ライフサイエンスコーパス: detection limit

1 ta with censored values (e.g., less than the detection limit).

2 igration was below the 0.2 parts per billion detection limit.

3 declared robusta content above the estimated detection limit.

4 easured, while 288 substances were below the detection limit.

5 ctDNA release and analyse the tumour-volume detection limit.

6 f magnitude greater than the single-molecule detection limit.

7 d matrix effects, and improve recoveries and detection limits.

8 g the effect of co-occurring biomolecules on detection limits.

9 ield experiments as well as reported minimum detection limits.

10 onization efficiency, and picomole levels of detection limits.

11 d multivariate analyses involving data below detection limits.

12 of DNR and DNA was resulted with satisfying detection limits 0.55microM and 2.71microg/mL, respectiv

13 nge (0 to 30ngmL(-1)), with remarkable lower detection limit (0.16ngmL(-1)).

14 The detection limits (0.06pg/mL AFP and 0.001U/mL CA125) and

15 The proposed method shows appropriate detection limits (0.14-49.0ngg(-1)), recoveries in the r

16 precision (<5.6%); high recovery (>81%) and detection limits (0.45-2.51mug/L) far below sotolon odor

17 TB) and Acinetobacter baumanii (Ab) with the detection limits 10(3)cfu/mL TB in sputum and 10(2)cfu/m

18 e (20 nM to 20 muM and 100 muM to 2 mM), low detection limit (2.0 nM), and good selectivity for appli

19 The integrated sensor provided a very low detection limit (25 fM, 0.25 attomol in 10muL sample) fo

20 w Km (8.4mM), high Imax (77.2muAcm(-2)), low detection limit (26.9muM) and good sensitivity (3.5muAcm

21 Under the optimum conditions, the detection limit (3sigma) was 0.93mugL(-1) for Cu using a

22 el determination of rifampicin with very low detection limit (4.55x10(-17)M) and a wide linear range

23 r, at this stage this is not required as the detection limit achieved exceeded the required allergens

24 ince it has been rather difficult to compare detection limits across MPI publications we propose guid

25 vided better signal-to-noise ratio and lower detection limits, along with immunity against interferen

26 The detection limit and pre-concentration factor were found

27 The detection limit and quantification limit were 1.43 and 4

28 ng performance factors, i.e., sensitivity, a detection limit and response time of the FeS and convent

29 The detection limit and RSD value of the method were found t

30 nanostructured aptasensor demonstrated a low detection limit and sensitivity of 10(1)cfu/mL towards

31 linear range from 0.2microM to 1.8mM with a detection limit and sensitivity of 0.79microM and 62micr

32 H2O2 over a linear range of 0.03-1mM with a detection limit and sensitivity of 11.5microM and 133.2m

33 ion in the linear range of 0.05-2.4mM with a detection limit and sensitivity of 17microM and 17.7micr

34 The detection limit and the quantification limit of the sens

35 ub-50 Pa changes in pressure with sub-100 Pa detection limits and a response time of 90 ms is demonst

36 in which cyanotoxin concentrations are below detection limits and by the high variability of cyanotox

37 the same time, the targeted analysis extends detection limits and dynamic range, depending on the com

38 olecular measurements at clinically relevant detection limits and high (3 s) temporal resolution, att

39 e, quick, inexpensive and specific, with low detection limits and high sample throughput.

40 n active focusing modulator, such as reduced detection limits and increased total peak capacity.

41 Detection limits and relative standard deviations (RSD)

42 tailed the disadvantage of presenting higher detection limits and substantial matrix effects at the i

43 With high sensitivity, a low detection limit, and a simple device structure, the GONR

44 Applying high-sensitivity testing (detection limit approximately 1 in 1000 cells) to stored

45 The detection limit are 1 CFU/mL and 10 CFU/mL corresponding

46 possibilities for future improvement of the detection limit are discussed.

47 Both the signal detection limits are 0.10nM.

48 Associated exosome detection limits are 1.9 x 10(5) particles mL(-1) (equiv

49 ional macroelectrodes as the sensitivity and detection limits are enhanced.

50 These detection limits are substantially lower and the linear

51 eal (biological/pharmaceutical) samples with detection limit as low as 0.11ngmL(-1) (S/N=3), without

52 Experimental results showed detection limits as low as 7, 40 and 100 CFU/mL for S. a

53 ensored data, thereby considering data below detection limits as well as the interspecific variabilit

54 800muM with a response time less than 4s and detection limit (based on S/N ratio) of 4.0nM.

55 optimal operating conditions, the analytical detection limits (based on 3sigma) of the proposed onlin

56 and TG concentration range, 0.001-100mM, the detection limits being in the range, 0.1nM to 0.56mM, wi

57 A detection limit below 1 ppmv, a dynamic range of more th

58 00, the optimized procedure allows obtaining detection limits between 0.13 and 0.35ngmL(-1) using fla

59 aphy tandem mass spectrometry lead to method detection limits between 22.7 and 1260 ng/L for single p

60 other hand, researchers attempt to lower the detection limit by improving the spectral resolution, wh

61 O2 and HCO3(-), which otherwise are near the detection limit, by 8.2- and 8.6-fold.

62 The detection limit, calculated as 3sigma value, was 0.8mg/L

63 Detection limit, calculated as 3sigma value, was 1.3mg/L

64 rated contaminants in the analysis; absolute detection limits, calculated as 3 x standard deviation o

65 levels of censorship (e.g., sample specific detection limits, changes through time in method detecti

66 The system achieves detection limits comparable to those obtained by laborat

67 ta allows for the definition of a difference detection limit (DDL) with universal applicability to sy

68 The detection limits (DLs) achieved for Cu, Pb and Zn were 0

69 linear range of 0.05-0.50microgmL(-1) and a detection limit down to 0.035microgmL(-1) as compared to

70 Receptor 1 showed a detection limit down to 0.16microM without any interfere

71 and specific quantification of Pb(2+) with a detection limit down to 163.7ng/L.

72 to detect complementary DNA fragments with a detection limit down to 20 DNA target molecules (1.5aM r

73 These methods allow detection limits down to 5 nM for the neutral amino acid

74 allows one to substantially decrease the low detection limit (down to 10(-3)ng/ml) and increase the d

75 performance in terms of both sensitivity and detection limit for all of the steroids included in the

76 ecommendations are developed to decrease the detection limit for an immunochromatographic assay of sp

77 these novel structures we show that (i) the detection limit for dopamine can be improved by two orde

78 Same detection limit for E. coli was achieved for real sample

79 e cells) to improve the binding capacity and detection limit for free PEG and PEGylated molecules.

80 The detection limit for HER2 in serum is lower than 100fM.

81 s chosen in analogy to the definition of the detection limit for potentiometric sensors provided by t

82 The detection limit for the determination of Cl(-) was found

83 Detection limit for the particles produced by the laser

84 Detection limits for aromatic amines in textiles (0.007-

85 Correspondingly, the detection limits for BTEX in CO2 have been lowered from

86 The detection limits for diazinon(oxon) and chlorpyrifos(oxo

87 The detection limits for differing N-nitrosamines ranged bet

88 Using SPCEs, detection limits for electrochemically active substrates

89 Results show that significantly lower detection limits for RCS ( approximately 330 ng), compar

90 These exhibit excellent detection limits for their targets without the use of re

91 summary, the excellent binding affinity, low detection limit, high sensitivity, good stability and sp

92 Not only are detection limits improved, but dried aqueous standard so

93 plex matrix where circumstances demand a low detection limit in a compact space.

94 esult, PCE concentrations decreased to below detection limit in the silt in a few weeks.

95 cVMS concentrations in lake water were below detection limits in both March and June 2014.

96 otocol was set up to maximize recoveries and detection limits in different raw, processed and baked f

97 iral abundance in soils can range from below detection limits in hot deserts to over 1 billion per gr

98 arrays is their ability to achieve ultralow detection limits in solution by proximity placement to a

99 The analysis of 0.5g of sample provided detection limits in the 0.4-1.7ngg(-1) range.

100 trichlorophenol, and naphthenic acids), with detection limits in the low parts per trillion (ppt) ran

101 xide diamine (HMTD), and cyclohexanone, with detection limits in the parts-per-trillion to parts-per-

102 e number concentration was investigated, and detection limits in the submicrogram-per-liter range wer

103 method showed good recoveries (99-103%) with detection limits (in milk) in the range of 10 ng As kg(-

104 The detection limit is 0.19 amol for dG-gx-dC and 0.89 amol

105 The detection limit is ca. 20 fM, corresponding to 6pgL(-1)

106 The concentration detection limit is investigated to be 1 and 10 fM for mi

107 Our reported detection limit is superior in comparison with previousl

108 on when the species is rare, accuracy at low detection limits is key.

109 r nations, a more practical test, with lower detection limit, is paramount.

110 The obtained detection limit (LOD) for Fe@C-Fc-1 was found to be 0.60

111 ar in the range of 0.017-3.0mugL(-1), with a detection limit (LOD) of 0.0052mugL(-1).

112 se range of 2.0 x 10(-8)-2.0 x 10(-4)M and a detection limit (LOD) of 5.8 x 10(-9)M, indicating its p

113 ented selectivity and the best ever reported detection limit (LOD) of 60 attomolar (aM, 0.01 parts-pe

114 istribution with the truncation point at the detection limit (LOD).

115 Excellent detection limits (LOD) of 15 fg/mL for PSA and 4.8 fg/mL

116 ospheric mixing ratios varied from below the detection limit (<1 pptv) to 5 pptv, with averages of 0.

117 OSEs or FOSAs were detected above the method detection limit (MDL) in the personal air samples.

118 ndividual monoterpenes ranged from below the detection limit of <1 pmol L(-1) to 5 pmol L(-1), with a

119 h a correlation coefficient of (0.998) and a detection limit of (3.2x10(-10)molL(-1)).

120 ensitivity (90.14microA/(U/mL)/cm(2)) with a detection limit of 0.00113UmL(-1) concentration.

121 tection range of 0.001-10.2ngmL(-1), the low detection limit of 0.001ngmL(-1), and high sensitivity o

122 ide linear range 0.001-5nM/mL and a very low detection limit of 0.001nM/mL.

123 ge of 0.01-0.35mugmL(-1) (R(2)=0.998) with a detection limit of 0.003mugmL(-1) (signal/noise=3).

124 dynamic range from 5 to 150ngmL(-1), with a detection limit of 0.01ngmL(-1).

125 angle shift and to have the lowest antibody detection limit of 0.01pg/ml.

126 optical waveguide (ARROW) biosensor chip, a detection limit of 0.021pfu/mL for clinical samples is a

127 inear range of 0.05-0.40microgmL(-1), with a detection limit of 0.042microgmL(-1).

128 ponse to glucose from 0.25 to 13.2mM, with a detection limit of 0.042microM (S/N=3) and sensitivity o

129 s method showed excellent sensitivity with a detection limit of 0.0436 mU/mL, and accomplished except

130 1.0microM and 1.0microM to 21.0microM with a detection limit of 0.04microM.

131 arget over a range of 10-200ngmL(-1), with a detection limit of 0.05ngmL(-1).

132 as obtained between 0.1 and 10ng/mL with the detection limit of 0.078 +/- 0.004ng/mL (RSD < 4.7%).

133 r dynamic range of 0.5-5.0microgL(-1) with a detection limit of 0.09microgL(-1) and quantification li

134 ear response ranging from 1 to 20 muM with a detection limit of 0.1 muM by spectrophotometric method.

135 0.27-268pgmL(-1) range and associated with a detection limit of 0.11pgmL(-1).

