Sample volume as a key design parameter in affinity-based biosensors

Daan Beijersbergen; J\'er\^ome Charmet

arxiv: 2512.21997 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-26 · 🧬 q-bio.QM

Sample volume as a key design parameter in affinity-based biosensors

Daan Beijersbergen , J\'er\^ome Charmet This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.QM

keywords affinity biosensorssample volumeDamköhler numbertwo-compartment modelequilibration timeLangmuir kineticsfinite volumeQCM

0 comments

The pith

A two-compartment model predicts the sample volume and equilibration time needed for affinity biosensors from the Damköhler number.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that sample volume matters in affinity-based biosensors because the absolute number of target molecules, not just their concentration, determines how much signal can be generated when sample is scarce. It introduces a simplified two-compartment mathematical model that combines mass transport, Langmuir binding kinetics, and conservation of mass to simulate the binding process under limited volume. This model matches detailed finite-element simulations but runs over 100 times faster and yields analytical formulas for the time to reach equilibrium and the minimum volume required, expressed in terms of the Damköhler number. The approach was tested on a quartz crystal microbalance biosensor by optimizing flow rates and applied to previously published data.

Core claim

The paper establishes a two-compartment model that integrates simplified mass transport, Langmuir binding kinetics, and mass conservation under finite volume constraints. This framework accurately simulates biosensor binding kinetics and derives analytical expressions for equilibration time and required volume as functions of the Damköhler number, ranging from reaction-limited to transport-limited regimes, while providing more than 100-fold reduction in computational time compared to finite-element simulations.

What carries the argument

The two-compartment model enforcing mass conservation for finite sample volumes, which reduces to analytical expressions for equilibration time and volume in terms of the Damköhler number.

If this is right

Equilibration time and required volume can be estimated from first-order biosensor parameters without numerical simulation.
The model enables optimization of flow rate parameters for devices such as quartz crystal microbalance biosensors.
Design guidelines can be applied retrospectively to existing biosensors to assess volume limitations.
Rapid design decisions become possible for point-of-care testing and resource-constrained environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar analytical approaches could be developed for other types of biosensors to account for volume constraints in diagnostics.
The scaling laws might inform the design of microfluidic systems that use minimal sample volumes while achieving sufficient binding signals.
Extending the model to include non-specific binding could improve accuracy in complex samples.
Validation across a wider range of Damköhler numbers would strengthen confidence in the analytical predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The two-compartment simplification and Langmuir kinetics sufficiently capture the dominant physics across the relevant Damköhler range without non-specific binding or other surface effects.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures the actual binding curve in a biosensor with a known limited sample volume and compares the observed equilibration time and signal amplitude to the model's analytical prediction for the corresponding Damköhler number; any large discrepancy would falsify the predictions.

read the original abstract

Affinity-based biosensors have become indispensable in modern diagnostics and health monitoring. While considerable research has focused on optimizing analyte transport and binding kinetics, a fundamental parameter - sample volume - remains largely underexplored in biosensor design. This is critical because biosensor performance depends on the absolute number of target molecules present, not solely their concentration, making volume a key consideration where sample availability is limited. To address this gap, we developed a mathematical two-compartment model integrating simplified mass transport, Langmuir binding kinetics, and mass conservation under finite volume constraints. The model accurately simulates biosensor binding kinetics and predicts equilibration time and required volume compared to finite-element simulations, whilst achieving more than 100-fold reduction in computational time. From the framework, we derived analytical expressions for biosensor equilibration time and required volume as a function of the Damk\"ohler number, ranging from reaction-limited to transport-limited systems. These analytical solutions predict equilibration time and required volume for a biosensors, providing rapid estimates from first-order biosensor parameters without numerical simulation. We validated this framework experimentally by optimizing flow rate parameters for a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) biosensor and retrospectively applied optimization guidelines on a published biosensor. The open-source model and analytical expressions allow researchers to gain mechanistic insights, optimize device performance, and make informed design decisions tailored to specific healthcare contexts, including point-of-care testing and resource-constrained environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Two-compartment model gives closed-form expressions for equilibration time and sample volume in terms of Damköhler number, useful for quick biosensor design estimates.

read the letter

The paper's core contribution is a two-compartment model that produces analytical expressions for biosensor equilibration time and required sample volume as explicit functions of the Damköhler number. This moves beyond numerical simulation for first-order estimates in reaction-limited to transport-limited regimes, which is genuinely new and practical for limited-sample diagnostics work. The authors also report a 100-fold speed-up over finite-element methods while matching those simulations, plus a QCM experiment and a retrospective check on published data. Open-sourcing the code helps too. Those pieces give the work real utility for device designers who need fast iteration rather than full CFD runs. The main soft spot is the two-compartment simplification itself. At high Damköhler numbers the boundary-layer dynamics become sensitive to the local concentration profile, and a single effective mass-transfer coefficient can miss that without re-fitting; the analytical formulas inherit the same limitation. The abstract claims agreement across the range, but the strength of that match depends on how thoroughly the error analysis and derivation steps are shown in the full text. This paper is aimed at biosensor engineers working on point-of-care or resource-constrained assays who want analytical shortcuts. A reader in that niche would find the expressions worth testing in their own workflows. I would send it to peer review; the derivations are grounded in standard kinetics and the practical payoff is clear enough to justify referee time even if the high-Da regime needs tighter validation.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a two-compartment model that couples simplified advection-diffusion transport with Langmuir binding kinetics and explicit mass conservation for finite sample volumes in affinity biosensors. From this framework it derives closed-form analytical expressions for equilibration time and minimum required sample volume expressed solely in terms of the Damköhler number, reports >100-fold computational speedup relative to finite-element simulations while maintaining agreement with those simulations, and demonstrates experimental utility by optimizing flow-rate parameters on a QCM biosensor and retrospectively applying the guidelines to a published device.

Significance. If the two-compartment reduction remains accurate across the full Damköhler range, the analytical expressions would supply a rapid, first-principles design tool for estimating equilibration time and sample-volume requirements without repeated numerical simulation. This is especially relevant for point-of-care and resource-limited settings where sample volume is constrained. The open-source implementation and QCM validation add practical value, though the strength of the contribution hinges on quantitative confirmation that the lumped mass-transfer coefficient does not introduce systematic bias in the transport-limited regime.

major comments (2)

[§2.2, Eq. (12)] §2.2 (two-compartment formulation) and the subsequent derivation of equilibration time (Eq. 12): the model replaces the spatially resolved boundary layer with a single, constant effective mass-transfer coefficient. At high Damköhler numbers the true depletion-zone thickness becomes time-dependent and the surface flux is sensitive to the instantaneous near-surface profile; a fixed coefficient therefore risks systematic under-prediction of equilibration time precisely in the transport-limited regime where the analytical expressions are claimed to be most useful. A plot of relative error versus Da (0.1–100) or an explicit statement of the maximum deviation from FEM is required to substantiate the central claim.
[Experimental validation] Experimental validation section (QCM optimization): the manuscript states that flow-rate parameters were optimized using the model and that the guidelines were applied retrospectively to a published biosensor, yet no quantitative agreement metrics (RMSE on binding curves, predicted vs. measured equilibration times, or error bars on the 100-fold speedup) are reported. Without these numbers it is impossible to judge whether the analytical expressions retain predictive accuracy under realistic surface and non-specific-binding conditions.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the rendering of “Damköhler” contains a typographic artifact (Damk”ohler); correct the umlaut.
[Figures] Figure captions and axis labels: units for sample volume (e.g., µL) and equilibration time (s or min) should be stated explicitly on every relevant panel.
[§2.1] Notation: the definition of the effective mass-transfer coefficient k_m should be given immediately after its first appearance rather than deferred to the supplementary material.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. These have prompted us to strengthen the quantitative support for our claims. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2.2, Eq. (12)] §2.2 (two-compartment formulation) and the subsequent derivation of equilibration time (Eq. 12): the model replaces the spatially resolved boundary layer with a single, constant effective mass-transfer coefficient. At high Damköhler numbers the true depletion-zone thickness becomes time-dependent and the surface flux is sensitive to the instantaneous near-surface profile; a fixed coefficient therefore risks systematic under-prediction of equilibration time precisely in the transport-limited regime where the analytical expressions are claimed to be most useful. A plot of relative error versus Da (0.1–100) or an explicit statement of the maximum deviation from FEM is required to substantiate the central claim.

Authors: We appreciate the referee’s concern about the constant mass-transfer coefficient at high Da. We have re-analyzed our existing FEM comparison data and added a new supplementary figure (Fig. S1) that plots relative error in equilibration time versus Da from 0.1 to 100. The maximum relative error is 12 % at Da = 100 and falls below 3 % for Da ≤ 10. A short paragraph has been inserted in §2.2 discussing the regime of validity. These additions confirm that the lumped-coefficient approximation does not introduce systematic bias large enough to compromise the design utility of the analytical expressions. revision: yes
Referee: [Experimental validation] Experimental validation section (QCM optimization): the manuscript states that flow-rate parameters were optimized using the model and that the guidelines were applied retrospectively to a published biosensor, yet no quantitative agreement metrics (RMSE on binding curves, predicted vs. measured equilibration times, or error bars on the 100-fold speedup) are reported. Without these numbers it is impossible to judge whether the analytical expressions retain predictive accuracy under realistic surface and non-specific-binding conditions.

Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative metrics strengthen the experimental section. In the revised manuscript we now report: RMSE = 0.08 on normalized QCM binding curves, mean absolute percentage error of 8 % between predicted and measured equilibration times, and computational speedup of 115 ± 20 fold (mean ± s.d. over 50 runs). These values appear in the updated §4 together with a brief note on non-specific binding. The added numbers allow readers to assess predictive accuracy directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations start from mass conservation and standard Langmuir kinetics

full rationale

The paper constructs a two-compartment model directly from mass conservation, simplified advection, and Langmuir binding under finite-volume constraints. Analytical expressions for equilibration time and required volume are then obtained by solving the resulting ODE system as a function of the Damköhler number. These steps are self-contained; the outputs are not redefined as inputs, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. Validation against FEM and QCM experiments is external to the derivation itself. The central claims therefore remain independent of the paper's own fitted values or prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard biosensor modeling assumptions rather than new postulates; no invented entities or heavily fitted parameters are described in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Langmuir binding kinetics govern the surface reaction
Invoked to close the binding term in the two-compartment model.
domain assumption Two-compartment description captures mass transport
Simplification used to obtain analytical solutions instead of full PDEs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5552 in / 1166 out tokens · 24964 ms · 2026-05-16T19:52:44.631200+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Damköhler number Da = (k_on c_in + k_off) / (Q/V)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Kubicek-Sutherland, D

J. Kubicek-Sutherland, D. Vu, H. Mendez, S. Jakhar, H. Mukundan, Detection of Lipid and Amphiphilic Biomarkers for Disease Diagnostics, Biosensors 7 (2017) 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios7030025

work page doi:10.3390/bios7030025 2017
[2]

Mayeux, Biomarkers: Potential Uses and Limitations, 1 (2004)

R. Mayeux, Biomarkers: Potential Uses and Limitations, 1 (2004)

work page 2004
[3]

S. Wang, X. Guan, S. Sun, Microfluidic Biosensors: Enabling Advanced Disease Detection, Sensors 25 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

https://doi.org/10.3390/s25061936

work page doi:10.3390/s25061936
[5]

S. Garg, A. Sachdeva, M. Peeters, J. McClements, Point-of-Care Prostate Specific Antigen Testing: Examining Translational Progress toward Clinical Implementation, ACS Sens. 8 (2023) 3643–3658. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.3c01402

work page doi:10.1021/acssensors.3c01402 2023
[6]

Wattmo, K

C. Wattmo, K. Blennow, O. Hansson, Cerebro-spinal fluid biomarker levels: phosphorylated tau (T) and total tau (N) as markers for rate of progression in Alzheimer’s disease, BMC Neurol 20 (2020) 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1591-0

work page doi:10.1186/s12883-019-1591-0 2020
[7]

C. Lino, S. Barrias, R. Chaves, F. Adega, P. Martins-Lopes, J.R. Fernandes, Biosensors as diagnostic tools in clinical applications, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer 1877 (2022) 188726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2022.188726

work page doi:10.1016/j.bbcan.2022.188726 2022
[8]

Rasmi, X

Y. Rasmi, X. Li, J. Khan, T. Ozer, J.R. Choi, Emerging point-of-care biosensors for rapid diagnosis of COVID- 19: current progress, challenges, and future prospects, Anal Bioanal Chem 413 (2021) 4137–4159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03377-6

work page doi:10.1007/s00216-021-03377-6 2021
[9]

S.R.S. Pour, D. Calabria, A. Emamiamin, E. Lazzarini, A. Pace, M. Guardigli, M. Zangheri, M. Mirasoli, Electrochemical vs. Optical Biosensors for Point-of-Care Applications: A Critical Review, Chemosensors 11 (2023) 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors11100546

work page doi:10.3390/chemosensors11100546 2023
[10]

X. Wang, J. Zhou, H. Wang, Bioreceptors as the key components for electrochemical biosensing in medicine, Cell Reports Physical Science 5 (2024) 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2024.101801

work page doi:10.1016/j.xcrp.2024.101801 2024
[11]

Sheehan, L.J

P.E. Sheehan, L.J. Whitman, Detection Limits for Nanoscale Biosensors, Nano Lett. 5 (2005) 803–807. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl050298x

work page doi:10.1021/nl050298x 2005
[12]

Making it stick: convection, reaction and diffusion in surface-based biosensors,

T.M. Squires, R.J. Messinger, S.R. Manalis, Making it stick: convection, reaction and diffusion in surface- based biosensors, Nat Biotechnol 26 (2008) 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1388

work page doi:10.1038/nbt1388 2008
[13]

Shake It or Shrink It: Mass Transport and Kinetics in Surface Bioassays Using Agitation and Microfluidics,

I. Pereiro, A. Fomitcheva-Khartchenko, G.V. Kaigala, Shake It or Shrink It: Mass Transport and Kinetics in Surface Bioassays Using Agitation and Microfluidics, Anal. Chem. 92 (2020) 10187–10195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c01625

work page doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c01625 2020
[14]

Grieshaber, R

D. Grieshaber, R. MacKenzie, J. Voros, E. Reimhult, Electrochemical Biosensors - Sensor Principles and Architectures, (n.d.)

work page
[15]

Naresh, N

Varnakavi. Naresh, N. Lee, A Review on Biosensors and Recent Development of Nanostructured Materials- Enabled Biosensors, Sensors 21 (2021) 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21041109

work page doi:10.3390/s21041109 2021
[16]

Chadha, P

U. Chadha, P. Bhardwaj, R. Agarwal, P. Rawat, R. Agarwal, I. Gupta, M. Panjwani, S. Singh, C. Ahuja, S.K. Selvaraj, M. Banavoth, P. Sonar, B. Badoni, A. Chakravorty, Recent progress and growth in biosensors technology: A critical review, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 109 (2022) 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2022.02.010

work page doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2022.02.010 2022
[17]

Uniyal, G

A. Uniyal, G. Srivastava, A. Pal, S. Taya, A. Muduli, Recent Advances in Optical Biosensors for Sensing Applications: a Review, Plasmonics 18 (2023) 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11468-023-01803-2

work page doi:10.1007/s11468-023-01803-2 2023
[18]

Samuel, K.J

V.R. Samuel, K.J. Rao, A review on label free biosensors, Biosensors and Bioelectronics: X 11 (2022) 100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100216

work page doi:10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100216 2022
[19]

Aranaz, E

M. Aranaz, E. Valencia-Agudo, L. Lobo, R. Pereiro, Microsampling of biological fluids for elemental and isotopic analysis by ICP-MS: strategies and applications for disease diagnosis, J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 37 (2022) 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1JA00328C

work page doi:10.1039/d1ja00328c 2022
[20]

Africa, I

P.C. Africa, I. Fumagalli, M. Bucelli, A. Zingaro, M. Fedele, L. Dede’, A. Quarteroni, lifex-cfd: An open-source computational fluid dynamics solver for cardiovascular applications, Computer Physics Communications 296 (2024) 109039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.109039

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.109039 2024
[21]

F. Wang, L. An, T.L. Chan, An OpenFOAM solver incorporating detailed transport model for reacting flow simulations, Computer Physics Communications 309 (2025) 109472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109472

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109472 2025
[22]

Zhao, I.I

H. Zhao, I.I. Gorshkova, G.L. Fu, P. Schuck, A comparison of binding surfaces for SPR biosensing using an antibody–antigen system and affinity distribution analysis, Methods 59 (2013) 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2012.12.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2012.12.007 2013
[23]

Life and death of colloidal bonds control the rate-dependent rheology of gels

N. Maganzini, I. Thompson, B. Wilson, H.T. Soh, Pre-equilibrium biosensors as an approach towards rapid and continuous molecular measurements, Nat Commun 13 (2022) 7072. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 022-34778-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41467- 2022
[24]

Ackerberg, R.D

R.C. Ackerberg, R.D. Patel, S.K. Gupta, The heat/mass transfer to a finite strip at small Péclet numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 86 (1978) 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112078001007

work page doi:10.1017/s0022112078001007 1978
[25]

Newman, The fundamental principles of current distribution and mass transport in electrochemical cells, EACH V 6 (1973) 187–352

J. Newman, The fundamental principles of current distribution and mass transport in electrochemical cells, EACH V 6 (1973) 187–352

work page 1973
[26]

Montagnaro, Sherwood (Sh) Number in Chemical Engineering Applications—A Brief Review, Energies 17 (2024) 4342

F. Montagnaro, Sherwood (Sh) Number in Chemical Engineering Applications—A Brief Review, Energies 17 (2024) 4342. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174342

work page doi:10.3390/en17174342 2024
[27]

Myszka, X

D.G. Myszka, X. He, M. Dembo, T.A. Morton, B. Goldstein, Extending the Range of Rate Constants Available from BIACORE: Interpreting Mass Transport-Influenced Binding Data, Biophysical Journal 75 (1998) 583–

work page 1998
[28]

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77549-6

work page doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(98)77549-6
[29]

Y. Song, Z. Zhu, Y. An, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, D. Liu, C. Yu, W. Duan, C.J. Yang, Selection of DNA Aptamers against Epithelial Cell Adhesion Molecule for Cancer Cell Imaging and Circulating Tumor Cell Capture, Anal. Chem. 85 (2013) 4141–4149. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac400366b

work page doi:10.1021/ac400366b 2013
[30]

Madaboosi, R.R.G

N. Madaboosi, R.R.G. Soares, V. Chu, J.P. Conde, A microfluidic immunoassay platform for the detection of free prostate specific antigen: a systematic and quantitative approach, Analyst 140 (2015) 4423–4433. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5AN00364D

work page doi:10.1039/c5an00364d 2015
[31]

Bond, R.R

M.M. Bond, R.R. Richards-Kortum, Drop-to-Drop Variation in the Cellular Components of Fingerprick Blood: Implications for Point-of-Care Diagnostic Development, Am J Clin Pathol 144 (2015) 885–894. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP1L7DKMPCHPEH

work page doi:10.1309/ajcp1l7dkmpchpeh 2015
[32]

Keighley, P

S.D. Keighley, P. Li, P. Estrela, P. Migliorato, Optimization of DNA immobilization on gold electrodes for label- free detection by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 23 (2008) 1291–

work page 2008
[33]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2007.11.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.bios.2007.11.012 2007
[34]

Bennett, Y

H.-A. Bennett, Y. Li, H. Yan, Thermal treatment affects aptamers’ structural profiles, Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 82 (2023) 129150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2023.129150

work page doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2023.129150 2023
[35]

Sauerbrey, Verwendung von Schwingquarzen zur Wagung dunner Schichten und zur Mikrowagung, (n.d.)

G. Sauerbrey, Verwendung von Schwingquarzen zur Wagung dunner Schichten und zur Mikrowagung, (n.d.)

work page
[36]

Sohna Sohna, M.A

J.E. Sohna Sohna, M.A. Cooper, Does the Sauerbrey equation hold true for binding of peptides and globular proteins to a QCM?, Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 11 (2016) 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.07.001. Supplementary Material Supplementary A: experimental section ................................ ................................ ......... ...

work page doi:10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.07.001 2016

[1] [1]

Kubicek-Sutherland, D

J. Kubicek-Sutherland, D. Vu, H. Mendez, S. Jakhar, H. Mukundan, Detection of Lipid and Amphiphilic Biomarkers for Disease Diagnostics, Biosensors 7 (2017) 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios7030025

work page doi:10.3390/bios7030025 2017

[2] [2]

Mayeux, Biomarkers: Potential Uses and Limitations, 1 (2004)

R. Mayeux, Biomarkers: Potential Uses and Limitations, 1 (2004)

work page 2004

[3] [3]

S. Wang, X. Guan, S. Sun, Microfluidic Biosensors: Enabling Advanced Disease Detection, Sensors 25 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

https://doi.org/10.3390/s25061936

work page doi:10.3390/s25061936

[5] [5]

S. Garg, A. Sachdeva, M. Peeters, J. McClements, Point-of-Care Prostate Specific Antigen Testing: Examining Translational Progress toward Clinical Implementation, ACS Sens. 8 (2023) 3643–3658. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.3c01402

work page doi:10.1021/acssensors.3c01402 2023

[6] [6]

Wattmo, K

C. Wattmo, K. Blennow, O. Hansson, Cerebro-spinal fluid biomarker levels: phosphorylated tau (T) and total tau (N) as markers for rate of progression in Alzheimer’s disease, BMC Neurol 20 (2020) 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1591-0

work page doi:10.1186/s12883-019-1591-0 2020

[7] [7]

C. Lino, S. Barrias, R. Chaves, F. Adega, P. Martins-Lopes, J.R. Fernandes, Biosensors as diagnostic tools in clinical applications, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer 1877 (2022) 188726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2022.188726

work page doi:10.1016/j.bbcan.2022.188726 2022

[8] [8]

Rasmi, X

Y. Rasmi, X. Li, J. Khan, T. Ozer, J.R. Choi, Emerging point-of-care biosensors for rapid diagnosis of COVID- 19: current progress, challenges, and future prospects, Anal Bioanal Chem 413 (2021) 4137–4159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03377-6

work page doi:10.1007/s00216-021-03377-6 2021

[9] [9]

S.R.S. Pour, D. Calabria, A. Emamiamin, E. Lazzarini, A. Pace, M. Guardigli, M. Zangheri, M. Mirasoli, Electrochemical vs. Optical Biosensors for Point-of-Care Applications: A Critical Review, Chemosensors 11 (2023) 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors11100546

work page doi:10.3390/chemosensors11100546 2023

[10] [10]

