ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
NFC Smartphone-Based Electrochemical Microfluidic Device Integrated with Nanobody Recognition for C-Reactive Protein
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

NFC Smartphone-Based Electrochemical Microfluidic Device Integrated with Nanobody Recognition for C-Reactive Protein
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Sensors

Cite this: ACS Sens. 2024, 9, 6, 3066–3074
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.4c00249
Published June 15, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Point-of-care testing (POCT) devices play a crucial role as tools for disease diagnostics, and the integration of biorecognition elements with electronic components into these devices widens their functionalities and facilitates the development of complex quantitative assays. Unfortunately, biosensors that exploit large conventional IgG antibodies to capture relevant biomarkers are often limited in terms of sensitivity, selectivity, and storage stability, considerably restricting the use of POCT in real-world applications. Therefore, we used nanobodies as they are more suitable for fabricating electrochemical biosensors with near-field communication (NFC) technology. Moreover, a flow-through microfluidic device was implemented in this system for the detection of C-reactive protein (CRP), an inflammation biomarker, and a model analyte. The resulting sensors not only have high sensitivity and portability but also retain automated sequential flow properties through capillary transport without the need for an external pump. We also compared the accuracy of CRP quantitative analyses between commercial PalmSens4 and NFC-based potentiostats. Furthermore, the sensor reliability was evaluated using three biological samples (artificial serum, plasma, and whole blood without any pretreatment). This platform will streamline the development of POCT devices by combining operational simplicity, low cost, fast analysis, and portability.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society
Point-of-care testing (POCT) plays a crucial role in modern healthcare delivery, offering rapid and convenient diagnostic solutions at or near the patient’s location. Its primary advantage is the ability to provide real-time analysis, enabling healthcare providers to make immediate treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes. (1,2) With the growing demand for personalized and timely healthcare, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of POCT continues to expand, contributing to more efficient and effective healthcare. (3−6)
POCT integrated with capillary-driven microfluidic devices has gained widespread attention over the past decade. (7−9) Traditional microfluidic devices usually require an external pump to drive fluid flow throughout the system. (10,11) In contrast, capillary forces can be induced by the surface tension of the solution to drive the flow and devices exploiting capillary forces can operate in the absence of an external pump. (12,13) As a result, POCT systems based on capillary-driven microfluidics have been implemented in various applications, such as the detection of heavy metals, pesticides, bacteria, viruses, biomarkers, and biomolecules. (14−18) The most popular examples include pregnancy and COVID-19 test kits. (19,20) These devices provide rapid results (typically within 15 min), require only a single drop of the running buffer for one-step analysis, and are inexpensive, user-friendly, and portable, but the flow control throughout the device must be accurate. (21,22) With the aim of simplifying device operability and improving its performance, we proposed a solution based on the lamination of multiple layers of transparent PET film and double-sided adhesive (DSA) tape. (23) This sensor facilitates automated fluid flow for washing the excess of targeted analytes and their detection by means of binders specific for C-reactive protein (CRP), but it can be adapted to accommodate other capture elements specific for CRP or, potentially, any other (soluble) biomarkers.
CRP is a biomarker that has been used for a long time to monitor systemic inflammation, infection, and more recently several other human pathologies. (24,25) Normal CRP levels typically fall within the range of 1–3 μg mL–1, while high CRP levels (20–400 μg mL–1) are associated with inflammation, infectious diseases, cardiovascular disease (CVDs), malignant tumors, autoimmune disease, and depression. (25−28) Although anti-CRP IgG antibodies have been traditionally used for CRP detection, their high production costs, heterogeneity after functionalization, and reliance on human or animal sources in the production process represent critical challenges. (29,30) Consequently, alternative capture elements, including antibody fragments, peptides, aptamers, polymers, and bacteriophages, have been proposed. (23,31−34) In the present work, we employed nanobodies previously isolated by phage display technology (35) because they are small recombinant proteins, inexpensive to produce, and simple to engineer adopting basic molecular biology techniques. The small size of nanobodies potentially allows for a higher binding density on the electrode surface, enhancing sensor sensitivity compared to anti-CRP IgG antibodies. (35)
In recent years, near-field communication (NFC) technology has become widespread in the field of electrochemical sensors, enhancing their functionality and ease of use since enables wireless communication and data transfer at close proximity, simplifying sensor setup, calibration, and data retrieval. (36,37) This technology allows seamless data exchange between sensors and mobile devices, providing users with an effective way to collect and analyze electrochemical data in real time. Herein, we present a smartphone-controlled NFC potentiostat integrated with a flow-through electrochemical microfluidic device via wireless communication and with the data-display conversion on Android smartphones (Figure 1a). We also compared this configuration with the performance offered by a standard potentiostat (PalmSens4) and by conventional ELISA for the evaluation CRP levels in artificial serum, plasma, and whole blood.

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) Schematic illustration of the developed sensor obtained by combining the microfluidic device with a smartphone-based potentiostat. (b) Overall step-by-step modification on the screen-printed graphene electrodes (SPGEs). (c) Procedure for CRP detection using chronocoulometry (CC) measurement.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The details of materials, reagents, and equipment are presented in Supporting Information, Section 1.

Preparation of Anti-CRP Nanobodies

The procedure relative to nanobody isolation and characterization was presented in detail in a previous report. (35) The best clone recovered after panning (E12) was subcloned into a pET14-derived expression vector for the production of the nanobody fused to 6xHis and to SpyTag in Escherichia coli. (31) Subsequently, the construct was transformed into BL21 (DE3) SOX cells for cytoplasmic expression and purified by metal affinity chromatography, as described previously. (38) Nanobody concentration was quantified by the Bradford method, and its quality was evaluated through SDS-PAGE and gel filtration techniques.

Electrochemical Microfluidic Device Fabrication

The details of the electrochemical microfluidic device construction, function, and testing were presented previously. (23) Briefly, the microfluidic pattern was created by using AutoCAD software. Next, a transparent PET film (Xerox) and double-sided adhesive tape (DSA, 467MP, 3M) were laser-cut using a laser cutting method (Laser engraver GCC LaserPro, C180II) to create the flow channels, which were then integrated into a sandwich-layer configuration. The fast-flow channel had a height of 350 μm, and the delayed channel had a height of 200 μm.
The microfluidic system has an opening for loading the sample onto the electrode. After an incubation time, buffer is added to a second inlet. The buffer solution is divided into two channels: the fast-flow channel and the delayed channel. Through capillary action, the buffer flows through the fast-flow channel and reaches the electrode after ca. 4 s and washes away the sample solution together with nonbonded analyte and interfering species. The buffer flowing through the delayed channel picks up a redox molecule (K3Fe(CN)6) and arrives at the electrode after a short delay (ca. 16 s). The buffer flow continued for several minutes, during which measurements are made.
A three-electrode system consisting of a working electrode (WE, 3 mm in diameter), counter electrode (CE), and reference electrode (RE) was used to perform the electrochemical analysis. Screen-printed graphene electrodes (SPGE) were fabricated by using an in-house screen-printing method with a conductive carbon-graphene ink (Sun Chemical Company, Milan, Italy). A transparent film served as the substrate to construct SPGEs. After printing, the carbon-graphene ink was dried for 1 h at 60 °C. Then, a silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl, Sun Chemical Company, Milan, Italy) ink was painted on the conductive pads of the RE and dried for 1 h at 60 °C. The obtained SPGE electrode was kept under dark and dry conditions when not in use to prevent the oxidization of the Ag/AgCl. The device design and integration of the microfluidic system with a smartphone are shown in Figure 1a.

