A comparative study between fungal pellet- and spore-assisted microalgae harvesting methods for algae bioflocculation
Abstract
Fungi assisted microalgae bioflocculation is an emerging, efficient and cost-effective microalgal harvesting method, but no study has systematically evaluated and compared fungal spore-assisted (FSA) and fungal pellet-assisted (FPA) microalgal harvesting methods. In this study, harvesting Chlorella sp. cells by co-culture with Penicillium sp. spores or pellets was compared. Temperature, glucose concentration, pH and fungi:algae ratio were the critical parameters for harvesting efficiency. The highest flocculation efficiency (99%) of FSA method was achieved in 28 h at 40 °C, 160 rpm, 5 g glucose/L and 1.1 × 10 4 cells/mL (spore). FPA method can harvest 98.26% algae cells in 2.5 h at 34 °C, 160 rpm, pH 4.0 with the fungi:algae ratio of 1:2. The carbon input for FPA is only half of that for FSA. FPA takes less time and needs less glucose input compared with FSA and may be more promising to be further developed as an effective microalgae bioflocculation method.
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?
Challenges related to the optimization of process parameters and the selection of a robust microalgal strain that can tolerate extreme pH levels, accumulate large amounts of lipid, and utilize organic and inorganic compounds pose major challenges for this process integration.
“Nevertheless, challenges related to the optimization of process parameters and the selection of a robust microalgal strain that can tolerate extreme pH levels, accumulate large amounts of lipid, and utilize organic and inorganic compounds pose major challenges for this process integration (Chen Y.di et al., 2018).”
From Strategies to Produce Cost-Effective Third-Generation Biofuel From Microalgae (2021) · cites this paper as Chen Y.di et al., 2018
Flocculation facilitated by other organisms such as fungus or natural coagulants can make for cost-effective recovery with costs as low as $0.825 and $0.037, respectively.
“In particular, fl occulation facilitated by other organisms (Mo fi jur et al., 2021), such as fungus (Chen J. et al., 2018) or natural coagulants (Li et al., 2020), can make for cost-effective recovery with costs as low as $0.825 and $0.037, respectively.”
From Strategies to Produce Cost-Effective Third-Generation Biofuel From Microalgae (2021) · cites this paper as Chen J. et al., 2018
Cites
Chen, C.-Y., Yeh, K.-L., Aisyah, R., Lee, D.-J., & Chang, J.-S. (2011) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.159 · Cited by 1,860 · see citing works
Design principles of photo-bioreactors for cultivation of microalgae
Posten, C. (2009) · Engineering in Life Sciences · doi:10.1002/elsc.200900003 · Cited by 815 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yin, Z., Zhu, L., Li, S., Hu, T., Chu, R., Mo, F., Hu, D., Liu, C., & Li, B. (2020) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122804 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
A Review on the Use of Microalgae for Sustainable Aquaculture
Han, P., Lu, Q., Fan, L., & Zhou, W. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9112377 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Self-citationMuhammad, G., Alam, M. A., Mofijur, M., Jahirul, M. I., Lv, Y., Xiong, W., Ong, H. C., & Xu, J. (2021) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110209 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Vasistha, S., Khanra, A., Clifford, M., & Rai, M. P. (2021) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110498 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Co-culture of fungi-microalgae consortium for wastewater treatment: a review
Leng, L., Li, W., Chen, J., Leng, S., Chen, J., Wei, L., Peng, H., Li, J., Zhou, W., & Huang, H. (2021) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125008 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Self-citationStrategies to Produce Cost-Effective Third-Generation Biofuel From Microalgae
Rafa, N., Ahmed, S. F., Badruddin, I. A., Mofijur, M., & Kamangar, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Energy Research · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2021.749968 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Yang, L., Li, H., & Wang, Q. (2019) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.036 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Bio-based flocculants for sustainable harvesting of microalgae for biofuel production. A review
Ogbonna, C. N., & Nwoba, E. G. (2021) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110690 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Satpati, G. G., Dikshit, P. K., Mal, N., Pal, R., Sherpa, K. C., Rajak, R. C., Rather, S.-U., Raghunathan, S., & Davoodbasha, M. (2023) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161828 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Saravanan, A., Deivayanai, V. C., Senthil Kumar, P., Rangasamy, G., & Varjani, S. (2022) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127982 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Microalgal bio-flocculation: Present scenario and prospects for commercialization
Ray, A., Banerjee, S., & Das, D. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13437-0 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Lin, W., Chen, L., Tan, Z., Deng, Z., & Liu, H. (2022) · Algal Research · doi:10.1016/j.algal.2021.102614 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Pereira, A. S. A. D. P., Silva, T. A., Magalhães, I. B., Ferreira, J., Braga, M. Q., Lorentz, J. F., Assemany, P. P., Couto, E. D. A. D., & Calijuri, M. L. (2024) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170918 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, J., Leng, L., Ye, C., Lu, Q., Addy, M., Wang, J., Liu, J., Chen, P., Ruan, R., & Zhou, W.
- Affiliations
- Nanchang University (CN)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (CN)
- Peking University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Ruan, Roger
- Zhou, Wenguang
- ORCID
- Venue
- Bioresource Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 259
- Pages
- 181-190
- ISSN
- 0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2794369540
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 3.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (51668044)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Coagulation and Flocculation Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
- Keywords
- microalgae harvesting, bioflocculation, fungal spores, fungal pellets, Penicillium, Chlorella, co-culture, flocculation efficiency, carbon input, temperature effects, pH effect
- MeSH terms
- Chlorella, Flocculation, Fungi, Biomass, Coculture Techniques, 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
