Skip to main content
NCBI home page
RSC Advances logoLink to RSC Advances
. 2024 Mar 19;14(13):9137–9158. doi: 10.1039/d4ra00034j

Development of electrochemical sensors for quick detection of environmental (soil and water) NPK ions

M I Hossain a,b, M A Khaleque a,b, M R Ali a,b, M S Bacchu a,b, M S Hossain a,b, S M F Shahed c, M Aly Saad Aly d, Md Z H Khan a,b,✉
PMCID: PMC10949039  PMID: 38505387

Abstract

All over the world, technology is becoming more and more prevalent in agriculture. Different types of instruments are already being used in this sector. For the time being, every farmer is trying to produce more crops on a piece of land. Eventually, soil loses its nutrients; however, to grow more crops, farmers use more fertilizers without knowing the proper conditions of the soil in real time. To overcome this issue, many scientists have recently focused on developing electrochemical sensors to detect macronutrients, i.e., nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), in soil or water rapidly. In this review, we focus mainly on the recent developments in electrochemical sensors used for the detection of nutrients (NPK) in different types of samples. As it is outlined, the use of smart and portable electrochemical sensors can be helpful for the reduction of excess fertilizer and can play a vital role in maintaining suitable conditions in soils and water. We are optimistic that this review can guide researchers in the development of a portable and suitable NPK detection system for soil nutrients.

When a plant shows deficiency syndromes, sometimes it becomes too late for the farmer to apply fertilizer, as most rely on checking plant leaves to assess their nutrition level. Electrochemical sensors can bring revolution here. Other pollutants (NPK) can also be determined using these sensors.graphic file with name d4ra00034j-ga.jpg

1. Introduction

Nowadays, advanced technologies are becoming more and more popular, and covering various aspects to improve our daily lives. In agriculture, a variety of technological tools and engineering nanoparticle-based fertilizers1 have already been developed to facilitate agricultural work and to increase crop yield. Various macronutrients and micronutrients in soil are considered the most important factors for good harvesting. Micronutrients, especially nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), play an important roles in the cultivation and production of crops.2 An adequate amount of NPK in the soil is required for optimal crop production. When NPK deficiency occurs in the root zone, it can lead to different types of syndromes such as yellowing of leaves, spots on leaves, and reduction of flowers and fruits, and details of deficiency are described in the previously reported studies.3–5

To reduce this deficiency in plants, farmers use various fertilizers to supply these nutrients without knowing the present condition, i.e., the need for nutrients by the plants. As a result, sometimes they use excess amounts of fertilizers for the fertilization of the plants, results in various negative impacts such as water pollution, eutrophication, soil contamination, and reduction in the population of soil microorganisms.6,7 To optimize crop production, it is important to know how much NPK is present in the soil and how much NPK should be added at that time.8,9 Various analytical techniques such as gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy, ion-chromatography, atomic absorption spectroscopy, UV-vis spectroscopy, and field effect transistor have been used for the determination and quantification of different types of chemical elements and compounds; however, these methods are very expensive, need a well-arranged set up, time consuming, require skilled person for data acquisition and interpretation, and the vigilant way for sample preparation though these methods are provided with high accuracy and precision.10–12

For these reasons, the development of a simple, economically feasible, and rapid technique for the detection of NPK is crucial. In the last decade, various types of sensors have been developed for the detection of NPK in soil, such as electrochemical sensors, optical sensors, and mass-sensitive biosensors. Among these biosensors, an electrochemical sensor is one of the most sensitive and rapid tools for NPK detection. It is a promising strategy for developing an innovative, cost-effective, and portable NPK testing method for soil. The use of this electrochemical sensor has many advantages; for example, this type of sensor is more sensitive, reproducible, and repeatable than other sensors2 and is sometimes comparable with conventional techniques.

The sensitivity and selectivity of an electrochemical sensor mainly depend on the surface modification of the transducer. Nowadays, researchers are interested in using different types of nanomaterials to modify the transducer. Metal and metal oxide nanoparticles are mainly used to develop transducers for electrochemical sensors for soil testing, environmental analysis, food safety,13 health management, and clinical diagnostics due to their low cost, easy modification, and availability. Nanomaterials of different sizes and shapes have been used for the development of electrochemical sensors.

In this review article, we will discuss recent developments of different kinds of sensors used for the detection of NPK in different environmental samples with the current state of research and their mechanism of operation. We review several nanomaterial-based electrochemical sensors and summarize various parameters of different NPK sensors that have been previously reported. We also discuss some prospects for electrochemical sensors based on nanomaterials as alternative soil tests.

2. Conventional technique of NPK testing

In the traditional technique of NPK investigation of agricultural fields, soil samples were taken randomly from different locations in the field. The samples were mixed and packed and levelled well. Then, the samples were transported to a laboratory where the samples were chemically processed for various analyses. Then, the processed samples were analyzed in a state-of-the-art laboratory using various expensive instruments. Analytical instruments include atomic mass spectroscopy (AAS), UV-visible spectroscopy, gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GCMS), and field effect transistors. These types of test methods sometimes require more than one day for sample processing and analysis and trained personnel for instrument operation and chemical processing.

Actually, nowadays, electrochemical sensing is getting popular as conventional methods are very expensive, need a well-arranged setup, are time-consuming, and require a skilled person for data acquisition and interpretation, a vigilant way for sample preparation though these methods are provided with high accuracy and precision,10–12 we have mentioned earlier, here the detection range and limit of conventional methods vary from sample to sample; for example, for the atomic adsorption spectroscopy (AAS) the detection limits for most elements (ppm) and absolute detection limits (μg) is 0.01–5, and the details are discussed in these ref. 14–21. Actually, this part should be focused more carefully as there are hardly any review papers providing a summary of the conventional methods. Here, we have mentioned a few of the conventional techniques without providing any detailed explanations.

Smart electrochemical sensors, based on microcontroller potentiostat, i.e. very cheap and versatile platform in electrochemistry and instrumentation35 and wireless communication technology36,37 have also been widely used for human health monitoring such as blood glucose, blood pressure, heart rate, wrist pulse, and other health-related conditions.38–43 If we design electrochemical sensors for sensing NPK in soil or soil water samples, a quick, accurate and easy determination is possible, thus introducing a smart sensing system in agriculture. In the schematic figure, we show that by using this kind of electrochemical sensor, designed with a smartphone-based application, it may be possible to determine the desired ion present in the soil sample dispersed in water. Already these kinds of electrochemical sensors have been developed for specific ion detection in urine or in blood samples as described elsewhere in the ref. 16–21. Therefore, we should try to improve this kind of system to detect different macronutrients in soil samples/water solutions.

2.1. Advanced electrochemical sensors for the detection of nitrogen (N)

Nitrogen is one of the most important elements in the environment and occurs in several chemical forms, including nitrate (NO3−), nitrite (NO2−), ammonium (NH4+), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen oxide (NO), and nitrogen gas (N2). Recently, farmers have been using fertilizers in an inefficient and uncontrolled manner to meet the demand for surplus food production for the gradually growing population.44 These increasing amounts of N species have been shown to have a range of negative impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.45,46 To avoid excessive use of fertilizers and to use the fertilizers properly, farmers need to monitor the nitrogen species consumed by crops in a short time. An advanced electrochemical sensor is a highly sensitive, selective, low-cost, and easily measurement in situ device that enables fertilizer selection for cultivation in real-time.

2.1.1. Nitrate ion detection

Nitrates are the most oxidized form of nitrogen found in soil and water in the form of highly soluble and mobile mineral salts.47 Previous studies indicate that the nitrate ion can serve as the basis for the nitrogenous nutrition of plants and soil microorganisms.48,49 The easily detectable nitrate ions can be detected and quantified by an electrochemical sensor, as summarized in Table 1.

A comparison of electrochemical sensors for the detection of nitrate ions.
Analytical method Linear range Low level of detection Sample Analyte References
UV-visible spectrometry 1–100 μg mL−1 0.33 μg mL−1 Drinking water Nitrate 22
UV-visible spectrometry 0.5–13.7 mg L−1 — Municipal waste water Nitrate 23
Ultraviolet (UV) light 0.08–4.0 mg L−1 0.04 mg L−1 Natural waters Nitrate 24
UV-visible spectrometry 0.5–3.0 mg L−1 — Agricultural soil samples and water samples Phosphates 25
UV-visible spectrometry 0.5–5.0 μg mL−1 — Soil/water Phosphates 26
Ion chromatography 4.30–4.36 mg L−1 0.03 mg L−1 Soil extract Nitrate 27
Ion chromatography 0.90–0.92 mg L−1 0.02 mg L−1 Soil extract Phosphates 27
Ion chromatography 0.30 to 5.6 mg L−1 0.10 mg L−1 Natural waters Potassium 28
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry 0.02–10 mg L−1 3 μg L−1 Natural waters Nitrate 29
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry 0.5–208.5 mg L−1 0.176 mg L−1 Water Potassium formate 30
Headspace gas chromatography (HS-GC) — 2.5 mg kg−1 Soil sample Phosphorus 31
High-performance liquid chromatography with UV detection 0.2–200 ppm 9.5 mg L−1 Environmental water samples Nitrate 32
0.2–200 ppm 1.33 mg L−1 Environmental water samples Phosphate
Graphene-based field-effect transistor 0.001–100 mg L−1 1.1 μg L−1 Water Nitrates 33
ZnO nanorods field-effect transistors (FETs) 1–5000 μM 1.0 μM Nutrient solution or water Phosphate 34
2–25 000 μM 0.1 μM Nitrates
2–15 000 μM 0.4 μM Potassium
Open in a new tab

Liang et al. reported a method to determine the concentration of soluble nitrate ions in water. In their study, copper nanowires were annealed at 600 °C to obtain maximum reactive surface area for the reduction of nitrate ions.50 The schematic diagram of the nanowire-based copper electrode modification is shown in Fig. 1. However, the electrode was also prepared at an annealing temperature of 600 °C. The modified copper electrode showed a dynamic range of 8 to 5860 μM with a detection limit of 1.35 μM for nitrate ions in water. In another research work, a glassy carbon electrode was modified with copper, MWCNT, and RGO to detect nitrite ions by linear voltammetry (LSV).51 The detection of nitrate ions in tap and mineral water, sausage, salami, and cheese samples showed linearity from 0.1 to 75 μM with a detection limit of 30 nM at pH 3. Moreover, branched Ag nanoparticle electrodeposition was performed in an ammonium sulfate medium and the modified surface was well suited for electro catalytic reduction of nitrate.52 The ultra-microelectrode was able to detect nitrate ion concentration in a wide linear range (4–1000) μM. The modified electrode could be used for up to 100 interrogation cycles and was much more selective for the direct detection of nitrate ions in synthetic aquifer samples without pretreatment and pH adjustment of the solution used in the experiments. In addition, the detection of nitrate ions in agricultural soils has been performed using graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) nanofibers.53 These could detect nitrate ions from soil extracts. The modified surface GO allowed for increasing the charge transfer resistance of the modified electrode and could detect a wide concentration range of 0.44–442 mg L−1 in the soil medium. Moreover, graphene foam (GF) was added with titanium dioxide nanofibers and nitrate reductase enzyme molecules.54 In another work, nitrate reductase was entrapped in the growing PPy and the carboxyl group of CNT was immobilized. The optimal reactions were found in 0.1 M PBS at pH 7.5.55 This nitrate detection exhibits a linear range of 0.44–1.45 mM. Faisal and Abu have also shown that nitrate reductase can be immobilized on PPy surfaces to detect nitrate ions in wastewater.56

Fig. 1. Thermal annealing preparation of nanowire-based Cu electrode, this figure has been adapted from ref. 50 with permission from Elsevier, copyright September 2016.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Wang et al. reported research on self-assembled graphene oxide (GO)-three-dimensional copper oxide nanoparticles. The coupling increased the sensitivity and catalytic activity of copper for the detection of nitrate ions, which was the highest priority.57 The electrochemical detection was carried out in seawater with a low detection limit of 7.89 μM. Moreover, the Ti nanocomposite electrode modified with graphene oxide nanosheets showed excellent durability for the detection of nitrate ions compared to Ti–Cu and Cu–Zn electrodes.58 In addition, a carbon fiber micro-disc electrode was coupled with square-wave voltammetry to investigate the effects of aerosols on human health. In this study, the nitrate concentration followed a linear response of 0.003–2 mM with a detection limit of 1.10 μM.59 Inam and others reported research work on the modification of Ag-working electrodes with electrodeposited copper nanoclusters in 2021. The modified electrode for nitrate ion detection showed a good linear concentration range (0.05 to 5) mM, with a detection limit of 0.207 nM. Another research study reported the detection of nitrate ions by an electrode modified with copper nanoclusters in freshwater.60 In addition, trace-etched polycarbamate membranes were electrochemically modified with copper nanowires. Detection of nitrate was performed in water samples containing chloride and nitrites.61 Moreover, the electrode modified with Pt–Cu showed a linear response between 0.12 and 4.75 mM concentration of nitrate ions neutral medium by the differential pulse voltammetry method. They found that Cu(i) and Cu(ii) oxides reduced the reduction of nitrate, but this electrode showed excellent sensitivity (2.3782 μA μM−1 cm−2).

