Next Article in Journal
Diagnosis of Acute Myocarditis Using Texture-Based Cardiac Magnetic Resonance, with CINE Imaging as a Novel Tissue Characterization Technique
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Pharmacological Strategies and Further Measures for Pain Relief during Hysterosonosalpingography: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/diagnostics12123186
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Aptamer-Based Electrochemical Biosensors for the Detection of Salmonella: A Scoping Review

by
Nor Syafirah Zambry
1,
Mohamad Ahmad Najib
1,
Mohd Syafiq Awang
2,
Kasturi Selvam
1,
Muhammad Fazli Khalid
1,
Yazmin Bustami
3,
Hairul Hisham Hamzah
4,
Mehmet Ozsoz
1,5,
Asrulnizam Abd Manaf
2,* and
Ismail Aziah
1,*
1
Institute for Research in Molecular Medicine (INFORMM), Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia
2
Collaborative Microelectronic Design Excellence Centre (CEDEC), Sains@USM, Level 1, Block C, No. 10 Persiaran Bukit Jambul, Bayan Lepas 11900, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
3
School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
4
School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, George Town 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
5
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Near East University, Nicosia 99138, Turkey
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(12), 3186; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123186
Submission received: 5 October 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 16 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Devices)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The development of rapid, accurate, and efficient detection methods for Salmonella can significantly control the outbreak of salmonellosis that threatens global public health. Despite the high sensitivity and specificity of the microbiological, nucleic-acid, and immunological-based methods, they are impractical for detecting samples outside of the laboratory due to the requirement for skilled individuals and sophisticated bench-top equipment. Ideally, an electrochemical biosensor could overcome the limitations of these detection methods since it offers simplicity for the detection process, on-site quantitative analysis, rapid detection time, high sensitivity, and portability. The present scoping review aims to assess the current trends in electrochemical aptasensors to detect and quantify Salmonella. This review was conducted according to the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A literature search was performed using aptamer and Salmonella keywords in three databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Springer. Studies on electrochemical aptasensors for detecting Salmonella published between January 2014 and January 2022 were retrieved. Of the 787 studies recorded in the search, 29 studies were screened for eligibility, and 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for this review. Information on the Salmonella serovars, targets, samples, sensor specification, platform technologies for fabrication, electrochemical detection methods, limit of detection (LoD), and detection time was discussed to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of the developed electrochemical aptasensor platform for the detection of Salmonella. The reported electrochemical aptasensors were mainly developed to detect Salmonella enterica Typhimurium in chicken meat samples. Most of the developed electrochemical aptasensors were fabricated using conventional electrodes (13 studies) rather than screen-printed electrodes (SPEs) (two studies). The developed aptasensors showed LoD ranges from 550 CFU/mL to as low as 1 CFU/mL within 5 min to 240 min of detection time. The promising detection performance of the electrochemical aptasensor highlights its potential as an excellent alternative to the existing detection methods. Nonetheless, more research is required to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the electrochemical sensing platform for Salmonella detection, particularly in human clinical samples, to enable their future use in clinical practice.

1. Introduction

Salmonella is a significant pathogenic bacteria that causes major foodborne disease in humans and animals, called salmonellosis [1,2,3]. The Salmonella genus is classified into two distinct species, namely Salmonella enterica and Salmonella bongori. Salmonella enterica has been recognized as the predominant species responsible for foodborne disease outbreaks in numerous countries, resulting in thousands of deaths globally [2,4]. More than 2600 serovars of Salmonella enterica have been reported in foodborne outbreaks [5]. Among these serovars, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis were the main isolated serovars responsible for human disease across countries [3,4]. Salmonella infection can be acquired through contaminated foods regularly found in meat products, eggs, dairy products, vegetables, and water [6].
This pathogen infects humans and animals through the intestinal tract. It may result in mild clinical symptoms such as abdominal pain, vomiting, headache, fever, self-limiting diarrhea to severe dehydration, and fever (typhoid) that can cause death without immediate medication [7,8,9]. The severity of Salmonella infection depends on the serovar and health status of the infected individual. The infection mainly occurs in vulnerable communities, including children under five years old, the elderly, and immunosuppressed individuals [10,11].
The spread of Salmonella infection can be significantly controlled by the emergence of reliable and effective detection methods for monitoring Salmonella contamination in the food chain (food handling, preparation, and storage) [12,13]. The standardized conventional microbiological method, according to the International Organisation of Standards (ISO) (ISO 6579:2002), has been used as the gold standard for monitoring Salmonella contamination in foods (102–103 CFU/mL) [6,14,15,16,17]. The method involves a pre-enrichment step of the samples in buffered peptone water followed by enrichment in selective media (e.g., Rappaport Vassialidis soy (RVS) broth and Muller Kauffmann tetrathionate-novobiocin). The enriched samples are then subjected to culturing on differential media (e.g., Xylose Lysine Deoxycholate (XLD) and Hoektoen) using a plating method. The suspected colonies are further confirmed using biochemical and serological tests [17,18]. The above-mentioned process is laborious and time-consuming as the results can only be confirmed within two to seven days, which is difficult for testing a large number of samples [2,16,19]. Moreover, the microbiological method is challenging due to the viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state of pathogens [20].
The advancement in Salmonella detection methods allows the emergence of rapid nucleic-acid-based assays and immunological-based assays that are routinely used in diagnostic laboratories [21]. In a nucleic-acid-based assay, Salmonella is detected via amplification of the specific fragments with or without hybridization of a probe. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time PCR are being used for qualitative and quantitative diagnostics, respectively, based on their high accuracy, reliability, high sensitivity, and specificity (the turnaround time from the sample preparation to the detection process is approximately 16 h) [19,22]. Aside from accelerating the Salmonella detection time, this method exhibits comparable sensitivity and specificity to the conventional method. Notably, the PCR-based assay can detect Salmonella concentration down to 104 CFU/mL after the enrichment procedure [16].
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most prevalent immunological-based assay for the detection of Salmonella [19]. Similar to PCR-based assays, ELISA can give a sensitivity of 104−105 CFU/mL, making it comparable to the conventional microbial method [2]. Many ELISA test kits are available on the market due to their ability for high-throughput food testing [23]. The BIOLINE Salmonella ELISA Test is one of the available commercial ELISA test kits to detect Salmonella in food products with a turnaround time of approximately 36 h, including the enrichment step [24]. Although the existing Samonella detection methods are fast, reliable, and sensitive, they are not preferable for on-site detection due to the requirement for sophisticated instruments and trained personnel [25]. Due to these limitations, the focus on developing a simple, practical, fast, inexpensive, and sensitive detection method has been conducted to reduce the incidence of outbreaks that threaten global public health.
More studies have been performed on electrochemical biosensors to detect various pathogens due to their ability to provide accurate and sensitive detection, fast response time, automation, affordability, ease of operation, miniaturization ability, and portability. These promising characteristics make electrochemical biosensors highly preferable for on-site and real-time pathogen testing in food samples. An electrochemical biosensor for pathogen detection converts the biochemical reactions that occurr between the immobilized biorecognition molecules (e.g., antibodies, enzymes, aptamers, DNA, or antimicrobial peptides) and target pathogens on the surface of conducting material, known as the working electrode, into measurable electrical signals (current, impedance, potential, or conductance). The electrical signals quantitatively represent the concentration of pathogens in the samples [26,27,28].
Aptamer is a short single-stranded oligonucleotide commonly synthesized using the Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment (SELEX) technique [29]. It is used as one of the biorecognition molecules in electrochemical sensing platforms due to its advantages of stability at a wide range of temperatures, ability to detect various types of target (e.g., drugs, proteins, antibiotics, cells), robust affinity, and specificity for their target molecules [30,31]. Due to their excellent characteristics and ease of synthesis, aptamer-based electrochemical sensing platforms known as electrochemical aptasensors are often chosen in many diagnostic fields [32]. Curti et al. [33] have proven the efficiency of electrochemical aptasensors in detecting the contagious virus SARS-CoV-2. In another study, Park et al. [34] demonstrated the development of an electrochemical aptasensor for Zika virus detection in human serum samples. However, limited studies are available on developing electrochemical aptasensors for detecting bacterial pathogens, especially the genus Salmonella. According to Subjakova et al. [35], only 46 research articles have been published on the electrochemical bacterial aptasensor. Therefore, this review aims to provide an overview of the current trends in the development of electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection. Several important criteria, such as the Salmonella serovars, sensor specification, platform strategies, electrochemical detection method, limit of detection (LoD), and detection time have been discussed to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of the existing electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection.

