| Literature DB >> 22399911 |
Md Mahbubur Rahman1, A J Saleh Ahammad, Joon-Hyung Jin, Sang Jung Ahn, Jae-Joon Lee.
Abstract
Nanotechnology has opened new and exhilarating opportunities for exploring glucose biosensing applications of the newly prepared nanostructured materials. Nanostructured metal-oxides have been extensively explored to develop biosensors with high sensitivity, fast response times, and stability for the determination of glucose by electrochemical oxidation. This article concentrates mainly on the development of different nanostructured metal-oxide [such as ZnO, Cu(I)/(II) oxides, MnO(2), TiO(2), CeO(2), SiO(2), ZrO(2,) and other metal-oxides] based glucose biosensors. Additionally, we devote our attention to the operating principles (i.e., potentiometric, amperometric, impedimetric and conductometric) of these nanostructured metal-oxide based glucose sensors. Finally, this review concludes with a personal prospective and some challenges of these nanoscaled sensors.Entities:
Keywords: electrochemical principles; enzymatic sensor; glucose biosensor; nanostructured metal-oxides; nonenzymatic sensor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 22399911 PMCID: PMC3292151 DOI: 10.3390/s100504855
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Schematic illustration of the configuration of the MOSFET-based potentiometric glucose detection using an extended-gate functionalized-ZnO nanowire as a working electrode and the Ag/AgCl reference electrode (reproduced with permission from [54]. Copyright 2009, IEEE).
Figure 2.(A) A schematic illustration of the first generation and (B) the second generation amperometric glucose sensors (redrawn from reference [61]).
Figure 3.Schematic illustration of the preparation of the third generation amperometric glucose sensor based on the GOx-immobilized aligned ZnO nanorod (redrawn from reference [69]).
Metal-oxides and metal-oxide composites available for glucose sensors and their functional properties.
| CuO nanospheres | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 404.53 μA mM−1 cm−2/1 | −/+0.60 | [ |
| MOSFET using a ZnO nanowires | Potentiometric | enzymatic | −/∼10−3 | − | [ |
| n-type silicon substrates covered with SiO2 and/or Al2O3 | Potentiometric | enzymatic | 13 mV mM−1/− | − | [ |
| ENFET doped with SiO2 nanoparticles | Potentiometric | enzymatic | 48 mV pH−1 in the pH range of 2–12/25 | 300/− | [ |
| ZnO nanowire | Amperometric | enzymatic | 26.3 mA mA−1 cm−2/0.7 | 10/+0.8 | [ |
| ZnO nanorods | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/3 | <5/−0.1 | [ |
| Nano-basket SnO2 templated in porous Al2O3 | Conductmetric | enzymatic | −/in the range of 5 × 103–2 × 104 | − | [ |
| ZnO nanotube | Amperometric | enzymaitc | 30.85 μA mM−1 cm−2/10 | <6/+0.8 | [ |
| ZnO nanorod | Amperometric | enzymatic | 23.1 μA mM−1 cm−2/10 | <5/+0.8 | [ |
| ZnO:Co nanocluster | Amperometric | enzymatic | 13.3 μA mM−1 cm−2/20 | 8/0.55 | [ |
| pyramid-shaped porous ZnO | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/10 | −/−0.50 | [ |
| ZnO nanotube | Amperometric | enzymatic | 21.7 μA mM−1 cm−2/1 | 3/+0.8 | [ |
| ZnO nanocomb | Amperometric | enzymatic | 15.33 μA mM−1 cm−2/20 | <10/+0.8 | [ |
| C-decorated ZnO nanowire | Amperometric | enzymatic | 237.8 μA mM−1 cm−2/0.2 | ∼5/−0.45 | [ |
| MWNTs/ZnO nanoparticle | Amperometric | enzymatic | 50.2mA cm−2 M−1/0.25 | 6/−0.1 | [ |
| Pd (IV)-doped CuO oxide nanofiber | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 1061.4 μA mM−1 cm−2/1.9 × 10−2 | 1/+0.3 | [ |
| CuO nanofibre | Amperometric | nonenzymaic | 431.3 μA mM−1 cm−2/− | ∼1/+0.4 | [ |
| CuO nanowire | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 0.49 μA μmol−1 dm−3/0.049 | −/+0.33 | [ |
| Cu2O/MWCNTs nanocomposites | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 6.53 μA μmol−1 L−1/0.05 | −/−0.2 | [ |
| MWNTs/CuO nanoparticle | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 2596 μA mM−1 cm−2/0.2 | ∼1/+0.4 | [ |
| flower-shaped CuO | Amperometric | enzymatic | 47.19 μA mM−1 cm−2/1.37 | <5/+0.58 | [ |
| MnO2 | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/0.472 | −/+0.48 | [ |
| MnO2/MWNTs nanocomposite | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 33.19 μA mM−1/28 × 103 | −/+0.3 | [ |
| TiO2 nanofilm | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/∼1 | few second/−0.45 | [ |
| Nanostructured TiO2/CNT | Amperometric | enzymatic | 0.3 μA mmol−1/− | <10/−0.45 | [ |
| Array-based TiO2 | Optical | enzymatic | −/3.1–7.8 | − | [ |
| Nanostructured CeO2 | Amperometric | enzymatic | 0.00287 μA mg−1 dL−1 cm−2/12.0 | − | [ |
| SiO2–Carbon Nanocomposite | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/34 | −/−0.4 | [ |
| Nano-SiO2 and “unprotected” Pt nanoclusters | Amperometric | enzymatic | 3.85 μA mM−1/1.5 | −/+0.6 | [ |
| TiO2/SiO2 nanocomposite | Phosphorescence | enzymatic | −/1.2 × 10−4 | − | [ |
| CNT/perfluorosulfonate ionomer–SiO2 nanocomposite | Amperometric | enzymatic | 5.01 μA mM−1/0.1 | ∼6/+0.2 | [ |
| ZrO2 nanoparticle | Amperometric | enzymatic | − | −/+0.4 | [ |
| NiO hollow nanospheres | Amperometric | enzymatic | 3.43μA Mm−1/47 | ∼8/+0.35 | [ |
| MgO polyhedral nanocages and nanocrystals | Amperometric | enzymatic | 31.6 μA μM−1 cm−2/6.83 × 10−2 ± 0.02 | <5/+0.58 | [ |
| Nitrocellulose, NC/PbO2 | Amperometric | enzymatic | 0.183 μA mM−1 / − | −/+0.7 | [ |
| RhO2 modified carbon Ink | Amperometric | enzymatic | 64 μA mM−1 cm−2/1.11 | 28/−0.2 | [ |
| RuOx –prussian blue | Amperometric | nonenzymatic | 6.2 μA mM−1 cm−2/40 | − | [ |
| RuO2 modified Screen printed electrode | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/0.611 | −/+0.5 | [ |
| Fe3O4 nanoparticle/Chitosan | Amperometric | enzymatic | 9.3 μA mM−1 cm−2/500 | ∼5/− | [ |
| Ferrocene-modified Fe3O4@SiO2 magnetic nanoparticles | Amperometric | enzymatic | −/3.2 | −/+0.35 | [ |
| Si–SiO2–Si | Potentiometric | enzymatic | 12 mV decade−1 in human urine/− | 90 | [ |
| SnO2 film | Potentiometric | enzymatic | 50 ± 2 ΔmV ΔpC−1/− | ∼300 | [ |
Figure 4.(a) Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of the ZnO nanotube arrays; the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis (inset). (b) SEM image of the surface modified ZnO nanotube arrays; the EDS analysis (inset). (c) Typical amperometric response curve of GOx/ZnO nanotube arrays/ITO electrodes with the glucose concentration increases in 10 μM per step by successive addition of glucose to the 0.02 M phosphate buffer solution (PBS) at pH 7.4 under stirring. The applied potential was +0.8 V vs. SCE (reproduced with permission from [83]. Copyright 2009, The American Chemical Society).
Figure 5.Reaction mechanism of glucose at a MnO2/GOx modified SPE based on heterogeneous carbon material: (i) enzymatic oxidation of glucose by GOx, (ii) chemical oxidation of H2O2, and (iii) chemical reduction of H2O2 (redrawn from reference [133]).
Figure 6.Schematic illustration of two possible biochemical reaction mechanisms on the GOx/CeO2/Pt electrode (redrawn from reference [176]).
Characteristics of most frequently-used metal oxides in prospective biosensors.
| ZnO | 9.5 | available/ N/A | available | N/A, Co | H2O2, gas, cholesterol | [ |
| CuO | 6.5 | available/available | available | N/A, Pd(IV) | H2O2, carbohydrates, gas | [ |
| MnO2 | 4–5 | available/available | available | available, N/A | ascorbic acid, H2O2, Li+ | [ |
| TiO2 | 3.9–8.2 | available/N/A | available | available, Pt | H2O2, DNA hybridization, gas | [ |
| CeO2 | ∼9 | available/ N/A | N/A | N/A | DNA hybridization, H2O2 | [ |
| SiO2 | 1.7–3.5 | available/N/A | available | N/A | H2O2, biomolecules, urea, penicillin | [ |
| ZrO2 | 4.15 | available/ N/A | N/A | N/A | H2O2, gas | [ |
N/A= Not available