A Review of Piezoelectric and Magnetostrictive Biosensor Materials for Detection of COVID‐19 and Other Viruses

Abstract

fever with or without chills, chest tightness, dry cough, and shortness of breath, while developing patchy to diffuse infiltration of the lungs, as shown radiographically in Figure 1. Identifying and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infection has become crucially important. A recent projection of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 [2] showed that longitudinal serological studies are desperately needed to determine the extent and duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Even in the event of apparent elimination, maintenance of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance is still needed because of a possible resurgence of contagion. In the past, notable viruses have emerged suddenly from obscurity or anonymity, provoking concern from the point of view of immunology regarding their sustained epidemic transmission in naive human populations. More than 70% of these infections have been zoonotic, entering either directly from wild animal reservoirs or indirectly via an intermediate domestic animal host. [3] Ebola virus, avian influenza, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and SARS are all examples of zoonoses that have emerged from wild animals, presenting an increasingly serious threat to human health and economies worldwide. Figure 2 shows the trend in the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2. [4] The spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus has changed the lives of people around the world with a huge impact on economies and societies. The development of wearable sensors that can continuously monitor the environment for viruses may become an important research area. Here, the state of the art of research on biosensor materials for virus detection is reviewed. A general description of the principles for virus detection is included, along with a critique of the experimental work dedicated to various virus sensors, and a summary of their detection limitations. The piezoelectric sensors used for the detection of human papilloma, vaccinia, dengue, Ebola, influenza A, human immunodeficiency, and hepatitis B viruses are examined in the first section; then the second part deals with magnetostrictive sensors for the detection of bacterial spores, proteins, and classical swine fever. In addition, progress related to early detection of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is discussed in the final section, where remaining challenges in the field are also identified. It is believed that this review will guide material researchers in their future work of developing smart biosensors, which can further improve detection sensitivity in monitoring currently known and future virus threats.

Performance study of a sterilization box using a combination of heat and ultraviolet light irradiation for the prevention of COVID-19

“…The virus can be inactivated by altering the stability of this protein. Various physical ( e.g ., temperature and adsorption) and chemical ( e.g ., pH, disinfectants and surface modification) methods have been explored to test the stability of the spike protein ( Narita et al, 2021 ; Pandey, 2020a ; Pandey, 2020b ). It has been reported that SARS-CoV-2 remains stable on different surfaces but can be inactivated by heating at a temperature greater than 65 °C for more than 5 minutes of duration ( Abraham et al, 2020 ).…”

Design and finite element simulation of metal-core piezoelectric fiber/epoxy matrix composites for virus detection

“…For example, it could play the role as an energy harvesting fiber to power other two PZT fibers for virus detection. This is a challenging research area [ 27 ], and later some progress will be made.…”

Science’s Response to COVID-19

“…197 Molecular noses, and dogs have also been proposed as a means to identify CoVID-19 sufferers, although these seem a long way off deployment. 198 Several nanotechnology-based strategies have also been reported, 199 although again these seem a long way from even entering trials. Chest computed tomography (CCT) procedures were shown to be 97% accurate, 56% specific and 72% accurate by a group from Italy, 200 which agrees with previous data from a group from China.…”