ArticleScientific reports2022
Cleaning of LTCC, PEN, and PCB Au electrodes towards reliable electrochemical measurements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable fabrication of 2D-based devices through reuse of substrates with microfabricated electrodes.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2026Article
- A plug-and-play, easy-to-manufacture fluidic accessory to significantly enhance the sensitivity of electrochemical immunoassays.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surface cleaning of the working electrode has a key role in improved electrochemical and physicochemical properties of the biosensors. Herein, chemical oxidation in piranha, chemical cleaning in potassium hydroxide-hydrogen peroxide, combined (electro-) chemical alkaline treatment, and potential cycling in sulfuric acid were applied to gold finish electrode surfaces deposited onto three different substrates; low temperature co-fired ceramics (LTCC), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), and polyimide (PI), using three different deposition technologies; screen printing, inkjet printing, and electroplating (printed circuit board technology, PCB) accordingly. The effects of the (electro-) chemical treatments on the gold content and electrochemical responses of LTCC, PEN, and PCB applicable for aptamer-based sensors are discussed. In order to assess the gold surface and to compare the efficiency of the respective cleaning procedures; cyclic voltammetry (CV), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were employed. LTCC sensors electrochemically cycled in sulfuric acid resulted in the most gold content on the electrode surface, the lowest peak potential difference, and the highest charge transfer ability. While, for PEN, the highest elemental gold and the lowest peak-to-peak separation were achieved by a combined (electro-) chemical alkaline treatment. Gold content and electrochemical characteristics on the PCB surface with extremely thin gold layer could be slightly optimized with the chemical cleaning in KOH + H
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.