| Literature DB >> 27879900 |
Chew-Cheen Chang1, Bahruddin Saad2, Misni Surif3, Mohd Noor Ahmad4, Ali Yeon Md Shakaff5.
Abstract
A disposable screen-printed e-tongue based on sensor array and pattern recognition that is suitable for the assessment of water quality in fish tanks is described. The characteristics of sensors fabricated using two kinds of sensing materials, namely (i) lipids (referred to as Type 1), and (ii) alternative electroactive materials comprising liquid ion-exchangers and macrocyclic compounds (Type 2) were evaluated for their performance stability, sensitivity and reproducibility. The Type 2 e-tongue was found to have better sensing performance in terms of sensitivity and reproducibility and was thus used for application studies. By using a pattern recognition tool i.e. principal component analysis (PCA), the e-tongue was able to discriminate the changes in the water quality in tilapia and catfish tanks monitored over eight days. E-tongues coupled with partial least squares (PLS) was used for the quantitative analysis of nitrate and ammonium ions in catfish tank water and good agreement were found with the ion-chromatography method (relative error, ±1.04- 4.10 %).Entities:
Keywords: E-tongue; electroactive material; lipid; pattern recognition; water quality
Year: 2008 PMID: 27879900 PMCID: PMC3924943 DOI: 10.3390/s8063665
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Front and cross-sectional view of disposable sensor strip [14]. a) Front view of sensor strip b) Cross sectional view of sensor strip
Composition of materials used for the fabrication of disposable e-tongues.
| Decyl alcohol (DA) (50.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | Dibenzo-18-crown-6 (5.0 mg), 2-NPOE (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| Oleic acid (OA) (50.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | Dibenzo-24-crown-8 (5.0 mg), 2-NPOE (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| Dioctyl phosphate (DOP) (50.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | Aliquat 336 (5.0 mg), TEHP (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| DOP:TOMA = 9:1 (45.0:5.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | DOPP (66.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| DOP:TOMA = 5:5 (25.0:25.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | Aliquat 336 (5.0 mg), 2-NPOE (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| DOP:TOMA = 3:7 (15.0:35.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | Dibenzo-18-crown-6 (5.0 mg), TEHP (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| Trioctylmethylammonium chloride (TOMA) (50.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | Tridodecylamine (5.0 mg), 2-NPOE (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) | |
| Oleylamine (Oam) (50.0 mg), DOPP (360.0 mg), PVC (170.0 mg) | KTClPB (5.0 mg), 2-NPOE (61.0 mg), PVC (31.0 mg) |
Training model solutions used for multivariate calibration of the e-tongue for the determination of nitrate ion.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 25.00 | 2.40 |
| 2 | 40 | 25.04 | 4.00 |
| 3 | 40 | 25.08 | 5.58 |
| 4 | 40 | 25.12 | 7.16 |
| 5 | 40 | 25.16 | 8.74 |
| 6 | 40 | 25.20 | 10.32 |
| 7 | 40 | 25.24 | 11.88 |
| 8 | 40 | 25.28 | 13.45 |
| 9 | 40 | 25.32 | 15.01 |
| 10 | 40 | 25.36 | 16.56 |
| 11 | 40 | 25.40 | 18.08 |
| 12 | 40 | 25.44 | 19.62 |
| 13 | 40 | 25.48 | 21.16 |
1000 ppm of standard solution was spiked
Training model solutions used for multivariate calibration of e-tongue for the determination of ammonium ion.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 25.00 | 0.44 |
| 2 | 10 | 25.01 | 0.84 |
| 3 | 10 | 25.02 | 1.24 |
| 4 | 10 | 25.03 | 1.63 |
| 5 | 10 | 25.04 | 2.03 |
| 6 | 10 | 25.05 | 2.43 |
| 7 | 10 | 25.06 | 2.83 |
| 8 | 10 | 25.07 | 3.23 |
| 9 | 10 | 25.08 | 3.62 |
1000 ppm of standard solution was spiked
Ion chromatographic system used
| Metrosep A Supp 5 -150 | Metrosep C 2 -150 | |
| Metrosep A Supp 4/5 Guard | Metrosep C2 | |
| NaHCO3, 1.0 mM | Tartaric acid, 4.0 mM | |
| 20 | 20 | |
| 0.7 | 1.0 |
Slope of the channels of e-tongues Type 1 and Type 2 when calibrated in different solutions.
| 36.4±0.9 | 55.2±0.6 | 53.1±1.9 | -9.2±0.4 | |
| (45.8±1.2) | (50.0±0.7) | (51.1±0.9) | (-1.7±0.1) | |
| 27.2±1.4 | 44.9±2 | 49.5±1.7 | -10.4±0.3 | |
| (33.7±1.1) | (52.0±1.1) | (54.6±0.8) | (-1.2±0.1) | |
| 5.9±0.7 | 15.1±0.7 | 17.3±0.4 | -13.4±1.6 | |
| (-51.6±0.8) | (-42.8±0.7) | (-11.6±0.4) | (6.2±0.2) | |
| 4.1±0.4 | 13.3±1.2 | 4.0±0.3 | -12.9±0.5 | |
| (37.5±1.0) | (44.9±1.4) | (36.2±0.5) | (-4.2±0.1) | |
| -11.2±0.3 | u.a | u.a | -10.0±0.2 | |
| (-60.0±2.6) | (-50.6±0.9) | (-17.5±0.3) | (-5.3±0.2) | |
| -42.0±0.8 | -31.4±1.9 | u.a | 17.0±1.1 | |
| (49.5±0.7) | (58.6±0.6) | (46.5±0.4) | (3.9±0.2) | |
| -66.6±1.0 | -45.8±1.2 | -18.8±0.8 | -3.5±0.4 | |
| (-16.7±0.5) | (-28.4±0.7) | (3.7±0.1) | (48.5±0.6) | |
| -36.5±1.1 | -31. 8± 1.8 | u.a | 39.3±2.0 | |
| (42.7±2.0) | (35.9±0.8) | (46.1±0.3) | (-6.3±0.1) |
Data for Type 2 e-tongue are shown in parentheses; Standard deviation of the slope is shown as ±; u.a – unavailable (cannot be determined).
Figure 2.Discrimination of standard solutions by using Type 1 and 2 e-tongues.
Figure 3.Water quality changes of tilapia water
Figure 4.Water quality changes of catfish water
Concentration of nitrite, nitrate and ammonium ions for water samples (n=2)
|
| ||||
| 0 | 1.39 | 0.81 | 7.60 | |
| 0.18 | 1.62 | 1.60 | 7.38 | |
| 0.30 | 2.72 | 3.87 | 6.30 | |
|
| ||||
| 0 | 1.05 | 0.66 | 7.70 | |
| 0.25 | 1.49 | 1.47 | 6.93 | |
| 0.32 | 1.78 | 3.44 | 6.67 |
Results of partial least squares analysis (n=2).
|
| ||||
| 0.9998 | 0.9997 | 0.0041 | 0.1094 | |
| 0.9995 | 1.0007 | -0.1268 | 0.1968 | |
|
| ||||
| 0.9987 | 0.9973 | 0.0054 | 0.0531 | |
| 0.9964 | 1.0177 | -0.0584 | 0.0935 |
Results of the determination of nitrate and ammonium ions in catfish water sample (n=2).
|
| ||||
| 1 | 3.98 | 4.15 | -4.10 | |
| 2 | 10.20 | 10.36 | -1.54 | |
| 3 | 3.26 | 3.12 | 4.49 | |
| 4 | 8.85 | 8.74 | 1.26 | |
| 5 | 13.52 | 13.20 | 2.42 | |
|
| ||||
| 1 | 1.17 | 1.21 | -3.31 | |
| 2 | 1.40 | 1.44 | -2.78 | |
| 3 | 2.86 | 2.89 | -1.04 | |
| 4 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 1.27 | |
| 5 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 3.45 |