010X + 1.318 0.89 ROS-neutralised Y= − 0.012X + 1.380 0.89 Effect of humic acid Figure 6 shows the log inactivation of A. hydrophila for water samples with or without humic acid at 10 mg L-1 through the TFFBR system. Water samples with humic acid showed almost 0. 4 log inactivation in both aerobic and ROS-neutralised condition. On the other hand water samples without humic acid showed almost 1.3 log inactivation in both conditions. This is close to a ten fold difference in the actual level of inactivation between these samples. Both water samples had initial counts of 1.4 × 105 CFU mL-1 whereas without humic acids this Smad inhibitor dropped to 1.0 × 104 CFU mL-1 after

TFFBR while with humic acids this stayed high at 5.0 × 104 CFU mL-1 after TFFBR. Under full sunlight condition in the TFFBR, there was negligible cell injury observed, since similar counts were obtained under aerobic and ROS-neutralised conditions.

It is clear that a humic acid content of 10 mg L-1 has a major negative effect on solar photocatalysis at high sunlight and low flow rate conditions. Figure 6 Effect of humic acid (HA) on the inactivation of Aeromonas hydrophila ATCC 35654. Experiments were carried out using the TFFBR under an average value of global irradiance of 1037 W m-2at low flow rate 4.8 L h-1. Enumeration was performed under aerobic (unshaded bars) and ROS neutralised (shaded bars) conditions Comparison of PF-6463922 supplier inactivation of A. hydrophila in pond water and spring water Figure 7 shows the differences in the inactivation levels of A. hydrophila inoculated into aquaculture Tacrolimus (FK506) pond waters (filtered and unfiltered) and spring water and then run across the TFFBR plate under high solar irradiance conditions. Filtered pond water and spring water showed a similar level of A. hydrophila inactivation within a range of 1.22 – 1.32 log inactivation under both aerobic and ROS-neutralised

conditions, where the initial count was 5.1 log CFU mL-1. On the other hand, with the same experimental conditions, unfiltered pond water showed a log inactivation of 0.2 under aerobic condition and 0.15 log CFU mL-1 under ROS-neutralised condition. During the experiments, several water quality variables (pH, salinity conductivity and turbidity levels) were LEE011 measured before and after treating the water samples through the TFFBR (Table 2). Figure 7 Comparison of log inactivation of A. hydrophila ATCC 35654 inoculated in pond water (filtered, un-filtered) and spring water. Experiments were carried out using the TFFBR under an average value of global irradiance of 1021 W m-2 at low flow rate 4.8 L h-1. Enumeration was carried out at under aerobic (unshaded bars) and ROS neutralised (shaded bars) conditions Table 2 Experimental conditions of different variables while conducting the inactivation of A .hydrophila through TFFBR Experiment No.