iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

E. Coli Testing Technology From Yale Engineers Could Save Thousands Of Lives

E Coli Testing

First Posted: 10/21/11 04:25 PM ET Updated: 10/21/11 07:08 PM ET

Right now, just one in 1000 cows that pass through the deathly gates of an industrial slaughterhouse is tested for harmful pathogens. That's because the current method for testing meat costs $50 and takes 12 hours. The consequences of this languorous process speak for themselves: 5000 Americans die from food-borne illness, while 76 million others -- one in four people in the country -- fall sick.

Everyone wants to blame food producers for these illnesses. But if anything, the recent spate of deadly food poisoning outbreaks highlights the huge variety of ways producers can make mistakes in food safety. It would be virtually impossible to eliminate infection from the food system altogether. The best solution, instead, may be to find a better way to test our food -- and a group of graduate students at the Yale School of Engineering and Applied Sciences thinks they've found the answer.

These budding engineers, led by Monika Weber and supervised by engineering Professor Mark Reed, have developed a design for a device that would cut the cost of testing down to $1, and the time it would take to test a sample down to 30 minutes. The design, which they call the α-screen (pronounced "alpha-screen") uses nanotechnology to detect the presence of bacteria so quickly and accurately that Weber says it may one day allow meat producers to incorporate bacterial testing into the production line and test every single cow that goes to market.

Weber told The Huffington Post that a prototype is still a year or so off, but the team's design was promising enough to take top honors at this year's NASA Tech Brief Engineering competition. It beat out 900 other designs from 50 countries for a $20,000 prize.

Under the meat testing process currently in place, samples of meat are taken from the meat factory to an external lab, where inspectors use a process called polymerase chain reactions (PCR) to test for the presence of potentially disease-causing bacteria. In order to get PCR to work, scientists have to have a large quantity of bacteria -- far larger than could ever be collected from a sample of meat. This means that scientists have to let the bacteria culture for hours before they can even begin PCR testing. This is old technology; both its reliability and its tediousness have been demonstrated by decades of lab work.

The new design relies on a combination of brand-new and time-tested technology. Samples of blood or other fluids from the animals being tested are inserted into the device, which Weber says will be around the size of a quarter. Once inside, the fluids are pumped into a separator, which divides the blood from the bacteria contained within. The bacteria are concentrated 1000 times and are then passed through nanowires (which Weber compared to the silicon pathways of a computer chip) that test for the presence of telltale "biomarkers" of harmful bacteria. The biomarkers -- chemical and electric codes specific to each organism -- interact with a "biological glue" affixed to the nanowires. Any interaction produces a change of current, which registers as a positive result on the device. The prize-winning design could be adapted to a test for any possible form of bacteria. E. coli, listeria and salmonella are the big names, but each one has dozens of strains, and many other common bacteria have been known to cause disease.

"If a customer wanted to test for a very large number of strains -- several hundred, say -- it would be possible to scale-up the device to accommodate that, of course," Weber told The Huffington Post.

Weber and her team are focusing on creating a working prototype, which they are confident they will be able to build within a year or two. They have already filed patents for the device, which they hope eventually to market for use in the food industry. Weber said the Tech Briefs prize has been a huge boost to the project's chances of success.

"The prize means a lot, and there has been huge publicity as a result," she said. "It's helped us get so much closer to getting the necessary support to build a prototype of the device -- and hopefully get it to the people who need it."

