4.6 Article

Direct writing electrodes using a ball pen for paper-based point-of-care testing

期刊

ANALYST
卷 140, 期 16, 页码 5526-5535

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5an00620a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chinese Ministry of Education [313045]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21105079]
  4. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2013DFG02930]
  5. National Key Scientific Apparatus Development of Special Item [2013YQ190467]
  6. Science and Technology Research and Development Program - Shaanxi Province of China [2012K08-18]
  7. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars by the State Education Ministry of China
  8. Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Government of Malaysia under the high impact research [UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/44]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integration of paper with an electrochemical device has attracted growing attention for point-of-care testing, where it is of great importance to fabricate electrodes on paper in a low-cost, easy and versatile way. In this work, we report a simple strategy for directly writing electrodes on paper using a pressure-assisted ball pen to form a paper-based electrochemical device (PED). This method is demonstrated to be capable of fabricating electrodes on paper with good electrical conductivity and electrochemical performance, holding great potential to be employed in point-of-care applications, such as in human health diagnostics and food safety detection. As examples, the PEDs fabricated using the developed method are applied for detection of glucose in artificial urine and melamine in sample solutions. Furthermore, our developed strategy is also extended to fabricate PEDs with multi-electrode arrays and write electrodes on non-planar surfaces (e.g., paper cup, human skin), indicating the potential application of our method in other fields, such as fabricating biosensors, paper electronics etc.

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