2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2013.12.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An integrated phenol ‘sensoremoval’ microfluidic nanostructured platform

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The plot of potential variation vs the amount of Ag gives a straight line (R 2 = 0.97871) ( Fig. 4 ) which confirmed the reproducibility of the measurements [ 35 ]. The limit of detection (LoD) and the limit of quantification (LoQ) were calculated using the formulae LoD = (3 × s b )/ S and LoQ = (10 × s b )/ S , respectively, where s b represents the standard deviation of the blank signal and S represents the sensitivity of the calibration curve.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…The plot of potential variation vs the amount of Ag gives a straight line (R 2 = 0.97871) ( Fig. 4 ) which confirmed the reproducibility of the measurements [ 35 ]. The limit of detection (LoD) and the limit of quantification (LoQ) were calculated using the formulae LoD = (3 × s b )/ S and LoQ = (10 × s b )/ S , respectively, where s b represents the standard deviation of the blank signal and S represents the sensitivity of the calibration curve.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…The obtained biosensing performance was LOD: 10 nM; LR: 0.5 to 5 µM [173]. The same microdevice (Figure 8c) was used for the detection of phenols via electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) [148]. They obtained good analytical performance in phenol detection in terms of reproducibility, selectivity, sensitivity, and limit of detection (LR: 0.01-10 µM and LOD: 4.64 nM).…”
Section: Microfluidic Detection Systems For Phenols or Phenolic Compo...mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Due to its instrumental simplicity, availability, flexibility, rapid analysis with high accuracy, low manufacturing costs, and facile implementation, microfluidic devices coupled with electrochemical detection are more advantageous compared to traditional electrochemical detection systems [100]. The main electrochemical detection methods for microfluidics applied for the detection and monitoring of environmental contaminants are (a) (chrono)amperometry [143]; (b) voltammetry, such as square-wave anodic stripping voltammetry (SWASV) [72,73], differential pulse anodic stripping voltammetry (DPASV) [144], cyclic voltammetry (CV) [30], or linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) [145]; (c) conductometry [30,146]; (d) potentiometry [147]; and (e) electrochemical impedance spectroscopy [148].…”
Section: Microfluidic Detection Systems For Pollution Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mayorga- Martinez et al (2014) (Fig. 6.6d) have reported an integrated phenol sensoremoval microfluidic nanostructured platform.…”
Section: Enzymatic-based Loc Biosensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%