Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 204 references

Nanoparticles and Quantum Dots as Emerging Optical Sensing Platforms for $\mathrm{Ni}^{2+}$ Detection: Recent Approaches and Perspectives

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A systematic review of roughly fifty nanomaterial optical sensors shows that colorimetric and fluorogenic probes can detect Ni²⁺ at concentrations from millimolar down to sub-nanomolar, with carbon dots as the most versatile platform.

desk verdict A genuinely useful first catalog of Ni2+ optical nanosensors, but the comparative LoD tables disagree with the paper's own text often enough that the ranking claims are not yet reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04944 v1 pith:KPSUTCYF submitted 2025-07-07 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph

Sudhanshu Naithani , Heena , Pooja Sharma , Samar Layek , Franck Thetiot , Tapas Goswami , Sushil Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph
keywords nickel(II)detectionopticalnanosensorscolorimetricsensingfluorogenicgoldnanoparticlessilvercarbondotsquantum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review assembles the recent literature on nanomaterial-based optical sensors for nickel(II) and argues that these platforms can do what conventional techniques cannot: cheap, rapid, selective, on-site Ni²⁺ detection. It claims to be the first study to cover nanoparticles and quantum dots together, systematically, for this single analyte, and it organizes roughly fifty probes into colorimetric (silver and gold nanoparticles, zinc silicate and organic nanofibers) and fluorogenic (inorganic and core-shell quantum dots, carbon dots, graphene quantum dots, and other nanomaterials) categories. The paper's comparative reading of the tables suggests that gold-nanoparticle probes generally reach nanomolar limits of detection while silver probes mostly stay in the micromolar range, that fluorogenic sensors outperform colorimetric ones, and that carbon dots combine the best sensitivity with biocompatibility. For a general reader, the takeaway is a design map: which surface ligands, quenching mechanisms, and detection formats have been tried, and where the gaps—turn-on sensors, stable solid-state strips, complex-matrix tests—remain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of optical transduction mechanisms the review uses to organize the field. In metal nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) — the collective oscillation of conduction electrons that produces a strong extinction band — shifts when Ni²⁺ binding brings particles together (aggregation) or reshapes them (iodide- or peroxide-driven etching), producing a naked-eye color change. In quantum dots and carbon dots, photoluminescence is quenched when Ni²⁺ binds to surface groups, either forming a non-emissive ground-state complex (static quenching), transferring an electron (PET), or absorbing the emitted light (inner-filter effect). The third recurring element is the surface ligand itself: molecules with –NH₂, –COOH, –OH, or thiol groups (glutathione, N-acetyl-L-cysteine, citrate, peptides, phytic acid, imidazole derivatives) provide both colloidal stability and the recognition site, and the hard–soft acid–base (HSAB) character of Ni²⁺ explains why N/O donors recur.

What would settle it

Retest a representative subset of the reviewed probes (one AgNP, one AuNP, one CdTe QD, one carbon dot, and the zwitterionic AuNP) under identical buffer, pH, ionic strength, and a single LoD definition; if silver then matches or beats gold, or colorimetric matches fluorogenic, the review's comparative conclusions collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This review establishes that optical nanosensors—metal nanoparticles, quantum dots, carbon dots, and related hybrid materials—are a mature and rapidly growing route to Ni²⁺ detection, and it presents itself as the first systematic compilation devoted specifically to these platforms for this ion. The central claim is that the performance of such sensors is governed by a small set of design variables: the choice of surface ligand (especially N- and O-donor groups that bind the borderline-acid Ni²⁺), the particle's size and shape, and the signal-transduction mechanism (analyte-induced aggregation or etching shifting the localized surface plasmon resonance in colorimetric probes; ground-state complex formation, photoinduced electron transfer, or inner-filter effects quenching photoluminescence in fluorogenic probes). Across the roughly fifty examples catalogued in Tables 1–4, the review argues, fluorogenic carbon dots offer the most favorable combination of sensitivity, stability, biocompatibility, and practical applicability, while the main unresolved problems are Co²⁺/Cu²⁺ interference, the scarcity of turn-on probes, and limited testing in complex biological or industrial matrices.

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that the detection limits, selectivity data, and quenching mechanisms reported in the primary papers are accurate and directly comparable, even though the studies use different LoD definitions, buffers, pH, and sample matrices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future Ni²⁺ sensor designs can use the tables as a baseline: AuNP probes already reach nanomolar detection limits and can be pushed further by enlarging particles and tuning the LSPR through surface functionalization.
  • The weight of the reviewed evidence favors carbon dots over cadmium-based quantum dots for biological and environmental use, so the field is likely to shift toward turn-on carbon-dot probes to reduce false positives.
  • Applying recognition units such as aptamers, DNAzymes, or zwitterionic polypeptides on AuNPs is a proven route to suppress Co²⁺/Cu²⁺ interference and to hold up in urine, soil, and seawater samples.
  • Paper-strip and smartphone-readable formats remain rare among colorimetric Ni²⁺ sensors, and the review points to them as the practical path to on-site field kits.
  • Machine-learning sensor arrays built from carbon dots and lanthanide complexes can classify Ni²⁺ together with other metal ions at more than 95 percent accuracy, suggesting that multi-ion portable devices are within reach.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the paper's comparative ranking (AuNPs more sensitive than AgNPs; fluorogenic better than colorimetric) is an editorial synthesis from heterogeneous primary reports, not a controlled comparison; a standardized head-to-head benchmark would be needed before those rankings guide application choices.
  • The near-total absence of turn-on Ni²⁺ probes suggests an untested design space: displacement assays or FRET-based sensors that light up on Ni²⁺ binding could avoid the false positives inherent to quenching-based detection.
  • The catalog itself could serve as training data for a machine-learning model correlating ligand donor atoms, particle size, and reported LoD, yielding predictive rules for new sensors—a step the review mentions only for sensor arrays.
  • If the field follows the review's own logic, the next practical milestone is a disposable paper strip that couples a carbon-dot fluorophore with a smartphone reader, because that combination meets all the criteria the review values: sensitivity, biocompatibility, low cost, and on-site use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of nanomaterial-based optical sensors for the detection of Ni2+ ions. It surveys colorimetric sensors based on silver and gold nanoparticles and other inorganic/organic nanomaterials, and fluorogenic sensors based on inorganic quantum dots, carbon dots, graphene quantum dots, and related nanostructures. The authors catalogue roughly 50 probes, summarizing their SPR/emission wavelengths, particle sizes, stabilizing agents, target ions, limits of detection (LoDs), colorimetric or fluorogenic responses, solvents, and reported practical applications. The review is organized by increasing design complexity, from nanoparticles to quantum dots to core-shell quantum dots, and it contains comparative discussions in Sections 4.5 and 5.5. The stated novelty is that this is the first study to cover exhaustively and systematically both nanoparticles and quantum dots for Ni2+ detection.

Significance. If the catalog and comparative claims were reliable, this review would be a useful entry point for researchers working on Ni2+ sensing, bringing together a dispersed literature spanning 2009-2024. The mechanistic classification (aggregation- and etching-based colorimetric sensing versus static/dynamic quenching and PET-based fluorogenic sensing) is pedagogically helpful, and the inclusion of real-sample applications (tap water, river water, serum, food, bioimaging) gives practical context. However, the paper's quantitative backbone is undermined by numerous transcription and unit errors in Tables 1-4, and the claim of an 'exhaustive and systematic' review is not supported by any described search protocol. As it stands, the comparative rankings in Sections 4.5 and 5.5, which are the review's main analytical contributions, cannot be accepted without correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1-4 and corresponding text] The catalog tables contain multiple LoD entries that directly contradict the manuscript's own text. For example, Table 1 probe 11 lists 3.302 µM while the text (Section 4.1) reports 1.816 µM; Table 2 probe 18 lists 3 µM for Ni2+ while the text reports 3 ng/mL (≈0.051 µM); Table 2 probe 21 lists 2×10^3 µM while the text reports 2 ppm (≈34 µM); Table 3 probe 31 lists 4.0×10^-3 µM while the text reports 5.9×10^-10 M (≈5.9×10^-4 µM); and Table 3 probe 32 lists 23 µM while the text reports 23 µg/L (≈0.39 µM). These are not cosmetic discrepancies: the comparative LoD rankings in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 are built directly on these columns. The authors must re-verify every LoD entry against the primary references and correct the tables.
  2. [Tables 1-4 and Sections 4.5/5.5] Unit-conversion and labeling errors are systematic rather than isolated. Probe 9 in Table 1 lists LoD 0.75×10^-3 µM, but the text (Section 4.1) states 0.75 mM (750 µM); probe 30 in Table 3 lists 0.01 µM, but the text (Section 5.1) states 0.01 ppm (≈0.17 µM); probe 34 in Table 3 lists 0.2059 µM, but the text (Section 5.2) states 90.5 nM (0.0905 µM). In addition, Table 2 row 19 labels the Cr3+ LoD as 'Co2+', and row 23 labels the Cu2+ LoD as 'Co2+', while the text identifies the targets as Cr3+ and Cu2+, respectively. Given that Sections 4.5 and 5.5 draw conclusions such as 'AuNPs tend to be relatively much more sensitive than AgNPs' and 'carbonaceous QDs are found to be highly promising' from these LoD columns, the entire quantitative comparison is currently unreliable. The authors should audit all tables for units (nM/µM/mM/ppm/µg/L) and target-ion labels.
  3. [§1 and §4.2 (novelty claim)] The manuscript repeatedly claims to be the first study to cover 'exhaustively and systematically' NPs and QDs for Ni2+ detection (e.g., §1, §4.2), but it provides no search protocol: no databases, search date, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or PRISMA flow. Without such a methodology, the reader cannot assess whether the ~50 selected probes are representative of the literature or whether the novelty claim is justified. A systematic review protocol must be added, or the claims should be softened to 'a comprehensive selection' rather than 'exhaustive and systematic'.
  4. [§4.5 and §5.5] Even after correcting the transcription errors, the comparative LoD rankings across sensors from different laboratories conflate different LoD definitions (3σ vs 10σ, naked-eye vs instrumental), buffer compositions, pH conditions, and sample matrices. For instance, probe 5 is credited with a 5 nM UV-vis LoD but a 50 nM naked-eye LoD, yet Table 1 reports only one value without noting this distinction. Sections 4.5 and 5.5 should explicitly disclaim that cross-study LoD comparisons are only qualitative, and should distinguish the LoD definition used in each primary paper. At minimum, the comparative claims should be rephrased as tentative until the underlying data are verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, probe 17] The text reports the SPR band at 520 nm and later mentions a shift 'from 524 nm to 543 nm', while Table 2 lists λabs = 550 nm; these wavelength values should be reconciled with the original reference.
  2. [§5.1, probe 29] The phrase 'deprotonated carboxylic (-COOH) groups' is chemically inaccurate; deprotonated carboxylic acids are carboxylate groups (-COO-).
  3. [§5.3, probe 41] The statement that 'a single carbon dot can adsorb and/or accommodate approximately 182 nickel ions (234.8 mg/g)' is surprising and should be verified or clarified, since the loading per particle depends on the carbon dot mass and polydispersity.
  4. [§5.5] The sentence stating that AIML tools have been investigated 'such as probe 44' is incorrect; probe 45 in Section 5.3 is the machine-learning sensor array. This cross-reference error should be corrected.
  5. [Table 1, probe 12] The text reports an LoD of 2.15 µM for probe 12, but the LoD column in Table 1 is empty ('−'); the entry should be added or the text corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a literature review whose claims summarize primary reports; the central novelty claim is not a derived result and no prediction is fitted to its own inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a review article, not a derivation-based study. It compiles reported colorimetric and fluorogenic nanosensor results for Ni2+ detection and organizes them into comparative tables. There is no model, no fitted parameter, and no predictive equation whose output is constructed from its own input. The abstract's claim that the study 'mainly provides an overview of the recent advancements and challenges related to the design strategies of various optical nanosensors to selectively detect the Ni2+ ion' is a descriptive assertion about scope, not a derived scientific result. The novelty claim, 'the present work is the first study to cover exhaustively and systematically the use of NPs together with QDs as optical sensors to specifically detect Ni2+ ions,' is a bibliographic claim about prior coverage, not a circular reduction. The authors do cite their own prior reviews and papers [17,19,29,45,46], but those citations support background statements about optical sensors generally and are not load-bearing for any new claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or equality is imported from self-citations, and no quantity is defined in terms of another quantity that it is then used to predict. Apparent internal inconsistencies in the tables, such as discrepancies between text-reported detection limits and table entries, are matters of transcription accuracy and comparative reliability, not circularity. Because the review's conclusions are summaries of external primary literature rather than predictions derived from the review's own assumptions, the analysis finds no significant circularity and assigns a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review article; it introduces no mathematical model, fitted parameters, or new entities. The only assumptions are the accuracy of the primary literature and the completeness of the authors' literature selection, which are addressed in the weakest_assumption and red flags.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The data reported in the cited primary papers are accurate and reproducible.
    The review's comparative tables and conclusions depend on the reliability of the original reports, which are not independently verified in this preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanoparticles and Quantum Dots as Emerging Optical Sensing Platforms for $\mathrm{Ni}^{2+}$ Detection: Recent Approaches and Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPSUTCYF

@misc{pith2026250704944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanoparticles and Quantum Dots as Emerging Optical Sensing Platforms for $\mathrmNi^2+$ Detection: Recent Approaches and Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPSUTCYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04944}
}
abstract

Over the preceding years, nickel (Ni) and its compounds have been increasingly employed in various aspects of human social life, metallurgical/industrial manufactures, healthcare, and chemical processes. Although Ni is considered an essential trace element in biological systems, excessive intake or metabolic deficiency of $\mathrm{Ni}^{2+}$ ions may cause detrimental health effects to living organisms. Therefore, a facile and accurate detection of $\mathrm{Ni}^{2+}$, especially in environmental and biological settings, is of huge significance. As an efficient detection method, assaying $\mathrm{Ni}^{2+}$ using optical (colorimetric and/or fluorogenic) sensors has experienced quite a vigorous growth period, with a large number of excellent research contributions. Nanomaterial-based optical sensors, including metal nanoparticles (MNPs), quantum dots (QDs), and carbon dots (CDs), offer distinct advantages over conventional small-molecule organic and inorganic sensors. This study mainly provides an overview of the recent advancements and challenges related to the design strategies of various optical nanosensors to selectively detect the $\mathrm{Ni}^{2+}$ ion. Emphasis has also been placed on comparing the sensing performance of various nanosensors, along with exploring future perspectives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Approximate number of publications dealing with group 10 metal ions (a) catalysis, and (b) toxicity in the last 20 years. Adapted from ISI Web of Science (WoS), dated 10-09-2024. Nickel contamination primarily originates from industrial activities, chemical processes, and medical disposals ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sources and impact of Ni2+ on human health and environment. As a result, spotting Ni2+ in the environment and biological systems is evidently critical. Functionalized nanomaterials including MNPs, QDs, CSQDs and CDs have emerged as viable platforms for optical detection and quantification of Ni2+ in a wide range of samples, from cell organelles to all water bodies [67]. Beyond the detection, there is also significan… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

204 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tarai, Y

    A. Tarai, Y. Li, B. Liu, D. Zhang, J. Li, W. Yan, J. Zhang, J. Qu, Z. Yang, Coord. Chem. Rev. 445 (2021) 214070

    2021

  2. [2]

    L. Wu, C. Huang, B.P. Emery, A.C. Sedgwick, S.D. Bull, X.P. He, H. Tian, J. Yoon, J.L. Sessler, T.D. James, Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 5110–5139

    2020

  3. [4]

    Geng, Q.-Z

    H. Geng, Q.-Z. Zhong, J. Li, Z. Lin, J. Cui, F. Caruso, J. Hao, Chem. Rev. 122 (2022) 11432–11473

    2022

  4. [5]

    A. Pal, S. R. Bhatta, A. Thakur, Coord. Chem. Rev. 431 (2021) 213685

    2021

  5. [6]

    Y. Li, D.B. Zamble, Chem. Rev. 109 (2009) 4617–4643

    2009

  6. [7]

    Broering, P.T

    E.P. Broering, P.T. Truong, E.M. Gale, T.C. Harrop, Biochemistry 52 (2013) 4–18

    2013

  7. [8]

    Mulrooney, R.P

    S.B. Mulrooney, R.P. Hausinger, FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 27 (2003) 239–261

    2003

  8. [9]

    Nakajima, K

    K. Nakajima, K. Nansai, K. Matsubae, M. Tomita, W. Takayanagi, T. Nagasaka, Sci. Total Environ. 586 (2017) 730–737

    2017

Show all 204 references
  1. [10]

    Lin, P.P

    C.-Y. Lin, P.P. Power, Chem. Soc. Rev. 46 (2017) 5347–5399

    2017

  2. [12]

    Genchi, A

    G. Genchi, A. Carocci, G. Lauria, M.S. Sinicropi, A. Catalano, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (2020) 679. 66

    2020

  3. [13]

    Rizwan, K

    M. Rizwan, K. Usman, M. Alsafran, Chemosphere 357 (2024) 142028

    2024

  4. [14]

    Nieminen, L

    T.M. Nieminen, L. Ukonmaanaho, N. Rausch, W. Shotyk, Nickel and Its Surprising Imapct in nature 2 (2007) 1–29

    2007

  5. [15]

    Cempel, G

    M. Cempel, G. Nikel, Polish J. Environ. Stud. 15 (2006) 375-382

    2006

  6. [16]

    WHO/HEP/ECH/WSH/2021

    World Health Organization, Nickel in Drinking Water -Background Document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking -Water Quality, 2021 No. WHO/HEP/ECH/WSH/2021

    2021

  7. [17]

    Goswami, S

    N. Goswami, S. Naithani, J. Mangalam, T. Goswami, R. Dubey, P. Kumar, P. Kumar, S. Kumar, Dalton Trans. 52 (2023) 14704–14732

    2023

  8. [18]

    Kang, S.Y

    J.H. Kang, S.Y. Lee, H.M. Ahn, C. Kim, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 242 (2017) 25–34

    2017

  9. [19]

    Naithani, T

    S. Naithani, T. Goswami, F. Thetiot, S. Kumar, Coord. Chem. Rev. 475 (2023) 214894

    2023

  10. [20]

    Chopra, S

    T. Chopra, S. Sasan, L. Devi, R. Parkesh, K.K. Kapoor, Coord. Chem. Rev. 470 (2022) 214704

    2022

  11. [21]

    M. She, Z. Wang, J. Chen, Q. Li, P. Liu, F. Chen, S. Zhang, J. Li, Coord. Chem. Rev. 432 (2021) 213712

    2021

  12. [22]

    El Hosry, N

    L. El Hosry, N. Sok, R. Richa, L. Al Mashtoub, P. Cayot, E. Bou -Maroun, Foods 12 (2023) 895

    2023

  13. [23]

    Poirier, J

    L. Poirier, J. Nelson, D. Leong, L. Berhane, P. Hajdu, F. Lopez-Linares, Energy & Fuels 30 (2016) 3783–3790

    2016

  14. [24]

    O’Neil, M.E

    G.D. O’Neil, M.E. Newton, J. V. Macpherson, Anal. Chem. 87 (2015) 4933–4940

    2015

  15. [25]

    Anchidin-Norocel, W.K

    L. Anchidin-Norocel, W.K. Savage, G. Gutt, S. Amariei, Biosensors 11 (2021) 519

    2021

  16. [26]

    Čonková, V

    M. Čonková, V. Montes -García, M. Konopka, A. Ciesielski, P. Samori, A.R. Stefankiewicz, Chem. Commun. 58 (2022) 5773–5776

    2022

  17. [27]

    Mattison, A.A

    R.L. Mattison, A.A. Bowyer, E.J. New, Coord. Chem. Rev. 425 (2020) 213522

    2020

  18. [28]

    Liang, X

    A. Liang, X. Li, X. Zhang, G. Wen, Z. Jiang, Luminescence 33 (2018) 1033–1039

    2018

  19. [29]

    Naithani, F

    S. Naithani, F. Thetiot, V. Yadav, S. Saini, P. Roy, S. Layek, T. Goswami, S. Kumar, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 453 (2024) 115610

    2024

  20. [30]

    D. Wei, Y. Wang, N. Zhu, J. Xiao, X. Li, T. Xu, X. Hu, Z. Zhang, D. Yin, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 13 (2021) 48643–48652

    2021

  21. [31]

    Patel, R

    S. Patel, R. Jamunkar, D. Sinha, Monisha, T.K. Patle, T. Kant, K. Dewangan, K. Shrivas, Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 31 (2021) e00136

    2021

  22. [32]

    L. Guan, Z. Jiang, Y. Cui, Y. Yang, D. Yang, G. Qian, Adv. Opt. Mater. 9 (2021) 1–7

    2021

  23. [33]

    Kabak, E

    B. Kabak, E. Kendüzler, Talanta 266 (2024) 124944

    2024

  24. [34]

    D. Mei, B. Yan, J. Hazard. Mater. 447 (2023) 130822

    2023

  25. [35]

    H. Li, Z. Cui, C. Han, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 143 (2009) 87–92

    2009

  26. [36]

    N. Chen, Y. Zhang, H. Liu, H. Ruan, C. Dong, Z. Shen, A. Wu, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4 (2016) 6509–6516. 67

    2016

  27. [37]

    Mahapatra, S

    N. Mahapatra, S. Panja, A. Mandal, M. Halder, J. Mater. Chem. C 2 (2014) 7373–7384

    2014

  28. [38]

    Parnsubsakul, S

    A. Parnsubsakul, S. Oaew, W. Surareungchai, Nanoscale 10 (2018) 5466–5473

    2018

  29. [39]

    Velmurugan, J

    K. Velmurugan, J. Prabhu, A. Raman, N. Duraipandy, M.S. Kiran, S. Easwaramoorthi, L. Tang, R. Nandhakumar, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (2018) 16532–16543

    2018

  30. [40]

    Peralta-Domínguez, M

    D. Peralta-Domínguez, M. Rodríguez, G. Ramos-Ortíz, J.L. Maldonado, M.A. Meneses- Nava, O. Barbosa-García, R. Santillan, N. Farfán, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 207 (2015) 511–517

    2015

  31. [41]

    M. Bar, S. Deb, A. Paul, S. Baitalik, Inorg. Chem. 57 (2018) 12010–12024

    2018

  32. [42]

    Hishimone, E

    P.N. Hishimone, E. Hamukwaya, V. Uahengo, J. Fluoresc. 31 (2021) 999–1008

    2021

  33. [43]

    Han, Y.J

    L.J. Han, Y.J. Kong, Y.Y. Xu, M.M. Huang, Polyhedron 193 (2021) 114868

    2021

  34. [44]

    Kumar, P.S

    A. Kumar, P.S. Chae, S. Kumar, Dyes Pigm. 174 (2020) 108092

    2020

  35. [45]

    Sharma, S

    P. Sharma, S. Naithani, V. Yadav, Sangeeta, B. Guchait, S. Kumar, T. Goswami, Sci. Total Environ. 920 (2024) 171043

    2024

  36. [46]

    Sharma, S

    P. Sharma, S. Naithani, S. Layek, A. Kumar, R. Rawat, Heena, S. Kaja, A. Nag, S. Kumar, T. Goswami, Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 297 (2023) 122697

    2023

  37. [47]

    Heuer-Jungemann, N

    A. Heuer-Jungemann, N. Feliu, I. Bakaimi, M. Hamaly, A. Alkilany, I. Chakraborty, A. Masood, M.F. Casula, A. Kostopoulou, E. Oh. K. Susumu, M.H. Stewart, I.L. Medintz, E. Stratakis, W.J. Parak, A.G. Kanaras, Chem. Rev. 119 (2019) 4819–4880

    2019

  38. [48]

    P. Wu, X. Hou, J.-J. Xu, H.-Y. Chen, Nanoscale 8 (2016) 8427–8442

    2016

  39. [49]

    Zhang, F.F

    J.J. Zhang, F.F. Cheng, J.J. Li, J.J. Zhu, Y. Lu, Nano Today 11 (2016) 309–329

    2016

  40. [50]

    Ahmed, M

    M. Ahmed, M. Faisal, A. Ihsan, M.M. Naseer, Analyst 144 (2019) 2480–2497

    2019

  41. [51]

    Chakraborty, S

    S. Chakraborty, S. Rayalu, Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 245 (2021) 118915

    2021

  42. [52]

    M. Loya, S. Ghosh, A.K. Atta, J. Mol. Struct. 1278 (2023) 134949

    2023

  43. [53]

    Egorova, V.P

    K.S. Egorova, V.P. Ananikov, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55 (2016) 12150–12162

    2016

  44. [54]

    Zhu, T.B

    W. Zhu, T.B. Gunnoe, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143 (2021) 6746–6766

    2021

  45. [55]

    Marchese, T

    A.D. Marchese, T. Adrianov, M. Lautens, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 16750 – 16762

    2021

  46. [56]

    H. Luo, Y. Feng, L. Lin, ChemCatChem 15 (2023) e202300303

    2023

  47. [57]

    H. Guo, H. Liu, Z. Jian, H. Cui, J. Fang, Z. Zuo, J. Deng, Y. Li, X. Wang, L. Zhao, R. He, H. Tang, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 203 (2020) 111006

    2020

  48. [58]

    H. Guo, H. Liu, H. Wu, H. Cui, J. Fang, Z. Zuo, J. Deng, Y. Li, X. Wang, L. Zhao, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20 (2019) 1–18

    2019

  49. [59]

    Chervona, A

    Y. Chervona, A. Arita, M. Costa, Metallomics 4 (2012) 619–627

    2012

  50. [60]

    Denkhaus, K

    E. Denkhaus, K. Salnikow, Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 42 (2002) 35–56

    2002

  51. [61]

    Kumar, D.K

    A. Kumar, D.K. Jigyasu, A. Kumar, G. Subrahmanyam, R. Mondal, A.A. Shabnam, 68 M.M.S. Cabral-Pinto, S.K. Malyan, A.K. Chaturvedi, D.K. Gupta, R.K. Fagodiya, S.A. Khan, A. Bhatia, Chemosphere 275 (2021) 129996

    2021

  52. [62]

    Zambelli, S

    B. Zambelli, S. Ciurli, Nickel and Human Health, Interrelations between essential metal ions and human diseases, A. Sigel, H. Sigel, R.K.O. Sigel, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, (2013) 321–357

    2013

  53. [63]

    Samara, D

    C. Samara, D. Voutsa, Chemosphere 59 (2005) 1197–1206

    2005

  54. [64]

    Rehman, F

    K. Rehman, F. Fatima, I. Waheed, M.S.H. Akash, J. Cell. Biochem. 119 (2018) 157 – 184

    2018

  55. [65]

    Mohmand, S.A.M.A.S

    J. Mohmand, S.A.M.A.S. Eqani, M. Fasola, A. Alamdar, I. Mustafa, N. Ali, L. Liu, S. Peng, H. Shen, Chemosphere 132 (2015) 142–151

    2015

  56. [66]

    Begum, S

    W. Begum, S. Rai, S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharjee, M.H. Mondal, A. Bhattarai, B. Saha, RSC Adv. 12 (2022) 9139–9153

    2022

  57. [67]

    S. Das, P. Somu, A.K. Yadav, P.K. Hopke, S. Paul, Environ. Sci. Nano 11 (2024) 739– 765

    2024

  58. [68]

    Ahire, A.A

    S.A. Ahire, A.A. Bachhav, T.B. Pawar, B.S. Jagdale, A.V. Patil, P.B. Koli, Results Chem. 4 (2022) 100633

    2022

  59. [69]

    Feynman, J

    R.P. Feynman, J. Microelectromechanical Syst. 1 (1992) 60–66

    1992

  60. [70]

    Darwish, W

    M.A. Darwish, W. Abd -Elaziem, A. Elsheikh, A.A. Zayed, Nanoscale Adv. 6 (2024) 4015–4046

    2024

  61. [71]

    Philip, A.R

    A. Philip, A.R. Kumar, Coord. Chem. Rev. 458 (2022) 214424

    2022

  62. [72]

    Bratovcic, Int

    A. Bratovcic, Int. J. Mater. Sci. Eng 5 (2019) 1–7

    2019

  63. [73]

    Rambaran, R

    T. Rambaran, R. Schirhagl, Nanoscale Adv. 4 (2022) 3664–3675

    2022

  64. [74]

    Kumar, A.S.K

    Y. Kumar, A.S.K. Sinha, K.D.P. Nigam, D. Dwivedi, J.S. Sangwai, Nanoscale 15 (2023) 6075–6104

    2023

  65. [75]

    Patra, K.-H

    J.K. Patra, K.-H. Baek, J. Nanomater. 2014 (2014) 417305

    2014

  66. [76]

    Huang, C

    Y. Huang, C. Luo, F. Xia, Y. Song, L. Jiang, F. Li, Chem. Sci. 13 (2022) 12309–12325

    2022

  67. [77]

    Krämer, R

    J. Krämer, R. Kang, L.M. Grimm, L. De Cola, P. Picchetti, F. Biedermann, Chem. Rev. 122 (2022) 3459–3636

    2022

  68. [78]

    Algar, M

    W.R. Algar, M. Massey, K. Rees, R. Higgins, K.D. Krause, G.H. Darwish, W.J. Peveler, Z. Xiao, H.Y. Tsai, R. Gupta, K. Lix, M. V. Tran, H. Kim, Chem. Rev. 121 (2021) 9243– 9358

    2021

  69. [79]

    Z. Yang, T. Xu, H. Li, M. She, J. Chen, Z. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Li, Chem. Rev. 123 (2023) 11047–11136

    2023

  70. [80]

    Patel, M

    M. Patel, M. Agrawal, A. Srivastava, Mater. Adv. 3 (2022) 8864–8885

    2022

  71. [81]

    Umapathi, C

    R. Umapathi, C. Venkateswara Raju, S. Majid Ghoreishian, G. Mohana Rani, K. Kumar, M.-H. Oh, J. Pil Park, Y. Suk Huh, Coord. Chem. Rev. 470 (2022) 214708

    2022

  72. [82]

    F. Cui, L. Xi, D. Wang, L. Ren, X. Tan, X. Li, J. Li, T. Li, Coord. Chem. Rev. 497 (2023) 215457. 69

    2023

  73. [83]

    Huang, J

    X. Huang, J. Song, B.C. Yung, X. Huang, Y. Xiong, X. Chen, Chem. Soc. Rev. 47 (2018) 2873–2920

    2018

  74. [84]

    Anwar, A

    A. Anwar, A. Minhaz, N.A. Khan, K. Kalantari, A.B.M. Afifi, M.R. Shah, Sens . Actuators B Chem. 257 (2018) 875–881

    2018

  75. [85]

    Yoon, Y.S

    S.J. Yoon, Y.S. Nam, H.J. Lee, Y. Lee, K.B. Lee, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 300 (2019) 127045

    2019

  76. [86]

    Amirjani, D.F

    A. Amirjani, D.F. Haghshenas, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 273 (2018) 1768–1779

    2018

  77. [87]

    Hyder, J.A

    A. Hyder, J.A. Buledi, M. Nawaz, D.B. Rajpar, Y. Orooji, M.L. Yola, H. Karimi-Maleh, H. Lin, A.R. Solangi, Environ. Res. 205 (2022) 112475

    2022

  78. [88]

    Eustis, M.A

    S. Eustis, M.A. El-Sayed, Chem. Soc. Rev. 35 (2006) 209–217

    2006

  79. [89]

    J. Zhao, S. Xue, R. Ji, B. Li, J. Li, Chem. Soc. Rev. 50 (2021) 12070–12097

    2021

  80. [90]

    Myroshnychenko, J

    V. Myroshnychenko, J. Rodríguez -Fernández, I. Pastoriza -Santos, A.M. Funston, C. Novo, P. Mulvaney, L.M. Liz-Marzán, F.J. García de Abajo, Chem. Soc. Rev. 37 (2008) 1792–1805

    2008

  81. [91]

    Montes -Garcia, M.A

    V. Montes -Garcia, M.A. Squillaci, M. Diez -Castellnou, Q.K. Ong, F. Stellacci, P. Samorì, Chem. Soc. Rev. 50 (2021) 1269–1304

    2021

  82. [92]

    Mie, Ann

    G. Mie, Ann. Phys. 330 (1908) 377–445

    1908

  83. [93]

    S. Kim, J. M. Kim, J. E. Park, J.-M. Nam, Adv. Mater. 30 (2018) 1704528

    2018

  84. [94]

    Sayed, J

    M. Sayed, J. Yu, G. Liu, M. Jaroniec, Chem. Rev. 122 (2022) 10484–10537

    2022

  85. [95]

    Chatterjee, X.Y

    S. Chatterjee, X.Y. Lou, F. Liang, Y.W. Yang, Coord. Chem. Rev. 459 (2022) 214461

    2022

  86. [96]

    G. Liu, M. Lu, X. Huang, T. Li, D. Xu, Sensors 12 (2018) 4166

    2018

  87. [97]

    Freestone, N

    I. Freestone, N. Meeks, M. Sax, C. Higgitt, Gold Bull. 40 (2007) 270–277

    2007

  88. [98]

    L. Yu, Z. Song, J. Peng, M. Yang, H. Zhi, H. He, Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 127 (2020) 115880

    2020

  89. [99]

    Lu, Coord

    F. Lu, Coord. Chem. Rev. 456 (2022) 214363

    2022

  90. [100]

    Lim, I.-J

    D.-K. Lim, I.-J. Kim, J.-M. Nam, Chem. Commun. 42 (2008) 5312–5314

    2008

  91. [101]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Bamrah, S.K. Bhardwaj, A. Deep, M. Khatri, R.J.C. Brown, N. Bhardwaj, K.H. Kim, Environ. Sci. Nano 8 (2021) 863–889

    2021

  92. [102]

    Choi, D.-M

    J. Choi, D.-M. Shin, H. Song, D. Lee, K. Kim, Nano Converg. 3 (2016) 1–13

    2016

  93. [103]

    I.I.S. Lim, D. Mott, W. Ip, P.N. Njoki, Y. Pan, S. Zhou, C.J. Zhong, Langmuir 24 (2008) 8857–8863

    2008

  94. [104]

    Pearson, J

    R.G. Pearson, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 85 (1963) 3533–3539

    1963

  95. [105]

    Y. Tan, Y. Wang, M. Li, X. Ye, T. Wu, C. Li, Biosens. Bioelectron. 91 (2017) 741–746

    2017

  96. [106]

    H. Wu, C. Tong, Microchim. Acta 186 (2019) 1-9

    2019

  97. [107]

    Burgunder, A

    J.M. Burgunder, A. Varriale, B.H. Lauterburg, Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 36 (1989) 127– 131. 70

    1989

  98. [108]

    Shang, F

    Y. Shang, F. Wu, L. Qi, J. Nanoparticle Res. 14 (2012) 1-7

    2012

  99. [109]

    Samanta, S

    S. Samanta, S. Das, P. Biswas, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 202 (2014) 23–30

    2014

  100. [110]

    Kumar, S.P

    V.V. Kumar, S.P. Anthony, New J. Chem. 39 (2015) 1308–1314

    2015

  101. [111]

    Perez, Scr

    M. Perez, Scr. Mater. 52 (2005) 709–712

    2005

  102. [112]

    Jiang, A

    X. Jiang, A. Yu, J. Nanoparticle Res. 10 (2008) 475–486

    2008

  103. [113]

    J. An, B. Tang, X. Zheng, J. Zhou, F. Dong, S. Xu, Y. Wang, B. Zhao, W. Xu, J. Phys. Chem. C 112 (2008) 15176–15182

    2008

  104. [114]

    X.H. Yang, J. Ling, J. Peng, Q.E. Cao, Z.T. Ding, L.C. Bian, Anal. Chim. Acta 798 (2013) 74–81

    2013

  105. [115]

    Y. Zhou, W. Huang, Y. He, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 270 (2018) 187–191

    2018

  106. [116]

    J. Feng, W. Jin, P. Huang, F. Wu, J. Nanoparticle Res. 19 (2017) 306

    2017

  107. [117]

    Mochi, L

    F. Mochi, L. Burratti, I. Fratoddi, I. Venditti, C. Battocchio, L. Carlini, G. Iucci, M. Casalboni, F. De Matteis, S. Casciardi, S. Nappini, I. Pis, P. Prosposito, Nanomaterials 8 (2018) 1–14

    2018

  108. [118]

    Almaquer, J.S.Y

    F.E.P. Almaquer, J.S.Y. Ricacho, R.L.G. Ronquillo, Sustain. Environ. Res. 1 (2019) 1– 10

    2019

  109. [119]

    Khwannimit, N

    D. Khwannimit, N. Jaikrajang, S. Dokmaisrijan, P. Rattanakit, Mater. Today Proc. 17 (2019) 2028–2038

    2019

  110. [120]

    Aravind, M

    A. Aravind, M. Sebastian, B. Mathew, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 99 (2019) 380–395

    2019

  111. [121]

    Rossi, M

    A. Rossi, M. Zannotti, M. Cuccioloni, M. Minicucci, L. Petetta, M. Angeletti, R. Giovannetti, Nanomaterials 11 (2021) 1–16

    2021

  112. [122]

    Ebrahim Mohammadzadeh, F

    S. Ebrahim Mohammadzadeh, F. Faghiri, F. Ghorbani, Microchem. J. 179 (2022) 107475

    2022

  113. [123]

    Krpetić, L

    Ž. Krpetić, L. Guerrini, I.A. Larmour, J. Reglinski, K. Faulds, D. Graham, Small 8 (2012) 707–714

    2012

  114. [124]

    M. De, S. Rana, V.M. Rotello, Macromol. Biosci. 9 (2009) 174–178

    2009

  115. [125]

    Zhang, Y.Q

    M. Zhang, Y.Q. Liu, B.C. Ye, Analyst 137 (2012) 601–607

    2012

  116. [126]

    Azzam, A.F.M

    E.M.S. Azzam, A.F.M. El-farargy, A.A. Abd-Elaal, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20 (2014) 3905– 3912

    2014

  117. [127]

    Y. Tan, X. Dai, Y. Li, D. Zhu, J. Mater. Chem. 13 (2003) 1069–1075

    2003

  118. [128]

    Annadhasan, J

    M. Annadhasan, J. Kasthuri, N. Rajendiran, RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 11458–11468

    2015

  119. [129]

    Shrivas, P

    K. Shrivas, P. Maji, K. Dewangan, Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 173 (2017) 630–636

    2017

  120. [130]

    Salimi, K

    F. Salimi, K. Zarei, C. Karami, Silicon 10 (2018) 1755–1761

    2018

  121. [131]

    Huynh, K.L

    K.A. Huynh, K.L. Chen, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 5564–5571

    2011

  122. [132]

    Gutierrez, C

    L. Gutierrez, C. Aubry, M. Cornejo, J.P. Croue, Langmuir 31 (2015) 8865–8872. 71

    2015

  123. [133]

    Bennur, C

    T. Bennur, C. Tagad, R. Aiyer, A. Kulkarni, S. Zinjarde, Opt. Mater. 98 (2019) 109447

    2019

  124. [134]

    Zhang, D

    L. Zhang, D. Huang, G. Yue, J. Zhu, L. Yang, L. Yang, W. Dan, P. Zhao, Chem. Phys. Lett. 784 (2021) 139101

    2021

  125. [135]

    Manley, M

    P.W. Manley, M. Acemoglu, W. Marterer, W. Pachinger, Org. Process Res. Dev. 7 (2003) 436–445

    2003

  126. [136]

    H. Xi, Q. Liu, Z. Chen, Microchim. Acta 185 (2018) 0–6

    2018

  127. [137]

    jie Li, C

    J. jie Li, C. jun Hou, D. qun Huo, C. hong Shen, X. gang Luo, H. bao Fa, M. Yang, J. Zhou, Sens Actuators B Chem. 241 (2017) 1294–1302

    2017

  128. [138]

    Furlan De Oliveira, V

    R. Furlan De Oliveira, V. Montes -García, A. Ciesielski, P. Samorì, Mater. Horizons 8 (2021) 2685–2708

    2021

  129. [139]

    Poltue, R

    T. Poltue, R. Rangkupan, S.T. Dubas, L. Dubas, Mater. Lett. 65 (2011) 2231–2234

    2011

  130. [140]

    Najarzadekan, H

    H. Najarzadekan, H. Sereshti, J. Mater. Sci. 51 (2016) 8645–8654

    2016

  131. [141]

    L. Tang, J. Li, ACS Sensors 2 (2017) 857–875

    2017

  132. [142]

    Guo, J.A

    L. Guo, J.A. Jackman, H. H. Yang, P. Chen, N. J. Cho, D.-H. Kim, Nano Today 10 (2015) 213–239

    2015

  133. [143]

    Zhang, H

    Z. Zhang, H. Wang, Z. Chen, X. Wang, J. Choo, L. Chen, Biosens. Bioelectron. 114 (2018) 52–65

    2018

  134. [144]

    T. Lin, Z. Li, Z. Song, H. Chen, L. Guo, F. Fu, Z. Wu, Talanta 148 (2016) 62–68

    2016

  135. [145]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Bamrah, S.K. Bhardwaj, A. Deep, M. Khatri, K.H. Kim, N. Bhardwaj, J. Hazard. Mater. 407 (2021) 124379

    2021

  136. [146]

    Bhardwaj, S.K

    N. Bhardwaj, S.K. Bhardwaj, M.K. Nayak, J. Mehta, K.-H. Kim, A. Deep, Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 97 (2017) 120–135

    2017

  137. [147]

    Gao, B.Z

    M. Gao, B.Z. Tang, ACS Sensors 2 (2017) 1382–1399

    2017

  138. [148]

    P. Wu, T. Zhao, S. Wang, X. Hou, Nanoscale 6 (2014) 43–64

    2014

  139. [149]

    X. Gao, C. Du, Z. Zhuang, W. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. C 4 (2016) 6927–6945

    2016

  140. [150]

    S. V. Gaponenko, Optical Properties of Semiconductor Nanocrystals, Cambridge university press, 1998

    1998

  141. [151]

    Sabzehmeidani, M

    M.M. Sabzehmeidani, M. Kazemzad, Sci. Total Environ. 810 (2022) 151997

    2022

  142. [152]

    Castro, D.S.M

    R.C. Castro, D.S.M. Ribeiro, J.L.M. Santos, Coord. Chem. Rev. 429 (2021) 213637

    2021

  143. [153]

    Resch-Genger, M

    U. Resch-Genger, M. Grabolle, S. Cavaliere-Jaricot, R. Nitschke, T. Nann, Nat. Methods 5 (2008) 763–775

    2008

  144. [154]

    Z. Li, A.I. Channa, Z.M. Wang, X. Tong, Small 19 (2023) 2305146

    2023

  145. [155]

    Nannen, J

    E. Nannen, J. Frohleiks, S. Gellner, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30 (2020) 1907349

    2020

  146. [156]

    Z. Wu, Y. Ou, M. Cai, Y. Wang, R. Tang, Y. Xia, Adv. Opt. Mater. 11 (2023) 2201577

    2023

  147. [157]

    Santos, W.R

    M.C.D. Santos, W.R. Algar, I.L. Medintz, N. Hildebrandt, Trends Environ. Anal. 72 Chem. 125 (2020) 115819

    2020

  148. [158]

    Y. Chen, Z. Rosenzweig, Anal. Chem. 74 (2002) 5132–5138

    2002

  149. [159]

    S.M. Ng, M. Koneswaran, R. Narayanaswamy, RSC Adv. 6 (2016) 21624–21661

    2016

  150. [160]

    W.W. Yu, E. Chang, R. Drezek, V.L. Colvin, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 348 (2006) 781–786

    2006

  151. [161]

    H. Zare, M. Ghalkhani, O. Akhavan, N. Taghavinia, M. Marandi, Mater. Res. Bull. 95 (2017) 532–538

    2017

  152. [162]

    J. Liu, Q. Zhang, W. Xue, H. Zhang, Y. Bai, L. Wu, Z. Zhai, G. Jin, Nanomaterials 9 (2019)

    2019

  153. [163]

    Selopal, H

    G.S. Selopal, H. Zhao, Z.M. Wang, F. Rosei, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30 (2020) 1908762

    2020

  154. [164]

    A. Sahu, D. Kumar, J. Alloys Compd. 924 (2022) 166508

    2022

  155. [165]

    Hines, P

    M.A. Hines, P. Guyot-Sionnest, J. Phys. Chem. 100 (1996) 468–471

    1996

  156. [166]

    Vasudevan, R.R

    D. Vasudevan, R.R. Gaddam, A. Trinchi, I. Cole, J. Alloys Compd. 636 (2015) 395– 404

    2015

  157. [167]

    Sui, Y.-F

    C.-X. Sui, Y.-F. Liu, P.-A. Li, D. Zhang, F. Xia, Anal. Methods 5 (2013) 1695–1701

    2013

  158. [168]

    Das, R.K

    D. Das, R.K. Dutta, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 400 (2020) 112709

    2020

  159. [169]

    Das, R.K

    D. Das, R.K. Dutta, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 416 (2021) 113323

    2021

  160. [170]

    Q. Yao, Y. Feng, M. Rong, S. He, X. Chen, Microchim. Acta 184 (2017) 4217–4223

    2017

  161. [171]

    Tiwari, M.K

    A.K. Tiwari, M.K. Gupta, H.P. Yadav, R.J. Narayan, P.C. Pandey, Biosensors 14 (2024) 49

    2024

  162. [172]

    M.T. Shah, A. Balouch, E. Alveroglu, J. Mater. Chem. C 6 (2018) 1105–1115

    2018

  163. [173]

