Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

E-nose Sniffs Out Nasty Resistant Bacteria

Posted by Zonk on from the nanotech-nosehairs dept.

geekroot's dad writes "There have been several tries for an Electronic nose that seek out various airborne elements - they can find cancer, monitor recycled air for NASA and find nasty bacteria better than lab tests. Now as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSRA) becomes a problem not only in hospitals but in everyday life some British scientist have built a super nose to find the 'little buggers'."

6 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Privacy Rights? by putko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sort of thing lends itself to non-intrusive search and what civil libertarians call "violation of privacy."

    A similar technique is looking at heat, and using it to identify folks growing things in their houses: fly over with a helicopter looking at heat signatures -- the growers' houses light up. The court had to decide if this was an illegal search or not.

    Already there have been cases where cops had drug dogs sniff folks on a bus and identify smugglers. The court had to decide if the cop searched people (illegally) just by walking by them with a dog, or if the cop was innocently walking by folks, and when his dog aletered, the cop became the probable cause to search further.

    Electronic noses, with their reduced cost and targeted nature, will lead to many similar cases. A cop's e-nose might alert. He'd followup with a search, find contraband and so on. The question is, was it OK for him to have an e-nose sniffing in the first place? Or did he need a search warrant to use the e-nose?

    One can imagine an e-nose built to sniff explosives, but that also sniffs out everything else. In that case, the cops have a legit purpose to search (national security), but the effect is that they'll be busting folks for all sorts of other violations.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:Privacy Rights? by Fishead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it would be considered a privacy concern at all.

      Thermal cameras detecting heat in a house are not violating privacy at all. They do not "look through" walls like Hollywood would like you to believe, but rather just detect a different wavelength of light radiating from the outside of your house. It is no different then looking at a house without the thermal camera, you are just looking at a different wavelength of light. Heck, one thing thermal camera's can NOT see through is a window.

      The electronic nose is detecting something that is radiating off your person. If you are giving off a smell, detecting it shouldn't be a privacy concern.

      But then again, I think that for the most part, surveilance in public places is not a bad think.

    2. Re:Privacy Rights? by thrashbluegrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Note: idiot prognostication to follow. Heap shame and scorn upon poster.

      You raise a very valid point. Hypothetical:

      Let's assume that the technology gets to be so good that it's accurate enough that it becomes a standard tool. You have cops out, and they run their instrument all the time, trying to alert for explosives. At the same time, however (before the courts get involved), they run it looking for _everything_ that they can, and someone gets busted with some drugs on them. The specifics aren't important, other than the probable cause was based solely upon the nose picking it up.

      This then gets to trial, and the defense argues that it was a violation of the accused's 4th amendment rights. This would most likely, within a year or two of police forces using these tools, come before the Supreme Court. Given my limited legal understanding, this would probably result in both the release of the convicted and the wholesale banning of "wide-spectrum" sniffers running all the time as a policing tool.

      Of course, SCOTUS has bowled me over with some pretty ass-backwards rulings over the past few years, so I wouldn't be totally surprised either way; anyone with legal expertise/experience/strong opinions should feel encouraged to put me in my place.

    3. Re:Privacy Rights? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Difference is that these devices typically need to be close to the subject, aren't that fast, and often require a fair amount of sample. As a result, it's hard to apply these to people without their consent or knowledge.

  2. De-odorized bacteria by deathcloset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you think bacteria could evolve to disguise or alter their "smell" to avoid extermination?

    I read recently that there are bacteria that have evolved to consume nylon. We know they evolved recently because nylon is manufactured and does not appear in nature.

    It's apparently a pretty crappy food though. I'm not suprised.

    I wonder if that would mean you could engineer deodorant bacteria to selectively mask the detectability of certain other chemicals?

  3. What causes anti-biotic resistance by Veteran · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The current theories on the cause of antibiotic resistant bacteria place the blame on antibiotics and their overuse or under use. These theories utterly fail to explain one simple fact: most people don't come into the hospital with cases of drug resistant bacteria, they acquire those infections while in the hospitals. Some where in the hospital there are conditions which are breeding drug resistant bacteria.

    I believe that the real cause of antibiotic resistant bacteria is far more prosaic than anyone has suspected. Before Doctors and Nurses give people injections they are quite properly taught to point the needle up, tap the syringe to force air bubbles to the top of the syringe, then squirt enough of the fluid out of the syringe to insure that the air is cleared from the device and the needle. This is utterly necessary to prevent the injection of air into the patient's blood system where it could cause a fatal embolism.

    The antibiotic squirted out of the needle simply falls to the floor and creates a splatter. This splatter kills bacteria on the floor where it is intense enough to do so, but around the edges of the splatter surviving bacteria can breed resistant strains to every type of injectable antibiotic being used in the hospital.

    When antibiotic splatter is combined with the modern janitorial practice of a one step floor cleaner, the floor becomes a giant Petri dish for the breeding of drug resistant bacteria. One step floor 'cleaners' can't possibly clean floors; they make the floor look clean and shiny, but since many of them are made of glycerin compounds they simply serve as a growth medium for the Petri dish.

    So how do you solve the problem of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria? You do two things: first, keep splatters of antibiotics off of the floor by performing the air clearing of the syringes while the needle is still in the bottle of antibiotics - immediately after filling the syringe- and by using a spillage overflow catcher pan under the syringe while it is being filled. Second, sterilize the hospital floors with bleach and intense ultra violet light sources mounted on the undersides of push broom like devices.

    These two simple things will prevent the Petri dish conditions on floors which breed drug resistant bacteria. Both of these steps have very low costs while having very large benefits. They are similar in importance to the now standard practice of surgeons washing their hands before surgery, which was adapted in the 19th century, and which has saved countless lives since.

    The economic justification for all of these things is obvious, reducing drug resistant bacteria cases will save insurance companies far more money than the slightly greater costs of better floor cleaning and splatter prevention protocols would cost them.