Nanomaterials Based Monitoring of Food- and Water-Borne Pathogens

Table 1

Various detection approaches and techniques of food-borne pathogens.

Approaches	Techniques	Advantages	Draw backs	Detection limits	Reference
Molecular-based approaches	Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)	Higher sensitive and more specific. Method can be automated	Need DNA extraction, interface of inhibitors and can detect all cells	Present	[18–20]
	Multiplexed PCR	Sensitive, highly specific, and can detect multiple pathogens in one reaction with automation	Needs more specific primer designs, interface of inhibitors, and detects; all type of pathogens		[18–20]
	Real time PCR (RT-PCR)	Highly sensitive, specific, rapid, reliable, and reproductive results with specific time course detection	Most costly, interface of inhibitors, and detects all type of pathogens. Needs a trained technician and false results due to cross-contaminations	Present	[18–20]
	Nucleic-acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA)	Sensitive, specific, and cost-effective method without PCR	Needs culturable pathogens and RNA samples are sensitive to handle	Present	[3, 21]
	Loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)	Highly sensitive, highly specific, cost-effective, and easy to handle and operate	Complicated primer designing technology is needed	Present	[3]
	Oligonucleotide-DNA-based microarray	Highly sensitive, specific, high-throughput screening for multiple detection is possible	Cost is high, needs a trained technician and needs oligonucleotide probes and complicated detection systems	Present	[19–21]
Biosensor based approaches	Optical-based biosensors	Higher sensitivity with real time detection and label-free detection can be integrated	Higher cost	Present	[18, 19, 22]
	Electrochemical-based biosensors	High throughput analysis, automation, and label-free detection can be integrated	Lower specificity, fail to detect if a smaller number of microbes, and multistep analysis	Absent	[18, 19, 22]
	Mass based biosensors	Low cost, user friendly, label-free, and real-time detection is possible	Less specific, lower specificality, time-consuming, and multistep protocols	Present	[18, 19, 22]
Immunological based	Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)	Very specific, automated, multiple detection systems	Lower sensitive, false results,; trained technicians are needed,; and labelling is needed	Present	[3, 18, 20]
	Lateral flow immunoassay	Cost-effective, user friendly, reproducible, highly; sensitive, and specific	Needs labelling procedures	Absent	[3]