| Literature DB >> 35891020 |
Dunzhu Li1, Yunhong Shi1, Yifan Sun1, Zeena Wang1, Daniel K Kehoe2, Luis Romeral2,3, Fei Gao1, Luming Yang1, David McCurtin1,4, Yurii K Gun'ko3,5, Michael E G Lyons2,3, Liwen Xiao1,6.
Abstract
The development of a reusable and low-cost urine glucose sensor can benefit the screening and control of diabetes mellitus. This study focused on the feasibility of employing microbial fuel cells (MFC) as a selective glucose sensor for continuous monitoring of glucose levels in human urine. Using MFC technology, a novel cylinder sensor (CS) was developed. It had a quick response time (100 s), a large detection range (0.3-5 mM), and excellent accuracy. More importantly, the CS could last for up to 5 months. The selectivity of the CS was validated by both synthetic and actual diabetes-negative urine samples. It was found that the CS's selectivity could be significantly enhanced by adjusting the concentration of the culture's organic matter. The CS results were comparable to those of a commercial glucose meter (recovery ranged from 93.6% to 127.9%) when the diabetes-positive urine samples were tested. Due to the multiple advantages of high stability, low cost, and high sensitivity over urine test strips, the CS provides a novel and reliable approach for continuous monitoring of urine glucose, which will benefit diabetes assessment and control.Entities:
Keywords: diabetes pre-screening; glucose sensor; microbial fuel cell; selectivity; urine glucose
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35891020 PMCID: PMC9320042 DOI: 10.3390/s22145340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1A diagram showing the CS production process.
Figure 2(a) SEM images and elements mapping of C, O, and F (1–4) and full EDX spectra (5) of the CS’s cathode. (b) TEM image of the CS’s cathode. (c) XPS survey spectra—full spectrum of the CS’s cathode. The red-labeling of the peak indicates that it is from PVDF, while black indicates that it is from activated carbon and carbon black. (d) CV plots of the CS sensor anode with and without biofilm grown, respectively (scan rate of 10 mV/s).
Figure 3(a) Current curves as a response to different concentrations of glucose solutions for FS1; (b) the linear correlation graphs between glucose concentration and the peak current of FS1; (c) current curves as a response to different concentrations of glucose solutions for FS2; (d) the linear correlation graph between glucose concentration and the peak current of FS2; (e) the CS current curves as a response to different concentrations of glucose with different concentration; (f) the linear correlation between glucose concentration and the peak current of the CS.
Figure 4(a) Long-term linear correlation between glucose concentration and the peak current of FS2. (b) Long-term linear correlation between glucose concentration and the peak current of the CS. (c) SEM images of the used CS cathode. (d) Full EDX spectra of the used CS cathode.
Element contents (wt%) of new cathode and used cathode (after 6 months of operation).
| Elements | C | O | F | P | Ca |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New cathode | 37.6 ± 3.7% | 8.1 ± 0.2% | 9.4 ± 1.4% | 5.1 ± 0.2% | 1.4 ± 0.2% |
| Used cathode | 48.6 ± 1.2% | 4.1 ± 0.3% | 9.0 ± 0.04% | 3.1 ± 0.1% | 1.9 ± 0.3% |
Figure 5(a) Current of the CS in the presence of 2.0 mM representative urine organic matters (albumin concentration = 360 mg/L; obtained in 15 min). (b) The current generation of glucose mixed with different concentrations of citric acid (biofilm cultured by glucose; in the figure: Glu—glucose, CA—citric acid). All results were obtained from CS.
Figure 6(a) The linear correlations (glucose concentration vs. peak current) of the CS with different glucose concentrations; (b) the rate of current increase (at 100 s) with different glucose concentrations in the CS (cultured with 5 mM glucose solution).
Detection of glucose concentrations in real urine samples using the CS and commercial glucose analyzer.
| Samples | Concentration Detected by Analyzer | Concentration Detected by CS | Recovery (%) | %RSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urine 1 | 8.4 | 9.2 ± 0.9 | 109.4% | 16.8% |
| Urine 2 | 11.5 | 10.8 ± 2.8 | 93.6% | 25.7% |
| Urine 3 | 18.7 | 24.0 ± 4.5 | 127.9% | 18.6% |
| Urine 4 | 21.5 | 21.5 ± 4.0 | 99.9% | 18.5% |
| Urine 5 | 7.5 | 8.9 ± 3.9 | 119.0% | 43.4% |
| Urine 6 | 22.3 | 22.2 ± 4.5 | 99.4% | 20.2% |
| Urine 7 | 15.3 | 14.6 ± 3.2 | 95.7% | 21.7% |
| Urine 8 | 31.9 | 34.7 ± 1.9 | 108.8% | 5.5% |