4.5 Article

Ethanol as complementary carbon source in Scenedesmus obliquus cultivation

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jctb.5059

关键词

microalgae; mixotrophic cultivation; ethanol feed rates; organic carbon source; fed-batch

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/51503-4]
  2. Coordenacao e Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES/PNPD), Brazil
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/51503-4] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Ethanol may be an attractive carbon source for microorganism growth for the production of several biomolecules. Nonetheless, high amounts of ethanol may be harmful for microbial cells. This study evaluated the effect of adding ethanol to the cultivation of Scenedesmus obliquus, under batch and fed-batch processes. RESULTS: A single addition of ethanol up to 460.00mgL(-1) did not influence cell growth, but above this threshold, different concentrations of ethanol had positive effects on maximum cell concentration. On the other hand, when ethanol was added daily for a period of 10 days, even the smallest ethanol feed rate (5.75mg L-1 d(-1); total added ethanol concentration= 57.5mg L-1) positively influenced maximum cell concentration. Daily addition of 368mgL(-1) (fed-batch culture; total added ethanol concentration= 3680mgL(-1)) allowed the best cell growth of this study, with maximum cell concentration of 1068.70mgL(-1) and cell productivity of 113 +/- 7.13mgL(-1) d(-1). Under this condition, the maximum specific growth rate and maximum cell concentration obtained with mixotrophic growth were 2.83 and 2.70 times higher, respectively, than those obtained with autotrophic growth. CONCLUSION: Cultures supplied with ethanol significantly improved cell growth. Addition of ethanol by a fed-batch process allowed the highest biomass production with a total added ethanol concentration that hindered cell growth by batch process. (C) 2016 Society of Chemical Industry

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

4.5
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