2. Methods

The present study was performed as a scoping review to provide a concise overview of the currently available studies on electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection [36,37]. The review adopted the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [36,38].

2.1. Search Strategy

A comprehensive search was conducted using the specified keywords in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Springer) in January 2022. The keywords used for the search are “aptamer” and “Salmonella”. These keywords were combined with the Boolean operators AND producing the search string “(aptamer) AND (Salmonella)”. The search string was used for all three databases without any filters. Furthermore, a list of references from the retrieved literature was manually screened as an additional search in the protocol.

2.2. Selection of Studies

Articles were excluded if (i) the studies were not relevant to the development of electrochemical aptasensors for the detection of Salmonella; (ii) the studies were published in languages other than English or Malay; (iii) the studies were reported in the form of book chapters, encyclopedia articles, conference proceedings, mini-reviews, systematic reviews, or review articles. Only research articles were selected in this scoping review. The search results were downloaded into Mendeley, and duplicates were filtered and removed. The collected research titles and abstracts were screened independently by five authors (N.S.Z., M.AN., K.S., M.S.A., and M.F.K.) by referring to the selection criteria. A satisfactory agreement for the screening process was assessed between the authors. Abstracts that fulfilled the selection criteria were then subjected to full-text screening. Discrepancies during full-text screening were resolved through discussion among all authors. The selected full texts were evaluated by all authors to summarize the findings.

2.3. Data Extraction

Details of the included studies were extracted and summarized in a table. The following data were extracted: Salmonella serovars, targets, samples, sensor specification, platform technologies for fabrication, detection methods, LoD, and detection time. Specifically, descriptive analyses were performed by serovars, samples, sensor specification, and detection methods.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

A total of 787 studies was identified in three databases (Figure 1). Of these, 166 duplicates were removed, resulting in 621 studies being subjected to title screening. After screening the titles, a total of 516 studies that were unrelated to Salmonella spp. or electrochemical biosensors were excluded. The remaining 105 studies were screened for abstract eligibility, and 76 irrelevant studies were excluded. Finally, 29 studies were appraised for eligibility, and 14 that were related to Salmonella spp. but did not involve electrochemical biosensors were excluded. A total of 15 studies was included in the final review. The collated studies demonstrate the publications of the development of electrochemical aptasensors targeting Salmonella from January 2014–January 2021. Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the included studies, namely Salmonella serovars, targets, samples, sensor specification, platform technologies for fabrication, detection methods, LoD, and detection time.

3.2. Salmonella Serotype, Target, and Sample Matrix

Figure 2 demonstrates the Salmonella serovars commonly studied for the development of electrochemical aptasensors. Of the 15 studies retained for review, ten studies of electrochemical aptasensors were developed for detecting S. Typhimurium, followed by three studies for detecting Salmonella spp. and one study for detecting both S. Enteritidis and S. enterica. This finding demonstrates that most developed electrochemical aptasensors detect S. Typhimurium rather than other Salmonella serovars. All studies detect the whole cell of Salmonella as a target in various types of food samples, namely chicken meat (six studies), milk (four studies), apple juice (two studies), egg (two studies), and pork (one study) (Table 2). Among these food samples, most studies reported Salmonella in chicken meat due to the high contamination of this pathogen in this type of sample [54].

3.3. Sensor Specification and Platform Technology for Fabrication

The sensor specification often determines the detection performance (LoD and detection time) of the electrochemical aptasensor platform. Various sensing strategies have been employed in the fabrication of electrochemical aptasensors to detect Salmonella. As shown in Figure 3, most of the electrochemical aptasensors were fabricated using a glassy carbon electrode (GCE) (seven studies) and gold (Au) (four studies) as the working electrode. Only one study employed indium tin oxide (ITO) and graphite electrodes in the fabrication of an electrochemical aptasensor for detecting Salmonella. The study revealed that the working electrodes were mainly modified with nanomaterials such as gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) (six studies), reduced graphene oxide (rGO)(four studies), multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) (two studies), graphene (one study), graphene oxide (GO) (one study), and nanoporous gold (NPG) (one study) to give the most sensitive electrochemical detection of Salmonella (Table 3). The advanced electrochemical biosensor technology allows miniaturization of electrodes, such as screen-printed electrodes (SPEs) [55]. Although most sensor-related studies have already embarked on developing miniaturized electrochemical biosensors using SPEs, the developed electrochemical aptasensors for the detection of Salmonella were found to be mainly fabricated using conventional bulky electrodes (13 studies). Only two studies conducted by Bagheryan et al. [44] and Pathania et al. [45] fabricated electrochemical aptasensors using screen-printed carbon electrodes (SPCE) to detect S. Typhimurium.

3.4. Detection Method

The detection method is one of the critical components in the fabrication of a highly sensitive electrochemical aptasensor platform for the detection of Salmonella. Similar to sensor specification, this factor will determine the LoD of the developed electrochemical aptasensor. As shown in Figure 4, the developed electrochemical aptasensors mainly employed differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) (eight studies) and an impedimetric method known as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) (seven studies) for electrochemical detection of Salmonella.

3.5. Assessment of Study Outcomes

The sensitivity of the developed electrochemical aptasensors was evaluated using LoD. All studies presented the LoD in CFU/mL. Of the three aptasensors developed for Salmonella spp., the LoD ranged from 3 CFU/mL to 25 CFU/mL. The most sensitive aptasensor utilized a GCE modified with graphene oxide and EIS as the electrochemical detection method [39]. The aptasensor detected Salmonella spp. in pork samples within 35 min of incubation time.
With regards to aptasensors developed for S. Typhimurium, the LoD ranged from 1 CFU/mL to 16 CFU/mL. The detection time of the assays was between 5 and 180 min. Two studies did not report the detection time of their aptasensors [42,46]. The most sensitive aptasensor utilized a GCE modified with Au and NPG, with EIS as the electrochemical detection method [48]. The aptasensor showed a detection limit of 1 CFU/mL in egg samples with a detection time of 40 min.
For S. Enteritidis, an evaluation of the aptasensor’s sensitivity using chicken meat showed a LoD of 550 CFU/mL and detection time of 20 min [52]. The electrochemical aptasensor was fabricated using an ITO electrode modified with MWCNT and EIS for electrochemical detection of Salmonella. The aptasensor developed for S. enterica was specifically fabricated using a GE electrode that was modified with AuNP and utilized DPV to quantitatively detect S. enterica in milk samples. The developed electrochemical aptasensor showed a LoD of 1 CFU/mL and detection time of 40 min [53].

4. Discussion

Aptamer is used as a biorecognition molecule in the electrochemical sensing platform to improve the quality of the detection process for digitalizing diagnostic applications [56,57]. Owing to its promising features, various electrochemical aptasensors have been developed and met the requirements of a diagnostic device [58]. The reliability of electrochemical aptasensor for detecting various pathogens, including Salmonella, has been reported recently. The present scoping review sought to evaluate the performance of the developed electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection as an alternative to the existing diagnostic methods.
This review identified a significant gap in the number of studies on electrochemical aptasensors for detecting Salmonella in food samples, with only 15 published research articles available in seven years (2014–2021). Of the 15 studies included in the final review, ten studies focused on the detection of S. Typhimurium rather than other Salmonella serovars. This is probably because among various Salmonella enterica serovars, S. Typhimurium was identified as one of the predominant serovars that cause foodborne disease outbreaks in many countries [51,59,60]. According to Xiang et al. [4], foodborne disease outbreaks in China have been primarily attributed to this serotype for many years. A similar finding was reported by Muniandy et al. [61], where S. Typhimurium was found as the main serovar that causes food poisoning outbreaks in most ASEAN countries, including Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Moreover, the emergence of multidrug resistance in S. Typhimurium has led to difficulty in clinical treatment, increasing the morbidity and mortality rate among infected animals and humans [62,63,64]. Therefore, the early detection of S. Typhimurium is crucial to reduce the risk of death and limit the spread of resistance genes in contaminated food chains. Besides S. Typhimurium, two other serovars, S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi, have also been recognized as the most prevalent serovars that cause foodborne disease among humans resulting in the serious febrile illness known as typhoid fever. These Salmonella serovars can only infect humans and may cause death if left untreated [58,65]. However, none of the electrochemical aptasensors were developed to detect these serovars. Therefore, future study needs to focus on developing electrochemical aptasensors for detecting these serovars to reduce outbreaks of the disease.
As shown in Table 2, all 15 studies revealed Salmonella detection using the whole cell as the target in food samples, namely, chicken meat (six studies), milk (four studies), apple juice (two studies), egg (two studies), and pork (one study). These are the commonly reported food sources of Salmonella [6]. Therefore, the early detection of Salmonella in foods is crucial to controlling the outbreak of foodborne disease. Among the various types of food samples, most studies used chicken meat to detect Salmonella because poultry products, including chicken meat, possess the highest possibility for Salmonella food contamination [54,66]. In the United States, the estimated cost of controlling Salmonella infection from poultry products is approximately $11,588 billion dollars a year [67]. Moreover, S. Typhimurium is often detected in contaminated poultry, beef, and pork products [68]. The possibility of contamination with Salmonella in poultry products occurs during the production, processing, distribution, retail marketing, preparation, and handling processes [66].
In this scoping review, the performance of developed electrochemical aptasensors for detection of Salmonella was evaluated based on LoD. The developed electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection exhibited LoD ranging from 550 CFU/mL to as low as 1 CFU/mL within 5 min until to 240 min of detection time [41,50,52]. This finding demonstrated that the detection performance of the developed electrochemical aptasensors is comparable to other commercial diagnostic methods for Salmonella detection [65]. According to the European Commission (EC) regulation No 2073/2005 on the microbiological analysis of food products, the presence of Salmonella at an extremely low concentration, 1 CFU/mL, in ready-to-eat-food (a portion of 25 g) is sufficient to give an infection to humans [69]. Based on the 15 studies analyzed in this review, only two studies reported a LoD of 1 CFU/mL. Therefore, developing highly sensitive electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection is essential. Electrochemical detection sensitivity is often determined by several factors, such as the working electrode materials (sensor specification) and electrochemical detection methods [70]. These factors are discussed in detail in this review.
In an electrochemical biosensor, the working electrode serves as the central region for biochemical reactions between the immobilized biorecognition molecules and the target analyte. It must have conductive solid support for the immobilization of biorecognition molecules (aptamer) and electron transports [71]. Accordingly, the electrode materials, their surface modification, and their geometry can significantly determine the sensing performance of the electrochemical aptasensor. Different sensor specifications among the 15 studies has been addressed in this review. Generally, most studies employed GCE (seven studies) and Au (four studies) as the working electrode in the fabrication of electrochemical aptasensors to detect Salmonella. This is probably because carbon and Au offer higher electrochemical stability over a wider range of potentials, good biocompatibility with biorecognition molecules, and lower background noise than other metals [72,73]. In particular, Au is most useful in fabricating effective biosensors due to its high electrical conductivity properties, which enable fast electron transfer between redox electrolytes and electrode surfaces. Meanwhile, carbon has been widely utilized in broad electrochemical sensing platforms since it is cheap and compatible with various nanomaterials compared to other noble metals [73,74].
