| Literature DB >> 27306706 |
Farshad Tehrani1,2, Behzad Bavarian1,2.
Abstract
A novel and highly sensitive disposable glucose sensor strip was developed using direct laser engravedEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27306706 PMCID: PMC4910043 DOI: 10.1038/srep27975
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Fabrication process.
Taping Kapton tape on a thin sheet of PVC (a). Direct laser reduction of the Kapton tape to graphene forming sensor electrodes (b,c). A DREG 3-electrode platform, prepared for further modification (d).
Figure 2Materials Characterization.
(a,b) FESEM images of bare DLEG, (c–e) and uniformly deposited CuNCs at different magnifications with a high population density on the DLEG sheets. (f) High magnification FESEM showing the CuNCs with a cubic structure. (g) EDS results of the graphene-copper nanocomposite from two different spots on the sample (spectrum 1 & 13) that indicates the presence of 83.39–88.39 & 9.95–15.64 weight percent of carbon and copper respectively. (h) XPS spectrum on DLEG, and DLEG-CuNCs showing a prominent C1s peak and small N1s & O1s peaks for the bare DLEG as well as the extra Cu2p peak that indicates the presence of metallic copper and Cu (I) oxide and Cu (II) oxide on the modified electrode. (i) Raman spectrum of the polyimide vs. the DLEG demonstrating prominent D, G, and 2D peaks that suggest a large degree of graphene formation during the engraving process on the polyimide. j) High-resolution XPS analysis for the C1s peak showing a dominant C1s and a suppressed C=O peak which is in a great agreement with that of graphene.
Figure 3Electrochemical Characterization.
(a) Nyquist plot of the bare graphene electrode (1), and modified CuNCs-graphene electrode (2), in a 100 mM KCl solution containing 2 mM K3[Fe(CN)6] + 2 mM K4[Fe(CN)6] (1:1). Inset is the equivalent Randle circuit. (b) CV curves of DLEG (1), as compared to CuNCs-DLEG (2) in 100 mM KCl solution containing 2mM K3[Fe(CN)6] + 2mM K4[Fe(CN)6] (1:1). (c) CV curves of the Bare DLEG (1) and modified CuNCs-DLEG electrodes in the absence (2) and presence (3) of 3 mM Glucose in 0.1 M NaOH solution. (d) CV curves of the modified CuNCs-DLEG in the presence of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mM Glucose in a 0.1 M NaOH solution with constant scan rate of 100 mV/s. The inset plot is the linear correlation between the glucose concentration and the output signal. (e) CV curves of CuNCs-DLEG in 0.1 M NaOH with 2 mM Glucose at different scan rates ranging from 25 mV/s to 250mV/s, with a step size of 25 mV/s. The inset is a plot of the peak current vs. square root of the scan rate at an applied potential of 0.55 v. (f) Optimization of applied potential using amperometric current response of CuNCs-DLEG at different potentials in 0.1 M NaOH with successive addition of 0.1 mM glucose.
Figure 4Sensor's performance.
(a) Amperometric current response at +0.55 V with successive addition of different glucose concentrations including 25 μM (5 times, with magnified inset), 0.1 mM (9 times), 0.25 mM (5 times), and 1 mM (7 times), illustrated with the black curve. Amperometric response of the none-modified electrode (DLEG) with a negligible current response, green curve. (b) Calibration curve of the sensor. (c) The sensing linear range of the sensor as compared to physiological levels of glucose found in sweat, tear, saliva, and urine. (d) Selectivity experiment using amperometric current responses of sensor with successive addition of 0.25 mM glucose (twice), then 0.02 mM electroactive interfering species of AA, DA, UA, Lactose, Sucrose, Fructose, and 0.2 mM NaCl, and finally 1 mM glucose into 0.1 M NaOH at an applied potential of 0.55 V. (e) Reproducibility (3 sensors were compared) and stability (compared with the value of the first test) of the sensors 1, 2, and 3 stored at normal ambient conditions using 0.1 mM glucose in 100 mM NaOH at 0.55 v of applied potential, conducting repeating amperometric experiments every three days for a total of 10 times during one month.
Comparison of several sensors performance.
| Sensor | RT (s) | Potential (v) | Detection Limit (μM) | Linear Range (mM) | Sensitivity (μAmM−1cm−2) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CuNCs-DLEG | <3 | 0.55 (vs. Ag/AgCl) | 0.25 | 0.025–4.5 | 4532 | This work |
| GC/CoNSs/CHIT-RGO | – | 0.45 (vs. SCE) | 10 | 0.015–6.95 | 1921 | |
| GC/Cu Nanocubes/Graphene | – | 0.55 (vs. Ag/AgCl) | 1 | Up to 7.5 | 1096 | |
| GC/CuNPs/Graphene | <2 | 0.50 (vs. Ag/AgCl) | 0.50 | Up to 4.5 | – | |
| SPE /Pt-Cuo/rGO | – | 0.60 (vs. Ag/AgCl) | 0.01 | 0.0005–12 | 3577 | |
| Si-SiO2/Ti/Pt/GNP/PEDOT-GOx | – | – | 0.03 | 0.01–50 | ≈14 |
Figure 5Electrodeposition optimization.
(a) Amperometric current response of the working electrodes as a function of the electroplating pulse current intensity. (b) STEM image of bare DLE graphene flakes on top of the grid with a higher magnification inset before electroplating with CuNCs. (c–h) FESEM Images of the DLEG-CuNCs electrodes at different electroplating pulse current during the electroplating process suggesting the formation of the finest CuNCs with great uniformity and population density at 200 μA and less CuNCs population density for all the other applied current.