    D. Yao, Y. Wang, P. Li, K. Müller-Buschbaum, H. Li, Opt. Mater. 96 (2019) 109371

    2019

  164. [174]

    Q. Wen, C. Jiang, W. Liu, Z. Zeng, J. Gao, Y. Zheng, Silicon 14 (2022) 385–392

    2022

  165. [175]

    Revesz, S.M

    I.A. Revesz, S.M. Hickey, M.J. Sweetman, J. Mater. Chem. B 10 (2022) 4346–4362

    2022

  166. [176]

    Bourlinos, A

    A.B. Bourlinos, A. Stassinopoulos, D. Anglos, R. Zboril, V. Georgakilas, E.P. Giannelis, Chem. Mater. 20 (2008) 4539–4541

    2008

  167. [177]

    Baker, G.A

    S.N. Baker, G.A. Baker, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49 (2010) 6726–6744

    2010

  168. [178]

    H. Li, J. Huang, Y. Liu, F. Lu, J. Zhong, Y. Wang, S. Li, Y. Lifshitz, S.-T. Lee, Z. Kang, Nano Res. 12 (2019) 1585–1593

    2019

  169. [179]

    Zhang, L

    M. Zhang, L. Hu, H. Wang, Y. Song, Y. Liu, H. Li, M. Shao, H. Huang, Z. Kang, Nanoscale 10 (2018) 12734–12742

    2018

  170. [180]

    B.-P. Qi, L. Bao, Z.-L. Zhang, D.-W. Pang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 8 (2016) 28372–28382

    2016

  171. [181]

    Nekoueian, M

    K. Nekoueian, M. Amiri, M. Sillanpää, F. Marken, R. Boukherroub, S. Szunerits, Chem. Soc. Rev. 48 (2019) 4281–4316

    2019

  172. [182]

    Ahirwar, S

    S. Ahirwar, S. Mallick, D. Bahadur, ACS Omega 2 (2017) 8343–8353. 73

    2017

  173. [183]

    Roy, P.-C

    P. Roy, P.-C. Chen, A.P. Periasamy, Y.-N. Chen, H.-T. Chang, Mater. Today 18 (2015) 447–458

    2015

  174. [184]

    Y. Liu, H. Huang, W. Cao, B. Mao, Y. Liu, Z. Kang, Mater. Chem. Front. 4 (2020) 1586–1613

    2020

  175. [185]

    Q. Su, X. Wei, J. Mao, X. Yang, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 562 (2019) 86–92

    2019

  176. [186]

    Molina, A

    P. Molina, A. Tárraga, F. Otón, Org. Biomol. Chem. 10 (2012) 1711–1724

    2012

  177. [187]

    Y. Gong, H. Liang, Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 211 (2019) 342– 347

    2019

  178. [188]

    Jouyandeh, S.S.M

    M. Jouyandeh, S.S.M. Khadem, S. Habibzadeh, A. Esmaeili, O. Abida, V. Vatanpour, N. Rabiee, M. Bagherzadeh, S. Iravani, M.R. Saeb, R.S. Varma, Green Chem. 23 (2021) 4931–4954

    2021

  179. [189]

    K. Qin, D. Zhang, Y. Ding, X. Zheng, W. Tan, Y. Xiang, J. Hua, X. Ji, B. Li, Y. Wei, Anal. Methods 11 (2019) 5724–5729

    2019

  180. [190]

    M.I.S.D. Cruz, N. Thongsai, M.D.G. de Luna, I. In, P. Paoprasert, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 568 (2019) 184–194

    2019

  181. [191]

    Phetcharee, N

    K. Phetcharee, N. Sirisit, J. Manyam, P. Paoprasert, ChemistrySelect 6 (2021) 7964– 7971

    2021

  182. [192]

    Singh, S

    M.S. Singh, S. Chowdhury, RSC Adv. 2 (2012) 4547–4592

    2012

  183. [193]

    Y. Li, C. Liu, M. Chen, Y. An, Y. Zheng, H. Tian, R. Shi, X. He, X. Lin, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23 (2022)

    2022

  184. [194]

    C. Wu, W. Sun, Q. Wang, Inorg. Chem. 61 (2022) 4159–4170

    2022

  185. [195]

    Z. Xu, J. Chen, Y. Liu, X. Wang, Q. Shi, Chem. Eng. J. 441 (2022) 135690

    2022

  186. [196]

    Z. Fan, Q. Ran, X. Xu, Y. Tang, X. Liu, K. Jia, New J. Chem. 47 (2023) 22269–22275

    2023

  187. [197]

    Liu, S.-Y

    K.-K. Liu, S.-Y. Song, L.-Z. Sui, S.-X. Wu, P.-T. Jing, R.-Q. Wang, Q.-Y. Li, G.-R. Wu, Z.-Z. Zhang, K.-J. Yuan, C.-X. Shan, Adv. Sci. 6 (2019) 1900766

    2019

  188. [198]

    Ding, J.-S

    H. Ding, J.-S. Wei, P. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhou, Q.-Y. Gao, H.-M. Xiong, Small 14 (2018) 1800612

    2018

  189. [199]

    C. Gu, Y. Jiao, Y. Gao, X. Liu, T. Qian, Microchem. J. 200 (2024) 110317

    2024

  190. [200]

    Sweetman, S.M

    M.J. Sweetman, S.M. Hickey, D.A. Brooks, J.D. Hayball, S.E. Plush, Adv. Funct. Mater. 29 (2019) 1808740

    2019

  191. [201]

    A. Xu, P. He, T. Huang, J. Li, X. Hu, P. Xiang, D. Chen, S. Yang, G. Wang, G. Ding, Synth. Met. 244 (2018) 106–112

    2018

  192. [202]

    Tarcan, O

    R. Tarcan, O. Todor-Boer, I. Petrovai, C. Leordean, S. Astilean, I. Botiz, J. Mater. Chem. C 8 (2020) 1198–1224

    2020

  193. [203]

    Ahmed, A

    A. Ahmed, A. Singh, S.-J. Young, V. Gupta, M. Singh, S. Arya, Compos. -A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 165 (2023) 107373

    2023

  194. [204]

    S. D. Priyadharshini, S. Manikandan, R. Kiruthiga, U. Rednam, P.S. Babu, R. 74 Subbaiya, N. Karmegam, W. Kim, M. Govarthanan, Environ. Pollut. 306 (2022) 119377

    2022

  195. [205]

    Ramesh, B

    P. Ramesh, B. Jebasingh, Mater. Chem. Phys. 222 (2019) 45–54

    2019

  196. [206]

    Adewuyi, D.A

    S. Adewuyi, D.A. Ondigo, R. Zugle, Z. Tshentu, T. Nyokong, N. Torto, Anal. Methods 4 (2012) 1729–1735

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.