3. Results and Discussion
Figure 1 shows the schematic illustration of the sensor construction process and the connection method (
Figure 1a), the camera images of the sensors (
Figure 1b), the optical images of the CNT-electrode, and the Ag/AgCl electrode (
Figure 1c), and the SEM images of the CNT electrode (
Figure 1d).
Figure 1a shows the construction process of a three-electrode system, and the two-electrode systems were done with similar processes. As shown in
Figure 1a, the two CNT electrodes were painted from a CNT solution with a pipette as the working and counter electrodes, and after this, an Ag/AgCl electrode was painted from an Ag/AgCl paste with a cotton swab as the reference electrode. After this, the CNT and Ag/AgCl electrodes were connected to leads from the potentiostat with copper wires, as shown in the image in
Figure 1a.
Figure 1b shows camera images of the three glove-based sensor configurations: two CNT working- and reference/counter electrodes (
Figure 1b left); one CNT working electrode and one Ag/AgCl reference/counter electrode (
Figure 1b middle); two CNT working- and counter electrodes with one Ag/AgCl reference electrode (
Figure 1b right).
Figure 1c shows the optical image of the electrodes painted with CNT (
Figure 1c left) and Ag/AgCl ink (
Figure 1c right), respectively. As shown in the camera images and optical images, the three sensor configurations were successfully constructed on the fingers of the gloves. The CNT and Ag/AgCl electrodes had dimensions of 2 mm, with 4 mm spacings between the electrodes.
Figure 1d shows the SEM images of the CNT electrode.
Figure 1d left shows the interface between the CNT electrode and the glove substrate, from which it can be seen clearly that strands of CNTs were able to attach to the substrate through Van der Waals force without any glue, and bundles of carbon nanotubes intertwined with each other and stack layer-by-layer to form the whole electrode.
Figure 1d right is the magnification of the CNT electrode, which exhibits the intertwining nanotubes, and this intertwining relationship arouses strong Van der Waals force between CNTs and holds the whole electrode together. The average resistance of the CNT electrode was 1.66 kΩ, while the average resistance between the working and counter electrodes with covering buffer was 5.83 MΩ. The average thickness of the CNT layers was measured with a micrometer as 3.3 μm, while the average thickness for the Ag/AgCl electrodes was 4.75 μm. These results demonstrate that these three types of sensors were successfully fabricated onto the wearable glove substrates.
Figure 2 shows the cyclic voltammograms of three types of sensors at different scanning rates in a buffer solution containing 2 mM H
2O
2. In
Figure 2a, the cyclic voltammograms of a CNT-CNT sensor showed that the current increases with the increase of the working electrode, and that H
2O
2 was oxidized on the electrode to produce the currents at different potentials. When the scanning rate increased, the current also increased. The sensors showed a strong current response under 0.6 V, indicating that H
2O
2 underwent a more intense oxidation reaction at this potential, and 0.6 V was used for further studies.
Figure 2b shows the cyclic voltammograms of a CNT-Ag/AgCl sensor, and
Figure 2c shows that of a CNT-CNT-Ag/AgCl sensor, and the curves from these two types of sensors exhibit similar performances. The current signal ranges are basically the same, but they are much larger than the first sensor.
Figure 3a shows the current-verses-time response curve of the glove-based biosensor configured with two CNT electrodes for the detection of H
2O
2. H
2O
2 was oxidized at the working electrode to generate a signal response. It was observed that the current increased when a given concentration of H
2O
2 was added over the sensor. The sensor responded within 1 s, and achieved a new steady state after approximately 1 min. These results demonstrate that sensor current response increased when a higher concentration of H
2O
2 was added, and that the sensor had a short response time. The analyte entered the buffer droplet and diffused to the surface of the sensing electrode to become oxidized/reduced. This was because a higher concentration of analyte generates a larger signal response, and it took longer for this higher signal to reach stability. Thus, the response time was slower for higher analyte concentrations. As shown in
Figure 3a, the response time for C1 0.48 mM was 49.6 s, whereas that for C7 17.88 mM was 116.6 s.
Figure 3b shows the calibration curve for the detection of H
2O
2 with the sensor. In the calibration curve, the concentration was relative to the initial buffer concentration, which did not have any analyte, and the concentration was calculated by the overall amount of analyte added into the buffer, divided by the overall volume. A linear relationship was obtained between the current response and the H
2O
2 concentration, ranging from 476.0 μM to 35.19 mM. In this configuration, as the two CNT-based electrodes functioned as both the working and reference/counter electrodes, the sensor was not able to complete the corresponding redox reaction effectively, resulting in low electronic exchange efficiency and a lower current density. Therefore, the sensor had a calibration curve with a shallow slope (0.00273 μA mM
−1; R
2 = 0.9977), and a large detection limit (216.0 µM). The detection limit was calculated by three times the current noise divided by the slope of the calibration curve (3 N/k). The sensor displayed excellent measurement repeatability, with the slopes of seven calibration curves being measured as 2.42, 2.72, 2.80, 2.63, 2.77, 2.65, and 2.77 nA mM
−1.
Figure 4 characterizes the performance of the sensor configured with two CNT-based electrodes for detecting lactate. By immobilizing lactate oxidase, lactate is catalyzed to generate H
2O
2, which is further oxidized to generate a signal response. As shown in
Figure 4a, when a given concentration of lactate was added over the sensor, the sensor responded within 1 s, and the current increased and achieved a new steady state by around 1 min, demonstrating that the sensor had a short response time. The current increased proportionally to lactate concentration within a certain range.
Figure 4b shows the biosensor calibration curve for lactate detection, with a linear relationship between the current response and lactate concentration, and a detection range of 476.2 μM to 3.13 mM. The signal saturates at a concentration of 3.13 mM, probably due to the saturation of the analyte for the enzymatic reaction. The sensor showed a detection limit of 258.2 µM and a slope of 0.00173 μA mM
−1 (R
2 = 0.9881). Compared with
Figure 3, it can be seen that even when using the same type of sensing electrode, the slope of calibration curve for lactate was lower than that for H
2O
2. This result indicates that for the same concentration of lactate as the analyte in the buffer solution, through the enzymatic reaction on the working electrode, the generated H
2O
2 from lactate on the electrode does not have the same concentration as the lactate concentration in the buffer solution. Due to the involvement of the enzymatic reaction and the difficulty of controlling small current signals, the uncertainty of the response signals increased, which resulted in large error bars for the detection. The signal for lactate was noisier than that for H
2O
2, which due to the influence of the enzyme matrix on the working electrode, such as the bioactivity of LOD and the diffusion barrier. The sensor showed excellent repeatability, with slopes of the calibration curves for lactate of 0.00154, 0.00125, 0.00177, 0.00127, 0.00173, and 0.00185 μA mM
−1.
Figure 5 characterizes the sensor configured with a CNT electrode and an Ag/AgCl electrode for detecting H
2O
2. As shown in
Figure 5a, it was observed that the current increased when a given concentration of H
2O
2 was added over the sensor, the sensor responded within 1 s, and it achieved a new steady state at around 1 min, which shows that the sensor had a short response time. The current response increased when a higher concentration of H
2O
2 was added, with a current increase that was proportional to lactate concentration.
Figure 5b shows the calibration curve for H
2O
2 detection, showing a linear relationship between the current response and the H
2O
2 concentration from 47.6 μM to 5.85 mM. The sensor showed a detection limit of 2.9 µM and a slope of 0.446 μA mM
−1 (R
2 = 0.9964). This sensor configuration showed higher sensitivity than that achieved using CNTs as the reference/counter electrode, owing to that Ag/AgCl has a stable potential in the buffer solution whereas CNT does not. Since the potential of the working electrode was versus the reference electrode, the working electrode would be unstable with the CNT electrode as the reference electrode, and it could be lower than that using the Ag/AgCl electrode as the reference electrode. Thus, the sensor with an Ag/AgCl reference electrode had a higher oxidation rate for H
2O
2, resulting in a higher sensing signal response and a better detection limit. The sensor shows an excellent repeatability, with slopes for the four calibration curves of 0.429, 0.446, 0.445, and 0.445 μA mM
−1.
Figure 6 characterizes the sensor configured with a CNT electrode and an Ag/AgCl electrode for detecting lactate by the immobilization of lactate oxidase. Similarly, as shown in
Figure 6a, it was observed that the sensor responded within 1 s, and the current increased when lactate was added over the sensor, with a new steady state being achieved at around 3 min, showing that the sensor had a short response time for a given concentration. The smaller sensing signal of CNT-CNT sensor contributed to a faster response time compared with that of CNT-Ag/AgCl sensors upon an addition of a lactate concentration, since the sudden uplift of current is smaller, and a balance and a stability of the current should also be regained faster. The current response increased in proportion to higher lactate concentration within a certain range.
Figure 6b shows the calibration curve for lactate detection. A linear relationship was obtained between the current response and the lactate concentration, with a detection range of 47.6 μM to 1.52 mM. The sensor had a detection limit of 2.5 µM and a slope of 0.358 μA mM
−1 (R
2 = 0.9868). The signal saturated at a concentration of 1.52 mM, probably due to the saturation of the analyte for the enzymatic reaction. The sensor shows excellent measurement repeatability and a small standard deviation, with calibration curves for five measurements having slopes of 0.342, 0.325, 0.389, 0.353, and 0.330 μA mM
−1.
Figure 7 characterizes the three-electrode configuration, with CNT for the working and counter electrodes, and the Ag/AgCl reference electrode, for detecting H
2O
2. As shown in
Figure 7a, the current increased when a concentration of H
2O
2 was added over the sensor, the sensor responded within 1 s, and achieved a new steady state in around 1 min, demonstrating a short response time for a given concentration. The current response increased when a higher concentration of H
2O
2 was added, and the current increase was proportional to the H
2O
2 concentration.
Figure 7b shows the calibration curve for the detection of H
2O
2 with the glove-based amperometric biosensor. A linear relationship was obtained between the current response and the H
2O
2 concentration, ranging from 47.6 μM to 9.48 mM. The sensor showed a detection limit of 1.4 µM, and a slope of 0.302 μA mM
−1 (R
2 = 0.9976). The sensors showed an excellent repeatability, with calibration curves of slopes 0.307, 0.292, and 0.298 μA mM
−1. The Ag/AgCl electrode functioned as both the reference electrode and the counter electrode in the two-electrode sensing system, and consequently, there was a current flowing in the Ag/AgCl electrode to be polarized, resulting in a higher electrode potential than that in the three-electrode sensor. This further increases the absolute potential of the working electrode, and generated a higher rate of H
2O
2 oxidation, so that the calibration slope for this three-electrode sensor was lower than that for the two-electrode sensor with CNT and Ag/AgCl as the electrode.
Figure 8 characterizes the three-electrode sensor for detecting lactate via the immobilization of lactate oxidase. Similarly, it was observed that the current increased when lactate was added over the sensor (
Figure 8a). The sensor responded within 1 s, and achieved a new steady state by around 3 min, demonstrating that the sensor had a short response time for a given concentration. The current response increased when a higher concentration of lactate was added, and the current increase was proportional to the lactate concentration within a certain range. The calibration curve for lactate detection (see
Figure 8b) showed a linear relationship between the current response and the lactate concentration, with a detection range of 47.6 μM to 1.52 mM. The sensor showed a detection limit of 6.0 µM and a slope of 0.262 μA mM
−1 (R
2 = 0.9962). The signal saturated at a concentration of 1.52 mM, due to the saturation of the analyte for the enzymatic reaction. The results showed good repeatability, with slopes of 0.272, 0.286, 0.226, and 0.237 μA mM
−1.
The results demonstrate that all three of the sensor configurations can be successfully painted onto glove substrates, and can be used to detect H2O2 and lactate. The sensors show a fast response time and highly sensitive detection. Furthermore, via the immobilization of other enzymes or bioreceptors, this platform provides new possibilities for constructing other biosensors on gloves in order to detect a variety of other analytes in healthcare, environmental monitoring, and defense applications.
The performance of the three CNT electrode-based glove sensor was compared and analyzed. All three configurations showed detection ranges from micromolar to millimolar concentrations for H2O2 and lactate. The high sensitivity of the sensor with Ag/AgCl as the reference electrode is critical. Both the two-electrode and three-electrode configurations with Ag/AgCl as the reference electrode provided highly sensitive detection, with similar slope values. The two-electrode CNT system with the CNT reference electrode had a much shallower slope, indicating that this sensor was less sensitive than the two configurations that utilized the Ag/AgCl reference electrodes, and that CNT was less effective as a reference electrode.
The sensor could be worn inside or outside the glove. By applying the sensor outside the glove, it can be used for a variety of applications, such as enabling clinicians to analyze body fluid samples, environmental researchers to detect pollutants, or food researchers to determine food quality. By applying the sensor inside the glove, it can be used for real-time monitoring of the wearer’s health status.
Figure 9 shows the sensor’s stability against physical deformation based on the three-electrode sensing system. As shown in the figure, it can be seen that these sensors showed little deviance in performance after a high intensity of physical deformation. The sensors could can show almost 90% of the initial sensing response, even after 50 cycles of harsh physical deformation. Here, all the deformation was within the plastic deformation range of the glove, and the electroanalysis was conducted only after the deformation was restored; therefore, there was no addition restraint imposed on or within the electrode during the signal test, which differentiated it from the pressure and tactile sensors [
29,
30]. Furthermore, the mechanism behind the sensing signal here was a bit different from the pressure sensors: the signal here came from the electrochemical reactions on the electrodes because of H
2O
2, which was produced from the LOD-catalyzed reaction. More specifically, the signal came from the oxidation reaction on the working electrode, the reduction reaction on the counter electrode, and the electron transfer on the electrodes [
31]. Therefore, the resistance or capacitance change of the electrodes has less effect on the sensing signals. As bending and stretching are the predominant deformations in the actual use, the results indicate that the glove sensor has a high stability against physical deformation for real applications. However, although the glove sensor showed a relatively strong resistance against deformation, the sensing performance could still decrease after dozens of stretching and folding events. Therefore, to assure the accuracy, we believe that glove sensors should preferably be viewed as for single use.
Before testing real human sweat samples, we tested ascorbic acid, glucose, uric acid, and urea as the disturbances. Glucose and urea showed no current response after being added onto the sensor. Therefore, although urea is rich in human perspiration [
32], it poses no interference to the calculation of the lactate concentration. Ascorbic acid and uric acid showed a clear current response, and the calibration curve for ascorbic acid had a slope of 0.309 μA·mM
−1, and uric acid had a slope of 0.555 μA·mM
−1, at the same magnitude of lactate (tested with the three electrode system). However, the main organic components of sweat do not consist of ascorbic acid [
32], which is metabolized through the kidney and disposed in the urine. Although uric acid does exist in human sweat, it concentration was only around 20 μM [
33], about a thousandth of the lactate concentration, which makes it too subtle to be taken into calculation as a disturbance. Therefore, we believe that in real application scenarios, there is no such reducing substance that would act as a significant disturbance.
Figure 10 shows the sensors’ performance under various pH conditions. Human sweat is reported to fall within the pH range from 4.5–7.0, depending on from which part of the body is the sweat collected [
34,
35]. Sweat samples collected from the lower back ranged from 4.5–6.0, samples from the wrist ranged from 5.0–5.8, samples from the neck ranged from 5.8–7.0, and samples from the chest just below the neck ranged from 6.1–6.7 [
34,
35]. We prepared PBS buffer solutions ranging from 4.5–7.0 to simulate the real change in sweat pHs, and we found that sensor performance remained at a high level between pH 6.0–7.0, as shown in
Figure 10. Although the sensing performance dropped significantly at a pH below 5.5, this was not a fatal problem since we can limit the use of the sensors to within neck or upper chest areas, where the sweat pH is more moderate, to avoid such risks. In this case, we are convinced that our sensor is capable of measuring real human sweat on-site, as long as the sensor is properly used.
Figure 11 shows the tests of the sensor for the detection of lactate in real human sweat samples. Three sweat samples were collected from the same subject’s face respectively: running 1000 m for 4 min, with an average speed of 4.17 m/s; cycling 5000 m for 20 min, with an average speed of 4.17 m/s; and jogging 1700 m for 12 min, with an average speed of 2.36 m/s. By using a three-electrode sensor, the human sweat sample generated a signal response, and through the calibration curve, the lactate concentration in the sweat sample was determined, as shown in
Figure 11 blue. The running generated a lower concentration of lactate compared with cycling and jogging. The results were consistent with the literature, and a higher intensity of exercise leads to a higher sweat rate, which brings down the lactate concentration, although the overall lactate exertion rate ascends with the exercise intensity [
36]. The sensor results were compared with that from a spectrophotometer (
Figure 11 red). For running, the sensor showed a result of 22.38 mM, while the spectrophotometer showed 25.69 mM; for cycling, the sensor showed a result of 32.08 mM, while the spectrophotometer showed 33.82 mM; for jogging, our sensors showed a result of 36.81 mM, while the spectrophotometer showed 40.99 mM. These results demonstrated an excellent correlation between the sensor’s measurements and the spectrophotometer’s measurements. The sweat sample collected after all three types of exercises showed a clear discrepancy, which indicates that our sensors are capable of testing actual sweat samples.