Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biomicrofluidics logoLink to Biomicrofluidics
. 2024 Sep 4;18(5):051501. doi: 10.1063/5.0224217

Recent advances in portable devices for environmental monitoring applications

Thi Ngoc Diep Trinh 1, Nguyen Khoi Song Tran 2, Hanh An Nguyen 3, Nguyen Minh Chon 3, Kieu The Loan Trinh 4,a), Nae Yoon Lee 5,a)
PMCID: PMC11377084  PMID: 39247798

Abstract

Environmental pollution remains a major societal problem, leading to serious impacts on living organisms including humans. Human activities such as civilization, urbanization, and industrialization are major causes of pollution. Imposing stricter rules helps control environmental pollutant levels, creating a need for reliable pollutant monitoring in air, water, and soil. The application of traditional analytical techniques is limited in low-resource areas because they are sophisticated, expensive, and bulky. With the development of biosensors and microfluidics technology, environmental monitoring has significantly improved the analysis time, low cost, portability, and ease of use. This review discusses the fundamentals of portable devices, including microfluidics and biosensors, for environmental control. Recently, publications reviewing microfluidics and biosensor device applications have increased more than tenfold, showing the potential of emerging novel approaches for environmental monitoring. Strategies for enzyme-, immunoassay-, and molecular-based analyte sensing are discussed based on their mechanisms and applications. Microfluidic and biosensor platforms for detecting major pollutants, including metal ions, pathogens, pesticides, and antibiotic residues, are reviewed based on their working principles, advantages, and disadvantages. Challenges and future trends for the device design and fabrication process to improve performance are discussed. Miniaturization, low cost, selectivity, sensitivity, high automation, and savings in samples and reagents make the devices ideal alternatives for in-field detection, especially in low-resource areas. However, their operation with complicated environmental samples requires further research to improve the specificity and sensitivity. Although there is a wide range of devices available for environmental applications, their implementation in real-world situations is limited. This study provides insights into existing issues that can be used as references and a comparative analysis for future studies and applications.

I. INTRODUCTION

Environmental pollution caused by extreme industrial development, rapid population growth, and urbanization has become a global concern in the modern world. The increasing release and accumulation of various types of contaminants into the surrounding environment have greatly impacted human health and ecosystems.1–4 Hazardous substances from both human and natural sources enter the environment through human activities and are considered to be environmental pollutants. These substances include chemical compounds such as pesticides, metals, antibiotics, and physical, radiological, or biological agents such as microorganisms, mites, and allergic agents.5,6 Therefore, monitoring environmental pollutants is crucial for controlling their potential harm to humans, flora, and fauna. Various technologies have been employed for environmental detection, monitoring, and remediation. Classical spectroscopic and chromatographic methods are typically used for the detection of environmental pollutants. However, these methods are laborious and require complicated analyses with high costs and a lengthy analysis time.7–9 Therefore, there is an urgent need for rapid, sensitive, accurate, simple, and cost-effective tools to screen for pollutants.

The past decades have seen the rapid development of portable devices, such as biosensors and microfluidic devices, for various applications. Biosensors are valuable tools for simple, rapid, and on-site detection. Biosensors consist of biomolecule recognition elements, including enzymes, cell receptors, or antibodies for sensing targets, and a bio-transducer for signal acquisition.10 Microfluidic systems are based on the microscale laminar fluid flow for analytical applications. They are advantageous for analytical applications because they require small amounts of samples and reagents with a rapid analysis time, high sensitivity, and simplicity.11–13 Owing to their large surface-to-volume ratios, microfluidic devices manipulate fluid flow inside microchannels and chamber systems to achieve rapid and sensitive reactions with a low consumption of reagents and samples.

Analytical processes are typically performed in laboratories and require trained personnel. With the aid of portable biosensing devices, such as microfluidic devices and biosensors, analytical procedures can be integrated into a miniature chip. For environmental monitoring, sample sizes are typically very large. Moreover, the conventional methods for sample preparation and analysis are expensive and time-consuming. Alternatively, portable biosensing devices enable the rapid handling of bulky environmental samples with high simplicity and sensitivity for the on-site detection of pollutants, such as pesticides, heavy metals, waterborne bacteria, or toxic gases.14 The complexity of environmental samples must be considered when developing biosensors and microfluidic devices. While the applications of microfluidic devices and biosensors are more common in the field of biomedical or food technology, such as diagnostics and quality control, their applications have also been extended to monitor environmental pollutants, such as herbicides and pesticides in soil, heavy metals in soil and water, waterborne pathogens in drinking water, and toxic gases and pollutants in industrial effluents.

In this review, the major types of biosensors and microfluidic devices are summarized and their applications in environmental monitoring are explored. First, the urgency of environmental pollution control and the limitations of conventional detection methods are discussed. Second, the fundamentals of microfluidics and biosensors are reviewed to provide an overview of the techniques used. Finally, the applications of microfluidics and biosensors for monitoring environmental pollutants, including heavy metals, pesticides, and pathogens, are presented and analyzed. This study highlights the potential challenges and future perspectives on portable biosensing devices for environmental monitoring.

II. BIOSENSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

Biosensors consist of biorecognition elements and signal transducers that produce detectable or measurable signals when monitoring analytes and are advanced analytical devices for detecting environmental pollutants. Biosensors can be classified based on the biorecognition principle or the transduction methods used. Biosensors can be further categorized as enzyme-, antibody-, aptamer-, and whole-cell-based.

A. Enzyme-based biosensor

Enzyme-based biosensors employ enzymes as the sensing elements for target recognition. Enzymes are common biological catalysts that enhance the reaction rates. This enzymatic reaction generates a signal upon target recognition, which is then converted into a measurable response using a transducer. Enzyme-based biosensors have gained considerable attention for environmental monitoring because of their high sensitivity and specificity. Many possible mechanisms are involved in target sensing using enzyme-based biosensors, including analyte metabolism, activation, inhibition, and alteration of enzymes by analytes (Fig. 1).15 In the analyte metabolism, the concentration of the analytes can be measured by monitoring their catalytic transformations. In some cases, analytes play important roles, such as activation or inhibition agents for enzymes; therefore, the concentration of analytes can be determined by the products catalyzed by enzymatic reactions. Some analytes alter the characteristics of enzymes; therefore, tracking the alteration of enzymes is a possible method for measuring analytes.16,17 Although enzyme-based biosensors are commonly used and have many advantages, their performance can be limited owing to the susceptibility of enzymes to unfavorable conditions, such as pH, temperature, and inhibitors.

FIG. 1.

FIG. 1.

Open in a new tab

A schematic illustration showing an overview of the enzyme-based biosensors for environmental applications, including a transducer, biological receptor, and a matrix or immobilization surface. Reprinted with permission from González-González et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 62(11), 4503–4520 (2023). Copyright (2023) American Chemical Society.15

B. Antibody-based biosensor

The antibody recognizes and binds specifically to the antigens, resulting in the formation of stable antibody–antigens. Antibodies are widely used as sensitive and specific sensing elements in biosensors for the detection of environmental pollutants. Antibody-based biosensors can be categorized into two classes: nonlabeled and labeled. In the non-labeled class, physical changes caused by antibody–antigen interactions are measured directly. In the labeled class, sensitive and detectable markers are employed to assess the antibody–antigen complex.18,19 Various compounds can be used as markers, including fluorescent dyes, enzymes, and nanoparticles, as shown in Fig. 2.18 Antibody-based biosensors have many advantages, including simplicity, high sensitivity, and specificity. However, the performance of antibody-based biosensors significantly depends on the immobilization strategy of the antibody on the sensor surface. Therefore, an immobilization strategy that does not alter the specificity, immunological activity, and limit of detection (LOD) is crucial for sensor development.19

FIG. 2.

FIG. 2.

Open in a new tab

A schematic illustration showing a novel double-antibody-based immunobiosensor chip for SARS-CoV-2 analysis. Reprinted with permission from Hussein et al., Microsyst. Nanoeng. 9, 105 (2023). Copyright (2022) Springer Nature.18

C. Aptamer-based biosensor

Aptamers are single-stranded oligonucleotides that form complexes with targets with strong affinity and high specificity. Aptamers possess unique structures that help them interact with a wide range of targets, from small molecules to macromolecules, and even whole microorganisms.20 Figure 3 illustrates the fabrication process and sensing principle of the thiamethoxam (TMX) electrochemical aptasensor. Aptamers are widely used in biosensors owing to their many advantages. First, aptamer-based biosensors are stable under many storage conditions because of the natural characteristics of nucleic acids. Second, aptamers are chemically synthesized and modified for the detection of target molecules.21 An internal-standard-based surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) aptasensor has been proposed to quantitatively detect silver ions in environmental samples.22 This method offers a simple and sensitive approach to detect heavy metals with a limit of detection (LOD) of 50 pM. A sulfur-doped graphene quantum-dot-based fluorescent turn-on aptasensor has been developed to detect the pesticide omethoate in environmental samples.23 The aptasensor achieved ultrasensitive detection with a LOD of 0.001 ppm and high specificity over other pesticides. However, the applications of aptamer-based biosensors are limited for several reasons. First, in vivo environmental factors, such as nucleases, can affect the activity of aptamers. Second, aptamer synthesis methods are usually costly, time-consuming, and low efficiency.24,25

FIG. 3.

FIG. 3.

Open in a new tab

Schematic illustration showing the fabrication process of the TMX electrochemical aptasensor and the sensing principle of the aptasensor. Reprinted with permission from Shi et al., Bioelectrochemistry 149, 108317 (2023). Copyright (2023) Elsevier.20

D. Whole-cell-based biosensor

Whole-cell biosensors are formed from cells and tissues. Whole cells and tissues are potential biosensors that can recognize a wide range of analytes and generate detectable signals. The cells can self-replicate and produce biorecognitive elements, such as enzymes and antibodies, for direct sensing without the need for the purification of the sensing elements, as shown in Fig. 4.26 Owing to their high specificity, sensitivity, and LOD, whole-cell-based biosensors have been successfully used to monitor environmental pollutants.26 Many studies have developed whole-cell-based biosensors for monitoring various pollutants such as heavy metals and herbicides. A microbial biosensor has been developed to detect heavy metals such as Pb2+ with a rapid reaction time, high portability, sensitivity, stability, and low cost.27 A microbial amperometric biosensor has been proposed to detect herbicide online.28 The device was constructed using the cyanobacteria Anabaena variabilis. Whole-cell-based biosensors have many advantages; however, their applications are limited. The complicated matrix of real environmental samples can interfere with device performance. Moreover, toxic compounds in the samples limit the cell types that can be selected to develop the sensor.29

FIG. 4.

FIG. 4.

Open in a new tab

Schematic illustration showing the detection mechanism proposed for aptamer-based whole-cell detection of E. coli O157:H7. Reprinted with permission from Díaz-Amaya et al., Anal. Chim. Acta 1081, 146–156 (2019). Copyright (2019) Elsevier.26

In summary, well-documented reports have demonstrated the practical approaches of biosensors for the detection of polluting elements in environmental monitoring, including heavy metals, organic pollutants, and wastewater quality. Specific binding sites for DNA probes, such as guanine-rich probes and whole-cell biosensors, have been employed in environmental purity tracking because of the formation of stable complex structures and microbial whole-cell genetic expression in response to contaminating chemicals.30,31 Additionally, diverse polluting organic particles in soil and water can be detected using enzymes, aptamers, and whole-cell biosensors.32–34

Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are an emerging technology for generating electricity from renewable biomass. Due to their significant advantages, including simple construction and operation, in situ monitoring, and low cost, MFCs are considered a promising tool for environmental monitoring using whole-cell-based biosensors. MFC-based biosensors have been employed to monitor various environmental factors, including biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, chemical oxygen demand, volatile fatty acids, and microbial activity.35 The heavy-metal concentration and chemical oxygen demand in wastewater can be observed using MFC-based biosensors.36–38 Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) is a common detection method for nanomaterial sensors that use linked emission molecules and biomolecules (enzymes and aptamers). In addition to organic nanomaterial sensors, many inorganic nanomaterial sensors, including gold, carbon dots, quantum dots, and graphene nanoparticles, have been utilized for wastewater monitoring.39,40 Although biosensors may cross-react with similar molecules that interfere with their accuracy and stability and require cautious handling, the development of various material-based biosensors is promising for environmental management.

E. Plasmonic biosensors

Plasmonic biosensors have become an important class because of their small size, rapid recognition capability, ease of implementation, and high sensitivity and specificity. Surface plasmonic sensors are important analytical detection tools widely applied in environmental monitoring.

SERS has been extensively used in biosensing because of its high specificity and sensitivity. Srivastava et al.41 developed a SERS biosensor to detect the endocrine-disrupting compound vitellogenin (Vg) in an aquatic environment. To enhance the SERS signal, the biosensor was fabricated by immobilizing anti-Vg antibodies onto a nanosculptured silver thin film coated with 4-aminothiophenol. The biosensor detected concentrations as low as 5 pg/ml, and the specificity was confirmed using a similar protein, fetuin. In another study,42 a SERS-based biosensor was employed for E. coli B detection in water samples.

Recently, surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensors have emerged as a promising approach for environmental monitoring owing to their beneficial properties, such as high sensitivity, selectivity, and accuracy. SPR biosensors are based on the refractive index profile of light. When polarized incident light interacts with a metal surface, some energy from the incident light is lost, resulting in a decrease in the intensity of the reflected light. This phenomenon is known as surface plasmon. The SPR signal is highly sensitive to changes near the metal surface. Thus, any change in the refractive index of the metal surface resulting from interactions between biomolecules can generate different SPR signal profiles.

There are two types of plasmonic biosensors: (1) localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) biosensors, where surface plasmons occur in metallic nanoparticles, and (2) SPR biosensors, where surface plasmons occur in a metallic film.43,44 Ning et al.45 used an aptamer for biorecognition coupled with a J-shaped optical fiber probe to specifically detect Helicobacter pylori via an LSPR signal response. This LSPR aptasensor can detect Helicobacter pylori with a detection limit as low as 45 CFU/ml. The thickness of the sensing layer is critical in the design of plasmonic biosensors and strongly affects their sensitivity. The sensing region of the plasmonic biosensor is close to the metal nanoparticle surface. A thick layer of biorecognition elements could lift the sensing event of bacterial attachment outside this sensing region, reducing the sensitivity. Among the listed biorecognition elements, aptamers appear to be more suitable for plasmonic biosensors because they are significantly smaller than enzymes, antibodies, and whole cells.

Khateb et al.46 obtained a significant increase in sensitivity to bacterial attachment for aptamer recognition compared to antibody recognition, correlating to a thinner aptamer recognition layer (6.2 nm) compared to the antibody layer (20 nm). A novel method for the detection of cyanotoxin from cyanobacteria, which cause algal blooms, was developed based on a graphene-modified SPR aptasensor.47 The aptasensor was modified with graphene, which resulted in a change in the aptamer conformation upon binding to analytes, increasing the sensitivity of the sensor for detecting cyanotoxins.

III. MICROFLUIDIC DEVICES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

Microfluidics precisely manipulate fluids at the microscale using microchannels and chambers with small dimensions. Many benefits can be achieved using microfluidics for analysis, including a rapid reaction time, high automation, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, low cost, low reagent and sample consumption, improved process control, and disposability. Microfluidic devices offer many advantages for environmental monitoring owing to the advancement of miniaturized systems. Previously, silicon and glass were the most commonly used materials for microfluidic fabrication. Currently, more materials are employed to fabricate microfluidic devices, including thermoplastics, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), paper, and thread.48,49

Thermoplastics, such as poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polycarbonate, and polystyrene, have been widely employed to fabricate microfluidic devices owing to their beneficial properties. Thermoplastics exhibit low intrinsic fluorescence, visible transmittance, biocompatibility, and beneficial mechanical properties. In addition, the manufacturing process for thermoplastic microfluidic devices is low-cost and well-developed.50

Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is a popular material used for microfluidic fabrication. PDMS is a silicone-based elastomer with several desirable properties. PDMS offers quick and easy fabrication, such as structural replication and bonding processes. Another advantage of PDMS is its transparency, which maximizes the optical access to the microchannel and chamber systems for real-time monitoring. Additionally, PDMS exhibits excellent biocompatibility and permeability.51

Recently, paper has gained considerable attention for microfluidic fabrication. Paper is a highly promising candidate for the fabrication of microfluidic devices owing to its numerous advantages. Specifically, paper is biocompatible and suitable for the analysis of cells, proteins, or nucleic acids. Paper provides an excellent matrix for capturing and isolating targets. In addition, the generally bright color of paper makes it a suitable matrix for colorimetric readouts. Moreover, paper-based microfluidic devices can be easily fabricated at a low cost.52

IV. APPLICATIONS OF PORTABLE DEVICES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

This section describes the most recent advances in portable devices for environmental monitoring applications, such as microfluidics and biosensors, to detect metal ions, pathogenic bacteria, and other pollutants.

A. Metal ions

Among the various types of environmental pollutants, heavy metal ions are one of the major pollutants owing to their effects on human health, such as kidney failure, skin allergies, and the nervous system.53–55 Therefore, many types of analytical biosensors have been developed to detect heavy metals, such as paper, PDMS, thermoplastics, and 3D printed devices.56,57 Paper-based microdevices have been extensively used for heavy-metal detection because of their low cost, simple fabrication, and easy readout.58–60

For example, Wang et al.61 introduced a rotary multipositioned cloth/paper hybrid microfluidic device for the simultaneous detection of Hg2+ and Pb2+ ions using quantum dots as fluorescence reporters. Figure 5(a) illustrates the overall view of all the layers of the novel rotary multipositioned cloth/paper hybrid microfluidic analytical device for monitoring environmental pollutants. Figure 5(b) illustrates the assembly and detection procedures of the device. For this purpose, the detection zone was first grafted with quantum dots onto cloth. Subsequently, it was frequently modified with ion-imprinted polymers (IIPs) to detect heavy metals based on the fluorescence quenching effect. With the use of IIP, the specific recognition of two heavy metal ions was confirmed, and the limits of detection were 0.18 and 0.07 μg/l for Hg2+ and Pb2+, respectively. In addition, this hybrid cellulose-based microfluidic device provided multi-positioned detection owing to its unique configuration, which was designed for valve rotation.

FIG. 5.

FIG. 5.

Open in a new tab

A schematic illustration of a novel rotary multi-positioned cloth/paper hybrid microfluidic analytical device (μCPAD) for the determination of heavy metal ions. (a) Top view of all layers, (b) the assembly process and detection of Hg2+ and Pb2+ ions by rotating the top layer counterclockwise or clockwise. Reprinted with permission from Wang et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 428, 128165 (2022). Copyright (2022) Elsevier.61

In another study, Yuan et al.62 fabricated a paper chip for arsenite [As(III)] detection based on a turn-on fluorescent aptasensor using an aptamer, which could detect as low as 0.96 nM.62 Gu et al.63 reported a real-time colorimetric biosensor for detecting Hg2+ using a low-cost microspectrometer coupled with a smartphone. Using gold nanoparticles as a probe, the sensor successfully detected Hg2+ in natural mineral, pure, tap, and river water samples with high sensitivity (LOD = 1.2 mM). This portable device has significant potential for applications in low-cost rapid biological colorimetric detection.

As an alternative to classical biosensors [including atomic absorption spectroscopy (ASS), emission spectroscopy, and mass spectroscopy], microbe-based biosensors have been extensively used for detecting heavy metals in soil and wastewater because of their enhanced sensitivity and specificity [Fig. 6(a)].64,65 For example, Wang et al.67 proposed a highly sensitive electrochemical biosensor for detecting various heavy metals (Cd2+, Ni2+, Pb2+, and Cu2+) in groundwater based on a Geobacter-dominated biofilm. With the use of electroactive biofilm on working electrodes, the biosensor was proven to be restorable and reusable, and it achieved a high sensitivity of 61.7 μA μM−1 cm−2 for Pb2+ detection. Moreover, the introduced biosensor has high potential for the on-site monitoring of low-concentration heavy metal ion-related toxicity samples with long-term usage.

FIG. 6.

FIG. 6.

Open in a new tab

(a) A schematic illustration showing microbial biosensors for various applications, such as environmental monitoring. Reprinted with permission from Ma et al., Chemosphere 306, 135515 (2022). Copyright (2022) Elsevier.65 (b) A schematic illustration of a cell-free paper-based biosensor based on allosteric transcription factors (aTFs) for detecting heavy metal ions. Reprinted with permission from Zhang et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 438, 129499 (2022). Copyright (2022) Elsevier.66

Bandeliuk et al.68 developed a new bacterial biosensor for targeting pollutants (antibiotics, heavy metals, and herbicides) using a portable fiber-optic system. The advances in field toxicological testing were facilitated by combining Raman spectroscopy and bioassays within 35 min. Zhang et al.66 developed a cell-free paper-based biosensor for the on-site detection of Hg2+ and Pb2+ in water based on allosteric transcription factors (aTFs) with a BIAcore assay [Fig. 6(b)].66 aTFs can recognize and bind to specific DNA sequences. In the presence of target ions, aTFs can disassociate from DNA owing to their specific affinity for metal ions, and fluorescent RNA is transcribed as a signal. The LOD of the biosensor was 0.5 nM for Hg2+ and 0.1 nM for Pb2+. The paper-based biosensor not only simultaneously detected Hg2+ and Pb2+ in water but can also be used to detect other heavy metals, making it a promising biosensor platform for the simultaneous detection of heavy metals in environmental monitoring.

In conclusion, the introduced biosensor platforms require further optimization to improve their sensitivity, specificity, and cost-effectiveness for mass production and multiplex detection. Therefore, portable devices have great potential for detecting heavy metal ions in real samples under variable environmental conditions in environmental monitoring.

B. Pathogenic bacteria

Various approaches are used in portable devices for the rapid detection of pathogenic bacteria for environmental analysis, offering a high potential for inexpensive, simple, and rapid response field monitoring.69–72 For example, Jin et al.73 introduced an integrated microfluidic device to simultaneously detect ten waterborne pathogenic bacteria in coastal water samples using dual-sample, real-time, and on-chip fluorogenic loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays.73 The device consisted of 11 wells, which allowed the simultaneous detection of 11 samples based on the LAMP reaction. The primers were pre-stored in each reaction well. The liquid reagent was then introduced into the reaction chamber to perform LAMP assays using centrifugal force. This device could detect as low as 9.54 × 10−1 pg/reaction in 35 min without bacterial enrichment. Although the device can achieve a rapid and high-throughput platform, it requires further optimization for application to real-world samples in aquatic environments.

Alonzo et al.74 proposed a microfluidic device system to perform a rapid and highly sensitive bacteriophage-based assay for detecting Escherichia coli in water samples. With a combination of membrane filtration and selective enrichment using T7-NanoLuc-CBM, the valveless microfluidic device detected as low as 4 CFU/100 ml of drinking water within 5.5h. This system offers a fast, portable, semi-automated, phage-based microfluidic platform for enhanced in-field water quality monitoring. Messaoud et al.75 presented a portable label-free ultrasensitive electrochemical immunosensor for Aeromonas salmonicida detection in seawater with a LOD as low as 1 CFU/ml.

In another water treatment application, Patinglag et al.76 used a microfluidic reactor to disinfect bacteria-contaminated water by employing the non-thermal plasma-based inactivation of antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. The combination of a glass microfluidic plasma device and dual-phase liquid–gas flow successfully inactivated bacteria 5 s after the residence time in the plasma region. Moreover, this system not only is used for the antimicrobial decontamination of water but can also be used for large volumes of water disinfection systems in point-of-need applications by combining multiple devices.

In addition to water quality monitoring, portable devices have been widely used to detect airborne pathogens in air quality monitoring, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Xiong et al.77 fabricated a rotating microfluidic fluorescence system for the on-site sample collection and detection of SARS-CoV-2 as shown in Fig. 7. This device could perform enrichment, extraction, and LAMP reaction on a seamless platform, and 115 clinical samples were used for detection in practical applications. The LOD was approximately 10 copies/μl with 100% specificity in 75 min. Similarly, Jiang et al.78 introduced a microfluidic system, including a bacterial capture and enrichment device and a LAMP-based device for Staphylococcus aureus detection, with a LOD of approximately 24 cells/reaction.78

FIG. 7.

FIG. 7.

Open in a new tab

A schematic illustration showing a rotating microfluidic fluorescence system with integrated sampling and monitoring for the on-site detection of SARS-CoV-2. Reprinted with permission from Xiong et al., Anal. Chem. 93(9), 4270–4276 (2021). Copyright (2021) American Chemical Society.77

In summary, these portable devices successfully detected bacteria and airborne pathogens with high specificity and sensitivity, and the total analysis time was much shorter than that of the traditional methods. However, these devices cannot be used to test real-world samples in practical applications. Therefore, further optimization and development of portable devices with advancements in onsite environmental monitoring are required. Table I summarizes the applications of portable sensing devices for environmental monitoring.

TABLE I.

Applications of portable devices for the detection of pathogenic bacteria for environmental monitoring.

Detection method Type of portable device Analyses Type of sample Time LOD Reference
Molecular-based assays Dual-sample PMMA microfluidic chip 10 waterborne pathogenic bacteria (Vibrio alginolyticus, Shigella flexneri, Listeria monocytogenes, etc.) Coastal waters 35 min 9.54 × 10−1 pg/reaction 73
Molecular-based assays Droplet and rotation-controlled “CD driver” device Enterococcus faecalis Water 1 h 103 CFU/ml 79
Electrochemical immunosensor Integrated PMMA device Aeromonas salmonicida Sea water 5 min 1 CFU/ml 75
Molecular-based assays Rotating microfluidic fluorescence system SARS-CoV-2 Air 15 min 10 copies/μl 77
Immunoassay Paper-based analytical device SARS-CoV-2 Air <30 min NA 80
Field-effect-transistor biosensor Multichannel microfluidic chip Mycobacterium tuberculosis Air 2 min 4 × 104 particles/ml 81
Immunoassay and impedance-based biosensor Glass-PDMS microfluidic chip Legionella, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 Tap water and wastewater 30–40 min 3 cells/ml 82
Aptamer-based electrochemical assays PDMS microfluidic biosensor Cryptosporidium parvum Tap water 40 min 10 oocysts/ml 83
Surface acoustic waves and Immunoassays Surface acoustic wave device Legionella pneumophila, and Escherichia coli Water NA 2 × 106 CFU/ml 84
Open in a new tab

C. Other applications

Antibiotic residues in the environment have become a topic of interest because of their negative effects on human health and the possible associated bacterial antibiotic resistance. Therefore, portable devices, such as optical sensors and electrochemical biosensors, have been developed for the rapid detection of antibiotics [Fig. 8(a)].85,86 For example, Mathai et al.87 fabricated a handheld device to detect enrofloxacin (ENR) and ciprofloxacin antibiotic residues in wastewater and environment samples [Fig. 8(b)]. Using an antibody-coated optical fiber, the system could detect concentrations as low as 1 ppb in lake water and wastewater. Moreover, the portable sensors showed stability over 4 weeks at 4 °C with high selectivity. Therefore, this handheld device is useful for heavy-metal detection as a field-deployable sensor that can be easily stored and transported to remote areas. Chen et al.88 developed a portable biosensor for onsite kanamycin (KAN) detection in real water samples using a glucometer and CRISPR-Cas12a, with a detection limit of 1 pM.88 These portable devices are simple to operate, cheap, and enable the on-site detection of antibiotic residues in resource-limited settings. However, these devices fail to perform simultaneous assays with multiple antibiotics, which requires further improvement.

FIG. 8.

FIG. 8.

Open in a new tab

(a) A schematic illustration of the detection of antibiotics using optical biosensors. Reprinted with permission from Nehra et al., Mater. Lett. 308, 131235 (2022). Copyright (2022) Elsevier.85 (b) A schematic illustration of an overall experimental setup for controlling a handheld portable optical sensor for the specific detection of enrofloxacin (ENR). Reprinted with permission from Mathai et al. Biosens. Bioelectron. 237, 115478 (2023). Copyright (2023) Elsevier.87

Pesticide residues are important pollutants that cause environmental, agricultural, and aquatic pollution. Therefore, portable biosensors have been fabricated for the onsite detection of pesticide residues.89–91 For example, Maanaki et al.92 developed an integrated smartphone/resistive biosensor as a field-deployable tool for monitoring organophosphate (OP) pesticides in food and environmental water with an LOD of approximately 0.304 ppt in 15 min. In particular, for the first time, a polyaniline nanofiber/AChE/carbon nanotube (AChE/PANiNF/CNT)-based nanosensor was used for the on-site rapid monitoring of OP pesticides in real water samples with high sensitivity, low cost, and portability. However, this platform requires further development to enhance the long-term stability and reduce the interference effects of AChE for broad applications for in-field real-world sample analysis. Wu et al.93 proposed a novel smartphone-coupled three-layered paper-based microfluidic chip for pesticide detection. Based on enzyme inhibition and chromatic reactions, the device was successfully used for the detection of profenofos and methomyl pesticides, with LODs of approximately 55 and 34 nM, respectively. This system not only is highly cost-effective, but also shows high potential for the mass production of paper-based microdevices.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-organic compounds are usually highly toxic, mutagenic, and/or carcinogenic to microorganisms or humans and are considered toxic environmental pollutants.94 Various portable devices have been developed for the rapid detection of PAH. For example, Zheng et al.95 introduced an integrated microfluidic system for the rapid enrichment and detection of airborne PAHs with an LOD of 3.3 ng/m3 within 25 min.95 With the use of an enrichment cube, the device achieved a high capture efficiency, which allowed the transfer of PAHs from the enrichment cube to the detection device without extraction steps using a crushing motion. The device demonstrated a high potential for air pollution monitoring owing to its low cost, high sensitivity, rapidity, and high throughput. Li et al.96 developed a monoclonal antibodies-based biosensor for PAH detection in aqueous environmental samples, with an LOD of approximately 0.2 μg/l within 10 min. Generic antibody-based biosensors offer a low-cost and rapid technique for detecting PAHs in aqueous samples. Babolghani and Mohammadi-Manesh97 conducted a simulation and experimental study of a field-effect-transistor (FET) biosensor to detect PAHs using a DNA/Cu2O-GS nanostructure.

