1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of: researcher safety, public safety, or environmental safety?

The accumulation of plastic products poses a hazard to the environment, as well as humans, through drinking water contamination. This threat led us to develop a degradation pathway to turn the polyethylene terephthalate into different substrates. We produce terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is a moderately toxic substance, which is oxidized to glycolic acid. The glycolic acid is further oxidized to oxalic acid – a toxic substance that affects the central nervous system via the liver. However, in the environment, the ethylene glycol will be degraded by hydroxyl radicals and in sewage sludge, it is readily biodegradable. Because ethylene glycol must be ingested to pose a problem, researchers take extra precaution to make sure there are no splashes of ethylene glycol in the laboratory and the wastes will be disposed of in the appropriate hazardous waste receptacles. Ethylene glycol can also be a mild irritant if it comes in contact with the skin or if it is inhaled, so researchers wear eye protection as well as gloves and lab coats, and always work with ethylene glycol in the confine of a fume hood. Also, in our constructs, we have produced enzymes that will degrade ethylene glycol into glycoaldehyde and then glycolate. The glycolate has the potential to be turned in to oxaloacetate, a metabolic intermediate. In the environment, ethylene glycol can potentially be toxic within waterways, however the team made sure to dispose of ethylene glycol in a responsible way.

2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? If yes, did you document these issues in the Registry? How did you manage to handle the safety issue? How could other teams learn from your experience?

Our BioBrick parts this year do not raise safety issues, despite the ethylene glycol production. The safety management procedures have been discussed in the previous question’s answer. The novel part that we are submitting to the Registry is the cutinase gene, in BioBrick format. This is a lipolytic enzyme that does not pose a threat to humans.

3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project? If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?

The University of California at Davis has a biosafety group, which heads the disposal and use of hazardous materials. They approve of our project and the procedures that we have followed. Further, they are excited for the potential that this project has, in terms of making the environment safer for ihabitants.

4. Do you have any other ideas how to deal with safety issues that could be useful for future iGEM competitions? How could parts, devices and systems be made even safer through biosafety engineering?

Safety issues could be headed by a designated safety monitor in each iGEM group. This set-up allows all of the teams to have a person who will always make sure that the safest procedures are being followed at all times. Also, the production of potentially hazardous materials should always be controlled by an inducible promoter, so that it may be stopped at any time. The different parts can be made safer by making the parts work only with BioBrick assembly units and nothing else that exists in nature.