4.7 Article

Enhancement of sensitivity of glucose sensors from alizarin-boronic acid adducts in aqueous micelles

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 160, 期 1, 页码 129-138

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2011.07.023

关键词

Alizarin Red S; Boronic acid; Glucose; Micelle; Fluorescence sensor

资金

  1. Higher Education Research Promotion
  2. National Research University Project of Thailand
  3. Office of the Higher Education Commission, through the Advanced Functional Materials Cluster of Khon Kaen University
  4. Thailand Research Fund [RTA5380003]
  5. Center for Innovation in Chemistry (PERCH-CIC), Commission on Higher Education, Ministry of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sensitivity of glucose sensors fabricated from alizarin-boronic acid adducts was improved by an assistance of surfactants. Basically, Alizarin Red S (ARS) is not a fluorescence active compound. However, the fluorescence emission can be observed when forming an adduct with 2-formylphenyl boronic acid (2-FPBA). Using displacement strategy, the fluorescence intensity of the ARS/2-FPBA adduct decreased as a linear function of the glucose concentration. A simple and sensitive method was developed by incorporating the ARS/2-FPBA adduct in the hydrophobic core of micelles. Various parameters that could possibly affect the fluorescence quenching ability including solution pH, concentration of 2-FPBA, types of surfactants and concentrations of surfactants were investigated. The optimum condition for the determination of glucose by the proposed assay was 2 mM cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) in 0.05 M phosphate buffer pH 7.0. The fluorescence intensity of the ARS/2-FPBA adduct in the presence of CTAB was remarkably 13 times higher than that in the buffer solution. Moreover, the linear working concentration range was found to be 1.2-80 mM, and the calibration sensitivity was 14 times higher than that from the system containing only buffer solution. (C) 2011 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