4.6 Article

Study of copper and purine-copper complexes on modified carbon electrodes by cyclic and elimination voltammetry

期刊

SENSORS
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 429-444

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s8010429

关键词

copper-purine complexes; paraffin-impregnated graphite electrode; mercury-film electrode; anodic and cathodic stripping techniques; elimination voltammetry; confidence ellipse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a paraffin impregnated graphite electrode (PIGE) and mercury-modified pyrolytic graphite electrode with basal orientation (Hg-PGEb) copper(II) and Cu(II)-DNA purine base solutions have been studied by cyclic (CV) and linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) in connection with elimination voltammetry with linear scan (EVLS). In chloride and bromide solutions (pH 6), the redox process of Cu(II) proceeded on PIGE with two cathodic and two anodic potentially separated signals. According to the elimination function E4, the first cathodic peak corresponds to the reduction Cu(II) + e(-) -> Cu(I) with the possibility of fast disproportionation 2Cu(I) -> Cu(II)+ Cu(0). The E4 of the second cathodic peak signalized an electrode process controlled by a surface reaction. The electrode system of Cu(II) on Hg-PGEb in borate buffer (pH 9.2) was characterized by one cathodic and one anodic peak. Anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) on PIGE and cathodic stripping voltammetry (CSV) on Hg-PGEb were carried out at potentials where the reduction of copper ions took place and Cu(I)-purine complexes were formed. By using ASV and CSV in combination with EVLS, the sensitivity of Cu(I)-purine complex detection was enhanced relative to either ASV or CSV alone, resulting in higher peak currents of more than one order of magnitude. The statistical treatment of CE data was used to determine the reproducibility of measurements. Our results show that EVLS in connection with the stripping procedure is useful for both qualitative and quantitative microanalysis of purine derivatives and can also reveal details of studied electrode processes.

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