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

5 measurement groups · 20 results

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

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Luteolin concentrations 2.0 nM, 4.0 nM, 10.0 nM, 20.0 nM, 50.0 nM, 0.1 uM, 0.2 uM, 0.4 uM, 0.6 uM, 0.8 uM and 1.0 uM in 0.1 M BR buffer, pH 3.0.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
luteolin DPV calibration intercept	0.041 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6-7 · 3.6; 3.8 · Fig. 4b
luteolin DPV calibration R2	R2 = 0.992	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · 3.6 · Fig. 4b
luteolin DPV calibration slopeMarked as a best value within this paper	Ipa (uA) = 15.71 C (uM) + 0.041	—	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · 3.6 · Fig. 4b; Table 1
luteolin DPV linear rangeMarked as a best value within this paper	0.002-1.0 uM	—	—	Text Range	1,6 · Abstract; 3.6 · Fig. 4; Table 1
luteolin detection limitMarked as a best value within this paper	0.4 nM (S/N = 3)	0.0004 uM	S/N = 3	Text Exact Reported	1,6 · Abstract; 3.6 · Table 1

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

0.5 uM luteolin; 5-fold glucose, cysteine, citric acid, dopamine, ascorbic acid and quercetin; 50-fold K+, Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Fe3+.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
ion interferent concentration multiple	50-fold concentration of K+, Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Fe3+	—	—	Text Exact Reported	7 · 3.7 · Fig. S3c
organic interferent concentration multiple	5-fold concentration of glucose, cysteine, citric acid, dopamine and ascorbic acid; 5-fold quercetin	—	—	Text Exact Reported	7 · 3.7 · Fig. S3c
interference outcomeMarked as a best value within this paper	additives did not remarkably affect amperometric current response of luteolin	—	—	Qualitative Qualitative	7 · 3.7 · Fig. S3c
luteolin amperometric current step visual estimate	current increases from approximately 0.5 uA baseline to approximately 0.8 uA after 0.5 uM luteolin addition	—	visual read from I-t trace	Visual Estimate Approximate	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S3c

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Six different Ag-CoNi-MOF sensors used to determine 1.0 uM luteolin by DPV.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
reproducibility RSD for six sensors	3.21%	—	n = 6 sensors	Text Exact Reported	7 · 3.7 · Fig. S3a
six-electrode DPV current visual range	approximately 14.0-15.2 uA across six electrodes	—	visual range from bar chart	Visual Estimate Range	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S3a

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Current for 1.0 uM luteolin assessed every 2 days over 20 days.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
20-day stability current visual estimate	approximately 14.0 uA at 20 days	—	visual read from bar chart	Visual Estimate Approximate	3 · Supporting information · Fig. S3b
retained current after 20 daysMarked as a best value within this paper	96.2% of initial current after 20 days	—	20 days	Text Exact Reported	7 · 3.7 · Fig. S3b

Ag-CoNi-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Human urine diluted 10-fold with BR buffer pH 3.0; luteolin added at 0, 50, 100 and 500 nM; n = 4.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
human urine recovery rangeMarked as a best value within this paper	98.3-103.0%	—	RSD values below 4%	Text Range	7 · 3.8 · Table 2
urine sample 2 found concentration after 50 nM addition	51.5 +/- 0.9 nM	—	+/- 0.9 nM	Table Exact Reported	7 · 3.8 · Table 2
urine sample 2 recovery after 50 nM addition	103.0%	—	RSD 1.73%	Table Exact Reported	7 · 3.8 · Table 2
urine sample 3 found concentration after 100 nM addition	98.3 +/- 2.8 nM	—	+/- 2.8 nM	Table Exact Reported	7 · 3.8 · Table 2
urine sample 3 recovery after 100 nM addition	98.3%	—	RSD 2.85%	Table Exact Reported	7 · 3.8 · Table 2
urine sample 4 found concentration after 500 nM addition	506 +/- 16.2 nM	—	+/- 16.2 nM	Table Exact Reported	7 · 3.8 · Table 2
urine sample 4 recovery after 500 nM addition	101.2%	—	RSD 3.20%	Table Exact Reported	7 · 3.8 · Table 2