Molecular imprinting (MI) is the most available and known method to produce artificial recognition sites, similar to antibodies, inside or at the surface of a polymeric material.
1. Introduction
Chemical and biochemical sensors are modern devices in analytical chemistry that simplify and miniaturize analytical determinations. Analytical methods based on modern sensor technology have solved many difficult analytical issues in research and society. Many scientific groups are working at the global level in the field and are reporting interesting results [
1]. In general, conventional analytical methods have been extensively used due to their accuracy; nevertheless, most of these methods are expensive and require complex equipment, laboratory facilities, a high reagent consumption and well-trained personnel [
2]. These drawbacks have prompted the research community to buildmore performant sensors for specific analysis of samples with complex matrices and very low concentrations, all at a lower reagent cost with inexpensive and easily-handled equipment, in order to perform in situ and on-site determinations [
3].
Generally, a sensor is composed of three integrated parts (
Figure 1), as follows: (i) a receptor for detecting the target analyte in a selective and sensitive manner, (ii) a physical transducer that converts the information obtained from the sensitive receptor into a measurable signal (usually an electric signal), and (iii) a suitable analytical device to process and show the significant signals formed by transducers and to calculate the results [
4].
Figure 1. The functional scheme of a typical sensor system.
Biosensors are defined as analytical devices incorporating as a receptor biological material, such as enzymes, antibodies, nucleic acids, whole cells and tissues, a biologically derived material (i.e., engineered proteins, aptamers or recombinant antibodies) or a biomimetic material (i.e., molecularly imprinted polymers or combinatorial ligands). Depending on the incorporated sensitive material, the biosensors are classified as enzymatic, immune affinity recognition, DNA or whole-cell sensors; while considering the type of transducer, sensors can be classified as electrochemical, optical, acoustical, piezoelectrical, gravimetrical or thermal [
1]. Each type of sensor class has other subclasses. For instance, the electrochemical sensors maybe amperometric (the majority), potentiometric, voltametric, etc. [
5]. However, due to high production costs and the restricted operating conditions of these natural receptors, the development of artificial receptors with molecular recognition capacity, so-called synthetic receptors, have attracted a great interest as appropriate alternatives for the biological elements. Hence, among the existing techniques for the development of artificial receptors, high expectations are set out in the design of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs).
MIPs are polymeric materials that are designed and produced with built-in molecular recognition properties. As a result of this fundamental attribute, a growing interest has been observed in their development as inexpensive and robust materials with sensitive and selective molecular recognition. Some of the top current applications that include the use of MIPs are associated with catalysis, separation sciences and monitoring/diagnostic devices for chemicals, biochemicals and pharmaceuticals [
6,
7]. MIPs have proven to possess important advantages as an alternative sensing material for biosensors, including the ease of preparation, storage stability, low cost, repeated uses without loss of activity, high mechanical strength and resistance to heat and pressure as well as to harsh chemical environments [
8,
9]. In a typical approach, the MI process (
Figure 2) allows the creation of specific molecular recognition sites by the polymerization of a functional monomer in the presence of target molecules (called template) and of a high concentration of crosslinker. Following the template removal, by specific extraction procedures, the specific recognition cavities are revealed [
10,
11,
12].This approach endows MIPs with tremendous specific binding properties, as they possess cavities with complementary size, shape and electronic environment with the target molecule [
13].
Figure 2. Molecular imprinting process (adapted from [
14]).
In the classical imprinting process, a complex is formed between the template and functional monomer(s), by covalent, semi-covalent or non-covalent bonds, the non-covalent approach being preferred because of the simplicity in complex forming and the ease of the template extraction. In this case, polymerization takes place in the presence of an initiator and a porogen solvent, the latter having the role to create pores in the polymer matrix that facilitate the access of target molecules near the imprinted sites, during the rebinding assays [
15]. A large amount of crosslinker is needed, as well, in order to stabilize the structure. Finally, the template is extracted from the crosslinked polymer and, thus, the imprinted cavities are created. This approach is also called the bulk method [
16] because a solid block is first obtained, which is later on crushed for obtaining irregular-shaped particles. This method has little productivity because many of the recognition sites are destroyed during the crushing. This is the main reason why other methods were developed for enhancing the specificity and selectivity of MIPs, such as suspension [
17], emulsion [
18] or precipitation polymerization [
19].
Molecular imprinting (MI) was applied initially for organic small molecule templates and ions [
20], due to the molecular size, complexity, conformational flexibility and diffusion difficulties of large molecules [
8]. Nevertheless, in the last 15 years, large molecules, such as proteins, were also successfully imprinted. For instance, by using the so-called epitope approach [
21], only a characteristic part of the biomacromolecule is imprinted, and the following rebinding process is based on recognizing this part alone. Another clever approach developed from necessity allows the preparing of MIPs for labile, dangerous or very expensive targets, by performing the imprinting using a “dummy” template, meaning a safer or more available compound with a similar structure to that of the target analyte [
22].
MIPs can also be used to design enzymatic and immunoaffinity sensors. In agreement with the classification of biosensors, MIP-based devices can work according to two different detection schemes: (1) affinity sensors (“plastic antibodies”) and (2) catalytic sensors (“plasticenzymes”) [
2,
23]. In this respect, MIP layers are usually deposited directly on the transducer surface of a sensor chip to produce the recognition unit [
24,
25]. As a result of this rather simple procedure, many researchers have found various methodologies for producing MIP layers as receptors for producing sensing devices, such as spin coating of a precursor solution to form a thin film, followed by insitu chemical polymerization [
26]; electropolymerization of a pre-assembled complex of an electroactive functional monomer with a template [
27,
28]; dropcasting of a precursor polymer from solution [
25,
29,
30]; dripping a composite solution containing a conducting material (e.g., graphene), MIP particles, and a binder (e.g., PVC) [
31]; and, self-assembly of monolayers [
32].
2. Molecular Imprinting by Surface Polymerization
In the surface imprinting process, the recognition sites are formed at the surface of a substrate [
33]. Due to this fact, the recognition sites are more accessible and promote faster binding kinetics, compared to monolith MIPs for example. This means that template–polymer interactions are not governed by diffusion processes to the same extent as usually encountered in bulk imprinting [
34]. Therefore, the technique is applicable especially for the imprinting of large biomolecules such as proteins [
35,
36], microorganisms and cells. Moreover, surface imprinting requires lower amounts of template molecules compared to the amounts used for other imprinting techniques because imprinting occurs right at the surface of the films [
37].
In principle, the method consists of the preparation of a polymerization mixture, containing the functional monomer, the template, the initiator, the porogen solvent and the crosslinker, similar to the bulk method (see
Figure 3). An amount of this mixture is cast on a solid surface, as for instance the sensor surface, and the formed thin film is polymerized thermically or by UV light curing; the latter being largely preferred. At the end, the template is extracted, thus generating the surface imprinted polymer [
16].
Figure 3. The principle of MIP layer preparation by surface polymerization.
Nonetheless, there are many variants of surface imprinting such as soft lithography, template immobilization, surface imprinting via grafting (pre-grafting polymerization and post-crosslinking/imprinting and grafting polymerization synchronized with crosslinking/imprinting [
38]), emulsion and precipitation polymerization or epitope imprinting [
16].
For example, Cennamo et al. [
39], developed a biomimetic optical sensor based on MIP and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) transduction, in connection with tapered plastic optical fiber (POF) to detect selectively low molecular weight substances. The prepared SPR sensor was tested for l-nicotine ((−)-1-methyl-2-(3-pyridyl) pyrrolidine, MW = 162.24). In order to realize this SPR sensor, the plastic optical fiber, without protective jacket, was heated and stretched to yield a thinner part with a length of 10 mm, after which it was embedded in a resin block and a thin gold film was sputtered on its surface. According to the MIP classical procedure, the pre-polymerization mixture was prepared using l-nicotine as template, methacrylic acid (MAA) as functional monomer, divinylbenzene (DVB) as crosslinker, in a molar ratio of l-nicotine:MAA:DVB = 1:4:24. The developed device was able to be detected and discriminate between l- and d-nicotine using a small volume of sample, but with sensitivity strongly depending on the characteristics of the optical fiber [
39]. Some examples of newsworthy MIP layersviathe grafting approach are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1. MIP-based sensors obtained by surface polymerization.
Synthesis Method |
Receptor |
Support |
Analyte |
Characterization Method(s) |
LOD |
Refs. |
Spincoating |
MIP film MIP nanoparticles |
Glass |
Atrazine |
RIfS 1 measurements. |
>1.7 ppm |
[40] |
Precipitation polymerization/polymer casting |
MIP layer |
SERS substrate 2 |
Enrofloxacin hydrochloride |
Raman |
10−7 mol·L−1 |
[41] |
Casting |
MIP membrane |
Screen-printed gold electrode |
Myoglobin |
EIS 3 SWV 4 |
2.25 µg·mL−1 |
[42] |
Grafting polymerization synchronized with crosslinking/imprinting |
MIP film |
GCE 5 |
Olaquindox |
CV 6, DPV 7, EIS |
7.5 nmol L−1 |
[43] |
Covalent imprinting/drop casting |
MIP film |
Au-TFME 8 |
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunit S1 |
CV, SWV |
4.8 pg·mL−1 |
[44] |
Dropcasting |
MIP membrane |
QCM 9 crystal chip |
Human serum albumin |
Langmuir, Freundlich, Langmuir–Freundlich isotherm |
0.026 μg mL−1 |
[45] |