4.7 Article

Pilot-scale crossflow ultrafiltration of four different cell-sized marine microalgae to assess the ultrafiltration performance and energy requirements

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.123681

关键词

Marine microalgae; Cell size; Permeate flux; Crossflow velocity; Energy consumption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, four marine microalgae with different cell sizes were harvested using pilot-scale ultrafiltration. The permeate fluxes ranged from 16.75 to 33.75 L/m2h, with the smallest cell size (Synechococcus) having the lowest flux and the largest cell size (Tetraselmis) having the highest flux. The concentrating factors ranged from 39.2 to 46.6, with the highest concentration achieved for Synechococcus. The energy requirement for harvesting varied from 16.44 to 28.48 GJ/tonne biomass, with smaller cell sizes requiring less energy.
Four marine microalgae (e.g., Tetraselmis, Picochlorum, Dunaliella, and Synechococcus) with different cell sizes were harvested using pilot-scale ultrafiltration. Average permeate fluxes were 16.75, 19, 25.35, and 33.75 L/m2h at 60 min for Synechococcus, Dunaliella, Picochlorum, and Tetraselmis, respectively. The concentrating factors for Synechococcus, Picochlorum, Dunaliella, and Tetraselmis were 46.6, 42, 39.2, and 39.5, respectively. The highest and lowest microalgal biomass retention was 47.1 and 41.7% for Tetraselmis and Synechococcus, respectively. Due to higher microalgal biomass retention, initial crossflow velocities of 0.16 to 0.18 m/s were reduced to 0.02 to 0.05 m/s for Tetraselmis and Dunaliella sp. The total harvesting energy requirement by membrane and centrifuge was 16.44 - 28.48 GJ/tonne biomass; the smaller the cell size, the lower the energy requirement. The optimum biomass concentrating factor by the membrane filtration process also depended on size; for optimum total energy requirement, tangential flow filtration (TFF) could concentrate a smaller strain more than a larger strain.

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

4.7
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