Non-Enzymatic Amperometric Glucose Screen-Printed Sensors Based on Copper and Copper Oxide Particles

Abstract

Non-enzymatic amperometric glucose sensors have gained much attention in the past decade because of the better chemical and thermal stability and biocompatibility compared to conventional sensors based on the use of biomolecules. This study focuses on a novel copper and copper oxide-based glucose sensor synthesized by an electrodeposition technique through a rigorous protocol which reports an excellent analytical performance due to its structure and its increased active area. In addition, the linear response range, detection limit and sensitivity were 0.5–5.0 mmol L−1, 0.002 mmol L−1, 904 μA mmol−1 L−1 cm−2, respectively. Results show a reliable electrode as it is chemically stable, exhibits rapid and excellent sensitivity, and it is not significantly affected by coexisting species present in the blood samples; furthermore, it reports a maximum relative standard deviation error (RSD) of 6%, and showed long operating life as the electrode was used for thousand measurements of 4.0 mmol L−1 glucose solution during three days.

CuO/SnS2 Nanoparticles on PEDOT:PSS for Nonenzymatic Electrochemical Glucose Sensors

“…All experiments were tested under controlled temperature at 25 °C. Therefore, the Randles–Sevcik equation can be rewritten as eq . I normalp = false( 2.69 × 10 5 false) n 3 / 2 A D 1 / 2 C v 1 / 2 where I p is the cathodic peak current maximum in amperes, n is the number of electrons transferred in the redox event, A is the electrochemically active surface area in cm 2 , F is the Faraday constant in C mol –1 (96485.3321 C mol –1 ), D is the diffusion coefficient of Fe(CN) 6 3–/4– , which is 7.6 × 10 –6 cm 2 s –1 , , C is the concentration in mol cm –3 , v is the scan rate in V s –1 , R is the gas constant in J K –1 mol –1 (8.314462 J K –1 mol –1 ), and T is the temperature in K (298.15 K, 25 °C).…”

Non-enzymatic glucose sensors composed of trimetallic CuO/Ag/NiO based composite materials

“…Wide linear range of 0.001-5.50 mM, a correlation value of 0.9978, and a LOD of 0.1 μM were also features of the developed non-enzymatic glucose sensor. Additionally, Table 1 [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] compares the sensing performance of present modified sensing electrode to other non-enzymatic glucose sensors that have been previously published. CuO/Ag/NiO-GCE demonstrated great sensitivity (2895.3 μA mM −1 cm −2 ) in a broad linear range (0.001 to 5.50 mM), which is higher than previously reported values for glucose sensing, as shown in the table.…”

3D Printed Voltammetric Sensor Modified with an Fe(III)-Cluster for the Enzyme-Free Determination of Glucose in Sweat

“…The main problems on the construction of enzymatic GLU biosensors are the efficiency of GOx immobilization on the electrode surface, the presence of dissolved oxygen, and the effect of temperature, pH, and ionic strength on the enzyme activity [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. To overcome these disadvantages, enzyme-free GLU sensors based on metallic particles have been applied as catalysts of GLU electrooxidation, including metals (i.e., Au, Pd and Pt), and metal oxides (i.e., CuO, Cu 2 O, NiO, TiO 2 , Co 3 O 4 , MnO 2, Fe 2 O 3 and Fe 3 O 4 ) [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ], thanks to their high sensitivity, stability and fast response. Nevertheless, these metallic candidates for enzyme-free GLU monitoring usually demonstrate electrocatalytic activity in neutral and basic media and, thus, their applicability in an acidic epidermal skin environment is limited [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”

“…To overcome these disadvantages, enzyme-free GLU sensors based on metallic particles have been applied as catalysts of GLU electrooxidation, including metals (i.e., Au, Pd and Pt), and metal oxides (i.e., CuO, Cu 2 O, NiO, TiO 2 , Co 3 O 4 , MnO 2, Fe 2 O 3 and Fe 3 O 4 ) [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ], thanks to their high sensitivity, stability and fast response. Nevertheless, these metallic candidates for enzyme-free GLU monitoring usually demonstrate electrocatalytic activity in neutral and basic media and, thus, their applicability in an acidic epidermal skin environment is limited [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. More specifically, regarding the iron-based sensors Fe 3 O 4, Fe 2 O 3, and FeOOH particles have been used as electrode modifiers for the electrooxidation of GLU in a pH of 7, 7.5, and 13 [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”