| Literature DB >> 22368503 |
Mambo Moyo1, Jonathan O Okonkwo, Nana M Agyei.
Abstract
Different classes of polymeric materials such as nanomaterials, sol-gel materials, conducting polymers, functional polymers and biomaterials have been used in the design of sensors and biosensors. Various methods have been used, for example from direct adsorption, covalent bonding, crossing-linking with glutaraldehyde on composites to mixing the enzymes or use of functionalized beads for the design of sensors and biosensors using these polymeric materials in recent years. It is widely acknowledged that analytical sensing at electrodes modified with polymeric materials results in low detection limits, high sensitivities, lower applied potential, good stability, efficient electron transfer and easier immobilization of enzymes on electrodes such that sensing and biosensing of environmental pollutants is made easier. However, there are a number of challenges to be addressed in order to fulfill the applications of polymeric based polymers such as cost and shortening the long laboratory synthetic pathways involved in sensor preparation. Furthermore, the toxicological effects on flora and fauna of some of these polymeric materials have not been well studied. Given these disadvantages, efforts are now geared towards introducing low cost biomaterials that can serve as alternatives for the development of novel electrochemical sensors and biosensors. This review highlights recent contributions in the development of the electrochemical sensors and biosensors based on different polymeric material. The synergistic action of some of these polymeric materials and nanocomposites imposed when combined on electrode during sensing is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: biosensor; electrochemical sensor; enzyme electrode; mediator; polymeric material
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22368503 PMCID: PMC3279247 DOI: 10.3390/s120100923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Schematic diagram of a biosensor device.
Figure 2.Cyclic voltammograms at a bare GC electrode (a) and a SWNT film-modified GC electrode (b,c) in the absence of DOPAC (c) and in the presence of 6.0 × 10−5 M DOPAC (a,b) in 0.1 M HAc-NaAC buffer solution (pH 4.4). Scan rate 0.1 V s−1. Reprinted with permission from [17].
Figure 3.(A) CVs of catalase modified GCE in different pH solutions: from right to left, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (scan rate 0.1 V s−1); (B) Plot of formal potential versus pH values. Reprinted with permission from [22].
Figure 4.Scheme for the stepwise amperometric biosensor fabrication process and immobilized acetylcholinesterase inhibition in pesticide solution. Reprinted with permission from [40].
Figure 5.Cyclic voltammogram of the AChE/Au/Chi and AChE/Chi (inset) modified electrodes in pH 7.0 PBS in the absence (a) and presence (b) of 0.4 m M ATCL. Reproduced by permission from [45].
Figure 6.Nyquist plots for CP (a), MWCNT/CP (b), IL-MWCNT/CP (c) and IL-/CP (d) in the presence of 5 mM Fe(CN)63−/5 mM Fe(CN)64− in the frequency range of 0.01 kHz–1 MHz with perturbation signal of 5 mV, at open potential (OPC) (insert-Randles circuit). Reproduced with permission from [57].
Figure 7.Schematic diagram of a conducting polymer/enzyme electrode with enzyme covalently bound to the polymer backbone.
Figure 8.Schematic representation of the covalent attachment of neutral red with MWNTs and physical adsorption of GOx over the functionalized MWNTs. Reprinted with permission from [91].
Overview of some enzymatic and enzyme-free polymeric material based biosensors, along with their important parameters.
| Thiocholine | 435 mA mol−1 L cm−2 | 5 × 10−7 M | - | 5 × 10−7–1 × 10−5 M | −50 to 1,200 V | 1 month | [ | |
| Glucose | 11.3 μA/mM cm2 | 30 μM | - | 0.5–40 nM | 0.0 to +0.6 V | 80% after 1 month | [ | |
| Paraxon | 25 nA/μM | 0.15 μM | - | - | −0.2 to +1.2 V | - | [ | |
| Methyl-parathion | 25 nA/μM | 0.8 μM | ||||||
| Hydrogen peroxide | - | 4.0 × 10−6 M | 0.29 mM | 5.0 × 10−5–1.8 × 10−3 M | −0.4 to +0.6 V | 89.5% after 30 days | [ | |
| Malathion | 0.475 mA/μM | 0.1 nM | - | 0.1–40 nM | −0.5 to +1.0 V | 2 months | [ | |
| Chlorpyrifos | 0.1 nM | 0.1–50 Nm | ||||||
| Monocrotophos | 1 nM | 1–50 Nm | ||||||
| Endosulfan | 10 nM | 10–100 nM | ||||||
| Glucose in human urine | 8.53 μA/ mM | 0.2 μM | - | 0.001–7.0 mM | −0.5 to +0.5 V | 90% after 35 days | [ | |
| Glucose | 196 nA/mM | 50 μM | - | 0.2–20 mM | −0.4 to +1.1 V | 3 weeks | [ | |
| Chlorpyrifos | 4 nM | - | 10−8–10−6 M | −400 to +800 mV | 95% after 1 week | [ | ||
| Acetylthiocholine | - | 0.10 μmol/L | 132 μmol/L | 2.0–400 μmol/L | 0.1 to 1.0 V | 70% after 30 days | [ | |
| Lactate | - | 1 × 10−4 M | 9.4 mM | 0.5 to 6 mM | - | 2 weeks | [ | |
| Glucose | - | 3 × 10−9 M | - | 1 × 10−8–1 × 10−3 M | −0.9 to −0.10 V | 3 months | [ |
GOx, glucose oxidase; MWCNT, multiwalled carbon nanotube; GCE, glassy carbon electrode; CNT, carbon nanotube; OPH, organophosphorus hydrolase; Hb, haemoglobin; AChE, acetylcholinesterase; Fe3O4, iron oxide; PtNPs, platinum nanoparticles; [BMIM][BF4], 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium terafluoroborate: Bppg, basal plane pyrolytic graphite: Au, gold; SPE, screen printed electrode; CoHCF, cobalt hexacyanoferrate;LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PPY-PVS, polypyrrole-polyvinyl-sulphonate, NR, Neutral Red, Nf, Nafion; V, vs. saturated calomel electrode (SCE); V, vs. Ag/AgCl.
Figure 9.Cyclic voltammograms of R. arrhizus modified CPE (a) and unmodified CPE (b) (concentration of Pb(II): 1.0 × 10−4 M, detection: cyclic voltammetry in 0.01 M Tris-HCl with 50 mV/s scan rate, preconcentration time: 15 min). Reprinted with permission from [120].
Comparison of biomaterials based electrochemical sensors with enzyme-free polymeric based electrochemical sensors for detection of heavy metal ions and organics.
| Pb(II) | 1–10 mg/L | 0.59 mg/L | [ | |
| Pb(II) | 0.5–5 mg/L | 0.121 mg/L | [ | |
| Pb(II) | - | 0.10 mg/L | [ | |
| tryptophan | 2.0 × 10−7–1.0 × 10−4 M | 2.0 × 10−8 M | [ | |
| Pb(II) | - | 5.0 × 10−9 M | [ | |
| phenol | - | 0.95 nm | [ | |
| H2O2 | - | 0.2 μM | [ | |
| Pb(II) | 1.0 × 10−7–1.25 ×10−5 M | 0.5 × 10−8 M | [ | |
| Cu(II) | 5.0 × 10−7–1.0 × 10−5 M | 5.4 × 10−8 M | [ | |
| Pb(II) | 5.0 × 10−8–2.0 ×10−5 M | 2.5 × 10 −8 M | [ |
F, feathers; CPE, carbon paste electrode; B, banana; MWCNT, multiwalled carbon nanotube; C, cerium hexacyanoferrate; GCE, glassy carbon electrode; N, nafion; S, Sol gel; CNT, carbon nanotube; Au, gold; Pt, platinum; R.a, Rhizopus arrhizus; C.sp, Circinella sp.