The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of enzymatic and non-enzymatic glucose sensors based on hierarchical Au-Ni alloy with conductive polymer
Abstract
Enzymatic and non-enzymatic amperometric glucose sensors based on nanostructured Au-Ni alloy were prepared and compared in their performance. The hierarchically structured Au-Ni surface was merely used for the non-enzymatic glucose sensor, while glucose oxidase attached poly-3'(benzoic acid) -2,2':5',2'- terthiophene (pTBA) formed on the alloy surface was used as the enzymatic sensor. The fabricated sensor was characterized using surface analysis and electrochemical experiments. In case of the enzymatic sensor, the anodic current of H2O2 generated from the enzyme reaction was used as the analytical signal, while the direct oxidation of glucose was observed on a mere Au-Ni alloy electrode without enzyme immobilization, which shows an excellent catalytic oxidation of glucose even in physiological pH. The potential pulse pretreatment of the sensor surfaces improved the performance, which allowed both the sensors reproducible and reusable (enzymatic sensor: coefficient of variation = 1.82%, n = 5, non-enzymatic: coefficient of variation = 2.93%). The enzymatic biosensor reveals the advantages of increased sensitivity, selectivity, and stability, compared with the non-enzymatic sensor. The linear range of enzymatic sensor was attained from 1.0 µM to 30.0 mM with a detection limit of 0.29 μM. The reliabilities of the sensors were also demonstrated through the glucose analysis in human blood samples, and the result was compared with the commercially available glucometer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus
American Diabetes Association (2014) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-s081 · Cited by 5,974
Design of electrocatalysts for oxygen- and hydrogen-involving energy conversion reactions
Jiao, Y., Zheng, Y., Jaroniec, M., & Qiao, S. Z. (2015) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c4cs00470a · Cited by 5,388
Electrochemical Glucose Biosensors
Wang, J. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr068123a · Cited by 3,498
Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes
(2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0805017 · Cited by 1,559
Cited by
Theerthagiri, J., Lee, S. J., Karuppasamy, K., Park, J., Yu, Y., Kumari, M. L. A., Chandrasekaran, S., Kim, H.-S., & Choi, M. Y. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126648 · Cited by 85
Liang, X., Zhang, S., Meng, S., Tan, R., Zhang, K., & Hu, J. (2024) · Microchemical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.microc.2024.111690 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, W.-C., Kim, K.-B., Gurudatt, N. G., Hussain, K. K., Choi, C. S., Park, D.-S., & Shim, Y.-B.
- Venue
- Biosensors and Bioelectronics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 130
- Pages
- 48-54
- ISSN
- 0956-5663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2911393369
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of enzymatic and non-enzymatic glucose sensors based on hierarchical Au-Ni alloy with conductive polymer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.bios.2019.01.028
- The paper
- Lee, W.-C., Kim, K.-B., Gurudatt, N. G., Hussain, K. K., Choi, C. S., Park, D.-S., & Shim, Y.-B. (2019). Comparison of enzymatic and non-enzymatic glucose sensors based on hierarchical Au-Ni alloy with conductive polymer. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2019.01.028
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.