| Literature DB >> 29433435 |
Kalaiselvi Thangavel1, Preethi Radha Krishnan2, Srimeena Nagaiah2, Senthil Kuppusamy2, Senthil Chinnasamy3, Jude Sudhagar Rajadorai4, Gopal Nellaiappan Olaganathan2, Balachandar Dananjeyan2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renewable energy for sustainable development is a subject of a worldwide debate since continuous utilization of non-renewable energy sources has a drastic impact on the environment and economy; a search for alternative energy resources is indispensable. Microalgae are promising and potential alternate energy resources for biodiesel production. Thus, our efforts were focused on surveying the natural diversity of microalgae for the production of biodiesel. The present study aimed at identification, isolation, and characterization of oleaginous microalgae from shola forests of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR), the biodiversity hot spot of India, where the microalgal diversity has not yet been systematically investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Acutodesmus; Biodiesel; Chlamydomonadales; Chlorella; Hindakia; Nilgiri biosphere
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29433435 PMCID: PMC5809961 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-017-1144-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Location map showing the sampling site, the Western ghats of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR), India
Microalgal diversity analysis
| Location | Type of sample | Diversity Indices | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species richness (Shannon – Weiner index H′) | Evenness (Shannon’s equitability EH) | Dominance (Simpson’s index) | ||
| Maize field of eastern block, TNAU | Soil | 1.474 | 0.916 | 0.200 |
| Wet land, TNAU | Water | 1.477 | 0.824 | 0.267 |
| Sethumadai, NBR | Soil | 0.956 | 0.870 | 0.333 |
| Top Slip, NBR | Soil | 1.550 | 0.960 | 0.151 |
| Top Slip, NBR | Water | 1.168 | 0.843 | 0.361 |
| Parambikulam, NBR | Soil | 1.551 | 0.967 | 0.167 |
| Parambikulam, NBR | Water | 1.418 | 0.881 | 0.272 |
| Kamarajar sagar dam, NBR | Water | 1.332 | 0.960 | 0.100 |
| Kamarajar sagar dam, NBR | Soil | 0.636 | 0.918 | 0.333 |
| Kamarajar sagar dam, NBR | Bark | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Shola forest, NBR | Soil | 1.242 | 0.896 | 0.200 |
| Mel Kuntha, NBR | Soil | 0.693 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
| Rosegarden, Ooty | Soil | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| HPF,Ooty | Soil | 1.242 | 0.896 | 0.200 |
| Pykara, NBR | Water | 0.637 | 0.918 | 0.330 |
| Pykara, NBR | Soil | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Fig. 2Comparison of growth pattern of ten microalgal cultures along with standard cultures, REF1-Botryococcus sp. and REF2-Neochloris oleoabundans. a Growth curve of TGA1-Acutodesmus dissociatus, b Growth curve of TGA2-Chlorella sp., c Growth curve of TGA3-Chlamydomonadales sp., d Growth curve of TGA4-Chlorella sp., e Growth curve of TGA5-Chlamydomonadales sp., f Growth curve of PGA1-Hindakia tetrachotoma, g Growth curve of PGA2-Chlorella sp., h. Growth curve of PBGA1-Tolypothrix sp., i Growth curve of PBGA2-Tolypothrix sp., j Growth curve of PBGA3-Oscillatoria sp. Data are given as means, n = 3
Growth characteristics of different microalgal isolates
| Algal strain | Generation time (in days) | Dry cell weight (16 day old cultures) (g L−1) | Specific growth rate μexp (day −1) | Total Chlorophyll (16 day old cultures) (mg L −1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.0 ± 0.12cd | 1.57 ± 0.032bc | 0.23 ± 0.05bc | 6.7 ± 1.20g | |
| 5.0 ± 0.17b | 1.55 ± 0.036b | 0.25 ± 0.03a,b | 21.2 ± 0.73a | |
| 3.8 ± 0.12e | 1.67 ± 0.039ab | 0.28 ± 0.03a | 17.3 ± 1.25bc | |
| 4.0 ± 0.20cd | 1.00 ± 0.023e | 0.10 ± 0.03g | 19.0 ± 0.51ab | |
| 6.0 ± 0.12a | 1.56 ± 0.036bc | 0.13 ± 0.03f | 15.2 ± 0.82cd | |
| 4.0 ± 0.12cd | 1.25 ± 0.029d | 0.18 ± 0.03de | 10.4 ± 1.57ef | |
| 4.9 ± 0.17b | 1.43 ± 0.033c | 0.12 ± 0.01f | 16.5 ± 1.27bcd | |
| 1.0 ± 0.12f | 1.64 ± 0.038abc | 0.18 ± 0.03 de | 14.1 ± 0.69cd | |
| 5.2 ± 0.2b | 1.38 ± 0.032c | 0.19 ± 0.02cd | 14.6 ± 0.12cd | |
| 4.4 ± 0.12c | 1.35 ± 0.031cd | 0.14 ± 0.04ef | 8.4 ± 0.8 5fg | |
| 5.2 ± 0.12b | 1.69 ± 0.039a | 0.23 ± 0.08bc | 15.2 ± 0.30cd | |
| 6.0 ± 0.12a | 1.65 ± 0.038abc | 0.24 ± 0.08bc | 13.2 ± 1.22de |
In a column, means followed by a common letter in superscript are not significantly different at 5%
Fig. 3Nile red stained algal strains viewed at 1000× using a fluorescence microscope with 450–490 nm excitation and 570 nm emission filters (NIKON; Eclipse H600L). Neutral lipid globes in the cytosol were stained as yellow and chlorophyll autofluoresce as red
Fig. 4Comparison of macromolecular constituents of ten microalgal strains with standard cultures (REF1-Botryococcus sp. and REF2-Neochloris oleoabundans). Data are given as means ± standard error, n = 3
Biomass productivity of microalgal cultures at different stages of cultivation and lipid productivity of 16-day-old cultures. Data are given as means ±standard error, n = 3
| Algal strain | Biomass productivity (mg L−1 d−1) at different days of cultivation | Lipid productivity (mg L−1 d−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | ||
| 93.33 ± 11.59bcde | 92.92 ± 9.43abc | 119.44 ± 7.36ab | 98.13 ± 2.73ab | 22.27 ± 1.05e | |
| 115.00 ± 16.4abcd | 103.33 ± 6.23abc | 113.89 ± 7.36abc | 96.67 ± 3.28abc | 27.12 ± 2.90d | |
| 134.17 ± 16.87ab | 81.67 ± 31.96abc | 127.78 ± 5.56a | 104.59 ± 4.34a | 31.00 ± 0.11c | |
| 59.17 ± 14.83e | 54.58 ± 7.24c | 72.21 ± 7.37d | 62.29 ± 7.43e | 10.81 ± 0.18g | |
| 113.33 ± 17.66abcd | 107.50 ± 8.76ab | 108.33 ± 9.63abc | 97.71 ± 3.51ab | 23.11 ± 3.12e | |
| 69.17 ± 9.40de | 70.00 ± 7.23bc | 88.89 ± 12.12cd | 77.92 ± 4.88d | 20.08 ± 0.28ef | |
| 83.33 ± 10.94cde | 65.83 ± 6.94bc | 90.55 ± 9.70bcd | 89.38 ± 3.09bcd | 18.50 ± 1.07f | |
| 127.50 ± 15.90abc | 72.92 ± 29.49bc | 125.00 ± 4.82a | 102.71 ± 4.72a | 10.87 ± 2.80g | |
| 120.83 ± 14.55abc | 95.83 ± 10.87abc | 105.58 ± 7.36abc | 86.25 ± 5.25bcd | 7.85 ± 0.42g | |
| 90.83 ± 13.11bcde | 92.50 ± 11.36abc | 105.58 ± 7.36abc | 84.17 ± 4.88cd | 10.29 ± 1.15g | |
| 151.67 ± 16.87a | 126.08 ± 14.35a | 127.77 ± 12.12a | 105.42 ± 3.47a | 43.31 ± 8.66a | |
| 140.00 ± 15.90ab | 112.50 ± 9.23ab | 125.00 ± 12.75a | 103.34 ± 4.71a | 34.95 ± 5.31b | |
In a column, means followed by a common letter in superscript are not significantly different at 5%
Comparative analyses of biomass and lipid productivity, specific growth rate and lipid content of selected algal strains with available literature
| Algal species | Biomass productivity | Specific growth rate | Lipid (%) | Lipid productivity | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg L−1 d −1) | μ (day −1) | (mg L −1 d−1) | |||
| 119.44 ± 7.36 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 22.70 ± 0.46 | 22.27 ± 1.05 | Current study | |
| – | – | 14 ± 1.00 | 10 ± 8.00 | Grama et al. [ | |
|
| 14.03 | – | 22.70 | – | Chokshi et al. [ |
| 115.00 ± 16.40 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 28.00 ± 0.65 | 27.12 ± 2.90 | Current study | |
| 89.00 | 0.12–0.34 | 15.90 | – | Andruleviciute et al. [ | |
| 34.17 ± 16.87 | 0.28 ± 0.03 | 29.70 ± 0.69 | 31.00 ± 0.11 | Current study | |
| – | – | 25.00 | – | Neofotis et al. [ | |
| 88.89 ± 12.12 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 25.70 ± 0.59 | 20.08 ± 0.18 | Current study | |
| 100 ± 0.50 | 4.6 ± 0.06 | 8.7 ± 1.90 | 10.00 ± 0.20 | Onay et al. [ | |
| 151.67 ± 16.87 | 0.23 ± 0.08 | 41.00 ± 0.95 | 43.31 ± 8.66 | Current study | |
| 140.00 ± 15.90 | 0.24 ± 0.08 | 38.70 ± 0.89 | 34.95 ± 5.31 | Current study |
Fig. 5Growth pattern of four microalgal cultures grown at 35 οC and 45 οC
Fatty acid methyl ester profile of selected microalgal strains
| Fatty Acid Methyl Esters | Fatty acid content (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TGA1 | TGA2 | TGA3 | PGA1 | |
| C3:0 Propionic acid methyl ester | – | – | – | 11.20 ± 3.26 |
| C4:0 Butanoic acid methyl ester | 0.95 ± 0.27 | – | 6.19 ± 1.78 | 2.88 ± 0.99 |
| C8:0 Caprylic acid methyl ester | – | – | 1.22 ± 0.38 | – |
| C12:0 Lauric acid methyl ester | 6.74 ± 1.94 | 0.63 ± 0.21 | 4.76 ± 1.48 | 6.20 ± 1.84 |
| C14:0 Myristic acid methyl ester | 2.35 ± 0.67 | – | – | 9.44 ± 2.74 |
| C14:1 Myristoleic acid methyl ester | – | 10.37 ± 3.05 | 11.15 ± 3.27 | – |
| C16:0 Palmitic acid methyl ester | 13.32 ± 3.85 | 14.06 ± 4.38 | 3.83 ± 1.23 | 12.50 ± 3.62 |
| C16:1 Palmitoleic acid methyl ester | 2.42 ± 0.70 | – | – | – |
| C16:0 Palmitic alcohol | 2.49 ± 0.72 | 11.42 ± 3.46 | 6.03 ± 1.74 | – |
| C17:0 Heptanoic acid methyl ester | 1.07 ± 0.34 | – | – | |
| C18:0 Stearic acid methyl ester | – | 0.22 ± 0.06 | – | – |
| C18:1 Oleic acid methyl ester | 11.75 ± 3.41 | 13.20 ± 4.58 | 2.64 ± 0.76 | – |
| C18:3 Linolenic acid methyl ester | 11.70 ± 3.51 | 6.63 ± 1.91 | 27.21 ± 8.10 | 13.45 ± 3.91 |
| C19:0 Nonadecanoic acid methyl ester | 5.07 ± 1.58 | |||
| C19:1 Nonadecenoic acid methyl ester | – | – | – | 10.43 ± 3.01 |
| C20:1-Eicosenoic acid methyl ester | – | – | 1.03 ± 0.40 | – |
| C22:0 Behenic acid methyl ester | 3.02 ± 0.95 | – | – | – |
| C22:4 Docosatetraenoic acid methyl ester | – | 1.36 ± 0.41 | – | – |
| Diisooctyl phthalate (Volatile oil) | 24.71 ± 3.20 | 14.06 ± 2.10 | 29.89 ± 4.89 | – |
| Dasycarpidan–1-methanol, acetate (ester) (Volatile oil) | 2.57 ± 0.78 | 5.29 ± 0.54 | 4.39 ± 0.88 | 11.44 ± 4.30 |
| Phthalic acid, di(2-propylpentyl) ester | – | 11.20 ± 3.21 | – | – |
| Others | 11.33 ± 3.78 | 10.20 ± 2.67 | 1.12 ± 0.41 | 21.01 ± 6.30 |
| Total | 99.68 | 99.14 | 99.67 | 99.13 |
| Saturated fatty acids (%) | 35.12 | 26.56 | 22.10 | 42.59 |
| Unsaturated fatty acids (%) | 25.95 | 31.83 | 42.17 | 24.09 |
Data shown are mean value of three replicates ±standard error
TGA1- Acutodesmus dissociatus; TGA2-Chlorella sp.; TGA3-Chlamydomonadales sp.; PGA1- Hindakia tetrachotoma