ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Enantioselective Detection of Gaseous Odorants with Peptide–Graphene Sensors Operating in Humid Environments
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Biological and Medical Applications of Materials and Interfaces

Enantioselective Detection of Gaseous Odorants with Peptide–Graphene Sensors Operating in Humid Environments
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Yui Yamazaki
    Yui Yamazaki
    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    More by Yui Yamazaki
  • Tatsuru Hitomi
    Tatsuru Hitomi
    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
  • Chishu Homma
    Chishu Homma
    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    More by Chishu Homma
  • Tharatorn Rungreungthanapol
    Tharatorn Rungreungthanapol
    Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
  • Masayoshi Tanaka
    Masayoshi Tanaka
    Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
  • Kou Yamada
    Kou Yamada
    Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
    More by Kou Yamada
  • Hiroshi Hamasaki
    Hiroshi Hamasaki
    Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
  • Yoshiaki Sugizaki
    Yoshiaki Sugizaki
    Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
  • Atsunobu Isobayashi
    Atsunobu Isobayashi
    Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
  • Hideyuki Tomizawa
    Hideyuki Tomizawa
    Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
  • Mina Okochi
    Mina Okochi
    Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    More by Mina Okochi
  • Yuhei Hayamizu*
    Yuhei Hayamizu
    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    *Email: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

Cite this: ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2024, 16, 15, 18564–18573
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.4c01177
Published April 3, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Replicating the sense of smell presents an ongoing challenge in the development of biomimetic devices. Olfactory receptors exhibit remarkable discriminatory abilities, including the enantioselective detection of individual odorant molecules. Graphene has emerged as a promising material for biomimetic electronic devices due to its unique electrical properties and exceptional sensitivity. However, the efficient detection of nonpolar odor molecules using transistor-based graphene sensors in a gas phase in environmental conditions remains challenging due to high sensitivity to water vapor. This limitation has impeded the practical development of gas-phase graphene odor sensors capable of selective detection, particularly in humid environments. In this study, we address this challenge by introducing peptide-functionalized graphene sensors that effectively mitigate undesired responses to changes in humidity. Additionally, we demonstrate the significant role of humidity in facilitating the selective detection of odorant molecules by the peptides. These peptides, designed to mimic a fruit fly olfactory receptor, spontaneously assemble into a monomolecular layer on graphene, enabling precise and specific odorant detection. The developed sensors exhibit notable enantioselectivity, achieving a remarkable 35-fold signal contrast between d- and l-limonene. Furthermore, these sensors display distinct responses to various other biogenic volatile organic compounds, demonstrating their versatility as robust tools for odor detection. By acting as both a bioprobe and an electrical signal amplifier, the peptide layer represents a novel and effective strategy to achieve selective odorant detection under normal atmospheric conditions using graphene sensors. This study offers valuable insights into the development of practical odor-sensing technologies with potential applications in diverse fields.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) are a kind of volatile organic compound synthesized predominantly in plants. BVOCs have become more important in several fields, such as health care, environmental monitoring, food, and the agricultural industry. (1,2) For example, the emission of BVOCs to air from plants is closely related to the environments and climates (3,4) and is also associated with plant diseases. (5−7) Thus, the detection of BVOCs in air is crucial for the above field to monitor the environmental conditions of plants. Furthermore, the detection of BVOCs at customs in airports and harbors is becoming more important for plant protection and quarantine. It is desirable to develop automated systems to detect plants and related materials on behalf of quarantine dogs. (8,9)
The sensing of the BVOCs has been conducted by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS), quartz crystal microbalance (QCM), and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) in the past. Although the GC-MS is the most reliable and common technique, (10,11) the equipment is relatively large, and small and mobile devices are preferable for ubiquitous usage at farm fields or border customs. QCM (12) and LSPR (13) sensors can be relatively small in their dimensions. The surface functionalization of these sensors is the key to achieving the selective detection of BVOCs. The molecular imprinting technique and ionic liquid immobilization exhibited significant progress in the selective detection of BVOCs, and there are several demonstrations of monitoring BVOCs in the air. (14−16) However, considering applications in quality control of plants in farms and quarantine at airports, it is still challenging to develop a sensing system that satisfies (1) small size, (2) stability against ambient conditions containing water vapor, (3) low power consumption, and (4) high sensitivity and selectivity.
Graphene has attracted much attention as an active material for sensing due to its high mobility, large specific area, and accessibility for surface modification. The successful detection of 1 ppm NO2 and water molecules was achieved using graphene field effect transistors (GFETs). (17) To date, GFETs have demonstrated the detection of multiple volatile organic compounds, such as NH3, (18) CO2, (18,19) and NO2. (20,21) More recently, GFET-base sensors identify “odor molecules” combined with machine learning to selectively obtain molecule-specific responses. (22,23) Selective sensing has also been improved by modifying the graphene surface with polymers (24) and ssDNA. (25)
Despite this progress, GFET-based BVOC sensors require further improvement in more practical environments where stable operation under various humidity levels is required. So far, graphene has been reported to respond to water vapors at high sensitivity (1 ppm level). (17) The electrical and chemical properties of pristine graphene depend on the humidity in the environment. (26,27) Furthermore, transistor-based graphene sensors have difficulty detecting nonpolar molecules, i.e., most odorant molecules. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a novel interface between graphene and atmospheric air to achieve a stable operation while simultaneously maintaining high selectivity and sensitivity simultaneously.
In this study, we present a novel method for detecting BVOCs under humid conditions using peptides designed to functionalize the surface of graphene sensors. Our peptides consist of an assembly domain and bioprobe for the detection of BVOCs. Specifically, our peptide design includes probe domains that mimic the olfactory receptor of fruit flies, which have high selectivity for limonene. The probe domain connects with an assembly domain that can form ordered structures on graphene surfaces in a self-assembly manner, allowing for the formation of a uniform peptide layer in a simple way. Unlike untreated graphene sensors, our peptide-functionalized graphene sensors showed a stable response to the BVOCs even under humid conditions. We achieved 35-fold contrast in the electrical signal for enantioselective detection of limonene. Interestingly, the sensors selectively detected enantiomers only in the presence of water vapor. We also tested three different peptide probes and obtained distinct electrical responses for multiple kinds of BVOCs. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) confirmed this trend. Our results demonstrate the potential of peptide-engineered graphene sensors as a versatile tool for selective BVOC detection under humid conditions.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Functionalization of Graphene Surfaces by Peptides

Developing the bioprobe is the key to producing more practical odor sensors. The range of the probes spans from synthetic molecules and polymers (28) to engineered proteins such as olfactory receptors. (9) The flat surface and high surface area of graphene are suitable for surface functionalization and characterization. Owing to these advantages, the high sensitivity and selectivity of graphene odor biosensors have been achieved by integrating the bioprobes immobilized on the graphene surface. (29−31) Olfactory receptors as a bioprobe have demonstrated outstanding sensitivity and selectivity against amyl butyrate. (32,33) However, the fragility of these proteins hinders the long-term stability of the graphene odor sensors. Peptides are an alternative candidate that mimics the olfactory receptors’ properties and have demonstrated odor sensing using multiple platforms. (34)
Our recent work has demonstrated the selective detection of odor molecules using GFETs functionalized with insect olfactory receptor mimicking peptides, where the graphene odor sensors were operated under liquid conditions. (35) In this work, we propose a strategy to operate GFETs for BVOC sensing in the gas phase. The challenge here is the stable operation of graphene odor sensors functionalized with peptides with high selectivity in a gas phase in the presence of water vapor. Graphene is generally sensitive to adsorbed polar molecules, including water molecules. (17,18,36) It has been a significant obstacle to the use of graphene odor sensors in ordinary environments containing water vapor.
Similar to prior studies, (35,37−39) we employed peptides with self-assembly capability into molecular films on surfaces, accomplished through a series of surface processes involving adsorption, diffusion, and intermolecular interactions. Noncovalent interactions between the peptides and the surface facilitate their surface diffusion, eventually leading to their ordering along specific directions (Figure 1a). Peptides used in this work are named GR3R, P1, and LBP3 (Figure 1b). Our peptides are composed of two functional domains: (1) an assembly domain and (2) a probe domain. The assembly domain includes dipeptide repeats of glycine (G) and alanine (A), with two arginines (R) at both ends of the sequence. All peptides have GGG as a spacer for the bioprobes, in addition to the GA repeats. P1 and LBP3 share the assembly domain with the sequence of GR3R. (35,37) P1 and LBP3 contain the probe domain as a bioprobe for the target odor molecules in addition to the assembly domain. Our recent findings (35) highlighted that a mixed solution of P1 peptides and GR3R at several mixing ratios formed a coassembled peptide layer on a graphite surface with monomolecular thickness. Furthermore, the ordered molecular films were found to maintain their self-assembled structures stably even under liquid conditions. These bifunctional peptides are designed to create a uniform monomolecular thick layer on graphene, while the probe domain actively captures BVOCs on the surface. The resultant binding events can be electrically detected by a change in graphene conductivity.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Surface functionalization of graphene biosensor for the detection of biogenic volatile organic compounds. (a) Schematic showing the peptide self-assembly on graphene and the peptide-graphene odor sensors operating in the presence of water vapor. (b) Peptide sequences. Peptides consist of three domains: probe, linker, and assembly domain. (c) Molecular structures of the biogenic volatile organic molecules used in this work.

