4.6 Article

Productivity and biochemical composition of Tetradesmus obliquus and Phaeodactylum tricornutum: effects of different cultivation approaches

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 3179-3192

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-016-0876-6

关键词

Microalgae; CO2 fixation; Biomass productivity; Wastewater; Photobioreactor; Pond

资金

  1. MIUR Industrial Research Project [PON01_01966]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present work evaluated biomass productivity, carbon dioxide fixation rate, and biochemical composition of two microalgal species, Phaeodactylum tricornutum (Bacillariophyta) and Tetradesmus obliquus (Chlorophyta), cultivated indoors in high-technology photobioreactors (HT-PBR) and outdoors both in pilot ponds and low-technology photobioreactors in a greenhouse in southern Italy. Microalgae were grown in standard media, under nitrogen starvation, and in two liquid digestates obtained from anaerobic digestion of agro-zootechnical and vegetable biomass. P. tricornutum, cultivated in semi-continuous mode in indoor HT-PBRs with standard medium, showed a biomass productivity of 21.0 +/- 2.3 g m(-2) d(-1). Applying nitrogen starvation, the lipid productivity increased from 2.3 up to 4.5 +/- 0.5 g m(-2) d(-1), with a 24 % decrease of biomass productivity. For T. obliquus, a biomass productivity of 9.1 +/- 0.9 g m(-2) d(-1) in indoor HT-PBR was obtained using standard medium. Applying liquid digestates as fertilizers in open ponds, T. obliquus gave a biomass productivity (10.8 +/- 2.0 g m(-2) d(-1)) not statistically different from complete medium such as P. tricornutum (6.5 +/- 2.2 g m(-2) d(-1)). The biochemical data showed that the fatty acid composition of the microalgal biomass was affected by the different cultivation conditions for both microalgae. In conclusion, it was found that the microalgal productivity in standard medium was about doubled in HT-PBR compared to open ponds for P. tricornutum and was about 20 % higher for T. obliquus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据