4.3 Article

Determination of Imidacloprid in Tomato Grown in Greenhouse Based on Copper(II) Phthalocyanine Modified Carbon Ceramic Electrode by Differential Pulse Voltammetry

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 207-214

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jccs.201190078

关键词

Carbon ceramic electrode; Imidacloprid; Differential pulse voltammetry; Greenhouse; Copper(II) phthalocyanine

资金

  1. Post Graduate Office of the University of Tabriz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new sol-gel derived electrocatalytic carbon ceramic electrode was prepared by incorporating copper(II) phthalocyanine (CuPc) in a carbon ceramic network. This electrode was used as a sensitive electrochemical sensor for determination of the insecticide Imidacloprid (1-(6-chloro-3-pyridylmethyl)-N-nitro-imidazolidin-2-ylideneamine) by differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). The resulting modified electrode exhibits a cathodic peak potential shifted positively and an increasing in cathodic peak current in comparison with unmodified electrode. The redox properties of this modified electrode at various pH values and CuPc percentage were investigated. The catalytic current obtained from differential pulse voltammetry is linearly dependent on concentration over the two linear ranges of 0.67-17 mu M and 17-93 mu M with correlation coefficient of R-2 = 0.9999 and R-2 = 0.990, respectively. The detection limit for Imidacloprid was found to be 0.28 mu M according to lower linear range. Possible interferences from several common pesticides were also evaluated. The inherent stability, high sensitivity, low detection limit and low cost for each preparation are advantages of this sensor. Determination of Imidacloprid in commercial formulation and residual Imidacloprid in tomato grown in greenhouse (protected cultivation) was also conducted. The results obtained from commercial formulation were completely consistent with those obtained through the standard high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据