Table 1. Comparison study between the impedimetric microfluidic analysis system and other methods for Cry1Ab protein detection.

Method	Detection limit	Detection time	Advantage(s)	Disadvantage(s)	Ref.
ELISA	0.4 ng mL–1	3.5 h	High sensitivity	Time consuming, high rate of false positives	3
Fluorescence method	3 ng mL−1	—	Real-time, both in vitro and in vivo	High cost	7
Lateral flow immunoassay	10 pg mL−1	10 min	High sensitivity,	High rate of false positives	5
Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) immunosensor	4.8 ng mL−1	20 min	Label free, real-time, good specificity	High cost, unsuitable for fast-field analysis	8
Western blot method	2.0 ng mL−1	2 d	Good stability and sensitivity	Difficult to quantify, time consuming	38
Electrochemical impedance microfluidic analysis	0.015 nM (0.96 ng mL−1)	1 h	Label free, high sensitivity and specificity, less sample consume, good reproducibility	The detectability in real samples with the complicated matrix will be needed for further research	This work