| Literature DB >> 28330079 |
S Abinandan1, S Shanthakumar2.
Abstract
Bicarbonate species in the aqueous phase is the primary source forEntities:
Keywords: Carbon concentrating mechanism; Chlorella pyrenoidosa; Dissolved inorganic carbon; Mixotrophic condition; Response surface methodology
Year: 2016 PMID: 28330079 PMCID: PMC4701708 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-015-0314-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Experimental range and levels of independent variables
| Independent variables | Design variables | Range and levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| pH |
| 4 | 6 | 8 |
| NaHCO3 (g/l) |
| 3.33 | 6.66 | 10 |
| Inoculum size (%) |
| 10 | 20 | 30 |
Central composite design matrix with coded and uncoded variables
| Run |
|
|
| pH | NaHCO3 (g/l) | Inoculum size (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 4.0 | 3.33 | 10 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 8.0 | 3.33 | 10 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 4.0 | 10 | 10 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 8.0 | 10 | 10 |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 4.0 | 3.33 | 30 |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 8.0 | 3.33 | 30 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 4.0 | 10 | 30 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8.0 | 10 | 30 |
| 9 | −1.68179 | 0 | 0 | 2.6 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 10 | 1.68179 | 0 | 0 | 9.4 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 11 | 0 | −1.68179 | 0 | 6.0 | 1.06 | 20 |
| 12 | 0 | 1.68179 | 0 | 6.0 | 12.27 | 20 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | −1.68179 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 3.18 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 1.68179 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 36.81 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 |
Fig. 1Flow chart representation of response surface methodology
Fig. 2Growth profile of microalgae under optimized condition [pH 8, NaHCO3 3.33 (g/l), inoculum size −30 (%)] and experimental condition
Central composite design matrix and the output responses for CO2 removal and chlorophyll
| Run | pH | NaHCO3 (g/l) | Inoculum size (%) | CO2 removal (%)(experimental) | CO2 removal (%)(predicted) | Chlorophyll (mg/l)(experimental) | Chlorophyll (mg/l)(predicted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.0 | 3.33 | 10 | 53.07 | 51.49 | 1.016 | 1.415 |
| 2 | 8.0 | 3.33 | 10 | 80.00 | 75.52 | 5.240 | 5.083 |
| 3 | 4.0 | 10.00 | 10 | 33.95 | 33.39 | 3.499 | 3.095 |
| 4 | 8.0 | 10.00 | 10 | 74.37 | 69.20 | 5.064 | 5.457 |
| 5 | 4.0 | 3.33 | 30 | 78.07 | 79.73 | 5.263 | 4.947 |
| 6 | 8.0 | 3.33 | 30 | 86.32 | 83.38 | 4.614 | 5.095 |
| 7 | 4.0 | 10.00 | 30 | 57.93 | 58.90 | 3.484 | 3.717 |
| 8 | 8.0 | 10.00 | 30 | 76.25 | 74.33 | 2.880 | 2.558 |
| 9 | 2.6 | 6.66 | 20 | 53.07 | 51.11 | 1.461 | 1.550 |
| 10 | 9.4 | 6.66 | 20 | 77.37 | 84.29 | 3.858 | 3.661 |
| 11 | 6.0 | 1.06 | 20 | 75.42 | 78.07 | 4.475 | 4.270 |
| 12 | 6.0 | 12.27 | 20 | 52.98 | 55.25 | 3.452 | 3.549 |
| 13 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 3.18 | 43.75 | 49.07 | 4.906 | 4.806 |
| 14 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 36.81 | 77.50 | 77.13 | 5.347 | 5.339 |
| 15 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 | 67.10 | 66.96 | 2.895 | 2.898 |
| 16 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 | 67.10 | 66.96 | 2.895 | 2.898 |
| 17 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 | 67.10 | 66.96 | 2.895 | 2.898 |
| 18 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 | 67.10 | 66.96 | 2.895 | 2.898 |
| 19 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 | 67.10 | 66.96 | 2.895 | 2.898 |
| 20 | 6.0 | 6.66 | 20 | 67.10 | 66.96 | 2.895 | 2.898 |
ANOVA for fit of CO2 removal (%) from central composite design
| Sources of variation | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 3266.42 | 9 | 358.49 | 22.37 | 0.0000 |
| Residuals | 159.50 | 10 | 16.02 | ||
| Total | 3386.65 |
R (pred.)2 = 95.27 %; R (adj.)2 = 91.01 %
ANOVA for fit of chlorophyll estimation from central composite design
| Sources of variation | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 27.8792 | 9 | 3.09769 | 28.24 | 0.000 |
| Residuals | 1.0999 | 10 | 0.10999 | ||
| Total | 28.9791 |
R (pred.)2 = 96.20 %; R (adj.)2 = 92.79 %
Estimated regression coefficients for CO2 removal (%)
| Term | Coefficient | Standard error |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 67.6120 | 1.6323 | 41.415 | 0.000 |
|
| 9.8638 | 1.083 | 9.107 | 0.000 |
|
| −6.7875 | 1.083 | −6.266 | 0.000 |
|
| 8.3419 | 1.083 | 7.701 | 0.000 |
|
| 0.0318 | 1.054 | 0.030 | 0.977 |
|
| −0.3245 | 1.054 | −0.308 | 0.765 |
|
| −1.5856 | 1.054 | −1.504 | 0.164 |
|
| 2.9458 | 1.415 | 2.081 | 0.064 |
|
| −5.0963 | 1.415 | −3.601 | 0.005 |
|
| −0.6830 | 1.415 | −0.483 | 0.640 |
Estimated regression coefficients for chlorophyll
| Term | Coefficient | Standard error |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.9031 | 0.13526 | 21.463 | 0.000 |
|
| 0.6274 | 0.08974 | 6.991 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.2143 | 0.08974 | −2.388 | 0.038 |
|
| 0.1584 | 0.08974 | 1.765 | 0.108 |
|
| −0.1050 | 0.08736 | −1.202 | 0.257 |
|
| 0.3559 | 0.08736 | 4.074 | 0.002 |
|
| 0.7672 | 0.08736 | 8.781 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.3266 | 0.11726 | −2.786 | 0.019 |
|
| −0.8803 | 0.11726 | −7.513 | 0.000 |
|
| −0.7276 | 0.11726 | −6.210 | 0.000 |
Fig. 3Surface plot for CO2 removal (%). a Conc. of NaHCO3 (g/l), pH. b Inoculum size (%), pH. c Inoculum size (%), Conc. of NaHCO3 (g/l)
Fig. 4Surface plot for chlorophyll (mg/l). a Conc. of NaHCO3 (g/l), pH. b Inoculum size (%), pH. c Inoculum size (%), Conc. of NaHCO3 (g/l)