Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2428 2023-07-04 11:39:27 |
2 Reference format revised. -11 word(s) 2417 2023-07-05 03:03:56 | |
3 Second-level heading format revision Meta information modification 2417 2023-07-10 03:34:02 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Lin, D.; Yu, C.; Ku, C.; Chung, C. Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrates for Food Safety Detection. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46390 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
Lin D, Yu C, Ku C, Chung C. Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrates for Food Safety Detection. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46390. Accessed June 22, 2024.
Lin, Ding-Yan, Chung-Yu Yu, Chin-An Ku, Chen-Kuei Chung. "Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrates for Food Safety Detection" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46390 (accessed June 22, 2024).
Lin, D., Yu, C., Ku, C., & Chung, C. (2023, July 04). Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrates for Food Safety Detection. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46390
Lin, Ding-Yan, et al. "Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrates for Food Safety Detection." Encyclopedia. Web. 04 July, 2023.
Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrates for Food Safety Detection
Edit

Food safety analysis currently relies on the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), gas chromatography (GC), UV-visible spectrophotometry, and tandem mass spectrometry (MS), all of which require significant time to train qualified food safety testing laboratory operators. These factors have hindered the development of rapid food safety monitoring systems, especially in remote areas or areas with a relative lack of testing resources. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) has emerged as one of the tools of choice for food safety testing that can overcome these dilemmas. SERS offers advantages over chromatographic mass spectrometry analysis due to its portability, non-destructive nature, and lower cost implications. However, as it currently stands, Raman spectroscopy is a supplemental tool in chemical analysis, reinforcing and enhancing the completeness and coverage of the food safety analysis system. SERS combines portability with non-destructive and cheaper detection costs to gain an advantage over chromatographic mass spectrometry analysis. 

food safety sensing SERS Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of food safety issues, highlighting the importance of food analysis [1]. While chemical methods have been the standard for food safety penalties [2], their high costs, lengthy wait times, and limited coverage have become more apparent. This has led to a renewed focus on developing versatile devices for food safety management, such as rapid screening methods [3]. Rapid screening techniques for food safety primarily utilize biological and physical processes, as shown in Figure 1 [4][5]. In food safety analysis, the bioassay method generally involves analyzing the effects of biological or chemical contaminants on intracellular genes or utilizing cellular metabolic mechanisms, for detection, through an antibody-and-antigen match and a series of biochemical reactions [6]. Instead of focusing on the concentrations of a few select chemicals, bioassays can be a supplementary approach to conventional chemical monitoring methods in the future. They can achieve this by evaluating cumulative effects, such as those caused by mixtures, and addressing the chemicals present at concentrations below the detection limits of chemical analysis [6]. This method can detect harmful substances—rapidly and sensitively—in food, offering advantages such as fast detection, user-friendly operation, and low cost [7]. Nonetheless, the bioassay method presents multiple disadvantages. For instance, if the sample preprocessing has little rigor, it could disrupt the identification of substances, resulting in false positives or negatives, owing to limited specificity [8][9]. Additionally, the precision of the detection outcomes might be influenced by environmental factors within the laboratory, including the integrity of laboratory partitions, temperature, and humidity. Moreover, the bioassay technique demonstrates a particular reliance on the sample’s composition, and its sensitivity might prove less effective than alternative chemical detection methods when examining components.
Figure 1. By combining screening and mass spectrometry techniques, the accuracy and efficiency of food safety testing can be effectively improved.
In contrast, physical methods more directly detect physical properties in food samples, such as optical and acoustic properties, and they have a more comprehensive application range that is not limited by sample type. Physical methods also have a lower dependence on sample components. Laser technology is a physical method that offers benefits such as fast detection speed, high sensitivity, and good selectivity [10]. By controlling the wavelength and power of the laser, it is possible to detect and analyze different components in the sample. Laser technology also allows for non-destructive testing, minimizing damage to the model. Raman spectroscopy, particularly surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) technology, is an emerging physical method that offers ultra-trace analysis capabilities. SERS technology is likely to become the preferred option for preliminary screening under the “screening first and testing later” food safety management approach [11]. The microstructure fabrication and morphology of SERS significantly impact its sensitivity, specificity, selectivity, and anti-interference ability for food safety screening. Raman spectroscopy is a non-destructive spectroscopic technique that enables the rapid and accurate identification and semi-quantification of chemical and biological substances [12]. Mass spectrometry is a technique that allows for the high-sensitivity and high-resolution analysis of complex samples. The combination of Raman spectroscopy and mass spectrometry in food safety detection can enhance the accuracy and efficiency of testing [13]. Leveraging a tandem approach of Raman spectroscopy and mass spectrometry in food safety inspection provides several benefits, including accelerated detection [14], increased precision [13], preservation of sample integrity [12], and real-time surveillance [15]. The initial screening via Raman spectroscopy, coupled with mass spectrometry confirmation and quantification, enhances testing efficiency. These complementary techniques provide diverse chemical insights, corroborating and bolstering the accuracy of results. Importantly, the non-invasive characteristic of Raman spectroscopy and its swift operation allow for timely monitoring to control safety risks. Practical applications span from detecting pesticide residues [16][17] and food additives [18][19], to identifying microbial contamination [20][21] and food poisoning agents [15][22], and to verifying food authenticity. Prompt identification and the quantification of potential hazards assure compliance with safety regulations.
Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) is a promising technique for food safety testing. It is highly sensitive, rapid, non-destructive, and versatile, and it can be used to detect a wide range of contaminants, including food-borne pathogens, contaminants (pesticides, heavy metals, and antibiotics), adulteration, and allergens [23], as shown in Figure 2. SERS has been applied to food safety in several ways, and there is a growing body of research on its use in this field [11][24]. However, some challenges are associated with using SERS for food safety testing, such as the need to develop SERS substrates that are specific for detecting the target contaminants [25] and the need to standardize SERS protocols to ensure that results are comparable between different laboratories. The key lies in the close relationship between the microstructure of SERS and these challenges. Despite these challenges, SERS is a highly promising and complementary technique to conventional chemical analysis in the field of food safety testing.
Figure 2. Utilizing SERS for the detection and identification of contaminants, pathogens, allergens, and adulteration in food safety.

2. Design, Fabrication, and Applications of SERS

Raman spectroscopy is an analytical technique that detects the inelastic scattering of photons to observe the vibrational and rotational modes of molecules. This interaction between photons and molecules provides a unique spectroscopic “fingerprint” that can be used to identify different molecular species. As Figure 3 shows, SERS was first discovered in 1974 by Fleischmann et al. [26] when they observed a significant enhancement of the Raman signal from pyridine molecules adsorbed on a rough silver electrode [26]. The enhancement in SERS can be attributed to two mechanisms: electromagnetic mechanisms (EM) [27][28] and chemical mechanisms (CM) [29][30]. The EM arises from the increased local electric field at the metal surface, which occurs due to the generation of local surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) when the metal is illuminated with light. Surface plasmons refer to the collective oscillations of unbound electrons within a region confined to the interface between a metal and a dielectric material. As Figure 4 shows, the free electrons within the metal nanostructures oscillate in response to the incident light, and these oscillations are confined to the isolated nanostructures, leading to the resonance of the electrons and a subsequent increase in the local electric field. The enhancement factor of the surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) substrate can be estimated using the approximate formula EF ≈ (|Eloc|/|E0|)4, taking into account a squared factor for the excitation and another squared factor for the emission [31]. The significant amplification of the local enhanced electric field contributes to the enhancement of the SERS signal, leading to the major development of EM techniques in SERS applications.
Figure 3. The schematic of SERS detection. The Raman scattering of the analyte, enhanced by the substrate, is detected by the detector.
Figure 4. The schematic of the plasmonic resonance of the MNPs. The red arrows stand for the direction of the electron cloud and the green arrows stand for the direction of the light.
The CM, on the other hand, arises from the charge transfer (CT) between the analyte molecule and the substrate. This charge transfer can increase the Raman cross-section and, consequently, enhance the intensity of the Raman signal. Lombardi and Brike elucidated the Herzberg–Teller surface selection rules as a means to elucidate the role of CT, which could enhance the intensities of non-totally symmetric modes, thereby exhibiting a pronounced dependence on wavelength or voltage [32][33]. Recently, several research groups have undertaken comprehensive investigations into the surface enhancement of semiconductor materials [34][35][36].

2.1. The Design of the SERS Substrates

The selection of substrates in SERS technology is critical for achieving optimal sensing performance. The design of SERS substrates should be tailored to the specific target substances. In food safety applications, the target substances can be categorized into two groups: small amount molecules [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and tiny biomaterials, such as cells [46][47][48][49], cell walls [50][51][52][53], and spores [54][55][56][57]. The key distinction between these two categories lies in their size. Molecules are typically smaller than 100 nm and can be accommodated within the hotspot of the SERS substrate [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. On the other hand, tiny biomaterials are generally larger than 100 nm and cannot fit into the small hotspot of the SERS substrate [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57].
The choice of SERS substrate significantly affects the Raman enhancement, prompting researchers to invest in the development of diverse substrates for SERS measurements over the past few decades. These SERS substrates can generally be classified into two categories: metal nanoparticles (MNPs) in suspension and metal nanostructures on solid substrates. The utilization of MNPs in suspension offers several advantages for SERS applications, including easier chemical synthesis (typically without the need for complex equipment) and the production of excellent enhanced Raman signals.
Currently, various shapes of metal MNPs have been proposed, including the nanorods [58][59], nanostars [60], nanocubes [61], hyperbranched Au nanocorals [62], flower-like Au NPs [63], Pt-Au triangular nanoprisms [64], Au popcorns [65], decahedral Ag NPs [66], Au nanofoams [67], and dual-gap Au nanodumbbells [68]. These different shapes are aimed at creating more branches, pores, or tips on the MNPs, which are believed to generate high-intensity electromagnetic regions, also known as anisotropic hot spots.
Nanostructures such as nanorods, nanopillars, and nanowires, decorated with MNPs, have the capability to generate controllable hotspots by tuning the distance between each nanostructure. This configuration offers advantages in terms of sensitivity, uniformity, and stability. However, the fabrication processes for these nanostructures are often complex and time-consuming. Therefore, it is crucial to develop simple and facile methods for fabricating nanostructure supporters. Porous materials present another option as SERS supporters. These materials possess a large specific surface area, controllable porosity, and can be easily fabricated on a large scale. Various porous materials have been proposed, including porous SiO2 [38], porous Si [69], porous TiO2 [70], porous Al2O3 [71][72][73], Cu foam [74], and Ni foam [75]. These materials serve as a platform for supporting MNPs or metal nanofilms to generate high-density electric fields.
