A Sensitive Micro Conductometric Ethanol Sensor Based on an Alcohol Dehydrogenase-Gold Nanoparticle Chitosan Composite
Anis Madaci,
Patcharapan Suwannin,
Guy Raffin,
Marie Hangouet,
Marie Martin,
Hana Ferkous,
Abderrazak Bouzid,
Joan Bausells,
Abdelhamid Elaissari,
Abdelhamid Errachid,
Nicole Jaffrezic-Renault
Affiliations
Anis Madaci
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Patcharapan Suwannin
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Guy Raffin
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Marie Hangouet
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Marie Martin
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Hana Ferkous
Laboratory of Mechanical Engineering and Materials, Faculty of Technology, University of Skikda, Skikda 21000, Algeria
Abderrazak Bouzid
Laboratory of Materials and Electronics Systems, University El-Bachir El-Ibrahimi Bordj Bou Arreridj, Bordj Bou Arreridj 34000, Algeria
Joan Bausells
El Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Centro Nacional de Microelectrónica (CNM), Institut de Microelectrònica de Barcelona (IMB), Campus UAB, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
Abdelhamid Elaissari
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Abdelhamid Errachid
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Nicole Jaffrezic-Renault
Institute of Analytical Sciences, University of Lyon, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
In this paper, a microconductometric sensor has been designed, based on a chitosan composite including alcohol dehydrogenase—and its cofactor—and gold nanoparticles, and was calibrated by differential measurements in the headspace of aqueous solutions of ethanol. The role of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) was crucial in improving the analytical performance of the ethanol sensor in terms of response time, sensitivity, selectivity, and reproducibility. The response time was reduced to 10 s, compared to 21 s without GNPs. The sensitivity was 416 µS/cm (v/v%)−1 which is 11.3 times higher than without GNPs. The selectivity factor versus methanol was 8.3, three times higher than without GNPs. The relative standard deviation (RSD) obtained with the same sensor was 2%, whereas it was found to be 12% without GNPs. When the air from the operator’s mouth was analyzed just after rinsing with an antiseptic mouthwash, the ethanol content was very high (3.5 v/v%). The background level was reached only after rinsing with water.
