↓ Skip to main content

The use of natural infochemicals for sustainable and efficient harvesting of the microalgae Scenedesmus spp. for biotechnology: insights from a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology Techniques, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
The use of natural infochemicals for sustainable and efficient harvesting of the microalgae Scenedesmus spp. for biotechnology: insights from a meta-analysis
Published in
Biotechnology Techniques, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10529-016-2192-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastiana Roccuzzo, Andrew P. Beckerman, Jagroop Pandhal

Abstract

Open raceway ponds are regarded as the most economically viable option for large-scale cultivation of microalgae for low to mid-value bio-products, such as biodiesel. However, improvements are required including reducing the costs associated with harvesting biomass. There is now a growing interest in exploiting natural ecological processes within biotechnology. We review how chemical cues produced by algal grazers induce colony formation in algal cells, which subsequently leads to their sedimentation. A statistical meta-analysis of more than 80 studies reveals that Daphnia grazers can induce high levels of colony formation and sedimentation in Scenedesmus obliquus and that these natural, infochemical induced sedimentation rates are comparable to using commercial chemical equivalents. These data suggest that natural ecological interactions can be co-opted in biotechnology as part of a promising, low energy and clean harvesting method for use in large raceway systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Researcher 7 15%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 19%
Environmental Science 6 13%
Chemistry 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Chemical Engineering 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,900
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#2,128
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,894
of 349,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.