Cited by 240Algal biology and biofuel productionWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalWastewater Treatment and Reuse

Treatment of real wastewater using co-culture of immobilized Chlorella vulgaris and suspended activated sludge

Mujtaba, Ghulam, Lee, Kisay·2017·Water Research

Abstract

The use of algal-bacterial symbiotic association establishes a sustainable and cost-effective strategy in wastewater treatment. Using municipal wastewater, the removal performances of inorganic nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and organic pollutants were investigated by the co-culture system having different inoculum ratios (R) of suspended activated sludge to alginate-immobilized microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. The co-culture reactors with lower R ratios obtained more removal of nitrogen than in pure culture of C. vulgaris. The reactor with R = 0.5 (sludge/microalgae) showed the highest performance representing 66% removal after 24 h and 95% removal after 84 h. Phosphorus was completely eliminated (100%) in the co-culture system with inoculum ratios of 0.5 and 1.0 after 24 h and in the pure C. vulgaris culture after 36 h. The COD level was greatly reduced in the activated sludge reactor, while, it was increasing in pure C. vulgaris culture after 24 h of incubation. However, COD was almost stabilized after 24 h in the reactors with high R ratios such as 2.0, 5.0, and 10 due to the higher concentration of activated sludge. The growth of C. vulgaris was promoted from 0.03 g/L/d to 0.05 g/L/d in the co-culture of low inoculum ratios such as R = 0.5, implying that there exist an optimum inoculum ratio in the co-culture system in order to achieve efficient removal of nutrients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.078

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • In municipal wastewater, at a low sludge/microalgae ratio of 0.5, the growth of microalgae doubled and more nutrient removal was achieved (66% removal of nitrogen and 100% of phosphorus in one day) relative to pure microalgal culture.

    “In municipal WW, at a low sludge/microalgae ratio (0.5), the growth of microalgae doubled, and more nutrient removal was achieved (66% removal of N and 100% of P in one day) relative to pure microalgal culture [201].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mujtaba, G., & Lee, K.
Affiliations
  • Dawood University of Engineering and Technology (PK)
  • Myongji University (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, Kisay
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
120
Pages
174-184
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2611922231
Cited by
240
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 7
FWCI
5.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of Korea (PJT200255)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
Keywords
Chlorella vulgaris, algal-bacterial co-culture, municipal wastewater treatment, nitrogen removal, phosphorus removal, COD removal, inoculum ratio, nutrient removal, microalgae growth
MeSH terms
Chlorella, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sewage, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Coculture Techniques, Chlorella vulgaris, 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