2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126714
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comprehensive review of conventional and state-of-the-art detection methods of Cryptosporidium

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 154 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cryptosporidium spp. Is the pathogen most frequently associated with food- and water-borne outbreaks and enteric infections [ 117 ]. To better control the spread of this pathogen, an educational prevention program on this parasitosis should be implemented, focusing on hygienic behavior recommendations for individuals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cryptosporidium spp. Is the pathogen most frequently associated with food- and water-borne outbreaks and enteric infections [ 117 ]. To better control the spread of this pathogen, an educational prevention program on this parasitosis should be implemented, focusing on hygienic behavior recommendations for individuals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other studies have coupled electrochemical biosensors with antibody-based and aptamer-based detection but suffer from low sensitivity and/or required time-consuming preparatory steps [14]. A recent proof of concept study, coupled an electrochemical biosensor with a specific anti- Cryptosporidium monoclonal antibody with a detection limit of approximately 20 oocysts/5 μl in water [30 ▪ ].…”
Section: Point Of Care Diagnosticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 Over the last decades, powerful pathogen detection methods based on cell culture, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have been employed, but they often suffer from several downsides such as long processing times, large sample volumes, bulky and expensive equipment, high reagent costs and the need for highly trained personnel. [3][4][5][6][7] While these methods are possible, yet undesired, in high-income countries, they are simply unsuited for resource-limited environments, where simple, rapid, inexpensive and portable point-of-care (POC) devices are needed. 7,8 Under these conditions, biosensors, paper-based devices like lateral flow assays (LFA), dipsticks or microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs) as well as conventional microfluidic sensors based on polymer substrates are suitable technologies for pathogen detection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[3][4][5][6][7] While these methods are possible, yet undesired, in high-income countries, they are simply unsuited for resource-limited environments, where simple, rapid, inexpensive and portable point-of-care (POC) devices are needed. 7,8 Under these conditions, biosensors, paper-based devices like lateral flow assays (LFA), dipsticks or microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs) as well as conventional microfluidic sensors based on polymer substrates are suitable technologies for pathogen detection. 3,5,6,9 While paper-based devices are simple, inexpensive, portable, disposable, easy-to-store, user friendly and can transport fluids through capillary forces, they usually do not offer the same performance and functionality as conventional microfluidic devices.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%