"
Team:Dundee/Project/DetectionComparison
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| 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 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> | + | <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> |
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
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> | 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 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> | 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> | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 96: | Line 95: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| + | <h2>Conclusion</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 id="push"></div> | <div id="push"></div> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:03, 23 October 2013
Detection Time
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.
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.
Theory
Making the following assumptions:
- t = 0 is the time water samples are taken
- b0 is the initial number of cyanobacteria at t=0
- t is the time in hours after the water samples are taken
- cyanobacteria undergo binary fission every hour
- cyanobacteria growth is uninhibited
- each cyanobacteria releases N microcystin molecules
We arrive at these equations:
where b(t) is the number of cyanobacteria at time t and MC(t) the number of microcystin molecules.
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).
Dividing MC(24) by MC(1) we recover an expression for MC(24) in terms of MC(1).
Results
At the detection times, t = 24 hours and t = 1 hour, the ratio for the number of microcystin molecules is 8.4 million : 1.
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 E. coli.
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.
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 E. coli.
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.