By "the people who need it," she means everyone who eats food from industrial producers. She means, in short, you.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST FOOD

Right now, just one in 1000 cows that pass through the deathly gates of an industrial slaughterhouse is tested for harmful pathogens. That's because the current method for testing meat costs $50 and t...
Right now, just one in 1000 cows that pass through the deathly gates of an industrial slaughterhouse is tested for harmful pathogens. That's because the current method for testing meat costs $50 and t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MyResponsibility
Action over hope
08:48 AM on 10/25/2011
This would be a great new tool. However, I was a production manager on a processing floor until 2002. Even then, we incubated our own cultures, we didn't send them out.
07:28 PM on 10/24/2011
Potentially a great thing, but one will get you 50K that the meat packers buy and bury this device under a Mount McKinley of manure. You think they want one out of every 25 cows rejected for E.Coli? Not if they can help it.
photo
imusintheevening
With,without,who'll deny it's whatthe fights about
03:35 PM on 10/24/2011
Darn, I just finished training my dog to sniff out E.Coli..........
04:48 AM on 10/23/2011
My greatest surprise: Yale has engineers!
But congrats on making such simple, effective, but critical inventions.
Now I know: Yale not only has engineers, they are good too and can make meaningful inventions.
OK, credit where it is due.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
satanlite
Liberal blogger
11:04 PM on 10/22/2011
Wow! That's so much simpler than having CLEAN PROCESSES and EMPLOYEES who you can trust to work with food.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
kareemachan
watashi ha tororu ga oroka da to omoi masu。
12:41 PM on 10/23/2011
I think having both would be a win-win situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
satanlite
Liberal blogger
01:22 PM on 10/23/2011
Absolutely not. Think for a moment about how much energy will be required to produce these chips in vast quantities that will be necessary. Then think of the raw materials that will need to be mined and refined to create them - rampant pollution probably in third world countries and resource wars which are already there will be exacerbated. We don't NEED THIS TECHNOLOGY. Not when COMMON SENSE cleanliness and COMMON SENSE food production values are carried forth. It's un-necessary and will lead to MORE contamination because plant and employees will feel it's less necessary to run a clean plant and use good processing techniques because the "chips" will do the work for them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlueZoo
Independent voter, Independent thinker!
02:40 PM on 10/22/2011
Give these grad students all the money they need to get this show on the road! People's lives are at stake for want of money! It's unconscionable that we will spend government monies on worthless bridges to nowhere but let something like this languish. We went to the moon in ten years. This life-saving device should be able to be in full production in ten weeks! All that's needed is resolve and money!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kidcat24
Capital is only the fruit of labor. Lincoln
09:59 AM on 10/22/2011
Now if we would make it here and sell it there. Don't give this technology away.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 PM on 10/22/2011
You're right, we should take advantage of our monopoly position and keep the price of this life saving device high.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SkyhawkIIAimer
"How many more like him are out there?"
05:15 PM on 10/21/2011
The tea baggers will hate this. It's science.
06:38 PM on 10/21/2011
Well, as a person who leans Tea, YOU will hate my post because it's full of reason, doesn't strike others with a wide brush, and, above all, defies your opinion about people you disagree with.

I believe this technology to be marvelous progress that could save lives, finding a fast way to identify bacterial contamination accurately compared to the current process requiring breeding a sample in an incubator for several hours.

The sooner it's implemented in the production of our food supply, the better.

To top it off, there is great financial opportunity behind this technology. Any company that decides to make testing products employing this technology is going to enjoy success, which would make whatever company that decides to take this plunge worthy of investment.

Good things, made in good conscience at a good profit. That's real capitalism, baby!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SkyhawkIIAimer
"How many more like him are out there?"
07:34 PM on 10/21/2011
One aberrant case does not disprove the rule.

No matter how many words you use.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:42 PM on 10/21/2011
fanned and fav'd you. Great comment, although of course there are always those who are imprisoned in some political phantasm and can't get out.
vulcanman
Why do church steeples sport lightning rods ?
05:12 PM on 10/21/2011
Bacteria is much smarter than us. Read "Parasite Rex"
photo
imusintheevening
With,without,who'll deny it's whatthe fights about
03:34 PM on 10/24/2011
that was a good read.........
04:20 PM on 10/21/2011
Very impressive. Well done, though at first glance at the photo, I thought the testing involved paying a quarter and playing a harmonica.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
collectsrocks
It's good to be good & nice to be nice
10:26 AM on 10/22/2011
ROFL, good one.