Nonenzymatic Electrochemical Glutamate Sensor Using Copper Oxide Nanomaterials and Multiwall Carbon Nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glutamate is an important neurotransmitter due to its critical role in physiological and pathological processes. While enzymatic electrochemical sensors can selectively detect glutamate, enzymes cause instability of the sensors, thus necessitating the development of enzyme-free glutamate sensors. In this paper, we developed an ultrahigh sensitive nonenzymatic electrochemical glutamate sensor by synthesizing copper oxide (CuO) nanostructures and physically mixing them with multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) onto a screen-printed carbon electrode. We comprehensively investigated the sensing mechanism of glutamate; the optimized sensor showed irreversible oxidation of glutamate involving one electron and one proton, and a linear response from 20 μM to 200 μM at pH 7. The limit of detection and sensitivity of the sensor were about 17.5 μM and 8500 μA·mM−1·cm−2, respectively. The enhanced sensing performance is attributed to the synergetic electrochemical activities of CuO nanostructures and MWCNTs. The sensor detected glutamate in whole blood and urine and had minimal interference with common interferents, suggesting its potential for healthcare applications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".