| 1. |
- Bundschuh, Jochen, et al.
(författare)
-
Emerging mitigation needs and sustainable options for solving the arsenic problems of rural and isolated urban areas in Latin America : A critical analysis
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Water Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0043-1354 .- 1879-2448. ; 44:19, s. 5828-5845
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this work, current information about the contamination of ground- and surface-water resources by arsenic from geogenic sources in Latin America is presented together with possible emerging mitigation solutions. The problem is of the same order of magnitude as other world regions, such as SE Asia, but it is often not described in English. Despite the studies undertaken by numerous local researchers, and the identification of proven treatment methods for the specific water conditions encountered, no technologies have been commercialized due to a current lack of funding and technical assistance. Emerging, low-cost technologies to mitigate the problem of arsenic in drinking water resources that are suitable for rural and urban areas lacking centralized water supplies have been evaluated. The technologies generally use simple and low-cost equipment that can easily be handled and maintained by the local population. Experiences comprise (i) coagulation/filtration with iron and aluminum salts, scaled-down for small community-and household-scale-applications, (ii) adsorption techniques using low-cost arsenic sorbents, such as geological materials (clays, laterites, soils, limestones), natural organic-based sorbents (natural biomass), and synthetic materials. TiO2-heterogeneous photocatalysis and zerovalent iron, especially using nanoscale particles, appear to be promising emergent technologies. Another promising innovative method for rural communities is the use of constructed wetlands using native perennial plants for arsenic rhizofiltration. Smallscale simple reverse osmosis equipment (which can be powered by wind or solar energy) that is suitable for small communities can also be utilized. The individual benefits of the different methods have been evaluated in terms of (i) size of the treatment device, (ii) arsenic concentration and distribution of species, chemical composition and grade of mineralization in the raw water, (iii) guidelines for the remaining As concentration, (iv) economical constrains, (v) complexity of installation and maintenance, and infrastructure constraints (e.g. electricity needs). (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
