| Literature DB >> 30388817 |
Edoardo Cantù1, Sarah Tonello2, Giulia Abate3, Daniela Uberti4, Emilio Sardini5, Mauro Serpelloni6.
Abstract
The use of electrochemical sensors for the analysis of biological samples is nowadays widespread and highly demanded from diagnostic and pharmaceutical research, but the reliability and repeatability still remain debated issues. In the expanding field of printed electronics, Aerosol Jet Printing (AJP) appears promising to bring an improvement in resolution, miniaturization, and flexibility. In this paper, the use of AJP is proposed to design and fabricate customized electrochemical sensors in term of geometry, materials and 3D liquid sample confinement, reducing variability in the functionalization process. After an analysis of geometrical, electrical and surface features, the optimal layout has been selected. An electrochemical test has been then performed quantifying Interleukin-8, selected as reference protein, by means of Anodic Stripping Voltammetry. AJP sensors have been compared with standard screen-printed electrodes in terms of current density and relative standard deviation. Results from AJP sensors with Ag-based Anodic Stripping Voltammetry confirmed nanostructures capability to reduce the limit of detection (from 2.1 to 0.3 ng/mL). Furthermore, AJP appeared to bring an improvement in term of relative standard deviation from 50 to 10%, if compared to screen-printed sensors. This is promising to improve reliability and repeatability of measurement techniques integrable in several biotechnological applications.Entities:
Keywords: 3-D printing; aerosol jet printing; protein detection; voltammetric sensors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30388817 PMCID: PMC6263692 DOI: 10.3390/s18113719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic representation of the final prototype.
Printing process parameters.
| Process Parameters | Ag | AgCl | C | NOA 81 | Nink 1000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheath gas flow (SCCM) | 20 | 30 | 110 | 80 | 65 |
| Exhaust flow (SCCM) | 570 | 570 | 1000 | 1400 | 800 |
| Atomizer flow (SCCM) | 550 | 530 | 900 | 1360 | 750 |
| Process speed (mm s−1) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.75 | 3.5 |
| Plate temperature (°C) | 60 | 65 | 70 | / | 45 |
Figure 2AJP process for sensor fabrication.
Figure 3(a) Final layout of the printed sensorized glass slide with sample confinement during WE functionalization; (b) Example of the sample confinement over the three electrodes during measurement; (c) Example of liquid leakage on a commercial screen-printed sensor.
Figure 4Bio-functionalization protocol for the ASV measurements of IL-8.
Thickness and sections of deposited inks.
| Material | Thickness (μm) | Standard Deviation (μm) | Section (μm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ag | 6.8 | ±1 | 854.2 |
| AgCl | 4 | ±0.8 | 392.3 |
| C + MWCNTs | 6.5 | ±0.2 | 365.3 |
| NOA 81 | 25 | ±3 | 1400 |
Figure 5Fluorescence imaging, with grayscale color filter, of a bare carbon working electrode without antibodies (left) and with antibodies attached (right).
Figure 6Plots obtained during protein quantification test; each plot measures current (expressed in μA) as a function of potential (expressed in V). Dotted lines represent “blank samples”.
Current peaks heights for 10 ng/mL protein quantification on the glass-substrate sensor.
| WE Diameter | Current Peaks (μA) | Standard Deviation (μA) | Current Density (μA/mm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 mm | 280.8 | 118.8 | 39.7 |
| 2 mm | 632.0 | 142.0 | 201.3 |
| 1 mm | 82.0 | 27.9 | 104.5 |
Figure 7LSV for IL8 quantification performed using bare and nanostructured carbon-based sensors.
LOD obtained from the different conditions, considering different WE materials and printing methods.
| SPEs | AJPEs | |
|---|---|---|
| Bare C | 3.4 ± 0.5 ng/mL | 2.1 ± 0.2 ng/mL |
| MWCNTs | 0.5 ± 0.4 ng/mL | 0.3 ± 0.2 ng/mL |
Figure 8Calibration plot comparison between Carbon bare and nanostructured sensors.