Biochemistry Research International

Biochemistry Research International / 2013 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2013 |Article ID 731501 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/731501

Vikas Dhull, Anjum Gahlaut, Neeraj Dilbaghi, Vikas Hooda, "Acetylcholinesterase Biosensors for Electrochemical Detection of Organophosphorus Compounds: A Review", Biochemistry Research International, vol. 2013, Article ID 731501, 18 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/731501

Acetylcholinesterase Biosensors for Electrochemical Detection of Organophosphorus Compounds: A Review

Academic Editor: Seiji Shibasaki
Received23 Jul 2013
Accepted03 Oct 2013
Published09 Dec 2013

Abstract

The exponentially growing population, with limited resources, has exerted an intense pressure on the agriculture sector. In order to achieve high productivity the use of pesticide has increased up to many folds. These pesticides contain organophosphorus (OP) toxic compounds which interfere with the proper functioning of enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and finally affect the central nervous system (CNS). So, there is a need for routine, continuous, on spot detection of OP compounds which are the main limitations associated with conventional analytical methods. AChE based enzymatic biosensors have been reported by researchers as the most promising tool for analysis of pesticide level to control toxicity and for environment conservation. The present review summarises AChE based biosensors by discussing their characteristic features in terms of fabrication, detection limit, linearity range, time of incubation, and storage stability. Use of nanoparticles in recently reported fabrication strategies has improved the efficiency of biosensors to a great extent making them more reliable and robust.

1. Introduction

At present pesticides play a major role in agriculture. Pesticides have the insecticidal property due to which they are in great use [1, 2]. But human health and the surroundings are affected by these pesticides as they contain the toxic compounds. These toxic compounds are hazardous as they can accumulate in grains, vegetables, fruits, and so forth, percolate in soil, and finally lead to water contamination [3, 4]. The concentration of these toxic compounds in the environment is increasing day by day with an exponential rate. Organophosphorus (OP) constitutes one of the important classes of toxic compounds which can cause headache, drowsiness, confusion, depression, irritability, disorientation, impaired memory and concentration, speech difficulties, eye pain, abdominal pain, convulsions, respiratory failure, and serious neurological disorders [510]. The EPA lists organophosphates as very highly toxic to bees, wildlife, and humans [1]. These OP pesticides inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE, EC 3.1.1.7) which is involved in the proper functioning of the central nervous system (CNS) of the humans. Due to this inhibition of the enzyme AChE, acetylcholine (ACh) neurotransmitter accumulates in the body which interferes with the muscular responses and finally leads to respiratory problems, myocardial malfunctioning, and even death [11, 12]. The toxicity of different pesticides depends upon the chemical structure of the pesticides [12, 13]. The repeated low level exposure to OP compounds leads to the acute effect on the health of humans. The contamination of soil and food due to these pesticides has caused a serious concern, so it is necessary to monitor their increasing concentration in the food products of daily use. Soil is known to be a natural purifier in which the OP pesticides along with water interact with the soil particles and do not contaminate ground water, but by the time some of the OP pesticides come forward such as organochlorine pesticides which can even percolate even through the soil and contaminate both ground and surface water. Many rules and regulations have been made on the international level to reduce the contamination of ground and surface water. Regulatory limits and the guideline levels are also there for permissible residues in drinking water [14].

It is necessary to develop the methods which are fast, sensitive, and reliable for the detection of OP pesticides in fruits, vegetables, water, and so forth [15]. Conventional analytical methods to monitor the concentration of these acute toxic compounds include capillary electrophoresis [16], colorimetry [17], gas chromatography (GC) [18], mass spectrometry (MS) [19], thin layer chromatography [20, 21], and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [22]. The above said methods have some limitations, that is, sample preparation which is hectic and time consuming; requiring expensive equipments and trained manpower; less economical; and so forth. To overcome the above problems, development of biosensor is being encouraged. They are simple, sensitive, of low developmental cost, and user friendly; a normal person can handle it easily.

The present review describes and discusses the use of AChE biosensors for detection of OP compounds and measurement of toxicity level in different samples.

2. AChE Based Catalysis

AChE belongs to the family of carboxylesterase (EC number 3.1.1.7.). It is serine protease and stabilises level of acetylcholine (neurotransmitter) by catalysing the conversion of acetylcholine to thiocholine. AChE is concentrated at neuromuscular junctions and cholinergic brain synapses. When the enzyme is present in the active form it terminates synaptic transmission. AChE is highly efficient and catalyses the breakdown of ACh in microseconds keeping the synaptic cleft clear as to avoid the collision of the messages. AChE has two active subsites, anionic and esteratic subsite. Acetylcholine mediates messages between the nerves which is responsible for muscle contraction. When ACh is released from the nerve into the synaptic cleft, it got recognised by ACh receptors present on the postsynaptic membrane which further transmits signal. Along with the ACh receptors AChE is also present on the postsynaptic membrane which helps in the termination of the signal transmission by hydrolysing ACh. On hydrolysis, ACh split into two products one is choline and the other is acetic-acid. Choline and acetic-acid are recycled by the body to again form acetylcholine to maintain the reserves of neurotransmitters so that they can be used by the body again during the time of need. In the presence of inhibitor (OP compound), which forms covalent bond with serine present on the active site of AChE, leads to inactivation of the enzyme [54, 55], and the muscles involved do not relax, leading to paralytic conditions. The intensity of inhibition of AChE is proportional to the concentration of OP compound, that is, inhibitor, and is also exploited as principle of detection method for concentration of OP compounds [5558].

3. Basic Principle of Biosensors

Biosensor comprises basically of three elements, that is, biological recognition element, transducer, and signal detector as shown in Figure 1. The biological recognition element must be extremely specific to the analyte for the accurate detection of the analyte in different samples. As recognition element and analyte come in close proximity to each other the chemical changes take place in the form of the generation of electroactive species, reduced forms of by-products, consumption of oxygen, and so forth [59]. These changes are detected and displayed on controlling system.

3.1. Principle of OP Biosensor Based on Inhibition Mechanism of AChE

The sensitivity of biosensor relies on the biorecognition layer which catalyses the reaction. The product/by-product further or itself acts as signal which is directly or inversely proportional to the analyte concentration. In case of AChE inhibition based OP biosensors, the signal generated is inversely proportional to the concentration of OP compound or, in other terms, we can say that increased concentration of OP compound leads to weak signals. The AChE biosensor basically works on the inhibition effect. The biosensor in which the AChE is used as the biorecognition element can detect the toxic organophosphates along with the others such as carbamate pesticides, nerve agents, and several other natural toxins [60, 61]. Some drugs can also be detected with the help of such biosensors [62]. If the inhibitor is not present in the sample then the acetylthiocholine will be converted into the thiocholine and the acetic-acid. as shown in Scheme 1. But if the inhibitor is present in the sample then the concentration of thiocholine is decreased or no thiocholine and acetic-acid is produced, in other words it completely inhibits the conversion as shown in Figure 2 [63]. Under the influence of applied voltage thiocholine is oxidised. The anodic oxidation current is inversely proportional to the toxic compound present in the sample and the time of exposure.

731501.sch.001

In the beginning, AChE biosensors were not considered as reliable tools, but with time the advances in fabrication strategies and methods of enzyme purification and its stabilization have overcome the drawbacks related to accuracy, sensitivity, and reliability [64].

4. Fabrication of AChE Based OP Biosensor

In AChE biosensor the working electrode is prepared by attachment of enzyme on different supports. The supports may be matrices, screen-printed electrodes, semiconductors such as Quantum dots (QD), nanomaterial, and so forth [127], as shown in Figure 3. After immobilization of enzyme onto a particular support, conformational changes take place which finally affect the sensitivity, stability, response time, and reproducibility. A variety of methods are available for immobilization of enzymes including physical adsorption, physical entrapment, covalent coupling, self-assembly monolayer, oriented immobilization, and electropolymerisation. Physical adsorption includes the formation of weak bonds such as the Van der Waals forces, and the electrostatic interactions take place between the enzyme and the support that has an advantage of retaining the activity of immobilized enzyme and method is economical. The drawback associated with this method is the leakage of enzyme [79]. In physical entrapment, AChE enzyme is confined within the gel, the matrices, or in the membranes and used for fabrication of working electrode. This is a one-step procedure which is carried out at low temperature, is simple and cheap, without hampering the activity to enzyme. This method also suffers from leaching of enzyme, nonspecific immobilization, and lower reproducibility. In covalent coupling, stable covalent bond is formed between the support and the enzyme that prevents leaching of enzyme, enzyme is in direct availability for interaction with the analyte that further leads to quick response time. But this method involves a high amount of enzyme usage, is prone to denaturation, is also expensive, and involves complex procedures [42, 96]. In case of self-assembled monolayer (SAM) the molecules are organised in the form of monolayer. These molecules have the head group and also a tail group having functional groups; head group has affinity towards the substrate. This layer is easy to prepare, molecules are present in the ordered manner, and size is also within the range of nanoscale. Drawbacks of this method are includes difficulties in reproduction and fouling of electrode takes place with time due to the weakening of interaction between the enzyme and the electrode [115, 116]. Oriented immobilization is among one of the new methods which can be used. In this method the particular functional groups of the enzymes are exploited and it is possible to orient the active site of the enzyme towards the analyte. This technique requires less quantity of enzyme with specific control over the orientation [117]. Electropolymerization is also one of the possible methods for the immobilization of the AChE enzyme in which the electric field is used for the polymerization.

4.1. Membranes Used in Fabrication of OP Biosensor

In membrane based AChE biosensors the enzyme is immobilized on the suitable matrices. The membranes which are used as support for immobilization can be natural or artificial. The enzyme is confined to the semipermeable membrane which will allow the passage of the substrate through it. The sensitivity and the selectivity of the membrane based biosensors can be enhanced due to the biocompatibility of the artificial membranes. Different supports have been used for the immobilization of enzyme (Table 1), such as nylon and cellulose nitrate [23], glass/sol-gel/polyvinylidene fluoride [24], hybrid mesoporous silica [25], poly-(acrylonitrile-methylmethacrylate-sodium vinylsulfonate) (PAN) [26, 27], cellophane [28], poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) membrane [29], polyvinyl alcohol(PVA)/SbQ [30], polyacrylamide [31], bio-immunodyne membrane [118], Si3N4/Ti layer [32], pore glass/H+ membrane electrode [33], and hybond N+ membrane [34]. The artificial membranes are selective for the different biomolecules, and as they are highly flexible the response can be enhanced. Membranes are durable and stable on a wide range of pH. The above biosensors suffer from the problem of membrane fouling. The pores of semipermeable membranes are blocked which may lead to hindrance in the passage of solute.


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

PotentiometricNylon and cellulose nitrate/pH electrodeCrosslinking0.038 μM
0.077 μM
50 × 103–2.5 × 103
50 × 103–2.5 × 103μM
Trichlorfon, Co-Ral1530
15
[23]

Fiber-opticGlass/sol-gel/polyvinylCrosslinking0.53 μM and 0.023 μM0.54–39.8 and 0.022–0.13 μMCarbaryl, dichlorvos1021[24]

AmperometricHybrid mesoporous silica/Pt electrodeEntrapment1.2 × 10−3μM1.0 × 10−3–0.3 μMDZN-oxon1580[25]

AmperometricMWCNTs/PAN/Pt electrodeAffinity bonds using concanavalin A5.0 × 10−9μM3.6 × 10−8–3.6 × 10−5μMParaoxon20120[26]

AmperometricPAN/AuNPs/Pt electrodeCovalent Bonding0.026 × 10−5μM3.6 × 10−7–3.6 × 10−4μMParaoxon2030[27]

AmperometricCellophane/AuECrosslinking1.45 μM1.45–7.26 μMParaoxon15NR[28]

Dissolved Oxygen metricPoly (2-hydroxyethyl metacrylate)/oxygen electrodeEntrapment0.119 μM0.05–2.62 μMAldicarb52[29]

AmperometricPVA-SbQ/Pt electrodeEntrapment7.2 × 10−5, 0.049 μMNRParaoxon, thifensulfuron methyl3030[30]

AmperometricPolyacrylamide/pH electrodeCrosslinking3.62 × 103μMNRDichlorvos3050[31]

ConductometricSi3N4/Ti layerCrosslinking10 ppbNRZn+, Cd+3020[32]

PotentiometricPore glass/H+ electrodeCrosslinking2 × 10−10 M10−11–10−4 MOP compounds30[33]

ColorimetricH bond N+ membranePhysical adsorption1 mg/mL for omethoate, 0.1 mg/mL for dichlorvos, 2 mg/mL for methamidophos, 0.05 mg/mL for chlorpyrifos, 1.5 mg/mL for carbaryl, and 0.8 mg/mL for pirimicarb.Op compounds15 60[34]

Note: NR: not reported.
4.2. Polymers Used as Immobilization Support

Polymers can also be used as the support for the enzyme immobilization. The physical and chemical properties of the polymers vary in the wide range which can be exploited for the sensor development [119]. Scince polymer supports are flexible, biologically compatible and of low cost, they have advantage over the other supports. They can be used as free standing film for the biosensor fabrication [120].

4.2.1. Nonconducting Polymer Matrices for Enzyme Immobilization

The nonconducting polymer supports can easily be prepared in the lab. The variety of the functional groups can be generated on these supports by the chemical treatment. The functional groups of interest according to the particular enzyme can be synthesized on such supports. The life of the enzyme can also be enhanced by this method as it provides a microenvironment to the enzyme and can be stored for a long duration. But there are drawbacks with nonconducting polymers, being a support it acts as a barrier between electron and transducer which thus influences the sensitivity of electrode due to which working of electrode is affected. Some supports which are used for immobilization of enzymes are (Table 2) multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)/PAN/Pt electrode [26], PAN/gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) decorated Pt electrode [27], mesocellular silica foam (MSF)-PVA/glassy carbon electrode (GCE) [35], PVA-SbQ polymer decorated screen-printed electrode (SPE) [36], PVA-SbQ/Pt electrode [30], polyamidoamine (PAMAM)- Au/carbon nanotubes (CNTs)/GCE [37], MSF/PVA/GCE [38], nylon net [39], PVA/ azide-unit water pendant (AWP) [121], and CoPC modified PVA-AWP electrode [40].


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

AmperometricMWCNTs/PAN/Pt electrodeAffinity Bonding5.0 × 10−9μM3.6 × 10−8–3.6 × 10−5μMParaoxon20120[26]

AmperometricPAN/AuNPs/Pt electrodeCovalent Bonding0.026 × 10−5μM3.6 × 10−7–3.6 × 10−4μMParaoxon2030[27]

AmperometricMSF/PVA/GCEEntrapment0.2 × 10−3μM0.2 × 10−3–44.8 × 10−3μMMonocrotophos1030[35]

AmperometricPVA/SbQ/SPEEntrapment1.91 × 10−2μM
1.24 × 10−3μM
NRParaoxon and chlorpyrifos-ethyl oxon10Nr[36]

AmperometricPVA/SbQ/Pt ElectrodeEntrapment7.2 × 10−5, 0.18, and 0.049 μMNRParaoxon, maneb, and thifensulfuron methyl3030[30]

AmperometricPAMAM-Au/CNTs/GCEElectrostatic interaction4.0 × 10−3μM4.8 × 10−3–9.0 × 10−2μMCarbofuran921[37]

AmperometricMSF/PVA/GCEEntrapment0.05 ppb (0.2 nM)0.05–10 ppbMonocrotophos1030[38]

AmperometricNylon NetCovalent bonding1.3–3.9 ppbNRParaoxon 3015–20 [39]

AmperometricPBA/SbQ/Pt ElectrodeCrosslinking25 ppb–1.5 ppmNRChlorpyrifos15 NR[40]

Note: NR: not reported.
4.2.2. Conducting Polymer Matrices Used for Enzyme Immobilization

The conducting polymers are the polymers which are synthesized by the chemical and the electrochemical method. The properties of these polymers can easily be adjusted according to the need such as the thickness of film, functionalization, conductivity, and so forth. They can also be used for the enzyme entrapment during electropolymerization and used in the uniform covering of the electrode surface having substrate of any shape and size with the help of the polymer film [122, 123]. Different supports which are used for immobilization of enzymes are (Table 3) poly-(acrylamide)/pH electrode [31], polyethylenimine (PEI)/GCE [41], PEI/SPE [42], mercaptobenzothiazole/polyaniline (PANI)/Au electrode [43], PANI/CNTs coated with single stranded DNA (ssDNA)/Au electrode [44], AuNP-polypyrrole (PPy) nanowire/GCE [45], PPy and PANI copolymer dopped MWCNTs/GCE [46], Silk fibronin matrix [47], CS/ALB/GCE [48], PB/GCE [49], GnPs/Chitosan/GCE [50], polymeric enzyme electrode [51], ZrO2/SPE [52], and Gold (Au) nanoparticles/poly(dimethyldiammonium chloride) (PDDA) protected Prussian blue (PB) matrix [53]. The conducting polymers suffer from demerits of high cost, difficult in processing, lack of mechanical stability after doping, difficult to fabricate, short life span, and so forth.


