Human practices and how we tried to integrate them
Getting to the problem
Our team consists of students all doing the same degree, on the same university in the same city: Brussels. Since this
is the very first iGEM team we had, the idea came forward to tackle a local problem, in the spirit of iGEM’s philosophy.
During brainstorming many ideas arose: tackling PFOS (a major headliner on the news during that period in Belgium),
finding a biosensor for mycotoxins (a minor point on the news during that period), etc. There was however one idea
that resonated most with all of us: hard water.
In fact, when we fill our water bottles at the university, white water comes out of the pipe, it’s really hard. After learning about all the other problems that hard water brings, like the clogging of pipes, shortening the lifespan of appliances and the even bigger problem of salt pollution that arises from the most common way to decalcify water, which is an ion exchange system, we decided that this was the perfect problem to tackle.
To get a better view of the consequences of hard water for people in daily life, we started off with a calculation for calcite in Brussels’ water:
To get an in depth view of our calculations you can read this Link
In fact, when we fill our water bottles at the university, white water comes out of the pipe, it’s really hard. After learning about all the other problems that hard water brings, like the clogging of pipes, shortening the lifespan of appliances and the even bigger problem of salt pollution that arises from the most common way to decalcify water, which is an ion exchange system, we decided that this was the perfect problem to tackle.
To get a better view of the consequences of hard water for people in daily life, we started off with a calculation for calcite in Brussels’ water:
To get an in depth view of our calculations you can read this Link
The amount of salt used to provide the whole of Etterbeek with soft water is 569 tonnes! That means, for the whole of Etterbeek alone, we miss out on 417 tonnes of calcium carbonate!
This is a huge amount of calcite!
Because of the problems that arise from using hard water, listed above, it’s no surprise that people have come up with
various ways to soften water. The question we asked ourselves was of course, what has our solution got to offer? If
solutions for water softening already exist, why would we bother making another, biological solution?
We started an investigation in the current methods of decalcifying water and stumbled upon the most used solution in households nowadays: a salt-based ion-exchange water softener. We reached out to people with such a water softener, people in the water softening industry and other people that were willing to talk about water softening and asked about possible complaints they had. The quotes below give a short summary of their answers. We also tried to do interviews with people from the water industry, the results you can find here.
We started an investigation in the current methods of decalcifying water and stumbled upon the most used solution in households nowadays: a salt-based ion-exchange water softener. We reached out to people with such a water softener, people in the water softening industry and other people that were willing to talk about water softening and asked about possible complaints they had. The quotes below give a short summary of their answers. We also tried to do interviews with people from the water industry, the results you can find here.
“A water softener needs to be regularly refilled with salt. This requires me to drive to the store, where I need to buy salt,
it costs me both time and money just to soften my water.”
“The bags are quite heavy; it requires strength to transport them and that’s just not possible for some people”
“I work for a large retailer, and it hurts to see how much salt we use just to soften water.
All this salt is bad for the environment, we need another solution!”
I don’t want to waste water anymore during the regeneration of my current water softener.
All these ideas shaped our first model of the solution we wanted to offer. We would design a protein that helps to
crystallize calcite out of the water. The protein would be implemented in a biological filter, and the filter would be
the central part of a water softening machine. Our solution would be a tool intended for household use. It would be a
machine that’s installed at home, just like regular water softeners, either in combination with a small tank to store
decalcified water or either as a bypass in the piping system, so that hard water flows in and soft water comes out. In
any case, the filter inside the machine would contain proteins that after some time will get clogged up with crystallized
calcite. At this moment, one should be able to replace the saturated filter with a new one. The saturated filter is
completely biodegradable and full of calcite, so could be used as a resource for example to fertilize the garden.
With this solution we gave an answer to most of the complaints that people have about regular water softeners. There is no salt present, so no environmental pollution. The replacement of the filter would be quick and easy, filters are lightweight and can be bought in small quantities. No water gets lost since there is no regeneration step and best of all, the calcite that has been removed from the water is now available as resource.
It is with this model in mind that we started our experiments. Of course, this is just a model. In further development of the solution, some of the proposed mechanisms might not be realistic or possible. This is however not discouraging, by learning and trying and listening to the complaints and wishes of people, we will be able to build a system that meets as much of their requirements as possible.
Not long after we started the experiments, we started a conversation about our initial solution with the lab supervisor. He pointed out that a device for household use might come with lots of benefits, but he saw one big disadvantage: biosafety. Since we’re working with genetically modified organisms in water that will be in close contact with people, safety is a major issue. The biggest risk he identified is the fact that our solution would be handled by people with no knowledge whatsoever about biosafety. To circumvent this problem, we thought of changing the implementation of our filter. During the early brainstorming we found some information on biological treatment of drinking water (see sources listed below).
A water treatment plant is always handled by skilled people with professional knowledge. By implementing our solution at this level, it would be handled by people with prior knowledge of biosafety and that could also receive specific training before using our product. For the development of our tool, this change in perspective didn’t change much. Our work in the lab to design a bacterial system expressing biocrystallizing proteins continued in the way we planned it before. However, for the proposed implementation we changed course and focused on implementing our tool in large water treatment plants.
With this solution we gave an answer to most of the complaints that people have about regular water softeners. There is no salt present, so no environmental pollution. The replacement of the filter would be quick and easy, filters are lightweight and can be bought in small quantities. No water gets lost since there is no regeneration step and best of all, the calcite that has been removed from the water is now available as resource.
It is with this model in mind that we started our experiments. Of course, this is just a model. In further development of the solution, some of the proposed mechanisms might not be realistic or possible. This is however not discouraging, by learning and trying and listening to the complaints and wishes of people, we will be able to build a system that meets as much of their requirements as possible.
Not long after we started the experiments, we started a conversation about our initial solution with the lab supervisor. He pointed out that a device for household use might come with lots of benefits, but he saw one big disadvantage: biosafety. Since we’re working with genetically modified organisms in water that will be in close contact with people, safety is a major issue. The biggest risk he identified is the fact that our solution would be handled by people with no knowledge whatsoever about biosafety. To circumvent this problem, we thought of changing the implementation of our filter. During the early brainstorming we found some information on biological treatment of drinking water (see sources listed below).
- Brown, J. C. (2007, December 1). Biological Treatments of Drinking Water. Retrieved from National Academy of Engineering: https://www.nae.edu/19579/19582/21020/7413/7700/BiologicalTreatmentsofDrinkingWater
- Peterson, H. (2013, December 9). Biological Filtration: The Future Of Drinking Water Treatment? (L. Martin, Interviewer)
- Siegers, W., Bel, N. v., & Timmers, P. (2018, January 1). Biological conversion of micropollutants in drinking water treatment. Retrieved from KWR: https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/projecten/biologische-omzetting-van-microverontreinigingen-in-de-drinkwaterzuivering/
A water treatment plant is always handled by skilled people with professional knowledge. By implementing our solution at this level, it would be handled by people with prior knowledge of biosafety and that could also receive specific training before using our product. For the development of our tool, this change in perspective didn’t change much. Our work in the lab to design a bacterial system expressing biocrystallizing proteins continued in the way we planned it before. However, for the proposed implementation we changed course and focused on implementing our tool in large water treatment plants.
Defining obstacles
Dealing with hard water with a bio-engineered solution might seem like the holy grail, but we are prejudiced from 4 years
of education in bioengineering. In the environment where we discuss our project and solution, everyone is familiar with the
ideas of synthetic biology and little opinions can be found against it. However, we want to make a solution suitable for
everyone, not just bioengineers and synthetic biology enthusiasts.
From talking about our project with friends, family and other contacts that generally were not familiar with the concepts and ideas of synthetic biology, we noticed some hestitation. When people hear ‘bacteria’ and ‘clean water’ in the same sentence, it often confuses them. Some quotes that arose from these conversations are listed below.
From talking about our project with friends, family and other contacts that generally were not familiar with the concepts and ideas of synthetic biology, we noticed some hestitation. When people hear ‘bacteria’ and ‘clean water’ in the same sentence, it often confuses them. Some quotes that arose from these conversations are listed below.
“I work as an industrial engineer at a large pharmaceutical company and I’m pretty sure that they will not use water that
has been in contact with bacteria, that is way too dangerous!”
“But if I drink the water, won’t I get sick?”
During the outreach activities we did for our project, mainly aimed at a public of young children, we noticed the same
picture. Kids generally seemed to think that bacteria are ‘bad’ and ‘make you sick’.
However, some quotes and informal conversations with people seemed not adequate to determine the general opinion on synthetic biology and its use in water softening. To get this general opinion we made a questionnaire and shared it with as much people as possible, trying to aim at the most diverse public possible. The results of this questionnaire are illustrated below.
However, some quotes and informal conversations with people seemed not adequate to determine the general opinion on synthetic biology and its use in water softening. To get this general opinion we made a questionnaire and shared it with as much people as possible, trying to aim at the most diverse public possible. The results of this questionnaire are illustrated below.
Finding ways to deal with them
At first, we thought that just developing a biological water softening solution would solve the hard water problem,
now we know better. It's not enough to develop a solution, if you want to implement it then people should accept it.
Even the best invention is useless when everyone refuses to use it. The reasons for this refusal can seem ridiculous
sometimes, but they’re not. People make choices based on what they know and believe in, and nothing is wrong with that.
Instead of trying to tell people they are wrong, we tried to give them new perspectives and insights on synthetic biology.
In return, they gave us valuable insights into their opinions, doubts and abstention for using the tools of synthetic
biology in their daily lives.
More concretly, we did a couple of things to engage with the public and try to find a solution that works for as much people as possible.
From the questionnaire, we could clearly see that it matters what bacterium is used in a tool. People were far more likely to accept a synthetic biological solution if it were to be made by a GRAS species such as lactic acid bacteria. Now that we have shown that it works in E. coli, we can try wheter it also works in the GRAS bacterium Lactococcus lactis.
From our work with youngsters and kids, and from the answer in the questionnaire, we identified a biased opinion about bacteria. While only a small percentage of micro-organisms are in fact harmful for the human species, the general opinion on micro-organisms is dominated by them. People are more likely to think about bacteria and micro-organisms in a bad way than in a good way.
This is a pity, since microbes provide us with so many useful things that often go unseen. That's why we wanted to shine a little light on the “good side” of bacteria and designed a children’s book. We decided on a children’s book because this seems to us the ideal way for both a parent and a child to learn something about microbes in a fun and accessible way. We named it ‘Bert, the good bacterium’ and the fully animated version can be found here. By giving people access to correct information, we hope that in the future they will be able to make their opinion in a more informed way.
Proving the need for alternatives to water softening
In the same spirit of giving people access to correct information, we did an experiment to show the effects of environmental salt pollution. This experiment was intended to shine some light on the problem of environmental salt pollution, since not everyone is familiar with it. We shared it on our social media and encourage people to learn about this problem and start conversations about it. For the experiment, we started from two nearly identical plants and watered one plant with just regular tap water and the other one with salt water (tap water with 35 g/l NaCl added). The salt concentration was chosen close to the concentration of the total salt concentration in sea water.
More concretly, we did a couple of things to engage with the public and try to find a solution that works for as much people as possible.
From the questionnaire, we could clearly see that it matters what bacterium is used in a tool. People were far more likely to accept a synthetic biological solution if it were to be made by a GRAS species such as lactic acid bacteria. Now that we have shown that it works in E. coli, we can try wheter it also works in the GRAS bacterium Lactococcus lactis.
From our work with youngsters and kids, and from the answer in the questionnaire, we identified a biased opinion about bacteria. While only a small percentage of micro-organisms are in fact harmful for the human species, the general opinion on micro-organisms is dominated by them. People are more likely to think about bacteria and micro-organisms in a bad way than in a good way.
This is a pity, since microbes provide us with so many useful things that often go unseen. That's why we wanted to shine a little light on the “good side” of bacteria and designed a children’s book. We decided on a children’s book because this seems to us the ideal way for both a parent and a child to learn something about microbes in a fun and accessible way. We named it ‘Bert, the good bacterium’ and the fully animated version can be found here. By giving people access to correct information, we hope that in the future they will be able to make their opinion in a more informed way.
Proving the need for alternatives to water softening
In the same spirit of giving people access to correct information, we did an experiment to show the effects of environmental salt pollution. This experiment was intended to shine some light on the problem of environmental salt pollution, since not everyone is familiar with it. We shared it on our social media and encourage people to learn about this problem and start conversations about it. For the experiment, we started from two nearly identical plants and watered one plant with just regular tap water and the other one with salt water (tap water with 35 g/l NaCl added). The salt concentration was chosen close to the concentration of the total salt concentration in sea water.