4.8 Article

Room Temperature Cation Exchange Reaction in Nanocrystals for Ultrasensitive Speciation Analysis of Silver Ions and Silver Nanoparticles

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 87, 期 13, 页码 6584-6591

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b00511

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [21175093, 21128006]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [NCET-11-0361]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the toxicity of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and Ag+ and gain deep insight into the transformation of AgNPs in the environment or organisms, ultrasensitive analytical methods are needed for their speciation analysis. About 40-fold of Cd2+ in CdTe ionic nanocrystals can be bombarded-and-exploded (exchanged) in less than 1 min simply by mixing the nanocrystals with Ag+ solution at room temperature, while this cation exchange reaction did not occur when only silver nanopartides were present. On the basis of this striking difference, an ultrasensitive method was developed for speciation analysis of Ag+ and AgNPs in complex matrices. The released Cd2+ was reduced to its volatile species by sodium tetrahydroborate, which was separated and swept to an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICPMS) or an atomic fluorescence spectrometer (AFS) for the indirect but ultrasensitive detection of Ag+ Owing to the remarkable signal amplification via the cation exchange reaction and the advantages of chemical vapor generation for sampling, the limit of detection was 0.0003 mu g L-1 for Ag+ by ICPMS, which was improved by 100-fold compared to the conventional method. Relative standard deviations are better than 2.5% at a concentration of 0.5 mu g L-1 Ag or AgNPs regardless of the detector. The proposed method retains several unique advantages, including ultrahigh sensitivity, speciation analysis, simplicity and being organic reagent-free, and has been successfully utilized for speciation analysis of Ag+ and AgNPs in environmental water samples and paramecium cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据