Challenges in using allylthiourea and chlorate as specific nitrification inhibitors

Allylthiourea (ATU) and chlorate (ClO 3 −) are often used to selectively inhibit nitritation and nitratation. In this work we identified challenges with use of these compounds in inhibitory assays with filter material from a biological rapid sand filter for groundwater treatment. Inhibition was investigated in continuous-flow lab-scale columns, packed with filter material from a full-scale filter and supplied with NH 4 + or NO 2 −. ATU concentrations of 0.1–0.5 mM interfered with the indophenol blue method for NH 4 + quantification leading to underestimation of the measured NH 4 + concentration. Interference was stronger at higher ATU levels and resulted in no NH 4 + detection at 0.5 mM ATU. ClO 3 − at typical concentrations for inhibition assays (1–10 mM) inhibited nitratation by less than 6%, while nitritation was instead inhibited by 91% when NH 4 + was supplied. On the other hand, nitratation was inhibited by 67–71% at 10–20 mM ClO 3 − when NO 2 − was supplied, suggesting significant nitratation inhibition at higher NO 2 − concentrations. No chlorite (ClO 2 −) was detected in the effluent, and thus we could not confirm that nitritation inhibition was caused by ClO 3 − reduction to ClO 2 −. In conclusion, ATU and ClO 3 − should be used with caution in inhibition assays, because analytical interference and poor selectivity for the targeted process may affect the experimental outcome and compromise result interpretation. </p

The role of the genetic counsellor: a systematic review of research evidence

In Europe, genetic counsellors are employed in specialist genetic centres or other specialist units. According to the European Board of Medical Genetics, the genetic counsellor must fulfil a range of roles, including provision of information and facilitation of psychosocial adjustment of the client to their genetic status and situation. To evaluate the extent to which genetic counsellors fulfil their prescribed roles, we conducted a systematic review of the published relevant scientific evidence. We searched five relevant electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, SocIndex, AMED and PsychInfo) using relevant search terms and handsearched four subject-specific journals for research-based papers published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2013. Of 419 potential papers identified initially, seven satisfied the inclusion criteria for the review. Themes derived from the thematic analysis of the data were: (i) rationale for genetic counsellors to provide care, (ii) appropriate roles and responsibilities and (iii) the types of conditions included in the genetic counsellor caseload. The findings of this systematic review indicate that where genetic counsellors are utilised in specialist genetic settings, they undertake a significant workload associated with direct patient care and this appears to be acceptable to patients. With the burden on genetic services, there is an argument for the increased use of genetic counsellors in countries where they are under-utilised. In addition, roles undertaken by genetic counsellors in specialist genetic settings could be adapted to integrate genetic counsellors into multi-disciplinary teams in other specialisms