Table 3.
Comparison of the validated microarray lateral flow immunoassay assay (µLFIA) with other recently published multiplex microarray-based methods
| Method | Extraction solvent | Matrix | Limit of detection (ng/mL) | Duration (min) | Publication | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFB1 | T2 | ZEA | DON | FB1 | |||||
| Protein microarray | 70% methanol | Cereals | 0.24 | – | – | – | 0.09 | 65 | Li et al.50 |
| Immune-affinity monolithic microarray | 100% methanol | Barley | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 90 | Li et al.51 |
| SERS microarray | 70% methanol | Cereals | 0.06 | – | 0.57 | – | – | 67 | Li et al.50 |
| Aptamer microarray | 70% methanol | Cereals | 1.48 | – | – | – | 0.21 | 90 | Liu et al.52 |
| Chip reader microarray | 80% methanol | Oat | 0.90 | – | – | 40.00 | 10.00 | 90 | Oswald et al.53 |
| Smartphone-based microarray | 70% acetonitrile | Cereals | – | – | 0.005 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 37 | Wu et al.54 |
| Fluorescence microarray | 20% ethanol and 0.1% polyethylene glycol | Rice | 1.89 | 1.21 | 1.39 | 1.17 | 0.56 | 17 | This study |