4.8 Article

Electrochemical impedance spectroscopic technique with a functionalized microwire sensor for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens

期刊

BIOSENSORS & BIOELECTRONICS
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 492-495

出版社

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2012.10.060

关键词

EIS; Potentiostat; Electron transfer resistance; Foodborne pathogen; Functionalized microwire biosensor

资金

  1. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hatch [HAW00260-H]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a label-free biosensor based on electrochemical impedance measurement followed by dielectrophoretic force and antibody-antigen interaction was developed for detection and quantification of foodborne pathogenic bacteria. In our previous work, gold-tungsten wires (25 mu m in diameter) were functionalized by coating with polyethyleneimine-streptavidin-anti-Escherichia coli antibodies to improve sensing specificity, and fluorescence intensity measurement was employed to quantify bacteria captured by the sensor. The focus of this research is to evaluate the performance of the developed biosensor by monitoring the changes of electron-transfer resistance (Delta R-et) of the microwire after the bioaffinity reaction between bacterial cells and antibodies on its surface as an alternative quantification technique to fluorescence microscopy. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been used to detect and validate the resistance changes in a conventional three-electrode system in which [Fe(CN)(6)(3-)]/[Fe(CN)(6)(4-)] served as the redox probe. The impedance data demonstrated a linear relationship between the increments of Delta R-et and the logarithmic concentrations of E. coli suspension in the range of 10(3)-10(8) CFU/mL. In addition, there were little changes of Delta R-et when the sensor worked with Salmonella, which clearly evidenced the sensing specificity to E. coli. EIS was proven to be an ideal alternative to fluorescence microscopy for enumeration of captured cells. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据