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

AmperometricPolyacrylamide/pH electrodeCrosslinking3.62 × 103μMNRDichlorvos3050[31]

PotentiometricPEI/GCECovalent Bonding1.0 μMNRDichlorvos10NR[41]

AmperometricPEI/SPENon Covalent Bonding1.0 × 10−4μMNRDichlorvos2NR[42]

AmperometricMercaptobenzothiazole/
PANI/Au electrode
Adsorption0.48 × 10−3μM
0.61 × 10−3μM
NRDiazinoFenthion20NR[43]

ElectrochemicalPANI/CNT ssDNA/Au electrodeCovalent Bonding1.0 × 10−6μM1.0 × 10−5 and 1.0 μMMethyl parathion and chlorpyrifos155[44]

ElectrochemicalAuNPs-PPy nanowires GCEEntrapment7.5 × 10−3μM0.018–0.45 and 1.89–17.0 μMMethyl parathion1230[45]

AmperometricPPY-PANI/MWCNTs/GCEAdsorption3.02 × 10−3μM0.030–1.51 and 3.027–75.67 μMMalathion1530[46]

AmperometricSF/MWNTs/GCEAdsorption5.0 × 10−7 M, 6.0 × 10−8 M3.5 × 10−6 to 2.0 × 10−3 M, 1.0 × 10−7 to 3.0 × 10−5 MMethyl parathion, carbaryl104 weeks[47]

AmperometricCS/ALB/GCEEncapsulation 8 μg/L0.25–1.50 and 1.75–10.00OP pesticides1015[48]

AmperometricPB/GCECrosslinking2.5 ng L−1 for dichlorvos, 15 ng L−1 for omethoate, 5 ng L−1 for trichlorfon, and 10 ng L−1
forphoxim.
10 ng L−1–1 ng L−1 for dichlorvosDichlorvos, omethoate, tricholorfon, phoxim10[49]

VoltammetricGnPs/Chitosan/GCECovalent Bonding1.58 × 10−10 MNRCholropyrifos1010 [50]

PotentiometricPolymeric enzyme electrodeEntrapment0–10 ppbNROP pesticides2NR[51]

ElectrochemicalZrO2-SPEScreen printing0.02 nM0.05 nM to 10 nMOP compound40 NR[52]

AmperometricAu-PDDA-PB matrixCovalent Bonding0.8 pg/mL1.0–1000 pg/mL and 1.0–10 ng/mLMonocrotophos 1030[53]

Note: NR: not reported.
4.3. Sol-Gel Base AChE Immobilization

Sol-gel is one of the important supports which can be used for the enzyme immobilization. The first and foremost important property of the sol-gel support is that the pore size can be adjusted according to the need. They are also chemically inert, do not show swelling in the aqueous medium, and have photochemical and thermal stability. The antibodies and the enzymes can especially be immobilized and do not allow the leakage of the enzyme in the medium. Some of the accountable demerits include denaturation of biomolecules taking place at high acidic condition and/or high alcohol concentration. The protocols used for the sol-gel film formation are not amenable for coating the curved surfaces of substrates such as optical fibers; sufficient signals require a high level of biomolecules in sol-gel thin films but it is not possible in the case of proteins that are insoluble or aggregate in the alkoxy silane solution. Sol-gel supports used for immobilization of enzyme (Table 4) are sol-gel/TMOS [65], sol-gel/glass [66], silica sol-gel (SiSG) [67], TMOS/sol-gel [68, 69], chromoionophore/sol-gel [70], Al2O3/sol-gel [71], sol-gel matrix/TCNQ [72], AuNPs-SiSG [73], alumina/sol-gel [74], sol-gel/bromothymol blue [75], Zn(oxide)/sol-gel [76], Si/sol-gel [77], and sol-gel/carbon electrode [78].


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

OpticalSol-gel/TMOSEncapsulation0.94 μM
42.19 μM
3.17–31.48
14.89–998.40 μM
Naled, Mecarbam530[65]

OpticalSol-gel/GlassEncapsulation0.098 μM0.098–0.55 μMParaoxon30NR[66]

AmperometricSilica sol-gel/SPEEncapsulation0.024, 0.015, and 0.012 μM0.01–0.001 μMParaoxon, dichlorvos, and chlorpyrifos-ethyl oxon206[67]

AmperometricTMOS sol-gel/SPEEncapsulation1.0 × 10−3μM1.0 and 3.0 × 10−3μMDichlorvos15NR[68]

AmperometricTEOS sol-gel/GCEEncapsulation0.008 μM0.008–0.81 μMOxydemeton methyl2021[69]

OpticalChromo-ionophore/Sol-gelEncapsulation2.26 μM2.26–31.67 μMDichlorvos 15NR[70]

AmperometricAl2O3 sol-gel matrix SPEAdsorption0.01 μM0.1–80 μMDichlorvos155[71]

AmperometricSol-gel matrix on TCNQ modified SPEEntrapment1 × 10−2, 
8 × 10−4, and 2 × 10−2μM
NRCarbaryl, carbofuran, and pirimicard2045[72]

ElectrochemicalAuNPs-SiSG/GCEHydrogen bonds0.44 μMNRMonocrotophos1030[73]

AmperometricAlumina/sol-gel/sonogel composite/Carbon electrodeEncapsulation2.5 × 10−4μM0.5 μMChlorpyriphos-ethyl oxon1050[74]

OpticalBromothymol blue/sol-gelEncapsulation0.11 μM0.14–5.70 μMChlorpyrifos810[75]

AmperometricZinc oxide/sol-gel/SPE0.127 μM0.127–5.010 μMParaoxon 1090[76]

AmperometricSilica/sol-gel/Carbon electrodeEncapsulation3.0 × 10−4 and 0.47 μM3.7 × 10−4–1.8 × 10−3 and 0.27–4.09 μMMethyl parathion and acephate20 and 430[77]

Cyclic VoltametrySol-gel/carbon electrodeEntrapment0.04 ppb for parathion, 47 ppb for monocrotophos0.1–1.0 ppbParathion and monocrotophos10NR[78]

Note: NR: not reported.
4.4. Screen Printing Technique

Screen-printing involves the immobilization of the biological molecules or the biological receptor in their active form. Due to the binding of the molecule in the active form, the analytical changes take place which will affect the sensitivity and the performance of the sensor developed. The necessary action must be taken for the enhancement of the selectivity, sensitivity, exposure time, and so forth. Supports used for immobilization of enzyme (Table 5) are TMOS/sol-gel/SPE [68], Al2O3/sol-gel/SPE [71], sol-gel/TCNQ/modified SPE [72], SPE/TCNQ/Graphite electrode [79], CoPC/SPE [80], phenylenediamine/carbon/CoPC SPE [81], graphite-epoxy/SPE [82], glutaraldehyde vapour/SPE [83], PVA-SbQ polymer/SPE [36], SWCNT-CoPC/SPE [84]. TCNQ modified graphite [85], Au electrode [86], screen printed carbon electrode [87], and PET chip SPE [88]. Screen-printing is unstable, has high cross-sensitivity towards anion, and limited life span.