Electrode Modification

In this study, anti-CRP nanobodies were anchored to the WE through the formation of covalent bonds. First, anodic pretreatment was performed on the SPGE, wherein a constant potential of 1.5 V versus Ag/AgCl was maintained for 120 s. This process generated hydroxyl groups (−OH) on the WE surface, as described in detail previously. (23) Then, the electrode was rinsed with DI water and treated with a mixed solution of 2.1 M LiCl and 40 mM NaIO4 (5 μL) to convert the surface functional groups from hydroxyl (−OH) to aldehyde (−CHO) groups. The modified electrode was allowed to incubate in the dark for 15 min before being washed with DI water. Successively, the modified electrode was functionalized with either 1 or 10 μg mL–1 of anti-CRP nanobodies for 1 h at room temperature (RT) and further washed using phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4). The covalent binding of the nanobody on the modified electrode was obtained by means of a Schiff base reaction, resulting in the formation of an imine bond (C═N). To ensure the stability of the covalent bond, 1 mg mL–1 solution of NaBH3CN was applied to the activated electrode for 15 min, followed by PBS washing. Subsequently, 3 mg mL–1 of casein was added (30 min at RT) to block unsaturated residues and avoid nonspecific interactions. After a final PBS washing step, the ready-to-use SPGEs were stored in a freezer at −20 °C. An overview of the overall immobilization procedure is presented in Figure 1b.

Electrochemical Detection of CRP

Electrochemical measurements were conducted using a PalmSens4 potentiostat/impedance analyzer (PalmSens BV, Netherlands), controlled by PStrace software version 5.9. To prevent convection effects that can influence the electrochemical current response, (39) chronocoulometry (CC) was preferred as the method for CRP quantification. The following CC parameters were selected: t-equilibrium of 3 s, applied potential of 0.0 V vs Ag/AgCl, t-interval of 0.1 s, analysis time of 200 s, whereas the current response was measured from 16 to 180 s. For CRP detection, 4 μL of CRP solution with concentrations ranging from 0.01 ng mL–1 to 100 μg mL–1 were introduced in the sample inlet. Subsequently, following the completion of the antigen-nanobody binding reaction, 150 μL of PBS was introduced in the buffer inlet. The chronoamperometric signal was consistently recorded until the peak signal was completed. The detection principle and procedure for CRP detection using the CC measurement are shown in Figure 1c.
The NFC potentiostat used in this study was the SIC4341 (Potentiometric sensor interface chip with NFC type2) from Silicon Craft Technology PLC., Thailand. This potentiostat was integrated with a Redmi Note 10S smartphone (Xiaomi) running Android operating system. Detailed technical information and the diagram of the printed circuit board (PCB) and the actual experimental setup can be found in Table S1 and Figure S1, respectively. To control the NFC potentiostat and electrochemical parameters, perform real-time data acquisition, process data, and present electrochemical results, we used the Chemister application (NFC eco for cyclic voltammetry (CV) and chronoamperometry). The complete operative scheme relative to the combination NFC potentiostat-Android smartphone is presented in Figure S2. The parameter setting of the NFC potentiostat was identical to that used in a PalmSens4 potentiostat. Raw data were exported as a text file, and subsequent data analysis, including plotting using Microsoft Excel and the evaluation of peak height and integrated peak area, was performed using Origin Pro.

CRP Detection in Biological Samples

Three types of samples were examined, including artificial serum (provided by Sigma-Aldrich, Warsaw, Poland), whole blood samples obtained from anonymous donors at a blood center in Warsaw, Poland, and blood plasma derived from the same whole blood samples (for details on the preparation process, see the previous report (23)). Artificial serum was diluted to 1 mg mL–1. The prepared artificial serum and plasma samples were subsequently spiked with varying CRP concentrations ranging from 10 ng mL–1 to 100 μg mL–1. Blood samples were used without any preparation process. The recovery efficacy of spiked CRP in artificial serum, plasma, and whole blood was calculated to assess the accuracy of the detection process.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Electrochemical Characterization on the NFC and Traditional Potentiostats

Electrochemical detection using a smartphone was carried out with the NFC potentiostat, a compact device with the size of a credit card, controlled by an Android system. The potentiostat integrated into the SIC4341 microchip serves essential functions, acting as a controller for the potential waveforms, as well as a real-time data collector suitable for several electrochemical applications. This system operates as a potentiostat when connected to an NFC-enabled smartphone with the Chemister application installed.
Initially, we examined the electrochemical performance of the NFC potentiostat in comparison with the standard lab potentiostat (PalmSens4). Cyclic voltammetry (CV) was performed using 0.5 mM [Fe(CN6)]3– and 0.5 mM [Fe(CN6)]4– in 0.1 M KNO3 to study the electroanalytical functionality of the bare SPGE on both the conventional and NFC potentiostats at the following conditions: scanned potential from −0.4 to 0.6 V vs Ag/AgCl, scan rate of 25 mV s–1, potential step of 10 mV, and a time step of 200 ms. Figure 2a shows the characteristic voltammograms obtained from both potentiostats and evidences their high similarity.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) CVs of 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– and 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– in 0.1 M KNO3 at a scan rate of 25 mV s–1 obtained from PalmSens4, used as a positive control, and the new NFC potentiostat. (b) Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement and (c) CV measurements obtained at different steps of the electrode and after incubation with CRP in a static system using 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– and 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– containing 0.1 M KNO3 at a scan rate of 100 mV s–1, using nanobodies as immune-capture elements. All of the Nyquist plots were fitted with the Randles circuit (inset). (d) Representation of the CC measurements obtained with PalmSens4 and NFC potentiostat using nanobody-based electrochemical biosensor in the presence of CRP. (e) Linear regression comparing the average ΔQ via NFC and PalmSens4 potentiostats achieved at various CRP concentrations using CC.

Characterization of the CRP Nanobody-Modified Electrode Surface

The immobilization efficiency of anti-CRP nanobodies is a crucial step for achieving a high antigen binding specificity. To achieve this, the hydroxyl functional groups of the oxidized electrode were first modified to incorporate aldehyde groups through an oxidation reaction. Anti-CRP nanobodies were subsequently immobilized on the oxidized electrode through an imine bond (C═N). To validate the process and assess the nanobody binding capacity for the CRP target, two analytical techniques were employed: electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and cyclic voltammetry (CV). These techniques make it possible to discriminate small variations at the interface between electrode and electrolyte, as well as to assess the electron transfer efficiency of the redox couple ([Fe(CN6)]3–/4–). The EIS Nyquist plot was fitted by using the Randles equivalent circuit, as shown in Figure 2b. The bare SPGE (dashed line) showed low electron transfer resistance (or high charge transfer resistance, denoted as high Rct), indicating lower conductivity compared with the anodized electrode (blue line). However, the introduction of the anti-CRP nanobodies (green line) onto the electrode surface induced a noticeable increase in the Rct value. This observed increase strongly supports the successful immobilization of the immunocapture nanobody reagent E12. After the biosensor was coated with casein (yellow line), the subsequent addition of CRP (red line) triggered a significant Rct increment. These results suggest that the immunocomplex formed between anti-CRP nanobodies and CRP affected the electron transfer of the redox solution at the electrode interface. EIS results are consistent with the CV results, as shown in Figure 2c. Specifically, the current response was progressively reduced from Ipa = 93.7 ± 3.2 μA of the anodized electrode (blue line) to Ipa = 45.8 ± 4.6 μA of the CRP signal (red line) at each successive modification step, indicating the corresponding interference of electron transfer. Both the EIS and CV results indicated the successful nanobody immobilization on the electrode surface and the nanobody’s capacity to capture CRP.
CC was also employed to quantify CRP by using the NFC potentiostat. As presented in Figure 2d, CRP quantification was obtained by measuring the peak area or the change in charge (ΔQ). The ΔQ values obtained from NFC and a conventional potentiostat using various CRP concentrations were plotted (Figure 2e) and resulted in good agreement (R2 = 0.9982) between the two potentiostats, highlighting the potential of the NFC potentiostat as a POC diagnostic tool.
Optimal analytical conditions (see SI, Section 2, and Figure S3) with the PalmsSens4 potentiostat were identified using 1 μg mL–1 of nanobodies (Figure S3a), 1.5 V vs Ag/AgCl of anodization potential, 120 s of anodization time, 25 mM concentration of [K3Fe(CN)6], and 40 min of incubation time (Figure S3b). Specifically, nanobody concentrations higher than 1 μg mL–1 introduced steric hindrance, leading to a reduced electrochemical charge response.

