Next Article in Journal
Nonstationary Process Monitoring Based on Alternating Conditional Expectation and Cointegration Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Removal of Dye (Methylene Blue) from Wastewater Using Bio-Char Derived from Agricultural Residues in Palestine: Performance and Isotherm Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Microbial Prospection for Bioherbicide Production and Evaluation of Methodologies for Maximizing Phytotoxic Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/pr10102002
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microbial Biosensors for Wastewater Monitoring: Mini-Review

by
Walter Rojas-Villacorta
1,*,
Segundo Rojas-Flores
2,*,
Magaly De La Cruz-Noriega
3,
Héctor Chinchay Espino
4,
Felix Diaz
5 and
Moises Gallozzo Cardenas
6
1
Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Cesar Vallejo, Trujillo 13001, Peru
2
Departamento de Ciencias, Universidad Privada del Norte, Trujillo 13007, Peru
3
Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad Autónoma del Perú, Lima 15842, Peru
4
Department of Sciences, Universidad Privada del Norte, Chorrillos 15054, Peru
5
Escuela Académica Profesional de Medicina Humana, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima 15046, Peru
6
Universidad Tecnológica del Perú, Trujillo 13001, Peru
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2022, 10(10), 2002; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102002
Submission received: 8 August 2022 / Revised: 13 September 2022 / Accepted: 23 September 2022 / Published: 4 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Pollutant Biosorption Processes)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research on the use of microbial biosensors for monitoring wastewater contaminants is a topic that covers few publications compared to their applicability in other fields, such as biomedical research. For this reason, a systematic analysis of the topic was carried out, for which research-type articles were reviewed during the period 2012 to September 2022. For this, different search platforms were used, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, and Scopus, and through the use of search equations a relevant bibliography was located. After that, the research articles were selected based on exclusion criteria. As a result, it was found that, of the 126 articles, only 16 articles were strictly related to the topic, since there was a duplication of articles among the different databases. It was possible to demonstrate the usefulness of microorganisms as components of biosensors to monitor BOD, heavy metals, and inorganic contaminants in wastewater that also had a high sensitivity. Additionally, recombinant DNA techniques were shown to improve the performance of this type of biosensor and can finally be coupled to other emerging technologies, such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs). In conclusion, it was established that microbial biosensors have high acceptability and monitoring characteristics that make them a useful tool to detect low concentrations of pollutants in wastewater that can also provide results in real-time, thus generating forms of ecological safety and social responsibility in companies where wastewater is generated.

1. Introduction

The current water demand exceeds the amount of fresh water on the planet due to rapid urbanization, accelerated growth of populations, industry, etc., which release contaminants that are distributed into aqueous systems [1,2,3]. These activities discharge a large number of harmful contaminants, which become part of the wastewater, where its composition and concentration of microorganisms, inorganic chemical products, and organic contaminants varies according to the origin of the pollutants [4]. The rapid growth of the world population endangers the water balance of ecosystems and generates a significant amount of wastewater [5]. The wastewater reaches the treatment plants (WWTP), where it is subjected to conventional mechanical and biological methods, however, the efficiency is not adequate to eliminate all of the contaminants before it is released back into the biotic and abiotic environments of the ecosystem [6,7]. For this reason, it is important to identify and monitor the constituents of these released waters since they vary over time and location, which is why new low-cost and real-time monitoring technologies are required. The ability to monitor pollutants in this way allows for the environmental impact to be minimized and the good ecological status of water bodies to be ensured [5,6]. For this reason, WWTPs play an important role in the purification of polluted waters and in monitoring how the treated waters leave the facility [8,9]. Given this, monitoring alternatives have emerged for the efficient detection of contaminants, such as biosensors.
Biosensors are devices that integrate a receiver and a transducer, through which biological or chemical reactions are measured when a signal proportional to the concentration of an analyte is generated [8,10,11]. The biological part of the biosensor can be microorganisms, antibodies, enzymes, DNA, etc., while the transducers can be electrochemical, colorimetric, optical, piezoelectric, acoustic, etc., to obtain a signal output [12,13]. Biosensors traditionally use a bioreceptor (bioelement), which is a biological molecule that binds to a transducer and generates a signal, and it is the bioreceptor that provides the specified sensitivity of the biosensor [14]. However, while having good specificity, they also have low detection limits, and research is being carried out to improve their sensitivity, such as the development of bioreceptor-free biosensors and the application of nanotechnology [14,15,16]. The increasing attention toward biosensors is due to their usefulness in different areas of science [17,18,19,20,21], in such a way that different specialized journals are dedicated to this subject [8]. Likewise, during the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in 2020, interest was aroused in using biosensors to detect the coronavirus in wastewater, as displayed in the Scopus database, where nine articles were published between 2020–2022 [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Another possible application that has gained interest is the use of biosensors for detecting minimum levels of contaminants in complex matrices such as wastewater [4].
Microbial biosensors detect a target substrate and evidence it by emitting a signal that can be quantified physiologically, electrically, or biochemically [31]. This type of biosensor has advantages in terms of low cost, unlike other methods. In addition, microorganisms can be large quantities produced in culture media, some can withstand wide ranges of pH and temperature [31], and, thanks to molecular techniques, microorganisms can be genetically manipulated via gene insertion to help determine the toxicity of heavy metals in water [32]. Bose et al. (2021) reported that microbial biosensors are more efficient and have a wider detection range compared to other conventional biosensors [32].
In this bibliographic review, the objectives are to analyze the number of publications related to the use of microbial biosensors in the monitoring of pollutants in wastewater, and which microbial biosensors have been used in the analysis of the quality of different types of wastewater. In addition, this revision has a practical justification because microbial biosensors would be very beneficial for companies since it would help them monitor their effluents more frequently and comply with the maximum permissible limits established in the regulations more economically and efficiently.

2. Materials and Methods

The literature review aims to analyze the types of microbial biosensors used to detect contaminants in wastewater, based on this, the keywords used to collect information from the different databases were defined as: “Microbial biosensor”, “wastewater”, “bacterial biosensor”, quality monitoring”, “microbial fuel cell”, “MFC”, “biosensor”, “bacteria”, and “yeast”. With these keywords, the search equations were built to investigate articles in databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, and Scopus. In the systematic analysis related to the use of microbial biosensors to monitor contaminants in wastewater, a total of 1129 publications were obtained for the research article type, which was obtained through the search equations detailed in Table 1.
The inclusion criteria were that the articles be found in indexed journals, published between 2012 and September 2022, and that they contain the keywords that appear in Table 1. On the other hand, articles that refer to biosensors that use other bioelements coupled to the transducers, such as enzymes, antibodies or tissues, are used as exclusion criteria.

3. Results

Figure 1 shows that some databases had more articles related to the topic than others because some databases specialize in biomedical literature such as the PubMed platform [33,34]. A disadvantage of this database is that articles on biosensors mostly consider medical applications, which limits finding articles on biosensors with applicability in other fields, unlike the Web of Science and Scopus [35] databases. On the other hand, the ScienceDirect database provided the highest number of publications (n = 1129) found between 2012–September 2022, followed, in order, by SpringerLink (n =816), Scopus (n = 108), and PubMed (n = 41). The greater number of publications is possibly because non-specialized databases cover more multidisciplinary literature, with Scopus being one of the three most important sources in the last 15 years [36]. However, when the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the number of publications was reduced (n = 45), and the number of publications related to the topic varied for each database. In another sense, the databases that had the most articles found were ScienceDirect and SpringerLink, which was possibly because the search engine of these databases has shown better precision compared to other databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) [37,38].
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the graph obtained in this mini-review with the number of publications selected and related to the use of microbial biosensors in wastewater monitoring and the graph obtained in Scopus when using the search formula: “Biosensor” AND “Bacteria” AND “wastewater”. Figure 2 was obtained after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which show the same tendency to increase over the last 10 years (from 2012 to September 2022). This comparison was possible thanks to the fact that the Scopus database allows for bibliographic analysis. The similarity in the increase of research related to the topic also shows the importance that microbial biosensors have gained in the last decade in relation to their application in the monitoring of different pollutants present in different types of wastewater.
The reduction in the total number of publications after applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria was due to the fact that during the analysis, duplicate publications were detected between the different databases. In addition, publications that were not specifically related to wastewater monitoring using microbial biosensors were excluded. The duplicity of publications was due to the fact that the databases share the following characteristics as search subcategories other bibliography search engines such as Medline, PubMed [38], and SpringerLink.
Figure 2 shows that, although in the last decade there has been an increasing trend in research, this has not been significant, as can be compared with the total number of articles related to the use of microbial biosensors from 1981 to 2017, where a total of 2323 publications were registered in the databases [39]. However, there was no exact data on the number of publications about wastewater monitoring using these microorganism-based devices. The monitoring of this type of water possibly began due to the concerns about transferring pathogens and contaminants that put human health at risk [23,28]. However, the use of microbial biosensors in wastewater monitoring continues to attract the attention of the scientific community due to the need for new monitoring alternatives capable of detecting minimum concentrations of pollutants in real-time and thus being able to guarantee public and environmental health [4,40]. Another problem that may have delayed research in this area of biomonitoring was the COVID-19 pandemic [41,42]. According to Riccaboni and Verginer (2022), subsidies from other areas unrelated to COVID-19 were displaced during the pandemic [43], while Gao et al. (2021) reported that the average number of hours dedicated to research decreased in the first year of the pandemic [44].
Table 2 details the microbial biosensors and their components, which have been used in research for the monitoring of contaminants in various types of wastewater between the period 2012 and September 2022. It is observed that more microbial biosensors of the electrochemical type have been developed, possibly because these are one of the most used due to their high detection precision [31]. Microbial biosensors can reduce the measurement time of some parameters, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) [45]. The standard BOD technique usually uses a colorimeter kit, which is toxic and can take 5 days for BOD and a few hours for COD [45]. These parameters are important for measuring organic contamination in fresh water and wastewater [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. COD represents the amount of oxygen required to oxidize organic matter by chemical means. Microbial biosensor systems have recently been deployed to monitor this parameter by microbial fuel cells (MFC) using wastewater from an oil refinery and a brewery as substrate, where COD shows a linear relationship with voltage output [59,60].
Table 2 shows that most microbial biosensors used the electrochemical transducer type, which has high sensitivity, low detection limits, and good selectivity [91]. Additionally, it was observed that electrochemical and optical microbial biosensors are useful in monitoring some environmental contaminants, such as inorganic compounds and heavy metals [46,49,61,62,63,64,73,77,82,84,85], which are very frequent in wastewater. Although optical biosensors indeed represent the most common type of biosensor with multiple applications in different fields [92], the bioluminescence and fluorescence measurement methods of this type of biosensor have focused the attention of researchers because they use complete bacterial cells, which provide advantages such as flexibility, resistance to electrical noise, low cost, and the ability to obtained results in real-time [93]. Likewise, the fluorescence-based method has high sensitivity, short-term detection, and easy operation [94]. This was corroborated in the review by Voon et al. (2022), which stated that whole-cell bioluminescent biosensors have high sensitivity and selectivity in environmental samples and are useful in hydrocarbon monitoring [95].
Another important aspect that stands out from Table 2 is the recent use of genetically manipulated microorganisms [62,69,70,71,73,75,81,85,86,88], which improves the biosensor’s specification and sensitivity [95]. This is possible thanks to recombinant DNA technology that allows genes encoding transcriptional regulators to be integrated into biorecognition genes. Some of the most widely used genes are lux/luc, lacZ, and gfp, which code for the enzyme firefly/bacterial luciferase, β-galactosidase, and green fluorescent protein, respectively [78,96]. On the other hand, the microorganisms most used in biosensors for the monitoring of environmental contaminants are bacteria because they are easy to reproduce in cheap media, resistant to stress, detect specific signals, and also provide online analysis, in vivo, and dose-response. Of these bacteria, the E. coli species is the most widely used due to its easy handling [78]. In this way, this species can be used with the respective genes for the detection of environmental contaminants such as heavy metals and various inorganic contaminants [61,62,63,66,69,74,75,76,78,81,88] present in wastewater, as described and demonstrated in the analyzed articles. However, other bacterial species can also be used as components of biosensors with good detection limits, such as species of Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Vibrio, etc. [97].
It can also be seen that emerging technologies such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have been used as electrochemical microbial sensors, and according to Table 2, they have been very useful in monitoring BOD [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] and other pollutants such as Zn2+ [63] and linear alkyl benzene sulfonate [65]. The latter is one of the most dangerous contaminants in wastewater and comes from the detergent industry, which is extremely important to detect early [65]. This utility as a microbial biosensor is possible due to its operation. Chu et al. (2021) [98] explained how these electrochemical devices function as biosensors, where the anode biofilms fulfill the role of component detection, monitoring toxic compounds by monitoring the extracellular transfer of electrons (ETE) by electroactive microorganisms and the anode. However, the cathode can also function as a biosensor, which is based on the electrochemical reduction of the analytes to be detected or through the inhibition of the oxygen reduction reaction. Likewise, the same author emphasized that through this type of biosensor, an early warning of the toxic compounds present in a body of water can be generated. Another novelty of these devices was presented by Emaminejad et al. (2022), who evaluated for the first time in the long term, the quantification of the sensitivity to variations in the organic load in a channel of primary effluents for 247 days, yielding encouraging results. However, it is also necessary to appreciate the environmental factors such as pH, the concentration of volatile fatty acids, and temperature that influenced the accuracy of the electrochemical biosensor [99].
The versatility of MFCs provides potential to monitor heavy metals in wastewater and, at the same time, generate bioelectricity, as shown in Zhang et al. (2022) [64] and Do et al. (2022) [100]. Likewise, Hui et al. (2022) highlighted the advantages of these electrochemical biosensors to detect toxic compounds in polluted water bodies since they are easy to operate, provide fast results in real-time [101], and can be built on small scales, which adds to their portability, making them very useful tools for in-situ tests. On the other hand, Tucci (2020), in his academic work, showed that electrochemical biosensors are useful for the detection of pollutants related to agriculture, such as herbicides, since for their detection there are classical analytical techniques (HPLC, GC-MS, etc.,), which are expensive and take a long time to issue results [102]. Although the low output potential and the scaling of MFCs indeed represent a challenge for electricity generation, that is different from its potential as a biosensor, of which it is a very practical monitoring system [103]. On the other hand, the sensitivity and specificity of these biosensors are lower than that of a subcomponent-based electrochemical biosensor (for example, an electrochemical enzyme biosensor) and an electrochemical sensor equipped with a chemically modified electrode, respectively. However, enzyme purification techniques make these other biosensors expensive and laborious, representing an economic disadvantage for researchers and companies [98].
Finally, the review shows that microbial biosensors are versatile in terms of their application in the environmental area, specifically in the monitoring of wastewater quality. This is possible because microbial biosensors can operate under different working conditions and are more sensitive to environmental signals than conventional sensors, as well as interacting not only with one but with multiple analytes [11]. However, Chu et al. (2021) stated that the main challenge remains the gap between the results of academic research and the implementation of these biosensors as marketable products, which is why future research is needed [98]. An important fact is the compatibility between MFCs and microbial biosensors since they allow for better monitoring of wastewater, which is a worrying environmental issue and needs these hybrid technologies to have early warnings for contaminants existing in the environment of these waters, to develop more effective treatment strategies [102]. In addition, it should be emphasized that this biomonitoring technology based on the use of microorganisms in conjunction with MFCs, makes up a sustainable technology for the environment, and allows for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG 7) affordable and non-polluting energy, as referred by Fagunwa and Olanbiwoninu (2020) [104]. In this sense, biosensors are an even more promising technology in every way, due to the simplicity and reliability of detecting a large number of contaminants using miniaturized biological and chemical signals [105,106].
Finally, most of this research was carried out in Eastern countries where China and Russia stand out as major producers of articles oriented toward wastewater monitoring. It is striking that South American countries are not included in this list, and it is known that in Latin America, 70% of wastewater is discharged into water bodies (rivers, etc.) without any treatment, putting public and environmental health at risk [107,108]. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to develop research projects aimed at biomonitoring in these regions.

4. Conclusions

Microbial biosensors represent an economical alternative technology with good sensitivity and specificity and the ability to monitor contaminants in wastewater online, thus ensuring public and environmental health. This is important as, in many places, the type and concentration of pollutants that the treated effluents carry when they are released into the environment are not considered. In addition, the topic of microbial biosensors applied to wastewater monitoring is a topic of great interest in the field of biomonitoring. However, in the last five years (2012-September 2022), research has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; except for the year 2022 as it has not yet ended. On the other hand, microbial biosensors can be coupled with other technologies such as MFCs, thus enhancing their usefulness, which also allows for achieving the SDG 7 affordable and non-polluting energy. Finally, this review provides summarized information about the applicability and advantages of the use of microbial biosensors that can be directed to other research and also generate interest in their use in companies with environmental social responsibility.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.R.-F.; methodology, W.R.-V. and M.G.C.; software, W.R.-V.; validation, F.D.; formal analysis, S.R.-F. and M.D.L.C.-N.; investigation, S.R.-F.; data curation, M.D.L.C.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, H.C.E. and M.G.C.; writing—review and editing, S.R.-F. and M.G.C.; project administration, S.R.-F. and H.C.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four Billion People Facing Severe Water Scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1500323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Kummu, M.; Guillaume, J.H.A.; de Moel, H.; Eisner, S.; Flörke, M.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Ward, P.J. The World’s Road to Water Scarcity: Shortage and Stress in the 20th Century and Pathways towards Sustainability. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Benites, S.M.; Delfín-Narciso, D.; Luis, A.-S.; Díaz, F.; Luis, C.-C.; Moises, G.C. Electric Current Generation by Increasing Sucrose in Papaya Waste in Microbial Fuel Cells. Molecules 2022, 27, 5198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ejeian, F.; Etedali, P.; Mansouri-Tehrani, H.-A.; Soozanipour, A.; Low, Z.-X.; Asadnia, M.; Taheri-Kafrani, A.; Razmjou, A. Biosensors for Wastewater Monitoring: A Review. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 118, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Segundo, R.-F.; Magaly, D.L.C.-N.; Benites, S.M.; Daniel, D.-N.; Angelats-Silva, L.; Díaz, F.; Luis, C.-C.; Fernanda, S.-P. Increase in Electrical Parameters Using Sucrose in Tomato Waste. Fermentation 2022, 8, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zieliński, W.; Korzeniewska, E.; Harnisz, M.; Drzymała, J.; Felis, E.; Bajkacz, S. Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Reservoir of Integrase and Antibiotic Resistance Genes—An Epidemiological Threat to Workers and Environment. Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yadav, B.; Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, L.R.; Kaur, R.; Yellapu, S.K.; Sellamuthu, B.; Tyagi, R.D.; Drogui, P. Introduction to Wastewater Microbiology: Special Emphasis on Hospital Wastewater. In Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–41. ISBN 9780128197226. [Google Scholar]
  8. Burlage, R.S.; Tillmann, J. Biosensors of Bacterial Cells. J. Microbiol. Methods 2017, 138, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bassin, J.P.; Castro, F.D.; Valério, R.R.; Santiago, E.P.; Lemos, F.R.; Bassin, I.D. The Impact of Wastewater Treatment Plants on Global Climate Change. In Water Conservation in the Era of Global Climate Change; Elseviery: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhalla, N.; Jolly, P.; Formisano, N.; Estrela, P. Introduction to Biosensors. In Biosensors and Bioelectronics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 1–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gavrilaș, S.; Ursachi, C.Ș.; Perța-Crișan, S.; Munteanu, F.-D. Recent Trends in Biosensors for Environmental Quality Monitoring. Sensors 2022, 22, 1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hossain, S.M.Z.; Mansour, N. Biosensors for On-Line Water Quality Monitoring—A Review. Arab J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2019, 26, 502–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tetyana, P.; Morgan Shumbula, P.; Njengele-Tetyana, Z. Biosensors: Design, Development and Applications. In Nanopores; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  14. Schackart, K.E., 3rd; Yoon, J.-Y. Machine Learning Enhances the Performance of Bioreceptor-Free Biosensors. Sensors 2021, 21, 5519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Thakur, A.; Kumar, A. Recent Advances on Rapid Detection and Remediation of Environmental Pollutants Utilizing Nanomaterials-Based (Bio)Sensors. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 834, 155219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hairom, N.H.H.; Soon, C.F.; Mohamed, R.M.S.R.; Morsin, M.; Zainal, N.; Nayan, N.; Zulkifli, C.Z.; Harun, N.H. A Review of Nanotechnological Applications to Detect and Control Surface Water Pollution. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 102032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, J.; Campbell, A.S.; de Ávila, B.E.-F.; Wang, J. Wearable Biosensors for Healthcare Monitoring. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Olaru, A.; Bala, C.; Jaffrezic-Renault, N.; Aboul-Enein, H.Y. Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) Biosensors in Pharmaceutical Analysis. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2015, 45, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hassani, S.; Momtaz, S.; Vakhshiteh, F.; Maghsoudi, A.S.; Ganjali, M.R.; Norouzi, P.; Abdollahi, M. Biosensors and Their Applications in Detection of Organophosphorus Pesticides in the Environment. Arch. Toxicol. 2017, 91, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Du, X.; Zhou, J. Application of Biosensors to Detection of Epidemic Diseases in Animals. Res. Vet. Sci. 2018, 118, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Z.; Li, Q.; Du, X.; Liu, M. Application of Electrochemical Biosensors in Tumor Cell Detection: Electrochemical Biosensors for Tumor Cells. Thorac. Cancer 2020, 11, 840–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kweinor Tetteh, E.; Opoku Amankwa, M.; Armah, E.K.; Rathilal, S. Fate of COVID-19 Occurrences in Wastewater Systems: Emerging Detection and Treatment Technologies—A Review. Water 2020, 12, 2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mao, K.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Z. An Integrated Biosensor System with Mobile Health and Wastewater-Based Epidemiology (IBMW) for COVID-19 Pandemic. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 169, 112617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, S.; Kumar, V.; Kapoor, D.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Bhatia, D.; Jan, S.; Singh, N.; Romero, R.; Ramamurthy, P.C.; Singh, J. Detection and Disinfection of COVID-19 Virus in Wastewater. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 1917–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mackuľak, T.; Gál, M.; Špalková, V.; Fehér, M.; Briestenská, K.; Mikušová, M.; Tomčíková, K.; Tamáš, M.; Butor Škulcová, A. Wastewater-Based Epidemiology as an Early Warning System for the Spreading of SARS-CoV-2 and Its Mutations in the Population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kumar, M.S.; Nandeshwar, R.; Lad, S.B.; Megha, K.; Mangat, M.; Butterworth, A.; Knapp, C.W.; Knapp, M.; Hoskisson, P.A.; Corrigan, D.K.; et al. Electrochemical Sensing of SARS-CoV-2 Amplicons with PCB Electrodes. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2021, 343, 130169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alafeef, M.; Dighe, K.; Moitra, P.; Pan, D. Monitoring the Viral Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Still Waterbodies Using a Lanthanide-Doped Carbon Nanoparticle-Based Sensor Array. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kadadou, D.; Tizani, L.; Wadi, V.S.; Banat, F.; Alsafar, H.; Yousef, A.F.; Barceló, D.; Hasan, S.W. Recent Advances in the Biosensors Application for the Detection of Bacteria and Viruses in Wastewater. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zamhuri, S.A.; Soon, C.F.; Nordin, A.N.; Ab Rahim, R.; Sultana, N.; Khan, M.A.; Lim, G.P.; Tee, K.S. A Review on the Contamination of SARS-CoV-2 in Water Bodies: Transmission Route, Virus Recovery and Recent Biosensor Detection Techniques. Sens. Biosens. Res. 2022, 36, 100482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kadadou, D.; Tizani, L.; Wadi, V.S.; Banat, F.; Naddeo, V.; Alsafar, H.; Yousef, A.F.; Hasan, S.W. Optimization of an RGO-Based Biosensor for the Sensitive Detection of Bovine Serum Albumin: Effect of Electric Field on Detection Capability. Chemosphere 2022, 301, 134700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lim, J.W.; Ha, D.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.K.; Kim, T. Review of Micro/Nanotechnologies for Microbial Biosensors. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2015, 3, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Bose, S.; Maity, S.; Sarkar, A. Review of Microbial Biosensor for the Detection of Mercury in Water. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2021, 31, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kokol, P.; Vošner, H.B. Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Coverage of Funding Information in Medical Journal Articles. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Olson, N.; Bae, J. Biosensors-Publication Trends and Knowledge Domain Visualization. Sensors 2019, 19, 2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Visser, M.; van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2021, 2, 20–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Samadzadeh, G.R.; Rigi, T.; Ganjali, A.R. Comparison of Four Search Engines and Their Efficacy with Emphasis on Literature Research in Addiction (Prevention and Treatment). Int. J. High Risk Behav. Addict. 2013, 1, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Kumar, A. Medline®, PubMed, PubMed Central Let’s Try to Decipher. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2020, 24, 187–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Thouand, G. Microbial Biosensors for Analytical Applications. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410, 1189–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Do, M.H.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Liu, Y.; Varjani, S.; Kumar, M. Microbial Fuel Cell-Based Biosensor for Online Monitoring Wastewater Quality: A Critical Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 135612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aviv-Reuven, S.; Rosenfeld, A. Publication Patterns’ Changes Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal and Short-Term Scientometric Analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 6761–6784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Raynaud, M.; Goutaudier, V.; Louis, K.; Al-Awadhi, S.; Dubourg, Q.; Truchot, A.; Brousse, R.; Saleh, N.; Giarraputo, A.; Debiais, C.; et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Publication Dynamics and Non-COVID-19 Research Production. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021, 21, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Riccaboni, M.; Verginer, L. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Scientific Research in the Life Sciences. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gao, J.; Yin, Y.; Myers, K.R.; Lakhani, K.R.; Wang, D. Potentially Long-Lasting Effects of the Pandemic on Scientists. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, Y.; Xue, Q.; Chang, C.; Wang, R.; Liu, Z.; He, L. Recent Progress Regarding Electrochemical Sensors for the Detection of Typical Pollutants in Water Environments. Anal. Sci. 2022, 38, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ngoc, L.T.B.; Tu, T.A.; Hien, L.T.T.; Linh, D.N.; Tri, N.; Duy, N.P.H.; Cuong, H.T.; Phuong, P.T.T. Simple Approach for the Rapid Estimation of BOD5 in Food Processing Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 20554–20564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Alferov, S.V.; Arlyapov, V.A.; Alferov, V.A.; Reshetilov, A.N. Biofuel Cell Based on Bacteria of the Genus Gluconobacter as a Sensor for Express Analysis of Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2018, 54, 689–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tanikkul, P.; Pisutpaisal, N. Membrane-Less MFC Based Biosensor for Monitoring Wastewater Quality. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jouanneau, S.; Grangé, E.; Durand, M.-J.; Thouand, G. Rapid BOD Assessment with a Microbial Array Coupled to a Neural Machine Learning System. Water Res. 2019, 166, 115079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Arlyapov, V.A.; Yudina, N.Y.; Machulin, A.V.; Alferov, V.A.; Ponamoreva, O.N.; Reshetilov, A.N. A Biosensor Based Microorganisms Immobilized in Layer-by-Layer Films for the Determination of Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2021, 57, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhao, C.; Wang, G.; Sun, M.; Cai, Z.; Yin, Z.; Cai, Y. Bacterial Cellulose Immobilized S. Cerevisiae as Microbial Sensor for Rapid BOD Detection. Fibers Polym. 2021, 22, 1208–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tardy, G.M.; Lóránt, B.; Gyalai-Korpos, M.; Bakos, V.; Simpson, D.; Goryanin, I. Microbial Fuel Cell Biosensor for the Determination of Biochemical Oxygen Demand of Wastewater Samples Containing Readily and Slowly Biodegradable Organics. Biotechnol. Lett. 2021, 43, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Arlyapov, V.A.; Yudina, N.Y.; Asulyan, L.D.; Kamanina, O.A.; Alferov, S.V.; Shumsky, A.N.; Machulin, A.V.; Alferov, V.A.; Reshetilov, A.N. Registration of BOD Using Paracoccus Yeei Bacteria Isolated from Activated Sludge. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kharkova, A.S.; Arlyapov, V.A.; Turovskaya, A.D.; Avtukh, A.N.; Starodumova, I.P.; Reshetilov, A.N. Mediator BOD Biosensor Based on Cells of Microorganisms Isolated from Activated Sludge. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2019, 55, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zaitseva, A.S.; Arlyapov, V.A.; Yudina, N.Y.; Nosova, N.M.; Alferov, V.A.; Reshetilov, A.N. A Novel Bod-Mediator Biosensor Based on Ferrocene and Debaryomyces Hansenii Yeast Cells. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2017, 53, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kibena, E.; Raud, M.; Jõgi, E.; Kikas, T. Semi-Specific Microbacterium Phyllosphaerae-Based Microbial Sensor for Biochemical Oxygen Demand Measurements in Dairy Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2013, 20, 2492–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Raud, M.; Tutt, M.; Jõgi, E.; Kikas, T. BOD Biosensors for Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2011, 19, 3039–3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Commault, A.S.; Lear, G.; Bouvier, S.; Feiler, L.; Karacs, J.; Weld, R.J. Geobacter-Dominated Biofilms Used as Amperometric BOD Sensors. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 109, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhao, S.; Yun, H.; Khan, A.; Salama, E.-S.; Redina, M.M.; Liu, P.; Li, X. Two-Stage Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC) and Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) System for Enhancing Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery Based on MFC as a Biosensor. Environ. Res. 2022, 204, 112089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Adekunle, A.; Raghavan, V.; Tartakovsky, B. A Comparison of Microbial Fuel Cell and Microbial Electrolysis Cell Biosensors for Real-Time Environmental Monitoring. Bioelectrochemistry 2019, 126, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shao, P.; Liu, R.; Gao, G.; Zhi, J. A Portable Instrument for Monitoring Acute Water Toxicity Based on Mediated Electrochemical Biosensor: Design, Testing and Evaluation. Chemosphere 2020, 255, 126964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, M.; Li, Z.; Chen, Z.; Qi, X.-E.; Yang, L.; Chen, G. Simultaneous Biodetection and Bioremediation of Cu2+ from Industrial Wastewater by Bacterial Cell Surface Display System. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2022, 173, 105467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Khan, A.; Salama, E.-S.; Chen, Z.; Ni, H.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, T.; Pei, Y.; Sani, R.K.; Ling, Z.; Liu, P.; et al. A Novel Biosensor for Zinc Detection Based on Microbial Fuel Cell System. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 147, 111763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, K.; Cao, H.; Chen, J.; Wang, T.; Luo, H.; Chen, W.; Mo, Y.; Li, L.; An, X.; Zhang, X. Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC)-Based Biosensor for Combined Heavy Metals Monitoring and Associated Bioelectrochemical Process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 21231–21240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Askari, A.; Vahabzadeh, F.; Mardanpour, M.M. Quantitative Determination of Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) Concentration and Simultaneous Power Generation in a Microbial Fuel Cell-Based Biosensor. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Bian, C.; Xia, T.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Ma, H.