The sequences of the probe domain are designed as follows. P1 peptide containing FLLF (F: Phenylalanine and L: Leucine) connected to the N-terminus of GR3R was rationally designed. This sequence mimics a part of the sequence of the olfactory receptor Or19a. (40−42) The sequence of the LBP3 peptide was experimentally found as a strong binder of d-limonene. (38) Short peptide libraries derived from OR19a were synthesized on a peptide array, and the amount of bound d-limonene on each peptide was analyzed, allowing a simultaneous exploration of the whole receptor protein. (38) In the demonstration, we employed d-limonene, l-limonene, (-)-menthol, methyl salicylate, and ethyl propionate as target odor molecules to evaluate the selectivity of the proposed GFET gas sensor (Figure 1c).
First, we examined whether these peptides could form a thin film on the graphite surface through self-assembly. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) showed that GR3R peptide formed a uniform thin film on the surface with a thickness of about 1.5 nm (Figure S1), consistent with a previous work. (37) P1 and LBP3 also exhibited the formation of thin films on the graphite surfaces.

Effect of the Peptide Modification against Humidity

We evaluated the response of our peptide-modified odor sensor against the humidity. Three sensor chips were placed in series (Figure 2a). Three mass flow controllers regulate the flow rates of N2 carrier gases introduced to water cylinders and target odor molecules to produce each vapor independently. The mixture of gases was introduced into graphene odor sensors with controlled humidity and flow rates. An in-line humidity sensor monitored the relative humidity at the end of the gas line system (Figure S2). Each chip contains seven graphene channels with an open window of 10 μm× 30 μm between the source and drain electrodes (Figure 2b). The rest of the area was covered by a polyimide protection layer. The GFET chip was placed on a specified mount and encased within a well made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). This well was uniquely designed with two openings, serving as an inlet and an outlet for gases, thereby establishing a pathway for the gas flow to the graphene channel (Figure 2a).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Graphene sensors responding to relative humidity. (a) Schematic of the gas measurement system for the graphene odor sensor with controlled humidity and flow rate of odor molecules. (b) Optical microscopic image of a graphene sensor chip. (c) Real-time response of graphene sensors to humidity change: untreated (black) and GFET functionalized with GR3R peptides (orange). The curves and light-colored regions represent the mean and standard deviation of the data points, respectively. (d) Conductivity change of graphene depending on the relative humidity derived from panel (c). The bars indicate the standard deviations. (e) Accelerated test of untreated (black) and GFETs functionalized with GR3R peptides (orange) responding to the repeated humidity change. The curves and light-colored regions represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively.

Our graphene sensors had a field-effect transistor structure showing a reproducible gate response before and after the peptide functionalization (Figure S3). We studied the conductivity change of the GFET against humidity. Before introducing water vapor, the GFETs were purged with pure N2 gas for 80 min to initialize the surface state. The relative humidity (RH) was then increased incrementally from 19% to 54% RH every 10 min (Figure 2c). After introducing the first vapor gas at 19% RH, the conductivity of the untreated GFET increased by 1.6%. Conductivity increased monotonically with increasing up to 44% RH.
Further increases in humidity caused the GFET response to water vapor to become unstable, decreasing by −15% at 54% RH. The negative conductivity change remained even after the graphene surface was rinsed with N2 gas. In contrast, the GFET functionalized with GR3R showed a stable response to water vapor. After introducing carrier gas at 19% RH, the conductivity increased by 2% and remained constant even when the RH was increased to 54% (Figure 2d). Comfortable humidity levels for humans in public buildings are known to be between 40% and 60% RH. For the use of graphene odor sensors in such environments, a key issue with untreated GFETs is that their humidity response becomes unstable at around 50% RH. Peptide-functionalized GFETs, on the other hand, have proven their stability.
Accelerated tests of GFETs were also conducted against repeated changes in humidity at a constant level. Figure 2e shows the conductivity change under the repeated change of the humidity with 39% and 50% RH 10 times. Both untreated and peptide-functionalized GFETs exhibited a step-function-like response against the humidity change. Notably, the untreated GFET decreased the baseline of the conductivity by 3% after a 30-time repeat. On the other hand, peptide-functionalized GFET had a stable baseline. These results indicate that peptides act as stabilizers on the graphene surface against humidity change.
The conductivity change in graphene when exposed to water vapor has been extensively studied. (26,27,43−46) The mechanism behind this change in conductivity due to adsorbed water molecules is multifaceted, potentially involving hole doping, (45) band gap tuning, (43) interaction with the SiO2 surface of the substrate, (44) and intercalation of water molecules between the graphene and the substrate. (46) The observed increase in conductivity (Figure 2c) is likely attributable to hole doping of graphene by water molecules. The significant decrease in conductivity at high humidity levels observed in untreated graphene sensors may result from a combination of these mechanisms. In contrast, sensors using peptide-functionalized graphene showed a remarkable insensitivity to changes in humidity. This is possibly because the peptides act as a buffer for water molecules, wherein the water molecules are absorbed into the peptide monolayer, maintaining stable electrical polarization within the dielectric medium of the peptides, even under varying humidity levels. This hypothesis is further corroborated by environmental AFM measurements of the self-assembled peptides. These measurements, conducted in a controlled humidity chamber, reveal an increase in peptide thickness under varying humidity conditions, as illustrated in Figure S4.

Enantioselective Detection of Limonene

Limonene is a molecule with two enantiomers that humans can selectively recognize. d-Limonene is perceived as a lemon scent, while l-limonene is perceived as a turpentine scent. Our peptide-functionalized GFETs were tested for detecting both d- and l-limonene (Figure 3). Prior to measurement, the GFET was exposed to a N2 carrier gas or 53% RH gas until the conductivity of the GFET became stable. Once a steady state was reached, limonene gas was injected three times at different concentrations of target molecules. The target gas injection lasted 10 min as the “ON” state, followed by 10 min of purging with 53% RH carrier gas as the “OFF” state. The odorant molecule gas flow rate was increased by 1, 5, and 10 sccm during each ON cycle. In this way, we evaluated the binding and desorption of limonene molecules.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Chiral recognition by GFETs functionalized with peptides. Conductivity changes of GFETs responding to enantiomers of limonene under (a, b) 53% RH and (c, d) N2 conditions. The curves show the responses of GFETs to d-limonene (red) and l-limonene (blue). The chiral selectivity differed between untreated GFETs and those functionalized by LBP3 peptides. The curves and colored shadows represent the mean value and standard deviation, respectively.

