4.7 Article

Enhanced electrochemiluminescence immunoassay: 1. Wisely using an electronically neutral ruthenium complex luminophore

Journal

JOURNAL OF ELECTROANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 919, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2022.116511

Keywords

Electrochemiluminescence; Immunoassay; Ruthenium complex; Label; Signal-to-noise; Tri; n -propylamine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work demonstrates the use of a heteroleptic and electronically neutral ruthenium(II) complex as a label in electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunoassay to control electrochemically generated noise, resulting in an improved signal-to-noise ratio and signal-concentration curve, and achieving a lower limit of detection.
Enhancing signal-to-noise ratio can be achieved either by raising signal level or by reducing noise, or by both. Rather than a commonly held perception that a brighter luminophore is simply used to enhance signal level, this work shows how a heteroleptic and electronically neutral ruthenium(II) complex, Ru(2,20-bipyridine) (bathophenanthroline disulfonate)[4-(2,20-bipyridin-4-yl)butanoic acid], was used as a label in electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunoassay for controlling electrochemically generated noise. The stronger emission combined with its lower sensitivity to the electrode potential enables the brighter luminophore to be used at a lower potential that brings noise down, while maintaining the signal at the same level as that of conventional [Ru(bpy)3]2+ luminophore. The beneficial ECL characteristics demonstrated in homogeneous solution translated into elevated signal-to-noise ratio and improved signal-concentration curve in immunoassay. A first example of using a brighter luminophore in ECL immunoassay from an unusual angle, this work presents an approach to achieving a lower limit of detection through properly balancing the signal level and signal-to-noise ratio.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available