2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71325-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capacitive sensor based on molecularly imprinted polymers for detection of the insecticide imidacloprid in water

Abstract: this manuscript reports on the development of a capacitive sensor for the detection of imidacloprid (IMD) in water samples based on molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs). MIPs used as recognition elements were synthesized via a photo-initiated emulsion polymerization. The particles were carefully washed using a methanol (MeOH) /acetic acid mixture to ensure complete template removal and were then dried. The average size of the obtained particles was less than 1 µm. The imprinting factor (IF) for IMD was 6 and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To this aim, imprinting factor Another evident difference between MIP 1 and MIP 2 sensing behavior can be gathered by the comparison with respective not imprinted polymers. To this aim, imprinting factor values (IF) [99,100] have been evaluated, calculated as the ratio between slopes of the calibration curves for MIP and NIP. IF equal to 2.5 and 7.1 are obtained for MIP 1 and MIP 2 , respectively, considering the average slope in the case of MIP 1 .…”
Section: Electrochemical Response Of Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To this aim, imprinting factor Another evident difference between MIP 1 and MIP 2 sensing behavior can be gathered by the comparison with respective not imprinted polymers. To this aim, imprinting factor values (IF) [99,100] have been evaluated, calculated as the ratio between slopes of the calibration curves for MIP and NIP. IF equal to 2.5 and 7.1 are obtained for MIP 1 and MIP 2 , respectively, considering the average slope in the case of MIP 1 .…”
Section: Electrochemical Response Of Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where q e is the amount of ACT bound to the polymer, q max is the maximum adsorption capacity of the polymer, K d (mg/L) is the equilibrium dissociation constant of the binding site, and C e is the equilibrium of ACT concentration (mg/L). The Scatchard analysis stipulates benefits for binding characteristics of ACT-MIP and NIP [39,40]. The plot q e /C e against q e (Figure 9) showed one straight linear fit for both ACT-MIP and NIP, suggesting that the existence of homogeneous binding sites existed for both polymers [41].…”
Section: Scatchard Analysismentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Hence, special treatments with "blocking agents" such as alkanethiols for gold transducers have been shown to conveniently enhance insulation, thus improving sensor performance [33]. A wide variety of molecules have been detected using impedimetric sensors: phenylalanine [33], nicotine [25], glucose [49], theophylline [50], melamine [62], resorcinol [51], imidacloprid [52], and amphetamine [53] (see Table 1 for the characteristics of these sensors).…”
Section: Conductometric and Impedimetric Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%