Functionalized polyethersulfone as PES-NH2-metal oxide nanofilers for the detection of Y3+

  • Noof A. AlenaziEmail author
  • M. M. Alam
  • Mahmoud A. HusseinEmail author
  • Khalid A. Alamry
  • Abdullah M. Asiri
  • Mohammed M. RahmanEmail author
Original Paper


The current study displays the synthesis, characterization as well as the performance of PES-NH2 doped with different metal oxide nanomaterials. 5% w/w of ZnO, ZnCoFeO, Fe2O3, and Co3O4 nanofilers (NFs) were doped to the surface of PES-NH2 to make PES-NH2-ZnO, PES-NH2-ZnCoFeO, PES-NH2-Fe2O3-, PES-NH2-Co3O4 NFs, respectively. Then, these metal oxides allowed to interact with amino functions, which were grafted on the PES backbone using two-step reactions: nitration followed by reduction. The results also showed a good thermal behavior for the doped metal oxides polymeric materials in comparison with bare PES-NH2. The morphological structures of the PES-NH2-metal oxide nanocomposites revealed the well-dispersed nanoparticles on the surface of PES-NH2, in which the metal oxides nanoparticles appeared as bright small dots on the surface of polymer matrix. To execute this study, the working electrode of the proposed cation sensor was fabricated by deposition of Co3O4, ZnCoFeO, ZnO, and Fe2O3-PES-NH2 NFs as layer of thin film coated onto a glassy carbon electrode supported with conducting binder. Based on the control experiment with PES-NH2-ZnO, PES-NH2-ZnCoFeO, PES-NH2-Fe2O3, PES-NH2-Co3O4 NFs, PES-NH2-ZnCoFeO NFs exhibited the highest current response in the electrochemical measurement in the presence of selective analyte. A variety of Y3+ ionic concentrations (1.0 mM–0.1 nM) were applied as electrolyte through the assemble of Y3+ cationic sensor. To determine the calibration curve, the current versus the electrolyte concentration was plotted, which was found to be linear with about r2 = 0.99 over the linear dynamic range (LDR) of 0.1 nM to 0.1 mM. The estimated sensitivity and detection limit are 1.1364 µAµM−1 cm−2 and 83.54 ± 4.18 pM, respectively. Therefore, the proposed Y3+ cation exhibited good sensitivity, wide LDR, lower limit of detection, and short time of response (10.0 s) with reproducibility with high precisions.

Graphical abstract


PES-NH2-Co3O4.ZnO.Fe2O3 nanofilers Y3+ ion Glassy carbon electrode Sensitivity Environmental safety 



Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials Research (CEAMR), Chemistry Department, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, is highly acknowledged for financial support and research facilities.

Supplementary material

289_2018_2612_MOESM1_ESM.docx (353 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 353 kb)


  1. 1.
    Rim KT (2016) Effects of rare earth elements on the environment and human health: a literature review. Toxicol Environ Health Sci 8(3):189–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luo CG, Luo XP, Zhou NN, Zhang Y, Deng YW (2014) Status and causes of ecological imbalance of abandoned rare earth mine in south China. China Min Mag 23(10):65Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Litterscheid C, Krüger S, Euler M, Dreizler A, Wickleder C, Albert B (2016) Solid solution between lithium-rich yttrium and europium molybdate as new efficient red-emitting phosphors. J Mater Chem C 4(3):596–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lutsev LV, Korovin AM, Bursian VE, Gastev SV, Fedorov VV, Suturin SM, Sokolov NS (2016) Low-relaxation spin waves in laser-molecular-beam epitaxy grown nanosized yttrium iron garnet films. Appl Phys Lett 108(18):182402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xiao ZJ, Liu ZW, Zhang N (2014) Environmental impact analysis and control technology of ion rare earth mining in south of Jiangxi province. Chin Rare Earths 35(6):56–61Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delgado J, Pérez-López R, Galván L, Nieto JM, Boski T (2012) Enrichment of rare earth elements as environmental tracers of contamination by acid mine drainage in salt marshes: a new perspective. Mar Poll Bull 64(9):1799–1808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wei B, Li Y, Li H, Yu J, Ye B, Liang T (2013) Rare earth elements in human hair from a mining area of China. Ecotoxico Environ Saf 96:118–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirano S, Suzuki KT (1996) Exposure, metabolism, and toxicity of rare earths and related compounds. Environ Health Perspect 104(Suppl 1):85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li CX, Chuan MA, Fang HQ, Yuan ZHI, Zhou YU, Xu HB, Jia XD (2015) Neurobehavioral assessment of rats exposed to yttrium nitrate during development. Biomed Environ Sci 28(4):281–290. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Briner W, Rycek RF, Moellenberndt A, Dannull K (2000) Neurodevelopmental effects of lanthanum in mice. Neurotoxicol Teratol 22(4):573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maksimovic I, Kastori R, Putnik-Delic M, Borišev M (2014) Effect of yttrium on photosynthesis and water relations in young maize plants. J Rare Earths 32(4):372–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xiujuan FENG, Guocai ZHU, Yaning LI (2013) Toxicological effects of rare earth yttrium on wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum). J Rare Earths 31(12):1214–1220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang WU, Wang Yingjun, Jinge DU, Wang Zhanghong, Qinglian WU (2016) Effects of yttrium under lead stress on growth and physiological characteristics of Microcystis aeruginosa. J Rare Earths 34(7):747–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shahrokhian S, Kamalzadeh Z, Saberi RS (2011) Application of glassy carbon electrode modified with a bilayer of multiwalled carbon nanotube and polypyrrole doped with nitrazine yellow for voltammetric determination of naltrexone. Electroanalysis 23(12):2925–2934. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pandikumar A, How GTS, See TP, Omar FS, Jayabal S, Kamali KZ, Lim HN (2014) Graphene and its nanocomposite material based electrochemical sensor platform for dopamine. RSC Adv 4(108):63296–63323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ostojić J, Herenda S, Bešić Z, Miloš M, Galić B (2017) Advantages of an Electrochemical Method Compared to the Spectrophotometric Kinetic Study of Peroxidase Inhibition by Boroxine Derivative. Molecules 22(7):1120. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goyal RN, Kaur D, Pandey AK (2010) Voltammetric sensor based on nano TiO2 powder modified glassy carbon electrode for determination of dopamine. Open Chem Biomed Meth J 3:115–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zangeneh Kamali K, Alagarsamy P, Huang NM, Ong BH, Lim HN (2014) Hematite nanoparticles-modified electrode based electrochemical sensing platform for dopamine. Sci World J. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao Q, Gan Z, Zhuang Q (2002) Electrochemical sensors based on carbon nanotubes. Electroanalysis 14(23):1609–1613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bai H, Shi G (2007) Gas sensors based on conducting polymers. Sensors 7(3):267–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zeng Y, Zhou Y, Kong L, Zhou T, Shi G (2013) A novel composite of SiO2-coated graphene oxide and molecularly imprinted polymers for electrochemical sensing dopamine. Biosens Bioelectron 45:25–33. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu X, Marks TJ, Facchetti A (2016) Metal oxides for optoelectronic applications. Nat Mater 15(4):383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Choi WS, Seo SA, Lee HN (2015) Optoelectronics: Optical properties and electronic structures of complex metal oxides. In: Koster G, Huijben M, Rijnders G (eds) Epitaxial growth of complex metal oxides. Elsevier, Amsterdam. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prakash S, Chakrabarty T, Singh AK, Shahi VK (2013) Polymer thin films embedded with metal nanoparticles for electrochemical biosensors applications. Biosens Bioelectron 41:43–53. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ciobanu M, Marin L, Cozan V, Bruma M (2009) Aromatic polysulfones used in sensor applications. Rev Adv Mater Sci 22:89–96Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rahman MM, Ahmed J, Asiri AM (2018) Thiourea sensor development based on hydrothermally prepared CMO nanoparticles for environmental safety. Biosens Bioelectron 99:586–592. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rahman MM, Ahmed J (2018) Cd-doped Sb2O4 nanostructures modified glassy carbon electrode for efficient detection of melamine by electrochemical approach. Biosens Bioelectron 102:631–636. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rahman MM, Alam MM, Asiri AM (2018) Carbon black co-adsorbed ZnO nanocomposites for selective benzaldehyde sensor development by electrochemical approach for environmental safety. J Ind Eng Chem 65:300–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahmed J, Rahman MM, Siddiquey IA, Asiri AM, Hasnat MA (2018) Efficient hydroquinone sensor based on zinc, strontium and nickel based ternary metal oxide (TMO) composites by differential pulse voltammetry. Sens Actuators B Chem 256:383–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rahman MM, Alam MM, Asiri AM (2018) Selective hydrazine sensor fabrication with facile low-dimensional Fe2O3/CeO2 nanocubes. New J Chem 42(12):10263–10270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rahman MM, Hussain MM, Asiri AM (2017) Fabrication of 3-methoxyphenol sensor based on Fe3O4 decorated carbon nanotube nanocomposites for environmental safety: real sample analyses. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0177817. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rahman MM (2018) Label-free Kanamycin sensor development based on CuONiO hollow-spheres: food samples analyses. Sens Actuators B Chem 264:84–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haider MS, Shao GN, Imran SM, Park SS, Abbas N, Tahir MS, Kim HT (2016) Aminated polyethersulfone-silver nanoparticles (AgNPs-APES) composite membranes with controlled silver ion release for antibacterial and water treatment applications. Mater Sci Eng C 62:732–745. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Qu P, Tang H, Gao Y, Zhang L, Wang S (2010) Polyethersulfone composite membrane blended with cellulose fibrils. BioResources 5(4):2323–2336Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alenazi NA, Hussein MA, Alamry KA, Asiri AM (2018) Nanocomposite-based aminated polyethersulfone and carboxylate activated carbon for environmental application. A Real Sample Analysis C 4(2):30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nakamoto K (1997) Infrared and Raman spectra of inorganic and coordination compounds, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 191–200Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhao C, Xue J, Ran F, Sun S (2013) Modification of polyethersulfone membranes–a review of methods. Prog Mater Sci 58(1):76–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahmad I, Arshad MN, Rahman MM, Asiri AM, Sheikh TA, Aqlan FM (2017) Crystal structure of N′-[(E)-(2-hydroxynaphthalen-1-yl) methylidene] benzenesulfonohydrazide (HNMBSH) and its application as Pb2+ ion sensor by its fabrication onto glassy carbon electrode. Inorganica Chim Acta 467:297–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sheikh TA, Arshad MN, Rahman MM, Asiri AM, Marwani HM, Awual MR, Bawazir WA (2017) Trace electrochemical detection of Ni 2+ ions with bidentate N, N′-(ethane-1, 2-diyl) bis (3, 4-dimethoxybenzenesulfonamide)[EDBDMBS] as a chelating agent. Inorganica Chim Act 464:157–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hussain M, Rahman MM, Arshad MN, Asiri AM (2017) Trivalent Y3+ ionic sensor development based on (E)-Methyl-N′-nitrobenzylidene-benzenesulfonohydrazide (MNBBSH) derivatives modified with nafion matrix. Sci Rep 7(1):5832CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Chemical Engineering and Polymer ScienceShahjalal University of Science and TechnologySylhetBangladesh
  3. 3.Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials Research, King Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.Polymer Chemistry Lab, Chemistry Department, Faculty of ScienceAssiut UniversityAssiutEgypt

Personalised recommendations