Sensing Application — Employing Triphenylene-Based, Layered, Conductive Metal-Organic Framework Materials as Electrochemical Sensors for Nitric Oxide in Aqueous Media

8 measurement groups · 37 results

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

Constant-potential amperometry nitric oxide sensing

Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCE · Electrode

Dual-working electrode setup; Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCE WE1 and bare GCE WE2; 17 uM NO stock additions from 8.5 nM to 1.5 uM; 0.1 M PBS.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS; stirred; equilibrated at constant potential for at least 1 h
Geometry: dual GCE working electrodes with Pt counter and Ag/AgCl reference
Context: optimised composite MOF electrode vs bare GCE control
Measurement source: 557-558 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide with Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS Electrodes · Figure 5; Table S3

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO limit of detection for Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	9 +/- 5 nM; conclusion reports 8.7 +/- 4.9 nM	—	+/- 5 nM	Text Rounded Reported	557-560 · Amperometric Detection; Conclusions · Figure 5
NO limit of detection for bare GCE	26 +/- 23 nM	—	+/- 23 nM	Text Rounded Reported	557 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide · Figure 5
Signal enhancement of Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCE over bare GCE	1.3 +/- 0.1	—	+/- 0.1	Text Exact Reported	558 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide · Figure 5
NO sensitivity SNO for Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	408 +/- 203 pA/nM	—	+/- 203 pA/nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S30 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide · Table S3
NO sensitivity SNO for bare GCE	297 +/- 146 pA/nM	—	+/- 146 pA/nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S30 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide · Table S3
Selectivity coefficient log kAA,NO for Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	-1.3 +/- 0.3	—	+/- 0.3	SI Table Exact Reported	S30 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide · Table S3
Selectivity coefficient log kNO2,NO for Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCE	-0.83 +/- 0.68	—	+/- 0.68	SI Table Exact Reported	S30 · Amperometric Detection of Nitric Oxide · Table S3

Constant-potential amperometry nitric oxide sensing with screen-printed electrode

Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE · Electrode

Screen-printed electrode; 0.95 V vs Ag/AgCl; additions of 17 uM NO stock; 0.1 M PBS.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS; stirred; equilibrated after CV preconditioning
Geometry: two working electrodes, carbon counter and printed Ag/AgCl paste reference in about 3.5 mm circular area
Context: Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE vs bare SPE control
Measurement source: 558-559 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Ni3(HHTP)2-Functionalized Screen-Printed Electrodes · Figure 6; Table S4

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO limit of detection for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPEMarked as a best value within this paper	9 +/- 11 nM	—	+/- 11 nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4
NO limit of detection for bare SPE	20 +/- 13 nM	—	+/- 13 nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4
Signal amplification for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE over bare SPE	1.4 +/- 0.2	—	+/- 0.2	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4
Selectivity coefficient log kAA,NO for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE	-1.3 +/- 0.2	—	+/- 0.2	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4
Selectivity coefficient log kNO2,NO for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE	-1.2 +/- 0.2	—	+/- 0.2	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4
NO sensitivity SNO for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPEMarked as a best value within this paper	86 +/- 28 pA/nM	—	+/- 28 pA/nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4
NO sensitivity SNO for bare SPE	61 +/- 1 pA/nM	—	+/- 1 pA/nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S33 · Nitric Oxide Sensing with Screen-Printed Electrodes · Table S4

Amperometric nitric oxide sensing in simulated wound fluid

Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE · Electrode

100x dilution of fetal bovine serum in PBS; additions of 1.9 mM saturated NO stock; screen-printed electrode.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated with N2 for 20-30 min
Geometry: Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE WE1 and bare SPE WE2
Context: Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE in simulated wound fluid vs bare SPE
Measurement source: S34-S36 · Nitric Oxide Detection with Screen-Printed Electrodes in Simulated Wound Fluid · Figures S39-S42; Table S6

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO limit of detection for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE in simulated wound fluid	1.1 +/- 0.7 uM	1100 nM	+/- 0.7 uM	SI Table Exact Reported	S36 · Nitric Oxide Detection with Screen-Printed Electrodes in Simulated Wound Fluid · Table S6
NO limit of detection for bare SPE in simulated wound fluid	0.7 +/- 0.5 uM	700 nM	+/- 0.5 uM	SI Table Exact Reported	S36 · Nitric Oxide Detection with Screen-Printed Electrodes in Simulated Wound Fluid · Table S6
Signal amplification for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE in simulated wound fluid	1.4 +/- 0.4	—	+/- 0.4	SI Table Exact Reported	S36 · Nitric Oxide Detection with Screen-Printed Electrodes in Simulated Wound Fluid · Table S6
NO sensitivity SNO for Ni3(HHTP)2@SPE in simulated wound fluidMarked as a best value within this paper	18 +/- 6 pA/nM	—	+/- 6 pA/nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S36 · Nitric Oxide Detection with Screen-Printed Electrodes in Simulated Wound Fluid · Table S6
NO sensitivity SNO for bare SPE in simulated wound fluid	13 +/- 4 pA/nM	—	+/- 4 pA/nM	SI Table Exact Reported	S36 · Nitric Oxide Detection with Screen-Printed Electrodes in Simulated Wound Fluid · Table S6

