ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Why Sensors Fail in Biological Samples: Fouling, Blocking, Matrix Effects and Prevention Solutions.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combination of Polymeric Microneedles with Specific Peptide for TNF‑α Sensing Via Noninvasive Detection in Interstitial Fluid.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Review
- Next generation smart functionalized nanocomposites for ultrasensitive and real time detection of purine derived metabolic biomarkers.RSC advances · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensors and biosensors designed for biomarker detection in biological samples often suffer from performance loss caused by surface fouling, interface blocking, and matrix interference. Although these effects are frequently discussed separately, in real sensing systems they are strongly interconnected and they determine analytical reliability, especially in body fluids like serum, plasma, whole blood, sweat, and other complex media. This review provides a practical and mechanism-oriented overview of how these processes originate, how they differ, and how they ultimately lead to signal drift, reduced sensitivity, false-positive responses, and shortened sensor lifetime. We first discuss the molecular origins of interface failure, including protein adsorption, conditioning film formation, nonspecific binding, ionic strength effects, pH fluctuations, viscosity-related diffusion changes, and electroactive interferents. The impact of these phenomena is then compared across major sensing platforms, including electrochemical, potentiometric, optical, capacitive sensors, field-effect transistors and wearable biosensors. A central part of this review focuses on practical prevention strategies already employed in real biomarker sensing platforms. These include hydration-driven antifouling coatings, zwitterionic and hydrogel interfaces, post-immobilization blocking with bovine serum albumin, mercaptohexanol and ethanolamine, ionophore and membrane engineering in ion-selective electrodes, hydrophobic solid-contact layers for water-layer suppression, regeneration workflows, membrane and microfluidic pre-treatment, and AI-assisted drift correction. By combining advances in materials engineering, surface chemistry, sample handling, and algorithmic correction, this review highlights strategies to improve sensor stability in complex biological fluids. Overall, it offers a practical guide for developing next-generation low-fouling, drift-resistant, and self-correcting sensing systems for reliable biomarker analysis at the point of care.
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.