There was considered the approach, combining the use of the cyanobacteria Synechococsus SP. PCC 6301 culture diffusion and biotesting method by identifying structural changes of cellular proteins (Δp index) at various external influences and recorded by internal reflection infrared spectroscopy. This approach allows to evaluate the quality of the water medium in environmental monitoring as natural watercourses in situ and in the laboratory conditions.

Ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ äàííûå êîíòðîëÿ ñîñòîÿíèÿ âîäíîé ýêîñèñòåìû, ïîëó÷åííûå ïðè ðå-ãèñòðàöèè èçìåíåíèé ïðîñòðàíñòâåííî-âðåìåííûṍ ïàðàìåòðîâ öåëûõ êëåòîê è èõ âíåøíèõ ñòðóêòóð ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì ñïåêòðîñêîïèè âíóòðåííåãî îòðàaeåíèÿ.  êà÷åñòâå áèîèíäèêàòîðà ïðèìåíÿåòñÿ äèàëèçíàÿ êóëüòóðà ìèêðîâîäîðîñëåé ñ êîíòðîëèðóåìîé "âíåøíåé ñðåäîé". Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: ìèêðîîðãàíèçìû, äèàëèçíîå êóëüòèâèðîâàíèå, ñïåêòðîñêîïèÿ âíóòðåí-íåãî îòðàaeåíèÿ.Îñíîâíîé è äî ñèõ ïîð íå ðåøåííîé ïðîáëåìîé ïîääåðaeàíèÿ êà÷åñòâà ñðåäû è óïðàâëåíèÿ ïðèðîä-íûìè ðåñóðñàìè â öåëîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðîáëåìà îòñóòñò-âèÿ ðåïðåçåíòàòèâíûõ ìåòîäîâ è ìåòîäîëîãèé îöåíêè ñîñòîÿíèÿ ñðåäû. Ìíîãîëåòíèé îïûò èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ íîðìàòèâîâ ÏÄÊ (ïðåäåëüíî äîïóñòèìûõ êîíöåíò-ðàöèè â ñðåäå íåêîòîðîãî íàáîðà âåùåñòâ) è êâîò íà âûáðîñû çàãðÿçíèòåëåé ïîêàçàë, ÷òî îíè íå ÿâëÿþò-ñÿ ðåàëüíîé ãðàíèöåé ìåaeäó îïàñíîñòüþ è áåçîïàñ-íîñòüþ, à ñëóaeàò ñêîðåå îáîçíà÷åíèåì íåêîòîðîãî óðîâíÿ ðèñêà, ðàçëè÷íîãî íå òîëüêî äëÿ îðãàíèçìîâ, ñîñòàâëÿþùèõ ýêîñèñòåìû, íî äàaeå äëÿ ðàçíûõ ãðóïï íàñåëåíèÿ [1]. Êàê ñëåäñòâèå â ñèñòåìå ìîíèòîðèí-ãà ïîâåðõíîñòíûõ ïðåñíûõ âîä íàáëþäàåòñÿ ïåðåõîä îò ÷èñòî õèìè÷åñêîãî êîíòðîëÿ ê áèîëîãè÷åñêîé êîí-öåïöèè -ïîìèìî íîðì ÏÄÊ â ñèñòåìå ýêîëîãè÷å-ñêîãî êîíòðîëÿ èñïîëüçóþòñÿ áèîòåñòû.Ïðè âñåì ðàçíîîáðàçèè ïîäõîäîâ ê ðåøåíèþ äàí-íîé ïðîáëåìû íè îäèí èç íèõ íå ïðèâåë ïîêà ê ðàç-ðàáîòêå êàêîãî-ëèáî ìåòîäà, êîòîðûé ìîaeíî áûëî áû áåçîãîâîðî÷íî ðåêîìåíäîâàòü äëÿ ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî èñ-ïîëüçîâàíèÿ [2,3]. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó â ñóùåñòâóþùèõ ñèñòåìàõ ýêîëîãè÷åñêîãî ìîíèòîðèíãà ïðèìåíÿþòñÿ ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì ýêñïåðòíûå îöåíêè êà÷åñòâà ïðè-ðîäíîé ñðåäû. Ìåòîäû, îñíîâàííûå íà àíàëèçå âè-äîâîãî ñîñòàâà, òðåáóþò ñåðüåçíûõ ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé äëÿ óñòàíîâëåíèÿ ñîñòàâà ñîîáùåñòâà è åãî äèíàìèêè ïðè ðàçëè÷íûõ èçìåíåíèÿõ ñðåäû. Òàê, ïðè ïðîâåäåíèè ýêîëîãè÷åñêîãî ìîíèòîðèíãà ïðåñíûõ âîä îïðåäåëÿþò îáèëèå è âèäîâîé ñîñòàâ ïëàíêòîíà, ïåðèôèòîíà è çîîáåíòîñà, à ñîñòîÿíèå êàae-äîãî èç ýòèõ áèîòè÷åñêèõ èäåíòèôèêàòîðîâ îöåíè-âàåòñÿ ïóòåì ðàñ÷åòà. Áèîòè÷åñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ ìåaeäó ïîïóëÿöèÿìè â ñîîáùåñòâå, òàêèå êàê êîíêóðåíöèÿ, ìóòóàëèçì è äð., êàê ïðàâèëî, íå ó÷èòûâàþòñÿ.  êà-÷åñòâå âîçìîaeíîãî èíòåãðàëüíîãî ïîêàçàòåëÿ íîðìû èëè ïàòîëîãèè äëÿ ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ ýêîñèñòåì, ò.