Electrochemistry Application — Ag doped Co/Ni bimetallic organic framework for determination of luteolin

6 measurement groups · 34 results

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

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Luteolin adsorption capacity from Qads = nFA Gamma_s; A = 0.144 cm2.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
luteolin adsorption capacity on Ag-CoNi-MOFMarked as a best value within this paper	1.6 x 10-9 mol cm-2	—	—	Calculated From Reported Rounded Reported	6 · 3.5 · Fig. S2f
adsorbed charge intercept Qads	4.47 x 10-5 C	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · 3.5 · Fig. S2f
luteolin Q versus t1/2 inset slope	Q = 44.70 t1/2 + 2.67	—	small rendered figure equation	Figure Axis Approximate	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S2f inset

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Effective surface area from Anson formula using 0.1 mM K3[Fe(CN)6], D = 7.6e-6 cm2/s at 25 C; compared bare GCE, CoNi-MOF/GCE and Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Q versus t1/2 slope for Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	Q = 42.52 t1/2 + 3.09	—	small rendered figure equation	Figure Axis Approximate	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S2e
Q versus t1/2 slope for bare GCE	Q = 22.41 t1/2 + 6.51	—	small rendered figure equation	Figure Axis Approximate	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S2e
Q versus t1/2 slope for CoNi-MOF/GCE	Q = 40.05 t1/2 + 3.21	—	small rendered figure equation	Figure Axis Approximate	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S2e
effective surface area of Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	0.144 cm2	—	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · 3.5 · Fig. S2e
effective surface area of bare GCE	0.076 cm2	—	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · 3.5 · Fig. S2e
effective surface area of CoNi-MOF/GCE	0.136 cm2	—	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · 3.5 · Fig. S2e

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

2.0 uM luteolin in 0.1 M Britton-Robinson buffer, pH 3.0; scan rate 100 mV/s.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
CV peak separation at Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE	61 mV	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b
CV anodic peak potential Epa at Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE	0.502 V	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b
CV cathodic peak potential Epc at Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE	0.441 V	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b
CV anodic peak current Ipa at Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	6.78 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b
CV cathodic peak current Ipc at Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	5.38 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b
CV oxidation peak current ratio versus bare GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	15.7 times that of bare GCE	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b
CV oxidation peak current ratio versus CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	3.1 times that of CoNi-MOF/GCE	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3b

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

2.0 uM luteolin on bare GCE, CoNi-MOF/GCE and Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
DPV anodic peak current at Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	18.50 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3c
DPV highest Ipa ratio versus bare GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	nearly 18-fold larger than that of bare GCE	—	—	Text Approximate	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3c
DPV anodic peak current at bare GCE	1.22 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3c
DPV anodic peak current at CoNi-MOF/GCE	8.85 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.2 · Fig. 3c

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

CV curves at scan rates 20-400 mV/s; linear-current analysis over 20-400 mV/s; log(v)-potential analysis over 160-400 mV/s.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Ipa versus scan rate R2	R2 = 0.997	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.4 · Fig. S2b
Ipa versus scan rate slope	Ipa (uA) = 49.27 v (mV s-1) + 1.314	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.4 · Fig. S2b
Ipc versus scan rate R2	R2 = 0.997	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.4 · Fig. S2b
Ipc versus scan rate slope	Ipc (uA) = -39.28 v (mV s-1) - 1.104	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.4 · Fig. S2b
electron transfer rate constant ks for Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCEMarked as a best value within this paper	1.2 s-1	—	—	Calculated From Reported Rounded Reported	6 · 3.4 · Eq. 3
electron transfer rate constant ks for CoNi-MOF/GCE	0.47 s-1	—	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · 3.4 · Eq. 3
transfer coefficient alpha	0.53	—	—	Calculated From Reported Rounded Reported	6 · 3.4
Epa versus log scan rate slope	0.0737	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.4 · Fig. S2c
Epc versus log scan rate slope	-0.0659	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.4 · Fig. S2c
electron-transfer number n	1.71 (approximate to 2)	2 electrons	—	Calculated From Reported Approximate	6 · 3.4

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

2 uM luteolin on Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE with pH varied from 2.0 to 6.0.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
optimum electrolyte pHMarked as a best value within this paper	pH 3.0	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.3 · Fig. 3d
pH-potential regression R2	R2 = 0.996	—	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.3 · Fig. S1
pH-potential regression slope	Ep = 0.656 - 0.0513 pH	-51.3 mV/pH	—	Text Exact Reported	5 · 3.3 · Fig. S1
visual peak current at optimum pH	approximately 6.7 uA at pH 3.0	—	visual read from rendered axis	Figure Axis Approximate	2 · Supporting information · Fig. S1