ArticleFrontiers in chemistry2020
A Comparison of Commercially Available Screen-Printed Electrodes for Electrogenerated Chemiluminescence Applications.
Article in Frontiers in chemistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Aerosolized Protein Using a Condensation Growth Tube Coupled with an Electrochemical Immunoassay on Screen-Printed Carbon Electrodes.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Shining a light on viral detection: a comparative study of electrochemical and electrochemiluminescence techniques for human cytomegalovirus.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Commercial Translation of Electrochemical Biosensors: Supply Chain Strategy, Scale-Up Manufacturing, and Regulatory-Quality Considerations.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Aspects of Electrochemical Biosensors Using Affinity Assays.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Article
- Emission from the working and counter electrodes under co-reactant electrochemiluminescence conditions.Chemical science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined a series of commercially available screen-printed electrodes (SPEs) for their suitability for electrochemical and electrogenerated chemiluminescence (ECL) detection systems. Using cyclic voltammetry with both a homogeneous solution-based and a heterogeneous bead-based ECL assay format, the most intense ECL signals were observed from unmodified carbon-based SPEs. Three commercially available varieties were tested, with Zensor outperforming DropSens and Kanichi in terms of sensitivity. The incorporation of nanomaterials in the electrode did not significantly enhance the ECL intensity under the conditions used in this evaluation (such as gold nanoparticles 19%, carbon nanotubes 45%, carbon nanofibers 21%, graphene 48%, and ordered mesoporous carbon 21% compared to the ECL intensity of unmodified Zensor carbon electrode). Platinum and gold SPEs exhibited poor relative ECL intensities (16% and 10%) when compared to carbonaceous materials, due to their high rates of surface oxide formation and inefficient oxidation of tri-
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.