Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wearable potentiometric ion sensors

Open access
Parrilla, Marc, Cuartero, Maria, Crespo, Gaston A.·2019·TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry
DOI 10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Wearable potentiometric ion sensors (WPISs) have become an exciting analytical platform that combines chemical, material and electronic efforts to supply physiological information during certain human activities. The real possibility of wearing an analytical device with diverse configurations—sweatband, patches, garments—without disturbing the welfare of the carrier has enabled potentiometric ion sensors both as health quality and sport performance controllers. Recent studies show a large involvement of WPISs in the following of critical biomarkers (timely or continuously), such as sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonium and chloride, which are present at relatively high concentrations in sweat (∼mM levels). Certainly, the non-invasive nature of WPISs and other significant features, e.g., simplicity and cost-effectiveness, have broadened new horizons in relation to applied analytical chemistry. This has been pointed out in the literature over the last decade with the predominance of two analytical outcomes: (i) the improvement of sport performance as a result of continuous detection of ions in sweat (health status of the individual) while decreasing physiological complications (injuries, muscle cramps, fatigue and dehydration) during practice; and (ii) advancements in clinical diagnostics and preventive medicine as a consequence of the monitoring of the health status of patients suffering from any kind of disorder. Beyond the undeniable importance of the integration of WPISs to satisfy current societal needs, the following crucial questions about misleading and missing analytical features need to be answered: To what extent is WPIS technology a reliable analytical tool for the quantification of ions? Is cross-validation the current bottleneck toward further progress? Which are the fundamental steps involving the ion-selective electrode side that would benefit WPIS outcomes? Why is sweat the main (and almost the only) biological fluid to be monitored by WPISs? What is the best sampling strategy to be incorporated into WPIS devices for on-body monitoring of sweat? Which precision limits should be considered to assure a reliable decision-making process? Accordingly, this review focuses on the progression of WPISs from an analytical perspective—merely our vision of the field—within the period between 2010 and 2018. An updated search using specific keywords (wearable, ion, potentiometry, sensor) provided 43 contributions, which are herein highlighted, with a sustainable acceleration over the last three years. Thus, this review describes the current state of WPIS technology, the construction of wearable all-solid-state potentiometric sensors, critical requirements of potentiometric sensors to be fulfilled in a wearable configuration and key features regarding the ideal implementation of WPISs as reliable messengers of physiological information in real scenarios.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.024

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Parrilla, M., Cuartero, M., & Crespo, G. A.
Venue
TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
110
Pages
303-320
ISSN
0165-9936 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.024
OpenAlex
W2901019607
Cited by
334
References
49
FWCI
18.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.