Statistical optimization of photo-induced biofabrication of silver nanoparticles using the cell extract of Oscillatoria limnetica: insight on characterization and antioxidant potentiality
Authors: Mervat H Hussein
Ahmed Esmail Shalan
Rasha A Abo-Elmagd
Ragaa A Hamouda
Ahmed Abdelrazak
Journal: RSC Advances (2020)
Discipline: CHEMISTRY
Keywords: Silver nanoparticles; biosynthesis; Oscillatoria limnetica; green approach; photo-induced
Affiliations: Botany Department, Department of Biology, Central Metallurgical Research and Development Institute (CMRDI)

Abstract:  Silver nanoparticles were successfully fabricated through a very simple, rapid, one-step photo-induced green approach. The formation of silver nanoparticles was accomplished using the bioactive compounds in the aqueous extract of fresh Oscillatoria limnetica biomass, which acted as a reducing and capping agent at the same time. The biosynthesis of Oscillatoria-silver nanoparticles (O-AgNPs) was investigated under the influence of different light intensities 57.75, 75.90 and 1276.51 μmol m-2 s-1 (bright sunlight). UV-Vis (UV) and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy were applied to approve the synthesis of AgNPs. Further, the synthesis process under the exposure to sunlight was adjusted via utilizing one factor at a time, and 0.5 mM AgNO3 concentration, 5 mL O. limnetica solution, pH 6.7 and 30 min sunlight (1276.51 μmol m-2 s-1) were applied. Furthermore, the central composite design (CCD) was applied to boost the biosynthesis process of O-AgNPs (manufactured at light intensity 75.90 μmol m-2 s-1). The maximum production of O-AgNPs was attained with 4 detected variables: initial pH level (6.7), AgNO3 concentration (0.3 mM), O. limnetica extract concentration (3.50 mL) and incubation time (48 h). Moreover, TEM, in addition to SEM, images exposed that the biosynthesized AgNPs were quasi-spherical in shape with a small monodisperse nature, and the size range was between 6.98-23.48 nm in the case of light-induced synthesis (75.90 μmol m-2 s-1) and 11.58-22.31 nm with sunlight (1276.51 μmol m-2 s-1). 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 * Red boxes: The b-actin panel of Figure 1D looks very similar to that in Figure 2B. ![file] , 
 LNCaP panel of Fig 2D and Mimic panel of Fig 3D. ![file] Surprisingly similar to the miR-NC and pSicoR-blank panels of the now-retracted [Liu et al (2017)] . ![file] Presumably a [product of the same papermill] , with other examples listed on a spreadsheet: https: docs.google.com spreadsheets d 1qBqQMXgzxoBd5bTbqdMuapGheupE5bdIopypju417NM edit?usp=sharing , 
 Retraction, 23 July 2021: https: www.liebertpub.com doi 10.1089 cbr.2017.2386.retract  Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals officially retracts the paper entitled, u201cMiR-17 Regulates Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation and Apoptosis Through Inhibiting JAK-STAT3 Signaling Pathway,u201d by Hong Dai, Chunmei Wang, Zhihai Yu, Donglin He, Kun Yu, Yin Liu, and Sheng Wang (Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2018;33(3):103u2013109. doi: 10.1089 cbr.2017.2386) due to the authors admission that the paper was submitted by a paper mill. A message from the corresponding author reads as follows: u201c*I m very sorry to tell you that some of the experiments in this paper were delegated to an outsourced laboratories inc. because the experimental conditions are limited in our affiliation. The terrible thing is that the laboratories inc. has been found out experimental misconduct. Unfortunately, our paper is involved in. We have to apply for withdrawal of this paper, which is also under investigation of our affiliation.*u201d [sic] The Editor and Publisher of Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals are committed to preserving the scientific literature and the community it serves and does not tolerate any violations of scientific misconduct. , 
 #3 An August 19, 2021 [announcement ](http: www.nhc.gov.cn cms-search xxgk getManuscriptXxgk.htm?id=159bcc53148340d48336060e65571a1c) by  National Health Commission of the People s Republic of China reported the results of investigation of 10 papers flagged on Pubpeer, together with disciplinary actions against the authors. The current paper is the #9 case in the list and the investigation concluded that this paper was purchased from a papermill. Here is a screenshot: ![file] ,