CRP Detection Using Sequential Flow-Through Microfluidic Device

A comparison of analytical performances between the results obtained from PalmSens4 and the NFC potentiostat was conducted using a flow-through microfluidic device. Assay parameters were optimized to achieve the highest efficiency in terms of differentiated charge (ΔQ = ΔQCRP – ΔQcontrol). The analytical performance was initially examined at varying CRP concentrations with PalmSens4. In Figure 3a,3b it is evident that ΔQ increased as the concentration of CRP increased within the range between 0.01 and 500 ng mL–1. The ΔQ value exhibited a linear relationship with the logarithmic CRP concentration, with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.9941 (Figure 3a, inset) and a limit of detection (LOD) of 7.6 pg mL–1 (LOD = 3SDblank/slope), respectively. In its optimized form, the sensor detected accurately both very low CRP amounts and concentrations up to 500 ng mL–1. However, the upper limit is below the expected range of normal CRP levels in blood in the absence of inflammation. The long incubation time (40 min) contrasts the necessity for rapid POC diagnosis. Therefore, we tried to compensate for a shorter binding time (10 min) with an increased anti-CRP nanobody surface coverage (10 μg mL–1), despite the preliminary data indicating that high nanobody density could negatively affect the electrochemical current response. The data reported in Figure 3c show a linear relationship between ΔQ and the logarithm of CRP concentration in the range of 0.01–100 μg mL–1 (R2 = 0.9953), with an LOD (3SDblank/slope) of 1.18 ng mL–1 when PalmSens4 was used. Such promising results convinced us to apply the same conditions to the NFC potentiostat. As shown in Figure 3d, the linearity data were similar to those obtained with PalmSens4 and the LOD (1.79 ng mL–1) was just slightly higher. Summarizing, higher nanobody surface density leads to a significantly extended linear range at the cost of the sensitivity of the device to very low concentrations, therefore offering a suitable compromise between analytical accuracy in the physiologically relevant concentration range and analysis time.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (a) Quantitative calibration plot illustrating the relationship between the change in charge (ΔQ) and CRP concentrations and (b) its corresponding chronoamperograms using PalmSens4 Potentiostat. (c) Calibration plot between ΔQ calculated using PalmSens4 and CRP concentrations performed at high anti-CRP nanobody concentrations (10 μg mL–1) and shorter (10 min) incubation time. (d) Same as above but using the NFC potentiostat. (e) Selectivity analysis of the diagnostic device in the presence of different proteins (interleukin-6 (IL-6), fibrinogen, myoglobin, bovine serum albumin (BSA), human serum albumin (HSA)), alone or mixed together with CRP. The error bars represent the standard deviation calculated from three replicated measurements (n = 3).

Next, we evaluated the selectivity of the developed sensor for CRP using a sample in which the biomarker was mixed with equimolar amounts of common interferents, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), fibrinogen, myoglobin, bovine serum albumin (BSA), and human serum albumin (HSA). As demonstrated in Figure 3e, CRP (100 ng mL–1) was specifically detected in the mixed sample, whereas interferents induced negligible signals. The results indicate that the biosensor possesses a high specificity toward CRP conferred by the anti-CRP nanobodies.
The result reproducibility was assessed by comparing data collected from ten independently prepared electrochemical sensors. The standard deviation (RSD) value of 8.9% (Figure S4) is within the acceptable range, according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) guidelines (40) and confirmed the reproducibility of the proposed diagnostic approach, from the biosensor fabrication to the signal measurement.
The storage stability of the biosensor was thereafter investigated by comparing three conditions selected because they are normally implemented in commercial manufacturing storage settings: (i) desiccator at room temperature (RT, 20 ± 2 °C), (ii) humid box at RT, and (iii) freezer at −20 °C. As shown in Figure 4, the biosensor maintained its performance at over 80% in the first 4 weeks under all storage conditions and, when kept in the freezer, the activity reached 86.3% even after 8 weeks (Figure 4c). These results demonstrate the superior storage stability of our device over the conventional diagnostic platforms and suggest its suitability for real-world applications characterized by challenging conditions.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Storage stability of CRP biosensors under different conditions: (a) RT in a desiccator, (b) RT in a closed humid box, and (c) freezer (−20 °C), respectively. All measurements were calculated from three replicates (n = 3).

Subsequently, the performance of our biosensor was compared to those of other devices designed for CRP quantification (Table S2). While its sensitivity is lower than that of some previously proposed systems, the LOD is still sufficient to detect CRP in the biologically relevant range spanning from ng mL–1 to μg mL–1. Remarkably, our device is inexpensive (less than 0.2 € per single biosensor, see Table S3 for details), rapid (complete analysis within 15 min), and portable. This makes it faster and more cost-effective than both ELISA and other electrochemical anti-CRP platforms, most of which require between 1 and 5 h.

Clinical Samples Analysis

We finally evaluated the capacity of our biosensor to quantify CRP in clinical samples. Three conditions were considered, namely, artificial serum, plasma, and whole blood samples. Initially, artificial serum samples were spiked with CRP concentrations ranging from 10 to 500 ng mL–1. The calculated values for ΔQ and the efficiency of the proposed system were then reported as percentages of detected CRP in comparison to the theoretical concentrations. As shown in Table S4, the recovery values ranged from 91.4 to 108%, similar to the results achieved using the PalmSens4.
CRP levels in plasma samples obtained from anonymous healthy blood donors were evaluated using both the PalmSens4 potentiostat and our NFC potentiostat. The results were further compared to those obtained by ELISA (Table 1). The paired t test conducted on the experimental results revealed no significant difference at a 95% confidence level. Consequently, the proposed biosensor can provide accurate CRP determination in real biological samples.
Table 1. CRP Concentration in Plasma Samples Evaluated by Different Methods
sampleELISA value (μg mL–1)adetected value NFC (μg mL–1)detected value PalmSens4 (μg mL–1)
11.62 ± 7.31.65 ± 2.81.73 ± 7.6
20.38 ± 3.30.40 ± 2.70.42 ± 1.5
30.73 ± 2.30.74 ± 0.80.74 ± 6.2
a

It should be noted that the results were investigated using the same samples as those reported in (23); therefore, we employed the same standard ELISA values.

Finally, the proposed method was applied to the detection of CRP in whole human blood obtained from three anonymous donors. Original blood samples contained CRP amounts in the range between 0.55 and 4.20 μg mL–1 and were further spiked with different concentrations (from 0 to 25 μg mL–1) of CRP. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2. The recovery was found to be within the range of 82.4–120%. The errors, which were measured as percentage relative error and relative standard error (RSD), were all less than 20% for all of the tested samples. Additionally, the feasibility of this biosensor was also evaluated with an additional ten blood samples using only the PalmSens4 potentiostat, and the detailed results can be found in Table S5. Altogether, the experimental results showed that the NFC-based system integrated with the flow-through microfluidic device can correctly quantify CRP in clinically relevant biological samples without the need for pretreatment procedures and could therefore be used for the assessment of inflammation, infections caused by bacteria or viruses, and the risk of heart disease.
Table 2. CRP Detection in Whole Blood Samples
sample nospiked value (μg mL–1)detected value (μg mL–1) NFC x̅ ± SDrecovery (%)detected value (μg mL–1) PalmSens4 x̅ ± SDrecovery (%)
104.20 4.06 
0.54.78 ± 0.31164.60 ± 1.0108
58.96 ± 1.695.19.13 ± 1.5102
2526.52 ± 0.989.328.47 ± 2.797.6
202.05 2.35 
0.52.46 ± 0.782.42.90 ± 1.1111
56.97 ± 0.998.47.82 ± 1.0110
2524.98 ± 1.491.731.19 ± 0.4115
300.55 0.77 
0.51.14 ± 3.01201.25 ± 1.195.8
55.54 ± 3.399.95.36 ± 3.391.9
2525.85 ± 4.310122.23 ± 1.285.9

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We have successfully developed a portable electrochemical biosensor that integrates an NFC potentiostat with a sequential flow-through microfluidic device and exploits nanobodies for the capture and quantification of CRP, providing a reliable and inexpensive diagnostic solution. Our device offers user-friendly operation, delivering the test results within 15 min at a cost of under 0.2 € per device. It has a wide linear range of detection (10 ng mL–1–100 μg mL–1) and an elevated LOD of 7.6 pg mL–1, and demonstrated high specificity for CRP, even in the presence of other proteins commonly found in serum samples. Its reliability was confirmed by the precise detection of CRP in artificial serum, plasma, and whole blood samples, eliminating the need for sample pretreatment steps. Importantly, this configuration can be potentially applied to any soluble biomarker by simply exchanging the recognition element used to capture the antigens. Thus, it offers an alternative and economically accessible method for the detection of any biomarker, particularly in settings where advanced clinical equipment is lacking.

Data Availability

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Data used for this article are available at the RepOD repository. (41)

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssensors.4c00249.

  • Additional experimental details, scheme of the NFC potentiostat setup, cost breakdown of device, and comparison of literature CRP sensors (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • Katarzyna Szot-Karpińska - Institute of Physical Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kasprzaka 44/52, Warsaw 01-224, PolandOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3582-941X
    • Joanna Niedziółka-Jönsson - Institute of Physical Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kasprzaka 44/52, Warsaw 01-224, Poland
    • Ario de Marco - Laboratory for Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Nova Gorica, Vipavska cesta 13, 5000 Nova Gorica, SloveniaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7729-819X
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This research was supported by the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) through the EEA and Norway Grants (Project number: NOR/POLNOR/UPTURN/0060/2019) and by the CRP 20/026 grant offered by ICGEB. K.S.-K. thanks the National Science Centre Poland via a SONATA 13 grant UMO-2017/26/D/ST5/00980. The authors thank Silicon Craft Technology PLC. (Bangkok, Thailand) for providing them with an NFC potentiostat (SIC4341, Potentiometric sensor interface chip with NFC type2). S.B. thanks Dr. Kingkan Pungjunun and the team from Silicon Craft Technology PLC., and Dr. Abdulhadee Yakoh from Chulalongkorn University for their valuable explanation and suggestions regarding the NFC potentiostat.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 41 other publications.

  1. 1
    da Silva, E. T. S. G.; Souto, D. E. P.; Barragan, J. T. C.; de F. Giarola, J.; de Moraes, A. C. M.; Kubota, L. T. Electrochemical Biosensors in Point-of-Care Devices: Recent Advances and Future Trends. ChemElectroChem 2017, 4 (4), 778794,  DOI: 10.1002/celc.201600758
  2. 2
    Madhurantakam, S.; Muthukumar, S.; Prasad, S. Emerging Electrochemical Biosensing Trends for Rapid Diagnosis of COVID-19 Biomarkers as Point-of-Care Platforms: A Critical Review. ACS Omega 2022, 7 (15), 1246712473,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c00638
  3. 3
    Johnston, M.; Ates, H. C.; Glatz, R. T.; Mohsenin, H.; Schmachtenberg, R.; Göppert, N.; Huzly, D.; Urban, G. A.; Weber, W.; Dincer, C. Multiplexed Biosensor for Point-of-Care COVID-19 Monitoring: CRISPR-Powered Unamplified RNA Diagnostics and Protein-Based Therapeutic Drug Management. Mater. Today 2022, 61, 129138,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2022.11.001
  4. 4
    Broughton, J. P.; Deng, X.; Yu, G.; Fasching, C. L.; Servellita, V.; Singh, J.; Miao, X.; Streithorst, J. A.; Granados, A.; Sotomayor-Gonzalez, A.; Zorn, K.; Gopez, A.; Hsu, E.; Gu, W.; Miller, S.; Pan, C.-Y.; Guevara, H.; Wadford, D. A.; Chen, J. S.; Chiu, C. Y. CRISPR–Cas12-Based Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020, 38 (7), 870874,  DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0513-4
  5. 5
    Yakoh, A.; Pimpitak, U.; Rengpipat, S.; Hirankarn, N.; Chailapakul, O.; Chaiyo, S. Paper-Based Electrochemical Biosensor for Diagnosing COVID-19: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Antigen. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021, 176, 112912  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112912
  6. 6
    Kumar, A.; Parihar, A.; Panda, U.; Parihar, D. S. Microfluidics-Based Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) Devices in Dealing with Waves of COVID-19 Pandemic: The Emerging Solution. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2022, 5 (5), 20462068,  DOI: 10.1021/acsabm.1c01320
  7. 7
    Yang, S.-M.; Lv, S.; Zhang, W.; Cui, Y. Microfluidic Point-of-Care (POC) Devices in Early Diagnosis: A Review of Opportunities and Challenges. Sensors 2022, 22 (4), 1620,  DOI: 10.3390/s22041620
  8. 8
    Xie, Y.; Dai, L.; Yang, Y. Microfluidic Technology and Its Application in the Point-of-Care Testing Field. Biosens. Bioelectron.: X 2022, 10, 100109  DOI: 10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100109
  9. 9
    Tang, R.; Yang, H.; Choi, J. R.; Gong, Y.; You, M.; Wen, T.; Li, A.; Li, X.; Xu, B.; Zhang, S.; Mei, Q.; Xu, F. Capillary Blood for Point-of-Care Testing. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2017, 54 (5), 294308,  DOI: 10.1080/10408363.2017.1343796
  10. 10
    Binsley, J. L.; Martin, E. L.; Myers, T. O.; Pagliara, S.; Ogrin, F. Y. Microfluidic Devices Powered by Integrated Elasto-Magnetic Pumps. Lab Chip 2020, 20 (22), 42854295,  DOI: 10.1039/D0LC00935K
  11. 11
    Bogdanowicz, R.; Jönsson-Niedziółka, M.; Vereshchagina, E.; Dettlaff, A.; Boonkaew, S.; Pierpaoli, M.; Wittendorp, P.; Jain, S.; Tyholdt, F.; Thomas, J.; Wojcik, P. Microfluidic Devices for Photo-and Spectroelectrochemical Applications. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2022, 36, 101138  DOI: 10.1016/j.coelec.2022.101138
  12. 12
    Xie, Y.; Xu, X.; Wang, J.; Lin, J.; Ren, Y.; Wu, A. Latest Advances and Perspectives of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Diagnostics Driven by Microfluidic On-Chip Assays. Lab Chip 2023, 23 (13), 29222941,  DOI: 10.1039/D2LC00837H
  13. 13
    Mark, D.; Haeberle, S.; Roth, G.; von Stetten, F.; Zengerle, R. Microfluidic Lab-on-a-Chip Platforms: Requirements, Characteristics and Applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39 (3), 11531182,  DOI: 10.1039/b820557b
  14. 14
    Zhou, W.; Dou, M.; Timilsina, S. S.; Xu, F.; Li, X. Recent Innovations in Cost-Effective Polymer and Paper Hybrid Microfluidic Devices. Lab Chip 2021, 21 (14), 26582683,  DOI: 10.1039/D1LC00414J
  15. 15
    Clark, K. M.; Schenkel, M. S.; Pittman, T. W.; Samper, I. C.; Anderson, L. B. R.; Khamcharoen, W.; Elmegerhi, S.; Perera, R.; Siangproh, W.; Kennan, A. J.; Geiss, B. J.; Dandy, D. S.; Henry, C. S. Electrochemical Capillary Driven Immunoassay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2. ACS Meas. Sci. Au 2022, 2 (6), 584594,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmeasuresciau.2c00037
  16. 16
    Pungjunun, K.; Praphairaksit, N.; Chailapakul, O. A Facile and Automated Microfluidic Electrochemical Platform for the In-Field Speciation Analysis of Inorganic Arsenic. Talanta 2023, 265, 124906  DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2023.124906
  17. 17
    Sierra, T.; Jang, I.; Noviana, E.; Crevillen, A. G.; Escarpa, A.; Henry, C. S. Pump-Free Microfluidic Device for the Electrochemical Detection of A1-Acid Glycoprotein. ACS Sens. 2021, 6 (8), 29983005,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.1c00864
  18. 18
    Jang, I.; Kang, H.; Song, S.; Dandy, D. S.; Geiss, B. J.; Henry, C. S. Flow Control in a Laminate Capillary-Driven Microfluidic Device. Analyst 2021, 146 (6), 19321939,  DOI: 10.1039/D0AN02279A
  19. 19
    Samper, I. C.; Sánchez-Cano, A.; Khamcharoen, W.; Jang, I.; Siangproh, W.; Baldrich, E.; Geiss, B. J.; Dandy, D. S.; Henry, C. S. Electrochemical Capillary-Flow Immunoassay for Detecting Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein Antibodies at the Point of Care. ACS Sens. 2021, 6 (11), 40674075,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.1c01527
  20. 20
    Zhu, X.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Luo, W.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.; Chen, Q.; Yu, S.; Tai, J.; Wang, Y. Rapid, Ultrasensitive, and Highly Specific Diagnosis of COVID-19 by CRISPR-Based Detection. ACS Sens. 2021, 6 (3), 881888,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.0c01984
  21. 21
    Andryukov, B. G. Six Decades of Lateral Flow Immunoassay: From Determining Metabolic Markers to Diagnosing COVID-19. AIMS Microbiol. 2020, 6 (3), 280304,  DOI: 10.3934/microbiol.2020018
  22. 22
    Perju, A.; Wongkaew, N. Integrating High-Performing Electrochemical Transducers in Lateral Flow Assay. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2021, 413 (22), 55355549,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-021-03301-y
  23. 23
    Boonkaew, S.; Szot-Karpińska, K.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J.; Pałys, B.; Jönsson-Niedziółka, M. Point-of-Care Testing for C-Reactive Protein in a Sequential Microfluidic Device. Sens. Actuators, B 2023, 397, 134659  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2023.134659
  24. 24
    Sproston, N. R.; Ashworth, J. J. Role of C-Reactive Protein at Sites of Inflammation and Infection. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 342848,  DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00754
  25. 25
    Plebani, M. Why C-Reactive Protein Is One of the Most Requested Tests in Clinical Laboratories?. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2023, 61 (9), 15401545,  DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2023-0086
  26. 26
    Sonuç Karaboğa, M. N.; Sezgintürk, M. K. A Novel Silanization Agent Based Single Used Biosensing System: Detection of C-Reactive Protein as a Potential Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Biomarker. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018, 154, 227235,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.03.016
  27. 27
    Kim, K.-W.; Kim, B.-M.; Moon, H.-W.; Lee, S.-H.; Kim, H.-R. Role of C-Reactive Protein in Osteoclastogenesis in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2015, 17 (1), 41,  DOI: 10.1186/s13075-015-0563-z
  28. 28
    Ali, N. Elevated Level of C-Reactive Protein May Be an Early Marker to Predict Risk for Severity of COVID-19. J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92 (11), 24092411,  DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26097
  29. 29
    Bryan, T.; Luo, X.; Bueno, P. R.; Davis, J. J. An Optimised Electrochemical Biosensor for the Label-Free Detection of C-Reactive Protein in Blood. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 39 (1), 9498,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2012.06.051
  30. 30
    Chames, P.; Van Regenmortel, M.; Weiss, E.; Baty, D. Therapeutic Antibodies: Successes, Limitations and Hopes for the Future. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2009, 157 (2), 220233,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00190.x
  31. 31
    Oloketuyi, S.; Mazzega, E.; Zavašnik, J.; Pungjunun, K.; Kalcher, K.; Marco, A.; de Mehmeti, E. Electrochemical Immunosensor Functionalized with Nanobodies for the Detection of the Toxic Microalgae Alexandrium Minutum Using Glassy Carbon Electrode Modified with Gold Nanoparticles. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 154, 112052,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112052
  32. 32
    Szot-Karpińska, K.; Kudła, P.; Orzeł, U.; Narajczyk, M.; Jönsson-Niedziółka, M.; Pałys, B.; Filipek, S.; Ebner, A.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J. Investigation of Peptides for Molecular Recognition of C-Reactive Protein–Theoretical and Experimental Studies. Anal. Chem. 2023, 95, 14475,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c03127
  33. 33
    Yang, H. J.; Kim, M. W.; Raju, C. V.; Cho, C. H.; Park, T. J.; Park, J. P. Highly Sensitive and Label-Free Electrochemical Detection of C-Reactive Protein on a Peptide Receptor–gold Nanoparticle–black Phosphorous Nanocomposite Modified Electrode. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2023, 234, 115382  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115382
  34. 34
    Szot-Karpińska, K.; Kudła, P.; Szarota, A.; Narajczyk, M.; Marken, F.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J. CRP-Binding Bacteriophage as a New Element of Layer-by-Layer Assembly Carbon Nanofiber Modified Electrodes. Bioelectrochemistry 2020, 136, 107629  DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107629
  35. 35
    Oloketuyi, S.; Bernedo, R.; Christmann, A.; Borkowska, J.; Cazzaniga, G.; Schuchmann, H. W.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J.; Szot-Karpińska, K.; Kolmar, H.; de Marco, A. Native Llama Nanobody Library Panning Performed by Phage and Yeast Display Provides Binders Suitable for C-Reactive Protein Detection. Biosensors 2021, 11 (12), 496,  DOI: 10.3390/bios11120496
  36. 36
    Beck, J. J.; Alenicheva, V.; Rahn, K. L.; Russo, M. J.; Baldo, T. A.; Henry, C. S. Evaluating the Performance of an Inexpensive, Commercially Available, NFC-Powered and Smartphone Controlled Potentiostat for Electrochemical Sensing. Electroanalysis 2023, 35 (6), e202200552  DOI: 10.1002/elan.202200552
  37. 37
    Pungjunun, K.; Yakoh, A.; Chaiyo, S.; Siangproh, W.; Praphairaksit, N.; Chailapakul, O. Smartphone-Based Electrochemical Analysis Integrated with NFC System for the Voltammetric Detection of Heavy Metals Using a Screen-Printed Graphene Electrode. Microchim. Acta 2022, 189 (5), 191,  DOI: 10.1007/s00604-022-05281-x
  38. 38
    Veggiani, G.; de Marco, A. Improved Quantitative and Qualitative Production of Single-Domain Intrabodies Mediated by the Co-Expression of Erv1p Sulfhydryl Oxidase. Protein Expression Purif. 2011, 79 (1), 111114,  DOI: 10.1016/j.pep.2011.03.005
  39. 39
    Amatore, C.; Pebay, C.; Sella, C.; Thouin, L. Mass Transport at Microband Electrodes: Transient, Quasi-Steady-State, and Convective Regimes. ChemPhysChem 2012, 13 (6), 15621568,  DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201100942
  40. 40
    International, A. AOAC Peer-Verified Methods Program: Manual on Policies and Procedures; Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1993.
  41. 41
    Jönsson-Niedziolka, M.; Boonkaew, S. Electrochemical Data for NFC Smartphone-Based Electrochemical Microfluidic Device Integrated with Nanobody Recognition for C-Reactive Protein, RepOD – Repository for Open Data, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18150/M8JBP9 (accessed Feb 01, 2024).

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 19 publications.

  1. Alana F. Ogata, Julia Kramer. A Patient-Centered Approach in Sensor Science: Embracing Patient Engagement for Translational Clinical Technologies. ACS Sensors 2025, 10 (3) , 1521-1537. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.4c03292
  2. Mohd Afaque Ansari, Damini Verma, Mohd-Akmal Hamizan, Maumita Das Mukherjee, Noor Faizah Mohd-Naim, Minhaz Uddin Ahmed. Trends in Aptasensing and the Enhancement of Diagnostic Efficiency and Accuracy. ACS Synthetic Biology 2025, 14 (1) , 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.4c00591
  3. Sebastian Freko, Marta Nikić, Dirk Mayer, Lennart J. K. Weiß, Friedrich C. Simmel, Bernhard Wolfrum. Digital CRISPR-Powered Biosensor Concept without Target Amplification Using Single-Impact Electrochemistry. ACS Sensors 2024, 9 (11) , 6197-6206. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.4c02060
  4. Sumeyra Savas, Yalın Kılıç, Seyed Mohammad Taghi Gharibzahedi, Zeynep Altintas. A novel smartphone-based nanozyme-enhanced electrochemical immunosensor for ultrasensitive direct detection of Staphylococcus aureus in milk and blood serum. Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 2025, 49 , 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2025.100822
  5. Yun Zheng, Huanhuan Shi, Zhongjian Tan, Weizheng Xu, Rui Zhao, Zhengxian Dan, Zhiying Dai, Jiacong Liao, Hongwen Wu. Micropumps and microvalves for biomedical applications. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2025, 188 , 118236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2025.118236
  6. Chandan Singh, Felix Hempel, Kristina Endres, Jan Engelmann, Alexey Tarasov. Emergence of graphene-based biosensors for improved treatment response prediction in major depressive disorder: a perspective. 2D Materials 2025, 12 (3) , 033004. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/adce17
  7. Claudia D'Ercole, Rossella Svigelj, Tanja Mrak, Ario de Marco. Early stress detection in forest trees using a nanobody-functionalized electrochemical biosensor for ascorbate peroxidase. Plant Stress 2025, 16 , 100844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stress.2025.100844
  8. Ruo-Yu Yang, Jin-Hua Wang, Zi-Wei Yu, Yun-Ting Chen, Mei-Juan Wu, Pin-Fang Huang, Meng-Meng Liu. A smartphone-based portable electrochemical sensor enabled ultrasensitive detection of paclitaxel in serum and injection samples. Microchimica Acta 2025, 192 (4) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00604-025-07085-1
  9. Grecu Ramona Cătălina, Victor Gheorman, Veronica Gheorman, Mircea-Cătălin Forțofoiu. The Role of Neuroinflammation in the Comorbidity of Psychiatric Disorders and Internal Diseases. Healthcare 2025, 13 (7) , 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13070837
  10. Jiamin Lin, Yuanyuan Chen, Xiaohui Liu, Hui Jiang, Xuemei Wang. Engineered Intelligent Electrochemical Biosensors for Portable Point-of-Care Diagnostics. Chemosensors 2025, 13 (4) , 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13040146
  11. Adil Khan, Muhammad Anwar, Atiq Ur Rehman, Mohammadreza Shokouhimehr, Nuno M. Reis, Kashif Ali Kalhoro, Chi Zhang, Zhengchun Liu. Biorecognition-based electrochemical sensors for highly sensitive C-reactive protein detection: A review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2025, 304 , 140829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.140829
  12. Haiyan Wang, Wenjuan Wu. Recent Advancements in Microfluidic Biosensors for Clinical Applications. iLABMED 2025, https://doi.org/10.1002/ila2.70002
  13. Wenjun Dong, Caizhao Cheng, Jiayun Chen, Xingyu Zhao, Zhiyong Guo, Yufang Hu, Zhihe Qing. Portable dual-mode detection and visual quantification of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase activity in cells using smartphone. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 2025, 427 , 137180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2024.137180
  14. Siyue Wang, Xiaotian Guan, Shuqing Sun. Microfluidic Biosensors: Enabling Advanced Disease Detection. Sensors 2025, 25 (6) , 1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25061936
  15. Daegwon Noh, Eunsoon Oh. Chemical Detection Using Mobile Platforms and AI-Based Data Processing Technologies. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 2025, 14 (1) , 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan14010006
  16. Yuanyuan Cao, Chengkai Yang, Chenning Liu, Zixuan Fan, Sirui Yang, Hongxu Song, Rongzhang Hao. Advanced electrochemical detection methodologies for assessing neuroactive substance variability induced by environmental pollutants exposure. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2025, 37 , 103965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103965
  17. Zhuowei Fu, Yiwen Yang, Zhifeng Li, Yanbo Zeng, Hailong Wang, Yifeng Han, Qiukai Tang, Lei Li. Detection of C-reactive protein using a label-free NIR fluorescent aptasensor with a large Stokes shift based on an AIEE anthracene derivative. Analytica Chimica Acta 2025, 1333 , 343386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2024.343386
  18. Rossella Svigelj, Ario de Marco. Biological and technical factors affecting the point-of-care diagnostics in not-oncological chronic diseases. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2024, 264 , 116669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2024.116669
  19. Jiaju Yin, Xinyuan Jia, Haorong Li, Bingchen Zhao, Yi Yang, Tian-Ling Ren. Recent Progress in Biosensors for Depression Monitoring—Advancing Personalized Treatment. Biosensors 2024, 14 (9) , 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios14090422

ACS Sensors

Cite this: ACS Sens. 2024, 9, 6, 3066–3074
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.4c00249
Published June 15, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

4260

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (a) Schematic illustration of the developed sensor obtained by combining the microfluidic device with a smartphone-based potentiostat. (b) Overall step-by-step modification on the screen-printed graphene electrodes (SPGEs). (c) Procedure for CRP detection using chronocoulometry (CC) measurement.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (a) CVs of 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– and 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– in 0.1 M KNO3 at a scan rate of 25 mV s–1 obtained from PalmSens4, used as a positive control, and the new NFC potentiostat. (b) Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) measurement and (c) CV measurements obtained at different steps of the electrode and after incubation with CRP in a static system using 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– and 5 mM Fe(CN6)3– containing 0.1 M KNO3 at a scan rate of 100 mV s–1, using nanobodies as immune-capture elements. All of the Nyquist plots were fitted with the Randles circuit (inset). (d) Representation of the CC measurements obtained with PalmSens4 and NFC potentiostat using nanobody-based electrochemical biosensor in the presence of CRP. (e) Linear regression comparing the average ΔQ via NFC and PalmSens4 potentiostats achieved at various CRP concentrations using CC.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (a) Quantitative calibration plot illustrating the relationship between the change in charge (ΔQ) and CRP concentrations and (b) its corresponding chronoamperograms using PalmSens4 Potentiostat. (c) Calibration plot between ΔQ calculated using PalmSens4 and CRP concentrations performed at high anti-CRP nanobody concentrations (10 μg mL–1) and shorter (10 min) incubation time. (d) Same as above but using the NFC potentiostat. (e) Selectivity analysis of the diagnostic device in the presence of different proteins (interleukin-6 (IL-6), fibrinogen, myoglobin, bovine serum albumin (BSA), human serum albumin (HSA)), alone or mixed together with CRP. The error bars represent the standard deviation calculated from three replicated measurements (n = 3).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Storage stability of CRP biosensors under different conditions: (a) RT in a desiccator, (b) RT in a closed humid box, and (c) freezer (−20 °C), respectively. All measurements were calculated from three replicates (n = 3).

  • References


    This article references 41 other publications.

    1. 1
      da Silva, E. T. S. G.; Souto, D. E. P.; Barragan, J. T. C.; de F. Giarola, J.; de Moraes, A. C. M.; Kubota, L. T. Electrochemical Biosensors in Point-of-Care Devices: Recent Advances and Future Trends. ChemElectroChem 2017, 4 (4), 778794,  DOI: 10.1002/celc.201600758
    2. 2
      Madhurantakam, S.; Muthukumar, S.; Prasad, S. Emerging Electrochemical Biosensing Trends for Rapid Diagnosis of COVID-19 Biomarkers as Point-of-Care Platforms: A Critical Review. ACS Omega 2022, 7 (15), 1246712473,  DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c00638
    3. 3
      Johnston, M.; Ates, H. C.; Glatz, R. T.; Mohsenin, H.; Schmachtenberg, R.; Göppert, N.; Huzly, D.; Urban, G. A.; Weber, W.; Dincer, C. Multiplexed Biosensor for Point-of-Care COVID-19 Monitoring: CRISPR-Powered Unamplified RNA Diagnostics and Protein-Based Therapeutic Drug Management. Mater. Today 2022, 61, 129138,  DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2022.11.001
    4. 4
      Broughton, J. P.; Deng, X.; Yu, G.; Fasching, C. L.; Servellita, V.; Singh, J.; Miao, X.; Streithorst, J. A.; Granados, A.; Sotomayor-Gonzalez, A.; Zorn, K.; Gopez, A.; Hsu, E.; Gu, W.; Miller, S.; Pan, C.-Y.; Guevara, H.; Wadford, D. A.; Chen, J. S.; Chiu, C. Y. CRISPR–Cas12-Based Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020, 38 (7), 870874,  DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0513-4
    5. 5
      Yakoh, A.; Pimpitak, U.; Rengpipat, S.; Hirankarn, N.; Chailapakul, O.; Chaiyo, S. Paper-Based Electrochemical Biosensor for Diagnosing COVID-19: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Antigen. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021, 176, 112912  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112912
    6. 6
      Kumar, A.; Parihar, A.; Panda, U.; Parihar, D. S. Microfluidics-Based Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) Devices in Dealing with Waves of COVID-19 Pandemic: The Emerging Solution. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2022, 5 (5), 20462068,  DOI: 10.1021/acsabm.1c01320
    7. 7
      Yang, S.-M.; Lv, S.; Zhang, W.; Cui, Y. Microfluidic Point-of-Care (POC) Devices in Early Diagnosis: A Review of Opportunities and Challenges. Sensors 2022, 22 (4), 1620,  DOI: 10.3390/s22041620
    8. 8
      Xie, Y.; Dai, L.; Yang, Y. Microfluidic Technology and Its Application in the Point-of-Care Testing Field. Biosens. Bioelectron.: X 2022, 10, 100109  DOI: 10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100109
    9. 9
      Tang, R.; Yang, H.; Choi, J. R.; Gong, Y.; You, M.; Wen, T.; Li, A.; Li, X.; Xu, B.; Zhang, S.; Mei, Q.; Xu, F. Capillary Blood for Point-of-Care Testing. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2017, 54 (5), 294308,  DOI: 10.1080/10408363.2017.1343796
    10. 10
      Binsley, J. L.; Martin, E. L.; Myers, T. O.; Pagliara, S.; Ogrin, F. Y. Microfluidic Devices Powered by Integrated Elasto-Magnetic Pumps. Lab Chip 2020, 20 (22), 42854295,  DOI: 10.1039/D0LC00935K
    11. 11
      Bogdanowicz, R.; Jönsson-Niedziółka, M.; Vereshchagina, E.; Dettlaff, A.; Boonkaew, S.; Pierpaoli, M.; Wittendorp, P.; Jain, S.; Tyholdt, F.; Thomas, J.; Wojcik, P. Microfluidic Devices for Photo-and Spectroelectrochemical Applications. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2022, 36, 101138  DOI: 10.1016/j.coelec.2022.101138
    12. 12
      Xie, Y.; Xu, X.; Wang, J.; Lin, J.; Ren, Y.; Wu, A. Latest Advances and Perspectives of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Diagnostics Driven by Microfluidic On-Chip Assays. Lab Chip 2023, 23 (13), 29222941,  DOI: 10.1039/D2LC00837H
    13. 13
      Mark, D.; Haeberle, S.; Roth, G.; von Stetten, F.; Zengerle, R. Microfluidic Lab-on-a-Chip Platforms: Requirements, Characteristics and Applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39 (3), 11531182,  DOI: 10.1039/b820557b
    14. 14
      Zhou, W.; Dou, M.; Timilsina, S. S.; Xu, F.; Li, X. Recent Innovations in Cost-Effective Polymer and Paper Hybrid Microfluidic Devices. Lab Chip 2021, 21 (14), 26582683,  DOI: 10.1039/D1LC00414J
    15. 15
      Clark, K. M.; Schenkel, M. S.; Pittman, T. W.; Samper, I. C.; Anderson, L. B. R.; Khamcharoen, W.; Elmegerhi, S.; Perera, R.; Siangproh, W.; Kennan, A. J.; Geiss, B. J.; Dandy, D. S.; Henry, C. S. Electrochemical Capillary Driven Immunoassay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2. ACS Meas. Sci. Au 2022, 2 (6), 584594,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmeasuresciau.2c00037
    16. 16
      Pungjunun, K.; Praphairaksit, N.; Chailapakul, O. A Facile and Automated Microfluidic Electrochemical Platform for the In-Field Speciation Analysis of Inorganic Arsenic. Talanta 2023, 265, 124906  DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2023.124906
    17. 17
      Sierra, T.; Jang, I.; Noviana, E.; Crevillen, A. G.; Escarpa, A.; Henry, C. S. Pump-Free Microfluidic Device for the Electrochemical Detection of A1-Acid Glycoprotein. ACS Sens. 2021, 6 (8), 29983005,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.1c00864
    18. 18
      Jang, I.; Kang, H.; Song, S.; Dandy, D. S.; Geiss, B. J.; Henry, C. S. Flow Control in a Laminate Capillary-Driven Microfluidic Device. Analyst 2021, 146 (6), 19321939,  DOI: 10.1039/D0AN02279A
    19. 19
      Samper, I. C.; Sánchez-Cano, A.; Khamcharoen, W.; Jang, I.; Siangproh, W.; Baldrich, E.; Geiss, B. J.; Dandy, D. S.; Henry, C. S. Electrochemical Capillary-Flow Immunoassay for Detecting Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein Antibodies at the Point of Care. ACS Sens. 2021, 6 (11), 40674075,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.1c01527
    20. 20
      Zhu, X.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Luo, W.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.; Chen, Q.; Yu, S.; Tai, J.; Wang, Y. Rapid, Ultrasensitive, and Highly Specific Diagnosis of COVID-19 by CRISPR-Based Detection. ACS Sens. 2021, 6 (3), 881888,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.0c01984
    21. 21
      Andryukov, B. G. Six Decades of Lateral Flow Immunoassay: From Determining Metabolic Markers to Diagnosing COVID-19. AIMS Microbiol. 2020, 6 (3), 280304,  DOI: 10.3934/microbiol.2020018
    22. 22
      Perju, A.; Wongkaew, N. Integrating High-Performing Electrochemical Transducers in Lateral Flow Assay. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2021, 413 (22), 55355549,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-021-03301-y
    23. 23
      Boonkaew, S.; Szot-Karpińska, K.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J.; Pałys, B.; Jönsson-Niedziółka, M. Point-of-Care Testing for C-Reactive Protein in a Sequential Microfluidic Device. Sens. Actuators, B 2023, 397, 134659  DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2023.134659
    24. 24
      Sproston, N. R.; Ashworth, J. J. Role of C-Reactive Protein at Sites of Inflammation and Infection. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 342848,  DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00754
    25. 25
      Plebani, M. Why C-Reactive Protein Is One of the Most Requested Tests in Clinical Laboratories?. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2023, 61 (9), 15401545,  DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2023-0086
    26. 26
      Sonuç Karaboğa, M. N.; Sezgintürk, M. K. A Novel Silanization Agent Based Single Used Biosensing System: Detection of C-Reactive Protein as a Potential Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Biomarker. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018, 154, 227235,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.03.016
    27. 27
      Kim, K.-W.; Kim, B.-M.; Moon, H.-W.; Lee, S.-H.; Kim, H.-R. Role of C-Reactive Protein in Osteoclastogenesis in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2015, 17 (1), 41,  DOI: 10.1186/s13075-015-0563-z
    28. 28
      Ali, N. Elevated Level of C-Reactive Protein May Be an Early Marker to Predict Risk for Severity of COVID-19. J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92 (11), 24092411,  DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26097
    29. 29
      Bryan, T.; Luo, X.; Bueno, P. R.; Davis, J. J. An Optimised Electrochemical Biosensor for the Label-Free Detection of C-Reactive Protein in Blood. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 39 (1), 9498,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2012.06.051
    30. 30
      Chames, P.; Van Regenmortel, M.; Weiss, E.; Baty, D. Therapeutic Antibodies: Successes, Limitations and Hopes for the Future. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2009, 157 (2), 220233,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00190.x
    31. 31
      Oloketuyi, S.; Mazzega, E.; Zavašnik, J.; Pungjunun, K.; Kalcher, K.; Marco, A.; de Mehmeti, E. Electrochemical Immunosensor Functionalized with Nanobodies for the Detection of the Toxic Microalgae Alexandrium Minutum Using Glassy Carbon Electrode Modified with Gold Nanoparticles. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 154, 112052,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112052
    32. 32
      Szot-Karpińska, K.; Kudła, P.; Orzeł, U.; Narajczyk, M.; Jönsson-Niedziółka, M.; Pałys, B.; Filipek, S.; Ebner, A.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J. Investigation of Peptides for Molecular Recognition of C-Reactive Protein–Theoretical and Experimental Studies. Anal. Chem. 2023, 95, 14475,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.3c03127
    33. 33
      Yang, H. J.; Kim, M. W.; Raju, C. V.; Cho, C. H.; Park, T. J.; Park, J. P. Highly Sensitive and Label-Free Electrochemical Detection of C-Reactive Protein on a Peptide Receptor–gold Nanoparticle–black Phosphorous Nanocomposite Modified Electrode. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2023, 234, 115382  DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115382
    34. 34
      Szot-Karpińska, K.; Kudła, P.; Szarota, A.; Narajczyk, M.; Marken, F.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J. CRP-Binding Bacteriophage as a New Element of Layer-by-Layer Assembly Carbon Nanofiber Modified Electrodes. Bioelectrochemistry 2020, 136, 107629  DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107629
    35. 35
      Oloketuyi, S.; Bernedo, R.; Christmann, A.; Borkowska, J.; Cazzaniga, G.; Schuchmann, H. W.; Niedziółka-Jönsson, J.; Szot-Karpińska, K.; Kolmar, H.; de Marco, A. Native Llama Nanobody Library Panning Performed by Phage and Yeast Display Provides Binders Suitable for C-Reactive Protein Detection. Biosensors 2021, 11 (12), 496,  DOI: 10.3390/bios11120496
    36. 36
      Beck, J. J.; Alenicheva, V.; Rahn, K. L.; Russo, M. J.; Baldo, T. A.; Henry, C. S. Evaluating the Performance of an Inexpensive, Commercially Available, NFC-Powered and Smartphone Controlled Potentiostat for Electrochemical Sensing. Electroanalysis 2023, 35 (6), e202200552  DOI: 10.1002/elan.202200552
    37. 37
      Pungjunun, K.; Yakoh, A.; Chaiyo, S.; Siangproh, W.; Praphairaksit, N.; Chailapakul, O. Smartphone-Based Electrochemical Analysis Integrated with NFC System for the Voltammetric Detection of Heavy Metals Using a Screen-Printed Graphene Electrode. Microchim. Acta 2022, 189 (5), 191,  DOI: 10.1007/s00604-022-05281-x
    38. 38
      Veggiani, G.; de Marco, A. Improved Quantitative and Qualitative Production of Single-Domain Intrabodies Mediated by the Co-Expression of Erv1p Sulfhydryl Oxidase. Protein Expression Purif. 2011, 79 (1), 111114,  DOI: 10.1016/j.pep.2011.03.005
    39. 39
      Amatore, C.; Pebay, C.; Sella, C.; Thouin, L. Mass Transport at Microband Electrodes: Transient, Quasi-Steady-State, and Convective Regimes. ChemPhysChem 2012, 13 (6), 15621568,  DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201100942
    40. 40
      International, A. AOAC Peer-Verified Methods Program: Manual on Policies and Procedures; Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1993.
    41. 41
      Jönsson-Niedziolka, M.; Boonkaew, S. Electrochemical Data for NFC Smartphone-Based Electrochemical Microfluidic Device Integrated with Nanobody Recognition for C-Reactive Protein, RepOD – Repository for Open Data, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18150/M8JBP9 (accessed Feb 01, 2024).
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssensors.4c00249.

    • Additional experimental details, scheme of the NFC potentiostat setup, cost breakdown of device, and comparison of literature CRP sensors (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.