A new chemical sensor was developed on an ion-printed polymer matrix using copper nanoparticles and a polyaniline nanocomposite to detect nitrate ions. A monomer functionalized with aniline adheres to the copper nanoparticles and the electrode was used to detect nitrate in real water samples.62 Fu demonstrated the modification of a micro band electrode with a palladium-tin bimetallic composite using a microelectromechanical system. The double layer was formed by an electrochemical deposition method, which has improved electro catalytic activity.63 In this observation, they found repeatability and stability for 60 days, and a linear range from 1 mg L−1 to 20 mg L−1. In addition, poly(3-octyl-thiophene) and molybdenum disulfide (POT-MoS2) were applied to a gold electrode. The fabricated POT-MoS2 layer acted as an ion-to-electron conversion layer. The nanocomposites showed high accuracy over a period of 27 days.64 The detection of nitrate showed a dynamic linear range of 1–1500 ppm. The working principle of this soil sensor is shown in Fig. 2. Another research work dealt with the reduction of nitrate ions on AuNP surfaces on the surface of carbon paper electrodes functionalized with selenium particles.65 The modified electrode was successfully used in seawater samples with a detection limit of 8.6 μM.

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the working principle of the soil sensor. (a) Oxidation process for the detection of nitrite ions, (b) molecular structure of POT and MoS2, and (c) mechanism of the reduction process of the working electrode, this figure has been adapted from ref. 64 with permission from American Chemical Society, copyright Aug 1, 2019.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Nitrate contamination of food and mineral water was also studied using the modified electrode with copper nanostructure. In this study, a hydrodynamic amperometric electrode was used to detect the concentration of nitrate ions, which had a linear dynamic range from 1 to 35 μM. The repeatability was evaluated as 2.3% and the detection limit was 0.59 μM. In addition, a two-layer bimetallic electrode modification was performed using two different salt solutions of copper and silver.66 The electrodeposited silver film behaves like a porous network-like structure and the average particle size was 200 nm. The linearity of the catalytic current increases from 0.08 to 6.52 mM.

2.1.2. Nitrite ion detection

Nitrite is an essential intermediate in the biological nitrogen cycle. The main source of nitrite in the water environment is the nitrogen fertilizer from agriculture.48 However, it has a bad effect on the human body (lethal dose 1.1 g), if it is present in drinking water and aquatic life as well.48,99 A comparison of electrochemical techniques for the detection of nitrite ions is shown in Table 2.

A comparison of the electrochemical sensors for the detection of nitrate ions.
Sensing material Detection range Detection limit Method of detection Detection medium Types of sample Ref.
AuNPs/CS/MXene/GCE 0.5–3300 μM 0.069 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS (pH 7) Water 67
Cu@TiO2-Nf/PAR/GCE 5–7500 μM 2.1 μM DPV PBS (pH 1.7) Water 68
Cu/SPE (Ag) 0.05–5 mM 0.21 nM LSV 0.1 M KCl Water 69
Cu nanowire electrode 8–5860 μM 1.35 μM DPV 0.1 M Na2SO4 Tap water/river water 50
Cu/MWCNT/RGO/GCE 0.1–75 μM 20 nM/30 nM SWV Na2SO4/H2SO4 Mineral/tap water 51
Ppy-NW electrodes 10 μM to 1 mM 4.5 ± 1 μM Pulsed voltammograms N/A N/A 70
AgNS on carbon and Ag UMEs 4–1000 μM 3.2–5.1 μM Chronoamperometry 0.1 M Na2SO4 Synthetic aquifer 52
Ag-doped zeolite expanded graphite epoxy electrode 1–10 mM 0.08 mM/0.004 mM Multiple pulsed amperometry 0.1 M Na2SO4 N/A 71
Cu electrode 0.1–2.5 mM 4.2 μM Amperometry 0.1 M Na2SO4 Mineral water/soft drinks sample 72
Chitosan/bentonite nanocomposite-based ISE 20 mM to 0.8 M N/A Potentiometry N/A N/A 73
Self-assembly nanobeads-packed (nBP) hetero columns ion-selective microelectrode 0.1 μM to 0.1 M N/A Potentiometry N/A N/A 74
Ppy-NS ISE 0–200 mg L−1 N/A Potentiometry N/A N/A 75
NiR/PEDOT NWA/AuE 3.22–17.74 μM N/A Amperometry 0.1 M KCl Water 54
NiR/rGO/Ppy/GCE 5 × 103–104 μM 275 μM CV 0.1 M KCl Freshwater 56
NiR/CNTs/Ppy/GCE 440–1450 μM 170 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Freshwater 55
NiR/Gr foam/Ti NF 0.16–7128 μM 0.16 μM Amperometry N/A Soil extract 76
NiR/ZnO NRs/AgE 1–3400 μM 1 μM Amperometry N/A Freshwater 77
NiR/GO/PEDOT NF/AuE 7.09–7128 μM 2.17 μM EIS N/A Soil extract 53
Gr/CuE 9–940 μM 10 μM Amperometry 0.1 M NaOH Freshwater 78
Gr/Cu NPs/AuE 10–90 μM 7.89 μM DPV 0.01 M HCl + 0.1 M Na2SO4 Freshwater 57
CuNPs/MWCNT-PEI/PPy-PSS/GCE 100–5000 μM 30 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Freshwater 79
CuOx/CNTs/GCE 10–700 μM N/A DPV 0.1 M Na2SO4 Freshwater 80
Cu-modified CF MDE 3–2000 μM 1.1 μM SWV 0.1 M KCl PM2.5 particle extraction in water 59
Cu NCs/PtmE 6.25–300, 300–3500 μM 5 μM LSV N/A Freshwater 60
CuNCs/PGE 1–35 μM 0.59 μM Amperometry 0.01 M H2SO4+ 0.05 M K2SO4 Food extract/freshwater 81
Cu NWA/TEPM 10–400 μM 3.0 μM LSV 1 mM H2SO4 + 0.1 M K2SO4 Freshwater 61
Cu NW/CuE 8–5860 μM 1.35 μM DPV Acidic (pH 2) Freshwater 50
Cu NPs/PtE 6.25–1000 μM N/A LSV 0.1 M Na2SO4 Freshwater 82
Macroporous Ag film/ITO 20–5000 μM N/A SWV 1 M NaOH Freshwater 83
Ag networks like film/GCE 80–6520 μM 3.5 μM Amperometry 0. M PBS Freshwater 66
3D dendrite Ag NSt/Au mEA 2–1000 μM 2 μM SWV 0.5 M NaCl Freshwater 84
AgNPs/AuE 0.39–50 0.39 SWV NaCl (34.5 g L−1) Seawater 85
AgNPs/AuE 1 × 10−3 to 0.01 μM 9 × 10−4 CV NaCl (34.5 g L−1) Seawater 86
Oxide-deficient Cu–Pt 120–990 μM 0.159 μM DPV 0.1 M KCl Freshwater 87
Pd NPs/epoxy-Cu 32–560 μM N/A Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Freshwater 88
Pd–Sn composite/MEA 16–322.6 μM 3.06 μM LSV 0.01 M KClO4 Freshwater 63
Porous Cu–Ni alloy 20–1000 μM 2 μM Amperometry 0.5 M K2SO4 Freshwater 89
Pd–Au NPs composite 16–242 μM 1.19 μM LSV N/A Freshwater 90
PEG-SH/SePs/Au NPs 16–500 μM 8.6 μM DPV 0.1 M KCl Freshwater 65
PNA-SA-modified SiO2@Fe3O4/CPE 101–1453 μM 87 μM SWV BR-buffer Freshwater 91
CuxO-GCS/BPPGE 10–100 μM 1.032 μM CV 1 mM HClO4 + 1 M NaClO4 Soil extract/food extract 92
PPy/Ag NPs/GCE 1–104 μM 5 μM CV 0.1 M K2SO4 Freshwater 93
PPy/Pd NCs/GCE 1 × 10−4 to 8 × 10−4 0.74 DPV 0.1 M PBS Freshwater 94
PANI/WO3/Cu Nsh/GCE 40–246 μM 1.2 μM LSV 0.1 M H2SO4 Freshwater 95
PANI/Cu NPs/GCE 1–105 μM 5 μM LSV 0.1 M KCl Freshwater 62
PPy/GCE 0.001–0.006 mM N/A SWSV pH 9 Water 96
PANI/Cu/MWCNT/Au electrode 0.8–30 μM 0.09 μM DPV 0.1 M PBS (pH 5) Waste water 97
Chit/ZnO/Pt 0.1–2 μM 0.01 μM CV 0.1 M Na2SO4 (pH 5.5) Drinking water 98
Open in a new tab

Stepwise modification of the glassy carbon electrode by chitosan (CS), polypyrrole (PPy), and carboxyl graph (CG) showed excellent differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) for the detection of nitrite ions in real water samples.100 The obtained electrochemical current showed a linear relationship with a wide range from 0.2 to 1000 μM with a detection limit of 0.02 μM. Moreover, the GCE modified with manganese porphyrin and niobium tungstate nano sheets showed an excellent detection limit of 0.380 μM.101

A micro-structuring system was developed to fabricate the working electrode. In this study, the reported linearity range was between 10-800 μM and the detection limit was 0.5 μM.103 In another study, ZnONRs (NR = Nano Rods) were grown on a seeded silver electrode and then dip-coated with Fe2O3 NPs. ZnONRs with Fe2O3 NPs significantly increase the electro-catalytic activity.104 The modified electrode showed a linear response from 1 to 1250 μM. Moreover, copper sulfide (CuS) nanoparticles and multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) nanocomposites were synthesized to prepare a GCE for the detection of nitrite ions. The composite showed excellent electro catalytic activity in the oxidation of nitrite ions in PBS (pH 7.0). The detection of nitrite ions showed linearity between 1 μM and 8.1 mM with a detection limit of 0.33 μM.102 The electrode modification process is shown in Fig. 3. In addition, Pt nanoparticles were loaded with Ni(OH)2/MWCNTs by a simple reduction process, which showed remarkable electro catalytic performance in nitrite oxidation.105 It has a sensitivity of 145 μA mM−1.