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X. Highly Sensitive Microbial Biosensor Based on Recombinant Escherichia Coli Overexpressing Catechol 2,3-Dioxygenase for Reliable Detection of Catechol. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 126, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Do, M.H.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Liu, Q.; Nghiem, D.L.; Thanh, B.X.; Zhang, X.; Hoang, N.B. Performance of a Dual-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell as a Biosensor for in Situ Monitoring Bisphenol A in Wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 845, 157125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Pham, H.T.M.; Giersberg, M.; Gehrmann, L.; Hettwer, K.; Tuerk, J.; Uhlig, S.; Hanke, G.; Weisswange, P.; Simon, K.; Baronian, K.; et al. The Determination of Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater Using a Recombinant Arxula Adeninivorans Whole Cell Biosensor. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2015, 211, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Matejczyk, M.; Świsłocka, R.; Lewandowski, W. Using an Escherichia coli K-12/RecA-Gfpmut2 Microbial Biosensor to Assess the Impact of Cyclophosphamide and L-Ascorbic Acid Residues on Living Bacteria Cells. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2020, 29, 1737–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bazin, I.; Seo, H.B.; Suehs, C.M.; Ramuz, M.; De Waard, M.; Gu, M.B. Profiling the Biological Effects of Wastewater Samples via Bioluminescent Bacterial Biosensors Combined with Estrogenic Assays. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sunantha, G.; Vasudevan, N. A Method for Detecting Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Water Samples Using Genetically Engineered Bacterial Biosensor. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 759, 143544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, S.; Qi, X.; Jiang, Y.; Liu, P.; Hao, W.; Han, J.; Liang, P. An Antibiotic Composite Electrode for Improving the Sensitivity of Electrochemically Active Biofilm Biosensor. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2022, 16, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yang, S.-H.; Cheng, K.-C.; Liao, V.H.-C. A Novel Approach for Rapidly and Cost-Effectively Assessing Toxicity of Toxic Metals in Acidic Water Using an Acidophilic Iron-Oxidizing Biosensor. Chemosphere 2017, 186, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kannan, P.; Jogdeo, P.; Mohidin, A.F.; Yung, P.Y.; Santoro, C.; Seviour, T.; Hinks, J.; Lauro, F.M.; Marsili, E. A Novel Microbia—Bioelectrochemical Sensor for the Detection of n-Cyclohexyl-2-Pyrrolidone in Wastewater. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 317, 604–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, Z.; Ma, H.; Sun, H.; Gao, R.; Liu, H.; Wang, X.; Xu, P.; Xun, L. Nanoporous Gold-Based Microbial Biosensor for Direct Determination of Sulfide. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 98, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Bian, C.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, S.; Liu, Z.; Wang, X. Sensitive Detection of Low-Concentration Sulfide Based on the Synergistic Effect of RGO, Np-Au, and Recombinant Microbial Cell. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 151, 111985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Vogrinc, D.; Vodovnik, M.; Marinšek-Logar, R. Microbial Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring. Acta Agric. Slov. 2015, 106, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Wan, N.; Fu, T.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; Qie, Z.; Zhu, A. A Current Sensing Biosensor for BOD Rapid Measurement. Archaea 2020, 2020, 8894925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Radeef, A.Y.; Ismail, Z.Z. New Application of Microbial Fuel Cell-Based Biosensor for Monitoring the Quality of Actual Potato Chips’ Processing Wastewater. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy 2019, 1, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Lóránt, B.; Gyalai-Korpos, M.; Goryanin, I.; Tardy, G.M. Single Chamber Air-Cathode Microbial Fuel Cells as Biosensors for Determination of Biodegradable Organics. Biotechnol. Lett. 2019, 41, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Sazykin, I.S.; Sazykina, M.A.; Khmelevtsova, L.E.; Mirina, E.A.; Kudeevskaya, E.M.; Rogulin, E.A.; Rakin, A.V. Biosensor-Based Comparison of the Ecotoxicological Contamination of the Wastewaters of Southern Russia and Southern Germany. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 945–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Al-Shehri, A.N.Z. Employing a Central Composite Rotatable Design to Define and Determine Significant Toxic Levels of Heavy Metals on Shewanella Putrefaciens in Microbial Fuel Cell. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, B.; Lei, Y.; Li, B. A Batch-Mode Cube Microbial Fuel Cell Based “Shock” Biosensor for Wastewater Quality Monitoring. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 62, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mallevre, F.; Fernandes, T.F.; Aspray, T.J. Silver, Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticle Ecotoxicity to Bioluminescent Pseudomonas Putida in Laboratory Medium and Artificial Wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 195, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, P.-S.; Peng, Z.-W.; Su, J.; Tao, H.-C. Construction and Optimization of a Pseudomonas Putida Whole-Cell Bioreporter for Detection of Bioavailable Copper. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014, 36, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Raud, M.; Lember, E.; Jõgi, E.; Kikas, T. Nitrosomonas Sp. Based Biosensor for Ammonium Nitrogen Measurement in Wastewater. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2013, 18, 1016–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Do, M.H.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Sharma, P.; Pandey, A.; Bui, X.T.; Zhang, X. Performance of a Dual-Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell as Biosensor for on-Line Measuring Ammonium Nitrogen in Synthetic Municipal Wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Shin, H.J. Agarose-Gel-Immobilized Recombinant Bacterial Biosensors for Simple and Disposable on-Site Detection of Phenolic Compounds. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 93, 1895–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Zappi, D.; Coronado, E.; Soljan, V.; Basile, G.; Varani, G.; Turemis, M.; Giardi, M.T. A Microbial Sensor Platform Based on Bacterial Bioluminescence (LuxAB) and Green Fluorescent Protein (Gfp) Reporters for in Situ Monitoring of Toxicity of Wastewater Nitrification Process Dynamics. Talanta 2021, 221, 121438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chen, Z.; Niu, Y.; Zhao, S.; Khan, A.; Ling, Z.; Chen, Y.; Liu, P.; Li, X. A Novel Biosensor for P-Nitrophenol Based on an Aerobic Anode Microbial Fuel Cell. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 85, 860–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Simoska, O.; Gaffney, E.M.; Minteer, S.D.; Franzetti, A.; Cristiani, P.; Grattieri, M.; Santoro, C. Recent Trends and Advances in Microbial Electrochemical Sensing Technologies: An Overview. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2021, 30, 100762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Damborský, P.; Švitel, J.; Katrlík, J. Optical Biosensors. Essays Biochem. 2016, 60, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Xu, X.; Ying, Y. Microbial Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring and Food Analysis. Food Rev. Int. 2011, 27, 300–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Li, Y.; He, X.; Zhu, W.; Li, H.; Wang, W. Bacterial Bioluminescence Assay for Bioanalysis and Bioimaging. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2022, 414, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Voon, C.H.; Yusop, N.M.; Khor, S.M. The State-of-the-Art in Bioluminescent Whole-Cell Biosensor Technology for Detecting Various Organic Compounds in Oil and Grease Content in Wastewater: From the Lab to the Field. Talanta 2022, 241, 123271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Liu, C.; Yu, H.; Zhang, B.; Liu, S.; Liu, C.-G.; Li, F.; Song, H. Engineering Whole-Cell Microbial Biosensors: Design Principles and Applications in Monitoring and Treatment of Heavy Metals and Organic Pollutants. Biotechnol. Adv. 2022, 60, 108019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ma, Z.; Meliana, C.; Munawaroh, H.S.H.; Karaman, C.; Karimi-Maleh, H.; Low, S.S.; Show, P.L. Recent Advances in the Analytical Strategies of Microbial Biosensor for Detection of Pollutants. Chemosphere 2022, 306, 135515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Chu, N.; Liang, Q.; Hao, W.; Jiang, Y.; Liang, P.; Zeng, R.J. Microbial Electrochemical Sensor for Water Biotoxicity Monitoring. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 404, 127053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Emaminejad, S.A.; Morgan, V.L.; Kumar, K.; Kavathekar, A.; Ragush, C.; Shuai, W.; Jia, Z.; Huffaker, R.; Wells, G.; Cusick, R.D. Statistical and Microbial Analysis of Bio-Electrochemical Sensors Used for Carbon Monitoring at Water Resource Recovery Facilities. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Do, M.H.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Pandey, A.; Sharma, P.; Varjani, S.; Nguyen, T.A.H.; Hoang, N.B. A Dual Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell Based Biosensor for Monitoring Copper and Arsenic in Municipal Wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 811, 152261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hui, Y.; Huang, Z.; Alahi, M.E.E.; Nag, A.; Feng, S.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Recent Advancements in Electrochemical Biosensors for Monitoring the Water Quality. Biosensors 2022, 12, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Tucci, M. Microbial Electrochemical Sensors for Freshwater and Wastewater Monitoring; University degli Studi di Milano: Milan, Italy, 2020; Available online: https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/702269 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  103. Yang, H.; Zhou, M.; Liu, M.; Yang, W.; Gu, T. Microbial Fuel Cells for Biosensor Applications. Biotechnol. Lett. 2015, 37, 2357–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rojas Flores, S.; Naveda, R.N.; Paredes, E.A.; Orbegoso, J.A.; Céspedes, T.C.; Salvatierra, A.R.; Rodríguez, M.S. Agricultural Wastes for Electricity Generation Using Microbial Fuel Cells. Open Biotechnol. J. 2020, 14, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mao, K.; Zhang, H.; Pan, Y.; Yang, Z. Biosensors for Wastewater-Based Epidemiology for Monitoring Public Health. Water Res. 2021, 191, 116787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Yi, H.; Li, M.; Huo, X.; Zeng, G.; Lai, C.; Huang, D.; An, Z.; Qin, L.; Liu, X.; Li, B.; et al. Recent Development of Advanced Biotechnology for Wastewater Treatment. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2020, 40, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Gómez-Aguilar, D.L.; Rodríguez-Miranda, J.P.; Salcedo-Parra, O.J. Fruit Peels as a Sustainable Waste for the Biosorption of Heavy Metals in Wastewater: A Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Khalid, S.; Shahid, M.; Natasha; Bibi, I.; Sarwar, T.; Shah, A.H.; Niazi, N.K. A Review of Environmental Contamination and Health Risk Assessment of Wastewater Use for Crop Irrigation with a Focus on Low and High-Income Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Processes 10 02002 g001 550
Figure 1. Publications in different databases between 2012–September 2022 (n = 2094).
Figure 1. Publications in different databases between 2012–September 2022 (n = 2094).
Processes 10 02002 g001
Processes 10 02002 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of graphs between the number of publications obtained in this mini-review and the Scopus database during the period 2012 to September 2022. Number of documents obtained in Scopus (n = 82), with the search formula: “Biosensor” AND “Bacteria” AND “wastewater”.
Figure 2. Comparison of graphs between the number of publications obtained in this mini-review and the Scopus database during the period 2012 to September 2022. Number of documents obtained in Scopus (n = 82), with the search formula: “Biosensor” AND “Bacteria” AND “wastewater”.
Processes 10 02002 g002
Table
Table 1. Search equations used in the publication search.
Table 1. Search equations used in the publication search.
DatabaseSearch Equation
PubMed“Microbial biosensor” AND “wastewater”, “bacterial biosensor” AND “wastewater”, “Biosensor” AND “yeast” AND “wastewater”, “Biosensor” AND “bacterial” AND “wastewater”, “Biosensor” AND “Yeast” AND “wastewater”.
ScienceDirect“Microbial biosensor” AND “wastewater” AND “quality monitoring”, “bacterial biosensor” AND “wastewater” AND “monitoring”, “Biosensor” AND “bacteria” AND “wastewater”.
SpringerLink“Microbial biosensors” AND “wastewater quality monitoring”, “bacterial biosensors” AND “wastewater” AND “monitoring” AND (“microbial fuel cell” OR “MFC”), “Biosensor” AND “bacteria” AND “wastewater”, “Biosensor” AND “Yeast” AND “wastewater”.
Scopus“Microbial biosensors” AND “wastewater”, “Microbial biosensors” AND “wastewater” AND “monitoring”, “bacterial biosensors” AND “wastewater AND “monitoring”, “Biosensor” AND “bacteria” AND “wastewater”, “Biosensor” AND “Yeast” AND “wastewater”.
Table
Table 2. Microbial biosensors tested in wastewater reported in articles during the period 2017–2022.
Table 2. Microbial biosensors tested in wastewater reported in articles during the period 2017–2022.
TargetMicroorganismsTransducer TypeWastewater TypeLimit of DetectionCountryRef.
BODPseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus cereus, and StreptomycesElectrochemicalfood processing wastewater-------Vietnam[46]
BODGluconobacter oxydansMFCwastewater2.6–58 mg O2/dm3Russia[47]
BODbiofilms on the anode surfaceSCMFCsynthetic wastewater, distillery wastewater-------Thailand[48]
BODB. aquatica, C. testosteroni, P. putida (DSM 1868), V. paradoxus, C. pseudodiphteriticum, P. mirabilis, E. coli y B. subtilisElectrochemicalsynthetic wastewaters6 mg/L BODFrance[49]
BODmicroorganism inmovilized.
Bacteria: Paracoccus yeei, Pseudomonas veronii, and Bacillus proteolyticus. Yeast: Ogataea angusta, Blastobotrys adeninivorans, and Debaryomyces hansenii 		Electrochemicalwastewater from municipal water-treatmentbacteria: 0.5 mg O2/dm3
Yeast: 0.7 mg O2/dm3		Russia[50]
BODSaccharomyces cerevisiaeElectrochemicalwastewater10–220 mg O2l−1China[51]
BODmicrobes of anodeMFCdomestic and brewery wastewaters~ 20 mg BOD5 l−1Hungary[52]
BODParacoccus yeei VKM B-3302Electrochemicalmunicipal wastewater0.05–5.0 mg/dm3Russia[53]
BODbacterial strains (SPB1, SPB2, and SPB3) MFCurban wastewater2 mg/dm3Russia[54]
BODDebaryomyces hanseniiElectrochemicalwastewater from a city purification plant25.2 mg O2/dm3Russia[55]
BODMicrobacterium phyllosphaeraeElectrochemicaldairy wastewater5 mg L−1 of BOD7Estonia[56]
BODcells of Bacillus subtilis and Paenibacillus sp. immobilized in an agarose gel matrix.Electrochemicalpulp and paper industry wastewater5 mg/L of BOD7Estonia[57]
BODGeobacter sp.ElectrochemicalSynthetic waswater174 mg/LNew Zealand[58]
CODelectrogenic bacteria on the anode surfacesMFCpetroleum refinery wastewater------China[59]
CODelectrogenic bacteria on the anode surfacesMFC and MEC (microbial electrolysis cell)brewery wastewater Canada[60]
Cu 2+ and
Cr2O72−		E. coliElectrochemicalindustrial, dining, and laboratory wastewaterCu2+: 0.14 mg/L, Cr2O72−; 0.025 mg/LChina[61]
Cu 2+non-pathogenic Escherichia coli BL21Opticalmining wastewater1 μMChina[62]
Zn 2+E. coli BL21MFCwastewater20–400 μMChina[63]
Heavy metals (Cd, Cu, and Zn)electrogenic bacteria on the anode surfacesMFCsynthetic wastewaters-------China[64]
Alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS)biofilms on the anode surfaceMFCwastewater10–120 mg/LIran[65]
CatecholE. coli BL21-C23OElectrochemicalwastewater0.24 μMChina[66]
Bisphenol Amixed bacterial cultureDual-chamber microbial fuel cell (MFC)Wastewater-------Australia[67]
Pharmaceuticals (omeprazole and lansoprazole)recombinant Arxula adeninivorans Electrochemicalwastewater samples from a zoo, chemical factory, mixed sample, hospital, and hotelO: 95.01 μg/L:
83.65 μg/L		Germany[68]
Cyclophosphamide and L-ascorbic Acid ResiduesEscherichia Coli K-12/recA-gfpmut2OpticalwastewaterCP: 3.5–0.35 µg/mLPoland[69]
AA: 250 µg/mL
Environmental toxicityRecombinant luminescent bacteria strainsOpticalwastewater Tunisia[70]
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)P. aeruginosa (PAO1), P. aeruginosa (1688) and Burkholderia FA1Opticalindustrial wastewater10 ng/L–1000 ng/LIndia[71]
highly polluted sewage
Formaldehydeelectroactive biofilmElectrochemicalwastewater-------China[72]
Heavy metals: As3+, Cd 2+, Hg 2+, Pb 2+acidophilic iron-oxidizing bacterium Strain Y10Opticalindustrial wastewater-------Taiwan[73]
n-cyclohexyl-2-pyrrolidoneE. coli K12 MG1655Electrochemicalwastewater0.4 mg/LSingapore[74]
SulfideE. coli BL21 (expressing sulfide: quinone oxidoreductase (SQR))Electrochemicalwastewater2.55 μMChina[75]
Sulfiderecombinant E. coli SQRElectrochemicalwastewater98.5 nMChina[76]
Ag+, Hg+, Co2+, and Ni2+Luminous Vibrio sp. 6HFEOpticalindustrial wastewater Egypt[77]
Pb2+ E. coli (inactivated)Electrochemicalwastewater0.13 μg/LAlgeria[78]
toxic compounds (Cr (VI))microbes of anodeDual-chamber microbial fuel cell (MFC)potato chips’ processing wastewater-------Iraq[79]
biodegradable organics electrogenic bacteria on the anode surfacesMFCdomestic wastewater treatment plant≥ 5 mg COD l−1Hungary[80]
Genotoxic compounds Vibrio aquamarinus VKPM B-11245, E. coli MG1655 (pXen7), E. coli MG1655 (pRecA-lux), E. coli MG1655 (pSoxS-lux), E. coli MG1655 (pKatG-lux), E. coli MG1655 (pIbpA-lux), E. coli MG1655 (pIbpA-lux), E. coli MG1655 (GrpE-lux), E. coli MG1655 (pFabA-lux).Opticalwastewater of two cities. -------Russia [81]
Heavy metalsShewanella putrefaciensMFCfood industry wastewater-------Saudi Arabia[82]
Chromium, iron, nitrate, and sodium acetateelectrogenic bacteria on the anode surfacesA single chamber batch-mode cube microbial fuel cell (CMFC)wastewater--------USA[83]
Silver, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticlePseudomonas putida BS566:luxCDABEOpticalartificial wastewater -------Scotland[84]
Cu2+Pseudomonas putida whole-cell bioreporterOpticalfood industry wastewater1–70 mg/LChina[85]
Ammonium nitrogen Nitrosomonas sp.Opticalsynthetic and industrial wastewaters20 mg/L of NH+4−NEstonia[86]
Ammonium nitrogenelectrogenic bacteria in the anode chamberdual-chamber microbial fuel cell (MFC)synthetic municipal wastewater China[87]
Phenolic compoundsrecombinant E. coliOpticalhospital wastewater10 μMRepublic of Korea[88]
Toxic chemicals for control of the nitrification process of the wastewaterrecombinant E. coli (E. coli pMosaico-Pamo-gfp and Pamo-luxAB)Opticalmixture of industrial and municipal wastewaterE. coli pMosaico-Pamo-gfp: 1.0 μg/L
E. coli Pamo-luxAB: 0.5 μg/L		Italy[89]
p-nitrophenolPseudomonas monteilii LZU-3aerobic anode microbial fuel cellindustrial wastewater44 ± 4.5 mg L−1China[90]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rojas-Villacorta, W.; Rojas-Flores, S.; De La Cruz-Noriega, M.; Chinchay Espino, H.; Diaz, F.; Gallozzo Cardenas, M. Microbial Biosensors for Wastewater Monitoring: Mini-Review. Processes 2022, 10, 2002. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102002

AMA Style

Rojas-Villacorta W, Rojas-Flores S, De La Cruz-Noriega M, Chinchay Espino H, Diaz F, Gallozzo Cardenas M. Microbial Biosensors for Wastewater Monitoring: Mini-Review. Processes. 2022; 10(10):2002. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102002

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rojas-Villacorta, Walter, Segundo Rojas-Flores, Magaly De La Cruz-Noriega, Héctor Chinchay Espino, Felix Diaz, and Moises Gallozzo Cardenas. 2022. "Microbial Biosensors for Wastewater Monitoring: Mini-Review" Processes 10, no. 10: 2002. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102002

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop