After consulting many experts in the field, we identified problems and potential solutions with our implementation.

1. Agricultural Application:
1. One of the most popular feedbacks we received from our experts was the fact that our system requires some inducer to be applied to a chemical field. They mentioned that this strategy was not very easily adopted amongst farmers for two reasons:
1. Addition of essentially “water” to crops is a tedious process and in the long run very expensive. Because our inducers would need to be very dilute at high volumes of solvent, this would require farmers to deluge their crops with water — a practice many farmers frown upon.
2. Unknown chemicals added to fields is not a risk most farmers will take. Synthetic biology is still a relatively new field. Taking unknown chemical compounds with obscure names (to the general public!) is still a risk that could turn farmers away or even consumers away.
2. Possibility of run off
1. Agricultural fields are not a controlled setting. While we could design a kill-switch, or ensure that the E. coli live right alongside plants, or even design our system with a host that is more inclined to live amongst soil such as P. protogens, there is still some degree of risk or runoff.
3. E. coli is not a public-friendly organism (yet!)
1. One of the biggest challenges in synthetic biology is still the disconnect between engineered organisms that may be infectious agents in a different setting. E. coli, one of the most popular to engineer, rarely makes it to industrial or commercial heights, because of public perception. We got a handful of comments that this may still be the case in our design.
2. Possibility of a Industrial Application
1. While agricultural applications may be difficult, industrial applications may be more feasible.
1. A very valuable piece of feedback we received is the idea that our bacteria, if grown in a chamber outside of agricultural settings, could serve as a competitive producer of nitrogen sources as opposed to the Haber-Bosch process, which is not an environmentally friendly process in the slightest.
2. This may be more feasible— and possibly could allow it to be used in smaller settings, such as personal lawns or small-scale lawns in front of businesses, golf courses, etc.

A lot of our feedback from human practices was critical in adding valuable information to our implementation section. Given that our feedback obtained was from extremely knowledgeable, connected sources, and that we live in an area where we are hit with nitrogen-runoff very severely, we trust that our impact here will inform future iGEM teams who will want to build upon our work.