4.5 Article

Potential stability improvement in Pb2+ ion selective electrodes by applying hydrophobic polyaniline as ion-to-electron transducer

期刊

SYNTHETIC METALS
卷 281, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.synthmet.2021.116898

关键词

Solid contact ion-selective electrode; Pb2+ detection; Polyaniline; Hydrophobicity; Hydrophilicity; Stability

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Project [2019YFC0312102, 2019YFC0312101]
  2. NSFCShandong Joint Fund [U1706225]
  3. MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of highly hydrophobic polyaniline nanofibers as the solid contact layer in Pb2+-ISEs offers superior stability potential and longer lifespan, addressing the issue of electrode potential instability in solid-contact ion-selective electrodes (SC-ISEs).
Electrode potential stability is a major challenge for solid-contact ion-selective electrodes (SC-ISEs), with the formation of a water layer in the ion-to-electron transducer being the main cause of electrode potential instability. To investigate this problem, hydrophilic polyaniline (PANI) nanofibers doped with H3PO4 (PANI-H3PO4, water contact angle (CA) 48 degrees) and highly hydrophobic polyaniline nanofibers doped with perfluorooctanoic acid (PANI-PFOA, CA 120 degrees) were prepared by electrochemical deposition and secondary doping, then used as the solid contact layer in the construction of Pb2+-ISEs. By studying the potential response of the fabricated Pb2+ ISEs to Pb2+ ions using chronopotentiometry and water layer tests as a function time, it was determined that Pb2+-ISEs containing hydrophobic PANI-PFOA as the solid contact layer offered superior stability potential and a longer life. The potential drift of the developed GC/PANI-PFOA/Pb2+-ISM electrode was only 21.62 +/- 4 mu V/h, while the potential drift of GC/PANI-PFOA/Pb2+-ISM electrode was 197.6 +/- 16 mu V/h, highlighting the benefits of a strongly hydrophobic SC layer in SC-ISEs construction.

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

4.5
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