Electrochemical Biosensors for Pathogen Detection: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Morteza Banakar
,
Masoud Hamidi
,
Zohaib Khurshid
,
Muhammad Sohail Zafar
,
Janak Sapkota
,
Reza Azizian
,
Dinesh Rokaya

Electrochemical biosensors are a family of biosensors that use an electrochemical transducer to perform their functions. In recent decades, many electrochemical biosensors have been created for pathogen detection. These biosensors for detecting infections have been comprehensively studied in terms of transduction elements, biorecognition components, and electrochemical methods. The integration of transducers and electrode changes in biosensor design is a major discussion topic. Pathogen detection methods can be categorized by sample preparation and secondary binding processes. Diagnostics in medicine, environmental monitoring, and biothreat detection can benefit from electrochemical biosensors to ensure food and water safety.

  • electrochemical
  • biosensors
  • pathogen quantification

1. Introduction

Pathogens facilitate the transmission of disease. Fungi, protozoans, and bacteria are only a few of the microorganisms that fall under this category. Pathogens that enter the body via food, drink, and the air affects over 15 million fatalities worldwide [1][2][3]. Virulence and infectious dosage statistics for the COVID-19 virus, a worldwide pandemic, are only beginning to emerge. Rapid and sensitive pathogen detection methods are vital for the treatment of infectious illnesses, and the prevention of illness [4][5][6][7]. Both fluids and aerosols, and surfaces, are covered in Figure 1.
Biosensors 12 00927 g001
Figure 1. Overview of the biosensor and its components.
Immunoassays and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-based assays are often used to identify and quantify infections [8][9]. For example, toxin- and species-specific gene sequence data can influence the use of immunoassay or a DNA test at different stages of infection. Immunoassays are regularly used in medical diagnosis and food safety [10]. Immunoglobulins (Igs) are created during and after infection, making them useful for pathogen identification (when the pathogen is gone). These tests involve both the biorecognition component and the target antibody. Immunoassays can be used to detect infections in the body if antigens are made available. Immunoassays can identify infections via antibodies and pathogen epitopes, making them extremely flexible [8][10][11]. Because of the lack of antibodies and the need for extremely sensitive findings, or because the pathogen is present but does not create a significant number of antibodies, DNA-based tests are widely utilized in diagnostics [8][10]. Detecting pathogens that have recently been present in a sample is essential for DNA-based testing to work. Toxins, antibodies, and genes that create toxins can be used to identify pathogens. Toxins, nucleic acids, and viruses are examples of pathogen detection targets. There are many biorecognition components to choose from, from antibodies to aptamers to imprinted polymers [12][13][14]. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [15] and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [16][17] have been extensively studied for the detection of infections.
Because of its high sensitivity and specificity, applicability in monitoring, early detection of biothreat agents, and antimicrobial resistance profiling, PCR technology (conventional and real-time PCR) is most frequently utilized in pathogen detection [18][19]. However, it has shortcomings, including the inability to distinguish between infections with identical genetic composition. For instance, when PCR has been used to identify Listeria monocytogenes [20] and Bacillus cereus [21], respectively, false signals of Listeria innocua and Bacillus thuringiensis have been recorded [22]. The inability of PCR to distinguish between the DNA of dead and living cells is another significant drawback, and this issue is crucial for the food sector, regulatory bodies, and the customer [19][22].
ELISA demonstrates the following benefits: (1) a straightforward process using affordable equipment; (2) high sensitivity and specificity because of an antigen-antibody response; (3) high efficiency since many analyses can be run simultaneously without extensive sample pre-treatment; (4) generally safe and environmentally benign because no radioactive materials or significant quantities of organic solvents are needed; and (5) as low-cost reagents are utilized, the assay is cost-effective. ELISA, however, has the following drawbacks: (1) antibody preparation is time-consuming and costly because it requires a sophisticated technique and expensive culture cell media to produce a particular antibody; (2) a high likelihood of erroneous positive or negative results exists because the surface of the microtiter plate immobilized with antigen has not been sufficiently blocked; (3) antibody instability exists because an antibody is a protein that needs to be transported and stored in a refrigerator; and (4) it has restricted use in foods with a solid matrix or that are viscous, such as peanut butter, jam, and honey [22][23].
Even though label-free biosensors for pathogen detection can be useful for monitoring, they have seldom been reviewed. An analytical system is used in conjunction with a specific biorecognition element, such as a molecular probe, to measure one or more components of a sample. Although they can be extremely sensitive and robust, these testing methods are destructive. They need significant sample preparation and the addition of reagents, which prolongs the time it takes to obtain findings. The presence of background species in a sample can also inhibit bioanalytical techniques, such as PCR [24][25][26], increasing the amount of error introduced into the measurement process [27][28]. Plate-based bioanalytical systems have limitations and need continual real-time monitoring across several applications; hence, other bioanalytical processes should be investigated.
Merging of targeted biorecognition elements with very sensitive transducer components improves pathogen detection and quantification in biosensors. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) has said that, to create an effective biosensor, an element that may be directly connected to the biorecognition element must be included [29]. Although the biosensor can measure everything from droplet sizes to continuous flow forms, it must also be a self-contained, integrated instrument. Biosensors that can detect pathogens in real-time without sample preparation may now be used in several settings. A wide range of matrices and conditions may now be analyzed using biosensors, including food and body fluids, as well as surfaces of objects [30]. Biosensors allow both sample preparation-free and label-free approaches [31][32][33][34]. Examples of molecular species known as “reporters” include organic dyes and quantum dots. Biorecognition elements or secondary binding stages can be used to directly affix labels to a target or through a succession of sample preparation operations or secondary binding stages [35]. Consequently, label-free biosensors do not rely on a reporting species to detect the target species [36][37]. Using a label-free assay means fewer sample preparation steps and lower costs than using a label-based assay, both of which are key factors in applications with limited preparation facilities or trained personnel [36][37][38].
Pathogen biosensing transducers of many sorts have been examined [13][26][38]. Either mechanical or optical transducers, such as cantilever biosensors or surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based sensors can be used to detect infections [39][40][41]. A transducer consisting of conducting or semiconducting materials is used. An electrochemical approach can be used to convert the chemical energy released by pathogens and electrode-immobilized biorecognition components into electricity. Biosensors based on electrochemical processes are able to detect pathogens without the need for sample preparation, enabling in situ detection of pathogens on surfaces, quick and low-cost pathogen detection platforms, multiplexing pathogen detection, and wireless data collection actuation gathering (Table 1) [39][42][43][44][45][46]. Table 2 shows the chronological order of using biosensors to detect bacteria or viruses.
Table 1. Pathogen-based biorecognition elements.
Recognition Element Advantages Disadvantages Reference(s)
Antibodies High affinity
High selectivity		 Selectivity may be affected by antibody labeling
Alteration of binding affinity to antigen
Low temperature
High cost		 [47][48][49]
Carbohydrate binding proteins Binding ligands unique to the Target organism
Low cost
High-yield automated synthesis		 Pathogens detection abilities using electrochemical biosensors lack sufficient data [41][50]
Oligosaccharides Pathogens have receptors for
Carbohydrate-specific trisaccharides
Utilized with electrochemical biosensors		 Limited selectivity
Low affinity
Carbohydrate–protein interaction		 [41][51]
Oligonucleotides Utilized with electrochemical biosensors
Strong binding affinity and selectivity
Low cost
Feasible to extract and amplify particular binding sequences		 Possibility of cross-reactions
Lack of repeatability when using different procedures
Degradation of aptamers		 [52][53]
Cell-and molecular-imprinted polymers Use morphology particular to target Poor selectivity [54][55]
Phages Utilized with electrochemical biosensors
Effective biorecognition component in water monitoring		 High cost [56][57]
Table 2. Chronological table of biosensor usage for bacterial or viral detection.
Bacteria/Virus Method and Materials Biorecognition Element * LOD/LOQ Year Reference(s)
E. coli Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy Polyclonal anti-E. coli 104 CFU/mL 2005 [58]
V. cholerae Carbon electrode Polyclonal anti-V. cholerae 8 CFU/mL 2006 [59]
L. monocytogenes Electrode nanostructuring Monoclonal anti-L. monocytogenes 4.7 × 102 CFU/mL 2008 [60]
S. typhimurium Ceramic electrodes Anti-S. typhimurium 103 CFU/mL 2009 [61]
West Nile virus (WNV) Anodic stripping voltammetry Monoclonal anti-WNV 0.02 viruses/mL 2009 [62]
B. anthracis Ag electrode (Conductometry) Monoclonal and polyclonal anti-B. anthracis 420 spores/mL 2009 [63]
Campylobacter jejuni Nanoparticles on carbon electrode Monoclonal anti-Flagellin A 103 CFU/mL 2010 [64]
Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) Nanofiber array electrode (Conductometry) Monoclonal and polyclonal anti-BVDV 103 CCID **/mL 2010 [65]
Helicobacter pylori Graphene interdigitated microelectrode array (Conductometry) Odoranin-HP peptide 100 cells 2012 [66]
L. innocua Phage L. innocua-specific bacteriophage 1.1 × 104–105 CFU/mL 2012 [67]
E. coli Cell- and molecularly imprinted polymers Anti-E. coli 1.6 × 108 Cells/mL 2014 [68]
E. coli Composite on carbon electrode Anti-E. coli 13 CFU/mL 2014 [69]
S. typhimurium Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) Monoclonal anti-S. typhimurium 3 × 103 CFU/mL 2015 [70]
Enterococcus faecalis Carbon-based electrodes on Au electrode Clavanin A peptide 103 CFU/mL 2015 [71]
Dengue virus AuNPs on Au electrode Anti-DENV --------------- 2015 [72]
Norovirus Au microelectrode (square wave voltammetry) Anti-norovirus aptamer 10 PFU ***/mL 2016 [73]
Rotavirus Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) and nano structuring Anti-rotavirus 2.3 PFU/mL
R2 ****: 0.993		 2016 [74]
S. epidermidis Au microelectrode (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy) S. epidermidis-imprinted polymer film 103 CFU/mL 2017 [75]
Influenza A virus (H1N1) Oligosaccharides (PEDOT:PSS) Hemagglutinin-specific trisaccharide ligand 0.13 HAU ***** 2017 [51]
E. coli and human influenza A virus Polymer electrode Hemagglutinin-specific trisaccharide ligand 0.025 HAU 2018 [76]
E. coli Carbohydrate binding proteins Anti-E. coli 12 CFU/ml
-----------------
6.0 × 103–9.2 × 107 CFU/mL		 2011
------
2019		 [41][77]
SARS-CoV-2 CRISPER-Cas --------------- Fold change: 10 2020 [78]
S. typhimurium DNA functionalized Amine labeled S. Typhi 6.8 × 10−25 molL−1 2022 [79]
SARS-CoV-2 Electrochemical immunosensor SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 12 ng/mL–40 ng/mL 2022 [80]
Application of real (sometimes complex) samples at the point-of-care (POC) and in the field is one of the issues that researchers are still attempting to solve for all types of biosensors. The type of instrument required to advance electrochemical biosensors to point-of-care has been made available by screen-printing technology [81]. Because of their reliability, reproducibility, mass production, and low cost, screen-printed electrodes (SPEs), which first debuted in the 1990s, have significantly contributed to the advancement of electrochemical biosensors [81][82][83]. SPEs have been found to be flexible tools that could be molded into many shapes, manufactured of various materials, and modified with a range of biological components, including enzymes, antibodies, DNA, synthetic recognition elements, and others [82]. Additionally, when using the enhanced electrocatalytic characteristics of nanoparticles, modifications with a variety of nanomaterials and synthetic recognition elements have been used to increase sensitivity [82]. For instance, nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes, graphene, gold nanoparticles, etc.) applied on an SPE’s working electrode (WE) can greatly increase surface activity due to their superior electrocatalytic capabilities and substantially larger specific surface area. This technique can be carried out automatically on the planar SPE by a mass-producible dispenser or just before mixing the modifier with the ink while printing. One benefit of this improvement is that it can aid in the direct detection of some conductive analytes. In addition, it is frequently used to enhance the immobilization of the recognition element, which is frequently a biomolecule, to facilitate analyte identification and signal transduction [84].
Additionally, the appealing characteristics of carbon—chemical inertness, low background currents, and a broad potential window—have attracted a large amount of attention to SPEs. In addition to carbon, which is still the most affordable option, other metals such as gold also have advantages. The suitability of gold SPEs in electrochemical biosensors has been greatly increased by the affinity between thiol moieties and gold, which enables SPEs with gold working electrodes to be easily adjusted with the production of self-assembled monolayers [81].

2. Transduction Elements

The working electrode is often the principal transduction element when employing an electrochemical biosensor. Conventionally, a three-electrode potentiostat system employs three electrodes; however, conductometry and impedance measurements often utilize two electrodes (working and auxiliary). Manufacture of electrodes can use a range of materials and procedures. Electrons and holes pass through an electrode to transfer charge. Electrodes are made from conductive and semiconducting materials such as gold (Au) and carbon (C). Different manufacturing methods may be utilized to make electrodes of different sizes. For instance, Fortunati et al. recently quantified the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using an Internet of Things-Wifi (IoT-WiFi) smart and portable electrochemical immunosensor (Figure 2) with integrated machine learning characteristics. Based on the immobilization of monoclonal antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit on screen-printed electrodes (SPEs) functionalized with gold nanoparticles, the immunoenzymatic sensor was developed. The working electrode diameter of the SPEs was 4 mm, and their dimensions were 3.4 × 1.0 × 0.05 cm. The counter electrode was made of carbon, while the reference electrode and electrical connections were silver [80].
Biosensors 12 00927 g002
Figure 2. The smart portable wireless potentiostat for Rapid Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. Reprinted with permission from ref. [80].
An electrode’s material type, manufacturing method, and design all play a role in categorizing it. The form factor may be used to classify electrode designs into planar, wire, nanostructured, and array-based types of structures. A biosensor’s ability to detect a specific biological agent, and its sensitivity and dynamic range, are determined by the electrode’s shape and characteristics and the material, production technique, and design of the biosensor. As a result, the entire cost of the biosensor is significantly affected [85].

2.1. Metal Electrodes

The detection of pathogens has traditionally relied on gold (Au) and platinum (Pt) electrodes. A cutting process is commonly used to create thick metal electrodes. Traditional microfabrication methods, such as physical vapor deposition and screen printing, are frequently used to make thin-film metal electrodes [86][87]. Transducer elements are often built using Teflon, polyether ketone (PEK), and glass as insulating polymers or ceramic substrates for the resulting conductive components. Pathogen detection applications have yet to utilize 3D printing technologies such as inkjet printing [88][89][90]. Selective laser melting and microextrusion printing have also been employed to manufacture electrochemical sensors and electrodes. The detection limits of unstructured metal electrodes can vary widely. These biosensors for bacteria have detection limits of 1 to 104 CFU/mL, for example, using unstructured metal electrodes [91][92][93].

2.2. Ceramic Electrodes

Pathogens in food may be detected using semiconducting and conducting ceramics such as indium tin oxide (ITO), polysilicon, and titanium dioxide (TiO2). A silicon electrode was used by Das et al. to detect Salmonella typhimurium (S. typhimurium) [61]. Antibody-functionalized indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes developed by Barreiros dos Santos et al. can detect E. coli, according to researchers [94]. Specifically, ITO’s high conductivity and transparency directly correlate with biosensor response and pathogen surface coverage [95][96]. Due to ITO’s high conductivity and transparency, biosensor response and pathogen surface coverage are linked [97].

2.3. Polymer Electrodes

Pathogen-detecting electrodes have also been made from polymers. Polymers are not just good for human health and the environment, but are also relatively low-cost. Various biorecognition element immobilization techniques are also compatible with polymer electrodes [98][99]. Implantable and wearable biosensors require electrode–tissue mechanical matching, which is made possible by polymers’ mechanical properties. An (organic) conjugated polymer (CP) electrode or a polymer composite can be categorized as a type of polymer electrode, and they have long been used for pathogen detection [100][101][102].
Remarkable transparency, biocompatibility, low oxidation potential, outstanding conductivity, ease of fabrication, low cost, and a small band gap (e.g., 1.6 eV) are some of the special qualities of organic CPs [103][104][105]. Poly (acetylene), poly (pyrrole), poly(thiophene), poly(terthiophene), poly(aniline), poly(fluorine), poly (3-alkylthiophene), poly tetrathiafulvalene, poly naphthalene, and poly (p-phenylene sulfide), poly(para-phenylene vinylene) are examples of common types of organic CPs [103][105].
E. coli and human influenza A virus were detected using spin-coated films coated with poly (3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene) [76]. Organic CPs’ semiconducting nature gives them unique optical and optoelectronic capabilities. Thus, synthetic chemists’ capacity to modify the chemical structures of polymerized monomers allows for the design and tweaking of CPs for particular purposes [105].
Polymer composite electrodes, which comprise a nonconductive polymer combined with a conductive one, frequently conduct or convey scattered words. Dispersed phases such as graphite or gold nanoparticle (AuNP)-graphene or carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have been widely employed in conjunction with different polymers, including poly ethyleneimine (PEI), poly allylamine (PA), and chitosan (PAA) [106][107][108][109].
Researchers have developed a poly allylamine/CNT polymer composite electrode that may be used for anodic stripping voltammetry to detect bacteria including E. coli, S. typehimurium, and Campylobacter at concentrations as low as 103–105 cells/mL [109]. S. typhimurium was detected using AuNP-coated synthetic polymer composite electrodes made of poly (amidoamine), carbon nanotubes, and chitosan [106][110].
Polymer composite electrodes have a detection limit of 1–103 CFU/mL, which is equivalent to that of metal and polymer electrodes. Nanomaterials may be disseminated throughout the polymer in polymer composite electrodes rather than using electrode nanostructuring methods. Polymer electrodes have risen in popularity because of the growing need for flexible biosensors. Electrodes consisting of a polymer or a film that may be affixed to a flexible substrate, such as paper, are among the most recent biosensor technologies being researched [111], because 3D printing processes are compatible with conjugated polymers and composites of polymers [112][113]. Additionally, polymer electrodes are becoming attractive candidates for wearable biosensors that can conform to the wearer’s body [114][115]. Regarding polymer electrodes, the most common form factor is a thin film, but nanowires and nanofibers can also be used [115][116].

2.4. The shape and Design of the Electrodes

Electrodes made from Au have been utilized to detect infections of all forms and sizes. Advanced masks and programmable tool paths can be utilized to create electrodes using lithography and 3D printing [117][118]. In addition to complicated form factors, electrode patterning may be used to fabricate electrode arrays using lithographic, 3D printing, and assembly techniques [118]. Biosensor sensitivity and multiplexing have been improved by electrode arrays, which include interdigitated microelectrodes and other patterned electrodes. There are alternating, parallel fingers on the electrodes in an interdigitated array microelectrode (IDAM) with excellent response time [119]. For pathogen detection, Au interdigitated microelectrode arrays are a popular choice.
S. typhimurium can be detected using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) using interdigitated Au micro electron arrays, such as those used by Dastider et al. [70]. Detection of S. typhimurium has also been performed utilizing interdigitated arrays of ceramic electrodes such as ITO [66][120]. Electrode arrays with geometries other than interdigitated designs can be made using the aforementioned emerging manufacturing processes for electrochemical sensing applications. Arrays of silver (Ag) microelectrodes may be created using aerosol jet additive manufacturing [121].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/bios12110927

References

  1. Dye, C. After 2015: Infectious diseases in a new era of health and development. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 20130426.
  2. Khan, R.S.; Khurshid, Z.; Yahya Ibrahim Asiri, F. Advancing point-of-care (poc) testing using human saliva as liquid biopsy. Diagnostics 2017, 7, 39.
  3. Moonla, C.; Lee, D.H.; Rokaya, D.; Rasitanon, N.; Kathayat, G.; Lee, W.-Y.; Kim, J.; Jeerapan, I. Review—Lab-in-a-mouth and advanced point-of-care sensing systems: Detecting bioinformation from the oral cavity and saliva. ECS Sens. Plus 2022, 1, 021603.
  4. Nasrollahzadeh, M.; Sajjadi, M.; Soufi, G.J.; Iravani, S.; Varma, R.S. Nanomaterials and nanotechnology-associated innovations against viral infections with a focus on coronaviruses. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1072.
  5. Hamid, H.; Khurshid, Z.; Adanir, N.; Zafar, M.S.; Zohaib, S. COVID-19 pandemic and role of human saliva as a testing biofluid in point-of-care technology. Eur. J. Dent. 2020, 14, S123–S129.
  6. Yi, Z.; de Dieu Habimana, J.; Mukama, O.; Li, Z.; Odiwuor, N.; Jing, H.; Nie, C.; Hu, M.; Lin, Z.; Wei, H.; et al. Rational programming of cas12a for early-stage detection of COVID-19 by lateral flow assay and portable real-time fluorescence readout facilities. Biosensors 2022, 12, 11.
  7. Simoska, O.; Stevenson, K.J. Electrochemical sensors for rapid diagnosis of pathogens in real time. Analyst 2019, 144, 6461–6478.
  8. Dhar, B.C. Diagnostic assay and technology advancement for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections causing the COVID-19 pandemic. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2022, 414, 2903–2934.
  9. Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Song, X.; Xu, K.; Chen, H.; Zhao, C.; Li, J. Colorimetric immunoassay for listeria monocytogenes by using core gold nanoparticles, silver nanoclusters as oxidase mimetics, and aptamer-conjugated magnetic nanoparticles. Microchim. Acta 2018, 185, 360.
  10. Cesewski, E.; Johnson, B.N. Electrochemical biosensors for pathogen detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 159, 112214.
  11. Cassedy, A.; Parle-McDermott, A.; O’Kennedy, R. Virus detection: A review of the current and emerging molecular and immunological methods. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021, 76, 637559.
  12. Alahi, M.E.E.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Detection methodologies for pathogen and toxins: A review. Sensors 2017, 17, 1885.
  13. Lazcka, O.; Del Campo, F.J.; Munoz, F.X. Pathogen detection: A perspective of traditional methods and biosensors. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2007, 22, 1205–1217.
  14. Zhao, G.; Xing, F.; Deng, S. A disposable amperometric enzyme immunosensor for rapid detection of vibrio parahaemolyticus in food based on agarose/nano-au membrane and screen-printed electrode. Electrochem. Commun. 2007, 9, 1263–1268.
  15. Law, J.W.-F.; Ab Mutalib, N.-S.; Chan, K.-G.; Lee, L.-H. Rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens: Principles, applications, advantages and limitations. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 770.
  16. Klein, D. Quantification using real-time pcr technology: Applications and limitations. Trends Mol. Med. 2002, 8, 257–260.
  17. Malorny, B.; Tassios, P.T.; Rådström, P.; Cook, N.; Wagner, M.; Hoorfar, J. Standardization of diagnostic pcr for the detection of foodborne pathogens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 83, 39–48.
  18. Yang, S.; Rothman, R.E. Pcr-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: Uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2004, 4, 337–348.
  19. Zeng, D.; Chen, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Xue, F.; Li, B. Advances and challenges in viability detection of foodborne pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1833.
  20. Czajka, J.; Bsat, N.; Piani, M.; Russ, W.; Sultana, K.; Wiedmann, M.; Whitaker, R.; Batt, C. Differentiation of listeria monocytogenes and listeria innocua by 16s rrna genes and intraspecies discrimination of listeria monocytogenes strains by random amplified polymorphic DNA polymorphisms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 304–308.
  21. Hansen, B.M.; Hendriksen, N.B. Detection of enterotoxic bacillus cereus and bacillus thuringiensis strains by pcr analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 185–189.
  22. Kim, S.-O.; Kim, S.-S. Bacterial pathogen detection by conventional culture-based and recent alternative (polymerase chain reaction, isothermal amplification, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, bacteriophage amplification, and gold nanoparticle aggregation) methods in food samples: A review. J. Food Saf. 2021, 41, e12870.
  23. Sakamoto, S.; Putalun, W.; Vimolmangkang, S.; Phoolcharoen, W.; Shoyama, Y.; Tanaka, H.; Morimoto, S. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the quantitative/qualitative analysis of plant secondary metabolites. J. Nat. Med. 2018, 72, 32–42.
  24. Justino, C.I.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T.A. Recent progress in biosensors for environmental monitoring: A review. Sensors 2017, 17, 2918.
  25. Scognamiglio, V.; Rea, G.; Arduini, F.; Palleschi, G. Biosensors for Sustainable Food-New Opportunities and Technical Challenges; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
  26. Sin, M.L.; Mach, K.E.; Wong, P.K.; Liao, J.C. Advances and challenges in biosensor-based diagnosis of infectious diseases. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2014, 14, 225–244.
  27. Clark, K.D.; Zhang, C.; Anderson, J.L. Sample Preparation for Bioanalytical and Pharmaceutical Analysis; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  28. Silverman, J.D.; Bloom, R.J.; Jiang, S.; Durand, H.K.; Mukherjee, S.; David, L.A. Measuring and mitigating pcr bias in microbiome data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2021, 17, e1009113.
  29. Thévenot, D.R.; Toth, K.; Durst, R.A.; Wilson, G.S. Electrochemical biosensors: Recommended definitions and classification. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2001, 16, 121–131.
  30. Ferrari, A.G.-M.; Crapnell, R.D.; Banks, C.E. Electroanalytical overview: Electrochemical sensing platforms for food and drink safety. Biosensors 2021, 11, 291.
  31. Daniels, J.S.; Pourmand, N. Label-free impedance biosensors: Opportunities and challenges. Electroanal. Int. J. Devoted Fundam. Pract. Asp. Electroanal. 2007, 19, 1239–1257.
  32. Rapp, B.E.; Gruhl, F.J.; Länge, K. Biosensors with label-free detection designed for diagnostic applications. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 398, 2403–2412.
  33. Sang, S.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Q.; Wei, Y.; Ji, J.; Zhang, W. Progress of new label-free techniques for biosensors: A review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2016, 36, 465–481.
  34. Vestergaard, M.; Kerman, K.; Tamiya, E. An overview of label-free electrochemical protein sensors. Sensors 2007, 7, 3442–3458.
  35. Resch-Genger, U.; Grabolle, M.; Cavaliere-Jaricot, S.; Nitschke, R.; Nann, T. Quantum dots versus organic dyes as fluorescent labels. Nat. Methods 2008, 5, 763–775.
  36. Cooper, M.A. Label-Free Biosensors: Techniques and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009.
  37. Syahir, A.; Usui, K.; Tomizaki, K.-y.; Kajikawa, K.; Mihara, H. Label and label-free detection techniques for protein microarrays. Microarrays 2015, 4, 228–244.
  38. Yoo, S.M.; Lee, S.Y. Optical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic microorganisms. Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 7–25.
  39. Felix, F.S.; Angnes, L. Electrochemical immunosensors–a powerful tool for analytical applications. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 102, 470–478.
  40. Da Silva Neves, M.M.P.; González-García, M.B.; Hernandez-Santos, D.; Fanjul-Bolado, P. Future trends in the market for electrochemical biosensing. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2018, 10, 107–111.
  41. Saucedo, N.M.; Srinives, S.; Mulchandani, A. Electrochemical biosensor for rapid detection of viable bacteria and antibiotic screening. J. Anal. Test. 2019, 3, 117–122.
  42. Amiri, M.; Bezaatpour, A.; Jafari, H.; Boukherroub, R.; Szunerits, S. Electrochemical methodologies for the detection of pathogens. ACS Sens. 2018, 3, 1069–1086.
  43. Duffy, G.; Moore, E. Electrochemical immunosensors for food analysis: A review of recent developments. Anal. Lett. 2017, 50, 1–32.
  44. Furst, A.L.; Francis, M.B. Impedance-based detection of bacteria. Chem. Rev. 2018, 119, 700–726.
  45. Mishra, G.K.; Sharma, V.; Mishra, R.K. Electrochemical aptasensors for food and environmental safeguarding: A review. Biosensors 2018, 8, 28.
  46. Monzó, J.; Insua, I.; Fernandez-Trillo, F.; Rodriguez, P. Fundamentals, achievements and challenges in the electrochemical sensing of pathogens. Analyst 2015, 140, 7116–7128.
  47. Chin, S.F.; Lim, L.S.; Pang, S.C.; Sum, M.S.H.; Perera, D. Carbon nanoparticle modified screen printed carbon electrode as a disposable electrochemical immunosensor strip for the detection of japanese encephalitis virus. Microchim. Acta 2017, 184, 491–497.
  48. Bhardwaj, J.; Devarakonda, S.; Kumar, S.; Jang, J. Development of a paper-based electrochemical immunosensor using an antibody-single walled carbon nanotubes bio-conjugate modified electrode for label-free detection of foodborne pathogens. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 253, 115–123.
  49. Mathelié-Guinlet, M.; Cohen-Bouhacina, T.; Gammoudi, I.; Martin, A.; Beven, L.; Delville, M.-H.; Grauby-Heywang, C. Silica nanoparticles-assisted electrochemical biosensor for the rapid, sensitive and specific detection of escherichia coli. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2019, 292, 314–320.
  50. Zhang, Q.; Li, L.; Qiao, Z.; Lei, C.; Fu, Y.; Xie, Q.; Yao, S.; Li, Y.; Ying, Y. Electrochemical conversion of Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles to electroactive prussian blue analogues for self-sacrificial label biosensing of avian influenza virus h5n1. Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 12145–12151.
  51. Hai, W.; Goda, T.; Takeuchi, H.; Yamaoka, S.; Horiguchi, Y.; Matsumoto, A.; Miyahara, Y. Specific recognition of human influenza virus with pedot bearing sialic acid-terminated trisaccharides. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 14162–14170.
  52. Chand, R.; Neethirajan, S. Microfluidic platform integrated with graphene-gold nano-composite aptasensor for one-step detection of norovirus. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 98, 47–53.
  53. Abbaspour, A.; Norouz-Sarvestani, F.; Noori, A.; Soltani, N. Aptamer-conjugated silver nanoparticles for electrochemical dual-aptamer-based sandwich detection of staphylococcus aureus. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 68, 149–155.
  54. Idil, N.; Hedström, M.; Denizli, A.; Mattiasson, B. Whole cell based microcontact imprinted capacitive biosensor for the detection of escherichia coli. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 87, 807–815.
  55. Nahhas, A.F.; Nahhas, A.F.; Webster, T.J. Nanoscale pathogens treated with nanomaterial-like peptides: A platform technology appropriate for future pandemics. Nanomedicine 2021, 16, 1237–1254.
  56. Huang, C.; Zhao, J.; Lu, R.; Wang, J.; Nugen, S.R.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X. A phage-based magnetic relaxation switching biosensor using bioorthogonal reaction signal amplification for salmonella detection in foods. Food Chem. 2023, 400, 134035.
  57. Wang, J.; Li, H.; Li, C.; Ding, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, W.; Wang, J.; Shao, Y.; Pan, H.; Wang, X. Eis biosensor based on a novel myoviridae bacteriophage sep37 for rapid and specific detection of salmonella in food matrixes. Food Res. Int. 2022, 158, 111479.
  58. Radke, S.M.; Alocilja, E.C. A high density microelectrode array biosensor for detection of E. Coli O157: H7. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2005, 20, 1662–1667.
  59. Sharma, M.; Goel, A.; Singh, L.; Rao, V. Immunological biosensor for detection of vibrio cholerae o1in environmental water samples. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 22, 1155–1159.
  60. Wang, R.; Ruan, C.; Kanayeva, D.; Lassiter, K.; Li, Y. Tio2 nanowire bundle microelectrode based impedance immunosensor for rapid and sensitive detection of listeria monocytogenes. Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 2625–2631.
  61. Das, R.D.; RoyChaudhuri, C.; Maji, S.; Das, S.; Saha, H. Macroporous silicon based simple and efficient trapping platform for electrical detection of salmonella typhimurium pathogens. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2009, 24, 3215–3222.
  62. Nguyen, B.T.; Koh, G.; Lim, H.S.; Chua, A.J.; Ng, M.M.; Toh, C.-S. Membrane-based electrochemical nanobiosensor for the detection of virus. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 7226–7234.
  63. Pal, S.; Alocilja, E.C. Electrically active polyaniline coated magnetic (eapm) nanoparticle as novel transducer in biosensor for detection of bacillus anthracis spores in food samples. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2009, 24, 1437–1444.
  64. Huang, J.; Yang, G.; Meng, W.; Wu, L.; Zhu, A. An electrochemical impedimetric immunosensor for label-free detection of campylobacter jejuni in diarrhea patients’ stool based on o-carboxymethylchitosan surface modified Fe3O4 nanoparticles. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010, 25, 1204–1211.
  65. Luo, Y.; Nartker, S.; Miller, H.; Hochhalter, D.; Wiederoder, M.; Wiederoder, S.; Setterington, E.; Drzal, L.T.; Alocilja, E.C. Surface functionalization of electrospun nanofibers for detecting E. Coli O157: H7 and bvdv cells in a direct-charge transfer biosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010, 26, 1612–1617.
  66. Mannoor, M.S.; Tao, H.; Clayton, J.D.; Sengupta, A.; Kaplan, D.L.; Naik, R.R.; Verma, N.; Omenetto, F.G.; McAlpine, M.C. Graphene-based wireless bacteria detection on tooth enamel. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 763.
  67. Tolba, M.; Ahmed, M.U.; Tlili, C.; Eichenseher, F.; Loessner, M.J.; Zourob, M. A bacteriophage endolysin-based electrochemical impedance biosensor for the rapid detection of listeria cells. Analyst 2012, 137, 5749–5756.
  68. Samardzic, R.; Sussitz, H.F.; Jongkon, N.; Lieberzeit, P.A. Quartz crystal microbalance in-line sensing of Escherichia coli in a bioreactor using molecularly imprinted polymers. Sens. Lett. 2014, 12, 1152–1155.
  69. Chen, G.-Z.; Yin, Z.-Z.; Lou, J.-F. Electrochemical immunoassay of Escherichia coli O157: H7 using 2 nanoparticles as labels. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2014, 2014, 247034.
  70. Dastider, S.G.; Barizuddin, S.; Yuksek, N.S.; Dweik, M.; Almasri, M.F. Efficient and rapid detection of salmonella using microfluidic impedance based sensing. J. Sens. 2015, 2015, 293461.