Overall, portable microfluidic devices or biosensors have been introduced as alternatives to expensive, time-consuming, and laboratory-based testing systems for the detection of environmental pollutants. These promising characteristics make the portable device a powerful tool for environmental monitoring. However, these platforms still have limitations in monitoring pollutants from a variety of sources or different ecosystems. Further improvements are required to realize highly selective and sensitive detection of analytes for various applications.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

The demand for efficient methods to control environmental pollution has attracted significant attention to the development of portable sensing devices. In this review, the advancements in microfluidic devices and biosensors for environmental pollutant monitoring were discussed. Environmental control using microfluidics and biosensors is a promising advancement owing to their fast analysis time, low cost, ease of use, and accuracy. The devices are suitable for on-site testing, particularly in low-resource areas. However, several limitations must be overcome with further improvement of the biosensors:

  • •

    Biosensors provide an excellent tool for measuring analytes by generating signals proportional to the concentration of the analyte. However, biosensors cannot be used for sample preparation, which is an essential step in monitoring pollutants, because they do not have the required components. By contrast, microfluidic devices contain microchannels and chambers that enable fluid flow and biochemical reactions. This property renders microfluidic devices highly suitable for sample preparation. Thus, biosensors should be integrated with microfluidic devices to perform all essential steps in pollutant monitoring.

  • •

    Most biosensors for pesticide detection use enzymes as recognition factors, which provide fast, selective, and accurate detection. However, their real-world applications are still limited because of the thermal- and pH-sensitive properties of the enzymes, which make long-term storage more difficult.

  • •

    Although immune-based devices provide high specificity and rapid performance, difficulties in immobilization onto sensor substrates and poor regeneration make the development of devices more difficult.

  • •

    The main limitation in the application of devices to real samples is the lack of research on the variation of samples because most environmental monitoring devices focus on water, which is much simpler in comparison with complicated environmental samples. Consequently, only a small number of environmental monitoring devices have been successfully commercialized.

  • •

    Further optimization is required to improve the specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility of the mass production and detection of real samples. Further research should be conducted to study the performance and shelf-life of these devices using different environmental samples.

  • •

    Finally, the portability of biosensors for monitoring in field environments is limited for many reasons, including sample preparation methods, device integration, fluid-handling techniques, biological reagent storage conditions, and the requirement for power and external equipment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00208684) and also by the Basic Science Research Program through the NRF of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education (No. 2021R1A6A1A03038996). The authors show their gratitude to Tra Vinh University for generous support in this work.

Contributor Information

Kieu The Loan Trinh, Email: mailto:tktloan@gmail.com.

Nae Yoon Lee, Email: mailto:nylee@gachon.ac.kr.

AUTHOR DECLARATIONS

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Author Contributions

Thi Ngoc Diep Trinh: Conceptualization (equal); Methodology (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Nguyen Khoi Song Tran: Methodology (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Hanh An Nguyen: Methodology (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Nguyen Minh Chon: Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). Kieu The Loan Trinh: Conceptualization (equal); Methodology (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Nae Yoon Lee: Funding acquisition (equal); Project administration (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal).

DATA AVAILABILITY

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Li L., He J., Gan Z., and Yang P., “Occurrence and fate of antibiotics and heavy metals in sewage treatment plants and risk assessment of reclaimed water in Chengdu, China,” Chemosphere 272, 129730 (2021). 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Justino C. I. L., Duarte A. C., and Rocha-Santos T. A. P., “Recent progress in biosensors for environmental monitoring: A review,” Sensors 17, 2918 (2017). 10.3390/s17122918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yew M., Ren Y., Koh K. S., Sun C., and Snape C., “A review of state-of-the-art microfluidic technologies for environmental applications: Detection and remediation,” Global Challenges 3, 1800060 (2018). 10.1002/gch2.201800060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maduraiveeran G. and Jin W., “Nanomaterials based electrochemical sensor and biosensor platforms for environmental applications,” Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 13, 10–23 (2017). 10.1016/j.teac.2017.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gavrilaș S., Ursachi C.Ș., Perța-Crișan S., and Munteanu F.-D., “Recent trends in biosensors for environmental quality monitoring,” Sensors 22, 1513 (2022). 10.3390/s22041513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shetty S. S., Sonkusare S., Naik P. B., and Madhyastha H., “Environmental pollutants and their effects on human health,” Heliyon 9(9), e19496 (2023). 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Luka G., Ahmadi A., Najjaran H., Alocilja E., DeRosa M., Wolthers K., Malki A., Aziz H., Althani A., and Hoorfar M., “Microfluidics integrated biosensors: A leading technology towards lab-on-a-chip and sensing applications,” Sensors 15(12), 30011–30031 (2015). 10.3390/s151229783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wu W., Qu S., Nel W., and Ji J., “Tracing and quantifying the sources of heavy metals in the upper and middle reaches of the pearl river basin: New insights from Sr-Nd-Pb multi-isotopic systems,” Chemosphere 288, 132630 (2022). 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Murzyn C. M., Allen D. J., Baca A. N., Ching M. L., and Marinis R. T., “Tunable infrared laser absorption spectroscopy of aluminum monoxide A2Πi − X2Σ+,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 279, 108029 (2022). 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.108029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cao Y., Zhang B., Zhu Z., Xin X., Wu H., and Chen B., “Microfluidic based whole-cell biosensors for simultaneously on-site monitoring of multiple environmental contaminants,” Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9, 622108 (2021). 10.3389/fbioe.2021.622108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Trinh T. N. D., Trinh K. T. L., and Lee N. Y., “Microfluidic advances in food safety control,” Food Res. Int. 176, 113799 (2024). 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yogarajah N. and Tsai S. S. H., “Detection of trace arsenic in drinking water: Challenges and opportunities for microfluidics,” Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 1, 426 (2015). 10.1039/C5EW00099H [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gao N. and Li X. J., in Microfluidic Devices for Biomedical Applications, edited by Li X. and Zhou Y. (Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, 2013), Chap. 5. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Huang C. W., Lin C., Nguyen M. K., Hussain A., Bui X. T., and Ngo H. H., “A review of biosensor for environmental monitoring: Principle, application, and corresponding achievement of sustainable development goals,” Bioengineered 14(1), 58–80 (2023). 10.1080/21655979.2022.2095089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.González-González R. B., Flores-Contreras E. A., Gonzalez-Gonzalez E., Torres Castillo N. E., Parra-Saldivar R., and Iqbal H. M., “Biosensor constructs for the monitoring of persistent emerging pollutants in environmental matrices,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 62(11), 4503–4520 (2023). 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Naresh V. and Lee N., “A review on biosensors and recent development of nanostructured materials-enabled biosensors,” Sensors 21, 1109 (2021). 10.3390/s21041109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nguyen H. H., Lee S. H., Lee U. J., Fermin C. D., and Kim M., “Immobilized enzymes in biosensor applications,” Materials 12, 121 (2019). 10.3390/ma12010121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hussein H. A., Kandeil A., Gomaa M., and Hassan R. Y., “Double-antibody-based nano-biosensing system for the onsite monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Microsyst. Nanoeng. 9, 105 (2023). 10.1038/s41378-023-00578-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sharma S., Byrne H., and O’Kennedy R. J., “Antibodies and antibody-derived analytical biosensors,” Essays Biochem. 60, 9–18 (2016). 10.1042/EBC20150002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shi Q., Tao H., Wu Y., Chen J., and Wang X., “An ultrasensitive label-free electrochemical aptasensing platform for thiamethoxam detection based on ZIF-67 derived Co-N doped porous carbon,” Bioelectrochemistry 149, 108317 (2023). 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2022.108317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.McConnell E. M., Nguyen K., and Li Y., “Aptamer-based biosensors for environmental monitoring,” Front. Chem. 8, 434 (2020). 10.3389/fchem.2020.00434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wu Y., Jiang T., Wu Z., and Yu R., “Internal standard-based SERS aptasensor for ultrasensitive quantitative detection of Ag+ ion,” Talanta 185, 30–36 (2018). 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nair R. V., Chandran P. R., Mohamed A. P., and Pillai S., “Sulphur-doped graphene quantum dot based fluorescent turn-on aptasensor for selective and ultrasensitive detection of omethoate,” Anal. Chim. Acta 1181, 338893 (2021). 10.1016/j.aca.2021.338893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yoo H., Jo H., and Oh S. S., “Detection and beyond: Challenges and advances in aptamer-based biosensors,” Mater. Adv. 1, 2663–2687 (2020). 10.1039/D0MA00639D [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhao Y., Yavari K., and Liu J., “Critical evaluation of aptamer binding for biosensor designs,” Trends Anal. Chem. 146, 116480 (2022). 10.1016/j.trac.2021.116480 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Díaz-Amaya S., Lin L. K., Deering A. J., and Stanciu L. A., “Aptamer-based SERS biosensor for whole cell analytical detection of E. Coli O157:H7,” Anal. Chim. Acta 1081, 146–156 (2019). 10.1016/j.aca.2019.07.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bae J., Lim J.-W., and Kim T., “Reusable and storable whole-cell microbial biosensors with a microchemostat platform for in situ on-demand heavy metal detection,” Sens. Actuators, B 264, 372–381 (2018). 10.1016/j.snb.2018.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tucci M., Grattieri M., Schievano A., Cristiani P., and Minteer S. D., “Microbial amperometric biosensor for online herbicide detection: Photocurrent inhibition of Anabaena variabilis,” Electrochim. Acta 302, 102–108 (2019). 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.02.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gui Q., Lawson T., Shan S., Yan L., and Liu Y., “The application of whole cell-based biosensors for use in environmental analysis and in medical diagnostics,” Sensors 17, 1623 (2017). 10.3390/s17071623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Naik S. and Jujjavarapu S. E., “Self-powered and reusable microbial fuel cell biosensor for toxicity detection in heavy metal polluted water,” J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 105318 (2021). 10.1016/j.jece.2021.105318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu Y., Guo M., Du R., Chi J., He X., Xie Z., Huang K., Luo Y., and Xu W., “A gas reporting whole-cell microbial biosensor system for rapid on-site detection of mercury contamination in soils,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 170, 112660 (2020). 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu X., Cheng H., Zhao Y., Wang Y., and Li F., “Portable electrochemical biosensor based on laser-induced graphene and MnO2 switch-bridged DNA signal amplification for sensitive detection of pesticide,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 199, 113906 (2022). 10.1016/j.bios.2021.113906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Thavarajah W., Verosloff M. S., Jung J. K., Alam K. K., Miller J. D., Jewett M. C., Young S. L., and Lucks J. B., “A primer on emerging field-deployable synthetic biology tools for global water quality monitoring,” npj Clean Water 3, 18 (2020). 10.1038/s41545-020-0064-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Roy R., Ray S., Chowdhury A., and Anand R., “Tunable multiplexed whole-cell biosensors as environmental diagnostics for ppb-level detection of aromatic pollutants,” ACS Sens. 6, 1933–1939 (2021). 10.1021/acssensors.1c00329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cui Y., Lai B., and Tang X., “Microbial fuel cell-based biosensors,” Biosensors 9, 92 (2019). 10.3390/bios9030092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tsai S. T., Cheng W. J., Zhang Q. X., and Yeh Y. C., “Gold-specific biosensor for monitoring wastewater using genetically engineered Cupriavidus metallidurans CH34,” ACS Synth. Biol. 10, 3576–3582 (2021). 10.1021/acssynbio.1c00520 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Adekunle A., Raghavan V., and Tartakovsky B., “A comparison of microbial fuel cell and microbial electrolysis cell biosensors for real-time environmental monitoring,” Bioelectrochemistry 126, 105–112 (2019). 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2018.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Corbella C., Hartl M., Fernandez-gatell M., and Puigagut J., “MFC-based biosensor for domestic wastewater COD assessment in constructed wetlands,” Sci. Total Environ. 660, 218–226 (2019). 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.347 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gaviria-Arroyave M. I., Cano J. B., and Peñuela Gustavo A., “Nanomaterial-based fluorescent biosensors for monitoring environmental pollutants: A critical review,” Talanta Open 2, 100006 (2020). 10.1016/j.talo.2020.100006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Aasi A., Aghaei S. M., Bajgani S. E., and Panchapakesan B., “Computational study on sensing properties of pd-decorated phosphorene for detecting acetone, ethanol, methanol, and toluene—A density functional theory investigation,” Adv. Theory Simul. 4, 2100256 (2021). 10.1002/adts.202100256 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Srivastava S. K., Shalabney A., Khalaila I., Grüner C., Rauschenbach B., and Abdulhalim I., “SERS biosensor using metallic nano-sculptured thin films for the detection of endocrine disrupting compound biomarker vitellogenin,” Small 10, 3579–3587 (2014). 10.1002/smll.201303218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Srivastava S. K., Hamo H. B., Kushmaro A., Marks R. S., Gruner C., Rauschenbach B., and Abdulhalim I., “Highly sensitive detection of E-coli by a SERS nanobiosensor chip utilizing metallic nanosculptured thin films,” Analyst 140, 3201–3209 (2015). 10.1039/C5AN00209E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mahmud R. A., Sagor R. H., and Khan M. Z. M., “Surface plasmon refractive index biosensors: A review of optical fiber, multilayer 2D material and gratings, and MIM configurations,” Opt. Laser Technol. 159, 108939 (2023). 10.1016/j.optlastec.2022.108939 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Janith G. I., Herath H. S., Hendeniya N., Attygalle D., Amarasinghe D. A. S., Logeeshan V., Wickramasinghe P. M. T. B., and Wijayasinghe Y. S., “Advances in surface plasmon resonance biosensors for medical diagnostics: An overview of recent developments and techniques,” J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. Open 2, 100019 (2023). 10.1016/j.jpbao.2023.100019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ning W., Hu S., Zhou C., Luo J., Li Y., Zhang C., Luo Z., and Li Y., “An ultrasensitive J-shaped optical fiber LSPR aptasensor for the detection of helicobacter pylori,” Anal. Chim. Acta 1278, 341733 (2023). 10.1016/j.aca.2023.341733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Khateb H., Klös G., Meyer R. L., and Sutherland D. S., “Development of a label-free LSPR-apta sensor for staphylococcus aureus detection,” ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 3, 3066–3077 (2020). 10.1021/acsabm.0c00110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jaric S., Bajaj A., Vukic V., Gadjanski I., Abdulhalim I., and Bobrinetskiy I., “Label-free direct detection of cylindrospermopsin via graphene-enhanced surface plasmon resonance aptasensor,” Toxins 15, 326 (2023). 10.3390/toxins15050326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jaywant S. A. and Arif K. M., “A comprehensive review of microfluidic water quality monitoring sensors,” Sensors 19, 4781 (2019). 10.3390/s19214781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mesquita P., Gong L., and Lin Y., “Low-cost microfluidics: Towards affordable environmental monitoring and assessment,” Front. Lab Chip Technol. 1, 1074009 (2022). 10.3389/frlct.2022.1074009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Liu K. and Fan Z. H., “Thermoplastic microfluidic devices and their applications in protein and DNA analysis,” Analyst 136, 1288–1297 (2011). 10.1039/c0an00969e [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Raj M. K. and Chakraborty S., “PDMS microfluidics: A mini review,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 137, 48958 (2020). 10.1002/app.48958 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Connelly J. T., Rolland J. P., and Whitesides G. M., “A ‘paper machine’ for molecular diagnostics,” Anal. Chem. 87, 7595–7601 (2015). 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b00411 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brindhadevi K., Barceló D., Chi N. T. L., and Rene E. R., “E-waste management, treatment options and the impact of heavy metal extraction from e-waste on human health: Scenario in Vietnam and other countries,” Environ. Res. 217, 114926 (2023). 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Li Y., Ye Z., Yu Y., Li Y., Jiang J., Wang L., Wang G., Zhang H., Li N., Xie X., Cheng X., Liu K., and Liu M., “A combined method for human health risk area identification of heavy metals in urban environments,” J. Hazard. Mater. 449, 131067 (2023). 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wang C. C., Zhang Q. C., Kang S. G., Li M. Y., Zhang M. Y., Xu W. M., Xiang P., and Ma L. Q., “Heavy metal (loid) s in agricultural soil from main grain production regions of China: Bioaccessibility and health risks to humans,” Sci. Total Environ. 858, 159819 (2023). 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zhang W., Liu G., Bi J., Bao K., and Wang P., “In-situ and ultrasensitive detection of mercury (II) ions (Hg2+) using the localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) nanosensor and the microfluidic chip,” Sens. Actuators, A 349, 114074 (2023). 10.1016/j.sna.2022.114074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Praoboon N., Tangkuaram T., Kruefu V., Pookmanee P., Phaisansuthichol S., Kuimalee S., Laorodphan N., and Satienperakul S., “Fabrication of a simple 3D-printed microfluidic device with embedded electrochemiluminescence detection for rapid determination of sibutramine in dietary supplements,” Microchim. Acta 190(4), 145 (2023). 10.1007/s00604-023-05725-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Aryal P., Brack E., Alexander T., and Henry C. S., “Capillary flow-driven microfluidics combined with a paper device for fast user-friendly detection of heavy metals in water,” Anal. Chem. 95(13), 5820–5827 (2023). 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c00378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yuan M., Li C., Zheng Y., Cao H., Ye T., Wu X., Hao L., Yin F., Yu J., and Xu F., “A portable multi-channel fluorescent paper-based microfluidic chip based on smartphone imaging for simultaneous detection of four heavy metals,” Talanta 266, 125112 (2024). 10.1016/j.talanta.2023.125112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pérez-Rodríguez M. and del Pilar Cañizares-Macías M., “A prototype microfluidic paper-based chromatic device for simultaneous determination of copper (II) and zinc (II) in urine,” Talanta Open 7, 100178 (2023). 10.1016/j.talo.2022.100178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Wang L., Li B., Wang J., Qi J., Li J., Ma J., and Chen L., “A rotary multi-positioned cloth/paper hybrid microfluidic device for simultaneous fluorescence sensing of mercury and lead ions by using ion imprinted technologies,” J. Hazard. Mater. 428, 128165 (2022). 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.128165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yuan M., Li C., Wang M., Cao H., Ye T., Hao L., Wu X., Yin F., Yu J., and Xu F., “Low-cost, portable, on-site fluorescent detection of As (III) by a paper-based microfluidic device based on aptamer and smartphone imaging,” Microchim. Acta 190(3), 109 (2023). 10.1007/s00604-023-05693-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Gu Y., Jiao L., Cao F., Liu X., Zhou Y., Yang C., Gao Z., Zhang M., Lin P., Han Y., and Dong D., “A real-time detection method of Hg2+ in drinking water via portable biosensor: Using a smartphone as a low-cost micro-spectrometer to read the colorimetric signals,” Biosensors 12(11), 1017 (2022). 10.3390/bios12111017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mathur S., Singh D., and Ranjan R., “Genetic circuits in microbial biosensors for heavy metal detection in soil and water,” Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 652, 131–137 (2023). 10.1016/j.bbrc.2023.02.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ma Z., Meliana C., Munawaroh H. S. H., Karaman C., Karimi-Maleh H., Low S. S., and Show P. L., “Recent advances in the analytical strategies of microbial biosensor for detection of pollutants,” Chemosphere 306, 135515 (2022). 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135515 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Zhang Y., Zhao C., Bi H., Zhang X., Xue B., Li C., Wang S., Yang X., Qiu Z., Wang J., and Shen Z., “A cell-free paper-based biosensor dependent on allosteric transcription factors (aTFs) for on-site detection of harmful metals Hg2+ and Pb2+ in water,” J. Hazard. Mater. 438, 129499 (2022). 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wang J., Yang X., Cui M., Liu Y., Li X., Zhang L., and Zhan G., “A high-sensitive and durable electrochemical sensor based on Geobacter-dominated biofilms for heavy metal toxicity detection,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 206, 114146 (2022). 10.1016/j.bios.2022.114146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Bandeliuk O., Assaf A., Bittel M., Durand M. J., and Thouand G., “Development and automation of a bacterial biosensor to the targeting of the pollutants toxic effects by portable Raman spectrometer,” Sensors 22(12), 4352 (2022). 10.3390/s22124352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Nnachi R. C., Sui N., Ke B., Luo Z., Bhalla N., He D., and Yang Z., “Biosensors for rapid detection of bacterial pathogens in water, food and environment,” Environ. Int. 166, 107357 (2022). 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Liu Y. S., Deng Y., Chen C. K., Khoo B. L., and Chua S. L., “Rapid detection of microorganisms in a fish infection microfluidics platform,” J. Hazard. Mater. 431, 128572 (2022). 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Xing G., Zhang W., Li N., Pu Q., and Lin J. M., “Recent progress on microfluidic biosensors for rapid detection of pathogenic bacteria,” Chin. Chem. Lett. 33(4), 1743–1751 (2022). 10.1016/j.cclet.2021.08.073 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Li W., Ma X., Yong Y. C., Liu G., and Yang Z., “Review of paper-based microfluidic analytical devices for in-field testing of pathogens,” Anal. Chim. Acta 1278, 341614 (2023). 10.1016/j.aca.2023.341614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Jin J., Duan L., Fu J., Chai F., Zhou Q., Wang Y., Shao X., Wang L., Yan M., Su X., Zhang Y., Pan J., and Chen J., “A real-time LAMP-based dual-sample microfluidic chip for rapid and simultaneous detection of multiple waterborne pathogenic bacteria from coastal waters,” Anal. Methods 13(24), 2710–2721 (2021). 10.1039/D1AY00492A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Alonzo L. F., Hinkley T. C., Miller A., Calderon R., Garing S., Williford J., Culte-Reinig N., Spencer E., Friend M., Madan D., Dinh V. T. T., Bell D., Weigl B. H., Nugen S. R., Nichols K. P., and Le Ny A. L. M., “A microfluidic device and instrument prototypes for the detection of Escherichia coli in water samples using a phage-based bioluminescence assay,” Lab Chip 22(11), 2155–2164 (2022). 10.1039/D1LC00888A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Messaoud N. B., Dos Santos M. B., Vieira A., Garrido-Maestu A., Espiña B., and Queirós R. B., “A novel portable label-free electrochemical immunosensor for ultrasensitive detection of Aeromonas salmonicida in aquaculture seawater,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 414(22), 6591–6600 (2022). 10.1007/s00216-022-04219-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Patinglag L., Melling L. M., Whitehead K. A., Sawtell D., Iles A., and Shaw K. J., “Non-thermal plasma-based inactivation of bacteria in water using a microfluidic reactor,” Water Res. 201, 117321 (2021). 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Xiong H., Ye X., Li Y., Qi J., Fang X., and Kong J., “Efficient microfluidic-based air sampling/monitoring platform for detection of aerosol SARS-CoV-2 on-site,” Anal. Chem. 93(9), 4270–4276 (2021). 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c05154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Jiang X., Jing W., Sun X., Liu Q., Yang C., Liu S., Qin K., and Sui G., “High-throughput microfluidic device for LAMP analysis of airborne bacteria,” ACS Sens. 1(7), 958–962 (2016). 10.1021/acssensors.6b00282 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Gowda H. N., Kido H., Wu X., Shoval O., Lee A., Lorenzana A., Madou M., Hoffmann M., and Jiang S. C., “Development of a proof-of-concept microfluidic portable pathogen analysis system for water quality monitoring,” Sci. Total Environ. 813, 152556 (2022). 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Kim S., Akarapipad P., Nguyen B. T., Breshears L. E., Sosnowski K., Baker J., Uhrlaub J. L., Nikolich-Zugich J., and Yoon J. Y., “Direct capture and smartphone quantification of airborne SARS-CoV-2 on a paper microfluidic chip,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 200, 113912 (2022). 10.1016/j.bios.2021.113912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Ma J., Jiang G., Ma Q., Wang H., Du M., Wang C., Xie X., Li T., and Chen S., “Rapid detection of airborne protein from mycobacterium tuberculosis using a biosensor detection system,” Analyst 147(4), 614–624 (2022). 10.1039/D1AN02104D [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Muhsin S. A., Al-Amidie M., Shen Z., Mlaji Z., Liu J., Abdullah A., El-Dweik M., Zhang S., and Almasri M., “A microfluidic biosensor for rapid simultaneous detection of waterborne pathogens,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 203, 113993 (2022). 10.1016/j.bios.2022.113993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Siavash Moakhar R., Mahimkar R., Khorrami Jahromi A., Mahshid S. S., del Real Mata C., Lu Y., Camargo F. V., Dixon B., Gilleard J., Silva A. J. D., Ndao M., and Mahshid S., “Aptamer-based electrochemical microfluidic biosensor for the detection of cryptosporidium parvum,” ACS Sens. 8(6), 2149–2158 (2023). 10.1021/acssensors.2c01349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Gagliardi M., Agostini M., Lunardelli F., Lamanna L., Miranda A., Bazzichi A., Luminare A. G., Cervelli F., Gamnineri F., Totaro M., Lai M., Maisetta G., Batoni G., Pistello M., and Cecchini M., “Surface acoustic wave-based lab-on-a-chip for the fast detection of legionella pneumophila in water,” Sens. Actuators, B 379, 133299 (2023). 10.1016/j.snb.2023.133299 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Nehra M., Dilbaghi N., Kumar R., and Kumar S., “Trends in point-of-care optical biosensors for antibiotics detection in aqueous media,” Mater. Lett. 308, 131235 (2022). 10.1016/j.matlet.2021.131235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Singh B., Bhat A., Dutta L., Pati K. R., Korpan Y., and Dahiya I., “Electrochemical biosensors for the detection of antibiotics in milk: Recent trends and future perspectives,” Biosensors 13(9), 867 (2023). 10.3390/bios13090867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Mathai T., Pal T., Prakash N., and Mukherji S., “Portable biosensor for the detection of enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin antibiotic residues in food, body fluids, environmental and wastewater samples,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 237, 115478 (2023). 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Chen J., Shi G., and Yan C., “Portable biosensor for on-site detection of kanamycin in water samples based on CRISPR-Cas12a and an off-the-shelf glucometer,” Sci. Total Environ. 872, 162279 (2023). 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Umapathi R., Ghoreishian S. M., Sonwal S., Rani G. M., and Huh Y. S., “Portable electrochemical sensing methodologies for on-site detection of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables,” Coord. Chem. Rev. 453, 214305 (2022). 10.1016/j.ccr.2021.214305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Y. Qin, G. Ye, H. Liang, M. Li, and J. Zhao. “An amplified fluorescence polarization assay for sensitive sensing of organophosphorus pesticides via MnO2 nanosheets,” Spectrochim. Acta. A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 269, 120759 (2022). 10.1016/j.saa.2021.120759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.C. Zhang, L. Wang, Z. Tu, X. Sun, Q. He, Z. Lei, C. Xu, Y. Liu, X. Zhang, J. Yang, X. Liu, and Y. Xu, “Organophosphorus pesticides detection using broad-specific single-stranded DNA based fluorescence polarization aptamer assay,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 55, 216–219 (2014). 10.1016/j.bios.2013.12.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Maanaki H., Xu T., Chen G., Du X., and Wang J., “Development of integrated smartphone/resistive biosensor for on-site rapid environmental monitoring of organophosphate pesticides in food and water,” Biosens. Bioelectron.: X 15, 100402 (2023). 10.1016/j.biosx.2023.100402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Wu H., Chen J., Yang Y., Yu W., Chen Y., Lin P., and Liang K., “Smartphone-coupled three-layered paper-based microfluidic chips demonstrating stereoscopic capillary-driven fluid transport towards colorimetric detection of pesticides,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 414(5), 1759–1772 (2022). 10.1007/s00216-021-03839-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Samanta S. K., Singh O. V., and Jain R. K., “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Environmental pollution and bioremediation,” Trends Biotechnol. 20(6), 243–248 (2002). 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01943-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Zheng L., Zhao M., Dai B., Xue Z., Kang Y., Liu S., Hou L., Zhuang S., and Zhang D., “Integrated system for rapid enrichment and detection of airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,” Sci. Total Environ. 864, 161057 (2023). 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Li X., Kaattari S. L., Vogelbein M. A., Vadas G. G., and Unger M. A., “A highly sensitive monoclonal antibody based biosensor for quantifying 3–5 ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in aqueous environmental samples,” Sens. Bio-sens. Res. 7, 115–120 (2016). 10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Babolghani F. M. and Mohammadi-Manesh E., “Simulation and experimental study of FET biosensor to detect polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 488, 662–670 (2019). 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.05.202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Articles from Biomicrofluidics are provided here courtesy of American Institute of Physics

RESOURCES