Premium
Comparison Between Acridan Ester, Luminol, and Ruthenium Chelate Electrochemiluminescence
Author(s) -
Wilson Robert,
AkhavanTafti Hashem,
DeSilva Renuka,
Schaap A. Paul
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
electroanalysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1521-4109
pISSN - 1040-0397
DOI - 10.1002/1521-4109(200109)13:13<1083::aid-elan1083>3.0.co;2-d
Subject(s) - electrochemiluminescence , luminol , ruthenium , chemistry , inorganic chemistry , chelation , indium tin oxide , carboxylate , photochemistry , electrochemistry , superoxide , chemiluminescence , radical , electrode , catalysis , organic chemistry , enzyme
Transparent indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes are attractive for use in electrochemiluminescence (ECL). In this work the ECL of an acridan ester (2′,3′,6′‐trifluorophenyl 10‐methylacridan‐9‐carboxylate), luminol, and a ruthenium chelate (ruthenium tris 2,2′‐bipyridyl) are compared using ITO electrodes. The electrochemistry of all the compounds is described and related to their ECL mechanisms; three possible mechanisms for luminol ECL are described, and it is suggested that the currently accepted mechanism involving luminol and superoxide radicals may not always be correct. Maximum light emission in ruthenium chelate ECL occurs at 1.5 V (vs. Ag/AgCl), but potentials of more than 1 V have a corrosive effect on ITO. The effect of this limitation on ruthenium chelate ECL is discussed as part of a wider assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of ITO as an electrode material for ECL. The effects of pH and H 2 O 2 concentration on ECL detection of the acridan ester and luminol in a planar flow cell are described. The limits of detection of the acridan ester and luminol were 65 pM and 72 pM, respectively.