| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Shanmugam, Kavitha, 1992-, et al.
(författare)
-
A sustainable performance assessment framework for circular management of municipal wastewater treatment plants
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cleaner Production. - : Elsevier Ltd. - 0959-6526 .- 1879-1786. ; 339
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) could become valuable contributors to a circular economy by implementing the 3R principles (reduce, reuse, and recycle). While reducing the pollution load of sewage is the primary objective of a WWTP, this process generates several potentially valuable byproducts including treated effluent, biogas, and sludge. The effluent can be reused in various end use applications and biogas can be reused as a fuel (for electricity generation, transportation, and cooking) or a chemical feedstock. The sludge can either be directly recycled as soil conditioner or via thermochemical/biochemical processing routes to recover material (e.g., hydrochar), energy (e.g., heat, and syngas), and resource value (phosphorus). This work presents a five-layered assessment framework for quantitatively evaluating the sustainable value of municipal WWTPs by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing assessment (LCCA) tools. In addition, indicators reflecting potential benefits to stakeholders and society arising from investments into municipal WWTPs such as the private return on investment (PROI) and the environmental externality costs to investment ratio (EECIR). The framework is validated in a hypothetical case study where the sustainable value of a circularly managed municipal WWTP is evaluated in situations involving multiple byproduct utilization pathways. Four future circular options (FCOs) are examined for a 50,000 m3/d capacity WWTP treating sewage up to tertiary standards. The FCOs mainly differ in terms of how biogas is reused (to meet the WWTP's internal energy demands, as cooking fuel, or as fuel for city buses after upgrading) and how sludge is recycled (as soil conditioner or by producing hydrochar pellets for electricity generation). The FCO in which treated effluent is reused in industry, biogas is used as cooking fuel, and sludge is used as a soil conditioner provides the greatest sustainable value (i.e., the lowest private costs and environmental externality costs (EEC) together with high revenues), the highest PROI, and the lowest EECIR. The strengths and limitations of the proposed assessment framework are also discussed. © 2022 The Authors
|
|
| 10. |
- Shanmugam, Kavitha, et al.
(författare)
-
Ecoefficiency of Thermal Insulation Sandwich Panels Based On Fly Ash Modified with Colloidal Mesoporous Silica
- 2019
-
Ingår i: ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering. - : American Chemical Society (ACS). - 2168-0485. ; 7:24, s. 20000-20012
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The current practice of landfilling fly ash generated by waste incineration is nonsustainable, so alternative ways of using this material are needed. Silanization effectively immobilizes the heavy metal contaminants in the incineration fly ash and enables its circular utilization because silanized fly ash (SFA) has market value as a low-cost filler for polymer composites. This study examines the ecoefficiency of a thermal insulation panel that consists of a polyurethane (PU) foam core sandwiched between two epoxy composite skins prepared by reinforcing glass fibers (GF) and SFA in epoxy resin. The ecoefficiency of such panels was evaluated by comparing their life cycle environmental externality costs (LCEE) to their life cycle costs (LCC). The LCEE was calculated by monetizing the panels’ environmental impacts, which were quantified by performing a life cycle assessment (LCA). The results revealed that the ecoefficiency of the composite panels is positive (47%) and superior to that of market incumbent alternatives with PU foam or rockwool cores and steel skins. The two market incumbents have negative ecoefficiencies, primarily due to their high LCEE. The environmental performance of the panel with SFA–GF epoxy composite skins can be further improved by using lignin-based epoxy resin or thermoplastic polypropylene as the polymer matrix of composite skins. Overall, application as a filler in fabricating polymer composite skins of sandwich panels is an upcycling pathway of SFA that combines circular economy prospects with sustainability benefits.
|
|
