Pathogen detection: a perspective of traditional methods and biosensors.

By Olivier Lazcka, F. J. Campo, F. Muñoz. Biosensors & bioelectronics, 2007

1,423 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Advances in rapid detection methods for foodborne pathogens. (2014, methodology): “, or a biomimic ( e.g ., synthetic catalysts, combinatorial ligands, and imprinted polymers) intimately associated with or integrated within a physicochemical transducer or transducing microsystem, which may be optical, electrochemical, thermometric, piezoelectric, magnetic, or micromechanical [48].”
An overview of foodborne pathogen detection: in the perspective of biosensors. (2010, background): “In any case, they are generally immobilized on a substrate, which can be the detector surface, its vicinity, or a carrier (Lazcka et al., 2007).”
Electrochemical biosensors for pathogen detection (2020, background): “Several comprehensive reviews have been written on pathogen detection using high-throughput, well plate-based bioanalytical techniques (Alahi and Mukhopadhyay, 2017; Lazcka et al. 2007; Zourob et al. 2008), such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Law et al.”
Microbial biosensors: a review. (2011, background): “…in 1962, biosensors have een intensively studied and extensively utilized in various appliations, ranging from public health and environmental monitoring o homeland security and food safety (Amine et al., 2006; Kissinger, 005; Lazcka et al., 2007; Patolsky et al., 2006; Wilson and Gifford, 005).”