ArticleNanoscale advances2021
Carbon dots
Article in Nanoscale advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparation of solvent-free starch-based carbon dots for the selective detection of RuRSC advances · 2022Article
- Carbon "quantum" dots for bioapplications.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2022Article
- On the myth of "red/near-IR carbon quantum dots" from thermal processing of specific colorless organic precursors.Nanoscale advances · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbon dots (CDots) are defined as surface-passivated small carbon nanoparticles, with the effective passivation generally achieved by organic functionalization. Photoexcited CDots are both potent electron donors and acceptors, and their characteristic bright and colorful fluorescence emissions make them excellent fluorescence sensors for organic analytes and metal ions. For the latter extraordinarily low detection limits based on extremely efficient quenching of fluorescence intensities by the targeted metal cations have been observed and reported in the literature. However, all of the dot samples in those reported studies were made from "one-pot" carbonization of organic precursors mostly under rather mild processing conditions, unlikely to be sufficient for the required level of carbonization. Those dot samples should therefore be more appropriately considered as "nano-carbon/organic hybrids", characterized structurally as being highly porous and spongy, which must be playing a dominating role in the reported sensing results. In this study, we compared the dot samples from carbonization syntheses under similarly mild and also more aggressive processing conditions with the classically defined and structured CDots for the fluorescence sensing of copper(ii) cations in aqueous solutions. The observed dramatic decoupling between quenching results for fluorescence intensities and lifetimes of the carbonization samples, with the former being extraordinary and the latter within the diffusion controlled limit, suggested that the quenching of fluorescence intensities was greatly affected by the higher local quencher concentrations than the bulk associated with the porous and spongy sample structures, especially for the sample from carbonization under too mild processing conditions. The major differences between the classical CDots and the nano-carbon/organic hybrids are highlighted, and the tradeoffs between sensitivity and accuracy or reproducibility in the use of the latter for fluorescence sensing are discussed.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.