4.7 Article

Graphene-carbon paste electrode for cadmium and lead ion monitoring in a flow-based system

期刊

TALANTA
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 282-289

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2012.07.045

关键词

Graphene modified electrode; Carbon paste electrode; Lead; Cadmium; Sequential injection analysis

资金

  1. Commission on Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Thailand, under the Higher Educational Strategic Scholarships for Frontier Research Network Project
  2. Center of Excellence for Petroleum, Petrochemicals and Advanced Materials
  3. Thai Government under the Project for Establishment of Comprehensive Center for Innovative Food, Health Products and Agriculture [TKK2555]
  4. National Research University Project of CHE and Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund [AM10091-55]
  5. Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An environment friendly electrode for determining Cd2+ and Pb2+ levels in an automated flow system was successfully developed. Cyclic voltammetry and square wave anodic stripping voltammetry (SWASV) coupled with sequential injection analysis (SIA) were employed to study the electrochemical behavior of the electrode. The in situ bismuth-modified graphene-carbon paste electrode (Bi-GCPE) exhibited excellent electrooxidation of Cd2+ and Pb2+ in the automated flow system with a significantly higher peak current for both metal ions compared with the unmodified CPE. The limits of detection from this method were 0.07 and 0.04 mu gL(-1) for Cd2+ and Pb2+, respectively, with a linear oxidation peak current response for Cd2+ and Pb2+ in the range of 0.10-50.0 mu g(-1) under optimum conditions. The Bi-GCPE was also applied for the determination of Cd2+ and Pb2+ in low- (tap water) and high- (sea bass fish and undulated surf clam tissues) matrix complexity samples by automated flow system. The recoveries were acceptable and ranged from 70.4% to 120% for Cd2+ and 65.8% to 113.5% for Pb2+. (C) 2012 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