  71. Andrade, C.A.; Nascimento, J.M.; Oliveira, I.S.; de Oliveira, C.V.; de Melo, C.P.; Franco, O.L.; Oliveira, M.D. Nanostructured sensor based on carbon nanotubes and clavanin a for bacterial detection. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2015, 135, 833–839.
  72. Luna, D.M.; Avelino, K.Y.; Cordeiro, M.T.; Andrade, C.A.; Oliveira, M.D. Electrochemical immunosensor for dengue virus serotypes based on 4-mercaptobenzoic acid modified gold nanoparticles on self-assembled cysteine monolayers. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2015, 220, 565–572.
  73. Kitajima, M.; Wang, N.; Tay, M.Q.; Miao, J.; Whittle, A.J. Development of a mems-based electrochemical aptasensor for norovirus detection. Micro Nano Lett. 2016, 11, 582–585.
  74. Attar, A.; Mandli, J.; Ennaji, M.M.; Amine, A. Label-free electrochemical impedance detection of rotavirus based on immobilized antibodies on gold sononanoparticles. Electroanalysis 2016, 28, 1839–1846.
  75. Golabi, M.; Kuralay, F.; Jager, E.W.; Beni, V.; Turner, A.P. Electrochemical bacterial detection using poly (3-aminophenylboronic acid)-based imprinted polymer. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 93, 87–93.
  76. Hai, W.; Goda, T.; Takeuchi, H.; Yamaoka, S.; Horiguchi, Y.; Matsumoto, A.; Miyahara, Y. Human influenza virus detection using sialyllactose-functionalized organic electrochemical transistors. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 260, 635–641.
  77. Jantra, J.; Kanatharana, P.; Asawatreratanakul, P.; Hedström, M.; Mattiasson, B.; Thavarungkul, P. Real-time label-free affinity biosensors for enumeration of total bacteria based on immobilized concanavalin a. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2011, 46, 1450–1460.
  78. Hou, T.; Zeng, W.; Yang, M.; Chen, W.; Ren, L.; Ai, J.; Wu, J.; Liao, Y.; Gou, X.; Li, Y. Development and evaluation of a rapid crispr-based diagnostic for COVID-19. PLoS Pathog. 2020, 16, e1008705.
  79. Bacchu, M.S.; Ali, M.R.; Das, S.; Akter, S.; Sakamoto, H.; Suye, S.I.; Rahman, M.M.; Campbell, K.; Khan, M.Z.H. A DNA functionalized advanced electrochemical biosensor for identification of the foodborne pathogen salmonella enterica serovar typhi in real samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 2022, 1192, 339332.
  80. Fortunati, S.; Giliberti, C.; Giannetto, M.; Bolchi, A.; Ferrari, D.; Donofrio, G.; Bianchi, V.; Boni, A.; De Munari, I.; Careri, M. Rapid quantification of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein enhanced with a machine learning technique integrated in a smart and portable immunosensor. Biosensors 2022, 12, 426.
  81. Yamanaka, K.; Vestergaard, M.d.C.; Tamiya, E. Printable electrochemical biosensors: A focus on screen-printed electrodes and their application. Sensors 2016, 16, 1761.
  82. Arduini, F.; Micheli, L.; Moscone, D.; Palleschi, G.; Piermarini, S.; Ricci, F.; Volpe, G. Electrochemical biosensors based on nanomodified screen-printed electrodes: Recent applications in clinical analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2016, 79, 114–126.
  83. Singh, S.; Wang, J.; Cinti, S. An overview on recent progress in screen-printed electroanalytical (bio) sensors. ECS Sens. Plus 2022, 1, 023401.
  84. Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, G.; Xu, C.; Wu, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J. Applications of electrochemical biosensors based on functional antibody modified screen printed electrodes: A review. Anal. Methods 2021, 14, 7–16.
  85. Faulkner, L.R.; Bard, A.J. Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
  86. Hierlemann, A.; Brand, O.; Hagleitner, C.; Baltes, H. Microfabrication techniques for chemical/biosensors. Proc. IEEE 2003, 91, 839–863.
  87. Taleat, Z.; Khoshroo, A.; Mazloum-Ardakani, M. Screen-printed electrodes for biosensing: A review (2008–2013). Microchim. Acta 2014, 181, 865–891.
  88. Bhat, K.S.; Ahmad, R.; Yoo, J.-Y.; Hahn, Y.-B. Fully nozzle-jet printed non-enzymatic electrode for biosensing application. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 512, 480–488.
  89. Medina-Sánchez, M.; Martínez-Domingo, C.; Ramon, E.; Merkoçi, A. An inkjet-printed field-effect transistor for label-free biosensing. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2014, 24, 6291–6302.
  90. Pavinatto, F.J.; Paschoal, C.W.; Arias, A.C. Printed and flexible biosensor for antioxidants using interdigitated ink-jetted electrodes and gravure-deposited active layer. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 67, 553–559.
  91. Foo, C.; Lim, H.; Mahdi, M. Three-dimensional printed electrode and its novel applications in electronic devices. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7399.
  92. Loo, A.H.; Chua, C.K.; Pumera, M. DNA biosensing with 3d printing technology. Analyst 2017, 142, 279–283.
  93. Ambrosi, A.; Moo, J.G.S.; Pumera, M. Helical 3d-printed metal electrodes as custom-shaped 3d platform for electrochemical devices. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2016, 26, 698–703.
  94. Dos Santos, M.B.; Azevedo, S.; Agusil, J.; Prieto-Simón, B.; Sporer, C.; Torrents, E.; Juárez, A.; Teixeira, V.; Samitier, J. Label-free ito-based immunosensor for the detection of very low concentrations of pathogenic bacteria. Bioelectrochemistry 2015, 101, 146–152.
  95. Aydın, E.B.; Sezgintürk, M.K. Indium tin oxide (ito): A promising material in biosensing technology. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2017, 97, 309–315.
  96. Yang, L.; Li, Y. Afm and impedance spectroscopy characterization of the immobilization of antibodies on indium–tin oxide electrode through self-assembled monolayer of epoxysilane and their capture of Escherichia coli O157: H7. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2005, 20, 1407–1416.
  97. Wenzel, T.; Härtter, D.; Bombelli, P.; Howe, C.J.; Steiner, U. Porous translucent electrodes enhance current generation from photosynthetic biofilms. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1299.
  98. Guimard, N.K.; Gomez, N.; Schmidt, C.E. Conducting polymers in biomedical engineering. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2007, 32, 876–921.
  99. Arshak, K.; Velusamy, V.; Korostynska, O.; Oliwa-Stasiak, K.; Adley, C. Conducting polymers and their applications to biosensors: Emphasizing on foodborne pathogen detection. IEEE Sens. J. 2009, 9, 1942–1951.
  100. Kaur, G.; Adhikari, R.; Cass, P.; Bown, M.; Gunatillake, P. Electrically conductive polymers and composites for biomedical applications. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 37553–37567.
  101. Terán-Alcocer, Á.; Bravo-Plascencia, F.; Cevallos-Morillo, C.; Palma-Cando, A. Electrochemical sensors based on conducting polymers for the aqueous detection of biologically relevant molecules. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 252.
  102. Wang, G.; Morrin, A.; Li, M.; Liu, N.; Luo, X. Nanomaterial-doped conducting polymers for electrochemical sensors and biosensors. J. Mater. Chem. B 2018, 6, 4173–4190.
  103. Rahman, M.A.; Kumar, P.; Park, D.-S.; Shim, Y.-B. Electrochemical sensors based on organic conjugated polymers. Sensors 2008, 8, 118–141.
  104. Soylemez, S.; Kaya, H.Z.; Udum, Y.A.; Toppare, L. A multipurpose conjugated polymer: Electrochromic device and biosensor construction for glucose detection. Org. Electron. 2019, 65, 327–333.
  105. Pavase, T.R.; Lin, H.; Shaikh, Q.-u.-a.; Hussain, S.; Li, Z.; Ahmed, I.; Lv, L.; Sun, L.; Shah, S.B.H.; Kalhoro, M.T. Recent advances of conjugated polymer (cp) nanocomposite-based chemical sensors and their applications in food spoilage detection: A comprehensive review. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 273, 1113–1138.
  106. Dong, J.; Zhao, H.; Xu, M.; Ma, Q.; Ai, S. A label-free electrochemical impedance immunosensor based on aunps/pamam-mwcnt-chi nanocomposite modified glassy carbon electrode for detection of salmonella typhimurium in milk. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 1980–1986.
  107. Lee, D.; Chander, Y.; Goyal, S.M.; Cui, T. Carbon nanotube electric immunoassay for the detection of swine influenza virus h1n1. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011, 26, 3482–3487.
  108. Li, Y.; Cheng, P.; Gong, J.; Fang, L.; Deng, J.; Liang, W.; Zheng, J. Amperometric immunosensor for the detection of Escherichia Coli O157: H7 in food specimens. Anal. Biochem. 2012, 421, 227–233.
  109. Viswanathan, S.; Rani, C.; Ho, J.-a.A. Electrochemical immunosensor for multiplexed detection of food-borne pathogens using nanocrystal bioconjugates and mwcnt screen-printed electrode. Talanta 2012, 94, 315–319.
  110. Tamara, F.R.; Lin, C.; Mi, F.-L.; Ho, Y.-C. Antibacterial effects of chitosan/cationic peptide nanoparticles. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 88.
  111. Xu, M.; Obodo, D.; Yadavalli, V.K. The design, fabrication, and applications of flexible biosensing devices. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 124, 96–114.
  112. Kong, Y.L.; Tamargo, I.A.; Kim, H.; Johnson, B.N.; Gupta, M.K.; Koh, T.-W.; Chin, H.-A.; Steingart, D.A.; Rand, B.P.; McAlpine, M.C. 3d printed quantum dot light-emitting diodes. Nano Lett. 2014, 14, 7017–7023.
  113. Liu, S.; He, P.; Hussain, S.; Lu, H.; Zhou, X.; Lv, F.; Liu, L.; Dai, Z.; Wang, S. Conjugated polymer-based photoelectrochemical cytosensor with turn-on enable signal for sensitive cell detection. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 6618–6623.
  114. Kim, J.; Campbell, A.S.; de Ávila, B.E.-F.; Wang, J. Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 389–406.
  115. Mohankumar, P.; Ajayan, J.; Mohanraj, T.; Yasodharan, R. Recent developments in biosensors for healthcare and biomedical applications: A review. Measurement 2021, 167, 108293.
  116. Lee, Y.; Kim, J.; Joo, H.; Raj, M.S.; Ghaffari, R.; Kim, D.H. Wearable sensing systems with mechanically soft assemblies of nanoscale materials. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2017, 2, 1700053.
  117. Cesewski, E.; Haring, A.P.; Tong, Y.; Singh, M.; Thakur, R.; Laheri, S.; Read, K.A.; Powell, M.D.; Oestreich, K.J.; Johnson, B.N. Additive manufacturing of three-dimensional (3d) microfluidic-based microelectromechanical systems (mems) for acoustofluidic applications. Lab A Chip 2018, 18, 2087–2098.
  118. Xu, Y.; Wu, X.; Guo, X.; Kong, B.; Zhang, M.; Qian, X.; Mi, S.; Sun, W. The boom in 3d-printed sensor technology. Sensors 2017, 17, 1166.
  119. Varshney, M.; Li, Y. Interdigitated array microelectrodes based impedance biosensors for detection of bacterial cells. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2009, 24, 2951–2960.
  120. Yang, L.; Li, Y. Detection of viable salmonella using microelectrode-based capacitance measurement coupled with immunomagnetic separation. J. Microbiol. Methods 2006, 64, 9–16.
  121. Yang, H.; Rahman, M.T.; Du, D.; Panat, R.; Lin, Y. 3-d printed adjustable microelectrode arrays for electrochemical sensing and biosensing. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 230, 600–606.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback