{Electrochemical sensing platform for simultaneous detection of 6-mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine using RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 modified screen-printed graphite electrode:} http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 47 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57; http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 Open Access : : ISSN 1847-9286 - Original scientific paper Electrochemical sensing platform for simultaneous detection of 6-mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine using RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 modified screen-printed graphite electrode Fatemeh Irannezhad, Jamileh Seyed-Yazdi and Hoda Hekmatara Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran Corresponding author: j.seyedyazdi@gmail.com Received: September 3, 2021; Accepted: October 14, 2021; Published: November 14, 2021 Abstract A sensitive electrochemical sensor was developed using reduced graphene oxide RGO-Cu2O/ /Fe2O3 nanocomposite for 6-mercaptopurine detection based on a facile fabrication method. The surface morphology and structural composition of this nanocomposite were evaluated by X-ray diffraction (XRD), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM), and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy. The screen-printed graphite electrode (SPGE) modi- fied with RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite (RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE) indicated excellent elec- trochemical properties to detect 6-mercaptopurine. The linear dynamic range was estimated between 0.05 and 400.0 μM for 6-mercaptopurine detection, with a limit of detection of 0.03 μM. Also, RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE sensor showed good activity for simultaneous detection of 6-mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine. In the coexistence system of 6-mercaptopurine and 6- thioguanine, two clear and well-isolated voltammetric peaks were obtained by differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). Additionally, the proposed sensor was examined for applicability by determining 6-mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine in real samples, and the recovery in the range of 97.5-103.0 % was obtained. Keywords electrochemical sensor; reduced graphene oxide; copper(I) oxide; iron(III) oxide Introduction 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), a sulfur analog of adenine, was introduced in early 1950 and subsequently applied as a chemotherapy drug to treat childhood and adulthood leukemias [1,2]. Now, it has usually been prescribed as an anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agent to manage medical conditions like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis, poly- cythemia, chorioadenoma and choriocarcinoma [3,4]. Nevertheless, some disadvantages limited the use of cytotoxic antitumor 6-MP, such as hepatotoxicity and bone marrow toxicity [5]. 6-MP cannot detect the difference between healthy and cancer cells [6], highlighting the necessity for monitoring doses of this agent in various biological and pharmaceutical media. http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 mailto:j.seyedyazdi@gmail.com J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 MODIFIED SPGE AS SENSOR 48 6-thioguanine (6-TG) or thiopurine antimetabolite, as an analog of purine nucleosides, was first recognized as a health-promoting agent in the treatment of neoplastic conditions. This cytotoxic agent is extensively applied to treat disorders like acute leukemia, auto-immune disease, and inflammatory bowel disease [7,8]. Nevertheless, high doses of 6-TG are toxic and can lead to serious side effects, such as bone marrow depression, causes myelosuppression, gastrointestinal complications, and liver problems [6,9]. Accordingly, there is a need to develop a facile and sensitive approach to control the 6-TG concentration in various biological and pharmaceutical media. The administration of 6-MP and 6-TG in treating various cancers such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia at an appropriate and effective dose is of great importance in analytical measurements for both biological and pharmaceutical preparations. Hence, numerous methods have been employed in this regard so far, including high-performance liquid chromatography [10,11], chemi- luminescence [12], colorimetric assays [13], surface-enhanced Raman scattering [14], liquid chro- matography-tandem mass spectrometry [15,16], and localized surface plasmon resonance [17] for the determination of 6-MP and 6-TG. It should be noted that these techniques, in addition to excellent selectivity and sensitivity, have some disadvantages such as expensiveness, the need for pretreatment, and complicated analysis. Among these, electrochemical analytical techniques have attracted special attention due to their unique properties like simplicity, rapidity, field-based portability, and cost-effectiveness [18-24]. Screen printing is now a facile and easy technique that can be applied in the fabrication and modification of electrochemical sensors [25-27]. This method has been used by researchers to construct stable, reproducible, and disposable electrodes and devices. Among these, a screen-printed electrode (SPE) is a promising candidate for real sample analysis. SPEs have some benefits for produced electrochemical sensors which can perform in situ analysis because of unique features, including cost-effectiveness, high availability, linear output, miniaturized morphology, low power, easy to use at ambient temperature, rapid response, and ability to connect to portable devices. Nevertheless, there are some shortcomings for electrochemical sensitivity, such as huge over- potential, slow electrochemical behavior in detecting different analytes, which might be eliminated using approaches like electrode surface modification to improve interfacial electron transfer in the electroanalysis [28-33]. The electrochemical sensors can benefit from such nano-materials due to cost-effectiveness, large specific surface area, variable morphologies, excellent electrocatalytic properties, and the ability to enhance electron transfer at low overpotentials [34-40]. The given work aimed to produce RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite for electrochemical detection of 6-MP, explore the synergistic effects of Fe2O3, Cu2O, and RGO nano-particles, and evaluate sensitivity, the limit of detection, and linear dynamic range of electrocatalyst performance for 6-MP detection. Moreover, this sensor was examined for co-detection of 6-MP and 6-TG. The applicability of the proposed sensor was examined to determine 6-MP and 6-TG in biological and pharmaceutical media. Experimental Materials and equipment All chemicals of analytical grade utilized in the current work belong to Merck and Sigma-Aldrich. Metrohm electrochemical equipment was used to record all electrochemical experiments. DropSens SPGE (DRP-110, Spain) was utilized to carry out the electrochemical tests. The experiments were performed by a three-electrode cell system consisting of 4 mm graphite as a working electrode, a silver pseudo-reference electrode, and graphite used as an auxiliary electrode. F. Irannezhad et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 49 In addition, ortho-phosphoric acid as well as the respective salts (KH2PO4, K2HPO4, K3PO4) with pH ranging between 2.0 and 9.0, have been utilized to procure buffer solution. A digital pH meter (Metrohm 710) was recruited to measure all pH values. Construction of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite As explained elsewhere, a modified Hummers’ method was used to construct graphene oxide (GO) by graphite powder [41,42]. First, 50 mg GO was dispersed in 20 mL ethanol in an ultrasonic bath. Then, iron(III) nitrate nonahydrate and copper(II) nitrate trihydrate with a ratio of 3:7 were added to the mixture and stirred until it turned into a uniform suspension. Subsequently, using sodium hydroxide (6 M) solution, pH was adjusted to 11, and a brown viscous suspension was obtained. The mixture was transferred into a stainless-steel autoclave and then held in an oven at a temperature of 240 °C for 26 hours, followed by centrifuging and washing thoroughly with distilled water and ethanol to set a neutral pH value. At last, the resulting product was dried at 50 oC for 16 hours. Construction of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE The unmodified SPGE was coated with RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite. RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nano- composite stock solution was obtained by adding RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite (1 mg) in aqueous solution (1 mL) under ultrasonication for an hour, followed by casting 4 μL aliquot of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 solution on the working electrode, and finally air-drying for 30 min at room temperature. The surface areas of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE and bare SPGE were obtained by CV using 1 mM K3Fe(CN)6 at different scan rates. Using the Randles-Sevcik formula [43] for RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE, the electrode surface was found 0.103 cm2 which was about 3.2 times greater than bare CPE. Results and discussion Determination of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite characteristics The XRD spectrum taken from as-fabricated RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. XRD spectrum analysis of synthesized RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite Diffraction peaks of α-Fe2O3 at 29.4, 32.3, 36.5, 40.2, 48.0, 55.5, 56.5 and 64.8° correspond respectively to the crystalline planes (220), (104), (110), (113), (024), (116), (018), (214), and (030). Diffraction peaks of Cu2O at 27.2, 35.6, 42.2, 61.3, 73.1 and 77.5° correspond respectively to the crystalline planes (110), (111), (200), (220), (311), and (222). http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 MODIFIED SPGE AS SENSOR 50 Figure 2 shows the FE-SEM image of the prepared RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite. It clearly shows Cu2O nanoribbons, α-Fe2O3 nanoparticles, and graphene oxide layers that formed RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite. Figure 3 shows FT-IR spectrum analysis of the RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite. Formation of the nanocomposite, i.e., the presence of Fe-O and Cu-O bonds, is confirmed by peaks at about 833 cm−1. The peaks at about 1465 and 1588 cm−1 are related to C=O and C=C bonds of graphene oxide, res- pectively, and the bond of 3415 cm-1 to O-H stretching vibration due to adsorbed water molecules. Figure 2. FE-SEM image of synthesized RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite Figure 3. FT-IR spectrum analysis of synthesized RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite Electrochemical behavior of 6-mercaptopurine at RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE The supporting electrolyte pH showed a significant effect on the electrocatalysis of 6-MP on the surface of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE (Scheme 1). The impact of pH on 6-MP (100.0 μM) detection in PBS on the modified electrode surface was evaluated at different pH values of 2.0-9.0. The maximum peak current response of 6-MP was found at the pH value of about 7.0. Hence, we selected pH 7.0 as the optimal experimental condition for experiments. The electrochemical behavior of 6-MP in PBS at pH 7.0 was studied by cyclic voltammetry (CV) at bare SPGE, and SPGE modified by RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3, and results are shown in Figure 4. As seen in Figure 4 for unmodified SPGE (curve a), a lower peak current of 6-MP oxidation is observed than for modified SPGE (curve b). F. Irannezhad et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 51 Scheme 1. Electrochemical oxidation mechanism of 6-MP at the surface of the modified electrode This means a lower sensitivity for 6-MP for bare than for modified SPGE. The voltammogram of 6-MP detection on both electrodes displayed an irreversible oxidation peak, with the elevation of the peak current and reduction of the anodic peak potential value of 6-MP observed for RGO- Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE. The optimal electrocatalytic impact for 6-MP oxidation was reported on the RGO- Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE surface. Figure 4. CV responses of 100.0 μM 6-mercaptopurine at (a) bare SPGE and (b) RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0) Scan rate influence Figure 5 displays the linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) behavior of 100.0 μM 6-MP in PBS of pH 7.0 at variable scan rates (v) on the surface of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE. Figure 5. LSV curves of 100.0 μM 6-MP in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0) at different scan rates (10 - 300 mV/s) on the surface of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE (a-g stand for 10, 25, 50, 75, 100.0, 200.0, and 300.0 mV/s). Inset: plot of 6-MP oxidation peak current versus square root of scan rate http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 MODIFIED SPGE AS SENSOR 52 There is a gradual elevation in the peak current value of 6-MP oxidation and a positive shift of oxidation peak potential by rising  from 10 to 300 mV/s. According to Figure 5 (inset), the anodic peak current (Ipa) of 6-MP is proportional to the square root of scan rate (v1/2), and the regression equation (1) Ipa = 1.7054 v1/2 + 0.3634 (R2 = 0.9993) (1) Hence, a diffusion-controlled electrochemical reaction of 6-MP at RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE can be assumed. To provide data about the rate determining step, a Tafel plot was drawn based on data of rising sector related to a current-voltage curve at low scan rate (10 mV/s) for 100.0 μM 6-MP (Figure 6, inset). The linearity of E versus log I plot reveals the intervention of electrode process kinetics. In accordance with the slope of this plot, the number of transferred electrons for the rate-determining step can be calculated. The inset in Figure 6 displays the Tafel slope of 0.1133 V for the linear sector. The Tafel slope value means the rate-limiting step related to one-electron transfer, with a transfer coefficient (α) of 0.48. Figure 6. LSV response for 100 μM 6-MP in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0) at the scan rate of 10 mV/s on RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE; inset: Tafel plot of the rising sector of the related voltammogram Chronoamperometric analysis Chronoamperometric measurements for 6-MP detection on RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE surface shown in Figure 7 were performed at the potential of 0.65 V and variable 6-MP concentrations in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0). The Cottrell equation defines the electrochemical reaction current at the limited condition of mass transport for 6-MP as electroactive material having a certain diffusion coefficient (D) value [43]. Figure 7A displays the experimental plots of I versus t−1/2 with the optimal fits at various 6-MP concentrations. Figure 7B shows the slopes of achieved straight lines versus 6-MP concentration. According to the obtained slope and Cottrell equation, the mean D value of 6-MP was calculated as 7.0 10−5 cm2/s. DPV analysis of 6-MP on RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE surface Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) is a versatile technique for the determination of 6-MP because of its higher sensitivity, and the obtained voltammograms measured for step potential of 0.01 V and pulse amplitude of 0.025 V are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 shows that with increasing concentration of 6-MP from 0.05 μM – 400.0 μM, Ipa values increased with slight shifts of oxidation potential values. F. Irannezhad et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 53 Figure 7. Chronoamperograms obtained for RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0) at variable 6-MP concentrations (a–e: 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 1.8 and 3.0 mM of 6-MP); inset A: plot of I versus t-1/2 based on chronoamperograms (a – e); inset B: slope plot of straight line versus 6-MP concentration Figure 8. DPV responses of 6-MP on RGO- Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE at different concentrations of 6-MP in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0) (a-m refer to 0.05, 2.5, 7.5, 15.0, 30.0, 70.0, 100.0, 150.0, 200.0, 250.0, 300.0, 350.0 and 400.0 µM); inset: calibration curve of DPV peak current against concentration of 6-MP The plot of Ipa versus 6-MP concentration is drawn in the inset of Figure 8, showing a nearly straight line with excellent linearity. The linear regression equation is defined as: Ipa = 0.1065 C6-MP + + 1.0948 (R2 = 0.9977). The equation of 3Sbl/m was selected to calculate the limit of detection (LOD), where m stands for the slope of the standard plot and Sbl for a standard deviation for linearity of blank solution anodic peak current after five determinations. The LOD was estimated as 0.02 μM. The analytical performance of the present electrochemical method is in Table 1 compared with those obtained by some other relevant methods for the electrochemical detection of 6-MP. Table 1. Comparison of linear range and detection limits for 6-MP reported for different electrochemical sensors Electrochemical sensor Method Linear range, μM LOD, μM Ref. Multiwall carbon nanotubes paste electrode/carbon paste electrode Square wave voltammetry (SWV) 0.5–900 0.1 [44] Cobalt salophen complex/carbon nanotube-paste electrode DPV 1–100 0.1 [45] Boron-doped diamond electrode DPV 1-450 0.51 [46] RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE DPV 0.05-400.0 0.03 This work http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 MODIFIED SPGE AS SENSOR 54 Simultaneous detection of 6-MP and 6-TG on RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE DPVs for simultaneous detection of 6-MP and 6-TG using RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE are presented in Figure 9. Two oxidation peaks appear at 0.6 V and 0.75 V for 6-MP and 6-TG, respectively. There is a linear elevation in the peak current intensity for both analytes with the simultaneous enhancement in their contents. Figure 9 (insets A and B) presents the related standard curves for 6- MP and 6-TG. The sensitivity for 6-MP in the simultaneous detection was the same as the single one. Based on these findings, the applicability of simultaneously measuring concentrations of both 6-MP and 6-TG is evident on the RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE surface. Figure 9. DPVs of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE in PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.0) at variable 6-MP and 6-TG concentrations (a-f refer to mixed solutions of 2.5 + 3.0, 15.0 + 35.0, 70.0 + 125.0, 150.0 + 250.0, 250.0 + 425.0, and 350.0 + 550.0 μM of 6-MP and 6-TG); inset A: plot of peak currents versus 6-MP concentrations; inset B: plot of peak currents versus 6-TG concentrations Real sample analysis The applicability of the prepared RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE sensor was explored via detection of 6-MP and 6-TG present in urine specimens, 6-MP tablets, and 6-TG tablets. Table 2 displays the recovery rates of 97.5 to 103.3 % for tested samples. These findings showed the efficiency of the proposed sensor for the detection of 6-MP and 6-TG in real specimens. Table 2. Determination of 6-MP and 6-TG in real specimens (n=5). Sample C / μM Recovery, % RSD, % Spiked Found 6-MP 6-TG 6-MP 6-TG 6-MP 6-TG 6-MP 6-TG Urine 0 0 - - - - - - 5.0 6.0 4.9 6.2 98.0 103.3 2.8 2.9 7.5 8.0 7.6 7.8 101.3 97.5 3.1 1.7 6-mercaptopurine tablet 0 0 7.0 - - - 3.5 - 1.0 5.5 7.8 5.6 97.5 101.8 2.7 3.0 2.0 6.5 9.3 6.4 103.3 98.5 2.1 2.4 6-thioguanine Tablet 0 0 - 7.5 - - - 2.9 4.5 1.0 4.6 8.3 102.2 97.6 1.7 2.4 8.5 2.0 8.6 9.6 96.5 101.1 2.9 3.2 F. Irannezhad et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 55 Conclusion In this work, RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 nanocomposite was prepared by a facile method and applied for construction of RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE sensor for electrochemical detection of 6-mercaptopurine. The proposed sensor is easy to use without complicated preparations prior to 6-mercaptopurine detection. The developed sensor showed a linear electrochemical response to 6-mercaptopurine ranging from 0.05 to 400.0 μM, providing the limit of detection of 0.03 μM. Also, the oxidation peaks of 6-mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine can be entirely separated with a clear peak potential difference of 0.15 V, which allowed simultaneous determination of two drugs. Finally, the applicability of the as-fabricated RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3/SPGE sensor was verified by detections of 6- mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine in real samples. References [1] Y. Su, Y. Y. Hon, Y. Chu, M. E. Van de Poll, M. V. Relling, Journal of Chromatography B: Biomedical Sciences and Applications 732 (1999) 459-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378- 4347(99)00311-4 [2] J. A. Montgomery, Progress in Medicinal Chemistry 7 (1970) 69-123. [3] S. Sahasranaman, D. Howard, S. Roy, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 64 (2008) 753-767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-008-0478-6 [4] O. Nielsen, B. Vainer, J. Rask-Madsen, Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 15 (2001) 1699–1708. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.01102.x [5] F. H. Rashidy, S. M. Ragab, A. A. Dawood, S. A. Temraz, Menoufia Medical Journal 28 (2015) 411-414. https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-2098.163930 [6] E. Petit, S. Langouet, H. Akhdar, C. Nicolas-Nicolaz, A. Guillouzo, E. Morel, Toxicology in Vitro 22 (2008) 632-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2007.12.004 [7] B. Meijer, C. J. J. Mulder, G. J. Peters, A. A. van Bodegraven, N. K. H. de Boer, World Journal of Gastroenterology 22 (2016) 9012-9021. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i40.9012 [8] R. Rajashekaraiah, P. R. Kumar, N. Prakash, G. S. Rao, V. R. Devi, M. Metta, H. D. Narayanaswamy, M. N. Swamy, K. Satyanarayan, S. Rao, D. Rathnamma, A. Sahadev, U. Sunilchandra, C. R. Santhosh, H. Dhanalakshmi, S. N. Kumar, S. W. Ruban, G. P. Kalmath, A. R. Gomes, K. R. A. Kumar, P. K. Govindappa, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 148 (2020) 704-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.01.117 [9] A. Vora, C. D. Mitchell, L. Lennard, T. O. B. Eden, S. E. Kinsey, J. Lilleyman, S. M. Richards, The Lancet 368 (2006) 1339-1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69558-5 [10] H. Mawatari, Y. Kato, S. Nishimura, N. Sakura, K. Ueda, Journal of Chromatography B 716 (1998) 392-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4347(98)00329-6 [11] G. Cangemi, A. Barabino, S. Barco, A. Parodi, S. Arrigo, G. Melioli, International Journal of Immunopathology 25 (2012) 435-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/039463201202500213 [12] P. Biparva, S. M. Abedirad, S. Y. Kazemi, Spectrochimica Acta, Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 145 (2015) 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2015.03.019 [13] K. A. Rawat, R. K. Singhal, S. K. Kailasa, Sensors & Actuators, B: Chemical 249 (2017) 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2017.04.018 [14] H. Li, X. Chong, Y. Chen, L. Yang, L. Luo, B. Zhao, Y. Tian, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 493 (2016) 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.01.032 [15] S. Supandi, Y. Harahap, H. Harmita, R. Andalusia, M. Ika, Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research 10 (2017) 120-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i9.19790 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4347(99)00311-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4347(99)00311-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-008-0478-6 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.01102.x https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-2098.163930 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2007.12.004 https://dx.doi.org/10.3748%2Fwjg.v22.i40.9012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.01.117 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69558-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4347(98)00329-6 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F039463201202500213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2015.03.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2017.04.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.01.032 http://dx.doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.20‌17.v10i9.‌19790 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 RGO-Cu2O/Fe2O3 MODIFIED SPGE AS SENSOR 56 [16] J. H. Jacobsen, K. Schmiegelow, J. Nersting, Journal of Chromatography B-Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences 881 (2012) 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2011.11.032 [17] N. Bi, M. Hu, H. Zhu, H. Qi, Y. Tian, H. Zhang, Spectrochimica Acta, Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 107 (2013) 24-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2013.01.014 [18] J. I. Gowda, M. Mallappa, S. T. Nandibewoor, Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 12 (2017) 1- 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.11.002 [19] B. Hatamluyi, Z. Es'haghi, Electrochimica Acta 283 (2018) 1170-1177. https://doi.org/10.- 1016/j.electacta.2018.07.068 [20] D. N. Unal, E. Eksin, A. Erdem, Analytical Letters 51 (2018) 265-278. https://doi.org/10.- 1080/00032719.2017.1338714 [21] M. Pirozmand, A. Nezhadali, M. Payehghadr, L. Saghatforoush, Eurasian Chemical Communications 2 (2020) 1021-1032. https://doi.org/10.22034/ECC.2020.241560.1063 [22] A. Khodadadi, E. Faghih-Mirzaei, H. Karimi-Maleh, A. Abbaspourrad, S. Agarwal, V. K. Gupta, Sensors & Actuators, B: Chemical 284 (2019) 568-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.- 2018.12.164 [23] S. M. Patil, V. P. Pattar, S. T. Nandibewoor, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 6 (2016) 265-276. https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.350 [24] P. Prasad, N. Y. Sreedhar, Chemical Methodologies 2 (2018) 277-290. https://doi.org/10.- 22034/CHEMM.2018.63835 [25] N. Jaiswal, I. Tiwari, C. W. Foster, C. E. Banks, Electrochimica Acta 227 (2017) 255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2017.01.007 [26] N. Jaiswal, I. Tiwari, Analytical Methods 9 (2017) 3895-3907. https://doi.org/10.1039/- C7AY01276D [27] I. Tiwari, M. Singh, M. Gupta, J. P. Metters, C. E. Banks, Analytical Methods 7 (2015) 2020- 2027. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4AY02271H [28] H. Karimi-Maleh, F. Karimi, Y. Orooji, G. Mansouri, A. Razmjou, A. Aygun, F. Sen, Scientific Reports 10 (2020) 11699. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68663-2 [29] A. A. S. Mou, A. Ouarzane, M. El Rhazi, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 7 (2017) 111-118. https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.386 [30] Y. Zhang, X. Li, D. Li, Q. Wei, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 186 (2020) 110683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.110683 [31] F. Mehri-Talarposhti, A. Ghorbani-Hasan Saraei, L. Golestan, S. A. Shahidi, Asian Journal of Nanosciences and Materials 3 (2020) 313-320. https://doi.org/10.26655/AJNANOMAT.- 2020.4.5 [32] C. Chen, Z. Han, W. Lei, Y. Ding, J. Lv, M. Xia, Q. Hao, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 9 (2019) 143-152. https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.630 [33] H. Karimi-Maleh, M. Lütfi Yola, N. Atar, Y. Orooji, F. Karimi, P. Senthil Kumar, J. Rouhi, M. Baghayeri, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 592 (2021) 174-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2021.02.066 [34] J. Ghodsi, A. A. Rafati, Y. Shoja, Advanced Journal of Chemistry-Section A 1 (2018) 39-55. https://doi.org/10.29088/SAMI/AJCA.2018.5.3955 [35] S. Mohajeri, A. Dolati, K. Yazdanbakhsh, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 9 (2019) 207-222. https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.666 [36] H. Karimi-Maleh, K. Cellat, K. Arıkan, A. Savk, F. Karimi, F. Şen, Materials Chemistry and Physics 250 (2020) 123042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.123042 [37] W. H. Elobeid, A. A. Elbashir, Progress in Chemical and Biochemical Research 2 (2019) 24-33. https:/doi.org/10.33945/SAMI/PCBR.2019.2.2433 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2011.11.032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2013.01.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.07.068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2018.07.068 https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2017.1338714 https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2017.1338714 https://doi.org/10.22034/ECC.2020.241560.1063 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2018.12.164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2018.12.164 https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.350 https://doi.org/10.22034/CHEMM.2018.63835 https://doi.org/10.22034/CHEMM.2018.63835 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2017.01.007 https://doi.org/10.1039/C7AY01276D https://doi.org/10.1039/C7AY01276D https://doi.org/10.1039/C4AY02271H https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68663-2 https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.110683 https://doi.org/10.26655/AJNANOMAT.2020.4.5 https://doi.org/10.26655/AJNANOMAT.2020.4.5 https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.630 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2021.02.066 https://doi.org/10.29088/SAMI/AJCA.2018.5.3955 https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.666 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.123042 https://doi.org/10.33945/SAMI/PCBR.2019.2.2433 https://doi.org/10.33945/SAMI/PCBR.2019.2.2433 F. Irannezhad et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 12(1) (2022) 47-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 57 [38] H. Zhao, H. Ma, X. Li, B. Liu, R. Liu, S. Komarneni, Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2020.105907 [39] H. Karimi-Maleh, F. Karimi, S. Malekmohammadi, N. Zakariae, R. Esmaeili, S. Rostamnia, M. Lütfi Yola, N. Atar, S. Movaghgharnezhad, S. Rajendran, A. Razmjou, Y. Orooji, S. Agarwal, V. K. Gupta, Journal of Molecular Liquids 310 (2020) 113185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.- molliq.2020.113185 [40] K. Roja, P. R. Prasad, P. Sandhya, N. Y. Sreedhar, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 6 (2016) 253-263. https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.349 [41] M. Darvishi, M. Jamali-Paghaleh, F. Jamali-Paghaleh, J. Seyed-Yazdi, Materials Research Express 4 (2017) 016501. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/aa52cf [42] M. Darvishi, J. Seyed-Yazdi, Surfaces and Interfaces 4 (2016) 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/- j.surfin.2016.07.001 [43] A. J. Bard, L.R. Faulkner, Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2nd edition, 2001. [44] M. Keyvanfard, V. Khosravi, H. Karimi-Maleh, K. Alizad, B. Rezaei, Journal of Molecular Liquids 177 (2013) 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2012.10.020 [45] S. Shahrokhian, F. Ghorbani-Bidkorbeh, A. Mohammadi, R. Dinarvand, Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry 16 (2012) 1643-1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-011-1575-5 [46] M. Hanko, Ľ. Švorc, A. Planková, P. Mikuš, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 840 (2019) 295-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.03.067 ©2021 by the authors; licensee IAPC, Zagreb, Croatia. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2020.105907 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.113185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.113185 https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.349 https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/aa52cf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2016.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2016.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2012.10.020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-011-1575-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.03.067 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)