Executive Summary

• We evaluated a portable, field-deployable qPCR platform for rapid detection of problematic microorganisms in industrial systems (MIC context), in collaboration with Baker Hughes.
• Across multiple datasets (environmental waters, building heat exchangers, offshore pilot, and South American oilfield samples), field qPCR tracked laboratory trends closely while compressing time-to-result to hours.
• Strong overall agreement was observed in the heat exchanger study (Pearson r ≈ 0.90), with method differences explainable by DNA recovery, chemistry, and optics.
• Operational takeaway: on-site qPCR provides faster, decision-ready signals to guide mitigation while preserving compatibility with lab workflows and trending.

Why on-site qPCR for MIC?

Traditional culture/ATP tools are easy to deploy but can lack specificity for MIC-relevant taxa and functional pathways. Targeted qPCR reads the DNA “barcode” of organisms of concern, tightening the link between biology and corrosion risk. Fieldable qPCR aims to keep that specificity while moving results to the asset (pipeline, exchanger, injection water), reducing logistics and enabling same-shift decisions.

What we presented at ISMOS 2025

Our joint work assessed the robustness and consistency of a novel field qPCR platform against established laboratory methods, spanning different matrices and operating conditions. We compared detection limits, reproducibility, and method agreement, and examined the practical implications for MIC monitoring.

1) Environmental Waters (state-owned lab comparison)

• Targets included E. coli (ybbW / uidA) and human Bacteroides; lab comparators used ISO-aligned workflows and Colilert® MPN.
• Lab qPCR vs culture showed expected scaling across dilution series; field qPCR correlated with lab trends, with variability driven by DNA isolation yield and inhibitor load (flagged by internal controls).
• Takeaway: field qPCR provides actionable directionality on water quality and fecal contamination markers when paired with QA/QC (ICs, re-runs).

2) Building Heat Exchangers (lab vs field)

• Samples: cold/warm loops and internal circuits across four exchangers, plus a feed (“Hydrofoor”). Parallel field and lab DNA isolation/qPCR were performed.
• Overall Pearson r ≈ 0.90 (p < 0.001) for general bacterial load, indicating strong linear association between methods.
• For low-abundance functional markers (iron oxidizers/reducers), differences reflected storage time, dye chemistry (probe vs SYBR), filtered volumes, and stochastic low-copy sampling.

3) Offshore Pilot (North America)

• Operationally rugged scenario with culture benchmarks for APB/SRB. Field qPCR correlated strongly with APB counts (~r ≈ 0.98) and moderately with SRB (~r ≈ 0.67), consistent with target biology and matrix effects.
• Composite indicators suggested a positive association between bacterial load and additive results (~r ≈ 0.75), warranting expansion for statistical power.

4) South American Oilfield Samples (lab vs field)

• Four samples across process/injection waters showed a strong positive field–lab relationship despite lower field sensitivity at the low end (often within ~1 log).
• Practical knobs to tighten sensitivity include larger filtered volumes and kit/optics improvements (already implemented post-trial).

Methods at a Glance

• Field workflow: on-site filtration, DNA extraction with internal standards, qPCR quantification against pre-built standard curves.
• Lab comparators: independent labs (e.g., KWR/Deltares) using validated DNA extraction kits and thermocyclers; culture via Colilert® MPN per ISO guidance.
• Statistics: Pearson correlation, trend analyses, and Bland–Altman to separate association from agreement.

What the data mean for MIC programs

Field qPCR and lab qPCR rank samples similarly (high correlation), but absolute values can differ due to sample handling, extraction chemistry, and optics. That’s normal—and manageable. With a simple calibration (often log-scale) per matrix/use-case, on-site qPCR becomes a reliable, fast proxy for lab measurements, ideal for screening, verifying mitigations, and triaging interventions.

From study to practice: MICBUSTERS on-site qPCR

The fastest route from sample to action is to measure at the asset. MICBUSTERS deploys on-site qPCR to quantify MIC-relevant microbes within hours and fuse those results with chemistry and metallurgy for actionable recommendations. Learn more about our approach and book a field demo via our on-site qPCR page.

Acknowledgments

We thank our collaborators at Baker Hughes and the independent laboratories involved in method comparisons. Their rigor and openness to cross-validation were essential to this work.

Data & Supporting Material

Study design, tables, and figures summarized here are drawn from our joint draft manuscript: “Evaluation of a novel field qPCR platform for the detection of problematic microorganisms in industrial applications.”

Disclaimer

This article is intended for informational and educational purposes and does not replace site-specific engineering or scientific assessment. MICBUSTERS has a commercial interest in improving microbiological monitoring and mitigation for industry, including on-site qPCR services. MICBUSTERS is gespecialiseerd in het meten van microbiologische processen die leiden tot aantasting van metalen.