Table 3.

Comparison of the proposed sensor with other biosensors from the literature.

Detection method	Material	Biorecognition element	Dynamic range (ng mL− 1)	LOD (ng mL− 1)	Ref.
DPV4	Graphene-decorated rhodium nanoparticles	Aptamer	10–500	0.667	4
DPV	GCE with PEDOT and peptide hydrogel	Antibody	0.1–1000	45 × 10− 3	43
DPV	GCE with PEG and AuNPs	Peptide	0.001–1000	4.4 × 10− 4	44
DPV	GCE with antiHER2/APTMS1-Fe3O4	Antibody	5 × 10− 4 − 50	2 × 10− 5	45
DPV	SP gold electrode	Antibody	0.5–25	0.59	42
DPV	AuNPs@HRP2@ZIF-8	Peptide	50 × 10− 6 − 50	16.8 × 10− 6	46
SQV5	Cd2+- aptamer@AMNFs@ZIF-67 nanocomposite	Aptamer	0–1000	4.8 × 10− 6	47
SQV	GCE with PEDOT: PSS3 and AuNPs	Aptamers	0.01–1000	1.979 × 10− 6	48
EIS	Gold leaf electrodes	Antibody	1–1000	1	This work

¹3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane, ²horseradish peroxidase, ³poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): polystyrene sulfonate, ⁴differential pulse voltammetry, ⁵square wave voltammetry.