Research Article

Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples

Volume: 9 Number: 3 August 31, 2022
EN

Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples

Abstract

Food safety is a crucial issue; all countries have struggled against pesticides for years. In this study, Polypyrrole (PPy)- and Polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based non-enzymatic electrochemical sensors were investigated to detect the pesticide propamocarb (PM) in food samples. Under the experimental conditions, the proposed strategy exhibited a high selectivity of the disposable PPy-based and PAN-based sensors for the determination of propamocarb pesticide in the concentration of 1 μM with a rapid detection within 1 min at pH 7.4 and 25 °C. We demonstrated the detection of PM residues on cucumber and tomato samples with good electrochemical performances towards the real-time usability on real food samples. PAN-based non-enzymatic electrochemical sensor has good sensitivity, higher selectivity, and stability than PPy-based non-enzymatic electrochemical sensor. The prepared PAN-based non-enzymatic electrochemical sensor is a potential candidate to be used in devices which perform food safety in agricultural products.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK

Project Number

120N816

References

  1. 1. Popp J, Pető K, Nagy J. Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2013 Jan;33(1):243–55. .
  2. 2. Rastogi S, Kumari V, Sharma V, Ahmad FJ. Gold Nanoparticle-based Sensors in Food Safety Applications. Food Anal Methods. 2022 Feb;15(2):468–84. .
  3. 3. Tang FHM, Lenzen M, McBratney A, Maggi F. Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale. Nat Geosci. 2021 Apr;14(4):206–10. .
  4. 4. Wei X, Anfeng Z, Ali T, Zhang Z, Davis KF, Wu F. China’s Food Security and Water, Fertilizer, Pesticide, and GHG Saving through Crop Redistribution [Internet]. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN: Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP); 2020. Available from: .
  5. 5. Sharma A, Shukla A, Attri K, Kumar M, Kumar P, Suttee A, et al. Global trends in pesticides: A looming threat and viable alternatives. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2020 Sep;201:110812. .
  6. 6. Dong J, Yang H, Li Y, Liu A, Wei W, Liu S. Fluorescence sensor for organophosphorus pesticide detection based on the alkaline phosphatase-triggered reaction. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2020 Sep;1131:102–8. .
  7. 7. Fan L, Wang F, Zhao D, Peng Y, Deng Y, Luo Y, et al. A self‐penetrating and chemically stable zinc (ii)‐organic framework as multi‐responsive chemo‐sensor to detect pesticide and antibiotics in water. Appl Organomet Chem [Internet]. 2020 Dec [cited 2022 May 21];34(12). .
  8. 8. Rasheed Z, Vikraman AE, Thomas D, Jagan JS, Kumar KG. Carbon-Nanotube-Based Sensor for the Determination of Butylated Hydroxyanisole in Food Samples. Food Anal Methods. 2015 Jan;8(1):213–21. .

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Electrochemistry

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

August 31, 2022

Submission Date

March 14, 2022

Acceptance Date

April 21, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 9 Number: 3

APA
Karakuş, S., Tasaltın, C., Gürol, İ., Akkurt, B., Baytemir, G., & Taşaltın, N. (2022). Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section A: Chemistry, 9(3), 801-808. https://doi.org/10.18596/jotcsa.1087096
AMA
1.Karakuş S, Tasaltın C, Gürol İ, Akkurt B, Baytemir G, Taşaltın N. Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples. JOTCSA. 2022;9(3):801-808. doi:10.18596/jotcsa.1087096
Chicago
Karakuş, Selcan, Cihat Tasaltın, İlke Gürol, Barbaros Akkurt, Gülsen Baytemir, and Nevin Taşaltın. 2022. “Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-Based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples”. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section A: Chemistry 9 (3): 801-8. https://doi.org/10.18596/jotcsa.1087096.
EndNote
Karakuş S, Tasaltın C, Gürol İ, Akkurt B, Baytemir G, Taşaltın N (August 1, 2022) Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section A: Chemistry 9 3 801–808.
IEEE
[1]S. Karakuş, C. Tasaltın, İ. Gürol, B. Akkurt, G. Baytemir, and N. Taşaltın, “Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples”, JOTCSA, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 801–808, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.18596/jotcsa.1087096.
ISNAD
Karakuş, Selcan - Tasaltın, Cihat - Gürol, İlke - Akkurt, Barbaros - Baytemir, Gülsen - Taşaltın, Nevin. “Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-Based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples”. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section A: Chemistry 9/3 (August 1, 2022): 801-808. https://doi.org/10.18596/jotcsa.1087096.
JAMA
1.Karakuş S, Tasaltın C, Gürol İ, Akkurt B, Baytemir G, Taşaltın N. Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples. JOTCSA. 2022;9:801–808.
MLA
Karakuş, Selcan, et al. “Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-Based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples”. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section A: Chemistry, vol. 9, no. 3, Aug. 2022, pp. 801-8, doi:10.18596/jotcsa.1087096.
Vancouver
1.Selcan Karakuş, Cihat Tasaltın, İlke Gürol, Barbaros Akkurt, Gülsen Baytemir, Nevin Taşaltın. Comparison of Polyacrylonitrile-and Polypyrrole-based Electrochemical Sensors for Detection of Propamocarb in Food Samples. JOTCSA. 2022 Aug. 1;9(3):801-8. doi:10.18596/jotcsa.1087096

Cited By