Comparison of nutrient removal capacity and biomass settleability of four high-potential microalgal species

Su, Yanyan; Mennerich, Artur; Urban, Brigitte

doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.037

Cited by 85 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6a, b. It could be seen that algae preferred to assimilate ammonium before nitrate, which was in accordance with the previous papers (Li et al 2011;Su et al 2012). The answer for ammonium preference is in the different nitrogen uptake mechanisms of microalgae that differ regarding nitrogen sources.…”

Section: Removal Of Ammonium In the Presence Of Nitratesupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Similarly as for pH, the values were increasing from the first day of the experiment. Regarding excessive concentrations of dissolved oxygen ([35 mg/L) that could inhibit microalgal growth (Kumar and Das 2012;Su et al 2012), no such effect was noticed herein, as the values were between 4 and 26 mg/L O 2 . However, strong correlation was observed between the dissolved oxygen and photosynthetic activity with illumination.…”

Section: Removal Of Nitrate Without Addition Of External Carbon Sourcementioning

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of carbon source on nitrate and ammonium removal from drinking water by immobilised Chlorella sorokiniana

Petrović

Simonič

2015

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feasibility of alginate-immobilised Chlorella sorokiniana for nitrate and ammonium removal from drinking water in regard to carbon source effects was studied in this paper. Three different natural carbon sources were tested in batch experiments with nitrate as nitrogen source: sucrose, grape juice and acacia honey. The nitrate removal efficiencies achieved at 50 mg/L of initial nitrate concentration under sucrose, grape juice and acacia honey were 93, 99 and 94 %, respectively. At 100 mg/L of nitrate, comparable efficiencies were obtained after approximately 3 days, whilst for acacia honey at 50 mg/L, it took only 2 days of cultivation and 3 days for the other two carbon sources. Grape juice and acacia honey showed better performances than sucrose, which must be linked to their chemical compositions. The study of the impact of biosorbent quantity on nitrate removal efficiency showed that sufficient nitrate removal efficiencies could be achieved with a beads/water ratio of 1:6.7 (v/v) or smaller. In addition, the beads' ages significantly impacted the nitrate removal. The removal of ammonium was studied in the presence of nitrate with acacia honey as carbon source.At the highest concentrations being tested (ammonium-30 mg/L and nitrate-50 mg/L), ammonium was completely removed in \3 days and nitrate by 81 % in 4 days, whereby the suitable beads/water ratio was 1:5. The priority of ammonium assimilation was noticed when compared to nitrate. According to the results, the alginateimmobilised C. sorokiniana represents a promising tool for the removal of nitrogen from drinking water sources.

show abstract

Section: Removal Of Ammonium In the Presence Of Nitratesupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Removal Of Nitrate Without Addition Of External Carbon Sourcementioning

confidence: 68%

The effect of carbon source on nitrate and ammonium removal from drinking water by immobilised Chlorella sorokiniana

Petrović

Simonič

2015

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They reported that Botryococcus braunii removed 79.63 % of the nitrogen and 100 % phosphorus from treated domestic wastewater in 14 days. Su et al (2012b) observed that Phormidium sp., Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus rubescens removed 99 % of total N within 7, 4, 6 and 6 days, and P in 4, 2, 3 and 4 days, respectively, from the effluent collected from wastewater treatment plant of Holthusen, Germany. Zhou et al (2012) reported that Auxenochlorella protothecoides was able to remove 59, 81 and 96 % of total N, P and C, respectively, when grown in concentrated municipal wastewater for 6 days.…”

Section: Use Of Municipal Wastewatermentioning

confidence: 99%

Phycoremediation of wastewaters: a synergistic approach using microalgae for bioremediation and biomass generation

Renuka

Sood

Prasanna

et al. 2014

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discharge of untreated domestic and industrial wastewater into aquatic bodies is posing a serious eutrophication threat, leading to a slow degradation of the water resources. A number of physical, chemical and biological methods have been developed for the treatment of wastewaters; among these, the use of microalgae is considered as a more eco-friendly and economical approaches. Microalgae are versatile organisms which perform multiple roles in the environment-bioremediation of wastewater, gleaning of excess nutrients and in turn, generate valuable biomass which finds applications in the food, biofuel and pharmaceutical industries. They are currently being utilized to reduce the high nutrient load (especially N and P) from wastewaters, which fulfill the growth requirements of microalgae, making it a suitable cultivation medium for biomass production. The present review represents a comprehensive compilation of reports on microalgal diversity of wastewaters, followed by a critical overview of their utilization, suitability and potential in bioremediation vis-a-vis biomass production. This review also emphasizes the superiority of polyalgal and consortial approaches in wastewater treatment, as compared to the use of unialgal inocula, besides providing useful pointers for future research needs in this area.

show abstract

“…Cultures of otherwise non-flocculating species microalgae can be 'trained' to induce bioflocculation. For instance, Su et al (2012) repeatedly removed all microalgae that remained in suspension and kept only the rapidly settling microalgae and after one month obtained a culture that flocculated spontaneously. A major advantage of spontaneous flocculation of microalgae is that no chemicals are added during the process and the harvested biomass is free from contaminants.…”

Section: Bioflocculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting of Microalgae by Means of Flocculation

Muylaert

Vandamme

Foubert

et al. 2015

Biofuel and Biorefinery Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale production of microalgae for biofuels is still facing several major challenges to become competitive with other forms of renewable and nonrenewable energy. A major challenge is harvesting, which requires the separation of a low amount of biomass consisting of small individual cells from a large volume of culture medium. Flocculation is seen as a promising low-cost harvesting method for microalgae biomass. In this chapter, the challenges and potential advantages of using flocculation as a harvesting method for microalgae are reviewed.

show abstract

Comparison of nutrient removal capacity and biomass settleability of four high-potential microalgal species

Cited by 85 publications

References 31 publications

The effect of carbon source on nitrate and ammonium removal from drinking water by immobilised Chlorella sorokiniana

The effect of carbon source on nitrate and ammonium removal from drinking water by immobilised Chlorella sorokiniana

Phycoremediation of wastewaters: a synergistic approach using microalgae for bioremediation and biomass generation

Harvesting of Microalgae by Means of Flocculation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About