Team:Dundee/Project/DetectionComparison

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 9: Line 9:
       <!-- Title -->
       <!-- Title -->
       <div class="page-header">
       <div class="page-header">
-
<h2><b>Detection Comparison</b></h2>
+
<h2><b>Detection Time</b></h2>
<div>
<div>
<br>
<br>
Line 16: Line 16:
<div class="span12" style="text-align: justify">
<div class="span12" style="text-align: justify">
-
<p>The direct method for detecting microcystin in water samples is high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). This long process takes approximately 24 hours and is expensive due to the equipment required.  For this reason, the current method for regulating toxic microcystin levels in Scotland uses the indirect approach of cyanobacterial cell counts. Using our biological detector we hope to reduce the time and cost of microcystin detection.<br><Br>
+
<p>The direct method for detecting microcystin in water samples is high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). This process takes approximately 24 hours and is expensive due to the equipment required.  For this reason, the current method for regulating toxic microcystin levels in Scotland uses the indirect approach of cyanobacterial cell counts. However, this  process takes even longer. Using our biological detector we hope to reduce the time and cost of microcystin detection.<br><Br>
-
We examined the effect that a 24 hr detection time can have on the numbers of cyanobacteria and microcystin found in the water body.  This then allowed us to determine whether faster detection methods are necessary.  
+
First, we considered  the effect that a 24 hr detection time could  have on the numbers of cyanobacteria and microcystin level  found in a water body.  This then allowed us to determine whether faster detection methods are necessary.  
  </p>
  </p>
</div>
</div>
Line 48: Line 48:
<div class="span12"><br>
<div class="span12"><br>
-
<p> Since HPLC results are obtained 24 hours after the water samples are taken i.e. t=24, we compared this against our aim of a 1 hour detection time t=1 by evaluating equation (2).  </p>
+
<p> Since earliest result could  be obtained via  HPLC  in 24 hours after the water samples are taken i.e. t=24, we compared this against our aim of a 1 hour detection time t=1 by evaluating equation (2).  </p>
</div>
</div>
Line 77: Line 77:
     <div class="span12" style="text-align: justify">
     <div class="span12" style="text-align: justify">
At the detection times, t = 24 hours and t = 1 hour, the ratio for the number of microcystin molecules is 8.4 million : 1.<br><Br>
At the detection times, t = 24 hours and t = 1 hour, the ratio for the number of microcystin molecules is 8.4 million : 1.<br><Br>
-
Correspondingly, after 24 hours there can be up to 8.4 million times more microcystin molecules present than there is after 1 hour. Putting this ratio into perspective, this is the same as the height of the Empire State Building being compared with the combined height of 7 <i>E. coli</i>.<Br><Br>
+
Than is, after 24 hours there can be up to 8.4 million times more microcystin molecules present than there is after 1 hour. Putting this ratio into perspective, this is the same as the height of the Empire State Building being compared to  the combined height of 7 <i>E. coli</i>.<Br><Br>
-
Therefore, in the time period between collection of samples and obtaining results there can be vast increases in the concentration of microcystin present in the water body. This emphasises that HPLC is an unsuitable method for toxin detection and that a 1 hour detection period is much more efficient. <br><br>
+
Therefore, in the time period between collection of samples and obtaining results there could potentially  be a vast increase in the concentration of microcystin present in the water body. This emphasises that HPLC, or even slower alternatives,  are  less than optimal  for toxin detection and that early detection would provide a huge advantage. <br><br>
-
Generally we can conclude that faster detection methods are necessary and our biological detector is worthwhile pursuing if we can reduce this detection time.  <br><br>
+
  <h2>Results</h2>
 +
We  conclude that faster detection methods are useful and our biological detector is worthwhile pursuing if we can reduce this detection time.  <br><br>
       </div>
       </div>

Revision as of 19:37, 3 October 2013

iGEM Dundee 2013 · ToxiMop