Comparative evaluation of phototrophic microtiter plate cultivation against laboratory-scale photobioreactors
- 367 Downloads
Extended cultivation times, rendering phototrophic bioprocess development time inefficient, resulted in the recent development of micro-photobioreactors enabling accelerated process development. However, especially for laboratory photobioreactors, only little is known concerning the influence of design on process performance. Thus, the aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the scalability of a microtiter plate-based parallelized micro-photobioreactor against a representative set of established laboratory photobioreactors. Lipid production by Chlorella vulgaris was used as a model system. During exponential growth, the microtiter plate cultures achieved maximal growth rates of ca. 1.44 ± 0.02 day−1 being in good agreement with the larger systems. Moreover, cultures in the micro-photobioreactor could be kept in the exponential phase up to the highest biomass concentrations most probably due to the beneficial light supply at this scale. Compared to the shake flask and test tube cultures, microtiter plate cultivation achieved an equivalent biomass yield, lipid content, and lipid fingerprint. In contrast, the flat-panel process resulted only in marginal productivity due to insufficient light supply. Thus, microtiter plates showed good scalability to the investigated laboratory photobioreactors as overall differences were rather small taking the differing scales into account.
KeywordsMicroalgae Microscale Parallelized cultivation Scalability Chlorella vulgaris
The authors thank the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag for support and funding (Grant No. KF2519304CS3). We also thank Pamela Felden, Markus Jorissen, Kolja Mertens, and Carsten Müller (m2p-labs, Baesweiler, Germany) for support and cooperation within the project.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest.
This study does not include research involving human participants or animals.
- 1.Blankenship RE (2014) Molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bohren CF, Huffman DR (2008) Absorption and scattering of light by small particles. Wiley, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
- 5.Grobbelaar JU (2006) Photosynthetic response and acclimation of microalgae to light fluctuations. Subba Rao DV. (ed) Algal Cultures Analogues of Blooms and Applications. Science Publishers, EnfieldGoogle Scholar
- 10.Merchuk J, Garcia-Camacho F, Molina-Grima E (2007) Photobioreactor design and fluid dynamics. Chem Biochem Eng Q 21:345–355Google Scholar
- 24.Beijerinck MW (1890) Culturversuche mit Zoochlorellen und anderen niederen Algen. Btg Ztg 45:725–740Google Scholar
- 27.Graham MD (2003) The Coulter principle: foundation of an industry. JALA 8:72–81Google Scholar
- 31.Flowers JM, Hazzouri KM, Pham GM, Rosas U, Bahmani T, Khraiwesh B, Nelson DR, Jijakli K, Abdrabu R, Harris EH, Lefebvre PA, Hom EFY, Salehi-Ashtiani K, Purugganan MD (2015) Whole-genome resequencing reveals extensive natural variation in the model green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Plant Cell 27:2353–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Fujita Y, Murakami A, Ohki K (1987) Regulation of photosystem composition in the cyanobacterial photosynthetic system: the regulation occurs in response to the redox state of the electron pool located between the two photosystems. Plant Cell Physiol 28:283–292Google Scholar
- 38.Richardson B, Orcutt DM, Schwertner HA, Martinez CL, Wickline HE (1969) Effects of nitrogen limitation on the growth and composition of unicellular algae in continuous culture. Appl Microbiol 18:245–250Google Scholar