Table 3. A comparison of carbon-based electrochemical biosensors for influenza virus detection.

Electrodesa	3D surface materialsb	3D surface materials immobilization method	Capture probes	Capture probe immobilization method	Analytes (influenza subtypes)	Detection methodsc	Limit of detection	Detection range	Reference
AuSPE	Graphene–Au hybrid nanomaterial	Physical adsorption	Antibody	Electrostatic interaction; chemical conjugation	H3N2	EIS	1.01 μg mL−1	1.0–17.5 μg mL−1	102
AuSPE	Graphene–Au nanocomposite	Physical adsorption	Glycoprotein	EDC/NHS reaction	H9N2	EIS	10−8 U mL−1	10−8–10−1 U mL−1	103
GCE	NiO–rGO/MXene nanocomposite	Physical adsorption	Peptide	EDC/NHS reaction	H1N1, H5N1	CV	25–300 nM	2.29–3.63 nM	104
GCE	Graphene–Chi/AuPt NP	Chemical conjugation (glutaraldehyde)	Antibody	Electrostatic interaction; physical adsorption	AIV H9	Amperometry (I–t curve)	100.82 EID50 per mL	101.37–106.37 EID50 per mL	105
GCE	CNTs/MoSx	Physical adsorption	Antibody	EDC/NHS reaction	AIV H7	LSV	1–25 ng mL−1	0.43 ng mL−1	107

^aAuSPE, Au-screen printed electrode; GCE, glassy carbon electrode.

^brGO, reduced graphene oxide; AuPt NP, gold–platinum nanoparticles.

^cCV, cyclic voltammetry; EIS, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; LSV, linear sweep voltammetry.