149 |
Fig. 2Binding energy (ΔE1) between AM and the cross-linking agents.
Fig. 3Frequency shift with the different additions for the HCHO-MIPs and NIPs.
Fig. 4Variation in the sensor response frequency with different coating amounts.
Fig. 5Effect of pH levels on the response frequency of the sensor.
Fig. 6Response frequency of the sensor for the HCHO solutions at different.
Fig. 7Sensor selectivity for HCHO, propionaldehyde and benzaldehyde.
The cycling performance of the sensor tested in the samples
| Times | Response values (Hz) | Concentrations (ng mL−1) | Detection rates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −268 | 197.21 | 98.60 |
| 2 | −264 | 196.12 | 98.06 |
| 3 | −257 | 195.87 | 97.94 |
| 4 | −251 | 195.11 | 97.56 |