Advances, applications, and limitations of portable and rapid detection technologies for routinely encountered foodborne pathogens

Abstract

Traditional foodborne pathogen detection methods are highly dependent on pre-treatment of samples and selective microbiological plating to reliably screen target microorganisms. Inherent limitations of conventional methods include longer turnaround time and high costs, use of bulky equipment, and the need for trained staff in centralized laboratory settings. Researchers have developed stable, reliable, sensitive, and selective, rapid foodborne pathogens detection assays to work around these limitations. Recent advances in rapid diagnostic technologies have shifted to on-site testing, which offers flexibility and ease-of-use, a significant improvement from traditional methods’ rigid and cumbersome steps. This comprehensive review aims to thoroughly discuss the recent advances, applications, and limitations of portable and rapid biosensors for routinely encountered foodborne pathogens. It discusses the major differences between biosensing systems based on the molecular interactions of target analytes and biorecognition agents. Though detection limits and costs still need further improvement, reviewed technologies have high potential to assist the food industry in the on-site detection of biological hazards such as foodborne pathogens and toxins to maintain safe and healthy foods. Finally, this review offers targeted recommendations for future development and commercialization of diagnostic technologies specifically for emerging and re-emerging foodborne pathogens.

Microfluidic systems for infectious disease diagnostics

“…317 Other recent review articles that include microfluidic devices have been worked out, for instance by Gao et al, who discussed advances in microfluidic devices for foodborne pathogen detection, 318 by Shang et al with focus on advances in nanomaterial-based microfluidic platforms, 319 by Ranjbaran et al on microfluidics at the interface of bacteria and fresh produce, 320 or by Quintela et al on advances and limitations of portable and rapid detection technologies for foodborne pathogens. 321 326 Wang et al discussed microfluidic sampling and biosensing systems for foodborne E. coli and Salmonella. 327 In the context of GTI diagnosis, only a few microfluidic devices have been designed for or tested directly with human samples, in particular fecal samples.…”

“…317 Other recent review articles that include microfluidic devices have been worked out, for instance by Gao et al , who discussed advances in microfluidic devices for foodborne pathogen detection, 318 by Shang et al with focus on advances in nanomaterial-based microfluidic platforms, 319 by Ranjbaran et al on microfluidics at the interface of bacteria and fresh produce, 320 or by Quintela et al on advances and limitations of portable and rapid detection technologies for foodborne pathogens. 321 Mi et al summarized microfluidic biosensor tools for foodborne pathogenic bacteria and Su et al investigated microfluidic nucleic acid tests of foodborne viruses. 322,323 Other reviews focused on specific pathogens, such as POC methods for detection of norovirus by Zaczek-Moczydlowska et al or POC diagnosis for E. coli O157:H7 in food and water by Rani et al 324,325 Shen et al explored biosensor technologies for rapid detection of Salmonella in food.…”

Prevalence and Distribution of Thermotolerant <i>Campylobacter</i> Species in Poultry: A Comprehensive Review with a Focus on the Factors Affecting the Detection and Enumeration of <i>Campylobacter jejuni</i> and <i>Campylobacter coli</i> in Chicken Meat

“…Serological methods (i.e., immunoassays) (e.g., enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; ELISA) [124][125][126][127][128], biosensors for the on-site detection of foodborne pathogens [129,130], DNA hybridization techniques (e.g., loop-mediated isothermal amplification; LAMP) [126,131,132], DNA fingerprinting techniques (e.g., multilocus sequence typing; MLST) [133][134][135] and above all PCR-based method and techniques (e.g., multiplex PCR; mPCR, quantitative or real time PCR; qPCR/rt-PCR), have been developed for the fastest and most efficient identification and differentiation of Campylobacter species among other foodborne pathogens. It should be noted though that some DNA fingerprinting techniques are more sophisticated (e.g., pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; PFGE, whole-genome sequencing; WGS) and require well-trained personnel with a know-how-to conduct the technique and interpret the data.…”

Bioaffinity Nanoprobes for Foodborne Pathogen Sensing

“…Tests using Escherichia coli O157:H7 as a representative organism showed that the smartphone-based procedure could detect concentrations between 10 4 and 10 5 CFU/mL in both spinach and ground beef samples [ 153 ]. Many examples of the applications of these newer detection techniques have been mentioned extensively in various articles [ 151 , 154 , 155 , 156 ].…”