4.7 Article

Determination of guanine and adenine by high-performance liquid chromatography with a self-fabricated wall-jet/thin-layer electrochemical detector at a glassy carbon electrode

期刊

TALANTA
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 354-359

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.11.042

关键词

High-performance liquid chromatography; Wall-jet/thin-layer amperometric electrochemical detector; Guanine; Adenine; Electrode-adsorption effect

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21175042, 21475041]
  2. Hunan Lotus Scholars Program
  3. Foundations of Hunan Provincial Education and Science/Technology Department
  4. State Key Laboratories of Chemo/Biosensing and Chemometrics
  5. Electroanalytical Chemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sensitive wall-jet/thin-layer amperometric electrochemical detector (ECD) coupled to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was developed for simultaneous determination of guanine (G) and adenine (A). The analytes were detected at a glassy carbon electrode (GCE) and the HPLC-ECD calibration curves showed good linearity (R-2 > 0.997) under optimized conditions. Limits of detection for G and A are 0.6 nM and 1.4 nM (S/N=3), respectively, which are lower than those obtained with an UV-vis detector and a commercial electrochemical detector. We have successfully applied this HPLC-ECD to assess the contents of G and A in hydrochloric acid-digested calf thymus double-stranded DNA. In addition, we compared in detail the analysis of G and A by cyclic voltammetry (CV) and by the HPLC-ECD system on both bare GCE and electroreduced graphene oxide (ERGO) modified GCE. We found that the adsorption of G and A on the electrode surfaces can vary their anodic CV peaks and the competitive adsorption of G and A on the limited sites of the electrode surfaces can cause crosstalk effects on their anodic CV peak signals, but the HPLC-ECD system is insensitive to such electrode-adsorption and can give more reliable analytical results. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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