Efficient Microfluidic-Based Air Sampling/Monitoring Platform for Detection of Aerosol SARS-CoV-2 On-site

Xiong, Huiwen; Ye, Xin; Li, Yang; Qi, Jun; Fang, Xueen; Kong, Jilie

doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c05154

Cited by 41 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While Ladhani et al used electrostatic precipitation to improve the collection efficiency of their microfluidic device [78] , some other authors have utilized enrichment methods. Enrichment steps help to lower the limit of detection (LOD) by increasing particle concentration by collecting aerosols into a liquid, causing a volume reduction and increased sample concentration[ 51 , 52 , 66 ]. This is similar to the concentration step used to artificially increase the norovirus captured onto a microfluidic chip in this liquid-based immunofluorescence assay[ 85 , 86 ].…”

Section: Sampling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A/H1N1 HCoV-229E N/A 1.5 × 10 7 PFU/mL Reduced damage to virus Kim et al [56] Electrostatic, ATH enrichment 4-10 N/A HTH, magnetic particles RT-qPCR 1-4 HCoV-229E Infl. A/H1N1 6 PFU/mL 55 PFU/m 3 Xiong et al [66] Air sampler + microfluidic fluorescence system 50-250 30 N/A LAMP 0.25 SARS-CoV-2 10 copies/µL Portable; Multiple sample processing Note. Infl.…”

Section: Sars-cov-2 Airborne Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the LOD of nucleic acid amplification (e.g., RT-qPCR) has generally been considered much lower than antibody-antigen methods (e.g., ELISA and other immunoassays), the LOD's shown in Table 4 do not show substantial differences between these two methods. Lowest LOD's were 10 copies/µL (= 10 4 copies/mL) and 138 pg/mL for antibody-antigen methods, and 30 copies and 6 PFU/mL for PCR methods[ 56 , 57 , 66 , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] ]. Medium-to-high LOD's were around 10 6 PFU/mL for both antibody-antigen and PCR methods[ 56 , 57 , 66 , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] ].…”

Section: Recent Biosensor Advances For Airborne Respiratory Virusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lowest LOD's were 10 copies/µL (= 10 4 copies/mL) and 138 pg/mL for antibody-antigen methods, and 30 copies and 6 PFU/mL for PCR methods[ 56 , 57 , 66 , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] ]. Medium-to-high LOD's were around 10 6 PFU/mL for both antibody-antigen and PCR methods[ 56 , 57 , 66 , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] ]. LOD's are more affected by the collection efficiency, which can be varied by the device's flow volume, presence or absence of applied charge, and enrichment steps.…”

Section: Recent Biosensor Advances For Airborne Respiratory Virusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final few papers we will now review specifically focus on detection of airborne coronaviruses[ 56 , 57 , 66 , 71 , 88 ], and one that does not focus on airborne detection but could potentially be applied to bioaerosols [89] . Two review papers present summaries of sensor technologies for bioaerosol detection, including examples for SARS-CoV detection.…”

Section: Recent Biosensor Advances For Airborne Coronavirusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Biosensor detection of airborne respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sampling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sars-cov-2 Airborne Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recent Biosensor Advances For Airborne Respiratory Virusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recent Biosensor Advances For Airborne Respiratory Virusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recent Biosensor Advances For Airborne Coronavirusesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biosensor detection of airborne respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advanced Point‐of‐Care Testing Technologies for Human Acute Respiratory Virus Detection

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

system leading to respiratory tract infections (respiratory viruses, RVs). These diseases have the highest morbidity and fatality rates among acute infectious diseases and have caused a series of pandemics throughout human history. The first recorded RV occurred in 1200 BC, and subsequent major RVs have included the 1918 influenza virus, [1] severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1), [2][3][4][5] 2009 swine flu (H1N1), [6] Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus, [7,8] and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), [9,10] which together have cost billions of lives (Figure 1). [11,12] The epidemics mentioned above impose a significant burden on healthcare systems and the global economy. [13,14] The recurrence of RV epidemics could result from their ubiquitous transmission routes, including direct transmission by sneezing, airborne/aerosol transmission by droplets from infected persons, and transmission by hand-to-eye/nose/mouth contact spreading RVs potentially from contaminated surfaces (handles, elevators, commonly used shared areas, and shopping bags) to an uninfected person. [15][16][17] The major RV types are influenza virus, coronavirus (CoV), adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), rhinovirus,The ever-growing global threats to human life caused by the human acute respiratory virus (RV) infections have cost billions of lives, created a significant economic burden, and shaped society for centuries. The timely response to emerging RVs could save human lives and reduce the medical care burden. The development of RV detection technologies is essential for potentially preventing RV pandemic and epidemics. However, commonly used detection technologies lack sensitivity, specificity, and speed, thus often failing to provide the rapid turnaround times. To address this problem, new technologies are devised to address the performance inadequacies of the traditional methods. These emerging technologies offer improvements in convenience, speed, flexibility, and portability of point-of-care test (POCT). Herein, recent developments in POCT are comprehensively reviewed for eight typical acute respiratory viruses. This review discusses the challenges and opportunities of various recognition and detection strategies and discusses these according to their detection principles, including nucleic acid amplification, optical POCT, electrochemistry, lateral flow assays, microfluidics, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and microarrays. The importance of limits of detection, throughput, portability, and specificity when testing clinical samples in resource-limited settings is emphasized. Finally, the evaluation of commercial POCT kits for both essential RV diagnosis and clinical-oriented practices is included.

show abstract

Internet‐of‐medical‐things integrated point‐of‐care biosensing devices for infectious diseases: Toward better preparedness for futuristic pandemics

Parihar

Yadav

Sadique

et al. 2023

Bioengineering & Transla Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial pathogens have threatened the world due to their pathogenicity and ability to spread in communities. The conventional laboratory‐based diagnostics of microbes such as bacteria and viruses need bulky expensive experimental instruments and skilled personnel which limits their usage in resource‐limited settings. The biosensors‐based point‐of‐care (POC) diagnostics have shown huge potential to detect microbial pathogens in a faster, cost‐effective, and user‐friendly manner. The use of various transducers such as electrochemical and optical along with microfluidic integrated biosensors further enhances the sensitivity and selectivity of detection. Additionally, microfluidic‐based biosensors offer the advantages of multiplexed detection of analyte and the ability to deal with nanoliters volume of fluid in an integrated portable platform. In the present review, we discussed the design and fabrication of POCT devices for the detection of microbial pathogens which include bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. The electrochemical techniques and current advances in this field in terms of integrated electrochemical platforms that include mainly microfluidic‐ based approaches and smartphone and Internet‐of‐things (IoT) and Internet‐of‐Medical‐Things (IoMT) integrated systems have been highlighted. Further, the availability of commercial biosensors for the detection of microbial pathogens will be briefed. In the end, the challenges while fabrication of POC biosensors and expected future advances in the field of biosensing have been discussed. The integrated biosensor‐based platforms with the IoT/IoMT usually collect the data to track the community spread of infectious diseases which would be beneficial in terms of better preparedness for current and futuristic pandemics and is expected to prevent social and economic losses.

show abstract

Efficient Microfluidic-Based Air Sampling/Monitoring Platform for Detection of Aerosol SARS-CoV-2 On-site

Cited by 41 publications

References 28 publications

Biosensor detection of airborne respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2

Biosensor detection of airborne respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2

Advanced Point‐of‐Care Testing Technologies for Human Acute Respiratory Virus Detection

Internet‐of‐medical‐things integrated point‐of‐care biosensing devices for infectious diseases: Toward better preparedness for futuristic pandemics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About