4.8 Article

Ultrasensitive and selective non-enzymatic glucose detection using copper nanowires

期刊

BIOSENSORS & BIOELECTRONICS
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 426-432

出版社

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2011.11.006

关键词

Copper nanowire; Electrooxidation; Glucose; Non-enzymatic; Sensor

资金

  1. NSF
  2. DOE
  3. UConn CESE
  4. National Natural Science Foundation [30770568]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [CDJXS10232225]
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0828627] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the pursuit of more economical electrocatalysts for non-enzymatic glucose sensors, one-dimensional Cu nanowires (Cu NWs) with uniform size distribution and a large aspect ratio (>200) were synthesized by a facile, scalable, wet-chemistry approach. The morphology, crystallinity, and surface property of the as-prepared Cu NWs were examined by SEM, XRD, and XPS, respectively. The electrochemical property of Cu NWs for glucose electrooxidation was thoroughly investigated by cyclic voltammetry. In the amperometric detection of glucose, the Cu NWs modified glassy carbon electrode exhibited an extraordinary limit of detection as low as 35 nM and a wide dynamic range with excellent sensitivity of 420.3 mu A cm(-2) mM(-1), which was more than 10,000 times higher than that of the control electrode without Cu NWs. The performance of the developed glucose sensor was also independent to oxygen concentration and free from chloride poisoning. Furthermore, the interference from uric acid, ascorbic acid, acetaminophen, fructose, and sucrose at the level of their physiological concentration were insignificant, indicating excellent selectivity. Finally, good accuracy and high precision for the quantification of glucose concentration in human serum samples implicate the applicability of Cu NWs in sensitive and selective non-enzymatic glucose detection. (C) 2011 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

4.8
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