3.1. Characterization of CQDs@Ag@Cu
To investigate the structural and morphological characteristics of carbon quantum dots modified with silver and copper (CQDs@Ag@Cu), several advanced analytical techniques were utilized. As shown in Fig. 1, the transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image confirms that the CQDs@Ag@Cu exhibit a nearly spherical morphology with an average diameter of roughly 5 nanometers. These small dimensions are particularly advantageous for sensing and bioimaging applications, as they benefit from quantum confinement effects that enhance their optical behavior. Figure 2 presents the FTIR spectra comparing pristine carbon quantum dots (CQDs) with their silver- and copper-doped counterparts. In panel A, the spectrum of the undoped CQDs exhibits characteristic peaks near 3150 cm⁻¹, 2200 cm⁻¹, and 1350 cm⁻¹. These absorption bands are associated with the stretching and bending modes of surface functional groups, particularly hydroxyl and carbonyl moieties. These surface functionalities are critical for improving the chemical reactivity and interaction potential of CQDs. Panel B of the same figure illustrates the FTIR spectrum after doping with Ag and Cu. While the major peaks observed in panel A remain visible, additional absorption signals appear near 900 cm⁻¹, which are indicative of newly formed Cu–C and Ag–C bonds. These spectral features provide strong evidence for the successful incorporation of silver and copper into the CQD structure.
.Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis offered valuable insights into the morphology of the synthesized nanostructures. As shown in Fig. 3a, the SEM images reveal well-dispersed, The nanoparticles exhibit an almost spherical shape with an average size ranging from 5 to 10 nm. Their consistent dimensions and low degree of aggregation indicate that the carbon quantum dots were synthesized with well-regulated morphology, a critical factor ensuring reliable and reproducible behavior in sensing-based applications. Furthermore, elemental mapping results presented in Fig. 3b demonstrate the spatial distribution of key elements on the nanoparticle surfaces. The high-intensity signals for carbon (C) and oxygen (O) confirm the organic composition of the quantum dots and further validate their surface functionalization. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDX) analysis, as illustrated in Fig. 3c, was employed to determine the elemental composition of the synthesized CQDs@Ag@Cu nanocomposite. The results revealed a substantial presence of carbon (39.42%) and oxygen (20.24%), affirming the organic framework of the quantum dots. Additionally, minor quantities of metallic elements—including copper (Cu), silver (Ag), and silicon (Si)—were detected, indicating successful incorporation of these ions into the nanostructure. To achieve a comprehensive insight into the spatial distribution of surface elements within the nanocomposite, line scan profiling was performed (Fig. 4). The generated elemental mapping distinctly highlights individual elements using specific color assignments: cadmium (Cd La1) is represented in light green, copper (Cu Ka1,2) in orange, sulfur (S Ka1,2) in blue, and cobalt (Co Ka1) in red. This clear separation of signals confirms the homogeneous incorporation and dispersion of the metallic elements across the CQDs@Ag@Cu surface. This detailed elemental profiling confirms the heterogeneous yet well-integrated composition of the CQDs@Ag@Cu material, reinforcing its suitability for advanced applications in biosensing and nanotechnology.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
3.2 Optimization of Excitation Parameters for Enhanced Fluorescence Response
In this work, the optical behavior of the synthesized nanocomposite was systematically explored through fluorescence spectroscopy to optimize its performance in fluorescence-based sensing platforms. A series of excitation wavelengths, ranging from 250 nm to 460 nm, were evaluated to identify the condition that produces the most intense and well-defined emission spectrum. Among the tested wavelengths, excitation at 450 nm yielded the strongest and sharpest fluorescence emission, recorded at 460 nm (Fig. 5). Other excitation wavelengths failed to provide comparable spectral clarity or intensity, underscoring the critical role of precise wavelength selection in sensor performance. These findings not only contribute to the refinement of fluorescence-based detection systems but also support their broader implementation in analytical and bioanalytical technologies.
Figure 5.
3.3. Determination of the Optimal Concentration of CQDs@Ag@Cu Nanoprobe
An essential parameter influencing the performance of CQDs@Ag@Cu in fluorescence sensing is the concentration of the nanoprobe in the detection system. Excessive nanoprobe loading can lead to fluorescence quenching, whereas too low a concentration reduces the sensitivity of detection. To identify the most effective concentration, varying amounts of nanoprobe (ranging from 5 to 40 µg) were added to 3 mL of aqueous solution, and the fluorescence emission was recorded at 538 nm. The experimental results demonstrated that a concentration of 30 µg yields the highest emission intensity, suggesting this value as the optimal amount for achieving maximum sensitivity in cefixime detection (Fig. 6).
Figure 6
3.4. Statistical analysis
To systematically investigate the influence of various experimental parameters on the fluorescence response of cefixime, a Central Composite Design (CCD) approach was employed, encompassing a total of 20 experimental runs. This design enabled the efficient evaluation of both linear and nonlinear interactions while minimizing the number of required experiments. The fluorescence intensity responses, expressed as the ratio F₀/F, ranged from 1.3 to 3.1 and are detailed in Table 2. One of the significant advantages of employing CCD lies in its robustness for modeling complex response surfaces using a reduced number of experiments. Accordingly, the response data were fitted to a second-order polynomial equation, allowing the construction of a predictive model for F₀/F as a function of the input variables. Table 3 summarizes the statistical metrics of the fitted model, which exhibited a high adjusted coefficient of determination (Adj. R²), confirming the adequacy and reliability of the model. To estimate the coefficients of the quadratic equation within the scope of Response Surface Methodology (RSM), a multiple regression approach was utilized to analyze the experimental data. The developed predictive relationship, formulated using coded variables, can be represented by the following equation:
Table 2
Experiment runs and responses for optimizing parameters evaluation
| | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Response 1 |
|---|
Run | A: pH | C: Time | B: Temp | F0/F |
1 | 6.5 | 11 | 45 | 3.01 |
2 | 9 | 20 | 30 | 2.99 |
3 | 6.5 | 26.1361 | 45 | 2.95 |
4 | 4 | 20 | 30 | 3.01 |
5 | 6.5 | 11 | 45 | 3.09 |
6 | 9 | 2 | 60 | 1.5 |
7 | 6.5 | 1 | 45 | 1.6 |
8 | 9 | 20 | 60 | 3.01 |
9 | 6.5 | 11 | 45 | 3.1 |
10 | 6.5 | 11 | 70.2269 | 3.1 |
11 | 6.5 | 11 | 45 | 3.09 |
12 | 4 | 2 | 60 | 1.5 |
13 | 6.5 | 11 | 45 | 3.09 |
14 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 1.3 |
15 | 10.7045 | 11 | 45 | 2.99 |
16 | 6.5 | 11 | 19.7731 | 3.05 |
17 | 6.5 | 11 | 45 | 3.09 |
18 | 4 | 20 | 60 | 2.3 |
19 | 9 | 2 | 30 | 1.5 |
20 | 2.29552 | 11 | 45 | 2.2 |
Table 3
Source | Sequential p-value | Lack of Fit p-value | Adjusted R² | Predicted R² | |
|---|
Linear | 0.0078 | < 0.0001 | 0.4232 | 0.2222 | |
2FI | 0.9173 | < 0.0001 | 0.3163 | -0.8829 | |
Quadratic | < 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.9130 | 0.5817 | Suggested |
Cubic | 0.0001 | | 0.9976 | | Aliased |
Y = 3.9 + (0.1625 × A) + (0.7366 × B) - (0.0297 × C) - (0.2233 × A2) - (0.5777 × B2) - (0.0536 × C2) + (0.0612 × AB) + (0.0662× AC) - (0.1113 × BC) (2)
In this model, positive coefficients represent synergistic or enhancing effects, whereas negative coefficients reflect antagonistic or opposing influences of the variables on the response.
