4.5 Article

Biomass and Astaxanthin Productivities of Haematococcus pluvialis in an Angled Twin-Layer Porous Substrate Photobioreactor: Effect of Inoculum Density and Storage Time

期刊

BIOLOGY-BASEL
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biology8030068

关键词

Haematococcus pluvialis; astaxanthin; porous substrate photobioreactor; a horizontal (low-angled) twin-layer photobioreactor

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Industry and Trade [DT03.16/CNSHCB]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The microalga Haematococcus pluvialis is mainly cultivated in suspended systems for astaxanthin production. Immobilized cultivation on a Twin-Layer porous substrate photobioreactor (TL-PSBR) has recently shown promise as an alternative approach. In Vietnam, a TL-PSBR was constructed as a low-angle (15 degrees) horizontal system to study the cultivation of H. pluvialis for astaxanthin production. In this study, the biomass and astaxanthin productivities and astaxanthin content in the dry biomass were determined using different initial biomass (inoculum) densities (from 2.5 to 10 g dry weight m(-2)), different storage times of the initial biomass at 4 degrees C (24, 72, 120 and 168 h) and different light intensities (300-1000 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1)). The optimal initial biomass density at light intensities between 400-600 mu mol photons(-2) s(-1) was 5-7.5 g m(-2). Algae stored for 24 h after harvest from suspension for immobilization on the TL-PSBR yielded the highest biomass and astaxanthin productivities, 8.7 g m(-2) d(-1) and 170 mg m(-2) d(-1), respectively; longer storage periods decreased productivity. Biomass and astaxanthin productivities were largely independent of light intensity between 300-1000 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1) but the efficiency of light use per mole photons was highest between 300-500 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1). The astaxanthin content in the dry biomass varied between 2-3% (w/w). Efficient supply of CO2 to the culture medium remains a task for future improvements of angled TL-PSBRs.

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