Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Inorganic Chemistry Communications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/inoche

Design and development of colorimetric, whole-cell based, electrochemical

biosensors for arsenic detection
Sanika Jain, Ritu Panwar, Jyoti Mathur *
Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Banasthali Vidyapith, Banasthali, Rajasthan, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Heavy metal contamination seriously threatens human health since these substances are non-biodegradable and
Arsenic toxicity retained by the ecosystem. Pollution caused by heavy metals is a natural and human-caused issue that has
Atomic absorption spectroscopy resulted in increased heavy metal content in natural environments that is too dangerous for human health. The
Detection
presence of heavy metals is not only toxic to human health but also has an impact on soil and plant productivity.
Biosensors
Heavy metal
Among the various contaminants concentration of heavy metals such as As, Pb, Hg, and Cd has increased, causing
concern among most of the world’s population. Nowadays, biosensors are a potent substitute for traditional
analytical methods for regulating water quality, including natural water, process water used in the food industry
during production, and wastewater before it is released into natural water courses. It is an analytical tool that is
portable, inexpensive, time-saving, highly sensitive, and selective that produces results in a split second. The
analytical gadget synergistically combines microelectronics and biotechnology and comprises a transducer and
an immobilized biocomponent. Several harmful compounds, like pesticides, heavy metals, etc., can be detected
and measured using water, soil, and food biosensors. The goal is to detect the concentration of heavy metal ions
in the soil, water, and food because their toxicity can cause damage to all life forms using biosensor. This review
summarizes the principle, types, construction, and application of biosensors for arsenic detection.

1. Introduction
Pollution of soil, air, and water with heavy metals is a worldwide
environmental problem [1,2]. Contamination of heavy metals in soil and
water has been come from industrial (like smelting, mining, and
refining) and agricultural activities [3]. Heavy metal toxicity poses se­
vere threats, as metals can be biomagnified when enter the food chain
[4]. Heavy metals such as As, Pb, Hg, Cd are widely toxic in nature [2].
Arsenic (As) is a lethal element that increases toxicity worldwide and
affects plants, animals and human health. It is an earth’s crust element
present in the soil and rock, atmosphere, organisms and water bodies
[5]. As is a metalloid i.e., an element that is not truly a metal but which
also has some properties of metal. In the environment, it is not present as
a free element but is mostly present in sulfur-containing compounds in
which As is present as metal arsenides [6]. Arsenic trioxide (As2O3) is
the most common inorganic As found in the air, whereas multiple
inorganic arsenites (AsO2− ) or arsenates (AsO3− 4 ) are found in the soil,
food, and water [7,8].
Absorption of As-containing minerals is a key natural source, while
industrial activities like paper, paint, fuel and fossil also contribute to As
toxicity [9–13]. The worldwide effect of As pollution in the environment
is because of natural processes such as weathering reactions, volcanic
emissions and a range of anthropogenic activities [14–17]. Groundwater
arsenic contamination has been ecologically reported in several coun­
tries including Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Thailand, India and the
United States, and millions of people globally have been affected by its
toxicity [18,19]). The Ganga-Meghna-Brahmaputra plains of India and
Bangladesh are the most exposed region to arsenic [20,21]. In India,
states like Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Man­
ipur, and Uttar Pradesh are the highest groundwater contaminated re­
gions with arsenic above the allowable limit (>0.05 mg/L).The
allowable limits for arsenic in agricultural soil (20 mg/kg), drinking
water (0.01 mg/L), irrigation water (0.10 mg/l) and in food it is esti­
mated to be an average 3.2 μg/day, with a range of 1–20 μg/dayin adults
as well as in children’s was established by Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry in 1985 [22–24]. Arsenic that accumulated in the
environment reached in human as it become an integral part of the food
chain and causing health related problem such as skin cancer [25]. The

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jain.sanika571@gmail.com (S. Jain), ch.ritupanwar@gmail.com (R. Panwar), contact.srivastava@gmail.com (J. Mathur).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inoche.2023.110730
Received 22 February 2023; Received in revised form 1 April 2023; Accepted 17 April 2023
Available online 20 April 2023
1387-7003/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Jain et al.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered arsenic, a famous
carcinogen and one of the world most harmful chemical [26].
1.1. Environmental hazards of arsenic
Very low concentration of arsenic approximately 5 mg/kg is
poisonous to plants and is non-essential. It usually affects the roots first,
as it inhibits root extension and proliferation. It can critically hinder
plant growth by stopping or slowing cell enlargement or biomass as it
travels through shoots [27]. It can reduce plant reproductive capacity by
causing fertility losses and inhibiting the maturation of reproductive
organs. Plant yield components are thus retarded, resulting in lower
yield or fruit production. Arsenic causes Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)
within the cell, which can lead to peroxidation of lipids and proteins,
severely affecting cellular and sub-cellular organelles, and even causing
DNA damage. It interferes in metabolic processes at very low concen­
trations [28].
In most marine warm-blooded animal, seabirds and ocean turtles,
hazard to these aquatic animals might be somewhat low in spite of
maintenance of high fixations in their tissues. Inorganic arsenic works as
cancer-causing agent for most of the marine species. The high amount of
As affects various physiological systems in an aquatic ecosystem such as
ion regulation, growth reproduction, enzyme activity, gene expression,
smoltification and histopathology of organisms [29,30]. Sublethal im­
pacts including iron deficiency, gallbladder irritation, and liver disease,
were seen at oceanic groupings of 9.64 mgL− 1 and dietary fixations of
43.1–60 mg/g [31]. Plant and animals exposure to As and induce gen­
otoxic responses [32]. Numerous studies have proposed that As geno­
toxicity is at first linked with the ROS during its transformation. In this
Fig. 1. Analytical methods used for Arsenic detection.
2
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
way, the ROS produce protein and cause oxidative harm to the DNA
[33].
Natural geochemical processes, irrigation with As contaminated
groundwater, mining operations, fertilisation using municipal solid
wastes and As-based pesticides are all ways for the As to enter farms
[34]. Cultivation of agricultural products with As contaminated
groundwater and its consumption is the source of chronic arsenic
exposure [35]. Death from acute arsenic poisoning is usually caused by
cardiovascular collapse and hypovolemic shock [36]. Ingested arsenic
trioxide has a lethal dose of 70 to 180 mg (mg), or about 600 µg per
kilogram (kg) per day. Long-term exposure to arsenic-contaminated
water or crops causes arsenicosis, which can result in bladder cancer,
blood vessel disease in the legs and feet, kidney cancer, lung cancer, and
skin diseases such as change in color and hardness of palms and soles
and skin cancer [37]. Blackfoot disease (BFD), acrocyanosis and Ray­
naud’s syndrome, which is a form of vascular disease, testified among
people in Taiwan to be one of the vital problems of As toxicity [38].
1.2. Arsenic detection
There are several analytical techniques for detecting trace elements
like arsenic. These methods have been very carefully evaluated by [39].
The majority of these techniques are trustworthy and can be used to
measure incredibly low levels of arsenic. The different approved tech­
niques for determining arsenic shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the cost of
analyses using these methods can be as high as $8–10 per sample
[40–42]. These procedures, however, have a number of significant
drawbacks, including the need for bulky, expensive gear, field adapt­
ability, the need for highly qualified technical personnel, chemical
S. Jain et al.
processing of the sample, etc. Therefore, the necessity for alternative,
time- and money-saving solutions for the real-time detection of arsenic is
paramount. The development of effortless, compact, and economical
sensing way for quick and well-grounded detection of As in environ­
mental samples is currently underway. The need of the hour is to
develop highly reactive, time-saving, and authentic electroanalytical
methods for its in-vivo detection [43].
2. Biosensor as detector
A biosensor is an analytical instrument that comprises of immobi­
lized biological material adjacent to a suitable transducer that trans­
forms the biochemical signal into an electrical signal that can be
quantified. Biosensors are the result of the first successful union of
modern electronics and biotechnology [44,45]. A combination of
physical and chemical sensing methods is used by biosensors, which are
analytical sensory devices. The direct interaction of two components-
biological and physicochemical-that come into close proximity and
develop a strong link thanks to chemical or physical immobilization
techniques is the foundation of their functionality. The ability to
recognize a particular analyte from the medium of interest depends on
the interaction between the bioreceptor and the analyte. Analyte-
bioreceptor contact results in a response at their interface, which is
turned into a measurable signal by a physicochemical transducer that
may be processed and displayed as readable data. For proper biosensor
performance, the biological substance must be fixed close to the trans­
ducer. This can be done by either chemical or physical attachment [46].
The physicochemical transducer creates an electrical output signal
that is amplified by the electronic component; the biomolecules are
responsible for recognizing particular analytes. In enzyme based
biosensor enzyme specificity is the primary reason for their use in bio­
sensors. Because the majority of the enzymes used in sensors have been
isolated from microorganisms, it stands to reason that the organisms
themselves should be considered potential biocatalysts. Enzymes in
microorganisms remain in their natural environment, increasing their
stability and activity [47–50]. Cell membranes and organelles can also
Fig. 2. Classification of arsenic biosensor based on biological components.
3
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
be used to build biosensors. Immunobiosensors can take advantage of
specific antibody-antigen binding. Receptor-based sensors are very
appealing for detecting very low concentrations of substances such as
drugs, toxins, or explosives. In the construction of biosensors, various
immobilization procedures have been used. In general, the procedure
chosen is determined by the nature of the biological element, the type of
transducer used the physicochemical properties of the analyte, and the
operating conditions of the biosensor. Perhaps the most important
consideration is that the biological component exhibits high activity
with appropriate specificity in its immobilized microenvironment.
Entrapment and encapsulation, covalent binding, cross linking, and
adsorption are the four main methods for immobilizing enzymes and
microbes. Colorimetric, whole cell based, cell based electrochemical
(amperometric, potentiometric), approaches are used to construct
biosensor for the detection of arsenic. Specificity, reliability, portability,
(in most cases) ability to function in optically opaque solutions, real-
time analysis, and ease of operation are all important characteristics
of a good biosensing system [51–54].
Biosensor is portable, that is why the use of biological sensors or
biosensors in heavy metal detection appears promising. Enzyme, pro­
tein, and DNAzyme, biosensors based on electrochemical transduction
are sensitive, selective, and low-cost detection methods. These bio­
molecules are biodegradable, extremely selective, and easily obtained
using an in-vitro method. Furthermore, specific analytes after binding to
receptor provides direct electronic signals for its detection, which
eliminates the need for expensive signal transforming instruments [55]
Fig. 2.
3. Types and applications of biosensor for arsenic detection
1. Colorimetric biosensor
The most widely used technique for easy signal transduction is now
colorimetric measurement of arsenic [56]. For colorimetric studies of
arsenic, one of the most popular techniques is the Gutzeit method. This
technique was used to create arsenic field test kits. Although the Gutzeit
method-based methodology is cost-effective, one of its by-products is
S. Jain et al.
hazardous arsine gas. In colorimetric analysis, a colour reagent is used to
determine the amount of a chemical element or chemical compound in a
solution [57,58]. Arsenic in water samples is typically found using the
molybdenum blue as a detector. Arsenic (V) is the only substance that
can be detected using the molybdenum blue-based approach, and the
interaction between arsenic (V) and reduced molybdenum is what
causes the blue hue to appear. As a result, arsenic (V) and arsenic may be
distinguished by molybdenum blue (III) [59]. To improve the speed,
accuracy, economy, and efficiency of arsenic colorimetric sensors, re­
searchers looked into materials with metal nanostructures. The main use
of metal nanostructure-based sensors has been to clarify a basic concept
of colour conversion that has been investigated for colorimetric detec­
tion of arsenic solution [60]. Scientists have concentrated heavily on
creating gold nanoparticle (AuNP)-based sensors to detect arsenic in
water samples. Using localised surface plasmon resonance (LSPR), gold-
modified lauryl sulphate nanoparticles with a limit of detection (LOD) of
2 ppb have recently been reported for colorimetric sensing of arsenic
(III). Due to the inter-particle coupling effect, the colour of AuNPs with
arsenic (III) ions changed from pink to blue, shifting the LSPR band.
Lauryl sulphate aggregates and is replaced by the arsenic contaminant
while acting as a capping agent for AuNPs [61]. The inherent ability to
bind sulfur-containing substances strongly is a characteristic trait of
arsenic, Therefore, glutathione (GSH), dithiothreitol (DTT), cysteine
(Cys), and 2,6-pyridine dicarboxylic acid (PDCA) [GSH-DTT-CYs-
PDCA]-functionalized AuNPs can detect arsenic (III) [62]. [63]
created standard solutions of As (III) (Sodium arsenate) using 0.1 M
aqueous solutions of Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and Hydrochloric acid
(HCl) and combined them with Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) in a conical
flask while keeping the pH of the sample solution at 7.0. The mixture of
the solution was kept at room temperature to observe the chemical re­
action and the alteration in colour of the nanoparticles. For Arsenic, the
hue of the sample solution quickly shifted from pink to purple. The
change in colour of the solution mixture can be detected with the naked
eye, and the UV–Vis spectrometer was used to measure the signal in­
tensity of the solution mixture in the 200–800 nm regions (Fig. 3).
Compared to gold nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles have a quicker
reaction to localized surface plasmon resonance and are more sensitive
[64]. Silver nanoparticles that have been Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-
functionalized are effective at finding arsenic (III) ions in aqueous
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of steps involved in colorimetric detection of arsenic.
4
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
solutions. Due to the inclusion of PEG, the PEG-modified silver nano­
particles are adequate to detect arsenic (III) in concentrations as low as
1 ppb [65]. There are some transition metals such as Fe3O4, MgO, TiO2,
ZnO, NiO, SnO2, CeO2, MnO2, ZrO4, and NiWO4 that are usually
economical, highly conductive, suitable adsorbents and highly stable. In
order to detect arsenic (III) ions, metal nanoparticles shown exceptional
capabilities [66]. As an illustration, gold-bonded Fe3O4 nanoparticles
demonstrated good selectivity and swift visual detection of arsenic. For
the detection of arsenic (III), the Fe3O4 Au-based colorimetric method
displayed a LOD of 0.86 ppb [67].
3.1. pH-based paper biosensor
A subclass of paper-based microfluidics called paper-based bio­
sensors is used to find toxic elements in water. Devices that use paper for
detection have been praised for their affordability, portability, and
simplicity of use. It is a strong choice for point-of-care testing because of
its mobility in particular. Due to the properties of simplicity, portability,
speed, disposability, and selectivity that these colorimetric paper-based
analytical devices offer, a variety of chemical compounds have been
detected using them [68–70]. [63] recently showed the application of a
colorimetric paper-based sensor for the on-site measurement of As (III)
in environmental water samples utilizing glucose-functionalized AuNPs
under the best possible circumstances. The approach relied on the non-
covalent interaction between the analytes and AuNPs/Glu. For the se­
lective measurement of As (III) utilizing NPs in water samples, the ef­
fects of concurrent ions and cross-contaminants were also investigated.
Finally, using a paper-based colorimetric sensor, AuNPs/Glu was used to
determine the amount of As (III) in pond water, river, industrial waste
and bore-well. Arsenic ions from contaminated sample sites were
analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using the observed color
change of the detecting zone of the paper substrate with As (III) from
pink to violet [56] (Fig. 4).
These assays do have certain drawbacks, though, and researchers are
constantly attempting to increase their precision, sensitivity, and ca­
pacity to simultaneously test for a number of pollutants (see Fig. 5).
S. Jain et al. Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730

from a heavy metal resistance operon are frequently connected to a

Fig. 4. Paper-based colorimetric sensor’s As (III) determination utilizing
AuNPs/Glu for arsenic detection.
4. Cell-based biosensor
4.1. Whole cell based
Whole-cell biosensors (WCBs) have recently been the subject of
substantial research for the precise and sensitive detection of harmful
heavy metal ions. The transcriptional regulator and cognate promoter
reporter gene like fluorescence, luminescence, or enzyme assays such
that the signal strength from the reporter is correlated to the concen­
tration of the heavy metal to be measured [71,72]. T. The identification
of the regulatory components and subsequent performance optimization
by altering the regulatory components or the genetic circuit are essential
for the development of a sensitive and precise whole-cell biosensor.
Escherichia coli has an arsenic resistance operon that includes the
transcriptional regulators arsR (transcriptional regulator), arsB (arsenite
permease), and arsC [73,74]. Arsenate reductase (ArsR), a transcription
regulator, attaches to the ArsR-binding site (ABS) in the ars promoter
and prevents transcription when arsenic isn’t present. Once present,
arsenic binds to ArsR, altering the promoter’s local structure to activate
the transcription of the ars genes and eliminate arsenic from the cell
[75–78]. Arsenic WCBs have been built using the arsR regulator and this
operon’s promoter in a variety of microbial hosts. Since E. coli naturally
includes the ars operon, [79] utilized it as the host to manufacture
arsenic WCBs. To enhance the WCB’s functionality, genetic circuit en­
gineering was used. Positive feedback is frequently found in nature and
is well known for amplifying signals. The sensitivity of WCBs to a variety
of analytes, such as antibiotics, amino acids, and heavy metals, has been
enhanced by using it. In order to increase sensitivity and specificity,
their approach was the first to incorporate an arsenic WCB positive
feedback loop using the LuxR autoregulatory components. Their study’s
comparison of designs with and without the positive feedback amplifier
offers insightful information for the future development of WCBs.

Fig. 5. Biosensor for arsenic detection using screen printed carbon electrode.

5
S. Jain et al. Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730

4.2. Luciferase-based biosensors
Many recombinant strains have been documented based on the
luciferase gene’s luminous activity. The easiest and most accurate way
to measure the regulation and expression of genes is with luciferase.
Based on the luciferase gene’s luminous activity, various recombinant
strains have been developed that are used to developed biosensor for
detection of arsenic [80,81].To ensure host compatibility, it also pro­
vides the choice of either a firefly or bacterial origin for the gene.
[82,83] described the first gene constructs containing luciferase (luxAB)
in fusion with the arsenic resistance operon and their regulation.
Following that, [84] announced the development of a luminous re­
combinant bacterial strain for arsenic analysis. The assessment of gene
expression and regulation that luciferase offers is the most accurate and
straightforward [85,86]. Examples of luciferase gene-based arsenic
biosensors along with limit of detection and certain limitations are given
in Table 1.
4.3. lacZ-based biosensors
Since it allows for repeatable and accurate detection using various
techniques, The lacZ (galactosidase) gene has also been suggested as a
potential candidate for arsenic biosensing [87]. The electrochemical
polarization of p-aminophenol (PAP), which is formed by the enzymatic
oxidation of p-aminophenyl D-galactopyranoside (PAPG), or a reaction
on X-gal that is catalyzed by an enzyme could be used for Gal-based
signal transduction and result in a colorimetric response [88]. More
quickly than luciferase, both of these methods enable analysis. A re­
combinant pMV-arsR-ABS for a galactosidase-based biosensor was
created by [89]. It was created as a qualitative paper strip test in a more
unpolished and durable version. At 20 ◦ C, the formed strip remained
stable for two months. Later, [90] reported the development of a spore-
forming bacterial bioreporter B. subtilis (ars 23), carrying the lacZ gene
with arsR regulatory protein controlling its expression. The analysis
approach was made easy, affordable, and adaptable to extreme climatic
conditions because of cell suspension generated from spores. Also, they
make it easier to move, store, and preserve the system onsite. Examples
of luciferase gene-based arsenic biosensors along with the limit of
detection and certain limitations are given in Table 1.
4.4. Green fluorescent protein (gfp)-based biosensors
The main benefit of choosing green fluorescent protein as a reporter
gene over luciferase- and lacZ-based techniques is that it does not
require a substrate [91–93]. Additionally, it offers continuous mea­
surement as opposed to end-point measurement [94–96]. A gfp bio­
reporter construct of E. coli (p1 RC1140) containing an operator/
promoter, the arsR gene, and a portion of the arsD gene from p1RC120
coupled with gfp from Aequorea victoria was described by [97]. After a
12-hour induction period, the bacterial biosensors showed a persistent
fluorescence signal with a detection limit of 1 mg/L and a nonlinear
response between 1 mg/L and 10 mg/L. In order to illuminate, assemble,
and detect the fluorescence produced by the E. coli strain 1598 carrying
the plasmid pPROBE-ArsR-ABS, [96] recently created an automated

Table 1
Biosensors for arsenic detection.
Biosensor Detection limit (LOD) Limitation References
for As (III) (ug/l)

1. Colorimetric method
a) A paper-based microfluidics device using gold 1.0 They cannot be reused. Gold nanoparticles are costly. [56,63,117]
nanoparticles.
b) pH-based paper biosensor using glucose modified 5.6
gold nanoparticles.
c) Cationic polymers and aptamers based using Gold 5.3
nanoparticles.

2. Whole cell-based biosensor

a) Pseudomonas fluorescense OS8 (pTPT31) harboring 0.77 Low induction coefficient, semi-quantitative analysis, [130,85,86,81,131,88,97,94,93]
arsR–lucGR fusion. non-specificity
b) Escherichia coli (E. coli) DH5α 0.74
(pASPW2–arsR–luxCDABE) Interference by
c) E. coli arsRp:luc based biosensor Antimony, maintenance of bacterial culture
d) Immobilized biophotonic beads consisting 3.75
of Photobacterium leiognathi Need of cell lysis for luminescence signal
e) Bacillus subtilis (ars23) spores captured on 0.5 Poor detection limit, complex media composition, non-
microfluidic platform CD specificity.
f) E. coli DH5α (pPROBE′ ars–ABS–RBS–lacZ strain 7.7 Unsuitable for onsite measurement
2245) harboring arsR–lacZ fusion.
g) E. coli pIRC140 harboring arsR–gfp fusion Risk of electrode contamination and perturbation with
h) Aspergillus niger harboring arsA–egfp fusion protein 0.8 repeated use.
i) Magnetic nanoparticle based thermos responsive
biosensor 1 Long induction period, non-linear response, high
background signal.
1.8 Effect of storage conditions and media requirement
uncertain, long exposure time, unsuitable for onsite
1 monitoring.
Non-specificity, variable results in hard water conditions.

3. Electrochemical based biosensor

a) DNA functionalized SWCNT hybrid biosensor Calf 0.05 Non-specificity, Electrode regeneration problem [132,113,117,122,133,134]
thymus Sophisticated electrode preparation, non-specificity
b) DNA based SPR biosensor 10
c) Aptamer–CTAB complex based Gold nanoparticle 0.66 Non-specificity
biosensor Unstable practical application
d) Aptamer–CV nanoparticle based biosensor 0.2 Interference from ppm level humic aid
e) Acetylcholine based electrochemical biosensor 0.015 Non-specificity
f) Arsenite oxidase based electrochemical biosensor 1
g) Urease immobilized screen printed ceramic sensor 0–20

6
S. Jain et al.
electronic system. A microfluidics Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) device
with two parallel As(III) analytical channels was used to mount the
bioreporter inside agarose minibeads. At a 20-minute period, two par­
allel channels of measurements were made one after the other. The
gadget responded to concentrations of 10 mg/L at 80 min and 50 mg/L
at 120 min. Examples of luciferase gene-based arsenic biosensors along
with the limit of detection and certain limitations are given in Table 1.
5. Electrochemical biosensors
Cell free molecules such as DNA, protein, aptamers, and enzymes
coupled with electrochemical approach of detection are used to detect
arsenic. This coupling reduces time and labour and increases the selec­
tivity and sensitivity of the sensors that makes the device portable
[76,98].
The term “electrochemical biosensor” refers to a class of analytical
tools that convert biochemical processes like enzyme-substrate reactions
and antigen–antibody interactions into electrical signals (such as cur­
rent, voltage, impedance, etc) [99,100]. Numerous types of biosensors
have successively been introduced and marketed for a variety of pur­
poses since Clark developed the first iteration of an electrochemical
biosensor for blood glucose [101].An electrode plays a crucial role in an
electrochemical biosensor by acting as a solid support for the immobi­
lization of biomolecules (such as enzymes, antibodies, and nucleic acids)
and the movement of electrons. According to the chemical groups on the
electrode, different chemical modification techniques are used for this
purpose, including amine-, carboxyl-1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopro
pyl) carbodiimide, aldehyde-(hydrazide), and thiol (maleimide),
depending on the presence or absence of supporting components
[102–104].
The three different types of electrochemical signals are:
(i)Amperometric- which measures the electrical current produced
during the electron transfer process;
(ii) Conductimetric- which measures the change in the environ­
ment’s electrical conductivity; and
(iii) Potentiometric- which measures the electrochemical potential
in the absence of measurable current.
Due to their high sensitivity, amperometric biosensors are the most
popular.
Types of electrodes
Glass-made electrodes or more sophisticated electrodes like screen-
printed electrodes can be employed in this type of biosensor [105].
Electrochemical measurement devices called screen-printed electrodes
(SPEs) are created by printing several types of ink on ceramic or plastic
substrates. SPEs enable speedy in-situ examination with high repeat­
ability, sensitivity, and accuracy. The selectivity and sensitivity of the
electrode are governed by the makeup of the several inks (carbon, silver,
gold, and platinum) employed in its manufacturing [106]. The necessity
to shrink the devices’ size, which implies a reduction in the amount of
sample needed for each experiment, led to the evolution of these elec­
trochemical cells. The development of SPEs has also made it possible to
lower production costs. The ability to alter screen-printed electrodes by
changing the ink’s composition by adding various metals, enzymes,
complexing agents, polymers, etc. is one of the main benefits and is
helpful for the fabrication of several electrochemical analyses. Three
separate electrodes are contained in the screen-printed electrodes
(SPEs), which are shown as a single device [107,108].
• Working electrode- Depending on the analyte concentration, their
response changes.
• Reference electrode- It enables the use of a known potential that may
be applied regardless of the concentration of the analyte and other
ions. The working electrode potential is compared to its constant
potential.
7
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
• Auxiliary or counter electrode- Since it permits current to flow; the
electrode is what seals the three-electrode cell’s circuit. It allows for
the examination of the processes involved in electronic transfer.
6. Construction of electrochemical biosensors
Increasing the working electrode’s surface area, sensitivity, selec­
tivity, and conductivity is the first step in building a biosensor. This can
be done by using good conductors like graphene oxide, carbon nano­
tubes, single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNT), multiwall carbon nano­
tubes (MWNT), gold nanoparticles, etc [109,55]. The working electrode
of the screen-printed electrode is where these conductors are manufac­
tured. The immobilization of biomolecule is required as the second step
in the building of the biosensor; this process will boost resistance to
changes in environmental factors like pH or temperature. The numerous
immobilization procedures such as Noncovalent adsorption, covalent
bonding, entrapment, cross-linking, and affinity are most frequently
used [110]. The Sol-Gel procedure, one of them, is a much more effec­
tive method that is frequently used in industry for enzyme immobili­
zation. It also enables enzymes to be retained in position during the
reaction, after which they might be effortlessly extracted from the
products and utilized once more [111,48].
6.1. Dna-based biosensors
Whole-cell biosensors are almost impossible to replicate, which
highlights the necessity for additional biorecognition elements. DNA
offered the necessary basis for the endeavour [112–114]. It offers three
different types of interactions:
1. The binding interaction with the minor and major grooves of the
DNA double helix,
2. Electrostatic interaction with the negatively charged phosphate, and
3. Intercalation between the stacked base pairs of native DNA
When arsenic is present, the DNA-based sensors often signal through
oxidative damage [115].
6.2. Aptamers-based biosensors
Aptamers are a novel class of biorecognition technology that has
recently come into use. Synthetic single-standard RNA or DNA oligo­
nucleotides called as aptamers that have been designed in vitro for
preferential binding to a variety of target analytes [116]. They offer a
competitive edge for usage as biosensors due to their benefit of speci­
ficity, real-time monitoring, and on-site monitoring. Through directed
unsaturated hydrogen bonding with the nucleotide bases, aptamers offer
a variety of complementary binding choices, and their self-assembly-
induced recognition behaviour has been applied in a number of
sensing technologies. The fundamental bioassay approach for the
detection of As (III) investigates the affinity of the aptamer Ars-3 to­
wards arsenic and various cationic polymers or surfactants that produce
the aggregation of gold nanoparticles (AuNP). This alteration in particle
characteristics is then reflected in the AuNPs’ absorption or resonance
scattering assay [117].
6.3. Protein-based biosensors
Some proteins have been used as arsenic sensing materials in addi­
tion to DNA and aptamers. The Hard and Soft Acid Bases (HSAB) prin­
ciple, which states that the soft acid arsenic has an affinity for binding
soft sulphur in protein structures, is the basis for the arsenic detection
process. In addition, the sulphur in cysteine can be used as a detecting
element because it is oxidizable in the presence of arsenic [118–120].
Fig. 6 illustrates the potential mechanisms by which arsenic interacts
with proteins. The majority of As(III) or As(V) protein-based biosensors
S. Jain et al.
Fig. 6. Schematic representation of mode of interaction between protein and arsenic species.
are based on the inhibitory phenomena. [121] used the similar approach
to create an acetylcholinesterase-based As(III) amperometric biosensor.
The acetyl cholinesterase’s catalytic action on acetylcholine iodide
produced the redox active product thiocholine, which served as the
signal for As (III) measurement in the bioassay. Thiocholine oxidation
current decreased in the presence of As(III) to levels proportional to As
(III) concentration. Additionally, a technique for distinguishing As(III)
and As(V) in wastewater samples was devised [122]. In order to analyze
arsenite using quenching-based florescence, cysteine preorganized
peptides were created because arsenite is neutral at physiological pH
and has an affinity for thiol groups. However, amino acids carrying
positively charged substituents at neutral pH were added to the peptide
designs to lessen the interference of positively charged ions. It was
discovered that the peptides Napth-Cys-Lys-Cys-Lys-Gly and Napth-Cys-
Pro-Gly-Cys-Lys, which had secondary structures with no obvious sec­
ondary structure and a tighter hairpin turn, respectively, may sense
arsenite [123].
6.4. Enzyme based biosensor
Enzymes such as glucose oxidase, urease, glutathione S-transferase,
lactate dehydrogenase, acid phosphatase, invertase, and pyruvate de­
hydrogenase can all be used to identify arsenic. One of the most
researched enzyme systems is pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH). PDH
complex is made up of three enzymes: Pyruvate dehydrogenase (E1),
which uses thiamine pyrophosphate as a cofactor, Dihydrolipoyl trans­
acetylase (E2), which uses lipoic acid and CoA as a cofactor, and
Dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase (E3). Arsenic has binding efficiency to­
wards lipoic acid moiety of PDH complex; its binding inhibits the PDH
complex. It may be tested and quantified using biosensor, how much less
ATP is produced when the enzyme complex is inhibited [124–126].
In multicomponent matrices, enzymes can detect a single substance
due to their great substrate selectivity, which is made possible by their
complicated structural makeup. The electron transfer between the
8
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
enzyme active site and the substrate, which is then transduced to pro­
duce an analytical signal, is the basis for how electrochemical enzyme
biosensors work. This behaviour is taken advantage of in analytical
devices that demonstrate high reproducibility, sensibility, and selec­
tivity using low-cost equipment, few or no sample preparation steps, and
quick analysis. These advantages when combined with electrochemical
transducers result in less expensive portable and miniaturized bio­
sensors when compared to other types of transducers, such as optical
and piezoelectric, which is a great feature for environmental application
[47,107]. The performance of enzyme-based biosensors is influenced by
a number of factors, including enzyme loading, use of an adequate pH,
temperature, and, occasionally, the presence of a cofactor. The type of
enzyme immobilization technique used and the thickness of the enzyme
layer on the sensor can both affect how well the electrode performs
[127–129] (see Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
7. Role of nanotechnology in the design and development of
biosensor for better selectivity and sensitivity
Nanoparticles have distinctive chemical, physical, and electrical
characteristics. The primary distinction between these materials and
bulk materials is their high surface-to-volume ratio, which enhances the
efficacy of biosensors [135]. Biosensors can make use of a variety of
nanoparticles, including metal, oxide, semiconductor, and composite
nanoparticles. Furthermore, various nanoparticle types may have
various functions in various biosensor systems. As an illustration,
double-stranded DNA absorption was employed to immobilize DNA on
gold nanostructured thin-film electrodes [136]. Amperometric bio­
sensors with silver nanoparticle modifications shown enhanced
biocompatibility when used to detect arsenic. To recognize and amplify
different signals, functional nanoparticles (electronic, optical, and
magnetic) attached to biological molecules (such as peptides, proteins,
and nucleic acids) have been created [137–139].
Newcomers to the carbon family, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have
S. Jain et al. Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730

Fig. 7. Enzyme types and functionalities that are employed for arsenic biosensors to selectively detect their capable substrates as analytes.

Fig. 8. Enzyme based electrochemical biosensor for arsenic detection.

special mechanical, electrical, and chemical capabilities [140–142].
Multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and single-wall carbon nano­
tubes are the two types of carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs). The pre-
treatment of CNTs before putting them to an electrode surface affects
their electrochemical characteristics [143,144]. The formation of open
ends is crucial for the nanotubes’ ideal electrochemical characteristics,
hence CNTs are typically purified for this purpose in acids like HNO3 or
H2SO4.According on their structure, specifically their diameter and
helicity, CNTs can behave as either metals or semiconductors. When
used as an electrode, they have the capacity to facilitate electron-

9
S. Jain et al.
transfer processes with electroactive species [145,146]. For the creation
of electrochemical biosensors, CNTs’ capacity to enable the electro­
chemistry of several substances at low potential appears intriguing. The
creation of biosensors for the detection of heavy metals, DNA, glucose,
lactate, cholesterol, and other analytes has been achieved using CNTs
[147–150].
8. Conclusion
Over the past 20 years, a variety of arsenic biosensors have been
developed, ranging from whole-cell to biomolecule-based biosensors
(protein, enzymes, DNA, and aptamer). It has been effective to test
arsenic in environmental samples including soil and groundwater using
whole-cell based biosensors. Thus, their application is constrained by
the incubation period and lower detection limits. This limitation of
entire cell-based biosensors has been overcome by the invention of
bimolecular biosensors, which take into account the unique interaction
properties of arsenic for biosensing. While DNA-based biosensors use
oxidative methods, the majority of protein-based biosensors rely on
dissymmetric procedures. The rapid response time and better detection
limits of the bimolecular biosensors have increased their potential. The
introduction of aptamer-targeted technology has enabled a cutting-edge
technique for the creation of target-specific biosensors and has also
provided the essential tool for further lowering the detection limit to
sub-ppb levels. Their target market has been expanded from environ­
mental samples to clinical samples due to the capacity to examine very
small sample quantities (50–500 ml) made possible by the integration of
microfluidics and miniaturization technology with biosensors. The
docking research that creates target-specific protein motifs may also
help the biosensing approach progress. However, only a small number of
these biosensors have had their resistance to various environmental
matrices tested. Due to their sensitivity and selectivity, enzyme-based
biosensors have become the most widely used molecular biosensors.
Arsenic has been detected using a variety of biosensors, but their
commercialization has not yet been completed due to additional diffi­
culties in creating biosensors that could detect arsenic in complex
matrices like co-existing with other heavy metals in saltwater or water
with high TDS and salt content.
Authors contribution
JM study conception and design of present research and supervised
this work. SJ and RP collected the data and written the manuscript. All
the authors contribute, reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very thankful to the Vice Chancellor Prof. Ina Aditya
Shastri, and Prof. Dipjyoti Chakraborty, Head of the Department of
Bioscience and Biotechnology, Banasthali Vidyapith for providing all
needed support and for their encouragement. We also recognize the
Bioinformatics Center, Banasthali Vidyapith which is supported by DBT
for providing technical and computational help.
10
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
References
[1] M. Shahid, S. Khalid, G. Abbas, N. Shahid, M. Nadeem, M. Sabir, C. Dumat, Heavy
metal stress and crop productivity, in: Crop Production and Global Environmental
Issues, Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 1–25.
[2] S. Khalid, M. Shahid, N.K. Niazi, M. Rafiq, H.F. Bakhat, M. Imran, C. Dumat,
Arsenic behaviour in soil-plant system: biogeochemical reactions and chemical
speciation influences, in: Enhancing Cleanup of Environmental Pollutants,
Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 97–140.
[3] A. Shukla, S. Srivastava, Emerging aspects of bioremediation of arsenic, in: Green
Technologies and Environmental Sustainability, Springer, Cham, 2017,
pp. 395–407.
[4] F.J. Zhao, S.P. McGrath, A.A. Meharg, Arsenic as a food chain contaminant:
mechanisms of plant uptake and metabolism and mitigation strategies, Annu.
Rev. Plant Biol. 61 (2010) 535–559.
[5] M.F. Hughes, B.D. Beck, Y. Chen, A.S. Lewis, D.J. Thomas, Arsenic exposure and
toxicology: a historical perspective, Toxicol. Sci. 123 (2) (2011) 305–332.
[6] H.P. Singh, D.R. Batish, R.K. Kohli, K. Arora, Arsenic-induced root growth
inhibition in mung bean (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.) is due to oxidative stress
resulting from enhanced lipid peroxidation, Plant Growth Regul. 53 (1) (2007)
65–73.
[7] Y.C. Chou, Z.Y.J. Lu, C.J. Lin, Comparison of attitudes to the sexual health of men
and women with intellectual disability among parents, professionals, and
university students, J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 43 (2) (2018) 164–173.
[8] K. Jomova, M. Valko, Advances in metal-induced oxidative stress and human
disease, Toxicology 283 (2–3) (2011) 65–87.
[9] M. Jaishankar, T. Tseten, N. Anbalagan, B.B. Mathew, K.N. Beeregowda, Toxicity,
mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals, Interdisci. Toxicol. 7 (2)
(2014) 60–72.
[10] F.A. Rahman, D.L. Allan, C.J. Rosen, M.J. Sadowsky, Arsenic availability from
chromated copper arsenate (CCA)–treated wood, J. Environ. Qual. 33 (1) (2004)
173–180.
[11] B.K. Mishra, C.S. Dubey, D.P. Shukla, P. Bhattacharya, A.L. Usham, Concentration
of arsenic by selected vegetables cultivated in the Yamuna flood plains (YFP) of
Delhi, India, Environ. Earth Sci. 72 (9) (2014) 3281–3291.
[12] V. Hare, P. Chowdhary, B. Kumar, D.C. Sharma, V.S. Baghel, Arsenic toxicity and
its remediation strategies for fighting the environmental threat, in: Emerging and
Eco-friendly Approaches for Waste Management, Springer, Singapore, 2019,
pp. 143–170.
[13] P. Finnegan, W. Chen, Arsenic toxicity: the effects on plant metabolism, Front.
Physiol. 3 (2012) 182.
[14] L. Jedynak, J. Kowalska, A. Leporowska, Arsenic uptake and phytochelatin
synthesis by plants from two arsenic-contaminated sites in Poland, Pol. J.
Environ. Stud. 21 (2012) 1629–1633.
[15] T. Xiong, C. Dumat, A. Pierart, M. Shahid, Y. Kang, N. Li, C. Laplanche,
Measurement of metal bioaccessibility in vegetables to improve human exposure
assessments: field study of soil–plant–atmosphere transfers in urban areas, South
China, Environ. Geochem. Health 38 (6) (2016) 1283–1301.
[16] M. Shahid, C. Dumat, N. Khan Niazi, S. Khalid, Global scale arsenic pollution:
increase the scientific knowledge to reduce human exposure, VertigO-la revue
électroniqueen sciences de l’environnement, (Hors-série 31), 2018.
[17] Y. Li, H. Wang, H. Wang, F. Yin, X. Yang, Y. Hu, Heavy metal pollution in
vegetables grown in the vicinity of a multi-metal mining area in Gejiu, China:
total concentrations, speciation analysis, and health risk, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
21 (21) (2014) 12569–12582.
[18] S. Khan, R. Rauf, S. Muhammad, M. Qasim, I. Din, Arsenic and heavy metals
health risk assessment through drinking water consumption in the Peshawar
District, Pakistan, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 22 (3) (2016) 581–596.
[19] C. Boente, N. García-González, E. Rodríguez-Valdés, J.R. Gallego, Trace elements
of concern affecting urban agriculture in industrialized areas: a multivariate
approach, Chemosphere 183 (2017) 546–556.
[20] S. Ahamed, M.K. Sengupta, A. Mukherjee, M.A. Hossain, B. Das, B. Nayak,
D. Chakraborti, Arsenic groundwater contamination and its health effects in the
state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) in upper and middle Ganga plain, India: a severe
danger, Sci. Total Environ. 370 (2–3) (2006) 310–322.
[21] P. Bhattacharya, R. Pal, Response of cyanobacteria to arsenic toxicity, J. Appl.
Phycol. 23 (2) (2011) 293–299.
[22] M.L. Polizzotto, B.D. Kocar, S.G. Benner, M. Sampson, S. Fendorf, Near-surface
wetland sediments as a source of arsenic release to ground water in Asia, Nature
454 (7203) (2008) 505–508.
[23] World Health Organization, WHO, & World Health Organisation Staff, Guidelines
for Drinking-Water Quality, Vol. 1, World Health Organization, 2004.
[24] A. Heikens, Arsenic contamination of irrigation water, soil and crops in
Bangladesh: Risk implications for sustainable agriculture and food safety in Asia,
Rap Publication (FAO), 2006.
[25] P.K. Rai, S.S. Lee, M. Zhang, Y.F. Tsang, K.H. Kim, Heavy metals in food crops:
health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management, Environ. Int. 125 (2019)
365–385.
[26] S. Shankar, U. Shanker, Shikha, Arsenic contamination of groundwater: a review
of sources, prevalence, health risks, and strategies for mitigation, Sci. World J.
2014 (2014) 1–18.
[27] R. Bhadauria, Arsenic toxicity: an overview, Hortic. Int. J. 3 (2019) 20–22.
[28] N. Garg, P. Singla, Arsenic toxicity in crop plants: physiological effects and
tolerance mechanisms, Environ. Chem. Lett. 9 (3) (2011) 303–321.
[29] S. Datta, D. Ghosh, D.R. Saha, S. Bhattacharaya, S. Mazumder, Chronic exposure
to low concentration of arsenic is immunotoxic to fish: role of head kidney
S. Jain et al.
macrophages as biomarkers of arsenic toxicity to Clarias batrachus, Aquat.
Toxicol. 92 (2) (2009) 86–94.
[30] H. Xu, S.H. Lam, Y. Shen, Z. Gong, Genome-wide identification of molecular
pathways and biomarkers in response to arsenic exposure in zebrafish liver, PLoS
One 8 (7) (2013) e68737.
[31] S. Roy, S. Bhattacharya, Arsenic-induced histopathology and synthesis of stress
proteins in liver and kidney of Channa punctatus, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 65 (2)
(2006) 218–229.
[32] O.O. Francis, L. Xiang, O.E. Alepu, In-situ phytoremediation of arsenic from
contaminated soil, Int. J. Waste Resour. 7 (1) (2017) 1–5.
[33] H. Rasheed, P. Kay, R. Slack, Y.Y. Gong, A. Carter, Human exposure assessment of
different arsenic species in household water sources in a high risk arsenic area,
Sci. Total Environ. 584 (2017) 631–641.
[34] S. Awasthi, R. Chauhan, S. Srivastava, R.D. Tripathi, The journey of arsenic from
soil to grain in rice, Front. Plant Sci. 8 (2017) 1007.
[35] D. Chakraborti, S.K. Singh, M.M. Rahman, R.N. Dutta, S.C. Mukherjee, S. Pati, P.
B. Kar, Groundwater arsenic contamination in the Ganga River Basin: a future
health danger, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15 (180) (2018) 1–19.
[36] R.N. Ratnaike, Acute and chronic arsenic toxicity, Postgrad. Med. J. 79 (933)
(2003) 391–396.
[37] D.G. Mazumder, U.B. Dasgupta, Chronic arsenic toxicity: studies in West Bengal,
India, Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 27 (9) (2011) 360–370.
[38] R. Colognato, F. Coppede, J. Ponti, E. Sabbioni, L. Migliore, Genotoxicity induced
by arsenic compounds in peripheral human lymphocytes analysed by cytokinesis-
block micronucleus assay, Mutagenesis 22 (4) (2007) 255–261.
[39] J. Ma, M.K. Sengupta, D. Yuan, P.K. Dasgupta, Speciation and detection of arsenic
in aqueous samples: a review of recent progress in non-atomic spectrometric
methods, Anal. Chim. Acta 831 (2014) 1–23.
[40] X.C. Le, M. Ma, W.R. Cullen, H.V. Aposhian, X. Lu, B. Zheng, Determination of
monomethylarsonous acid, a key arsenic methylation intermediate, in human
urine, Environ. Health Perspect. 108 (11) (2000) 1015–1018.
[41] H.I. Afridi, T.G. Kazi, M.K. Jamali, G.H. Kazi, M.B. Arain, N. Jalbani, R.
A. Sarfaraz, Evaluation of toxic metals in biological samples (scalp hair, blood and
urine) of steel mill workers by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry,
Toxicol. Ind. Health 22 (9) (2006) 381–393.
[42] N.U.A. Babar, K.S. Joya, M.A. Tayyab, M.N. Ashiq, M. Sohail, Highly sensitive and
selective detection of arsenic using electrogenerated nanotextured gold
assemblage, ACS Omega 4 (9) (2019) 13645–13657.
[43] A. Khanmohammadi, A. Jalili Ghazizadeh, P. Hashemi, A. Afkhami, F. Arduini,
H. Bagheri, An overview to electrochemical biosensors and sensors for the
detection of environmental contaminants, J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 17 (2020)
2429–2447.
[44] T.G. Drummond, M.G. Hill, J.K. Barton, Electrochemical DNA sensors, Nat.
Biotechnol. 21 (10) (2003) 1192–1199.
[45] N. Verma, M. Singh, A disposable microbial based biosensor for quality control in
milk, Biosens. Bioelectron. 18 (10) (2003) 1219–1224.
[46] A. Prasad, J. Choi, Z. Jia, S. Park, M.R. Gartia, Nanohole array plasmonic
biosensors: emerging point-of-care applications, Biosens. Bioelectron. 130 (2019)
185–203.
[47] P. Raghu, B.K. Swamy, T.M. Reddy, B.N. Chandrashekar, K. Reddaiah, Sol–gel
immobilized biosensor for the detection of organophosphorous pesticides: a
voltammetric method, Bioelectrochemistry 83 (2012) 19–24.
[48] R. Ilangovan, D. Daniel, A. Krastanov, C. Zachariah, R. Elizabeth, Enzyme based
biosensor for heavy metal ions determination, Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 20
(1) (2006) 184–189.
[49] G.A. Rodriguez, J.D. Ryckman, Y. Jiao, S.M. Weiss, A size selective porous silicon
grating-coupled Bloch surface and sub-surface wave biosensor, Biosens.
Bioelectron. 53 (2014) 486–493.
[50] M.R. Saidur, A.A. Aziz, W.J. Basirun, Recent advances in DNA-based
electrochemical biosensors for heavy metal ion detection: a review, Biosens.
Bioelectron. 90 (2017) 125–139.
[51] W. Tu, H. Cao, L. Zhang, J. Bao, X. Liu, Z. Dai, Dual signal amplification using
gold nanoparticles-enhanced zinc selenide nanoflakes and P19 protein for
ultrasensitive photoelectrochemical biosensing of microRNA in cell, Anal. Chem.
88 (21) (2016) 10459–10465.
[52] Z. Li, F. Li, Y. Xing, Z. Liu, M. You, Y. Li, F. Xu, Pen-on-paper strategy for point-of-
care testing: rapid prototyping of fully written microfluidic biosensor, Biosens.
Bioelectron. 98 (2017) 478–485.
[53] W. Wen, Y. Song, X. Yan, C. Zhu, D. Du, S. Wang, Y. Lin, Recent advances in
emerging 2D nanomaterials for biosensing and bioimaging applications, Mater.
Today 21 (2) (2018) 164–177.
[54] J. Pilas, T. Selmer, M. Keusgen, M.J. Schöning, Screen-printed carbon electrodes
modified with graphene oxide for the design of a reagent-free NAD+-dependent
biosensor array, Anal. Chem. 91 (23) (2019) 15293–15299.
[55] R. Jirakunakorn, S. Khumngern, J. Choosang, P. Thavarungkul, P. Kanatharana,
A. Numnuam, Uric acid enzyme biosensor based on a screen-printed electrode
coated with Prussian blue and modified with chitosan-graphene composite
cryogel, Microchem. J. 154 (104624) (2020) 1–9.
[56] P. Nath, R.K. Arun, N. Chanda, A paper based microfluidic device for the
detection of arsenic using a gold nanosensor, RSC Adv. 4 (103) (2014)
59558–59561.
[57] M.M. Shah, W. Ren, B. Ahmad, J. Irudayaraj, Colorimetric detection of
organophosphates with cysteamine capped gold nanoparticle sensors, Beilstein
Arch. 1 (2020) 137.
11
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
[58] N. Korkmaz, C. Hwang, K.K. Kessler, Y.E. Silina, L. Müller, J. Park, A novel copper
(II) binding peptide for a colorimetric biosensor system design, Talanta 232
(2021), 122439.
[59] S. Hu, J. Lu, C. Jing, A novel colorimetric method for field arsenic speciation
analysis, J. Environ. Sci. 24 (7) (2012) 1341–1346.
[60] B.S. Boruah, R. Biswas, P. Deb, A green colorimetric approach towards detection
of arsenic (III): a pervasive environmental pollutant, Opt. Laser Technol. 111
(2019) 825–829.
[61] K. Shrivas, R. Shankar, K. Dewangan, Gold nanoparticles as a localized surface
plasmon resonance based chemical sensor for on-site colorimetric detection of
arsenic in water samples, Sens. Actuators B 220 (2015) 1376–1383.
[62] R. Domínguez-González, L.G. Varela, P. Bermejo-Barrera, Functionalized gold
nanoparticles for the detection of arsenic in water, Talanta 118 (2014) 262–269.
[63] B. Sahu, R. Kurrey, M.K. Deb, K. Shrivas, I. Karbhal, B.R. Khalkho, A simple and
cost-effective paper-based and colorimetric dual-mode detection of arsenic (III)
and lead (II) based on glucose-functionalized gold nanoparticles, RSC Adv. 11
(34) (2021) 20769–20780.
[64] D. Paul, S. Dutta, R. Biswas, LSPR enhanced gasoline sensing with a U-bent
optical fiber, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 49 (30) (2016), 305104.
[65] B.S. Boruah, N.K. Daimari, R. Biswas, Functionalized silver nanoparticles as an
effective medium towards trace determination of arsenic (III) in aqueous solution,
Results Phys. 12 (2019) 2061–2065.
[66] S. Kamila, B. Mohanty, S.K. Das, S. Sahoo, B.K. Jena, Electrochemical sensing
platform based on graphene-metal/metal oxide hybrids for detection of metal
ions contaminants, in: Fundamentals and Sensing Applications of 2D Materials,
Woodhead Publishing, 2019, pp. 301–327.
[67] S. Banerjee, N.P. Kumar, A. Srinivas, S. Roy, Core-shell Fe3O4@ Au
nanocomposite as dual-functional optical probe and potential removal system for
arsenic (III) from Water, J. Hazard. Mater. 375 (2019) 216–223.
[68] K. De Mora, N. Joshi, B.L. Balint, F.B. Ward, A. Elfick, C.E. French, A pH-based
biosensor for detection of arsenic in drinking water, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 400 (4)
(2011) 1031–1039.
[69] A.M. López-Marzo, A. Merkoçi, based sensors and assays: a success of the
engineering design and the convergence of knowledge areas, Lab Chip 16 (17)
(2016) 3150–3176.
[70] X. Qin, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Li, L. Yuan, Z. Zhang, L. Chen, Microfluidic paper-
based chips in rapid detection: current status, challenges, and perspectives, TrAC
Trends Anal. Chem. 143 (2021), 116371.
[71] J.R. Van Der Meer, S. Belkin, Where microbiology meets microengineering:
design and applications of reporter bacteria, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8 (7) (2010)
511–522.
[72] E. Diesel, M. Schreiber, J.R. van der Meer, Development of bacteria-based
bioassays for arsenic detection in natural waters, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 394 (3)
(2009) 687–693.
[73] C. Tani, K. Inoue, Y. Tani, M. Harun-ur-Rashid, N. Azuma, S. Ueda, I. Maeda,
Sensitive fluorescent microplate bioassay using recombinant Escherichia coli with
multiple promoter–reporter units in tandem for detection of arsenic, J. Biosci.
Bioeng. 108 (5) (2009) 414–420.
[74] L. Su, W. Jia, C. Hou, Y. Lei, Microbial biosensors: a review, Biosens. Bioelectron.
26 (2011) 1788–1799.
[75] D. Merulla, N. Buffi, S. Beggah, F. Truffer, M. Geiser, P. Renaud, J.R. van der
Meer, Bioreporters and biosensors for arsenic detection. Biotechnological
solutions for a world-wide pollution problem, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24 (3)
(2013) 534–541.
[76] H. Kaur, R. Kumar, J.N. Babu, S. Mittal, Advances in arsenic biosensor
development–a comprehensive review, Biosens. Bioelectron. 63 (2015) 533–545.
[77] L.A. Pola-Lopez, J.L. Camas-Anzueto, A. Martinez-Antonio, M.C. Lujan-Hidalgo,
G. Anzueto-Sanchez, V.M. Ruiz-Valdiviezo, R. Grajales-Coutino, Novel arsenic
biosensor “POLA” obtained by a genetically modified E. coli bioreporter cell,
Sensor Actuat. B: Chem. 254 (2017) 1061–1068.
[78] X. Jia, T. Zhao, Y. Liu, R. Bu, K. Wu, Gene circuit engineering to improve the
performance of a whole-cell lead biosensor, FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 365 (16)
(2018) fny157.
[79] X. Jia, R. Bu, T. Zhao, K. Wu, Sensitive and specific whole-cell biosensor for
arsenic detection, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85 (11) (2019) e00694–e719.
[80] A. Bakhrat, E. Eltzov, Y. Finkelstein, R.S. Marks, D. Raveh, UV and arsenate
toxicity: a specific and sensitive yeast bioluminescence assay, Cell Biol. Toxicol.
27 (3) (2011) 227–236.
[81] R. Ranjan, N.K. Rastogi, M.S. Thakur, Development of immobilized biophotonic
beads consisting of Photobacterium leiognathi for the detection of heavy metals and
pesticide, J. Hazard. Mater. 225 (2012) 114–123.
[82] G. Ji, S. Silver, Regulation and expression of the arsenic resistance operon from
Staphylococcus aureus plasmid pI258, J. Bacteriol. 174 (11) (1992) 3684–3694.
[83] P. Corbisier, G. Ji, G. Nuyts, M. Mergeay, S. Silver, luxAB gene fusions with the
arsenic and cadmium resistance operons of Staphylococcus aureus plasmid pI258,
FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 110 (2) (1993) 231–238.
[84] S. Tauriainen, M. Karp, W. Chang, M. Virta, Recombinant luminescent bacteria
for measuring bioavailable arsenite and antimonite, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63
(11) (1997) 4456–4461.
[85] P. Sharma, S. Asad, A. Ali, Bioluminescent bioreporter for assessment of arsenic
contamination in water samples of India, J. Biosci. 38 (2) (2013) 251–258.
[86] Q.H. Hou, A.Z. Ma, D. Lv, Z.H. Bai, X.L. Zhuang, G.Q. Zhuang, The impacts of
different long-term fertilization regimes on the bioavailability of arsenic in soil:
integrating chemical approach with Escherichia coli arsRp::luc-based biosensor,
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 98 (13) (2014) 6137–6146.
S. Jain et al.
[87] A. Wackwitz, H. Harms, A. Chatzinotas, U. Breuer, C. Vogne, J.R. Van Der Meer,
Internal arsenite bioassay calibration using multiple bioreporter cell lines,
J. Microbial. Biotechnol. 1 (2) (2008) 149–157.
[88] F. Cortés-Salazar, S. Beggah, J.R. van der Meer, H.H. Girault, Electrochemical As
(III) whole-cell based biochip sensor, Biosens. Bioelectron. 47 (2013) 237–242.
[89] J. Stocker, D. Balluch, M. Gsell, H. Harms, J. Feliciano, S. Daunert, J.R. van der
Meer, Development of a set of simple bacterial biosensors for quantitative and
rapid measurements of arsenite and arsenate in potable water, Environ. Sci. Tech.
37 (20) (2003) 4743–4750.
[90] A. Date, P. Pasini, S. Daunert, Construction of spores for portable bacterial whole-
cell biosensing systems, Anal. Chem. 79 (24) (2007) 9391–9397.
[91] Y. Kawakami, M.S.R. Siddiki, K. Inoue, H. Otabayashi, K. Yoshida, S. Ueda,
I. Maeda, Application of fluorescent protein-tagged trans factors and immobilized
cis elements to monitoring of toxic metals based on in vitro protein–DNA
interactions, Biosens. Bioelectron. 26 (4) (2010) 1466–1473.
[92] N. Buffi, D. Merulla, J. Beutier, F. Barbaud, S. Beggah, H. Van Lintel, J.R. van der
Meer, Development of a microfluidics biosensor for agarose-bead immobilized
Escherichia coli bioreporter cells for arsenite detection in aqueous samples, Lab
Chip 11 (14) (2011) 2369–2377.
[93] M.S.R. Siddiki, Y. Kawakami, S. Ueda, I. Maeda, Solid phase biosensors for arsenic
or cadmium composed of a trans factor and cis element complex, Sensors 11 (11)
(2011) 10063–10073.
[94] S.I. Choe, F.N. Gravelat, Q. Al Abdallah, M.J. Lee, B.F. Gibbs, D.C. Sheppard, Role
of Aspergillus niger acrA in arsenic resistance and its use as the basis for an arsenic
biosensor, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 (11) (2012) 3855–3863.
[95] J. Chen, Y.G. Zhu, B.P. Rosen, A novel biosensor selective for organoarsenicals,
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 (19) (2012) 7145–7147.
[96] F. Truffer, N. Buffi, D. Merulla, S. Beggah, H. Van Lintel, P. Renaud, M. Geiser,
Compact portable biosensor for arsenic detection in aqueous samples with
Escherichia coli bioreporter cells, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (1) (2014), 015120.
[97] F.F. Roberto, J.M. Barnes, D.F. Bruhn, Evaluation of a GFP reporter gene
construct for environmental arsenic detection, Talanta 58 (1) (2002) 181–188.
[98] J. Chen, S. Sun, C.Z. Li, Y.G. Zhu, B.P. Rosen, Biosensor for organoarsenical
herbicides and growth promoters, Environ. Sci. Tech. 48 (2) (2014) 1141–1147.
[99] H. Li, X. Liu, L. Li, X. Mu, R. Genov, A.J. Mason, CMOS electrochemical
instrumentation for biosensor microsystems: a review, Sensors 17 (1) (2016) 74.
[100] M. Ozsoz, A. Erdem, P. Kara, K. Kerman, D. Ozkan, Electrochemical biosensor for
the detection of interaction between arsenic trioxide and DNA based on guanine
signal, Electroanal.: Int. J. Devot. Fundament. Pract. Aspects Electroanal. 15 (7)
(2003) 613–619.
[101] L.C. Clark Jr, C. Lyons, Electrode systems for continuous monitoring in
cardiovascular surgery, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 102 (1) (1962) 29–45.
[102] A.K.M. Kafi, M.J. Crossley, Synthesis of a conductive network of crosslinked
carbon nanotube/hemoglobin on a thiol-modified au surface and its application
to biosensing, Biosens. Bioelectron. 42 (2013) 273–279.
[103] Z. Wang, Z. Dai, Carbon nanomaterial-based electrochemical biosensors: an
overview, Nanoscale 7 (2015) 6420–6431.
[104] S.K. Krishnan, et al., A review on graphene-based nanocomposites for
electrochemical and fluorescent biosensors, RSC Adv. 9 (2019) 8778–8881.
[105] M. Li, Y.T. Li, D.W. Li, Y.T. Long, Recent developments and applications of screen-
printed electrodes in environmental assays—a review, Anal. Chim. Acta 734
(2012) 31–44.
[106] D. Martín-Yerga, A. Pérez-Junquera, M.B. González-García, J.V. Perales-Rondon,
A. Heras, A. Colina, P. Fanjul-Bolado, Quantitative Raman
spectroelectrochemistry using silver screen-printed electrodes, Electrochim. Acta
264 (2018) 183–190.
[107] R. de Oliveira Silva, É.A. da Silva, A.R. Fiorucci, V.S. Ferreira, Electrochemically
activated multi-walled carbon nanotubes modified screen-printed electrode for
voltammetric determination of sulfentrazone, J. Electroanal. Chem. 835 (2019)
220–226.
[108] I.H. Cho, D.H. Kim, S. Park, Electrochemical biosensors: perspective on functional
nanomaterials for on-site analysis, Biomater. Res. 24 (1) (2020) 1–12.
[109] W. Shi, J. Li, J. Wu, Q. Wei, C. Chen, N. Bao, H. Gu, An electrochemical biosensor
based on multi-wall carbon nanotube–modified screen-printed electrode
immobilized by uricase for the detection of salivary uric acid, Anal. Bioanal.
Chem. 412 (26) (2020) 7275–7283.
[110] T. Ahuja, I.A. Mir, D. Kumar, Biomolecular immobilization on conducting
polymers for biosensing applications, Biomaterials 28 (5) (2007) 791–805.
[111] V.B. Kandimalla, V.S. Tripathi, H. Ju, Immobilization of biomolecules in sol–gels:
biological and analytical applications, Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 36 (2) (2006)
73–106.
[112] P.R. Solanki, N. Prabhakar, M.K. Pandey, B.D. Malhotra, Surface plasmon
resonance-based DNA biosensor for arsenic trioxide detection, Int. J. Environ.
Anal. Chem. 89 (1) (2009) 49–57.
[113] A. Ferancová, M. Adamovski, P. Gründler, J. Zima, J. Barek, J. Mattusch,
J. Labuda, Interaction of tin (II) and arsenic (III) with DNA at the nanostructure
film modified electrodes, Bioelectrochemistry 71 (1) (2007) 33–37.
[114] F. Long, A. Zhu, H. Shi, H. Wang, J. Liu, Rapid on-site/in-situ detection of heavy
metal ions in environmental water using a structure-switching DNA optical
biosensor, Sci. Rep. 3 (1) (2013) 1–7.
[115] K. Arora, N. Prabhakar, S. Chand, B.D. Malhotra, Immobilization of single
stranded DNA probe onto polypyrrole-polyvinyl sulfonate for application to DNA
hybridization biosensor, Sens. Actuators B 126 (2) (2007) 655–663.
[116] Y. Wu, S. Zhan, H. Xing, L. He, L. Xu, P. Zhou, Nanoparticles assembled by
aptamers and crystal violet for arsenic (III) detection in aqueous solution based on
12
Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730
a resonance Rayleigh scattering spectral assay, Nanoscale 4 (21) (2012)
6841–6849.
[117] Y. Wu, F. Wang, S. Zhan, L. Liu, Y. Luo, P. Zhou, Regulation of hemin peroxidase
catalytic activity by arsenic-binding aptamers for the colorimetric detection of
arsenic (III), RSC Adv. 3 (48) (2013) 25614–25619.
[118] P. Sarkar, S. Banerjee, D. Bhattacharyay, A.P. Turner, Electrochemical sensing
systems for arsenate estimation by oxidation of L-cysteine, Ecotoxicol. Environ.
Saf. 73 (6) (2010) 1495–1501.
[119] S. Sanllorente-Méndez, O. Domínguez-Renedo, M.J. Arcos-Martínez,
Immobilization of acetylcholinesterase on screen-printed electrodes. Application
to the determination of arsenic (III), Sensors 10 (3) (2010) 2119–2128.
[120] S. Sanllorente-Méndez, O. Domínguez-Renedo, M.J. Arcos-Martínez,
Development of acid phosphatase based amperometric biosensors for the
inhibitive determination of As (V), Talanta 93 (2012) 301–306.
[121] M. Stoytcheva, V. Sharkova, M. Panayotova, Electrochemical approach in
studying the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by arsenate (III): analytical
characterisation and application for arsenic determination, Anal. Chim. Acta 364
(1–3) (1998) 195–201.
[122] K.J. Parker, S. Kumar, D.A. Pearce, A.J. Sutherland, Design, synthesis and
evaluation of a fluorescent peptidyl sensor for the selective recognition of
arsenite, Tetrahedron Lett. 46 (41) (2005) 7043–7045.
[123] X. Fuku, F. Iftikar, E. Hess, E. Iwuoha, P. Baker, Cytochrome c biosensor for
determination of trace levels of cyanide and arsenic compounds, Anal. Chim. Acta
730 (2012) 49–59.
[124] S. Kale, P. Arjunan, W. Furey, F. Jordan, A dynamic loop at the active center of
the Escherichia coli pyruvate dehydrogenase complex E1 component modulates
substrate utilization and chemical communication with the E2 component, J. Biol.
Chem. 282 (38) (2007) 28106–28116.
[125] E.S. Billgren, R.M. Cicchillo, N.M. Nesbitt, S.J. Booker, Lipoic acid biosynthesis
and enzymology, Compreh. Nat. Prod. II: Chem. Biol. 7 (2010) 181–212.
[126] J. Sgrignani, J. Chen, A. Alimonti, A. Cavalli, How phosphorylation influences E1
subunit pyruvate dehydrogenase: a computational study, Sci. Rep. 8 (1) (2018)
1–11.
[127] H. Yang, Enzyme-based ultrasensitive electrochemical biosensors, Curr. Opin.
Chem. Biol. 16 (3–4) (2012) 422–428.
[128] I.S. Kucherenko, Y.V. Topolnikova, O.O. Soldatkin, Advances in the biosensors for
lactate and pyruvate detection for medical applications: a review, TrAC Trends
Anal. Chem. 110 (2019) 160–172.
[129] A. Navaee, A. Salimi, Enzyme-based electrochemical biosensors, in:
Electrochemical Biosensors, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 167–211.
[130] T. Petänen, Assessment of bioavailable concentrations and toxicity of arsenite and
mercury in contaminated soils and sediments by bacterial biosensors, 2001.
[131] Y. Liu, W. Wei, Layer-by-layer assembled DNA functionalized single-walled
carbon nanotube hybrids for arsenic (III) detection, Electrochem. Commun. 10 (6)
(2008) 872–875.
[132] K.B. Male, S. Hrapovic, J.M. Santini, J.H. Luong, Biosensor for arsenite using
arsenite oxidase and multiwalled carbon nanotube modified electrodes, Anal.
Chem. 79 (20) (2007) 7831–7837.
[133] P. Pal, D. Bhattacharyay, A. Mukhopadhyay, P. Sarkar, The detection of mercury,
cadium, and arsenic by the deactivation of urease on rhodinized carbon, Environ.
Eng. Sci. 26 (1) (2009) 25–32.
[134] X. Luo, A. Morrin, A.J. Killard, M.R. Smyth, Application of nanoparticles in
electrochemical sensors and biosensors. Electroanal.: Int. J. Devot. Fundament.
Pract. Aspects Electroanal. 18 (4) (2006) 319–326.
[135] S. Flickyngerova, R. Ovadekova, I. Novotny, V. Tvarozek, J. Labuda, V. Breternitz,
C.h. Knedlik, Vacuum 82 (2008) 303–306.
[136] J.R. Chen, Y.Q. Miao, N.Y. He, X.H. Wu, S.J. Li, Biotechnol. Adv. 22 (2004)
505–518.
[137] L. Huang, Y. Guo, A.L. Porter, Science and innovation policy, in: Atlanta
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2009, pp. 1–10.
[138] J. Galandová, J. Labuda, Polymer interfaces used in electrochemical DNA-based
biosensors, Chem. Pap. 63 (1) (2009) 1–14.
[139] H. Luo, Z. Shi, N. Li, Z. Gu, Q. Zhuang, Investigation of the electrochemical and
electrocatalytic behavior of single-wall carbon nanotube film on a glassy carbon
electrode, Anal. Chem. 73 (5) (2001) 915–920.
[140] J.J. Davis, K.S. Coleman, B.R. Azamian, C.B. Bagshaw, M.L. Green, Chemical and
biochemical sensing with modified single walled carbon nanotubes, Chem.–Eur.
J. 9 (16) (2003) 3732–3739.
[141] J. Tkac, T. Ruzgas, Dispersion of single walled carbon nanotubes. Comparison of
different dispersing strategies for preparation of modified electrodes toward
hydrogen peroxide detection, Electrochem. Commun. 8 (5) (2006) 899–903.
[142] S. Laschi, E. Bulukin, I. Palchetti, C. Cristea, M. Mascini, Disposable electrodes
modified with multi-wall carbon nanotubes for biosensor applications, Irbm 29
(2–3) (2008) 202–207.
[143] J.J. Gooding, Nanostructuring electrodes with carbon nanotubes: a review on
electrochemistry and applications for sensing, Electrochim. Acta 50 (15) (2005)
3049–3060.
[144] M.D. Rubianes, G.A. Rivas, Carbon nanotubes paste electrode, Electrochem.
Commun. 5 (8) (2003) 689–694.
[145] P.J. Britto, K.S.V. Santhanam, P.M. Ajayan, Carbon nanotube electrode for
oxidation of dopamine, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 41 (1) (1996) 121–125.
[146] S.G. Wang, R. Wang, P.J. Sellin, Q. Zhang, DNA biosensors based on self-
assembled carbon nanotubes, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 325 (4) (2004)
1433–1437.
S. Jain et al. Inorganic Chemistry Communications 153 (2023) 110730

[147] R. Monošík, D. Ukropcová, M. Streďanský, E. Šturdík, Multienzymatic Dr. Jyoti Mathur (Ph.D.) Désignation: Associate Professor
amperometric biosensor based on gold and nanocomposite planar electrodes for Affiliation: Dept of Bioscience & Biotechnology Banasthali
glycerol determination in wine, Anal. Biochem. 421 (1) (2012) 256–261. Vidyapith, Rajasthan-302004, INDIA Phone number:
[148] S.G. Wang, Q. Zhang, R. Wang, S.F. Yoon, A novel multi-walled carbon nanotube- 09887069390 Email ID: contact.srivastava@gmail.com Bi­
based biosensor for glucose detection, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 311 (3) ography of Dr. Jyoti Mathur Dr. Jyoti Mathur is currently
(2003) 572–576. working as an Associate Professor in the Department of
[149] G. Li, J.M. Liao, G.Q. Hu, N.Z. Ma, P.J. Wu, Study of carbon nanotube modified Bioscience and Biotechnology Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan,
biosensor for monitoring total cholesterol in blood, Biosens. Bioelectron. 20 (10) India. Her Area of specialization is Phytoremediation technol­
(2005) 2140–2144. ogy especially the mitigation of heavy metals and hydrocarbons
from contaminated soil. She has 14 years of research experience
in the field of environmental biotechnology, Plant molecular
biology and stress biology. She has published more than 45
research papers in journals of international and national repute.
She has been selected as a research fellow from the Indian Academy of Sciences. She is
serving as life member of several scientific societies viz. Life Member of the Indian Science
Congress, Life Member of Indian Botanical Society, Member of International Society for
life Sciences, Member of Indian Fern Society. She is the recipient of various awards at
national level such as: best young researcher award at international conf. on Environ­
mental changes and their impact on plant & human health. Science Glory Award by
Academy of Environment and Life Sciences. She is serving as Guest Associate Editor and
Peer reviewer in many journals of International repute the thrust area of research is
phytoremediation technology, remediation of heavy metals and hydrocarbons from the
contaminated lands and agrowaste mediated nanoparticle synthesis and their application
in environmental cleanup.

13