ライフサイエンスコーパス: limit of detection

1 trical signatures and had a 7 um microsphere limit of detection.

2 dard TIC due to their signal being below the limit of detection.

3 kungunya virus (CHIKV) replication is at the limit of detection.

4 factor of ~2, which is coupled with a lower limit of detection.

5 nsors, such as simplicity, low cost, and low limit of detection.

6 detection with an unprecedented zepto-molar limit of detection.

7 eters with both high resolving power and low limits of detection.

8 iscrepancy in VL values because of different limits of detection.

9 r dopamine with high reproducibility and low limit of detection (0.09 mumol L(-1)).

10 nt morphologies of ZnO NWs and achieve a low limit of detection (0.4 pg ml(-1)) in detecting p24 anti

11 e linear response range (7.5-300 muM); lower limit of detection (0.66 muM), excellent limit of quanti

12 od linearity (R(2) > 0.99), with appropriate limits of detection (0.05-10 ng/g) and limits of quantit

13 -200.0, 0.21-200.0 and 0.15-200.0 ug L(-1)), limits of detection (0.09, 0.06 and 0.04 ug L(-1)) and p

14 assay with even higher analytic sensitivity (limit of detection, 0.1 ng/L).

15 range of 2 to 2 x 10(6) cells mL(-1) with a limit of detection 1 cell mL(-1).

16 PE-LC-MS/MS method was validated in terms of limit of detection (1.29-29.17 ng/g), linearity range (2

17 showed a dynamic range of 3.25-200 muM and a limit of detection (1.3 muM).

18 The limits of detection (10.0 and 5.0 mg.L(-1) for ethylene

19 We found that Xpert Xpress had the lowest limit of detection (100% detection at 100 copies/ml), fo

20 he fast (5 min) and sensitive determination (limit of detection, 120 pM) of Escherichia coli O111:B4

21 .22 (1.06-4.61) ng/L in 2001-2002 and 1.18 (<limit of detection-2.92) ng/L in 2011-2012.

22 on in solution by fluorescence spectroscopy (limit of detection 3 pM) and on surfaces at the single-p

23 ifferential fluorescence imaging enabled low limits of detection (316 copies of methicillin-resistant

24 .0 x 10(-7) M to 1.75 x 10(-3) M) with a low limit of detection (65 nM).

25 The median limit of detection achieved by NGF was 2.9 x 10(-6).

26 Although the limit of detection achieved did not improve those of cur

27 Working strategies, limit of detections, advantages and shortcomings of the

28 This enhancement correlated to 3.1 mug/L limit of detection and 10 mug/L limit of quantification.

29 ssue by imaging mass spectrometry (IMS), the limit of detection and dynamic range are of paramount im

30 The linear dynamic range, limit of detection and enrichment factor have been found

31 tients with total IgA levels below the lower limit of detection and IgG against tissue transglutamina

32 der optimized conditions, the working range, limit of detection and pre-concentration factor were det

33 Limit of detection and quantification (LOD and LOQ) valu

34 (range 0.05-5.00 mg per assay), sensitivity (limit of detection and quantification 4.4 and 14.9 ug/mL

35 oncentration range 0.56-7.3 umol L(-1), with limit of detection and quantification of 0.18 and 0.59 u

36 tion curve of excellent linearity, and a low limit of detection and quantification of GlcN.

37 The limit of detection and quantification of physostigmine d

38 Limit of detection and quantification were found to be 0

39 epeatability (coefficient of variation RSD), limit of detection and quantification.

40 The limit of detection and the limit of quantification value

41 e high-quality quantitative data in terms of limits of detection and dynamic range, at the cost of a

42 ng hydride generation LS-GF-AAS gives better limits of detection and it reached 30 pg g(-1) with Ir m

43 s found between 5.0 and 50 ug L(-1), and the limits of detection and quantification (LOD and LOQ) wer

44 universal functionalization method, showing limits of detection and quantification in the pM-nM rang

45 ear in the range of 0.1-1.0 mumol L(-1) with limits of detection and quantification of 32 and 106 nmo

46 r in the range of 0.08-2.10 mumol L(-1) with limits of detection and quantification of 72.6 and 220 n

47 The limits of detection and quantification were, respectivel

48 The limits of detection and quantification were, respectivel

49 F-AAS at 196.026 nm gives high values of the limits of detection and quantification.

50 Limits of Detection and Quantitation (LOD and LOQ) were

51 ural repeatability was less than 5% RSD, and limits of detection and quantitation were 0.1-2.1 and 0.

52 The limits of detection and quantitation were 1.2 +/- 0.1, 2

53 as sensitivity, analytical sensitivity, and limits of detection and quantitation.

54 The limits of detection and the limits of quantification wer

55 The advantages of faster scan rates, lower limits of detection, and synchronous precursor selection

56 he techniques but regression coefficient and limit of detection are better in differential pulse volt

57 near range (0.0005-75 U/mL) and an excellent limit of detection around 6 muU/mL.

58 II band in aqueous solutions that achieves a limit of detection as low as 0.0025 mg mL(-1) (outperfor

59 The portable detection strategy achieved a limit of detection as low as 0.056 ng/mL with high speci

60 e highly specific and sensitive, achieving a limit of detection as low as 4.0 cfu mL(-1).

61 Limits of detection as low as 27 ppb and sensor-to-senso

62 s at low copy number is problematic with the limit of detection at 95 percent confidence predicted to

63 using the pDART-MS platform, which showed a limit of detection at the muM level.

64 The limit of detection attained is 2.11 pg mL(-1) and displa

65 tection of their streams in real-time with a limit of detection below 100 muM.

66 ntration of nitrite in pork and enhanced the limit of detection by analyzing the coffee-ring effect.

67 Limits of detection calculated on fortified samples were

68 The limits of detection, calculated from a blank test based

69 ensity correlates to the CD63 amount and the limit of detection can be as low as 7.7 x 10(3) particle

70 or such a patch implementation: a) range and limit of detection compatible with interstitial fluid gl

71 tection time, clinical specimen, status, the limit of detection/detection ability have been discussed

72 eous plugs segmented by carrier fluid), with limits of detection down to 7 nM (35 amol).

73 chip is a promising approach to improve the limit of detection, especially for samples in the nanoli

74 gically relevant concentration range, with a limit of detection established at 177 nM.

75 The limit of detection for chemical sensing of Crystal Viole

76 Under optimum conditions, the limit of detection for Claudin 7 was 0.4 pg mL(-1), with

77 s detected by RT-qPCR and viral culture; the limit of detection for culturing SARS-CoV-2 from surface

78 The sensor limit of detection for formaldehyde was 0.2 mg L(-1), an

79 The limit of detection for one of the systems reached submic

80 The limit of detection for our electrochemical biosensor was

81 The limit of detection for oxycodone with the Nafion/SWCNT s

82 Indeed, the limit of detection for the MS(3) experiments was 250 nM,

83 The limit of detection for the RLEP and RLPM assays is 30 M.

84 Limit of detection for this bacterial sensor was 10 CFU/

85 The low limit of detection for total protein concentration was 1

86 onse for low concentration of Tz and SY with limit of detection for Tz and SY as 0.0325 muM (32.5 nM)

87 The limits of detection for A1 in A2 samples were 10% (100 c

88 The coefficients of determination and limits of detection for margarine, and corn and palm oil

89 n for protonated monomers and hundred ppt(v) limits of detection for proton-bound dimers measured for

90 ess, this still leads to single-digit ppt(v) limits of detection for protonated monomers and hundred

91 We determined analytical limits of detection for seven SARS-CoV-2 assays using se

92 The limits of detection for the glucocorticoids were between

93 Utilizing this system-the sensor's limit of detection has been determined to be 0.01 ppm (1

94 ar range (1 nM to 100 muM) with an excellent limit of detection, i.e., 32 pM, 31 pM, 64 pM, and 9 pM

95 s containing multiple analyte molecules, the limits of detection improve only by a factor of 3 to 4 f

96 It improves the limit of detection in fluorescence-linked immunosorbent

97 surface antigen (WHsAg) levels to below the limit of detection in half of the treated woodchucks.

98 targets with higher sensitivity, achieving a limit of detection in the femtomolar range without any t

99 transmission path lengths up to 80 mum and a limit of detection in the lower mug/mL range for transmi

100 biosensor offers extremely high sensitivity: limits of detection in serum are 1.7 IU/mL and 6 IU/mL f

101 Both methods showed limits of detection in the lower femtomol range.

102 ls to provide large signal amplification and limits of detection in the sub-fg mL(-1) range, a protoc

103 semen was undetectable in both plasma (lower limit of detection [LLD] <12 copies per mL) and cells (L

104 The limit of detection (LOD = 3 s/n) values of NH(3) and NH(

105 immunosensor in terms of selectivity and low limit of detection (LOD) (1.7 pg mL(-1)) allowed the dir

106 sensitivity was 0.51 A M(-1) cm(-2), and the limit of detection (LOD) 26 nM.

107 Interestingly, the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LO

108 The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LO

109 The limit of detection (LoD) and limit of quantification wer

110 The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ)

111 The nanosensor also demonstrated superior limit of detection (LOD) and sensitivity of 1.68 x 10(-2

112 The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantification

113 blood samples with the SP-PCR resulted in a limit of detection (LoD) as low as 86 CFU/mL and 94 CFU/

114 dology was then evaluated by determining the limit of detection (LOD) as well as repeatability of 35

115 o a dsDNA chain led to an improvement of the limit of detection (LoD) by 3 orders of magnitude when c

116 tage (99.0%) was estimated interpolating the limit of detection (LOD) for the isobaric internal stand

117 analysis parameters that leads to the lowest limit of detection (LOD) in a digital isothermal amplifi

118 The limit of detection (LOD) is 1 fM, which is achieved with

119 The lower limit of detection (LOD) measures the potential of our i

120 ensitivity of about 21.6 degrees /mM and low limit of detection (LOD) of 0.02 mM.

121 mance liquid chromatography (HPLC-FD) with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.05 ng/mL for OTA.

122 Our developed method showed the limit of detection (LOD) of 0.08 ng mL(-1) for p-CA and

123 all molecules (adenosine triphosphate (ATP), limit of detection (LOD) of 0.1 nM), a biomarker (thromb

124 oderate sensitivity of 0.0164 OD.mL/ng and a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.74 ng/mL.

125 ange of 3 ag.ml(-1) -1.9 ug.ml(-1) and a low limit of detection (LOD) of 0.9 +/- 0.04 ag ml(-1).

126 in a broad range from 10 aM to 100 pM and a limit of detection (LOD) of 10 aM was obtained, which wa

127 Visual limit of detection (LOD) of 10 pmol and spectroscopic LO

128 ibited unprecedented high sensitivity with a limit of detection (LOD) of 10(0) CFU/mL (1-9 CFU/mL), r

129 ntitative range of 15 to 10(7) IU/mL, with a limit of detection (LOD) of 10.65 IU/mL in EDTA-plasma a

130 earity of 20-200 mug L(-1) was found, with a limit of detection (LOD) of 11.30 mug L(-1) for Cd(II) a

131 ility (RSD = 2.2%, at 500 muM, n = 7), and a limit of detection (LOD) of 11.7 muM.

132 The biosensor achieved a limit of detection (LOD) of 14 CFU/mL, the lowest report

133 to the full-length aptamer (124 nM), with a limit of detection (LOD) of 2 nM.

134 ensitivity and selectivity to insulin with a limit of detection (LOD) of 26 and 81 fM in buffer and h

135 od linear range from 100 pM to 1000 pM and a limit of detection (LOD) of 29.2 pM was obtained.

136 conditions the MSPE-FAAS procedure presents limit of detection (LOD) of 4.0 mug L(-1), limit of quan

137 The assay has a limit of detection (LOD) of 50 RNA copies per muL in the

138 onship within the range of 25-500 muM with a limit of detection (LoD) of 9.80 muM and highly positive

139 In this study, the limit of detection (LOD) of M. tuberculosis H37Rv in all

140 The limit of detection (LOD) of this SPRi-based biosensor ap

141 um using sample volumes of ~1 muL and with a limit of detection (LOD) of ~4 ng mL(-1) within 25 min.

142 ng to better detection sensitivity and lower limit of detection (LOD) than colorimetric detection.

143 The limit of detection (LOD) values were 1.1-1.7 mg L(-1).

144 The reported range of limit of detection (LOD) was 0.38 aM-20 muM, with 1-10 n

145 The limit of detection (LOD) was 6.5, 5.5, or 5.1 mg GAE (ga

146 The limit of detection (LOD) was defined for each wine teste

147 ange from 50 to 1000 muM was found while the limit of detection (LOD) was determined to be 1 muM in t

148 Limit of detection (LOD) was found as 0.1 uM (0.2 ug g(-

149 The limit of detection (LoD) was found to be 8.8 ng/L with s

150 ch as real-time PCR demonstrate excellent an limit of detection (LOD) whereas antigenic methods are a

151 e creation of new aptasensors to address the limit of detection (LOD), and improve the sensitivity of

152 dies were carried out in terms of linearity, limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantitation (LOQ), m

153 stic technique, analyte detection range, and limit of detection (LOD), were evaluated and compared.

154 ease in ligand sensitivity and a decrease in limit of detection (LOD).

155 The limit of detection (LOD, S/N = 3) is well defined as 4.7

156 The limit of detections (LOD) for cytochrome c was 0.5 nM.

157 Limit-of-detection (LOD) analyses were performed with fi

158 In validation experiments the limits of detection (LOD < 8 mg/L) and quantification (L

159 measured with multiple assays with variable limits of detection (LOD) and lower limits of quantifica

160 Hz-TDS and LFRS experiments to determine the limits of detection (LOD) and quantitation (LOQ) for eac

161 Limits of detection (LOD) were 0.10 fg/mL for DSG3, and

162 r mass response (R(2) = 0.9983), low ng/m(3) limits of detection (LoD), and a fast response time (1 s

163 Instrument limits of detection (LOD; 2sigma, 10 s) were 120 parts p

164 Baseline hs-cTnT (limit of detection [LoD] 3 ng/l) and CAC measurements we

165 A higher sensitivity (Limit of detection-LoD, 6.54*10(5) CFU/ml) of the Lamb w

166 ts at single-nucleotide resolution achieving limits of detection (LODs) of 23.0 and 13.2 pM, respecti

167 All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with

168 The limits of detection (LODs) were 150 CFU/ml or 3 fg/mul o

169 otein molecules with femtomolar-to-attomolar limits of detection (LODs).

170 A limit of detection < 30 fM was obtained for HIV-1 synthe

171 individual aquatic insect samples (range of <limit of detection [<LOD] to 1670.10 ng/g of wet weight

172 ivity of 128.61 +/- 0.15 degrees RIU(-1) and limit of detection obtained at 2.2 x 10(-6) RIU with exc

173 The limits of detection obtained by direct GC-MS determinati

174 After optimization, the limits of detection obtained were 7.37, 8.63, and 9.64 u

175 detection ranging from 0.01 to 50 nM with a limit of detection of 0.003 nM.

176 n the range of 0.02-10 ug mL(-1) (r > 0.99), limit of detection of 0.005 ug mL(-1), satisfactory sele

177 f plasmonic optical gas sensors, achieving a limit of detection of 0.01 vol% at room temperature and

178 wed a linear range of 0.1-1000 ng mL(-1) and limit of detection of 0.022 ng mL(-1) within 30 min towa

179 using differential-pulse voltammetry with a limit of detection of 0.032 mumol L(-1).

180 nses over a wide concentration range, with a limit of detection of 0.08 ng/mL.

181 is showed even greater sensitivity, with the limit of detection of 0.1 cells/muL in the first 6 s of

182 sembled Au chip which was shown to exhibit a limit of detection of 0.19 nM and a linear detection ran

183 assay coefficient of variation of 7.1% and a limit of detection of 0.24 ng/mL.

184 The multiplexed biosensor showed a limit of detection of 0.26 IU/mL (624 pg/mL) and 14 ng/m

185 ing catechol in natural water samples with a limit of detection of 0.26 mumol L(-1).

186 terol, which showed a significantly improved limit of detection of 0.46 ng and linear dynamic range o

187 We observed a limit of detection of 0.5 pg/mL and a limit of quantitat

188 e range from 3.0 to 140.0 mumol L(-1) with a limit of detection of 0.71 mumol L(-1).

189 to date, achieving an improved sensitivity (limit of detection of 0.9 pM for the short synthetic oli

190 ed to enumerate particles on paper, with the limit of detection of 1 cell/muL.

191 alized Janus particles eventually achieved a limit of detection of 1 pg/mL.

192 ance of a portable Raman reader, achieving a limit of detection of 1.0 ng mL(-1).

193 plasma without any extraction steps, with a limit of detection of 1.32 pM that enabled the identific

194 tect selectively Salmonella cells with a low limit of detection of 1.5 * 10(1) CFU/mL.

195 of E. coli endotoxin after only 60 s, with a limit of detection of 1.9 ng mL(-1) and high selectivity

196 r response range of 0.005-50 nM, and a lower limit of detection of 1.9 pM (S/N = 3), with a high sens

197 This novel sensor has a limit of detection of 1.93 uM, below that of the US envi

198 untries across 5 continents, showing a lower limit of detection of 10 genomic copies per reaction in

199 50 MHz-per 150 mg/dL of glucose), possess a limit of detection of 10 mg/dL, and a step response time

200 ect glucose from 10 muM to 9 mM with a lower limit of detection of 10 muM.

201 ctrochemical immunosensor is able to reach a limit of detection of 10(5) exosomes muL(-1) directly in

202 NanoLuc-expressing bacteriophages had a limit of detection of 10-100 CFU per mL in culture witho

203 The presented resorbable biostrip offers a limit of detection of 10pM and thereby shows great promi

204 opment of an electroanalytical method with a limit of detection of 15.77 umol dm(-3), the limit of qu

205 tforward (three steps) and sensitive, with a limit of detection of 16% (3.9 ug/L) and 11% (5.3 ug/L)

206 th a sample-to-answer time of ~50 min, and a limit of detection of 2 copies per sample.

207 nsor surface, we demonstrate an extrapolated limit of detection of 2.2 CFU/ml from experimental data

208 level in increments of at least 20%, with a limit of detection of 2.4 pmol.

209 near working range (62.5-2000 ng/mL), with a limit of detection of 2.81 ng/mL.

210 With a limit of detection of 20 pg mL(-1) (63 pM), the competit

211 be employed to selectively detect Gsp with a limit of detection of 25 mug/mL via a "turn-on" response

212 , with sensitivity of 13 muA/mM.cm(2), and a limit of detection of 25 muM for l-lactate.

213 with three specific peptides allowing for a limit of detection of 25 ng/mL.

214 his to generate a biosensing platform with a limit of detection of 3 nM and capable of the detection

215 A limit of detection of 3 pg/muL of DNA, similar to the av

216 The assay was specific and has a limit of detection of 3.71 U/mL.

217 label-free detection of tetracycline with a limit of detection of 45 ng.mL(-1).

218 omolar to micromolar concentration range and limit of detection of 5 nM.

219 o 8.0 x 10(-4) mol L(-1) linear range with a limit of detection of 5.1 x 10(-6) mol L(-1).

220 ponse from 0.05 to 5 muM and 5-30 muM with a limit of detection of 6 nM.

221 exhibited a linearity of 7 logs with a lower limit of detection of 6.0 x 10(2) copies of molecules pe

222 wed acceptable linearity (R(2) = 0.97) and a limit of detection of 6.7 ppm.

223 .33 mF cm-2 Logc-1 (unit of c, nM) and a low limit of detection of 7 pM (S/N = 3).

224 mL(-1) to 150 ng mL(-1) of PARK7/DJ-1 with a limit of detection of 7.5 ng mL(-1).

225 The sensor is equipped with a low limit of detection of 79.77 nM and a high sensitivity of

226 ng direct assay is demonstrated along with a limit of detection of 90 pM in PBS.

227 to 100 ng/mL (5 orders) and an extremely low limit of detection of 95 fg/mL (7.3 fM) for PCT.

228 ently detect two copies of viral RNA, with a limit of detection of a single copy and can be completed

229 A very low limit of detection of about 0.15 ng/mL was obtained duri

230 ded for the entire procedure that achieved a limit of detection of about 1 pM or 50 amol/measurement,

231 st one-order-of-magnitude improvement in the limit of detection of ferrocyanide ions relative to conv

232 The limit of detection of interleukin IL-1beta reaches 0.3 f

233 he assay is highly sensitive: the calculated limit of detection of lymphoma cancer cells was as low a

234 ay targeting this sequence has an analytical limit of detection of one genome equivalent copy of A. p

235 Within a rapid detection of 30 min, a limit of detection of only 100 colony-forming units (CFU

236 d to detect positive specimens only near the limit of detection of our CDC-based LDT assay.

237 Furthermore, the concentration limit of detection of peptide matrix modified SPR sensor

238 The limit of detection of PFOA in ultrapure water was 11.0 n

239 The probit 95% limit of detection of the assay was determined to be 0.0

240 The limit of detection of the best performing assay, AcanR39

241 The limit of detection of the model and scanner using serial

242 The limit of detection of the Xpert test was 0.01 PFU/ml.

243 inally, we investigate factors impacting the limit of detection of this approach and demonstrate a 30

244 The limit of detection of this device for nitrite in pork wa

245 Limit of detection of troponin discharge strategy versus

246 bsent or present at concentrations below the limit of detection of uPIXE, suggesting minor biological

247 o be fast and highly sensitive, exhibiting a limit of detection of ~2 CFU mL(-1).

248 The PRM assay provided a limit of detection of ~200 attomoles and a limit of quan

249 hography-free sensing films with a naked eye limit of detection of ~3 pg/mm(2), lower than industry s

250 lactate and 56 nA/mM.mm(2) for glucose, and limit of detections of 0.41 mM for lactate and 0.057 mM

251 eptor-binding-domain (RBD) are detected at a limit-of-detection of 2.8 x 10(-15) and 16.9 x 10(-15) m

252 tive exosomes in 75% v/v serum, exhibiting a limit-of-detection of 2.9 x 10(8) and 1.4 x 10(8) exosom

253 aratuberculosis through real-time PCR with a limit-of-detection of 20 fg, equivalent to a single bact

254 to 15 g L(-1) for glucose and fructose with limits of detection of 0.012 g L(-1) and 0.010 g L(-1),

255 2 orders of magnitude (R(2) >= 0.9977) with limits of detection of 0.7-1.55 mug/L.

256 mples in buffer and diluted whole blood with limits of detection of 0.793 pM and 1.54 pM, respectivel

257 .5 x 10(3), and 15-3.0 x 10(3) ng kg(-1) and limits of detection of 1.37 +/- 0.10, 4.7 +/- 1.2, and 1

258 cetic acid) could be achieved in <6 min with limits of detection of 1.4-1.6 mug Cl L(-1) and 0.8-1.5

259 can quantify prostate specific antigen with limits of detection of 1.4-2.8 ng mL(-1).

260 The assay was highly sensitive, with limits of detection of activity in milk being 3 x 10(-7)

261 Limits of detection of the method were in the range 5.1-

262 The limits of detection of the method were in the range of 0

263 Limits of detection ranged between 0.032 and 0.162 mug/L

264 Limits of detection ranged from <=10 to 74 copies/ml for

265 The limits of detection ranged from 1.51 x 10(-7) to 6.82 x

266 The ion-molecule reaction limits of detection ranged from 50 pM to 250 nM with the

267 The CDC assay yielded limits of detection ranging from 85 to 499 copies/ml, de

268 The limit of detection reaches as low as 775 cells/mL within

269 ore per molecule labeling stoichiometry, the limit of detection (S/N > 3) and limit of quantitation (

270 below two parasites per microliter blood, a limit of detection suggested by the World Health Organiz

271 dditionally, several parameters, such as the limit of detection, the linear concentration range and t

272 ownstream of the UV-C reactor were below the limit of detection, the true log reduction is likely eve

273 se non-detects with a value representing the limit of detection, this introduces substantial bias in

274 The limit of detection, under gelatin admixed conditions, wa

275 as linear between 0.5 and 10 mug.mL(-1), and limit of detection was 0.2 mug.mL(-1) (100 times lower t

276 0 nM in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS); the limit of detection was 14.6 pM.

277 c concentration range was 30-300 pM, and the limit of detection was 22 fM.

278 of 2 to 1000 pg mL(-1), while for CD81, the limit of detection was 3 pg mL(-1), with a wide linear r

279 The LFIA's limit of detection was 3.0 x 10(5) CFU/mL with B. pertus

280 The lower limit of detection was 64 parasites/ml.

281 The method limit of detection was 7.1x10(-6) U/mL of LPO in milk an

282 The limit of detection was approximately 10(2) CFU/mL and th

283 The limit of detection was compared to a WHO-prequalified ra

284 The limit of detection was found as 0.04 uM.

285 00 x 10(-9) - 0.1 x 10(-6) mol L(-1) and the limit of detection was found to be 3.5 x 10(-9) mol L(-1

286 The limit of detection was found to be 3.800 ng mL(-1) in DP

287 he correlation coefficient of 0.9980 and the limit of detection was found to be 9.4 uM L(-1)/1.2 mg L

288 The limit of detection was improved from 2.3 ng/g in Tenax(R

289 The observed limit of detection was more than 30-fold better than tha

290 ed using EIS, where linear dynamic range and limit of detection were obtained to be 100-1000 U/L and

291 Method limits of detection were 1-25 ng g(-1) dry weight (d.w.)

292 The limits of detection were 1.4, 0.9, 1.7 and 1.3 ng g(-1)

293 The limits of detection were between 0.001 and 0.010 mug L(-

294 developed method were obtained in which the limits of detection were found between 3.0 and 5.0 ug L(

295 The Se limits of detection were found to be 24, 33, and 29 ng g

296 The limits of detection were higher for InHg (1.9 and 1.1 mu

297 n ranges from 0.01 to 1500 ng mL(-1) and the limits of detection were in a range from 0.18 ng L(-1) t

298 The lowest limit of detection which can be achieved with the sandwi

299 The dSimoa platform achieves attomolar limits of detection, with an up to 25-fold improvement i

300 in the linear range 2.5-50 muM, with 2.0 muM limit of detection, without interference from lead, cadm