Selective detection of Al³⁺ and citric acid with a fluorescent amphiphile

Abstract

An amphiphilic fluorescent dye with a disulfonated BODIPY head group and a heptadecyl side chain is described. In buffered aqueous solution, the amphiphile can form aggregates with a critical micelle concentration of ∼20 μM. The aggregation of the dye is associated with a strong quenching of its fluorescence. Al³⁺ promotes aggregation, whereas other metal ions have a much smaller effect, in particular when histidine is added as masking agent. The Al³⁺-induced aggregation can be used to sense Al³⁺ in the low micromolar concentration range with high selectivity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that a dye–Al³⁺ mixture can be used as a sensing ensemble for the detection of citric acid. The assay allows quantifying the citric acid content of commercial beverages such as energy drinks.

---

Introduction

The analyte-induced aggregation of photoluminescent molecules has been used extensively for sensing purposes. Recently published examples include optical sensors for the detection of pyrophosphate,¹ biogenic amines,² oxalic acid,³ DNA,⁴ Hg²⁺,⁵ K⁺,⁶ ATP,⁷ heparin,⁸ pH,⁹ glucose,^10,11 and Mg²⁺.¹² Luminescent polymers^1–5 have often been used in this context, but other types of compounds such as metal complexes,^7b–9 fluorescent amphiphiles,^7a,10 quantum dots,¹¹ and polypyridyl ligands¹² have been employed as well. Conceptually, this sensing approach is complementary to the analyte-induced disassembly of receptor-dye aggregates, commonly referred to as indicator displacement assays (IDAs).¹³ We have recently shown that amphiphiles with polysulfonated fluorescent head groups can be employed as molecular probes for the detection of spermine¹⁴ and aminoglycosides.¹⁵ In both cases, the polycationic analytes are assumed to undergo a multivalent interaction¹⁶ with the anionic amphiphile, thereby facilitation micellation. This process is associated with a change of the optical properties of the fluorescent head group, thereby allowing the detection of the analyte (Scheme 1).

Scheme 1 The analyte-induced aggregation of amphiphiles can be used for sensing purposes if aggregation induces a change in the optical properties of the amphiphile.

We hypothesized that a similar approach could be used for the detection of Al³⁺ ions. Sensing of Al³⁺ is of interest because of its pharmacological effects. At high doses, Al³⁺ can be neurotoxic.¹⁷ Furthermore, the accumulation of Al³⁺ in the human body has been associated with Alzheimer's disease.¹⁸ Given its biological relevance, it is not surprising that numerous optical probes for Al³⁺ have been reported.^19–22 However, these sensing systems often require substantial amounts of organic co-solvents^21,22b,c or they suffer from interference from other metal ions.^20a,d,f So far, there are few studies about the detection of Al³⁺ by analyte-induced aggregation of fluorophores.²² Below, we show that an amphiphilic dye with a disulfonated BODIPY head group and a heptadecane side chain can be used to sense low micromolar concentrations of Al³⁺ in buffered aqueous solution with high selectivity. Furthermore, we show that an amphiphile–Al³⁺ mixture can be used as a sensing ensemble for the detection of citric acid.²³

Results and discussion

For our studies, we synthesized the amphiphilic dyes 3 and 4 containing a disulfonated BODIPY head group and alkyl side chains of different lengths (3: undecyl; 4: heptadecyl). The dyes were obtained by sulfonation of the easily accessible precursors 1 and 2 with chlorosulfonic acid in analogy to a known procedure (Scheme 2).²⁴ The sulfonated BODIPY was chosen as fluorescent head group because of the high quantum yield of this fluorophore. Furthermore, we expected an emission maximum of higher than 500 nm, which would be well suited for sensing applications because of reduced interference from background fluorescence.²⁵

Scheme 2 Synthesis of the fluorescent dyes 3 and 4.

Both amphiphiles were characterized by NMR spectroscopy and mass spectrometry. The aggregation of the dyes in buffered aqueous solution (10 mM MOPS buffer, pH 7.0) was investigated by concentration-dependent fluorescence spectroscopy. For dye 4, we observed a shift of the fluorescence emission maximum from 504 to 534 nm (λ_ex. = 490 nm) upon increasing the concentration from 0.21 to 105 μM (Fig. 1, top). A critical micelle concentration (cmc) of ∼20 μM was determined by linear extrapolation of the relative fluorescence emission intensity at 534 and 505 nm (Fig. 1, bottom).

Fig. 1 Top: normalized fluorescence emission spectra (λ_ex = 490 nm) of buffered aqueous solutions (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.0) containing different amounts of dye 4 (0.21–105 μM). Bottom: relative fluorescence intensity at 534 and 505 nm of the same solutions.

Similar experiments were performed with dye 3 having a shorter undecyl side chain. No evidence for aggregation was observed in the concentration range between 1 μM and 1 mM. The formation of micellar aggregates by dye 4 at concentrations above 20 μM was substantiated by dynamic light scattering (DLS) experiments. At a concentration of [4] = 50 μM, we were able to observe aggregates with an average hydrodynamic diameter of ∼13 nm (see ESI†).

We hypothesized that metal cations could induce the aggregation of 4. Therefore, we have measured the fluorescence spectra of solutions containing dye 4 in the presence of different metal salts ([Mⁿ⁺] = 60 μM; stock solutions in MeOH). For these studies, a dye concentration of [4] = 4.0 μM was chosen. This value is slightly below the cmc of the amphiphile. Most metal salts had a very small effect on the fluorescence emission. For CuCl₂ and for AlCl₃, however, substantial fluorescence quenching was observed (Fig. 2, top). The most pronounced change was found for AlCl₃, the addition of which resulted in nearly complete quenching of the fluorescence.

Fig. 2 Top: fluorescence emission quenching (λ_ex = 490 nm; λ_em = 505 nm) of buffered aqueous solutions (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.0, H₂O with 0.6 vol% MeOH) of dye 4 (4.0 μM) in the presence different metal cations (60 μM). Bottom: measurements in the presence of the masking agent histidine (5.0 mM). The values are averages of three independent measurements.

Control experiments with dye 3 support the hypothesis of analyte-induced aggregation. Only minor fluorescence quenching was observed with Al³⁺ (see ESI, Fig. S8†), indicating that a simple complexation between the BODIPY head group and Al³⁺ is not responsible for the optical changes observed for 4. Experiments with the solvatochromic probe Nile Red are in line with these results. When Al³⁺ was added to solutions containing dye 4 (4.0 μM) and Nile Red (6.0 μM), an increased fluorescence at 660 nm was observed (see ESI, Fig. S4†). This increase can be attributed to the encapsulation of Nile Red in a hydrophobic domain.²⁶ Because of the low concentration of dye 4 under sensing conditions, we were not able to confirm aggregation by DLS.

In order to enhance the selectivity for Al³⁺, we explored different masking agents. The amino acid histidine, a known chelate ligand for transition metal ions,²⁷ was found to give good results. In the presence of 5.0 mM histidine, none of the metal ions gave a significant fluorescence change apart from Al³⁺ (Fig. 2, bottom). For the latter, an emission quenching of nearly 90% was observed.

Fluorescence titration experiments with solutions of 4 and different amounts of AlCl₃, CuCl₂, ZnCl₂, NiCl₂, and Cd(NO₃)₂ (0–135 μM) showed that it is possible to selectively sense low micromolar concentrations of Al³⁺ with a detection limit of approximately 3 μM (3σ_o) (Fig. 3). The good selectivity was further confirmed by measuring the fluorescence of solutions containing dye 4 (4.0 μM), histidine (5.0 mM), AlCl₃ (20 μM) and an additional metal salt (20 μM). In all cases a fluorescence quenching of around 40% was observed (ESI, Fig. S9†).

