Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 2;10(15):9063–9069. doi: 10.1039/c9ra08723k

Comparison of the performance of the as-prepared ZnCo2O4 micro-rice sensor with other reported nonenzymatic glucose sensors.

Electrode material Potential (V vs. Ag/AgCl) Linear range (mM) Detection limit (μM) Sensitivity (μA mM−1 cm−2) Ref.
Cobalt oxide microspheres +0.55 0.00083–8.61 0.46 669.78 45
Porous CoOOH nanosheet arrays +0.52 0.003–1.109 1.37 526.8 46
CoOOH nanosheet arrays +0.40 0.03–0.7 30.9 341.0 47
Co3O4 porous film +0.60 Up to 3.0 1 366.03 48
Co3O4 nanocrystals +0.55 0.1–0.9 50 743.6 49
Co3O4 nanowires +0.20 0.001–1.2 0.265 45.8 50
Nanoporous Co3O4 nanowires +0.60 0.005–0.57 5 300.8 51
Co3O4 nanofibers +0.59 Up to 2.04 0.97 36.25 52
Co3O4/NiCo2O4 double-shelled nanocages@GO +0.55 0.01–3.54 0.384 304 53
Cobalt oxide NP/r-GO +0.45 (vs. SCE) 0.04–4 1.44 1.21 54
CuOx–CoOx/graphene +0.50 (vs. SCE) 0.005–0.57 0.5 507 55
Co nanobeads/rGO +0.55 (vs. SCE) 0.15–6.25 47.5 39.32 56
Octahedral Cu2O +0.60 0.3–4.1 128 241 57
CuO microspheres +0.45 (vs. SCE) 0.001–4 0.5 349.6 58
FeOOH nanowires +0.40 (vs. SCE) 0.015–3 15 12.13 (μA mM−1) 59
NiCo2O4 hollow nanorods +0.60 0.0003–1 0.16 1685.1 60
ZnCo2O4 microrice +0.55 0.01–0.55 5 436.1 This work
0.55–2.65 215.1