4.3 Article

Simultaneous Voltammetric Determination of Ascorbic Acid, Dopamine and Uric Acid Using Polybromothymol Blue Film-Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode

期刊

CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL BULLETIN
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 788-793

出版社

PHARMACEUTICAL SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.1248/cpb.58.788

关键词

polybromothymol blue-modified electrode; electrocatalysis; ascorbic acid; dopamine; uric acid

资金

  1. National High Technology Investigation Project Foundation of China [2008AA02Z433]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20805006, 20975021]
  3. Fujian Provincial Important Science and Technology Foundation [208Y0045]
  4. Startup Foundation for Advanced Talents of Fujian Medical University [BS06002]
  5. Fujian Medical University [09ZD013]
  6. Nursery Foundation of Fujian Medical University [2010MP043]
  7. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China [C0710024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sensitive and selective electrochemical method for simultaneous determination of ascorbic acid (AA), dopamine (DA), and uric acid (UA) using an electropolymerized bromothymol blue (BTB)-modified glassy carbon electrode (GCE) was developed. The electrochemically synthesized film was investigated using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and voltammetric methods. The electrochemical behavior of the polymer-modified electrode depends on film thickness, i.e., the electropolymyerization time. The poly-BTB-modified GCE shows excellent electrocatalytic activity toward the oxidation of AA, DA, and UA in phosphate buffer solution (pH 5.0). The voltametric peak separations of AA/DA, DA/UA, and AA/UA on this modified electrode are 118 mV, 298 mV, and 455 mV, respectively. Therefore the voltammetric responses of these three compounds can be resolved well on the polymer-modified electrode, and simultaneous determination of these three compounds can be achieved. In addition, this modified electrode can be successfully applied to determine AA and DA in injection and UA in urine samples without interference.

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

4.3
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