4.6 Article

Electrochemical determination of dopamine in the presence of ascorbic acid based on the gold nanorods/carbon nanotubes composite film

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 56, 期 24, 页码 8851-8856

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2011.07.075

关键词

Gold nanorods (GNRs); Dopamine (DA); Ascorbic acid (AA); Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV)

资金

  1. NSFC [21005090]
  2. Open Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Chemo/Biosensing and Chemometrics of Hunan University [201001, 200907]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the gold nanorods (GNRs)/multiwalled carbon nanotubes (CNT) composite film-modified glassy carbon (GC) electrode was fabricated simply by the electrostatic interaction between the positively charged GNRs and the negatively charged CNT. And the GNRs/CNT/GC electrode was used for the selective and sensitive determination of dopamine (DA) in the presence of ascorbic acid (M). It was found that the GNRs/CNT/GC electrode had higher catalytic activity towards the oxidation of DA and ascorbic acid (AA) comparing with the bare GC and CNT/GC electrodes. It may be due to the synergic effect of GNRs and CNT, because the surface area of the GNRs/CNT/GC electrode increased, the edge plan sites presented on the CNT surface can improve the electron transfer between the modified electrode and DA, and the rod-shaped gold may be served as the mediator for the oxidation of dopamine and provided the electrocatalytic ability. Moreover, the voltammetric peaks of AA and DA were separated enough at the GNRs/CNT/GC electrode, which was sufficiently enough for the selective determination of DA. Thus, the selective determination of DA was carried out with low detection limit (0.8 nM, S/N = 3). Also it was obtained that the proposed method was feasible to detect the concentration of DA in human blood serum. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GNRs/CNT modified electrode may be advantageous for the DA determination. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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