Fig. 3 Fluorescence emission quenching (λ_ex = 490 nm; λ_em = 505 nm) of buffered aqueous solutions (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.0, H₂O with 0–1.3 vol% MeOH) containing dye 4 (4.0 μM), histidine (5.0 mM), and different amounts of Al³⁺ (red symbols), Cd²⁺ (cyan symbols), Cu²⁺ (olive symbols), Ni²⁺ (blue symbols), or Zn²⁺ (violet symbols). The data points are averages of three independent measurements. The errors are less than 4%.

Citric acid is known to bind Al³⁺ with high affinity and selectivity.^20c,28 Therefore, it seemed possible to use citric acid for the disassembly of dye 4–Al³⁺ aggregates. This is indeed the case. When citric acid was added to a buffered aqueous solution containing dye 4 (4.0 μM) and AlCl₃ (120 μM), an increased fluorescence emission at 505 nm was observed (Fig. 4), suggesting the formation of monomeric 4. It is thus possible to use a mixture of 4 and Al³⁺ as a sensing ensemble for the detection of citric acid via a turn-on fluorescence signal.²⁹ The titration data depicted in Fig. 4 could be used to sense citric acid in the low micromolar concentration range with a detection limit of approximately 5 μM (3σ_o).

Fig. 4 Fluorescence emission intensity (λ_ex = 490 nm; λ_em = 505 nm) of buffered aqueous solutions (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.0, H₂O with 1.2 vol% MeOH) containing dye 4 (4.0 μM), Al³⁺ (120 μM), and different amounts of citric acid (0–400 μM). The data points are averages of three independent measurements. The errors are less than 4%.

The selectivity of this assay turned out to be very good. Several biological relevant carboxylic acids were tested (400 μM), most of which gave a negligible optical response (Fig. 5). Only tartaric acid resulted in a fluorescence signal, but its intensity was only 1/3 of that of citric acid. We have also tested the influence of glucose, fructose, or sucrose (400 μM in each case) on the sensing system. These carbohydrates gave a negligible fluorescence response.

Fig. 5 Fluorescence emission intensity (λ_ex = 490 nm; λ_em = 505 nm) of buffered aqueous solutions (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.0, H₂O with 1.2 vol% MeOH) of dye 4 (4.0 μM) and Al³⁺ (120 μM) in the presence different analytes (400 μM). The values are averages of three independent measurements.

The good selectivity and sensitivity of our citric acid assay prompted us to examine the possibility to detect and quantify citric acid in commercial beverages. Three energy drinks, two soft drinks, and one mineral water were chosen as representative samples. First, we have determined the content of citric acid in these samples by ¹H NMR spectroscopy. This analytical technique is well suited for such an analysis because the signals of the CH₂ group of citric acid are well separated in the spectra, allowing for a reasonably precise integration (see ESI†). We then determined the citric acid concentration of the samples using a mixture of dye 4 and AlCl₃ as a sensing ensemble. The fluorescence signal was converted into a concentration value by using the calibration curve depicted in Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 6, the match between the values obtained by NMR and by fluorescence spectroscopy is remarkably good.

Fig. 6 Concentration of citric acid in drinks as determined by ¹H NMR spectroscopy (black bars) and by the dye 4–Al³⁺ sensing ensemble (red bars). Experimental details are given in the ESI.†

Conclusions

The amphiphilic fluorescent dye 4 with a disulfonated BODIPY head group and a heptadecyl side chain can be used to sense Al³⁺ in the low micromolar concentration range with high selectivity. The optical response is due to analyte-induced aggregation of the dye. From an application point of view, it is noteworthy that the assay can be performed in aqueous solution at neutral pH without the need of large amounts of organic co-solvents. Citric acid, a known chelator for Al³⁺, can reverse the aggregation of 4. It is thus possible to use a mixture of 4 and Al³⁺ as a turn-on fluorescence sensor for citric acid. As proof of concept, we have shown that it is possible to detect the citric acid concentration in commercial beverages. Overall, our results provide further evidence for the utility of fluorescent amphiphiles in supramolecular analytical chemistry.

