| Literature DB >> 24683320 |
Duraiarasan Surendhiran1, Mani Vijay1.
Abstract
Harvesting of algal biomass in biodiesel production involves high energy input and cost incurred process. In order to overcome these problems, bioflocculation process was employed and the efficiency of this process was further improved by the addition of a cationic inducer. In this work marine Bacillus subtilis was used for bioflocculation of Nannochloropsis oculata and ZnCl2 as cationic inducer. This study worked under the principle of divalent cationic bridging (DCB) theory. Under temperature stress and high pH, the bacterium produced exopolysaccharide that bound with microalga Nannochloropsis oculata and flocculated them. A maximum efficiency of 95.43% was observed with the optimised RSM parameters-temperature 30.78°C, pH 10.8, flocculation time 6.7 h, bioflocculant size 0.38 mL, and cationic inducer concentration 0.035 mM. The present investigation focused on the cost effective harvesting of microalga on a larger scale for biodiesel production than using toxic, ecofriendly chemical flocculants.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24683320 PMCID: PMC3933552 DOI: 10.1155/2014/202659
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Coded values based on the factor at a time experiment for the 5 variables employed in the study.
| Code | Variables | −2 | −1 | 0 | +1 | +2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Temperature (°C) | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 |
|
| pH | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|
| Flocculation time (hr) | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
|
| Bioflocculant size (mL) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
|
| Cationic inducer concentration (mM) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
Figure 23D Response surface and contour plots representing various interactive effects of variables on bioflocculation.
Figure 1Time course of batch culture of Bacillus subtilis MTCC10619. Blue triangles: cell dry weight (g/L) and red bullets: bioflocculant production (g/L).
Central composite design matrix of orthogonal values with observed responses on bioflocculation efficiency.
| Run |
|
|
|
|
| Bioflocculation efficiency (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental value | Predicted value | ||||||
| 1 | 35 | 9 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 93.43 | 94.36 |
| 2 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 85.39 | 81.56 |
| 3 | 35 | 7 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 92.79 | 89.16 |
| 4 | 35 | 9 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 91.33 | 94.46 |
| 5 | 35 | 7 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 88.78 | 87.55 |
| 6 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 80.00 | 82.51 |
| 7 | 35 | 7 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 83.81 | 86.53 |
| 8 | 35 | 7 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 79.33 | 82.25 |
| 9 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 0.5 | 0.03 | 94.02 | 92.80 |
| 10 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 95.43 | 95.00 |
| 11 | 30 | 8 | 2 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 83.11 | 83.69 |
| 12 | 35 | 9 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 92.83 | 93.95 |
| 13 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 76.47 | 76.10 |
| 14 | 35 | 7 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 81.45 | 85.91 |
| 15 | 25 | 9 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 85.44 | 84.18 |
| 16 | 40 | 8 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 92.08 | 88.55 |
| 17 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 0.1 | 0.03 | 90.41 | 86.35 |
| 18 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 83.12 | 80.84 |
| 19 | 30 | 8 | 10 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 94.10 | 88.23 |
| 20 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 74.11 | 69.71 |
| 21 | 35 | 9 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 94.34 | 93.43 |
| 22 | 35 | 9 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 94.22 | 94.50 |
| 23 | 35 | 9 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 92.66 | 92.22 |
| 24 | 25 | 9 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 85.21 | 84.16 |
| 25 | 30 | 10 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 92.42 | 85.67 |
| 26 | 25 | 9 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 77.23 | 79.36 |
| 27 | 25 | 9 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 83.90 | 84.32 |
| 28 | 25 | 9 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 79.54 | 86.39 |
| 29 | 25 | 9 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 80.12 | 82.49 |
| 30 | 25 | 9 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 84.98 | 82.20 |
| 31 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 74.48 | 77.84 |
| 32 | 35 | 7 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 88.79 | 89.07 |
| 33 | 35 | 7 | 4 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 86.90 | 85.55 |
| 34 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 73.02 | 74.48 |
| 35 | 35 | 9 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 87.65 | 94.59 |
| 36 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.04 | 73.75 | 78.82 |
| 37 | 30 | 6 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 70.19 | 71.66 |
| 38 | 20 | 8 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.03 | 66.39 | 64.64 |
| 39 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.05 | 92.49 | 90.62 |
| 40 | 25 | 9 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 72.99 | 77.61 |
| 41 | 35 | 7 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 88.53 | 88.01 |
| 42 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.01 | 90.20 | 86.78 |
| 43 | 35 | 9 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.04 | 89.52 | 91.89 |
Comparison of different harvesting methods and their efficiencies.
| Method | Microalgae | Harvesting efficiency (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bioflocculation with whole cell |
| >95 | Current study |
| Flocculation with polyelectrolytes |
| >90 | [ |
| Flocculation with |
| >90 | [ |
| Flocculation with AlCl3 |
| >90 | [ |
| Flocculation with cationic polymer |
| >89 | [ |
| Flocculation with chitosan |
| 90 | [ |
| Centrifugation |
| 94 | [ |
| Increasing pH |
| 90 | [ |
ANOVA table for response surface function on bioflocculation efficiency.
| Source | DF | SS | MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 20 | 2725.56 | 136.28 | 9.27 | <0.0001 |
| Linear | 5 | 1617.27 | 323.45 | 0.31 | 0.9740 |
| Square | 10 | 127.39 | 12.74 | 13.35 | <0.0001 |
| Interaction | 5 | 980.90 | 196.18 | 0.75 | 0.7045 |
| Residual Error | 29 | 426.21 | 14.70 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 49 | 3151.77 | |||
DF: degree of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean square; F: Fischer's value; P: probability value.