A Sensitive and Low-cost Analytical Method for the Electrochemical Determination of Quercetin, Based on 1-Ethylpyridinium Bromide/Carbon Paste Composite Electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a simple, sensitive and low-cost electrochemical procedure for the quantification of quercetin (QCT), a flavonoid and an antioxidant, based on 1-ethylpyridinium bromide modified carbon paste electrode. A 1-ethylpyridinium bromide/carbon paste composite electrode was used. The cyclic voltammogram of QCT showed two oxidation peaks at +0.575 V (vs Ag/AgCl/3M KCl) and +0.865 V (vs Ag/AgCl/3M KCl), and a reduction peak at +0.371 V (vs Ag/AgCl/3M KCl) in HCl/KCl solution at pH 1. Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) analysis in HCl/KCl at pH 1 showed three well-defined oxidation peaks while a single peak was recorded in phosphate buffer at pH 3. The peak currents of QCT significantly increased at the 1-ethylpyridinium bromide modified electrode in comparison with those recorded at the bare carbon paste electrode. This allowed the use of adsorptive stripping voltammetry to develop a simple and sensitive electroanalytical method for the determination of QCT. Key experimental parameters such as pH of the supporting electrolyte, the preconcentration time, the electrolysis potential, electrode composition, QCT concentration and interferents were investigated. The current response was found to be directly proportional to the concentration of QCT in the range from 2.48 x 10-7 M to 7.43 x 10-6 M, leading to a detection limit of 4.48 x 10-8 M. The developed analytical method was successfully applied to the determination of QCT in human urine samples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".