Cited by 168Algal biology and biofuel productionInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics SystemsAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics

Yearlong Evaluation of Performance and Durability of a Pilot-Scale Revolving Algal Biofilm (RAB) Cultivation System

Gross, Martin, Wen, Zhiyou·2014·Bioresource Technology

Abstract

Current algal cultivation has been mainly performed in open ponds or photobioreactors in which algal cells are suspended and harvested through flocculation and centrifugation. A unique attachment based Revolving Algal Biofilm (RAB) cultivation system was recently developed for easy biomass harvest with enhanced biomass productivity. The objective of this research was to evaluate the performance (durability, algal growth, and the geometry) of the RAB system at pilot-scale. A yearlong test of the RAB system was successfully conducted at a greenhouse facility at Boone, Iowa, USA. The RAB resulted in an average of 302% increase in biomass productivity compared to a standard raceway pond, with a maximum biomass productivity (ash free) of 18.9 g/m(2)-day being achieved. The RAB with a vertical configuration generated higher productivity than the triangular RAB. Collectively, the research shows that the RAB as an efficient algal culture system has great potential for being deployed at commercial scale.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.052

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 revolving algal biofilm system was developed to achieve higher land utilization efficiency and biomass productivity than the open raceway pond.

    “For instance, the revolving algal bio fi lm system was developed to achieve higher land utilization ef fi ciency and biomass productivity than the open raceway pond (ORP) (Gross and Wen, 2014).”

    From Strategies to Produce Cost-Effective Third-Generation Biofuel From Microalgae (2021) · cites this paper as Gross and Wen, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gross, M., & Wen, Z.
Affiliations
Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wen, Zhiyou
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
171
Pages
50-58
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026875143
Cited by
168
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Grow Iowa Values Fund
  • Regent’s Innovation Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Innovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Keywords
algae cultivation, biomass productivity, biomass harvesting, system durability, raceway ponds, pilot-scale evaluation, greenhouse cultivation
MeSH terms
Biotechnology, Pilot Projects, Biofilms, Biomass, Bioreactors, Microalgae

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