More than six billion tests for COVID-19 has been already performed in the world. The testing for SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2) virus and corresponding human antibodies is essential not only for diagnostics and treatment of the infection by medical institutions, but also as a pre-requisite for major semi-normal economic and social activities such as international flights, off line work and study in offices, access to malls, sport and social events. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, time to results and cost per test are essential parameters of those tests and even minimal improvement in any of them may have noticeable impact on life in the many countries of the world. We described, analyzed and compared methods of COVID-19 detection, while representing their parameters in 22 tables. Also, we compared test performance of some FDA approved test kits with clinical performance of some non-FDA approved methods just described in scientific literature. RT-PCR still remains a golden standard in detection of the virus, but a pressing need for alternative less expensive, more rapid, point of care methods is evident. Those methods that may eventually get developed to satisfy this need are explained, discussed, quantitatively compared. The review has a bioanalytical chemistry prospective, but it may be interesting for a broader circle of readers who are interested in understanding and improvement of COVID-19 testing, helping eventually to leave COVID-19 pandemic in the past.

Extensive medical research showed that patients, with high protein concentration in urine, have various kinds of kidney diseases, referred to as proteinuria. Urinary protein biomarkers are useful for diagnosis of many health conditions – kidney and cardio vascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, infections. This review focuses on the instrumental quantification (electrophoresis, chromatography, immunoassays, mass spectrometry, fluorescence spectroscopy, the infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy) of proteins (the most of all albumin) in human urine matrix. Different techniques provide unique information on what constituents of the urine are. Due to complex nature of urine, a separation step by electrophoresis or chromatography are often used for proteomics study of urine. Mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for the discovery and the analysis of biomarkers in urine, however, costs of the analysis are high, especially for quantitative analysis. Immunoassays, which often come with fluorescence detection, are major qualitative and quantitative tools in clinical analysis. While Infrared and Raman spectroscopies do not give extensive information about urine, they could become important tools for the routine clinical diagnostics of kidney problems, due to rapidness and low-cost. Thus, it is important to review all the applicable techniques and methods related to urine analysis. In this review, a brief overview of each technique's principle is introduced. Where applicable, research papers about protein determination in urine are summarized with the main figures of merits, such as the limit of detection, the detectable range, recovery and accuracy, when available.

This article compares the applications of traditional gold and silver-based SERS substrates and less conventional (Pd/Pt, Cu, Al, Si-based) SERS substrates, focusing on sensing, biosensing, and clinical analysis. In recent decades plethora of new biosensing and clinical SERS applications have fueled the search for more cost-effective, scalable, and stable substrates since traditional gold and silver-based substrates are quite expensive, prone to corrosion, contamination and non-specific binding, particularly by S-containing compounds. Following that, we briefly described our experimental experience with Si and Al-based SERS substrates and systematically analyzed the literature on SERS on substrate materials such as Pd/Pt, Cu, Al, and Si. We tabulated and discussed figures of merit such as enhancement factor (EF) and limit of detection (LOD) from analytical applications of these substrates. The results of the comparison showed that Pd/Pt substrates are not practical due to their high cost; Cu-based substrates are less stable and produce lower signal enhancement. Si and Al-based substrates showed promising results, particularly in combination with gold and silver nanostructures since they could produce comparable EFs and LODs as conventional substrates. In addition, their stability and relatively low cost make them viable alternatives for gold and silver-based substrates. Finally, this review highlighted and compared the clinical performance of non-traditional SERS substrates and traditional gold and silver SERS substrates. We discovered that if we take the average sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of clinical SERS assays reported in the literature, those parameters, particularly accuracy (93–94%), are similar for SERS bioassays on AgNP@Al, Si-based, Au-based, and Ag-based substrates. We hope that this review will encourage research into SERS biosensing on aluminum, silicon, and some other substrates. These Al and Si based substrates may respond efficiently to the major challenges to the SERS practical application. For instance, they may be not only less expensive, e.g., Al foil, but also in some cases more selective and sometimes more reproducible, when compared to gold-only or silver-only based SERS substrates. Overall, it may result in a greater diversity of applicable SERS substrates, allowing for better optimization and selection of the SERS substrate for a specific sensing/biosensing or clinical application.