Sensing Application — Comparing Ag-O coordinated AgMOF-5 and Ag-N coordinated Ag nanosphere catalytic polymers for real time monitoring of H2O2 level in cancer cells

9 measurement groups · 78 results

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

HRPO/phenol red colourimetric H2O2 assay with UV-vis

UV-visible and optical absorption spectroscopy

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

H2O2 secreted by fMLP-stimulated L929, HeLa, T98G and LN18 cells quantified by phenol red/HRPO UV-vis assay at 610 nm.

Atmosphere: cell culture in 5% CO2, 37 C, 90% humidity before assay
Geometry: 6-well cell culture assay; UV-vis 550-750 nm
Context: validation assay for AgMOF/GCE electrochemical live-cell sensing
Measurement source: 8-9 · 3.3. Real-time detection of H2O2 level secreted from live cells · Fig. 6a,f; Fig. S16 referenced

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
HeLa secreted H2O2 by colourimetry	1 +/- 0.1 uM	1 uM	+/- 0.1 uM	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.3 · Fig. 6a,f
L929 secreted H2O2 by colourimetry	1.25 +/- 0.10 uM	1.25 uM	+/- 0.10 uM	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.3 · Fig. 6a,f
LN18 secreted H2O2 by colourimetryMarked as a best value within this paper	1.9 +/- 0.15 uM	1.9 uM	+/- 0.15 uM	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.3 · Fig. 6a,f
T98G secreted H2O2 by colourimetry	1.58 +/- 0.2 uM	1.58 uM	+/- 0.2 uM	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.3 · Fig. 6a,f
phenol red H2O2 absorbance peak	610 nm	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.3 · Fig. S16 referenced

live-cell chronoamperometry with fMLP stimulation

Chronoamperometry

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

Seeded L929, HeLa, T98G and LN18 cells in PBS; chronoamperometry for 200 s at -0.6 V; 10 uL of 0.1 mM fMLP injected after 50 s.

Atmosphere: cell culture in 5% CO2, 37 C, 90% humidity before assay
Geometry: AgMOF/GCE working electrode in 6-well plates with reference and counter electrodes
Context: application electrode containing pristine AgMOF
Measurement source: 3,9 · 2.6. Cell culture / 3.3. Real-time detection · Fig. 6b-f

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
HeLa secreted H2O2 by electrochemistry	1.4 +/- 0.015 uM	1.4 uM	+/- 0.015 uM	Text Exact Reported	9 · 3.3 · Fig. 6b-f
L929 secreted H2O2 by electrochemistry	0.8 +/- 0.012 uM	0.8 uM	+/- 0.012 uM	Text Exact Reported	9 · 3.3 · Fig. 6b-f
LN18 secreted H2O2 by electrochemistryMarked as a best value within this paper	1.6 +/- 0.06 uM	1.6 uM	+/- 0.06 uM	Text Exact Reported	9 · 3.3 · Fig. 6b-f
T98G secreted H2O2 by electrochemistry	1.5 +/- 0.015 uM	1.5 uM	+/- 0.015 uM	Text Exact Reported	9 · 3.3 · Fig. 6b-f

chronoamperometry / amperometric i-t H2O2 calibration

Chronoamperometry

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

Successive H2O2 addition from 1 nM to 5 mM in 0.1 M PBS at constant stirring; fixed potential selected as -0.6 V.

Atmosphere: degassed PBS
Geometry: AgMOF/GCE three-electrode setup
Context: application electrode containing pristine AgMOF
Measurement source: 8 · 3.2. Electrochemical sensing performance of AgMOF · Fig. 5d-f

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
chronoamperometry fixed potential	-0.6 V	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. S11 referenced
chronoamperometry calibration R2	R2 = 0.98	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5e
chronoamperometry calibration slope	I (uA) = 0.019C(uM) + 22	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5e
amperometric current retentionMarked as a best value within this paper	100% up to 2000 s	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5f

cyclic voltammetry H2O2 calibration

Voltammetry

Ag nanosphere/GCE · Electrode

Ag nanosphere/GCE CV calibration for H2O2 comparison.

