Team:Alma/Implementation
Proposed Implementation
Who will use our product?
With our biosensor, we have been working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to collaborate on more efficient testing and screening protocols
in relation to the Pine River. This implementation, however, goes beyond just Alma, Michigan. We hope at the end of our project to help integrate the use of our
biosensor in different areas where DDT is prevalent, and eventually create biosensing for other pollutants. We hope to not only see the EPA use this technology
we will soon be engineering, but we hope to communicate in the future with other businesses to help in lowering costs when taking samples to screen for pollutants.
How will they use our product?
We hope to see others, whether this be the EPA or small businesses, using our product as not only a way to allocate efforts to potentially positively impact
the environment, but also help these agencies save more money when using our technology. With our biosensor, these professionals will be able to save not
only their money with our lowered costs, but also time. With our proposed screening protocol, we will allow researchers to know where and what the concentrations
of a given pollutant are, allowing a more efficient way of treating a pollutant-filled environment.
How will we implement this into the real world?
As stated earlier, we are in contact with the EPA currently about how we can optimize our biosensor for their use, specifically with the Pine River with the
intention of spreading to a wider scale. This contact is allowing us to better understand what these professionals need, such as how many parts per million
of the pollutant, they would like to be recognized for screening. We know that with this guidance, we will be able to introduce this into more areas of
business with intentions of fulfilling the goals stated above.
What are the safety aspects we need to consider?
Safety precautions are already important when handling dangerous levels of a pollutant like DDT; these concerns are even greater when adding genetically-engineered
microbes into the mix. By consulting with the EPA, we learned what levels of DDT would be considered harmful - anything greater than 40ppm in a sample is considered
dangerous. Samples along the Pine river can sometimes test even higher than this threshold. DDT is a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, so the same safety
procedures utilized by the EPA in their current handling of samples must be utilized.
One implementation of our biosensor would be in the controlled environment of a laboratory, in which DDT samples are returned and mixed with bacteria, incubated several hours, and then measured for fluorescent output. Once tested, samples can be sterilized through use of UV light or chemical means, or a kill-switch can be included in the design. Once the threat of spreading genetically engineered DNA is neutralized, the samples can be processed and discarding according to established protocols for handling DDT.
Another way in which the biosensor could be used is in a mobile lab setup, allowing rapid results during screening of an area. In this case, the lab must be equipped with proper supplies in the event that a sample is broken or spilt - both to clean DDT and to eliminate any genetically modified organisms. Once again, a kill-switch will prove invaluable.
Our biosensor may actually aid in safety procedures - by having a rapid and inexpensive test for DDT, and instances of spilling a sample or contamination of a lab can quickly be assessed and neutralized.
One implementation of our biosensor would be in the controlled environment of a laboratory, in which DDT samples are returned and mixed with bacteria, incubated several hours, and then measured for fluorescent output. Once tested, samples can be sterilized through use of UV light or chemical means, or a kill-switch can be included in the design. Once the threat of spreading genetically engineered DNA is neutralized, the samples can be processed and discarding according to established protocols for handling DDT.
Another way in which the biosensor could be used is in a mobile lab setup, allowing rapid results during screening of an area. In this case, the lab must be equipped with proper supplies in the event that a sample is broken or spilt - both to clean DDT and to eliminate any genetically modified organisms. Once again, a kill-switch will prove invaluable.
Our biosensor may actually aid in safety procedures - by having a rapid and inexpensive test for DDT, and instances of spilling a sample or contamination of a lab can quickly be assessed and neutralized.
How will they use our product?
We hope to see others, whether this be the EPA or small businesses, using our product as not only a way to allocate efforts to potentially positively impact
the environment, but also help these agencies save more money when using our technology. With our biosensor, these professionals will be able to save not
only their money with our lowered costs, but also time. With our proposed screening protocol, we will allow researchers to know where and what the concentrations
of a given pollutant are, allowing a more efficient way of treating a pollutant-filled environment.
Challenges
Our challenges this year with COVID-19 have been to communicate with professionals in the area who have expertise in the screening measures and current procedures
that are performed by the EPA when testing samples. Thankfully, this is a local issue, so many Alma College professors have done research in this area and have been
giving us guidance that ultimately led us to the idea to create a biosensor. The EPA contacts have also served this challenge as stated above, they have been extremely
helpful and quote, “[Alma iGEM’s biosensor] would be very, very helpful for the EPA.” Having this support behind us, moving forward we are hopeful that we will be able
to create this product for a wide range of professionals.
Cost Analysis
Currently, the materials for the tests performed for measuring DDT levels cost at least $80, with another $160 involved in the handling, transportation, and expertise
needed to carry out the test. The EPA routinely measures 50-100 samples per region, and will have costs running into the tens or hundreds of thousands with these tests
alone. Our analysis is based on conversations with the EPA and documents from some initial screens of the area.
For Phase I testing, a total of 18 sediment cores were tested (6 floodplain and 12 in-stream). Of those tests, 39 samples were sent in for analysis, resulting in
expenditure of roughly $9,360 (2-2/3)1.
For phase II testing, the unbiased tests, sediment sampling was conducted at three of the seven DS-1 (Downstream Site-1) transets (2-4)1. A total of 44 samples from DS-1 were tested, resulting in an expenditure of about $10,560 (2-5)1. After the results came back, additional testing needed to be conducted at the floodplain areas (FP-1 and FP-2) for phase II (2-6)1. A total of 65 additional samples came from FP-1 location and 63 samples came from the FP-2 location (2-7)1. After testing, it would cost roughly $30,720 for both locations. For the reference area (R1) testing, 127 individual tests needed to be analyzed, which would cost about $30,480 (2-8)1. For the third floodplain sampling (FP-3), 86 tests were sent in for further analysis, costing $20,640 (2-10)1. The second reference area (R2) had a total of 122 individual tests, resulting in $29,280 for analysis (2-11)1.
For phase II testing, the unbiased tests, sediment sampling was conducted at three of the seven DS-1 (Downstream Site-1) transets (2-4)1. A total of 44 samples from DS-1 were tested, resulting in an expenditure of about $10,560 (2-5)1. After the results came back, additional testing needed to be conducted at the floodplain areas (FP-1 and FP-2) for phase II (2-6)1. A total of 65 additional samples came from FP-1 location and 63 samples came from the FP-2 location (2-7)1. After testing, it would cost roughly $30,720 for both locations. For the reference area (R1) testing, 127 individual tests needed to be analyzed, which would cost about $30,480 (2-8)1. For the third floodplain sampling (FP-3), 86 tests were sent in for further analysis, costing $20,640 (2-10)1. The second reference area (R2) had a total of 122 individual tests, resulting in $29,280 for analysis (2-11)1.
Finally for phase III (unbiased testing), in-stream sediment testing for DS-1.5 had no further tests that needed to be analysed, and DS-2 had 140 samples that needed
further analysis, costing about $33,600 (2-13/14)1. For floodplain soil testing (FP-4 and FP-5), a total of200 samples were submitted for analysis, which would cost about $48,000 (2-15)1.
After all tests had been analyzed, three areas needed re-sampling in both the 2003 and 2005 rounds of testing. The first (DS-1), needed 21 (2003) and 25 (2005) individual samples, costing $11,040 (2-17)1. The second (FP-1), 57 samples were collected in 2003 and 51 samples in 2005, costing near $25,920 (2-17)1. The third (R2), 34 samples were collected in both 2003 and 2005, costing about $16,320 (2-18)1. Between all three phases of soil and water testing, the individual sampling analysis would cost about $212,640 and the resampling would cost about $53,280 for a grand total of $265,920. Each sample test was calculated at a starting price of $80 in material costs with an adjusted price of $240 per sample to account for other costs such as shipping and laboring.
These sample cost calculations are just an estimation of the total cost of calculating inorganic and organic chemicals in soil and water. They do not account for the possible fluctuation in sampling price that could occur due to what individual tests the labs are using to find different organic and inorganic materials such as PCBs, pesticides, and DDT. This would be something that we would need further information from the EPA.
One of the attractive features of a biosensor is that they are often fast, simple to use, and cheap (and some of our designs are specific and quantitative). We wanted to gain an appreciation for just how much cheaper a biosensor could be, so we looked to literature and other iGEM teams to get some ideas. Surprisingly, there is a lack of precise analysis of biosensor costs - many sources acknowledge that it should be drastically cheaper, but few actually calculate the potential savings. Few research papers suggest costs in the range of $0.10 - $1.00 per device4, maybe upwards of $20 a test5 if we factor in other costs such as training, shipping and assay development.
We decided to try to calculate an estimated price per test based on the materials we would use. As for the media to grow our bacteria, this would cost $54.45 per 500 G2. Each of our tests will assummingly be 5mL, which will cover 4,000 tests, all at the low cost of $0.013. We will also need to purchase conical tubes, ours specifically would be $70.97 for 500, meaning $0.142 per tube/test3. With our test having potential to be done on site, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with shipping and handling, though not eliminated. To better understand this reduction in cost, more communication with the EPA is needed. Total, we expect our materials for the test to range from $0.15 - $5.00. With other associated costs, such as shipping, handling, and cost associated with the test itself, we estimate our biosensor to go for $24.00 per test -- 1/10 the cost that the EPA is currently paying per sample.
Although our biosensor would greatly reduce the costs of sampling, it would not completely eliminate the need for the more expensive test the EPA utilizes. Our biosensor will merely allow the EPA to allocate their funding and tests toward the samples that have a higher concentration of pollutant.
Using the report’s data that was referenced above, 886 tests were reported across Phases I, II, and III. If these samples were first analyzed with our tests, costs being $21,264, and the ⅓ were then retested with the more rigorous test, totalling $71,040, this would represent $120,357 that the EPA would save when sampling and testing Michigan’s largest superfund site.
After all tests had been analyzed, three areas needed re-sampling in both the 2003 and 2005 rounds of testing. The first (DS-1), needed 21 (2003) and 25 (2005) individual samples, costing $11,040 (2-17)1. The second (FP-1), 57 samples were collected in 2003 and 51 samples in 2005, costing near $25,920 (2-17)1. The third (R2), 34 samples were collected in both 2003 and 2005, costing about $16,320 (2-18)1. Between all three phases of soil and water testing, the individual sampling analysis would cost about $212,640 and the resampling would cost about $53,280 for a grand total of $265,920. Each sample test was calculated at a starting price of $80 in material costs with an adjusted price of $240 per sample to account for other costs such as shipping and laboring.
These sample cost calculations are just an estimation of the total cost of calculating inorganic and organic chemicals in soil and water. They do not account for the possible fluctuation in sampling price that could occur due to what individual tests the labs are using to find different organic and inorganic materials such as PCBs, pesticides, and DDT. This would be something that we would need further information from the EPA.
One of the attractive features of a biosensor is that they are often fast, simple to use, and cheap (and some of our designs are specific and quantitative). We wanted to gain an appreciation for just how much cheaper a biosensor could be, so we looked to literature and other iGEM teams to get some ideas. Surprisingly, there is a lack of precise analysis of biosensor costs - many sources acknowledge that it should be drastically cheaper, but few actually calculate the potential savings. Few research papers suggest costs in the range of $0.10 - $1.00 per device4, maybe upwards of $20 a test5 if we factor in other costs such as training, shipping and assay development.
We decided to try to calculate an estimated price per test based on the materials we would use. As for the media to grow our bacteria, this would cost $54.45 per 500 G2. Each of our tests will assummingly be 5mL, which will cover 4,000 tests, all at the low cost of $0.013. We will also need to purchase conical tubes, ours specifically would be $70.97 for 500, meaning $0.142 per tube/test3. With our test having potential to be done on site, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with shipping and handling, though not eliminated. To better understand this reduction in cost, more communication with the EPA is needed. Total, we expect our materials for the test to range from $0.15 - $5.00. With other associated costs, such as shipping, handling, and cost associated with the test itself, we estimate our biosensor to go for $24.00 per test -- 1/10 the cost that the EPA is currently paying per sample.
Although our biosensor would greatly reduce the costs of sampling, it would not completely eliminate the need for the more expensive test the EPA utilizes. Our biosensor will merely allow the EPA to allocate their funding and tests toward the samples that have a higher concentration of pollutant.
Using the report’s data that was referenced above, 886 tests were reported across Phases I, II, and III. If these samples were first analyzed with our tests, costs being $21,264, and the ⅓ were then retested with the more rigorous test, totalling $71,040, this would represent $120,357 that the EPA would save when sampling and testing Michigan’s largest superfund site.