To further simplify the fabrication of the SERS substrate, some biological or commercial substrates were applied to be a simple SERS substrate, such as a cuttlebone-derived organic matrix [55], diatomite [76], beetle wings [77], cotton swabs [78][79], and filter paper [80]. The biological materials usually have complex structures such as the “wall-septa” on the cuttlebone [55], 3D periodic microstructures on the beetle wings, and the micro porous structure on the diatomite are naturally formed micro-to-nano structures that can be directly decorated with MNPs [55][77] or that used to be the mold to translate the nanostructure to PDMS [77]. Other simple SERS substrate supporters are commercial substrates such as cotton swabs [78][79] and filter paper [80]. Those commercial substrates are constructed with fibers, which allows the NPs adhesion and generates the hotspots on the fibers. The fiber-based SERS substrates have the advantages of the good hydrophilicity, flexibility, and the low-cost. However, the sensitivity and uniformity of fiber-based SERS substrates are a challenge. In brief, those commercial simple SERS supporters may suffer from the lower sensitivity because they lack the well-defined nanostructures.

2.2. The Fabrication of the SERS Substrates

In the bottom-up approaches, the nanostructures can be done by chemical deposition [70][81][82][83], 3D printing [84][85], self-assembly particles [86], and chemical synthesis [71][72][73][87][88][89][90]. During the chemical deposition, controlling the size and the shape of the deposited nanostructures is a challenge. Durastanti et al. used SiH4 and H2 as precursors to grow the Si nanowire with the length of 2–3 μm and the diameter of 40–70 nm by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) [81]. Malik et al. deposited TiO2 shells on the carbon soot layer to generate the TiO2 fractal nanostructure [70], due to the carbon soot layer usually consisting of small particles with sizes of 1–100 nm [91]. The 3D printing has the advantage of a well-defined microstructure [92]; however, the 3D printer cannot construct the nanostructure directly, and a decent investment is necessary for high resolution 3D printers [92].
In the top-down approaches, etching is a common method to generate nanostructures, such as Si micropyramid [93], porous Au [94], Si nanowires [95], and Si nanopillar [96]. The Si micropyramid can be simply fabricated by etching the Si wafer in the KOH due to the anisotropic properties of the Si wafer [93]. Kochylas et al. fabricated Si nanowires by metal-assisted chemical etching, and they decorated the Si nanowires with Ag nanoparticles. By tuning the etching time, the morphology of the Ag nanoparticles formed dendritic structures instead of aggregating together, which shows higher sensitivity [95]. The reactive ion etching (RIE) is a suitable option when aiming for uniform surface structure coverage over large areas. The RIE system uses a plasma source consisting of highly reactive ion species, and when they bombard the sample, a chemical reaction takes place that selectively erodes away the sample surface [96]

2.3. The SERS Application on Food Safety

As Figure 5 shows, The SERS applications on food safety can be divided into four kinds, depending on the sensing targets: the pesticide, antibiotic, microorganic, and metal ions. To detect various analytes, SERS substrates fabricated for the different functions are required.
Figure 5. Schematic of food safety detection.
Antibiotics are widely applied in various fields of food safety, such as poultry production, livestock production, and aquaculture, to protect the production from microorganism infections. However, the antibiotic residues are an important issue for multiple food products, such as meat, milk, fish, and honey [97][98][99][100][101]. The antibiotic residues can enter human bodies through food chains and the bioaccumulation. High concentration antibiotic residues could damage human organs and lead the human body develop antibiotic resistances. 
Heavy metal ions, which cannot be degraded by organisms and can accumulate through the food chain, posing a great threat to human health, are widely distributed in the environment and food [102]. Therefore, the determination of heavy metal ions is a significant issue for food safety, and tremendous efforts have been made to detect various heavy metal ions. SERS is a powerful sensing technique; however, the metal ions have no Raman signal, which means that the SERS can only detect the metal ions with chelation pre-treatment. In addition, the difficult preparation of aptamer for heavy metal ions also limits the SERS application on metal detection. It is worth noting that some metal ions detections were realized by SERS recently.

References

  1. Gallo, M.; Ferrara, L.; Calogero, A.; Montesano, D.; Naviglio, D. Relationships between food and diseases: What to know to ensure food safety. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109414.
  2. Amelin, V.G.; Lavrukhina, O.I. Food safety assurance using methods of chemical analysis. J. Anal. Chem. 2017, 72, 1–46.
  3. Lebesi, D.; Dimakou, C.; Alldrick, A.J.; Oreopoulou, V. Rapid test methods: A versatile tool to assist food-safety management: Use and need of rapid test methods. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2010, 2, 173–181.
  4. Tang, Y.; Lu, L.; Zhao, W.; Wang, J. Rapid Detection Techniques for Biological and Chemical Contamination in Food: A Review. Int. J. Food Eng. 2009, 5.
  5. Darwish, A.; Ricci, M.; Zidane, F.; Vasquez, J.A.T.; Casu, M.R.; Lanteri, J.; Migliaccio, C.; Vipiana, F. Physical Contamination Detection in Food Industry Using Microwave and Machine Learning. Electronics 2022, 11, 3115.
  6. Välitalo, P.; Massei, R.; Heiskanen, I.; Behnisch, P.; Brack, W.; Tindall, A.J.; Du Pasquier, D.; Küster, E.; Mikola, A.; Schulze, T.; et al. Effect-based assessment of toxicity removal during wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2017, 126, 153–163.
  7. Hilscherová, K.; Machala, M.; Kannan, K.; Blankenship, A.L.; Giesy, J.P. Cell bioassays for detection of aryl hydrocarbon (AhR) and estrogen receptor (ER) mediated activity in environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2000, 7, 159–171.
  8. Hoogenboom, L.A.; Hamers, A.R.; Bovee, T.F. Bioassays for the detection of growth-promoting agents, veterinary drugs and environmental contaminants in food. Analyst 1999, 124, 79–85.
  9. Burns, M.; Wiseman, G.; Knight, A.; Bramley, P.; Foster, L.; Rollinson, S.; Damant, A.; Primrose, S. Measurement issues associated with quantitative molecular biology analysis of complex food matrices for the detection of food fraud. Analyst 2016, 141, 45–61.
  10. Narsaiah, K.; Jha, S.N.; Bhardwaj, R.; Sharma, R.; Kumar, R. Optical biosensors for food quality and safety assurance—A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 383–406.
  11. Perumal, J.; Wang, Y.; Attia, A.B.E.; Dinish, U.S.; Olivo, M. Towards a point-of-care SERS sensor for biomedical and agri-food analysis applications: A review of recent advancements. Nanoscale 2021, 13, 553–580.
  12. Butler, H.J.; Ashton, L.; Bird, B.; Cinque, G.; Curtis, K.; Dorney, J.; Esmonde-White, K.; Fullwood, N.J.; Gardner, B.; Martin-Hirsch, P.L.; et al. Using Raman spectroscopy to characterize biological materials. Nat. Protoc. 2016, 11, 664–687.
  13. Meher, A.K.; Chen, Y.-C. Combination of Raman Spectroscopy and Mass Spectrometry for Online Chemical Analysis. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 9151–9157.
  14. Petersen, M.; Yu, Z.; Lu, X. Application of Raman Spectroscopic Methods in Food Safety: A Review. Biosensors 2021, 11, 187.
  15. Neng, J.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, P. Application of surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy in fast detection of toxic and harmful substances in food. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 167, 112480.
  16. Jiang, L.; Gu, K.; Liu, R.; Jin, S.; Wang, H.; Pan, C. Rapid detection of pesticide residues in fruits by surface-enhanced Raman scattering based on modified QuEChERS pretreatment method with portable Raman instrument. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 627.
  17. Wang, P.; Wu, L.; Lu, Z.; Li, Q.; Yin, W.; Ding, F.; Han, H. Gecko-Inspired Nanotentacle Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Substrate for Sampling and Reliable Detection of Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables. Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 2424–2431.
  18. Wu, Y.; Yu, W.; Yang, B.; Li, P. Self-assembled two-dimensional gold nanoparticle film for sensitive nontargeted analysis of food additives with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Analyst 2018, 143, 2363–2368.
  19. He, S.; Xie, W.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Du, C. Multivariate qualitative analysis of banned additives in food safety using surface enhanced Raman scattering spectroscopy. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2015, 137, 1092–1099.
  20. Yan, S.; Wang, S.; Qiu, J.; Li, M.; Li, D.; Xu, D.; Li, D.; Liu, Q. Raman spectroscopy combined with machine learning for rapid detection of food-borne pathogens at the single-cell level. Talanta 2021, 226, 122195.
  21. Maruthamuthu, M.K.; Raffiee, A.H.; De Oliveira, D.M.; Ardekani, A.M.; Verma, M.S. Raman spectra-based deep learning: A tool to identify microbial contamination. MicrobiologyOpen 2020, 9, e1122.
  22. Martinez, L.; He, L. Detection of Mycotoxins in Food Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy: A Review. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2021, 4, 295–310.
  23. Guo, Y.; Girmatsion, M.; Li, H.-W.; Xie, Y.; Yao, W.; Qian, H.; Abraha, B.; Mahmud, A. Rapid and ultrasensitive detection of food contaminants using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy-based methods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 3555–3568.
  24. Xu, M.-L.; Gao, Y.; Han, X.-X.; Zhao, B. Innovative Application of SERS in Food Quality and Safety: A Brief Review of Recent Trends. Foods 2022, 11, 2097.
  25. Yaseen, T.; Pu, H.; Sun, D.-W. Functionalization techniques for improving SERS substrates and their applications in food safety evaluation: A review of recent research trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 72, 162–174.
  26. Fleischmann, M.; Hendra, P.J.; McQuillan, A.J. Raman Spectra of Pyridine Adsorbed at a Silver Electrode. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 26, 163–166.
  27. Kerker, M.; Wang, D.S.; Chew, H. Surface Enhanced Raman-Scattering (SERS) by Molecules Adsorbed at Spherical-Particles. Appl. Opt. 1980, 19, 4159–4174.
  28. Creighton, J.A. Surface Raman Electromagnetic Enhancement Factors for Molecules at the Surface of Small Isolated Metal Spheres-The Determination of Adsorbate Orientation From SERS Relative Intensities. Surf. Sci. 1983, 124, 209–219.
  29. Lombardi, J.R.; Birke, R.L.; Lu, T.; Xu, J. Charge-transfer theory of surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy: Herzberg–Teller contributions. J. Chem. Phys. 1986, 84, 4174.
  30. Laurent, G.; Félidj, N. Evidence of multipolar excitations in surface enhanced Raman scattering. Phys. Rev. B 2005, 71, 1045430.
  31. Le Ru, E.C.; Etchegoin, P.G. Rigorous justification of the |E|4 enhancement factor in Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2006, 423, 63–66.
  32. Lombardi, J.R.; Birke, R.L. A Unified Approach to Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 5605–5617.
  33. Lombardi, J.R.; Birke, R.L. Theory of Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering in Semiconductors. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 11120–11130.
  34. Yang, B.; Jin, S.; Guo, S.; Park, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhao, B.; Jung, Y.M. Recent Development of SERS Technology: Semiconductor-Based Study. ACS Omega 2019, 4, 20101–20108.
  35. Singh, P.D.D.; Murthy, Z.V.P.; Kailasa, S.K. Metal nitrides nanostructures: Properties, synthesis and conceptualization in analytical methods developments for chemical analysis and separation, and in energy storage applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2023, 481, 215046.
  36. Samriti; Rajput, V.; Gupta, R.K.; Prakash, J. Engineering metal oxide semiconductor nanostructures for enhanced charge transfer: Fundamentals and emerging SERS applications. J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, 10, 73–95.
  37. Wang, S.Y.; Hao, Q.X.; Zhao, Y.N.; Chen, Y.S. Two-Dimensional Printed Swab for SERS Screening of Pesticide Residues on Apples and Pears. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 4982–4989.
  38. Guo, Z.M.; Gao, L.B.; Yin, L.M.; Arslan, M.; El-Seedi, H.R.; Zou, X.B. Novel mesoporous silica surface loaded gold nanocomposites SERS aptasensor for sensitive detection of zearalenone. Food Chem. 2023, 403, 134384.
  39. Zhang, Q.; Mi, S.N.; Xie, Y.F.; Yu, H.; Guo, Y.H.; Yao, W.R. Core-shell (Fe) as an enhanced substrate for flunixin meglumine ultra-sensitive detection. Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2023, 287, 122018.
  40. Song, Y.; Xiao, K.Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, X.D.; Yu, Z.; Chen, W.W.; Zhang, X.B.; Zhang, D.; Ni, D.J.; Liang, P. Fabrication of GO/Fe3O4@Au MNPs for Magnetically Enriched and Adsorptive SERS Detection of Bifenthrin. Chemosensors 2023, 11, 73.
  41. Chen, Y.M.; Zhu, L.X.; Yang, Y.L.; Wu, D.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, W.W.; Tang, X.Z. Fabrication of a metal organic framework (MOF)-modified Au nanoparticle array for sensitive and stable SERS sensing of paraquat in cereals. J. Food Sci. 2023, 88, 1769–1780.
  42. Chen, R.P.; Wang, H.; Sun, C.Q.; Zhao, Y.G.; He, Y.; Nisar, M.S.; Wei, W.S.; Kang, H.Q.; Xie, X.L.; Du, C.M.; et al. 2 SERS nanotags based lateral flow immunoassay for simultaneous detection of aflatoxin B1 and ochratoxin A. Talanta 2023, 258, 124401.
  43. Qiu, J.Y.; Chu, Y.J.; He, Q.H.; Han, Y.K.; Zhang, Y.; Han, L. A self-assembly hydrophobic oCDs/Ag nanoparticles SERS sensor for ultrasensitive melamine detection in milk. Food Chem. 2023, 402, 134241.
  44. Zhang, D.; Fan, Y.S.; Sun, X.X.; Wei, X.O.; Lin, Z.T.; Zhang, X.A.; Shi, J.Y.; Battino, M.; Gong, Y.Y.; Shi, B.L.; et al. SERS determination of hydroxy-?-sanshool in spicy hotpot seasoning: The strategy to restrain the interference of capsaicin and its mechanism. Food Chem. 2023, 413, 135644.
  45. Zhao, Y.; Xu, Y.J.; Jing, X.H.; Ma, W. SERS-active plasmonic metal NP-CsPbX3 films for multiple veterinary drug residues detection. Food Chem. 2023, 412, 135420.
  46. Asgari, S.; Dhital, R.; Mustapha, A.; Lin, M.S. Duplex detection of foodborne pathogens using a SERS optofluidic sensor coupled with immunoassay. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 383, 109947.
  47. Li, J.X.; Wu, T.; Wang, C.G.; Tu, J.; Song, X.J.; Shao, Y.; Wang, C.W.; Qi, K.Z.; Xiao, R. Nanogapped Fe3O4@Au Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Tags for the Multiplex Detection of Bacteria on an Immunochromatographic Strip. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2022, 5, 12679–12689.
  48. Tu, Z.J.; Cheng, S.Y.; Dong, H.; Wang, W.Q.; Yang, X.S.; Gu, B.; Wang, S.Q.; Wang, C.W. Universal and ultrasensitive detection of foodborne bacteria on a lateral flow assay strip by using wheat germ agglutinin-modified magnetic SERS nanotags. RSC Adv. 2022, 12, 27344–27354.
  49. Shen, W.Z.; Wang, C.G.; Zheng, S.; Jiang, B.; Li, J.X.; Pang, Y.F.; Wang, C.W.; Hao, R.Z.; Xiao, R. Ultrasensitive multichannel immunochromatographic assay for rapid detection of foodborne bacteria based on two-dimensional film-like SERS labels. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 437, 129347.
  50. He, Q.; Yang, J.Y.; Zabotina, O.A.; Yu, C.X. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopic chemical imaging reveals distribution of pectin and its co-localization with xyloglucan inside onion epidermal cell wall. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250650.
  51. Hu, S.; Gu, F.; Chen, M.; Wang, C.W.; Li, J.; Yang, J.; Wang, G.Y.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, Y. A novel method for identifying and distinguishing Cryptococcus neoformans and Cryptococcus gattii by surface-enhanced Raman scattering using positively charged silver nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12480.
  52. Prakash, O.; Sil, S.; Verma, T.; Umapathy, S. Direct Detection of Bacteria Using Positively Charged Ag/Au Bimetallic Nanoparticles: A Label-free Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Study Coupled with Multivariate Analysis. J. Phys. Chem. C 2020, 124, 861–869.
  53. Uusitalo, S.; Popov, A.; Ryabchikov, Y.V.; Bibikova, O.; Alakomi, H.L.; Juvonen, R.; Kontturi, V.; Siitonen, S.; Kabashin, A.; Meglinski, I.; et al. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for identification and discrimination of beverage spoilage yeasts using patterned substrates and gold nanoparticles. J. Food Eng. 2017, 212, 47–54.
  54. Liu, S.J.; Zhu, Y.D.; Li, M.Y.; Liu, W.J.; Zhao, L.J.; Ma, Y.Y.; Xu, L.N.; Wang, N.; Zhao, G.M.; Liang, D.; et al. Rapid Identification of Different Pathogenic Spore-Forming Bacteria in Spice Powders Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Chemometrics. Food Anal. Methods 2022, 15, 2810–2820.
  55. Jiang, G.Z.; Xu, W.H.; Huang, X.X.; Dai, Z.Q.; Zhou, C.X.; Hong, P.Z.; Li, C.Y. Detection of Bacillus cereus Spore Biomarkers Using SERS-Based Cuttlebone-Derived Organic Matrix/Silver Nanoparticles. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 4145–4154.
  56. Ikeno, S.; Maekawa, T.; Hara, N. Multi-Functional Silver Nanoparticles for High-Throughput Endospore Sensing. Biosensors 2022, 12, 68.
  57. Chen, Q.; Yang, Y.; Ilnur, M.; Liang, W.W.; Shen, A.G.; Hu, J.M. ‘Mixing-and-measuring’ surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) detection of Bacillus cereus for potentially aiding gold mine field exploration. Talanta 2019, 204, 44–49.
  58. Litti, L.; Reguera, J.; Berganza, L.B.; Meneghetti, M.; Lanceros-Mendez, S. Enhancement of Magnetic Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Detection by Tailoring Fe3O4@Au Nanorod Shell Thickness and Its Application in the On-site Detection of Antibiotics in Water. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 45493–45503.
  59. Singh, M.K.; Singh, A.K.; Dunmore, T.J.; Singh, J. epsilon-Poly-L-lysine conjugated gold nanorod probe to monitor antimicrobial activity and mechanism of action by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2023, 54, 13–23.
  60. Guo, H.L.; Li, Y.; Pi, F.W. Sensitive and reproducible gold framework-based SERS membranes for the online monitoring of the freshness of shrimps. Analyst 2023, 148, 2081–2091.
  61. Dikmen, G. Ultrasensitive detection of amoxicillin using the plasmonic silver nanocube as SERS active substrate. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2022, 278, 121308.
  62. Ramos, R.M.C.R.; Jiang, W.B.; Heng, J.Z.X.; Ko, H.Y.Y.; Ye, E.Y.; Regulacio, M.D. Hyperbranched Au Nanocorals for SERS Detection of Dye Pollutants. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6, 3963–3973.
  63. Nguyen, T.A.; Do, A.N.K.; Lo, T.N.H.; Park, I.; Vo, K.Q. Single-step controlled synthesis of flower-like gold nanoparticles stabilized by chitosan for sensitive detection of heparin using a surface-enhanced Raman scattering method. RSC Adv. 2022, 12, 34831–34842.
  64. Li, J.Y.; Zhu, J.; Li, X.; Weng, G.J.; Li, J.J.; Zhao, J.W. Tuning the structure and plasmonic properties of Pt-Au triangular nanoprisms: From deposition to etching. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2022, 653, 130081.
  65. Ba, J.W.; Huang, Z.Z.; Yang, W.S. 3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane-directed formation of Au popcorns for colorimetric and SERS dual detection of cysteine. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2022, 647, 129033.
  66. Chen, J.C.; Chu, Y.T.; Chang, S.H.; Chuang, Y.T.; Huang, C.L. Physical Properties and the Reconstruction of Unstable Decahedral Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized Using Plasmon-Mediated Photochemical Process. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1062.
  67. Koster, H.J.; Rojalin, T.; Carney, R.P.; O’Toole, H.J.; Chiu, K.L. Homogenous high enhancement surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) substrates by simple hierarchical tuning of gold nanofoams. Colloids Interface Sci. Commun. 2022, 47, 100596.
  68. Kim, J.M.; Kim, J.; Choi, K.; Nam, J.M. Plasmonic Dual-Gap Nanodumbbells for Label-Free On-Particle Raman DNA Assays. Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, e2208250.
  69. Muthukumar, D.; Shtenberg, G. SERS-based immunosensor for E. coli contaminants detection in milk using silver-coated nanoporous silicon substrates. Talanta 2023, 254, 124132.
  70. Malik, U.; Korcoban, D.; Mehla, S.; Kandjani, A.E.; Sabri, Y.M.; Balendhran, S.; Bhargava, S.K. Fabrication of fractal structured soot templated titania-silver nano-surfaces for photocatalysis and SERS sensing. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2022, 594, 153383.
  71. Yu, C.Y.; Chung, C.K. Novel irregular pore peripheral plasmonic mechanism of nanocomposite metal-nanoporous AAO using new facile one-step anodization and pore widening for high SERS enhancement. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2022, 580, 152252.
  72. Chung, C.K.; Yu, C.Y. Unique high-performance metal-nanoparticle-free SERS substrate with rapid-fabricated hybrid 3D-Nano-Micro-Cavities anodic alumina for label-free detection. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2023, 635, 157731.
  73. Lee, S.M.; Nam, D.H.; Lee, D.; Lim, S.H.; Son, S.J.; Lee, S. Gold Nanoparticles Deposited on a Conical Anodic Aluminum Oxide Substrate for Improved Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2022, 4, 12905–12912.
  74. Bao, Z.Y.; Zhou, Y.; Du, Y.L.; Zhang, M.F.; Liu, Y.K.; Wang, J.H.; Lv, J.; Cai, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y.C. Porous Copper Foam-Based Plasmonic Nanocrystals Modified 3D Semiconductor Nanoflowers for Multifold, Recyclable, and Portable Detection of Environmental Contaminant. Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2022, 39, 2200072.
  75. Xu, F.G.; Lai, H.S.; Xu, H. Gold nanocone arrays directly grown on nickel foam for improved SERS detection of aromatic dyes. Anal. Methods 2018, 10, 3170–3177.
  76. Cvjetinovic, J.; Merdalimova, A.A.; Kirsanova, M.A.; Somov, P.A.; Nozdriukhin, D.V.; Salimon, A.I.; Korsunsky, A.M.; Gorin, D.A. A SERS platform based on diatomite modified by gold nanoparticles using a combination of layer-by-layer assembly and a freezing-induced loading method. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24, 8901–8912.
  77. Lu, C.H.; Cheng, M.R.; Chen, S.; Syu, W.L.; Chien, M.Y.; Wang, K.S.; Chen, J.S.; Lee, P.H.; Liu, T.Y. Flexible PDMS-Based SERS Substrates Replicated from Beetle Wings for Water Pollutant Detection. Polymers 2023, 15, 191.
  78. Rafiq, F.; Wang, N.; Li, K.Y.; Hong, Z.J.; Cao, D.D.; Du, J.J.; Sun, Z.L. Au-NP-Decorated Cotton Swabs as a Facile SERS Substrate for Food-Safety-Related Molecule Detection. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 8541–8547.
  79. Huang, W.C.; Chen, H.R. Application of Cotton Swab-Ag Composite as Flexible Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Substrate for DMMP Detection. Molecules 2023, 28, 520.
  80. Mai, Q.D.; Nguyen, H.; Dinh, N.X.; Thuy, N.T.T.; Tran, Q.H.; Thanh, P.C.; Pham, A.T.; Le, A.T. Versatile and high performance in-paper flexible SERS chips for simple and in-situ detection of methylene blue in river water and thiram on apple skin. Talanta 2023, 253, 124114.
  81. Durastanti, C.; Cirillo, E.N.M.; De Benedictis, I.; Ledda, M.; Sciortino, A.; Lisi, A.; Convertino, A.; Mussi, V. Statistical Classification for Raman Spectra of Tumoral Genomic DNA. Micromachines 2022, 13, 1388.
  82. Mussi, V.; Ledda, M.; Polese, D.; Maiolo, L.; Paria, D.; Barman, I.; Lolli, M.G.; Lisi, A.; Convertino, A. Silver-coated silicon nanowire platform discriminates genomic DNA from normal and malignant human epithelial cells using label-free Raman spectroscopy. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2021, 122, 111951.
  83. Prabhu, B.R.; Varier, M.M.; John, N.S. Fabrication of sandwich structures of Ag/analyte/MoO3 sea urchins for SERS detection of methylene blue dye molecules. Nanotechnology 2023, 21, 215701.
  84. Yi, X.; Yuan, Z.S.; Yu, X.; Zheng, L.J.; Wang, C.Y. Novel Microneedle Patch-Based Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Sensor for the Detection of Pesticide Residues. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 5, 4873–4882.
  85. Sakalys, R.; Kho, K.W.; Keyes, T.E. A reproducible, low cost microfluidic microcavity array SERS platform prepared by soft lithography from a 2 photon 3D printed template. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2021, 340, 129970.
  86. Gu, X.F.; Wang, K.Y.; Tian, S.; Shao, X.Y.; Li, J.G.; Deng, A.P. A SERS/electrochemical dual-signal readout immunosensor using highly-ordered Au/Ag bimetallic cavity array as the substrate for simultaneous detection of three beta-adrenergic agonists. Talanta 2023, 254, 124159.
  87. Sai, C.D.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Tran, T.N.A.; Pham, V.; Nguyen, T.B.; Do, H.H.; Vu, T.D. CuO nanorods decorated gold nanostructures as an ultra-sensitive and recyclable SERS substrate. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 293, 126962.
  88. Chung, C.K.; Chang, W.T.; Liao, M.W.; Chang, H.C.; Lee, C.T. Fabrication of Enhanced Anodic Aluminum Oxide Performance at Room Temperatures Using Hybrid Pulse Anodization With Effective Cooling. Electrochim. Acta 2011, 56, 6489–6497.
  89. Chung, C.K.; Liu, T.Y.; Chang, W.T. Effect of Oxalic Acid Concentration on the Formation of Anodic Aluminum Oxide Using Pulse Anodization at Room Temperature. Microsyst. Technol. 2010, 16, 1451–1456.
  90. Chung, C.K.; Tsai, C.H.; Hsu, C.R.; Kuo, E.H.; Chen, Y.; Chung, I.C. Impurity and Temperature Enhanced Growth Behaviour of Anodic Aluminium Oxide from AA5052 Al-Mg alloy Using Hybrid Pulse Anodization at Room Temperature. Corros. Sci. 2017, 125, 40–47.
  91. Kandjani, A.E.; Sabri, Y.M.; Field, M.R.; Coyle, V.E.; Smith, R.; Bhargava, S.K. Candle-Soot Derived Photoactive and Superamphiphobic Fractal Titania Electrode. Chem. Mater. 2016, 28, 7919–7927.
  92. Guo, W.J.; Chen, Z.J.Q.; Feng, Z.T.; Li, H.N.; Zhang, M.Y.; Zhang, H.R.; Cui, X. Fabrication of Concave Microwells and Their Applications in Micro-Tissue Engineering: A Review. Micromachines 2022, 13, 1555.
  93. Gao, Y.M.; Zhu, H.Y.; Wang, X.X.; Shen, R.; Zhou, X.M.; Zhao, X.F.; Li, Z.; Zhang, C.; Lei, F.C.; Yu, J. Promising Mass-Productive 4-Inch Commercial SERS Sensor with Particle in Micro-Nano Porous Ag/Si/Ag Structure Using in Auxiliary Diagnosis of Early Lung Cancer. Small 2023, 19, e2207324.
  94. Shahine, I.; Mevellec, J.Y.; Richard-Plouet, M.; Humbert, B.; Tessier, P.Y. Nanoporous Gold Stacked Layers as Substrates for SERS Detection in Liquids or Gases with Ultralow Detection Limits and Long-Term. J. Phys. Chem. C 2022, 126, 17223–17233.
  95. Kochylas, I.; Dimitriou, A.; Apostolaki, M.A.; Skoulikidou, M.C.; Likodimos, V.; Gardelis, S.; Papanikolaou, N. Enhanced Photoluminescence of R6G Dyes from Metal Decorated Silicon Nanowires Fabricated through Metal Assisted Chemical Etching. Materials 2023, 16, 1386.
  96. Golubewa, L.; Rehman, H.; Padrez, Y.; Basharin, A.; Sumit, S.; Timoshchenko, I.; Karpicz, R.; Svirko, Y.; Kuzhir, P. Black Silicon: Breaking through the Everlasting Cost vs. Effectivity Trade-Off for SERS Substrates. Materials 2023, 16, 1948.
  97. Li, X.D.; Zhou, H.L.; Wang, L.H.; Wang, H.W.; Adili, A.; Li, J.T.; Zhang, J.G. SERS paper sensor based on three-dimensional nanoflowers assembling on polyester fiber membrane for rapid detection of florfenicol residues in chicken. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 115, 104911.
  98. Zhao, Y.J.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.Q.; Wang, Q.Z.; Wang, L.; Yao, Z.Y. Electrochemical synthesis of Co/Ni bimetal-organic frameworks: A high-performance SERS platform for detection of tetracycline. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2023, 285, 121843.
  99. Wang, P.X.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; Li, X.; Li, G.L. Reliable and Rapid Detection and Quantification of Enrofloxacin Using a Ratiometric SERS Aptasensor. Molecules 2022, 27, 8764.
  100. Zhao, B.B.; Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.T.; Wang, X.L.; Zhou, N.D. Bilayer magnetic-plasmonic satellite nanoassemblies for SERS detection of tobramycin with exonuclease amplification. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2022, 218, 114789.
  101. Yu, Z.N.; Huang, L.; Zhang, Z.M.; Li, G.K. Simultaneous and Accurate Quantification of Multiple Antibiotics in Aquatic Samples by Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Using a Ti3C2Tx/DNA/Ag Membrane Substrate. Anal. Chem. 2021, 93, 13072–13079.
  102. Yao, L.; Chen, Y.L.; Wang, R.R.; Yan, C.; Xu, J.G.; Yao, B.B.; Cheng, J.G.; Chen, W. Rapid and sensitive detection of Hg2+ with a SERS-enhanced lateral flow strip. Analyst 2022, 147, 4337–4347.
More
Information
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , ,
View Times: 419
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Jul 2023
1000/1000
Video Production Service