Fig. 3. Schematic of the modification process for CuS-MWCNTs, this figure has been adapted from ref. 102 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 15 May 2016.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

A novel electrochemical sensor was fabricated to determine the nitrite ion concentration on a hollo site modified with silver nano rods by a chemical process. Then, a MoS2 layer was prepared on an Ag/HNT nanocomposite by a hydrothermal process, and the catalytic activity of the finally modified carbon paste electrode was significantly enhanced. It provides good linearity from 2 to 425 μM.106 Moreover, in the research study, a GCE was fabricated using chitosan@N,S-coded MWCNTs, and gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) to obtain a nitrite sensor with a linear range of 1–5000 μM and a detection limit of 0.2 μM.107 In another study, a silver and graphene oxide-modified electrode was fabricated using ethanolamine and Ag nanoparticles. In this work, the detection limit and linear response range were reported to be 0.023 μM and 0.05 to 3000 μM, respectively.108 Wu et al. modified an electrode with Cu2O/CNTs to detect nitrite ions, with a linear concentration range from 0.1 nM to 1 mM.109 A schematic diagram of the electrode modification for nitrite ion detection is shown in Fig. 4. Huang et al. deposited gold nanoparticles on a poly(3-methylthiophene) (P3MT) modified glassy carbon electrode to form nano-Au/P3MT/GCE. Amperometric detection showed that the modified electrode exhibited excellent electrochemical responses for the detection of nitrite ions with a linear concentration range of 10–1000 μM.110 Moreover, the study on the detection of nitrite ions by amperometric detection in aqueous solution showed a satisfactory detection limit of 0.4 μM.111 Moreover, the glassy carbon electrode modified with gold nanoparticles showed excellent electro catalytic activity for the oxidation of nitrite ions. This gold-modified electrochemical sensor is comparatively better than the bare GCE and planar gold electrode, which showed a detection limit of 2.4 μM.112 Another study113 was carried out using a composite of 5-amino-1,3,4-thiadiazole-2-thiol (p-ATT) on functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes (FMWCNTs), and thus modified (FMWCNTs-ATT polymer (p-ATT)) glassy carbon electrode was used to detect ammonium ions amperometrically, and the oxidation peak was observed at 0.84 V. The peak of the modified electrode was larger than that of the bare electrode. This amperometric method showed a linear detection range of 10 to 1000 nM with a detection limit of 0.2 nM for the nitrite ion in the water medium.

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the fabrication of Cu2O/CNTs composite-based sensor, (i) preparation of Cu2O/CNTs composite, (ii) Au electrode modification with Cu2O/CNTs composite and (iii) nitrite ion detection; this figure has been adapted from ref. 109 with permission from Elsevier, copyright November 2018.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

For the simultaneous detection of nitrite ions with nitrate ions, Ag particle-doped zeolite with graphite epoxy electrode (AgZEGE) was used using multiple pulse amperometry (MPA). MPA improved the electrochemical response over other conventional methods.71 The studied electrochemical sensor was successfully used for the analysis of tap water samples spiked with nitrite ions and showed a linear response at 0.1–1 mM nitrite concentration. Another sensor for the simultaneous detection of superoxide anions and nitrite ions was fabricated stepwise on a Pt electrode. First, a CNT/PPy composite was deposited on a Pt electrode and then Cu and ZnSOD were deposited on it, which increased the electro catalytic response for the detection of nitrite ions.114 Micaela Badea modified the Pt electrode with a poly (1,8 diaminonapthelene) film for amperometric detection of nitrites in the water bath and flow injection analysis.115 This analysis was also applied to food, soil, vegetable, and fertilizer samples. Another research work on the determination of nitrite ions was carried out on the surface of a carbon electrode modified with cobalt-pathalocyanine.116 Also, a poly (pyrrole viologen) nitrite reductase biosensor modified with GCE was developed for the detection of nitrite ions. The linear range and detection limit of the modified electrode were 5.4–43.4 μM and 5.4 μM, respectively.117

In another research demonstration, the working electrode was modified with nano-diamond powder, which has catalytic activity for the oxidation of nitrite ions. Here, the electrochemical response increases with increasing nitrite ion concentration in the water medium.118 In addition, the detection of nitrite ions was also carried out by modifying the GCE electrode with Pt and Fe(iii) nanoparticles.119 Abdollah Salimi, modified cobalt oxide (CoO) nanoparticles and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) composite modified GCE using cyclic voltammetry, which showed excellent catalytic efficiency to reduce the over potential. In amperometric detection of nitrite ions, the modified electrode shows a linear dynamic range of 1–30 μM and a detection limit of 0.20 μM.120

2.1.3. Ammonium ion detection

In agricultural ecosystems, ammonium ions are important for plant growth when external inputs are low. In contrast, it causes toxicity when the amount is in the millimolar range. Root and shoot growth is affected due to the toxicity of ammonium ions. There are multiple conventional methods to determine ammonium ion concentration and electrochemical sensing research work is listed in Table 3.

Comparison of the electrochemical sensors developed for the detection of nitrite ions.
Sensing material Detection range Detection limit Method of detection Detection medium Types of sample Ref.
Poly(1,8-DAN)/f-MWCNT 0.3–6.5 μM 0.075 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS + 0.1 M KCl N/A 121
GO-CS-AuNPs/GCE 0.9–18.9 μM 0.3 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS N/A 122
Cu/MWCNT/RGO/GCE 0.1–75 μM N/A SWV Na2SO4/H2SO4, pH 3 Water 51
MnTMPyP/NbWO6/GCE 0.12–3.57 mM 0.38 μM DPV PBS (pH 7) N/A 101
CG/PPy/CS/GCE 0.2–1000 μM 0.02 μM DPV 0.1 M NaAc-HAc buffer (pH 4) Tap/commercial/salt/soybean milk water 100
α-MnO2- based electrode 10–800 μM 0.5 μM DPV 0.1 M PBS N/A 123
GNPs/graphene/MCE electrode 0.3–720 μM 0.1 μM DPV 0.1 M acetate buffer Lake/river/industrial water/food 124
α-Fe2O3 NPs-ZnO NRs-Ag electrode 1–1250 μM 0.015 μM LSV 0.1 M PBS Tap/mineral/pond water 104
Cu-MOF/rGO/GCE 3 μM to 40 mM 33 nM Chronoamperometry 0.1 M PBS N/A 125
CuS-MWCNT/GCE 1 μM to 8.1 mM 0.33 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Tap water 102
Pt/Ni(OH)2/MWCNTs/GCE 0.4 μM to 5.67 mM 0.13 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Milk sample 126
Pt NWNs/GCE 1 μM to 24 mM/24–132 mM 0.14 μM Chronoamperometry 0.1 M PBS N/A 127
Ag/HNTs/MoS2/CPE 2–425 μM 0.7 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Tap water/aqueduct water 106
AuNPs/CS@N,S co-doped MWCNTs/GCE 1–7000 μM 0.2 μM Amperometry M PBS (pH 7.4) Food 107
Pd/Fe3O4/poly DOPA/RGO 2.5–6470 μM 0.5 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS River water/food 128
Ag-AEfG100/GCE 0.05–3000 μM 0.023 μM Amperometry PBS (pH 7.4) Tap water 108
Cu2O-CNTs/Au electrode 0.1 nM to 1 mM 0.0188 nM EIS 5 mM K3[Fe(CN)6]/K4[Fe(CN)6} in PBS (pH 7.4) Tap water 109
Nano-Au/P3MT/GCE 10–1000 μM 2.3 μM Amperometry PBS (pH 4.0) Iodized salt 110
Bare GCE N/A 0.4 μM Amperometry N/A Aqueous 111
Au/GCE 10–5000 μM 2.4 μM CV 0.2 M acetate buffer Water 112
Cyt c/l-Cys/P3MT/MWCNT/GCE 10–100 μM 0.5 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS Aqueous 129
P-NiTAPc film-modified electrode 0.5–8000 μM 0.1 μM Amperometry H2SO4–Na2SO4 solution (pH 2.0) Water 130
Ag-NEEs 10–300 μM N/A CV 0.1 M PBS N/A 131
MC/GCE 0.5–100 μM 0.1 μM DPV BR-buffer (pH 3.5) Water 132
Boron-doped diamond electrode 2–1000 μM 0.05 μM CV N/A Aqueous 133
p-ATT/GCE 0.05–100 340 pM Amperometry 0.2 M PBS Water 134
VO(SB)-modified CPE 3.9–40 μM 0.613 μM CV 0.1 M TBAP N/A 135
AgZEGE 100–1000 μM 10 μM Amperometry, CV 0.1 M Na2SO4 Water 71
Pt/poly(1,8-DAN)Pt/CA 0.5–100 μM 0.1 μM Amperometry Acetate buffer (pH 4) Water/food/soil 115
CoPc modified electrode N/A 0.005 μA CV PBS (pH 7.3) N/A 116
CuNPs/CNTs/CS/GCE 0.1–2500 μM 0.024 μM Amperometry 0.05 M PBS N/A 136
CoL/MNSs/CPE 0.2–30 μM 0.015 μM DPV BR-buffer Water 137
Cu/Ag/MWCNTs/GCE 1 μM to 1 mM 0.2 μM Amperometry PBS (pH 7) Lake/drinking/sea water 138
AuNPs-PEI/CSPE 0.01–4 μM 0.0025 μM DPV PBS (pH 6.5) Tap/cannel water 139
Snsubmicroparticles/GCE 5–1000 μM 0.5 μM DPV 0.1 M PBS N/A 140
Snsubmicroparticles/GCE 150–900 μM 10 μM Amperometry 0.1 M PBS N/A 140
Snsubmicroparticles/GCE 100–500 μM 50 μM Impedance 0.1 M PBS N/A 140
Open in a new tab

For the groundwater used as drinking water, ammonium ion concentration was measured with a new silver-decorated carbon nanotube-epoxy composite using the differential pulse voltammetry technique.141 The newly modified electrode has very good sensitivity and excellent electroactivity for the direct oxidation of nitrite ions. Another technique for the detection of ammonium ions was developed on a lab-on-a-chip (LOC), which works for in situ and real samples by potentiometric measurements. The fabricated device consists of poly(dimethylsiloxane) and an integrated sensor platform that includes four working microelectrodes, two reference microelectrodes, and one counter microelectrode.142 It can measure fast and reliable data in real time when immersed in a laminar flow of ambient water. In addition, an ion-selective electrode (ISE) with solid contact was developed by modifying it with graphite paste, polypyrrole, and ionophore-immobilized polyvinyl chloride materials.143 In this process, the ISEs possess a short reaction time. In addition, a wireless real-time ion-selective solid-state membrane was developed for the detection of ammonium ions in wastewater.144 It saves 25% of power under normal operating conditions. In another research work, a zeolite-based conductometric micro sensor was successfully used for the detection of ammonium ions in real media.145 The modified electrode exhibited high operational and storage stability and has a detection limit of 100 μM. Saiapina et al. reported a conductometric sensor based on 25,27-di-(5-thio-octyloxy) calyx [4]aren-crown-6 for the measurement of monovalent, divalent, and trivalent cations. The developed sensor has satisfactory sensitivity and high signal repeatability, as well as a linear range of 0.01 to 1.5 mM and a detection limit of 10 μM.146 The carbon fabric electrode was modified by electrodeposition of a PtCu alloy, which reduced the crystal lattice spacing of Pt to oxidize ammonium ions. The first developed electrode modified with PtCu alloy showed a linear response of 0.5–250 μM and a detection limit of 8.6 nM.147 The schematic is shown in Fig. 4.

Electrodeposition and electro polymerization techniques were used to prepare the SPEC/AuNPs/PMB electrode, and then a thin layer of glutamate dehydrogenase was applied to prepare an enzymatic membrane.148 In the study, the ammonium ion concentration was indirectly measured in the ammonium solution containing nicotinamide adenine di-nucleotide hydrogen phosphate (NADH). Another research work was carried out in the medium of water/1,6-dichlorohexane with amperometric detection.149 Here, the detection limit was 0.12 μM and the linear range was between 4.2 and 66 μM. Moreover, a group of chemicals was added to the NH4+ ion medium, namely alanine dehydrogenase enzyme, pyruvate substrate, and nicotinamide adenine di-nucleotide (NADH).150 Finally, the oxidation of NADH was carried out at 0.55 V, which is proportional to the ammonium ion concentration in the river water samples (Table 4 and Fig. 5).

