Combining Two Selection Principles: Sensor Arrays Based on Both Biomimetic Recognition and Chemometrics

Abstract

Electronic noses mimic smell and taste senses by using sensor arrays to assess complex samples and to simultaneously detect multiple analytes. In most cases, the sensors forming such arrays are not highly selective. Selectivity is attained by pattern recognition/chemometric data treatment of the response pattern. However, especially when aiming at quantifying analytes rather than qualitatively detecting them, it makes sense to implement chemical recognition via receptor layers, leading to increased selectivity of individual sensors. This review focuses on existing sensor arrays developed based on biomimetic approaches to maximize chemical selectivity. Such sensor arrays for instance use molecularly imprint polymers (MIPs) in both e-noses and e-tongues, for example, to characterize headspace gas compositions or to detect protein profiles. Other array types employ entire cells, proteins, and peptides, as well as aptamers, respectively, in multisensor systems. There are two main reasons for combining chemoselectivity and chemometrics: First, this combined approach increases the analytical quality of quantitative data. Second, the approach helps in gaining a deeper understanding of the olfactory processes in nature.

Affinity Ionic Liquids for Chemoselective Gas Sensing

“…These structure-directed sensing materials have been reported to successfully analyze organic molecules for determination of optimal harvest maturity in fruits. Nonetheless, the complete removal of analytes from the MIPs can be challenging and limits its productivity [ 64 ].…”

Bio-Inspired Strategies for Improving the Selectivity and Sensitivity of Artificial Noses: A Review

“…Sensors 2020, 20, x 3 of 28 molecular imprinted polymers [7]. Furthermore, it seems increasingly clear that the use of biological materials and biomolecules as sensitive elements is necessary to approach the performance of the biological nose in terms of odor detection and identification.…”

“…This review does not intend to give specific information on the design and working principle of artificial noses, but rather intends to provide suggestions for improving the performance of existing systems. Those relying on metal oxide semiconductors (MOS) or conducting polymers have been extensively studied and reviewed [6], as were devices relying on molecular imprinted polymers [7]. Furthermore, it seems increasingly clear that the use of biological materials and biomolecules as sensitive elements is necessary to approach the performance of the biological nose in terms of odor detection and identification.…”

Portable Analytical Techniques for Monitoring Volatile Organic Chemicals in Biomanufacturing Processes: Recent Advances and Limitations

“…An early study was report by Liden et al (2000) to quantify major metabolites during fermentation of a yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, through on-line analysis of the off-gas emission using a set of 10 MOSFETs (e.g., ethanol, acetaldehyde, etc.). Other successful applications of Enoses in detecting mammalian cell lines have been continuously reported (Calderon-Santoyo et al, 2010;Cuypers and Lieberzeit, 2018). Examples involve the monitoring of metabolic burden in the fermentation process of a recombinant Escherichia coli (Bachinger et al, 2001), the early detection of bacterial/fungal contaminations in mammalian (e.g., recombinant CHO cells) and in insect (e.g., recombinant Sf-9 cell for protein production) cell lines (Bachinger et al, 2002;Kreij et al, 2005), as well as the quantification of plant cell cultures (e.g., Morinda citrifolia and Nicotiana tabacum) (Komaraiah et al, 2004), and of spore concentration in the cultures of Bacillus subtilis, a species for oral bacteriotherapy of gastrointestinal diseases (Clemente et al, 2008).…”