The changes in the conductivity clearly illustrate the difference between the untreated and peptide-functionalized GFETs. In the untreated GFETs, the conductivity increased upon introduction of the enantiomers during the ON state. Subsequently, the conductivity gradually decreased upon switching to the OFF state. The average magnitudes of the conductivity changes were similar for d- and l-limonene (Figure 3a). On the other hand, peptide-functionalized GFETs responded only to d-limonene, with almost no signals for l-limonene. The difference in the conductivity changes between d- and l-limonene was 35-fold, demonstrating the significant enantioselectivity of LBP3 for d-limonene (Figure 3b).
The response of GFETs to d- or l-limonene vapors is intricately linked to the presence of water molecules. When tests were conducted under dry conditions, using only N2 gas, untreated GFET revealed the same responses to d- and l-limonene vapors (Figure 3c). Furthermore, LPB3 functionalized GFET had a notable decrease in selectivity was observed (Figure 3d and Figure S5). This outcome suggests that the molecular interactions between the peptides and odorant molecules are significantly influenced by the water molecule content at the graphene interface. The presence of water molecules likely imparts flexibility to the peptides, enabling them to capture odorant molecules in an energetically favorable manner, thereby enhancing the selectivity. This interface is optimally suited for use in normal air conditions, where humidity is present.
Previously, the enantioselective detection of odorant molecules using graphene sensors has been demonstrated with limited selectivity of less than 2-fold. (47) The significant contrast observed in this work was achieved with the peptide probe. The fundamental role of the peptide layer in our GFETs is to differentiate between very similar molecules such as d-limonene and l-limonene in this case. The peptide-functionalized GFETs work on a mechanism in which the peptides specifically interact with the odorant molecules, causing a change in the electrical properties of the sensor. This interaction is highly dependent on the structural fit between the peptide and the odorant molecule. In our case, LBP3 peptides have a preferential binding toward d-limonene due to its specific structure (Figure S6), resulting in a more significant response for d-limonene than for l-limonene. This leads to a much higher selectivity; despite a reduced overall signal intensity, this effect is more pronounced under the conditions with humidity.

Selective Detection for Other Odorant Molecules

We selected other odorant molecules to test the selectivity of the sensors. (-)-Menthol, methyl salicylate, and ethyl propionate are produced by plants in nature. Although these molecules have similar molecular weights, they smell distinctly like peppermint, root beer, and pineapple, respectively. In the electrical measurements, the ON and OFF states of the target molecules were examined at three different flow rates in the same manner as in Figure 3. Untreated GFETs exhibited relatively large responses in the conductivity for all odorant molecules, and there was no significant difference in their magnitudes among them (Figure 4a).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Real-time measurement of peptide-functionalized GFETs for each odorant molecule. Real-time response of GFETs to each odorant gas with incrementally increasing flow rates. Each plot shows the results of (a) untreated GFETs, and GFETs functionalized with (b) GR3R, (c) P1, and (d) LBP3. The colors of the curves represent the individual odorant gas: d-limonene (red), (-)-menthol (green), methyl salicylate (purple), and ethyl propionate (black). (e) Bar plot of the conductivity magnitudes at 10 min after 10 sccm of odorant gas injection. Real-time response of (f) untreated GFETs and (g) GFETs functionalized with GR3R peptides under N2 conditions. All curves represent the mean value of the conductivity change among the multiple channels.

In contrast, peptide-functionalized GFETs showed a variety of responses for different odorant molecules (Figure 4b–d). Interestingly, (-)-menthol and methyl salicylate resulted in a decrease in conductivity, while d-limonene exhibited an increase in conductivity. Ethyl propionate had a more complex trend in the response, where GR3R increased conductivity but P1 and LBP3 decreased. In the case of GR3R, in particular, the change in conductivity during the ON state was negative, while the overall conductivity increased on average. Figure 4e summarizes the magnitudes of the responses in the GFETs against each target molecule, and Table S1 (Supporting Information) lists the vapor concentration at a flow rate of 10 sccm. First, LBP3 shows a significant selectivity. d-Limonene leads to a positive and large change in the conductivity, and other molecules have negative changes. In addition, GR3R and P1 have a small response to D-limonene.
The sign of the conductivity change, positive or negative, should have a strong correlation with the target molecule. As shown in a previous report investigating graphene sensors for the detection of various analytes, (22) aromatic molecules tended to increase the conductivity of the graphene by their direct adsorption on the surfaces. This increase in the conductivity is consistent with our observations in the untreated GFETs, which show an increase in conductivity after introducing odorant molecules under pure N2 (Figure 4f) and 50% RH (Figure 4a) conditions.
The magnitudes of the responses in untreated GFETs were larger under humid conditions (Figure 4a) compared with dry conditions (Figure 4f), suggesting that the dipoles of water molecules at the graphene interface could enhance the signal along with the adsorption of odorant molecules. On the other hand, in the case of peptide-functionalized GFETs, the water effect is more crucial. The sign of the conductivity change was negative or positive depending on the odorant molecules. This phenomenon can be related to the peptide film on the surface, which can act as a receptor for the target molecules and a reservoir for water molecules. The absorbed odorant molecules can sensitively change the dielectric constant of the mixture of peptides and water molecules. The peptide film containing water molecules can be considered as a dynamic medium that responds to target molecules. Indeed, the responses of the untreated and peptide-functionalized GFETs were similar under dry conditions (Figure 4f,g). Notably, under humid conditions, the estimated limits of detection (LOD) of the untreated and LBP3 GFETs for d-limonene were 3.0 and 7.5 ppm, respectively. These LODs were smaller when measured under humid conditions than under dry conditions (Figure S7 and Table S2).
In this Discussion, we explore potential explanations for the distinctive features of peptide-functionalized GFETs. The interactions between graphene sensors and odorant molecules, along with the observed differences between untreated and peptide-functionalized GFETs, are primarily understood through the physicochemical properties of these molecules and specific sensing mechanisms. In untreated GFETs, the detection of various odorant molecules largely depends on their physical adsorption on the graphene surface. This adsorption process changes the charge distribution on graphene, consequently altering its conductivity. The magnitude of this change in conductivity is significantly affected by factors such as the hydrophobicity of the odorant molecule, its molecular size, polarizability, and affinity for the graphene surface.
In contrast, peptide-functionalized GFETs involve more specific interactions between the odorant molecules and the peptides. These peptides are chosen for their ability to selectively interact with certain odorant molecules. When an odorant molecule binds to a peptide, it triggers a conformational change in the peptide, impacting the local electronic environment of the graphene and thus changing its conductivity.
The difference in signal responses between untreated and peptide-functionalized GFETs for each specific odorant can be attributed to the enhanced selectivity provided by the peptides. These peptides not only selectively interact with specific odorant molecules but also reduce responses to other molecules. Based on these considerations, we interpret that this selectivity leads to more distinct signal responses to various odorants in peptide-functionalized GFETs compared to their untreated counterparts.

Classification of Odorant Molecules by PCA

To further analyze the selectivity of peptide-functionalized GFETs, we performed principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) (Figures S8 and S9). PCA is an analytical method for building linear multivariate models from multidimensional data sets. (22,23,48) Figure 5 shows the results of the first two principal components. These contain > 86% of original data in their contributions (Figure S9). PCA results show a significant amount of overlap between d-limonene and other odorants in untreated GFETs, although l-limonene is relatively separated from the others (Figure 5a). Peptide-functionalized GFETs revealed considerable selectivity for some odorant molecules (Figure 5b–d). The LBP3 peptide separated d-limonene well from others along the PC1 axis. The GR3R and P1 peptides also separated ethyl propionate from (-)-menthol and methyl salicylate, indicating that these two peptides respond specifically to ethyl propionate. The PCA indicated that the LBP3 peptide was the most specific receptor to d-limonene.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Discriminative detection of BVOCs by peptide-functionalized GFETs. (a–d) Principal component analysis score plots of GFETs for different odorants. (e) Dendrogram of LBP3 peptide generated by hierarchical cluster analysis.

In order to evaluate the selectivity more comprehensively, we also performed an HCA. HCA is a method that groups similar sample data into the same cluster in the space on the feature values. (48,49) The distance between the samples measured the similarity of each sample. The dendrogram of the HCA results for peptide-functionalized GFETs shows the formation of an independent cluster of d-limonene. In contrast, the untreated GFETs do not discriminate specific BVOC (Figure 5e and Figure S10). This result is consistent with the PCA (Figure 5 a–d).

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This study introduces peptide-functionalized graphene sensors as a new approach for the selective and stable detection of odor molecules in the gas phase with humidity including the enantioselective recognition of limonene. Our results demonstrate that these sensors provide a stable response under different humidity conditions. LBP3, among the peptides tested, exhibited the highest magnitude of conductivity change in response to d-limonene, indicating its specific response as an artificial odorant receptor. The achieved enantioselective detection of limonene with a 35-fold contrast in the electrical signal is significant since previous studies on enantioselective detection of odorant molecules using graphene sensors have shown limited selectivity of less than 2-fold. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the presence of water molecules is the key to achieving remarkable selectivity. The LBP3 peptide can compete with odorant receptors in terms of enantioselectivity, which is promising for the development of biomimetic systems that have great potential for the understanding function of proteins (50) and practical applications, such as plant monitoring in farms, quarantine in airports, and environmental monitoring. The diversity of peptide design also offers the opportunity to produce an array of sensors with multiple types of peptides, thus allowing for the tuning of analyte selectivity. (51) Our study highlights the potential for biomimetic peptide functionalization of graphene sensors as a new approach for odorant sensing under normal air conditions with humidity.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Peptide Preparation

GR3R and P1 peptides used in this study were purchased from the Toray Research Center, Inc. LBP3 peptide was synthesized with a purity higher than 90%. Peptide solutions were stored in a −20 °C freezer. Frozen peptide solutions were heated up to 70 °C for 15 min and allowed to reach room temperature.

Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) Measurements and Sample Preparation

In sample preparation for AFM measurements, Si substrates were first annealed on a hot plate at 200 °C for 30 min. After annealing, graphite flakes were transferred to Si substrates using a mechanical exfoliation method. 500-nM peptide solution was incubated for 1 h at room temperature. After incubation, the solution was removed by blowing with N2 gas.
The surface morphology of the peptide was characterized by using an atomic force microscope (Agilent 5500 and Asylum Cypher) in air. The surface morphology was measured in tapping mode (AC mode). The AFM instrument was equipped with a silicon cantilever (OMCL-AC160TS-R3, Olympus, Japan) with a resonance frequency of 300 kHz and a spring constant of 26 N/m.

GFET Fabrication

Graphene was synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and transferred to a Si wafer. Graphene and electrodes (50 nm Au and 5 nm Ti) were patterned by photolithography. Whole GFET chips were covered with polyimide as a protective shield, and only the graphene channels were exposed in the open window. The distance between the electrodes was 20 μm, and the width of the graphene was 30 μm. Each chip has seven channels, and we measured all channels simultaneously.

Peptide Functionalization of the GFET Chip

500-nM peptide solution was placed on the graphene surfaces of the GFET chip at room temperature and kept for one hour. After incubation, the solution was removed by blowing with N2 gas.

Materials

The odor molecules utilized in this work were d-limonene ((R)-(+)-limonene, Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Co., Ltd., Japan, purity > 95.0%), l-limonene ((S)-(-)-limonene, Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Co., Ltd., Japan, purity > 98.0%), methyl salicylate (Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Japan, purity > 99.0%), (-)-menthol (l-menthol, (1R,2S,5R)-(-)-menthol, Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Japan, purity > 99.0%), and ethyl propionate (Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Co., Ltd., Japan, purity > 97.0%).

Gas Flow Setup

The homemade gas sensing system using this work is shown in Figure S2. Detailed information about the gas sensing system is provided in the Supporting Information.

GFET Measurements

GFETs were measured by using a homemade electrical measurement device produced by TOSHIBA Corporation. While drain current was measured, we set the drain voltage (Vd) at 16 or 20 mV, and back gate voltage (Vg) at 0 V. Drain voltage was chosen with the maximum value in the Id measurable range. The real-time response of the drain current was measured every 0.5 s. For data analysis, we used Igor Pro 9 (WaveMetrics) and Python.

Calculation of gas concentration

Odorant gas concentration was calculated using a saturated vapor pressure. Detailed information is provided in the Supporting Information.

Calculation of Conductivity Change

We obtained the conductivity change of the GFETs as follows. The average value for one min before the introduction of water vapor or odorant molecule gas was taken as the initial value σ0 and the conductivity was normalized by dividing by this value.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA)

PCA and HCA methods were performed using Python (scikit-learn (52)) and Igor 9 (WaveMetrics), respectively. A detailed protocol of PCA and input data are presented in the Supporting Information. For the HCA, the same parameters as in PCA were used (Figure S6). We employed the Euclidean method and the Ward method to calculate the distance between each sample and to form the clusters, respectively.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.4c01177.

  • Structure of the peptides on the graphite and graphene surface; homemade gas sensing system with graphene field effect transistors (GFETs); chiral recognition of limonene with peptide-functionalized GFETs; long-term observation of limonene sensing; the detection limit of limonene gas using peptide-functionalized GFETs; principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Yui Yamazaki - Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    • Tatsuru Hitomi - Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    • Chishu Homma - Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    • Tharatorn Rungreungthanapol - Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
    • Masayoshi Tanaka - Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, JapanOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-5352
    • Kou Yamada - Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
    • Hiroshi Hamasaki - Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
    • Yoshiaki Sugizaki - Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
    • Atsunobu Isobayashi - Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
    • Hideyuki Tomizawa - Corporate Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corporation, 1, Komukai-Toshiba-Cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 212-8582, Japan
    • Mina Okochi - Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, School of Materials and Chemical Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguroku, Tokyo 152-8550, JapanOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1727-2948
  • Author Contributions

    M.T., H.H., K.Y., Y.S., A.I., H.T., M.O., and Y.H. designed the project. Y.Y., T.H., and C.H. performed the experiments. C.H. shared the analytical tools of principal component analysis and provided insight to understand the data. T.R. provided the peptides. Y.Y. and Y.H. analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors proofread and approved the manuscript. The manuscript was written through the contributions of all authors. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was supported by the Cabinet Office (CAO), Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program (SIP), “Intelligent Processing Infrastructure of Cyber and Physical Systems” (funding agency: NEDO).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 52 other publications.

  1. 1
    Peris, M.; Escuder-Gilabert, L. A 21st Century Technique for Food Control: Electronic Noses. Anal. Chim. Acta 2009, 638 (1), 115,  DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2009.02.009
  2. 2
    Khatib, M.; Haick, H. Sensors for Volatile Organic Compounds. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (5), 70807115,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c10827
  3. 3
    Went, F. W. Blue Hazes in the Atmosphere. Nature 1960, 187 (4738), 641643,  DOI: 10.1038/187641a0
  4. 4
    Fares, S.; Weber, R.; Park, J.-H.; Gentner, D.; Karlik, J.; Goldstein, A. H. Ozone Deposition to an Orange Orchard: Partitioning between Stomatal and Non-Stomatal Sinks. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 169, 258266,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.030
  5. 5
    Brilli, F.; Loreto, F.; Baccelli, I. Exploiting Plant Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Agriculture to Improve Sustainable Defense Strategies and Productivity of Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 264,  DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00264
  6. 6
    Li, Z.; Paul, R.; Ba Tis, T.; Saville, A. C.; Hansel, J. C.; Yu, T.; Ristaino, J. B.; Wei, Q. Non-Invasive Plant Disease Diagnostics Enabled by Smartphone-Based Fingerprinting of Leaf Volatiles. Nat Plants 2019, 5 (8), 856866,  DOI: 10.1038/s41477-019-0476-y
  7. 7
    Mari, M.; Bautista-Baños, S.; Sivakumar, D. Decay Control in the Postharvest System: Role of Microbial and Plant Volatile Organic Compounds. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 7081,  DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2016.04.014
  8. 8
    Zhang, J.; Xia, J.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, N.; Li, G.; Zhang, F. Identification of Agricultural Quarantine Materials in Passenger’s Luggage Using Ion Mobility Spectroscopy Combined with a Convolutional Neural Network. Anal. Methods 2022, 14 (45), 46904702,  DOI: 10.1039/D2AY01478E
  9. 9
    Qin, C.; Wang, Y.; Hu, J.; Wang, T.; Liu, D.; Dong, J.; Lu, Y. Artificial Olfactory Biohybrid System: An Evolving Sense of Smell. Adv. Sci. 2022, 2204726,  DOI: 10.1002/advs.202204726
  10. 10
    Agapios, A.; Andreas, V.; Marinos, S.; Katerina, M.; Antonis, Z. A. Waste Aroma Profile in the Framework of Food Waste Management through Household Composting. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120340  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120340
  11. 11
    Delgado-Rodríguez, M.; Ruiz-Montoya, M.; Giraldez, I.; López, R.; Madejón, E.; Díaz, M. J. Use of Electronic Nose and GC-MS in Detection and Monitoring Some VOC. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 51, 278285,  DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.006
  12. 12
    Kikuchi, M.; Tsuru, N.; Shiratori, S. Recognition of Terpenes Using Molecular Imprinted Polymer Coated Quartz Crystal Microbalance in Air Phase. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2006, 7 (2), 156161,  DOI: 10.1016/j.stam.2005.12.004
  13. 13
    Chen, B.; Liu, C.; Ge, L.; Hayashi, K. Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance Gas Sensor of Au Nano-Islands Coated with Molecularly Imprinted Polymer: Influence of Polymer Thickness on Sensitivity and Selectivity. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 231, 787792,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.117
  14. 14
    Percival, C. J.; Stanley, S.; Galle, T. M.; Braithwaite, A.; Newton, M. I.; McHale, G.; Hayes, W. Molecular-Imprinted, Polymer-Coated Quartz Crystal Microbalances for the Detection of Terpenes. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73 (17), 42254228,  DOI: 10.1021/ac0155198
  15. 15
    Toniolo, R.; Pizzariello, A.; Dossi, N.; Lorenzon, S.; Abollino, O.; Bontempelli, G. Room Temperature Ionic Liquids as Useful Overlayers for Estimating Food Quality from Their Odor Analysis by Quartz Crystal Microbalance Measurements. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85 (15), 72417247,  DOI: 10.1021/ac401151m
  16. 16
    Wang, Z.; Chen, W.; Gu, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y. Discrimination of Wood Borers Infested Platycladus Orientalis Trunks Using Quartz Crystal Microbalance Gas Sensor Array. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2020, 309, 127767  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2020.127767
  17. 17
    Schedin, F.; Geim, A. K.; Morozov, S. V.; Hill, E. W.; Blake, P.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S. Detection of Individual Gas Molecules Adsorbed on Graphene. Nat. Mater. 2007, 6 (9), 652655,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat1967
  18. 18
    Dan, Y.; Lu, Y.; Kybert, N. J.; Luo, Z.; Johnson, A. T. C. Intrinsic Response of Graphene Vapor Sensors. Nano Lett. 2009, 9 (4), 14721475,  DOI: 10.1021/nl8033637
  19. 19
    Yoon, H. J.; Jun, D. H.; Yang, J. H.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, S. S.; Cheng, M. M.-C. Carbon Dioxide Gas Sensor Using a Graphene Sheet. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2011, 157 (1), 310313,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2011.03.035
  20. 20
    Kim, Y. H.; Kim, S. J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Shim, Y.-S.; Kim, S. Y.; Hong, B. H.; Jang, H. W. Self-Activated Transparent All-Graphene Gas Sensor with Endurance to Humidity and Mechanical Bending. ACS Nano 2015, 9 (10), 1045310460,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b04680
  21. 21
    Pearce, R.; Iakimov, T.; Andersson, M.; Hultman, L.; Spetz, A. L.; Yakimova, R. Epitaxially Grown Graphene Based Gas Sensors for Ultra Sensitive NO2 Detection. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2011, 155 (2), 451455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2010.12.046
  22. 22
    Nallon, E. C.; Schnee, V. P.; Bright, C.; Polcha, M. P.; Li, Q. Chemical Discrimination with an Unmodified Graphene Chemical Sensor. ACS Sens. 2016, 1 (1), 2631,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00029
  23. 23
    Capman, N. S. S.; Zhen, X. V.; Nelson, J. T.; Chaganti, V. R. S. K.; Finc, R. C.; Lyden, M. J.; Williams, T. L.; Freking, M.; Sherwood, G. J.; Bühlmann, P.; Hogan, C. J.; Koester, S. J. Machine Learning-Based Rapid Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds in a Graphene Electronic Nose. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (11), 1956719583,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.2c10240
  24. 24
    Jung, H.; Park, J. Real-Time Detection of Methyl Salicylate Vapor Using Reduced Graphene Oxide and Poly (Diallyldimethylammonium Chloride) Complex. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2022, 793, 139446  DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2022.139446
  25. 25
    Lu, Y.; Goldsmith, B. R.; Kybert, N. J.; Johnson, A. T. C. DNA-Decorated Graphene Chemical Sensors. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97 (8), 083107  DOI: 10.1063/1.3483128
  26. 26
    Quellmalz, A.; Smith, A. D.; Elgammal, K.; Fan, X.; Delin, A.; Östling, M.; Lemme, M.; Gylfason, K. B.; Niklaus, F. Influence of Humidity on Contact Resistance in Graphene Devices. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10 (48), 4173841746,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b10033
  27. 27
    Hayasaka, T.; Lin, A.; Copa, V. C.; Lopez, L. P., Jr; Loberternos, R. A.; Ballesteros, L. I. M.; Kubota, Y.; Liu, Y.; Salvador, A. A.; Lin, L. An Electronic Nose Using a Single Graphene FET and Machine Learning for Water, Methanol, and Ethanol. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2020, 6, 50,  DOI: 10.1038/s41378-020-0161-3
  28. 28
    Cengiz, N.; Guclu, G.; Kelebek, H.; Capanoglu, E.; Selli, S. Application of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for the Detection of Volatile and Off-Odor Compounds in Food Matrices. ACS Omega 2022, 7 (18), 1525815266,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c07288
  29. 29
    Cui, Y.; Kim, S. N.; Naik, R. R.; McAlpine, M. C. Biomimetic Peptide Nanosensors. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45 (5), 696704,  DOI: 10.1021/ar2002057
  30. 30
    Kotlowski, C.; Larisika, M.; Guerin, P. M.; Kleber, C.; Kröber, T.; Mastrogiacomo, R.; Nowak, C.; Pelosi, P.; Schütz, S.; Schwaighofer, A.; Knoll, W. Fine Discrimination of Volatile Compounds by Graphene-Immobilized Odorant-Binding Proteins. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 256, 564572,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.10.093
  31. 31
    Lee, K.; Yoo, Y. K.; Chae, M.-S.; Hwang, K. S.; Lee, J.; Kim, H.; Hur, D.; Lee, J. H. Highly Selective Reduced Graphene Oxide (RGO) Sensor Based on a Peptide Aptamer Receptor for Detecting Explosives. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9 (1), 10297,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45936-z
  32. 32
    Park, S. J.; Kwon, O. S.; Lee, S. H.; Song, H. S.; Park, T. H.; Jang, J. Ultrasensitive Flexible Graphene Based Field-Effect Transistor (FET)-Type Bioelectronic Nose. Nano Lett. 2012, 12 (10), 50825090,  DOI: 10.1021/nl301714x
  33. 33
    Kwon, O. S.; Song, H. S.; Park, S. J.; Lee, S. H.; An, J. H.; Park, J. W.; Yang, H.; Yoon, H.; Bae, J.; Park, T. H.; Jang, J. An Ultrasensitive, Selective, Multiplexed Superbioelectronic Nose That Mimics the Human Sense of Smell. Nano Lett. 2015, 15 (10), 65596567,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02286
  34. 34
    Wasilewski, T.; Neubauer, D.; Kamysz, W.; Gębicki, J. Recent Progress in the Development of Peptide-Based Gas Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 2022, 5, 100197  DOI: 10.1016/j.cscee.2022.100197
  35. 35
    Homma, C.; Tsukiiwa, M.; Noguchi, H.; Tanaka, M.; Okochi, M.; Tomizawa, H.; Sugizaki, Y.; Isobayashi, A.; Hayamizu, Y. Designable Peptides on Graphene Field-Effect Transistors for Selective Detection of Odor Molecules. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2023, 224, 115047  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2022.115047
  36. 36
    Bartošík, M.; Mach, J.; Piastek, J.; Nezval, D.; Konečný, M.; Švarc, V.; Ensslin, K.; Šikola, T. Mechanism and Suppression of Physisorbed-Water-Caused Hysteresis in Graphene FET Sensors. ACS Sens 2020, 5 (9), 29402949,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.0c01441
  37. 37
    Li, P.; Sakuma, K.; Tsuchiya, S.; Sun, L.; Hayamizu, Y. Fibroin-like Peptides Self-Assembling on Two-Dimensional Materials as a Molecular Scaffold for Potential Biosensing. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11 (23), 2067020677,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b04079
  38. 38
    Rungreungthanapol, T.; Homma, C.; Akagi, K.-I.; Tanaka, M.; Kikuchi, J.; Tomizawa, H.; Sugizaki, Y.; Isobayashi, A.; Hayamizu, Y.; Okochi, M. Volatile Organic Compound Detection by Graphene Field-Effect Transistors Functionalized with Fly Olfactory Receptor Mimetic Peptides. Anal. Chem. 2023, 95 (9), 45564563,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c00052
  39. 39
    Noguchi, H.; Nakamura, Y.; Tezuka, S.; Seki, T.; Yatsu, K.; Narimatsu, T.; Nakata, Y.; Hayamizu, Y. Self-Assembled GA-Repeated Peptides as a Biomolecular Scaffold for Biosensing with MoS2 Electrochemical Transistors. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15 (11), 1405814066,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.2c23227
  40. 40
    Vosshall, L. B.; Wong, A. M.; Axel, R. An Olfactory Sensory Map in the Fly Brain. Cell 2000, 102 (2), 147159,  DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00021-0
  41. 41
    Dweck, H. K. M.; Ebrahim, S. A. M.; Kromann, S.; Bown, D.; Hillbur, Y.; Sachse, S.; Hansson, B. S.; Stensmyr, M. C. Olfactory Preference for Egg Laying on Citrus Substrates in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23 (24), 24722480,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.047
  42. 42
    Dweck, H. K. M.; Ebrahim, S. A. M.; Retzke, T.; Grabe, V.; Weißflog, J.; Svatoš, A.; Hansson, B. S.; Knaden, M. The Olfactory Logic behind Fruit Odor Preferences in Larval and Adult Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2018, 23 (8), 25242531,  DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.085
  43. 43
    Yavari, F.; Kritzinger, C.; Gaire, C.; Song, L.; Gulapalli, H.; Borca-Tasciuc, T.; Ajayan, P. M.; Koratkar, N. Tunable Bandgap in Graphene by the Controlled Adsorption of Water Molecules. Small 2010, 6 (22), 25352538,  DOI: 10.1002/smll.201001384
  44. 44
    Levesque, P. L.; Sabri, S. S.; Aguirre, C. M.; Guillemette, J.; Siaj, M.; Desjardins, P.; Szkopek, T.; Martel, R. Probing Charge Transfer at Surfaces Using Graphene Transistors. Nano Lett. 2011, 11 (1), 132137,  DOI: 10.1021/nl103015w
  45. 45
    Smith, A. D.; Elgammal, K.; Niklaus, F.; Delin, A.; Fischer, A. C.; Vaziri, S.; Forsberg, F.; Råsander, M.; Hugosson, H.; Bergqvist, L.; Schröder, S.; Kataria, S.; Östling, M.; Lemme, M. C. Resistive Graphene Humidity Sensors with Rapid and Direct Electrical Readout. Nanoscale 2015, 7 (45), 1909919109,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR06038A
  46. 46
    Bampoulis, P.; Sotthewes, K.; Dollekamp, E.; Poelsema, B. Water Confined in Two-Dimensions: Fundamentals and Applications. Surf. Sci. Rep. 2018, 73 (6), 233264,  DOI: 10.1016/j.surfrep.2018.09.001
  47. 47
    Shang, X.; Park, C. H.; Jung, G. Y.; Kwak, S. K.; Oh, J. H. Highly Enantioselective Graphene-Based Chemical Sensors Prepared by Chiral Noncovalent Functionalization. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10 (42), 3619436201,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b13517
  48. 48
    Practical Guide to Chemometrics, Second Edition, 2nd ed.; Gemperline, P., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2006.
  49. 49
    Li, D.; Zhu, B.; Pang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Qu, M.; Liu, W.; Fu, Y.; Xie, J. Virtual Sensor Array Based on Piezoelectric Cantilever Resonator for Identification of Volatile Organic Compounds. ACS Sens 2022, 7 (5), 15551563,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.2c00442
  50. 50
    Lambert, N.; Chen, Y.-N.; Cheng, Y.-C.; Li, C.-M.; Chen, G.-Y.; Nori, F. Quantum Biology. Nat. Phys. 2013, 9 (1), 1018,  DOI: 10.1038/nphys2474
  51. 51
    Nakano-Baker, O.; Fong, H.; Shukla, S.; Lee, R. V.; Cai, L.; Godin, D.; Hennig, T.; Rath, S.; Novosselov, I.; Dogan, S.; Sarikaya, M.; MacKenzie, J. D. Data-Driven Design of a Multiplexed, Peptide-Sensitized Transistor to Detect Breath VOC Markers of COVID-19. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2023, 229, 115237  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115237
  52. 52
    Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; Vanderplas, J.; Passos, A.; Cournapeau, D.; Brucher, M.; Perrot, M.; Duchesnay, E. Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in PYthon. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 28252830

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 6 publications.

  1. Kantaro Kikuchi, Yui Yamazaki, Kohsuke Kanekura, Yuhei Hayamizu. Graphene Biosensor Differentiating Sensitive Interactions between Ribonucleic Acid and Dipeptide Repeats in Liquid–Liquid Phase Separation. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2025, 17 (8) , 12765-12771. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.4c15382
  2. Marie Sugiyama, Ayhan Yurtsever, Nina Uenodan, Yuta Nabae, Takeshi Fukuma, Yuhei Hayamizu. Hierarchical Assembly of Hemin-Peptide Catalytic Systems on Graphite Surfaces. ACS Nano 2025, Article ASAP.
  3. Peiying Li, Chen Chen, Ayhan Yurtsever, Sijin Wu, Linhao Sun. Structural Ordering of Interfacially Assembled Silk Fibroin-Like Peptides via Robust Intermolecular Hydrogen-Bonding Networks. ACS Materials Letters 2024, 6 (9) , 3993-4001. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmaterialslett.4c01045
  4. Andreea Gostaviceanu, Simona Gavrilaş, Lucian Copolovici, Dana Maria Copolovici. Graphene-Oxide Peptide-Containing Materials for Biomedical Applications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024, 25 (18) , 10174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms251810174
  5. Ilaria Di Filippo, Zakaria Anfar, Gabriele Magna, Piyanan Pranee, Donato Monti, Manuela Stefanelli, Reiko Oda, Corrado Di Natale, Roberto Paolesse. Chiral porphyrin-SiO 2 nano helices-based sensors for vapor enantiomers recognition. Nanoscale Advances 2024, 6 (17) , 4470-4478. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4NA00217B
  6. Damian Neubauer. Advancements in peptide-based gas biosensors. 2024https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.coac.2024.11.001

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

Cite this: ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2024, 16, 15, 18564–18573
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.4c01177
Published April 3, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

2027

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Surface functionalization of graphene biosensor for the detection of biogenic volatile organic compounds. (a) Schematic showing the peptide self-assembly on graphene and the peptide-graphene odor sensors operating in the presence of water vapor. (b) Peptide sequences. Peptides consist of three domains: probe, linker, and assembly domain. (c) Molecular structures of the biogenic volatile organic molecules used in this work.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Graphene sensors responding to relative humidity. (a) Schematic of the gas measurement system for the graphene odor sensor with controlled humidity and flow rate of odor molecules. (b) Optical microscopic image of a graphene sensor chip. (c) Real-time response of graphene sensors to humidity change: untreated (black) and GFET functionalized with GR3R peptides (orange). The curves and light-colored regions represent the mean and standard deviation of the data points, respectively. (d) Conductivity change of graphene depending on the relative humidity derived from panel (c). The bars indicate the standard deviations. (e) Accelerated test of untreated (black) and GFETs functionalized with GR3R peptides (orange) responding to the repeated humidity change. The curves and light-colored regions represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Chiral recognition by GFETs functionalized with peptides. Conductivity changes of GFETs responding to enantiomers of limonene under (a, b) 53% RH and (c, d) N2 conditions. The curves show the responses of GFETs to d-limonene (red) and l-limonene (blue). The chiral selectivity differed between untreated GFETs and those functionalized by LBP3 peptides. The curves and colored shadows represent the mean value and standard deviation, respectively.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Real-time measurement of peptide-functionalized GFETs for each odorant molecule. Real-time response of GFETs to each odorant gas with incrementally increasing flow rates. Each plot shows the results of (a) untreated GFETs, and GFETs functionalized with (b) GR3R, (c) P1, and (d) LBP3. The colors of the curves represent the individual odorant gas: d-limonene (red), (-)-menthol (green), methyl salicylate (purple), and ethyl propionate (black). (e) Bar plot of the conductivity magnitudes at 10 min after 10 sccm of odorant gas injection. Real-time response of (f) untreated GFETs and (g) GFETs functionalized with GR3R peptides under N2 conditions. All curves represent the mean value of the conductivity change among the multiple channels.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Discriminative detection of BVOCs by peptide-functionalized GFETs. (a–d) Principal component analysis score plots of GFETs for different odorants. (e) Dendrogram of LBP3 peptide generated by hierarchical cluster analysis.

