Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Electrochemical Applications for the Antioxidant Sensing in Food Samples Such as Citrus and Its Derivatives, Soft Drinks, Supplementary Food and Nutrients

Written By

Ersin Demir, Hülya Silah and Nida Aydogdu

Submitted: 18 September 2020 Reviewed: 26 February 2021 Published: 01 April 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.96873

From the Edited Volume

Citrus - Research, Development and Biotechnology

Edited by Muhammad Sarwar Khan and Iqrar Ahmad Khan

Chapter metrics overview

425 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Although there are many definitions of antioxidants, the most general description; antioxidants are carried a phenolic function in their structure and prevent the formation of free radicals or intercept from damage to the cell by scavenging existing radicals. Moreover, they are one of the most effective substances that contain essential nutrients for healthy individuals. The importance of these antioxidants, which have an incredible effect on the body and increase the body’s resistance, is increasing day by day for healthy individuals. Numerous studies have been carried out for antioxidants with excellent properties and however new, reliable, selective, sensitive and green analytical methods are sought for their determination at trace levels in food samples. Along with the latest developments, electrochemical methods are of great interest in the world of science because they are fast, reliable, sensitive and environmentally friendly. Electrochemical methods have been frequently applied to analyze antioxidant capacity in many nutrients samples found in different forms such as solid, liquid without any pretreatment applications in the last decade. Furthermore, these methods are preferred because of the short analysis time, the ability to lower detection limits, reduction in a solvent, high sensitivity, portability, low sample consumption, wide working range, and more economical than existing other traditional analytical methods. The antioxidant sensing applications by modern electrochemical methods such as cyclic, square wave, differential pulse, and combined with stripping voltammetric techniques were used to deduce antioxidant capacity (AC) in critical nutrients. Moreover, this chapter includes a description of the classification of electrochemical methods according to the working electrode type, dynamic working range, limit of determination (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), sample type, and using standard analyte and so forth for each voltammetric methods. While many articles applied for the determination of antioxidant sensing by electrochemistry have gained momentum in the last two decades, we focused on the studies conducted over the last 4 years in this chapter.


  • antioxidant determination
  • electrochemistry
  • voltammetric methods
  • potentiometry
  • amperometry

1. Introduction

Free radicals occur when an atom or molecule contains one or more unpaired electrons in its outermost orbitals [1]. Basically, three main factors play a role in the formation of free radicals. i) The atoms or molecules can become radical as a result of the fragmentation of covalently bonded molecules exposed to high-energy electromagnetic waves or high temperatures. ii) A molecule that does not have a radical feature experience an electron loss and radicals are formed by leaving unpaired electrons in its outer orbital. iii) A radical is formed when a molecule that does not have a radical property receives an electron from outside and has an unpaired electron in its outer orbital [1, 2]. These unshared electrons as known radicals are highly unstable, transforming them into high-energy and very efficient chemical species. The most active free radicals in biological systems are those based on oxygen and are commonly referred to as reactive oxygen species (ROS) with pathological [3]. This family group includes superoxide radical (O2˙), singlet oxygen, nitroxide (NO), hydroxyl radical (OH˙), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which is not itself radical but causes the formation of radical [1]. Besides, we can classify the causes of free radicals in two groups as endogenous or exogenous [1, 2]. Cigarettes, air pollution, alcohol, radiation, heavy organic solvents and pesticides are among exogenous sources, while enzymes, proteins, oxidative stressors, and heavy metals are endogenous sources [1, 4].

Free radicals cause the greatest damage to human health on basic cellular components such as lipids, proteins and nucleic acids [1, 5]. Therefore, these radicals lead to immune deficiency, hypertension and even important diseases such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, heart disease, and atherosclerosis [1, 2]. Also, studies are revealing that radicals disturb the homeostatic balance [6]. To scavenge these drawbacks effects of radicals, which are extremely important for human health, the human body needs antioxidants obtained from the body or nutrition to fulfill biological activities such as survival and healthy life. Antioxidants can be defined as molecules that usually contain phenolic functional groups in their structure and prevent the formation of free radicals that damage the cell or by scavenging existing radicals [3]. The functional task of antioxidants is that they act as shields in the body and neutralize them by donating their electrons with the s-free radicals. Thus, radicals found in a rather unstable structure do not become a threat to human health by transforming into a more stable structure reacted with antioxidants. Moreover, many different equivalent antioxidant expressions are used in antioxidant quantification in food samples. The leading ones are the expressions of “total antioxidant capacity (TAC)”, “antioxidant activity (AA)”, and “antioxidant capacity (AC)”. The total amount of antioxidants is expressed by measurement units such as equivalent trolox, rutin, ascorbic acid, and quercetin, etc.

Antioxidants are mainly obtained via natural and synthetic [7]. The first of these, natural antioxidants, are molecules synthesized by the organism or obtained from food sources. Natural antioxidants produced by the organism are the most important source for human health. Many factors affect the production process of this natural antioxidant. The most important of these is the age of the person. As a person gets older, the amount of natural antioxidants produced by his organism decreases day by day. For this reason, there is a greater need for the natural antioxidants found in foods for older people. The importance of healthy food sources, especially organic-based foods, is increasing day by day. Also, such nutrients should be accessible to all segments of society.

Important dietary flavonoid sources are fruits especially citrus fruits such as oranges, apples, grapes, mandarins, berries lemons, limes and their derived products as well as juices [8]. In general, citrus fruits contain pectin, sugar, carotenoid pigments, vitamins (A, B1, and C), and; organic acids such as ascorbic acid and citric acid, minerals and a number of active phytochemicals such as flavonoids and coumarins, as naringenin, naringin, hesperidin, neohesperidin, hesperetin, rutin, narirutin and tangeretin [9]. For example; polyphenol antioxidants such as flavanols (epicatechin, catechin), phenolic acids (caffeic acid and gallic acid), anthocyanins (e.g., malvidin-3-glucoside), oligomeric and polymeric proanthocyanidins, flavonols (myricetin, quercetin, and their glycosides), and many others polyphenols exist in wine, especially in red wine [10]. Flavonoids have an important role in scavenging reactive oxygen species, which can counteract lipid oxidation, decrease peroxide formation in vivo, and improve activity of the body’s antioxidant enzyme. Citrus flavonoids such as naringin, naringenin, and hesperidin have antioxidant activity [11]. Naringenin is a flavonoid, particularly a flavanone, found in citrus fruits especially oranges and grape fruits and in vegetable’s such as tomatoes and their preparations. The pharmacological and biological properties of phytoestrogen naringenin and its derivatives include, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antiulcer, antifibrotic, diastolic, antioxidant and skin protective effects [8]. Also, citrus species are a rich source of flavanone glycosides such as hesperidin and narirutin, which have anticancer, antioxidant, antiobesity and anti-inflammatory activities [12].

Secondly, the antioxidant group is synthetic, that is a molecule that is obtained as a result of chemical reactions and is generally used as food preservatives [13]. Synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), and tertiary butylhydroxyquinone (TBHQ) also extend the shelf life of foods [14]. However, natural antioxidants that can be taken from foods are less risky in terms of human health since synthetic antioxidants can have toxicity even if they are very little, they require high costs and have less capacity than natural antioxidants. Due to this reason, the investigations of foods types that can contain high levels of antioxidants in different types of endemic, organic and traditional food samples have been remarkably increased recently.

For antioxidant content and amount analyzes, oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) and radical-arrest antioxidant parameter (TRAP), ferric thiocyanate (FTC), Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (ABTS/TEAC), cupric ion (Cu2+) reduction antioxidant capacity (CUPRAC), iron ion reducing antioxidant capacity (FRAP), DPPH radical scavenging activity determination and Folin–Ciocalteu methods are the most widely preferred as analytical methods [15, 16, 17]. Furthermore, to evaluate and characterize the antioxidant substances in food samples, various analytical methods such as high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) combined with different detection, gas chromatography, micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography, capillary electrophoresis includes different detection systems and UV–visible spectrophotometry have been used [18, 19, 20]. However, these classical methods have great shortcomings for fully validated analyzes such as long pre-treatment, need for too much solvent, expensive equipment, long analysis time. They do not provide the necessary procedures for green chemistry, especially due to the use of too much solvent and too much waste in antioxidant analyses. For these reasons, scientists have turned to alternative methods for antioxidant quantification in food samples. Especially in recent years, they have focused on electrochemical techniques which are fast, inexpensive, reliable, non-pre-treatment, and environmentally friendly in the analysis of drugs, pesticides, metal ions and organic molecules such as antioxidants, vitamins and nucleic acid [21, 22, 23].

In this chapter, the applicability, sensitivity and reliable maintenance of electrochemical methods, which have attracted great attention in food and food samples, have been examined for the analysis of antioxidants. Moreover, which types of electrochemical methods are used and what advantages they provide have been investigated for the antioxidant sensing in food samples. It also describes the classification of each used in electrochemical methods by working electrode type, dynamic operating range, the limit of detection (LOD), measurement limit (LOQ), sample type, and standard analyte, etc. While many articles referenced for determining antioxidants by electrochemistry have gained momentum in the literature in the last two decades, we focused our study on the studies conducted in the last 4 years.


2. Electrochemistry

Electrochemistry is the branch of science which is investigating the physical and chemical changes coming from the interaction of the material with electrical factors such as current, potential, and electron charge. Electroanalytical chemistry is based on measuring the electrical properties of solutions containing analytes and switching to quantification using measured electrical signals a collection of electrochemical methods. Moreover, electroanalytical measurement methods are based on two basic points: potentiometric (static methods) and potentiostatic (dynamic methods). Electrode systems in both methods are immersed in the solution containing the analyte, called the electrochemical cell. Potentiostatic methods are widely used for routine analysis because they are less costly, high sensitive, and selective and have wider potential application areas than other electroanalytical methods. The basic principle of these methods is to measure the current that occurs during the oxidation or reduction of the analyte in the chemical reaction.

Electrochemical methods began with the Czech chemist Jaroslav Heyrovsky, discovering the basis of polarography in 1922 and took an important place among the analytical methods. Especially, since the 1980s, it has been possible to develop electrodes that have been modified mechanically or chemically with improved technology. In modification processes, polymers, organic ligands, inorganic clays, phthalocyanines and nanoparticles have been commonly used for the detection of electroactive substances in very small volume complex samples such as biological, environmental and human bodies. In the last twenty years, even very small quantities of substances that are electroactive have been additionally analyzed at high precision, selective by electrochemical methods by carbon-based or modified electrodes have wonderful properties. Electroanalytical methods have also an important place in quantification as well as in obtaining details such as determination, adsorption, reaction rate and equilibrium constants of the number of electrons transferred in the reduction or oxidation electrode reactions. In short, electroanalytical methods provide details on direct or indirect quantitative and qualitative analysis of electroactive species such as antioxidants, drugs, pesticides, etc.

2.1 Voltammetric application for the determination of antioxidant capacity

Voltammetry is a potentiostatic assay based on the recording of the peak current at controlled potential variation by the oxidation or reduction which enables qualitative and quantitative analysis by means in electrochemical reactions. Over the last two decades compared to other electroanalytical techniques, voltammetry has been intensely curious in all the electroanalytical methods due to their are used to analyze numerous compounds by anodic or cathodic scanning and to investigate their conceptual basis of electro-mechanism. There are four voltammetric techniques including cyclic (CV), linear (LSV), differential (DPV), and square (SWV) are commonly used to determination of antioxidant-type compounds.

Voltammetric techniques are an alternative analytical method, proved to have an excellent correlation compare with another conventional analytical process, for a while to study the AC in various food and beverage samples. They can be a benefit to characterize which species compounds have a greater contribution to the antioxidant capacity present for the real samples in terms of quantitative and qualitative by controlled the half-wave peak potential, peak current and the electron transfer number in reaction. The antioxidant capacity is related to the peak currents of oxidation species caused by hydroxyl groups (–OH) and antioxidant species contains many hydroxyl groups. They commonly give an electro-oxidation broad peak at a range of 400 mV- 600 mV depend on pH. So that, almost all antioxidant substances have electro-activity compounds and their peak current and peak potential provide quantitative and qualitative details, respectively. Further, the voltammetric techniques allow investigating the electrochemical behavior of antioxidant agents and interaction with oxygenated species.

Voltammetric methods have gained an important place among determinations of the antioxidant capacity in the last decade. Moreover, due to their great superiority, the use of complex samples such as food and beverages they have become widespread and widely found in the literature. Among these electroanalytical methods, square wave stripping, different pulse stripping, and cyclic voltammetric techniques are the most commonly preferred for the analysis of antioxidants by accuracy and precision. From past to these days, the compounds used as standard agents for the evolution of the AC by studies electrochemical methods are apigenin, ascorbic acid, caffeine, catechin, chlorogenic chrysin, p-coumarin acid, eugenol, fisetin, gallic acid, kaempferol, luteolin, morin, quercetin, rutin, t-resveratrol, Trolox and Malvidin-3-glucoside. As far as we have examined the literature, scientists have however preferred ascorbic acid, caffeic acid, gallic acid, catechin, rutin and quercetin which are often used as antioxidant standard substances due to excessive availability of these substances in food and drink. The chemical structures of some antioxidant molecules are given in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Molecular formulas of commonly used antioxidants.

2.1.1 Cyclic voltammetric technique

Cyclic voltammetry (CV) is usually the first experiment in the electrochemical operation of a compound in biological materials as nature samples to get in details about the electro-behaviors. In particular, to study the thermodynamics, kinetic, electron transfer, substance transfer type, and as well as quantitative determinations of oxidation or reduction processes can be carried out by cyclic voltammetric technique. In addition to taking a single measurement with CV, sequential multiple measurements can be taken. The most common applications of cyclic voltammetry are additionally electro-polymerization, electrochemical characterization, and the design of modified electroanalytical systems. Two types of cyclic voltammograms can be obtained as irreversible or reversible, depending on the chemical components of the target molecules. In reversible voltammetry, there is a difference of about 59 mV between the reduction and oxidation peak potentials (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Potential-excitation signal and voltammograms for the cyclic voltammetry in details.

During the past years, cyclic voltammetry has been used as an alternative to existing methods to evaluate the antioxidant sensing in natural samples such as teas, biological fluids, beverage juices plants, foods and beverage juices on different working electrodes. The most using parameter is peak current because of its proportional to the concentration of the antioxidants. Peak current heights also provide quantitative information about the amount of antioxidant capacity in food samples. The carbon-based working electrodes such as glassy carbon electrode (GCE), carbon paste electrode (CPE), screen printed carbon electrode (SPCE), and modified electrodes (Nanoparticle/GCE, Nanoparticle/CPE, Fe3O4/GCE) have been widely preferred in electrochemical measurements for the analysis of total antioxidant capacity (TAC). Peak current and peak potential values of standard substances such as ascorbic acid, caffeic acid, catechin, coumarin, gallic acid, morin, quercetin and rutin were commonly taken care of for the evaluation of TAC. The amount of antioxidants in food samples is generally given as equivalent gallic acid, equivalent value quercetin, etc.

Even though the CV method raises doubts about sensitivity, it also has great advantages. Quick, simple, low detection limit, cheaper and easier application are summarized as great advantages. Interferences effect on antioxidant capacity by a non-antioxidant agent to reducing TAC and non-selective to a family of molecules between carotenoids and polyphenols unless the electrode is modified are drawbacks properties. Despite all of these disadvantages, CV attracts a great deal of attention among analytical methods, and a large number of studies deal with CV are also being undertaken. A large part of the work done up to day time to determine the antioxidant capacity by the CV method is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 includes the type of working electrode, working range, the limit of determination (LOD), the limit of quantification (LOQ), measurement parameter, standard compound and food sample.

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
CVPt electrodejuglone (5-hydroxy-1,4,-naphthoquinone)walnut2.1 V[24]
CVGCEpolyphenolsBlack Tea Samples
Camellia sinensis
pH 7.0 (PBS)+ 0.5 VCatechin, gallic acid[25]
CVGraphite Paste ElectrodeRutin (RT)200–1000 μM89,4 μMpharmaceutical sample (Captopril)pH 4.0 (PBS)+ 0.44 V[26]
CVNanotuned Gold Nanoparticles and Solvothermally Reduced Graphene modified GCE (GCE/EAuNPs4 /rGO/Naf.)sinapic acid (SA)20 μM - 200 μM33.43 (±0.21) nMHuman urine samplespH 7.6 (PBS)0.47 VL-cystine, glycine, alanine, serum albumin, uric acid, citric acid, ascorbic acid, and urea[27]
CVglassy carbon electrodecaffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, quercetin, gallic acid, (+)-catechin, ascorbic acidApricot pomace extractspH 4
acetate buffer
0.51 V[28]
black currant pomace extracts0.54 V
Grape pomace extracts.0.48 V
CVglassy carbon disc electrodeTanninswine solution[29]
CVglassy carbon electrodepolyphenols and flavonoidsVenezuelan propolispH 7.00 (PBS)−0.90 V (cathodic)
−0.75 V (anodic)
CVcarbon paste electrodeTrolox1.9 μM0.6 μMred wine, coffee and green teapH 7.0 (PBS)[31]
CVCarbon Paste Electrode (CPE)Quinizarin (H2Qz)0–36 μM3.129 ± 1.200 μM10.429 ± 1.133 μMpH 7.00 (Aqueous)Anthrarufin (H2Arf), Chrysazine (H2Cz), Anthraflavin (H2Afv)[32]
CVglassy carbon electrode (GCE)polyphenolsMalaysian honeypH 7 (PBS)glucose and fructose[33]
CVZnO nanoflowers modified carbon paste electrodep-nitrophenol (p-NP)0.1–1 μM0.08 μMAstragalus membranaceuspH 7.0 (PBS)[34]
CVcarbon nanotube (CNT)-carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) electrode MWCNT-CMC/AuCurcumin1.0–48 μM0.21 μMReal samplespH 6.0 citric acid0.30 V[35]
CVGCEpolyphenols, tannins, flavonoids, and sterols/triterpènes.Thymus vulgarispH 7 (PBS)[36]
CVcarbon screen printed electrode (cSPE)Ethoxyquin (EQ)20–100 mM7.5 mM20.0 mMSalmon SamplespH 3.5
ammonium formate buffer
+0.45 VBHA, BHT, diphenylamine, and ascorbic acid (AA)[37]
CVcarbon nanotube (CNT)-carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) electrodemonohydroxycinnamic acid1.0–194 μM0.071 μMreal food samplespH 6.0 citric acid[38]
CVCPEcatechol, (CAT)30.0–540 μM2.47 μM8.24 μMwine and food samplespH 7.4 (PBS)0.24 and 0.46 V[39]
10.0–350 μM0.282 μM0.339 μM
1.00–210 μM0.111 μM0.371 μM
CPME-CNTCAT30.0–540 μM1.37 μM4.58 μM
4-EC10.0–350 μM0.184 μM0.613 μM
4-EG1.00–120 μM0.106 μM0.353 μM
CPME-ABCAT30.0–540 μM1.85 μM6.16 μM
4-EC0.20–350 μM0.0863 μM0.288 μM
4-EG1.00–120 μM0.0937 μM0.312 μM
CVHP-ZnO/GCEGallic Acid (GA)0.1–130 μM0.02 μMWine samplepH 3.0 (PBS)+0.59 Vcatechol (CT), dopamine (DA), caffeic acid (CA), morin (MR), hydroquinone (HQ), uric acid (UA), ascorbic acid (AA), ferulic acid (FA)[40]
CVglassy carbon
electrode/poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-gold nanoparticles-sinusoidal voltage (GC/PEDOT-AuNPs-SV)
caffeic acid (CA)10 μM - 1 mM4.24 (±0.12) μMjuice samples (like peaches and apple juices)pH 7 (PBS)[41]
CVcarbon electrodespiperine5 mMpH 1.2 HClO4[42]
ethylenedioxythiophene)- tyrosinase PEDOT-Tyr
Caffeic acid (CA)10–300 μM4.33 μM14.43 μMWines and beers0.1 M H2SO40.22 V[43]
CVglassy carbon
electrode (GCE)
Catechin0.1 mMgrape skin and seedpH 3.6 tartaric acid buffer483 mV[44]
Caffeic acid445 mV
Gallic acid472 mV
Oenin chloride652 mV
Rutin260 mV
CVSingle Walled Carbon Nanotubes modified Screen Printed Carbon Electrodes (SWCNT-SPCE)Catechin0.1 mMgrape skin and seedpH 3.6 tartaric acid buffer132 mV[44]
Caffeic acid139 mV
Gallic acid122 mV
Oenin chloride377 mV
Rutin201 mV
CVCarbon nanofibers CNFCaffeic acid (CA)0.1–40 μM3,23 nM10,77 nMActive Detox, DVR-Stem Glycemo, and green teapH 3.6 (PBS)uric acid, ferulic acid, vanillic acid, gallic acid, and catechol[45]
CVGraphene/Neutral Red
UA0.5–50 μM0.076 μMhuman urine and blood serum sampleurine and blood serum samples[46]
UA6–100 μM7 μM23 μMmilk samplepH 6.6 (PBS)A-lactose, L-aspartic acid, L-glutamic acid, L-histidine[47]
AA30–500 μM45 μM149 μM
UA5-80 μM5.0 μM1 M H2SO4AA[48]
CVGOx-chitosan /Co3O4/Au- graphene transistors (GOx-CHIT/Co3O4 modified SGGT)UA0,3-3 μM0.1 μMreal tear samplesPBSAA, Fructose, Xylose, Mannose[49]

Table 1.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by CV technique.

2.1.2 Square wave voltammetric technique

Square wave voltammetry (SWV) can be used to perform a faster experiment than other voltammetric techniques. Commonly when the scanning speeds of other techniques are of 1–10 mV/second or more, in the square wave voltammetry a scanning speed is used at 1 V/second. Thus, the target molecule can be analyzed more quickly by SWS. The square wave voltammetry can combine with the stripping technique. Thus, a stripping voltammetric technique was developed to determine electroactive substances at high sensitive enables in ultra-trace concentration levels. Especially, ultra-trace target substances in complex samples can be analyzed by combining the technique with the enrichment stripping process. The working principle of the stripping technique is the same as square wave voltammetry and only two new parameters are more applied as the accumulation time and the accumulation potential (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Potential-excitation signal and voltammogram for the square wave stripping voltammetry in details.

Nowadays SWV and square wave stripping voltammetry (SWSV) are frequently applied to deduce compounds such as drugs, heavy metals, pesticides and antioxidants, etc. in numerous specimen types because they have excellent analytical sensitivity and selectivity. Furthermore, SWV and its derivate combined technique can be applied for simultaneous determination of compounds which are close oxidation or reduction peak potentials like paracetamol, ascorbic acid, uric acid and dopamine. In the last decade, SWV and SWSV have been more effective in determining antioxidant substances in the complex matrix samples and are superior compared with analytical methods especially spectrophotometric to evaluate quantification and qualification. It is one of the most important electroanalytical methods for the determination of antioxidants since it is a wide working range, low detection limits, easy to apply, cheap and non-pretreatment. Furthermore, they have been successfully analyzed the phenols in food samples which is called a type of important antioxidant such as o-phenylenediamine, p-chlorophenol, p-aminophenol hydroquinone, pyrocatechol and phenol, etc. At the same time, various antioxidant substances such as gallate, gallic acid, quercetin and caffeine were easily studied in food or beverage samples at high precision, accuracy and selective on the carbon-based electrode. Besides, at nM concentration of antioxidant substances comparable to chromatographic techniques have been determined by modified electrodes which are increasing conductivity accurately and selectively in tea samples. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by SWV or SWSV techniques in the last 4 years are summarized in Table 2 according to the type of working electrode, working range, the limit of detection (LOD), quantity limit (LOQ), measurement parameter, standard composition and food sample.

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
SWVglassy carbon electrode
modified with graphite/bismuth (III) oxide (Gr/Bi2O3/GCE)
Ellagic acid (EA)0.07 nM0.21 nMwalnut and pomegranatepH 3.0 (BRB)0.6 Vinorganic ions (Na+,K+,Ca2+, Cl, SO42−, CO32−), Glucose, Fructose, Eugenol, Capscasin[50]
SWVCPE/PAGquercetin (QRT)0.099–1.090 μM0.029 μMcrude natural fruits (orange, apple and onion)pH 6.0 (PBS)0.18–0.22 V (ox and red)Aspartic acid (ASP), Gallic acid (GAL), Sucrose (SUC) and Tartaric acid (TAC)[51]
rutin (RT)0.058 μM0.31–0.30 V (ox and red)
SWVTPCo3O4&SWCNT@CPEα-lipoic Acid2–100 μM0.37 μMdietary supplementspH 6 (BRB)Vitamins (vitamin C, B2, and B6), possible ingredients in LA pharmaceutical formulations[52]
SWVpencil graphite electrodenaringenin (NGN)75 nM-0,1 mM44 nM0,111 μMCitrus juice, fruits and peelpH 4.00 (KHPT)[8]
SWVSingle-Walled Carbon Nanotube Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode (SWCNT/GCE)Quercetin (QCT)0.01–100 μM0.007 μMtea samples (tea:green, basil and black)pH 5.0 (PBS)[53]
SWVUntreated boron doped diamond electrode (BDDE)Sesamol0.2 mM–1.0 mM85 nMtahini halva samplespH 2.0 H2SO4Cu2+, Pb2+, Cd2+, Mg2+, Ca2+, K+, Cl,and ascorbic acid and catechol, glucose, and fructose[54]
SWVimmobilization (in solution) of laccase onto the activated carboxylic groups of carboxymethyl- botryosphaeran (CMB).(CBPE-CMB/LCE) biosensorQuercetin (QCT)0.0498–0.794 μM0.026 μMRed wine
Green tea
Apple juice
Lemon juice
pH 6.0 (PBS)0.23 Vepinephrine, dopamine, paracetamol, guaiacol and catechol, uric acid and inorganic ions (Ca2+,Mn2+,Fe2+, Zn2+,SO42− and NO3)[55]
SWVCNF-ZnO modified glassy carbon electrode (CNF-ZnO-GCE)Silymarin2–123 nM1 nMHuman serum samples and urine samples werepH 7.0 (PBS)+0.20 VNO3,Na+, Cu2+, K+, 4-nitrophenol, rutin, dopamine, caffeic acid, luteolin, tetracycline, hydrogen peroxide, glucose, ascorbic acid, epinephrine, uric acid, and quercetin[56]
SWVgold nanoparticle/graphene quantum dots (AuNP/GQD) nanozyme–modified screen-printed carbon electrode (AuNP/GQDs/SPCE)Quercetin0,1 nM - 1 mM0,033 nM0,1 nMHuman plasmapH 5 (BRB)glucose, sucrose, ascorbic acid, riboflavin, phenylalanine, L-tryptophan, L-tyrosine, bisphenol A, lysine, uric acid, and two metal ions such as Na + and Co2+[57]
SWVSWCNTs-SPCEPolyphenols (caffeic acid, gallic acid, catechin and malvidin-3-glucosideWine samplespH 3.6[10]
SWV and AdSVboron-doped diamond electrode (CPT-BDDE)5-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (5-CQA)2.8 μM - 0,17 mM0.4 μMFood&beverage samples (vanilla-enriched instant coffee, vanilla sugar, cola soft drink)0.1 M HNO30.68 Vcaffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, gallic acid, ferulic acid, sinapic acid, and syringic acid, K+, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Fe3+, NO3, Cl and SO42−[58]
vanillin (VAN)3.3 μM - 0,33 mM0.38 μM1.15 V
caffeine (CAF)0.52 μM - 0,21 mM0.15 μM1.50 V
SWASVGold diskCu(II) and TBHQ5.66–113.37 μg/kg
4.76–92.40 mg/kg
0.351 μg/kg
1.13 mg/kg
pH 2 (BRB)[59]

Table 2.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by SWV or SWSV.

2.1.3 Differential pulse voltammetric technique

Differential pulse voltammetric technique (DPV) is one of the most widely used for the analysis of both organic and inorganic species. Pulse voltammetry techniques were proposed by Baker and Jenkin in 1952 as a more sensitive measurement electroanalytical method. Differential pulse voltammetry techniques can be used to determine up to 10−8 M concentration of the target agents. The peak current (Ip) is a function of the concentration for the electroactive species and is linear as Ip = f (C). Also, it is possible to analyze substances not only quantitative analysis but also qualitative analysis with pulse technique. The peak currents are related to the concentration of the substance whereas the peak potential values are related to the selectivity. Thus, simultaneous determinations of the substances have been studied by DPV on bare or modified electrodes (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Potential-excitation signal and voltammogram for the differential pulse stripping voltammetry in details.

Nowadays, quite a lot of DPV studies can be found in the literature for the very sensitive detection of heavy metal, drug, pesticide, antioxidant agent and inorganic/organic species on numerous bare and modified working electrodes. Besides, DPV is one of the most important candidates to determine the trace amount of target agents in analytical methods due to its high sensitivity and selective. Also, it can be applied to complex samples as biological and food samples such as blood and serum, beverages. Especially, DPV has an important place among antioxidant determination methods because of these advantages and the availability of low concentration.

In recent years, DPV has been used frequently in determining the total antioxidant capacity without any pretreatment of solid and liquid food samples. The complex matrix such as biological and food samples contain very dense different types of substances. For this reason, despite it is indeed very difficult to selectively and precisely determine the antioxidant capacity in some complex matrixes; DPV is the most applicable method for such species. There are also plenty of studies were published which deal with chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, quercetin, gallic acid and ferulic acid, etc. as illustrating the antioxidant properties were determined by DPV on bare or modified electrodes based on carbon nanomaterials. Several applications, based commonly on the used as a determination of antioxidant capacity are given in Table 3.

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
DPVGCE/PoPD/PtRosmarinic acid (RA)3 μM – 7 μM0.9 μMMelissa officinallis, Rosmarinus officinalspH 2 H2SO40,63 Vphenolic compounds-caffeic acid, ascorbic acid, coumaric acid, 2,5 dihydroxybenzoic acid, chlorogenic acid, rutin, and gallic acid[60]
protoca- techuic acid (PCA)2 μM – 70 μM0.8 μM0,53 V
DPVZrO2NPs-AuNPs- DES/CPECaffeic acid (CA)0.22–55 μM25 nMgreen tea and fruit juicespH 3 (BRB)[61]
DPVFluorine doped graphene oxide/GCECaffeic acid (CA)0.5–100.0 μM0.018 μMwinepH 2.65 (BRB)p-coumaric acid, hydroquinone, trans-ferulic acid, gallic acid, glucose, and ascorbic acid[11]
DPVCuO nano-rice/ GCEUA1–160 μM1.2 μMreal samples of dopamine injection, human serum, and urine samplespH 7 (PBS)Glucose, Fructose, Galactose[62]
DA1–150 μM0.42 μM
UA1.2–8.2 μM0.4 μM1.2 μMFresh human serum samplespH 7.0 (PBS)0.3 VSucrose, DA, AA, Glucose, Folic acid[63]
DPVCarbon paste modified with Bi decorated multiwalled carbon nanotubes and cetrimonium bromide (CTAB)Caffeic acid (CA)0.06–500 μM0.157 nM1.910 nMCoconut water, coffee, teapH 7.0 (PBS)AA, UA, FA, Trp, Mor, GA, Glucose and FoA[64]
DPVBimetallic CoFeSe2 nanosphere in functionalized carbon nanofibers CoFeSe2/f-CNFCaffeic acid (CA)0.01–263.96 μM0.002 μMRed wine samples bypH 7.0 (PBS)0.21 Vcatechol (CC), hydroquinone (HQ), epinephrine (EP), dopamine (DA), uric acid (UA), and ascorbic acid (AA)[65]
DPVCarbon/iron-based active catalyst
Caffeic acid (CA)0.1–17.2 μM0.002 μM0.0068 μMcoffee, green tea, red winepH 7.0 (PBS)catechol (CT), gallic acid (GA), ascorbic acid (AA), hydroquinone (HQ), and uric acid (UA)[66]
DPVN-doped carbon quantum dots/hexagonal porous copper oxide decorated multiwall carbon nanotubes N-CQD/HP-Cu2O/ MWCNT/GCECaffeic acid (CA)0.05–43 μM0.004 μMred wine samplespH 7.0 (PBS)dopamine (DA), catechol (CC), ascorbic acid (AA), uric acid (UA) and epinephrine (EP)[67]
DPVCe-TiO2/carbon nanotube composite Ce-TiO2/CNTsCaffeic acid (CA)0.001 -10 μM0.0003 μMcaffeic acid tablets samplespH 6.0 (PBS)Cl, Br, SO42−, NO3−,
H2PO4, Na+, K+, Mg2+ and Al3+, glucose, L-serine, uric acid, urea, oxalic acid, glycine,
alanine, L-cysteine, L-tyrosine, L-glutamic acid, and guanidine acid
DPVMOF-818 metal–organic framework-reduced
graphene oxide/multiwalled carbon nanotubes composite MOF-818/
caffeic acid (CA), chlorogenic acid (CGA), and gallic acid (GA)0.2–7 μM
7–50 μM
5,2 nMhuman serum and urine samplespH 3.0 (PBS)Na+, K+, SO42−, Cl, 40-fold
glutamic acid, glycine, glucose, sucrose, urea, ascorbic acid, uric acid, and equal concentration of baicalein, luteolin, and vanillic acid
DPVFe3O4 @ZIF-4 nano- hybrid on a glassy carbon electrode (GCE)
(Fe3O4 /GCE, ZIF- 4/GCE)
p-coumaric acid (CA)0.50–12.00 μM0.18 μM0.60 μMorange juices samplespH 4 (BRB)0.71 Vanions, cations and other polyphenols such as SO42−, NO3, Cl, Fe3+, Fe2+, Zn2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Mg2+, Ca2+, K+, Na+, Li+ ions, citric acid, glucose, catechin and quercetin[70]
DPVgraphene modified screen-printed electrodeMelatonin0.03 mg/Lfood supplementspH 7.40.268 (±0.014) V[71]
DPVmulti-walled carbon nanotubes modified carbon paste electrode (MWCNTs/CPE).quercetin (QU)1.96 nMOrange juicepH 2.0 (BRB)tannic acid (TA)[72]
DPVpolyphenolsBlack Tea Samples
Camellia sinensis
pH 5.5 (PBS)+ 0.5 VCatechin, gallic acid[25]
DPVscreen printed carbon electrodegallic acid0.1–2 mM23–103 μM70–310 μMWhite wine
Green tea
Apple juice
pH 5.8; 7; 8 (PBS)caffeic and ascorbic acid[73]
DPValumina-modified glassy carbon electrode GCECaffeic Acid (CA)0.1–5 μM0.004 μM0.01 μMTea (Green, Black, Mint, Hibiscus, Rosemary), wine and phytotherapics0.1 M HClO40.519 ± 0.002 V (Green tea)
0.528 ± 0.002 V (Black tea)
0.526 ± 0.001 V (Mint tea)
0.533 ± 0.002 V (Hibiscus tea)
0.508 ± 0.001 V (Rosemary tea)
0.571 ± 0.005 V (Phytotherapic)
0.532 ± 0.001 V (Wine 1)
0.525 ± 0.002 V (Wine 2)
Gallic Acid (GA)0.1–5 μM0.005 μM0.02 μM
Catechin0.1–5 μM0.001 μM0.003 μM
Quercetin (QCT)0.1–15 μM0.005 μM0.02 μM
DPVnanoporous gold electrodes (NPG)ascorbic acid (AA)0.32 to 3.4 mM63 μMmimic human serum sample of fetal bovine serumpH 7.4 (PBS)0.05 V[75]
uric acid (UA)0.065 to 1.5 mM9.0 μM0.35 V
DPVglassy carbon electrode (GCE)Gallic Acid (GA)19.92–98.04 ppmmango (pulp, peel, and seed)pH 5 (BRB)0.445 and 0.550 V (oxidation peaks)0.05 V[76]
Trolox2.34–472.18 μM
DPVCoSe2@rGO modified SPCEpropyl gallate0.075–460.15 μM16.35 (±0.46) nMspiked meat samples (Chicken, Beef)pH 7.0 (PBS)0.34 Vuric acid (UA), ascorbic acid (AA), dopamine (DA), hydroquinone (HQ), catechol (CT), epinephrine (EP), and norepinephrine (NEP)[77]
DPVNano-Graphene-platelets (nGp)- Brilliant green (Bg)/Modified carbon paste electrode (nGp- Bg/MCPE)Hesperidin (HES)0.1–7.0 μM
7.0–100.0 μM
50.0 nMFortified Fruit Juice Samples (lemon juice, orange rind, and peppermint extract that contain HES)pH 7.5 (PBS)AA, Bioflavonoids (such as quercetin, rutin, naringenin, morin), Inorganic ions (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Zn+, Cu2+, Cl, SO42−)[78]
DPV5-amino-2-mercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole (p-AMT) on nitrogen-doped carbon sphere (N-CS) modified glassy carbon (GC) electrode p-AMT@N-CS/GC (1)
p-AMT@N-CS/GC (simultaneous addition) (2)
Gallic Acid (GA)5–1187 μM (1)
5–128 μM (2)
0.58 μM (1)
0.82 μM (2)
Grape juice samplespH 7.0 (PBS)+0.06 V (GA)ascorbic acid (AA), uric acid (UA), catechol (CC), and hydroquinone (HQ), K+, Na+, Mg2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, NO3−, Cl, sulfate ion (SO42−, and
Caffeic Acid (CA)5–2082 μM (1)
5–128 μM (2)
0.143 μM (1)
0.30 μM (2)
+0.14 V (CA)
DPVSWCNT-Subphthalocyanine (CS) Hybrid Material modified GCE electrode (CS/GCE)catechin0.1–1.5 μM13 nM43 nMreal tea samples (such as green, rosehip fruit, Turkish and Indian black tea)pH 3 (BRB)metal ions (such as K+,
Na+, Li+, Cu2+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe2+, Zn2+, Cd2+, Fe3+), rutin, 6-methoxy flavone, gallic acid, caffeic acid, biomolecules (viz. caffeine, ascorbic acid, citric acid and glucose)
DPVCobalt oxide nanoparticles-modified carbon-paste electrodes (CoO-NPs-CPE)Gallic Acid (GA)0,1–1 μM1.52 μMRed and White WinepH 2.0 (PBS)0.61 VMetals ions (K+, Cl−, Na+, Fe3+), ascorbic acid and quercetin[81]
DPVgraphite/chemically modified silica ceramic electrode (SMICl/C)Quercetin (QRT)9–102 μM3.2 μMpharmaceutical “Quercetin”Ethanol0.102–0.155 V[82]
10–100 μM3 μM3:2 ethanol/water0.561–0.571 V
13–95 μM4.4 μM4:1 ethanol/water0.561–0.592 V
0.15–60 μM0.46 μMWater0.134–0.155 V
DPVglassy carbon electrode modified with polyaminobenzene sulfonic acid functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes (f-SWNT) and poly(pyrocatechol violet) (polyPCV/f-SWNT/GCE)Gallic acid (GA)0.75–10
10–100 μM
0.12 μM0.41 μMCognac XO
Brandy VS
Brandy 5-Star
pH 2.0 (BRB)0.48 VK+, Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, NO3, Cl, and SO42− and glucose, rhamnose, sucrose as well as ascorbic acid, phenolic aldehydes (vanillin, syringaldehyde)[83]
Ellagic Acids (EA)0.75–7.5
7.5–100 μM
0.11 μM0.37 μM0.63 V
DPVSodium dodecyl sulfate
modified carbon composite paste electrode
Curcumin0,2 - 1 μM
1.5 - 4.5 μM
27 nM92 nMNatural food supplementpH 6.0 (PBS)Na+,K+, Mg2+, Zn2+, ascorbic acid, glucose, starch, tyrosine and tartazine[84]
DPVimplemented functionalized-MWCNT/Nileblue- composite on carbon paste electrode (fMWNCT/NB/ MCPE)Naringenin (NR)10.0–50.0 μM
0.9–10.0 μM
0.30 μM0.93 μMfruit juices(Grape juice, Tomato juice, Orange juice)pH 7.0 (PBS)AA, GLU, Na+, Mg2+, K+, Ca2−, Cl, SO4−[85]
DPVvitreous carbon electrodeTrolox50 μM to 600 μM43.8 μM120 μMGreigia sphacelata fruit (Chupón or Quiscal)pH 7.4 (PBS)[86]
DPVScreen Printed Carbon ElectrodesPolyphenolsWinepH 3.20
Tartaric Acid Solutions
DPVPoly(L-Methionine)/Carbon Nanotube Glassy Carbon Electrode (PLM/MWCNT/GCE)Gallic acid (GA)0.004–1.1 μM
1.7–20 μM
3.1 nMgreen tea, black tea, and red wine samplespH 2.2 (BRB)Na+,K+,Ca2+ Mg2+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, ascorbic acid, theophylline, caffeine, cysteine, glucose, fructose, sucrose, and glycine[88]
DPVpencil graphite electrodenaringenin (NGN)78,6 nM - 0,182 mM30,6 nM102 nMcitrus juicepH 4.00 (KHPT)[8]
DPSV3D SWCNTs-coumarin hybrid modified glassy carbon electrode
(3DSWCNTs- coumarin/GCE)
Quercetin (QCT)0.25–3 μM20 nM66 nMTea samplespH 2.0 (BRB)ascorbic acid, caffeine, citric acid, l-cysteine, glycine, glucose, Na+, Mg2+ Ca2+, SO42−, NO3− and Cl, gallic acid, 6-methoxyflavon[89]
DPAdSVunmodified screen-printed carbon electrodes (SPCEs)Capsaicinoids0.16 - 16.37 μM0.05 μM0.15 μMfresh chili pepper samples (Meiren chili pepper, Chaotian green chili pepper, Chaotian red chili pepper, Xiaomi green chili pepper, and Xiaomi red chili pepper)0.10 M HCl0.40 VFe3+,Cu2+,K+,Na+,
Ga2+,Cl,SO42− and glucose, and 100-fold of Mg2+
DpAdSVscreen-printed carbon electrode modified with single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs)) and Prussian blue (PB) coated with chitosanRutin0.03 to 0.24 μM
0.25 to 2.0 μM
0.01 μMblack tea, coffee and synthetic drink of teapH 3.0 (PBS)0.25 V (ox)
0.096 V (red)
morin and quercetin[91]
DPCVmolecularly imprinted poly (p-aminobenzene sulphonic acid) on carbon nanodots coated pencil graphite electrode (FA-imp/CNDs/PGE)folic acid (FA)2.2–30.8 ng/mL2.02 ng/mLdrug tablets and human
urine samples
pH 6.2 (PBS)Methotrexate (MTX), folinic acid (FCA), tetrahydrofolic acid (THF), pyridoxine (PYR), and 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5- THF)[92]

Table 3.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by DPV or DPSV.

In amperometric techniques, the current produced during the reduction or oxidation of an electroactive species at a constant potential value that is applied between a working electrode and reference electrode is measured, in this way providing specific quantitative electroanalytical knowledge for the target analyte. Especially, amperometric, which is based on electrical current analysis, is commonly utilized in microchip electrophoresis applications owing to its high sensitivity, it also lets for the determination of electroanalytical active species without derivatization, accomplishing adjustable versatility and selectivity (Table 4).

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
Amperometry (AMP)HP-ZnO/GCEGallic Acid (GA)0.1–130 μM0.02 μMWine samplepH 3.0 (PBS)+0.48 Vcatechol (CT), dopamine (DA), caffeic acid (CA), morin (MR), hydroquinone (HQ), uric acid (UA), ascorbic acid (AA), ferulic acid (FA)[40]
Amperometry (AMP)Nickel oxide nanoparticles modified glassy carbon electrode (NiO NPs/GCE)Dopamine (DA)11 μMLimonia acidissima natural fruit juicepH 7.2 (PBS)0.41 V[93]
amperometry (AMP)Poly(L-Methionine)/Carbon Nanotube Glassy Carbon Electrode (PLM/MWCNT/GCE)Gallic acid (GA)0.002–0.1 μM
0.2–12 μM
0.5 nMgreen tea, black tea and red wine samplespH 2.2 (BRB)0.5 VNa+,K+,Ca2+ Mg2+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, ascorbic acid, theophylline, caffeine, cysteine, glucose, fructose, sucrose, and glycine[88]
AmperometryGCE/PoPD/PtRosmarinic acid (RA)1 μM – 55 μM0.5 μMMelissa officinallis, Rosmarinus officinalspH 2 H2SO4[60]
protoca- techuic acid (PCA)1 μM – 60 μM0.6 μM
Chronoamperometry (CA)Graphite/Lacc–PDAgallic acid1–150 μM0.29 μMChestnut shell waste
Caffeic acid1–50 μM0.14 μM
Rosmarinic acid1–20 μM0.09 μM
Chronoamperometry (CA)CuO nano-rice/ GCEUA0.83–253 μM0.83 μMreal samples of dopamine injection, human serum and urine samplespH 7 (PBS)Glucose, Fructose, Galactose[62]
DA0.083–428.8 μM0.083 μM

Table 4.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by Amperometric technique.

Ganesh et al., synthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles using mechanochemical synthesis technique. New ZnO nanoparticle as hexagonal prism was investigated by scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, particle size distribution, ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopic methods. Electrochemical properties of the newly prepared electrode were characterized by using an amperometric method and cyclic voltammetry technique. The prepared electrode has a wide working linear range between 0.1–130 μM with a detection limit of 0.02 μM. Obtained results showed that the prepared electrode has numerous active surface sites, good electronic activity, and surface area. They applied the proposed electrode to the determination of gallic acid in samples as wine successfully [40].

Kumar and coworkers successfully synthesized NiO nanoparticles from natural fruit using an efficient, simple, and low-cost technique. The obtained NiO nanoparticles were investigated with various methods such as FTIR, XRD, TEM, SEM, UV, and PL. XRD studies showed that NiO nanoparticles have cubic geometry. The band of Ni-O bond was shown at 430 cm−1. Photocatalytic properties of the obtained NiO nanoparticles were applied to photodegrade the methylene blue dye. They used the prepared electrode to the determination of dopamine with the LOD of 11 μM [93].

Koçak et al. prepared a new composite electrode using carbon nanotube and poly-l-methionine onto the glassy carbon electrode. Electrochemical properties and surface structure of the prepared electrode were studied using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Electrochemical properties of gallic acid with the proposed electrode were investigated in various techniques such as differential pulse voltammetry, cyclic voltammetry and amperometry. The obtained results of electrochemical studies exhibited that the prepared electrode shows a suitable method of determination for gallic acid in pH 2.2 BR buffer solution. The prepared sensor has a wide working linear range with two linear segments between 4 nM-1.1 μM and 1.7–20.0 μM with LOD of 3.1 nM. They used the prepared new sensor for the detection of gallic acid in various samples as black tea, green tea and wine samples. The experimental results showed that the proposed sensor exhibit high selectivity, reproducibility, stability and catalytic effect [88].

Potentiometry is an electrochemical technique based on measuring the potential difference between two electrodes called working and reference electrodes. The working basis of the potentiometry technique is the potential difference based on the concentration of an analyte in the sample solution relative to a reference electrode (Table 5).

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
PotentiometryAntioxidantblack and green tea microsuspensionspH 7.2 (PBS)[95]
PotentiometryGCEchicoric acidEchinacea flowerspH 7.4 (PBS)[96]
PotentiometryPOM immobilization on the surface of a glassy carbon electrodePolyoxometalates (POMs)0.1 M HClO4[97]

Table 5.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by potentiometric technique.

Brainina and coworkers developed a new, simple, reliable and fast potentiometric method for the determination of plant total antioxidant activity. Plant micro suspension and extracts were analyzed by the proposed method. The experimental conditions for acquiring plant extracts were selected for the highest antioxidant activity as extraction time 20 min at +80°C. The characterization of plant micro suspensions reduces the duration of plant total antioxidant activity evaluation. Comparison of the obtained results of antioxidant activity of green tea and black tea micro suspensions samples with the results of the investigations of extracts prepared by a certified method showed no difference [95] (Tables 6 and 7).

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
LSVIonic liquid-rGO-titania-Nafion-GCEcapsaicin0.03–10 μM0.0032 μMKorean hot pepper (Chungyang pepper) solutionpH 1.0 (BRB)0.75 V[98]
LSV)gold disk electrode2-tert-butylphenol (2-TBF)9.12–80.83 μg cm−30.67 μg /L2.22 μg cm−3mineral and synthetic oils0,16 M

Table 6.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by linear sweep voltammetry (LSV).

MethodElectrodeAnalyteLinear rangeLODLOQSamplesOptimum pHPeak PotentialsInterferencesRef
EI electrochemical indexCPEs (carbon paste electrodes)TAC0.105–0.500 μM40,4 nM0,105 μMolive oil samplespH 7 (PBS)[100]
PC peak current8.02 x 10−2 – 0.500 μM30,5 nM80,2 nM
Redox microsensorRedox measurementsgallic acid0.2–2 mM49 μM148 μMWhite wine
pH 5.8[73]
0.1–2 mM109 μM331 μMpH 7
0.1–1.5 mM74 μM223 μMpH 8

Table 7.

Evaluation of antioxidant capacity by other techniques.


3. Conclusion

Electrochemistry is a powerful and versatile analytical technique for the determination of numerous substances such as drugs, pesticides, inorganic, antioxidant-type compounds and electroactive compounds by rapidly possible applications in a lot of fields. Electroanalytical methods besides providing details on quantitative and qualitative of analyte that offer validation parameters such as sensitivity, accuracy and precision, selective and linear working range. Moreover, it is superior to determine the target analyte by electroanalytical methods lack of interferences effect especially in a complex matrix such as biological and food samples contain countless substances. The improvement of simultaneous determination of analytes considerably has been carried out to be applied in biological and environmental systems by the sensitive and selective electrochemistry methods. Because of this, the use of many areas of electrochemistry is widespread.

Nowadays, electrochemical methods, especially voltammetry from medicine to the determination of antioxidants, have made an important place especially in the world of science. Not only analytical chemists but also biology, food engineering and all people who are engaged in food have been used electrochemical methods to determine the antioxidant capacity in plants, tea, beverages, carbonated beverages and solid food samples, etc. Compounds such as ascorbic acid, caffeic, catechin, ascorbic acid, quercetin, gallic acid and coumarin have been widely used as reference standard agents to an evaluation of antioxidant capacity by electrochemical methods have been carried out until today. Due to advances in electronics and computer science have provided significant benefits in terms of electrochemical instrumentation such as accuracy, sensitivity and easy application, the electro-analysis of antioxidant compounds is successfully applied by stripping voltammetric techniques at nM concentration level. The purpose of this review is to show that electroanalytical methods for commonly used antioxidant types may be the best analytical method for the quantitative and qualitative analyte and that they can successfully compete with more conventional methods especially spectrometric methods. Consequently, voltammetric techniques supply that even at low concentrations, the antioxidant capacities of food samples can be determined to be very fast, simple, non-pretreatment and highly sensitive compared to conventional analytical methods. The review presented that the antioxidant capacity of various food samples can be carried out by voltammetric techniques in the estimation in real samples.


  1. 1. A. Phaniendra, D. B. Jestadi, and L. Periyasamy, “Free Radicals: Properties, Sources, Targets, and Their Implication in Various Diseases,” Indian J. Clin. Biochem., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 11–26, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s12291-014-0446-0
  2. 2. K. Rahman, “Studies on free radicals, antioxidants, and co-factors.,” Clin. Interv. Aging, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 219–236, 2007
  3. 3. V. Lobo, A. Patil, A. Phatak, and N. Chandra, “Free radicals, antioxidants and functional foods: Impact on human health,” Pharmacogn. Rev., vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 118–126, 2010, doi: 10.4103/0973-7847.70902
  4. 4. G. S. B. Aseervatham, T. Sivasudha, R. Jeyadevi, and D. Arul Ananth, “Environmental factors and unhealthy lifestyle influence oxidative stress in humans--an overview.,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4356–4369, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-1748-0
  5. 5. S. Kumar, “Free Radicals and Antioxidants: Human and Food System,” Adv. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 129–135, 2011
  6. 6. J. S. Aprioku, “Pharmacology of free radicals and the impact of reactive oxygen species on the testis,” J. Reprod. Infertil., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 158–172, 2013
  7. 7. E. M. Atta, N. H. Mohamed, and A. A. M. Abdelgawad, “Antioxidants: an Overview on the Natural and Synthetic Types,” Eur. Chem. Bull., vol. 6, no. 8, p. 365, 2017, doi: 10.17628/ecb.2017.6.365-375
  8. 8. I. G. David et al., “Voltammetric analysis of naringenin at a disposable pencil graphite electrode-application to polyphenol content determination in citrus juice,” Anal. Methods, vol. 10, no. 48, pp. 5763–5772, 2018, doi: 10.1039/c8ay02281j
  9. 9. P. J. Divya, P. Jamuna, and L. A. Jyothi, “Antioxidant properties of fresh and processed Citrus aurantium fruit,” Cogent Food Agric., vol. 2, no. 1, 2016, doi: 10.1080/23311932.2016.1184119
  10. 10. E. F. Newair, P. A. Kilmartin, and F. Garcia, “Square wave voltammetric analysis of polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity of red wines using glassy carbon and disposable carbon nanotubes modified screen-printed electrodes,” Electroanalysis, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1–9, 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/8869436
  11. 11. V. S. Manikandan, B. Sidhureddy, A. R. Thiruppathi, and A. Chen, “Sensitive electrochemical detection of caffeic acid in wine based on fluorine-doped graphene oxide,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 19, no. 7, 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19071604
  12. 12. D. S. Kim and S. Bin Lim, “Extraction of flavanones from immature Citrus unshiu pomace: process optimization and antioxidant evaluation,” Sci. Rep., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76965-8
  13. 13. M. Carocho, P. Morales, and I. C. F. R. Ferreira, “Antioxidants: Reviewing the chemistry, food applications, legislation and role as preservatives,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 71, no. November 2017, pp. 107–120, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.008
  14. 14. J. Sanhueza, S. Nieto, and A. Valenzuela, “Thermal stability of some commercial synthetic antioxidants,” JAOCS, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 933–936, 2000, doi: 10.1007/s11746-000-0147-9
  15. 15. R. Apak, K. Güçlü, M. Özyürek, and S. E. Karademir, “Novel total antioxidant capacity index for dietary polyphenols and vitamins C and E, using their cupric ion reducing capability in the presence of neocuproine: CUPRAC method,” J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 52, no. 26, pp. 7970–7981, 2004, doi: 10.1021/jf048741x
  16. 16. D. Huang, O. U. Boxin, and R. L. Prior, “The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assays,” J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1841–1856, 2005, doi: 10.1021/jf030723c
  17. 17. N. Chaves, A. Santiago, and J. C. Alías, “Quantification of the antioxidant activity of plant extracts: Analysis of sensitivity and hierarchization based on the method used,” Antioxidants, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.3390/antiox9010076
  18. 18. J. Karovičová and P. Šimko, “Determination of synthetic phenolic antioxidants in food by high-performance liquid chromatography,” J. Chromatogr. A, vol. 882, no. 1, pp. 271–281, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00353-8
  19. 19. M. M. Delgado-Zamarreño, I. González-Maza, A. Sánchez-Pérez, and R. Carabias Martínez, “Analysis of synthetic phenolic antioxidants in edible oils by micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography,” Food Chem., vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1722–1727, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.10.018
  20. 20. R. Apak, M. Özyürek, K. Güçlü, and E. Çapanoʇlu, “Antioxidant activity/capacity measurement. 1. Classification, physicochemical principles, mechanisms, and electron transfer (ET)-based assays,” J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 997–1027, 2016, doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b04739
  21. 21. R. K. Mishra et al., “Wearable Flexible and Stretchable Glove Biosensor for On-Site Detection of Organophosphorus Chemical Threats,” ACS Sensors, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 553–561, 2017, doi: 10.1021/acssensors.7b00051
  22. 22. O. Inam, E. Demir, and B. Uslu, “Voltammetric Pathways for the Analysis of Ophthalmic Drugs,” Curr. Pharm. Anal., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 367–391, 2019, doi: 10.2174/1573412915666190225163637
  23. 23. E. Demir, A. Senocak, M. F. Tassembedo-Koubangoye, E. Demirbas, and H. Y. Aboul-Eneın, “Electrochemical Evaluation of the Total Antioxidant Capacity of Yam Food Samples on a Polyglycine-Glassy Carbon Modified Electrode,” Curr. Anal. Chem., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 176–183, 2018, doi: 10.2174/1573411014666180619143729
  24. 24. A. Masek, E. Chrzescijanska, M. Latos-Brozio, and M. Zaborski, “Characteristics of juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4,-naphthoquinone) using voltammetry and spectrophotometric methods,” Food Chem., vol. 301, no. February, p. 125279, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125279
  25. 25. D. V. Thomaz et al., “Electrochemical study of commercial black tea samples,” Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 5433–5439, 2018, doi: 10.20964/2018.06.55
  26. 26. D. M. da Silva and M. C. da Cunha Areias, “Rutin as an Electrochemical Mediator in the Determination of Captopril using a Graphite Paste Electrode,” Electroanalysis, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 301–307, 2020, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900145
  27. 27. A. Kumar, B. Purohit, K. Mahato, S. Roy, A. Srivastava, and P. Chandra, “Design and Development of Ultrafast Sinapic Acid Sensor Based on Electrochemically Nanotuned Gold Nanoparticles and Solvothermally Reduced Graphene Oxide,” Electroanalysis, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 59–69, 2020, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900406
  28. 28. G. S. Vasyliev, V. I. Vorobyova, and O. V. Linyucheva, “Evaluation of Reducing Ability and Antioxidant Activity of Fruit Pomace Extracts by Spectrophotometric and Electrochemical Methods,” J. Anal. Methods Chem., vol. 2020, 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/8869436
  29. 29. A. Ricci, G. P. Parpinello, N. Teslić, P. A. Kilmartin, and A. Versari, “Suitability of the cyclic voltammetry measurements and DPPH• spectrophotometric assay to determine the antioxidant capacity of food-grade oenological tannins,” Molecules, vol. 24, no. 16, pp. 1–12, 2019, doi: 10.3390/molecules24162925
  30. 30. L. G. Mohtar, G. A. Messina, F. A. Bertolino, S. V. Pereira, J. Raba, and M. A. Nazareno, “Comparative study of different methodologies for the determination the antioxidant activity of Venezuelan propolis,” Microchem. J., vol. 158, no. May, p. 105244, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105244
  31. 31. J. Juárez-Gómez, M. T. Ramírez-Silva, D. S. Guzmán-Hernández, M. Romero-Romo, and M. Palomar-Pardavé, “Novel electrochemical method to evaluate the antioxidant capacity of infusions and beverages, based on in situ formation of free superoxide radicals,” Food Chem., vol. 332, no. March 2019, p. 127409, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127409
  32. 32. A. K. Rivas-Sánchez, D. S. Guzmán-Hernández, M. T. Ramírez-Silva, M. Romero-Romo, and M. Palomar-Pardavé, “Quinizarin characterization and quantification in aqueous media using UV-VIS spectrophotometry and cyclic voltammetry,” Dye. Pigment., vol. 184, no. August 2020, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.dyepig.2020.108641
  33. 33. N. I. Ismail, S. Sornambikai, M. R. A. Kadir, N. H. Mahmood, R. M. Zulkifli, and S. Shahir, “Evaluation of Radical Scavenging Capacity of Polyphenols Found in Natural Malaysian Honeys by Voltammetric Techniques,” Electroanalysis, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2939–2949, 2018, doi: 10.1002/elan.201800493
  34. 34. F. U. Khan et al., “An Astragalus membranaceus based eco-friendly biomimetic synthesis approach of ZnO nanoflowers with an excellent antibacterial, antioxidant and electrochemical sensing effect,” Mater. Sci. Eng. C, vol. 118, no. August 2020, p. 111432, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111432
  35. 35. R. Wada, S. Takahashi, H. Muguruma, and N. Osakabe, “Electrochemical detection of curcumin in food with a carbon nanotube-carboxymethylcellulose electrode,” Anal. Sci., vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1113–1118, 2020, doi: 10.2116/analsci.20P021
  36. 36. S. Amamra et al., “Determination of total phenolics contents, antioxidant capacity of thymus vulgaris extracts using electrochemical and spectrophotometric methods,” Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 7882–7893, 2018, doi: 10.20964/2018.08.57
  37. 37. M. Vandeput et al., “Electrochemical Studies of Ethoxyquin and its Determination in Salmon Samples by Flow Injection Analysis with an Amperometric Dual Detector,” Electroanalysis, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1293–1302, 2018, doi: 10.1002/elan.201700611
  38. 38. R. Wada, S. Takahashi, and H. Muguruma, “New perspective on ECE mechanism of monohydroxycinnamic acid oxidation with carbon nanotube electrode,” Electrochim. Acta, vol. 359, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2020.136964
  39. 39. C. Kalinke et al., “Voltammetric Electronic Tongue Based on Carbon Paste Electrodes Modified with Biochar for Phenolic Compounds Stripping Detection,” Electroanalysis, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2238–2245, 2019, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900072
  40. 40. K. Ganesh et al., “Synthesis and characterization of hexagonal prism like zinc oxide for electrochemical determination of Gallic acid in wine samples,” Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 4769–4780, 2019, doi: 10.20964/2019.05.40
  41. 41. D. Bottari et al., “Electrochemical sensing of caffeic acid using gold nanoparticles embedded in poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) layer by sinusoidal voltage procedure,” Chemosensors, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1–14, 2019, doi: 10.3390/chemosensors7040065
  42. 42. O. E. Carp, A. Moraru, M. Pinteala, and A. Arvinte, “Electrochemical behaviour of piperine. Comparison with control antioxidants,” Food Chem., vol. 339, no. September 2020, p. 128110, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128110
  43. 43. J. J. García-Guzmán et al., “Assessment of the polyphenol indices and antioxidant capacity for beers and wines using a tyrosinase-based biosensor prepared by sinusoidal current method,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 19, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19010066
  44. 44. N. Benbouguerra, T. Richard, C. Saucier, and F. Garcia, “Voltammetric behavior, flavanol and anthocyanin contents, and antioxidant capacity of grape skins and seeds during ripening (Vitis vinifera var. merlot, tannat, and syrah),” Antioxidants, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1–19, 2020, doi: 10.3390/antiox9090800
  45. 45. A. V. Bounegru and C. Apetrei, “Voltammetric sensors based on nanomaterials for detection of caffeic acid in food supplements,” Chemosensors, vol. 8, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.3390/CHEMOSENSORS8020041
  46. 46. C. Liu, Z. Xu, and L. Liu, “Covalent Bonded Graphene/Neutral Red Nanocomposite Prepared by One-step Electrochemical Method and its Electrocatalytic Properties Toward Uric Acid,” Electroanalysis, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1017–1021, 2018, doi: 10.1002/elan.201700817
  47. 47. M. Motshakeri, J. Travas-Sejdic, A. R. J. Phillips, and P. A. Kilmartin, “Rapid electroanalysis of uric acid and ascorbic acid using a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-modified sensor with application to milk,” Electrochim. Acta, vol. 265, pp. 184–193, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.01.147
  48. 48. W. Zhang, X. Jin, H. Chai, G. Diao, and Y. Piao, “3D Hybrids of Interconnected Porous Carbon Nanosheets/Vertically Aligned Polyaniline Nanowires for High-Performance Supercapacitors,” Adv. Mater. Interfaces, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1–8, 2018, doi: 10.1002/admi.201800106
  49. 49. C. Xiong et al., “ZIF-67 derived porous Co3O4 hollow nanopolyhedron functionalized solution-gated graphene transistors for simultaneous detection of glucose and uric acid in tears,” Biosens. Bioelectron., vol. 101, no. July 2017, pp. 21–28, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2017.10.004
  50. 50. A. N. Raja, Annu, K. Singh, and R. Jain, “Ultrasensitive quantification of ellagic acid using Gr/Bi2O3/GCE as voltammetric sensor,” Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., vol. 15, pp. 10040–10057, 2020, doi: 10.20964/2020.10.05
  51. 51. S. Mbokou Foukmeniok, O. Ilboudo, Y. Karanga, I. Tapsoba, E. Njanja, and I. Tonle Kenfack, “Direct and simultaneous quantification of rutin and quercetin in natural fruits base on purified Arabic Gum modified carbon paste electrode,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 1–9, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s42452-019-0413-8
  52. 52. B. B. Petković et al., “Easily Prepared Co3O4Doped Porous Carbon Material Decorated with Single-wall Carbon Nanotubes Applied in Voltammetric Sensing of Antioxidant α-lipoic Acid,” Electroanalysis, pp. 1–10, 2020, doi: 10.1002/elan.202060290
  53. 53. E. Kuyumcu Savan, “Square Wave Voltammetric (SWV) Determination of Quercetin in Tea Samples at a Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube (SWCNT) Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode (GCE),” Anal. Lett., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 858–872, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00032719.2019.1684514
  54. 54. B. Aslışen, Ç. C. Koçak, and S. Koçak, “Electrochemical Determination of Sesamol in Foods by Square Wave Voltammetry at a Boron-Doped Diamond Electrode,” Anal. Lett., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 343–354, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00032719.2019.1650752
  55. 55. A. Gomes, G. J. Mattos, B. Coldibeli, R. F. H. Dekker, A. M. Barbosa Dekker, and E. R. Sartori, “Covalent attachment of laccase to carboxymethyl-botryosphaeran in aqueous solution for the construction of a voltammetric biosensor to quantify quercetin,” Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 135, p. 107543, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107543
  56. 56. A. T. E. Vilian et al., “Controllable synthesis of bottlebrush-like ZnO nanowires decorated on carbon nanofibers as an efficient electrocatalyst for the highly sensitive detection of silymarin in biological samples,” Sensors Actuators, B Chem., vol. 321, no. June, p. 128544, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2020.128544
  57. 57. C. Stefanov, C. C. Negut, L. A. D. Gugoasa, and J. (Koos) F. van Staden, “Gold nanoparticle-graphene quantum dots nanozyme for the wide range and sensitive electrochemical determination of quercetin in plasma droplets,” Microchim. Acta, vol. 187, no. 11, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s00604-020-04587-y
  58. 58. N. Alpar, Y. Yardım, and Z. Şentürk, “Selective and simultaneous determination of total chlorogenic acids, vanillin and caffeine in foods and beverages by adsorptive stripping voltammetry using a cathodically pretreated boron-doped diamond electrode,” Sensors Actuators, B Chem., vol. 257, pp. 398–408, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.10.100
  59. 59. A. L. Squissato, E. M. Richter, and R. A. A. Munoz, “Voltammetric determination of copper and tert-butylhydroquinone in biodiesel: A rapid quality control protocol,” Talanta, vol. 201, no. April, pp. 433–440, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2019.04.030
  60. 60. K. V. Özdokur and Ç. C. Koçak, “Simultaneous Determination of Rosmarinic Acid and Protocatechuic Acid at Poly(o-Phenylenediamine)/Pt Nanoparticles Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode,” Electroanalysis, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2359–2367, 2019, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900144
  61. 61. S. A. Shahamirifard, M. Ghaedi, Z. Razmi, and S. Hajati, “A simple ultrasensitive electrochemical sensor for simultaneous determination of gallic acid and uric acid in human urine and fruit juices based on zirconia-choline chloride-gold nanoparticles-modified carbon paste electrode,” Biosens. Bioelectron., vol. 114, no. January, pp. 30–36, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2018.05.009
  62. 62. K. Krishnamoorthy, V. Sudha, S. M. Senthil Kumar, and R. Thangamuthu, “Simultaneous determination of dopamine and uric acid using copper oxide nano-rice modified electrode,” J. Alloys Compd., vol. 748, pp. 338–347, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.03.118
  63. 63. Y. Veera Manohara Reddy, B. Sravani, S. Agarwal, V. K. Gupta, and G. Madhavi, “Electrochemical sensor for detection of uric acid in the presence of ascorbic acid and dopamine using the poly(DPA)/SiO2@Fe3O4 modified carbon paste electrode,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 820, no. March, pp. 168–175, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2018.04.059
  64. 64. V. Erady et al., “Carbon paste modified with Bi decorated multi-walled carbon nanotubes and CTAB as a sensitive voltammetric sensor for the detection of Caffeic acid,” Microchem. J., vol. 146, no. November 2018, pp. 73–82, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2018.12.023
  65. 65. M. Sakthivel, S. Ramaraj, S. M. Chen, B. Dinesh, H. V. Ramasamy, and Y. S. Lee, “Entrapment of bimetallic CoFeSe2 nanosphere on functionalized carbon nanofiber for selective and sensitive electrochemical detection of caffeic acid in wine samples,” Anal. Chim. Acta, vol. 1006, pp. 22–32, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2017.12.044
  66. 66. R. Nehru, Y. F. Hsu, and S. F. Wang, “Electrochemical determination of caffeic acid in antioxidant beverages samples via a facile synthesis of carbon/iron-based active electrocatalyst,” Anal. Chim. Acta, vol. 1122, pp. 76–88, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.05.001
  67. 67. G. Muthusankar et al., “N-doped carbon quantum dots @ hexagonal porous copper oxide decorated multiwall carbon nanotubes: A hybrid composite material for an efficient ultra-sensitive determination of caffeic acid,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 174, no. March, p. 106973, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.106973
  68. 68. X. Long, “Ce-TiO2/carbon Nanotube Composite Modified Glassy Carbon Electrode for Electrochemical Detection of Caffeic Acid,” Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., vol. 14, pp. 7832–7841, 2019, doi: 10.20964/2019.08.13
  69. 69. Y. Yan, X. Bo, and L. Guo, “MOF-818 metal-organic framework-reduced graphene oxide/multiwalled carbon nanotubes composite for electrochemical sensitive detection of phenolic acids,” Talanta, vol. 218, no. April, p. 121123, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121123
  70. 70. A. Şenocak, “Fast, Simple and Sensitive Determination of Coumaric Acid in Fruit Juice Samples by Magnetite Nanoparticles-zeolitic Imidazolate Framework Material,” Electroanalysis, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 2330–2339, 2020, doi: 10.1002/elan.202060237
  71. 71. A. Miccoli et al., “Sensitive electrochemical detection method of melatonin in food supplements,” Rev. Chim., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 854–859, 2018, doi: 10.37358/rc.18.4.6215
  72. 72. M. Mosleh, S. M. Ghoreishi, S. Masoum, and A. Khoobi, “Determination of quercetin in the presence of tannic acid in soft drinks based on carbon nanotubes modified electrode using chemometric approaches,” Sensors Actuators, B Chem., vol. 272, no. March, pp. 605–611, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.05.172
  73. 73. M. Badea et al., “Electrochemical strategies for gallic acid detection: Potential for application in clinical, food or environmental analyses,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 672, pp. 129–140, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.404
  74. 74. A. P. Lima, W. T. P. dos Santos, E. Nossol, E. M. Richter, and R. A. A. Munoz, “Critical evaluation of voltammetric techniques for antioxidant capacity and activity: Presence of alumina on glassy-carbon electrodes alters the results,” Electrochim. Acta, vol. 358, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2020.136925
  75. 75. T. A. Silva, M. R. K. Khan, O. Fatibello-Filho, and M. M. Collinson, “Simultaneous electrochemical sensing of ascorbic acid and uric acid under biofouling conditions using nanoporous gold electrodes,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 846, no. January, p. 113160, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.05.042
  76. 76. J. Hoyos-Arbeláez, L. Blandón-Naranjo, M. Vázquez, and J. Contreras-Calderón, “Antioxidant capacity of mango fruit (Mangifera indica). An electrochemical study as an approach to the spectrophotometric methods,” Food Chem., vol. 266, no. March, pp. 435–440, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.06.044
  77. 77. S. M. Chen et al., “Determination of the antioxidant propyl gallate in meat by using a screen-printed electrode modified with CoSe 2 nanoparticles and reduced graphene oxide,” Microchim. Acta, vol. 185, no. 11, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s00604-018-3048-3
  78. 78. G. Manasa, R. J. Mascarenhas, A. K. Bhakta, and Z. Mekhalif, “Nano-graphene-platelet/Brilliant-green composite coated carbon paste electrode interface for electrocatalytic oxidation of flavanone Hesperidin,” Microchem. J., vol. 160, no. PB, p. 105768, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105768
  79. 79. D. R. Kumar, M. S. Sayed, M. L. Baynosa, and J. J. Shim, “5-Amino-2-mercapto-1,3,4-thiadiazole coated nitrogen-doped-carbon sphere composite for the determination of phenolic compounds,” Microchem. J., vol. 157, no. May, p. 105023, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105023
  80. 80. A. Şenocak, T. Basova, E. Demirbas, and M. Durmuş, “Direct and Fast Electrochemical Determination of Catechin in Tea Extracts using SWCNT-Subphthalocyanine Hybrid Material,” Electroanalysis, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1697–1707, 2019, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900214
  81. 81. C. O. Chikere, E. Hobben, N. H. Faisal, P. Kong-Thoo-Lin, and C. Fernandez, “Electroanalytical determination of gallic acid in red and white wine samples using cobalt oxide nanoparticles-modified carbon-paste electrodes,” Microchem. J., vol. 160, no. PB, p. 105668, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.105668
  82. 82. M. O. Onizhuk, O. S. Tkachenko, A. V. Panteleimonov, V. V. Varchenko, K. Belikov, and Y. V. Kholin, “Electrochemical oxidation of quercetin in aqueous and ethanol-water media with the use of graphite/chemically modified silica ceramic electrode,” Ionics (Kiel)., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1755–1764, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11581-017-2320-6
  83. 83. G. Ziyatdinova et al., “Simultaneous voltammetric determination of gallic and ellagic acids in cognac and brandy using electrode modified with functionalized SWNT and poly(pyrocatechol violet),” Food Anal. Methods, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 2250–2261, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s12161-019-01585-6
  84. 84. C. Raril, J. G. Manjunatha, and G. Tigari, “Low-cost voltammetric sensor based on an anionic surfactant modified carbon nanocomposite material for the rapid determination of curcumin in natural food supplement,” Instrum. Sci. Technol., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 561–582, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10739149.2020.1756317
  85. 85. G. Manasa, R. J. Mascarenhas, A. K. Bhakta, and Z. Mekhalif, “MWCNT/Nileblue Heterostructured Composite Electrode for Flavanone Naringenin Quantification in Fruit Juices,” Electroanalysis, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 939–948, 2020, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900573
  87. 87. P. Rocha, Â. Vilas-Boas, N. Fontes, D. Geraldo, and F. Bento, “Evaluation of Polyphenols in Wine by Voltammetric Techniques with Screen Printed Carbon Electrodes,” Electroanalysis, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 159–165, 2020, doi: 10.1002/elan.201900392
  88. 88. Ç. C. Koçak, Ş. U. Karabiberoğlu, and Z. Dursun, “Highly sensitive determination of gallic acid on poly (L-Methionine)-carbon nanotube composite electrode,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 853, no. October, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.113552
  89. 89. A. Şenocak, B. Köksoy, E. Demirbaş, T. Basova, and M. Durmuş, “3D SWCNTs-coumarin hybrid material for ultra-sensitive determination of quercetin antioxidant capacity,” Sensors Actuators, B Chem., vol. 267, pp. 165–173, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.04.012
  90. 90. W. Lyu et al., “A simple and sensitive electrochemical method for the determination of capsaicinoids in chilli peppers,” Sensors Actuators, B Chem., vol. 288, no. February, pp. 65–70, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2019.02.104
  91. 91. E. Nagles, J. Penagos-Llanos, O. García-Beltrán, and J. Hurtado, “Determination of Rutin in Drinks Using an Electrode Modified with Carbon Nanotubes-Prussian Blue,” J. Anal. Chem., vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 504–511, 2018, doi: 10.1134/S1061934818050064
  92. 92. S. Güney, “Electrochemical synthesis of molecularly imprinted poly(p-aminobenzene sulphonic acid) on carbon nanodots coated pencil graphite electrode for selective determination of folic acid,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 854, no. October, p. 113518, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.113518
  93. 93. M. S. S. Kumar et al., “Multifunctional applications of Nickel oxide (NiO) nanoparticles synthesized by facile green combustion method using Limonia acidissima natural fruit juice,” Inorganica Chim. Acta, vol. 515, no. September 2020, p. 120059, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ica.2020.120059
  94. 94. L. C. Almeida et al., “Electrochemical deposition of bio-inspired laccase-polydopamine films for phenolic sensors,” Electrochim. Acta, vol. 319, pp. 462–471, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.06.180
  95. 95. K. Brainina, N. Stozhko, M. Bukharinova, E. Khamzina, and M. Vidrevich, “Potentiometric method of plant microsuspensions antioxidant activity determination,” Food Chem., vol. 278, no. November 2018, pp. 653–658, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.098
  96. 96. H. Yi, Y. Cheng, Y. Zhang, Q. Xie, and X. Yang, “Potentiometric and UV-Vis spectrophotometric titrations for evaluation of the antioxidant capacity of chicoric acid,” RSC Adv., vol. 10, no. 20, pp. 11876–11882, 2020, doi: 10.1039/d0ra01248c
  97. 97. Y. Tanaka, T. Hasegawa, T. Shimamura, H. Ukeda, and T. Ueda, “Potentiometric evaluation of antioxidant capacity using polyoxometalate-immobilized electrodes,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 828, no. May, pp. 102–107, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2018.09.024
  98. 98. D. H. Kim, S. Nam, J. Kim, and W. Y. Lee, “Electrochemical determination of capsaicin by ionic liquid composite-modified electrode,” J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 177–184, 2019, doi: 10.5229/JECST.2019.10.2.177
  99. 99. J. Chýlková, L. Janíková, R. Šelešovská, and J. Mikšíček, “New voltammetric method for rapid determination of phenolic antioxidant 2-tert-butylphenol in synthetic oils using gold electrode,” Eur. Food Res. Technol., vol. 150, pp. 1651–1654, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00706-019-02417-3
  100. 100. P. J. Juarez-Luna, S. Mendoza, and A. Cardenas, “Comparison of electrochemical methods using CUPRAC, DPPH, and carbon paste electrodes for the quantification of antioxidants in food oils,” Anal. Methods, vol. 11, no. 45, pp. 5755–5760, 2019, doi: 10.1039/c9ay01921a

Written By

Ersin Demir, Hülya Silah and Nida Aydogdu

Submitted: 18 September 2020 Reviewed: 26 February 2021 Published: 01 April 2021