The influence of poly (2-methoxyaniline-5-sulfonic acid) on the electrochemical and photochemical properties of a highly luminescent ruthenium complex

Immobilisation of a luminescent material on an electrode surface is well known to substantially modulate its photophysical and electrochemical properties. Here a positively charged ruthenium metal complex ([Ru(bpy)(3)](2+)) is immobilised on all electrode surface by ion paring with a sulfonated conducting polymer poly(2-methoxyaniline-5-sulfonic acid), (PMAS). Significantly, our study reveals that the electron transport between the ruthenium metal centres can be greatly enhanced due to the interaction with the conducting polymer when both are surface confined. Charge transfer diffusion rates in the present system are an order of magnitude faster than those found where the metal centre is immobilised within a non-conducting polymeric matrix. Electron transport appears to be mediated through the PMAS conjugated structure, contrasting with the electron hopping process typically observed in non-conducting metallopolymers. This increased regeneration rate causes the ruthenium-based electrochemiluminescence (ECL) efficiency to be increased. The impact of these observations on the ECL detection of low concentrations of disease biomarkers is discussed. (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd

How to write an effective response letter to reviewers

The review process is intended to provide an objective assessment of the suitability of a submission to the target journal. When authors receive the decision letter from the editor it is almost always accompanied with the reviews, which at times can be quite critical. Writing a well-constructed response letter to the reviewers, with well-reasoned arguments, is a key part of the reviewing process. Although the manuscript is the main focus of the submission, the content and tone of the response letter can have a surprisingly large impact on the eventual recommendation given by the reviewers. The importance of writing a clear response letter is often overlooked by authors. This prompted us to prepare a short article addressing the main points that can help authors prepare their response to reviewer letter to the reviewers. Although each review is unique, here, we outline ten points which are aimed at helping authors respond effectively and clearly to reviewers’ comments. The points are based on the authors’ collective experiences which includes publishing and reviewing for international peer-reviewed journals. The tone of the letter should always be professional, organized and objective. Each point raised by the reviewers needs to be replied to in a precise way, with clear evidence that the major concerns have been considered in a serious way. This article also covers what information should be included, when it is appropriate to disagree with a reviewer, and how to present appropriate rebuttals

Scientific writing for the biomedical sciences

Scientific writing is an essential part of a research scientist’s career and is usually the end process of many years’ hard bench work generating the data for publication. Clear communication of your research findings, the aims and potential importance of your work are the foundation of all good scientific manuscripts. Writing a scientific manuscript in English, especially if English is not your first language, can make an already challenging task even more difficult. The purpose of this article is to assist authors in the preparation of manuscripts intended for submission to peer-reviewed journals. The article mainly focusses on the biomedical sciences, but researchers of other scientific disciplines can also benefit from the content. We provide useful advice on all the main subsections of a standard research manuscript, from selecting an appropriate title, through to preparing a properly organized discussion. Advice on how each section should be arranged as well as points to be avoided can be found in the guide. As a general guide the most important point of a manuscript is that the research findings contained are presented clearly and accurately without excessive repetition or embellishment. Finally, this article closes with a section which contains language mistakes which are frequently made by authors whose first language is not English

Electrochemical Properties of an Osmium (II) copolymer film and its electrocatalytic ability towards the oxidation of ascorbic acid in acidic and neutral pH

Copolymerisation of an Osmium (II) functionalised pyrrole moiety, Osmium -bis-N,N’-(2,2’-bipyridyl)-N-(pyridine-4-ylmethyl-(8-pyrrole-1yl-octyl)-amine)chloride (1) with 3- methylthiophene was carried out. The resulting conducting polymer film exhibited a clear redox couple associated with the Os3+/2+ response and the familiar conducting polymer backbone signature. The effect of film thickness upon the redox properties of the copolymer was investigated in organic electrolyte solutions. Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) along with energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectra of the copolymerised films were undertaken, both after formation and redox cycling in neutral buffer solution. These clearly show that electrolyte is incorporated into the polymer film upon redox cycling through the Os3+/2+ redox system. The Os3+/2+ response associated with the copolymer was seen to be significantly altered in the presence of ascorbic acid both in acidic and neutral pH buffer solutions. This pointed to an electrocatalytic reaction between the ascorbic acid and the Os3+ form of the copolymer. Under acidic conditions the copolymer film exhibited a sensitivity of 1.76 (± 0.05) uA / mM with a limit of detection (LOD) of 1.45 μM for ascorbic acid. Under neutral pH conditions the copolymer exhibited a sensitivity of 19.26 (±1.05) uA / mM with a limit of detection (LOD) of 1.28 μM for ascorbic acid