Role of flexible sensors for the electrochemical detection of organophosphate-based chemical warfare agents

Figures & data

Figure 1. G-type and V-type agent names and structures. Reproduced with permission from ref [15], copyright @ American Chemical Society (2011).

Figure 2. Names and structures of the basic mononuclear phosphorus hydrides, hydroxides, and oxides with three and five values. Reproduced with permission from ref [15], copyright @ American Chemical Society (2011).

Figure 3. Various structures of OP-based pesticides. Reproduced with permission from ref [15], copyright @ American Chemical Society (2011).

Figure 4. Names and structures of some pertinent mimics that are utilized in sensing as sarin, VX, and other mimics. Reproduced with permission from ref [15], copyright @ American Chemical Society (2011).

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of these conventional methods.

Method	Disadvantages	Advantages
Gas Chromatography	GC can be affected by factors such as column contamination, detector sensitivity, and the presence of interfering compounds. It is also limited to analyzing volatile compounds and may not be suitable for complex samples.	High sensitivity, fast analysis time, and ability to detect trace amounts of substances.
Liquid Chromatography	It requires specialized equipment and expertise, is time-consuming and labor-intensive, requires multiple steps and procedures, and is expensive.	High resolution, Fast analysis time, Ability to separate and identify complex mixtures.
Ion Mobility Spectrometry	Temperature and humidity can affect the separation efficiency and require specialized equipment and expertise, unsuitable for complex samples or high-resolution analysis.	Fast analysis time, Ability to detect trace amounts of substances, portable.
FTIR Spectroscopy	Interference from Strong Signals, Reproducibility Issues, Difficulty in Detecting Low Concentrations, and Complexity.	Reliance on Chemometrics, High Resolution.
Electrochemical	Limited Parameters, Short Shelf Life, Sensitivity to Temperature Fluctuations.	High sensitivity and selectivity, excellent repeatability and accuracy, portable, Low limit of detection, scalable, cost-efficient, easy to use, easy miniaturization, etc.

Figure 5. Diagrammatic representation of a traditional electrochemical sensor. Reproduced from [57] under common creative license, MDPI (2020).

Figure 6. Diagrammatic depiction of common sensor parts. Reproduced from [71] under common creative license, MDPI (2023).

Figure 7. (a) electrochemical sensor produced by photolithography and manufacturing process schematic [85,87]. Reproduced with permission from, ref [85], copyright @ Elsevier (2011) and ref [87], copyright @ Wiley (2008). (b) SPE production steps; reproduced from [88] under common creative license, MDPI (2020); (c) an electrochemical sensor made entirely of roll-to-roll graphene nanoplatelets and ZrO₂; reproduced with permission from ref [89], copyright @ American Chemical Society (2021).

Figure 8. Images of the biosensor along with real-time monitoring of methyl parathion. Reproduced with permission from ref [103], copyright @ Elsevier (2020).

Figure 9. Image of the wearable glove sensor and real time monitoring of carbendazim, diuron, paraquat, and fenitrothion in cabbage, apple, and orange juice. Reproduced with permission from ref [104], copyright @ Elsevier (2021).

Figure 10. Images of the tattoo-type sensor and its electrochemical performance. Reproduced with permission from ref [105], copyright @ Elsevier (2018).

Figure 11. Office paper-based electrochemical sensor with (a) printing method, and (b) device performance towards paraoxon-ethyl [109]. Reproduced with permission from ref [109], copyright © 2021, American Chemical Society. (c) Textile-based sensor for the detection of DFP. Reproduced with permission from ref [110], copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V.

Table 2. Electrochemical sensors for organophosphate detection.

S. No.	Material	Analyte	LOD (µM)	Range(µM)	Ref.
1	Graphene quantum dots with oximeasan electroactive probe	Fenthion	6.8 × 10^−6	1.0 × 10^−5–5.0 × 10^−2	[111]
2	Graphene nanosheets	Methyl parathion	1.9 × 10^−5	0.09–0.04	[112]
3	Cellulose microfiber entrapped reduced graphene oxide (RGO)	Fenitrothion	8.0 × 10^−3	Upto 1134	[113]
4	Graphene nanofragments	Dichlorvos	5.4 × 10^−5	0.1 × 10^−3 −100	[114]
5	Single-walled carbon nanohorns	Fenitrothion	1.2 × 10^−2	0.99–12	[115]
6	Graphite-modified basal plane	Methyl parathion	3.0	79.0–263.3	[116]
7	Boron doped diamond	Parathion	4.3 × 10^−2	−0.005–0.1	[117]
8	AChE on carbon paste electrode	Methyl parathion	7.5 × 10^−6	1.9 × 10^−6 −1.9 × 10^−1	[118]
9	Manganese cobaltite nanocomposite	Chlorpyrifos	1.4 × 10^−7	3 × 10^−5 −20	[119]
10	Biomimetic mononuclear zinc(II) complexes modified carbon	Fenitrothion	8.0 × 10^−2 and	1.0–5.5and	[120]
11	Molybdenum carbide/iron oxide micro flowers	Parathion	7.8 × 10^−3	0.5–600	[121]
12	Oxidized graphitic carbon nitride with nickel spikes	Chlorpyrifos	0.3 × 10^−9	1 × 10^−9 to15 × 10^−9	[122]
13	Nd-based metal-organic framework	Paraoxon and Parathion	4.0 × 10^−5 and 7.0 × 10^−5	(0.7–100) × 10^−3 and (1–120) × 10^−3	[123]
14	MIP suspension polymerization	Fenitrothion	1.4 × 10^−3	0.005–378.15	[124]
15	Carbon paste electrode	Diazinon	7.9 × 10^−5	2.5 × 10^−3 −0.1	[125]
16	Ni-Co-Zeolitic	Paraoxon	and1.7 × 10^−7	3.6 × 10^−7 −3.6 × 10^−4	[118]
17	MIP modified Glassy carbon electrode (GCE)	Profenofos	1.0 × 10^−3	1 × 10^−3 −1 and	[126]
18	GCE	Profenofos	-	1 × 10^−3–5	[126]
19	MIP/graphene oxide modified	Diazinon	1.3 × 10^−4	5 × 10^−4–1	[127]
20	Nitrogen-sulfur-doped	Parathion	5.1 × 10^−1	1.0–0.1	[127]
21	Activated MWCNT modified GCE	Fenitrothion	4.91 × 10^−3	0.05–40	[128]
22	Strontium hexaferrite-decorated	Fenitrothion	6.4 × 10^−1	-	[129]
23	GCE	Profenofos	5 × 10^−3	0.05–3500	[130]
24	Ag-GO nanocomposite	Malathion	0.01 pM–1000 pM	0.01 pM	[131]
25	AuNPs	Quinalphos	0.5 to 3.5 µM	14.37 µM	[132]
26	MnO2 based material	Paraoxon	1000–0.005 U/mL	0.0008 U/mL	[133]
27	polydopamine (PDA) nanoparticles/MnO2 nanosheets	Dimethoate		0.1 µM	[134]
28	Carbon Dots	Diazinon		0.25ng/mL	[135]
29	AuNP probes	Chlorpyrifos	0.5–1000 μg/L	0.087 μg/L	[136]
30	Tetraphenylethylene-Peptide probes	Methyl paraoxon	1 to 100 μM	0.6 µM	[137]

Kim K, Tsay OG, Atwood DA, et al. Destruction and detection of chemical warfare agents. Chem Rev. 2011;111(9):5345–5403. doi: 10.1021/cr100193y

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bohari NA, Siddiquee S, Saallah S. Optimization and analytical behavior of electrochemical sensors based on the modification of indium tin oxide (ITO) using PANI/MWCNTs/AuNPs for mercury detection. Sensors. 2020;20(22):6502. doi: 10.3390/s20226502

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Lazarević-Pašti T. Carbon materials for organophosphate pesticide sensing. Chemosens. 2023;11(2):93. doi: 10.3390/chemosensors11020093

 Google Scholar

Narakathu BB, Guo W, Obare SO, et al. Novel approach for detection of toxic organophosphorus compounds. Sens Actuators B Chem. 2011;158(1):69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2011.05.040

 Google Scholar

Park TK, Shuler ML. Integration of cell culture and microfabrication technology. Biotechnol Prog. 2003;19(2):243–253. doi: 10.1021/bp020143k

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pérez-Fernández B, Costa-García A, Muñiz ADLE. Electrochemical (bio) sensors for pesticides detection using screen-printed electrodes. Biosensors (Basel). 2020;10(4):32. doi: 10.3390/bios10040032

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ulloa AM, Glassmaker N, Oduncu MR. Roll-to-roll manufactured sensors for nitroaromatic organophosphorus pesticides detection. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2021;13(30):35961–35971. doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c08700

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Zhao F, He J, Li X. Smart plant-wearable biosensor for in-situ pesticide analysis. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020;170:112636. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112636

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raymundo-Pereira PA, Gomes NO, Shimizu FM, et al. Selective and sensitive multiplexed detection of pesticides in food samples using wearable, flexible glove-embedded non-enzymatic sensors. J Chem Eng. 2021;408:127279. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.127279

 Google Scholar

Mishra RK, Martín A, Nakagawa T, et al. Detection of vapor-phase organophosphate threats using wearable conformable integrated epidermal and textile wireless biosensor systems. Biosens Bioelectron. 2018;101:227–234. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2017.10.044

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Cioffi A, Mancini M, Gioia V, et al. Office paper-based electrochemical strips for organophosphorus pesticide monitoring in agricultural soil. Environ Sciamp; Technol. 2021;55(13):8859–8865. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01931

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Goud KY, Sandhu SS, Teymourian H, et al. Textile-based wearable solid-contact flexible fluoride sensor: toward biodetection of G-type nerve agents. Biosens And Bioelectron. 2021;182:113172. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2021.113172

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ma H, Wang L, Liu Z. Ionic liquid–graphene hybrid nanosheets-based electrochemical sensor for sensitive detection of methyl parathion. J Environ Anal Chem. 2016;96(2):161–172. doi: 10.1080/03067319.2015.1114111

 Google Scholar

Wei P, Gan T, Wu K. N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone exfoliated graphene as highly sensitive analytical platform for carbendazim. Sens. Actuators B: Chem. 2018;274:551–559. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.07.174

 Google Scholar

Masibi KK, Fayemi OE, Adekunle AS. Electrochemical detection of endosulfan using an AONP-PANI-SWCNT modified glassy carbon electrode. Mater. 2021;14(4):723. doi: 10.3390/ma14040723

 Google Scholar

Zhang J, Hu H, Wang P, et al. A stable biosensor for organophosphorus pesticide detection based on chitosan modified graphene. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2022;69(2):567–575. doi: 10.1002/bab.2133

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Itkes MP, de Oliveira G G, Silva TA, et al. Voltammetric sensing of fenitrothion in natural water and orange juice samples using a single-walled carbon nanohorns and zein modified sensor. JEAC. 2019;840:21–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.03.055

 Google Scholar

Okumura LL, Saczk AA, Oliveira MFD, et al. Electrochemical feasibility study of methyl parathion determination on graphite-modified basal plane pyrolytic graphite electrode. J Braz Chem Soc. 2011;22:652–659. doi: 10.1590/S0103-50532011000400007

 Google Scholar

Pedrosa VA, Miwa D, Machado SA, et al. On the utilization of boron doped diamond electrode as a sensor for parathion and as an anode for electrochemical combustion of parathion. Electroanalysis: Electroanalysis (NYNY). 2006;18(16):1590–1597. doi: 10.1002/elan.200603561

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

An Y, Dong S, He Z, et al. Heteroatom-doped Co-MOF derivative enhancing immobilization and activity of two enzymes for small-molecules electrochemical determination. Microchem J. 2022;172:106942. doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2021.106942

 Google Scholar

Maji B, Achary LSK, Barik B, et al. MnCo2O4 decorated (2D/2D) rGO/g-C3N4-based non-enzymatic sensor for highly selective and sensitive detection of Chlorpyrifos in water and food samples. JEAC. 2022;909:116115. doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2022.116115

 Google Scholar

Mersal GA, El-Sheshtawy HS, Amin MA, et al. Simultaneous hydrolysis and detection of organophosphate by benzimidazole containing ligand-based zinc (II) complexes. Cryst. 2021;11(6):714. doi: 10.3390/cryst11060714

 Google Scholar

Devi RK, Ganesan M, Chen TW, et al. Tailored architecture of molybdenum carbide/iron oxide micro flowers with graphitic carbon nitride: an electrochemical platform for nano-level detection of organophosphate pesticide in food samples. Food Chem. 2022;397:133791. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133791

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Saranya S, Deepa PN. Perforated oxidized graphitic carbon nitride with nickel spikes as efficient material for electrochemical sensing of chlorpyrifos in water samples. Surf Interface. 2022;32:102170. doi: 10.1016/j.surfin.2022.102170

 Google Scholar

Khoshsafar H, Karimian N, Nguyen TA, et al. Enzymeless voltammetric sensor for simultaneous determination of parathion and paraoxon based on Nd-based metal-organic framework. Chemosphere. 2022;292:133440. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133440

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Rajaji U, Chinnapaiyan S, Chen TW, et al. Rational construction of novel strontium hexaferrite decorated graphitic carbon nitrides for highly sensitive detection of neurotoxic organophosphate pesticide in fruits. Electrochim Acta. 2021;371:137756. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2021.137756

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Motaharian A, Motaharian F, Abnous K, et al. Molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles-based electrochemical sensor for determination of diazinon pesticide in well water and apple fruit samples. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408(24):6769–6779. doi: 10.1007/s00216-016-9802-7

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Radi AE, Oreba R, Elshafey R. Molecularly imprinted electrochemical sensor for the detection of organophosphorus pesticide profenofos. Electroanalysis. 2021;33(8):1945–1951. doi: 10.1002/elan.202100175

 Google Scholar

Khadem M, Faridbod F, Norouzi P, et al. Modification of carbon paste electrode based on molecularly imprinted polymer for electrochemical determination of diazinon in biological and environmental samples. Electroanalysis. 2017;29(3):708–715. doi: 10.1002/elan.201600293

 Google Scholar

Jangid K, Sahu RP, Pandey R, et al. Multiwalled carbon nanotubes coated with nitrogen–sulfur Co-doped activated carbon for detecting fenitrothion. ACS Appl Nano Mater. 2021;4(5):4781–4789. doi: 10.1021/acsanm.1c00376

 Google Scholar

Raymundo-Pereira PA, Gomes NO, Shimizu FM. Selective and sensitive multiplexed detection of pesticides in food samples using wearable, flexible glove-embedded non-enzymatic sensors. Chem Eng J. 2021;408:127279. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.127279

 Google Scholar

Khalifa ME, Abdallah AB. Molecular imprinted polymer based sensor for recognition and determination of profenofos organophosphorous insecticide. Biosens Bioelectron. 2019;2:100027. doi: 10.1016/j.biosx.2019.100027

 Google Scholar

Deosarkar T, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A. An ultra-sensitive and selective AChE based colorimetric detection of malathion using silver nanoparticle-graphene oxide (ag-GO) nanocomposite. Anal Chim Acta. 2021;1142:73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.10.057

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Loganathan C, Gowthaman NS, John SA. Chain-like 2-amino-4-thiazoleacetic acid tethered AuNPs as colorimetric and spectrophotometric probe for organophosphate pesticide in water and fruit samples. Microchem J. 2021;168:106495. doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2021.106495

 Google Scholar

Li W, Rong Y, Wang J, et al. MnO2 switch-bridged DNA walker for ultrasensitive sensing of cholinesterase activity and organophosphorus pesticides. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020;169:112605. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112605

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu X, Wu Z, Yang X, et al. Photothermal and fluorescent dual-mode assay based on the formation of polydopamine nanoparticles for accurate determination of organophosphate pesticides. Microchim Acta. 2020;187(12):652. doi: 10.1007/s00604-020-04629-5

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ashrafi Tafreshi F, Fatahi Z, Ghasemi SF, et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent detection of pesticides in real sample by using green carbon dots. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):0230646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230646

 Google Scholar

Zhang C, Jiang Z, Jin M, et al. Fluorescence immunoassay for multiplex detection of organophosphate pesticides in agro-products based on signal amplification of gold nanoparticles and oligonucleotides. Food Chem. 2020;326:126813. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126813

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Wang J, Zhang J, Wang J, et al. Fluorescent peptide probes for organophosphorus pesticides detection. J Hazard Mater. 2020;389:122074. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122074

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.