4.7 Article

The influence of the electrode dimension on the detection sensitivity of electric cell-substrate impedance sensing (ECIS) and its mathematical modeling

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 247, 期 -, 页码 780-790

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.03.047

关键词

ECIS; Sensitivity; Model; Electrodes; Design

资金

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Institute of Soldier Nanotechnology (MIT-ISN) Historically Black Colleges Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU-MI) [W911NF-13-D-0001]
  2. US Army Research Office
  3. US Army Centre of Environmental Health Research (USACEHR) [W81XWH-11-C-0026]
  4. Romanian Authority for Scientific Research through CNDI-UEFISCDI [PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2016-1937]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detection sensitivity is a crucial criterion in the design and application of ECIS sensors. The influence of sensing electrode dimension on detection sensitivity is investigated in this paper. Eight types of ECIS sensors were fabricated, and their experimental results reveal that smaller-radius working electrodes generate more sensitive impedance shift to cell density change. Also, the smaller radius of working electrodes yield higher impedance values, which improves signal-to-noise ratio. In a range from 1.0 mm to 3.5 mm, the distance between the working and counter electrodes does not affect impedance measurements. However, the distance should be large enough to prevent the current from directly bypassing the cells between the electrodes. A mathematical model has been developed to analyze the distribution of electric potential and current over the sensing electrodes of ECIS sensors, which is helpful in understanding the mechanisms of ECIS. This mathematical model, supported by experimental data and finite element analysis, is able to illustrate a quantitative relationship between cell impedance and cell characteristics. This model can be used to optimize the design of ECIS sensors and interpret cell behavior. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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