The stimulant and toxicity effects of reported organic (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, formic acid, oil & grease) and inorganic (copper) by-products presented in palm oil mill effluent on anaerobic bacterial population were examined in this paper. The toxicity test had shown that acetic, propionic and butyric acids tend to stimulate the bacterial density level (survival rate more than 50%), while formic acid, copper, oil and grease were shown to have suppressed the density level (survival rate less than 50%). The highest biomass recorded was 1.66 mg/L for the concentration of acetic acid at 216 mg/L and lowest biomass concentration, 0.90 mg/L for copper at 1.40 mg/L. Biohydrogen-producing bacteria have a favourable growth rate around pH 5.5. The comparison of half maximal effective concentration (EC50) values between two test duration on the effects of organic and inorganic by-products postulate that bacteria had a higher tolerance towards volatile fatty acids. While acetic, butyric and propionic acids had exhibited higher tolerance EC50 values for bacteria, but the opposite trend was observed for formic acid, copper and oil & grease.
Purple non-sulphur bacteria can only capture up to 10 % light spectra and only 1-5 % of light is converted efficiently for biohydrogen production. To enhance light capture and conversion efficiencies, it is necessary to understand the impact of various light spectra on light harvesting pigments. During photo-fermentation, Rhodobacter sphaeroides KKU-PS1 cultivated at 30 °C and 150 rpm under different light spectra has been investigated. Results revealed that red light is more beneficial for biomass accumulation, whereas green light showed the greatest impact on photo-fermentative biohydrogen production. Light conversion efficiency by green light is 2-folds of that under control white light, hence photo-hydrogen productivity is ranked as green > red > orange > violet > blue > yellow. These experimental data demonstrated that green and red lights are essential for photo-hydrogen and biomass productions of R. sphaeroides and a clearer understanding that possibly pave the way for further photosynthetic enhancement research.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.