4.7 Article

Amperometric determination of bonded glucose with an MnO2 and glucose oxidase bulk-modified screen-printed electrode using flow-injection analysis

期刊

TALANTA
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 559-564

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2004.07.023

关键词

bonded glucose; screen-printed electrode; manganese dioxide; glucose oxidase; glucosidase; flow-injection analyses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A screen-printed amperometric biosensor based on carbon ink double bulk-modified with MnO2 as a mediator and glucose oxidase as a biocomponent was investigated for its ability to serve as a detector for bonded glucose in different compounds, such as cellobiose, saccharose, (-)-4-nitrophenyl-beta-glucopyranoside, as well as in beer samples by flow-injection analysis (FIA). The biosensor could be operated under physiological conditions (0.1 M phosphate buffer, pH 7.5) and exhibited good reproducibility and stability. Bonded glucose was released with glucosidase in Solution. and the free glucose was detected with the modified screen-printed electrode (SPE). The release of glucose by the aid of glucosidase from cellobiose. saccharose and (-)-4-nitrophenyl-beta-D-glucopyranoside in solution showed that stoichiometric quantities of free glucose could be monitored in all three cases. The linear range of the amperometric response of the biosensor in the FIA-mode flow rate 0.2 mL min(-1), injection volume 0.25 mL, operation potential 0.48 V versus Ag/AgCl extends from 11 to 13,900 mu-mol L-1 glucose in free form. The limit of detection (3sigma) is 1 mumol L-1 glucose. A concentration of 100 mumol L-1 yields a relative standard deviation of approximately 7% with five injections. These values correspond to the same concentrations of bonded glucose Supposed that it is liberated quantitatively (incubation for 2 h with glucosidase). Bonded glucose could be determined in beer samples using the same assay. The results corresponded very well with the reference procedure. (C) 2004 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