4.4 Review

Lab-on-a-Chip Technology for Environmental Monitoring of Microorganisms

Journal

BIOCHIP JOURNAL
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 173-183

Publisher

KOREAN BIOCHIP SOCIETY-KBCS
DOI: 10.1007/s13206-018-2301-5

Keywords

Lab-on-a-Chip; Microorganisms; Pathogens; Environmental monitoring; Paper microfluidics

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korean government (MSIP) [NRF-2017R1A 2B4008179]
  2. Gachon University research fund of 2017 [GCU-2017-0175]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1A2B4008179, 22A20151113431] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Improved environmental monitoring of microorganisms is currently an important issue, since traditional detection methods are costly and time consuming (often requiring 2-3 days). In contrast, microfluidic chip-based technologies provide promising alternatives. The presence of environmental contaminants, especially bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens and their toxins, is creating a major public health problem. The detection of microbial communities in environmental samples is the first step to recognizing these organisms and insuring health and safety against their infection. This review addresses both the existing and innovative technologies for the detection of pathogens present in the environmental samples. First, impacts and challenges related to pathogens in the environmental samples are discussed, and standard techniques for their identification are addressed. Next, the microfluidic technologies are introduced as an alternative strategy with a particular focus on the detection of environmental contaminants. Challenges that still need to be overcome are also discussed. The review concludes with a section on paper-based microfluidic device and a discussion on future prospects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available