Perspective on Improving Environmental Monitoring of Biothreats

Abstract

For more than a decade, the United States has performed environmental monitoring by collecting and analyzing air samples for a handful of biological threat agents (BTAs) in order to detect a possible biological attack. This effort has faced numerous technical challenges including timeliness, sampling efficiency, sensitivity, specificity, and robustness. The cost of city-wide environmental monitoring using conventional technology has also been a challenge. A large group of scientists with expertise in bioterrorism defense met to assess the objectives and current efficacy of environmental monitoring and to identify operational and technological changes that could enhance its efficacy and cost-effectiveness, thus enhancing its value. The highest priority operational change that was identified was to abandon the current concept of city-wide environmental monitoring because the operational costs were too high and its value was compromised by low detection sensitivity and other environmental factors. Instead, it was suggested that the focus should primarily be on indoor monitoring and secondarily on special-event monitoring because objectives are tractable and these operational settings are aligned with likelihood and risk assessments. The highest priority technological change identified was the development of a reagent-less, real-time sensor that can identify a potential airborne release and trigger secondary tests of greater sensitivity and specificity for occasional samples of interest. This technological change could be transformative with the potential to greatly reduce operational costs and thereby create the opportunity to expand the scope and effectiveness of environmental monitoring.

Natural outbreaks and bioterrorism: How to deal with the two sides of the same coin?

“…On the other hand, systematic environment monitoring for all diseases is, for now, impossible due to technological barriers and cost challenges. Experts in biodefense suggested that more targeted measurements in delimited spaces or during a large gathering of people should be the priority to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the early detection of a biological attack but, also for a natural outbreak, while reducing the cost [ 51 ]. For example, the analysis of wastewater could be a good way to monitor the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community [ 52 ].…”

“…For example, the analysis of wastewater could be a good way to monitor the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community [ 52 ]. However, these measurements should always be paired with epidemiological investigations to avoid any misinterpretation of the results [ 51 ].…”

NNTox: Gene Ontology-Based Protein Toxicity Prediction Using Neural Network

“…The second possible case would be an intentional design or release of toxic proteins for biological attack 7 . To prevent release of toxic proteins, there are ongoing efforts to build systems and devices that collect unknown proteins or organisms together that identify proteins with potential harm 8–11 . There is a strong demand for such systems for lab facilities of gene synthesis, places where many people gather, e.g.…”

Implementation of the Workload Indicators of Staffing Need (WISN) Method in Determining Staff Requirements in Public Health Laboratories in Serbia

“…T he public health challenges of the 21st century, such as emerging infectious diseases, biological threats, climate change, unhealthy lifestyles, and living conditions, [1][2][3][4] require local and global readiness to respond to the population's needs by strengthening human resources, quality, and safety. 5 According to European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the level of public health microbiology system capabilities and capacities in 30 Europe Union countries measured by the aggregated EULabCap index varies from the low and moderate to high level, 6 while only a few countries in the Western Balkan report full public health microbiology system capacity for rare and emerging diseases, such as smallpox, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and yellow fever.…”