Sensing Application — Electrochemical immunoassay for the carcinoembryonic antigen based on Au NPs modified zeolitic imidazolate framework and ordered mesoporous carbon

5 measurement groups · 30 results

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

differential pulse voltammetry

Voltammetry

CEA/anti-CEA/Au NPs@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE · Electrode

DPV response curves for CEA concentrations 0.005, 0.05, 0.5, 5, 50, 100, 200 and 400 ng mL-1 under optimised conditions; 0 to 0.6 V, 50 mV pulse amplitude, 50 ms width.

Geometry: Anti-CEA/Au@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE immunosensor in 0.1 M phosphate buffer containing 5 mM Fe(CN)6(3-/4-) and 0.1 M KCl.
Context: Final composite immunosensor.
Measurement source: 6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Fig. 5

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Best DPV response potential	0.26 V vs Ag/AgCl	—	—	Text Exact Reported	1 · Abstract
CEA linear range lower boundMarked as a best value within this paper	5 pg mL-1 (0.005 ng mL-1)	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Fig. 5b
CEA linear range upper boundMarked as a best value within this paper	400 ng mL-1	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Fig. 5b
Calibration correlation coefficient	0.9986	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Fig. 5b
Calibration slope	Delta I = 0.6032 log(CCEA) + 1.5053	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Fig. 5b
Limit of detectionMarked as a best value within this paper	1.3 pg mL-1 (S/N = 3); Table 1 lists 1.33 pg mL-1	—	S/N = 3	Text Rounded Reported	1 · Abstract
SensitivityMarked as a best value within this paper	37.96 uA log(ng mL-1) cm-2	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Fig. 5b
Table 1 LOD for this work	1.33 pg mL-1	—	—	Table Exact Reported	6 · Analytical performance of the immunosensor · Table 1

DPV optimisation

Voltammetry

CEA/anti-CEA/Au NPs@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE · Electrode

Optimisation of Au@ZIF-8:OMC ratio, anti-CEA loading, reaction time, incubation temperature and pH.

Geometry: Au@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE immunosensor.
Context: Final composite immunosensor.
Measurement source: 6 · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Optimal anti-CEA loadingMarked as a best value within this paper	20 ug mL-1	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4b
Optimal sample pH in main textMarked as a best value within this paper	7.4	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4e
Optimal pH in SI text	7.0	—	—	Text Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4e
Optimal Au@ZIF-8 to OMC ratioMarked as a best value within this paper	8:1	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4a
Optimal antigen reaction timeMarked as a best value within this paper	30 min	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4c
Optimal incubation temperatureMarked as a best value within this paper	35 C	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization of experimental conditions · Fig. S4d

DPV serum recovery and chemiluminescence comparison

Voltammetry

CEA/anti-CEA/Au NPs@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE · Electrode

Human serum samples diluted 100-fold by PBS; recovery test with 10, 50 and 100 ng mL-1 CEA; comparison to Siemens Advia Centaur XP chemiluminescence immunoassay analyser.

Geometry: Au@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE immunosensor.
Context: Final composite immunosensor in clinical serum context.
Measurement source: 7-8 · Real sample analysis · Table 2; Table S2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Highest absolute relative error versus commercial analyser	5.31%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · Real sample analysis · Table S2
Lowest relative error versus commercial analyserMarked as a best value within this paper	2.82%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Comparison between this method and the commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer · Table S2
Serum recovery at 100 ng mL-1 added CEA	103 +/- 4.27 ng mL-1 found; 103% recovery; 4.15% RSD	—	RSD 4.15%; total found 103 +/- 4.27 ng mL-1, n = 3	Table Exact Reported	7 · Real sample analysis · Table 2
Serum recovery at 10 ng mL-1 added CEA	10.13 +/- 0.84 ng mL-1 found; 101% recovery; 8.29% RSD	—	RSD 8.29%; total found 10.13 +/- 0.84 ng mL-1, n = 3	Table Exact Reported	7 · Real sample analysis · Table 2
Serum recovery at 50 ng mL-1 added CEA	52.5 +/- 1.46 ng mL-1 found; 105% recovery; 2.78% RSD	—	RSD 2.78%; total found 52.5 +/- 1.46 ng mL-1, n = 3	Table Exact Reported	7 · Real sample analysis · Table 2
Table S2 sample 1 proposed-method CEA concentration	proposed 1.07 ng mL-1; reference 1.13 ng mL-1; relative error -5.31%	—	reference method 1.13 ng mL-1; relative error -5.31%	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Comparison between this method and the commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer · Table S2
Table S2 sample 2 proposed-method CEA concentration	proposed 2.55 ng mL-1; reference 2.48 ng mL-1; relative error 2.82%	—	reference method 2.48 ng mL-1; relative error 2.82%	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Comparison between this method and the commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer · Table S2
Table S2 sample 3 proposed-method CEA concentration	proposed 6.43 ng mL-1; reference 6.21 ng mL-1; relative error 3.54%	—	reference method 6.21 ng mL-1; relative error 3.54%	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Comparison between this method and the commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer · Table S2
Table S2 sample 4 proposed-method CEA concentration	proposed 14.83 ng mL-1; reference 14.41 ng mL-1; relative error 2.91%	—	reference method 14.41 ng mL-1; relative error 2.91%	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Comparison between this method and the commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer · Table S2

DPV specificity and reproducibility tests

Voltammetry

CEA/anti-CEA/Au NPs@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE · Electrode

Specificity for 10 ng mL-1 CEA with AFP, HCG, BSA or IgG interferents; six independently fabricated electrodes for reproducibility at 5 ng mL-1 CEA.

Geometry: Au@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE immunosensor.
Context: Final composite immunosensor.
Measurement source: 7 · Specificity, stability, and reproducibility and regeneration of this immunosensor · Fig. 6

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Reproducibility RSD across six electrodesMarked as a best value within this paper	3.2%	—	six electrodes	Text Exact Reported	7 · Specificity, stability, and reproducibility and regeneration of this immunosensor · Fig. 6b
Specificity against biological interferents	DPV current responses with and without interferents show insignificant variations	—	—	Text Qualitative	7 · Specificity, stability, and reproducibility and regeneration of this immunosensor · Fig. 6a

DPV storage stability

Voltammetry

CEA/anti-CEA/Au NPs@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE · Electrode

Modified electrodes stored in PBS at 4 C and DPV current responses recorded after 0, 7 and 10 days.

Atmosphere: PBS storage at 4 C
Geometry: Au@ZIF-8/OMC/GCE immunosensor.
Context: Final composite immunosensor.
Measurement source: SI rendered text · Stability of the electrochemical biosensor · Table S1

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Initial DPV current	5.16 x 10-5 A	—	n = 3	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Stability of the electrochemical biosensor · Table S1
DPV current after 10 days storage	4.89 x 10-5 A	—	n = 3	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Stability of the electrochemical biosensor · Table S1
Current response retained after 10 days	94.8% of initial response after 10 days	—	—	Text Exact Reported	7 · Specificity, stability, and reproducibility and regeneration of this immunosensor · Table S1
DPV current after 7 days storage	4.95 x 10-5 A	—	n = 3	SI Table Exact Reported	SI rendered text · Stability of the electrochemical biosensor · Table S1
Current response retained after 7 days	96% after 1 week	—	—	Text Exact Reported	7 · Specificity, stability, and reproducibility and regeneration of this immunosensor · Table S1