Sensing Application — Sensitive detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by a sandwich-type electrochemical immunosensor using MOF-Ce@HA/Ag-HRP-Ab2 as a nanoprobe

6 measurement groups · 37 results

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

amperometric i-t detection of CEA

sandwich CEA immunosensor on GCE · Electrode

Sandwich-type CEA detection in 20 ml PBS solution at pH 7.0 containing 5 mM H2O2; CV/EIS used 20 ml 5 mM [Fe(CN)6]3-/4- with 0.1 mol l-1 KCl.

Geometry: Au/Ab1/BSA/CEA/MOF-Ce@HA/Ag-HRP-Ab2 modified GCE
Context: final MOF-containing immunosensor
Measurement source: 4; 8 · 2.8; 3.2.3 · Figure 3D,E

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
CEA detection limitMarked as a best value within this paper	0.2 pg ml-1 (S/N = 3)	0.0002 ng ml-1	S/N = 3	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2.3 · Figure 3D,E
CEA linear response range upper boundMarked as a best value within this paper	80 ng ml-1	80000 pg ml-1	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2.3 · Figure 3D,E
CEA linear response range lower boundMarked as a best value within this paper	0.001 ng ml-1	1 pg ml-1	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2.3 · Figure 3D,E
CEA calibration regression intercept	-38.67 uA	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2.3 · Figure 3E
CEA calibration R2	R2 = 0.9929	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2.3 · Figure 3E
CEA calibration regression slope	-10.33 uA per lgC	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.2.3 · Figure 3E
CEA test time	tested within 30 min	—	—	Text Rounded Reported	1 · Abstract

literature comparison table

sandwich CEA immunosensor on GCE · Electrode

Analytical performance of the anti-CEA/Ce-MoF@HA/Ag-HRP/GCE sensor compared with other CEA immunosensors.

Geometry: anti-CEA/Ce-MoF@HA/Ag-HRP/GCE
Context: reported best application performance
Measurement source: 10 · 3.5 · Table 2

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
Table 2 this-work detection limitMarked as a best value within this paper	0.0002 ng ml-1	0.2 pg ml-1	—	Table Exact Reported	10 · 3.5 · Table 2
Table 2 this-work linear rangeMarked as a best value within this paper	0.001-80 ng ml-1	—	—	Table Range	10 · 3.5 · Table 2

matrix-effect evaluation against ELISA

sandwich CEA immunosensor on GCE · Electrode

20 fresh serum samples plus 5 quality-control serum samples measured three times by immunosensor and ELISA; logarithmic immunosensor result plotted versus ELISA with 95% prediction interval.

Geometry: final sandwich immunosensor
Context: real-sample application
Measurement source: 9-10 · 3.5 · Figure 6

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
matrix-effect samples within prediction interval	20 fresh serum samples and 5 serum samples were within the 95% confidence limit	—	95% confidence limit	Text Exact Reported	10 · 3.5 · Figure 6

repeatability, selectivity and storage-stability tests

sandwich CEA immunosensor on GCE · Electrode

Five electrodes tested for 5 ng ml-1 CEA; interferences AFP, DA, HRP and BSA at 80 ng ml-1 with 5.0 ng ml-1 CEA; stability checked every five days.

Geometry: final sandwich immunosensor
Context: application validation
Measurement source: 8 · 3.4 · Figure 5

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
five-electrode repeatability RSD	2.4%	—	five working electrodes; 5 ng ml-1 CEA	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.4 · Figure 5A
interference current response	less than 5.0%	—	upper bound; AFP, DA, HRP and BSA at 80 ng ml-1 with 5.0 ng ml-1 CEA	Text Approximate	8 · 3.4 · Figure 5B
current retained after 10 days	95.0%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.4 · Figure 5C
current retained after 15 days	90.2%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.4 · Figure 5C
current retained after 20 days	83.5%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.4 · Figure 5C
current retained after 5 days	97.3%	—	—	Text Exact Reported	8 · 3.4 · Figure 5C

standard addition recovery in human serum

sandwich CEA immunosensor on GCE · Electrode

CEA additions of 0, 0.1, 1.0, 3.0, 10.0 and 50.0 ng ml-1 to serum samples; immunosensor compared with ELISA, n = 3.

Geometry: final sandwich immunosensor
Context: real-sample application
Measurement source: 8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
ELISA serum recovery range	96.9%-102.5%	—	n = 3	Table Range	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA serum RSD range	2.57% to 4.30%	—	n = 3	Table Range	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA measured CEA for 0 ng ml-1 added spike	2.21 +/- 0.06 ng ml-1; recovery 98.2%; RSD 2.71%	—	+/- 0.06 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA measured CEA for 0.1 ng ml-1 added spike	2.41 +/- 0.07 ng ml-1; recovery 102.5%; RSD 2.90%	—	+/- 0.07 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA measured CEA for 10 ng ml-1 added spike	12.06 +/- 0.31 ng ml-1; recovery 98.4%; RSD 2.57%	—	+/- 0.31 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA measured CEA for 1 ng ml-1 added spike	3.33 +/- 0.11 ng ml-1; recovery 99.4%; RSD 3.31%	—	+/- 0.11 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA measured CEA for 3 ng ml-1 added spike	5.37 +/- 0.18 ng ml-1; recovery 102.3%; RSD 3.35%	—	+/- 0.18 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
ELISA measured CEA for 50 ng ml-1 added spike	50.68 +/- 2.18 ng ml-1; recovery 96.9%; RSD 4.30%	—	+/- 2.18 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
serum sample CEA concentration for ELISA comparison series	2.25 ng ml-1	—	—	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
serum sample CEA concentration for immunosensor recovery series	3.25 ng ml-1	—	—	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor serum recovery range	98.6%-104.0%	—	n = 3	Text Range	9 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor serum RSD range	2.25% to 3.47%	—	n = 3	Text Range	9 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor measured CEA for 0 ng ml-1 added spike	3.28 +/- 0.07 ng ml-1	—	+/- 0.07 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor measured CEA for 0.1 ng ml-1 added spike	3.37 +/- 0.08 ng ml-1; recovery 100.6%; RSD 2.37%	—	+/- 0.08 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor measured CEA for 10 ng ml-1 added spike	13.06 +/- 0.36 ng ml-1; recovery 98.6%; RSD 2.76%	—	+/- 0.36 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor measured CEA for 1.0 ng ml-1 added spike	4.42 +/- 0.13 ng ml-1	—	+/- 0.13 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor measured CEA for 3 ng ml-1 added spike	6.34 +/- 0.22 ng ml-1; recovery 101.4%; RSD 3.47%	—	+/- 0.22 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8-9 · 3.5 · Table 1
immunosensor measured CEA for 50.0 ng ml-1 added spike	54.62 +/- 1.23 ng ml-1	—	+/- 1.23 ng ml-1; n = 3	Table Exact Reported	8 · 3.5 · Table 1

optimisation of PBS pH, antigen incubation time and composite material amount by amperometric current response

Chronoamperometry

sandwich CEA immunosensor on GCE · Electrode

CEA concentration fixed at 10 ng ml-1 while pH, incubation time and material concentration were varied; peak current used as optimisation response.

Geometry: final sandwich immunosensor
Context: application optimisation of the final MOF-containing immunosensor
Measurement source: 2-5 · Optimal conditions for immunosensor · Figures S2-S4

Property	Reported value	Normalised value	Uncertainty	Origin and quality	Source
optimum antigen incubation timeMarked as a best value within this paper	40 mins	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3-4 · Optimal conditions for immunosensor · Figure S3
optimum composite material concentrationMarked as a best value within this paper	2 mg/ml	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3-5 · Optimal conditions for immunosensor · Figure S4
optimum PBS pH for H2O2 reduction processMarked as a best value within this paper	pH = 7.0	—	—	Text Exact Reported	3-4 · Optimal conditions for immunosensor · Figure S2