Rapid bacterial detection using biosensors is a novel approach for microbiological testing applications. Validation of such methods is an obstacle in the adoption of new bio-sensing technologies for water testing. Therefore, establishing a quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan is essential to demonstrate accuracy and reliability of the biosensor method for the detection of E. coli in drinking water samples. In this study, different reagents and assay conditions including temperatures, holding time, E. coli strains and concentrations, dissolving agents, salinity and pH effects, quality of substrates of various suppliers of 4-methylumbelliferyl glucuronide (MUG), and environmental water samples were included in the QA/QC plan and used in the assay optimization and documentation. Furthermore, the procedural QA/QC for the monitoring of drinking water samples was established to validate the performance of the biosensor platform for the detection of E. coli using a culture-based standard technique. Implementing the developed QA/QC plan, the same level of precision and accuracy was achieved using both the standard and the biosensor methods. The established procedural QA/QC for the biosensor will provide a reliable tool for a near real-time monitoring of E. coli in drinking water samples to both industry and regulatory authorities.

Perchloroethylene (PCE) is a highly utilized solvent in the dry cleaning industry because of its cleaning effectiveness and relatively low cost to consumers. According to the 2006 U.S. Census, approximately 28,000 dry cleaning operations used PCE as their principal cleaning agent. Widespread use of PCE is problematic because of its adverse impacts on human health and environmental quality. As PCE use is curtailed, effective alternatives must be analyzed for their toxicity and impacts to human health and the environment. Potential alternatives to PCE in dry cleaning include dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether (DPnB) and dipropylene glycol tert-butyl ether (DPtB), both promising to pose a relatively smaller risk. To evaluate these two alternatives to PCE, we established and scored performance criteria, including chemical toxicity, employee and customer exposure levels, impacts on the general population, costs of each system, and cleaning efficacy. The scores received for PCE were 5, 5, 3, 5, 3, and 3, respectively, and DPnB and DPtB scored 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, and 4, respectively. An aggregate sum of the performance criteria yielded a favorably low score of “16” for both DPnB and DPtB compared to “24” for PCE. We conclude that DPnB and DPtB are preferable dry cleaning agents, exhibiting reduced human toxicity and a lesser adverse impact on human health and the environment compared to PCE, with comparable capital investments, and moderately higher annual operating costs.