ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
The role of electrochemical and optical biosensors in the detection of chemical and biological agents: a critical review.
Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geometric Optimization of GMR Biosensors with Trapezoidal Magnetic Flux Concentrators for DetectingSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Immunosensors and Immunoassays to DetectBiosensors · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing risk associated with chemical and biological warfare agents has amplified the need for rapid, sensitive, and portable detection technologies, particularly in the context of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) threats. While conventional analytical techniques such as high-performance liquid chromatography, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and the polymerase chain reaction remain the gold standard for analytical accuracy, they are often hindered by high operational costs, complex instrumentation, and limited field applicability. In response, biosensor technologies have emerged as promising alternatives, offering advantages such as real-time analysis, portability, and cost-effectiveness. This critical review provides a comparative evaluation of recent advances in electrochemical and optical biosensor platforms for detecting CBRN-relevant chemical and biological agents. The performance of each platform is analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, operational stability, and environmental robustness. Electrochemical biosensors demonstrate strong potential for on-site applications due to their low cost and adaptability, whereas optical biosensors exhibit exceptional sensitivity and multiplexing capabilities, though with certain limitations in terms of portability and environmental resilience. Selected case studies are discussed to highlight prevailing design strategies, material innovations, and detection principles. Moreover, current challenges are identified, including the lack of standardized validation protocols, limited multi-analyte detection capabilities, and insufficient field testing. The review concludes by outlining future perspectives, emphasizing the importance of integrating artificial intelligence, sustainable materials, and modular sensor designs to enhance real-world applicability in diverse and unpredictable CBRN scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41128785What 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.