Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41670765›Full record

ArticleAMB Express2026

Enhancing bacterial detection via laser-induced fluorescence: a comparison of methods and detection limits.

Dina S Arabi, Zienab Abdel-Salam, Mohamed Abdel-Harith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMB Express, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dina S ArabiCairo University , National Institute of Laser Enhanced Science, Giza, 12613, Egypt.
Zienab Abdel-SalamCairo University , National Institute of Laser Enhanced Science, Giza, 12613, Egypt.
Mohamed Abdel-HarithCairo University , National Institute of Laser Enhanced Science, Giza, 12613, Egypt. mharithm@niles.edu.eg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid bacterial detection is essential in clinical diagnostics, environmental monitoring, and food industry quality control, where sensitivity and speed are critical. This study evaluates four Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) techniques, Conventional LIF, Reflection-Enhanced LIF (RELIF), Wavefront-Enhanced LIF (WELIF), and a combined approach (WERELIF), to improve sensitivity and lower detection limits for bacterial quantification. Using Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a model organism, fluorescence was excited at 405 nm, with a peak at approximately 500 nm. Calibration curves were constructed to determine the limit of detection (LOD) of each method and assess its performance in trace bacterial analysis. WERELIF demonstrated the highest fluorescence intensity and the lowest limit of detection (LOD) among the tested techniques, making it the most effective method for detecting low bacterial concentrations. RELIF exhibited significant signal enhancement due to reflective optimization. In contrast, WELIF provided moderate improvements, which were affected by sample inhomogeneity. The enhanced LIF techniques were superior to the conventional approach, particularly in terms of higher fluorescence intensity. This advantage is significant for applications such as early pathogen detection in clinical samples or monitoring bacterial contamination in water and food supplies. These findings provide a foundation for improving fluorescence-based bacterial quantification, with potential applications in point-of-care diagnostics, environmental surveillance, and industrial biosensing.

Indexed as

Bacterial detectionEnhanced-LIF techniquesLaser-induced fluorescenceLimit of detectionPLSRSensitivity enhancement

Identifiers

PMID41670765
PMCPMC12932757

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.