A challenge in biosensors: Is it better to measure a photon or an electron for ultrasensitive detection?

Abstract

Biosensor development exploiting various transduction principles is characterized by a strong competition to reach high detectability, portability and robustness. Nevertheless, a literature-based comparison is not possible, as different conditions are employed in each paper.Herein, we aim at evaluating which measurement, photons or electrons, yields better biosensor performance. Upon outlining an update in recent achievements to boost analytical performance, amperometry and chemiluminescence (CL)-based biosensors are directly compared employing the same biospecific reagents and analytical formats. Horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and hydrogen peroxide concentrations were directly measured, while glucose and mouse IgG were detected employing an enzyme paper-based biosensor and an immunosensor, respectively.Detectability was down to picomoles of hydrogen peroxide (4 pmol for CL and 210 pmol for amperometry) and zeptomoles of HRP (45 zmol for CL and 20 zmol for amperometry); IgG was detected down to 12 fM (CL) and 120 fM (amperometry), while glucose down to 17 μM (CL) and 40 μM (amperometry).Results showed that amperometric and CL biosensors offered similar detectability and analytical performance, with some peculiarities that suggest complementary application fields. As they generally provided slightly higher detectability and wider dynamic ranges, CL-based biosensors appear more suitable for point-of-care testing of clinical biomarkers, where detectability is crucial. Nevertheless, as high detectability in CL biosensors usually requires longer acquisition times, their rapidity will allocate electrochemical biosensors in real-time monitoring and wearable biosensors.The analytical challenge demonstrated that these biosensors have competitive and similar performance, and between photons and electrons the competition is still open.