Next Article in Journal
Development of a Carbon Paste Electrode Modified with Saffron-Conjugated Silver Nanoparticles for the Simultaneous Determination of Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu and Cl in Soils and Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Applications of 3D Printing in Paper-Based Devices for Biochemical and Environmental Analyses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Photoacoustic Imaging of pH-Sensitive Optical Sensors in Biological Tissues
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

pH Sensors, Biosensors and Systems

Institute of Clinical Physiology, Italian National Research Council, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Chemosensors 2025, 13(3), 90; https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13030090
Submission received: 25 February 2025 / Accepted: 3 March 2025 / Published: 5 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection pH Sensors, Biosensors and Systems)
The study of biological systems for the protection of the environment, food, and health is among the most important research fields in the scientific literature. Many biological systems are sensitive even to small changes in chemo-physical parameters such as pH, temperature and humidity [1,2].
The concept of using the pH value to express the activity of hydrogen ions on a logarithmic scale dates back to 1909, and since then, many measurement methods have been developed [3]. Paper test strips and glass electrodes are the most used types of pH sensors, but the demand for less fragile, highly accurate, miniaturized devices that can be flexible and wearable has prompted research on alternatives [4]. Most of these pH sensors can be grouped into one of three macro areas, i.e., optical, electrochemical and field effect sensors, depending on the measurement method. Vivaldi et al. reviewed these areas in detail [5]. Optical pH sensors have good photo- and chemostability and are often used for non-invasive measurements, especially for biological tissues or cell cultures, e.g., for detecting tumor regions using pH-triggered contrast agents or the metabolic profiles of cancer lines [6,7]. Optical pH sensors are also popular for colorimetric or photometric analyses for food safety and control, e.g., using chromophores, which are suitable for continuous monitoring [8].
Electrochemical pH sensors measure the electrical potential in two- or three-electrode cells. These pH sensors can be micrometric, flexible, biocompatible, or even knitted into garments [9,10,11]. Many materials have been exploited to fabricate electrochemical pH sensors with different properties. Reduced graphene oxide has been investigated because it contains carboxylic and hydroxyl groups that can react with hydrogen ions [12,13,14]. Metal oxides have high sensitivity and fast responses but can also exhibit considerable drift and hysteresis [15,16]. Among metal oxides, iridium oxide-based microwires stand out, since they are fabricated with a near-Nernstian response and low drift. These microwires can be knitted, integrated into bandages or used for cell analysis [17,18]. Some polymers have ionizable acidic or basic groups and have thus been used as pH sensors [19,20]. Examples of acidic pH-responsive acidic polymers are polycarboxylic, polysulphonic and polyphosphoric acids, whereas for basic pH vinyl, (meth)acrylamide and (meth)acrylate polymers can be used. Polymers can suffer from reduced stability and degradation over time; however, the most recent formulations might have overcome these limitations. For example, Korostynska et al. reported a polypyrrole-based pH sensor with sensitivity of about 60 mV/pH and a 0.25 mV drift per day [21].
Although they belong to the category of electrochemical pH sensors, field effect transistors (FETs) have been so widely investigated that they can form another group. FETs can be mass-produced, have fast responses and can be miniaturized by means of micro-photolithography. The concentration of hydrogen ions is transduced during a change in the electrical current and depends on their interaction with the transistor gate [22,23]. However, this direct interaction can degrade the gate, since in the liquid solution, there are usually other species, such as ions or biological molecules. To overcome this drawback, new technical approaches have been employed. In particular, the dual gate approach consists of fabricating an additional gate that is the only surface exposed to the solution. Cho et al. and Hyun et al. proposed a coplanar-gate AlGaN/GaN FET and a dual-gate a-IGZO FET with an SnO2 sensing membrane, respectively [24,25]. Both of these FETs achieved remarkable superNernstian sensitivities. Further improvements were achieved by Kim et al., who adopted a strategy for integrating p- and n-type FETs [26]. The p-type FET has lower noise than the n-type, whereas the n-type FET has higher mobility and lower drift than the p-type. An ambipolar FET showed a superNernstian sensitivity of about 170 mV/pH and a drift of 14 mV/h in the n region.
Although the glass electrode is the gold standard for pH measurement, the devices described in this Collection and in the scientific literature show that there is a constant interest in developing new approaches. This interest depends on the ubiquitous presence of pH as one of the main parameters that can control chemophysical reactions for the sensing and fabrication of sensitive surfaces [27,28,29,30]. Therefore, we would like to thank all of the authors who contributed to this Collection for submitting papers demonstrating the broad spectrum of pH sensors and providing new approaches that will pave the way towards further advances in this field.

Acknowledgments

We thank all of the authors who contributed with their work to this Collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sensors and Biosensors for C-Reactive Protein, Temperature and pH, and Their Applications for Monitoring Wound Healing: A Review. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/12/2952 (accessed on 21 February 2025).
  2. Salvo, P.; Calisi, N.; Melai, B.; Cortigiani, B.; Mannini, M.; Caneschi, A.; Lorenzetti, G.; Paoletti, C.; Lomonaco, T.; Paolicchi, A.; et al. Temperature and pH Sensors Based on Graphenic Materials. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 91, 870–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Myers, R.J. One-Hundred Years of pH. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 30–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Salvo, P.; Melai, B.; Calisi, N.; Paoletti, C.; Bellagambi, F.; Kirchhain, A.; Trivella, M.G.; Fuoco, R.; Di Francesco, F. Graphene-Based Devices for Measuring pH. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 256, 976–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vivaldi, F.; Salvo, P.; Poma, N.; Bonini, A.; Biagini, D.; Del Noce, L.; Melai, B.; Lisi, F.; Francesco, F.D. Recent Advances in Optical, Electrochemical and Field Effect pH Sensors. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kye, H.; Jo, D.; Jeong, S.; Kim, C.; Kim, J. Photoacoustic Imaging of pH-Sensitive Optical Sensors in Biological Tissues. Chemosensors 2024, 12, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Blaszczak, W.; Tan, Z.; Swietach, P. Cost-Effective Real-Time Metabolic Profiling of Cancer Cell Lines for Plate-Based Assays. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Voskoboynikova, O.; Sukhanov, A.; Duerkop, A. Optical pH Sensing in Milk: A Small Puzzle of Indicator Concentrations and the Best Detection Method. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhou, J.; Zhang, L.; Tian, Y. Micro Electrochemical pH Sensor Applicable for Real-Time Ratiometric Monitoring of pH Values in Rat Brains. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 2113–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Manjakkal, L.; Dang, W.; Yogeswaran, N.; Dahiya, R. Textile-Based Potentiometric Electrochemical pH Sensor for Wearable Applications. Biosensors 2019, 9, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Manjakkal, L.; Sakthivel, B.; Gopalakrishnan, N.; Dahiya, R. Printed Flexible Electrochemical pH Sensors Based on CuO Nanorods. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 263, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Poma, N.; Vivaldi, F.; Bonini, A.; Carbonaro, N.; Di Rienzo, F.; Melai, B.; Kirchhain, A.; Salvo, P.; Tognetti, A.; Di Francesco, F. Remote Monitoring of Seawater Temperature and pH by Low Cost Sensors. Microchem. J. 2019, 148, 248–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Salvo, P.; Calisi, N.; Melai, B.; Dini, V.; Paoletti, C.; Lomonaco, T.; Pucci, A.; Di Francesco, F.; Piaggesi, A.; Romanelli, M. Temperature- and pH-Sensitive Wearable Materials for Monitoring Foot Ulcers. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 949–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vivaldi, F.; Santalucia, D.; Poma, N.; Bonini, A.; Salvo, P.; Del Noce, L.; Melai, B.; Kirchhain, A.; Kolivoška, V.; Sokolová, R.; et al. A Voltammetric pH Sensor for Food and Biological Matrices. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2020, 322, 128650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Manjakkal, L.; Szwagierczak, D.; Dahiya, R. Metal Oxides Based Electrochemical pH Sensors: Current Progress and Future Perspectives. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2020, 109, 100635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ghoneim, M.T.; Nguyen, A.; Dereje, N.; Huang, J.; Moore, G.C.; Murzynowski, P.J.; Dagdeviren, C. Recent Progress in Electrochemical pH-Sensing Materials and Configurations for Biomedical Applications. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 5248–5297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chawang, K.; Bing, S.; Kwon, K.Y.; Chiao, J.-C. Miniaturized Iridium Oxide Microwire pH Sensor for Biofluid Sensing. Chemosensors 2024, 12, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jírů, J.; Hybášek, V.; Michalcová, A.; Korbelová, K.; Koláčný, L.; Fojt, J. Preparation, Characterization and Electrochemical Response of Nanostructured TiAlV with Potentiostatically Deposited IrOx as a pH Sensor for Rapid Detection of Inflammation. Chemosensors 2024, 12, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kocak, G.; Tuncer, C.; Bütün, V. pH-Responsive Polymers. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 144–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alam, A.U.; Qin, Y.; Nambiar, S.; Yeow, J.T.W.; Howlader, M.M.R.; Hu, N.-X.; Deen, M.J. Polymers and Organic Materials-Based pH Sensors for Healthcare Applications. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2018, 96, 174–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Korostynska, O.; Arshak, K.; Gill, E.; Arshak, A. Review on State-of-the-Art in Polymer Based pH Sensors. Sensors 2007, 7, 3027–3042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ren, H.; Liang, K.; Li, D.; Chen, Y.; Tang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, F.; Liu, G.; Zhu, B. Field-Effect Transistor-Based Biosensor for pH Sensing and Mapping. Adv. Sens. Res. 2023, 2, 2200098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lee, C.-S.; Kim, S.K.; Kim, M. Ion-Sensitive Field-Effect Transistor for Biological Sensing. Sensors 2009, 9, 7111–7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hyun, T.-H.; Cho, W.-J. Fully Transparent and Highly Sensitive pH Sensor Based on an A-IGZO Thin-Film Transistor with Coplanar Dual-Gate on Flexible Polyimide Substrates. Chemosensors 2023, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cho, S.-K.; Cho, W.-J. High-Sensitivity pH Sensor Based on Coplanar Gate AlGaN/GaN Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor High Electron Mobility Transistor. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kim, Y.-U.; Cho, W.-J. High-Performance Bidirectional Chemical Sensor Platform Using Double-Gate Ion-Sensitive Field-Effect Transistor with Microwave-Assisted Ni-Silicide Schottky-Barrier Source/Drain. Chemosensors 2022, 10, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amaral, D.S.d.; Tholozan, L.V.; Bonemann, D.H.; Jansen-Alves, C.; Boschetti, W.; Novo, D.L.R.; Carreno, N.L.V.; Pereira, C.M.P. de Algal Biosensors for Detection of Potentially Toxic Pollutants and Validation by Advanced Methods: A Brief Review. Chemosensors 2024, 12, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hashtroudi, H.; Yu, A.; Juodkazis, S.; Shafiei, M. Two-Dimensional Dy2O3-Pd-PDA/rGO Heterojunction Nanocomposite: Synergistic Effects of Hybridisation, UV Illumination and Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Gas Sensing. Chemosensors 2022, 10, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kuswandi, B.; Asih, N.P.N.; Pratoko, D.K.; Kristiningrum, N.; Moradi, M. Edible pH Sensor Based on Immobilized Red Cabbage Anthocyanins into Bacterial Cellulose Membrane for Intelligent Food Packaging. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2020, 33, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Damaghi, M.; Wojtkowiak, J.W.; Gillies, R.J. pH Sensing and Regulation in Cancer. Front. Physiol. 2013, 4, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salvo, P.; Tedeschi, L. pH Sensors, Biosensors and Systems. Chemosensors 2025, 13, 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13030090

AMA Style

Salvo P, Tedeschi L. pH Sensors, Biosensors and Systems. Chemosensors. 2025; 13(3):90. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13030090

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salvo, Pietro, and Lorena Tedeschi. 2025. "pH Sensors, Biosensors and Systems" Chemosensors 13, no. 3: 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13030090

APA Style

Salvo, P., & Tedeschi, L. (2025). pH Sensors, Biosensors and Systems. Chemosensors, 13(3), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13030090

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