M. Bekirogullaria, - University of Manchester · Web viewMulti-factor kinetic modelling of...
Transcript of M. Bekirogullaria, - University of Manchester · Web viewMulti-factor kinetic modelling of...
Multi-factor kinetic modelling of microalgal biomass
cultivation for optimised lipid production
M. Bekirogullaria,1 , J.K. Pittmanb, C. Theodoropoulosa,*
aSchool of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, Biochemical and Bioprocess Engineering Group, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UKbSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Abstract
This paper presents a new quadruple-factor kinetic model of microalgal cultivation considering carbon
and nitrogen concentration, light intensity and temperature, developed in conjunction with laboratory-
scale experiments using the well-studied chlorophyte microalgal species Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.
Multi-parameter quantification was exploited to assess the predictive capabilities of the model. The
validated model was utilized in an optimization study to determine the optimal light intensity and
temperature for achieving maximum lipid productivity while using optimal acetate and nitrogen
concentrations (2.1906 g L-1 acetate and 0.0742 g L-1 nitrogen) computed in a recent publication. It
was found that the optimal lipid productivity increased by 50.9 % compared to the base case, and by
13.6% compared to the previously computed optimal case. Optimization results were successfully
validated experimentally. Such comprehensive modelling approaches can be exploited for robust
design, scale-up and optimization of microalgal oil production, reducing operating costs and bringing
this important technology closer to industrialization.
Keywords
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Dynamic kinetic modelling, Microalgal lipids, Cultivation optimization,
Quadruple-factor model.
Nomenclature
1 Currently at: Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Siirt University, 56100, Turkey
**Corresponding author: [email protected]
1
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1234
TAG Triacylglycerol
2
TAP Tris-acetate-phosphate
DCW Dry cell weight
N Nitrogen
S Substrate
I Light intensity
AA Acetic acid
I 0 Local light intensity
L Lipid
X Oil-free biomass
T Incubation temperature K
T 0 Reference temperature K
μ Specific growth rate h-1
μmax Maximum specific growth rate of biomass h-1
K S Substrate saturation constant g S L-1
K i S Substrate inhibition constant g S L-1
μX Specific growth rate of oil-free biomass h-1
μXmax Maximum specific growth rate of oil-free biomass h-1
K XS Acetate saturation constant g S L-1
K i XS Acetate inhibition constant g S L-1
K XN Nitrogen saturation constant g N L-1
K i XN Nitrogen inhibition constant g N L-1
qL Specific growth rate of lipid
qLmax Maximum specific growth rate of lipid g L g X-1 h-1
K LS Acetate saturation constant g S L-1
K i LS Substrate inhibition constant g S L-1
K iNL Nitrogen inhibition constant g N L-1
3
Y XS
Yield coefficient for oil-free biomass production with respect to
substrate
g X g S-1
Y XN
Yield coefficient for oil-free biomass production with respect to N g X g N-1
K H pH rate constant L g S-1
Y LS
Yield coefficient for lipid production with respect to substrate g X g S-1
K XI Light saturation constant μEm-2 s-1
K iXI Light inhibition constant μEm-2 s-1
K LI Light saturation constant μEm-2 s-1
K iLI Light inhibition constant μEm-2 s-1
σ Molar extinction coefficient g X-1 L m-1
l The distance between the local position and the external surface of
the system
m
A0X Frequency factors h-1
B0X Frequency factors h-1
Ea X Activation energy of oil-free biomass growth kcal mol-1
Eb X Activation energy of oil-free biomass degradation kcal mol-1
A0L Frequency factors h-1
B0L Frequency factors h-1
Ea L Activation energy of oil production kcal mol-1
Eb L Activation energy of oil degradation kcal mol-1
4
26
1. Introduction
The growing energy demand and concerns about climate change have led to an increased utilization
of renewable resources, particularly biomass, for the sustainable production of fuels and chemicals. In
this regard, microalgae have been proposed as an alternative renewable source for the production of
fuel, chemicals and added-value products due to their outstanding characteristics: mainly producing
high volume of oils and rapid growth rate compare to other terrestrial plants (Gangl et al., 2015, Liu
and Benning, 2013). Microalgal oil consists of glycerolipid triacylglycerol (TAG) that can be converted
into biodiesel, or used for the synthesis of other bioproducts or for other added-value products such
as nutraceuticals. Microalgal metabolic activities are highly versatile and flexible, which makes them
adaptable to different cultivation conditions (Adesanya et al., 2014). This potential of microalgae can
be utilized to control and maximise the production of a targeted compound within microalgae cells.
In both natural and modified systems, the microalgae culture can be exposed to various
environmental factors such as organic carbon and nutrient concentrations, light intensity, pH and
temperature that can simultaneously and antagonistically affect both the biomass production and the
lipid accumulation (Chen and Johns, 1994, Converti et al., 2009). The relationship between carbon
and nitrogen is that the excess carbon fixed from photosynthesis is channelled towards storage
compounds, such as TAG, when available nitrogen concentration is not sufficient for protein synthesis
and cell growth. Independent studies carried out analysing the effect of growth media showed that
adding acetate to the medium led to a enhancing effect in lipid accumulation under N starvation
conditions and created an ‘obese’ phenotype (Goncalves et al., 2015). On the other hand, supplying
unlimited carbon to the medium decreased the secondary responses triggered by changes in
photosynthetic rate. Recent studies carried out by Negi et al. (2016) and Carbone et al. (2018)
showed that under N-depleted conditions the lipid accumulation increased up to about 20 times
compared to N-replete cultures. Apart from the essential carbon availability and macronutrients as
well as micronutrients, favourable environmental conditions (light intensity and temperature) are also
necessary in algae cultivation processes to enhance algal growth, reproduction, lipid accumulation,
algae chemical composition and photosynthetic activity, as well as economic viability of the
processes. The net algae growth rate increases with an increase in light intensity and temperature,
until a certain point where the biomass growth rate is at its maximum. Increasing the light intensity
5
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
and temperature beyond this point does not increase algal growth rate. On the contrary, such an
increase causes photo oxidation, damages the light receptors of algae and reduces the
photosynthetic rate and thus the productivity (Singh et al., 2015, Aleya et al., 2011). An experimental
study undertaken by Yeesang and Cheirsilp (2011) using four different strains, revealed that lipid
content increased in all four strains with increasing light intensity from 33 to 49.5 μE m-2 s-1, but
decreased with light intensity from 49.5 to 82.5 μE m-2 s-1. A similar effect has been recorded for
temperature changes by Yoshimura et al. (2013) showing that increasing temperature from
5,15,20,25,30,35,38 and 45 0C, increases maximum specific growth rate up to a point where the
maximum specific growth rate becomes zero (0.095, 0.207, 0.392, 0.431, 0.496, 0 0 and 0 d-1
respectively). Thus, in order to produce oil-rich microalgal bodies, abiotic stress including nitrogen and
phosphorus deprivation as well as high light intensity and temperature stress can be applied (Zhu et
al., 2014, Singh et al., 2015).
Integrated experimental-computational frameworks that have the ability to predict biomass growth and
lipid accumulation under different growing conditions will help to optimize the process performance,
operating conditions and scale-up of cultivation systems for commercialization and industrial
applicability (Koskimaki et al., 2013, Bekirogullari et al., 2017). Droop, Monod and Andrew models
have been extensively applied to predict biomass growth rate as a function of a single substrate or
nutrient concentration such as phosphorus (Kwon et al., 2013), nitrogen (Eriksen et al., 2006), carbon
(Chen and Johns, 1996) or light (Zhang et al., 1999b). Some researchers have also considered the
simultaneous effect of multiple substrate and environmental factors, such as Solimeno et al. (2015)
who developed a kinetic model based on the Monod model considering inorganic carbon, nitrogen,
temperature and light intensity effects, and Turon et al. (2015) who considered the effect of two
different carbon sources (acetate and butyrate) under heterotrophic conditions. A detailed kinetic
model based on the Monod model has been developed by Al Ketife et al. (2016) considering the co-
limitation of four growth limiting factors N, P, CO2 and light and the model was validated using
experimental data obtained from the growth of Chlorella vulgaris species in externally illuminated
photobioreactor (PBR) over a range of cultivation conditions. However, these aforementioned studies
only simulated biomass growth and considered that lipid accumulation is proportional to it. Adesanya
et al. (2014) developed a mechanistic model based on the Droop model where biomass, starch and
lipid productions have been considered as three different dynamic variables under mixotrophic and
6
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
autotrophic conditions and Figueroa-Torres et al. (2017) produced a multi-parameter kinetic model
based on the Droop compartmentalized approach for the simultaneous optimisation of starch and
lipids production. There are few other models looking into the effects of different growth-limiting
factors such as, temperature and carbon (Goldman and Carpenter, 1974), nitrogen and phosphorus
(Rhee, 1978). Nevertheless, kinetic modelling of simultaneous co-limitation of growth media elements
(nitrogen and acetate) and environmental factors (light and temperature) has not been considered yet.
Additionally, while lipid accumulation has been considered to be proportional to biomass growth, the
effects of abiotic stress towards enhancement of lipid productivity have been recently shown through
a new kinetic model considering biomass growth and lipid accumulation as two different dynamic
variables (Bekirogullari et al., 2017). The model took into account the effect of acetate (as an organic
carbon substrate) and nitrogen (as a replete or limiting nutrient) variation under constant light
illumination on microalgal biomass growth and lipid production, and allowed the optimization of the
process for maximum lipid productivity (Bekirogullari et al., 2017). Nevertheless, it has been observed
that other environmental factors, such as light and temperature, will have a positive or negative effect
on microalgal growth and lipid accumulation (Béchet et al., 2013, Ota et al., 2015, Lee et al., 2015). In
this work, a model that is able to describe both biomass growth and lipid accumulation dynamics
simultaneously as a function of carbon substrate (C), nutrient (N), light (I) and temperature (T) under
photo-heterotrophic growth conditions is presented for the first time.
The model developed by Bekirogullari et al. (2017) was used to establish an optimal strategy for lipid
accumulation in terms of substrate and nitrogen concentration variations under constant light intensity.
Here, this model is expanded in order to develop an improved strategy taking into account light and
temperature variations as well. The developed model, hence, describes in detail biomass growth and
lipid accumulation in the green microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, and includes the simultaneous
effect of four limiting factors, C, N, I and T, under photo-heterotrophic growth conditions. The lipid
accumulation and biomass growth are considered as two different dynamic variables to take
advantage of abiotic stresses towards maximal lipid production. The predictive ability of the developed
photoheterotrophic model for biomass growth rate and lipid accumulation is tested over a range of
growth conditions and environmental conditions. The validated model is then used to compute optimal
initial conditions for maximum lipid accumulation, producing excellent results. The integrated
7
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
experimental-computational framework presented here can be exploited to confidently predict
biomass growth and lipid accumulation, and ultimately to enable robust system design and scale-up.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Microorganism and Culture Conditions
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (CCAP 11/32C), obtained from the Culture Collection of Algae and
Protozoa, UK, was used here as the experimental microalgal strain. The strain was maintained under
photo-heterotrophic conditions in batch cultures as described previously (Bajhaiya et al., 2016). Prior
to bench-scale batch experiments, preculture of the strain was carried out in an environmentally-
controlled incubation room at 25ºC, using 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks containing 150 mL of Tris-
acetate-phosphate (TAP) medium. The inoculum was then placed on an orbital shaker at 120 rpm for
7-10 days and constant light illumination was provided by a 4ft long 20W high power led T8 tube light,
125µE m−2 s−1light intensity. After achieving the sufficient cell density (7-10 days), experiments were
carried out in experimental culture vessels, Small Anaerobic Reactors (SARs, 500 mL), containing
500 mL of sterile TAP culture medium and 1 mL of algal inoculum. The SARs used in this study were
transparent in order to allow light to travel through the growth culture. The initial concentration of
inoculum, 0.001 g/mL, was identical for all the treatments. Initial concentration was determined
through the measurement of dry cell weight (DCW) by centrifuging 1 mL inoculum culture for 3 min at
3000 g in an Eppendorf Centrifuge 5424. The obtained wet pellet was then washed with cold distilled
water. The washed pellet was centrifuged again for 3 min at 3000 g and weighed on a fine balance
(Sartorius - M-Pact AX224, Germany) to determine the wet biomass. Subsequently, the wet biomass
was dried overnight at 70ºC to determine the DCW.
The initial environmental factor values were 125µE m−2 s−1 and 25ºC for the light intensity and
temperature, respectively. The light intensity and temperature were varied in order to analyse the
effect of light intensity and temperature variations on biomass growth and lipid accumulation. The light
intensity and temperature values that has been tested were chosen according to the experimental
behaviour of system. The experimental procedure started from zero light intensity and 5oC and
increased both light intensity and temperature gradually until reaching the value where the biomass
8
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
growth started decreasing suddenly. Overall, seven light intensities were analysed: 0 µEm−2 s−1,
5µE m−2 s−1, 45 µE m−2 s−1, 105µE m−2 s−1, 125µE m−2 s−1, 135µE m−2 s−1and 155µE m−2 s−1;
and seven temperatures; 5℃, 10℃, 15℃, 20℃, 25℃, 30℃ and 35℃. All culture vessels
were placed into the growth chamber (Fitotron® SGC 120 Plant Growth Chamber) one day before
inoculation to allow the culture vessels to reach the set temperature. Constant light illumination in the
growth chamber was provided by 4ft long standard white fluorescent tubes. When light intensity was
manipulated, the temperature was kept constant at 25℃, and when temperature was manipulated
the light intensity was kept constant at 125µE m−2 s−1. At the start of treatments the pH value was
set at pH=7. The pH of the samples was analysed through the use of a bench type pH meter (Denver
UltraBasic Benchtop Meters, USA). The supernatant and the biomass of the samples were kept
stored at -20ºC for quantification of specific metabolites. All data was statistically analysed by one-
way ANOVA using Tukey post-hoc test performed using Prism v.6.04 (GraphPad).
2.2. Analytical Methods
Biomass concentration, lipid accumulation in dried biomass, acetate and total nitrogen concentration
(linked to NH4Cl concentration), as well as pH of the growth media were measured and quantified
over time during the experiments. The supernatant samples were filtered through 0.45 µm
nitrocellulose membranes (Millipore Ltd.) and then diluted appropriately with HPLC grade water. The
concentration of acetate consumed was quantified using a High Performance/Pressure Liquid
Chromatographer (HPLC) equipped with a Hi- Plex 8 μm 300x7.7 mm column. Here the mobile phase
was sulphuric acid solution (0.05% v/v) and the flow rate of the system was 0.6 mL min-1. The total
nitrogen concentration was quantified by the use of a Total Organic Carbon / Total Nitrogen analyser
(TOC/TN) (TOC-VCSH/TNM-1 Shimadzu). The quantification of lipid concentration was performed by
extracting the lipid from dried biomass using the SOXTEC 1043 automated solvent extraction system.
Hexane was used as organic solvent. After extraction, the hexane was removed by evaporation and
the accumulated lipid was determined gravimetrically. The detailed procedure for the use of HPLC,
TOC-TN and SOXTEC 1043 has been described previously (Bekirogullari et al., 2017).
9
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
2.3. Mathematical Model Construction
2.3.1. Growth kinetics
It has been previously demonstrated (Bekirogullari et al., 2017) that excess carbon supply in the form
of acetate can be inhibitory as seen by dramatically reduced biomass growth and lipid production. It
has also been shown that reduced N supply can enhance lipid accumulation while inhibiting biomass
growth. Therefore, two different kinetic equations were used to describe specific (oil-free) biomass
growth rate (Eq. 1) and lipid production rate (Eq. 2) involving the simultaneous effect of acetate
substrate (denoted as substrate,S , onwards) nitrogen,N , and local light intensity illumination, I (l):
μX=μXmax ∙ S
S+K XS+S2
K iXS
∙ N
N+K XN+ N 2
K iXN
∙ I (l)
I (l )+K XI+I (l)2
K iXI
Eq. 1
μL=qLmax ∙ S
S+K LS+S2
K iLS
∙K iNL
N+K iNL∙
I ( l)
I (l )+K LI+I (l)2
K iLI
Eq. 2
Here μXmaxis the maximum specific growth rate of oil-free biomass (h-1) and qLmax the maximum lipid
specific growth rate (g L g X-1 h-1). K XS ,K XN , K XI , K LS and K LI are the saturation constants (g S L-1)
and K iXS , K iXN , K iXI , K iLS, K iLI the inhibition constants for oil-free biomass growth based on
substrate, nitrogen concentration and light intensity (g S L-1), respectively. K iNL is an inhibition
constant (g N L-1) used here to describe the lipid production dependent on nitrogen concentration.
The local light intensity I (l) is expressed by the Beer-Lambert equation (Béchet et al., 2013, Bernard
et al., 2016):
I ( l )=I 0 .exp(−σXl) Eq. 3
where l is the distance between the local position and the external surface of the system (m), I 0 the
incident light intensity (μEm-2 s-1), σ the molar extinction coefficient and X the oil-free biomass
concentration (Béchet et al., 2013). The final biomass concentration of the acetate-absent treatment
that was performed in (Bekirogullari et al., 2017) was almost zero which points out that the influence
10
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
of CO2 is negligible and therefore it has been discounted in the final biomass growth and lipid
accumulation expressions. The model in Bekirogullari et al. (2017) was a function of substrate and
nitrogen under constant incident light intensity, I 0 as expressed by Eq. 1 and Eq. 2.
In this work, the effect of temperature and of incident light intensity variations on biomass growth and
lipid accumulation has been taken into consideration, hence accounting for environmental changes on
microalgal cultivation processes. Hence, the triple substrate expressions (Eq. 1 and 2) have been
modified into quadruple-factor expressions:
μX=μXmax ∙ f X (S) ∙ f X (N )∙ f X ( I ) ∙ f X (T ) Eq. 4
μL=qLmax ∙ f L(S) ∙ f L(N )∙ f L ( I )∙ f L (T ) Eq. 5
The effect of temperature on (oil-free) biomass growth and lipid accumulation f (T ) is expressed by a
modified version of the Arrhenius equation which accounts for both saturation and inhibition effect of
temperature (Bitaubé Pérez et al., 2008):
f X(T )=A0Xexp [−EaX
R ( 1T − 1T0 )]−B0X exp [−Eb X
R ( 1T − 1T 0 )] (6)
f L(T )=A0Lexp [−EaL
R ( 1T − 1T 0 )]−B0Lexp [−EbL
R ( 1T − 1T 0 )] (7)
The first and the second parts of Eq. 6 and 7 represent the promotion and inhibition effects of
temperature (K), respectively. Ea X ,EaL and Eb X , EbL are the activation energies of growth and
cellular degradation, respectively (kcal mol−1), R is the gas constant (kcal mol−1), T the incubation
temperature (K ), T 0 the reference temperature (K ), and A0X , A0L and B0X ,B0L the corresponding
frequency factors (h−1).
11
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
2.3.2. Rate equations
The kinetic model developed in this work consists of a set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
employed for the simultaneous simulation of microalgal biomass growth, lipid production, substrate
and nitrogen consumption and pH change rates.
The microalgal (oil-free biomass) growth rate is described by:
dXdt
=μX . X Eq. 8
The lipid accumulation (lipid production) rate is given by:
dLdt
=μL . X Eq. 9
The substrate consumption rate can be calculated through a mass conservation equation
(Bekirogullari et al., 2017):
dSdt
=−1Y X
S
∙ dXdt
− 1Y L
S
∙ dLdt Eq. 10
where Y XS
is the yield coefficient for oil-free biomass production with respect to substrate and Y LS the
yield coefficient for lipid production with respect to substrate.
The nitrogen consumption rate is given by (Bekirogullari et al., 2017):
dNdt
=−1Y X
N
∙ dXdt Eq. 11
where Y XN
is the yield coefficient for oil-free biomass production with respect to N.
The pH change throughout the cultivation period of the microalgae cultivation system was observed to
be proportional to the substrate consumption rate (Zhang et al., 1999a) and is described by:
dHdt
=−K h ∙ dSdt
Eq. 12
where H is the pH of the medium, and K h is a constant. Consequently, the developed model consists
of 5 ODEs (Eq.8 to 12), with 5 state variables describing the dynamics of biomass growth, lipids
12
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
accumulation, substrate and nitrogen consumption as well as pH change. The model contains 26
parameters (listed in Section 3.1, below), which have been estimated through the procedure
discussed in section 3.3 below.
2.3.3. Parameter Estimation
This work is the first to develop a kinetic model for photoheterotrophic microalgae growth and lipid
accumulation by considering the simultaneous effect of an organic carbon substrate (acetate),
nitrogen, light intensity and temperature, and therefore, the kinetic parameter values for such a
system are not available in the literature. Consequently, a parameter estimation study using the
constructed model (Eq.8 to 12) was carried out in conjunction with in-house derived experimental
data. Data fitting was performed using a non-linear weighted least squares method (Vlysidis et al.,
2011):
Z(kk )=min∑k=1
nk
∑l=1
nl
∑m=1
nm
W k ,l , m (Ck , l ,mpred (kk)−C k ,l ,m
exp )2 Eq. 14
Here kk is the vector of the 26 model parameters, nk is the number of experiments (nk=2), nl is the
number of state variables (nl =5), nm is the number of experimental measurements in time (nm=7), and
Wk,l,m are the weights for each variable used to effectively normalise the computed errors, =
(C k , l ,mpred (kk )−Ck , l ,m
exp ), where C k ,l , mpred are the predicted state variables and C k ,l , m
exp the experimentally
obtained ones. Here the weights were set to Wk,l,m = 1/C k ,l , mexp ,.
The two set of experiments that have been used for the fitting problem are tabulated as Experiment 1
and Experiment 2 in Table 1. The initial concentrations of each experiment were used as the initial
values of the state variables in the ODEs (Eq.8 to 12). The kinetic parameter values were restricted
with an upper and lower bound, which were set according to the experimental behaviour of the system
and values found in the literature. It is worthwhile to note here that parameters used in a previous
paper (Bekirogullari et al., 2017) were allowed to vary by 10% only in order to produce a tighter fit to
experimental results. Reference (Bekirogullari et al., 2017) is given for these parameters as initial
values were taken from this paper and the computed values are very close (most within 1-2%) to the
ones in (Bekirogullari et al., 2017).
13
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
The parameter estimation problem was solved using an in-house developed stochastic optimisation
algorithm (Simulated Annealing) (Vlysidis et al., 2011), coupled with a non-linear programming (NLP)
– based deterministic optimization algorithm. In order to improve the chance of obtaining solutions in
the neighbourhood of the global optimum, the simulated annealing algorithm was used with multiple
restarts. The solution from the simulated annealing algorithm was then used as an initial guess to
compute the final optimum using the MATLAB function fmincon. The optimisation procedure followed
here has been described more in detail previously (Bekirogullari et al., 2017).
Here 10 stochastic optimization runs (restarts) have been used to ensure that the local minima were
avoided. By using the procedure explained above, the values of the 26 parameters as well as their
standard deviations were found and listed in section 3.1. The values of the two constants, T 0 and l
used in the simulations are also given in section 3.1. The resulting time profiles of the 5 state
variables, computed by the kinetic model, and comparisons against experimental datasets including
biomass growth, lipid accumulation, acetate and nitrogen consumption, pH change of the system are
discussed in section 4.2 below. Ultimately, sensitivity analysis was performed by calculating
sensitivities of the parameters via central finite differences for a 10% change in each of the
parameters. The threshold of sensitivity was set to 0.01 hence any sensitivity value above this
threshold was considered “significant”. The results showed that only 1 parameter (K iNL) was
insensitive and it was set to 380.023 as in the literature (Bekirogullari et al., 2017). Sensitivity analysis
have also revealed that the functions used for the light intensity in both oil-free biomass and lipid
production produced the same sensitivities. Therefore, one light intensity function was used for both
oil-free biomass production and lipid production which reduced the model parameters by two (Eq. 15):
f ( I )= I ( l)
I ( l )+K I+I (l)2
K iI
Eq. 15
2.3.4. Process optimization
The validated kinetic model was employed in an optimization study to compute optimal operating light
intensity and temperature using the optimal acetate and nitrogen concentrations (2.1906 g L-1 acetate
and 0.0742 g L-1 nitrogen) computed previously (Bekirogullari et al., 2017) for maximum biomass and
14
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
lipid productivity. The objective was to maximize the lipid, J L, productivity subject to the model
equations (Eq. 8 to 12):
Objective=max (J L¿)¿ Eq. 16
The productivity is defined as:
J L=L−L0t p−t p0
Eq. 17
Here J L is the lipid productivity (m g L−1 s−1), L is the final lipid concentration (m g Lipid L−1)
calculated by Eq.8, L0 is the initial lipid concentration (m g Lipid L−1), t p is the process time (h ).
3. Results and Discussion
A set of experiments were conducted to analyse the effect of varying light intensity and temperature
on biomass growth and lipid accumulation as well as acetate and nitrogen consumption and pH
change. The constructed model was then used to compute kinetic parameter values, which are of
crucial significance for precise system simulations, using the procedure described above. Validation
of the model with the computed kinetic parameters was subsequently performed using sets of
experimental data produced at different operating conditions. The validated model was then used to
compute optimal process operating conditions, for maximum lipid and biomass production.
In order to analyse the impact of the light intensity and temperature on biomass growth and lipid
accumulation and also to guide the model construction and validation process, a series of
experiments were conducted using Small Anaerobic Reactors (SARs, 500ml). Biomass concentration,
lipid accumulation, pH change of the growth media, and acetate and nitrogen concentrations in the
growth media were measured over time for seven different light intensities and seven different
temperature treatments mentioned in section 2.1. As can be seen in Fig. 1, most of the cultures from
different light and temperature treatments reached stationary phase at about 140h, but to make sure
that steady state concentrations were achieved, the cultures were grown up to 192h. The produced
15
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
dynamic profiles were also used to aid the understanding of the effects of modifying light intensity and
temperature on biomass growth and lipid production rates.
The experiments revealed that high light intensities act as system inhibitors, as they can dramatically
reduce biomass growth and lipid accumulation rates (Fig. 1 and 2), which is in agreement with
previous studies (Gordillo et al., 1998, Béchet et al., 2013). In addition, there was no growth observed
for the light-absent (0μEm-2 s-1) media and hence, there was no lipid accumulated (Fig. 2B). For the
two low light intensity treatments (5μEm-2 s-1 and 45μEm-2 s-1), growth rate was slow, while for the
other four treatments under increasingly higher light intensities (105μEm-2 s-1, 125μEm-2 s-1, 135μEm-2
s-1 and 155μEm-2 s-1), cells grew increasingly faster with equivalent growth profiles. The growth
profiles (Fig. 2) revealed that the biomass concentration increased significantly up to a maximum of
0.517 g L-1 as light intensity increased (¿125μEm-2 s-1) (p < 0.0001 for 0 µEm−2 s−1 and
125µE m−2 s−1, one-way ANOVA). Beyond this light intensity value, biomass concentration
decreased. Compared to the 125μEm-2 s-1 light intensity treatment, biomass concentration decreased
significantly (p < 0.0001, one-way ANOVA) both for the light-absent treatment (0μEm-2 s-1) and light-
deficient (5μEm-2 s-1) treatment by approximately 100% and 92%, respectively (Fig. 1A and 2A). For
the other light intensity treatments (45μEm-2 s-1,105 μEm-2 s-1 and 155μEm-2 s-1) biomass decreased
by approximately 38%, 25% and 40%, respectively as can be seen in Fig. 1B and 2B. The light
intensity treatment with 135μEm-2 s-1 did not show any significant difference compared to the 125
μEm-2 s-1 treatment (p < 0.9495, one-way ANOVA). The proportion of lipid production within the cell on
a total dry cell weight basis for all six light intensity treatments was essentially identical (approximately
10-13%), and the difference in volumetric lipid concentration between the light intensity treatments
(Fig. 2) was almost entirely due to the difference in biomass concentration. This finding suggests that
under sufficient acetate (1.05 g L-1) and nitrogen (0.098 g L-1) conditions, light is being assimilated
mainly for cell growth. While increasing light intensity can indeed increase the biomass concentration
and lipid accumulation, as shown here, the inhibition at high light intensities may be either due to
photo-oxidation or to reduction of the photosynthetic rate and thus of productivity. It should be noted
that while all treatments included acetate, the increased light-dependent growth at increasing light
intensities and the inability to grow in the absence of light suggests that the cells do still require light
and therefore the acetate can only limit, but cannot fully replace photosynthesis. The cells are
16
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
therefore growing mixotrophically rather than heterotrophically. The effect of light intensity treatments
on biomass concentration and lipid accumulation is in agreement with previously reported data for C.
reinhardtii where a range of light intensity treatments (0−1200 μEm-2 s-1) were examined (Fouchard
et al., 2009). They found that the biomass concentration increases as the light intensity increases until
a point where photoinhibition starts and biomass concentration decreases. Similar observations were
made for C. reinhardtii by Pottier et al. (2005) and Janssen et al. (2000). The impact of light intensity
variation treatments on biomass growth rate are also in good agreement with other previously
published findings for other microalgae strains, such as Enteromorpha sp. (Sousa et al., 2007),
Botryococcus sp. (Yeesang and Cheirsilp, 2011) and B. braunii (Ruangsomboon, 2012).
C. reinhardtii responded to increases in temperature with increased exponential growth rates until
reaching the optimum temperature for growth (approx. 25oC). Increasing temperature beyond this
point led to sharp declines in biomass growth and lipid accumulation, as can be seen in Fig. 1C, D
and 2C, D. These temperature-dependent profiles are also in agreement with previous studies (Van
Wagenen et al., 2012, James et al., 2011, Ota et al., 2015). For low temperature treatments (5oC and
10oC), biomass and lipid concentration were below detectable levels due to slow growth rate (Fig.
1C). For the moderate temperature treatments (15oC and 35oC), biomass concentration and lipid
accumulation decreased compared to the 25oC treatment by approximately 86% and 83% (for
biomass) (p < 0.0001 for 15℃ and 25℃; p < 0.0011 for 25℃ and 30℃, one-way ANOVA) and
75% and 80% (for lipid) (p < 0.0002 for 15℃ and 25℃; p < 0.0001 for 25℃ and 35℃, one-way
ANOVA), respectively. For the other three temperature treatments (20ºC, 25ºC, and 30ºC) lipid
accumulation growth profiles were essentially the same (Fig. 1C, D) and biomass concentration was
also same for (20ºC, 25ºC) and significantly different compare to (30ºC) (for biomass concentrations:
p = 0.170 for 20ºC and 25ºC; p = 0.1592 for 20ºC and 30ºC; p = 0.110 for 25ºC and30ºC, for lipid
accumulation: p > 0.999 for 20ºC and 25ºC; p = 0.9102 for 20ºC and 30ºC; p = 9524 for 25ºC and
30ºC, one-way ANOVA). Temperature affects the chemical composition of microalgae by impacting
the rate of chemical reactions and the stability of cellular components (Béchet et al., 2013, Lee et al.,
2015). The net algae growth rates increase exponentially as the temperature increases until a certain
point where strains reach their optimum temperature, after which loss of structural integrity leads to
sharp declines in biomass growth rate (Béchet et al., 2013, Lee et al., 2015). Increasing temperature
beyond these points does not increase algal growth rates and causes damage to a wide range of
17
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
proteins, molecules and the light receptors of the algae (Bernard and Rémond, 2012). The impact of
temperature variation treatments are in good agreement with previously published data by James et
al. (2013) for C. reinhardtii where 4 different temperatures were examined: 17ºC, 25ºC, 32 ºC and
35ºC. James et al. (2013) found that biomass growth increases as temperature increases until the
maximum tolerable temperature which was suggested to be between 35ºC -38 ºC. The optimal
growth temperature in nitrogen sufficient media was reported to be 32ºC. The effect of temperature
variation treatments on biomass growth rate are also in good agreement with other previously
reported findings for other microalgae strains, such as C. minutissima (Aleya et al., 2011), C. vulgaris
(Maxwell et al., 1994) and B. braunii (Yoshimura et al., 2013).
3.1. Model validation
The constructed ODE-based kinetic model consists of 5 ordinary differential equations (Eq.8 to 12)
and 26 kinetic parameters. Values of the kinetic parameters were computed by following the
methodology defined in section 3.3. The computed kinetic parameters were as follows;
μXmax=0,275h−1,K XS=0.0624 g S L−1, K i XS=12.40 g S L−1, K XN=0.0812g N L−1,
K i XN=0.6250 g N L−1, K I=45.50μ E m−2 s−1, K iI=297.75 μ E m−2 s−1, A0X=0.6175h−1,
Ea X=25.9243 kcal mol−1, B0X=0.1101h−1, EbX=48.0151 kcalmol−1,
qLmax=0.1512g L g X−1h−1, K LS=4.9155g S L−1,K i LS=0.1375g S L−1, K iNL=380.31g N L−1,
A0L=0.7h−1, EaL=20kcal mol−1, B0L=0.08h−1, Eb L=32kcal mol−1, Y XS=1.1025g X g S−1
,
Y LS=0.048g X g S−1
, Y XN=5.1623 g X g N−1
, K H=0.7606 L g S−1, σ=0.7419 g X−1 Lm−1,
l=0.25m and T 0=293 K . As can be seen in Fig. 3, the resulting model is in excellent agreement
with experimental data for all 4 state variables for experiment 1 and experiment 2 (Table 1). The pH
change profile of the growth culture was also in good agreement with experimental data for
experiment 1 and experiment 2 with small discrepancies. In order to assess the predictive capability
of the developed model, a validation study was carried out by using the conditions (initial acetate and
nitrogen concentrations, temperature and light intensity) of Experiment 3 (also given in Table 1). It
should be noted that all Experiment 3 conditions are different than the ones of Experiments 1 and 2
used for parameter fitting. Fig. 4 depicts the resulting model predictions against the corresponding
18
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
experimental results. As it can be seen, the kinetic model is able to predict the dynamics of the 5
experimentally obtained state variables (biomass growth, lipid accumulation, acetate and N
consumption and pH change) with high accuracy. Apart from the fact that the model shows the right
trend for all 5 state variables, the cumulative errors (sum of square difference between model
predictions, X pred, and data points, X obs , error=∑t=0
t=n
√( Xobs−X pred )2) are also small, not only for the
experiments used for fitting (which should be expected) but also, and more importantly, for the
validation runs. The cumulative error (error=∑t=0
t=n
√(X obs−X pred)2) for each variable is small (the
cumulative error for biomass, X is 0.0619, for lipid, L is 0.0093, for nitrogen is 0.015, for pH, 0.271 and
for carbon substrate, S, it is 0.32). In addition, the corresponding errors for the validated optimization
run are similar. It can therefore be concluded that the detailed interactive (multiplicative) model
constructed here can be utilized for accurate prediction of the dynamic behavior of microalgal batch
experiments. The comparison of the model predictions with other experiments are of the same quality
as for experiment 1 and 2, hence it was not included in the manuscript. Hence, the validated model
can be utilized as an optimization tool to compute optimal operating conditions for maximum biomass
and lipid accumulation for microalgal cultivation systems.
3.2. Optimization of the Process
The operating light intensity and temperature were degrees of freedom in the optimization process.
The upper and lower bounds of the optimization problem were set according to the experimental
behavior of the system. The resulting computed optimal operating conditions for light intensity and
temperature were 130µE m−2 s−1 and 24º C, respectively while acetate and nitrogen concentrations
were 2.19 g L-1 and 0.074 g L-1, respectively. The corresponding optimum lipid productivity was 11.775
mg L-1 d-1, which represents an increase of 50.9 % from the Base Case and an increase of 13.6%
compared to the optimal case computed in (Bekirogullari et al., 2017). Moreover, the computed
optimal biomass productivity was 49.975 mg L-1 d-1. The computed optimal operating conditions were
subsequently validated experimentally. The experimental biomass and lipid productivities were found
to be 51.875 mg L-1 d-1 and 11.662 mg L-1 d-1, respectively. The computed optimal time profiles along
with the corresponding experimental results obtained at the same conditions are depicted in Fig. 5.
19
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
The model predictions are in excellent agreement with the experimental results, which illustrates the
usefulness of the kinetic model for optimal design of experiments.
Coupled kinetic modelling and experimental design of microalgal cultivation is a powerful tool to
understand the interactions between biomass growth, lipid accumulation and environmental growth-
limiting factors. A detailed, experimentally validated kinetic model can be used in optimization studies
to compute optimal growth conditions that yield maximum biomass and lipid productivities. A few
studies have attempted to develop a kinetic model for microalgal biomass growth (Solimeno et al.,
2015, Yoo et al., 2014, He et al., 2012) but not all of them consider the simultaneous and antagonistic
effects of substrate concentration, nitrogen starvation, light intensity and temperature. Additionally,
these studies did not consider lipid production as a different state variable to take advantage of
nutrient stress, which results in higher lipid accumulation. Solimeno et al. (2015) developed a
mechanistic model which considers inorganic carbon limitation, nitrogen availability, temperature and
light intensity effects but the study only simulated biomass growth, considering that lipid accumulation
is proportional to it, which does not allow optimization of biomass and lipid productivities individually.
Consequently, previously developed kinetic models do not allow the accurate prediction of microalgal
cultivation system dynamics under realistic operating conditions. The detailed model developed and
validated in this study is a fully quadruple expression considering co-limitation of acetate (carbon
substrate), nitrogen, light intensity and temperature. It also contains separate expressions for biomass
growth and lipid accumulation, which allows the optimization of individual productivities to be carried
out.
Conclusions
To understand the synergistic interactions between substrate, nutrients and environmental factors, a
comprehensive kinetic model was developed. Kinetic parameters were computed by fitting model
outputs to experimental data for a range of light intensities and temperatures. Model predictions were
validated through comparisons to additional experimental data. An experimentally-validated
optimization study was carried out to identify optimal conditions resulting in maximum biomass and
lipid productivities. The computed optimal lipid productivity increased by 50.9 % compared to the base
case, and by 13.6% compared to a previously-optimized case. This illustrates the effectiveness of
carefully-constructed kinetic models for efficient operation of microalgal systems.
20
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
Supplementary Data
Detailed explanation of light distribution in the reactor based on experimental data as well as
computed sensitivities can be found in the Supplementary information.
Availability of Data and Materials
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
E-supplementary data for this work can be found in e-version of this paper online
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
MB would like to acknowledge the financial support of Republic of Turkey Ministry of National
Education.
21
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
Bibliography
Adesanya, V. O., Davey, M. P., Scott, S. A. & Smith, A. G. 2014. Kinetic modelling of growth and
storage molecule production in microalgae under mixotrophic and autotrophic conditions. Bioresource
Technology, 157, 293-304.
Al Ketife, A. M. D., Judd, S. & Znad, H. 2016. A mathematical model for carbon fixation and nutrient
removal by an algal photobioreactor. Chemical Engineering Science, 153, 354-362.
Aleya, L., Dauta, A. & Reynolds, C. S. 2011. Endogenous regulation of the growth-rate responses of a
spring-dwelling strain of the freshwater alga, Chlorella minutissima, to light and temperature.
European Journal of Protistology, 47, 239-244.
Bajhaiya, A. K., Dean, A. P., Driver, T., Trivedi, D. K., Rattray, N. J. W., Allwood, J. W., Goodacre, R.
& Pittman, J. K. 2016. High-throughput metabolic screening of microalgae genetic variation in
response to nutrient limitation. Metabolomics, 12, 1-14.
Béchet, Q., Shilton, A. & Guieysse, B. 2013. Modeling the effects of light and temperature on algae
growth: State of the art and critical assessment for productivity prediction during outdoor cultivation.
Biotechnology Advances, 31, 1648-1663.
Bekirogullari, M., Fragkopoulos, I. S., Pittman, J. K. & Theodoropoulos, C. 2017. Production of lipid-
based fuels and chemicals from microalgae: An integrated experimental and model-based
optimization study. Algal Research, 23, 78-87.
Bernard, O., Mairet, F. & Chachuat, B. 2016. Modelling of Microalgae Culture Systems with
Applications to Control and Optimization. In: POSTEN, C. & FENG CHEN, S. (eds.) Microalgae
Biotechnology. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Bernard, O. & Rémond, B. 2012. Validation of a simple model accounting for light and temperature
effect on microalgal growth. Bioresource Technology, 123, 520-527.
Bitaubé Pérez, E., Caro Pina, I. & Pérez Rodríguez, L. 2008. Kinetic model for growth of
Phaeodactylum tricornutum in intensive culture photobioreactor. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 40, 520-525.
Carbone, D. A., Gargano, I., Chiaiese, P., Pollio, A., Marotta, R., Olivieri, G. & Pinto, G. 2018.
Scenedesmus vacuolatus cultures for possible combined laccase-like phenoloxidase activity and
biodiesel production. Annals of Microbiology, 68, 9-15.
Chen, F. & Johns, M. R. 1994. Substrate inhibition of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii by acetate in
heterotrophic culture. Process Biochemistry, 29, 245-252.
22
451
452453454
455456
457458459
460461462
463464465
466467468
469470471
472473
474475476
477478479
480481
Chen, F. & Johns, M. R. 1996. Heterotrophic growth of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii on acetate in
chemostat culture. Process Biochemistry, 31, 601-604.
Converti, A., Casazza, A. A., Ortiz, E. Y., Perego, P. & Del Borghi, M. 2009. Effect of temperature and
nitrogen concentration on the growth and lipid content of Nannochloropsis oculata and Chlorella
vulgaris for biodiesel production. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 48, 1146-1151.
Eriksen, N. T., Riisgård, F. K., Gunther, W. S. & Lønsmann Iversen, J. J. 2006. On-line estimation of
O2 production, CO2 uptake, and growth kinetics of microalgal cultures in a gas-tight photobioreactor.
Journal of Applied Phycology, 19, 161-174.
Figueroa-Torres, G. M., Pittman, J. K. & Theodoropoulos, C. 2017. Kinetic modelling of starch and
lipid formation during mixotrophic, nutrient-limited microalgal growth. Bioresource Technology, 241, 868-878.
Fouchard, S., Pruvost, J., Degrenne, B., Titica, M. & Legrand, J. 2009. Kinetic modeling of light
limitation and sulfur deprivation effects in the induction of hydrogen production with Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii: Part I. Model development and parameter identification. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, 102, 232-245.
Gangl, D., Zedler, J. a. Z., Rajakumar, P. D., Martinez, E. M. R., Riseley, A., Włodarczyk, A., Purton,
S., Sakuragi, Y., Howe, C. J., Jensen, P. E. & Robinson, C. 2015. Biotechnological exploitation of
microalgae. Journal of Experimental Botany, 66, 6975-6990.
Goldman, J. C. & Carpenter, E. J. 1974. A kinetic approach to the effect of temperature on algal
growth1. Limnology and Oceanography, 19, 756-766.
Goncalves, E. C., Wilkie, A. C., Kirst, M. & Rathinasabapathi, B. 2015. Metabolic regulation of
triacylglycerol accumulation in the green algae: identification of potential targets for engineering to
improve oil yield. Plant Biotechnology Journal, n/a-n/a.
Gordillo, F. J. L., Goutx, M., Figueroa, F. L. & Niell, F. X. 1998. Effects of light intensity, CO2 and
nitrogen supply on lipid class composition of Dunaliella viridis. Journal of Applied Phycology, 10, 135-
144.
He, L., Subramanian, V. R. & Tang, Y. J. 2012. Experimental analysis and model-based optimization
of microalgae growth in photo-bioreactors using flue gas. Biomass and Bioenergy, 41, 131-138.
James, G. O., Hocart, C. H., Hillier, W., Price, G. D. & Djordjevic, M. A. 2013. Temperature
modulation of fatty acid profiles for biofuel production in nitrogen deprived Chlamydomonas
reinhardtii. Bioresource Technology, 127, 441-447.
23
482483
484485486487
488489490
491492493
494495496497
498499500
501502
503504505
506507508
509510
511512513
Janssen, M., De Bresser, L., Baijens, T., Tramper, J., Mur, L. R., Snel, J. F. H. & Wijffels, R. H. 2000.
Scale-up aspects of photobioreactors: effects of mixing-induced light/dark cycles. Journal of Applied
Phycology, 12, 225-237.
Koskimaki, J. E., Blazier, A. S., Clarens, A. F. & Papin, J. A. 2013. Computational models of algae
metabolism for industrial applications. Industrial Biotechnology, 9, 185-195.
Kwon, H. K., Oh, S. J. & Yang, H.-S. 2013. Growth and uptake kinetics of nitrate and phosphate by
benthic microalgae for phytoremediation of eutrophic coastal sediments. Bioresource Technology,
129, 387-395.
Lee, E., Jalalizadeh, M. & Zhang, Q. 2015. Growth kinetic models for microalgae cultivation: A review.
Algal Research, 12, 497-512.
Liu, B. & Benning, C. 2013. Lipid metabolism in microalgae distinguishes itself. Current Opinion in
Biotechnology, 24, 300-309.
Maxwell, D. P., Falk, S., Trick, C. G. & Huner, N. 1994. Growth at Low Temperature Mimics High-
Light Acclimation in Chlorella vulgaris. Plant physiology, 105, 535-543.
Negi, S., Barry, A. N., Friedland, N., Sudasinghe, N., Subramanian, S., Pieris, S., Holguin, F. O.,
Dungan, B., Schaub, T. & Sayre, R. 2016. Impact of nitrogen limitation on biomass, photosynthesis,
and lipid accumulation in Chlorella sorokiniana. Journal of Applied Phycology, 28, 803-812.
Ota, M., Takenaka, M., Sato, Y., Jr, R. L. S. & Inomata, H. 2015. Effects of light intensity and
temperature on photoautotrophic growth of a green microalga, Chlorococcum littorale. Biotechnology
Reports, 7, 24-29.
Pottier, L., Pruvost, J., Deremetz, J., Cornet, J. F., Legrand, J. & Dussap, C. G. 2005. A fully
predictive model for one-dimensional light attenuation by Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in a torus
photobioreactor. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 91, 569-582.
Rhee, G. Y. 1978. Effects of N:P atomic ratios and nitrate limitation on algal growth, cell composition,
and nitrate uptake 1. Limnology and Oceanography, 23, 10-25.
Ruangsomboon, S. 2012. Effect of light, nutrient, cultivation time and salinity on lipid production of
newly isolated strain of the green microalga, Botryococcus braunii KMITL 2. Bioresource Technology,
109, 261-265.
Singh, B., Guldhe, A., Singh, P., Singh, A., Rawat, I. & Bux, F. 2015. Sustainable Production of
Biofuels from Microalgae Using a Biorefinary Approach. In: KAUSHIK, G. (ed.) Applied Environmental
Biotechnology: Present Scenario and Future Trends. Springer India.
24
514515516
517518
519520521
522523
524525
526527
528529530
531532533
534535536
537538
539540541
542543544
Solimeno, A., Samsó, R., Uggetti, E., Sialve, B., Steyer, J.-P., Gabarró, A. & García, J. 2015. New
mechanistic model to simulate microalgae growth. Algal Research, 12, 350-358.
Sousa, A. I., Martins, I., Lillebø, A. I., Flindt, M. R. & Pardal, M. A. 2007. Influence of salinity, nutrients
and light on the germination and growth of Enteromorpha sp. spores. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, 341, 142-150.
Turon, V., Baroukh, C., Trably, E., Latrille, E., Fouilland, E. & Steyer, J. P. 2015. Use of fermentative
metabolites for heterotrophic microalgae growth: Yields and kinetics. Bioresource Technology, 175, 342-349.
Vlysidis, A., Binns, M., Webb, C. & Theodoropoulos, C. 2011. Glycerol utilisation for the production of
chemicals: Conversion to succinic acid, a combined experimental and computational study.
Biochemical Engineering Journal, 58–59, 1-11.
Yeesang, C. & Cheirsilp, B. 2011. Effect of nitrogen, salt, and iron content in the growth medium and
light intensity on lipid production by microalgae isolated from freshwater sources in Thailand.
Bioresource Technology, 102, 3034-3040.
Yoo, S. J., Kim, J. H. & Lee, J. M. 2014. Dynamic modelling of mixotrophic microalgal photobioreactor
systems with time-varying yield coefficient for the lipid consumption. Bioresource Technology, 162, 228-235.
Yoshimura, T., Okada, S. & Honda, M. 2013. Culture of the hydrocarbon producing microalga
Botryococcus braunii strain Showa: Optimal CO2, salinity, temperature, and irradiance conditions.
Bioresource Technology, 133, 232-239.
Zhang, X.-W., Chen, F. & Johns, M. R. 1999a. Kinetic models for heterotrophic growth of
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in batch and fed-batch cultures. Process Biochemistry, 35, 385-389.
Zhang, X. W., Zhang, Y. M. & Chen, F. 1999b. Application of mathematical models to the
determination optimal glucose concentration and light intensity for mixotrophic culture of Spirulina
platensis. Process Biochemistry, 34, 477-481.
Zhu, S., Huang, W., Xu, J., Wang, Z., Xu, J. & Yuan, Z. 2014. Metabolic changes of starch and lipid
triggered by nitrogen starvation in the microalga Chlorella zofingiensis. Bioresource Technology, 152, 292-298.
25
545546
547548549
550551552
553554555
556557558
559560561
562563564
565566
567568569
570571572
573
574
List of Figure Captions
Fig. 1. Effect of light intensity (A, B) and temperature (C, D) on dry cell weight (A, C) and total lipid
concentration (B, D) dynamics during photo-heterotrophic growth. Starting temperature for the light
intensity variation treatment experiments was 25ºC and starting light intensity for the temperature
variation treatment experiments was 125μEm-2 s-1. All data are mean ± SE values of 2-3 biological
replicates.
Fig. 2. Effect of light intensity (A, B) and temperature (C, D) on dry cell weight (A, C) and total lipid
concentration (B, D) dynamics during photo-heterotrophic growth. The starting temperature for the
light intensity variation treatment experiments was 25ºC and the starting light intensity for the
temperature variation treatment experiments was 125μEm-2 s-1. All data are mean ± SE values of 2-3
biological replicates. The lower case letters above each bar represent the statistical analysis obtained
from one-way ANOVA. The treatments that do not share same lowercase letters are significantly
different (p < 0.05), as determined by one-way ANOVA. The percentage lipid value as a proportion of
dry weight biomass is indicated above each bar in panels B and D.
Fig. 3. Comparison of model predictions (lines) with experimental data from Experiment 1 (symbols
with error bars) for: (A) biomass and lipid concentration, (B) substrate (acetate) and N consumption.
All data are mean ± SE values of 2-3 biological replicates.
Fig. 4. Comparison of model predictions (lines) with experimental data from Experiment 3 (symbols
with error bars) for: (A) biomass and lipid concentration, (B) substrate (acetate) and N consumption.
All data are mean ± SE values of 2-3 biological replicates.
Fig. 5. Comparison of computed optimal system dynamics (lines) with experimental data (symbols
with error bars) at the same conditions for(A) biomass and lipid concentration, (B) substrate (acetate)
and N consumption, using 2.19 g L-1 acetate and 0.074 g L-1 N, 130 μEm-2 s-1 and 24ºC.
26
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
Table 1: Experiments used for the fitting and validation processes
Experiment Acetate (g L-1) Nitrogen (g L-1) Light (μEm-2 s-1) Temperature (0C)
1 1.05 0.098 125 30
2 1.05 0.098 105 25
3 1.365 0.074 110 28
27
599
600
601
602
Fig.1.
28
603
604
Fig.2.
29
605
606
607
Fig.3.
Fig.4.
30
608
609
610
31
611
612
Fig.5.
32
613
614
615