Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review examines the performance and regulatory challenges of nanomaterial-based biosensors, suggesting crucial design considerations for improved deployment.
Electrochemical biosensors represent mature platforms for point-of-need analysis due to their high sensitivity, intrinsic selectivity, low cost, and facile miniaturization. In the last decade, nanomaterials have become integral to advanced biosensor architectures, acting as high-surface-area supports, electron-transfer mediators, and signal-amplifying elements. This review critically examines the most represented nanomaterial classes in mature electrochemical biosensors—carbon nanostructures, gold nanoparticles, and iron-based magnetic nanoparticles—highlighting how morphology, electronic structure, and surface chemistry influence key performance metrics such as limit of detection, linear range, and assay time. Despite a strong technology push and numerous proof-of-concept demonstrations, the translation of nanomaterial-enabled electrochemical biosensors into commercial devices remains limited. This gap arises from the intrinsic physicochemical complexity of nanomaterials, which hampers standardization, reproducibility, and long-term safety assessment. Accordingly, this review integrates performance analysis with a systematic overview of the European regulatory framework, including the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (EU) 2017/745, the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVR) (EU) 2017/746, EFSA guidance for food and water applications, and relevant ISO standards, outlining key translational bottlenecks and design principles for deployable biosensing technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rondinini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: