Table 2.
Comparative evaluation of WS2 with other 2D materials in biosensing
| Property | WS2 | MoS2 | Graphene |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bandgap | Tunable (~ 1.4–2.1 eV) | Tunable (~ 1.2–1.9 eV) | Zero bandgap (semi-metallic) |
| Surface area | Large (~ 800 m2/g) | Large (~ 700 m2/g) | Very high (~ 2600 m2/g) |
| Electrical conductivity | Moderate | Moderate | Very high |
| Optoelectronic properties | Strong photoluminescence & high absorption | Strong photoluminescence | Poor photoluminescence, high carrier mobility |
| Chemical stability | Higher oxidation resistance than MoS2 | Prone to oxidation in ambient conditions | High stability, but susceptible to functionalization |
| Biocompatibility | Excellent for biosensing applications | Good, but less explored than WS2 | Requires functionalization for enhanced biocompatibility |
| Biosensing sensitivity | High, due to strong light-matter interaction | High, but slightly lower than WS2 | Good, but requires chemical modifications |
| Flexibility and mechanical strength | High flexibility, suitable for wearable sensors | Moderate flexibility | Extremely high flexibility and strength |
| Selectivity in biosensing | Enhanced selectivity due to high sulfur reactivity | Moderate | Can be tuned via functionalization |
| Application in biosensing | DNA/RNA detection, cancer biomarker detection, enzyme activity monitoring, pathogen sensing | Electrochemical biosensors, fluorescence sensors | Electrochemical biosensors, flexible bioelectronics |