Performance of fluoride detection systems – comparison with literaturea.
| Source | Method | LOD [M] | Portable | In situ | Non-contaminating | Contaminant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current article | OCP | 2 × 10−4 | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Liu et al.16 | I–V | 10−11 | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Yan et al.8 | DPV | 8.3 × 10−10 | Yes | Yes | No | Fe(CN)3−6 |
| Minami et al.2 | I–V | 7 × 10−4 | Yes | Yes | No | MES buffer with NaCl pH 5.5 |
| Ćwik et al.11 | CV, SWV | 10−8 | Yes | No | No | NaCl, MES buffer pH 4.0, Fe(CN)3−/4−6 |
| Yue et al.5 | SERS | 10−8 | No | No | No | PBS buffer |
LOD, limit of detection; I–V, current–voltage characteristics; DPV, differential pulse voltammetry; CV, cyclic voltammetry; SWV, square wave voltammetry; SERS, surface-enhanced Raman scattering.