Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Behavior of Briquettes Made from a Mixture of Sawdust and Rice Husks for Commercialization
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental, Social and Governance Credentials of Agricultural Companies—The Interplay with Company Size
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

The Effect of Autotrophic Cultivation of Platymonas subcordiformis in Waters from the Natural Aquatic Reservoir on Hydrogen Yield

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Geoengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland
Department of Water Supply and Sewage Systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2022, 11(3), 31;
Submission received: 14 February 2022 / Revised: 23 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 March 2022 / Published: 12 March 2022


Biological processes run by microalgae are prospective but still little known methods of hydrogen production. A prerequisite for their increased advancement is the development of economically viable and efficient technologies. The study presented in this manuscript focused on determining the efficiency of biohydrogen production by P. subcordiformis using a culture medium prepared based on natural waters. The rate of P. subcordiformis biomass growth reached 317.6 ± 42.3 mgODM/dm3·d and ensured a biomass concentration of 3493 ± 465 mgODM/dm3. The percentage concentration of hydrogen in the biogas reached 63.2 ± 1.4%, and its production rate ranged from 0.53 ± 0.05 cm3/h to 0.70 ± 0.01 cm3/h.

1. Introduction

The negative impact of the economy on the natural environment determines the need to use low-emission production technologies, including the implementation of clean and effective solutions for energy production [1,2]. Hydrogen represents one of the energy carriers meeting the criteria of an environmentally friendly fuel [3]. Today, it is used in a narrow and marginal range, mainly in the refining industry, space technologies and fuel cells [4,5]. The lack of rational, technologically and economically viable methods for its production and storage are the main hurdles for its large-scale deployment [6]. Conventional hydrogen production technologies include mainly thermochemical methods, like combustion, gasification, thermochemical liquefaction and pyrolysis, as well as methods based on water electrolysis [7]. However, these solutions entail high investment costs, are energy-consuming and cause environmental pollution [8,9]. It is estimated that currently nearly 95% of the hydrogen used derives from the conversion of fossil fuels [10].
The increasingly prospective hydrogen production technologies include biomass-harnessing solutions and methods based on biological processes conducted by microorganisms [11]. These include primarily the fermentation of organic substrates carried out by specialized groups of bacteria or biochemical processes taking place in cells of selected microalgal species [12,13]. Due to the very high photosynthetic efficiency, fast biomass growth rate, resistance to various types of pollutants, susceptibility to genetic modifications and the possibility of developing land that cannot be used for other purposes, it is the use of microalgae that becomes the most promising avenue of biohydrogen production [14,15].
One of the conditions necessary to achieve high hydrogen productivity by microalgae is the use of efficient biomass production technologies [16]. The most perspective solutions for microalgae cultivation and proliferation include installations based on the use of sea waters, which are not curbed on a global scale neither by their limited amount nor by costs of their acquisition [17,18]. The use of waters from natural aquatic reservoirs has been proved viable in the cultivation of microalgae species with high adaptive and competitive abilities, resistant to diseases and parasites and not very sensitive to harsh and varying environmental conditions. These include microalgae of the genus Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus sp., and cyanobacteria [19,20]. In the case of taxa, the cultivation of which is focused on the production of specific products, preference is given to cultures in fully monitored closed photobioreactors, stable conditions and in appropriate culture media, usually composed of distilled water, nutrients, microelements, and vitamins [21,22].
The species used to produce hydrogen include mainly unicellular algae with specific metabolic and enzymatic traits allowing for its production [23], as for example, taxa belonging to green algae and cyanobacteria, mainly Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, and algae of the genus Chlorella sp. [24]. P. subcordiformis is also considered a very prospective species in the context of hydrogen production in the process of direct biophotolysis [25].
The study presented in this manuscript focused on determining the efficiency of biohydrogen production by P. subcordiformis species microalgae using a culture medium prepared based on waters from the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

Research works were divided into two stages (ST). Experiments conducted in STAGE 1 (ST1) aimed to assess the efficiency of P. subcordiformis microalgae biomass production This stage included two series, differing in the culture medium applied. Deionized water was used in SERIES 1 (SE1), whereas water from the Gdańsk Bay was used in SERIES 2 (SE2). STAGE 2 (ST2) aimed to analyze the impact of the culture conditions applied on the hydrogen yield. It was analogously divided into two series (SE1 and SE2). In addition, each of these series was divided into two experimental variants differing in the initial concentration of algal cells in the bioreactor, that is, 3.0 gODM/dm3 in VARIANT 1 (V1) and 5.0 gODM/dm3 in VARIANT 2 (V2). Table 1 and Figure 1 present the scheme of research works.

2.2. Materials

The Platymonas subcordiformis species microalgae derived from own collection grown based on the inoculum obtained from the UTEX algae culture collection UTEX (University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA). The initial concentration of microalgal biomass expressed as the concentration of organic dry matter reached 200 mgODM/dm3 in ST1, whereas in ST2, it depended on the variant (Table 1).
In ST1SE1, the composition of the culture medium was as follows: 1.30 mg/dm3 FeCl3, 0.36 mg/dm3 MnCl2, 33.60 mg/dm3 H3BO3, 45.00 mg/dm3 EDTA, 20.00 mg/dm3 NaH2PO4, 100.00 mg/dm3 NaNO3, 0.21 mg/dm3 ZnCl2, 0.20 mg/dm3 CoCl2, 0.09 mg/dm3 (NH4)4Mo7O24, 0.20 mg/dm3 CuSO4, 0.10 μg/dm3 VB12, and 1.00 μg/dm3 VB1. Salinity fell within the range of 30–33 ppt, whereas pH within the range of 8.00–8.20. In ST1SE2, the composition of the culture medium was as follows: 59.97 ± 0.25 mg COC/dm3, 0.04 ± 0.01 mg NH4–N/dm3, 21.85 ± 1.05 mg Ntot/dm3, 2.95 ± 0.79 mg PO43−/dm3, 5.05 ± 0.31 mg Ptot/dm3, 538 ± 2.52 mg SO42−/dm3, 7411 ± 59.5 mg Cl/dm3, 2380 ± 156 mg Cl/dm3, 0.107 ± 0.01 mg Fe2+/dm3, 0.087 ± 0.01 mg Fe3+/dm3, whereas pH was 8.04 ± 0.15 and salinity reached 30 ± 0.3 ppt. Water from the Gdańsk Bay was sampled from May until October. It was filtered through filters for qualitative analyses (medium size, Ø 12.5, Eurochem), and then sterilized in a Tuttnauer 2840 EL—D autoclave at a temperature of 121 °C for 15 min.
In ST2, deionized water served as the culture medium for hydrogen production in SE1. In SE2, hydrogen was produced using water from the Gdańsk Bay supplemented with the following culture medium: 27.23 mg/dm3 NaCl, 5.079 mg/dm3 MgCl2, 1.123 mg/dm3 CaCl2, 0.667 mg/dm3 KCl, 0.196 mg/dm3 NaHCO3, 0.098 mg/dm3 H3BO3, 0.098 mg/dm3 KBr, 0.024 mg/dm3 SrCl2, 0.003 mg/dm3 NaF, and 0.002 mg/dm3 CuCl2, with pH ranging from 7.90 to 8.00.

2.3. Experimental Station

In ST1, the microalgal biomass was grown in BioFlo 115 New Brunswick bioreactors having an active volume of 2.0 dm3, at a temperature of 25 ± 1 °C, white light with the intensity of 5 klux (14 h light/10 h dark cycle), aeration using a Mistral 200 pump with the capacity of 200 dm3/h, and continuous stirring at 150 rpm. In all experimental series, P. subcordiformis algae were cultured for 11 days. The biomass from the BioFlo 115 reactor was concentrated deploying a kit for vacuum filtration consisting of a filter mounted in the MBS 1 filtration kit (Whatman) that enables separating algal biomass from the culture medium using a Mobile 20 vacuum pump.
In ST2, the concentrated biomass of P. subcordiformis was fed to respirometers having an active volume of 0.5 dm3 (Wissenschaftlich-Technische Werkstätten (WTW), Weilheim in Oberbayern, Deutschland). Oxygen was removed by purging the respirometers with pure nitrogen for 3 min. The dark phase was ensured by tightly covering the bioreactors with aluminum foil. The retention time of P. subcordiformis biomass in the dark phase was 30 h. Afterwards, the reactors were illuminated with white light having the intensity of 5 klux, for 5 days. The contents of the reactors were stirred at 100 rpm using VMS—C4 Advanced magnetic agitators. The experiment was conducted at the temperature of 25 ± 1.0 °C.

2.4. Analytical and Statistical Methods

Samples were collected every 48 h. Contents of dry matter, organic dry matter (ODM), and mineral dry matter in the biomass were determined with the gravimetric method. Chlorophyll was determined spectrophotometrically after extraction with 90% acetone. Total nitrogen (EN ISO 11905-1), ammonia nitrogen (ISO 7150-1), total phosphorus (ISO 6878_2004), orthophosphates (ISO 6878_2004), sulphates (ISO 10304-1), chlorine compounds (ISO 9297:1994), iron compounds (DIN 38406-E1), and COD (ISO 6060-1989) were determined using Hach Lange cuvette tests and an UV/VIS DR 5000 spectrophotometer. The same methodology was applied to monitor the levels of essential nutrients in the culture, that is, Ntot. and Ptot. The taxonomic analysis was performed using an MF 346 microscope with an Optech 3MP camera. The culture medium composition was controlled using a UV/VIS DR 5000 spectrophotometers (Hach Lange), salinity of the culture medium—using Marine Control Digital (Aqua Medic), and light intensity—using an HI 97500 luxometer (HANNA). The volume of the produced biogas was computed based on pressure changes inside the measuring chamber. The respirometric analysis also allowed the determination of the biogas production rate (r). Biogas quality was analyzed with the GC Agillent 7890 A gas chromatograph, and the analysis included determinations of the percentage contents of the following biogas fractions: carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), and hydrogen(H2).
The research was carried out in four replications. The statistical analysis of experimental results was carried using a STATISTICA 13.1 PL package. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the significance of differences between groups. HSD Tukey test was deployed to find significant differences between the analyzed variables. In the tests, results were considered significant at p = 0.05.

3. Results

In STSE1, the final biomass concentration reached 3203 ± 35 mgODM/dm3, whereas chlorophyll a content in the biomass was at 3686 ± 320 μg/dm3 (Table 2). The rate (r) of microalgal biomass growth reached 291.2 ± 3.2 mgODM/dm3·d. In addition, the P and N compounds were almost completely depleted. At the end of the cultivation, their concentrations were at 0.61 ± 0.37 mg Ntot/dm3 and 0.04 ± 0.01 mg Ptot/dm3. In turn, the mean consumption of these biogenes per biomass growth unit was at 7.0 ± 0.4 mg Ntot/gODM and 1.7 ± 0.1 mg Ptot/gODM (Table 2). In ST1SE2, the rate of P. subcordiformis biomass growth reached 317.6 ± 42.3 mgODM/dm3·d, which allowed reaching biomass concentration of 3493 ± 465 mgODM/dm3. The concentration of chlorophyll a reached 3845 ± 696 μg/dm3 and was produced at r = 49.6 ± 63.3 μg/dm3·d (Table 2). The compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus were effectively removed from the culture medium as their final concentrations in the technological system reached 0.39 ± 0.13 mg Ntot/dm3 and 0.02 ± 0.01 mg Ptot/dm3.
In ST2SE1, the total volume of biogas produced in V1 reached 108.57 ± 9.14 cm3 at r = 0.91 ± 0.08 cm3/h, whereas in V2—the P. subcordiformis biomass produced 141.58 ± 6.31 cm3 of biogas with the rate of r = 1.81 ± 0.05 cm3/h (Figure 2 and Figure 3). In turn, hydrogen production reached 42.79 ± 3.60 cm3 in V1 and 57.44 ± 2.56 cm3 in V2 (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The percentage content of hydrogen in biogas approximated 42% in both variants (Table 3). Regardless of the experimental variant, the biogas production per P. subcordiformis biomass growth unit was comparable, reaching 14.26 ± 1.20 cm3/gODM in V1 and 11.49 ± 0.51 cm3/gODM in V2 (Figure 4). The technological performance obtained in ST2SE2 was comparable (p = 0.05) (Table 4). In V1, the biomass produced 106.32 ± 10.54 cm3 of the biogas with the rate of r = 0.89 ± 0.09 cm3/h, whereas the respective values recorded in V2 were at 135.71 ± 2.17 cm3 and r = 1.13 ± 0.02 cm3/h (Figure 3 and Figure 5).
The volumes of hydrogen produced were similar in both variants and reached 63.98 ± 6.35 cm3 at mean r = 0.53 ± 0.05 cm3/h in V1 as well as 64.74 ± 4.11 cm3 at r = 0.70 ± 0.01 cm3/h in V2 (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The percentage concentration of hydrogen in the biogas differed significantly (p = 0.05) between variants (Table 4) and reached 59.9 ± 1.6% in V1 and 63.2 ± 1.4% in V2 (Table 3). The technological parameters tested caused statistically significant (p = 0.05) differences in the effectiveness of gaseous metabolite production by microalgal biomass per biomass growth unit (Table 4), which reached 35.44 ± 3.52 cm3/gODM in V1 and 27.14 ± 0.43 cm3/gODM in V2 (Figure 5). Biohydrogen production effectiveness was analogous, amounting to 21.33 ± 2.12 cm3/gODM and 16.87 ± 0.27 cm3/gODM in V1 and V2, respectively (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Hydrogen production in bio-processes run by microalgae is based on the direct biophotolysis, namely a reaction catalyzed by hydrogenase [26]. It proceeds in transmembrane peptidic complexes, the so-called photosystems (PS) [27]. The exposure of these structures to solar radiation results in the water molecule breakdown. One of the PS produces O2, while the other uses the resulting electrons to reduce CO2 and build biomass (aerobic conditions). Electrons can be transferred to hydrogenase via ferredoxin and take part in the production of hydrogen (anaerobic conditions). The anaerobic conditions have been proven to be the most favorable for hydrogen production, with O2 concentration in the medium not exceeding 0.1% [28]. In the presented study, the culture medium in ST2 was deoxidized by efficient nitrogen purging.
For H2 production conditions, the protocol of sulfur deprivation has been applied. By reducing photosynthetic activity, this protocol enables the problem of the high sensitivity of the Fe-hydrogenase to O2 to be get round. The transition to anoxic conditions is then realized as the O2 consumption by respiration process becomes higher than the O2 released during photosynthesis. H2 is then produced under light conditions. This biochemical mechanism of this process explains the low oxygen concentration in the gas produced [29]. Only few studies present the percentage composition of the gas mixture generated during hydrogen production by microalgae. The results obtained by the authors also confirm the investigations of H2 production using the green microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in a fully controlled photobioreactor fitted with on-line gas analysis [30]. The production of bio-hydrogen by this species takes place under conditions analogous to those used for Platymonas subcrodiformis. The studies showed that the progressive decline in O2 production was directly correlated with the decline in PSII activity. This is a major feature and a well-known outcome of the sulfur deprivation protocol [31]. Since mitochondrial respiration is almost constant [32], a decrease in photosynthetic activity disrupts the balance between the two processes, leading to a progressive decrease in O2 concentration. Ultimately, anaerobic conditions are achieved that enable the synthesis of Fe-hydrogenase and the release of H2.
In the research carried out so far, the release of CO2 has also been observed, which is explained by the biodegradation of the reserves of carbon compounds accumulated in microalgae cells. It is accompanied by the appearance of formate in the medium, which is a product of fermentation metabolism [33]. It has been proven that one spare material remaining in the cells is starch, and easily digestible acetate is used [30]. A change in the physiological state of cells is observed, as evidenced by the degradation of pigments, proteins and total sugars [34]. A significant reduction in the value of TOC (total organic carbon) in biomass has also been proven, a significant part of which was metabolized and converted to CO2 [30].
The research presented above has demonstrated that PS is responsible for hydrogen production in conditions where the medium lacks sulfur compounds. For this reason, in the second stage of the present research, sulfur was replaced with chlorine compounds in the culture medium. Usually, the culture medium is deprived of sulfur compounds by using the algae culture centrifugation process, and then suspending the concentrated and liquid phase-free biomass in the medium in which sulfur has been replaced with chlorine compounds [35,36]. It has been proven that the technological treatment based on centrifugation is expensive, time-consuming and leads to partial destruction of the cellular material. An alternative solution in this case is to dilute the culture medium, which directly reduces the sulfur concentration in the technological system. However, it is a method that extends the time needed for sulfur exhaustion and creation of anaerobic conditions [37]. Therefore, the membrane method was deployed in the presented research to separate the microalgal biomass from the culture medium. This alternative method for P. subcordiformis biomass dehydration was expected to be less expensive and to ensure higher technological effects.
Some problems may also be encountered with defining cultivation duration and selecting the moment of initiating the phase in which the hydrogen production will take place. Some authors state that the biomass production process should be carried out to the half of the exponential growth phase [38,39]. Others, in turn, argue that the higher density of algal cells directly improves the efficiency and extends the time of hydrogen production [40,41]. Ji et al. proved that with a cell density of 0.5 g/dm3, they achieved hydrogen production at 16 cm3/g biomass, while increasing cell concentration to 3.2 g/dm3 ultimately led to the production of over 49 cm3 H2/g biomass. Along with the density of the substrate, the rate of gas production also increased almost 10 times [42]. Our study did not confirm this phenomenon, regardless of the P. subcordiformis biomass concentration applied.
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, which is common in soil and saline waters [43], is a species frequently used for hydrogen production. Studies have reported that its H2 yield reaches 180 cm3/dm3 of the active volume of the bioreactor [15,44]. Faraloni et al. (2011) achieved hydrogen production at 150 cm3/dm3 of the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii algae culture using wastewater from the processing of olives in the algae growth process [45]. In turn, Skjanes et al. (2008) investigated the possibility of producing hydrogen from 21 species of green algae. The highest hydrogen yield, approximating 140 cm3/dm3, was reported for C. reinhardtii, followed by 80 cm3/dm3 for C. noctigama and 22 cm3/dm3 for C. euryale [46]. The algae of the genus Chlorella sp. have also been shown to be highly potent hydrogen producers [47]. The advantages of this species are due to its eurybiontic character, high adaptability to changing environmental conditions, resistance to pollution and a fast growth rate [48]. Zhang et al. (2014) investigated the effect of depleting the medium in nutrients on the efficiency of hydrogen production by the Chlorella protothecoides species algae. The results showed that with nitrogen deficiency, gas production was achieved at 110.8 cm3/dm3 of culture. Due to the limitation of the concentration of two culture medium components, namely nitrogen and sulfur, the hydrogen production efficiency increased to the value of 140.4 cm3/dm3 of the culture [49]. In the study by Song et al. (2011), hydrogen production by Chlorella sp. ranged from 260 to 480 cm3/dm3, and the highest technological effects were achieved at temperatures of 37–40 °C [50]. Other publications report on the efficiency of biohydrogen production by P. subcordiformis [51,52]. Ji et al. (2011) investigated P. subcordiformis productivity in nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus depleted media. With the same cell density used in different variants of the experiment (6 × 106 cells/cm3), the hydrogen production efficiency peaked when P. subcordiformis cells were kept in the nitrogen-free medium for 6 days, reaching 55.8 cm3 H2/dm3 of culture under carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP) protocol [51]. In turn, Guo et al. (2016) obtained the H2 production of 78 ± 5 cm3/dm3 in a photobioreactor with an integrated alkaline fuel cell (AFC), after 40 h of continuous irradiation, which was 1.5 times higher than the value achieved in the algae culture without integrated AFC (50 ± 3 cm3/dm3) [52].

5. Conclusions

Given the weaknesses of conventional methods for hydrogen production, biological methods, including the process of direct biophotolysis taking place in microalgae cells, are becoming a viable alternative in this respect. The broad range of suitable species and process conditions speaks in favor of this technology. In the presented experiments, variable environmental conditions were deployed to achieve a high algal biomass concentration and hydrogen yield.
The research proved that the efficiency of P. subcordiformis biomass production was similar regardless of the culture medium applied. Biomass grown in water from the Bay of Gdańsk was characterized by a significantly higher concentration of hydrogen in the biogas and the total efficiency of hydrogen production. The higher concentration of biomass in the reactors was found to directly increase the total volumes of biogas and hydrogen produced. However, there was no significant influence of the initial P. subcordiformis biomass concentration on the hydrogen yield per biomass unit. Apart from hydrogen, the biogas contained carbon dioxide and small amounts of oxygen.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski) and M.D. (Magda Dudek); methodology, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski) and M.D. (Magda Dudek); software, M.Z. and A.N.; validation, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski), M.D. (Magda Dudek) and J.K.; formal analysis, M.Z.; investigation, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski); resources, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski) and J.K.; data curation, M.D. (Magda Dudek) and A.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski), M.D. (Magda Dudek) and J.K.; writing—review and editing, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski), M.D. (Magda Dudek), A.N., M.Z. and J.K.; visualization, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski) and J.K.; supervision, A.N. and M.Z.; project administration, M.Z.; funding acquisition, M.D. (Marcin Dębowski), M.Z. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The manuscript was supported by Project financially supported by Minister of Education and Science in the range of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount funding 12.000.000 PLN.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M.; Świca, I.; Kazimierowicz, J. Algae Biomass as a Potential Source of Liquid Fuels. Phycology 2021, 1, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Markowski, M.; Bialobrzewski, I.; Zielinski, M.; Dębowski, M.; Krzemieniewski, M. Optimizing low-temperature biogas production from biomass by anaerobic digestion. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Manoharan, Y.; Hosseini, S.E.; Butler, B.; Alzhahrani, H.; Senior, B.T.F.; Ashuri, T.; Krohn, J. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles; Current Status and Future Prospect. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Chen, S.; Kumar, A.; Wong, W.C.; Chiu, M.-S.; Wang, X. Hydrogen value chain and fuel cells within hybrid renewable energy systems: Advanced operation and control strategies. Appl. Energy 2019, 233, 321–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Noussan, M.; Raimondi, P.P.; Scita, R.; Hafner, M. The Role of Green and Blue Hydrogen in the Energy Transition—A Technological and Geopolitical Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wu, Y.; He, F.; Zhou, J.; Wu, C.; Liu, F.; Tao, Y.; Xu, C. Optimal site selection for distributed wind power coupled hydrogen storage project using a geographical information system based multi-criteria decision-making approach: A case in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 299, 126905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aziz, M.; Darmawan, A.; Juangsa, F.B. Hydrogen production from biomasses and wastes: A technological review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 33756–33781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Filippov, S.P.; Yaroslavtsev, A.B. Hydrogen energy: Development prospects and materials. Russ. Chem. Rev. 2021, 90, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lepszy, S. The cost-effectiveness of an energy storage system using hydrogen and underground gas storage. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 137, 01007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Boretti, A. Production of hydrogen for export from wind and solar energy, natural gas, and coal in Australia. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 3899–3904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bolatkhan, K.; Kossalbayev, B.D.; Zayadan, B.K.; Tomo, T.; Veziroglu, T.N.; Allakhverdiev, S.I. Hydrogen production from phototrophic microorganisms: Reality and perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 5799–5811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M.; Kisielewska, M.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Dudek, M.; Świca, I.; Rudnicka, A. The Cultivation of Lipid-Rich Microalgae Biomass as Anaerobic Digestate Valorization Technology—A Pilot-Scale Study. Processes 2020, 8, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, J.; Yin, Y. Fermentative hydrogen production using various biomass-based materials as feedstock. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 284–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. El-Mohsnawy, E.; Abdelaal, A.S.; El-Sheekh, M. Chapter 14—Direct biohydrogen production from algae. In Handbook of Algal Biofuels: Aspects of Cultivation, Conversion, and Biorefinery; El-Sheekh, M., El-Fatah Abomohra, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 303–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dębowski, M.; Dudek, M.; Zieliński, M.; Nowicka, A.; Kazimierowicz, J. Microalgal Hydrogen Production in Relation to Other Biomass-Based Technologies—A Review. Energies 2021, 14, 6025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Grala, A.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Dudek, M. Effects of hydrothermal depolymerization and enzymatic hydrolysis of algae biomass on yield of methane fermentation process. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2012, 2, 361–366. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bhattacharya, M.; Goswami, S. Microalgae—A green multi-product biorefinery for future industrial prospects. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 25, 101580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Park, H.; Jung, D.; Lee, J.; Kim, P.; Cho, Y.; Jung, I.; Kim, Z.-H.; Lim, S.-M.; Lee, C.-G. Improvement of biomass and fatty acid productivity in ocean cultivation of Tetraselmis sp. using hypersaline medium. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2018, 30, 2725–2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Calhoun, S.; Bell, T.A.S.; Dahlin, L.R.; Kunde, Y.; LaButti, K.; Louie, K.B.; Kuftin, A.; Treen, D.; Dilworth, D.; Mihaltcheva, S.; et al. A multi-omic characterization of temperature stress in a halotolerant Scenedesmus strain for algal biotechnology. Commun. Biol. 2021, 4, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pang, H.; Wang, Y.-N.; Chi, Z.-Y.; Xu, Y.-P.; Li, S.-Y.; Che, J.; Wang, J.-H. Enhanced aquaculture effluent polishing by once and repetitive nutrients deprived seawater Chlorella sp. Algal Res. 2021, 60, 102555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Kujawska, N.; Talbierz, S. Microalgae Cultivation Technologies as an Opportunity for Bioenergetic System Development—Advantages and Limitations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Metsoviti, M.N.; Papapolymerou, G.; Karapanagiotidis, I.T.; Katsoulas, N. Effect of Light Intensity and Quality on Growth Rate and Composition of Chlorella vulgaris. Plants 2020, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Deviram, G.; Mathimani, T.; Anto, S.; Ahamed, T.S.; Ananth, D.A.; Pugazhendhi, A. Applications of microalgal and cyanobacterial biomass on a way to safe, cleaner and a sustainable environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; Han, F.; Tu, W.; Yang, W. Microalgal hydrogen production. Small Methods 2020, 4, 1900514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Limongi, A.R.; Viviano, E.; De Luca, M.; Radice, R.P.; Bianco, G.; Martelli, G. Biohydrogen from Microalgae: Production and Applications. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, S.; Li, F.; Zhu, X.; Liao, Q.; Chang, J.-S.; Ho, S.-H. Biohydrogen production from microalgae for environmental sustainability. Chemosphere 2022, 291 Pt 1, 132717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Show, K.Y.; Yan, Y.G.; Ling, M.; Ye, G.X.; Li, T.; Lee, D.J. Hydrogen production from algal biomass—Advances, challenges and prospects. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 257, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sun, Y.; He, J.; Yang, G.; Sun, G.; Sage, V. A Review of the Enhancement of Bio-Hydrogen Generation by Chemicals Addition. Catalysts 2019, 9, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ghirardi, M.L.; Zhang, L.; Lee, J.W.; Flynn, T.; Seibert, M.; Greenbaum, E.; Melis, A. Microalgae: A green source of renewable H(2). Trends Biotechnol. 2000, 18, 506–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fouchard, S.; Pruvost, J.; Degrenne, B.; Legrand, J. Investigation of H2 production using the green microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in a fully controlled photobioreactor fitted with on-line gas analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 3302–3310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wykoff, D.D.; Davies, J.; Melis, A.; Grossman, A.R. The regulation of photosynthetic electron transport during nutrient deprivation in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Physiol. 1998, 117, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Melis, A.; Zhang, L.; Forestier, M.; Ghirardi, M.L.; Seibert, M. Sustained photobiological hydrogen gas production upon reversible inactivation of oxygen evolution in the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Phys. 2000, 122, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Gfeller, R.P.; Gibbs, M. Fermentative metabolism of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: I. Analysis of fermentative products from starch in dark and light. Plant Physiol. 1984, 75, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Ghirardi, M.L.; Kosourov, S.; Tsygankov, A.; Rubin, A.; Seibert, M. Cyclic photobiological algal H2-production. In Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review, NREL/CP-610-32405, Golden, Colorado, 6–10 May 2002; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sadvakasova, A.K.; Kossalbayev, B.D.; Zayadan, B.K.; Bolatkhan, K.; Alwasel, S.; Najafpour, M.M.; Tomo, T.; Allakhverdiev, S.I. Bioprocesses of hydrogen production by cyanobacteria cells and possible ways to increase their productivity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lv, H.X.; Qiao, C.S.; Zhong, C.; Jia, S.R. Metabolic fingerprinting of Dunaliella salina cultured under sulfur deprivation conditions. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sekine, M.; Yoshida, A.; Akizuki, S.; Kishi, M.; Toda, T. Microalgae cultivation using undiluted anaerobic digestate by introducing aerobic nitrification–desulfurization treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 82, 1070–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ge, S.; Qiu, S.; Tremblay, D.; Viner, K.; Champagne, P.; Jessop, P.G. Centrate wastewater treatment with Chlorella vulgaris: Simultaneous enhancement of nutrient removal, biomass and lipid production. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 342, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shokravi, Z.; Shokravi, H.; Chyuan, O.H.; Lau, W.J.; Koloor, S.S.R.; Petrů, M.; Ismail, A.F. Improving ‘Lipid Productivity’ in Microalgae by Bilateral Enhancement of Biomass and Lipid Contents: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nagarajan, D.; Dong, C.D.; Chen, C.Y.; Lee, D.J.; Chang, J.S. Biohydrogen production from microalgae-Major bottlenecks and future research perspectives. Biotechnol. J. 2021, 16, e2000124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Touloupakis, E.; Faraloni, C.; Silva Benavides, A.M.; Torzillo, G. Recent Achievements in Microalgal Photobiological Hydrogen Production. Energies 2021, 14, 7170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ji, C.F.; Legrand, J.; Pruvost, J.; Chen, Z.A.; Zhang, W. Characterization of hydrogen production by Platymonas Subcordiformis in torus photobioreactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 7200–7205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ban, S.; Lin, W.; Luo, Z.; Luo, J. Improving hydrogen production of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii by reducing chlorophyll content via atmospheric and room temperature plasma. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 275, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Laurinavichene, T.V.; Tolstygina, I.V.; Galiulina, R.R.; Ghirardi, M.L.; Seibert, M.; Tsygankov, A.A. Dilution methods to deprive Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cultures of sulfur for subsequent hydrogen photoproduction. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2002, 27, 1245–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Faraloni, C.; Ena, A.; Pintucci, C.; Torzillo, G. Enhanced hydrogen production by means of sulfur-deprived Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cultures grown in pretreated olive mill wastewater. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 5920–5931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Skjanes, K.; Knutsen, G.; Källqvist, T.; Lindblad, P. H2 production from marine and freshwater species of green algae during sulfur deprivation and considerations for bioreactor design. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jiménez-Llanos, M.R.-C.J.; Rendón-Castrillón, L.; Ocampo-López, C. Sustainable biohydrogen production by Chlorella sp. microalgae: A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 8310–8328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sirawattanamongkol, T.; Maswanna, T.; Maneeruttanarungroj, C. A newly isolated green alga Chlorella sp. KLSc59: Potential for biohydrogen production. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 2927–2936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, L.; He, M.; Liu, J. The enhancement mechanism of hydrogen photoproduction in Chlorella protothecoides under nitro-gen limitation and sulfur deprivation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 8969–8976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Song, W.; Rashid, N.; Choi, W.; Lee, K. Biohydrogen production by immobilized Chlorella sp. using cycles of oxygenic photo-synthesis and anaerobiosis. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8676–8681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ji, C.F.; Yu, X.J.; Chen, Z.A.; Xue, S.; Legrand, J.; Zhang, W. Effects of nutrient deprivation on biochemical compositions and photo-hydrogen production of Tetraselmis subcordiformis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 5817–5821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guo, Z.; Li, Y.; Guo, H.Y. Characterization of H2 photoproduction by marine green alga Tetraselmis subcordiformis integrated with an alkaline fuel cell. Biotechnol. Lett. 2016, 38, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Scheme of experimental works.
Figure 1. Scheme of experimental works.
Resources 11 00031 g001
Figure 2. The course of biogas and hydrogen production by P. subcordiformis biomass in series 1.
Figure 2. The course of biogas and hydrogen production by P. subcordiformis biomass in series 1.
Resources 11 00031 g002
Figure 3. Volumes of biogas and hydrogen produced in subsequent experimental series and variants of STAGE 2.
Figure 3. Volumes of biogas and hydrogen produced in subsequent experimental series and variants of STAGE 2.
Resources 11 00031 g003
Figure 4. Volumes of biogas and hydrogen produced in subsequent experimental series and variants of STAGE 2 per biomass unit.
Figure 4. Volumes of biogas and hydrogen produced in subsequent experimental series and variants of STAGE 2 per biomass unit.
Resources 11 00031 g004
Figure 5. The course of biogas and hydrogen production by P. subcordiformis biomass in series 2.
Figure 5. The course of biogas and hydrogen production by P. subcordiformis biomass in series 2.
Resources 11 00031 g005
Table 1. Experimental design.
Table 1. Experimental design.
ST1—cultivation of P. subcordiformisSE1—culture medium based on deionized water and chemical reagents.ST2—H2 production by
P. subcordiformis
SE1V1—3.0 gODM/dm3
V2—5.0 gODM/dm3
SE2—culture medium based on water from the Gdańsk Bay supplemented with chemical reagents.SE2V1—3.0 gODM/dm3
V2—5.0 gODM/dm3
Table 2. Results obtained in STAGE 1 of the study.
Table 2. Results obtained in STAGE 1 of the study.
Final Biomass Concentration
[mg ODM/dm3]
Biomass Growth Rater [mgODM/dm3·d]Final Concentration of Chlorophyll a
Effectiveness of Ntot. Removal
Effectiveness of Ptot. Removal
Ntot. Consumption for Biomass Growth
[mg Ntot/gODM]
Ptot. Consumption for Biomass Growth
[mg Ptot/gODM]
SE13203 ± 35291.2 ± 3.23686 ± 32098.1 ± 0.697.6 ± 1.17.0 ± 0.41.7 ± 0.1
SE23493 ± 465317.6 ± 42.33845 ± 69698.4 ± 0.999.1 ± 0.46.7 ± 0.61.5 ± 0.1
Table 3. Qualitative composition of biogas.
Table 3. Qualitative composition of biogas.
SE1V141.0 ± 1.455.3 ± 1.83.7 ± 0.2
V240.2 ± 1.457.3 ± 1.72.5 ± 0.1
SE2V159.9 ± 1.636.5 ± 1.33.6 ± 0.2
V263.2 ± 1.434.6 ± 1.22.2 ± 0.1
Table 4. The results of a statistical comparative analysis of variables tested in ST2, conducted with HSD Tukey test.
Table 4. The results of a statistical comparative analysis of variables tested in ST2, conducted with HSD Tukey test.
VariantTotal concentration of biogas producedVariantTotal concentration of biogas produced per gODM
SE1V1 0.0134921.0000000.070077SE1V1 0.0509331.0000000.015422
SE1V20.013492 0.0069480.999733SE1V20.050933 0.1037220.999989
SE2V11.0000000.006948 0.037985SE2V11.0000000.103722 0.033422
SE2V20.0700770.9997330.037985 SE2V20.0154220.9999890.033422
VariantTotal concentration of hydrogen producedVariantTotal concentration of hydrogen produced per gODM
SE1V1 0.6111810.0008160.690782SE1V1 0.1532530.0080290.000143
SE1V20.611181 0.0001450.015779SE1V20.153253 0.9601060.000548
SE2V10.0008160.000145 0.074735SE2V10.0080290.960106 0.011987
SE2V20.6907820.0157790.074735 SE2V20.0001430.0005480.011987
Variant% content of hydrogen in biogasValues in italics denote differences significant at p ≤ 0.05
SE1V1 0.9999740.0001430.000143
SE1V20.999974 0.0001430.000143
SE2V10.0001430.000143 0.523867
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dudek, M.; Dębowski, M.; Nowicka, A.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Zieliński, M. The Effect of Autotrophic Cultivation of Platymonas subcordiformis in Waters from the Natural Aquatic Reservoir on Hydrogen Yield. Resources 2022, 11, 31.

AMA Style

Dudek M, Dębowski M, Nowicka A, Kazimierowicz J, Zieliński M. The Effect of Autotrophic Cultivation of Platymonas subcordiformis in Waters from the Natural Aquatic Reservoir on Hydrogen Yield. Resources. 2022; 11(3):31.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dudek, Magda, Marcin Dębowski, Anna Nowicka, Joanna Kazimierowicz, and Marcin Zieliński. 2022. "The Effect of Autotrophic Cultivation of Platymonas subcordiformis in Waters from the Natural Aquatic Reservoir on Hydrogen Yield" Resources 11, no. 3: 31.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop