ArticleScientific reports2026
Liquid digestate treatment potential of five green microalgae in non-axenic cultures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The research examined the growth of non-axenic microalgal cultures in liquid digestate for the removal of nutrients and organic contaminants. Five environmental isolates (Chlorella sorokiniana, Tetradesmus obliquus, Desmodesmus subspicatus, Chloroidium saccharophilum, Desmodesmus communis) were cultivated for a period of 120 days comprising two operational phases: Phase 1 without pH control and Phase 2 with pH adjustment. In Phase 1, the microalgal-bacterial cultures achieved up to 69.7 ± 5.1% of total nitrogen (TN) reduction rate, while orthophosphate (PO₄³⁻) removal reached only 46.5 ± 3.8%. In contrast, the pH adjustment in Phase 2 had a dramatic effect on the microalgae growth and treatment efficiency: the TN and orthophosphate removal rates were significantly higher, whereas sCOD reduction lowered. Among the tested non‑axenic cultures, the trials inoculated with Desmodesmus communis achieved the highest overall TN removal rates in both phases (69.7 ± 5.1% in Phase 1 and 89.4 ± 0.8% in Phase 2), whereas PO₄³⁻ reduction was relatively low in Phase 1 but reached 93.8 ± 0.3% in Phase 2. By contrast, cultures inoculated with Tetradesmus obliquus and Chlorella sorokiniana consistently exhibited the lowest TN reduction rates (55.4 ± 1.7–57.9 ± 5.8% in Phase 1 and 85.2 ± 1.6–85.8 ± 1.0% in Phase 2). By comparison, Desmodesmus subspicatus generally performed best in terms of sCOD reduction (69.0 ± 1.9–75.2 ± 0.7%). The pH adjustment significantly increased the density of microalgal coenobia and chlorophyll a concentration and also led to considerable changes in the relative abundance of bacteria. In Phase 1 three bacterial phyla dominated the non‑axenic cultures: Proteobacteria (40.9–75.0%), Bacteroidota (11.5–19.3%) and Actinobacteriota (2.9–27.1%). In Phase 2, NaOH‑driven pH increase clearly restructured the bacterial community: Proteobacteria remained dominant (59.0–78.4%), Bacteroidota declined markedly (1.5–9.0%), and Firmicutes became the second most abundant phylum (2.1–30.4%), while Actinobacteriota were strongly reduced. Overall, the removal of nutrients and organic pollutants was not solely attributable to microalgal activity but likely resulted from complex interactions within the microalgal–bacterial consortia under the contrasting pH regimes of Phases 1 and 2.
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.