Cited by 137Algal biology and biofuel productionFluid Dynamics and MixingInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems

A two‐plane tubular photobioreactor for outdoor culture of Spirulina

Torzillo, Giuseppe, Carlozzi, Pietro, Pushparaj, Benjamin, Montaini, Elena, Materassi, Riccardo·1993·Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Abstract

A photobioreactor in the form of a 245‐m‐long loop made of plexiglass tubes having an inner diameter of 2.6 cm was designed and constructed for outdoor culture of Spirulina. The loop was arranged in two planes, with 15 8‐m‐long tubes in each plane. In the upper plane, the tubes were placed in the vacant space between the ones of the lower plane. The culture recycle was performed either with two airlifts, one per plane, or with two peristaltic pumps. The power required for water recycle in the tubular photobioreactor, with a Reynolds number of 4000, was 3.93 × 10−2 W m−2. The photobioreactor contained 145 L of culture and covered an overall area of 7.8 m 2. The photobioreactor operation was computer controlled. Viscosity measurements performed on Spirulina cultures having different biomass concentrations showed non‐Newtonian behavior displaying decreasing viscosity with an increasing shear rate. The performance of the two‐plane photobioreactor was tested under the climatic conditions of central Italy (latitude 43.8° N, longitude 11.3° E). A biomass concentration of 3.5 g L−1 was found to be adequate for outdoor culture of Spirulina. With a biomass concentration of 6.3 g L−1, the biomass output rate significantly decreased. The net biomass output rate reached a mean value of 27.8 g m−2 d−1 in July; this corresponded to a net photosynthetic efficiency of 6.6% (based on visible irradiance). © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bit.260420714

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The helical photobioreactor configuration achieved cell concentrations substantially higher than those reported for open ponds (Xm = 0.84-1.21 g DW L-1) and two-plane tubular reactors (Xm = 4.2 g DW L-1).

    “A comparison with literature data shows that the helical configuration under consideration was able to guarantee a cell concentration substantially higher than those reported for open ponds (X m = 0.84-1.21g DW L -1 ) [22] and two-plane tubular reactors (X m = 4.2 g DW L -1 ) [54].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Torzillo, G., Carlozzi, P., Pushparaj, B., Montaini, E., & Materassi, R.
Affiliations
University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Torzillo, Giuseppe
Venue
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-09-20
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
891-898
ISSN
  • 0006-3592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0290
OpenAlex
W2107069644
Cited by
137
References
21
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biotechnology and Bioengineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Fluid Dynamics and Mixing
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Innovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
Keywords
tubular photobioreactor, Spirulina, outdoor microalgae cultivation, non-Newtonian viscosity, shear thinning, biomass concentration, photosynthetic efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review