4.6 Article

A bimetallic nanoparticle/graphene oxide/thionine composite-modified glassy carbon electrode used as a facile ratiometric electrochemical sensor for sensitive uric acid determination

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 42, 期 18, 页码 14796-14804

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8nj02904k

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21475071]
  2. Taishan Scholars Program of Shandong [ts201511027]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong [2018GGX102030, ZR2016BB37]
  4. Source Innovation Plan Application Basic Research Project of Qingdao [17-1-1-72-jch, 18-2-2-26-jch]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel and facile ratiometric electrochemical sensor was developed for the sensitive determination of uric acid (UA). Using one-step co-reduction of HAuCl4 and AgNO3 (as precursors) under cyclic voltammetry scanning, gold-silver bimetallic nanoparticles (Au-Ag NPs) were electrodeposited on the surface of a glassy carbon electrode (GCE). Through electrostatic interactions, self-assembly of graphene oxide (GO) and thionine (TH) occurred to form a GO-TH complex. The complex was drop-coated on Au-Ag NPs to prepare the Au-Ag NPs/GO/TH@GCE sensing platform through interactions among different components. The electrochemical signal responses of the sensing platform were recorded by square wave voltammetry measurements. With the increase of UA concentration [UA], the redox current peak intensity of UA (I-UA at 0.46 V) increased regularly and that of TH (I-TH at -0.28 V) was almost unchanged. The relationship between I-UA/I-TH and [UA] (1-100 M) was linearly plotted (R-2 = 0.9929), with a low detection limit of 0.3 M. A facile sensor was fabricated based on the sensing platform and enabled sensitive ratiometric electrochemical sensing of UA in real human serum and urine fluids, over potential interferents. The experimental results confirmed high detection stability and recoveries of this sensor, indicating its high feasibility for UA detection in biological fluids.

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

4.6
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