An electrochemical flow analysis system for putrescine using immobilized putrescine oxidase and horseradish peroxidase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An electrochemical flow analysis system was optimized together with immobilized putrescine oxidase and horseradish peroxidase for putrescine measurement. Four coupling agents, suberic acid bis(N-hydroxysuccinimide ester), gamma-maleimidobutyric N-hydroxysuccinimide ester, 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide and glutaraldehyde, were used for immobilizing the two enzymes on porous aminopropyl glass beads to form a bienzymic detection column. Although the glutaraldehyde crosslinking procedure offered the highest response, the immobilized bienzyme system was responsive to putrescine, spermidine (123% of the putrescine response at 250 muM) and cadaverine (98% of the putrescine response). In contrast, the enzymes immobilized on the glass beads using suberic acid bis(N-hydroxysuccinimide ester) offered significantly better selectivity towards putrescine at the same concentration. For comparison, cadaverine and spermidine only provoked a response of 4.7% and 27.5% of the putrescine signal. The response to cadaverine and spermidine was further suppressed by lowering the detection pH from 8 to 7. At 250 muM, the response obtained for cadaverine and spermidine was only 1.5% and 3.9%, respectively, of the signal obtained for putrescine. A linear response to putrescine was obtained from 5 to 75 muM (0.629 muAs muM-1, R2 = 0.997) with a detection limit of 5 muM (S/N = 3). The amperometric response retained 75% of its initial value after 600 repeated injections. The immobilized PUO/HRP (putrescine oxidase/horseradish peroxidase) was successfully demonstrated for measuring putrescine in fish extracts as an indicator of fish spoilage.
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".