X. Wang, J. Zhou, H. Wang, Bioreceptors as the key components for electrochemical biosensing in medicine, Cell Reports Physical Science 5 (2024) 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2024.101801

work page doi:10.1016/j.xcrp.2024.101801 2024

[11] [11]

Sheehan, L.J

P.E. Sheehan, L.J. Whitman, Detection Limits for Nanoscale Biosensors, Nano Lett. 5 (2005) 803–807. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl050298x

work page doi:10.1021/nl050298x 2005

[12] [12]

Making it stick: convection, reaction and diffusion in surface-based biosensors,

T.M. Squires, R.J. Messinger, S.R. Manalis, Making it stick: convection, reaction and diffusion in surface- based biosensors, Nat Biotechnol 26 (2008) 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1388

work page doi:10.1038/nbt1388 2008

[13] [13]

Shake It or Shrink It: Mass Transport and Kinetics in Surface Bioassays Using Agitation and Microfluidics,

I. Pereiro, A. Fomitcheva-Khartchenko, G.V. Kaigala, Shake It or Shrink It: Mass Transport and Kinetics in Surface Bioassays Using Agitation and Microfluidics, Anal. Chem. 92 (2020) 10187–10195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c01625

work page doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c01625 2020

[14] [14]

Grieshaber, R

D. Grieshaber, R. MacKenzie, J. Voros, E. Reimhult, Electrochemical Biosensors - Sensor Principles and Architectures, (n.d.)

work page

[15] [15]

Naresh, N

Varnakavi. Naresh, N. Lee, A Review on Biosensors and Recent Development of Nanostructured Materials- Enabled Biosensors, Sensors 21 (2021) 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21041109

work page doi:10.3390/s21041109 2021

[16] [16]

Chadha, P

U. Chadha, P. Bhardwaj, R. Agarwal, P. Rawat, R. Agarwal, I. Gupta, M. Panjwani, S. Singh, C. Ahuja, S.K. Selvaraj, M. Banavoth, P. Sonar, B. Badoni, A. Chakravorty, Recent progress and growth in biosensors technology: A critical review, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 109 (2022) 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2022.02.010

work page doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2022.02.010 2022

[17] [17]

Uniyal, G

A. Uniyal, G. Srivastava, A. Pal, S. Taya, A. Muduli, Recent Advances in Optical Biosensors for Sensing Applications: a Review, Plasmonics 18 (2023) 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11468-023-01803-2

work page doi:10.1007/s11468-023-01803-2 2023

[18] [18]

Samuel, K.J

V.R. Samuel, K.J. Rao, A review on label free biosensors, Biosensors and Bioelectronics: X 11 (2022) 100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100216

work page doi:10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100216 2022

[19] [19]

Aranaz, E

M. Aranaz, E. Valencia-Agudo, L. Lobo, R. Pereiro, Microsampling of biological fluids for elemental and isotopic analysis by ICP-MS: strategies and applications for disease diagnosis, J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 37 (2022) 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1JA00328C

work page doi:10.1039/d1ja00328c 2022

[20] [20]

Africa, I

P.C. Africa, I. Fumagalli, M. Bucelli, A. Zingaro, M. Fedele, L. Dede’, A. Quarteroni, lifex-cfd: An open-source computational fluid dynamics solver for cardiovascular applications, Computer Physics Communications 296 (2024) 109039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.109039

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.109039 2024

[21] [21]

F. Wang, L. An, T.L. Chan, An OpenFOAM solver incorporating detailed transport model for reacting flow simulations, Computer Physics Communications 309 (2025) 109472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109472

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109472 2025

[22] [22]

Zhao, I.I

H. Zhao, I.I. Gorshkova, G.L. Fu, P. Schuck, A comparison of binding surfaces for SPR biosensing using an antibody–antigen system and affinity distribution analysis, Methods 59 (2013) 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2012.12.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2012.12.007 2013

