ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2018
Microalgae
Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Pond to Plate: Tailored Functional Proteins for Next-Gen Microalgal Food.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in Microalgal Biomass Harvesting: Sustainable Approaches for Biofuel and Biorefinery Applications.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
- Surfactant-Mediated Microalgal Flocculation: Process Efficiency and Kinetic Modelling.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cultivation of microalgae-bacteria consortium by waste gas-waste water to achieve COBiotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts · 2024Review
- HarvestingMarine drugs · 2023Article
- The Optimization ofIndian journal of microbiology · 2022Article
- High-quality Chlorella vulgaris biomass harvesting through chitosan and polyacrylamid2e.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Sustainable microalgal biomass production in food industry wastewater for low-cost biorefinery products: a review.Phytochemistry reviews : proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe · 2022Review
- Developing algae as a sustainable food source.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Review
- Sustainably Cultivating and Harvesting Microalgae through Sedimentation and Forward Osmosis Using Wastes.ACS omega · 2021Article
- The scientometric analysis of the research on microalgae-based wastewater treatment.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
- Efficient Bioflocculation ofBiology · 2021Article
- A review on microalgae cultivation and harvesting, and their biomass extraction processing using ionic liquids.Bioengineered · 2020Review
- Intracellular Metabolomics Switching Alters Extracellular Acid Production and Insoluble Phosphate Solubilization Behavior inMetabolites · 2020Article
- Microalgae harvesting by magnetic flocculation for biodiesel production: current status and potential.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2020Review
- Analysis of Scientific Research Driving Microalgae Market Opportunities in Europe.Marine drugs · 2020Review
- Investigation of electrolytic flocculation for microalgaRSC advances · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroalgal biomass harvesting using traditional chemicals is costly for the production of biofuels, hindering the scale-up process of the technology. Thus, the search for a cost-effective microalgal harvesting method is extremely important. Using chitosan as a natural flocculant to harvest microalgal biomass seems to be an efficient and convenient solution. Although microalgal biomass flocculation by chitosan has been reported in some previous studies, literature on the harvesting of microalgae
resultsIn this study, microalgal biomass harvesting using chitosan as a natural flocculant and aluminum sulfate as a traditional flocculant was compared and evaluated. Optimal doses and effects on biomass sedimentation, spent medium recycling and lipid extraction were investigated. The results showed that the optimal doses for chitosan and aluminum sulfate to achieve more than 90% biomass recovery were 0.25 and 2.5 g/L, respectively. The sedimentation time of 10 min was found to be the most appropriate to remove over 90% biomass from culture. The spent medium after chitosan flocculation could be potentially recycled for the re-cultivation of microalgae, which demonstrated robust growth in comparison with those grown in the recycled medium from aluminum sulfate flocculation. The lipid content of microalgae harvested by chitosan reached 32.9, 4.6% higher than that of those harvested by aluminum sulfate, indicating that the application of the natural flocculant would not impact the downstream extraction of microalgal lipids.
conclusionThe results herein presented, demonstrated that chitosan is applicable for microalgal harvesting during the upscaling process. Flocculation method developed by using chitosan as a natural flocculant is a worthy microalgal harvesting method for microalgae-based biofuel production. There is hope that chitosan can be reasonably and technically realistically applied in a full-scale process for the harvesting of microalgal biomass.
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.