“…25,27,29,31,50,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] The data in this table reveal that only two documented studies utilized miniaturized screen-printed electrodes, one with carbon material in differential pulse adsorptive stripping voltammetric mode (DPAdSV) 27 and the other with an antimony film in LSV mode, 54 deviating from the conventional three-electrode system where individual electrodes are immersed separately into the analyzed solution. Furthermore, the most of electrochemical methods listed in Table IV employed chemically modified electrodes 29,31,54,55,[57][58][59][60][61]63 to amplify sensitivity and/or selectivity of DZP determination. In addition, with the exception of one work that used flow injection analysis with differential pulse amperometry (FIA-DPA) on a glassy carbon electrode (GCE) with the achieved LOD of 13.4 μM, 62 the majority of these methods involved the determination of DZP in a stationary system.…”