ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2015
A Comparative Study on the Effects of Millisecond- and Microsecond-Pulsed Electric Field Treatments on the Permeabilization and Extraction of Pigments from Chlorella vulgaris.
Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrostimulation waveform optimization for enhancing biomass and macromolecule production in Chlorella vulgaris.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026Article
- Pulsed Electric Fields for Emerging Single-Cell Bioprocessing in Food Applications: Electropermeabilization Mechanisms and Design Principles.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Therapeutic potential of diosgenin in hepatocellular carcinoma through molecular mechanisms and nanodelivery strategies.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Microbial Pigments: Major Groups and Industrial Applications.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Comparative flavonoid profile of orange (Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Optimization of biogas yield from lignocellulosic materials with different pretreatment methods: a review.Biotechnology for biofuels · 2021Review
- Article
- Algal Proteins: Extraction, Application, and Challenges Concerning Production.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Recent updates on different methods of pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks: a review.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2017Review
- Innovative Alternative Technologies to Extract Carotenoids from Microalgae and Seaweeds.Marine drugs · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interdependencies of the two main processing parameters affecting "electroporation" (electric field strength and pulse duration) while using pulse duration in the range of milliseconds and microseconds on the permeabilization, inactivation, and extraction of pigments from Chlorella vulgaris was compared. While irreversible "electroporation" was observed above 4 kV/cm in the millisecond range, electric field strengths of ≥10 kV/cm were required in the microseconds range. However, to cause the electroporation of most of the 90 % of the population of C. vulgaris in the millisecond (5 kV/cm, 20 pulses) or microsecond (15 kV/cm, 25 pulses) range, the specific energy that was delivered was lower for microsecond treatments (16.87 kJ/L) than in millisecond treatments (150 kJ/L). In terms of the specific energy required to cause microalgae inactivation, treatments in the microsecond range also resulted in greater energy efficiency. The comparison of extraction yields in the range of milliseconds (5 kV, 20 ms) and microseconds (20, 25 pulses) under the conditions in which the maximum extraction was observed revealed that the improvement in the carotenoid extraction was similar and chlorophyll a and b extraction was slightly higher for treatments in the microsecond range. The specific energy that was required for the treatment in the millisecond range (150 kJ/L) was much higher than those required in the microsecond range (30 kJ/L). The comparison of the efficacy of both types of pulses on the extraction enhancement just after the treatment and after a post-pulse incubation period seemed to indicate that PEF in the millisecond range created irreversible alterations while, in the microsecond range, the defects were a dynamic structure along the post-pulse time that caused a subsequent increment in the extraction yield.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.