Cyclic voltammetry nitric oxide sensing

Voltammetry

Co3(HHTP)2 dropcast on glassy carbon electrode · Electrode

17 uM NO in 0.1 M PBS buffer, pH 7.4; 50 mV/s; second scan versus PBS.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS; N2 bubbled before experiments
Geometry: MOF-modified glassy carbon working electrode with Pt counter and Ag/AgCl reference
Context: pristine MOF electrode
Measurement source: 556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO oxidation peak current	13.0 uA	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2d
NO oxidation peak potential	0.99 V vs Ag/AgCl	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2d

Cyclic voltammetry nitric oxide sensing

Voltammetry

Cu3(HHTP)2 dropcast on glassy carbon electrode · Electrode

17 uM NO in 0.1 M PBS buffer, pH 7.4; 50 mV/s; second scan versus PBS.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS; N2 bubbled before experiments
Geometry: MOF-modified glassy carbon working electrode with Pt counter and Ag/AgCl reference
Context: pristine MOF electrode
Measurement source: 556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO oxidation peak current	17.7 uA	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2b
NO oxidation peak potential	1.08 V vs Ag/AgCl	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2b
NO oxidation signal enhancement SANO	5.7 +/- 1.1	—	+/- 1.1	Text Exact Reported	553 and 556 · Abstract; Results and Discussion · Figure 2f
NO signal enhancement at 1.7 uM	Cu3(HHTP)2 and Ni3(HHTP)2 offered 5-6x increase; Co3(HHTP)2 or Zn3(HHTP)2 offered 1-2x increase.	—	range	Text Range	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figures 2e and S16

Cyclic voltammetry nitric oxide sensing

Voltammetry

Ni3(HHTP)2 dropcast on glassy carbon electrode · Electrode

17 uM NO in 0.1 M PBS buffer, pH 7.4; 50 mV/s; second scan versus PBS.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS; N2 bubbled before experiments
Geometry: MOF-modified glassy carbon working electrode with Pt counter and Ag/AgCl reference
Context: pristine MOF electrode
Measurement source: 556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO oxidation peak currentMarked as a best value within this paper	30.0 uA	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2c
NO oxidation peak potential	1.12 V vs Ag/AgCl	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2c
NO oxidation signal enhancement SANOMarked as a best value within this paper	6.7 +/- 1.2	—	+/- 1.2	Text Exact Reported	553 and 556 · Abstract; Results and Discussion · Figure 2f

Cyclic voltammetry nitric oxide sensing

Voltammetry

Zn3(HHTP)2 dropcast on glassy carbon electrode · Electrode

17 uM NO in 0.1 M PBS buffer, pH 7.4; 50 mV/s; second scan versus PBS.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS; N2 bubbled before experiments
Geometry: MOF-modified glassy carbon working electrode with Pt counter and Ag/AgCl reference
Context: pristine MOF electrode
Measurement source: 556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
NO oxidation peak current	12.3 uA	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2a
NO oxidation peak potential	1.08 V vs Ag/AgCl	—	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	556 · Comparison of Nitric Oxide Detection Performance · Figure 2a
NO oxidation signal enhancement SANO	3.1 +/- 0.5	—	+/- 0.5	Text Exact Reported	553 · Abstract · Figure 2f

Cyclic voltammetry polymer stabilisation screening

Voltammetry

Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCE · Electrode

17 uM NO in 0.1 M PBS; compare first and tenth CV scans from -0.7 to +1.2 V vs Ag/AgCl.

Atmosphere: deoxygenated PBS
Geometry: Ni3(HHTP)2/polymer films on GCE
Context: composite polymer-coated, binder and adhesive electrodes compared with pristine Ni3(HHTP)2 and bare GCE
Measurement source: 557 · Stabilization of MOF Films with Polymers · Figures 3-4

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Polymer binder effect	Polymer binders generally failed to enhance stability and most decreased NO sensitivity; PEDOT:PSS retained signal but increased background current.	—	—	Text Qualitative	557 · Stabilization of MOF Films with Polymers · Figures 3c and S27-S28
Nafion coating effect	Nafion decreased NO oxidation signal slightly but resulted in a stable film; high Nafion concentrations reduced SANO close to 1.	—	—	Text Qualitative	557 · Stabilization of MOF Films with Polymers · Figures 3b, S24, S26
Bare GCE signal decay over 10 scans	9 +/- 1%	—	+/- 1%	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	558 · Stabilization of MOF Films with Polymers · Figure 4e
Ni3(HHTP)2@PEDOT:PSS@GCE signal decay over 10 scansMarked as a best value within this paper	14 +/- 3%	—	+/- 3%	Text Exact Reported	553 and 558 · Abstract; Figure 4 · Figure 4e
Ni3(HHTP)2 + PEDOT:PSS@GCE signal decay over 10 scans	32 +/- 13%	—	+/- 13%	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	558 · Stabilization of MOF Films with Polymers · Figure 4e
Pristine Ni3(HHTP)2@GCE signal decay over 10 scans	50 +/- 13%	—	+/- 13%	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	558 · Stabilization of MOF Films with Polymers · Figure 4e