ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Harmful Microalgae Detection: Biosensors versus Some Conventional Methods.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- From smart sensing to adaptive remediation: artificial intelligence and Internet of Things for persistent organic pollutants.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Review
- Non-Intrusive Load Monitoring Based on Multi-Feature Fusion and Combinatorial Optimization Networks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Microalgae toxins in food products and impact on human health: a review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Combined with Lateral Flow Dipstick Assay for the Rapid and Sensitive Detection ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- A Short Review on Miniaturized Biosensors for the Detection of Nucleic Acid Biomarkers.Biosensors · 2023Review
- Recent Advancements in Nanobiosensors: Current Trends, Challenges, Applications, and Future Scope.Biosensors · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last decade, there has been a steady stream of information on the methods and techniques available for detecting harmful algae species. The conventional approaches to identify harmful algal bloom (HAB), such as microscopy and molecular biological methods are mainly laboratory-based and require long assay times, skilled manpower, and pre-enrichment of samples involving various pre-experimental preparations. As an alternative, biosensors with a simple and rapid detection strategy could be an improvement over conventional methods for the detection of toxic algae species. Moreover, recent biosensors that involve the use of nanomaterials to detect HAB are showing further enhanced detection limits with a broader linear range. The improvement is attributed to nanomaterials' high surface area to volume ratio, excellent biological compatibility with biomolecules, and being capable of amplifying the electrochemical signal. Hence, this review presents the potential usage of biosensors over conventional methods to detect HABs. The methods reported for the detection of harmful algae species, ranging from conventional detection methods to current biosensor approaches will be discussed, along with their respective advantages and drawbacks to indicate the future prospects of biosensor technology for HAB event management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.