4.5 Article

High-Content Hydroxyapatite Carbon Composites for the Electrochemical Detection of Heavy Metal Cations in Water

期刊

CHEMELECTROCHEM
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/celc.202201017

关键词

anodic stripping voltammetry; carbon composites; electrochemical sensors; heavy metals detectors; hydroxyapatite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study combines the excellent adsorption capacity of nanostructured hydroxyapatite (Hap) in heavy metal cations with the good electrical conductivity of high-surface carbon materials to fabricate high-content hydroxyapatite electrodes (Hap 84-96 wt.%). The electrodes demonstrate the synergistic capability of detection and adsorption of heavy metal cations in water solutions. A mesoporous carbon derived from bio-waste is used as a scaffold for depositing Hap by co-precipitation. The composite with 92 wt.% Hap shows superior sensitivity compared to low-content Hap electrodes reported in literature.
The great performance of nanostructured hydroxyapatite (Hap) in adsorbing heavy metal cations with the good electrical conductivity of high-surface carbon materials was here combined for the crafting of high-content hydroxyapatite electrodes (Hap 84-96 wt.%) endowed with the synergistic capability of detection and adsorption of heavy metal cations by water solutions. To improve the sustainability of the sensor, a mesoporous carbon (derivable by bio-waste) was selected as scaffold for depositing Hap by simply co-precipitation. The composite with 92 wt.% of Hap, which exhibited ca. 1 : 1 ratio between the exposed area of Hap and carbon (by Brunauer-Emmett-Teller method), invariably showed an average stripping oxidation peak intensity of ca. 250 mu A cm(-2) and 150 mu A cm(-2) for a 50 mu M Pb2+ and Cu2+ solution, respectively. Control experiments showed that the above sensor outperformed the sensibility of two low-content Hap electrodes (4 and 8 wt.%), representative of the best performing Hap-carbon composites available in literature.

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