Table 1. Comparison of the Performance of Various Methods for Epinephrine Detection.
| material/method | linear range (μM) | LOD (μM) | RSD (%) | R | refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Au-MWCNT-PANI-RuO2/EC | 7.69 × 10–2–4.9 | 0.18 | 0.9760 | (60) | |
| MIPs/MWNTs/EC | 0.30–1 × 103 | 0.03 | 1.30 | 0.9980 | (61) |
| Chit-fCNT bio-nanocomposite/EC | 0.05–10 | 0.03 | 4.50 | (62) | |
| GCPE(centri-voltammetry)/EC | 0.20–20 | 1.30 × 10–2 | 2.53 | 0.9975 | (63) |
| 50–500 | 4.30 × 10–2 | 0.9980 | |||
| GQD-CS/EC | 0.36–380 | 3.00 × 10–4 | 2.80 | 0.9983 | (64) |
| caffeic acid/EC | 2–80 | 0.20 | 0.9987 | (65) | |
| β-NiS@rGO/Au nanocomposites/EC | 2–1 × 106 | 0.54 | 2.04 | 0.9924 | (66) |
| UPLC-MS/MS | 2 × 10–4–14 | 1.00 × 10–4 | 0.9999 | (67) | |
| EP–MIP/CL | 5 × 10–3–10 | 3.00 × 10–3 | 0.9980 | (68) | |
| AuNPs@NiTAPc-Gr/PEC | 1.20 × 10–4–0.2439 | 1.79 × 10–5 | 1.36 | 0.9996 | this work |