| Literature DB >> 31612991 |
Hu Jin1, Hu Zhang1,2, Zhiwei Zhou3, Kunpeng Li1, Guoli Hou1, Quan Xu1,2, Wenhua Chuai4, Chengwu Zhang3, Danxiang Han1,5,6, Qiang Hu1,4,5,6,7,8.
Abstract
Although production of biodiesels from microalgae is proved to be technically feasible, a commercially viable system has yet to emerge. High-cell-density fermentation of microalgae can be coupled with photoautotrophic cultivation to produce oils. In this study, by optimizing culturing conditions and employing a sophisticated substrate feed control strategy, ultrahigh-cell-density of 286 and 283.5 g/L was achieved for the unicellular alga Scenedesmus acuminatus grown in 7.5-L bench-scale and 1,000-L pilot-scale fermenters, respectively. The outdoor scale-up experiments indicated that heterotrophically grown S. acuminatus cells are more productive in terms of both biomass and lipid accumulation when they are inoculated in photobioreactors for lipid production as compared to the cells originally grown under photoautotrophic conditions. Technoeconomic analysis based on the pilot-scale data indicated that the cost of heterotrophic cultivation of microalgae for biomass production is comparable with that of the open-pond system and much lower than that of tubular PBR, if the biomass yield was higher than 200 g/L. This study demonstrated the economic viability of heterotrophic cultivation on large-scale microalgal inocula production, but ultrahigh-productivity fermentation is a prerequisite. Moreover, the advantages of the combined heterotrophic and photoautotrophic cultivation of microalgae for biofuels production were also verified in the pilot-scale.Entities:
Keywords: Scenedesmus acuminatus; heterotrophy; high-cell-density fermentation; lipid; microalgae
Year: 2019 PMID: 31612991 PMCID: PMC6916281 DOI: 10.1002/bit.27190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Bioeng ISSN: 0006-3592 Impact factor: 4.530
Figure 1Effects of different pH (a), temperatures (b), and C/N ratios (c) on Scenedesmus acuminatus cellular growth under heterotrophic conditions in 7.5‐L bioreactors
Figure 2Comparison of biomass production among different glucose feeding strategies. (a) Pulsed feeding by controlling glucose concentration in the range of 0–20 g/L. (b) Stepwise constant feeding by controlling glucose concentration under different ranges of 0–5, 5–10, and 15–20 g/L. (c) Biomass concentration under different feeding strategies
Comparison of major fermentation performances among the cultures employed with different feeding strategies and glucose concentration levels
| Feeding strategies | Glucose concentration controlled (g/L) | Maximum biomass conc. (g/L) & time | Final biomass conc. (g/L) | Total glucose consumed (g) | Glucose‐to‐biomass conversion (%) | Ave. productivity (g·L−1·h−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stepwise constant feeding | 0–5 | 273.5 ± 7.4 (192 hr) | 262 ± 9.2 | 2,660 | 60.09 ± 0.56 | 1.21 ± 0.01 |
| Stepwise constant feeding | 5–10 | 258 ± 3.5 (216 hr) | 258 ± 3.5 | 2,242 | 59.20 ± 1.06 | 1.19 ± 0.01 |
| Stepwise constant feeding | 15–20 | 244 ± 3.9 (216 hr) | 244 ± 3.9 | 1,971 | 58.20 ± 1.28 | 1.13 ± 0.02 |
| Pulsed feeding | 0–20 | 226 ± 3.0 (192 hr) | 222.5 ± 3.5 | 2,024 | 55.60 ± 0.88 | 1.03 ± 0.01 |
Biomass productivity (g·L−1·h−1) = dX/dt = (X 2−X 1)/(t 2−t 1), where X 1 and X 2 are the biomass concentration at time t 1 and t 2 of the fermentation.
Overview of maximum biomass concentration and productivity of microalgae under heterotrophic fed‐batch cultivation
| Microalgal species | Product | Maximum biomass concentration (g/L) | Maximum biomass productivity (g·L−1·h−1) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| DHA | 31.8 | 0.44 | Ryu, Kim, Kim, Han, and Yang ( |
|
| Lutein | 19.6 | 0.11 | Shi, Jiang, and Chen ( |
|
| Lipids | 70.9 | 0.39 | Yan, Lu, Chen, and Wu ( |
|
| Biomass | 116 | 0.98 | Wu and Shi ( |
|
| Biomass | 84 | 2.8 | Sansawa and Endo ( |
|
| Biomass | 117.2 | 3.66 | Doucha and Lívanský ( |
|
| Astaxanthin | 53 | 0.14 | Sun, Wang, Li, Huang, and Chen ( |
|
| Lipids | 103.8 | 0.45 | Zheng et al. ( |
|
| Ketocarotenoid | 18 | ‐ | Zhang and Lee ( |
|
| DHA | 109 | 0.28 | De Swaaf, Sijtsma, and Pronk ( |
|
| α‐Tocopherol | 48 | 0.26 | Ogbonna, Tomiyamal, and Tanaka ( |
|
| Phycocyanin | 109 | 0.72 | Graverholt and Eriksen ( |
|
| Phycocyanin | 116 | 0.34 | Schmidt et al. ( |
|
| Astaxanthin | 26 | 0.06 | Wan et al. ( |
|
| Lipids | 20.9 | 0.08 | Morales‐Sánchez, Tinoco‐Valencia, Kyndt, and Martinez ( |
|
| EPA | 40 | 0.12 | Wen and Chen ( |
|
| Lipids | 286 | 3.81 | This study |
Abbreviation: DHA, docosahexaenoic acid.
Figure 3Scale‐up of heterotrophic culture of S. acuminatus in 1,000‐L fermentor with the optimal cultural conditions. (a) Time courses of dissolved oxygen and stirring speed. (b) Time courses of biomass and glucose concentrations
Figure 4Lipid production in pilot‐scale tubular photobioreactors. (a) Culture appearance and cell morphology; (b) cell growth; (c) lipid contents of the culture inoculated with the cells from heterotrophic (□) and photoautotrophic (○) cultures. AS: Inocula from photoautotrophic culture; HS: inocula from heterotrophic culture; scale bar = 10 μm [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Summary of lipid production performance by outdoor cultivation of microalgae on various cultural scales
| Microalgal species | Type of cultural system | Inocula source & culture mode | Culture scale (L) | Lipid content (%, dwt) | Lipid Productivity (mg·L−1·d−1) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Flat plate | P and B | 60 | 33.80 | 22.30 | Feng, Deng, Hu, and Fan ( |
|
| Bag PBR | P and B | 120 | 23.00 | 13.70 | Moheimani ( |
|
| Raceway pond | P and B | 40,000 | 31.80 | 14.50 | Wen et al. ( |
|
| Raceway pond | P and S | 40,000 | 30.00 | 27.20 | Yang, He, and Hu ( |
|
| Green wall panel | P and B | 110 | 60.00 | 204.00 | Rodolfi et al. ( |
|
| Tubular PBR | P and C | 340 | 18.60 | 110.00 | San Pedro, Gonzalez‐Lopez, Acien, and Molina‐Grima ( |
|
| Green wall panel | P and B | 590 | 43.00 | 110.00 | Biondi et al. ( |
|
| Raceway pond | P and C | 792 | 25.60 | 30.40 | San Pedro, González‐López, Acién, and Molina‐Grima ( |
|
| Raceway pond | P and B | 8,000 | 28.00 | 4.69 | Zhu et al. ( |
|
| Tubular PBR | P and S | 500 | 13.40 | 19.00 | Hulatt and Thomas ( |
|
| Raceway pond | P and B | 2,278 | 21.50 | 9.20 | Eustance, Wray, Badvipour, and Sommerfeld ( |
|
| Tubular PBR | P and B | 5,300 | 31.04 | 27.45 | This study |
|
| Tubular PBR | H and B | 5,300 | 35.68 | 45.05 | This study |
Abbreviations: B, batch culture; C, continuous culture; H, seed from heterotrophic cultivation; P, seed from photoautotrophic cultivation; S, semi‐continuous culture; T, two‐step culture.
Figure 5Cost comparison among different culture modes
Comparison of the annual production cost compositions among different culture modes
| No. | Items | Open pond | Tubular photobioreactor | Heterotrophic culture | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost/$1 M | Percentage (%) | Cost/$1 M | Percentage (%) | Cost/$1 M | Percentage (%) | ||
|
| |||||||
| 1 | Equipment depreciation | 0.5200 | 29.50 | 4.7456 | 68.68 | 0.2658 | 16.75 |
| 2 | Land use | 0.0138 | 0.79 | 0.0120 | 0.17 | 0.0004 | 0.03 |
| 3 | Water | 0.3024 | 17.15 | 0.0224 | 0.32 | 0.0070 | 0.44 |
| 4 | Nutrient | 0.0573 | 3.25 | 0.0503 | 0.73 | 0.6224 | 39.23 |
| 5 | Power | 0.6523 | 37.00 | 1.6253 | 23.52 | 0.5989 | 37.75 |
| 6 | CO2 | 0.0000 | 0.00 | 0.0000 | 0.00 | 0.0000 | 0.00 |
| 7 | Maintenance | 0.0000 | 0.00 | 0.2373 | 3.43 | 0.0053 | 0.34 |
| 8 | Labor | 0.2170 | 12.31 | 0.2173 | 3.14 | 0.0868 | 5.47 |
| 9 | Total cost | 1.7628 | 100.00 | 6.9099 | 100.00 | 1.5866 | 100.00 |
|
| |||||||
| 1 | Equipment depreciation | 5.2354 | 30.91 | 47.6734 | 69.29 | 0.94 | 8.85 |
| 2 | Land use | 0.1374 | 0.81 | 0.1196 | 0.17 | 0.0013 | 0.01 |
| 3 | Water | 3.0018 | 17.72 | 0.2254 | 0.33 | 0.0000 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Nutrient | 0.5688 | 3.36 | 0.5072 | 0.74 | 6.2226 | 58.41 |
| 5 | Power | 6.4753 | 38.23 | 16.3760 | 23.80 | 3.3372 | 31.33 |
| 6 | CO2 cost | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 7 | Maintenance | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.3837 | 3.46 | 0.0189 | 0.18 |
| 8 | Labor | 1.5191 | 8.97 | 1.5191 | 2.21 | 0.1302 | 1.22 |
| 9 | Total cost | 16.9378 | 100.00 | 68.8045 | 100.00 | 10.6530 | 100.00 |
Figure 6Sensitivity analysis of heterotrophic (a), open pond (b), and tubular photobioreactor (c) cultivation system