4.7 Article

Influence of Different Light Sources on the Biochemical Composition of Arthrospira spp. Grown in Model Systems

期刊

FOODS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11030399

关键词

Arthrospira platensis; Arthrospira maxima; spirulina; light sources; food applications; nutraceutics

资金

  1. Italian Society of Food Chemistry (Itachemfood)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effects of different light sources on the growth and biomass composition of spirulina. The results showed that different strains responded differently to light, and white and orange lights had similar effects on chlorophyll and carotenoid levels. In addition, different light sources also affected the dry weight, carbohydrate content, and protein content of spirulina.
Arthrospira platensis and Arthrospira maxima are prokaryotic microalgae commercially marketed as spirulina. The pigments extracted from these algae are widely used for cosmetic and nutraceutical applications. This work aimed to evaluate the influence of three light-emitting lamps (white, orange and blue) on the growth and biomass composition of two strains of A. platensis (M2 and M2M) and one of A. maxima. The obtained data show strain- and light-dependent responses of the microalgae. In addition, white and orange lights led to a similar overall effect by increasing the levels of chlorophyll a and carotenoids. However, exposure to orange light resulted in the highest dry weight (5973.3 mg L-1 in M2M), whereas white light stimulated an increase in the carbohydrate fraction (up to 42.36 g 100 g(-1) in A. maxima). Conversely, blue light led to a constant increase in the concentration of phycocyanin (14 g 100 g(-1) in A. maxima) and a higher content of proteins in all strains. These results provide important environmental information for modulating the growth of different spirulina strains, which can be used to address the synthesis of biochemical compounds of strategic importance for the development of new nutraceutical foods.

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