The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detection of Mercury(II) Ions Using Colorimetric Gold Nanoparticles on Paper-Based Analytical Devices
Abstract
An on-field colorimetric sensing strategy employing gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and a paper-based analytical platform was investigated for mercury ion (Hg(2+)) detection at water sources. By utilizing thymine-Hg(2+)-thymine (T-Hg(2+)-T) coordination chemistry, label-free detection oligonucleotide sequences were attached to unmodified gold nanoparticles to provide rapid mercury ion sensing without complicated and time-consuming thiolated or other costly labeled probe preparation processes. Not only is this strategy's sensing mechanism specific toward Hg(2+), rather than other metal ions, but also the conformational change in the detection oligonucleotide sequences introduces different degrees of AuNP aggregation that causes the color of AuNPs to exhibit a mixture variance. To eliminate the use of sophisticated equipment and minimize the power requirement for data analysis and transmission, the color variance of multiple detection results were transferred and concentrated on cellulose-based paper analytical devices, and the data were subsequently transmitted for the readout and storage of results using cloud computing via a smartphone. As a result, a detection limit of 50 nM for Hg(2+) spiked pond and river water could be achieved. Furthermore, multiple tests could be performed simultaneously with a 40 min turnaround time. These results suggest that the proposed platform possesses the capability for sensitive and high-throughput on-site mercury pollution monitoring in resource-constrained settings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hazards of heavy metal contamination
Järup, L. (2003) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldg032 · Cited by 6,508
Nanostructures in Biodiagnostics
Rosi, N. L., & Mirkin, C. A. (2005) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr030067f · Cited by 4,603
The toxicology of mercury—current exposures and clinical manifestations
Clarkson, T. W., Magos, L., & Myers, G. J. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra022471 · Cited by 1,766
Cited by
Recent Developments in Paper-Based Microfluidic Devices
Cate, D. M., Adkins, J. A., Mettakoonpitak, J., & Henry, C. S. (2015) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac503968p · Cited by 1,236
Zhou, W., Saran, R., & Liu, J. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00063 · Cited by 931
Smartphone-based biosensors: A critical review and perspectives
Roda, A., Michelini, E., Zangheri, M., Di Fusco, M., Calabria, D., & Simoni, P. (2016) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2015.10.019 · Cited by 520
Morbioli, G. G., Mazzu-Nascimento, T., Stockton, A. M., & Carrilho, E. (2017) · Analytica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.aca.2017.03.037 · Cited by 434
Noble metal nanoparticles in biosensors: recent studies and applications
Malekzad, H., Sahandi Zangabad, P., Mirshekari, H., Karimi, M., & Hamblin, M. R. (2017) · Nanotechnology Reviews · doi:10.1515/ntrev-2016-0014 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, G.-H., Chen, W.-Y., Yen, Y.-C., Wang, C.-W., Chang, H.-T., & Chen, C.-F.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-06-25
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 6843-6849
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W2003895241
- Cited by
- 508
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 24.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.