ABSTRACT
Accurate comparison of flow cytometric data requires an understanding of how the cytometric fingerprint of a sample may vary from instrument to instrument. Key sources of variability include the number, wavelengths, and power of excitation lasers; the number and types of emission detectors; sample-handling systems and options; and whether fixed or dynamic detector voltages are used. To explore this variability, suspensions of three sizes (0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 µm-diameter) of solid, fluorescent, polystyrene beads were prepared. The suspensions were then run on four flow cytometers, keeping instrument settings as consistent as possible. The results are displayed graphically in Figure 3 of the article "Flow cytometry applications in water treatment, distribution, and reuse: A review" (DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.016) [1]. This dataset contains the complete FCS files generated from the experimental comparison. In the development and application of flow cytometry to water quality assessment, we recommend data sharing in this manner to enable comprehensive reporting, meaningful comparison of results obtained using different cytometer models, enhanced exploration of data along multiple parameters, and use of acquired data for computational advancements in the field.
ABSTRACT
Ensuring safe and effective water treatment, distribution, and reuse requires robust methods for characterizing and monitoring waterborne microbes. Methods widely used today can be limited by low sensitivity, high labor and time requirements, susceptibility to interference from inhibitory compounds, and difficulties in distinguishing between viable and non-viable cells. Flow cytometry (FCM) has recently gained attention as an alternative approach that can overcome many of these challenges. This article critically and systematically reviews for the first time recent literature on applications of FCM in water treatment, distribution, and reuse. In the review, we identify and examine nearly 300 studies published from 2000 to 2018 that illustrate the benefits and challenges of using FCM for assessing source-water quality and impacts of treatment-plant discharge on receiving waters, wastewater treatment, drinking water treatment, and drinking water distribution. We then discuss options for combining FCM with other indicators of water quality and address several topics that cut across nearly all applications reviewed. Finally, we identify priority areas in which more work is needed to realize the full potential of this approach. These include optimizing protocols for FCM-based analysis of waterborne viruses, optimizing protocols for specifically detecting target pathogens, automating sample handling and preparation to enable real-time FCM, developing computational tools to assist data analysis, and improving standards for instrumentation, methods, and reporting requirements. We conclude that while more work is needed to realize the full potential of FCM in water treatment, distribution, and reuse, substantial progress has been made over the past two decades. There is now a sufficiently large body of research documenting successful applications of FCM that the approach could reasonably and realistically see widespread adoption as a routine method for water quality assessment.
Subject(s)
Drinking Water , Water Purification , Flow Cytometry , Water Quality , Water SupplyABSTRACT
Connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) are poised to reshape transportation and mobility by replacing humans as the driver and service provider. While the primary stated motivation for vehicle automation is to improve safety and convenience of road mobility, this transformation also provides a valuable opportunity to improve vehicle energy efficiency and reduce emissions in the transportation sector. Progress in vehicle efficiency and functionality, however, does not necessarily translate to net positive environmental outcomes. Here, we examine the interactions between CAV technology and the environment at four levels of increasing complexity: vehicle, transportation system, urban system, and society. We find that environmental impacts come from CAV-facilitated transformations at all four levels, rather than from CAV technology directly. We anticipate net positive environmental impacts at the vehicle, transportation system, and urban system levels, but expect greater vehicle utilization and shifts in travel patterns at the society level to offset some of these benefits. Focusing on the vehicle-level improvements associated with CAV technology is likely to yield excessively optimistic estimates of environmental benefits. Future research and policy efforts should strive to clarify the extent and possible synergetic effects from a systems level to envisage and address concerns regarding the short- and long-term sustainable adoption of CAV technology.
