4.7 Article

Amplified electrochemical sensor employing CuO/SWCNTs and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate for selective analysis of sulfisoxazole in the presence of folic acid

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 495, 期 -, 页码 61-67

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2017.01.119

关键词

CuO/SWCNTs nanocomposite; 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate; Folic acid; Electrochemical sensor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present work, CuO nanoparticle decorated on single wall carbon nanotubes (CuO/SWCNTs) nanocomposite was successfully synthesized by chemical precipitation method and used for modification of carbon paste electrode (CPE) in the presence of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate (1-B-3-MIHFP) liquid as binder. The novel voltammetric sensor was used as first electrochemical sensor for determination of sulfisoxazole (SFX). CuO/SWCNTs nanocomposite characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) methods. Voltammetric methods such as cyclic voltammetry, square wave voltammetry (SWV), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and chronoamperometry were performed to assess the electrochemical performance of CuO/SWCNTsi1-B-3-MIHFP/CPE towards SFX in aqueous solution. The voltammetric obtained data confirm the significant enhancement of oxidation current and reduction overvoltage for electro-oxidation of SFX at a surface of CuO/SWCNTs/1-B-3-MIHFP/CPE. The square wave voltammetric response shows the linear increment of oxidation signals with an increase in the concentration of SFX in the range of 0.08-650 mu M with limit of detection 0.04 mu M. Using CuO/SWCNTs/1-B-3-MIHFP/CPE the SFX and folic acid peaks are separated ca. 0.72 and 0.895 V, respectively; hence SFX can be detected in the presence of folic acid. Finally, the CuO/SWCNTs/1-B-3-MIHFP/CPE was used as high sensitive tools for analysis of SFX and folic acid in real samples. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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