Even though oil loss was enhanced by nutrient addition, active bioremediation in the form of exogenous nutrient addition might not be appropriate in cases where background nutrient levels are already sufficiently high to support high intrinsic rates of hydrocarbon biodegradation.

Acid mine drainage (AMD) containing high concentrations of sulfate and heavy metal ions can be treated by biological sulfate reduction. It has been reported that the effect of heavy metals on sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) can be stimulatory at lower concentrations and toxic/inhibitory at higher concentrations. The quantification of the toxic/inhibitory effect of dissolved heavy metals is critical for the design and operation of an effective AMD bioremediation process. Serum bottle and batch reactor studies on metal toxicity to SRB indicate that insoluble metal sulfides can inhibit the SRB activity as well. The mechanism of inhibition is postulated to be external to the bacterial cell. The experimental data indicate that the metal sulfides formed due to the reaction between the dissolved metal and biogenic sulfide act as barriers preventing the access of the reactants (sulfate, organic matter) to the necessary enzymes. Scanning electron micrographs of the SRB cultures exposed to copper and zinc provide supporting evidence for this hypothesis. The SRB cultures retained their ability to effect sulfate reduction indicating that the metal sulfides were not lethally toxic to the SRB. This phenomenon of metal sulfide inhibition of the SRB has to be taken into account while designing a sulfate-reducing bioreator, and subsequently an efficient biotreatment strategy for AMD. Any metal sulfide formed in the bioreactor needs to be removed immediately from the system to maintain the efficiency of the process of sulfate reduction.

The ESS Design: Accelerator 6The ESS Design: Target 66The ESS Design: Controls 93The ESS Design: Conventional Facilities 109Physica ScriptaPhys. Scr. 93 (2018) 014001 (121pp) https://doi.org/10. 1088/1402-4896/aa9bff This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 licence. Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Neutron scattering is a well-developed and extensively used means to get access to fundamental properties of biological matter as well as of physical materials. Until the end of the twentieth century that was mainly practiced with-and limited in performance by-the continuous flux of neutrons from ageing nuclear reactors (e.g. the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL), the flagship of neutron research in Europe and in the world) [1]). Looking forward to the following two decades, an OECD report published in 1998 diagnosed the foreseeable decrease of the number of operational facilities [2] and the need to progress in performance. Considering the high scientific interest and the increasing importance of the subject for society at large, the report concluded by strongly recommending the construction of next generation neutron sources in America, Europe and Asia. Pulsed spallation neutron sources (SNS) using a proton beam power exceeding 1 MW were specifically mentioned as the most interesting high performance facilities in the future landscape of neutron laboratories.The USA was the first country to follow this advice by building the SNS in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) which started in 2006 [3, 4]. Japan followed in 2009 with the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Centre (J-PARC) in Tokai [5,6]. In Europe, the subject was part of a concerted effort to further develop the European world-leading largescale research infrastructures suite. In 2003, the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), set up by the Research Ministries of the Member States and associated countries, concluded that a 5 MW long-pulse, single target station layout with nominally 22 'public' instruments was the optimum technical reference design for an European Spallation Source (ESS) that would meet the needs of the European science community in the second quarter of the century [7].Six years later, in 2009, it materialised in a real project with the adoption of the site of Lund (Sweden). A preconstruction phase followed until the end of 2013 during which the design was finalised [8]. Construction then started with the first neutron beams planned to be available in 2019, and the ESS facility to be operational at full performance in 2025.2 Description 2.1 Principle and specifics. The high level parameters of ESS are shown in table 1. As at SNS and J-PARC, neutrons at ESS are produced by spallation, when the 2 GeV protons hit the meta...

No abstract