Table. 1.

Comparison of the proposed aptasensor with other methods for detection of TET

Electrode	Method	Dynamic range (M)	LOD (M)	Repeatability (RSD%)	Reproducibility (RSD%)	Stability (day)	Reference
M-shape structure of aptamer /complementary strands of aptamer/ exonuclease I/gold electrode	DPVa	1.5 × 10–9–3.5 × 10–6	0.45 × 10–9	7.9	8.3	–	(Taghdisi et al. 2016)
MWCNTb/GCEc	DPV	1 × 10−8 –5 × 10−5	5 × 10–9	–	10	14	(Zhou et al. 2012)
Avidin-HRPd/bio-cDNAe/aptamer/MoS2-TiO2@Au /GCE	DPV	1.5 × 10−10–6 × 10−6	5 × 10–11	–	5.12	10	(Tang et al. 2018)
MIPf/Aptamer/ AuNP/GCE	EIS	5 × 10–13–1 × 10–10	144 × 10–15	–	6.8	14	(Rad and Azadbakht 2019)
MBCPEg/Fe3O4NPs@OAh/anti-TET	EIS	1 × 10–14–1 × 10–6	3.8 × 10–15	–	6.8	7	(Jahanbani and Benvidi 2016)
Anti-ET/PGAi/MWCNT /GCE	DPV	1 × 10−15–1 × 10− 6	3.1 × 10− 16	–	5.6	7	(Benvidi et al. 2018)
TET/Aptamer/AuNPs/RGO/PGE	EIS	1 × 10–16–1 × 10–6	3.05 × 10−17	4.2	5.6	21	This work

^adifferential pulse voltammetry, ^bMulti-walled carbon nanotubes, ^cglassy carbon electrode, ^davidin-horseradish peroxidase, ^ebiotin-DNA oligonucleotide, ^fmolecular imprinted polymers, ^gmagnetic bar carbon paste, ^holeic acid, ⁱpoly L-glutamic acid