Experimental section

General

All chemicals and solvents were purchased from standard suppliers and used without further purification. MOPS buffer (10 mM MOPS buffer, pH 7.0) was prepared by dissolving 3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid in bidistilled water. HCl and NaOH solutions were used to adjust the pH of the buffer. ¹H and ¹³C NMR spectra were recorded on Bruker Advance DPX 400 and 800 instruments at 25 °C. Multiplicities of the ¹H NMR signals are assigned as following: s (singlet), d (doublet), t (triplet), m (multiplet). DLS measurements were performed with a Zetasizer nano ZS90 (Malvern) instrument. High resolution mass spectra were recorded with a Waters Q-TOF Ultima (ESI-TOF) instrument. The dyes 1 and 2 were prepared in analogy to a known procedure (see ESI†).²⁴

Synthesis of dye 3

A solution of chlorosulfonic acid (49.8 μL, 0.75 mmol) in CH₂Cl₂ (5 mL) was added dropwise over 20 min under stirring to a cooled (−50 °C) solution of compound 1 (100 mg, 0.25 mmol) in CH₂Cl₂ (30 mL). The ice bath was then removed and the stirred mixture was warmed to RT, resulting in the formation of a red precipitate. The precipitate was isolated by filtration, washed with CH₂Cl₂, and redissolved in aqueous bicarbonate solution (10 mL, 40 mM). The solution was dried under vacuum. Purification by column chromatography (SiO₂; eluent: CHCl₃–MeOH–H₂O; 7 : 3 : 0.5) gave 3 as a red solid (61 mg, 87 μmol, 35%). ¹H NMR (400 MHz, CD₃OD): δ = 0.80 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 3 H, CH₃), 1.15–1.35 (m, 14 H, CH₂), 1.46 (p, J = 8.0 Hz, 2 H, CH₂), 1.55–1.64 (m, 2 H, CH₂), 2.65 (s, 6 H, CH₃), 2.69 (s, 6 H, CH₃), 3.09–3.13 (m, 2 H, CH₂). ¹³C NMR (100 MHz, CD₃OD): δ = 13.0, 13.03, 13.39, 22.32, 28.20, 29.06, 29.29, 29.31, 29.84, 31.55, 31.65, 130.57, 134.34, 139.61, 150.99, 153.49. ESI-MS calcd for C₂₄H₃₅BF₂N₂O₆S₂ [(M − 2Na)⁻²] m/z = 280.1001 found 280.1006.

Synthesis of dye 4

A solution of chlorosulfonic acid (39.9 μL, 0.60 mmol) in CH₂Cl₂ (5 mL) was added dropwise over 20 min under stirring to a cooled (−50 °C) solution of compound 2 (100 mg, 0.20 mmol) in CH₂Cl₂ (30 mL). The ice bath was then removed and the stirred mixture was warmed to RT, resulting in the formation of a red precipitate. The precipitate was isolated by filtration, washed with CH₂Cl₂, and redissolved in aqueous bicarbonate solution (10 mL, 40 mM). The solution was dried under vacuum. Purification by column chromatography (SiO₂; eluent: CHCl₃–MeOH–H₂O; 7 : 3 : 0.5) gave 4 as a red solid (20.7 mg, 30 μmol, 15%). ¹H NMR (800 MHz, CD₃OD): δ = 0.80 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 3 H, CH₃), 1.15–1.35 (m, 26 H, CH₂), 1.46 (p, J = 8.0 Hz, 2 H, CH₂), 1.55–1.61 (m, 2 H, CH₂), 2.65 (s, 6 H, CH₃), 2.69 (s, 6 H, CH₃), 3.10–3.12 (m, 2 H, CH₂). ¹³C NMR (200 MHz, CD₃OD): δ = 13.0, 13.07, 13.39, 22.36, 28.21, 29.10, 29.27, 29.35, 29.38, 29.41, 29.90, 31.56, 31.69, 130.57, 134.32, 139.62, 151.02, 153.47. ESI-MS calcd for C₃₀H₄₇BF₂N₂O₆S₂ [(M − 2Na)⁻²] m/z = 322.1471 found 322.1469.

Fluorescence measurements

Stock solutions of dye 3 (1.0 mM) and dye 4 (105 μM) were prepared in MOPS buffer (10 mM, pH 7.0) and stock solutions of the metal salts (NiCl₂, ZnCl₂, AlCl₃, CuCl₂, Cd(NO₃)₂: 2 mM; NiCl₂, ZnCl₂, AlCl₃, CuCl₂, CaCl₂, KCl, NaCl, AgCl, Ga(acac)₃, Cd(NO₃)₂, Fe(ClO₄)₂, Co(C₂H₃O₂)₂: 10 mM) were prepared in methanol. Stock solutions of histidine (100 mM) and carboxylic acid analytes (citric acid: 20 mM; citric acid, adipic acid, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, lactic acid, maleic acid, succinic acid, tartaric acid: 100 mM) were prepared in bidistilled water. The samples were prepared by mixing aliquots of the corresponding stock solutions with MOPS buffer in quartz cuvettes. The final volume of all samples was 1.5 mL. The fluorescent signal was measured 3 minutes after sample preparation. A Varian Cary Eclipse fluorescence spectrophotometer was employed for these measurements.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), and the Marie Curie Initial Training Network ReAD (Z.K.).

Notes and references

1. X. Zhao and K. S. Schanze, Chem. Commun., 2010, 46, 6075.
2. A. Satrijo and T. M. Swager, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 16020.
3. H. Sun, F. Feng, M. Yu and S. Wang, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2007, 28, 1905.
4. J. W. Hong, W. L. Hemme, G. E. Keller, M. T. Rinke and G. C. Bazan, Adv. Mater., 2006, 18, 878.
5. Y. Tang, F. He, M. Yu, F. Feng, L. An, H. Sun, S. Wang, Y. Li and D. Zhu, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2006, 27, 389.
6. J. Kim, D. T. McQuade, S. K. McHugh and T. M. Swager, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2000, 39, 3868.
7. (a) X. Li, X. Guo, L. Cao, Z. Xun, S. Wang, S. Li, Y. Li and G. Yang, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2014, 53, 7809; (b) M. C.-L. Yeung and V. W.-W. Yam, Chem. Sci., 2013, 4, 2928.
8. M. C.-L. Yeung and V. W.-W. Yam, Chem. – Eur. J., 2011, 17, 11987.
9. C. Y.-S. Chung, S. P.-Y. Li, M.-W. Louie, K. K.-W. Lo and V. W.-W. Yam, Chem. Sci., 2013, 4, 2453.
10. Y.-J. Huang, W.-J. Ouyang, X. Wu, J. S. Fossey, T. D. James and Y.-B. Jiang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135, 1700.
11. L. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, R.-P. Liang, Y.-H. Li and J.-D. Qiu, Anal. Chem., 2014, 86, 4423.
12. A. Fermi, G. Bergamini, M. Roy, M. Gingras and P. Ceroni, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136, 6395.
13. (a) G. Ghale and W. M. Nau, Acc. Chem. Res., 2014, 47, 2150; (b) P. Wu, C. Xu and X. Hou, Appl. Spectrosc. Rev., 2013, 48, 629; (c) X. Lou, D. Ou, Q. Li and Z. Li, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 8462; (d) K. Severin, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2010, 14, 737; (e) B. T. Nguyen and E. V. Anslyn, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2006, 250, 3118.
14. Z. Köstereli and K. Severin, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 5841.
15. Z. Köstereli, R. Scopelliti and K. Severin, Chem. Sci., 2014, 5, 2456.
16. A. Barnard and D. K. Smith, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2012, 51, 6572.
17. (a) S. C. Bondy, Neurotoxicology, 2010, 31, 575; (b) V. Kumar and K. D. Gill, Arch. Toxicol., 2009, 83, 965.
18. (a) J. R. Walton, J. Alzheimer's Dis., 2013, 35, 7; (b) L. Tomljenovic, J. Alzheimer's Dis., 2011, 23, 567; (c) V. Frisardi, V. Solfrizzi, C. Capurso, P. G. Kehoe, B. P. Imbimbo, A. Santamato, F. Dellegrazie, D. Seripa, A. Pilotto, A. Capurso and F. Panza, J. Alzheimer's Dis., 2010, 20, 17; (d) A. C. Miu and O. Benga, J. Alzheimer's Dis., 2006, 10, 179.
19. Review article: S. Das, M. Dutta and D. Das, Anal. Methods, 2013, 5, 6262.
20. For recent examples of fluorogenic Al³⁺ detection in water with less than 2% of co-solvents see: (a) S. Kim, J. Y. Noh, S. J. Park, Y. J. Na, I. H. Hwang, J. Min, C. Kim and J. Kim, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 18094; (b) T.-Y. Zhou, L.-P. Lin, M.-C. Rong, Y.-Q. Jiang and X. Chen, Anal. Chem., 2013, 85, 9839; (c) H. Wang, F. He, R. Yan, X. Wang, X. Zhu and L. Li, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2013, 5, 8254; (d) S. M. Supian, T. L. Ling, L. Y. Heng and K. F. Chong, Anal. Methods, 2013, 5, 2602; (e) D. Maity and T. Govindaraju, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 1039; (f) X. Sun, Y.-W. Wang and Y. Peng, Org. Lett., 2012, 14, 3420; (g) S. Sen, T. Mukherjee, B. Chattopadhyay, A. Moirangthem, A. Basu, J. Marek and P. Chattopadhyay, Analyst, 2012, 137, 3975; (h) T.-H. Ma, M. Dong, Y.-M. Dong, Y.-W. Wang and Y. Peng, Chem. – Eur. J., 2010, 16, 10313.
21. For recent examples of fluorogenic Al³⁺ detection in organic solvents or water–organic solvent mixtures see: (a) L. Cao, C. Jia, Y. Huang, Q. Zhang, N. Wang, Y. Xue and D. Du, Tetrahedron Lett., 2014, 55, 4062; (b) W.-H. Ding, W. Cao, X.-J. Zheng, W.-J. Ding, J.-P. Qiao and L.-P. Jin, Dalton Trans., 2014, 43, 6429; (c) A. Dhara, A. Jana, N. Guchhait, P. Ghosh and S. K. Kar, New J. Chem., 2014, 38, 1627; (d) A. Barba-Bon, L. Calabuig, A. M. Costero, S. Gil, R. Martinez-Manez and F. Sancenon, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 8962; (e) Y. Chen, Y. Mi, Q. Xie, J. Xiang, H. Fan, X. Luo and S. Xia, Anal. Methods, 2013, 5, 4818; (f) Y.-W. Liu, C.-H. Chen and A.-T. Wu, Analyst, 2012, 137, 5201; (g) S. Kim, J. Y. Noh, K. Y. Kim, J. H. Kim, H. K. Kang, S.-W. Nam, S. H. Kim, S. Park, C. Kim and J. Kim, Inorg. Chem., 2012, 51, 3597; (h) A. Barba-Bon, A. M. Costero, S. Gil, M. Parra, J. Soto, R. Martinez-Manez and F. Sancenon, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 3000; (i) D. Maity and T. Govindaraju, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2011, 5479; (j) H. M. Park, B. N. Oh, J. H. Kim, W. Qiong, I. H. Hwang, K.-D. Jung, C. Kim and J. Kim, Tetrahedron Lett., 2011, 52, 5581; (k) F. K.-W. Hau, X. He, W. H. Lam and V. W.