Biosensors for pathogen surveillance

Biologists, chemists, and physicists are collaborating to develop highly sensitive and specific biosensors for pathogen detection in the food, healthcare, and environmental sectors. Those novel biosensors allow quick detection and are thus expected to solve the issues of the emergence of highly virulent or antibiotic-resistant pathogens. This article reviews different types of biosensors used for pathogen detection, classified based on the type of transducer used. Optical biosensors integrate labeled means, e.g., fluorophores, quantum dots, and carbon dots to overcome photobleaching. Surface plasmon resonance is also used for enhanced sensitivity. Mechanical biosensors with piezoelectric crystals and cantilevers are adapted for the detection of food pathogens without sample preparation or labels. Conventional methods using electrodes for the measurement of electrochemical changes with differential pulse voltammetry or impedance spectroscopy are fast and highly sensitive. Immunosensors are developed for pathogen detection at trace levels using sample enrichment, signal amplification, and new visual detection techniques.     

我国环境监测体制改革探讨

本文分析了目前我国环境监测工作中普遍存在的体制不顺、职责不明、行政干预、重复监测、资源浪费、信息混乱等问题,提出监测机构垂直管理,调整监测职能,打破条块分割,整合社会监测资源,引入第三方检测的具体构想。     

Occurrence of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in water of the Nile river at the estuaries of Rosetta and Damiatta branches,north of delta,Egypt

Abstract

A study was conducted from summer 1995 to summer 1997 to assess the seasonal occurrence of pesticide residues and other organic contaminants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in water at the estuaries of Rosetta and Damiatta branches of the Nile river. The results indicated that organochlorine compounds (OCs) including HCB, lindane, p,p‘‐DDE, p,p‘DDD, p,p‘‐DDT, aroclor 1254 and aroclor 1260 were present in all the water samples at concentration levels ranging between 0.195–0.240, 0.286–0.352, 0.035–0.067, 0.019–0.033, 0.024–0.031, 0.390–0.70 and 0.166–0.330 μg/l, respectively. The levels of these compounds were higher in water of Damiatta branch than those found in water of Rosetta branch. Aldrin, dieldrin and endrin were not detected in all water samples. Only 4 compounds from 36 organophosphorus insecticides, fungicides and s‐triazine herbicides tested were detected in water samples collected during summer and autumn seasons from Rosetta branch. The concentration levels of these detected compounds, dimethoate, malathion, captan, and ametryne, ranged from 0.011 to 0.340 μg/l, respectively. Similar compounds during the same seasons as found in water of Rosetta branch were also detected in water of Damiatta branch except ametryne. The levels of the detected compounds (dimethoate, malathion and captan) ranged between 0.030 and 0.330 μg/l. The levels of detected organophosphorus insecticides, fungicides and s‐triazine herbicides were in the order: dimethoate > malathion > captan > ametryne.     

Wetland Mitigation Compliance in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan

The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) is generally responsible for the implementation of federal Clean Water Act wetland regulations. It therefore plays an important role in the protection of wetlands within the United States. Unfortunately, past evaluators of ACEs implementation of these regulations found low rates of regulatory compliance. However, the fact that two states have taken responsibility for the implementation of these regulations within their boundaries provided the opportunity to assess whether one of these states might be doing a better job of enforcement. This paper reports on compliance with some of these regulations within one Michigan region. We evaluated permittee compliance with paperwork filing requirements related to wetland mitigation projects. Sixty-seven percent of county road commission permittees were out of compliance with at least one filing requirement. Forty percent of private and non-county government permittees were out of compliance. Our results therefore suggest that serious problems exist with Michigans implementation of wetland regulations. They do not suggest that compliance in this state is significantly better than in states under ACE administration. We believe that increased agency monitoring and enforcement would improve compliance.