Comparison of the electrochemical sensors for the detection of ammonium ions.
Sensing material Detection range Detection limit Method of detection Detection medium Types of sample Ref.
PMB@GLDH/AuNPs/SPEC 0.65–300 μM N/A Amperometry PBS (pH 9.5) Water 148
Ag-CNT 0.2–1 mM 1 μM DPV 0.1 M Na2SO4 Groundwater 141
Ppy COSANE-Au microelectrode 1 μM to 40 mM 0.04 mM Potentiometric Buffer Tris-HCl/Tris Tap/sewage water 142
NH4+ selective ASS electrode 1 μM to 0.1 M <1 μM Potentiometric N/A Tap/well water 143
Solid state ISM 1–64 mg N/L 1 × 10−6.5 M Potentiometric N/A Wastewater 144
Natural zeolite clinoptilolite-Au interdigitated microelectrode (IDμE) 0.01 μM to 1 mM 0.01 μM Conductometric 5 mM KH2PO4/Na2HPO4 (pH 6.2) N/A 145
25,27-Di-(5-thio-octyloxy)calix[4] arene-crown-6-Au interdigitated electrode (IDE) 0.01–1 mM 0.01 mM Conductometric 5 mM KH2PO4/Na2HPO4 (pH 6.2) River water 146
Alanine dehydrogenase/SPE 10–100 mM 0.18 mM Amperometric PBS (pH 7) N/A 150
PET microporous membrane 4.2–66 μM 0.12 μM CV, DPV, SWV Water/1,6-dichlorohexane Water 149
Open in a new tab
Fig. 5. Schematic representation for the preparation of Pt7Cu1-CC electrode and its application for ammonia detection; this figure has been adapted from ref. 147 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 1 October 2022.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

3. Potassium (K) detection

As a macronutrient, potassium (K) is regularly required by plants during their life cycle for the movement of water, nutrients and carbohydrates. It is related to all kinds of metabolic activities of plant growth and fruiting. Therefore, the role of potassium is essential for efficient plant production.

The detection of potassium ions is very important due to its significance in agriculture and proper fertilization of the cropland. A versatile electrochemical detection of potassium was performed using various modified electrode surfaces, which are summarized in Table 5. There are several types of potassium ion receptor compounds and probes whose main performance is also listed.

Comparison of the electrochemical sensors for the detection of potassium ions.

Sensing material Detection range LOD Method of detection Detection medium Types of sample Ref.
AuE/11-MUA/4-AB-18-C-6 1 μM to 10 mM N/A DPV 0.1 TBAB N/A 151
GCE/GO-crown 0.1–10−7 μM 1 pM EIS 1.5 mM MB N/A 152
AuE/G-quadruplex/hemin 0.1 nM to 0.1 μM 0.1 nM DPV 100 mM Tris–HCl buffer (pH 6.2) N/A 153
Al–Cu/Si-p/SiO2/Si3N4/PVC-membrane 1 μM to 10−1 M N/A EIS 0.1 M Tris–HCl buffer (pH 7) N/A 154
AuE/K+ ssDNA 10−8 to 10−5 M 2.31 × 10−9 M CV MB, AQMS, Na4Fe(CN)6 N/A 153
AuE/p-ATP/AuNPs/DNA 0.1–1 mM 0.1 mM SWV 0.1 M Tris–HCl buffer (pH 7.41) N/A 157
1–30 mM
GCE/P(Py-co-PAA)/G-aptamer 20 fM to 1 mM 14.7 fM EIS 20 mM Tris–HCl buffer (pH 7.4) N/A 158
SPC/Nafion/4-AB-18-C-6 1–500 ppm N/A DPV 3 mMRu(NH3)6+/0.1 TBAB N/A 159
SCE/CPE/hollandite-MnO2 4.97 × 10−5 to 9.05 × 10−4 M N/A Amperometry Tris–buffer (pH 8) N/A 160
GCE/MnO2 nanorods 2–90 μM 0.05 μM CV Tris–buffer (pH 7.4) Tap and DI water 161
CPEM/KSr2Nb2O15 1.26 × 10−5 to 1.62 × 10−3 M 7.27 × 10–5 M Amperometry 0.1 M Tris–buffer (pH 8.3) N/A 168
AuE/ssDNS-G rich 0.1 nM to 50 nM 0.1 nM SWV 20 mM Tris–HCl buffer (pH 7.41) Human serum 164
Carbon SPE/PANI/valinomycin 10−5 to 1 M 10−5.8 M Potentiometric N/A Artificial serum 75
Al/F-MWCNTs/ZnO/valinomycin 5–25 mM N/A EIS N/A Soil 166
PET/graphene- valinomycuin 1–20 000 μM N/A FET Tris–HCl buffer N/A 169
PET/Gel/valinomycin 5–100 μM N/A N/A N/A Serum 170
3DPE sensors 1–10 000 ppm 1.35 ppm CV pH 1.44 Soil pore water samples 167
Valinomycin supported ZnO/rGO nanocomposites on GCE — 0.956 mM CV N/A Soil sample 171
F-MWCNT/ZnO/valinomycin composites 5–25 mM — Impedance N/A Soil sample 172
Prussian blue nanotube sensor 5.0 × 10−8 to 7.0 × 10−4 M 2.0 × 10−8 M CV N/A Water 173
Open in a new tab

4-Aminobenzo-18-crown-6-ether (crown ether) and the K+ cation can form a complex on the electrochemical surface, which produces an electrochemically measurable signal. This type of work was reported to detect K+ ions by the DPV technique in the 0.1 M tetra-butyl ammonium bromide (TBAB) medium.151 In this study, the detection range is 1 μM to 10 mM. Another research work was conducted on ether-modified graphene surfaces in the methylene blue (MB) medium.152 In addition, K+ ions form G-quadruplexes with aptamer-modified electrodes. Here, hemin also helps to form this complex on the modified surface.153 In addition, a dibromaza[7]helicene ionophore was developed and doped with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) on the surface of an Al–Cu/Si-p/SiO2/Si3N4 transducer. The modified electrode also showed a linear response of 1 μM to 10−1 M and also has excellent sensitivity in other cationic media.154 A gold electrode modified with DNA aptamers was also developed for the quantification of K+ ions in MB, AQMS, and Na4Fe(CN)6 medium. In this work, a linear response of 10−8 to 10−5 M and a detection limit of 2.31 × 10−9 M were observed.155 The aptamers-based biosensor is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. ssDNA and K+ reaction mechanism on the modified electrode surface, this figure has been adapted from ref. 156 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 15 October 2013.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Another research was conducted using AuNPs and G-rich ssDNA-modified electrodes to detect potassium ions in the linear range of 0.1–1 mM and 1–30 mM.157 To improve the conductivity of the electrode modified with G-rich ssDNA, a poly-pyrrole modification was also used as an anchor for the probe and transducer.158 In addition, a carbon-based sensor was modified with crown ether and Nafion to detect potassium ions using the DPV technique.159

Lima et al. demonstrated a research work on the modification of working electrodes using hollandite-type manganese oxide to detect potassium ions. In this study, K+ ion detection was performed by amperometric technique in Tris buffer pH 8.160 In addition, zinc oxide nanotubes (ZnONRs) were synthesized by a hydrothermal sol–gel method to produce GCE. The synthesized GCEs modified with ZnONRs were used to detect potassium ions in drinking water samples.161 Furthermore, a single-layer ssDNA electrode modified with graphene and guanine was used to detect K+ ions, which is suitable for health monitoring and other applications.162 In addition, the ssDNA probe was attached to AuE by thiol binding and the guanine-rich part captured the K+ ions. The K+ ion detection is included in this post128,163 the electrode modification process and K+ detection are shown in Fig. 6.

Valinomycin surface coating with an active layer containing the modified electrode for detection of K+ ions on the polyaniline layer of GCE has been reported.165 In this study, they reported, a detection range of 10−5 to 1 M with a detection limit of 10−5.8 M. Another research group reported an F-MWCNTs/ZnO/valinomycin electrode surface for the detection of potassium ions in soil extracts. This showed a linear detection range of 5–25 mM.166 In a recent report, a low-cost on-site detection method but accurate method has been proposed by Denis McCrudden and his group167 for monitoring soil nutrients. This sensing system consists of a microcontroller with novel 3D printed ion selective electrodes, which can be used for the simultaneous determination of potassium and pH. This electrode showed linearity for potassium ions in the range of 1–10 000 ppm electrodes with LOD of 1.10 ppm and 1.35 ppm at pH values of 1.44 and 3.05, respectively (details in Table 5).

4. Phosphorus (P) ion detection

As we have already discussed, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, commonly known as NPK, are the main macronutrients of soil and each of these nutrients has its own role in plant nutrition.174,175 In this part, we will discuss the existing sensors for the detection of phosphorus, as it is a component of nucleic acids and membrane lipids in plant formation. Including phosphorus, all three mentioned nutrients should be available in the soil. On the other hand, soil erosion and agricultural fertilization may increase toxic substances in water. Phosphate (PO43−) can cause eutrophication of water bodies due to its excessive presence.176 Not only the vital biomolecules of our human body, but also the growth of plants is highly dependent on the presence of an adequate amount of these phosphate ions in the soil, and therefore it plays a crucial role in both the agricultural sector and biomedical applications.

Since most farmers apply fertilizers blindly into the soil and it is necessary to reduce the negative impact of the fertilizer on the environment without reducing the crop yield, therefore, the proper management of this fertilizer is very important. Maria Khaydukova and her group have developed a potentiometric multisensory system for the simultaneous detection of N, P, and K in the aqueous soil extracts of the soils of the desired fields.177 The sensors they developed can be used to analyze pH and conductivity as well as all three macronutrients in soil samples, and good correlation coefficients of 0.69 to 0.96 were obtained between the target parameters and sensor responses. Quantification of P was possible with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 79 mg kg−1 in the range of 35–574 mg kg−1.

Talarico et al.178 reported a screen-printed electrode modified with carbon black nanoparticles (CB) using an amperometric method via electrochemical reduction of a molybdophosphate complex. Here, the CB nanoparticles help quantify the molybdophosphate complex at a lower applied potential. This CB-SPE shows a linear range of 0.5–100 μM with a detection limit of 0.1 μM. The system was tested in various water samples such as drinking, river, aquarium and wastewater and showed satisfactory recoveries.

Kabir and his group reported a novel screen-printed electrode (SPE) modified with ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate (AMT) and silver nanowires (AgNWs) for phosphate detection.179 Since AgNWs are highly conductive, they were added to AMT, which contributes to faster electron transport between AMT and SPE. As a result, the sensor they developed showed a wide detection range of 5 μM to 1 mM and LOD of 3 μM with a high sensitivity of 0.71 μA μM−1 and they suggested that this AMT/AgNWs/SPE is promising for simple, low-cost, portable phosphate ion detection and for monitoring the health of water systems and field soils.

Catalytic hydrogen waves (CHW) occur due to a classical reaction in which certain substances in solution catalyze the hydrogen evolution reaction and thus can reduce the overpotential for the hydrogen ion reduction,180 are based on this idea, and a novel sensor was developed by Zhang et al.181 In this method, a wave corresponding to catalytic hydrogen evolution was observed on the electrode surface modified with molybdenum phosphide (MoP) in the presence of phosphate. The interaction between molybdenum oxides on the surface of MoP microparticles and phosphate results in a structure (change in catalytic properties) similar to phosphomolybdic acid (MoPO), allowing quantitative detection of phosphate in the human blood. Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) shows a linear range from 0.10 to 20.0 mmol L−1 with LOD of 0.030 mmol L−1.

Since natural enzymes lead to denaturation under environmental conditions, they are sometimes not used in measuring instruments. Recently, free-standing cobalt oxide in the form of nano-needle arrays on flexible carbon fabric (CC) serving as a substrate has been developed to detect phosphate ions in human urine,182 and according to their reports, it is inexpensive and shows scalability, good stability, and high sensitivity. The sensors they developed show a wide linear range of 0.1–1.0 mM and 1.0–30.0 mM with a detection limit of about 10 μM for the phosphate anion.

It is well known that the use of large amounts of chemical fertilizers causes contamination of agricultural wastewater, although they are treated like macronutrients NPK in soil. To determine their presence in watercourses, Jagannathan and co-workers183 developed a method based on electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurements involving the detection of urea (N), orthophosphate (PO43−) (P), and potassium K+ (K) in agricultural watercourses, using stainless steel as working and counter electrodes and Ag/AgCl as a reference (details in Table 6).

Comparison of electrochemical sensors for the detection of phosphate ionsa.

Electrode material Method LOD Range Sample Ref.
PyO/nano-CP/GCE Amperometric 0.3 μM 1.0–100 μM Human serum 184
GLA/PyO/CoPC-SPCE Amperometric 2 μM 2.5–130 μM Pond water 185
Rotating gold disk electrode Amperometric 0.11 μM 0.59–3.49 μM Seawater 186
CB-SPE Amperometric 0.1 μM 0.5–100 μM Water samples 178
Screen-printed graphite macroelectrodes Cyclic voltammetry 0.3 μg L−1 0.5 to 20 μg L−1 Canal water 187
AMT/AgNWs/SPE Cyclic voltammetry 3 μM 5 μM to 1 mM Field soil 179
MoP/GCE DPV 0.030 mmol L−1 0.10 to 20.0 mmol L−1 Human blood 181
Co3O4/CC Amperometric 10.0 μM 0.1–30.0 mM Human urine 182
Stainless steel Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy — 7 to 50 ppm Simulated agricultural run of water 183
CNT/CNC/Ag@ pANI@AMT microneedle Voltammetry 0.007 mM 0–0.6 mM Standard sample and coffee 188
GQDs-Ce4+ probe Fluorescent probe 0.06 μM 0.1 to 20.0 μM Sodium phosphate 176
Open in a new tab
a

Pyruvate oxidase (PyO), poly-5,2′:5′,2′′-terthiophene-3′-carboxylic acid, glassy carbon electrode (GCE), poly-TTCA (nano-CP), carbon nanotube-CNT, cellulose nano crystal – CNC, polyaniline – pANI, ammonium molybdenum tetrahydrate – AMT, molybdenum phosphide (MoP).

Although electrochemical sensors might be a good replacement for the conventional existing technique, still there are a few problems, such as sample preparation, and interference of different kinds of ions present in the soil sample solution. We need to focus on these issues. Different kinds of ionophores have already been reported for the selective determination of ion-like, 4-AB-18-C-6 ether that can bind potassium ions in its structure. We need to search more ionophores for different kinds of soil constituents so that we perform an analysis of soil or water samples accurately. When we are able to analyze the soil/water samples accurately, it will be easier for any farmer to measure how much fertilizer is required by the plant at that time, even which types of fertilizer should be applied might be estimated as they are able to send their data to the local agricultural specialist. It is assumed that, may be initially it will be difficult but gradually it will bring revolution when more farmers in an area are brought under these facilities.

5. Conclusions

The conventional techniques are well-established methods and by using them it is possible to measure specific ions with high accuracy, while the electrochemical sensor is less expensive, easy to use, can perform measurements in a short time, sometimes not requiring much more pretreatment of the samples, and has a low detection limit and accuracy also comparable to the conventional technique. Although all of the work is very impressive, considering linearity regarding the concentration of different analytes, such as for nitrate ions, Cu/MWCNT/RGO/GCE (20 nM-30 nM)51 and NiR/Gr foam/TiNF (0.16–7128 μM),76 for nitrite ions, CG/PPy/CS/GCE (0.2–1000 μM)100 and Cu2O-CNTs/Au electrode (0.1 nM to 1 mM),109 for ammonium ions, PMB@GLDH/AuNPs/SPEC (0.65–300 μM)148 and natural zeolite clinoptilolite-Au interdigitated microelectrode (IDμE) (0.01 μM to 1 mM),145 for potassium ions, GCE/P(Py-co-PAA)/G-aptamer (20 fM to 1 mM),158 AuE/ssDNS-G rich (0.1 nM to 50 nM),164 and AuE/G-quadruplex/Hemin,153 for phosphate analysis, GQDs-Ce4+ probe (0.1 to 20.0 μM)176 and CB-SPE (0.5–100 μM)178 are very impressive works. However, there are still many opportunities, such as the development of single short measurements, that is, a single measurement will measure different soil/water nutrients with high accuracy, and the development of smartphone-based apps (including artificial intelligence) is in high demand for real-time monitoring of agricultural systems that suggest fertilizer management to farmers. Finally, it will be easier for farmers to optimize production costs and minimize fertilizer use, which will help control pollution. If we assume that a large number of people will use this kind of smartphone-based app, it will be easier to support them (as they will be able to send their soil reports to the specialist) from a local agricultural research center or from any other agricultural specialist; thus, electrochemical sensors might be able to boost smart agriculture and bring a revolution.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

This work was performed with the financial support from the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Government of Bangladesh (Innovation Fund).

