4.6 Article

Time-biased square wave differential electrolytic potentiometry for determination of ascorbic acid in a complex matrix at multi-walled carbon nanotubes modified silver electrodes

期刊

ARABIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 2955-2963

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2018.08.005

关键词

CNTs modified silver electrode; Chemical vapor deposition; Differential electrolytic potentiometry; Time biased square wave

资金

  1. Chemical Engineering Department at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
  2. Chemistry Department at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon nanotubes modified silver electrodes (CNTs/Ag) have been prepared by the catalytic thermal decomposition of ethylene in a chemical vapor deposition reactor. CNTs growth parameters such as ratio of ethylene to hydrogen, temperature and time were optimized, to enhance the electrode functionality for application. The electrode surface was characterized by scanning electron microscopy, transition electron microscopy and Raman spectroscopy. The optimum ethylene to hydrogen (C2H2:H-2) ratio, temperature and time were found to be 75:90 sccm, 800 degrees C, and 20 min respectively. The CNTs/Ag electrodes prepared by this method exhibited well adhesion of the CNTs to the metal surface enabling their use for multiple times. The CNTs/Ag electrodes were successfully applied as indicating system in biased square wave differential electrolytic potentiometry (DEP) for the determination of ascorbic acid in a drug formulation and complex Baobab fruit matrix. CNTs/Ag electrodes showed high performance and durability, and the biased square wave led to enhanced DEP signal and lowered the detection limit for ascorbic acid to less than 25 mu M. These promising results open the way for the use of CNTs/Ag electrodes as indicating setup for automated flowing systems like flow injection analysis. (C) 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

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