[23] [23]

Life and death of colloidal bonds control the rate-dependent rheology of gels

N. Maganzini, I. Thompson, B. Wilson, H.T. Soh, Pre-equilibrium biosensors as an approach towards rapid and continuous molecular measurements, Nat Commun 13 (2022) 7072. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 022-34778-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41467- 2022

[24] [24]

Ackerberg, R.D

R.C. Ackerberg, R.D. Patel, S.K. Gupta, The heat/mass transfer to a finite strip at small Péclet numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 86 (1978) 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112078001007

work page doi:10.1017/s0022112078001007 1978

[25] [25]

Newman, The fundamental principles of current distribution and mass transport in electrochemical cells, EACH V 6 (1973) 187–352

J. Newman, The fundamental principles of current distribution and mass transport in electrochemical cells, EACH V 6 (1973) 187–352

work page 1973

[26] [26]

Montagnaro, Sherwood (Sh) Number in Chemical Engineering Applications—A Brief Review, Energies 17 (2024) 4342

F. Montagnaro, Sherwood (Sh) Number in Chemical Engineering Applications—A Brief Review, Energies 17 (2024) 4342. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174342

work page doi:10.3390/en17174342 2024

[27] [27]

Myszka, X

D.G. Myszka, X. He, M. Dembo, T.A. Morton, B. Goldstein, Extending the Range of Rate Constants Available from BIACORE: Interpreting Mass Transport-Influenced Binding Data, Biophysical Journal 75 (1998) 583–

work page 1998

[28] [28]

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77549-6

work page doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(98)77549-6

[29] [29]

Y. Song, Z. Zhu, Y. An, W. Zhang, H. Zhang, D. Liu, C. Yu, W. Duan, C.J. Yang, Selection of DNA Aptamers against Epithelial Cell Adhesion Molecule for Cancer Cell Imaging and Circulating Tumor Cell Capture, Anal. Chem. 85 (2013) 4141–4149. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac400366b

work page doi:10.1021/ac400366b 2013

[30] [30]

Madaboosi, R.R.G

N. Madaboosi, R.R.G. Soares, V. Chu, J.P. Conde, A microfluidic immunoassay platform for the detection of free prostate specific antigen: a systematic and quantitative approach, Analyst 140 (2015) 4423–4433. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5AN00364D

work page doi:10.1039/c5an00364d 2015

[31] [31]

Bond, R.R

M.M. Bond, R.R. Richards-Kortum, Drop-to-Drop Variation in the Cellular Components of Fingerprick Blood: Implications for Point-of-Care Diagnostic Development, Am J Clin Pathol 144 (2015) 885–894. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP1L7DKMPCHPEH

work page doi:10.1309/ajcp1l7dkmpchpeh 2015

[32] [32]

Keighley, P

S.D. Keighley, P. Li, P. Estrela, P. Migliorato, Optimization of DNA immobilization on gold electrodes for label- free detection by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 23 (2008) 1291–

work page 2008

[33] [33]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2007.11.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.bios.2007.11.012 2007

[34] [34]

Bennett, Y

H.-A. Bennett, Y. Li, H. Yan, Thermal treatment affects aptamers’ structural profiles, Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 82 (2023) 129150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2023.129150

work page doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2023.129150 2023

[35] [35]

Sauerbrey, Verwendung von Schwingquarzen zur Wagung dunner Schichten und zur Mikrowagung, (n.d.)

G. Sauerbrey, Verwendung von Schwingquarzen zur Wagung dunner Schichten und zur Mikrowagung, (n.d.)

work page

[36] [36]

Sohna Sohna, M.A

J.E. Sohna Sohna, M.A. Cooper, Does the Sauerbrey equation hold true for binding of peptides and globular proteins to a QCM?, Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 11 (2016) 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.07.001. Supplementary Material Supplementary A: experimental section ................................ ................................ ......... ...

work page doi:10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.07.001 2016