  • References


    This article references 52 other publications.

    1. 1
      Peris, M.; Escuder-Gilabert, L. A 21st Century Technique for Food Control: Electronic Noses. Anal. Chim. Acta 2009, 638 (1), 115,  DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2009.02.009
    2. 2
      Khatib, M.; Haick, H. Sensors for Volatile Organic Compounds. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (5), 70807115,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c10827
    3. 3
      Went, F. W. Blue Hazes in the Atmosphere. Nature 1960, 187 (4738), 641643,  DOI: 10.1038/187641a0
    4. 4
      Fares, S.; Weber, R.; Park, J.-H.; Gentner, D.; Karlik, J.; Goldstein, A. H. Ozone Deposition to an Orange Orchard: Partitioning between Stomatal and Non-Stomatal Sinks. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 169, 258266,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.030
    5. 5
      Brilli, F.; Loreto, F.; Baccelli, I. Exploiting Plant Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Agriculture to Improve Sustainable Defense Strategies and Productivity of Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 264,  DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00264
    6. 6
      Li, Z.; Paul, R.; Ba Tis, T.; Saville, A. C.; Hansel, J. C.; Yu, T.; Ristaino, J. B.; Wei, Q. Non-Invasive Plant Disease Diagnostics Enabled by Smartphone-Based Fingerprinting of Leaf Volatiles. Nat Plants 2019, 5 (8), 856866,  DOI: 10.1038/s41477-019-0476-y
    7. 7
      Mari, M.; Bautista-Baños, S.; Sivakumar, D. Decay Control in the Postharvest System: Role of Microbial and Plant Volatile Organic Compounds. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 7081,  DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2016.04.014
    8. 8
      Zhang, J.; Xia, J.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, N.; Li, G.; Zhang, F. Identification of Agricultural Quarantine Materials in Passenger’s Luggage Using Ion Mobility Spectroscopy Combined with a Convolutional Neural Network. Anal. Methods 2022, 14 (45), 46904702,  DOI: 10.1039/D2AY01478E
    9. 9
      Qin, C.; Wang, Y.; Hu, J.; Wang, T.; Liu, D.; Dong, J.; Lu, Y. Artificial Olfactory Biohybrid System: An Evolving Sense of Smell. Adv. Sci. 2022, 2204726,  DOI: 10.1002/advs.202204726
    10. 10
      Agapios, A.; Andreas, V.; Marinos, S.; Katerina, M.; Antonis, Z. A. Waste Aroma Profile in the Framework of Food Waste Management through Household Composting. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120340  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120340
    11. 11
      Delgado-Rodríguez, M.; Ruiz-Montoya, M.; Giraldez, I.; López, R.; Madejón, E.; Díaz, M. J. Use of Electronic Nose and GC-MS in Detection and Monitoring Some VOC. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 51, 278285,  DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.006
    12. 12
      Kikuchi, M.; Tsuru, N.; Shiratori, S. Recognition of Terpenes Using Molecular Imprinted Polymer Coated Quartz Crystal Microbalance in Air Phase. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2006, 7 (2), 156161,  DOI: 10.1016/j.stam.2005.12.004
    13. 13
      Chen, B.; Liu, C.; Ge, L.; Hayashi, K. Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance Gas Sensor of Au Nano-Islands Coated with Molecularly Imprinted Polymer: Influence of Polymer Thickness on Sensitivity and Selectivity. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 231, 787792,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.117
    14. 14
      Percival, C. J.; Stanley, S.; Galle, T. M.; Braithwaite, A.; Newton, M. I.; McHale, G.; Hayes, W. Molecular-Imprinted, Polymer-Coated Quartz Crystal Microbalances for the Detection of Terpenes. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73 (17), 42254228,  DOI: 10.1021/ac0155198
    15. 15
      Toniolo, R.; Pizzariello, A.; Dossi, N.; Lorenzon, S.; Abollino, O.; Bontempelli, G. Room Temperature Ionic Liquids as Useful Overlayers for Estimating Food Quality from Their Odor Analysis by Quartz Crystal Microbalance Measurements. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85 (15), 72417247,  DOI: 10.1021/ac401151m
    16. 16
      Wang, Z.; Chen, W.; Gu, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y. Discrimination of Wood Borers Infested Platycladus Orientalis Trunks Using Quartz Crystal Microbalance Gas Sensor Array. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2020, 309, 127767  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2020.127767
    17. 17
      Schedin, F.; Geim, A. K.; Morozov, S. V.; Hill, E. W.; Blake, P.; Katsnelson, M. I.; Novoselov, K. S. Detection of Individual Gas Molecules Adsorbed on Graphene. Nat. Mater. 2007, 6 (9), 652655,  DOI: 10.1038/nmat1967
    18. 18
      Dan, Y.; Lu, Y.; Kybert, N. J.; Luo, Z.; Johnson, A. T. C. Intrinsic Response of Graphene Vapor Sensors. Nano Lett. 2009, 9 (4), 14721475,  DOI: 10.1021/nl8033637
    19. 19
      Yoon, H. J.; Jun, D. H.; Yang, J. H.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, S. S.; Cheng, M. M.-C. Carbon Dioxide Gas Sensor Using a Graphene Sheet. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2011, 157 (1), 310313,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2011.03.035
    20. 20
      Kim, Y. H.; Kim, S. J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Shim, Y.-S.; Kim, S. Y.; Hong, B. H.; Jang, H. W. Self-Activated Transparent All-Graphene Gas Sensor with Endurance to Humidity and Mechanical Bending. ACS Nano 2015, 9 (10), 1045310460,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b04680
    21. 21
      Pearce, R.; Iakimov, T.; Andersson, M.; Hultman, L.; Spetz, A. L.; Yakimova, R. Epitaxially Grown Graphene Based Gas Sensors for Ultra Sensitive NO2 Detection. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2011, 155 (2), 451455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2010.12.046
    22. 22
      Nallon, E. C.; Schnee, V. P.; Bright, C.; Polcha, M. P.; Li, Q. Chemical Discrimination with an Unmodified Graphene Chemical Sensor. ACS Sens. 2016, 1 (1), 2631,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00029
    23. 23
      Capman, N. S. S.; Zhen, X. V.; Nelson, J. T.; Chaganti, V. R. S. K.; Finc, R. C.; Lyden, M. J.; Williams, T. L.; Freking, M.; Sherwood, G. J.; Bühlmann, P.; Hogan, C. J.; Koester, S. J. Machine Learning-Based Rapid Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds in a Graphene Electronic Nose. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (11), 1956719583,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.2c10240
    24. 24
      Jung, H.; Park, J. Real-Time Detection of Methyl Salicylate Vapor Using Reduced Graphene Oxide and Poly (Diallyldimethylammonium Chloride) Complex. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2022, 793, 139446  DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2022.139446
    25. 25
      Lu, Y.; Goldsmith, B. R.; Kybert, N. J.; Johnson, A. T. C. DNA-Decorated Graphene Chemical Sensors. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97 (8), 083107  DOI: 10.1063/1.3483128
    26. 26
      Quellmalz, A.; Smith, A. D.; Elgammal, K.; Fan, X.; Delin, A.; Östling, M.; Lemme, M.; Gylfason, K. B.; Niklaus, F. Influence of Humidity on Contact Resistance in Graphene Devices. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10 (48), 4173841746,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b10033
    27. 27
      Hayasaka, T.; Lin, A.; Copa, V. C.; Lopez, L. P., Jr; Loberternos, R. A.; Ballesteros, L. I. M.; Kubota, Y.; Liu, Y.; Salvador, A. A.; Lin, L. An Electronic Nose Using a Single Graphene FET and Machine Learning for Water, Methanol, and Ethanol. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2020, 6, 50,  DOI: 10.1038/s41378-020-0161-3
    28. 28
