Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29988300›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2018

Microalgae

Liandong Zhu, Zhaohua Li, Erkki Hiltunen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. HarvestingMarine drugs · 2023
    Article
  8. The Optimization ofIndian journal of microbiology · 2022
    Article
  9. High-quality Chlorella vulgaris biomass harvesting through chitosan and polyacrylamid2e.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022
    Article
  10. Sustainable microalgal biomass production in food industry wastewater for low-cost biorefinery products: a review.Phytochemistry reviews : proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. The scientometric analysis of the research on microalgae-based wastewater treatment.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Liandong Zhu1School of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, 129 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, 430079 People's Republic of China.
Zhaohua Li3Hubei Collaborative Innovation Center for Green Transformation of Bio-Resources, Faculty of Resources and Environmental Science, Hubei University, Wuhan, 430062 People's Republic of China.
Erkki Hiltunen2Faculty of Technology, University of Vaasa and Vaasa Energy Institute, P.O. Box 700, FI-65101 Vaasa, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomass harvestingChitosanChlorella vulgarisCoagulation and flocculationLipid extractionNatural flocculant

Identifiers

PMID29988300
PMCPMC6022341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.