2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-020-05412-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Model improvement for super-Nernstian pH sensors: the effect of surface hydration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The linear potential change can be explained by the modified Nernst equation, which is written aswhere E is the measured electric potential, E 0 is the electric potential at standard conditions, R is the ideal gas constant, T is the temperature, n is the number of moles of transferred electrons in the redox reaction, and F is the Faraday constant. 24 The theoretical sensitivity from equation (1) is 59.2 mV at 25°C, which is in good accordance with the value we obtained. The reason for the sensitivity slightly lower than the theoretical value from Nernst equation is probably due to the change in the surface charges of electrodes by protonation/deprotonation or specific adsorption of dissociated water ions.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The linear potential change can be explained by the modified Nernst equation, which is written aswhere E is the measured electric potential, E 0 is the electric potential at standard conditions, R is the ideal gas constant, T is the temperature, n is the number of moles of transferred electrons in the redox reaction, and F is the Faraday constant. 24 The theoretical sensitivity from equation (1) is 59.2 mV at 25°C, which is in good accordance with the value we obtained. The reason for the sensitivity slightly lower than the theoretical value from Nernst equation is probably due to the change in the surface charges of electrodes by protonation/deprotonation or specific adsorption of dissociated water ions.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The PANI film transforms between the emeraldine salt and emeraldine base states in response to changes in pH [ 51–53 ] ( Figure a): a low pH shifts the equilibrium toward emeraldine salt which increases the surface potential of WE, and vice versa. Figure 5b shows a linear relationship between the OCP (WE vs RE) and pH with a super‐Nernstian sensitivity (absolute value > 59 mV dec −1 ) of −69.4 mV pH −1 consistent with observations in previous reports [ 54–56 ] (discussion in Note S3, Supporting Information). Following the same working principle, the surface potential can serve as the reverse bias (WE connected with the cathode) for wireless signal transmission (Figure 5c).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The pH in the sample was continuously monitored using a PANI-based potentiometric pH sensor with the following analytical characteristics (Figures and S4–S6): sensitivities of 67.5 ± 0.4 mV/pH and −67.9 ± 0.8 mV/pH ( n = 3) in the batch and inside the flow cell (Figure a,b), respectively, fast response time (<3 s), a wide linear range of response (from pH 2 to 10), reversibility to subsequent decreasing and increasing pH changes with the average slope and intercept of −70.7 mV/pH and 507.2 mV, respectively, with variation coefficients of less than 1 and 10% (Figure S4), and an average sensitivity of 67.5 ± 0.6 mV/pH when the pH solutions were tested in a randomized sequence (Figure S5) over four cycles. Notably, the super-Nernstian response provided by the PANI pH sensor has previously been associated with an exchange process involving more than one proton per electron transferred in the film and depending in turn on the hydration of PANI . Furthermore, the pH sensor presents a stability (drift of 2.5 mV h –1 over a period of 90 min in the beaker, Figure S6; 2.9 mV h –1 and 0.8 mV h –1 over 60 min for pH 7.2 and pH 4.0 in flow mode, respectively, Figure S7) that is considered acceptable for lab tests, where frequent recalibrations are possible, and appropriate lifetime for a testing period of 7 days (RSD of the slope and intercept lower than 1%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Notably, the super-Nernstian response provided by the PANI pH sensor has previously been associated with an exchange process involving more than one proton per electron transferred in the film and depending in turn on the hydration of PANI. 34 Furthermore, the pH sensor presents a stability (drift of 2.5 mV h −1 over a period of 90 min in the beaker, Figure S6; 2.9 mV h −1 and 0.8 mV h −1 over 60 min for pH 7.2 and pH 4.0 in flow mode, respectively, Figure S7) that is considered acceptable for lab tests, where frequent recalibrations are possible, and appropriate lifetime for a testing period of 7 days (RSD of the slope and intercept lower than 1%). Finally, when we inspected a number of 30 calibrations provided by the PANI pH sensors used throughout this investigation and that were equally prepared, an average sensitivity of 68.5 ± 1.8 mV/pH was found, showing some slight variations between the different electrodes.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%