New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

DNA Finds Pollutants in Green-Glowing Water Test

Bacteria inspire a new pollution-monitoring setup

Brown Bird Design

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Pollution from industry, agricultural runoff, pharmaceuticals and other sources contaminates water around the world, and detecting it can be expensive and time-consuming. Now researchers have developed a quick, potentially inexpensive way to test for at least 16 dangerous contaminants, including lead, copper and antibiotics, according to a study published in Nature Biotechnology.

The test takes cues from bacteria, which are especially adept at reacting to specific contaminants. “Nature has been solving this problem for billions of years,” says study co-author Julius Lucks, a chemical and biological engineer at Northwestern University. His team searched the literature to find out which proteins bacteria produce to deal with various pollutants. The researchers' new, handheld testing device takes advantage of these proteins' reactions using a series of vials: each has a freeze-dried solution that incorporates a specific protein, which causes the mixture to glow green when an added drop of water contains a particular contaminant.

Each solution includes custom-engineered strands of DNA with one section that a pollutant-sensing protein is bound to and another section that generates a fluorescent glow if activated. The solutions also contain RNA polymerase, which makes RNA by following a DNA strand. If the protein bound to the DNA encounters its corresponding contaminant, the protein changes shape and falls off. This lets the RNA polymerase travel all the way along the DNA strand, making the sample fluoresce green.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The study is “a really nice, clever and creative use of synthetic biology and highlights what the field can do well,” says Mary Dunlop, a synthetic biologist at Boston University, who was not involved in the research.

Researchers have used a similar method to detect pathogens, but this device is the first to identify so many pollutants, Lucks says. The test is “very promising,” says Susan Richardson, a University of South Carolina chemist, who focuses on water issues and was not involved in the research. She cautions, however, that it may need to react to lower contaminant concentrations before it can be widely useful.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe