4.6 Review

Fluorescence for spatially and temporally resolved electrochemical imaging

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coelec.2023.101334

关键词

Electrochemical arrays; Closed-bipolar electrode; Fluorescence; Elec-trochemiluminescence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Closed-bipolar electrochemical imaging (c-BPI) solves the tradeoff problem between optical response, spatial resolution, and photon efficiency in electrochemical heterogeneity imaging by coupling optical and electrochemical signals. Considering the potential for sensing ultra-transient events, we focus on fluorescence as a useful tool in c-BPI and examine the advantages and challenges of electrofluorogenic reporting strategies, providing solutions through direct and indirect approaches for electrochemical fluorescence imaging in closed-bipolar sensing systems.
Extending the detection capabilities of traditional spectroelectrochemical investigations, closed-bipolar electrochemical imaging (c-BPI) has demonstrated its unique ability to spatially resolve and individually address millions to even billions of individual points of detection without the need for any direct electrical connections. Coupling optical and electrochemical signals, the key challenge becomes resolving the optical response at individual closed-bipolar electrodes within an array to successfully image electrochemical heterogeneity. At the heart of this challenge is the choice between electrochemiluminescence or electrogenerated fluorescence reporting systems and the key tradeoff between spatial resolution and photon efficiency. Working to address this tradeoff, we focus on fluorescence as a useful closed-bipolar imaging tool with great potential for sensing the ultra-transient. We consider the advantages as well as the present challenges of electrofluorogenic reporting strategies in order to offer solutions through an examination of existing direct and indirect approaches towards electrochemical fluorescence imaging applicable to closed-bipolar sensing systems.

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