References

  1. Al-Mamun M. R. Hasan M. R. Ahommed M. S. Bacchu M. S. Ali M. R. Khan M. Z. H. Nanofertilizers towards sustainable agriculture and environment. Environ. Technol. Innovation. 2021;23:101658. doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2021.101658. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Potdar R. P. Shirolkar M. M. Verma A. J. More P. S. Kulkarni A. Determination of soil nutrients (NPK) using optical methods: a mini review. J. Plant Nutr. 2021;44(12):1826–1839. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2021.1884702. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hafsi C. Debez A. Abdelly C. Potassium deficiency in plants: effects and signaling cascades. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2014;36(5):1055–1070. doi: 10.1007/s11738-014-1491-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhao D. Reddy K. R. Kakani V. G. Reddy V. R. Nitrogen deficiency effects on plant growth, leaf photosynthesis, and hyperspectral reflectance properties of sorghum. Eur. J. Agron. 2005;22(4):391–403. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2004.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Leghari S. J. Wahocho N. A. Laghari G. M. et al., Role of nitrogen for plant growth and development: a review. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2016;10:209+. [Google Scholar]; . https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A472372583/AONE?u=anon∼70bdc11&sid=googleScholar&xid=0cbaab12
  6. Liu L. Zheng X. Wei X. Kai Z. Xu Y. Excessive application of chemical fertilizer and organophosphorus pesticides induced total phosphorus loss from planting causing surface water eutrophication. Sci. Rep. 2021;11(1):1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02521-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Good A. G. Beatty P. H. Fertilizing nature: a tragedy of excess in the commons. PLoS Biol. 2011;9(8):1–9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhang Z. Liu D. Wu M. Xia Y. Zhang F. Fan X. Long-term straw returning improve soil K balance and potassium supplying ability under rice and wheat cultivation. Sci. Rep. 2021;11(1):1–15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01594-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hua W. Luo P. An N. et al., Manure application increased crop yields by promoting nitrogen use efficiency in the soils of 40-year soybean-maize rotation. Sci. Rep. 2020;10(1):1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71932-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lemos S. G. Nogueira A. R. A. Torre-Neto A. Parra A. Artigas J. Alonso J. In-soil potassium sensor system. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004;52(19):5810–5815. doi: 10.1021/jf0492924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ali M. A. Dong L. Dhau J. Khosla A. Kaushik A. Perspective—Electrochemical Sensors for Soil Quality Assessment. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2020;167(3):037550. doi: 10.1149/1945-7111/ab69fe. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Li Y. Huang H. Cui R. et al., Electrochemical sensor based on graphdiyne is effectively used to determine Cd2+ and Pb2+ in water. Sens. Actuators, B. 2021;332:129519. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2021.129519. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Al-Mamun M. R. Ahommed M. S. Saad Aly M. A. Khan M. Z. H. N -Hydroxysuccinimide crosslinked graphene oxide-gold nanoflower modified SPE electrode for sensitive detection of chloramphenicol antibiotic. RSC Adv. 2021;11(26):15565–15572. doi: 10.1039/d1ra02450g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Slavin W. Atomic-Absorption Spectroscopy—A Critical Review. Appl. Spectrosc. 1966;20(5):281–288. doi: 10.1366/000370266774385787. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferreira S. L. C. Bezerra M. A. Santos A. S. et al., Atomic absorption spectrometry – A multi element technique. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2018;100:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2017.12.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Skoog D. A., West D. M., Holler F. J., Crouch S. R., Fundamentos de Química Analítica, Cengage Learning, 2014 [Google Scholar]; , https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=q2CfzgEACAAJ
  17. Vasconcelos N. M. S., Fundamentos de Química Analítica Quantitativa, 2019, pp. 1–196 [Google Scholar]
  18. Wu D. Hu Y. Cheng H. Ye X. Detection Techniques for Lead Ions in Water: A Review. Molecules. 2023;28(8):3601. doi: 10.3390/molecules28083601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nielsen S. S., Sodium and potassium determinations by atomic absorption spectroscopy and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, Food Analysis Laboratory Manual, 2003, pp. 67–73, 10.1007/978-1-4757-5250-2_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Paudel S. Kumar S. Mallik A. Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: a Short Review. EPRA Int. J. Res. Dev. 2021;6(9):322–327. doi: 10.36713/epra2016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lagalante A. F. Atomic absorption spectroscopy: a tutorial review. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2004;34(3):173–189. doi: 10.1081/asr-100100844. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Farahani A. Tashakori C. Shadman A. Rapid determination of nitrate ions in drinking water based on image processing techniques using a smartphone platform. Ssrn. 2023:20. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4459063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Karlsson M. Karlberg B. Olsson R. J. O. Determination of nitrate in municipal waste water by UV spectroscopy. Anal. Chim. Acta. 1995;312(1):107–113. doi: 10.1016/0003-2670(95)00179-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Edwards A. C. Hooda P. S. Cook Y. Determination of Nitrate in Water Containing Dissolved Organic Carbon by Ultraviolet Spectroscopy. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2001;80(1):49–59. doi: 10.1080/03067310108044385. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Adelowo F. E. Agele S. O. Spectrophotometric analysis of phosphate concentration in agricultural soil samples and water samples using molybdenum blue method. Braz. J. Biol. Sci. 2016;3(6):407–412. doi: 10.21472/bjbs.030616. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ganesh S. Khan F. Ahmed M. K. Velavendan P. Pandey N. K. Kamachi Mudali U. Spectrophotometric determination of trace amounts of phosphate in water and soil. Water Sci. Technol. 2012;66(12):2653–2658. doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Tabatabai M. A. Dick W. A. Simultaneous Determination of Nitrate, Chloride, Sulfate, and Phosphate in Natural Waters by Ion Chromatography. J. Environ. Qual. 1983;12(2):209–213. doi: 10.2134/jeq1983.00472425001200020012x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Basta N. T. Tabatabai M. A. Determination of Potassium, Sodium, Calcium, and Magnesium in Natural Waters by Ion Chromatography. J. Environ. Qual. 1985;14(3):450–455. doi: 10.2134/jeq1985.00472425001400030028x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lohumi N. Gosain S. Jain A. Gupta V. K. Verma K. K. Determination of nitrate in environmental water samples by conversion into nitrophenols and solid phase extraction−spectrophotometry, liquid chromatography or gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2004;505(2):231–237. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2003.10.060. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fries E. Klasmeier J. Analysis of potassium formate in airport storm water runoff by headspace solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009;1216(5):879–881. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zheng Y. Fu W. Zhu R. Hu Z. Chen G. Chai X. S. Determination of total phosphorus in soil and sludge by an effective headspace gas chromatographic method. RSC Adv. 2019;9(70):40961–40965. doi: 10.1039/c9ra07228d. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moshoeshoe M. N. Obuseng V. Simultaneous determination of nitrate, nitrite and phosphate in environmental samples by high performance liquid chromatography with UV detection. S. Afr. J. Chem. 2018;71:79–85. doi: 10.17159/0379-4350/2018/v71a10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen X. Pu H. Fu Z. et al., Real-time and selective detection of nitrates in water using graphene-based field-effect transistor sensors. Environ. Sci.: Nano. 2018;5(8):1990–1999. doi: 10.1039/C8EN00588E. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Bhat K. S. Ahmad R. Mahmoudi T. Hahn Y. B. High performance chemical sensor with field-effect transistors array for selective detection of multiple ions. Chem. Eng. J. 2021;417(August):128064. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.128064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Meloni G. N. Building a microcontroller based potentiostat: a inexpensive and versatile platform for teaching electrochemistry and instrumentation. J. Chem. Educ. 2016;93(7):1320–1322. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00961. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ainla A. Mousavi M. P. S. Tsaloglou M. N. et al., Open-Source Potentiostat for Wireless Electrochemical Detection with Smartphones. Anal. Chem. 2018;90(10):6240–6246. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Shen X. Ju F. Li G. Ma L. Smartphone-based electrochemical potentiostat detection system using pedot: Pss/chitosan/graphene modified screen-printed electrodes for dopamine detection. Sensors. 2020;20(10):2781. doi: 10.3390/s20102781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Promsuwan K. Soleh A. Samoson K. et al., Novel biosensor platform for glucose monitoring via smartphone based on battery-less NFC potentiostat. Talanta. 2023;256:124266. doi: 10.1016/J.TALANTA.2023.124266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Bonato P. Wearable sensors/systems and their impact on biomedical engineering. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2003;22(3):18–20. doi: 10.1109/memb.2003.1213622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Spencer B. F. Ruiz-Sandoval M. E. Kurata N. Smart sensing technology: opportunities and challenges. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2004;11(4):349–368. doi: 10.1002/stc.48. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Brannelly N. T. Killard A. J. An electrochemical sensor device for measuring blood ammonia at the point of care. Talanta. 2017;167:296–301. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.02.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Chen J. C. Chung H. H. Hsu C. T. Tsai D. M. Kumar A. S. Zen J. M. A disposable single-use electrochemical sensor for the detection of uric acid in human whole blood. Sens. Actuators, B. 2005;110(2):364–369. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2005.02.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Nishiyama K. Mizukami R. Kuki S. et al., Electrochemical enzyme-based blood ATP and lactate sensor for a rapid and straightforward evaluation of illness severity. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2022;198:113832. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2021.113832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang W. Global pesticide use: profile, trend, cost/benefit and more. Proc. Int. Acad. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2018;8(1):1–27. [Google Scholar]; . https://www.iaees.org
  45. Aune D. Lau R. Chan D. S. M. et al., Dairy products and colorectal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann. Oncol. 2012;23(1):37–45. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu X. Duan L. Mo J. et al., Nitrogen deposition and its ecological impact in China : an overview. Environ. Pollut. 2011;159(10):2251–2264. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Verma P. and Ratan J. K., Assessment of the negative effects of the biosphere — an overview, Inorganic Pollutants in Water, INC, 2020, 10.1016/B978-0-12-818965-8.00005-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Bhattacharyya P. K. and Basak N., Biological Nitrogen Fixation for Sustainable Agriculture, 2017, 10.1007/978-981-10-5343-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Mart J. Berbel J. Nitrogen fertilization. a review of the risks associated with the inefficiency of its use and policy responses. Sustainability. 2021;(3):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  50. Liang J. Zheng Y. Liu Z. Nanowire-based Cu electrode as electrochemical sensor for detection of nitrate in water. Sens. Actuators, B. 2016;232:336–344. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.145. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Bagheri H. Hajian A. Rezaei M. Shirzadmehr A. Composite of Cu metal nanoparticles-multiwall carbon nanotubes-reduced graphene oxide as a novel and high performance platform of the electrochemical sensor for simultaneous determination of nitrite and nitrate. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017;324(Part B):762–772. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.11.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Lot H. R. Lai R. Y. Comparison of nanostructured silver-modi fi ed silver and carbon ultramicroelectrodes for electrochemical detection of nitrate. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2015;892:153–159. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Ali A. Jiang H. Mahal N. K. et al., Microfluidic impedimetric sensor for soil nitrate detection using graphene oxide and conductive nanofibers enabled sensing interface. Sens. Actuators, B. 2017;239:1289–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2016.09.101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Gokhale A. A. Lu J. Weerasiri R. R. Yu J. Lee I. Amperometric detection and quantification of nitrate ions using a highly sensitive nanostructured membrane electrocodeposited biosensor array. Electroanalysis. 2015:1127–1137. doi: 10.1002/elan.201400547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Can F. Ozoner S. K. Ergenekon P. Erhan E. Amperometric nitrate biosensor based on Carbon nanotube/Polypyrrole/Nitrate reductase bio fi lm electrode. Mater. Sci. Eng., C. 2012;32(1):18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2011.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Faisal M. Abu U. Reduced graphene oxide/polypyrrole/nitrate reductase deposited glassy carbon electrode ( GCE/RGO/PPy/NR ): biosensor for the detection of nitrate in wastewater. Appl. Water Sci. 2018:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s13201-018-0860-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang L. Kim J. Cui T. Self-assembled graphene and copper nanoparticles composite sensor for nitrate determination. Microsyst. Technol. 2018;24:3623–3630. doi: 10.1007/s00542-018-3792-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ma X. Li M. Liu X. et al., A graphene oxide nanosheet-modi fi ed Ti nanocomposite electrode with enhanced electrochemical property and stability for nitrate reduction. Chem. Eng. J. 2018;348(April):171–179. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.04.168. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Yu L. Zhang Q. Xu Q. et al., Talanta Electrochemical detection of nitrate in PM 2 . 5 with a copper-modi fi ed carbon fi ber micro-disk electrode. Talanta. 2015;143:245–253. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.04.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Li Y. Sun J. Bian C. Tong J. Xia S. Micro electrochemical sensor with copper nanoclusters for nitrate determination in freshwaters. Inst. Eng. Technol. 2012:1197–1201. doi: 10.1049/mnl.2012.0533. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Stortini A. M. Moretto L. M. Mardegan A. Ongaro M. Ugo P. Arrays of copper nanowire electrodes : preparation , characterization and application as nitrate sensor. Sens. Actuators, B. 2015;207:186–192. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2014.09.109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Essousi H. Barhoumi H. Bibani M. et al., Ion-imprinted electrochemical sensor based on copper nanoparticles-polyaniline matrix for nitrate detection. J. Sens. 2019:2020. [Google Scholar]
  63. Fu Y. Bian C. Kuang J. Wang J. Tong J. Xia S. A palladium-tin modified microband electrode array for nitrate determination. Sensors. 2015:23249–23261. doi: 10.3390/s150923249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Ali M. A. Wang X. Chen Y. et al., Continuous Monitoring of Soil Nitrate Using a Miniature Sensor with Poly(3-octyl-thiophene) and Molybdenum Disulfide Nanocomposite. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2019;11(32):29195–29206. doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b07120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Abbas A. Dual Detection of Nitrate and Mercury in Water using Disposable Electrochemical Sensors. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016;85:280–286. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2016.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhou D. L. Zhang Q. L. Lv Z. Y. et al., Facile synthesis of a porous network-like silver film for electrocatalytic detection of nitrate. Microchim. Acta. 2013:1495–1500. doi: 10.1007/s00604-013-1089-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang T. Xu X. Wang C. Li Z. Li D. A Novel Highly Sensitive Electrochemical Nitrite Sensor Based on a AuNPs/CS/Ti3C2 Nanocomposite. Nanomaterials. 2022;12(3):397. doi: 10.3390/nano12030397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Amini N. Maleki A. Maleki P. Electrochemical detection of nitrate ions via reduction of NO2−and oxidation of NO reactions based on Cu@TiO2 coreshell/nafion/polyalizarin immobilized electrode. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2021;264(September 2020):3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.124384. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Inam A. K. M. S. Angeli M. A. C. Shkodra B. et al., Flexible screen-printed electrochemical sensors functionalized with electrodeposited copper for nitrate detection in water. ACS Omega. 2021;6(49):33523–33532. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c04296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Aravamudhan S. Bhansali S. Development of micro-fluidic nitrate-selective sensor based on doped-polypyrrole nanowires. Chem. Pap. 2008;132:623–630. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2008.01.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Manea F. Remes A. Radovan C. Pode R. Picken S. Schoonman J. Talanta Simultaneous electrochemical determination of nitrate and nitrite in aqueous solution using Ag-doped zeolite-expanded graphite-epoxy electrode. Talanta. 2010;83(1):66–71. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2010.08.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Gamboa J. C. M. Pe R. C. A renewable copper electrode as an amperometric flow detector for nitrate determination in mineral water and soft drink samples. Talanta. 2009;80:581–585. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2009.07.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Mendoza M. O., Ortega E. P., Fuentes O. A. De, Prokhorov Y. and Luna J. G., Chitosan/bentonite nanocomposite : preliminary studies of its potentiometric response to nitrate ions in water, 2014 IEEE 9th IberoAmerican Congress on sensors, IBERSENSOR 2014—conference proceedings, 2014, pp. 7–10 [Google Scholar]
  74. Jang A. Zou Z. Kug K. Ahn C. H. Bishop P. L. Potentiometric and voltammetric polymer lab chip sensors for determination of nitrate , pH and Cd ( II ) in water. Talanta. 2010;83(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2010.07.061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhang L. Zhang M. Ren H. Pu P. Kong P. Zhao H. Comparative investigation on soil nitrate-nitrogen and available potassium measurement capability by using solid-state and PVC ISE. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015;112:83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2014.11.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Ali M. A., Mondal K., Wang Y., Mahal N. K., Castellano M. J. and Dong L., Microfluidic detection of soil nitrate ions using novel electrochemical foam electrode, in 2017 IEEE 30th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 482–485, 10.1109/MEMSYS.2017.7863448 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Ahmad R. Bhat K. S. Ahn M. S. Hahn Y. B. Fabrication of a robust and highly sensitive nitrate biosensor based on directly grown zinc oxide nanorods on a silver electrode. New J. Chem. 2017;41(19):10992–10997. doi: 10.1039/C7NJ02526B. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Öznülüer T. Özdurak B. Doğan H. Ö. Electrochemical Reduction of Nitrate on Graphene Modified Copper Electrodes in alkaline media. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2013;699:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2013.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Andreoli E. Annibaldi V. Rooney D. A. Liao K. S. Alley N. J. Curran S. A. Electrochemical conversion of copper-based hierarchical micro/nanostructures to copper metal nanoparticles and their testing in nitrate sensing. Electroanalysis. 2011;(9):2164–2173. doi: 10.1002/elan.201100105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pan D. Lu W. Wu S. Zhang H. Qin W. In situ spontaneous redox synthesis of carbon nanotubes/copper oxide nanocomposites and their preliminary application in electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate. Mater. Lett. 2012;89:333–335. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2012.09.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Medetalibeyoglu H. Kotan G. Atar N. Yola M. L. A novel sandwich-type SERS immunosensor for selective and sensitive carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) detection. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2020;1139:100–110. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.09.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Li Y., Zhang Z., Song Y., et al., Determination of nitrate in potable water using a miniaturized electrochemical sensor, 2018 IEEE 13th Annual International Conference on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular Systems, 2018, pp. , pp. 619–622
  83. Tsai M. C. Zhuang D. X. Chen P. Y. Electrodeposition of macroporous silver films from ionic liquids and assessment of these films in the electrocatalytic reduction of nitrate. Electrochim. Acta. 2010;55:1019–1027. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2009.09.070. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Hu J. Sun J. Bian C. Tong J. 3D dendritic nanostructure of silver-array: preparation, growth mechanism and application in nitrate sensor. Electroanalysis. 2013;(2):546–556. doi: 10.1002/elan.201200465. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Legrand D. C. Barus C. Garc V. Square wave voltammetry measurements of low concentrations of nitrate using Au/AgNPs electrode in chloride solutions. Electroanalysis. 2017:1–7. doi: 10.1002/elan.201700447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Fajerwerg K. Ynam V. Chaudret B. Garçon V. Thouron D. Comtat M. Electrochemistry Communications An original nitrate sensor based on silver nanoparticles electrodeposited on a gold electrode. Electrochem. Commun. 2010;12(10):1439–1441. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2010.08.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Mumtarin Z. Rahman M. M. Marwani H. M. Hasnat M. A. Electro-kinetics of conversion of NO3− into NO2−and sensing of nitrate ions via reduction reactions at copper immobilized platinum surface in the neutral medium. Electrochim. Acta. 2020;346:135994. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2020.135994. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Gutés A. Carraro C. Maboudian R. Ac ce pt cr t. Electrochim. Acta. 2013;103:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013.03.199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Comisso N. Cattarin S. Guerriero P. Study of Cu, Cu-Ni and Rh-modified Cu porous layers as electrode materials for the electroanalysis of nitrate and nitrite ions. J. Solid State Electrochem. 2016;20:1139–1148. doi: 10.1007/s10008-015-2915-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Zhao S. Tong J. Li Y. Sun J. Bian C. Xia S. Palladium-gold modified ultramicro interdigital array electrode chip for nitrate detection in neutral water. Micromachines. 2019;10(4):223. doi: 10.3390/mi10040223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Afkhami A. Madrakian T. Ghaedi H. Khanmohammadi H. Construction of a chemically modified electrode for the selective determination of nitrite and nitrate ions based on a new nanocomposite. Electrochim. Acta. 2012;66:255–264. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2012.01.089. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Ramakrishnappa T. Sureshkumar K. Pandurangappa M. Copper Oxide Impregnated Glassy Carbon Spheres Based Electrochemical Interface For Nitrite/Nitrate Sensing. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020;245:122744. doi: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.122744. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Alcock-earley M. A. B. E. A conducting polymer/Ag nanoparticle composite as a nitrate sensor. J. Appl. Electrochem. 2011:1341–1347. doi: 10.1007/s10800-011-0354-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Mahmoudian M. R. Alias Y. Basirun W. J. et al., A sensitive electrochemical nitrate sensor based on polypyrrole coated palladium nanoclusters. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2015;751:30–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2015.05.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Liu B. Zou B. X. Electrocatalytic sensing of nitrate at Cu nanosheets electrodeposited on WO3/polyaniline modified electrode. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014;883:159–164. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.881-883.159. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Centre D. Electrochemical determination of nitrate ion from fresh water on nanosphere polypyrrole modified electrode surface. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev. 2018;5(3):1807–1813. [Google Scholar]
  97. Motaghedifard M. H. Pourmortazavi S. M. Alibolandi M. Mirsadeghi S. Au-modified organic/inorganic MWCNT/Cu/PANI hybrid nanocomposite electrode for electrochemical determination of nitrate ions. Microchim. Acta. 2021:99. doi: 10.1007/s00604-021-04754-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Bhargavi M. Nesakumar N. Lakshmishri B. Zinc oxide nanoparticles-based electrochemical sensor for the detection of nitrate ions in water with a low detection limit — a chemometric approach 1. J. Anal. Chem. 2017;72(3):316–326. doi: 10.1134/S1061934817030078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Feiner G., Color in cured meat products and fresh meat, in Salami, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 89–101, 10.1016/B978-0-12-809598-0.00005-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Xiao Q. Feng M. Liu Y. Lu S. He Y. Huang S. The graphene/polypyrrole/chitosan-modified glassy carbon electrode for electrochemical nitrite detection. Ionics. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s11581-017-2247-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Fan Z. Sun L. Wu S. Liu C. Preparation of manganese porphyrin/niobium tungstate nanocomposites for enhanced electrochemical detection of nitrite. J. Mater. Sci. 2019;54:10204–10216. doi: 10.1007/s10853-019-03526-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Zhang S. Li B. Sheng Q. Zheng J. Electrochemical sensor for sensitive determination of nitrite based on the CuS-MWCNTs nanocomposites. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2016;769:118–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2016.03.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Dai Y. Huang J. Zhang H. Liu C. C. Sens. Actuators, B. 2018;281:746–750. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.11.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Ahmad R. Ahn M. S. Hahn Y. B. A highly sensitive nonenzymatic sensor based on Fe2O3 nanoparticle coated ZnO nanorods for electrochemical detection of nitrite. Adv. Mater. Interfaces. 2017:1700691. doi: 10.1002/admi.201700691. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Saif S. Tahir A. Asim T. Chen Y. Plant mediated green synthesis of CuO nanoparticles: comparison of toxicity of engineered and plant mediated CuO nanoparticles towards Daphnia magna. Nanomaterials. 2016;6(11):1–15. doi: 10.3390/nano6110205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Ghanei-motlagh M. Taher M. A. A novel electrochemical sensor based on silver/halloysite nanotube/molybdenum disulfide nanocomposite for efficient nitrite sensing. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018;109:279–285. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2018.02.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Rao H. Liu Y. Zhong J. Zhang Z. Zhao X. Liu X. Gold nanoparticle/chitosan@N,S Co-doped multiwalled carbon nanotubes sensor: fabrication, characterization, and electrochemical detection of catechol and nitrite. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017;5(11):10926–10939. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02840. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Ma C. Qian Y. Zhang S. et al., Temperature-controlled ethanolamine and Ag-nanoparticle dual- functionalization of graphene oxide for enhanced electrochemical nitrite determination. Sens. Actuators, B. 2018;274(March):441–450. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.08.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wu L. Zhang X. Wang M. He L. Zhang Z. Preparation of Cu2O/CNTs composite and its application as sensing platform for detecting nitrite in water environment. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 2018;128(May):189–196. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2018.06.041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Huang X. Li Y. Chen Y. Wang L. Electrochemical determination of nitrite and iodate by use of gold nanoparticles/poly (3-methylthiophene ) composites coated glassy carbon electrode. Sens. Actuators, B. 2008;134:780–786. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2008.06.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Kozub B. R. Rees N. V. Compton R. G. Electrochemical determination of nitrite at a bare glassy carbon electrode ; why chemically modify electrodes ? Sens. Actuators, B. 2010;143:539–546. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2009.09.065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Cui Y. Yang C. Zeng W. Oyama M. Pu W. Zhang J. Electrochemical Determination of Nitrite Using a Gold Nanoparticles-modified Glassy Carbon Electrode Prepared by the Seed-mediated Growth Technique. Anal. Sci. 2007;23(12):1421–1425. doi: 10.2116/analsci.23.1421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Rajalakshmi K. John S. A. Highly sensitive determination of nitrite using FMWCNTs-conducting polymer composite modified electrode. Sens. Actuators, B. 2015;215:119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2015.03.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Rajesh S. Koteswararao A. Bhargava K. Ilavazhagan G. Kotamraju S. Karunakaran C. Biosensors and Bioelectronics Simultaneous electrochemical determination of superoxide anion radical and nitrite using Cu , ZnSOD immobilized on carbon nanotube in polypyrrole matrix. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010;26(2):689–695. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2010.06.063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Badea M. Amine A. Palleschi G. Moscone D. Volpe G. Curulli A. New electrochemical sensors for detection of nitrites and nitrates. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2001;509(1):66–72. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0728(01)00358-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Caro C. Electrocatalytic oxidation of nitrite on a vitreous carbon electrode modified with cobalt phthalocyanine. Electrochim. Acta. 2002;47(9):1489–1494. doi: 10.1016/S0013-4686(01)00875-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Da S. Cosnier S. Almeida M. G. Moura J. G. An efficient poly ( pyrrole – viologen ) -nitrite reductase biosensor for the mediated detection of nitrite. Electrochem. Commun. 2004;6:404–408. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2004.02.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Chen L. H. Zang J. B. Wang Y. H. Bian L. Y. Electrochemical oxidation of nitrite on nanodiamond powder electrode. Electrochim. Acta. 2008;53:3442–3445. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2007.12.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Wang S. Yin Y. Lin X. Cooperative effect of Pt nanoparticles and Fe(III) in the electrocatalytic oxidation of nitrite. Electrochem. Commun. 2004;6:259–262. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2003.12.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Salimi A. Hallaj R. Mamkhezri H. Mohamad S. Hosaini T. Electrochemical properties and electrocatalytic activity of FAD immobilized onto cobalt oxide nanoparticles:application to nitrite detection. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2008;620:31–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2008.03.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Salhi O. Ez-zine T. Oularbi L. El Rhazi M. Electrochemical sensing of nitrite ions using modified electrode by poly functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Front. Chem. 2022;10:1–12. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2022.870393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Mo R. Wang X. Yuan Q. Yan X. Su T. Feng Y. Lv L. Zhou C. Hong P. Sun S. Wang Z. Li C. Sensors. 2018;18(7):1986. doi: 10.3390/s18071986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Novoselov K. S. Geim A. K. Morozov S. V. et al., Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films. Science. 2004;306(5696):666–669. doi: 10.1126/science.1102896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Neampet S. Ruecha N. Qin J. Wonsawat W. Chailapakul O. Rodthongkum N. A nanocomposite prepared from platinum particles, polyaniline and a Ti3C2 MXene for amperometric sensing of hydrogen peroxide and lactate. Microchim. Acta. 2019;186(12):752. doi: 10.1007/s00604-019-3845-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Kannan P. K. Late D. J. Morgan H. Rout C. S. Recent developments in 2D layered inorganic nanomaterials for sensing. Nanoscale. 2015;7(32):13293–13312. doi: 10.1039/C5NR03633J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Abellán-Llobregat A. Jeerapan I. Bandodkar A. et al., A stretchable and screen-printed electrochemical sensor for glucose determination in human perspiration. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017;91:885–891. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2017.01.058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Chen S. S. Cheng S. Y. Wang A. J. Xiao L. X. Ju F. J. Free-standing Pt nanowire networks with clean surfaces : highly sensitive electrochemical detection of nitrite. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2017;791:131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.03.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Zhao Z. Xia Z. Liu C. Huang H. Ye W. Green synthesis of Pd/Fe 3 O 4 composite based on polyDOPA functionalized reduced graphene oxide for electrochemical detection of nitrite in cured food. Electrochim. Acta. 2017;256:146–154. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2017.09.185. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Eguílaz M. Agüí L. Pingarrón J. M. A biosensor based on cytochrome c immobilization on a electrode . Application to the electrochemical determination of nitrite. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2010;644(1):30–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2010.03.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  130. Wen Z. H. Kang T. F. Determination of nitrite using sensors based on nickel phthalocyanine polymer modified electrodes. Talanta. 2004;62:351–355. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2003.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Pal M. Ganesan V. Electrochemical determination of nitrite using silver nanoparticles modified electrode. Analyst. 2010;(2):2711–2716. doi: 10.1039/c0an00289e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Jiang L. Wang R. Li X. Jiang L. Lu G. Electrochemical oxidation behavior of nitrite on a chitosan-carboxylated multiwall carbon nanotube modified electrode. Electrochem. Commun. 2005;7:597–601. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2005.04.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  133. Rao T. N. Tryk D. A. Fujishima A. Determination of nitrite and nitrogen oxides by anodic voltammetry at conductive diamond electrodes determination of nitrite and nitrogen oxides by anodic voltammetry at conductive diamond electrodes. Electrochem. Soc. 2001;148(3) doi: 10.1149/1.1346611. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  134. Kalimuthu P. John S. A. Electrochemistry Communications Highly sensitive and selective amperometric determination of nitrite using electropolymerized film of functionalized thiadiazole modified glassy carbon electrode. Electrochem. Commun. 2009;11(5):1065–1068. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2009.03.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  135. Kamyabi M. A. Aghajanloo F. Electrocatalytic oxidation and determination of nitrite on carbon paste electrode modified with oxovanadium (IV)-4-methyl salophen. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2008;614:157–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2007.11.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  136. Yang S. Liu X. Zeng X. et al., Fabrication of nano-copper/carbon nanotubes/chitosan film by one-step electrodeposition and its sensitive determination of nitrite. Sens. Actuators, B. 2010;145(2):762–768. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2010.01.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  137. Parsaei M. Asadi Z. Khodadoust S. A sensitive electrochemical sensor for rapid and selective determination of nitrite ion in water samples using modified carbon paste electrode with a newly synthesized cobalt (II)-Schiff base complex and magnetite nanospheres. Sens. Actuators, B. 2015;220:1131–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2015.06.096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  138. Zhang Y. Nie J. Wei H. et al., Electrochemical detection of nitrite ions using Ag/Cu/MWNT nanoclusters electrodeposited on a glassy carbon electrode. Sens. Actuators, B. 2018;258:1107–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.12.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  139. Talbi M. Al-Hamry A. Teixeira P. R. Paterno L. G. Ali M. B. Kanoun O. Enhanced Nitrite Detection by a Carbon Screen Printed Electrode Modified with Photochemically-Made AuNPs. Chemosensors. 2022;10:40. doi: 10.3390/chemosensors10020040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  140. Sivasubramanian R. Sangaranarayanan M. V. Electrochemical sensing of nitrite ions using tin- submicroparticles modified glassy carbon electrodes. Electroanalysis. 2014:1–8. doi: 10.1002/elan.201400259. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  141. Baciu A. Manea F. Pop A. Pode R. Simultaneous voltammetric detection of ammonium and nitrite from groundwater at silver-electrodecorated carbon nanotube electrode. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2016.05.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  142. Gallardo-gonzalez J. Baraket A. Boudjaoui S. et al., Science of the Total Environment A fully integrated passive micro fl uidic Lab-on-a-Chip for real-time electrochemical detection of ammonium : sewage applications. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;653:1223–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Schwarz J. Trommer K. Mertig M. Solid-contact ion-selective electrodes based on graphite paste for potentiometric nitrate and ammonium determinations. Am. J. Anal. Chem. 2018:591–601. doi: 10.4236/ajac.2018.912043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  144. Huang Y. Wang T. Xu Z. et al., Real-time in situ monitoring of nitrogen dynamics in wastewater treatment processes using wireless, solid- state, and ion-selective membrane (S-ISM) sensors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Saiapina O. Y. Dzyadevych S. V. Walcarius A. Cedex V. Shevchenko T. National K. A novel highly sensitive zeolite-based conductometric microsensor for ammonium determination. Anal. Lett. 2012:37–41. doi: 10.1080/00032719.2012.675487. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  146. Saiapina O. Y. Kharchenko S. G. Vishnevskii S. G. Pyeshkova V. M. Kalchenko V. I. Dzyadevych S. V. Development of Conductometric Sensor Based on 25 , 27-Di- ( 5-thio- Determination of Ammonium. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2016;11:105. doi: 10.1186/s11671-016-1317-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Wang G. Gao J. Sun B. He D. Zhao C. Suo H. Enhanced ammonia sensitivity electrochemical sensors based on PtCu alloy nanoparticles in-situ synthesized on carbon cloth electrode. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2022;922:116721. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2022.116721. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  148. Wang C. Wang T. Li Z. Xu X. Zhang X. Li D. An Electrochemical Enzyme Biosensor for Ammonium Detection in Aquaculture Using Screen-Printed Electrode Modified by Gold Nanoparticle/Polymethylene Blue. Biosensors. 2021;11(9):335. doi: 10.3390/bios11090335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Ribeiro J. A. Silva F. Pereira C. M. Electrochemical sensing of ammonium ion at the water/1,6-dichlorohexane interface. Talanta. 2012;88:54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2011.09.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Tan L. L. Musa A. Lee Y. H. Sains U. Nilai B. B. Determination of ammonium ion using a reagentless amperometric biosensor based on immobilized alanine dehydrogenase. Sensors. 2011:9344–9360. doi: 10.3390/s111009344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Kumbhat S. Singh U. A potassium-selective electrochemical sensor based on crown-ether functionalized self assembled monolayer. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2018;809(July 2017):31–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.12.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  152. Iannazzo D. Espro C. Ferlazzo A. Celesti C. Branca C. Neri G. Electrochemical and Fluorescent Properties of Crown Ether Functionalized Graphene Quantum Dots for Potassium and Sodium Ions Detection. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(11):2897. doi: 10.3390/nano11112897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Ji X. Li J. Yang C. A Label-Free Electrochemical Aptasensor for the Analysis of The Potassium Ion. J. Immunoassay Immunochem. 2015;36(2):162–169. doi: 10.1080/15321819.2014.915221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Tounsi M. Ben Braiek M. Baraket A. Lee M. Zine N. Zabala M. Bausells J. Aloui F. Ben Hassine B. Maaref A. Errachid A. Electrochemical capacitive K+ EMIS chemical sensor based on the dibromoaza [7] helicene as an ionophore for potassium ions detection. Electroanalysis. 2016;28:2892. doi: 10.1002/elan.201600104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  155. Jarczewska M. Górski Ł. Malinowska E. Application of DNA aptamers as sensing layers for electrochemical detection of potassium ions. Sens. Actuators, B. 2016;226:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2015.11.139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  156. Chen Z. Chen L. Ma H. Zhou T. Li X. Aptamer biosensor for label-free impedance spectroscopy detection of potassium ion based on DNA G-quadruplex conformation. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013;48:108–112. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2013.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Li L. D. Qing H. X. Guo L. Electrochemical potassium ion sensor based on DNA G-quadruplex conformation and gold nanoparticle amplification. Rare Met. 2013;32:369–374. doi: 10.1007/s12598-013-0102-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  158. Zhu B. Booth M. A. Woo Y. Hodgkiss J. M. Label-free, electrochemical quantitation of potassium ions from femtomolar levels. Chem.–Asian J. 2015:2169–2175. doi: 10.1002/asia.201500313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. Bhandari S. Singh U. Kumbhat S. Nafion-modified carbon based sensor for soil potassium detection. Electroanalysis. 2019;31(5):813–819. doi: 10.1002/elan.201800583. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  160. Lima A. S. Bocchi N. Gomes H. M. Teixeira M. F. S. An Electrochemical Sensor Based on Nanostructured Hollandite-type Manganese Oxide for Detection of Potassium Ions. Sensors. 2009;9:6613–6625. doi: 10.3390/s90906613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. Ahn M. S. Ahmad R. Yoo J. Y. Hahn Y. B. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science Synthesis of manganese oxide nanorods and its application for potassium ion sensing in water. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018;516:364–370. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.01.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. Liu X. Ye C. Li X. Highly sensitive and selective potassium ion detection based on graphene hall effect biosensors. Materials. 2018:1–9. doi: 10.3390/ma11030399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  163. Chai H. Ma X. Meng F. Mei Q. Tang Y. Miao P. Electrochemical aptasensor based on a potassium ion-triggered DNA conformation transition and self-assembly on an electrode. New J. Chem. 2019;43(21):7928–7931. doi: 10.1039/C9NJ00158A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  164. Chen Z. Guo J. Zhang S. Chen L. Short communication A one-step electrochemical sensor for rapid detection of potassium ion based on structure-switching aptamer. Sens. Actuators, B. 2013;188:1155–1157. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2013.08.039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  165. Tran T. N. T. Qiu S. Chung H. J. Potassium Ion Selective Electrode Using Polyaniline and Matrix-Supported Ion-Selective PVC Membrane. IEEE Sens. J. 2018;18(22):9081–9087. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2018.2871001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  166. Kumar A. A. Kumar S. K. N. Fernandez R. E. Real Time Sensing of Soil Potassium Levels Using Zinc Oxide-Multiwall Carbon Nanotube-Based Sensors. IEEE Trans. NanoBiosci. 2021;20(1):50–56. doi: 10.1109/TNB.2020.302786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  167. McCole M. Bradley M. McCaul M. McCrudden D. A low-cost portable system for on-site detection of soil pH and potassium levels using 3D printed sensors. Results Eng. 2023;20(November):101564. doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101564. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  168. Teixeira M. F. S. Freitas B. H. Seraphim P. M. Salmazo L. O. Nobre M. A. Lanfredi S. Procedia Chemistry Development of an electrochemical sensor for potassium ions based on KSr 2 Nb 5 O 15 modified electrode. Procedia Chem. 2009;1(1):293–296. doi: 10.1016/j.proche.2009.07.073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  169. Li H. Zhu Y. Islam S. Rahman A. Walsh K. B. Koley G. Graphene field effect transistors for highly sensitive and selective detection of K+ ions. Sens. Actuators, B. 2017;253:759–765. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.06.129. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  170. Diba F. S. Lee H. J. S. C. Amperometric sensing of sodium, calcium and potassium in biological fluids using a microhole supported liquid/gel interface. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2016;769:5–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2016.02.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  171. Tharini C. Iyappan G. Manikandan E. Sephra P. J. Potentiometric sensing of potassium ion (K+) using valinomycin supported on ZnO/rGO nanocomposites. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron. 2023;34(19):1474. doi: 10.1007/s10854-023-10806-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  172. Kumar A. A. Kumar S. K. N. Fernandez R. E. Real Time Sensing of Soil Potassium Levels Using Zinc Oxide-Multiwall Carbon Nanotube-Based Sensors. IEEE Trans. NanoBiosci. 2021;20(1):50–56. doi: 10.1109/TNB.2020.3027863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  173. Wang Y. Wang Y. Zhu R. et al., Woven fiber organic electrochemical transistors based on multiwalled carbon nanotube functionalized PEDOT nanowires for nondestructive detection of potassium ions. Mater. Sci. Eng., B. 2022;278:115657. doi: 10.1016/j.mseb.2022.115657. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  174. Marschner H., Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd edn, 1995 [Google Scholar]
  175. Schachtman D. P. Shin R. Nutrient Sensing and Signaling: NPKS. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2007;58(1):47–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  176. Wang Y. He Q. Zhao X. et al., Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering Synthesis of corn straw-based graphene quantum dots ( GQDs ) and their application in PO43- detection. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022;10(2):4–10. [Google Scholar]
  177. Khaydukova M. Kirsanov D. Sarkar S. et al., One shot evaluation of NPK in soils by “electronic tongue”. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021;186(July 2020):106208. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  178. Talarico D. Arduini F. Amine A. Moscone D. Palleschi G. Screen-printed electrode modified with carbon black nanoparticles for phosphate detection by measuring the electroactive phosphomolybdate complex. Talanta. 2015;141:267–272. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  179. Kabir F. Rahman T. Gurung A. Qiao Q. Electrochemical Phosphate Sensors using Silver Nanowires Treated Screen Printed Electrodes. IEEE Sens. J. 2018:1–6. [Google Scholar]
  180. Xu M. Song J. Li N. Zhao C. Sensitive determination of platinum by the parallel catalytic hydrogen wave of Pt (IV) in the presence of persulfate. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2003;553:163–168. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0728(03)00319-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  181. Zhang J. Bian Y. Liu D. Zhu Z. Shao Y. Li M. Detection of Phosphate in Human Blood Based on a Catalytic Hydrogen Wave at a Molybdenum Phosphide Modified Electrode. Anal. Chem. 2019;91(22):14666–14671. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  182. Xu J. Gao Z. Dou X. Song Y. Y. Needle-like Co3O4 nanoarrays as a dual-responsive amperometric sensor for enzyme-free detection of glucose and phosphate anion. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2021;897(June):115605. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2021.115605. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  183. Parasuraman G. J. Vishnuraj R. Kannankuzhiyil S. Govindaraj M. Biji S. S. Rangarajan M. Determination of urea, phosphate, and potassium in agricultural runoff waters using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023;30(44):98858–98868. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22369-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  184. Rahman M. A. Park D. S. Chang S. C. McNeil C. J. Shim Y. B. The biosensor based on the pyruvate oxidase modified conducting polymer for phosphate ions determinations. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2006;21(7):1116–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2005.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  185. Gilbert L. Jenkins A. T. A. Browning S. Hart J. P. Development of an amperometric, screen-printed, single-enzyme phosphate ion biosensor and its application to the analysis of biomedical and environmental samples. Sens. Actuators, B. 2011;160(1):1322–1327. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2011.09.069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  186. Jońca J. Giraud W. Barus C. et al., Reagentless and silicate interference free electrochemical phosphate determination in seawater. Electrochim. Acta. 2013;88:165–169. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2012.10.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  187. Kolliopoulos A. V. Kampouris D. K. Banks C. E. Rapid and Portable Electrochemical Quanti fi cation of Phosphorus. Anal. Chem. 2015;87(8):4269–4274. doi: 10.1021/ac504602a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  188. Mugo S. M. Lu W. Lemieux S. Stainless steel electrochemical capacitive microneedle sensors for multiplexed simultaneous measurement of pH, nitrates, and phosphates. Microchim. Acta. 2022;189:206. doi: 10.1007/s00604-022-05307-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from RSC Advances are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Chemistry

RESOURCES