养殖场废水中磺胺类和四环素抗生素及其抗性基因的定量检测

抗生素滥用及其诱导产生的抗生素抗性基因（antibiotic resistance genes,ARGs）污染已经引起人们的广泛关注。选取上海市某地养殖场作为研究对象,采用高效液相色谱-质谱法和实时荧光定量PCR法,对养殖场污水及附近农田灌溉渠河水中5种四环素及磺胺类抗生素,8种对应的ARGs的含量、特征及相关性进行了研究。研究结果显示,在采集的水样中均含有待检测的5种抗生素,养殖污水中抗生素含量高于农田灌溉河水,各样本中四环素类抗生素含量均略高于磺胺类抗生素,2种四环素抗生素总量为294.0~376.1μg﹒L-1,3种磺胺类抗生素总量为197.7~323.0μg﹒L-1。养殖场污水样本中8种ARGs均有检出,磺胺类抗性基因中sul（A）含量最高,绝对拷贝数为108.4108~1010.3728;四环素类抗性基因中tet（W）含量最高,绝对拷贝数为106.18805~107.8874。农田灌溉渠河水中除tet B（P）外,其它7种ARGs均有检出。样本中ARGs相对表达量总体呈现磺胺类ARGs高于四环素类ARGs的特点。抗生素浓度与ARGs相对表达量的Pearson相关性分析显示,样本中sul（Ⅲ）与磺胺类抗生素浓度存在较明显的正相关性,但其它几种ARGs与抗生素则未见或存在一定负相关性。表明除抗生素外,ARGs在水环境中的丰度可能与ARGs种类及其它环境因子有关。该研究将有助于认识上海地区养殖场废水中抗生素和ARGs污染状况,为进一步开展黄浦江水域抗生素尤其是ARGs的污染研究提供数据基础。     

长江流域河流和湖库的浮游细菌群落差异

在长江流域自江源区至入海口的干流重点区域、八大一级支流和多个重点湖库设置了 177个样点开展浮游细菌调查,采用基于细菌16S rRNA基因的单分子实时测序技术研究浮游细菌群落的空间分布差异,期望在更广的调查范围和更高的物种注释精度上阐明长江流域浮游细菌群落结构的分布特征.首先分析了各采样点浮游细菌的α多样性状况,发现长...     

What’s in a name? Drivers’ perceptions of the use of five SAE Level 2 driving automation systems

Introduction: Automobile manufacturers are developing increasingly sophisticated driving automation systems. Currently, the highest level of automation available on the market is SAE Level 2, which provides sustained assistance for both lateral and longitudinal vehicle control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how drivers’ perceptions of what behaviors secondary to driving are safe while a Level 2 system is operating vary by system name. Methods: A nationally representative telephone survey of 2005 drivers was conducted in 2018 with questions about behaviors respondents perceived as safe while a Level 2 driving automation system is in operation. Each respondent was asked about two out of five system names at random for a balanced study design. Results: The name “Autopilot” was associated with the highest likelihood that drivers believed a behavior was safe while in operation, for every behavior measured. There was less variation observed among the other four SAE Level 2 system names when compared with each other. A limited proportion of drivers had experience with advanced driver assistance systems and fewer of these reported driving a vehicle in which Level 2 systems were available. Drivers reported that they would consult a variety of sources for information on how to use a Level 2 system. Conclusions: The names of SAE Level 2 driving automation systems influence drivers’ perceptions of how to use them, and the name “Autopilot” was associated with the strongest effect. While a name alone cannot properly instruct drivers on how to use a system, it is a piece of information and must be considered so that drivers are not misled about the correct usage of these systems. Practical Applications: Manufacturers, suppliers, and organizations regulating or evaluating SAE Level 2 automated driving systems should ensure that systems are named so as not to mislead drivers about their safe use.