4.5 Article

Application of Different Carbon Materials for Carbon Paste Electrodes to Simultaneous Electrochemical Detection of four DNA Bases with High Simpleness

期刊

ELECTROANALYSIS
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 1715-1725

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/elan.201700805

关键词

graphite; graphene; multiwalled carbon nanotubes; nucleobases; simultaneous detection

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21765005, 21565011]
  2. Guangxi colleges and universities key laboratory of food safety and detection, collaborative innovation center for water pollution control and water safety in karst area
  3. Guangxi Key Laboratory of Electrochemical and Magneto-chemical Functional Materials [EMFM20161202]
  4. Guilin University of Technology [GUTQDJJ20172015033]
  5. Guangxi education office [2018KY0260]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three different carbon materials, graphite, graphene and multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), were applied to fabricate carbon paste electrodes and used directly as working electrodes without any further modification in a simple electrochemical system for simultaneous detection of four DNA bases, guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. EIS and SEM were used to characterize the formed carbon paste electrodes made from different carbon nanomaterials and silicon oil, respectively. Conditions for bases detection were studied, such as ratio of carbon nanomaterials to silicon oil, types of buffer saline and pH. An unexpected result was discovered that compared with graphite and graphene, MWCNTs in carbon paste electrodes were not able to obtain admirable electrochemical behavior, the possible reason of which was preliminary discussed. Individual and simultaneous detection of four bases were successfully carried out, with acceptable linear ranges and low detection limits. Furthermore, this facile method had admirable reproducibility, stability and acceptable recovery in real urine sample (97.62% approximate to 103.36%), indicating certain practical potential.

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