ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
High-quality Chlorella vulgaris biomass harvesting through chitosan and polyacrylamid2e.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microalgal biomass is an emerging source of renewable energy and health-related compounds. However, harvesting of microalgae is a techno-economic hinder. In this research, chitosan and polyacrylamide were optimized harvesting condition for Chlorella vulgaris. Stirring at 300 rpm for 2 min is optimum for chitosan and polyacrylamide. Low-dose (10 mg/L) chitosan (flocculation efficiency (FE), 98.10 ± 1.06%) is more efficient than high-dose (25 mg/L) polyacrylamide (FE 94.57 ± 0.55%) for harvesting C. vulgaris. Chitosan resulted flocs settled more quickly than polyacrylamide, while polyacrylamide keep > 90% FE in a wider pH range (7-10) than chitosan (7-8). Chitosan and polyacrylamide both have no negative effect on biomass composition, including protein, carbohydrate, and carotenoid. C. vulgaris in flocs could successfully regrow in fresh culture media. The residual culture media was recycled with little impact on cell growth. All the results suggested that chitosan and polyacrylamide could harvest high-quality 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.