Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 8192–8199 | Cite as

Hg2+ detection using a disposable and miniaturized screen-printed electrode modified with nanocomposite carbon black and gold nanoparticles

  • Stefano Cinti
  • Francesco Santella
  • Danila Moscone
  • Fabiana Arduini
Environmental issues facing Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear risks


A miniaturized screen-printed electrode (SPE) modified with a carbon black-gold nanoparticle (CBNP-AuNP) nanocomposite has been developed as an electrochemical sensor for the detection of inorganic mercury ions (Hg2+). The working electrode surface has been modified with nanocomposite constituted of CBNPs and AuNPs by an easy drop casting procedure that makes this approach extendible to an automatable mass production of modified SPEs. Square wave anodic stripping voltammetry (SWASV) was adopted to perform Hg2+ detection, revealing satisfactory sensitivity and detection limit, equal to 14 μA ppb−1 cm−2 and 3 ppb, respectively. The applicability of the CBNP-AuNP-SPE for the determination of inorganic mercury has been assessed in river water by a simple filtration and acidification of the sample as well as in soil by means of a facile acidic extraction procedure assisted by ultrasound.


Mercury detection Anodic stripping voltammetry Screen-printed electrode Carbon black Gold nanoparticles Soil 



F.A. likes to acknowledge the Minister of Defense, Aptamer BW project for financial support. The authors thank Julian Ramirez for revising the English manuscript.


