| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bolan, Nanthi, et al.
(författare)
-
Remediation of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminated soils : To mobilize or to immobilize or to degrade?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hazardous Materials. - : Elsevier. - 0304-3894 .- 1873-3336. ; 401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are synthetic chemicals, which are introduced to the environment through anthropogenic activities. Aqueous film forming foam used in firefighting, wastewater effluent, landfill leachate, and biosolids are major sources of PFAS input to soil and groundwater. Remediation of PFAS contaminated solid and aqueous media is challenging, which is attributed to the chemical and thermal stability of PFAS and the complexity of PFAS mixtures. In this review, remediation of PFAS contaminated soils through manipulation of their bioavailability and destruction is presented. While the mobilizing amendments (e.g., surfactants) enhance the mobility and bioavailability of PFAS, the immobilizing amendments (e.g., activated carbon) decrease their bioavailability and mobility. Mobilizing amendments can be applied to facilitate the removal of PFAS though soil washing, phytoremediation, and complete destruction through thermal and chemical redox reactions. Immobilizing amendments are likely to reduce the transfer of PFAS to food chain through plant and biota (e.g., earthworm) uptake, and leaching to potable water sources. Future studies should focus on quantifying the potential leaching of the mobilized PFAS in the absence of removal by plant and biota uptake or soil washing, and regular monitoring of the long-term stability of the immobilized PFAS.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kookana, Rai, et al.
(författare)
-
Nanopesticides: Guiding principles for regulatory evaluation of environmental risks
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. - : American Chemical Society (ACS). - 0021-8561 .- 1520-5118. ; 62:19, s. 4227-4240
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Nanopesticides or nano plant protection products represent an emerging technological development that, in relation to pesticide use, could offer a range of benefits including increased efficacy, durability, and a reduction in the amounts of active ingredients that need to be used. A number of formulation types have been suggested including emulsions (e.g., nanoemulsions), nanocapsules (e.g., with polymers), and products containing pristine engineered nanoparticles, such as metals, metal oxides, and nanoclays. The increasing interest in the use of nanopesticides raises questions as to how to assess the environmental risk of these materials for regulatory purposes. Here, the current approaches for environmental risk assessment of pesticides are reviewed and the question of whether these approaches are fit for purpose for use on nanopesticides is addressed. Potential adaptations to existing environmental risk assessment tests and procedures for use with nanopesticides are discussed, addressing aspects such as analysis and characterization, environmental fate and exposure assessment, uptake by biota, ecotoxicity, and risk assessment of nanopesticides in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Throughout, the main focus is on assessing whether the presence of the nanoformulation introduces potential differences relative to the conventional active ingredients. The proposed changes in the test methodology, research priorities, and recommendations would facilitate the development of regulatory approaches and a regulatory framework for nanopesticides.
|
|
