| Autor: |
Madaci A; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France.; Laboratory of Materials and Electronics Systems, University El-Bachir El-Ibrahimi Bordj Bou Arreridj, Bordj Bou Arreridj 34000, Algeria., Suwannin P; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France.; Center for Research and Innovation, Faculty of Medical Technology, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand., Raffin G; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France., Hangouet M; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France., Martin M; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France., Ferkous H; Laboratory of Mechanical Engineering and Materials, Faculty of Technology, University of Skikda, Skikda 21000, Algeria., Bouzid A; Laboratory of Materials and Electronics Systems, University El-Bachir El-Ibrahimi Bordj Bou Arreridj, Bordj Bou Arreridj 34000, Algeria., Bausells J; El Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Centro Nacional de Microelectrónica (CNM), Institut de Microelectrònica de Barcelona (IMB), Campus UAB, 08193 Barcelona, Spain., Elaissari A; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France., Errachid A; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France., Jaffrezic-Renault N; Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France. |
| Abstrakt: |
In this paper, a microconductometric sensor has been designed, based on a chitosan composite including alcohol dehydrogenase-and its cofactor-and gold nanoparticles, and was calibrated by differential measurements in the headspace of aqueous solutions of ethanol. The role of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) was crucial in improving the analytical performance of the ethanol sensor in terms of response time, sensitivity, selectivity, and reproducibility. The response time was reduced to 10 s, compared to 21 s without GNPs. The sensitivity was 416 µS/cm ( v / v %) -1 which is 11.3 times higher than without GNPs. The selectivity factor versus methanol was 8.3, three times higher than without GNPs. The relative standard deviation (RSD) obtained with the same sensor was 2%, whereas it was found to be 12% without GNPs. When the air from the operator's mouth was analyzed just after rinsing with an antiseptic mouthwash, the ethanol content was very high (3.5 v / v %). The background level was reached only after rinsing with water. |
