| Literature DB >> 35744967 |
Abstract
Nanoengineering biosensors have become more precise and sophisticated, raising the demand for highly sensitive architectures to monitor target analytes at extremely low concentrations often required, for example, for biomedical applications. We review recent advances in functional nanomaterials, mainly based on novel organic-inorganic hybrids with enhanced electro-physicochemical properties toward fulfilling this need. In this context, this review classifies some recently engineered organic-inorganic metallic-, silicon-, carbonaceous-, and polymeric-nanomaterials and describes their structural properties and features when incorporated into biosensing systems. It further shows the latest advances in ultrasensitive electrochemical biosensors engineered from such innovative nanomaterials highlighting their advantages concerning the concomitant constituents acting alone, fulfilling the gap from other reviews in the literature. Finally, it mentioned the limitations and opportunities of hybrid nanomaterials from the point of view of current nanotechnology and future considerations for advancing their use in enhanced electrochemical platforms.Entities:
Keywords: bioaffinity; biocatalytic; bioreceptor; biosensor; cytosensor; electrochemical; genosensor; hybrid; immunosensor; nanobiomaterial
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744967 PMCID: PMC9229873 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27123841
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Comparative analytical characteristics of nanomaterial-based electrochemical biosensors focused on the last ten years.
| Nanomaterial | Hybrid a | Target b | Analytical Characteristics | Comments | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear Range | LOD | |||||
| Metallic nanostructures | 3D hybrid graphene–GNR. | H2O2 | 0 to 50 mM | 2.9 µM | Metallic nanostructures have high catalytic activity, easy preparation, and relatively low cost. However, this kind of nanomaterial can change its oxidation state due to variations in conditions of the medium, such as pH, ionic strength, and temperature upon time. | [ |
| TiO2 nanoparticles encapsulated ZIF-8 | Glucose | 2 to 10 mM | 80 nM | [ | ||
| Nanohybrid of VS2/AuNP and CoFe2O4 nanozyme | Kana | 1 pM to 1 μM | 0.5 pM | [ | ||
| Ag and hybrid Ag–Fe3O4 metallic nanoparticles. | AA | 0.2–60 μM | 74 nM | [ | ||
| Silicon nanomaterials | mSiO2@MWCNT. | Thrombin | 0.0001 nM and 80 nM | 50 fM | These nanomaterials have high mechanical resistance, thermal stability, long functional life, and versatility; nonetheless, they require long synthetic processes, and their application is limited to certain analytes. | [ |
| MSF/APTES/AgNP | STR | 1 to 6.2 ng/mL | 0.33 fg/mL | [ | ||
| Ap–GA–NH2MCM-41–GCE | hemin and Hb | 1.0 × 10−19 to 1.0 × 10−6 M | 7.5 × 10−20 M and 6.5 × 10−20 M | [ | ||
| AuNPs loaded in functionalized MSNPs | CEA | 1.0 × 10−3 to 100 ng/mL | 9.8 × 10−4 ng/mL | [ | ||
| Carbon nanostructures | MWCNTs and GQDs. | IL-13Rα2 | 2.7 to 100 ng/mL | 0.8 ng/mL | These nanomaterials enjoy thermal stability, large surface area, and a wide range of nanostructures and functional groups. They are the main nanomaterials used in the preparation of electrochemical biosensors. | [ |
| GQDs/AuNPs. | P53 | 0.000592–1.296 pM | 0.065 fM | [ | ||
| CQDs/AuNps | Glucose | 0.05 mM to 2.85 mM | 17 μM | [ | ||
| CoCu-ZIF@CDs | B16-F10 cells | 1 × 102 to 1 × 105 cells/mL | 33 cells/mL | [ | ||
| Polymers | (Chi-Py) mixture, AuNPs, and MWCNT | Escherichia coli | 3 × 101 to 3 × 107 cfu/mL | ~30 CFU/mL | These have high biocompatibility, high affinity, strong adsorption ability, low molecular permeability, physical rigidity, and chemical inertness in biological processes. However, functionalizing their surface is necessary for the anchorage of bioreceptors, and some polymers oxidize due to changes in medium conditions. | [ |
| PANI/active carbon and n-TiO2 | Glucose | 0.02 mM to 6.0 mM | 18 μM | [ | ||
| PEG/AuNPs/PANI | alpha-fetoprotein | 10−14 to 10−6 mg/mL | 0.007 pg/mL | [ | ||
| Other nanostructured nanomaterials | WSe2 and AuNPs | Thrombin | 0–1 ng/mL | 190 fg/mL | Other hybrid nanostructures have a large specific surface area, excellent electrical conductivity, and electrocatalytic properties. | [ |
| MoS2/Ti3C2 nanohybrids | miRNA | 1 fM to 0.1 nM | 0.43 fM | [ | ||
| AuNPs/Ti3C2 MXene 3D | miRNA155 | 1.0 fM to 10 nM | 0.35 fM | [ | ||
a GNR, graphene–gold nanorod; AuNPs, gold nanoparticles; Ap, aptamer; GA, glutaraldehyde; GCE, glassy carbon electrode; MSNPs, mesoporous silica nanoparticles; MWCNTs, multiwalled carbon nanotube; MSF, mesoporous silica thin film; APTES, (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane; AgNP, silver nanoparticles; CDs, carbon-dots; Chi-Py, pyrrole branched chitosan; PEG, polyethylene glycols; PANI, polyaniline. b AA, ascorbic acid; STR, streptomycin; miRNA; micro-RNA.
Figure 1Schematic illustration of metallic-nanomaterial-based biosensors. (I) Schematic illustration of the fabrication process of (A) Au-Pt multisegmented nanowire array and with L-cysteine immobilization on Au segment; (B) electroless plating of Au nanoparticles on Pt segment followed by penicillinase enzyme immobilization, reprinted from Li et al. [50] copyright Elsevier 2019. (II) Amperometric Glucose biosensor using MOF-encapsulated TiO2 platform, reprinted from Paul et al. [51] copyright Elsevier 2018. (III) Schematic illustration of the preparation process of the aptasensor based on VS2/AuNPs and the electrochemical detection strategy of the Kana, reprinted from Tian et al., copyright Elsevier 2020 [52].
Figure 2Schematic illustration of silicon-nanomaterial-based electrochemical biosensors. (I) schematic representation of the steps involved in preparing the glassy carbon electrode (GCE)/MWCNTs-MCM41-Hb bioplatform, reprinted from Eguílaz et al. [62] copyright Elsevier 2018. (II) Electrochemical immunosensor for BRCA1 using BMIM·BF4-coated SBA-15 as labels and functionalized graphene as an enhancer, reprinted from Cai et al. [64] copyright Elsevier 2011. (III) The stepwise procedure of label-free electrochemical biosensor based on a DNA aptamer against codeine, reprinted from Huang et al. [65] copyright Elsevier 2013. (IV) Schematic representation of the electrochemical aptasensor for streptomycin based on covalent attachment of the aptamer onto a mesoporous silica-thin-film-coated gold electrode, reprinted from Roushani et al. [66] copyright Elsevier 2019.
Figure 3Schematic illustration of CNT hybrid-based electrochemical biosensors. (I) Schematic representation for preparing core-shell Mo NPs@f-MWCNTs hybrid nanocomposite and its electrochemical determination of neurotransmitter in biological samples, reprinted from Keerthi et al. [94] copyright Elsevier 2019. (II) Scheme showing the stepwise preparation of Cyt c/l-Cys/P3MT/MWCNT/GCE biosensor, reprinted from Eguílaz et al. [95] copyright Elsevier 2010. (III) Schematic display of the different steps involved in assembling the amperometric sandwich-like immunosensor for IL-13sRα2 based on the immobilization of BCAb onto Strep/p-ABA/SPCE and the use of MWCNTs/GQDs-HRP-DAb nanocarriers., reprinted from Serafín et al. [96] copyright Elsevier 2019.
Figure 4Schematic illustration of polymeric hybrid-based electrochemical biosensors. (I) Schematic diagram of the experimental setup of an electrochemical immunosensor using chitosan, MWCNT, polypyrrole with AuNP-hybrid sensing platform for sensitive detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7, reprinted from Güner et al. [105] copyright Elsevier 2017. (II) Schematic representation of the GOx-PtNPs-PEDOT-MSs biohybrid conducting polymer composite for glucose detection, reprinted from Liu et al. [107] copyright Elsevier 2018. (III) (a) Schematic diagram for fabrication of PANI/AuNPs/ITO electrode and the interaction between PANI and PYO; (b) schematic diagram for electrochemical sensing of P. aeruginosa by using either PANI/AuNPs/ITO or SPE electrodes, reprinted from Khalifa et al. [108] copyright Elsevier 2019.
Figure 5Scheme of electrochemical biosensors based on proteins, glycoproteins, antibodies, nucleic acids, aptamers, cells, or microorganisms at an electrode surface decorated with NPs, silicon nanomaterials, CNTs, graphene, QDs, polymers, or other nanomaterials.
Figure 6Conjugation of nano(bio)sensors involves binding the bioreceptor’s specific and oriented form to the transducer surface by physical (A) or chemical methods (B). (A) The physical methods include (I) physical adsorption; (II) enzyme entrapment in a sol–gel, hydrogel, or paste, confined by semipermeable membranes; and (III) encapsulation. (B) The chemical methods include (I) covalent binding, (II) crosslinking, and (III) affinity binding.
Characterization techniques of hybrid nanomaterials, nanobioconjugates and electrochemical biosensors.
| Techniques | Physicochemical Characteristics Analyzed |
|---|---|
| Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). | This technique characterizes the functional groups, surface properties, structure, and conformation of hybrid nanomaterials and nanobioconjugates. |
| Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). | Thermogravimetric analysis of nanohybrids determines their thermal stability by estimating organic and inorganic material extent. |
| Ultraviolet spectroscopy (UV-Vis). | This technique can be used to estimate variables such as |
| Dynamic light scattering (DLS). | This technique can estimate the hydrodynamic size distribution of nanostructures. |
| Electrophoretic light scattering. | The stability of nanomaterials is highly dependent on the surface charge, among other factors. |
| X-ray diffraction (XRD). | These techniques characterize hybrid nanomaterials’ size, shape, and crystalline structure. |
| X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). | |
| Transmission electron microscopy (TEM). | Imaging techniques study size, size distribution, aggregation, dispersion, heterogeneity, morphological characteristics, and compositional analysis of the hybrid nanomaterials and nanobioconjugates. |
| Scanning electron microscopy (SEM). | |
| Electrochemical techniques. | Electrochemical techniques such as CV and EIS are used to evaluate electron transfer before, during, and after the bioreceptors attach to the surface of hybrid nanomaterials. They are also used to characterize the analytical properties of the resultant biosensors. |
Examples of nanobioengineered biosensors, indicating the nanobiohybrid (nanomaterial and biomolecules) and analytic characteristics.
| Biosensor | Application a | Nanobiohybrid: Nanomaterial and Biomolecules b | Characterization c | Analytical Performance | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immunosensor | PSA | Antibody/HP5@AuNPs@g-C3N4 bioconjugated with PSA-Ab2 | CV, EIS, and DPV | 0.0005 to 0.00 ng/mL with LOD of 0.12 pg/mL | [ |
| HER2 | Ab/g-C3N4/AuNPs/Cu-MOF | CV and EIS | 1.00 to 100.00 ng/mL with LOD of 3.00 fg/mL | [ | |
| AXL | Ab/fGQDs | XRD, FTIR, UV-Vis, TEM, EIS, DPV | 1.7 to 1000 pg/mL with LOD of 0.5 pg/mL | [ | |
| CEA | CdSe-QD-melamine and Ab1-TiO2-AuNP-ITO | DPV | 0.005–1000 ng/mL with a LOD of 5 pg/mL | [ | |
| CA19-9 | CeO2/FeOx@mC | XPS, TEM, EIS, CV | 0.1 mU/mL to 10 U/mL with a LOD of 10 μU/mL | [ | |
| NMP-22 | Co-MOFs/CuAu NWs/Ab | SEM, XPS, CV, and chronoamperometry | 0.1 pg/mL to 1 ng/mL with a LOD of 33 fg/mL | [ | |
| Genosensor | Zika | Anti-Dig-HRP | Chronoamperometry, CV, EIS | 5 to 300 pmol/L with LOD of 0.7 pM | [ |
| Zika genes | AuNPs/ssDNA | SEM, CV, DPV, and chronoamperometry | 10 to 600 fM with LOD of 0.2 fM | [ | |
| CaMV35S gen | Fe3O4-Au@Ag-sDNA on MWCNT/AuNPs/SH-sDNA | TEM, XRD, UV-Vis, CV, and DPV | 1 × 10−16 M to 1 × 10−10 M with LOD of 1.26 × 10−17 M | [ | |
| mi-R21 | 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl methacrylate/ITO/PET/Fc-hybrid DNA hydrogel | DPV | 10 nM to 50 μM with a LOD of 5 nM | [ | |
| miRNA-122 | rGO/Au/DNA | XRD, TEM, Raman, XPS, CV, and DPV | 10 μM to 10 pM with a LOD of 1.73 pM | [ | |
| OVA | SiO2@Au/dsDNA/CeO2 | DPV | 1 pg/mL to 1000 ng/mL with a LOD of 0.87 pg/mL | [ | |
| Enzymatic | Glucose | GOx/n-TiO2/PANI | CV and chronoamperometry | 0.02 to 6.0 mM with LOD of 18 μM | [ |
| Glucose | Cu-nanoflowers-Gox-HRP/AuNPs-GO-PVA nanofibers | UV–Vis, SEM, TEM, XDR, CV, and chronoamperometry | 0.001 to 0.1 mM with a LOD of 0.018 μM | [ | |
| Organophosphate pesticides | acetylcholinesterase/chitosan-transition metals/graphene/GCE | SEM, TEM, XPS, XRD, CV, DPV and EIS | 11.31 μM to 22.6 nM with LOD of 14.45 nM | [ | |
| β-hydroxybutyric acid | Ti3C2Tx nanosheets conjugated with β-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase | SEM, CV, and chronoamperometry | 0.36 to 17.9 mM with a LOD of 45 μM | [ | |
| Based on peptides | norovirus | Cys/peptide/gold layer | CV and EIS | The LOD was 99.8 nM and 7.8 copies/mL for rP2 and human norovirus, respectively. | [ |
| PSA | MXene-Au-MB nanohybrid/peptide | DPV | 5 pg/mL to 10 ng/mL with a LOD of 0.83 pg/mL | [ | |
| PKA and CK2 | Peptide/MSF/ITO | Chronoamperometry | The LODs were 0.083 and 0.095 U/mL, for PKA and CK2, respectively | [ | |
| NHE | Cys-PEG-QRRMIEEPA-MB | DPV and SWV | 10 and 150 nM with a LOD of 250 pM | [ | |
| Based on glycoproteins |
| Ab glycosylphosphatidylinositol/SPAuE | CV, EIS | 1.0 to 10.0 IU/mL, with a LOD of 0.31 IU/mL | [ |
| MIPs/glycoproteins | Fc/MPBA/AuNPs-SiO2 nanobioconjugate | FTIR, CV, EIS, DPV, and chronoamperometry | 1 pg/mL to 100 ng/mL and reached a LOD of 0.57 pg/mL | [ | |
| Based on aptamers | tumor exosomes extracted from lymph node carcinoma of a prostate cells line | MNPs/aptamer-DNA/double-stranded DNA/GCE | DPV | The LOD was 70 particles/μL | [ |
| miRNA | DSN/AuNPS/HRP | CV, EIS and chronoamperometry | The LOD was 43.3 aM | [ | |
| CA125 and living MCF-7 cells | Tb-MOF-on-Fe-MOF | SEM, TEM, XPS, CV, and EIS | 100 μU/mL to 200 U/mL with a LOD of 58 μU/mL towards CA125. Moreover, biosensor detecting MCF-7 cells with a LOD of 19 cells/mL | [ | |
| CEA and NSE | Paper-electrode functionalized with amino-modified graphene-Thi-AuNPs and PB-PEDOT | DPV | 0.01 to 500 ng/mL for CEA and 0.05–500 ng/mL for NSE with a LOD of 2 pg/mL for CEA and 10 pg/mL for NSE, respectively | [ | |
| Other types of biosensors (based on cells or mimicking biosensors) | Impedimetric biosensor/ | CNT/PEI-T2 virus/GCE | EIS | 103 to 107 CFU/mL with LOD of 1.5 × 103 CFU/mL | [ |
| Nonenzymatic biosensor/glucose | GS/GNR/Ni | Chronoamperometry | 5 nM to 5 mM with a LOD of 2.5 nM. | [ | |
| Mimicking biosensor/H2O2 released from H9C2 cardiac cells | AuNFs/Fe3O4@ZIF-8-MoS2 | SEM, fluorescence, CV, EIS, and chronoamperometry | 5 μM–120 mM and a LOD of 0.9 μM | [ | |
| Electrochemical/glucose | CuOx@Co3O4 core-shell nanowires/ZIF-67 | SEM, TEM, XRD, XPS, CV, and chronoamperometry | 0.1 to 1300.0 μM with a LOD of 36 nM | [ | |
