Sensing Application — Defect Engineering to Tailor Metal Vacancies in 2D Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks: An Example in Electrochemical Sensing

4 measurement groups · 12 results

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

Screen-printed Cu-BHT pH 2 electrochemical sensor · Electrode

H2O2 response at -0.75 V vs Ag/AgCl; concentration range 100 nM to 50 mM; PBS electrolyte.

Atmosphere: ambient electrochemical sensing unless otherwise stated
Geometry: screen-printed three-electrode sensor; 50 uL droplet or immersed sensor head
Context: Cu-BHT pH 2 film on printed electrode
Measurement source: 20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure 4b,c; Figure S25

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
H2O2 diffusion coefficient	2.52 x 10^-6 cm2 s-1	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure S24
H2O2 detection limitMarked as a best value within this paper	16.5 nM (0.0165 uM)	0.0165 uM	—	Text Exact Reported	20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Table S5
H2O2 sensitivity in high concentration range	479.56 uA mM-1 cm-2 for 0.1 mM to 50 mM H2O2	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure 4c; Figure S25
H2O2 linear rangeMarked as a best value within this paper	100 nM to 50 mM	—	—	Text Range	42 · 2.3 Supplemental Data · Table S5
H2O2 sensitivity in low concentration rangeMarked as a best value within this paper	505.41 uA mM-1 cm-2 for 100 nM to 0.1 mM H2O2	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure 4c; Table S5
Optimal H2O2 sensing potentialMarked as a best value within this paper	-0.75 V vs Ag/AgCl (-0.13 V vs RHE)	-0.13 V vs RHE	—	Text Exact Reported	20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure S26; Figure 4e
H2O2 amperometric response timeMarked as a best value within this paper	2 s	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20826 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure 4b

Screen-printed Cu-BHT pH 2 electrochemical sensor · Electrode

Interfering agents at 0.5 mmol/L; H2O2 at 0.1 mmol/L; species included MeOH, ET, GLU, SUC, ASC, APAP, UA, DA, NaCl, KCl, and O2.

Atmosphere: ambient
Geometry: screen-printed three-electrode sensor
Context: Cu-BHT pH 2 film on printed electrode
Measurement source: 6 · 1.6 Anti-Interference, Repeatability, and Stability · Figure 4d

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source

Screen-printed Cu-BHT pH 2 electrochemical sensor · Electrode

Commercial milk, commercial apple juice, and rainwater mixed with ultrapure water and H2O2 at 1:1:1 mass ratio and injected into 100 mL PBS.

Atmosphere: ambient
Geometry: screen-printed sensor; comparison with UV-Vis titanate method
Context: Cu-BHT pH 2 film on printed electrode
Measurement source: 6, 46 · 1.7 Feasibility Demonstration; Table S6 · Table S6

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Apple juice H2O2 recovery range	94.7 to 106.0%	—	RSD values 1.93-2.91%	SI Table Range	46 · 2.3 Supplemental Data · Table S6
Milk H2O2 recovery range	96.0 to 100.5%	—	RSD values 2.37-2.86%	SI Table Range	46 · 2.3 Supplemental Data · Table S6
Rainwater H2O2 recovery range	98.0 to 99.0%	—	RSD values 0.89-1.43%	SI Table Range	46 · 2.3 Supplemental Data · Table S6

Screen-printed Cu-BHT pH 2 electrochemical sensor · Electrode

Three electrochemical sensors stored at 25 C and 30% RH; tested every 5 days for one month.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Sensor current retention after one monthMarked as a best value within this paper	92.71%	—	RSD 1.53%	Text Exact Reported	20827 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure 4f; Figure S28
Sensor RSD after one monthMarked as a best value within this paper	1.53%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20827 · Electrochemical Sensing Performance · Figure 4f; Figure S28