Electrochemistry Application — Conductive NiCo bimetal-organic framework nanorods with conductivity-enhanced electrochemiluminescence for constructing biosensing platform

7 measurement groups · 15 results

Reported values remain attached to the sample, method, conditions, extraction quality and source location that produced them.

NiCo-HHTP/PtNP/H1/MCH biosensor electrode · Electrode

CV and EIS in 5 mM [Fe(CN)6]3-/4- solution for bare GCE through H3-Fc/S1/MCH/H1/PtNPs/NiCo-HHTP/GCE; ECL response tracked during fabrication.

Geometry: Glassy carbon electrode
Context: Composite biosensor assembly verification
Measurement source: 14 · S-2.12 Electrochemical characterization of the proposed biosensor · Fig. S12

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
MOF-modified GCE surface morphology	homogeneous nanorods structure on NiCo-HHTP/GCE and Ni-HHTP/GCE	—	—	Text Qualitative	S8 · S-2.3 SEM images of the surface of electrodes · Fig. S4

NiCo-HHTP nanorods · Powder

ECL efficiency of NiCo-HHTP and Ni-HHTP; calculation details cited as Supplementary Material.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NiCo-HHTP ECL efficiency enhancement versus Ni-HHTPMarked as a best value within this paper	3.39-fold	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	3 · 3.2 ECL performance · Fig. 2B
NiCo-HHTP ECL efficiencyMarked as a best value within this paper	17.77%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3 · 3.2 ECL performance · Fig. 2B; Table S3
HHTP ECL efficiency reference	4.92%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	10 · S-2.7 ECL efficiency calculation · Table S3

Ni-HHTP monometallic MOF control · Powder

ECL efficiency of Ni-HHTP control; calculation details cited as Supplementary Material.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Ni-HHTP ECL efficiency	5.24%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3 · 3.2 ECL performance · Fig. 2B; Table S3

NiCo-HHTP nanorods · Powder

1 ug/mL MOF; comparison of NiCo-HHTP and Ni-HHTP ECL signals.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NiCo-HHTP ECL intensity enhancement versus Ni-HHTPMarked as a best value within this paper	2.06-fold	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	3 · 3.2 ECL performance · Fig. 2A
NiCo-HHTP average ECL signalMarked as a best value within this paper	12419 a.u.	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3 · 3.2 ECL performance · Fig. 2A

Ni-HHTP monometallic MOF control · Powder

1 ug/mL Ni-HHTP control ECL signal compared with NiCo-HHTP.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Ni-HHTP average ECL signal	6029 a.u.	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3 · 3.2 ECL performance · Fig. 2A

NiCo-HHTP/GCE electrode · Electrode

NiCo-HHTP/GCE in 0.1 M PBS with and without 26 mM TPrA; voltage range -1.4 to 1 V.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NiCo-HHTP ECL enhancement versus HHTP ligandMarked as a best value within this paper	2.43-fold higher	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	4 · 3.3 Possible ECL mechanism · Fig. 3A
NiCo-HHTP/GCE ECL intensity with TPrAMarked as a best value within this paper	12419 a.u.	—	—	Text Exact Reported	4 · 3.3 Possible ECL mechanism · Fig. 3A

HHTP ligand reference · Model

0.48 ug/mL HHTP ligand in 0.1 M PBS containing 26 mM TPrA compared with NiCo-HHTP.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
HHTP ECL emission peak	668 nm	—	—	Text Exact Reported	S12 · S-2.11 Spectral characteristics of HHTP and Ni-HHTP · Fig. S11A,C
HHTP ligand ECL intensity	5106 a.u.	—	—	Text Exact Reported	4 · 3.3 Possible ECL mechanism · Fig. 3A
HHTP PL emission maximum	403 nm	—	—	Text Exact Reported	S12 · S-2.11 Spectral characteristics of HHTP and Ni-HHTP · Fig. S11E
HHTP UV-vis absorption peak 1	264 nm	—	—	Text Exact Reported	S12 · S-2.11 Spectral characteristics of HHTP and Ni-HHTP · Fig. S10
HHTP UV-vis absorption peak 2	273 nm	—	—	Text Exact Reported	S12 · S-2.11 Spectral characteristics of HHTP and Ni-HHTP · Fig. S10