Sensing Application — Construction of a portable and sensitive electrochemical immunosensor for the rapid detection of erythromycin based on semiconductive bimetallic MOF

Measurement evidence

Sensing Application

Construction of a portable and sensitive electrochemical immunosensor for the rapid detection of erythromycin based on semiconductive bimetallic MOF · Hu B., Wang Y., Wu M. et al. · Talanta · 2025 · 127187

6 measurement groups · 49 results

Reported values remain attached to the sample, method, conditions, extraction quality and source location that produced them.

ERY concentration titration by I-t chronoamperometry

Chronoamperometry

BSA/Ab/CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2/SPE immunosensor · Electrode

Immunosensor incubated in ERY for 1 h, rinsed with PBS, then current response calibrated against ERY from 1.0 fg mL-1 to 1.0 ng mL-1.

Geometry: Portable SPE immunosensor.
Context: Composite SPE immunosensor.
Measurement source: p.5-p.6 · 2.4. Detection of erythromycin; 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3a-c; Table 1

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Linear calibration equation	Delta I = 5.22 + 5.09 logCERY	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.5 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3c
Calibration R2	0.9904	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.5 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3c
Linear calibration range by mass concentrationMarked as a best value within this paper	1.0 fg mL-1 - 1.0 ng mL-1	—	—	Text Range	p.5-p.6 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3c; Table 1
Linear calibration range by molar concentrationMarked as a best value within this paper	1.36 fM - 1.36 nM	—	—	Table Range	p.6 · Table 1 · Table 1
Calibration slope	5.09	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.5 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3c
Fig. 3a 1.0 ng mL-1 ERY current trace	approximately 0.56 uA at 60 s for 1.0 ng mL-1 ERY	—	—	Figure Axis Approximate	p.6 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3a
Fig. 3a blank current trace	approximately 0.86 uA at 60 s for 0 ERY	—	—	Figure Axis Approximate	p.6 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3a
Limit of detection by mass concentrationMarked as a best value within this paper	0.69 fg mL-1	—	calculated by 3Sb/m, blank n = 3	Text Exact Reported	p.5-p.6 · 3.4. Quantitative detection · Fig. 3c; Table 1
Limit of detection by molar concentrationMarked as a best value within this paper	0.96 fM	—	—	Table Exact Reported	p.6 · Table 1 · Table 1

I-t response optimisation

BSA/Ab/CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2/SPE immunosensor · Electrode

Optimisation of CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2 dosage, antibody concentration and antibody immobilisation time using response (%) = (Ii - Ii+1)/Ii x 100%.

Geometry: Portable SPE immunosensor.
Context: Composite SPE immunosensor.
Measurement source: p.5 · 3.3. Optimization of the immunosensing parameters · Fig. 2d-f

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Optimal antibody concentrationMarked as a best value within this paper	100 ng mL-1	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.5 · 3.3. Optimization of the immunosensing parameters · Fig. 2e
Optimal antibody immobilisation timeMarked as a best value within this paper	40 min	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.5 · 3.3. Optimization of the immunosensing parameters · Fig. 2f
Optimal CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2 suspension dosageMarked as a best value within this paper	5.0 mg mL-1	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.5 · 3.3. Optimization of the immunosensing parameters · Fig. 2d

Spiked real-sample ERY recovery and HPLC comparison

BSA/Ab/CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2/SPE immunosensor · Electrode

Drinking water, pork and chicken suspensions spiked with ERY; SPE immunosensor results compared with HPLC.

Geometry: Portable SPE immunosensor.
Context: Composite SPE immunosensor.
Measurement source: S12-S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Tables S1-S4

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Chicken ERY recovery range	102.6 %-124.0 %	—	RSD 1.88 %-6.06 %	SI Table Range	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
Drinking-water ERY recovery range	91.0 %-124.0 %	—	RSD 1.24 %-5.56 %	SI Table Range	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
HPLC comparison	HPLC and SPE immunosensor detected similar ERY concentrations in different food products	—	—	SI Table Qualitative	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4
Pork ERY recovery range	94.0 %-115.9 %	—	RSD 1.12 %-5.92 %	SI Table Range	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
drinking water ERY found concentration at 1e+06 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1e+06 fg mL-1; found 1.06576e+06 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 106.6%; RSD 5.56%	—	apparent recovery 106.6%; RSD 5.56%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
drinking water ERY found concentration at 100000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 100000 fg mL-1; found 109267 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 109.3%; RSD 3.55%	—	apparent recovery 109.3%; RSD 3.55%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
drinking water ERY found concentration at 10000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 10000 fg mL-1; found 10184 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 101.8%; RSD 1.24%	—	apparent recovery 101.8%; RSD 1.24%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
drinking water ERY found concentration at 1000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1000 fg mL-1; found 1199.42 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 119.9%; RSD 2.98%	—	apparent recovery 119.9%; RSD 2.98%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
drinking water ERY found concentration at 100 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 100 fg mL-1; found 124.05 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 124%; RSD 1.94%	—	apparent recovery 124%; RSD 1.94%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
drinking water ERY found concentration at 10 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 10 fg mL-1; found 11.18 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 111.8%; RSD 5.09%	—	apparent recovery 111.8%; RSD 5.09%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
drinking water ERY found concentration at 1 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1 fg mL-1; found 0.91 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 91%; RSD 1.78%	—	apparent recovery 91%; RSD 1.78%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S12 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S1
pork ERY found concentration at 1e+06 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1e+06 fg mL-1; found 1.15888e+06 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 115.9%; RSD 5.92%	—	apparent recovery 115.9%; RSD 5.92%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
pork ERY found concentration at 100000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 100000 fg mL-1; found 115862 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 115.9%; RSD 3.85%	—	apparent recovery 115.9%; RSD 3.85%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
pork ERY found concentration at 10000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 10000 fg mL-1; found 10456.8 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 104.6%; RSD 1.12%	—	apparent recovery 104.6%; RSD 1.12%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
pork ERY found concentration at 1000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1000 fg mL-1; found 1045.44 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 104.5%; RSD 4.01%	—	apparent recovery 104.5%; RSD 4.01%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
pork ERY found concentration at 100 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 100 fg mL-1; found 104.52 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 104.5%; RSD 3.65%	—	apparent recovery 104.5%; RSD 3.65%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
pork ERY found concentration at 10 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 10 fg mL-1; found 11 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 110%; RSD 5.33%	—	apparent recovery 110%; RSD 5.33%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
pork ERY found concentration at 1 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1 fg mL-1; found 0.94 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 94%; RSD 1.63%	—	apparent recovery 94%; RSD 1.63%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S13 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S2
chicken ERY found concentration at 1e+06 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1e+06 fg mL-1; found 1.19641e+06 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 119.6%; RSD 6.06%	—	apparent recovery 119.6%; RSD 6.06%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken ERY found concentration at 100000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 100000 fg mL-1; found 118432 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 118.4%; RSD 3.96%	—	apparent recovery 118.4%; RSD 3.96%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken ERY found concentration at 10000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 10000 fg mL-1; found 12403.7 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 124%; RSD 1.88%	—	apparent recovery 124%; RSD 1.88%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken ERY found concentration at 1000 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1000 fg mL-1; found 1227.81 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 122.8%; RSD 2.8%	—	apparent recovery 122.8%; RSD 2.8%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken ERY found concentration at 100 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 100 fg mL-1; found 102.62 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 102.6%; RSD 3.83%	—	apparent recovery 102.6%; RSD 3.83%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken ERY found concentration at 10 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 10 fg mL-1; found 12.03 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 120.3%; RSD 4.01%	—	apparent recovery 120.3%; RSD 4.01%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken ERY found concentration at 1 fg mL-1 spike	spiked 1 fg mL-1; found 1.06 fg mL-1; apparent recovery 106%; RSD 5.23%	—	apparent recovery 106%; RSD 5.23%; n=3	SI Table Exact Reported	S14 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S3
chicken I-t vs HPLC comparison at 0.1 ng mL-1 added ERY	I-t found 0.1184 ng mL-1, recovery 118.4%; HPLC found 0.116 ng mL-1, recovery 116%	—	HPLC comparator found 0.116 ng mL-1 with apparent recovery 116%	SI Table Exact Reported	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4
chicken I-t vs HPLC comparison at 1 ng mL-1 added ERY	I-t found 1.1964 ng mL-1, recovery 119.6%; HPLC found 1.143 ng mL-1, recovery 114.3%	—	HPLC comparator found 1.143 ng mL-1 with apparent recovery 114.3%	SI Table Exact Reported	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4
drinking water I-t vs HPLC comparison at 0.1 ng mL-1 added ERY	I-t found 0.1093 ng mL-1, recovery 109.3%; HPLC found 0.107 ng mL-1, recovery 107%	—	HPLC comparator found 0.107 ng mL-1 with apparent recovery 107%	SI Table Exact Reported	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4
drinking water I-t vs HPLC comparison at 1 ng mL-1 added ERY	I-t found 1.0658 ng mL-1, recovery 106.6%; HPLC found 1.104 ng mL-1, recovery 110.4%	—	HPLC comparator found 1.104 ng mL-1 with apparent recovery 110.4%	SI Table Exact Reported	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4
pork I-t vs HPLC comparison at 0.1 ng mL-1 added ERY	I-t found 0.1159 ng mL-1, recovery 115.9%; HPLC found 0.11 ng mL-1, recovery 110%	—	HPLC comparator found 0.11 ng mL-1 with apparent recovery 110%	SI Table Exact Reported	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4
pork I-t vs HPLC comparison at 1 ng mL-1 added ERY	I-t found 1.1589 ng mL-1, recovery 115.9%; HPLC found 1.135 ng mL-1, recovery 113.5%	—	HPLC comparator found 1.135 ng mL-1 with apparent recovery 113.5%	SI Table Exact Reported	S15 · S4. Real samples analysis · Table S4

Reproducibility across independently developed immunosensors

BSA/Ab/CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2/SPE immunosensor · Electrode

ERY detection using five independent CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2-based immunosensors.

Geometry: Portable SPE immunosensors.
Context: Composite SPE immunosensor.
Measurement source: p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3e

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Reproducibility RSDMarked as a best value within this paper	3.30 %	—	five independent immunosensors	Text Exact Reported	p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3e

Selectivity test against antibiotic interferents

BSA/Ab/CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2/SPE immunosensor · Electrode

GEN, Kana, LIN, TYL, CTE and OXY at 10 ng mL-1, 100-fold higher than ERY at 100 pg mL-1; Fig. 3d also shows AZI, CLA, AMP, ERY and mixture bars.

Geometry: Portable SPE immunosensor.
Context: Composite SPE immunosensor.
Measurement source: p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3d

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
ERY selectivity response	approximately 31 % response at 100 pg mL-1 ERY	—	—	Visual Estimate Approximate	p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3d
Interferent-only response	insignificant current response for antibiotic interferents at 10 ng mL-1	—	—	Text Qualitative	p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3d
ERY plus interferents mixture response	approximately 35 % response	—	—	Visual Estimate Approximate	p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3d

Long-term stability test

BSA/Ab/CuxFe3-x(HHTP)2/SPE immunosensor · Electrode

ERY detected once per day for 15 days using one immunosensor.

Geometry: Portable SPE immunosensor.
Context: Composite SPE immunosensor.
Measurement source: p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3f

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Long-term stability duration	15 days, once per day	—	—	Text Exact Reported	p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3f
Stability response over 15 days	approximately 29-31 % response across days 1-15	—	—	Visual Estimate Range	p.6 · 3.5. Selectivity, reproducibility, and stability · Fig. 3f