3.5. ANOVA
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for the quadratic model (Eq. 2) describing the relationship between experimental variables and the fluorescence response (F₀/F) for cefixime. The results, summarized in Table 4, show that the model is statistically significant, as evidenced by a low p-value associated with the Fisher test. This indicates that the model reliably explains the observed variance in the response. The significance of individual regression coefficients was further assessed using the Student’s t-test, where a high t-value coupled with a low p-value indicates a statistically significant term. The p-values also provide insight into the interaction effects among variables. According to the ANOVA results, terms A, B, A², B², and C² were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05), confirming their influential role in the system. As a result, all terms retained in the model were significant, and Eq. (4) was constructed solely based on these meaningful predictors. The predicted values of F₀/F derived from this refined model are presented in Table 4. The coefficient of determination (R²) for the model was calculated to be 0.9130, reflecting a strong correlation between the observed and predicted values. Table 5 presents the mean square values for both the regression and residual components. The high F-values and extremely low p-value (p < 0.001) further validate the model’s overall significance at a confidence level exceeding 99% (α = 0.01), emphasizing the model's robustness. Specifically, the linear effect of parameter B was highly significant (p < 0.0001), while parameter A showed moderate significance (p = 0.0150), and parameter C did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.6033). Furthermore, the squared term B² was also confirmed to be strongly significant (p < 0.0001), suggesting a non-linear relationship for this factor. Notably, all interaction terms included in the model were statistically significant, highlighting the complexity and interdependence among the studied variables. The final quadratic model representing the fluorescence response in terms of actual variable values is detailed in Eq. (4).
Table 4
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model for F0/F
Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F-value | p-value | |
|---|
Model | 8.73 | 9 | 0.9701 | 23.15 | < 0.0001 | significant |
A-pH | 0.3604 | 1 | 0.3604 | 8.60 | 0.0150 | |
B-Time | 6.04 | 1 | 6.04 | 144.13 | < 0.0001 | |
C-Temprecher | 0.0121 | 1 | 0.0121 | 0.2880 | 0.6033 | |
AB | 0.0300 | 1 | 0.0300 | 0.7163 | 0.4171 | |
AC | 0.0351 | 1 | 0.0351 | 0.8381 | 0.3815 | |
BC | 0.0990 | 1 | 0.0990 | 2.36 | 0.1552 | |
A² | 0.7251 | 1 | 0.7251 | 17.31 | 0.0019 | |
B² | 3.16 | 1 | 3.16 | 75.50 | < 0.0001 | |
C² | 0.0418 | 1 | 0.0418 | 0.9981 | 0.3413 | |
Residual | 0.4190 | 10 | 0.0419 | | | |
Lack of Fit | 0.4133 | 5 | 0.0827 | 72.72 | 0.0001 | significant |
Pure Error | 0.0057 | 5 | 0.0011 | | | |
Model | 8.73 | 9 | 0.9701 | 23.15 | < 0.0001 | significant |
Table 5
Standard deviation and R2 of the response.
Std. Dev. | 0.2047 | | R² | 0.9542 |
|---|
Mean | 2.57 | | Adjusted R² | 0.9130 |
C.V. % | 7.95 | | Predicted R² | 0.5817 |
| | | | Adeq Precision | 13.0451 |
Y = 3.9 + (0.1625 × A) + (0.7366 × B) - (0.0297 × C) - (0.2233 × A2) - (0.5777 × B2) - (0.0536 × C2) + (0.0612 × AB) + (0.0662× AC) - (0.1113 × BC) (3)
Y = -0.6954 + (0.4200 × A) + (0.2581 × B) + (0.0170 × C) - (0.0357 × A2) - (0.0071 × B2) - (0.00023 × C2) + (0.0027 × AB) + (0.0017 × AC) - (0.00084 × BC) (4)
3.6. 3D response surface plots
Three-dimensional response surface plots were generated to systematically assess the individual and combined effects of experimental factors on the fluorescence response of the CQDs@Ag@Cu sensor.These visual representations provide intuitive insights into how varying parameter combinations affect the F₀/F ratio. Notably, a plateau region was identified within the response surfaces, suggesting a stabilization of the sensor signal and indicating an optimal operational window for sensor performance. The response surface analyses, particularly those depicted in Fig. 7 and The data presented in Table 4 highlight a statistically significant interplay between pH (factor A) and temperature (factor B) influencing fluorescence intensity, despite temperature alone showing a limited direct impact. Moreover, the squared term B² (Time²) was identified as a critical contributor to the system’s response, emphasizing the nonlinear nature of time's influence on the sensor output. Curvilinear trends observed in Fig. 7A illustrate how the response fluctuates with simultaneous changes in pH and time, confirming the significance of the AB interaction term reported in Table 4. A comparable interaction pattern was observed between temperature and time (BC interaction, Fig. 7B), although temperature alone exerted a negligible effect, as evidenced by Fig. 7C, where the F₀/F value predominantly increased with time. Optimization was systematically carried out by varying three key parameters. The investigated parameter ranges included pH (A) from 4 to 9, temperature (B) between 30 and 60°C, and reaction time (C) spanning 2.0 to 20.0 minutes. Optimal sensor performance was identified at pH 6.5, 45.0°C, and an 11.0-minute reaction duration. These conditions were derived through numerical optimization techniques aimed at maximizing the fluorescence signal within a unified experimental framework. The CQDs@Ag@Cu sensor was subsequently tested under these optimized conditions, confirming the validity and robustness of the model-derived predictions.
Figure 7
3.7. Method selectivity
The ability of the CQDs@Ag@Cu sensor to selectively detect cefixime in the presence of other substances was thoroughly examined. To evaluate this, various potentially interfering compounds-each at a concentration of 400 µM were tested individually under the same optimized conditions used for cefixime detection (Fig. 8). For each compound, the fluorescence response (F₀/F) was carefully recorded, allowing a direct comparison of the sensor’s behavior across different analytes. The data reveal that cefixime produces a pronounced change in fluorescence intensity, distinguishing itself clearly from the other tested compounds. In contrast, the majority of interferents caused little to no alteration in the sensor signal, suggesting minimal interference. This stark contrast in fluorescence response confirms the strong selectivity of the sensor toward cefixime. As a result, the CQDs@Ag@Cu -based system proves to be a reliable and highly specific platform for the detection of cefixime, even in complex matrices containing structurally or chemically similar species.
Figure 8
3.8. Calibration
Taking advantage of the pronounced fluorescence enhancement observed at 538 nm (upon 450 nm excitation) in the presence of cefixime, the CQDs@Ag@Cu nanocomposite was developed as a highly responsive fluorescent probe for cefixime detection. To evaluate the analytical performance of this nanoprobe, different concentrations of cefixime were added to the system under optimized conditions. As depicted in Fig. 9A, a clear and proportional increase in fluorescence intensity was observed as the cefixime concentration rose, with a well-defined linear response in the range of 117.6 to 529.21 µM. This indicates the sensor's strong quantitative capability within this concentration window. For a more precise performance evaluation, a calibration plot was generated by relating the fluorescence ratio (F₀/F)—where F₀ is the intensity without cefixime and F is the intensity after its addition—to cefixime concentration. The resulting curve (shown in Fig. 9B) exhibited excellent linearity, with a correlation coefficient (R²) of 0.9769 across the tested range. Based on a signal-to-noise ratio of 3, the limit of detection (LOD) for cefixime was calculated to be 50.5 µM. This combination of low LOD and high linearity affirms the sensitivity and precision of the CQDs@Ag@Cu -based sensor. Moreover, a comparative analysis with previously published quantum dot-based cefixime sensors demonstrates that the developed nanoprobe offers notable improvements in performance, making it a promising candidate for practical and accurate cefixime detection.
Figure 9
3.9. Interference for detection of cefixime
The selectivity of the CQDs@Ag@Cu-based probe toward cefixime was assessed by systematically investigating potential interference from various commonly occurring substances. To replicate challenging matrix conditions, a series of representative compounds, including glucose, calcium chloride (CaCl₂), manganese(II) chloride (MnCl₂), potassium chloride (KCl), sodium chloride (NaCl), phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4), magnesium chloride (MgCl₂), and bovine serum albumin (BSA), were examined (Fig. 9). Each of these potential interferents was evaluated at concentrations substantially exceeding that of cefixime to ensure a rigorous and reliable selectivity assessment. The results confirmed that the fluorescence response of the CQDs@Ag@Cu nanoprobe toward cefixime was minimally affected by the presence of these substances. Even at elevated levels, none of the tested interferents caused a notable deviation in signal intensity. This outstanding anti-interference capability highlights the high specificity and robustness of the developed nanoprobe. Such strong selectivity indicates that the nanoprobe can be reliably used for cefixime detection in complex biological or environmental matrices without the need for extensive sample pretreatment or purification. These findings support its practical applicability in real-world analytical scenarios (Fig. 10).
Figure 10
3.10. Application
To investigate the potential for measuring Cefixime in real samples, we selected Wastewater samples as our matrix of choice. Initially, we performed a series of preparation steps to effectively isolate the serum sample, ensuring that it was suitable for analysis. Following the isolation process, we proceeded to dilute the serum sample by a factor of 10, utilizing a buffer with a pH of 6.5. To enhance the accuracy of our measurements, we applied the standard method of spiked addition. Specifically, we introduced a known quantity of cefixime into the serum solution under optimized experimental conditions. This spiking process was crucial, as it allowed us to assess the method's reliability and performance. After the addition, we measured the fluorescence intensity of the resulting solution, which provides valuable insights into the quantity of Cefixime present in the sample. The recorded fluorescence intensity values are summarized in Table 6. This table clearly illustrates that our method yields satisfactory results for the measurement of Cefixime, with the recovery rates falling within a range of 100.12% ,100.7 and 100.5%. Additionally, the standard deviation was found to be between 0.301, 0.625 and 0.740, indicating a high level of precision and consistency in our measurements. These findings suggest that the developed method is both effective and reliable for the quantification of Cefixime in biological samples. The superior performance of the proposed CQDs@Ag@Cu probe is highlighted by a comparison with a previously reported quantum dot-based probe (Table 7), which reveals a significantly lower limit of detection for the CQDs@Ag@Cu probe. This improved sensitivity is attributed to the enhanced sensing properties of the CQDs@Ag@Cu nanocomposite (Eskandari et al., 2017; Javaheri et al., 2025; Nakhostin Mortazavi et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2020).
Table 6
Determination of cefixime concentration in real samples. By fluorescence method (n = 3)
Sample | Added (µM) | found (µM) | Recovery (%) | RSD% |
|---|
1 | 150.0 | 150.18 | 100.12 | 0.301 |
2 | 250.0 | 251.76 | 100.70 | 0.626 |
3 | 300.0 | 301.53 | 100.51 | 0.74 |
Table 7
Comparison of the performances of various sensors for detection of cefixime
Probe | Linear range | LOD | Antibiotics | [Ref] |
|---|
Black Soya Bean Carbon Quantum Dots | 0.1-1 µM | 170 nM | cefixime | Eskandari et al., 2017 |
Tungsten disulfide (WS2) | 00–2.500 ng/mL | 45 ng/mL | cefixime | (Eskandari et al., 2017; Javaheri et al., 2025 |
CdS quantum dots (QDs) | 2–40 µg/mL | 3.9 µg/mL | cefixime | Nakhostin Mortazavi et al., 2024 |
Carbon Dot | 0.2 × 10 − 6 M to 8 × 10 − 6 M | 0.5 × 10 − 7 M | cefixime | Zhang et al., 2020 |
CQDs/Ag/Cu | 117.6 to 529.21 µM | 50.5 µM | cefixime | This work |
Table 6
Table 7