| Mimicking/L-tyrosinase | UT-g-C3N4/Ag hybrids | TEM, XPS, XRD, AFM, EIS, CV, and DPV | 1.00 × 10−6 to 1.50 × 10−4 mol/L with a LOD of 1.40 × 10−7 mol/L | [ | |
| Biomimetic biosensor/glucose | Fe3O4@PNE-GOx | Chronoamperometry | 0.24 to 24 mM with a LOD of 6.1 µM | [ | |
| PAD/creatinine | CuO/IL/ERGO/SPCE | Chronoamperometry | 0.01 to 2.0 mM and a LOD of 0.22 μM | [ | |
| 3D paper-based microfluidic electrochemical biosensor/glucose | rGO-TEPA/PB | SEM, Raman, CV, and chronoamperometry | 0.1 mM–25 mM with a LOD of 25 μM | [ |
a PSA, prostate-specific antigen; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; AXL, tyrosine kinase; CaMV35S, cauliflower mosaic virus 35S; SAMs, self-assembled monolayers; MIPs, molecular imprinted polymers; miRNA, micro-ribonucleic acid; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CA125, carbohydrate antigen 125; NMP-22, nuclear matrix protein-22; PKA, protein kinase A; CK2, casein kinase II; PAD, paper-based analytical devices; OVA, ovalbumin; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; NHE, human neutrophil elastase; NSE, neuron-specific enolase. b HP5, hydroxylpillar[5]arene; AuNPs, gold nanoparticles; Ab, antibody; Gox, glucose oxidase; PANI, polyaniline; Cys, cysteine; MOFs, metal–organic framework; fGQDs, functionalized graphene quantum dots; anti-Dig-HRP, antibody-digoxigenin-horseradish peroxidase; ssDNA, single-strand DNA; MWCNT, multiwalled carbon nanotube; CNT, carbon nanotube; PEI, polyethyleneimine; GCE, glassy carbon electrode; SPAuE, screen-printed gold electrode; MNPs, metallic nanoparticles; Fc, ferrocene; MPBA, 4-mercaptophenylboronic acid; QD, quantum dots; ITO, indium tin oxide; DSN, duplex-specific nuclease; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; GO, graphene oxide; PVA, poly(vinyl alcohol); GS, graphene sheet; GNR, graphene–gold nanorod; rGO, reduced graphene oxide; UT, ultrathin; PEG, polyethylene glycol; MB, methylene blue; THI, electron-mediating thionin; PB, Prussian blue; PEDOT, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), SPCE, screen-printed carbon electrode; MSF, mesoporous silica thin film; PNE, polynorepinephrine; IL, ionic liquid; ERGO, electrochemically reduced graphene. c CV, cyclic voltammetry; EIS, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; DPV, differential pulse voltammetry; XRD, X-ray diffraction; XPS, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy; FTIR, infrared spectroscopy; UV–Vis, ultraviolet visible spectroscopy; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; TEM, transmission electron microscopy; SWV, square wave voltammetry. d LOD, limit of detection.
Figure 7Schematic illustration of novel hybrid electrochemical biosensors. (I) Schematic representation of (a) synthesis of rGO/Au nanocomposite and (b) fabrication of rGO/Au nanocomposite-based miRNA-122 electrochemical detection platform, reprinted from Kasturi et al. [166] copyright Elsevier 2021. (II) Schematic representation of the Mxene-Au-MB-peptide biohybrid for PSA detection, reprinted from Xu et al. [169] copyright Elsevier 2021. (III) Portable glucose biosensor based on polynorepinephrine@magnetite nanomaterial integrated with a smartphone analyzer for point-of-care application, reprinted from Jędrzak et al. [171] copyright Elsevier 2022. (IV) Preparation of 3D, paper-based, microfluidic, electrochemical biosensor, reprinted from Cao et al. [176] copyright Elsevier 2020.