  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Substance Priority List (2015) Accessed 21 January 2016
  2. Arduini F, Amine A, Moscone D, Ricci F, Palleschi G (2007) Fast, sensitive and cost-effective detection of nerve agents in the gas phase using a portable instrument and an electrochemical biosensor. Anal Bioanal Chem 388:1049–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arduini F, Amine A, Majorani C, Di Giorgio F, De Felicis D, Cataldo F, Moscone D, Palleschi G (2010) High performance electrochemical sensor based on modified screen-printed electrodes with cost-effective dispersion of carbon black. Electrochem Comm 12:346–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arduini F, Di Nardo F, Amine A, Micheli L, Palleschi G, Moscone D (2012) Carbon black-modified screen-printed electrodes as electroanalytical tools. Electroanalysis 24:743–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arduini F, Zanardi C, Cinti S, Terzi F, Moscone D, Palleschi G, Seeber R (2015) Effective electrochemical sensor based on screen-printed electrodes modified with a carbon black-Au nanoparticles composite. Sens Actuators B 212:536–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernalte E, Sánchez CM, Gil EP (2011) Determination of mercury in ambient water samples by anodic stripping voltammetry on screen-printed gold electrodes. Anal Chim Acta 689:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernalte E, Sánchez CM, Gil EP (2012) Gold nanoparticles-modified screen-printed carbon electrodes for anodic stripping voltammetric determination of mercury in ambient water samples. Sens Actuators B 161:669–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonfil Y, Brand M, Kirowa-Eisner E (2000) Trace determination of mercury by anodic stripping voltammetry at the rotating gold electrode. Anal Chim Acta 424:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cairns WRL, Ranaldo M, Hennebelle R, Turetta C, Capodaglio G, Ferrari CF, Dommergue A, Cescona P, Barbante C (2008) Speciation analysis of mercury in seawater from the lagoon of Venice by on-line pre-concentration HPLC-ICP-MS. Anal Chim Acta 622:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calvo Quintana J, Arduini F, Amine A, van Velzen K, Palleschi G, Moscone D (2012) Part two: analytical optimisation of a procedure for lead detection in milk by means of bismuth-modified screen-printed electrodes. Anal Chim Acta 736:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiu MH, Zen JM, Kumar A, Vasu D, Shih Y (2008) Selective cosmetic mercury analysis using a silver ink screen‐printed electrode with potassium iodide solution. Electroanalysis 20:2265–2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cinti S, Politi S, Moscone D, Palleschi G, Arduini F (2014) Stripping analysis of As (III) by means of screen‐printed electrodes modified with gold nanoparticles and carbon black nanocomposite. Electroanalysis 26:931–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cinti S, Neagu D, Carbone M, Cacciotti I, Moscone D, Arduini F (2016) Novel carbon black-cobalt phthalocyanine nanocomposite as sensing platform to detect organophosphorus pollutants at screen-printed electrode. Electrochim Acta 188:574–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Economou A (2010) Recent developments in on-line electrochemical stripping analysis—an overview of the last 12 years. Anal Chim Acta 683:38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El-Deab MS, Okajima T, Ohsaka T (2003) Electrochemical reduction of oxygen on gold nanoparticle-electrodeposited glassy carbon electrodes. J Electrochem Soc 150:851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Güell R, Aragay G, Fontàs C, Anticó E, Merkoçi (2008) Sensitive and stable monitoring of lead and cadmium in seawater using screen-printed electrode and electrochemical stripping analysis. Anal Chim Acta 627:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammerschmidt CR, Fitzgerald WF (2001) Formation of artifact methylmercury during extraction from a sediment reference material. Anal Chem 73:5930–5936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Han Y, Kingston HM, Boylan HM, Rahman GM, Shah S, Richter RC, Link DD, Bhandari S (2003) Speciation of mercury in soil and sediment by selective solvent and acid extraction. Anal Bioanal Chem 375:428–436Google Scholar
  19. Huber J, Heimbürger LE, Sonke JE, Böcking D, Lindén M, Leopold K (2015) Nanogold-decorated silica monoliths as highly efficient solid-phase adsorbent for ultra-trace mercury analysis in natural waters. Anal Chem 87:11122–11129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Issaro N, Abi-Ghanem C, Bermond A (2009) Fractionation studies of mercury in soils and sediments: a review of the chemical reagents used for mercury extraction. Anal Chim Acta 631:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laffont L, Hezard T, Gros P, Heimbürger LE, Sonke JE, Behra P, Evrard D (2015) Mercury(II) trace detection by a gold nanoparticle-modified glassy carbon electrode using square-wave anodic stripping voltammetry including a chloride desorption step. Talanta 141:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindqvist O, Jernelöv A, Johansson K, Rodhe H (1984) Mercury in the Swedish environment, global and local sources—SNV PM 1816, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, S-171 85 Solna, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu Q, Liu Y, Zhang M (2012) Mercury and cadmium contamination in traffic soil of Beijing, China. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 88:154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Louie H, Wong C, Huang YJ, Fredrickson S (2012) A study of techniques for the preservation of mercury and other trace elements in water for analysis by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Anal Methods 4:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mandil A, Idrissi L, Amine A (2010) Stripping voltammetric determination of mercury (II) and lead (II) using screen-printed electrodes modified with gold films, and metal ion preconcentration with thiol-modified magnetic particles. Microchim Acta 170:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martín-Yerga D, González-García MB, Costa-García A (2012) Use of nanohybrid materials as electrochemical transducers for mercury sensors. Sens Actuators B 165:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Metters JP, Kadara RO, Banks CE (2011) New directions in screen printed electroanalytical sensors: an overview of recent developments. Analyst 136:1067–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meucci V, Laschi S, Minunni M, Pretti C, Intorre L, Soldani G, Mascini M (2009) An optimized digestion method coupled to electrochemical sensor for the determination of Cd, Cu, Pb and Hg in fish by square wave anodic stripping voltammetry. Talanta 77:1143–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Munoz RAA, Felix FS, Augelli MA, Pavesi T, Angnes L (2006) Fast ultrasound-assisted treatment of urine samples for chronopotentiometric stripping determination of mercury at gold film electrodes. Anal Chim Acta 571:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niu X, Zhao H, Lan M (2011) Disposable screen-printed antimony film electrode modified with carbon nanotubes/ionic liquid for electrochemical stripping measurement. Electrochim Acta 56:9921–9925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Okçu F, Ertas H, Ertas FN (2008) Determination of mercury in table salt samples by on-line medium exchange anodic stripping voltammetry. Talanta 75:442–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ordeig O, Banks CE, del Campo J, Muñoz FX, Compton RG (2006) Trace detection of mercury(II) using gold ultra-microelectrode arrays. Electroanalysis 18:573–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rio-Segade S, Bendicho C (1999) On-line high-performance liquid-chromatographic separation and cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometric determination of methylmercury and inorganic mercury. Talanta 48:477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schroeder WH, Munthe J (1998) Atmospheric mercury—an overview. Atmos Environ 32:809–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schroeder WH, Munthe J, Lindqvist O (1989) Cycling of mercury between water, air, and soil compartments of the environment. Water Air Soil Pollut 48:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sonke JE, Heimbürger LE, Dommergue A (2013) Mercury biogeochemistry: paradigm shifts, outstanding issues and research needs. C R Geoscience 345:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stozhko NY, Malakhova NA, Fyodorov MV, Brainina KZ (2008) Modified carbon containing electrodes in stripping voltammetry of metals. J Solid State Electrochem 12:1185–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Talarico D, Cinti S, Arduini F, Amine A, Moscone D, Palleschi G (2015) Phosphate detection through cost-effective carbon black nanoparticle-modified screen-printed electrode embedded in a continuous flow system. Environ Sci Technol DOI. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00218 Google Scholar
  39. Telmer KH, Veiga MM (2009) World emissions of mercury from artisanal and small scale gold mining. In: Mason R, Pirrone N (eds) Mercury Fate and Transport in the Global Atmosphere: Emissions, Measurements and Models. Springer, New York, pp 131–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turkevich J, Stevenson PC, Hillier J (1951) A study of the nucleation and growth processes in the synthesis of colloidal gold. Discuss Faraday Soc 11:55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP (2013) Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport. UNEP Chemicals Branch, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  42. Vicentini FC, Ravanini AE, Figueiredo-Filho LC, Iniesta J, Banks CE, Fatibello-Filho O (2015) Imparting improvements in electrochemical sensors: evaluation of different carbon blacks that give rise to significant improvement in the performance of electroanalytical sensing platforms. Electrochim Acta 157:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang J (2006) Analytical Electrochemistry. Wiley-VCH, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Welch CM, Nekrassova O, Dai X, Hyde ME, Compton RG (2004) Fabrication, characterisation and voltammetric studies of gold amalgam nanoparticle modified electrodes. Chem Phys Chem 5:1405–1410Google Scholar
  45. Zanardi C, Terzi F, Zanfrognini B, Pigani L, Seeber R, Lukkari J, Ääritalo T (2010) Effective catalytic electrode system based on polyviologen and Au nanoparticles multilayer. Sens Actuators B 144:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Cinti
    • 1
  • Francesco Santella
    • 1
  • Danila Moscone
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabiana Arduini
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie ChimicheUniversità di Roma “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Consorzio Interuniversitario Biostrutture e Biosistemi “INBB”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations