spinofflive
Officers carry out an inspection with an Electronic Nose, a rapid detection tool for Covid-19 from breath, at Pasar Senen Station, Jakarta. (Photo by Dasril Roszandi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Officers carry out an inspection with an Electronic Nose, a rapid detection tool for Covid-19 from breath, at Pasar Senen Station, Jakarta. (Photo by Dasril Roszandi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

ScienceSeptember 13, 2021

How electronic noses could help us sniff our way out of the Covid crisis

Officers carry out an inspection with an Electronic Nose, a rapid detection tool for Covid-19 from breath, at Pasar Senen Station, Jakarta. (Photo by Dasril Roszandi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Officers carry out an inspection with an Electronic Nose, a rapid detection tool for Covid-19 from breath, at Pasar Senen Station, Jakarta. (Photo by Dasril Roszandi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

You can hear evidence of possible Covid-19, through people sneezing or coughing. You can see it, through the results of testing. But now scientists may have found a way to smell it as well. Mirjam Guesgen explains.

Electronic noses, or e-noses, are devices that can tell if someone may be infected with a disease like Covid-19 by analysing a person’s smell. Able to give a readout within a few minutes, think techy version of dog noses for sniffing out disease.

E-noses aren’t something that are about to be rolled out in New Zealand just yet, but trials to put the noses through their paces are currently under way overseas and researchers here and in Australia are pitching in on the science side to try and make Covid-sniffing machines a reality.

As borders reopen worldwide, and people flood into concerts or sports events, their advocates say they offer potential for a complement to existing systems – a fast, accurate way to detect if someone’s infected with the virus.

The devices work by analysing compounds in a person’s breath or coming off their skin. It’s not a new tech specific to the current pandemic. E-noses have been around for a while to smell for disorders like asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, infections like pneumonia, or cancers including lung and prostate cancer.

They’re able to do that because the body gives off a certain scent that comes from chemicals made as the body goes about its business of living (metabolising). These airborne compounds are called volatile organic compounds or VOCs.

“It’s an indirect detection. The assumption is that a change in the metabolic profile is uniquely associated with the presence of Covid or other disease,” explained chemist Mark Waterland from Massey University.

E-noses can look a bit like a nasal spray tube that you jam into your nostril, or like a Capri Sun pack with a straw and a bag you inflate. When an odour hits chemical sensors in the device, it triggers some physical change that’s turned into an electric signal. The electrical signal is then analysed by an artificial intelligence algorithm. All in around two to three minutes.

The algorithm works like lots of other machine learning algorithms. Give it some data to learn from, in this case the breath from people who are known to have or not have Covid-19, and then let it loose on a different set of people to test its ability to pick infected from not.

There are a bunch of e-noses floating around in the Netherlands, Israel, Indonesia and the US, among others. Even Nasa is remodelling one that was originally designed to measure air quality in space crafts.

Of those that have been trailed so far, the devices were able to pick up on people who had Covid-19 between 61% and 99.6% of the time (or missed people up to a third of the time) and correctly detected people who didn’t between 79.8% and 92% of the time. It’s a long way from perfect, but its a start, and in the broad realm of PCR tests.

In all these studies, the researchers don’t actually know what the machines are smelling or what the so-called breathprint of a Covid-19 infected person is. “Once it is trained, the algorithm is then very much like a ‘black box’,” says Waterland.

He says it’s a lot like sniffer dogs trained to detect food, bombs or drugs (side note, there are dogs trained to sniff out Covid-19 too). The dog knows it’s Covid-19 but you can’t ask them what they’re smelling, because we don’t speak dog.

That’s a problem because a breathprint for Covid-19 could be similar to a breathprint for another disease, if they cause similar changes in the body. “If there’s some other disease that causes a similar change in the metabolic profile, you’re going to get a false positive,” says Waterland.

Other research groups, like this one in France, have started work on figuring the breathprint out.

But there’s another way to programme e-noses aside from using VOCs. They could actually sniff out the virus itself, or bits of it.

Sticking with the airport drug analogy, it would be the equivalent of those machines seen on Border Patrol where border officers pop a swab into a big box that then beeps aggressively if there’s a tiny trace of the drug.

Waterland is part of a New Zealand team that developed the proof-of-concept for such a device. It uses raman spectroscopy, which has nothing to do with the noodles and everything to do with seeing how light bounces off chemicals, to detect Covid-19 spike proteins that a person breathes out.

A person breathes onto a bit of paper loaded up with aptamers, chunks of DNA that stick to the spike protein, and nano-sized globs of silver. The silver acts like an antenna to magnify the signal to the spectrometer, Waterland explains.

The neat thing about this system is that you could find different aptamers for different variants or different diseases, so the system could evolve over time as the virus does. “The phrase is aptamer, right, so it adapts,” says Waterland.

An Australian group called GreyScan is developing a similar tech, although it’s unclear what exactly their machine analyses. GreyScan could not be reached for comment.

Co-developer of the New Zealand version, Deborah Crittenden, director of the biochemistry programme at the University of Canterbury, says their device holds real promise, both for the country’s airports and the current alert level 4/2 split between Auckland and the rest of the country.

“This would absolutely be useful for rapid screening at borders if (a) it can be converted from a lab-based method to point-of-use, which would require some engineering-type work, and (b) that its [true negative rate] holds up in real world scenarios,” she told The Spinoff in an email.

The group presented their system back in February. But after an initial flurry of attention for their device, things have gone quiet. Despite the urgency around Covid-19 science, a lot of scientists are still operating on shoestring budgets, she said.

Indeed, a lot of these devices are in the early stages of development, testing and commercialisation. Despite that, a select few countries like Indonesia is ploughing ahead and deploying e-noses in airports and train stations.

Keep going!
Collage: Tina Tiller
Collage: Tina Tiller

ScienceSeptember 9, 2021

New tactics against predators and pests promise to be more effective and humane

Collage: Tina Tiller
Collage: Tina Tiller

New Zealand is ready to think outside the trap-box when it comes to getting rid of pests. That means trialing everything from sterilisation to putting the fear in cats and making plants invisible (sort of).

Neuroendocrinologist Greg Anderson says the country is on the brink of something catastrophic. “Half of New Zealand’s native species are extinct already and many of the rest are endangered,” the University of Otago professor says. “With the current [pest control] technology we’re just holding our ground at best. We need something radical to turn the tide.”

Anderson says the problem with mammalian pests in Aotearoa is that they’re great at making babies. His solution to our pest problem is a one-dose oral paste that permanently sterilises predators, regardless of sex or species.

He and his team – consisting of reproductive biologists, a chemist and a bait developer – have just been granted $1m through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund to develop such a paste. It’s one of 69 projects to receive funding this round.

There are a slew of advantages to sterilisation over poisoning or trapping, says Anderson.

Baits or traps are OK but some predators, like stoats, will sneak into a nest of newly-born kits and mate with all the females before those young have even had the chance to leave the nest and encounter any traps.

And this sterilisation paste would only work on mammals, not birds. “That’s a god-send for New Zealand’s forests,” Anderson says, referring to the rare cases where birds fall victim to poisons destined for rats or stoats.

Plus, predators can become wary of bait after only eating a bit of it – not enough to kill them, end up feeling sick, and then learn to avoid the bait later on. They also tell their predator mates about it so they avoid the bait too. With a sterilisation paste the animals wouldn’t know anything had happened.

The fact that a pest animal wouldn’t feel the paste’s effects also makes it potentially more humane than poisons, which can leave an animal feeling sick, thirsty, in pain or breathless.

Finally, it’s a one-size-fits-all solution in that it would work on all mammal pests. That means no customising traps to fit a particular pest’s size or shape and more individuals can be targeted at a time. “The wider we can spread this [to pests], the better,” Anderson says.

A NZ stoat with a chick. (Photo: David Hallet/Department of Conservation)

His team will spend the first of the next three years homing in on a chemical formulation that targets a particular receptor in the mammal reproductive system. They’ll test it on animal cells in a dish, then move on to testing it on rats and mice in the lab, before tackling the tricky task of turning it into an edible paste where the active ingredients don’t get destroyed by the animals’ acidic stomachs.

There will be a few details to figure out when it finally comes time to potentially implement the paste, including making sure that it’s spread out in a way that pet cats don’t inadvertently lick it up. “We wouldn’t want to sterilise those animals but that can be managed. The Department of Conservation and the people who currently administer 1080 have decades of experience managing [distribution],” says Anderson. He adds that the effects could be reversible too.

But there may be a way to deal with cats as well: by scaring them away. Another project to receive MBIE funding will trial using sounds and smells to deter cats away from areas where native wildlife roam.

The project, led by wildlife ecologist Patrick Garvey from Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, will test out these scare tactics in different areas of the country.

Areas of interest include the perimeter of eco-sanctuary Zealandia, in Wellington, where birds that leave the protected sanctuary are being picked off by cats; and potentially the Te Atatu peninsula or other areas of Auckland where shorebirds like dotterel aren’t having success breeding because of the felines. Garvey is currently working with councils, iwi and DOC to pin down which sites they’ll use.

Garvey says the first step will be to figure out the right sounds and scents for deterring cats but that won’t bug native species. They’ll do this in large outdoor arenas before moving their experiments out into the wild.

Then they’ll find ways to place the sounds and smells so that they’re not freaking out native species as well. “This is a very important consideration as we want to ensure native wildlife are not impacted,” he says. They’ll also monitor the sites throughout the study to make sure birds and other non-target species aren’t disturbed.

The researchers will also fit cats with tracking collars and capture their movements on camera traps to see if the technique is working. That is, that cats are staying away. They’ll also monitor what’s going on at bird breeding sites using cameras to see if scaring away cats leads to better breeding success for the birds.

Native wildlife isn’t the only group to suffer at the paws of predators. Crops too come under attack from various insects. Chemical ecologist Ashraf El-Sayed, from Plant & Food Research, leads a team trying to make plants invisible to pest insects.

A group at Plant & Food had previously noticed that insect-infested apple trees protected their neighbours by changing the neighbouring trees’ physiology, down to the gene expression level, and stopping them giving off insect-attracting odours.

They think this is thanks to the infested plant giving off a particular chemical signal that puts the neighbouring plants in stealth mode.

“Can we achieve what we’ve seen [the plants doing] but using a chemical signal we’ve created?” proposes El-Sayed.

If they could, it would mean an alternative to insecticides, which can in some cases leave toxic residues in food, water, air or soil, lead to insects becoming immune to them or runoff into the surrounding environment.

El-Sayed and his team have identified some specific components to that chemical signal but there are more to uncover. The first year of their MBIE-funded project will identify those compounds then test which bouquet produces the physiological stealth-mode response they’ve seen.

The final stage will see whether the mix actually protects plants – specifically pip fruits like apples and pears, and plants in the cabbage family – against a specific plant-eater or a range of plant-eaters.

El-Sayed says the project is harnessing the amazing ability of plants that often go unnoticed. “People usually look at plants as objects, not living things. No, not at all. Plants are living organisms that react and respond to all sorts of stimuli,”