136 -Cysteine and l-Cystine were determined with detection limit of 0.125% (w/w) in different wheat flour

137 ensitivity of 0.087microA/microM/cm(2) and a detection limit of 0.12microM (S/N=3).

138 ed sensor shows a high selectivity and a low detection limit of 0.17nM thanks to electrical conductiv

139 etection in the range of 0.5-1000 nM, with a detection limit of 0.18 nM, which is 5 orders of magnitu

140 concentration range of 0.3-1000 pgmL(-1) and detection limit of 0.19 pgmL(-1).

141 (-3)M, and nanosensor displayed an excellent detection limit of 0.1microM (S/N=3).

142 nge (1-16mM) detection of glucose with a low detection limit of 0.1mM.

143 ensitivity of 0.14muAng(-1)ml and a very low detection limit of 0.21ngml(-1) (very lower than the cli

144 er ions (Ag(+)) over other metal ions with a detection limit of 0.25 muM in an aqueous system.

145 ear concentration range 1aM to 1nM and a low detection limit of 0.2aM.

146 Consequently, the detection limit of 0.2muM and good stability (4 months)

147 ortional to the analyte concentration with a detection limit of 0.2ppb.

148 over the range from 1.0 fM to 1.0nM, with a detection limit of 0.47 fM, can be obtained.

149 tive than Gag protein staining alone, with a detection limit of 0.5-1 Gagpol mRNA(+)/Gag protein(+) c

150 itivity of 25.7AmicroM(-1)cm(-1), a very low detection limit of 0.54pM and high selectivity.

151 sensor exhibited an extremely low calculated detection limit of 0.5fg/mL with wide linear range 1.0fg

152 ation of glucose assay, respectively, with a detection limit of 0.67microM (S/N = 3).

153 -based immunosensor showed high sensitivity (detection limit of 0.75pg/ml) and selectivity against ot

154 of B material in WB milk/dairy products to a detection limit of 0.8% v/v.

155 .0x10(-6)-1.0x10(-4)M for OME at pH 7 with a detection limit of 1.02x10(-11)M.

156 sensitivity of 191.6 muA mM(-1)cm(-2) and a detection limit of 1.1 x 10(-3) mM.

157 g from 5x10(-4) to 6x10(-3)mg L(-1) with the detection limit of 1.3x10(-4)mgL(-1).

158 em responses specifically to dopamine with a detection limit of 1.43 muM.

159 concentrations from 2.2nM to 4.64muM with a detection limit of 1.4nM (S/N = 3).

160 on in the range from 3 mM to 100 mM with the detection limit of 1.5 mM; response time is 2-3 min.

161 linear dynamic range of 5-150mugL(-1) with a detection limit of 1.5mugL(-1) and an enrichment factor

162 between 5.0pgmL(-1) and 20.0ngmL(-1) with a detection limit of 1.756pgmL(-1) (S/N=3).

163 centration of uranyl in a few minutes with a detection limit of 1.95 ppb.

164 x10(1) to 1x10(6) cellsmL(-1) exhibiting low detection limit of 10 cellsmL(-1) and incubation time of

165 A detection limit of 10 nM was found using human blood ser

166 , increased sensitivities, a very satisfying detection limit of 10(-13)gmL(-1) and an exceptional lin

167 With the detection limit of 10(3) CFU/mL, crn-1 and crn-2 based p

168 HBV clinical samples, where we achieved the detection limit of 10(3) copies/ml as compared to 10(4)

169 al infection measured by BLI, with a minimum detection limit of 10(7) bacteria.

170 highly specific detection of Zika NS1 with a detection limit of 100 ng/mL in buffer.

171 differential pulse voltammetric analysis, a detection limit of 100 pM with a detection range from 10

172 Consequently, a detection limit of 10nM is achieved with a dynamic range

173 0 value of 37.1 +/- 2.4 ng mL(-1) (n = 9), a detection limit of 11.1 ng mL(-1), and a dynamic range f

174 A detection limit of 12 pM fluorescein was achieved when s

175 of 10.7microAcm(3)mg(-1) (R(2) = 0.983) and detection limit of 12mg/L in terms of OP air density.

176 Via this approach, we have achieved a detection limit of 15 pM in LRET assays of human immunod

177 n a linear range from 50.0fM to 1.0nM with a detection limit of 15fM.

178 ng non-Hodgkin lymphoma gene sensor showed a detection limit of 1aM (1 x 10(-18)mol/L), more than 400

179 The biosensor displayed a low detection limit of 1microM/L with a wide working range o

180 ed [Fe(CN)6](3-/4-) indicates the lowest DNA detection limit of 1x10(-14)M with linearity range 1x10(

181 uA per concentration decade, with the lowest detection limit of 1x10(2)cells/mL.

182 The method has a low detection limit of 2 amol (1000 copies), and was success

183 x 10(-4)-50.0ngmL(-1) (R(2) = 0.9906) with a detection limit of 2.0 x 10(-5)ngmL(-1).

184 uantification of thrombin in solution with a detection limit of 2.27aM.

185 0x10(-8) to 4.1x10(-7)M (R(2)=0.9987) with a detection limit of 2.5x10(-9)M.

186 ion range from 0.01 to 1.0ngmL(-1) and had a detection limit of 2.6pgmL(-1) with an incubation time o

187 near range of 1x10(2) to 1x10(6)cellsml(-1), detection limit of 20cellsml(-1) with incubation time of

188 y sensitive, nonenzymatic H2O2 sensor with a detection limit of 250 nM and a broad linear range of 25

189 r a concentration range of 2-12mM with a low detection limit of 25microm.

190 r range from 20aM to 2microM with a very low detection limit of 2aM.

191 (5)-6.0x10(6) cells/mL, respectively, with a detection limit of 2cells/mL.

192 range from 19 to 190nM (R(2) = 0.99) with a detection limit of 2nM.

193 sensitive overall than the bulk ROS sensor (detection limit of 3 Gy per droplet).

194 of the sensor chip to detect cortisol with a detection limit of 3 pg/mL was achieved by conjugating a

195 ochemical determination of [Ru(bpy)3](2+), a detection limit of 36 nM was observed.

196 s linearly proportional in response with the detection limit of 377nM.

197 howed a strong quenching efficiency with the detection limit of 39 or 48 ppb along with other nitroar

198 performances with an excellent stability, a detection limit of 3microM, a linear range between 5 and

199 arity (R =0.9927), high sensitivity with low detection limit of 4.3x10(-12)M.

200 with 93.3% sensitivity, high specificity and detection limit of 4.57IU/microl.

201 s, with a mean power consumption of 1.8 W, a detection limit of 40 nM, a dynamic range of 0.14-10 muM

202 L with correlation coefficient of 0.9937 and detection limit of 400cells/mL (4 cell in 10muL), indica

203 cellent sensitivity towards malathion with a detection limit of 4pM.

204 S. aureus bacterial DNA was achieved with a detection limit of 5+/-0.58cfu/mL within a total elapsed

205 %), a 100-fold preconcentration factor and a detection limit of 5.0ng/L were achieved.

206 acterised in pure buffer conditions giving a detection limit of 58ngmL(-1) as a direct binding assay.

207 nse in the range of 20-160microgL(-1) with a detection limit of 6.4microgL(-1) and excellent recognit

208 The F6P-biosensor demonstrates a detection limit of 6.6 fM and high selectivity when comp

209 tivity and fast recognition for CN(-) with a detection limit of 6.8 muM.

210 Assay has a lowest detection limit of 60ng/ml and shows no cross-reaction w

211 ith a linear range from 0.1-1600microm and a detection limit of 60nM with a sensitivity of 0.172micro

212 chniques provides selective detection with a detection limit of 70CFU/mL.

213 Exploiting these capabilities, a detection limit of 800 attomolar (aM) is achieved withou

214 t least 100,000 times lower than the current detection limit of 9.4fM.

215 in the range of 2.0-70microgL(-1) and has a detection limit of 9.8x10(-2)microgL(-1).

216 inear detection range of 10fM-10nM and a low detection limit of 9fM were obtained within 100min by de

217 chemical ionization mass spectrometry with a detection limit of about 10(4)-10(5) molecules cm(-3).

218 s cytometry can enumerate AuNPs with a lower detection limit of approximately 10 AuNPs (3 nm core siz

219 etection in the portable SPR biosensor had a detection limit of approximately 4.8pg/ml in the PBS buf

220 The study results establish a detection limit of approximately 67 virus particles per

221 epresenting a significant improvement on the detection limit of approximately two orders of magnitude

222 We improved the detection limit of eSHHA, taking advantage of nanostruct

223 2.5%) sensing in the 0-95% RH range with a detection limit of less than 0.1% RH.

224 The detection limit of method (n=10) was 2.86microgL(-1) and

225 The detection limit of minor viral haplotypes reached 0.1% f

226 e cardiac imaging, it is unknown how far the detection limit of MPI can be lowered.

227 TRP dephosphorylation affects the detection limit of oscillating light according to the ad

228 ion is a regulatory process that affects the detection limit of oscillating light according to the li

229 Under optimized conditions the detection limit of proposed nanobiosensor was 3.4nM with

230 of subpatent antenatal infections below the detection limit of RDTs are incompletely understood.

231 s and mixtures were analysed, from which the detection limit of robusta in arabica was estimated to b

232 hese structural intricacies may indicate the detection limit of synchrotron diffraction and TEM.

233 The sensitivity, response time and the detection limit of the biosensor for CC is 0.932 muMmuA(

234 The present achievable detection limit of the biosensor is 10(3) CFU/mL.

235 As measured, the detection limit of the biosensors for glucose and choles

236 The detection limit of the electrochemical sensor using the

237 The hydrogen peroxide detection limit of the flexible MSM photodetector was 2.

238 The detection limit of the immunosensor was as low as 2.2pM

239 The unamplified detection limit of the Love wave biosensor is 9.4ng/mL.

240 The linear dynamic range and method detection limit of the procedure were found to be 0.1-10

241 The detection limit of the sensing system was found to be 0.

242 In addition, it was found that the detection limit of the sensor could be increased by comb

243 The detection limit of the system was calculated to be 2micr

244 which is well below the clinically required detection limit of the toxin.

245 The lower detection limit of this device is as low as 6.5muM and i

246 Furthermore, we quantified the detection limit of this platform by using DNA origami-ba

247 nic carbon (C) that are often well below the detection limit of traditional spectroscopic tools.

248 ion ranges of 0.1-3.0, and 0.07-1.86muM, and detection limits of 0.03 and 0.01muM for sunset yellow a

249 1U/mL and 0.1mU/mL to 100U/mL with very low detection limits of 0.1microU/mL and 10microU/mL, respec

250 developed nanoimmunosensor was seen to have detection limits of 0.30nM for MBP and 0.15nM for Tau pr

251 Under the optimum conditions, detection limits of 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8microM were obtained

252 n water and fish samples, with corresponding detection limits of 0.7mugL(-1) and 12mugkg(-1), respect

253 wed determination of iron and magnesium with detection limits of 1.01 and 3.36mgkg(-1), respectively.

254 correlated responses with quantification and detection limits of 1.3 and 5.2 nM, respectively.

255 measuring the color change of AgNPs, giving detection limits of 1.53 (MERS-CoV), 1.27 (MTB), and 1.0

256 103.97 x 10(7) cfu mL(-1) which resulted in detection limits of 1.99 x 10(4) cfu mL(-1) and 50 cfu m

257 rling bird fecal samples and whole milk with detection limits of 10(5) CFU g(-1) and 10(3) CFU mL(-1)

258 Differential pulse voltammetry reveals detection limits of 100 muM for GSH and 8.3 muM for GSSG

259 al antibodies against PfLDH or PfIDEh showed detection limits of 100-200 parasites/microL and 200-400

260 were 21.8 and 14.4 muA muM(-1) cm(-2), with detection limits of 18.1 +/- 1.22 and 1.38 +/- 0.139 nM,

261 0(-5) and 5x10(-8)-1x10(-5)molL(-1) with the detection limits of 1x10(-7) and 3.3x10(-9)molL(-1) for

262 simultaneous determination of A and G, with detection limits of 3.48 and 1.59nM, respectively.

263 01-30.0muM for A and 0.01-25.0muM for G with detection limits of 3.90 and 1.58nM for A and G, respect

264 droplets can be acquired at 1 kHz and yield detection limits of 400 nM for fluorescein in water.

265 concentrations (ca. 30 ppb) with analytical detection limits of 5.4 ppb for 1 and 7.7 ppb for 2, whi

266 s immunoassays in droplets exhibited insulin detection limits of 9.3 nM or 190 amol (1.9 x 10(-16) mo

267 method exhibited good sensitivity, limit of detection, limit of quantitation, and selectivity.

268 n (ICH) guidelines which evaluate linearity, detection limit, quantification limit, accuracy and prec

269 gher than 98.65%, and high sensitivity whose detection limits ranged between 0.08 and 1.11mug/mL.

270 Detection limits ranged between 0.8 and 3.8mgkg(-1).

271 Detection limits ranged from 0.03 to 0.1mug.mL(-1), and

272 Method detection limits ranged from 1.6 to 19 ng L(-1).

273 The structure and properties such as low detection limit, selectivity and miniaturized size enabl

274 ore, a highly sensitive biosensor with a low detection limit that can be fabricated simply in a nonco

275 In addition to the low detection limit, the biosensor showed a dynamic range of

276 When approaching a detection limit, the exponents change and approach an ap

277 Because of its high stability and low detection limit, the sensor showed a promising chemical

278 e of the photoreceptor cells by shifting the detection limit to higher frequencies upon light adaptat

279 sitive sensors which could indicate very low detection limit to the level of few molecules, a realist

280 cs, demonstrating high tracer recoveries and detection limits to pg/g (i.e., parts per trillion) leve

281 n in the range 1.47-247.20ngmL(-1), with the detection limits to the tune of 0.36ngmL(-1) (S/N=3) in

282 or the non-Hodgkin lymphoma gene, with an aM detection limit, utilizing electrochemical impedance spe

283 graph was 0.03-0.50mumolL(-1) CoQ10, and the detection limit was 0.008mumolL(-1).

284 he advantages of fast, high sensitivity (the detection limit was 1.2ng/ml), good selectivity, and wid

285 The detection limit was 105CFU/ml in pure culture for Lactob

286 based electrode, and for BA based electrode detection limit was 28cellsml(-1) with incubation time o

287 The visual detection limit was 30ppb.

288 The detection limit was 7.8 pmol.

289 The detection limit was approximately 30cfu/mL in PBS buffer

290 The detection limit was calculated to be 0.3pgmL(-1).

291 enhanced experimental approach with reduced detection limit was successfully applied to the analysis

292 dy experiments demonstrated that the digital detection limit was up to 1pg/mL, which is approximately

293 allowed femtomolar (fM) detection of FAP, a detection limit well adapted and promising for quantitat

294 ncrease in sensitivity and a 53% decrease in detection limit were observed for the FeS-based biosenso

295 Under optimum conditions, the detection limits were 0.02microgL(-1) in linear working

296 0-200micromolL(-1) for both analytes and the detection limits were determined as low as 8.3micromolL(

297 Colorimetric detection limits were determined to be 81 muM and 119 mu

298 nsitivity, the biosensor has displayed a low detection limit which is reported for the first time in

299 eins (e.g., antibodies) with a low nanomolar detection limit within 10 min.

300 mprovement), and urinary cotinine (200 ng/ml detection limit) without deterioration in the other 2.