. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 7.

Published in final edited form as: Analyst. 2019 Aug 2;144(17):5108–5116. doi: 10.1039/c9an01093a

Table 3.

Comparison of performance for HRP sensors using different antibody immobilization strategies on screen printed carbon arrays

Immobilization strategy	LOD (fgmL⁻¹)	Dynamic Range	Sensitivity (nA/log (pg mL⁻¹)	No. of Ab/Electrode (×10⁹)	Percent active antibodies	Signal loss after 5 days storage
Anti-HRP/AuNP	40	40 fg ML⁻¹	2.40	6.2 ± 0.3	21%	≤ 30%
Anti-HRP/AuNP	40	250 pg mL⁻¹	2.40	6.2 ± 0.3	21%	≤ 30%
Anti-HRP/rGO	40	40 fg mL⁻¹	0.55	4.3 ± 0.3	30%	≤ 35%
Anti-HRP/rGO	40	125 pg mL⁻¹	0.55	4.3 ± 0.3	30%	≤ 35%
Anti-HRP/Chitosan	40	40 fg mL⁻¹	0.90	6.1 ± 0.6	21%	≤ 7%
Anti-HRP/Chitosan	40	125 pg mL⁻¹	0.90	6.1 ± 0.6	21%	≤ 7%
Anti-HRP/Protein A/AuNP	40	40 fg mL⁻¹	2.01	6.1 ± 0.4	85%	≤ 20
Anti-HRP/Protein A/AuNP	40	500pgmL⁻¹	2.01	6.1 ± 0.4	85%	≤ 20
Anti-HRP/bare electrode	4	8 fg raL⁻¹	1.75	1.1 ± 0.03	60%	>60%
Anti-HRP/bare electrode	4	250 pg mL⁻¹	1.75	1.1 ± 0.03	60%	>60%
Anti-HRP/Protein A/bare electrode	8	8 fg mL⁻¹	1.62	0.26 ± 0.1	98%	≤ 25
Anti-HRP/Protein A/bare electrode	8	25 pg mL⁻¹	1.62	0.26 ± 0.1	98%	≤ 25