å. ñâîåîáðàçíîãî "ãðàäóñíèêà", ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðûõ ìîaeíî áûëî áû îòëè÷èòü ýêîëîãè÷åñêè áëàãîïîëó÷-íóþ ýêîñèñòåìó îò ýêîñèñòåìû, â êîòîðîé ïðîèçîø-ëè ñóùåñòâåííûå èçìåíåíèÿ, âûçâàííûå âíåøíèìè (â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü àíòðîïîãåííûìè) âîçäåéñòâèÿìè, ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü àíàëèç ðàíãîâûõ ðàñïðåäåëåíèé ÷èñ-ëåííîñòè èëè áèîìàññû ãðóïï aeèâûõ îðãàíèçìîâ; ãðàäàöèè ñîñòîÿíèÿ ýêîñèñòåì èëè ïîêàçàòåëè ïðî-äóêòèâíîñòè èõ âûñøèõ òðîôè÷åñêèõ çâåíüåâ [2][3][4].Îäíàêî àáñîëþòíûõ áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ âåëè÷èí, èìå-þùèõ îäèíàêîâûé ñìûñë äëÿ âñåõ ýêîñèñòåì íåçà-âèñèìî îò òèïà è ãåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ïîëîaeåíèÿ ïî-ñëåäíèõ, íå ñóùåñòâóåò. Ðàâíûìè êîëè÷åñòâåííûìè õàðàêòåðèñòèêàìè (íàïðèìåð, îäíèì è òåì aeå çíà-÷åíèåì ïåðâè÷íîé ïðîäóêöèè) ìîãóò îáëàäàòü ýêî-ñèñòåìû, íàõîäÿùèåñÿ â ïðèíöèïèàëüíî ðàçëè÷íûõ ñîñòîÿíèÿõ. Òîëüêî îñíîâíûå êà÷åñòâåííûå ñîñòîÿ-íèÿ èíâàðèàíòíû äëÿ âñåõ áåç èñêëþ÷åí...

The problem of applying the insignificance of administrative offenses is relevant in the scientific community. Many authors, such as Yu. P. Solovey, E. V. Sergeeva, O. V. Derbina, L. Ch. Kupeeva and others, in different years raised issues related to the insignificance of offenses in their scientific activities. The Authors studied the objectivity of the application of insignificance to the formal elements of offenses, the effectiveness of oral remarks, and possible criteria for recognizing an offense as insignificant. The appraisal of the concepts enshrined in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) makes it possible to ensure the flexibility of legislation in sentencing. However, in the particular case under consideration, evaluativeness and the lack of clear criteria for the use of insignificance contribute to the blurring of the boundaries of responsibility. The results of the statistical study cited by the Authors show that for 2019–2021. a significant number of proceedings on administrative offenses were terminated precisely on the basis of Art. 2.9 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, which indicates the importance of the criteria by which the possibility of applying insignificance and the conditions to be analyzed by an official of the relevant administrative body or a judge is assessed. As a criterion of insignificance of administrative offenses, the objective side of which is characterized by the receipt of income or damage, the Authors propose to use the amount of such income or damage. According to the Authors, the classification of an administrative tort as insignificant is possible when receiving income or causing damage that does not exceed 1/30 of the subsistence minimum in the whole of the Russian Federation per capita, provided for the calendar year in which the administrative offense was committed (for 2023 – 480 rubles). Given the above, the Authors indicate the need for legislative consolidation of the categories of administrative offenses and circumstances in the commission or occurrence of which the application of the legal institution of insignificance is unacceptable. One of these circumstances, at the suggestion of the Authors, is the absence of a person held liable when considering a case of an administrative offense.