Table 6.
Summary of the best analytical performances for the electrochemical biosensors.
| Biosensor Prototype | Quantitative Analysis | Qualitative Analysis | Main Advantages | Main Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impedance biosensor devices, recording Faradaic signal, in the presence of the electroactive probes | ✓ | Linear range of concentration: 6.0 × 104–6.0 × 107 cells/mL; Limit Of Detection (L. O. D.): 6.0 × 102 cells/mL. |
High selectivity and sensitivity toward the organic binder recognition, more than FTIR traditional method. The biosensor regeneration opportunity | The inadequacy, in some case studies, of the Randles model equivalent electrical circuit to describe the electrochemical impedance biosensor prototypes |
| Impedance biosensor devices, recording non-Faradaic signal, without the electroactive probes | ✓ | Linear range of concentration: 104–107 cfu/mL; Limit Of Detection (L. O. D.): 1.0 × 102 cells/mL. |
High Signal/Noise ratio Lower LOD |
Possible Fouling and passivation phenomenon with interference on the output signals due to the stable chemical bonds between bacteria suspension and the immobilized antibodies |
| Surface Plasmon Resonance-based biosensors | ✓ | The direct assay of albumen/yolk mixture recognized the presence of both chemical analytes (140.0 ± 5.6 RU) for (anti-OVA) channel, (123.3 ± 4.9 RU) for (anti-IgY) channel. | The experimental results confirmed that very short application times were enough to extract useful information and, at the same time, they were ideal for avoiding invasive treatments on original artwork surfaces | The main analytical problem could be related to the interference when in absence of Highly Viscous Polymeric Dispersions (HVPDs) extracts from original samples |
✓ Qualitative analysis is present in each electrochemical small-sensor prototype.