Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
2,0E- 05
0,0E+ 00
-2,0E-05
-4,0E-05
-6,0E-05
-8,0E-05
-1,0E-04
-1,2E-04
-0,9
-0,8
-0,7
-0,6
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0
Potential vs Ag /AgCl (V)
Fig. 3.
CVs of a ccNiR/carbo
nitrite concentrations (0 - 11 m
scan rate, 20 mV/s.
on ink/acetone coated PG electrode in the presence of increas
mM). Electrolyte: 0.1 M KCl in 0.05 M Tris-HCl buffer, pH
sing
7.5;
I
max
x [NO
2
-
] / (K
m
app
+ [NO
2
-
])
elis-Menten kinetic model using the software GraphP
mely high apparent Michaelis-Menten constants (K
m
a
0.9 ± 0.1 mM, which is about 130 times higher than the
protein film voltammetry [19]. This means that the dif
carbon ink is a very slow process, thereby controlling
her corroborated by the wide linear range of the calibrat
I
cat
=
Data fitting to the Michae
Prism 4.0 indicated extrem
typical values are close to 0
previously determined by p
sion of nitrite within the c
biosensor response, as furth
curves (see section 3.3).
Overall, results suggest t
on the catalytic activity.
(2)
Pad
app
);
K
m
ffu-
the
tion
that the carbon ink/acetone composite had no critical eff
ffect
nse to nitrite of ccNiR (3.3 μg) modified PG electrodes: (
) w
d thermal treatment (sensitivity: 3.2x10
-7
A.μM
-1
.cm
-2
); (
)
uctive ink diluted in acetone (sensitivity: 7.3x10
-7
A.μM
-1
.cm
n conductive ink diluted in acetone and cured at 60°C (sensitiv
Fig. 4.
Electrocatalytic respon
no carbon conductive ink and
mixed with the carbon condu
(
) pre-mixed with the carbo
3.3x10
-7
A.μM
-1
.cm
-2
)
with
pre-
m
-2
);
vity:
The analytical performa
to account the catalytic effi
range), correlation coefficie
sponse profiles obtained w
ance of each bioelectrode was then characterized taking
iciency (I
max
/I
c
), sensitivity of detection (slope of the lin
ent (r
2
) and quantification range. When comparing the
with or without electrode curing (both in the presence
g in-
near
re-
e of
Search WWH ::
Custom Search