In research publications, it is often said that electrochemical sensors and biosensors are simple, portable, and easy-to-use. However, optical sensors (mainly colorimetry and fluorescence) are widely used in real clinical analysis, not electrochemical (except glucose sensor). ELISA, PCR, or whatever the biosensors, colorimetry, or fluorescence read-out are preferable, while electrochemical biosensors are seldom preferred by clinicians, why?
Veerappan Mani , I suspect because electrochemical sensors are not as robust in terms of analyte specificity for desire analytical outcomes. ELISA is very specific to an antigen and PCR simply amplifies the quantity of DNA so that it can be analyzed. Colorimetry and fluorescence are general techniques until coupled with specimen preparation techniques. Electrochemical sensors simply don't have the necessary complex separation and preparation techniques incorporated for specific analyte detection. In the future this seems like a realistic possibility, where are the analyses that highlights the gaps?
Cory is correct. Electrochemical sensors suffer from poor durability and poor selectivity. The main area, where electrochemical sensors are preferred over optical, is intercellular junctions. Only electrochem. sensors provide simultaneously good spatial and temporal resolutions, as well as superior sensitivity.
Cory Jensen Thank you for your comment. I think specificity is not a problem as long as antibodies are used. Let's say ELISA. The sensing architecture is common for all biosensors, only signal-read outs vary. But the question is when clinicians are comfortable with using colorimetry as a signal read-out, why don't they use electrochemical signal read-outs?
Yuriy Tolmachev Thank you for your comment. You have mentioned that the electrochemical sensors are preferred over optical in intercellular junctions. Can you elaborate on this topic?
Most if not all the commercially available electrochemical sensors are based on the use of second generation method which involves the use of the mediators. This generation has the problems of the interferences and short shelf life. Many researchers believe that the third generation electrochemical sensors will be the first future choice.
Veerappan Mani , definitely ELISA's are specific. However, I think of a sensor as a single integrated device with it's own specific signal transmission steps and ELISA's as assays. In that case, I think analytical devices are designed for ease of use. Therefore, because an assay has limited use, its more simple and more cost effective to use colormetric methods with reagents than incorporate microelectronics.
Firas A. Al-Lolage , I am interested in the different generations of e-ELISA technology (if that is what you are referring to), is there a good review of how the technology has changed?
Optical sensors usually do not have the capability to provide mM sensitivity with um resolution. Electrochemical sensors provide both simultaneously.
The problem associated with EC sensors is not their feeble selectivity because EC sensors have also enough selectivity and specificity. Even, the EC sensors are more sensitive. In my opinion, less availability of EC sensors in device format may be the concerned issue of least usability by clinicians. I think, the future of mediator-free EC sensors based devices will be more brighter.
Quite simply because they are not yet sure of their effectiveness, electrochemicals should increase their research work to succeed in convincing clinicians and giving them more confidence.
file:///C:/Users/MES2020/Downloads/JIDIT-21-1000168%20_%20Galley%20Proof.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic