Development of an amperometric sulfite biosensor based on a gold nanoparticles/chitosan/multiwalled carbon nanotubes/polyaniline-modified gold electrode

Abstract

A sulfite oxidase (SOx) purified from leaves of Syzygium cumini (Jamun) was immobilized covalently onto a gold nanoparticles (AuNPs)/chitosan (CHIT)/carboxylated multiwalled carbon nanotubes (cMWCNTs)/polyaniline (PANI) composite that was electrodeposited onto the surface of a gold (Au) electrode. A novel and highly sensitive sulfite biosensor was developed that used this enzyme electrode (SOx/AuNPs/CHIT/cMWCNT/PANI/Au) as the working electrode, Ag/AgCl as the standard electrode, and Pt wire as the auxiliary electrode. The modified electrode was characterized by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, cyclic voltammetry (CV), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) before and after the immobilization of the SOx. The sensor produced its optimum response within 3 s when operated at 50 mVs(-1) in 0.1 M phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, and at 35 °C. The linear range and detection limit of the sensor were 0.75-400 μM and 0.5 μM (S/N = 3), respectively. The biosensor was employed to determine sulfite levels in fruit juices and alcoholic beverages. The enzyme electrode was used 300 times over a period of three months when stored at 4 °C.

Structural and morphological tuning of Cu-based metal oxide nanoparticles by a facile chemical method and highly electrochemical sensing of sulphite

“…Nanomaterials accomplish an essential part in the electrochemical sensing of trace amount food additives, pharmaceutical compounds, harmful pollutants and heavy metal ions as nanomaterials show different OPEN 1 Electroorganic and Materials Electrochemistry (EME) Division, CSIR-Central Electrochemical Research Institute (CSIR-CECRI), Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu 630 003, India. 2 Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201 002, India. 3 Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 119, India.…”

Development of an amperometric sulfite biosensor based on SOx/PBNPs/PPY modified ITO electrode

“…The detection limit of the present sensor was 0.12 M (S/N = 3), which is lower than that for enzyme immobilized onto SOx/AuNP's/CHIT/cMWCNT/PANI/Au electrode (0.5 M) [27], polytyramine-platinized glassy carbon electrode (2 M) [12], polyaniline-sulfonic acid (1 M) [23], polypyrrole films (0.9 M) [24] and Teflon membrane (200 M) [41]. The analytical recoveries of added sulfite in red wine samples (20 M and 40 M) were 96.40-97.26%, respectively, demonstrating the satisfactory accuracy of the present method.…”

“…The electrode lost 30% of its initial activity after its 200 uses during the span of more than 3 months when stored at 4 • C, which is much better than earlier biosensors [23,24,27]. The results given in Fig.…”

“…A number of sulfite biosensors have been reported viz. glassy carbon electrode coated with thin mercury film [22], polytyramine-platinized glassy carbon electrode [12], polyaniline-sulfonic acid [23], polypyrrole films [24], on conducting polyaniline film [25], self-assembled monolayer of 11-mercaptoundecanol (MU) cast on a gold electrode [26], on gold nanoparticles/chitosan/multiwalled carbon nanotube/polyaniline modified gold electrode [27]. The disadvantages of these reported biosensors include limited detection limit due to poor electron flow and low storage stability of the working electrode.…”

Nanomaterials towards fabrication of cholesterol biosensors: Key roles and design approaches

“…are commonly used in the form of nanocomposites as enzyme immobilization matrix for biosensor construction (Lian et al, 2013;Miao et al, 2015;Zhao et al, 2005). Most of these biosensors also include chitosan as the dispersing medium for CNTs because of the biocompatibility of the former (Rawal et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2012b). Many reports demonstrated the use of CNTs and Pt nanocomposites in the development of cholesterol biosensors (Qiaocui et al, 2005;Tsai et al, 2008;Yang et al, 2006b) The response time was found to be lower than reported for the cholesterol biosensors based on polypyrrole and sol-gel based matrices (Brahim et al, 2001;Yao and Takashima, 1998).…”