4.4 Article

Scenedesmus Biomass Productivity and Nutrient Removal from Wet Market Wastewater, A Bio-kinetic Study

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 2783-2800

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-018-0313-y

关键词

Pseudo-first order kinetic model; Verhulst logistic kinetic model; Growth rate; Scenedesmus sp

资金

  1. EScience Fund Project by Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia (MOSTI) [02-01-13-SF0135]
  2. Office for Research, Innovation, Commercialization, and Consultancy Management (ORICC) [vot U682]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study aims to investigate the production of microalgae biomass as a function for different wet market wastewater ratios (10, 25, 50, 75 and 100%) and Scenedesmus sp. initial concentrations (10(4), 10(5), 10(6), 10(7) cells/mL) through the phycoremediation process. The biomass production, total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and total organic compounds (TOC) were determined daily. The pseudo-first order kinetic model was used to measure the potential of Scendesmus sp. in removing nutrients while the Verhulst logistic kinetic model was used to study the growth kinetic. The study revealed that the maximum productivity of Scenedesmus sp. biomass was recorded with 10(6) cells/mL of the initial concentration in 50% wet market wastewater (98.54 mg/L/day), and the highest removal of TP, TN, and TOC was obtained (85, 90 and 65% respectively). Total protein and lipid contents in the biomass yield produced in the wet market wastewater were more than that in the biomass produced in the BBM (41.7 vs. 37.4 and 23.2 vs. 19.2%, respectively). The results of GC-MS confirmed detection of 44 compounds in the biomass from the wet market wastewater compared to four compounds in the BBM. These compounds have several applications in pharmaceutical and personal care products, chemical industry and antimicrobial activity. These findings indicated the applicability of wet market wastewater as a production medium for microalgae biomass.

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

4.4
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