The Experts below are selected from a list of 13860 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

James Sinclair - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A review of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins removal/inactivation in drinking water treatment
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Judy A Westrick, David C. Szlag, Benjamin J. Southwell, James Sinclair
    Abstract:

    This review focuses on the efficiency of different water treatment processes for the removal of cyanotoxins from potable water. Although several investigators have studied full-scale drinking water processes to determine the efficiency of cyanotoxin inactivation, many of the studies were based on ancillary practice. In this context, “ancillary practice” refers to the removal or inactivation of cyanotoxins by standard daily Operational procedures and without a contingency Operational Plan utilizing specific treatment barriers. In this review, “auxiliary practice” refers to the implementation of inactivation/removal treatment barriers or Operational changes explicitly designed to minimize risk from toxin-forming algae and their toxins to make potable water. Furthermore, the best drinking water treatment practices are based on extension of the multibarrier approach to remove cyanotoxins from water. Cyanotoxins are considered natural contaminants that occur worldwide and specific classes of cyanotoxins have shown regional prevalence. For example, freshwaters in the Americas often show high concentrations of microcystin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin, whereas Australian water sources often show high concentrations of microcystin, cylindrospermopsin, and saxitoxins. Other less frequently reported cyanotoxins include lyngbyatoxin A, debromoaplysiatoxin, and β-N-methylamino-l-alanine. This review focuses on the commonly used unit processes and treatment trains to reduce the toxicity of four classes of cyanotoxins: the microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin-a, and saxitoxins. The goal of this review is to inform the reader of how each unit process participates in a treatment train and how an auxiliary multibarrier approach to water treatment can provide safer water for the consumer.

Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2014) 2985–2996. Doi:10.1007/s00216-014-8250-5. [10] P. Mccarron, S.d. Giddings, K.l. Reeves, P. H - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A review of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins removal/inactivation in drinking water treatment
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408 (2016) 915–932. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-9183-3. [1] L. Tartaglione, A. Mazzeo, C. Dell’aversano, M, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2016) 5737–5743. Doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9675-9. [2] X.-q. Mei, X.-p. He, J.-t. Wang, Molecularly I, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2016) 3057–3058. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-9292-z. [3] T. Younos, Luis M . Botana , M . Carmen Louzao, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 95–116. Doi:10.1007/s00216-014-8193-x. [4] K.l. Bruce, S.c. Leterme, A. V. Ellis, C.e. Le, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 6345–6356. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8637-y. [6] G. Orellana, L. Van Meulebroek, S. Van Vooren,, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 5487–5501. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8722-2. [7] A. Roy-lachapelle, M. Solliec, S. Sauvé, Deter, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2015) 5353–5363. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8695-1. [8] C. Hollingdale, K. Thomas, N. Lewis, K. B??kri, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 3743–3750. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8597-2. [9] R. Andrýs, J. Zurita, N. Zguna, K. Verschueren, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2014) 2985–2996. Doi:10.1007/s00216-014-8250-5. [10] P. Mccarron, S.d. Giddings, K.l. Reeves, P. H
    Abstract:

    This review focuses on the efficiency of different water treatment processes for the removal of cyanotoxins from potable water. Although several investigators have studied full-scale drinking water processes to determine the efficiency of cyanotoxin inactivation, many of the studies were based on ancillary practice. In this context, "ancillary practice" refers to the removal or inactivation of cyanotoxins by standard daily Operational procedures and without a contingency Operational Plan utilizing specific treatment barriers. In this review, "auxiliary practice" refers to the implementation of inactivation/removal treatment barriers or Operational changes explicitly designed to minimize risk from toxin-forming algae and their toxins to make potable water. Furthermore, the best drinking water treatment practices are based on extension of the multibarrier approach to remove cyanotoxins from water. Cyanotoxins are considered natural contaminants that occur worldwide and specific classes of cyanotoxins have shown regional prevalence. For example, freshwaters in the Americas often show high concentrations of microcystin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin, whereas Australian water sources often show high concentrations of microcystin, cylindrospermopsin, and saxitoxins. Other less frequently reported cyanotoxins include lyngbyatoxin A, debromoaplysiatoxin, and beta-N-methylamino-L-alanine. This review focuses on the commonly used unit processes and treatment trains to reduce the toxicity of four classes of cyanotoxins: the microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin-a, and saxitoxins. The goal of this review is to inform the reader of how each unit process participates in a treatment train and how an auxiliary multibarrier approach to water treatment can provide safer water for the consumer.

Michael G H Bell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • optimizing train Operational Plan in an urban rail corridor based on the maximum headway function
    Transportation Research Part C-emerging Technologies, 2017
    Co-Authors: Shuo Zhao, Zhao Zhou, Pu Wang, Michael G H Bell
    Abstract:

    Abstract The train Operational Plan (TOP) plays a crucial role in the efficient and effective operation of an urban rail system. We optimize the train Operational Plan in a special network layout, an urban rail corridor with one terminal yard, by decomposing it into two sub-problems, i.e., the train departure profile optimization and the rolling stock circulation optimization. The first sub-problem synthetically optimizes frequency setting, timetabling and the rolling stock circulation at the terminal without a yard. The maximum headway function is generated to ensure the service of the train Operational Plan without considering travel demand, then we present a model to minimize the number of train trips, and design a heuristic algorithm to maximize the train headway. On the basis of a given timetable, the rolling stock circulation optimization only involves the terminal with a yard. We propose a model to minimize the number of trains and yard–station runs, and an algorithm to find the optimal assignment of train-trip pair connections is designed. The computational complexities of the two algorithms are both linear. Finally, a real case study shows that the train Operational Plan developed by our approach enables a better match of train headway and travel demand, and reduces the Operational cost while satisfying the requirement of the level of service.

Judy A Westrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A review of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins removal/inactivation in drinking water treatment
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Judy A Westrick, David C. Szlag, Benjamin J. Southwell, James Sinclair
    Abstract:

    This review focuses on the efficiency of different water treatment processes for the removal of cyanotoxins from potable water. Although several investigators have studied full-scale drinking water processes to determine the efficiency of cyanotoxin inactivation, many of the studies were based on ancillary practice. In this context, “ancillary practice” refers to the removal or inactivation of cyanotoxins by standard daily Operational procedures and without a contingency Operational Plan utilizing specific treatment barriers. In this review, “auxiliary practice” refers to the implementation of inactivation/removal treatment barriers or Operational changes explicitly designed to minimize risk from toxin-forming algae and their toxins to make potable water. Furthermore, the best drinking water treatment practices are based on extension of the multibarrier approach to remove cyanotoxins from water. Cyanotoxins are considered natural contaminants that occur worldwide and specific classes of cyanotoxins have shown regional prevalence. For example, freshwaters in the Americas often show high concentrations of microcystin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin, whereas Australian water sources often show high concentrations of microcystin, cylindrospermopsin, and saxitoxins. Other less frequently reported cyanotoxins include lyngbyatoxin A, debromoaplysiatoxin, and β-N-methylamino-l-alanine. This review focuses on the commonly used unit processes and treatment trains to reduce the toxicity of four classes of cyanotoxins: the microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin-a, and saxitoxins. The goal of this review is to inform the reader of how each unit process participates in a treatment train and how an auxiliary multibarrier approach to water treatment can provide safer water for the consumer.

Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408 (2016) 915–932. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-9183-3. [1] L. Tartaglione, A. Mazzeo, C. Dell’aversano, M - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A review of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins removal/inactivation in drinking water treatment
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408 (2016) 915–932. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-9183-3. [1] L. Tartaglione, A. Mazzeo, C. Dell’aversano, M, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2016) 5737–5743. Doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9675-9. [2] X.-q. Mei, X.-p. He, J.-t. Wang, Molecularly I, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2016) 3057–3058. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-9292-z. [3] T. Younos, Luis M . Botana , M . Carmen Louzao, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 95–116. Doi:10.1007/s00216-014-8193-x. [4] K.l. Bruce, S.c. Leterme, A. V. Ellis, C.e. Le, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 6345–6356. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8637-y. [6] G. Orellana, L. Van Meulebroek, S. Van Vooren,, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 5487–5501. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8722-2. [7] A. Roy-lachapelle, M. Solliec, S. Sauvé, Deter, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. (2015) 5353–5363. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8695-1. [8] C. Hollingdale, K. Thomas, N. Lewis, K. B??kri, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2015) 3743–3750. Doi:10.1007/s00216-015-8597-2. [9] R. Andrýs, J. Zurita, N. Zguna, K. Verschueren, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407 (2014) 2985–2996. Doi:10.1007/s00216-014-8250-5. [10] P. Mccarron, S.d. Giddings, K.l. Reeves, P. H
    Abstract:

    This review focuses on the efficiency of different water treatment processes for the removal of cyanotoxins from potable water. Although several investigators have studied full-scale drinking water processes to determine the efficiency of cyanotoxin inactivation, many of the studies were based on ancillary practice. In this context, "ancillary practice" refers to the removal or inactivation of cyanotoxins by standard daily Operational procedures and without a contingency Operational Plan utilizing specific treatment barriers. In this review, "auxiliary practice" refers to the implementation of inactivation/removal treatment barriers or Operational changes explicitly designed to minimize risk from toxin-forming algae and their toxins to make potable water. Furthermore, the best drinking water treatment practices are based on extension of the multibarrier approach to remove cyanotoxins from water. Cyanotoxins are considered natural contaminants that occur worldwide and specific classes of cyanotoxins have shown regional prevalence. For example, freshwaters in the Americas often show high concentrations of microcystin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin, whereas Australian water sources often show high concentrations of microcystin, cylindrospermopsin, and saxitoxins. Other less frequently reported cyanotoxins include lyngbyatoxin A, debromoaplysiatoxin, and beta-N-methylamino-L-alanine. This review focuses on the commonly used unit processes and treatment trains to reduce the toxicity of four classes of cyanotoxins: the microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin-a, and saxitoxins. The goal of this review is to inform the reader of how each unit process participates in a treatment train and how an auxiliary multibarrier approach to water treatment can provide safer water for the consumer.