Cited by 19Algal biology and biofuel productionSeaweed-derived Bioactive CompoundsAquaculture Nutrition and Growth

A data-driven comparison of commercially available testing methods for algae characterization

Open access
Lane, Madeline, Van Wychen, Stefanie, Politis, Andy, Laurens, Lieve M.L.·2021·Algal Research

Abstract

Algal biomass composition is often the primary driver of economic viability of research and commercial algae-based product development. As the commercial algae production field is expanding, there is a growing need for a standardized language across producers and markets in terms of biomass characterization. Similarly, to establish and design collaborative or cross-institutional algae research projects, groups need to harmonize reported compositional analysis data to ensure comparable and reproducible results. In order to provide a consistent foundation of algae quality assessment, we are working towards closely coordinated, harmonized and objective operational protocols across the algae community. We present here a demonstration of biomass composition data from different commercial analytical laboratories, specifically applied to a reference biomass material. The data highlights a lack of consistency across laboratories in methods that are available for analysis. The data presented here illustrate variability in reported biomass measurements of protein, lipids and carbohydrate content causing differences of up to 1.36, 1.43, and 3.37-fold respectively, when expressed on a dry biomass basis. When the same methods are used between the laboratories, e.g. for protein and ash measurements, the data are consistent across laboratories. However, the reported lipid content varies with the method chosen at each laboratory, and causes the calculated carbohydrate content to then absorb the remaining difference from full mass balance closure. A suggestion of a common set of analytical standard methods available commercially is provided and can help to alleviate some of the challenges the algae community faces in terms of biomass descriptive reporting. This work sets the stage for and identifies critical niches to build on an established framework for understanding and harmonizing analytical methodologies for compositional analysis of algal biomass.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.algal.2020.102134

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In Lane et al.'s research, laboratories employed different methods, leading to minor inconsistencies: when analyzing the same strain biomass, protein and ash values were consistent only when laboratories followed identical protocols.

    “In their research, they found that laboratories employed different methods, leading to minor inconsistencies: when analyzing the same strain biomass, protein and ash values were consistent only when laboratories followed identical protocols.”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Lane et al., 2021

    The Abstract reports that protein and ash results were consistent across laboratories using the same or similar methods on reference biomass. But “only when laboratories followed identical protocols” is too strict: Table 2 says ash results were similar despite a different combustion temperature, and Table 3 lists different ash protocols. Calling the inconsistencies minor also understates the Abstract’s reported differences in lipid and carbohydrate measurements. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Lipid determination showed significant variation depending on the protocol adopted, which also affected carbohydrate estimates.

    “However, lipid determination showed significant variation depending on the protocol adopted, which also affected carbohydrate estimates.”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Lane et al., 2021

  • Lane et al. (2021) observed that the analytical methods currently in use, largely derived from conventional food protocols, were not specifically developed for microalgae.

    “Lane et al. (2021), for instance, observed that the analytical methods currently in use, largely derived from conventional food protocols, were not specifically developed for microalgae.”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Lane et al., 2021

  • Most commercial methods currently employed were not originally designed for microalgae, which can affect the accuracy and comparability of results.

    “Most commercial methods currently employed were not originally designed for microalgae, which can affect the accuracy and comparability of results.”

    From Microalgae biotechnology and its role in sustainable and healthy food design (2025) · cites this paper as Lane et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Title 21 -Food and Drugs, 1939, pp. 1-711.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lane, M., Van Wychen, S., Politis, A., & Laurens, L. M. L.
Affiliations
National Laboratory of the Rockies (US)
Corresponding author
Laurens, Lieve M.L.
Venue
Algal Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
53
Pages
102134
ISSN
2211-9264 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3109258103
Cited by
19
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Algal Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Seaweed-derived Bioactive Compounds
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Keywords
algal biomass composition, analytical method comparison, method harmonization, protein content, lipid content, carbohydrate content, ash content, mass balance closure, reproducibility

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