2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.09.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ratiometric fluorescent monitoring of methanol in biodiesel by using an ESIPT-based flavonoid probe

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This detection limit was found to be comparable with other traditional methods, such as voltammetry (0.02%), electrochemistry (0.03%), and nearinfrared spectroscopy (0.023%). 31 The energy-minimized structure of 1 (at gas phase) indicates a puckered geometry with a dihedral angle of ∼57°(between the pyrene unit and central aryl ring of the terpyridine moiety). However, the excited-state geometry showed a comparatively less distorted structure as the dihedral angle reduced from ∼57 to ∼33°.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This detection limit was found to be comparable with other traditional methods, such as voltammetry (0.02%), electrochemistry (0.03%), and nearinfrared spectroscopy (0.023%). 31 The energy-minimized structure of 1 (at gas phase) indicates a puckered geometry with a dihedral angle of ∼57°(between the pyrene unit and central aryl ring of the terpyridine moiety). However, the excited-state geometry showed a comparatively less distorted structure as the dihedral angle reduced from ∼57 to ∼33°.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The blank variation method indicates that one can detect as low as 0.13% v/v of methanol in biodiesel samples using compound 1 . This detection limit was found to be comparable with other traditional methods, such as voltammetry (0.02%), electrochemistry (0.03%), and near-infrared spectroscopy (0.023%) …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Industrial alcohol contains about 4% of methanol. Taking advantage of industrial alcohol to produce shoddy edible wine in a fake way presumably may cause methanol poisoning. , Besides, methanol vapors can also injure the nervous tissue and connective tissue of mammals. , Hence, rapid, accurate, and effective detection of methanol and its vapor is tremendously significant and necessary for ensuring food safety, maintaining public social safety, and protecting human health. Various methods for detection of methanol and its vapor have been exploited, such as high-performance liquid and gas chromatography; infrared (IR), H 1 NMR, electrochemical, enzymatic techniques; gas sensors, and so forth. However, high cost, inconvenience, and special equipment obstruct the application of these methods in actual sensing. Therefore, it is imperative to procure a rapid, less-consumed, and easy-to-use method to identify and respond to methanol or its vapor.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13][14][15] Thus, using a reaction based chemical sensor, MeOH detection in commercial alcoholic beverages and hand sanitizers containing a large amount of EtOH/ i PrOH as well as water is an extremely challenging task. [16][17][18] In the search for an alternative method of detection, researchers focused on various other analytical procedures, such as different types of mass spectrometry (MS), [19][20][21] gas chromatography, [22][23][24] cyclic voltammetry, 25 capillary electrophoresis, 26 quartz crystal microbalances (QCMs) and so on. 27 However, costly sophisticated instrumentation, the requirement of skilled technicians or tedious standardizations for the previous methods are major disadvantages for using them in routine analysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%