Table 1.
Comparison of electrocatalytic performances of Cu-based electrodes for electrochemical non-enzymatic glucose sensors.
| Electrodes | Potential (V) | Sensitivity (µA mM–1 cm–2) | Linear range (mM) | Detection limit (µM) | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu(II)-C3N4/MWCNTs/GCE | + 0.60 | 929 | 0.0005–12 | 0.35 | 11 |
| NiO-TiO2/GCE | + 0.50 | 24.85 | 0.002–2.0 | 0.7 | 13 |
| DMG-CuNPs/GCE | + 0.65 | – | 0.001–3.0 | 0.5 | 14 |
| DPNs/GCE | + 0.50 | 12.10 | 1.0–20 | 1.2 | 16 |
| CuO(NP)/rGO/PGE | + 0.45 | 4760 | 0.0001–0.15 | 0.09 | 19 |
| Cu/G | + 0.40 | 145.52 | 0.01–0.2 | 2.47 | 21 |
| Cu2O/GWs/CFP | + 0.55 | – | 0.0005–5.16 | 0.21 | 49 |
| Nafion/CuNPs-N-GP/GCE | + 0.50 | 48.13 | 0.004–4.5 | 1.3 | 52 |
| CuNPs-GP nanoflowers/GCE | + 0.30 | 11.3 | 0.005–0.90 and 0.90–11.0 | 1.0 | 53 |
| rGO-Ni(OH)2/GCE | + 0.54 | 11.43 | 0.002–3.1 | 0.6 | 54 |
| CuNPs-MWCNTs/GCE | + 0.55 | 1096 | Up to 7.5 | 1.0 | 55 |
| Ni(OH)2/rGO/MWCNT/GCE | + 0.54 | 2042 | 0.01–1.5 | 2.7 | 56 |
| Cu2O/PtE | + 0.55 | 507 | 0.1–2.5 | 26 | 57 |
| CuNPs/GP/GCE | + 0.50 | 607 | 0.005–1.4 | 0.2 | 58 |
| Cu(II)/rGO/SPCE | + 0.50 | 171.95 | 0.10–12.5 | 65 | This work |
CuNPs copper nanoparticles, Cu(II) copper(II) ion, GCE glassy carbon electrode, MWCNTs multi-walled carbon nanotubes, C3N4 graphitic carbon nitride, CuNPs-N-GP copper nanoparticles decorated nitrogen-doped GP, DMG dimethylglycoxime, rGO reduced graphene oxide, SPCE screen-printed carbon electrode, DPNs three-dimensional dendritic Pt nanostructures, NiO nikle oxide, Ni(OH)2 nikle hydroxide nanoparticles, TiO2 nanostructured titanium dioxide, CuO(NP) copper oxide nanoparticles, PGE pencil graphite electrode, G glass substrate, Cu2O copper oxide nanoparticles, GWs three-dimensional graphene wall, CFP carbon fiber paper, PtE platinum electrode.