      Cengiz, N.; Guclu, G.; Kelebek, H.; Capanoglu, E.; Selli, S. Application of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for the Detection of Volatile and Off-Odor Compounds in Food Matrices. ACS Omega 2022, 7 (18), 1525815266,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c07288
    29. 29
      Cui, Y.; Kim, S. N.; Naik, R. R.; McAlpine, M. C. Biomimetic Peptide Nanosensors. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45 (5), 696704,  DOI: 10.1021/ar2002057
    30. 30
      Kotlowski, C.; Larisika, M.; Guerin, P. M.; Kleber, C.; Kröber, T.; Mastrogiacomo, R.; Nowak, C.; Pelosi, P.; Schütz, S.; Schwaighofer, A.; Knoll, W. Fine Discrimination of Volatile Compounds by Graphene-Immobilized Odorant-Binding Proteins. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 256, 564572,  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.10.093
    31. 31
      Lee, K.; Yoo, Y. K.; Chae, M.-S.; Hwang, K. S.; Lee, J.; Kim, H.; Hur, D.; Lee, J. H. Highly Selective Reduced Graphene Oxide (RGO) Sensor Based on a Peptide Aptamer Receptor for Detecting Explosives. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9 (1), 10297,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45936-z
    32. 32
      Park, S. J.; Kwon, O. S.; Lee, S. H.; Song, H. S.; Park, T. H.; Jang, J. Ultrasensitive Flexible Graphene Based Field-Effect Transistor (FET)-Type Bioelectronic Nose. Nano Lett. 2012, 12 (10), 50825090,  DOI: 10.1021/nl301714x
    33. 33
      Kwon, O. S.; Song, H. S.; Park, S. J.; Lee, S. H.; An, J. H.; Park, J. W.; Yang, H.; Yoon, H.; Bae, J.; Park, T. H.; Jang, J. An Ultrasensitive, Selective, Multiplexed Superbioelectronic Nose That Mimics the Human Sense of Smell. Nano Lett. 2015, 15 (10), 65596567,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02286
    34. 34
      Wasilewski, T.; Neubauer, D.; Kamysz, W.; Gębicki, J. Recent Progress in the Development of Peptide-Based Gas Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 2022, 5, 100197  DOI: 10.1016/j.cscee.2022.100197
    35. 35
      Homma, C.; Tsukiiwa, M.; Noguchi, H.; Tanaka, M.; Okochi, M.; Tomizawa, H.; Sugizaki, Y.; Isobayashi, A.; Hayamizu, Y. Designable Peptides on Graphene Field-Effect Transistors for Selective Detection of Odor Molecules. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2023, 224, 115047  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2022.115047
    36. 36
      Bartošík, M.; Mach, J.; Piastek, J.; Nezval, D.; Konečný, M.; Švarc, V.; Ensslin, K.; Šikola, T. Mechanism and Suppression of Physisorbed-Water-Caused Hysteresis in Graphene FET Sensors. ACS Sens 2020, 5 (9), 29402949,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.0c01441
    37. 37
      Li, P.; Sakuma, K.; Tsuchiya, S.; Sun, L.; Hayamizu, Y. Fibroin-like Peptides Self-Assembling on Two-Dimensional Materials as a Molecular Scaffold for Potential Biosensing. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11 (23), 2067020677,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b04079
    38. 38
      Rungreungthanapol, T.; Homma, C.; Akagi, K.-I.; Tanaka, M.; Kikuchi, J.; Tomizawa, H.; Sugizaki, Y.; Isobayashi, A.; Hayamizu, Y.; Okochi, M. Volatile Organic Compound Detection by Graphene Field-Effect Transistors Functionalized with Fly Olfactory Receptor Mimetic Peptides. Anal. Chem. 2023, 95 (9), 45564563,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c00052
    39. 39
      Noguchi, H.; Nakamura, Y.; Tezuka, S.; Seki, T.; Yatsu, K.; Narimatsu, T.; Nakata, Y.; Hayamizu, Y. Self-Assembled GA-Repeated Peptides as a Biomolecular Scaffold for Biosensing with MoS2 Electrochemical Transistors. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15 (11), 1405814066,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.2c23227
    40. 40
      Vosshall, L. B.; Wong, A. M.; Axel, R. An Olfactory Sensory Map in the Fly Brain. Cell 2000, 102 (2), 147159,  DOI: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00021-0
    41. 41
      Dweck, H. K. M.; Ebrahim, S. A. M.; Kromann, S.; Bown, D.; Hillbur, Y.; Sachse, S.; Hansson, B. S.; Stensmyr, M. C. Olfactory Preference for Egg Laying on Citrus Substrates in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23 (24), 24722480,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.047
    42. 42
      Dweck, H. K. M.; Ebrahim, S. A. M.; Retzke, T.; Grabe, V.; Weißflog, J.; Svatoš, A.; Hansson, B. S.; Knaden, M. The Olfactory Logic behind Fruit Odor Preferences in Larval and Adult Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2018, 23 (8), 25242531,  DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.085
    43. 43
      Yavari, F.; Kritzinger, C.; Gaire, C.; Song, L.; Gulapalli, H.; Borca-Tasciuc, T.; Ajayan, P. M.; Koratkar, N. Tunable Bandgap in Graphene by the Controlled Adsorption of Water Molecules. Small 2010, 6 (22), 25352538,  DOI: 10.1002/smll.201001384
    44. 44
      Levesque, P. L.; Sabri, S. S.; Aguirre, C. M.; Guillemette, J.; Siaj, M.; Desjardins, P.; Szkopek, T.; Martel, R. Probing Charge Transfer at Surfaces Using Graphene Transistors. Nano Lett. 2011, 11 (1), 132137,  DOI: 10.1021/nl103015w
    45. 45
      Smith, A. D.; Elgammal, K.; Niklaus, F.; Delin, A.; Fischer, A. C.; Vaziri, S.; Forsberg, F.; Råsander, M.; Hugosson, H.; Bergqvist, L.; Schröder, S.; Kataria, S.; Östling, M.; Lemme, M. C. Resistive Graphene Humidity Sensors with Rapid and Direct Electrical Readout. Nanoscale 2015, 7 (45), 1909919109,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR06038A
    46. 46
      Bampoulis, P.; Sotthewes, K.; Dollekamp, E.; Poelsema, B. Water Confined in Two-Dimensions: Fundamentals and Applications. Surf. Sci. Rep. 2018, 73 (6), 233264,  DOI: 10.1016/j.surfrep.2018.09.001
    47. 47
      Shang, X.; Park, C. H.; Jung, G. Y.; Kwak, S. K.; Oh, J. H. Highly Enantioselective Graphene-Based Chemical Sensors Prepared by Chiral Noncovalent Functionalization. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10 (42), 3619436201,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b13517
    48. 48
      Practical Guide to Chemometrics, Second Edition, 2nd ed.; Gemperline, P., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2006.
    49. 49
      Li, D.; Zhu, B.; Pang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Qu, M.; Liu, W.; Fu, Y.; Xie, J. Virtual Sensor Array Based on Piezoelectric Cantilever Resonator for Identification of Volatile Organic Compounds. ACS Sens 2022, 7 (5), 15551563,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.2c00442
    50. 50
      Lambert, N.; Chen, Y.-N.; Cheng, Y.-C.; Li, C.-M.; Chen, G.-Y.; Nori, F. Quantum Biology. Nat. Phys. 2013, 9 (1), 1018,  DOI: 10.1038/nphys2474
    51. 51
      Nakano-Baker, O.; Fong, H.; Shukla, S.; Lee, R. V.; Cai, L.; Godin, D.; Hennig, T.; Rath, S.; Novosselov, I.; Dogan, S.; Sarikaya, M.; MacKenzie, J. D. Data-Driven Design of a Multiplexed, Peptide-Sensitized Transistor to Detect Breath VOC Markers of COVID-19. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2023, 229, 115237  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115237
    52. 52
      Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; Vanderplas, J.; Passos, A.; Cournapeau, D.; Brucher, M.; Perrot, M.; Duchesnay, E. Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in PYthon. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 28252830
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.4c01177.

    • Structure of the peptides on the graphite and graphene surface; homemade gas sensing system with graphene field effect transistors (GFETs); chiral recognition of limonene with peptide-functionalized GFETs; long-term observation of limonene sensing; the detection limit of limonene gas using peptide-functionalized GFETs; principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.