Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 4;24:6. doi: 10.1186/s40824-019-0181-y

Table 1.

Summary of representative carbon-based nanomaterials used in electrode and label of electrochemical biosensor

Materials Advantage Limitations Feature Limit of detection Ref.
SWCNT

Large surface area to volume ratio (S/V)

Low charge-carried density

Delocalized π-orbitals

Electrical conductivity improvements

Limited surface to interface

with large biological components

Nonspecific adsorption of protein

Difficult manipulation during sensor fabrication process

Difficult chemical functionalization

Electrode

DeoxyriboNucleic acid (DNA)

71 pM

[13]
Electrode

Glucose

7.06 μA/mM

[14]
Electrode

aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)

0.01 nM

[15]
Electrode

Anti-IgG

0.2 pM

[16]
MWCNT

Excellent conducting and

electro-catalytic properties

Need to functionalize surface

for increasing biocompatibility

Irreversible agglomerates in aqueous solution

Electrode

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)

0.0055 fM

[17]
Electrode

Transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1)

0.05 pM

[9]
Electrode

Prostate specific antigen (PSA)

0.11 fM

[18]
Electrode

Mouse IgG

0.066 pM

[19]
Label

PSA

0.13 pM

[20]
Graphene

High S/V

Large active sites

Fast electron transfer

High thermal conductivity

Better mechanical flexibility

Good biocompatibility

Hard to dissolve in water Electrode

dibutyl phthalate (DBP)

0.025 μM

[21]
Electrode

PSA

0.33 pM

[22]
Electrode

Cystatin C

0.002 nM

[23]
Label

Cry1C

0.02 pM

[24]
Label

CEA

0.003 pM

[25]