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

AmperometricTMOS sol-gel/SPEEncapsulation1.0 × 10−3μM1.0 and 3.0 × 10−3μMDichlorvos15NR[68]

AmperometricAl2O3 sol-gel/SPEAdsorption0.01 μM0.1–80 μMDichlorvos155[71]

AmperometricSol-gel/TCNQ/SPEEntrapment1 × 10−2, 
8 × 10−4, and 2 × 10−2μM
NRCarbaryl, carbofuran, and pirimicard2045[72]

AmperometricSPE/TCNQ/Graphite ElectrodeAdsorption3.0 × 10−6μM5 × 10−2–0.2 μMChlorpyrifos-ethyl oxon1050[79]

AmperometricCoPC/SPECrosslinking4.9 × 10−4μM 10-5-1.0 μMCarbofuran15NR[80]

AmperometricPhenylenediamine/
CoPC SPE
Entrapment1 × 10−11, 
1 × 10−10, and 1 × 10−10μM
1.0 × 10−11
1.0 × 10−2μM
Dichlorvos, parathion, and azinphos1092[81]

AmperometricGraphite-epoxy/SPECrosslinking1.0 × 10−4 and 1.0 × 10−5μMNRParaoxon and carbofuran155[82]

AmperometricGlutaraldehyde vapour/SPECrosslinking0.18 μM0.18–54.00 μMParaoxon10NR[83]

AmperometricPVA-SbQ/SPEEntrapment1.91 × 10−2μM
1.24 × 10−3μM
NRParaoxon and chlorpyrifos-ethyl oxon10Nr[36]

AmperometricSWCNTs-CoPC/SPECovalent Bonding0.01 and 6.3 × 10−3μM0.018–0.181 and 6.36 × 10−3–0.159 μMParaoxon and malaoxon153[84]

AmperometricTCNQ modified-graphiteScreen printing1 ppb0–5 × 10−3 MMethamidophos10NR[85]

AmperometricGold electrodeCrosslinking0.1 mM1–10 mMParaoxon 28[86]

AmperometricCarbon electrodeCovalent Bonding10−10 MNRDichlorvos60NR[87]

AmperometricSPECopolymerisation4 to 7 μg/LNRDicholrvos, methyl-parathion4 NR[88]

Note: NR: not reported.
4.5. Quantum Dot as Immobilization Support for AChE

Quantum dots are highly luminescent photostable fluorophore. QDs are the semiconductor particles that have all the dimensions confined to the nanometre scale [124]. They have been used in biosensors as they have their great size dependent properties and are dimensionally similar with the biological molecules which are used for immobilization [125, 126]. QDs can even be coupled with the variety of biological molecules due to which they are important in the sensing and development of the sensitive sensors. They suffer from demerits such as large size (10 to 30 nm) and blinking behaviour if no emission interrupts longer periods of fluorescence. The supports which are used for the immobilization of the enzymes are (Table 6) supports used for immobilization of enzyme: CdTe QDs/AuNPs/CHIT/GCE [73], CdTe QDs/Au electrode [89], poly(allylamine hydrochloride)/CdTe QDs/glass electrode [90], Mn:ZnSe d dots [91], and CdTE QDs/Au electrode [92].


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

ElectrochemicalAuNPs-SiSG/GCEHydrogen Bonding0.44 μMNRMonocrotophos1030[73]

AmperometricCdTe QDs/AuNPs/CHIT/GCECovalent Bonding1.34 μM4.4 × 10−3–4.48 and 8.96–67.20 μMMonocrotophos830[89]

OpticalCdTe-QDs/GlassElectrostatic interaction1.05 × 10−5 and 4.47 × 10−6μM1.0 × 10−6–1.0 and 1.0–0.1 μMParaoxon
Parathion
1535[90]

Fluorescence quenchingMn: ZnSe d-dotsNR 1.31 × 10−11 mol 4.84 × 10−11 to 4.84 × 10−6 mol/LParaoxon 10NR[91]

AmperometricCdTE QDs/Au electrodeCovalent Bonding2.98 × 10−3μM4.96 × 10−3–2.48 μMCarbyl1030[92]

Note: NR: not reported.
4.6. Nanomaterial Based AChE Immobilization

To improve the reliability of electrochemical based technique, researchers have been exploring the possibilities of new materials for improving the properties of transducers. Nanoparticles are proving to be a boom in the field of biosensing due to their invaluable properties such as large surface area, high conductivity, good catalytic property, and so forth. The rate of electron transfer is enhanced to a great extent. They can be synthesized in the laboratory and even their particle size can be adjusted according to the need. The carbon nanotubes are in regular use nowadays such as Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes (SWCNTs) and Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNTs). These carbon nanotubes are highly conductive and have large surface area. Different supports used for immobilization of enzyme (Table 7) are AuNPs-CaCO3/Au electrode, Iron(Fe) NP/MWCNTs/Au electrode, FeNP/MWCNTs/indium tin oxide (ITO) electrode, AuNPs/PB/GCE [93], MWCNTs-Au nanocomposites/GCE [94], ZrO2/CHIT/GCE [95], Au-Pt bimetallic NPs/GCE [96], AuNPs/GCE [97], AuNPs-MWCNTs/GCE [98], PB/CHIT/GCE [99], TiO2 graphane/GCE [100], graphite-nanoplatelet CHIT composite/GCE [101], calcium carbonate-CHIT composite/GCE [102], CdS-decorated graphene nanocomposite [103], CHIT-GNPs/Au electrode [92], MWCNTs-CHIT/GCE [104], AuNPs/Au electrode [105], PbO2/TiO2/Ti [106], PB-CHIT/GCE [107], Er-GRO/Nafion [108], SWCNT modified FGE [109], Au-PtNPs/3-aminopropyltriethoxysilanes (APTEs)/GCE [110], CNT web modified GCE [111], PAN-AuNPs [112], CdTe AuNPs Film [113], and SiSG-AuNPs [114].


Mode of detectionTransducerEnzyme immobilization methodMinimum detection limitLinearity Substrate/enzyme inhibitorTime of incubation
(min)
Storage stability
(days)
Reference

AmperometricAuNPs/PB/GCESurface Adsorption3.5 × 10−9μM4.48 × 10−3–4.48 × 10−2μMMonocrotophos1030[93]

AmperometricMWCNTs-AuNC/GCEHydrophilic adhesion1.81 × 10−3μM3.0 × 10−3–3.027 μMMalathion830[94]

AmperometricZrO2/CHIT/GCESurface Adsorption1.3, 5.0 × 10−3, and 1.7 μM6.6–440, 0.01–0.59, and 8.6–520 μMPhoxin, malathion, and imethoate1530[95]

AmperometricAu-PtNPs/GCECrosslinking50 × 10−4, 40 × 10−3, and 40 μM50–200 × 10−3, 1.40–50 × 10−3, and 40–60 μMParaoxon ethyl, sarin, and aldicarb25NR[96]

AmperometricAuNPs/GCESurface Adsorption7.0 × 10−3μM28 × 10−3–170 × 10−3μMMethamidophos107[97]

AuNPs-MWCNTs/GCESurface Adsorption1.0 × 10−3μM0.1 × 10−3–7.0 × 10−3μMNR30NR[98]

AmperometricPB/CHIT/GCECrosslinking0.113 × 10−4, 0.703 × 10−4, 0.194 × 10−4, and 0.33 × 10−4μM0.45 × 10−4–0.045, 0.234 × 10−3–0.046, 0.116 × 10−3–0.0194, and 0.167 × 10−3–0.0335 μMParaoxon and chlorpyrifos-ethyl oxon10NR[99]

AmperometricTiO2-decorated graphene/GCESurface Adsorption1.4 × 10−3μM4.9–74.5 and 74.5–9.9 × 103μMCarbyl320[100]

VoltammetricGraphite/CHIT/GCECovalent Bonding1.58 × 10−4μM1 × 10−4–1.0 μMChloropyrifos1010[101]

VoltammetricMWCNTs/AuNPs-CHIT/GCESurface Adsorption0.01 μM0.1–10 μMMonocrotophosNR50[102]

AmperometricCdS-decorated garphene nanocompositeSurface Adsorption3.4 × 10−3μM9.9 × 10−3–9.93 μMCarbaryl220[103]

AmperometricCHIT-GNPs/Au electrodeChemical Adsorption0.1 × 10−3μM0.3 × 10−3–60.5 × 10−3μMMalathion15NR[92]

AmperometricMWCNTs-CHIT/GCECovalent BondingNRNRCarbaryl, malathion, dimethoate, and monocrotophos830[104]

AmperometricAuNPs/Au electrodeSurface Adsorption33 × 10−3μM10 × 10−3–135 × 10−3μMCarbofuran207[105]

AmperometricPbO2/TiO2/TiSurface Adsorption0.1 × 10−3μM0.01–20 μMTrichlorfon105[106]

AmperometricPB-CHIT/GCECovalent Bonding3.0 × 10−3μM0.01–0.4 and 1.0–5.0 μMCarbaryl1030[107]

AmperometricEr-GRO/NafionSurface Adsorption2.0 ng mL−15.0–100 ng mL−1 and 1.0–20 ng mL−1Dicholrvos1028[108]

PotentiometricSWCNT modified FGECrosslinking25–35 nM and 15–20 nM for darin and DFP, respectively20–60 nM and 20–80 nM for sarin and DFP, respectivelySarin and DFP530[109]

AmperometricAu-PtNPs/3-APTES/GC electrodeCrosslinking150–200 nM, 40–50 nM, and 40–60 μM for paraoxon ethyl, sarin, and aldicarbNRParaoxon ethyl, sarin, and aldicarb10NR[110]

AmperometricCNT-web modified glassy carbon electrodeSurface Adsorption1 nM20–1000 nMMethyl parathion20NR[111]

AmperometricPAN-AuNPsCovalent Bonding 7.39 × 10−11 g L−110−10–10−7 g L−1Paraoxon NR20[112]

VoltammetricCdTe-GNPs filmCovalent Bonding0.3 ngmL−11–1000 ngmL−1 and 2–15 ngmL−1Monocrotophos 830 [113]

AmperometricSiSG-AuNPsSurface adsorption0.6 ng/mL0.001–1 μg/mL and 2–15 μg/mLMonocrotophos 1030[114]

Note: NR: not reported.

5. Conclusion and Future Prospects

It is clear from the comprehensive review presented above that the AChE based OP biosensor is an important research field, with lots of applications in environmental monitoring, human health concern, and food industries. With the development of the selective biorecognition elements the high throughput screening of analyte is now possible in a reliable manner in a fraction of seconds. The large number of samples can be screened with ease and accuracy. The oxidising and reducing ability of the biorecognition element has made electrochemical biosensor the most appropriate tool for the detection purpose over the other available methods [127]. The electrochemical biosensors have the unique ability to convert the catalytic signal into the quantifiable digital signal using microfabrication electronics. Nanoparticles are proving to be most eligible in fabrication of different working electrodes. The nanomaterials can be easily synthesized in the laboratory according to the need in respect to their size and dimensions. The conductivity of nanomaterials is high due to efficient electron transfer channels developed with respect to the other supports used. The self-life of the AChE biosensor can also be increased by using nanoparticles based electrodes. A vast variety of working electrodes for the sensor development can be fabricated for the improved detection of OP compounds in different samples. The on spot detection is also an important parameter for the biosensors which is possible due to the screen-printing technology. Screen-printed biosensors can be fabricated in miniaturization form for on-site rapid monitoring of the analyte. But till now the commercialization of the biosensors has not been possible due to the high cost of the enzyme in the market. Less work has been done on the validation of the enzymatic biosensors with respect to the real samples. Many interfering compounds are present in the sample and can hamper the sensitivity of the biosensor. The biosensors must be validated to explore the effect of interfering compounds on the pesticide detection.

Conflict of Interests

The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the financial support from the Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi, for providing INSPIRE fellowship as JRF-P (IF110655) to carry out research work. Also they are thankful to Department of Bio & Nanotechnology, GJUS&T, Hisar and Biosensors & Diagnostics Laboratory, Centre for Biotechnology, MDU, Rohtak.

References

  1. A. Mulchandani, W. Chen, P. Mulchandani, J. Wang, and K. R. Rogers, “Biosensors for direct determination of organophosphate pesticides,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 16, no. 4-5, pp. 225–230, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. P. Moris, I. Alexandre, M. Roger, and J. Remacle, “Chemiluminescence assays of organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 302, no. 1, pp. 53–59, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. FAO, “Agriculture: towards 2010 document,” in Proceedings of the C 93/94 Document of 27th Session of the FAO Conference, Rome, Italy, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  4. L. Aspelin, Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage, 1992 and 1993 Market Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
  5. C. Tran-Minh, P. C. Pandey, and S. Kumaran, “Studies on acetylcholine sensor and its analytical application based on the inhibition of cholinesterase,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 461–471, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. C. Cremisini, S. Di Sario, J. Mela, R. Pilloton, and G. Palleschi, “Evaluation of the use of free and immobilised acetylcholinesterase for paraoxon detection with an amperometric choline oxidase based biosensor,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 311, no. 3, pp. 273–280, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. H. Eyer, D. P. J. Moran, and K. K. Rajah, “Fats in food products,” Food and Science Technology, vol. 28, p. 162, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  8. K. Steenland, “Chronic neurological effects of organophosphate pesticides,” British Medical Journal, vol. 312, no. 7042, pp. 1312–1313, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  9. G. A. Jamal, “Neurological syndromes of organophosphorus compounds,” Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 133–170, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  10. D. E. Ray, “Chronic effects of low level exposure to anticholinesterases—a mechanistic review,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 102-103, pp. 527–533, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. W. J. Donarski, D. P. Dumas, D. P. Heitmeyer, V. E. Lewis, and F. M. Raushel, “Structure-activity relationships in the hydrolysis of substrates by the phosphotriesterase from Pseudomonas diminuta,” Biochemistry, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 4650–4655, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  12. S. Chapalamadugu and G. R. Chaudhry, “Microbiological and biotechnological aspects of metabolism of carbamates and organophosphates,” Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, vol. 12, no. 5-6, pp. 357–389, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  13. T. S. S. Dikshith, “Pesticides,” in Toxicology of Pesticides in Animals, T. S. S. Dikshith, Ed., pp. 1–39, CRC Press, Boston, Mass, USA, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  14. E. Jover and J. Maria Bayona, “Trace level determination of organochlorine, organophosphorus and pyrethroid pesticides in lanolin using gel permeation chromatography followed by dual gas chromatography and gas chromatography-negative chemical ionization mass spectrometric confirmation,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 950, no. 1-2, pp. 213–220, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. J. Zhang, A. Luo, P. Liu, S. Wei, G. Wang, and S. Wei, “Detection of organophosphorus pesticides using potentiometric enzymatic membrane biosensor based on methylcellulose immobilization,” Analytical Sciences, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 511–515, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. W.-J. Lü, Y.-L. Chen, J.-H. Zhu, and X.-G. Chen, “The combination of flow injection with electrophoresis using capillaries and chips,” Electrophoresis, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 83–91, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. G. L. Ellman, K. D. Courtney, V. Andres Jr., and R. M. Featherstone, “A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 88–95, 1961. View at: Google Scholar
  18. G. R. van der Hoff and P. van Zoonen, “Trace analysis of pesticides by gas chromatography,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 843, no. 1-2, pp. 301–322, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. F. Hernández, J. V. Sancho, O. Pozo, A. Lara, and E. Pitarch, “Rapid direct determination of pesticides and metabolites in environmental water samples at sub-μg/l level by on-line solid-phase extraction-liquid chromatography—electrospray tandem mass spectrometry,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 939, no. 1-2, pp. 1–11, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. Sherma, “Thin-layer chromatography of pesticides—a review of applications for 2002-2004,” Acta Chromatographica, no. 15, pp. 5–30, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  21. T. D. Sutherland, I. Horne, R. J. Russell, and J. G. Oakeshott, “Gene cloning and molecular characterization of a two-enzyme system catalyzing the oxidative detoxification of β-endosulfan,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 6237–6245, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. H. Mitobe, T. Ibaraki, A. Tanabe, K. Kawata, and A. Yasuhara, “High performance liquid chromatographic determination of pesticides in soluble phase and suspended phase in river water,” Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, vol. 81, no. 3-4, pp. 97–110, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  23. A. N. Ivanov, G. A. Evtugyn, R. E. Gyurcsányi, K. Tóth, and H. C. Budnikov, “Comparative investigation of electrochemical cholinesterase biosensors for pesticide determination,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 404, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. V. G. Andreou and Y. D. Clonis, “A portable fiber-optic pesticide biosensor based on immobilized cholinesterase and sol-gel entrapped bromcresol purple for in-field use,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 17, no. 1-2, pp. 61–69, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. T. Shimomura, T. Itoh, T. Sumiya, F. Mizukami, and M. Ono, “Amperometric biosensor based on enzymes immobilized in hybrid mesoporous membranes for the determination of acetylcholine,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 45, no. 6-7, pp. 443–448, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. Y. Ivanov, I. Marinov, K. Gabrovska, N. Dimcheva, and T. Godjevargova, “Amperometric biosensor based on a site-specific immobilization of acetylcholinesterase via affinity bonds on a nanostructured polymer membrane with integrated multiwall carbon nanotubes,” Journal of Molecular Catalysis B, vol. 63, no. 3-4, pp. 141–148, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. I. Marinov, Y. Ivanov, K. Gabrovska, and T. Godjevargova, “Amperometric acetylthiocholine sensor based on acetylcholinesterase immobilized on nanostructured polymer membrane containing gold nanoparticles,” Journal of Molecular Catalysis B, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. K. Rekha and B. N. Murthy, “Studies on the immobilisation of acetylcholine esterase enzyme for biosensor applications,” Food and Agricultural Immunology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 273–281, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. F. N. Kok, F. Bozoglu, and V. Hasirci, “Construction of an acetylcholinesterase-choline oxidase biosensor for aldicarb determination,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 17, no. 6-7, pp. 531–539, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J.-L. Marty, N. Mionetto, T. Noguer, F. Ortega, and C. Roux, “Enzyme sensors for the detection of pesticides,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 273–280, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. K. Stein and G. Schwedt, “Comparison of immobilization methods for the development of an acetylcholinesterase biosensor,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 73–81, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. C. Chouteau, S. Dzyadevych, C. Durrieu, and J.-M. Chovelon, “A bi-enzymatic whole cell conductometric biosensor for heavy metal ions and pesticides detection in water samples,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 273–281, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. H.-S. Lee, Y. A. Kim, Y. A. Cho, and Y. T. Lee, “Oxidation of organophosphorus pesticides for the sensitive detection by a cholinesterase-based biosensor,” Chemosphere, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 571–576, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. X. Guo, X. Zhang, Q. Cai, T. Shen, and S. Zhu, “Developing a novel sensitive visual screening card for rapid detection of pesticide residues in food,” Food Control, vol. 30, pp. 15–23, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  35. S. Wu, L. Zhang, L. Qi et al., “Ultra-sensitive biosensor based on mesocellular silica foam for organophosphorous pesticide detection,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2864–2869, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. S. Andreescu, T. Noguer, V. Magearu, and J.-L. Marty, “Screen-printed electrode based on ache for the detection of pesticides in presence of organic solvents,” Talanta, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 169–176, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. Y. Qu, Q. Sun, F. Xiao, G. Shi, and L. Jin, “Layer-by-Layer self-assembled acetylcholinesterase/PAMAM-Au on CNTs modified electrode for sensing pesticides,” Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 139–144, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. Wu, L. Zhang, L. Qi et al., “Ultra-sensitive biosensor based on mesocellular silica foam for organophosphorous pesticide detection,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2864–2869, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. C. Cremisini, S. Di Sario, J. Mela, R. Pilloton, and G. Palleschi, “Evaluation of the use of free and immobilised acetylcholinesterase for paraoxon detection with an amperometric choline oxidase based biosensor,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 311, no. 3, pp. 273–280, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. G. Jeanty, C. Ghommidh, and J. L. Marty, “Automated detection of chlorpyrifos and its metabolites by a continuous flow system-based enzyme sensor,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 436, no. 1, pp. 119–128, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. D. M. Ivnitskii and J. Rishpon, “A potentiometric biosensor for pesticides based on the thiocholine hexacyanoferrate (III) reaction,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 569–576, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. A. Vakurov, C. E. Simpson, C. L. Daly, T. D. Gibson, and P. A. Millner, “Acetylcholinesterase-based biosensor electrodes for organophosphate pesticide detection: I. Modification of carbon surface for immobilization of acetylcholinesterase,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1118–1125, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. V. S. Somerset, M. J. Klink, P. G. L. Baker, and E. I. Iwuoha, “Acetylcholinesterase-polyaniline biosensor investigation of organophosphate pesticides in selected organic solvents,” Journal of Environmental Science and Health B, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 297–304, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. S. Viswanathan, H. Radecka, and J. Radecki, “Electrochemical biosensor for pesticides based on acetylcholinesterase immobilized on polyaniline deposited on vertically assembled carbon nanotubes wrapped with ssDNA,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 2772–2777, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. Gong, L. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Electrochemical biosensing of methyl parathion pesticide based on acetylcholinesterase immobilized onto Au-polypyrrole interlaced network-like nanocomposite,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 2285–2288, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. D. Du, X. Ye, J. Cai, J. Liu, and A. Zhang, “Acetylcholinesterase biosensor design based on carbon nanotube-encapsulated polypyrrole and polyaniline copolymer for amperometric detection of organophosphates,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 2503–2508, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. R. Xue, T.-F. Kang, L.-P. Lu, and S.-Y. Cheng, “Immobilization of acetylcholinesterase via biocompatible interface of silk fibroin for detection of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides,” Applied Surface Science, vol. 258, no. 16, pp. 6040–6045, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. H. Guan, F. Zhang, J. Yu, and D. Chi, “The novel acetylcholinesterase biosensors based on liposome bioreactors-chitosan nanocomposite film for detection of organophosphates pesticides,” Food Research International, vol. 49, pp. 15–21, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  49. X. Sun and X. Wang, “Acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on prussian blue-modified electrode for detecting organophosphorous pesticides,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 2611–2614, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. A. C. Ion, I. Ion, A. Culetu et al., “Acetylcholinesterase voltammetric biosensors based on carbon nanostructure-chitosan composite material for organophosphate pesticides,” Materials Science and Engineering C, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 817–821, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. K. Dutta, D. Bhattacharyay, A. Mukherjee, S. J. Setford, A. P. F. Turner, and P. Sarkar, “Detection of pesticide by polymeric enzyme electrodes,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 556–561, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. D. Du, A. Chen, Y. Xie, A. Zhang, and Y. Lin, “Nanoparticle-based immunosensor with apoferritin templated metallic phosphate label for quantification of phosphorylated acetylcholinesterase,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 3857–3863, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. S. Wu, X. Lan, W. Zhao et al., “Controlled immobilization of acetylcholinesterase on improved hydrophobic gold nanoparticle/Prussian blue modified surface for ultra-trace organophosphate pesticide detection,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 82–87, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. W. N. Aldridge and A. N. Davison, “The mechanism of inhibition of cholinesterase by organophosphorus compounds,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 55, pp. 763–766, 1953. View at: Google Scholar
  55. Y. Boublik, P. Saint-Aguet, A. Lougarre et al., “Acetylcholinesterase engineering for detection of insecticide residues,” Protein Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  56. G. L. Turdean, I. C. Popescu, L. Oniciu, and D. R. Thevenot, “Sensitive detection of organophosphorus pesticides using a needle type amperometric acetylcholinesterase-based bioelectrode. Thiocholine electrochemistry and immobilised enzyme inhibition,” Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 107–115, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. I. Palchetti, A. Cagnini, M. Del Carlo, C. Coppi, M. Mascini, and A. P. F. Turner, “Determination of anticholinesterase pesticides in real samples using a disposable biosensor,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 337, no. 3, pp. 315–321, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. P. Skládal, G. S. Nunes, H. Yamanaka, and M. L. Ribeiro, “Detection of Carbamate Pesticides in Vegetable Samples Using Cholinesterase-Based Biosensors,” Electroanalysis, vol. 9, no. 14, pp. 1083–1087, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  59. J. Wang, “Electrochemical glucose biosensors,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 814–825, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. C. F. de Jong, R. J. E. Derks, B. Bruyneel, W. Niessen, and H. Irth, “High-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based acetylcholinesterase assay for the screening of inhibitors in natural extracts,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1112, no. 1-2, pp. 303–310, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. A. A. Weinbroum, “Pathophysiological and clinical aspects of combat anticholinesterase poisoning,” British Medical Bulletin, vol. 72, pp. 119–133, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. C. Pope, S. Karanth, and J. Liu, “Pharmacology and toxicology of cholinesterase inhibitors: uses and misuses of a common mechanism of action,” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 433–446, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. N. Jha and S. Ramaprabhu, “Development of MWNT based disposable biosensor on glassy Carbon electrode for the detection of organophosphorus nerve agents,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 5676–5680, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. S. V. Dzydevich, A. A. Shulga, A. P. Soldatkin, A. M. N. Hendji, N. J. Renault, and C. Martelet, “Conductometric biosensors based on cholinesterases for sensitive detection of pesticides,” Electroanalysis, vol. 6, pp. 752–758, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  65. A. Navas Díaz and M. C. Ramos Peinado, “Sol-gel cholinesterase biosensor for organophosphorus pesticide fluorimetric analysis,” Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 39, no. 1–3, pp. 426–431, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  66. R.-A. Doong and H.-C. Tsai, “Immobilization and characterization of sol-gel-encapsulated acetylcholinesterase fiber-optic biosensor,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 434, no. 2, pp. 239–246, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. S. Andreescu, L. Barthelmebs, and J.-L. Marty, “Immobilization of acetylcholinesterase on screen-printed electrodes: comparative study between three immobilization methods and applications to the detection of organophosphorus insecticides,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 464, no. 2, pp. 171–180, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. S. Sotiropoulou and N. A. Chaniotakis, “Tuning the sol-gel microenvironment for acetylcholinesterase encapsulation,” Biomaterials, vol. 26, no. 33, pp. 6771–6779, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. K. Anitha, S. V. Mohan, and S. J. Reddy, “Development of acetylcholinesterase silica sol-gel immobilized biosensor—an application towards oxydemeton methyl detection,” Biosensors & bioelectronics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 848–856, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  70. F. C. M. Wong, M. Ahmad, L. Y. Heng, and L. B. Peng, “An optical biosensor for dichlovos using stacked sol-gel films containing acetylcholinesterase and a lipophilic chromoionophore,” Talanta, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 888–893, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. M. Shi, J. Xu, S. Zhang, B. Liu, and J. Kong, “A mediator-free screen-printed amperometric biosensor for screening of organophosphorus pesticides with flow-injection analysis (FIA) system,” Talanta, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1089–1095, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. B. Bucur, D. Fournier, A. Danet, and J.-L. Marty, “Biosensors based on highly sensitive acetylcholinesterases for enhanced carbamate insecticides detection,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 562, no. 1, pp. 115–121, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. D. Du, S. Chen, J. Cai, and A. Zhang, “Electrochemical pesticide sensitivity test using acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on colloidal gold nanoparticle modified sol-gel interface,” Talanta, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 766–772, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. H. Zejli, J. L. Hidalgo-Hidalgo de Cisneros, I. Naranjo-Rodriguez, B. Liu, K. R. Temsamani, and J.-L. Marty, “Alumina sol-gel/sonogel-carbon electrode based on acetylcholinesterase for detection of organophosphorus pesticides,” Talanta, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 217–221, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. B. Kuswandi, C. I. Fikriyah, and A. A. Gani, “An optical fiber biosensor for chlorpyrifos using a single sol-gel film containing acetylcholinesterase and bromothymol blue,” Talanta, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 613–618, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. R. Sinha, M. Ganesana, S. Andreescu, and L. Stanciu, “AChE biosensor based on zinc oxide sol-gel for the detection of pesticides,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 661, no. 2, pp. 195–199, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. P. Raghu, B. E. Kumara Swamy, T. Madhusudana Reddy, B. N. Chandrashekar, and K. Reddaiah, “Sol-gel immobilized biosensor for the detection of organophosphorous pesticides: a voltammetric method,” Bioelectrochemistry, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 19–24, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. P. Raghu, T. Madhusudana Reddy, B. E. Kumara Swamy, B. N. Chandrashekar, K. Reddaiah, and M. Sreedhar, “Development of AChE biosensor for the determination of methyl parathion and monocrotophos in water and fruit samples: a cyclic voltammetric study,” Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, vol. 665, pp. 76–82, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. C. Bonnet, S. Andreescu, and J.-L. Marty, “Adsorption: an easy and efficient immobilisation of acetylcholinesterase on screen-printed electrodes,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 481, no. 2, pp. 209–211, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. S. Laschi, D. Ogończyk, I. Palchetti, and M. Mascini, “Evaluation of pesticide-induced acetylcholinesterase inhibition by means of disposable carbon-modified electrochemical biosensors,” Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 485–489, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. K. A. Law and S. P. J. Higson, “Sonochemically fabricated acetylcholinesterase micro-electrode arrays within a flow injection analyser for the determination of organophosphate pesticides,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1914–1924, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. M. Albareda-Sirvent, A. Merkoçi, and S. Alegret, “Pesticide determination in tap water and juice samples using disposable amperometric biosensors made using thick-film technology,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 442, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. Y.-G. Li, Y.-X. Zhou, J.-L. Feng, Z.-H. Jiang, and L.-R. Ma, “Immobilization of enzyme on screen-printed electrode by exposure to glutaraldehyde vapour for the construction of amperometric acetylcholinesterase electrodes,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 382, no. 3, pp. 277–282, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. A. N. Ivanov, R. R. Younusov, G. A. Evtugyn, F. Arduini, D. Moscone, and G. Palleschi, “Acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on single-walled carbon nanotubes—co phtalocyanine for organophosphorus pesticides detection,” Talanta, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 216–221, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. P. R. B. de Oliveira Marques, G. S. Nunes, T. C. R. dos Santos, S. Andreescu, and J.-L. Marty, “Comparative investigation between acetylcholinesterase obtained from commercial sources and genetically modified Drosophila melanogaster: application in amperometric biosensors for methamidophos pesticide detection,” Biosensors & bioelectronics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 825–832, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  86. J. Wang, R. Krause, K. Block, M. Musameh, A. Mulchandani, and M. J. Schöning, “Flow injection amperometric detection of OP nerve agents based on an organophosphorus-hydrolase biosensor detector,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 18, no. 2-3, pp. 255–260, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. A. Vakurov, C. E. Simpson, C. L. Daly, T. D. Gibson, and P. A. Millner, “Acetylcholinesterase-based biosensor electrodes for organophosphate pesticide detection: I. Modification of carbon surface for immobilization of acetylcholinesterase,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1118–1125, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. J. Dou, F. Fan, A. Ding et al., “A screen-printed, amperometric biosensor for the determination of organophosphorus pesticides in water samples,” Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 956–962, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  89. D. Du, S. Chen, D. Song, H. Li, and X. Chen, “Development of acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on CdTe quantum dots/gold nanoparticles modified chitosan microspheres interface,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 475–479, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. Z. Zheng, Y. Zhou, X. Li, S. Liu, and Z. Tang, “Highly-sensitive organophosphorous pesticide biosensors based on nanostructured films of acetylcholinesterase and CdTe quantum dots,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 3081–3085, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. X. Gao, G. Tang, and X. Su, “Optical detection of organophosphorus compounds based on Mn-doped ZnSe d-dot enzymatic catalytic sensor,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 36, pp. 75–80, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. D. Du, J. Ding, Y. Tao, and X. Chen, “Application of chemisorption/desorption process of thiocholine for pesticide detection based on acetylcholinesterase biosensor,” Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 908–912, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. S. Wu, X. Lan, W. Zhao et al., “Controlled immobilization of acetylcholinesterase on improved hydrophobic gold nanoparticle/Prussian blue modified surface for ultra-trace organophosphate pesticide detection,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 82–87, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. D. Du, M. Wang, J. Cai, Y. Qin, and A. Zhang, “One-step synthesis of multiwalled carbon nanotubes-gold nanocomposites for fabricating amperometric acetylcholinesterase biosensor,” Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 143, no. 2, pp. 524–529, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. Y. Yang, M. Guo, M. Yang, Z. Wang, G. Shen, and R. Yu, “Determination of pesticides in vegetable samples using an acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on nanoparticles ZrO2/chitosan composite film,” International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 163–175, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. S. Upadhyay, G. R. Rao, M. K. Sharma, B. K. Bhattacharya, V. K. Rao, and R. Vijayaraghavan, “Immobilization of acetylcholineesterase-choline oxidase on a gold-platinum bimetallic nanoparticles modified glassy carbon electrode for the sensitive detection of organophosphate pesticides, carbamates and nerve agents,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 832–838, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. Y. R. Li, Z. Y. Gan, Y. F. Li et al., “Immobilization of acetylcholinesterase on one-dimensional gold nanoparticles for detection of organophosphorous insecticides,” Science China Chemistry, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 820–825, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. N. Jha and S. Ramaprabhu, “Development of Au nanoparticles dispersed carbon nanotube-based biosensor for the detection of paraoxon,” Nanoscale, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 806–810, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. X. Sun and X. Wang, “Acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on prussian blue-modified electrode for detecting organophosphorous pesticides,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 2611–2614, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. K. Wang, H.-N. Li, J. Wu et al., “TiO2-decorated graphene nanohybrids for fabricating an amperometric acetylcholinesterase biosensor,” Analyst, vol. 136, no. 16, pp. 3349–3354, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. A. C. Ion, I. Ion, A. Culetu et al., “Acetylcholinesterase voltammetric biosensors based on carbon nanostructure-chitosan composite material for organophosphate pesticides,” Materials Science and Engineering C, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 817–821, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. P. Norouzi, M. Pirali-Hamedani, M. R. Ganjali, and F. Faridbod, “A novel acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on chitosan-gold nanoparticles film for determination of monocrotophos using FFT continuous cyclic voltammetry,” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1434–1446, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  103. K. Wang, Q. Liu, L. Dai et al., “A highly sensitive and rapid organophosphate biosensor based on enhancement of CdS-decorated graphene nanocomposite,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 695, no. 1-2, pp. 84–88, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. D. Du, X. Huang, J. Cai, and A. Zhang, “Comparison of pesticide sensitivity by electrochemical test based on acetylcholinesterase biosensor,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 285–289, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. O. Shulga and J. R. Kirchhoff, “An acetylcholinesterase enzyme electrode stabilized by an electrodeposited gold nanoparticle layer,” Electrochemistry Communications, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 935–940, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. Y. Wei, Y. Li, Y. Qu, F. Xiao, G. Shi, and L. Jin, “A novel biosensor based on photoelectro-synergistic catalysis for flow-injection analysis system/amperometric detection of organophosphorous pesticides,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 643, no. 1-2, pp. 13–18, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. Y. Song, M. Zhang, L. Wang et al., “A novel biosensor based on acetylecholinesterase/prussian blue-chitosan modified electrode for detection of carbaryl pesticides,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 56, no. 21, pp. 7267–7271, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. S. Wu, F. Huang, X. Lan, X. Wang, J. Wang, and C. Meng, “Electrochemically reduced graphene oxide and Nafion nanocomposite for ultralow potential detection of organophosphate pesticide,” Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 177, pp. 724–729, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  109. S. P. Sharma, L. N. S. Tomar, J. Acharya, A. Chaturvedi, M. V. S. Suryanarayan, and R. Jain, “Acetylcholinesterase inhibition-based biosensor for amperometric detection of Sarin using single-walled carbon nanotube-modified ferrule graphite electrode,” Sensors and Actuators B, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. S. Upadhyay, G. R. Rao, M. K. Sharma, B. K. Bhattacharya, V. K. Rao, and R. Vijayaraghavan, “Immobilization of acetylcholineesterase-choline oxidase on a gold-platinum bimetallic nanoparticles modified glassy carbon electrode for the sensitive detection of organophosphate pesticides, carbamates and nerve agents,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 832–838, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. M. Musameh, M. R. Notivoli, M. Hickey et al., “Carbon nanotube-Web modified electrodes for ultrasensitive detection of organophosphate pesticides,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 101, pp. 209–215, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  112. I. Marinov, Y. Ivanov, K. Gabrovska, and T. Godjevargova, “Amperometric acetylthiocholine sensor based on acetylcholinesterase immobilized on nanostructured polymer membrane containing gold nanoparticles,” Journal of Molecular Catalysis B, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. D. Du, S. Chen, D. Song, H. Li, and X. Chen, “Development of acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on CdTe quantum dots/gold nanoparticles modified chitosan microspheres interface,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 475–479, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. D. Du, S. Chen, J. Cai, and A. Zhang, “Immobilization of acetylcholinesterase on gold nanoparticles embedded in sol-gel film for amperometric detection of organophosphorous insecticide,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 130–134, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. T. Wink, S. J. van Zuilen, A. Bult, and W. P. van Bennekom, “Self-assembled monolayers for biosensors,” Analyst, vol. 122, no. 4, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. J. J. Gooding and D. B. Hibbert, “The application of alkanethiol self-assembled monolayers to enzyme electrodes,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 525–533, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. M. Campàs, B. Prieto-Simón, and J.-L. Marty, “A review of the use of genetically engineered enzymes in electrochemical biosensors,” Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–9, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. J. S. van Dyk and B. Pletschke, “Review on the use of enzymes for the detection of organochlorine, organophosphate and carbamate pesticides in the environment,” Chemosphere, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 291–307, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. B. Adhikari and S. Majumdar, “Polymers in sensor applications,” Progress in Polymer Science (Oxford), vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 699–766, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. G. Dhawan, G. Sumana, and B. D. Malhotra, “Recent developments in urea biosensors,” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 42–52, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. G. A. Alonso, G. Istamboulie, T. Noguer, J.-L. Marty, and R. Muñoz, “Rapid determination of pesticide mixtures using disposable biosensors based on genetically modified enzymes and artificial neural networks,” Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 164, no. 1, pp. 22–28, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. T. Kaku, H. I. Karan, and Y. Okamoto, “Amperometric glucose sensors based on immobilized glucose oxidase-polyquinone system,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 1231–1235, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  123. L. Coche-Guerente, S. Cosnier, C. Innocent, and P. Mailley, “Development of amperometric biosensors based on the immobilization of enzymes in polymer films electrogenerated from a series of amphiphilic pyrrole derivatives,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 311, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. A. P. Alivisatos, “Semiconductor clusters, nanocrystals, and quantum dots,” Science, vol. 271, no. 5251, pp. 933–937, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  125. G. Jie, B. Liu, H. Pan, J.-J. Zhu, and H.-Y. Chen, “CdS nanocrystal-based electrochemiluminescence biosensor for the detection of low-density lipoprotein by increasing sensitivity with gold nanoparticle amplification,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 79, no. 15, pp. 5574–5581, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. D. Wang, A. L. Rogach, and F. Caruso, “Semiconductor quantum dot-labeled microsphere bioconjugates prepared by stepwise self-assembly,” Nano Letters, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 857–861, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. C. S. Pundir and N. Chauhan, “Acetylcholinesterase inhibition-based biosensors for pesticide determination: a review,” Analytical Biochemistry, vol. 429, pp. 19–31, 2012. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2013 Vikas Dhull et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views6596
Downloads2816
Citations

Related articles