Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 27;77(4):2275–2294. doi: 10.1007/s11696-022-02628-9

Table 7.

Comparison of detection limits for APAP by various techniques

Methods Specification Linearity (µM) LOD (µM) Ref.
HPLC 33.11–397.35 0.199 Calinescu et al. (2012)
Colorimetry 400,000 Shihana et al. (2010)
Chemi luminescence 0.025–0.25 0.01 Easwaramoorthy et al. (2001)
CA Gr/PDDA/PSS-fMWCNT 25–400 0.5 Manjunathaa et al. (2011)
DPV Fe3O4-PDDA-Gr/GCE 0.037 Lu et al. (2012)
DPV erGO/Ni2O3–NiO/GCE 0.04–100 0.02 Liu G.T. et al. (2014)
SWV Gr modified GCE 0.038 Kang et al. (2010)
DPV Nafion/TiO2–Gr/GCE 1–20 0.21 Fan et al. (2011)
DPV NC-GPE 3.71 Patil et al. (2019)
DPV C60/GCE 0.05–1500 50.0 Goyal et al. (2006)
DPV SWCNT-Gr/GCE 0.05–64.5 0.038 Chen X. et al. (2012)
DPV MWCNTs-NHNPs/GCE 0.06–26 0.017 Babaei et al. (2013)
DPV erGO/GCE 0.0022–2.3 0.00724 Present work

C60 buckyball/fullerene; erGO electrochemically reduced graphene oxide; Gr grapheme; GPE graphite paste electrode; GCE glassy carbon electrode; fMWCNT functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes; NC nanoclay; PDDA poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride); PSS polystyrene sulfonate; SWCNT single-walled carbon nanotubes