| Title |
Two-stage mixotrophic cultivation for enhancing the biomass and lipid productivity of Chlorella vulgaris
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-017-0488-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hongwu Cui, Fanping Meng, Feng Li, Yuejie Wang, Weiyan Duan, Yichen Lin |
| Abstract |
This study proposes a two-stage mixotrophic process for cultivating Chlorella vulgaris. Heterotrophic growth is the dominant step in Phase I (to increase microalgal biomass) and photoautotrophic growth occurs in Phase II (to improve biomass concentration and lipid production). The results show that the addition of the low-cost antioxidant sodium erythorbate (8 g L(-1)) significantly accelerates the growth of microalgae in the first stage with air aeration. Furthermore, a higher CO2 fixation rate was obtained in the second stage (at least 344.32 mg CO2 L(-1) day(-1)) with 10% CO2 aeration. This approximately corresponds to an increase of 177% over simple photoautotrophic cultivation with 10% CO2 aeration during the whole period. The two-stage cultivation strategy achieved a maximum C. vulgaris biomass concentration of 3.45 g L(-1) and lipid productivity of 43.70 mg L(-1) day(-1), which are 1.85 and 1.64 times those arising due to simple photoautotrophy, respectively. Moreover, an analysis of the product's fatty acid profile indicates that C. vulgaris might be an ideal candidate for two-stage mixotrophic cultivation of a renewable biomass for use in biodiesel applications. Another interesting point to note from the study is that it is an insufficiency of N and CO2 that probably limits the further growth of C. vulgaris. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 25% |
| Engineering | 8 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Energy | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#447
of 1,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,954
of 324,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#22
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,240 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.