Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31056912›Full record

ReviewACS sensors2019

A Comprehensive Review: Development of Electrochemical Biosensors for Detection of Cyanotoxins in Freshwater.

Vasileia Vogiazi, Armah de la Cruz, Siddharth Mishra, Vesselin Shanov, William R Heineman, Dionysios D Dionysiou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS sensors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. SERS Immunosensors for Cancer Markers Detection.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Recent developments in biosensing methods for extracellular vesicle protein characterization.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Selective Detection ofBiosensors · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Vasileia VogiaziEnvironmental Engineering and Science Program, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering (ChEE) , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio 45221 , United States.
Armah de la CruzOffice of Research and Development , US Environmental Protection Agency , Cincinnati , Ohio 45220 , United States.
Siddharth MishraMechanical and Materials Engineering , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati 45221 , Ohio United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4028-0671
Vesselin ShanovEnvironmental Engineering and Science Program, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering (ChEE) , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio 45221 , United States.
William R HeinemanDepartment of Chemistry , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio 45221 , United States.
Dionysios D DionysiouEnvironmental Engineering and Science Program, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering (ChEE) , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio 45221 , United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6974-9197

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cyanobacteria harmful algal blooms are increasing in frequency and cyanotoxins have become an environmental and public concern in the U.S. and worldwide. In this Review, the majority of reported studies and developments of electrochemical affinity biosensors for cyanotoxins are critically reviewed and discussed. Essential background information about cyanobacterial toxins and electrochemical biosensors is combined with the rapidly moving development of electrochemical biosensors for these toxins. Current issues and future challenges for the development of useful electrochemical biosensors for cyanotoxin detection that meet the demands for applications in field freshwater samples are discussed. The major aspects of the entire review article in a prescribed sequence include (i) the state-of-the-art knowledge of the toxicity of cyanotoxins, (ii) important harmful algal bloom events, (iii) advisories, guidelines, and regulations, (iv) conventional analytical methods for determination of cyanotoxins, (v) electrochemical transduction, (vi) recognition receptors, (vii) reported electrochemical biosensors for cyanotoxins, (viii) summary of analytical performance, and (ix) recent advances and future trends. Discussion includes electrochemical techniques and devices, biomolecules with high affinity, numerous array designs, various detection approaches, and research strategies in tailoring the properties of the transducer-biomolecule interface. Scientific and engineering aspects are presented in depth. This review aims to serve as a valuable source to scientists and engineers entering the interdisciplinary field of electrochemical biosensors for detection of cyanotoxins in freshwaters.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiosensing TechniquesCyanobacteriaElectrochemistryFresh WaterToxins, BiologicalToxins, Biologicalanatoxin-acyanotoxinscylindrospermopsinelectrochemical biosensorsmicrocystinsmonitoringnanosensorssaxitoxinsensingtoxicity

Identifiers

PMID31056912
PMCPMC6625642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.