. 2016 Oct 18;16(10):1720. doi: 10.3390/s16101720

Table 1.

Comparison of the analytical performance of other Cu-based non-enzymatic glucose sensors, as well as CQDs sensors. EC: electrochemical; LOD: limit of detection; rGO: reduced graphene oxide; MWCNTs: multi-walled carbon nanotubes.

Sensing Material	Detection Method	Solution	Sensitivity (µA·µM⁻¹·cm⁻²)	Linear Range (µM)	LOD (µM)	Reference
B-doped CQDs	fluorescence	Water (pH 7.4)	-	8–80	8	[11]
Boronic acid-CQDs	fluorescence	Water (pH 7.4)	-	0.1–20,000	100	[10]
Boronic-acid-CQDs	fluorescence	Water (pH 7.4)	-	9–900	1.5	[9]
Cu NPs/MWCNTs	EC	NaOH (20 mM)	0.27	10–300	0.5	[24]
Cu NPs/rGO	EC	NaOH (100 mM)	0.447	100–1200	3.4	[14]
Cu₂O/SMWNTs	EC	NaOH (100 mM)	2.1	0.5–2500	0.2	[21]
Cu₂O/CQDs	EC	NaOH (100 mM)	0.298	20–4300	8.4	[17]
Graphene wrapped Cu₂O	EC	KOH (100 mM)	0.285	300–3300	3.3	[25]
CQDs/Cu₂O	EC	0.1 M NaOH	2.95 ± 0.2	1.3–6000	6	This work