Cited by 161Algal biology and biofuel productionMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionBiodiesel Production and Applications

A novel one-step method for oil-rich biomass production and harvesting by co-cultivating microalgae with filamentous fungi in molasses wastewater

Yang, Limin, Li, Huankai, Wang, Qin·2019·Bioresource Technology

Abstract

Aiming at simplifying the harvesting procedure, reducing the production cost, and improving the quality of microalgae-based biodiesel, herein, a novel one-step method for oil-rich biomass production and harvesting was proposed by growing Chlorella sp. with Aspergillus sp. in molasses wastewater. Lipid content and fatty acid profile were measured to assess the suitability of microalgal-fungal biomass for biodiesel production. The results showed that the highest biomass yield (4.215 g/L) was obtained when the inoculation ratio of fungi and microalgae was 100. Activities of fungi positive impacted the decolorization of wastewater and the removal of suspended solids. Thus, co-cultivation system had better performance than mono-system of microalgae in the removal of nutrients in wastewater. Analysis of biomass compositions showed that compared with mono-system of microalgae, co-cultivation system produced biomass with higher lipid content (35.2%) and yield microbial cell oil with lower unsaturation degree, potentially increasing the quality of microbial-cell-lipid based biodiesel.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.036

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • A hybrid culture consisting of C. vulgaris and Aspergillus sp. in molasses wastewater can remove 70.7% COD, 67.1% total nitrogen, 94.7% NH4+-N, and 88.4% total phosphorus, versus 26%, 44.4%, 79%, and 33% for mono-microalgae and 59%, 18.2%, 19%, and 40% for mono-fungi.

    “A hybrid culture consisting of C. vulgaris and Aspergillus sp. in molasses WW can remove 70.7% COD, 67.1% TN, 94.7% NH4+-N, and 88.4% TP versus 26%, 44.4%, 79%, and 33% for mono-microalgae and 59%, 18.2%, 19%, and 40% for mono-fungi [205].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, L., Li, H., & Wang, Q.
Affiliations
  • Model Animal Research Center (CN)
  • Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering (CN)
Corresponding author
Wang, Qin
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
275
Pages
35-43
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904549570
Cited by
161
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Guangzhou Science and Technology Program of China (201704030084)
  • Guangdong Science and Technology Program of China (2016A040402045)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biodiesel Production and Applications
Keywords
Chlorella, Aspergillus, molasses wastewater, microalgae harvesting, biodiesel feedstock, lipid content, fatty acid composition, wastewater decolorization, suspended solids removal, nutrient removal, inoculum ratio
MeSH terms
Aspergillus, Chlorella, Lipids, Molasses, 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