Electrochemistry Application — Construction of a high-performance electrochemical sensor based on intrinsically conductive Co-HHTQ-MOF for imidacloprid detection

6 measurement groups · 20 results

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

Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE · Electrode

30 nM IMI in 0.1 M PBS at pH 7.0; comparison of bare GCE, HHTQ/GCE, and Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE.

Geometry: three-electrode cell
Context: application electrode with pristine-control comparison
Measurement source: 5-6 · The electrochemical response of IMI at different electrodes · Fig. 2B

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Bare GCE IMI redox response	No obvious redox peaks	—	—	Text Qualitative	6 · The electrochemical response of IMI at different electrodes · Fig. 2B
Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE IMI responseMarked as a best value within this paper	Peak current more distinct than HHTQ/GCE	—	—	Text Qualitative	6 · The electrochemical response of IMI at different electrodes · Fig. 2B
HHTQ/GCE IMI response	Clear peak current observed	—	—	Text Qualitative	6 · The electrochemical response of IMI at different electrodes · Fig. 2B

Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Optimisation of Co-HHTQ-MOF suspension volume deposited on electrode surface.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Optimal deposition volumeMarked as a best value within this paper	5 uL	5 uL	—	Text Rounded Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. S3

Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE · Electrode

K4Fe(CN)6/KCl system; Cdl derived from plot of scan rate against half current difference.

Geometry: three-electrode cell; GCE working, Ag/AgCl reference, Pt counter
Context: Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE composite sensor
Measurement source: 3 · Electrochemical active surface area (ECSA) measurement · Fig. S1

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Double-layer capacitance Cdl	1.82 mF	0.00182 F	—	Text Rounded Reported	3 · Electrochemical active surface area (ECSA) measurement · Fig. S1B
Electrochemical active surface areaMarked as a best value within this paper	45.5 cm2	45.5 cm^2	—	Text Rounded Reported	3 · Electrochemical active surface area (ECSA) measurement · Fig. S1

Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE · Electrode

Comparison of Fe-HHTQ-MOF/GCE, Ni-HHTQ-MOF/GCE, and Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE toward 30 nM IMI in 0.1 M PBS pH 7.0.

Geometry: MOF/GCE electrodes
Context: metal-node comparison among HHTQ-MOF/GCE sensors
Measurement source: 2 · Electrochemical response of IMI at electrodes of different MOF materials · Fig. S2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Co-HHTQ-MOF signal relative to Fe/Ni analoguesMarked as a best value within this paper	Co-HHTQ-MOF electrochemical signal response is stronger than Fe-HHTQ-MOF and Ni-HHTQ-MOF	—	—	Qualitative Qualitative	6 · The electrochemical response of IMI at different electrodes · Fig. S2

Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE · Electrode

30 nM IMI at Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE over pH 5.0-9.0 in 0.1 M PBS.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Epc versus pH regression	Epc = -0.86 - 0.031 pH; R2 = 0.999	-0.031 V per pH	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. 2I
Electrons in IMI reduction	n of IMI is 4	4 electron	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables
Protons in IMI reduction	m = 2	2 proton	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables
Optimal pHMarked as a best value within this paper	pH 7.0	7 pH	—	Text Rounded Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. 2H
Proton/electron ratio from pH slope	m/n = 0.5	0.5	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. 2I

Co-HHTQ-MOF/GCE · Electrode

30 nM IMI in 0.1 M PBS at pH 7.0; scan rates from 20 to 140 mV/s.

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
alpha n_alpha from Nicholson analysis	0.30	0.3	—	Calculated From Reported Rounded Reported	6 · Optimization variables
Epc versus ln(scan rate) regression	Epc = -1.08 - 0.039 ln v; R2 = 0.997	-0.039 V per ln(mV s^-1)	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. 2F
Peak current density versus square-root scan rate fit	y = -4.08 x 10^-5 x - 5.64 x 10^-5; R2 = 0.996	-0.0000408 A cm^-2 per (mV s^-1)^1/2	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	5-6 · Optimization variables · Fig. 2D
Peak current density versus scan rate fit	y = -2.26 x 10^-6 x - 2.28 x 10^-4; R2 = 0.977	-0.00000226 A cm^-2 per (mV s^-1)	—	Figure Axis Rounded Reported	3 · Linear relationship between peak current and sweep speed · Fig. S4
R2 for peak reduction current versus scan rate	R2 = 0.977	0.977	—	Text Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. S4
Slope of log Ip versus log scan rate	0.44 log A/log mV s-1	0.44	—	Text Rounded Reported	6 · Optimization variables · Fig. 2E
Electrons in rate-determining step	1 electron	1 electron	—	Calculated From Reported Exact Reported	6 · Optimization variables
Scan-rate range	20 to 140 mV s-1	—	—	Caption Range	5 · Fig. 2 caption · Fig. 2C