4.6 Article

Electrocatalytic response of chitosan modified multiwall carbon nanotube paste electrode toward iodide: A facile voltammetric method for determination of iodide in biological sample

期刊

MATERIALS CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 294, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126984

关键词

Iodide; Multiwall carbon nanotubes; Chitosan; Cyclic voltammetry; Urine samples

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a simple and sensitive voltammetric method for the determination of iodide (I-) using chitosan modified multiwall carbon nanotube paste electrode (chit-MWCNTPE) is reported. The chit-MWCNTPE showed a pronounced response towards I- oxidation with a peak potential at 0.69 V vs SCE. The method is highly selective for I- detection in the presence of various interfering ions, and has been successfully applied for the determination of I- in urine samples. The developed method offers high selectivity for I- detection at comparably low potential, as well as satisfactory LOD and linear range.
Herein we report, a simple operable, sensitive, and highly selective, voltammetric method for the determination of iodide (I-) using chitosan modified multiwall carbon nanotube paste electrode (chit-MWCNTPE). It is established that chit-MWCNTPE exhibited a pronounced response toward I- oxidation. The peak potential of I- is recorded at 0.69 V vs SCE. The conditions such as scan rate (V.s(-1)), accumulation time (t(a)), and pH are thoroughly optimized for the voltammetric determination of I-. A wide range linear response is observed between oxidation peak current and I- concentration (0.1-100 mu M). The limit of detection (LOD) for I- on chit-MWCNTPE is found to be 0.03 mu M. The developed method is highly selective for I- detection in the presence of various interfering ions. The method is successfully applied for the determination of I- in urine samples. The method has high selectivity for I- detection at comparably low potential as well as amiable LOD and Linear range.

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