-W. Yam, Chem. Commun., 2011, 47, 8778; (l) A. Sahana, A. Banerjee, S. Das, S. Lohar, D. Karak, B. Sarkar, S. K. Mukhopadhyay, A. K. Mukherjee and D. Das, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2011, 9, 5523; (m) S. H. Kim, H. S. Choi, J. Kim, S. J. Lee, D. T. Quang and J. S. Kim, Org. Lett., 2010, 12, 560; (n) D. Maity and T. Govindaraju, Inorg. Chem., 2010, 49, 7229; (o) Y.-W. Wang, M.-X. Yu, Y.-H. Yu, Z.-P. Bai, Z. Shen, F.-Y. Li and X. Z. You, Tetrahedron Lett., 2009, 50, 6169.
22. (a) Y.-B. Ruan, A. Depauw and I. Leray, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2014, 12, 4335; (b) T.-T. Wei, J. Zhang, G.-J. Mao, X.-B. Zhang, Z.-J. Ran, W. Tan and R. Yu, Anal. Methods, 2013, 5, 3909; (c) T. Han, X. Feng, B. Tong, J. Shi, L. Chen, J. Zhi and Y. Dong, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 416.
23. For optical sensors for citric acid see: (a) C.-Y. Li, Y. Zhou, Y.-F. Li, X.-F. Kong, C.-X. Zou and C. Weng, Anal. Chim. Acta, 2013, 774, 79; (b) K. Ghosh and A. R. Sarkar, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2011, 9, 6551; (c) M. I. Burguete, F. Galindo, S. V. Luis and L. Vigara, Dalton Trans., 2007, 4027; (d) K. Ghosh, T. Sen and R. Fröhlich, Tetrahedron Lett., 2007, 48, 2935; (e) C. Schmuck and M. Schwegmann, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2006, 4, 836; (f) L. Fabbrizzi, F. Foti and A. Taglietti, Org. Lett., 2005, 7, 2603; (g) D. Parker and J. Yu, Chem. Commun., 2005, 3141; (h) L. A. Cabell, M. D. Best, J. J. Lavigne, S. E. Schneider, D. M. Perreault, M.-K. Monahan and E. V. Anslyn, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 2001, 315; (i) A. Metzger and E. V. Anslyn, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 1998, 37, 649.
24. M. Shah, K. Thangaraj, M.-L. Soong, L. T. Wolford, J. H. Boyer, I. R. Politzer and T. G. Pavlopoulos, Heteroat. Chem., 1990, 1, 389.
25. N. Boens, V. Leen and W. Dehaen, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012, 41, 1130.
26. M. C. A. Stuart, J. C. van de Pas and J. B. F. N. Engberts, J. Phys. Org. Chem., 2005, 18, 929.
27. R. J. Sundberg and R. B. Martin, Chem. Rev., 1974, 74, 471.
28. S. Chen, Y.-M. Fang, Q. Xiao, J. Li, S.-B. Li, H.-J. Chen, J.-J. Sun and H.-H. Yang, Analyst, 2012, 137, 2021.
29. For sensing ensembles based on micellar aggregates see: (a) P. Bandyopadhyay and A. K. Ghosh, Sens. Lett., 2011, 9, 1249; (b) T. Riis-Johannessen, K. Schenk and K. Severin, Inorg. Chem., 2010, 49, 9546; (c) T. Riis-Johannessen and K. Severin, Chem. – Eur. J., 2010, 16, 8291; (d) F. Mancin, P. Scrimin, P. Tecilla and U. Tonellato, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2009, 253, 2150; (e) P. Pallavicini, Y. A. Diaz-Fernandez and L. Pasotti, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2009, 253, 2226; (f) M. Cametti, A. Dalla Cort and K. Bartik, ChemPhysChem, 2008, 9, 2168.

---

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Synthetic procedures and experimental details. See DOI: 10.1039/c4ob02095b

---