Adding nanomaterials (carbon-based and non-carbon-based) onto the surface of the working electrode will enhance the electrochemical aptasensor characteristics, including the surface area for the immobilization of aptamer, electron transfer kinetics, and electrical conductivity [57,65]. It can be noticed from Table 3 that most studies employed AuNPs (six studies) as nanomaterials in the fabrication of electrochemical aptasensors for the detection of Salmonella. This finding was in agreement with other literature that reported AuNPs as the most standing nanomaterials utilized for modifying working electrodes in numerous types of electrochemical biosensors [75,76]. AuNPs exhibit excellent characteristics, including a high surface-to-volume ratio and surface energy due to their nanoscale size, and enhance the electron movement between redox species and the electrode surface [77,78,79]. Moreover, AuNPs have versatility in conjugation with various biomolecules without affecting their biochemical characteristics [80]. These superior characteristics make the developed aptasensor able to detect a LoD as low as 1 CFU/mL and the fastest detection time is within 40 min.
Besides AuNPs, NPG has also been utilized to fabricate electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection. NPG is a three-dimensional (3D) nanoporous bulk material synthesized by selective corrosion of Ag from Ag–Au alloys [81]. In addition to good biocompatibility, the 3D porous structure of NPG showed better electrochemical signals and lower detection limits [82]. This could be explained by the fact that the electrochemical aptasensor that was fabricated with NPG exhibited a comparable detection performance to the AuNPs-based electrochemical aptasensor, where the lowest LoD was 1 CFU/mL with a detection time of 40 min [48].
Carbon-based nanomaterials, such as graphene (one study) and its derived nanomaterials, GO (one study) and rGO (four studies), are also employed in constructing electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection. Graphene is known as a good surface modifier in electrochemical sensing platforms as it has greater compatibility with diverse biomolecules and microorganisms [83]. In addition, it demonstrates excellent physicochemical characteristics, including large surface area, high thermal conductivity, good electron transfer ability, and mechanical stability [84]. The lowest LoD that the graphene-based electrochemical aptasensor could detect was 3 CFU/mL, with the fastest detection time being 5 min. Despite its excellent characteristics, graphene has a limitation when exposed to a hydrophilic solution due to its hydrophobicity. This limitation can be overcome by the functionalization of graphene with hydrophilic functional groups, namely, carboxyl groups (-COOH) or hydroxyl groups (-OH), to produce a graphite structure called graphene oxide (GO) [71]. rGO was obtained by removing the oxygen-rich functional group on GO through heating or chemical treatment [85]. Although the surface and the edge structure of graphene were modified, the good physicochemical characteristics of both GO and rGO were unaffected [86]. Therefore, these nanomaterials are often chosen as a surface modifier in electrochemical aptasensor development compared to other carbon materials.
The present review also demonstrates the use of MWCNTs (two studies) as the surface modifier for the developed electrochemical aptasensors. Similar to graphene, this is a carbon-based nanomaterial that provides a larger surface area for the immobilization of aptamer and excellent electrical conductivity that allows efficient electron transfer kinetics on the surface of the working electrode [87]. Compared with other nanomaterials, the fabricated electrochemical biosensor using this type of nanomaterial exhibited a high LoD of 550–25 CFU/mL with a detection time range from 20 to 60 min. This could be explained by the limited number of studies utilizing MWCNTs to construct electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection.
Generally, the conventional electrochemical method setup consists of three separate electrodes, namely a working, a counter, and a reference electrode, that are immersed into the electrolyte solution and connected to the potentiostat (to control the electric parameters and measure the electrochemical reactions) and a computer (to display the data) [88]. The bulky size of conventional electrodes requires a higher sample volume and reagent for the detection process. The increased demands of the electrochemical biosensor in point-of-care (POC) analysis, particularly in clinical diagnostic applications, urge the transition of conventional bulky electrochemical cell systems to miniaturized electrodes, such as screen-printed electrodes (SPEs) [55,89]. The present review discovered a limitation of the developed electrochemical aptasensors for Salmonella detection, namely, that they are mostly constructed using conventional electrodes (13 studies) rather than SPEs (two studies). This finding demonstrates the need for more studies using SPEs to detect Salmonella as it offers flexibility in electrode design, material compatibility and modifications, low production cost, the possibility of large-scale production, and connection to portable instrumentation [90,91,92]. Due to their miniaturized size, SPEs can significantly improve detection systems in diagnostic applications since the sample volume and reagent can be reduced to microliters, and low-power analysis is needed. The miniaturized size, versatility, and portability make the SPEs highly possible for on-site testing and monitoring of real samples [93,94]. Unlike conventional electrodes that require a polishing and cleaning process before use, SPEs do not require a tedious cleaning process, which subsequently shortens the detection process [94]. Following the great importance of SPEs in electrochemical sensing platforms, more research needs to be conducted on Salmonella detection to improve the quality assessment of this infectious disease.
Another critical component in the fabrication of an electrochemical aptasensor is the electrochemical detection method. The common detection methods utilized to monitor the presence of Salmonella in food samples were DPV (eight studies) and EIS (seven studies). These are the most reported electrochemical detection methods that apply to many other infectious pathogens [95]. The voltammetric method is often chosen in most electrochemical diagnostic sensing platforms because the technique is simple and requires inexpensive instrumentation (only a potentiostat is needed) [96]. In the voltammetric method, a specific range of electrical potential is supplied to the working electrode (the region of the target analyte bind), and the resulting current is measured. The current response corresponds to the concentration of the target analyte [97]. As shown in Figure 4, the voltammetric method, namely DPV, was found as the primary detection method for Salmonella, with the LoD range from 20 CFU/mL to 1 CFU/mL. The DPV method is beneficial for detecting Salmonella at very low concentrations since it possesses a high resolution and sensitivity [98]. In addition to the voltammetric method, the impedance method, namely electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), has been used to detect Salmonella. In the EIS method, the current response on the surface of the working electrode is measured by imposing a small sinusoidal potential (typically ranging from 5 mV to 10 mV), and the changes in frequency (f) from the applied potential over a broad frequency range is recorded [99]. In this study, EIS showed a comparable detection performance with the DPV method for Salmonella diagnosis. Unlike DPV, the EIS method could give detailed information on the mass-transfer, charge-transfer, and diffusion processes between the electrode, biorecognition molecule, target analyte, and electrolyte. However, understanding EIS theory and its data interpretation are very complicated for those with no background in analytical chemistry (such as biologists, material scientists, or biochemists) [100]. These factors limit the utilization of EIS in the electrochemical detection of Salmonella, regardless of its excellent performance.

5. Conclusions

This review assessed the potential of electrochemical aptasensors to detect Salmonella. The current progress of the electrochemical sensing platform was evaluated through several components, namely, serovar involvement, sample matrix, sensor specification and platform technologies for fabrication, electrochemical detection method, LoD, and detection time. The review revealed that the electrochemical aptasensors were mainly developed to detect S. Typhimurium. It is essential to develop electrochemical aptasensors for other serovars, such as S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi, as these pathogens have also been identified as serious pathogen associated with the outbreak of foodborne disease. The developed electrochemical aptasensors primarily detect the whole cell of Salmonella in chicken meat. Through this review, we find that the sensor specification and detection methods influenced the detection performance (LoD and detection time) of the developed electrochemical aptasensors. The most sensitive sensor specifications are GCE and GE, modified with NPG and AuNP, respectively. The following sensor specifications are highly sensitive with DPV and EIS detection methods. These findings suggest that both detection methods can be used for better performance of the electrochemical aptasensors. Intensive research on developing electrochemical aptasensors using SPEs is needed to enable aptamer-based biosensor applications for on-site, portable, and real-time analysis for Salmonella detection in food and human samples.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.M., I.A., M.O. and H.H.H.; validation, Y.B., H.H.H., A.A.M. and I.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S.Z., M.A.N. and K.S.; writing—review and editing, I.A., A.A.M., M.O., Y.B., H.H.H., M.F.K., M.A.N., M.S.A., K.S. and N.S.Z.; visualization, M.S.A., M.A.N., K.S., Y.B. and H.H.H.; supervision, A.A.M., M.O. and I.A.; project administration, I.A.; funding acquisition, A.A.M. and I.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE) Grant (311/CIPPM/4401005) from the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, and the Collaborative Research in Engineering, Science and Technology (CREST) Grant (304/CIPPM/6150181/C121).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Malorny, B.; Löfström, C.; Wagner, M.; Krämer, N.; Hoorfar, J. Enumeration of Salmonella in Food and Feed Samples by Real-Time PCR for Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 1299–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Lee, K.-M.; Runyon, M.; Herrman, T.J.; Phillips, R.; Hsieh, J. Review of Salmonella detection and identification methods: Aspects of rapid emergency response and food safety. Food Control 2015, 47, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xiang, Y.; Li, F.; Dong, N.; Tian, S.; Zhang, H.; Du, X.; Zhou, X.; Xu, X.; Yang, H.; Xie, J.; et al. Investigation of a Salmonellosis Outbreak Caused by Multidrug Resistant Salmonella Typhimurium in China. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mezal, E.H.; Sabol, A.; Khan, M.A.; Ali, N.; Stefanova, R.; Khan, A.A. Isolation and molecular characterization of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis from poultry house and clinical samples during 2010. Food Microbiol. 2014, 38, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Almeida, C.; Cerqueira, L.; Azevedo, N.; Vieira, M. Detection of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis using real time PCR, immunocapture assay, PNA FISH and standard culture methods in different types of food samples. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 161, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Majowicz, S.E.; Musto, J.; Scallan, E.; Angulo, F.J.; Kirk, M.; O’Brien, S.J.; Jones, T.F.; Fazil, A.; Hoekstra, R.M.; International Collaboration on Enteric Disease “Burden of Illness” Studies. The Global Burden of Nontyphoidal Salmonella Gastroenteritis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 50, 882–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Popa, G.L.; Papa, M.I. Salmonella spp. Infection-A Continuous Threat Worldwide. Germs 2021, 11, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wattiau, P.; Boland, C.; Bertrand, S. Methodologies for Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Subtyping: Gold Standards and Alternatives. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 7877–7885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Eng, S.K.; Pusparajah, P.; Ab Mutalib, N.S.; Ser, H.L.; Chan, K.G.; Lee, L.H. Salmonella: A Review on Pathogenesis, Epidemiology and Antibiotic Resistance. Front. Life. Sci. 2015, 8, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ehuwa, O.; Jaiswal, A.; Jaiswal, S. Salmonella, Food Safety and Food Handling Practices. Foods 2021, 10, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Paniel, N.; Noguer, T. Detection of Salmonella in Food Matrices, from Conventional Methods to Recent Aptamer-Sensing Technologies. Foods 2019, 8, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Rodríguez-Lázaro, D.; Lombard, B.; Smith, H.; Rzezutka, A.; D’Agostino, M.; Helmuth, R.; Schroeter, A.; Malorny, B.; Miko, A.; Guerra, B.; et al. Trends in analytical methodology in food safety and quality: Monitoring microorganisms and genetically modified organisms. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 306–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maciorowski, K.G.; Herrera, P.; Jones, F.T.; Pillai, S.D.; Ricke, S.C. Cultural and Immunological Detection Methods for Salmonella spp. in Animal Feeds–A Review. Veter. Res. Commun. 2006, 30, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Naravaneni, R.; Jamil, K. Rapid detection of food-borne pathogens by using molecular techniques. J. Med. Microbiol. 2005, 54, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ahmed, O.B.; Asghar, A.H.; Abd El-Rahim, I.H.A.; Hegazy, A.I. Detection of Salmonella in Food Samples by Culture and Polymerase Chain Reaction Methods. J. Bacteriol. Parasitol. 2014, 5, 1. [Google Scholar]
  17. ISO 6579; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs-Horizontal Method for the Detection of Salmonella spp. 2002. International Organization for Standardization IOS: Geneva, Siwtzerland, 2002; p. 27.
  18. Siala, M.; Barbana, A.; Smaoui, S.; Hachicha, S.; Marouane, C.; Kammoun, S.; Gdoura, R.; Messadi-Akrout, F. Screening and Detecting Salmonella in Different Food Matrices in Southern Tunisia Using a Combined Enrichment/Real-Time PCR Method: Correlation with Conventional Culture Method. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Law, J.W.F.; Ab Mutalib, N.S.; Chan, K.G.; Lee, L.H. Rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens: Principles, applications, advantages and limitations. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ayrapetyan, M.; Oliver, J.D. The viable but non-culturable state and its relevance in food safety. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2016, 8, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Valderrama, W.B.; Dudley, E.G.; Doores, S.; Cutter, C.N. Commercially Available Rapid Methods for Detection of Selected Food-borne Pathogens. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 56, 1519–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhao, X.; Lin, C.W.; Wang, J.; Oh, J.W.A.D.H. Advances in Rapid Detection Methods for Foodborne Pathogens. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 24, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Brooks, B.W.; Lutze-Wallace, C.L.; Devenish, J.; Elmufti, M.; Burke, T. Comparison of an antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with bacterial culture for detection of Salmonella in poultry-hatchery environmental samples. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2014, 78, 68–71. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Bolton, F.J.; Fritz, E.; Poynton, S.; Jensen, T. Rapid Enzyme-Linked Immunoassay for Detection of Salmonella in Food and Feed Products: Performance Testing Program. J. AOAC Int. 2000, 83, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Chen, Z.; Zhang, K.; Yin, H.; Li, Q.; Wang, L.; Liu, Z. Detection of Salmonella and several common Salmonella serotypes in food by loop-mediated isothermal amplification method. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2015, 4, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Reta, N.; Saint, C.P.; Michelmore, A.; Prieto-Simon, B.; Voelcker, N.H. Nanostructured Electrochemical Biosensors for Label-Free Detection of Water- and Food-Borne Pathogens. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 6055–6072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Viswanathan, S.; Rani, C.; Ho, A. Electrochemical immunosensor for multiplexed detection of food-borne pathogens using nanocrystal bioconjugates and MWCNT screen-printed electrode. Talanta 2012, 94, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Cesewski, E.; Johnson, B.N. Electrochemical biosensors for pathogen detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 159, 112214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Syed, M.A.; Pervaiz, S. Advances in Aptamers. Oligonucleotides 2010, 20, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Joshi, R.; Janagama, H.; Dwivedi, H.P.; Kumar, T.S.; Jaykus, L.A.; Schefers, J.; Sreevatsan, S. Selection, characterization, and application of DNA aptamers for the capture and detection of Salmonella enterica serovars. Mol. Cell. Probes 2009, 23, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Han, K.; Liang, Z.; Zhou, N. Design Strategies for Aptamer-Based Biosensors. Sensors 2010, 10, 4541–4557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Keefe, A.D.; Pai, S.; Ellington, A. Aptamers as therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Curti, F.; Fortunati, S.; Knoll, W.; Giannetto, M.; Corradini, R.; Bertucci, A.; Careri, M. A Folding-Based Electrochemical Aptasensor for the Single-Step Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 19204–19211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Park, G.; Lee, M.; Kang, J.; Park, C.; Min, J.; Lee, T. Selection of DNA aptamer and its application as an electrical biosensor for Zika virus detection in human serum. Nano Converg. 2022, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Subjakova, V.; Oravczova, V.; Tatarko, M.; Hianik, T. Advances in electrochemical aptasensors and immunosensors for detection of bacterial pathogens in food. Electrochimica Acta 2021, 389, 138724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pham, M.T.; Rajić, A.; Greig, J.D.; Sargeant, J.M.; Papadopoulos, A.; McEwen, S.A. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res. Synth. Methods 2014, 5, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ma, X.; Jiang, Y.; Jia, F.; Yu, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, Z. An aptamer-based electrochemical biosensor for the detection of Salmonella. J. Microbiol. Methods 2014, 98, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jia, F.; Duan, N.; Wu, S.; Dai, R.; Wang, Z.; Li, X. Impedimetric Salmonella aptasensor using a glassy carbon electrode modified with an electrodeposited composite consisting of reduced graphene oxide and carbon nanotubes. Microchim. Acta 2015, 183, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, X.; Fu, H.; He, Y.; Zhai, Q.; Guo, J.; Qing, K.; Yi, G. Electrochemical Aptasensor for Rapid and Sensitive Determination of Salmonella Based on Target-Induced Strand Displacement and Gold Nanoparticle Amplification. Anal. Lett. 2016, 49, 2405–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zong, Y.; Liu, F.; Zhang, Y.; Zhan, T.; He, Y.; Hun, X. Signal amplification technology based on entropy-driven molecular switch for ultrasensitive electrochemical determination of DNA and Salmonella Typhimurium. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2015, 225, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sheikhzadeh, E.; Chamsaz, M.; Turner, A.; Jager, E.; Beni, V. Label-free impedimetric biosensor for Salmonella Typhimurium detection based on poly [pyrrole-co-3-carboxyl-pyrrole] copolymer supported aptamer. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 80, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Bagheryan, Z.; Raoof, J.B.; Golabi, M.; Turner, A.P.; Beni, V. Diazonium-based impedimetric aptasensor for the rapid label-free detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in food sample. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 80, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Pathania, P.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, B.; Rishi, P.; Suri, C.R. Selective identification of specific aptamers for the detection of non-typhoidal salmonellosis in an apta-impedimetric sensing format. Mikrochim. Acta 2017, 184, 1499–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dinshaw, I.J.; Muniandy, S.; Teh, S.J.; Ibrahim, F.; Leo, B.F.; Thong, K.L. Development of an aptasensor using reduced graphene oxide chitosan complex to detect Salmonella. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2017, 806, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ge, C.; Yuan, R.; Yi, L.; Yang, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Nian, W.; Yi, G. Target-induced aptamer displacement on gold nanoparticles and rolling circle amplification for ultrasensitive live Salmonella Typhimurium electrochemical biosensing. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2018, 826, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ranjbar, S.; Shahrokhian, S.; Nurmohammadi, F. Nanoporous gold as a suitable substrate for preparation of a new sensitive electrochemical aptasensor for detection of Salmonella Typhimurium. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2018, 255, 1536–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dai, G.; Li, Z.; Luo, F.; Ai, S.; Chen, B.; Wang, Q. Electrochemical determination of Salmonella Typhimurium by using aptamer-loaded gold nanoparticles and a composite prepared from a metal-organic framework (type UiO-67) and graphene. Microchim. Acta 2019, 186, 620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Muniandy, S.; Teh, S.J.; Appaturi, J.N.; Thong, K.L.; Lai, C.W.; Ibrahim, F.; Leo, B.F. A reduced graphene oxide-titanium dioxide nanocomposite based electrochemical aptasensor for rapid and sensitive detection of Salmonella enterica. Bioelectrochemistry 2019, 127, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Appaturi, J.N.; Pulingam, T.; Thong, K.L.; Muniandy, S.; Ahmad, N.; Leo, B.F. Rapid and sensitive detection of Salmonella with reduced graphene oxide-carbon nanotube based electrochemical aptasensor. Anal. Biochem. 2019, 589, 113489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hasan, R.; Pulingam, T.; Appaturi, J.N.; Zifruddin, A.N.; Teh, S.J.; Lim, T.W.; Ibrahim, F.; Leo, B.F.; Thong, K.L. Carbon nanotube-based aptasensor for sensitive electrochemical detection of whole-cell Salmonella. Anal. Biochem. 2018, 554, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Fathi, S.; Saber, R.; Adabi, M.; Rasouli, R.; Douraghi, M.; Morshedi, M.; Farid-Majidi, R. Novel Competitive Voltammetric Aptasensor Based on Electrospun Carbon Nanofibers-Gold Nanoparticles Modified Graphite Electrode for Salmonella enterica Serovar Detection. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021, 11, 8702–8715. [Google Scholar]
  54. El-Aziz, D.M.A. Detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in retail chicken meat and chicken giblets. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2013, 3, 678–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Torre, R.; Costa-Rama, E.; Nouws, H.; Delerue-Matos, C. Screen-Printed Electrode-Based Sensors for Food Spoilage Control: Bacteria and Biogenic Amines Detection. Biosensors 2020, 10, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ansari, N.; Yazdian-Robati, R.; Shahdordizadeh, M.; Wang, Z.; Ghazvini, K. Aptasensors for quantitative detection of Salmonella Typhimurium. Anal. Biochem. 2017, 533, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mahari, S.; Gandhi, S. Recent Advances in Electrochemical Biosensors for the Detection of Salmonellosis: Current Prospective and Challenges. Biosensors 2022, 12, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mishra, A.; Narang, J.; Pundir, C.S.; Pilloton, R.; Khanuja, M. Morphology-Preferable MoSe2 Nanobrooms as a Sensing Platform for Highly Selective Apta-Capturing of Salmonella Bacteria. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 13020–13027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Simpson, K.M.J.; Hill-Cawthorne, G.A.; Ward, M.P.; Mor, S.M. Diversity of Salmonella serotypes from humans, food, domestic animals and wildlife in New South Wales, Australia. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ceyssens, P.J.; Mattheus, W.; Vanhoof, R.; Bertrand, S. Trends in Serotype Distribution and Antimicrobial Susceptibility in Salmonella enterica Isolates from Humans in Belgium, 2009 to 2013. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Muniandy, S.; Dinshaw, I.J.; Teh, S.J.; Lai, C.W.; Ibrahim, F.; Thong, K.L.; Leo, B.F. Graphene-based label-free electrochemical aptasensor for rapid and sensitive detection of foodborne pathogen. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017, 409, 6893–6905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jiu, Y.; Meng, X.; Hong, X.; Huang, Q.; Wang, C.; Chen, Z.; Zhao, L.; Liu, X.; Lu, Y.; Li, S. Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonella in Three Typical Commercial Pig Abattoirs in Wuhan, China. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Folster, J.P.; Grass, J.E.; Bicknese, A.; Taylor, J.; Friedman, C.R.; Whichard, J.M. Characterization of Resistance Genes and Plasmids from Outbreaks and Illness Clusters Caused by Salmonella Resistant to Ceftriaxone in the United States, 2011–2012. Microb. Drug Resist. 2017, 23, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhang, L.; Fu, Y.; Xiong, Z.; Ma, Y.; Wei, Y.; Qu, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Liao, M. Highly Prevalent Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella From Chicken and Pork Meat at Retail Markets in Guangdong, China. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Silva, N.F.; Magalhães, J.M.; Freire, C.; Delerue-Matos, C. Electrochemical biosensors for Salmonella: State of the art and challenges in food safety assessment. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 99, 667–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Dookeran, M.M.; Baccus-Taylor, G.S.; Akingbala, J.O.; Tameru, B.; Lammerding, A.M. Transmission of Salmonella on Broiler Chickens and Carcasses from Production to Retail in Trinidad and Tobago. J. Agric. Biodivers. Res. 2012, 1, 78–84. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wernicki, A.; Nowaczek, A.; Urban-Chmiel, R. Bacteriophage therapy to combat bacterial infections in poultry. Virol. J. 2017, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Vose, D.; Koupeev, T.; Mintiens, K. A Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment of Salmonella spp. in broiler (Gallus gallus) meat production. EFSA Support. Publ. 2011, 8, 183E. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Melo, A.M.A.; Alexandre, D.L.; Furtado, R.F.; Borges, M.F.; Figueiredo, E.A.T.; Biswas, A.; Cheng, H.N.; Alves, C.R. Electrochemical immunosensors for Salmonella detection in food. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 5301–5312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Blair, E.O.; Corrigan, D.K. A review of microfabricated electrochemical biosensors for DNA detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 134, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Cho, I.H.; Kim, D.H.; Park, S. Electrochemical biosensors: Perspective on functional nanomaterials for on-site analysis. Biomater. Res. 2020, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Pramanick, B.; Mandal, N.; Mondal, D.; RoyChaudhuri, C.; Chakraborty, S. C-MEMS Derived Glassy Carbon Electrodes-Based Sensitive Electrochemical Biosensors. IEEE Sensors J. 2020, 20, 12472–12478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Abdulbari, H.A.; Basheer, E.A.M. Electrochemical Biosensors: Electrode Development, Materials, Design, and Fabrication. ChemBioEng Rev. 2017, 4, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Cirocka, A.; Zarzeczańska, D.; Wcisło, A. Good Choice of Electrode Material as the Key to Creating Electrochemical Sensors—Characteristics of Carbon Materials and Transparent Conductive Oxides (TCO). Materials 2021, 14, 4743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Cao, X.; Ye, Y.; Liu, S. Gold nanoparticle-based signal amplification for biosensing. Anal. Biochem. 2011, 417, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gupta, P.; Bharti, A.; Kaur, N.; Singh, S.; Prabhakar, N. An Electrochemical Aptasensor Based on Gold Nanoparticles and Graphene Oxide Doped Poly (3, 4-Ethylenedioxythiophene) Nanocomposite for Detection of MUC1. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2018, 813, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Svigelj, R.; Zuliani, I.; Grazioli, C.; Dossi, N.; Toniolo, R. An Effective Label-Free Electrochemical Aptasensor Based on Gold Nanoparticles for Gluten Detection. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fang, X.; Bai, L.; Han, X.; Wang, J.; Shi, A.; Zhang, Y. Ultra-sensitive biosensor for K-ras gene detection using enzyme capped gold nanoparticles conjugates for signal amplification. Anal. Biochem. 2014, 460, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zakaria, N.D.; Omar, M.H.; Ahmad Kamal, N.N.; Abdul Razak, K.; Sönmez, T.; Balakrishnan, V.; Hamzah, H.H. Effect of Supporting Background Electrolytes on the Nanostructure Morphologies and Electrochemical Behaviors of Electrodeposited Gold Nanoparticles on Glassy Carbon Electrode Surfaces. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 24419–24431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lepoitevin, M.; Lemouel, M.; Bechelany, M.; Janot, J.M.; Balme, S. Gold nanoparticles for the bare-eye based and spectrophotometric detection of proteins, polynucleotides and DNA. Mikrochim. Acta 2014, 182, 1223–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Biener, J.; Biener, M.M.; Madix, R.J.; Friend, C.M. Nanoporous Gold: Understanding the Origin of the Reactivity of a 21st Century Catalyst Made by Pre-Columbian Technology. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 6263–6270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, C.; Zeng, G.; Huang, D.; Lai, C.; Huang, C.; Li, N.; Xu, P.; Cheng, M.; Zhou, Y.; Tang, W.; et al. Combined removal of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and Pb(ii) by using a cutinase loaded nanoporous gold-polyethyleneimine adsorbent. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 55511–55518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gowri, A.; Kumar, A.; Anand, S. Recent Advances in Nanomaterials Based Biosensors for Point of Care (PoC) Diagnosis of Covid-19-A Minireview. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2021, 137, 116205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kuila, T.; Bose, S.; Khanra, P.; Mishra, A.K.; Kim, N.H.; Lee, J.H. Recent advances in graphene-based biosensors. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011, 26, 4637–4648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Smith, A.T.; LaChance, A.M.; Zeng, S.; Liu, B.; Sun, L. Synthesis, properties, and applications of graphene oxide/reduced graphene oxide and their nanocomposites. Nano Mater. Sci. 2019, 1, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bai, Y.; Xu, T.; Zhang, X. Graphene-Based Biosensors for Detection of Biomarkers. Micromachines 2020, 11, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Zhang, X.; Li, C.R.; Wang, W.C.; Xue, J.; Huang, Y.L.; Yang, X.X.; Tan, B.; Zhou, X.P.; Shao, C.; Ding, S.J.; et al. A novel electrochemical immunosensor for highly sensitive detection of aflatoxin B1 in corn using single-walled carbon nanotubes/chitosan. Food Chem. 2016, 192, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zhang, W.; Wang, R.; Luo, F.; Wang, P.; Lin, Z. Miniaturized electrochemical sensors and their point-of-care applications. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2019, 31, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mincu, N.B.; Lazar, V.; Stan, D.; Mihailescu, C.; Iosub, R.; Mateescu, A. Screen-Printed Electrodes (SPE) for In Vitro Diagnostic Purpose. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yamanaka, K.; Vestergaard, M.C.; Tamiya, E. Printable Electrochemical Biosensors: A Focus on Screen-Printed Electrodes and Their Application. Sensors 2016, 16, 1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Foster, C.W.; Kadara, R.O.; Banks, C.E. Fundamentals of Screen-Printing Electrochemical Architectures. In Screen-Printing Electrochemical Architectures; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  92. Pérez-Fernández, B.; Costa-García, A.; De La Escosura-Muñiz, A. Electrochemical (Bio)Sensors for Pesticides Detection Using Screen-Printed Electrodes. Biosensors 2020, 10, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Jaiswal, N.; Tiwari, I. Recent build outs in electroanalytical biosensors based on carbon-nanomaterial modified screen printed electrode platforms. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 3895–3907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Taleat, Z.; Khoshroo, A.; Mazloum-Ardakani, M. Screen-printed electrodes for biosensing: A review (2008–2013). Microchim. Acta 2014, 181, 865–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Radi, A.E. Electrochemical Aptamer-Based Biosensors: Recent Advances and Perspectives. Int. J. Electrochem. 2011, 2011, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kaya, H.O.; Cetin, A.E.; Azimzadeh, M.; Topkaya, S.N. Pathogen detection with electrochemical biosensors: Advantages, challenges and future perspectives. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2021, 882, 114989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ensafi, A.A.; Karbalaei, S.; Heydari-Bafrooei, E.; Rezaei, B. Biosensing of naringin in marketed fruits and juices based on its interaction with DNA. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2016, 13, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Goud, K.Y.; Reddy, K.K.; Khorshed, A.; Kumar, V.S.; Mishra, R.K.; Oraby, M.; Ibrahim, A.H.; Kim, H.; Gobi, K.V. Electrochemical diagnostics of infectious viral diseases: Trends and challenges. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021, 180, 113112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tuorkey, M.J. Bioelectrical Impedance as a Diagnostic Factor in the Clinical Practice and Prognostic Factor for Survival in Cancer Patients: Prediction, Accuracy and Reliability. J. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2012, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Magar, H.S.; Hassan, R.Y.A.; Mulchandani, A. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS): Principles, Construction, and Biosensing Applications. Sensors 2021, 21, 6578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 12 03186 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flowchart of the scoping review process.
Figure 1. PRISMA-ScR flowchart of the scoping review process.
Diagnostics 12 03186 g001
Diagnostics 12 03186 g002 550
Figure 2. Salmonella serovars involved in the development of electrochemical aptasensors in 15 studies.
Figure 2. Salmonella serovars involved in the development of electrochemical aptasensors in 15 studies.
Diagnostics 12 03186 g002
Diagnostics 12 03186 g003 550
Figure 3. The type of working electrode employed in the fabrication of electrochemical aptasensors for detection of Salmonella. Au = Gold; GCE = Glassy carbon electrode; GE = graphite electrode; ITO = indium tin oxide.
Figure 3. The type of working electrode employed in the fabrication of electrochemical aptasensors for detection of Salmonella. Au = Gold; GCE = Glassy carbon electrode; GE = graphite electrode; ITO = indium tin oxide.
Diagnostics 12 03186 g003
Diagnostics 12 03186 g004 550
Figure 4. Detection method commonly applied for fabrication of electrochemical aptasensor.
Figure 4. Detection method commonly applied for fabrication of electrochemical aptasensor.
Diagnostics 12 03186 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Salmonella SerovarYear of StudyTargetSampleSensor SpecificationPlatform Technology for FabricationDetection MethodLimit Of DetectionDetection Time (min)Reference
Salmonella spp.2014Whole-cellPorkGCE/GO/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemEIS3 CFU/mL35[39]
2016Whole-cellChicken meatGCE/rGO-MWCNTs/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemEIS25 CFU/mL60[40]
2016Whole-cellBacterial cultureAu/ssDNA probe/AptamerConventional three-electrode systemDPV20 CFU/mL240[41]
Salmonella Typhimurium2016Whole-cellMilkAu/AuNP/Aptamer /ssDNAConventional three-electrode systemDPV3 CFU/mLNR[42]
2016Whole-cellApple juiceAu/Poly [pyrrole-co-3-carboxyl-pyrrole] copolymer/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemEIS3 CFU/mL45[43]
2016Whole-cellApple juiceSPCE/Zn-mediated grafting/Aptamer/CellSPEEIS6 CFU/mL40[44]
2017Whole-cellEggSPCE-AuNPs/Aptamer/CellSPEEIS10 CFU/mL.40[45]
2017Whole-cellChicken meatGCE/rGO/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemDPV10 CFU/mLNR[46]
2018Whole-cellMilkAu/AuNP/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemDPV16 CFU/mL60[47]
2018Whole-cellEggGCE/Au/NPG/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemEIS1 CFU/mL40[48]
2019Whole-cellMilkGCE/Graphene/AuNP/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemDPV5 CFU/mL180[49]
2019Whole-cellChicken meatGCE/rGO/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemDPV10 CFU/mL5[50]
2020Whole-cellChicken meatGCE/rGO/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemDPV10 CFU/mL10[51]
Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Enteritidis2018Whole-cellChicken meatITO/MWCNT/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemEIS550 CFU/mL for S. Enteritidis
670 CFU/mL for S. Typhimurium		20[52]
Salmonella enterica2021Whole-cellMilkGE/AuNP/Aptamer/CellConventional three-electrode systemDPV1 CFU/mL40[53]
Au = gold; AuNP = gold nanoparticles; GE = graphite electrode; GCE = glassy carbon electrode; GO = graphene oxide; ITO = indium tin oxide; MWCNTs = multi-walled carbon nanotubes; NPG = nanoporous gold; NR = not reported; rGO = reduced graphene oxide; SPE = screen-printed electrode; SPCE = screen-printed carbon electrode; Zn = zinc.
Table
Table 2. Sample matrix for detection of Salmonella using electrochemical aptasensor platform.
Table 2. Sample matrix for detection of Salmonella using electrochemical aptasensor platform.
SampleNumber of Studies
Chicken meat6
Milk4
Egg2
Apple juice2
Pork1
Table
Table 3. Type of nanomaterials utilized as a surface modifier of the working electrode.
Table 3. Type of nanomaterials utilized as a surface modifier of the working electrode.
Type of NanomaterialsNumber of Studies
Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs)6
Nanoporous gold (NPG)1
Graphene1
Graphene oxide (GO)1
reduced Graphene oxide (rGO)4
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zambry, N.S.; Ahmad Najib, M.; Awang, M.S.; Selvam, K.; Khalid, M.F.; Bustami, Y.; Hamzah, H.H.; Ozsoz, M.; Abd Manaf, A.; Aziah, I. Aptamer-Based Electrochemical Biosensors for the Detection of Salmonella: A Scoping Review. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 3186. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123186

AMA Style

Zambry NS, Ahmad Najib M, Awang MS, Selvam K, Khalid MF, Bustami Y, Hamzah HH, Ozsoz M, Abd Manaf A, Aziah I. Aptamer-Based Electrochemical Biosensors for the Detection of Salmonella: A Scoping Review. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(12):3186. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zambry, Nor Syafirah, Mohamad Ahmad Najib, Mohd Syafiq Awang, Kasturi Selvam, Muhammad Fazli Khalid, Yazmin Bustami, Hairul Hisham Hamzah, Mehmet Ozsoz, Asrulnizam Abd Manaf, and Ismail Aziah. 2022. "Aptamer-Based Electrochemical Biosensors for the Detection of Salmonella: A Scoping Review" Diagnostics 12, no. 12: 3186. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123186

APA Style

Zambry, N. S., Ahmad Najib, M., Awang, M. S., Selvam, K., Khalid, M. F., Bustami, Y., Hamzah, H. H., Ozsoz, M., Abd Manaf, A., & Aziah, I. (2022). Aptamer-Based Electrochemical Biosensors for the Detection of Salmonella: A Scoping Review. Diagnostics, 12(12), 3186. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123186

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop