Search

The US Army's need for a reliable and field-portable drinking water toxicity sensor was the catalyst for the development and evaluation of an electric cell-substrate impedance sensing (ECIS) device. Water testing technologies currently available to soldiers in the field are analyte-specific and have limited capabilities to detect broad-based water toxicity. The ECIS sensor described here uses rainbow trout gill epithelial cells seeded on fluidic biochips to measure changes in impedance for the detection of possible chemical contamination of drinking water supplies. Chemicals selected for testing were chosen as representatives of a broad spectrum of toxic industrial compounds. Results of a US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-sponsored evaluation of the field portable device were similar to previously published US Army testing results of a laboratory-based version of the same technology. Twelve of the 18 chemicals tested following USEPA Technology Testing and Evaluation Program procedures were detected by the ECIS sensor within 1 h at USEPA-derived human lethal concentrations. To simplify field-testing methods further, elimination of a procedural step that acclimated cells to serum-free media streamlined the test process with only a slight loss of chemical sensitivity. For field use, the ECIS sensor will be used in conjunction with an enzyme-based sensor that is responsive to carbamate and organophosphorus pesticides., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Abstract Electroactive biofilms (EABs) have recently attracted considerable research interest for their possible use as amperometric biosensors in environmental or bioprocess monitoring, for example for in situ detection of toxic compounds. Almost exclusively, corresponding research has focused on heterotrophic, anodic EABs. These biofilms require sufficiently high organic loads and anoxic conditions to deliver a stable baseline current. Conversely, electroautotrophic O 2 -reducing EABs have recently been proposed to monitor toxic shocks in oxic solutions that are poor or devoid of organic substrate. This was done in optimal media and only assessed for formaldehyde as a model toxic compound. Here we show that O 2 -reducing EABs can grow in unamended tap water on carbon electrodes at + 0.2 V vs. Ag/AgCl. They retained substantial electroactivity for at least eight months without adding exogenous compounds. The most represented operational taxonomic units were assigned to the phylum Gammaproteobacteria (25 ± 15%, n = 5 electrodes). Cyclic voltammograms showed a reproducible nernstian behavior for O 2 reduction with a mid-wave potential at + 0.27 V and variable plateau current densities ranging from – 1 to – 22 µA cm−2 (n = 10 electrodes). The biocatalytic current was substantially impacted by the addition of either of three tested heavy metals (Hg(II), Cr(VI) or Pb(II)) or by organic pollutants (formaldehyde, 2,4-dichlorophenol, benzalkonium chloride), with limits of detection ranging from 0.5 to 10 mg L−1 (2.5–61 µmol L−1). Response times were typically around 1 min. Comparison with previous reports suggests that O 2 -reducing microbial cathodes may be more sensitive to toxic shocks than anodic, heterotrophic EABs. Highlights • Electroactive biofilms electroreducing O 2 at high potential could grow in tap water. • Microbially-induced current generated for more than 8 months in unamended tap water. • Toxic shocks monitored amperometrically for 6 heavy metals and organic pollutants. • Results suggest that cathodic biofilms are more sensitive than anodic to toxicants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Comprehensive identification of chemical contaminants in Army field water supplies can be a lengthy process, but rapid analytical methods suitable for field use are limited. A complementary approach is to directly measure toxicity instead of individual chemical constituents. Ten toxicity sensors utilizing enzymes, bacteria, or vertebrate cells were tested to determine the minimum number of sensors that could rapidly identify toxicity in water samples containing one of 12 industrial chemicals. The ideal sensor would respond at a concentration just exceeding the Military Exposure Guideline (MEG) level for the chemical (an estimated threshold for adverse effects) but below the human lethal concentration. Chemical solutions were provided to testing laboratories as blind samples. No sensors responded to deionized water blanks, and only one sensor responded to a hard water blank. No single toxicity sensor responded to more than six chemicals in the desired response range, and one chemical (nicotine) was not detected by any sensor with the desired sensitivity. A combination of three sensors (Microtox, the Electric Cell Substrate Impedance Sensing (ECIS) test, and the Hepatocyte low density lipoprotein (LDL) uptake test) responded appropriately to nine of twelve chemicals. Adding a fourth sensor (neuronal microelectrode array) to the test battery allowed detection of two additional chemicals (aldicarb and methamidophos), but the neuronal microelectrode array was overly sensitive to paraquat. Evaluating sensor performance using a standard set of chemicals and a desired sensitivity range provides a basis both for selecting among available toxicity sensors and for evaluating emerging sensor technologies. Recommendations for future toxicity sensor evaluations are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]