Comparison of Chlorella vulgaris and Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 in post treatment of dairy wastewater treatment plant effluents
- 27 Downloads
Treatment of wastewater by using of microalgae is a cost-effective system. Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 and Chlorella vulgaris were studied in this research. Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 was isolated from the dairy wastewater. In this study, treated wastewaters in preliminary and secondary treatment units of dairy wastewater treatment plant were used as medium. Maximum growth of two species of microalgae was examined in these two mediums, and also, nutrient removal was studied. The performance of two species of microalgae was studied on laboratory scale at different temperatures and light intensities. The best observed temperatures for Chlorella vulgaris and Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 were 25 and 28 °C, respectively, and the best observed performance for them was obtained at 7500 lx. The values of specific growth rate and biomass productivity in effluent of preliminary treatment unit for Chlorella vulgaris were 0.331 day−1 and 0.214 g L−l day−1, respectively, and for Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 were 0.375 day−1 and 0.233 g L−l day−1, respectively. Also, these parameters for Chlorella vulgaris in effluent of secondary treatment unit were determined 0.359 day−1 and 0.166 g L-l day−1, respectively, and for Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 were obtained 0.422 day−1 and 0.185 g L−l day−1, respectively. The removal efficiency of nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, and chemical oxygen demand for Chlorella sorokiniana pa.91 and Chlorella vulgaris in both of effluents was more than 80%. Based on the results, effluent of treatment plants can be a suitable microalgae growth medium, and the microalgae can be used as effective post treatment system.
KeywordsBiomass Microalgae Nutrients removal Preliminary Secondary
The authors appreciate Civil-Environmental Research Lab., the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology which supplied required equipment for present research
This study received financial support from the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology through the research grant number BNUT/393016/97.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- APHA, AWWA, WEF (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22nd edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Arbib Z, Ruiz J, Álvarez-Díaz P, Garrido-Perez C, Perales JA (2014) Capability of different microalgae species for phytoremediation processes: wastewater tertiary treatment, CO2 bio-fixation and low cost biofuels production. Water Res 49:465–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cabello V, Kovacic Z, Van Cauwenbergh N (2018) Unravelling narratives of water management: reflections on epistemic uncertainty in the first cycle of implementation of the Water Framework Directive in southern Spain. Environ Sci Pol 85:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cartes J, Neumann P, Hospido A, Vidal G (2018) Life cycle assessment of management alternatives for sludge from sewage treatment plants in Chile: does advanced anaerobic digestion improve environmental performance compared to current practices? J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 20:1530–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0714-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chonova T, Labanowski J, Cournoyer B, Chardon C, Keck F, Laurent É, Mondamert L, Vasselon V, Wiest L, Bouchez A (2018) River biofilm community changes related to pharmaceutical loads emitted by a wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:9254–9264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0024-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes M, Skomedal H, Skjånes K, Mazur-Marzec H, Toruńska-Sitarz A, Catala M, Isleten Hosoglu M, García-Vaquero, M (2017) Microalgal proteins for feed, food and health. Microalgae-Based Biofuels Bioprod 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101023-5.00015-7
- Li Y, Zhou W, Hu B, Min M, Chen P, Ruan RR (2012) Effect of light intensity on algal biomass accumulation and biodiesel production for mixotrophic strains Chlorella kessleri and Chlorella protothecoide cultivated in highly concentrated municipal wastewater. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:2222–2229. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.24491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mousavi S, Najafpour GD, Mohammadi M (2018) CO2 bio-fixation and biofuel production in an airlift photobioreactor by an isolated strain of microalgae Coelastrum sp. SM under high CO2 concentrations. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:30139–30150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3037-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nei M, Kumar S (2000) Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford university press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Pacheco-Vega JM, Gamboa-Delgado J, Alvarado-Ibarra AG et al (2018) Nutritional contribution of fish meal and microalgal biomass produced from two endemic microalgae to the growth of shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Lat Am J Aquatic Res 46:53–62. https://doi.org/10.3856/vol46-issue1-fulltext-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saba F, Papizadeh M, Khansha J et al (2017) A rapid and reproducible genomic DNA extraction protocol for sequence-based identification of archaea, bacteria, cyanobacteria, diatoms, fungi, and green algae. J Med Bacteriol 5:22–28Google Scholar
- Sureshkumar P, Thomas J (2019) Strategic growth of limnic green microalgae with phycoremediation potential for enhanced production of biomass and biomolecules for sustainable environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-4012-9
- WHO (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Yaakob MA, Mohamed RMSR, Al-Gheethi A, Tiey A, Kassim A (2019) Optimising of Scenedesmus sp. biomass production in chicken slaughterhouse wastewater using response surface methodology and potential utilisation as fish feeds. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04633-0