Atmosphere: degassed PBS
Geometry: Ag nanosphere modified GCE
Context: derived Ag nanosphere/GCE comparison electrode
Measurement source: 8 · 3.2. Electrochemical sensing performance of AgMOF · Fig. S10 referenced

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
H2O2 detection limit	0.1 mM	100 uM	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. S10 referenced
H2O2 sensitivity	1.17 uA mM-1 cm-2	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. S10 referenced

cyclic voltammetry H2O2 calibration

Voltammetry

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

AgMOF/GCE CV calibration in 0.1 M PBS using H2O2 diluted from 5 mM to 1 nM; scan rate 0.1 V/s; reduction around -0.65 V.

Atmosphere: degassed PBS
Geometry: AgMOF modified 3 mm GCE, Ag/AgCl reference, Pt counter
Context: application electrode containing pristine AgMOF
Measurement source: 7-8 · 3.2. Electrochemical sensing performance of AgMOF · Fig. 5b-c

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
CV concentration-current calibration slopeMarked as a best value within this paper	I(uA) = 13C(uM) + 15.4	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5c
CV calibration R2	R2 = 0.99	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5c
H2O2 reduction potential	-0.65 V	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5
optimum CV scan rate	0.1 V/s	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2 · Fig. 5
H2O2 linear range upper boundMarked as a best value within this paper	5 mM	5000 uM	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2
H2O2 linear range lower boundMarked as a best value within this paper	0.5 uM	0.5 uM	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2
H2O2 detection limitMarked as a best value within this paper	0.7 nM	0.0007 uM	—	Text Exact Reported	1,8 · Abstract / 3.2 · Fig. 5c
H2O2 sensitivityMarked as a best value within this paper	1300 uA mM-1 cm-2	—	—	Text Exact Reported	1,8 · Abstract / 3.2 · Fig. 5c

MTT cytocompatibility assay

greyish AgMOF powder · Powder

Relative cell survival assessed up to 6 h for HeLa and L929 cells exposed to high AgMOF concentration.

Atmosphere: cell culture conditions
Context: biocompatibility context for AgMOF live-cell sensing
Measurement source: 8 · 3.3. Real-time detection · Fig. S14 referenced

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
HeLa and L929 live-cell survival after AgMOF exposure	around 70%	—	—	Text Approximate	8 · 3.3 · Fig. S14 referenced
HeLa relative cell survival at 1 mg/ml AgMOF	about 73%	—	—	Visual Estimate Approximate	18 · S2.5 MTT Assay · Fig. S14
L929 relative cell survival at 1 mg/ml AgMOF	about 67%	—	—	Visual Estimate Approximate	18 · S2.5 MTT Assay · Fig. S14
AgMOF MTT exposure concentration higher level	1 mg/ml	—	—	Text Exact Reported	18 · S2.5 MTT Assay · Fig. S14
AgMOF MTT exposure concentration lower level	0.5 mg/ml	—	—	Text Exact Reported	18 · S2.5 MTT Assay · Fig. S14
AgMOF MTT treatment time	6 h	—	—	Text Exact Reported	18 · S2.5 MTT Assay · Fig. S14

phenol red/HRPO UV-vis colourimetric H2O2 calibration

UV-visible and optical absorption spectroscopy

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

PRS solution with NaCl, PBS, dextrose and phenol red; H2O2 standards from 0.1 uM to 200 uM; HRPO; NaOH stop/developing step; UV-vis at 610 nm.

Atmosphere: room temperature incubation
Geometry: UV-vis spectrophotometer, PRS/HRPO solution assay
Context: validation assay for AgMOF/GCE cell sensing
Measurement source: 20 · S2.7 Colorimetric Detection of H2O2 · Fig. S16

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
phenol red H2O2 calibration R2	R2 = 0.98	—	—	Figure Axis Approximate	20 · S2.7 · Fig. S16
phenol red H2O2 calibration slope	y = 0.0047x + 0.06	—	—	Figure Axis Approximate	20 · S2.7 · Fig. S16
colourimetric calibration upper bound	200 uM	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20 · S2.7 Colorimetric Detection of H2O2 · Fig. S16
colourimetric calibration lower bound	0.1 uM	—	—	Text Exact Reported	20 · S2.7 Colorimetric Detection of H2O2 · Fig. S16
HRPO concentration	1 mg/ml	—	—	Text Exact Reported	2-10 · S2.7 Colorimetric Detection of H2O2

CV/EIS/amperometric reproducibility, stability, repeatability, reliability, selectivity and serum recovery tests

Impedance spectroscopy Voltammetry Chronoamperometry

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

AgMOF/GCE evaluated with 5 mM H2O2, interferents (lactose, glucose, NaCl, ascorbic acid and sucrose), pH variation and 20-fold diluted human plasma/serum samples.

Atmosphere: N2-purged PBS for selectivity tests
Geometry: AgMOF-modified GCE three-electrode setup
Context: application electrode containing pristine AgMOF
Measurement source: 13-17 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Figs. S12-S13; Table S2; Table S3

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
pH threshold for strong H2O2 current reduction	>11	—	—	Text Approximate	14-16 · S2.4 · Fig. S13
CV current reduction after 20 days	16% reduction up to 20 days	—	—	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Fig. S12b
additional CV current reduction after 24 days	further reduction of 8% up to 24 days	—	—	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Fig. S12b
continuous CV reliability cycle count	20 cycles	—	—	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Fig. S12d
five-electrode CV reproducibility variation	+/- 4.7 uA	—	+/- 4.7 uA	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Fig. S12a
interferent concentration in selectivity test	1 mM interferents	—	—	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Fig. S12f
human plasma dilution for recovery study	20-fold diluted	—	—	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Table S2
H2O2 serum recovery rateMarked as a best value within this paper	99% recovery rate	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Table S2
storage time with 100% CV current efficiencyMarked as a best value within this paper	16 days	—	—	Text Exact Reported	13-16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Fig. S12b

H2O2 recovery test using blood serum samples

AgMOF/GCE · Electrode

Table S2 compares pure-PBS current and two serum-spiked sample currents/recovery percentages for 0.1-5 uM H2O2.

Atmosphere: 0.1 M PBS; human plasma diluted 20-fold
Geometry: AgMOF/GCE electrochemical H2O2 sensing
Context: application electrode containing pristine AgMOF
Measurement source: 16 · S2.4 Reproducibility, Stability, Repeatability, Reliability and Selectivity study · Table S2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
PBS current at 0.1 uM H2O2	16.9 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
PBS current at 0.5 uM H2O2	23.2 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
PBS current at 1 uM H2O2	32 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
PBS current at 3 uM H2O2	57 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
PBS current at 5 uM H2O2	83 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 1 current at 0.1 uM H2O2	14.6 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 1 current at 0.5 uM H2O2	21.2 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 1 current at 1 uM H2O2	30.8 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 1 current at 3 uM H2O2	56.2 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 1 current at 5 uM H2O2	81.6 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovered concentration at 0.1 uM H2O2	0.08 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovered concentration at 0.5 uM H2O2	0.45 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovered concentration at 1 uM H2O2	0.96 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovered concentration at 3 uM H2O2	2.9 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovered concentration at 5 uM H2O2	4.91 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovery at 0.1 uM H2O2	86.3%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovery at 0.5 uM H2O2	91.3%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovery at 1 uM H2O2	96.25%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovery at 3 uM H2O2Marked as a best value within this paper	98.8%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 1 recovery at 5 uM H2O2Marked as a best value within this paper	98.3%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 2 current at 0.1 uM H2O2	16.1 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 2 current at 0.5 uM H2O2	22.5 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 2 current at 1 uM H2O2	31.5 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 2 current at 3 uM H2O2	56.5 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
serum sample 2 current at 5 uM H2O2	82.7 uA	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovered concentration at 0.1 uM H2O2	0.09 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovered concentration at 0.5 uM H2O2	0.48 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovered concentration at 1 uM H2O2	0.98 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovered concentration at 3 uM H2O2	2.97 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovered concentration at 5 uM H2O2	4.98 uM	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovery at 0.1 uM H2O2	95.2%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovery at 0.5 uM H2O2	96.9%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovery at 1 uM H2O2	98.4%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovery at 3 uM H2O2Marked as a best value within this paper	99.1%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2
sample 2 recovery at 5 uM H2O2Marked as a best value within this paper	99.6%	—	—	SI Table Exact Reported	16 · S2.4 · Table S2