Table 4. A comparison of metal–organic and covalent–organic framework-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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Au | polyUiO-66@AgNP | Electrostatic interaction; physical adsorption | Aptamer | Physical adsorption | H1N1 | EIS, DPV | 54.7 fg mL−1 | 0.1 pg mL−1–1 μg mL−1 | 115 |
| GCE | TPB–DVA COFs | Physical adsorption | DNA | Chemical crosslinking (glutaraldehyde) | H1N1 | CV, EIS, DPV, CA | 5.42 fM | 10 fM–1 pM | 117 |
| Au | COFs/MWCNT nanocomposites | Physical adsorption | DNA | Chemical crosslinking (glutaraldehyde) | H1N1 | DPV | 1.01 fM | 10 fM–1 nM | 118 |
a
GCE, glassy carbon electrode.
b
AgNP, silver nanoparticle; TPB–DVA COFs, TPB: 1,3,5-tris (4-aminophenyl) benzene, DVA: 1,4-benzenedicarboxaldehyd, COFs: covalent organic frameworks; MWNTs, multi-walled carbon nanotubes.
c
DPV, differential pulse voltammetry; EIS, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; CV, cyclic voltammetry.