Search

This study evaluates the effect of aeration pretreatment to prepare an inoculum for H2 and CH4 production in a two-stage process. Moreover, the biochemical hydrogen potential and biochemical methane potential of waste from the food industry in a two-stage process was assessed. The results confirmed the possibility of using an aerobic stress for selecting a hydrogen-producing inoculum. The inoculum was fairly stable since no hydrogenotrophic–methanogenic activity was observed in 25 days. The yields measured using glucose as substrate were of approximately 160 and 280 N mL H 2 g COD - 1 of glucose for hydrogen and methane, respectively, which are in agreement with other studies using heat-shock for the pretreatment of the inoculum. When waste of the food industry (wheat milling) was used as substrate, a lower H2 yield was achieved by the aerobically-pretreated inoculum if compared to heat-shock; however, when combined with methane production in a two-stage process, much higher CH4 yield was achieved.

Objective To compare two staining methods to assess sperm morphology: Diff-Quik (DQ), which is the fastest of the recommended techniques, and Testsimplets (TS), a technique that uses prestained slides and is quite popular in in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers. Design Prospective study. Setting Patients at the Sterility Center of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit of the Hospital of S.S. Cosma and Damiano (Azienda USL 3 of Pistoia, Italy). Patient(s) 104 randomly enrolled male patients evaluated by the seminology laboratory. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Statistical comparison of sperm morphology results obtained after staining of semen samples both with DQ and TS. Result(s) Our data show that TS gives a statistically significantly lower number of normal forms than DQ (median: 6% [range: 0–29%] vs. 12% [range: 0–40%], respectively) as well as an overestimation of sperm head defects (median: 92.0% [range: 67%–100%] vs. 82.3% [range: 55%–100%], respectively). Conclusion(s) The two staining methods should not be considered equivalent. Specifically, the lower reference limit established by the World Health Organization is not appropriate when sperm morphology is assessed by TS. The routine application of TS in the evaluation of sperm morphology is therefore not recommended because it leads to an overestimation of patients with sperm morphology values below the lower reference limit (4%), thus potentially influencing clinical decisions.