Advertisement

Investigation on uric acid biosensor model for enzyme layer thickness for the application of arthritis disease diagnosis

Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue on Emerging Applications of Internet of Medical Things in Personalised Healthcare System

Abstract

Uric acid biosensors for arthritis disease has been developed for the specific selection of uricase enzyme film thickness coated over the TiO2–CeO2 nano-composite matrix is modelled mathematically. This model is purely based on R-diffusion conditions with irreversible first-order catalytic reactions. By arithmetical method, the impact of the thickness of enzyme layer on the current response of the biosensor was explored. This article displays a structure for choice of the enzyme layer thickness, guaranteeing the adequately stable sensitivity of a biosensor in a required extent of the maximal enzymatic rate. The numerical outcomes showed subjective and sensible quantitative information for oxidation current due to uric acid also shows the maximum change in the biosensor current response due to the change in membrane thickness, which will be more suitable for uric acid biosensor for the application of arthritis disease diagnosis.

Keywords

First-order catalytic reactions Uric acid sensor Enzyme layer thickness Modelling 

Notes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Scheller F, Schubert F. Biosensors, vol. 7. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaubey A, Malhotra BD. Mediated biosensors. Biosens Biolectron. 2002;17:441–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mell CD, Maloy JT. A model for the amperometric enzyme electrode obtained through digital simulation and applied to the glucose oxidase system. Anal Chem. 1975;47:299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mell CD, Maloy JT. Amperometric response enhancement of the immobilized glucose oxidase enzyme electrode. Anal Chem. 1976;48:1597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sorochinskii VV, Kurganov BI. Steady-state kinetics of cyclic conversions of substrate in amperometric bienzyme sensors. Biosens Bioelectron. 1996;11(3):225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yokoyama K, Kayanuma Y. Cyclic voltammetric simulation for electrochemically mediated enzyme reaction and determination of enzyme kinetic constants. Anal Chem. 1998;70(16):3368–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis G. Electrochemical techniques for the development of amperometric biosensors. Biosensors. 1985;1(2):161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy JF, Kalogerakis B, Cabral JMS. Surface immobilization and entrapping of enzymes on glutaraldehyde crosslinked gelatin particles. Enzyme Microbial Technol. 1984;6(3):127–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0229(84)90119-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen X, Hu Y, Wilson GS. Glucose microbiosensor based on alumina sol-gel matrix/electropolymerized composite membrane. Biosens Bioelectron. 2002;17(11–12):1005–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5663(02)00093-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen X, Matsumoto N, Hu H, Wilson GS. Electrochemically mediated electrodeposition/electropolymerization to yield a glucose microbiosensor with im-proved characteristics. Anal Chem. 2002;74(2):368–72.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac015628m.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lyons MEG. Transport and kinetics at carbon nanotube-redox enzyme composite modified electrodes biosensors. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2009;4(1):77–103.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartlett PN, Whitaker RG. Electrochemical immobilization of enzymes: Part I. Theory. J Electroanal Chem Interfacial Electrochem. 1987;224(1–2):27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0728(87)85081-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parthasarathy P, Vivekanandan V. A numerical modelling of an amperometric-enzymatic based uric acid biosensor for GOUT arthritis diseases. Inform Med Unlocked. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2018.03.001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart PS. Diffusion in biofilms. J Bacteriol. 2003;185(5):1485–91.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.185.5.1485-1491.2003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Longsworth LG. Diffusion in liquids and the Stokes–Einstein relation. In: Shedlovsky T, editor. Electrochemistry in biology and medicine. New York: Wiley; 1955. p. 225–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical EngineeringVIT UniversityVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations