Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 411, Issue 2, pp 413–425 | Cite as

Application of central composite design for the optimization of electrode surface composition for glucose biosensor fabrication

  • İrem Okman Koçoğlu
  • Pınar Esra Erden
  • Adnan Kenar
  • Esma KılıçEmail author
Research Paper


The use of a central composite design (CCD) for the optimization of electrode surface composition and its application to develop an amperometric glucose biosensor as a model system are described. A five-level three-factorial CCD was applied to determine the optimum electrode surface composition for three critical variables: amounts of carboxylated multiwall carbon nanotubes (c-MWCNT), titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2NP), and glucose oxidase (GOx). The statistical significance of the model and factors were evaluated using the variance analysis (ANOVA) at 95% of confidence level. The optimized electrode surface composition was used for the fabrication of the glucose biosensor. The resulting biosensor showed linear response to glucose from 2.0 × 10−5 to 1.9 × 10−3 M with a detection limit of 2.1 × 10−6 M and sensitivity of 168.5 μA mM−1 cm−2 under optimal experimental conditions. Analytical performance parameters of the biosensor were also compared with those obtained with the glucose biosensors fabricated using the electrode compositions optimized by conventional one factor-at-a-time method and 22 CCD (for c-MWCNT and TiO2NP amounts). The optimization of the critical variables, achieved by CDD, leads us to fabricate the glucose biosensor in the best electrode surface composition which was promoted by the improved analytical performance. The proposed biosensor was applied to the analysis of glucose in serum samples and the obtained results were well correlated with the results of reference method.

Graphical abstract


Glucose biosensor Titanium dioxide nanoparticles Carbon nanotube Central composite design 



Financial support of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Project No: 116Z159) for Design-Expert software package is gratefully acknowledged.

Compliance with ethical standards

Human serum samples used in this study were collected from healthy volunteers. This work was performed with the written informed consent of the volunteers. The collected samples were anonymized before the study. The studies have been approved by Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University and have been performed in accordance with ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2018_1454_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (188 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 188 kb)


  1. 1.
    Mousty C. Biosensing applications of clay-modified electrodes: a review. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;396(1):315–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Song Y, Su D, Shen Y, Liu H, Wang L. Design and preparation of open circuit potential biosensor for in vitro and in vivo glucose monitoring. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017;409(1):161–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lai J, Yi Y, Zhu P, Shen J, Wu K, Zhang L, et al. Polyaniline-based glucose biosensor: a review. J Electroanal Chem. 2016;782:138–53.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu C, Yang G, Li H, Du D, Lin Y. Electrochemical sensors and biosensors based on nanomaterials and nanostructures. Anal Chem. 2014;87(1):230–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holzinger M, Le Goff A, Cosnier S. Nanomaterials for biosensing applications: a review. Front Chem. 2014;2(63):1–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang C, Denno ME, Pyakurel P, Venton BJ. Recent trends in carbon nanomaterial-based electrochemical sensors for biomolecules: a review. Anal Chim Acta. 2015;887:17–37.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalkıran B, Erden PE, Kılıç E. Amperometric biosensors based on carboxylated multiwalled carbon nanotubes-metal oxide nanoparticles-7, 7, 8, 8-tetracyanoquinodimethane composite for the determination of xanthine. Talanta. 2017;167:286–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mallakpour S, Khadem E. Carbon nanotube–metal oxide nanocomposites: fabrication, properties and applications. Chem Eng J. 2016;302:344–67.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panigrahi AK, Singh V, Singh SG. A multi-walled carbon nanotube–zinc oxide nanofiber based flexible chemiresistive biosensor for malaria biomarker detection. Analyst. 2017;142(12):2128–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dalkıran B, Erden PE, Kılıç E. Electrochemical biosensing of galactose based on carbon materials: graphene versus multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408(16):4329–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaçar C, Erden PE, Kılıç E. Amperometric l-lysine biosensor based on carboxylated multiwalled carbon nanotubes-SnO2 nanoparticles-graphene composite. Appl Surf Sci. 2017;419:916–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee J, Morita M, Takemura K, Park EY. A multi-functional gold/iron-oxide nanoparticle-CNT hybrid nanomaterial as virus DNA sensing platform. Biosens Bioelectron. 2018;102:425–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palanisamy S, Cheemalapati S, Chen SM. Highly sensitive and selective hydrogen peroxide biosensor based on hemoglobin immobilized at multiwalled carbon nanotubes-zinc oxide composite electrode. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012;429(2):108–15.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Periasamy AP, Yang S, Chen SM. Preparation and characterization of bismuth oxide nanoparticles-multiwalled carbon nanotube composite for the development of horseradish peroxidase based H2O2 biosensor. Talanta. 2011;87:15–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu X, Yan R, Zhu J, Huo X, Wang X. Development of a photoelectrochemical lactic dehydrogenase biosensor using multi-wall carbon nanotube-TiO2 nanoparticle composite as coenzyme regeneration tool. Electrochim Acta. 2015;173:260–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun W, Guo Y, Ju X, Zhang Y, Wang X, Sun Z. Direct electrochemistry of hemoglobin on graphene and titanium dioxide nanorods composite modified electrode and its electrocatalysis. Biosens Bioelectron. 2013;42:207–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhu J, Liu X, Wang X, Huo X, Yan R. Preparation of polyaniline–TiO2 nanotube composite for the development of electrochemical biosensors. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2015;221:450–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bai J, Zhou B. Titanium dioxide nanomaterials for sensor applications. Chem Rev. 2014;114(19):10131–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang M, Yuan R, Chai Y, Li W, Zhong H, Wang C. Glucose biosensor based on titanium dioxide-multiwall carbon nanotubes-chitosan composite and functionalized gold nanoparticles. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2011;34(9):1143–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terracciano M, Galstyan V, Rea I, Casalino M, De Stefano L, Sbervegleri G. Chemical modification of TiO2 nanotube arrays for label-free optical biosensing applications. Appl Surf Sci. 2017;419:235–40.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shu J, Qiu Z, Lv S, Zhang K, Tang D. Plasmonic enhancement coupling with defect-engineered TiO2–x: a mode for sensitive Photoelectrochemical biosensing. Anal Chem. 2018;90(4):2425–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cai G, Yu Z, Ren R, Tang D. Exciton–Plasmon interaction between AuNPs/graphene nanohybrids and CdS quantum dots/TiO2 for photoelectrochemical aptasensing of prostate-specific antigen. ACS Sens. 2018;3(3):632–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qiu Z, Shu J, Tang D. Near-infrared-to-ultraviolet light-mediated photoelectrochemical aptasensing platform for cancer biomarker based on core–shell NaYF4: Yb, Tm@ TiO2 upconversion microrods. Anal Chem. 2017;90(1):1021–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu X, Yan R, Zhu J, Zhang J, Liu X. Growing TiO2 nanotubes on graphene nanoplatelets and applying the nanonanocomposite as scaffold of electrochemical tyrosinase biosensor. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2015;209:328–35.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bardajee GR, Azimi S, Sharifi MBS. Application of central composite design for methyl red dispersive solid phase extraction based on silver nanocomposite hydrogel: microwave assisted synthesis. Microchem J. 2017;133:358–69.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dastkhoon M, Ghaedi M, Asfaram A, Arabi M, Ostovan A, Goudarzi A. Cu@ SnS/SnO2 nanoparticles as novel sorbent for dispersive micro solid phase extraction of atorvastatin in human plasma and urine samples by high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detection: application of central composite design (CCD). Ultrason Sonochem. 2017;36:42–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alonso-Lomillo MA, Ruiz JG, Pascual FJM. Biosensor based on platinum chips for glucose determination. Anal Chim Acta. 2005;547(2):209–14.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Situmorang M, Hibbert DB, Gooding JJ. An experimental design study of interferences of clinical relevance of a polytyramine immobilized-enzyme biosensor. Electroanalysis. 2000;12(2):111–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Calvo MEB, Renedo OD, Martínez MJA. Optimization of the experimental parameters in the determination of lamotrigine by adsorptive stripping voltammetry. Anal Chim Acta. 2005;549(1–2):74–80.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dashtian K, Zare-Dorabei R. Synthesis and characterization of functionalized mesoprous SBA-15 decorated with Fe3O4 nanoparticles for removal of Ce (III) ions from aqueous solution: ICP–OES detection and central composite design optimization. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2017;494:114–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alonso-Lomillo MA, Domínguez-Renedo O, Hernández-Martín A, Arcos-Martínez MJ. Horseradish peroxidase covalent grafting onto screen-printed carbon electrodes for levetiracetam chronoamperometric determination. Anal Biochem. 2009;395(1):86–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Talat M, Singh AK, Srivastava ON. Optimization of process variables by central composite design for the immobilization of urease enzyme on functionalized gold nanoparticles for various applications. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2011;34(6):647–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Asturias-Arribas L, Alonso-Lomillo MA, Domínguez-Renedo O, Arcos-Martínez MJ. CYP450 biosensors based on screen-printed carbon electrodes for the determination of cocaine. Anal Chim Acta. 2011;685(1):15–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alonso-Lomillo MA, Domínguez-Renedo O, Ferreira-Gonçalves L, Arcos-Martínez MJ. Sensitive enzyme-biosensor based on screen-printed electrodes for ochratoxin A. Biosens Bioelectron. 2010;25(6):1333–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Retama JR, López MSP, Pérez JH, Cabanillas GF, López-Cabarcos E, López-Ruiz B. Biosensors based on acrylic microgels: a comparative study of immobilized glucose oxidase and tyrosinase. Biosens Bioelectron. 2005;20(11):2268–75.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ivanov Y, Marinov I, Gabrovska K, Dimcheva N, Godjevargova T. Amperometric biosensor based on a site-specific immobilization of acetylcholinesterase via affinity bonds on a nanostructured polymer membrane with integrated multiwall carbon nanotubes. J Mol Catal B Enzym. 2010;63(3):141–8.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Martins SAM, Prazeres DMF, Fonseca LP, Monteiro GA. Application of central composite design for DNA hybridization onto magnetic microparticles. Anal Biochem. 2009;391(1):17–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Del Torno-de Román L, Alonso-Lomillo MA, Domínguez-Renedo O, Arcos-Martínez MJ. Gluconic acid determination in wine by electrochemical biosensing. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2013;176:858–62.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhu Z, Garcia-Gancedo L, Flewitt AJ, Xie H, Moussy F, Milne WI. A critical review of glucose biosensors based on carbon nanomaterials: carbon nanotubes and graphene. Sensors. 2012;12(5):5996–6022.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chen C, Xie Q, Yang D, Xiao H, Fu Y, Tan Y, et al. Recent advances in electrochemical glucose biosensors: a review. RSC Adv. 2013;3(14):4473–91.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang Y, Liu L, Li M, Xu S, Gao F. Multifunctional carbon nanotubes for direct electrochemistry of glucose oxidase and glucose bioassay. Biosens Bioelectron. 2011;30(1):107–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Banik RM, Pandey DK. Optimizing conditions for oleanolic acid extraction from Lantana camara roots using response surface methodology. Ind Crop Prod. 2008;27(3):241–8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nasirizadeh N, Dehghanizadeh H, Yazdanshenas ME, Moghadam MR, Karimi A. Optimization of wool dyeing with rutin as natural dye by central composite design method. Ind Crop Prod. 2012;40:361–6.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Czitrom V. One-factor-at-a-time versus designed experiments. Am Stat. 1999;53(2):126–31.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thandavan K, Gandhi S, Nesakumar N, Sethuraman S, Rayappan JBB, Krishnan UM. Hydrogen peroxide biosensor utilizing a hybrid nano-interface of iron oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes to assess the quality of milk. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2015;215:166–73.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lisdat F, Schäfer D. The use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy for biosensing. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2008;391(5):1555–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang Y, Wen G, Zhou Y, Shuang S, Dong C, Choi MM. Development and analytical application of an uric acid biosensor using an uricase-immobilized eggshell membrane. Biosens Bioelectron. 2007;22(8):1791–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Crouch E, Cowell DC, Hoskins S, Pittson RW, Hart JP. A novel, disposable, screen-printed amperometric biosensor for glucose in serum fabricated using a water-based carbon ink. Biosens Bioelectron. 2005;21(5):712–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bright HJ, Appleby M. The pH dependence of the individual steps in the glucose oxidase reaction. J Biol Chem. 1969;244(13):3625–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rodrigues RC, Ortiz C, Berenguer-Murcia Á, Torres R, Fernández-Lafuente R. Modifying enzyme activity and selectivity by immobilization. Chem Soc Rev. 2013;42(15):6290–307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang YT, Yu L, Wang J, Lou L, Du WJ, Zhu ZQ, et al. A novel L-lactate sensor based on enzyme electrode modified with ZnO nanoparticles and multiwall carbon nanotubes. J Electroanal Chem. 2011;661(1):8–12.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Weetal HH. Enzymatic gallic acid esterification. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1985;27(2):124–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Feng C, Xu G, Liu H, Lv J, Zheng Z, Wu Y. Glucose biosensors based on Ag nanoparticles modified TiO2 nanotube arrays. J Solid State Electrochem. 2014;18(1):163–71.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yao H, Shum AJ, Cowan M, Lähdesmäki I, Parviz BA. A contact lens with embedded sensor for monitoring tear glucose level. Biosens Bioelectron. 2011;26(7):3290–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Feng C, Xu G, Liu H, Lv J, Zheng Z, Wu Y. Facile fabrication of Pt/graphene/TiO2 NTAs based enzyme sensor for glucose detection. J Electrochem Soc. 2014;161(1):B1–8.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tang H, Yan F, Tai Q, Chan HL. The improvement of glucose bioelectrocatalytic properties of platinum electrodes modified with electrospun TiO2 nanofibers. Biosens Bioelectron. 2010;25(7):1646–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pang X, He D, Luo S, Cai Q. An amperometric glucose biosensor fabricated with Pt nanoparticle-decorated carbon nanotubes/TiO2 nanotube arrays composite. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2009;137(1):134–8.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kang Q, Yang L, Cai Q. An electro-catalytic biosensor fabricated with Pt–Au nanoparticle-decorated titania nanotube array. Bioelectrochemistry. 2008;74(1):62–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jang HD, Kim SK, Chang H, Roh KM, Choi JW, Huang J. A glucose biosensor based on TiO2–graphene composite. Biosens Bioelectron. 2012;38(1):184–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Xu CX, Huang KJ, Chen XM, Xiong XQ. Direct electrochemistry of glucose oxidase immobilized on TiO2–graphene/nickel oxide nanocomposite film and its application. J Solid State Electrochem. 2012;16(12):3747–52.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kamin RA, Wilson GS. Rotating ring-disk enzyme electrode for biocatalysis kinetic studies and characterization of the immobilized enzyme layer. Anal Chem. 1980;52(8):1198–205.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu BY, Hou SH, Yin F, Zhao ZX, Wang YY, Wang XS, et al. Amperometric glucose biosensor based on multilayer films via layer-by-layer self-assembly of multi-wall carbon nanotubes, gold nanoparticles and glucose oxidase on the Pt electrode. Biosens Bioelectron. 2007;22(12):2854–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dayakar T, Rao KV, Bikshalu K, Rajendar V, Park SH. Novel synthesis and structural analysis of zinc oxide nanoparticles for the non enzymatic glucose biosensor. Mater Sci Eng C. 2017;75:1472–9.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang Z, Xie Y, Liu Z, Rong F, Wang Y, Fu D. Covalently immobilized biosensor based on gold nanoparticles modified TiO2 nanotube arrays. J Electroanal Chem. 2011;650:241–7.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhao R, Liu X, Zhang J, Zhu J, Wong DKY. Enhancing direct electron transfer of glucose oxidase using a gold nanoparticle titanate nanotube nanocomposite on a biosensor. Electrochim Acta. 2015;163:64–70.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Han X, Zhu Y, Yang X, Li C. Electrocatalytic activity of Pt doped TiO2 nanotubes catalysts for glucose determination. J Alloys Compd. 2010;500:247–51.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tang W, Li L, Zeng X. A glucose biosensor based on the synergistic action of nanometer-sized TiO2 and polyaniline. Talanta. 2015;131:417–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • İrem Okman Koçoğlu
    • 1
  • Pınar Esra Erden
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adnan Kenar
    • 1
  • Esma Kılıç
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry, Polatlı Faculty of Science and ArtsAnkara Hacı Bayram Veli UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations