Comparison of Four Quantitative Techniques for Monitoring

Feb 12, 2018 - Ultrasound has been regarded as an environmental friendly technology to utilize microalgae biomass and control algal blooms. In this st...
1 downloads 11 Views 2MB Size
Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST

Article

Comparison of Four Quantitative Techniques for Monitoring Microalgae Disruption by Low-frequency Ultrasound and Acoustic Energy Efficiency Xiao TAN, Danfeng ZHANG, Keshab PARAJULI, Sanjina UPADHYAY, Yuji JIANG, and Zhipeng Duan Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05896 • Publication Date (Web): 12 Feb 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 14, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 32

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Comparison of Four Quantitative Techniques for Monitoring Microalgae Disruption by

2

Low-frequency Ultrasound and Acoustic Energy Efficiency

3

Authors: Xiao Tan1, Danfeng Zhang1, Keshab Parajuli2, Sanjina Upadhyay3, Yuji Jiang4, Zhipeng Duan1*

4 5

Affiliations:

6

1

7

Education, College of Environment, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China

8

2

Origin Energy Limited, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia

9

3

Water Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005,

Key Laboratory of Integrated Regulation and Resource Development on Shallow Lakes, Ministry of

10

Australia

11

4

12

Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China

State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of

13 14 15

*Correspondence to: Zhipeng Duan, Key Laboratory of Integrated Regulation and Resource

16

Development on Shallow Lake of Ministry of Education, College of Environment, Hohai University, 1

17

Xikang Road, Nanjing, China.

18

Tel.: +86 25-83786897; E-mail: [email protected]

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

19

Abstract

20

Ultrasound has been regarded as an environmental friendly technology to utilize microalgae

21

biomass and control algal blooms. In this study, four quantitative techniques, including cell counting,

22

optical density of algal suspension, pigments release, and protein release, were performed on three

23

species of microalgae (M. aeruginosa, C. pyrenoidosa, and C. reinhardtii) to develop effective

24

techniques for rapid monitoring of cell disruption and to optimize the acoustic energy efficiency. Results

25

showed optical density of algal suspensions was not an optimal indicator to monitor cell disruption,

26

although it is a common technique for determining cell concentration in microbial cultures. Instead, an

27

accurate and reliable technique was to determine the release of intracellular pigments (absorbance peaks

28

of supernatant) for indicating cell rupture. The protein released during sonication could also be a useful

29

indicator if it is the component of interest. A fitted power functional model showed a strong relationship

30

between cell disruption and energy consumption (R2 > 0.87). This model could provide an effective

31

approach to directly compare the energy efficiency of ultrasound in different systems or with varying

32

microalgae species. This study provides valuable information for microalgae utilization and the

33

treatment of algal blooms by ultrasound, so as to achieve energy conservation and environmental safety.

34

Keywords: quantitative techniques, microalgae disruption, ultrasonication, acoustic energy efficiency,

35

power functional model

36 37

1 Introduction

38

Some species of microalgae are of high value by virtue of their use in production of commercial

39

products, which have attracted immense scholastic interests.1-3 However, the valuable components in

40

microalgae are generally circumscribed by membranes and/or cell walls. It is difficult to extract these

41

materials from intact algal cells4-7 but ultrasonic pre-treatment can rupture algal cells for enhancing the 2

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 32

Page 3 of 32

Environmental Science & Technology

42

extraction efficiency.8-10

43

In natural environments, bloom-forming microalgae, particularly cyanobacteria, have been

44

promoted excessively by anthropogenic nutrient enrichment and global warming, leading to serious

45

ecological and environmental challenges.

46

control blooms due to its high ability to inactivate or rupture algal cells.8,12-14 However, ultrasonic

47

treatment for cell degradation in the applications of microalgae utilization and control of cyanobacterial

48

blooms is still in the early phase, and this commonly causes the operation to be either insufficient or

49

excessive; leading to either incomplete cell disruption15 or destruction of the extracts.16 Therefore, this

50

technique needs to be optimized in terms of avoiding an overexposure and for achieving high energy

51

efficiency.

11

Ultrasonic technique has been frequently employed to

52

To monitor the degree of cell rupture accurately and conveniently with reliable techniques is

53

primarily vital for optimizing this process. Direct (e.g., cell counting) and indirect techniques (e.g.,

54

determination of the release of intracellular components) for measuring cell disruption are widely

55

discussed in the available literature.17 Cell counting gives a direct microscopic examination of the

56

proportion of fragmented cells, which is commonly employed to monitor cell disruption due to its

57

unambiguous nature.5,6,18 Despite various advantages, however, this technique is less effective to such

58

extent that it is difficult to be used in large-scale operations. Other direct methods, such as determination

59

of biomass loss, are also unsuitable because of either highly conservative estimate or the process being

60

time-consuming. Viscosity or electrical conductivity of algal suspension have also been studied to assess

61

the disruption levels, but it is difficult to establish relationships between rupture levels and viscosities or

62

conductivities.19 Some indirect techniques, for example, determination of particle size distribution or

63

measurement of the release of intracellular metabolites are popular in literatures.20-22 In addition, optical 3

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

64

density of algal suspension at special wavelengths is commonly used to measure cell disruption.23-25

65

Although most of them are simple, over- or under-estimation for cell disruption frequently occurs.26 In

66

summary, the most common methods for monitoring the cell disruption in literature are cell counting

67

and the measurement of optical density of algal suspensions.27-30 However, the method of cell counting

68

is very time-consuming, and the method of determining optical density of algal suspensions still remains

69

to be well established.13 Therefore, more reliable and effective techniques need to be developed for

70

monitoring the algal cells disruption.

71

Moreover, estimating the correlation between cell reduction and acoustic energy consumption is

72

also important for the optimization of ultrasonic treatment. Although a bilinear equation model has been

73

proposed to fit the relationship between cell rupture and energy consumption, the cell disruption is not a

74

first-order process with ultrasonic energy inputs, which depends on the treated algal species and

75

ultrasonic parameters.5,16,31 In order to upgrade ultrasonic energy efficiency, the correlation between cell

76

disruption and energy inputs needs to be analyzed quantitatively.

77

This study aimed to develop rapid and reliable techniques for monitoring cell disruption induced by

78

ultrasound in three representative microalgae (Microcystis aeruginosa, Chlorella pyrenoidosa, and

79

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii), and to propose an empirical model, which integrates energy inputs and

80

cell lyses. The results from this study can provide valuable information for microalgae utilization and

81

algal blooms treatment by ultrasound.

82 83 84

2 Materials and methods 2.1 Microalgal strains and sample preparation

85

M. aeruginosa PCC 7806 (an ovoid or spherical unicellular cyanobacteria; 3-6 µm in diameter) was

86

obtained from the State Key Laboratory of Lake Science and Environment, Nanjing Institute of 4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 32

Page 5 of 32

Environmental Science & Technology

87

Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. C. pyrenoidosa FACHB 5 (a spherical

88

unicellular green algae; 3-8 µm in diameter) and C. reinhardtii FACHB 359 (an ovoid unicellular green

89

algae with two flagella; 10-12 µm in diameter) were purchased from Freshwater Algae Culture

90

Collection at the Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. M. aeruginosa and C.

91

pyrenoidosa were grown in 250-ml Erlenmeyer flasks with BG11 medium, while C. reinhardtii was

92

cultured in flasks with SE medium. Cultures were grown in a sterile illumination incubator at 25 ±

93

0.5 °C under 30 µ E/(m2 s) light intensity with a light:dark cycle of 12h:12h. M. aeruginosa was selected

94

due to its ubiquitous distribution as common and dominant species in bloom-forming cyanobacteria,32

95

which could be controlled effectively by ultrasound. The two green algal strains were chosen because

96

they have been investigated broadly as promising feedstocks for health products or biofuel

97

production.33-35 All algal cells of each species were collected at stationary phase by centrifuging (5000 g)

98

for 10 min at 4 °C, and were then re-suspended with fresh media. Standard algal samples of M.

99

aeruginosa, C. pyrenoidosa, and C. reinhardtii were prepared with different cell concentrations at

100

1.83×107, 1.21×107, and 2.58×106 cells/mL, respectively, or with dry weight concentrations at

101

approximately 1.48, 2.26, and 0.26 Kg/m3, respectively. In addition, although cell concentration

102

significantly influences the disruption rate of algae by ultrasound,36 this study did not focus on the

103

different rupture patterns or responses of the three microalgae to ultrasound, but instead aimed to

104

develop rapid and reliable techniques for monitoring the cell disruption. Therefore, the main conclusions

105

of this study are not significantly impacted by the use of different cell concentrations.

106

2.2 Ultrasonic equipment

107

An ultrasonic apparatus (bath-type) equipped with a disk-type transducer (35 kHz; DAS Corp.,

108

China) was employed in the subsequent experiments (Figure 1). The transducer was fixed at the central 5

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 6 of 32

109

bottom of the cylindrical stainless steel tank (a maximal capacity of 200 mL). An artificial cooling jacket

110

surrounded the tank. The accurate acoustic power entering the system was measured by calorimetry

111

method.37 150 ml of distilled water was sonicated in the tank for 15 minutes without operating the

112

cooling system, and its temperature was recorded synchronously. The tank was covered with a lid during

113

the calibration of the power output. The temperature was measured using a digital thermometer and the

114

interval of each measurement was less than ten seconds. The measurement was carried out in triplicate

115

and the resulting data were then averaged. There was a strong linear relationship between sonication

116

time and temperature (R2 = 0.99, P80%) (Figure 3F).

231

Altogether, therefore, OD values highly relied on the feature of algal strains and were not suitable for

232

determining cell disruption among all of the microalgae species.

233

3.3 Optical densities of the supernatant of algal sample at special wavelengths for monitoring cell

234

disruption

235

Five steps of the physical disruption of an individual microorganism have been proposed: (i)

236

remaining whole, (ii) becoming damaged, (iii) releasing intracellular components while remaining

237

nominally whole, (iv) breaking and further releasing cellular inclusions, and (v) approaching complete

238

fragmentation.26 According to this proposal, the disruption process indeed can be further simplified into 11

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 12 of 32

239

the fragmentation of intact cell and the release of cellular inclusions. Cell fragments produced from cell

240

disruption might be responsible for the complexity of absorbance spectra of algal suspensions mentioned

241

above. Therefore, if the cell debris can be separated from the algal suspensions, measuring the release of

242

intracellular pigments would be a valid technique for monitoring cell disruption. In order to examine this

243

hypothesis, algal samples with various treatments were centrifuged, and the absorbance spectrum of the

244

supernatant was then determined. These results are shown in Figure 4.

245

Insert [Figure 4]

246

As shown in figures 4A, 4C, and 4E, absorbance spectra of all the supernatants of algal samples

247

increased with cell disruption and exhibited a typical chlorophyll absorption spectrum. Chlorophyll is a

248

lipophilic pigment that is inside the chloroplast for eukaryotic algal cells or the cytosol for cyanobacteria.

249

Coupled with the carotenoids, it was possible that they were released into the aqueous medium with

250

their membrane substances during sonication, and they were left in the supernatant even after

251

centrifugation at 13,000g for 10 min, where green supernatants were observed. All the supernatants had

252

the same peak at around 680 nm (S-OD680), but a few differences were observed at the shorter

253

wavelengths, which may be due to the different components of pigments in cells between green algae

254

and cyanobacteria.44 Despite the slight difference between species, the relationship between S-OD

255

values and the extents of cell disruption at peak wavelengths was significantly linear. For instance,

256

S-OD440 or S-OD680 of M. aeruginosa achieved the highest reliability (r

257

indicators) (Figure 4B). S-OD430 and S-OD680 of the two green algae also appeared to have higher

258

reliabilities (r 2Pearson > 0.95, P