Development and performance evaluation of an algal biofilm reactor for treatment of multiple wastewaters and characterization of biomass for diverse applications
Abstract
A modified algal biofilm reactor (ABR) was developed and assessed for high biomass productivity and treatment potential using variable strength wastewaters with accumulation of specialized bio-products. The nonwoven spun bond fabric (70GSM) was selected as suitable biofilm support on the basis of attachment efficiency, durability and ease of harvesting. The biomass productivity achieved by ABR biofilms were 4gm-2 d-1, 3.64gm-2 d-1 and 3.10gm-2 d-1 when grown in livestock wastewater (LSW), domestic grey water (DGW) and anaerobically digested slurry (ADS), respectively. Detailed characterization of wastewater grown biomass showed specific distribution of biomolecules into high lipid (38%) containing biomass (DGW grown) and high protein (44%) biomass (LSW and ADS grown). The feasibility assessment of ABR in terms of net energy return (>1) favored its application in an integrated system for treatment and recycling of rural wastewaters with simultaneous production of biomethane, livestock feed supplement and bio fertilizers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Chaudhary et al. (2017) showed biomass productivity rates of 3.10 to 4 g m−2 d−1 for a mixed microalgae culture across various wastewater variants, including livestock wastewater, greywater, and anaerobically digested slurry.
“Chaudhary et al. (2017) showcased remarkable biomass productivity rates spanning from 3.10 to 4 g m−2 d−1 while cultivating a mixed microalgae culture across various wastewater variants, encompassing livestock wastewater, greywater, and anaerobically digested slurry [51].”
From A Holistic Approach to Circular Bioeconomy Through the Sustainable Utilization of Microalgal Biomass for Biofuel and Other Value-Added Products (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 138
- Authors
- Choudhary, P., Prajapati, S. K., Kumar, P., Malik, A., & Pant, K. K.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IN)
- Netaji Subhas University of Technology (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Malik, Anushree
- Venue
- Bioresource Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 224
- Pages
- 276-284
- ISSN
- 0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2541178078
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Drinking water and Sanitation (S-18/9/2015-SBM)
- Department of Biotechnology (DBT/IC-2/Indo-Brazil/2016-19/06)
- CSIR SRF fellowship (09/086/(1222)/2015-EMR-I)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Keywords
- wastewater treatment, biomass productivity, livestock wastewater, net energy return, biomethane, livestock feed supplement, biofertilizers
- MeSH terms
- Biofilms, Waste Management, Biomass, Microalgae, Wastewater
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
