Advances, applications, and limitations of portable and rapid detection technologies for routinely encountered foodborne pathogens

Abstract

Traditional foodborne pathogen detection methods are highly dependent on pre-treatment of samples and selective microbiological plating to reliably screen target microorganisms. Inherent limitations of conventional methods include longer turnaround time and high costs, use of bulky equipment, and the need for trained staff in centralized laboratory settings. Researchers have developed stable, reliable, sensitive, and selective, rapid foodborne pathogens detection assays to work around these limitations. Recent advances in rapid diagnostic technologies have shifted to on-site testing, which offers flexibility and ease-of-use, a significant improvement from traditional methods' rigid and cumbersome steps. This comprehensive review aims to thoroughly discuss the recent advances, applications, and limitations of portable and rapid biosensors for routinely encountered foodborne pathogens. It discusses the major differences between biosensing systems based on the molecular interactions of target analytes and biorecognition agents. Though detection limits and costs still need further improvement, reviewed technologies have high potential to assist the food industry in the on-site detection of biological hazards such as foodborne pathogens and toxins to maintain safe and healthy foods. Finally, this review offers targeted recommendations for future development and commercialization of diagnostic technologies specifically for emerging and re-emerging foodborne pathogens.

Keywords: biosensor; foodborne pathogens; limit of detection; portable; rapid detection.

Figure 1

Lateral flow assay. A novel LFA with p-mercaptophenylboronic acid-modified AuNPs or “Au − PMBA nanocrabs” substituted the traditional LFA AuNP-labeled antibody (Wu et al., 2022).

Figure 2

Examples of amino acid-based biosensors. (A) Schematic representation of microcontact imprinting. Microcontact imprinting of E. coli on QCM and SPR sensor surfaces. Image adapted from Yilmaz et al. (2015), and (B) Impedimetric sensor based on bacteria-imprinted conductive poly(3-thiopheneacetic acid; BICP) film for the rapid detection of S. aureus (Wang et al., 2021).

Figure 3

Examples of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs)-based biosensors. (A) A biosensing technique that targeted E. coli by utilizing a microfluidic chip with AMP (Magainin I)-labeled microbeads embedded on its channels (Yoo et al., 2014), and (B) A short antimicrobial peptide pair-based sandwich assay for potentiometric detection of L. monocytogenes (Lv et al., 2018).

Figure 4

A new impedimetric biosensing based on carbon nanotube (CNT) with T2 bacteriophages for detection of E. coli B (Zhou et al., 2017).

Figure 5

A biomimetic-based biosensor with Phage Litmus similar to collagen structures in turkey skin (Oh et al., 2014).

Figure 6

A low-cost lab-on-a-smartphone (LOS) for on-site monitoring of E. coli in environmental water, which was comprised of plasmonic-enhanced optoelectrowetting (OEW) device (Thio et al., 2022).