4.8 Article

Reduced graphene oxide modified smart conducting paper for cancer biosensor

期刊

BIOSENSORS & BIOELECTRONICS
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 114-122

出版社

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2015.05.040

关键词

Conducting paper; PEDOT:PSS; Biosensor; Cancer

资金

  1. DTU
  2. University Grant Commission, India [F.4-2/2006 (BSR)/PH/13-14/0098]
  3. Basic Research Laboratory Program through the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2014R1A4A1008140]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report results of the studies relating to the fabrication of a paper based sensor comprising of poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) and reduced graphene oxide (RGO) composite. The effect of various solvents like methanol, ethylene glycol and H2SO4 on the electrical conductivity of PEDOT:PSS coated Whatman paper has been investigated. The conductivity of this solution processed conducting paper significantly increases from similar to 1.16 x 10(-4) S cm(-1) up to similar to 3.57 x 10(-2) S cm(-1) (similar to 300 times) on treatment with ethylene glycol. The observed significant increase in electrical conductivity is due to conformational rearrangement in the polymer and is due to strong non-covalent cooperative interaction between PEDOT and the cellulose molecules. Further, incorporation of RGO into the conducting paper results in improved electrochemical performance and signal stability. This paper electrode is a promising alternative over the expensive conventional electrodes (ITO, gold and glassy carbon), that are known to have limited application in smart point-of-care (POC) devices. This low cost, flexible and environment friendly conducting paper based biosensor utilized for cancer biomarker (carcinoembryonic antigen, CEA) detection reveals high sensitivity of 25.8 mu A ng(-1) mL cm(-2) in the physiological range, 1-10 ng mL(-1). (C) 2015 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

4.8
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