Table 3.

Comparison of analytical performance of nano-based sensors in biological detection and the food industry.

Nano Material in Sensor	Sensing Methodology	Advantages	Drawbacks	Ref
Hydrogel hybridised carbon nanotube	Metabolism of microbial species causes variation in conductance of nanomaterial	Real time detection possible	The composition of malt extract agar used in the study can vary due to metabolite change.	[29]
Inorganic semiconductor nanoparticles inserted onto membrane	Membrane potential detection via the quantum confined Stark effect	Simultaneous recording of multiple action potential	The membrane insertion may be uneven.	[30]
MoSe2 nano-urchins	Denaturing of target DNA in real life samples of Escherichia coli	Stable and sensitive with insignificant interference	Sensing interface degrades over 14 days.	[34]
Prussian blue nanoparticles	H2O2 sensitivity indirectly quantifies glucose level.	Eco friendly material with high degree of correlation coefficient	Gold precursor may be required to enhance the sensitivity.	[36]
Aptamer embedded magnetic nanoparticles	Fluorescence emission intensity decreases with intensity of E. Coli	Wide linear range and high selectivity towards adulterated pork samples	Binding properties of aptamer to E. coli requires a better insight.	[40]
Screen-printed carbon electrode	Cyclic voltammetry and differential pulse voltammetry	Rapid determination, excellent stability, sensitivity, and good reproducibility	Applicable only in the specific dynamic range and detection limit	[48]