The majority of my posts are written with the intent of bringing light to different perspectives by discussing truths that are ignored or overlooked. Lack of exposure to these perspectives is not always the reason for this unawareness, though, as there are often more complex mechanisms at hand that shield us from these truths.
The process of establishing our belief systems begins at an early age and occasionally receives modifications over time. It is a complex world and we try to make sense of it to make us feel like our way of life is the right way of life. Occasionally, though, we will be exposed to ideas that contradict these belief systems, and this moment (I suppose you could call it cognitive dissonance) is very uncomfortable and vulnerable.
As a simple example, if you spent your entire educational career with your head buried in books, you likely convinced yourself that this is the prudent decision and all the cool kids having fun are missing a vital key if they want to live a happy and fulfilling life after their high school parties are over with. If you were the cool kid living in the moment, you likely convinced yourself that the straight-A student who never stayed up past 9:30pm (even on Friday nights) is missing out on an important part of childhood, which you are wise enough to recognize.
Who is really right, though?
The point demonstrated in that example is seen in all facets of life that are based on a belief system. You construct this system by yourself, and view people who contradict your belief system as ignorant fools living in the dark.
In a way, we are all ignorant fools living in the dark.
However, I do not consider this a weakness of human logic; it makes perfect sense. When we create these belief systems, it gives our life meaning and purpose, and without those two things it becomes very difficult to be happy. The truth is, both the nerd and the cool kid can live a perfectly happy life as there doesn't exist one universally 'correct' belief system.
However, a problem arises when we do not accept that this unrealistic universally correct belief system may not identical to ours. Therefore, when we see that a peer's belief systems as flawed, we often feel a moral responsibility to point out this ignorance, but seldom consider the consequences.
We wouldn't believe the things we do if we didn't think they were right – that applies for those around us as well. So while we feel we are offering insight, they will go through that very uncomfortable state of cognitive dissonance if it contradicts their belief system.
I was recently having dinner with a former teacher and friend of mine, and without getting too involved in the details of his issue, he had been the victim of some dark sides of human nature that resulted in getting fired. Long story short, it became clear to me that (I'll call him Joe) Joe had convinced himself that the reason that he was the victim of this incredibly 'selfish' behaviour was simply because the people responsible didn't know any better, and if they did, they would not have done the things they did. He had placed a lot of trust in people who did not deserve it (does anyone?), and like many, assumed that they shared the same values as him. Shockingly, this proved not to be the case, and voila, he was made the sacrificial lamb.
As much as I wanted to share my perspectives on human nature (which of course, I find to be much more consistent with the events that transpired), I knew that it would crush him. He had gone his entire life believing that others share the integrity that he does, and if he were to find out that this was not the case, he would realize that he had been played by the manipulative forces of the system, which was ultimately the reason for his disaster.
The topic of ignorance is bliss always comes back, and this time is no different. If he wanted to believe the things he believed, then I was willing to let that. I genuinely believe I would cause more harm than good by offering my views, however informative they may be.
You will definitely be placed in a position like I was, and while I won't say that my way of handling it was the right way, I will encourage you to consider the consequences of bringing your peers into the light. Maybe, just maybe, we aren't meant to see the truth, but rather, it is better to forge our own explanations for the inexplicable.
The acceptance of being ignorant is crucial part in the understanding of learning new things.. and certainly in that way we can walk into the light and provide the direction for others..
I would suggest that no matter how bright the light may appear to an individual, they may still reside in a state that is not fully illuminated. From the book "Your God is Too Small" is the metaphor of being in a completely lightless box, the a hole appearing in the box such that light from the outside comes in. Wow, that sure is bright to the person in the box, but think how bright it would be to be outside the box. Oops, though, it may blind the person (that was not in the book as I recall).
There is no one answer, only more questions, no matter how bright the light may appear.
It is nice to think, though, isn't it?
Great comment and I really like the metaphor. The approach you suggested is fantastic in many instances, especially where the individual has not considered the viewpoint your are trying to lead them to see. For the case with my former teacher, my interpretation led me to believe that he had in fact considered my viewpoint (especially at the time of the events) but over time altered this views as a way to come to peace with the situation. Even if I were successful in getting him to see what I saw, it would not take him to a better place than he is in now, however delusional I may deem that place to be. Who knows, perhaps I'm the delusional one here. Anyways, thank you very much for your insight!
I quite agree with the decision to keep your light to yourself, Felix. Sometimes more good comes from silent support than sharing our opinions on a matter. It's important to consider the outcome. What profit would be gained from crushing your friend at this point? Better to wait, allow him to heal, and IF the need arises, express your views at a later opportunity. P.S. Thank you for becoming a follower of my blog, From the Inside Out. I pray you'll find the posts meaningful.
Thank you very much for your comment, Nancy. It was a complex decision so your support is much appreciated!
Love your point..i can be so quick to argue a point sometimes. ..assuming im correct…That I never stopped to put myself in there place…I can usually see after doing this that both points have validity. Sometimes I even find out I've been dead wrong. So yes, it's ultimately what I as an individual am open to know/learn and what I need to cling to for my survival.


You must make reservations at least 5 minutes in advance of the time at El Camino.
Paid parking until 8:00 p.m. with free parking along the ship canal on 34th St. Several pay parking lots are available in the neighborhood.
At the corner of Fremont Avenue and 34th Street.
El Camino is celebrating its 20th year in Fremont! We have been serving fresh, homemade Mexican fare brought to us by our staff's family recipes and contributions from renowned Mexico City Chef Ricardo Muñoz Zurita. We offer local, natural and organic options when possible. Our amazing desserts baked in house by our General Manager, Alfredo. And from the bar, our ever famous margaritas that started the trend in Seattle 2 decades ago!
The best Mexican food in Fremont is at El Camino, and you should eat it on their outdoor deck.
Dinner was great but we had to wait about 15 minutes past our reservation time. The food more than made up for the wait.
Great service and food. We had some dietary restrictions and the waiter was very helpful and accommodating and the meal was fantastic!
Worst dining experience ever. Waited 2 hours for our food. The waiter forgot to put in our order, but even when he acknowledged the error, we still waited 30 minutes to get our food. Had to ask for chips and salsa! The manager didn't even stop by to apologize. They comped the meal, but it was such a disappointment, the experience ruined the evening. Sadly, I will never go back.
Worst Mexican food I've ever had......... although the service was good.
We have been going here for at least the last 5 years, and almost every Friday in the Winters for the last 3, and find the consistently cordial and friendly people a pleasure. This trip we learned that the host, Freddo, was a pastry chef in Chicago in a past life, and pulls together some of the most interesting desserts we've had almost anywhere, the tres leches is amazing, and the Chocolate mousse cake is perfectly balanced and not too sweet. Another win for El Camino in our eyes.
Have been here twice now and always love the patio seating with the fireplace. It's a wonderful ambience for lunch with friends. Not too noisy so it's great for conversations. The menu has something for everyone, including a broad drink menu, and the food is delicious! The service is very good with friendly, helpful wait staff. My experience both times was above average and I'll return again when I get an opportunity.
Way. Too. Loud. Friday night rush hour, this is to be expected, but it was not good for the social visit I was hoping to have with visiting guests as we had to shout at each other for 60m to hear our conversation(s). Service was ok (waiter used memory vs. paper for the order, and it was fast and flawless.) However, we had to ask for more chips, and response time was a bit slow. Overall: great staff, but need to choose quieter time for dinner w a sane conversation level.
A delicious meal with great ambience. We had a lovely experience and will definitely be back.
Always love El Camino. It's our go-to when we don't want to cook at home.
It was great and glad I made reservation as they were packed full. Food very good !
Good Mexican food, ie, 3 kinds of chipotle, nice patio setting, pleasantly served all around.
Delicious, once again. Mole was amazing. Food (camarones diablo) was a bit spicy for kids - we were warned, but it was still a bit hot for the 9 year old. Will keep that in mind for next time. Friendly wait staff. We felt cared for.
El Camino is a nice place, good food and a pleasure, not to mention 3 kinds of chipotle.
The kitchen (chef) here is a Seattle gem. Extraordinary Mexican cuisine.
Great place for a dinner out with the guys. Our server was friendly, attentive, and very accommodating. It was a tough decision but the mole was definitely the way to go!
Been a regular customer for more than a decade, and some of the servers are still there from the beginning. Such a laid-back and friendly place, but quick service, wonderful and out-of-the-ordinary Mexican food, and reliably good scratch margaritas. They clearly know what they're doing.
Love this place. Great mix of engaging environment and great food.
We really enjoyed sitting in the back 'sun' room, as it has a great feel and ambiance. Everything was great, until we were ready to pay the bill and leave. It was a business lunch and we were on a time limit. However, a large group was seated and that seemed to derail the efficient service.
Really fun place with great atmosphere and delicious food. Loved everything we had. Margaritas could have been a little stronger, but then again, they can always be a little stronger!
Best ceviche EVER!!! My hubby and I were on vacation and found this adorable little spot. We had lunch on the back porch and were very impressed with everything. OH Ya, my husband said the Mole sauce was fantastic. GO.
Great guacamole, top shelf maragaritas (fresh m scratch) and excellent shrimp tacos.
This place has gone downhill because I used to come here with my husband before we had our kid (8 years ago). This is the only Mexican restaurant where the chips were abysmal and no salsa was served, despite the fact that we had to pay for them. The happy hour was a joke ($1 off regular draft beer and $1 off house margaritas) We waited forever for our waitress to make her initial greeting. Our drinks and food took forever. My friend had to leave for an appointment, but the waitress walked by our check w/cash multiple times. Although I work close by, I'll opt for any of the many other dining/drinking establishments in Fremont.
I love the ambiance, the patio is fresh, cozey cushy seating, very nice selection of delicious Mexican chipotles, I go for the tacos, pork (carnitas) and beef from steak cuts (carne asada).
There is no hokey, touristy mariachi background music, just respectful presentation of our neighbors cusine - fine chow, nice people.
Amazing food! Highly recommend El Camino after taking a Theo tour.
We have been coming to El Camino for the past 24 years. LOVE the bistec, since moving away from Seattle we make it a point to dine at El Camino when we are in town and look forward to our favorite meal!
Our waiter was wonderful! She was very knowledgeable and engaging. Everyone should be lucky enough to have her as their server.
I'll start by saying the service and the space was phenomenal. The staff was kind, and attentive and the outdoor patio was perfect on a summer night.
I've been trying my hardest to find a good Mexican food spot in the Seattle area and I have to say, this is the worst of those I've tried (even outside of the Seattle area). The food lacked true depth, and was subpar at best.
We started with an order of chips and salsa. The homemade chips were not warm and were undercooked. They had a chewiness to them which tends to happen when it's not cooked long enough. The salsa was a simple tomato one, but did not have any real flavor. Plus - the guac was decent and dairy free. Win there.
My husband ordered be too shelf margarita (20$), which was probably one of the most disappointing cocktails we've ever had. It was an interesting mix of liquor, but missed the mark. It tasted heavily of low quality tequila. It was made with a respado which should be smooth, this was not.
For dinner, we each got tacos - one shrimp, one fish. The fish was greasy, the tortillas were served cold, the black beans on the side were undercooked. I'm also fairly certain the rice is minute rice. It has the texture of dehydrated and not fresh. Everything we ate was bland.
Overall, it was an underwhelming experience. So much so that I decided to write a review which i normally wouldn't do. Super disappointed. Now I know - never again and I shall continue my quest!
Always great food. They've gotten our food mixed up both times we've gone and portions are fairly small though. Other than that, this place is amazing.
Best Mexican foods and widest selection in the Fremont. The patio is airy and charming, I go there often for a late lunch and a few drinks with friends.
Great music, best guac', addicting drinks-for me, that is the trifecta! Can't wait to go back!
Very nice, uncrowded patio setting, server even turned down lunch music, very good molé poblano amoung many choices if all sorts.
My lady friend just texted me, she wants to go back. So see you soon.
Just seemed a bit rushed. We had just finished our main course and server interrupted to ask if we needed anything and when we said no handed us our bill. It was a little at 8 pm and not busy, so maybe he wanted to go home.
Wonderful as usual! This place is in my top 5 in Seattle. Great ambiance and a fun/festive environment!
We had a few kids and the servers were extra patient- thanks! Just coulda used a little more elbow room around the table we were crammed into.


text:
You are here: Home » MEDIA » Books » Infection by Kyle Turton (book review)
Infection by Kyle Turton (book review)
February 17, 2017 | By PaulineMorgan	| Reply More
In the days before DVDs were common and eBooks were yet to be a figment of the imagination, the only way to recapture the film you'd just seen and enjoyed was to hope that someone produced a book of the film. Many of these were written by contracted writers who were given the script and a deadline. The manuscript had to be finished for when the film came out and the author had to guess about the visuals that would eventually be seen. The deadline didn't allow for deep character development. The rationale of these slim volumes was to remind to reader of what they had seen and act as an aide memoire to a pleasurable evening out. This book, 'Infection', reminds me of these books. Unfortunately, these days, readers want much more from their reading matter and in order to compete with the likes of Netflix and Kindle, a richness and authenticity of setting, plot and characterisation is needed.
'Infection' is basically a zombie movie script. Four newly qualified medics go on an archaeological dig and one of them, Chris, discovers a box in a cave. As in all the best horror films, he opens the box and takes out the stone inside. Back home, while the four are preparing to head off to their new jobs, Chris becomes ill. The others leave him at home while going out to celebrate their futures. By the time they return, he has bitten the landlord, attacked a cop and been shot. The landlord is taken to hospital and begins the chain of infection that turns the population of New York into ravenous zombies and sets the others on path to put an end to situation. As this is a horror novel, more casualties amongst the group of 'heroes' can be expected.
If 'Infection' was a 90 minute film, the issues I have with it as a book would fade in to the background. With print, there needs to be far more substance. Much of the time, I was wondering who the actual viewpoint character was and whether the story was being told from the correct perspective. Although it is not called that, the initial prologue says too much about the mechanism that the plot revolves around. Exactly half-way through the book, two new characters turn up who not only know the history of the artefact causing the problem but how to resolve the situation. Not only is it too late to bring in these crucial characters but they are the ones that need to impart the knowledge so that the reader keeps pace with the remaining medics rather than knowing the rationale from the start. This removes the mystery that should have been at the heart of the story. I would also have liked to see the artefacts that the newcomers, David and Charlie, need to collect for the final solution and more of the issues acquiring them threw up.
The kick-off point of the novel is when the four, Chris, Hannah, Kayleigh and Johnny, all go on an archaeological dig. I found myself with a huge credibility gap at this point; not about the finding of the artefact but the dig itself. It was a plot convenience rather than a researched reality. This is where more description would have been welcomed. Everything before this point was slow, domestic background which would have been better served interspersed within the rest of the text. There is, at the beginning in particular, too much of the author telling us the situation rather than showing it. Having said that, much of the banter between characters is enjoyable, even if it was insufficient to differentiate between them.
An irritating aspect of this book was the lack of proof-reading as punctuation, in particular, was not up to the standard I would expect from the literate. As a personal thing, I dislike books that leave a line between paragraphs. It is clumsy and looks unprofessional, though this might be due to an inexperienced typesetter rather than the intention of either author or editor and a question for the author: why are the surnames of the characters so rarely given?
I wanted to like this book, as I believe that independent publishers need to be encouraged. If it had been twice the length, the author would have had the space to develop his characters and settings to a greater depth.
Pauline Morgan
(pub: Quantum Corsets, Birmingham, UK, 2016. 154 page paperback. Price: £ 5.99 (UK). ISBN: 978-1-5406282-2-0)
check out website: http://www.quantumcorsets.co.uk/
Category: Books, Horror
« 12 Monkeys Season One (DVD TV series review)
Class: What She Does Next Will Astound You by James Goss (book review) »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


BEAUTIFUL 80% WOOEDED 10.41 ACRE HOMESITE IN ROSE TOWNSHIP ON PRIVATE ROAD SURROUNDED BY ONLY LARGER ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME IN THIS SECLUDED UP NORTH LIKE SETTING WHILE STILL ENJOYING THE COMFORTS OF NEARBY INFASTRUCTURE AND NICELY PAVED ACCESS STREETS. BATVAI NO LAND CONTRACT OFFERED AT THIS TIME.
I was searching for a Property and found this listing (MLS® #219024082). Please send me more information regarding Lot 9 Homestead Crt, Rose Twp, MI, 48442. Thank you!
I'd like to request a showing of Lot 9 Homestead Crt, Rose Twp, MI, 48442 (MLS® #219024082). Thank you!


text:
School of Communication and Culture News and events News News single
Morten Kyndrup: Art's New Boundaries
Aesthetic seminar
Thursday 24 February 2022, at 14:15 - 16:00
Kasernen. Bygning 1584, lokale 124
By Web Katrinebjerg Kasernen, CC
Art is everywhere, but not everything is art. Art, in other words, has "boundaries". What do art's boundaries look like? Where do they come from? Which types of boundary do we deal with? Which functions do they have? Are these functions different, seen from the inside and from the outside, respectively? Do the boundaries create liminal zones, including specific positions of perspective, and which kind of transition takes place crossing them? Who is in charge of watching them, and why?
These are research questions of "Art's New Boundaries", a project in progress, investigating the boundaries of art, primarily how (if so) these boundaries are changing in our contemporaneity. The lecture will present the research project and its fields of investigation. These include considerations concerning the form of art (as different from art's forms), concerning the quarrels about art's so-called autonomy traditionally and contemporarily – and not least considerations concerning the historical role and position of aesthetics. Art today is under a considerable critical pressure. New demands are made to its agendas, positively as well as negatively, are made to the artists' connections of identity vis-a-vis theirs works, are made to art's ways of addressing its audiences. In general, the traditional position of art within the culture of modernity is questioned. Do these demands and this critique alter or even threaten the boundaries of art, art's distinctive status and roles in contemporary culture? In consequence of this: Does that change the distribution and negotiation of research agendas between the art sciences and other sciences of culture and society? If so, in which way?
See Aesthetic seminar Poster
See Aesthetic seminar Programme
Aesthetic seminar is organized by Morten Kyndrup and Jacob Lund
on behalf of School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University
Other locations and maps
EAN-nr: 5798000418363
Place: 1411
Elective subjects
Examiners and co-examiners
Programme profiles


text:
Cross, also named Cross (Kilballyowen) is a parish in County Clare and part of the Cois Fharraige grouping of parishes within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

Current (2022) co-parish priest is Michael Casey.

The history of the parish is a complicated one. In the time of father Michael Meehan (1810-1878) Loop Head formed just one parish under the name of "Moyarta and Kilballyowen". Before 1817 it was known as Kilballyowen. In 1878 it was split into the parishes of Carrigaholt (eastern part of the peninsula) and Cross (western part of the peninsula). That recreated the medieval parishes in that area.

Churches
The main church of the parish is the Our Lady Of Lourdes Church in Cross. This church was built in 1958 as a replacement for an older church built in 1806.

The second church of the parish is the Our Lady Star of the Sea Church in Mooneen, Kilbaha.  This church was built in 1857. It replaced the much fabled Little Ark of Kilbaha, ran by Michael Meehan (1810-1878).

The Little Ark of Kilbaha (1852-1857)
The Little Ark was effectively a mobile church, devised to circumvent the absolute refusal by the landlord Nicolas Westby and his agent Marcus Keane to allow a church near Kilbaha. In fact, Keane tried to sabotage any Catholic worship. A makeshift church in two cabins was quickly demolished by him. After the demolition, Fr. Meehan said mass under sheet covered tilted shafts of farmer carts but that was no success. Then he came with the idea of the mobile church, similar to the bathing boxes in use at Kilkee at that time. At first the Ark was parked alongside a public road that was outside Keane's control. But the harassment-campaign went on and Fr. Meehan was prosecuted for creating a nuisance on the public road. Meehan won this case. Then he moved the cart to the foreshore, off the public road. Below the high watermark, the beach was free land. Keane did not stop and he went after the tenants who stored The Little Ark by evicting them and demolish their houses.

In the end Marcus Keane gave in as a trade off to securing the catholic vote to Lord Francis Conyngham in parliamentary election in 1857. At 12 July 1857 the foundation of the new church, in the townland Moveen near Kilbaha,  was blessed by bishop Daniel Vaughan. The Little Ark is now on display in a side room of the Our Lady Star of the Sea Church.

References

Parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Important - Any amendments made to a beneficiary's details via Manage Beneficiaries will not filter through to any templates they are attached to.
You can make processing easier and faster by creating templates that store a collection of payments details. For example, you can create a template for monthly payroll, which you can then reuse, instead of either having to select all the beneficiaries or entering the free-format payment details.
If you lose your Internet connection while you'e creating payments, an unfinished session template will be automatically created in Templates, Personal Templates. A message will be automatically sent to the Corporate Online Inbox advising that an Unfinished Payment Session template has been saved.
The template has now been created.
The list of beneficiaries will be displayed.
The payment will then move through the normal payment process.
Any changes made will be saved.
You can use the search facility to identify saved templates that contain specific beneficiary details. The sort code and account number or beneficiary name can be entered into the relevant text fields.


text:
Cultivation of algal biofilm using different lignocellulosic materials as carriers
Qi Zhang1,
Cuixia Liu2,
Yubiao Li3,
Zhigang Yu4,
Zhihua Chen5,
Ting Ye6,
Xun Wang6,
Zhiquan Hu6,
Shiming Liu6,
Bo Xiao6 &
Shiping Jin1
Biotechnology for Biofuels volume 10, Article number: 115 (2017) Cite this article
Algal biofilm technology is recently supposed to be a promising method to produce algal biomass as the feedstock for the production of biofuels. However, the carrier materials currently used to form algal biofilm are either difficult to be obtained at a low price or undurable. Commercialization of the biofilm technology for algal biomass production extremely requires new and inexpensive materials as biofilm carriers with high biomass production performances.
Four types of lignocellulosic materials were investigated to evaluate their performance of acting as carriers for algal cells attachment and the relevant effects on the algal biomass production in this study. The cultivation of algal biofilm was processed in a self-designed flat plate photo-bioreactor. The biofilm production and chemical composition of the harvested biomass were determined. The surface physics properties of the materials were examined through a confocal laser-scanning microscopy. Algal biomass production varied significantly with the variation of the carriers (P < 0.05). All the lignocellulosic materials showed better performances in biofilm production than poly methyl methacrylate, and the application of pine sawdust as the carrier could gain the maximum biofilm productivity of 10.92 g m−2 day−1 after 16-day cultivation. In addition, 20.10–23.20% total lipid, 30.35–36.73% crude proteins, and 20.29–25.93% carbohydrate were achieved from the harvested biomasses. Biomass productivity increased linearly as the increase of surface roughness, and Wenzel's roughness factor of the tested materials, and surface roughness might significantly affect the biomass production through the size of surface morphology and the area of surface (P < 0.05).
The results showed that lignocellulosic materials can be efficient carriers for low-cost cultivation of algal biofilm and the enhancement of biomass productivity.
Algae that are rich in lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates can be utilized as a feedstock for biofuels production [1]. In recent years, algal-based bioenergy, like biodiesel, bioethanol, and biogas, has been increasingly considered as a promising alternative for fossil fuels to deal with the energy crisis and global climate change [2]. Therefore, researchers have paid an increasing attention to large-scale algal cultivation. Currently, the major types of algal culture systems are open ponds and enclosed photo-bioreactors with dry biomass content of about 0.5 and 2–6 g L−1, respectively [3]. Owing to (1) the low dry biomass content, (2) similar density to water and (3) micron-size of cells or clusters [4, 5], the harvesting process of algal biomass from suspended culture is the main challenge for the commercialization of algae-based bioenergy, since it involves high-energy consumption processes such as flotation, filtration, ultrasonic aggregation and centrifugation. In addition, these processes generally account for about 20–30% of the total algal biomass production cost [6]. To lower the cost for harvesting algal biomass from the suspended culture, bio-flocculation that is based on algal-bacterial, algal-fungal, or algal–algal interactions has been developed [7]. It is energy efficient and generally without secondary pollution [7]. However, this technology is currently not widely applied, due to the challenge to control bio-flocculation at scale [7]. Another challenge is that algal-bacterial based bio-flocculation often produces low-value products, due to the composition of certain amount of bacterial in the harvested biomass [8]. Algal-fungal based bio-flocculation has been proven to be reliable and efficient in harvesting planktonic algal cells [9, 10], but the efficient separation of the fungi and algal cells challenges its scale-up process [7]. Algal–algal-based bio-flocculation does not require the separation process of the harvested biomass, and energy consumption is negligible [11]. However, species with the ability of self-flocculation is limited, and thus the application of this technology usually needs to engineer non-flocculating algal strains, which will in turn threaten the environment [11].
Due to easier harvesting and system operation, higher mass transfer rate and dry mass content, less water consumption and even lower capital construction cost, algal biofilm technology has been regarded as a promising approach to produce biomass for algae-based bioenergy [12]. This strategy requires that the algal cells can adhere to and grow on a given surface, prior to developing into biofilm. Thus, the cost of harvesting processes can be potentially reduced, since the biomass can be easily scrapped off from the surface [3]. Currently, a variety of algal biofilm systems have been developed to study the growth of attached algae. It is believed that the performances of biomass production in different algal biofilm systems not only rely on the culture conditions, algal strains, scale of the process, but also are significantly affected by the characteristics of materials which support the attached growth.
Undoubtedly, it is worthy to note that the selected materials for algal cell attachment need to be durable, inexpensive, easy to be obtained, nontoxic to algal cells, etc. It would be better if the materials have potential to enhance the biofilm production. Recently, glass fiber nonwoven and plain printing paper were applied to benefit nutrient supplement and algae cell attachment in a Twin-Layer algal biofilm photo-bioreactor, respectively [13]. In a similar Twin-Layer lab-scale photo-bioreactor, filter paper and cellulose acetate membrane (0.45 μm) were applied as the source layer and biofilm carrier instead of glass fiber nonwoven and plain printing paper [14]. Moreover, optimal performance of attached growth in kinds of algae biofilm systems was measured with cotton duct and cotton rope as biofilm carriers [3, 15]. Application of rare and valuable materials such as stainless steel woven meshes with a particle pass size of 47 μm [16] and membrane with pore size of 5 μm [6] as support materials for algae biofilm cultivation was also demonstrated with excellent production performance.
However, most of the materials currently used for algal cell attachment were either expensive (like cellulose acetate membrane and glass filtration fabric) or with high construction cost (like metal meshes with pore size of 47 μm). Additionally, most of those materials were disposable and not durable, and thus were unsuitable for full-scale algal biofilm cultivation. Therefore, this paper made the first attempt to develop a new biofilm technology using lignocellulosic materials as biofilm carriers such as pine sawdust, rice husk, sugar bagasse and oak sawdust, all of which are environmentally friendly, cheap, and renewable with a wide range of distribution around the world [17]. These lignocellulosic materials with large numbers of production every year can act as natural materials for algal cells attachment and the formation of algal biofilm in the biofilm systems. After cultivation, algal biomass can be harvested together with the lignocellulosic materials through scrapping. Amazingly, the harvested blend (mixture of the lignocellulosic materials and algal biomass) can be directly utilized as a feedstock for bioenergy conversion.
Hence, the present study aimed at the cultivation of algal biofilm using the lignocellulosic materials as carriers in a self-designed flat plate photo-bioreactor. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the performance of this new technology and the optimal materials for algal attachment, (2) estimate the chemical composition of the harvested algal biomass, (3) reveal the impacts of material surface properties on the algal productivity, and (4) specify the factors affecting the algal growth.
Microalgae strains and lignocellulosic materials
Three algae (Scenedesmus obliquus FACHB-416, Chlorella vulgaris FACHB-32, and Oscillatoria tenuis FACHB-1052) involved in this study were purchased from the Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Science, PR China. BG 11 medium [12] with an initial pH of 6.8 was used as the standard culture medium. All species were grown in 500 mL sterilized BG 11 medium under a light intensity of 120 μmol m−2 s−1 and temperature of 25 ± 2 °C in a 14/10 h light/dark cycle, and aerated with 2% CO2. When the optical density (OD685) reached about 0.8–1.0 after 4–7 days' cultivation, the culture was used as the seed for the subsequent experiments.
The lignocellulosic materials, including pine sawdust (PW), rice husk (RH), oak sawdust (OW) and sugarcane bagasse (SB) were involved in this research. PW was obtained from a furniture factory in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. RH and OW were collected form a village in Suizhou city, Hubei province, China. SB was gathered from a sugar refinery in Guiping city, Guangxi province, China. Materials were dried under the sun for 15 days. Then the bulk density of the selected sample was tested by a densitometer (HYL-103, Hylology, China). The size distribution and bulk density of the selected materials for biofilm carriers are listed in Additional file 1: Table S1).
Algal biofilm photo-bioreactor
A flat plate algal biofilm photo-bioreactor (FPBR) which was coupled with a medium recirculation system and a gas supplement system was constructed (Fig. 1). Figure 1a and c show the setup of the bench-scale FPBR. Figure 1b shows the setup of the whole culture system. The FPBR system was consisted of an inner vessel and an outer case.
Setup of a lab-scale FPBR system. a The schematic diagram of the flat plate algal biofilm photo-bioreactor. b The schematic diagram of the whole culture system. c The picture of the flat plate algal biofilm photo-bioreactor. d The picture of the biofilm with pine sawdust as carriers after 16-day cultivation
The outer case made of poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) was a water bath with 65 cm length, 25 cm width and 20 cm depth. The water bath with 15 L deionized water was used to keep the algal biofilm culture at 25 ± 2 °C. A copper serpentuator pipe (Fig. 1a-10) was set inside the water bath and coupled with a compressor (Fig. 1b-17), and when the temperature was beyond 25.5 °C, the compressor would be started by the temperature controller (EK-3010, Elitech, china) (Fig. 1a-5) to lower the temperature. Moreover, two 100 W electric heaters (Fig. 1a-9) were also fixed inside the water bath and would be powered on by the temperature controller to enhance the temperature when the value was lower than 24.5 °C. The compressor and the electric heaters would not be powered on since the temperature was in the range of 24.5–25.5 °C. In addition, two electronic thermometers (ST-1A, Elitech, china) (Fig. 1a-6) were continuously used to monitor the temperature of the water bath.
Four biofilm culture channels (Fig. 1a-4) and a cover plate with eight LED tubes (Fig. 1a-3) together constituted the inner vessel of the FPBR system. The cover plate was used to enclose the culture channels. Four independent culture channels were partially immerged inside the water bath and kept at 25 ± 2 °C. Each channel (Fig. 1a-4) was 30 cm length, 5 cm width, and 5 cm depth with a biofilm culture area of 150 cm2 and a tilt angle of 15°, and illuminated with two LED tubes. The light intensity applied to each channel was accurately controlled with a range of 0–300 μmol m−2 s−1 by a regulator (JCH-M-DIMMER-8A, China) (Fig. 1a-1) fixed on the outside cover plate. The outside cover plate was utilized to enclose FPBR in order to avoid evaporation and pollution as well. The walls of the channels were identically made of opaque PMMA to avoid unwanted illumination. The lignocellulosic carriers for algal biofilm cultivation was spread out into each channel evenly to generate a thinner layer and just cover the whole culture channel surface (area of 150 cm2), while algal strains were inoculated onside the carriers and then developed into biofilm. In addition, there were a PMMA mesh with pore size of 0.1 cm (Fig. 1a-12) and a medium collection channel (Fig. 1a-8) behind the mesh installed at the end of each channel. The PMMA mesh was established in order to avoid any particles of the tested materials being washed away during the higher flow velocity. The medium collection channel with a tilt angle of 30° was set to lead the medium to flow away smoothly so that no medium would be accumulated at the end of the biofilm. Such structure of the reactor could keep the biofilm not be submerged, and thus higher efficiency of mass transfer in gas phase was guaranteed.
The medium recirculation system contained a 15 L used-medium-container (Fig. 1b-16), a 15 L fresh-medium-container (Fig. 1b-14) and two peristaltic pumps (BT100-1F, LONGER, China) (Fig. 1b-13, 15). The gas supplement system consisted of a CO2 container (Fig. 1b-21), an air compressor (Fig. 1b-20) and two electronic flowmeters (MF5706, siargo, USA) (Fig. 1b-18, 19). Culture medium was pumped inside each culture channel from the used-medium-container (Fig. 1b-16) at a flow rate of 40 ± 5 mL min−1 by a four-channel peristaltic pump (Fig. 1b-13). After crossing the biofilm culturing section, the medium flowed into the four medium collection channels (Fig. 1a-8) and was recirculated into the used-medium-container (Fig. 1b-16). Fresh medium was pumped into the used medium container from a fresh-medium-container (Fig. 1b-14) with a flow rate of 3 mL min−1 and about 4.3 L medium was discarded from the used-medium-container (Fig. 1b-16) everyday as well. The used-medium-container (Fig. 1b-16) was aerated with 2% CO2 at a flow rate of 4 L min−1. Such CO2 was performed through the use of two electronic flowmeters to control the relative flow rates of compressed air and CO2.
After each batch culture, the whole system was cleaned, and then the pipes and containers were all autoclaved (121 °C, 30 min). 10 g L−1 NaClO was used to wipe the surface of PMMA made parts twice for disinfection. Afterwards, the sterilized cold water was applied to clean up the residual NaClO.
Algal biofilm cultivation
Each lignocellulosic material with a given dosage was spread out into the culture channel to cover the whole culture surface (area of 0.015 m2). Then, each channel was inoculated with 30 mL mixed algal culture during the logarithmic phase (10 mL of each algal species). Afterwards, 15 mL BG 11 medium was added every 8 h to keep the substance materials wet. 24 h later, 10 L sterilized BG 11 medium was added into the used-medium-container, and the system began to pump medium continuously from the used-medium-container to the culture channels.
Additional file 1: Table S2 shows the detailed information of the experimental setup and biofilm culture conditions. Experiments 1 and 2 were set to investigate the performance of the tested materials as the carriers for algal cell attachment and the stability together with reproducibility of this algal biofilm culture system. Experiment 3 was set to compare the productivity of PMMA as a biofilm carrier with lignocellulosic biomasses. During this experiment, the channel itself which was made of PMMA plate acted as PMMA carrier for algal biofilm growth. After 16 or 20 days' cultivation, medium inside the used-medium-container was replaced by 10 L deionized water and the system was processed for another 3 h to wash out the salinity of the biofilm. Finally, the biofilm harvested by scrapping was dried at 105 °C for 48 h for further analysis. Experiment 4 was set to study the liquid-holding capacity of the lignocellulosic materials. System was run with the same condition as the Experiments 1 and 2 with an exception for the inoculation of algal on the material layers. After absorbing water for 1 day, materials were collected and weighed immediately to obtain the saturated moisture contents of the lignocellulosic materials.
Suspended algal culture
Suspended algal cultivation was conducted in 2 L flasks to compare the performance of algae growth in the biofilm system. The flask was set with 1 L sterilized BG 11 medium and 12 mL algal inoculum (4 mL of each algal species). The growth condition was the same as described in "Microalgae strains and lignocellulosic materials." Every sixth day, the algal cells harvested through centrifugation in each flask were added into the same flask together with a volume of 1 L fresh sterilized BG 11 medium. The water evaporation lost was balanced daily with sterilized water. After 16 days, suspended algal biomass was harvested through centrifugation, and freeze-dried for further analysis.
In this study, the tested materials were firstly oven dried at 105 °C for 24 h before added into the culture channels. After 16 or 20 days' cultivation, biofilm blend was harvested and oven dried at 105 °C for 24 h. Algal biofilm production (g m−2) and productivity (g m−2 day−1) were calculated as follows:
$${\text{Biomass production}} = {{\left[ {W_{\rm b} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left[ {W_{\rm b} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} {0.015}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {0.015}}$$
$${\text{Biomass productivity}} = {{\left[ {W_{\rm b} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left[ {W_{\rm b} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} {0.015t}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {0.015t}},$$
where \(W_{\rm b}\) is the weight of the harvested and oven dried biofilm blend, the mixture of algal biomass, and lignocellulosic carriers; \(W_{\rm t}\) is the weight of the tested carriers before cultivation (\(W_{\rm t} = 0\) for PMMA); \(\alpha\) is the material mass loss rate (1–6.5%) which listed in Additional file 1: Table S1, preliminary study found that there had a slightly mass loss of the tested carriers due to the washing away of the micron-scale particles and the solubilization of light organic compounds; 0.015 is the plan view surface area of a single channel; and \(t\) is the culture period. For the suspended culture, the biomass production (g L−1) and productivity (g L−1 day−1) were calculated followed the Eqs. (3) and (4):
$${\text{Suspended algal production}} = {{W_{\rm s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{W_{\rm s} } V}} \right. \kern-0pt} V}.$$
$${\text{Suspended algal productivity}} = {{W_{\rm s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{W_{\rm s} } {\left( {V * t} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\left( {V * t} \right)}},$$
where \(W_{\rm s}\) is the weight of the harvested and freeze-dried suspended algal biomass, \(V\) is the volume of the culture medium. In addition, the potential for algal biomass production offered by a unit weight of materials through this new technology was determined. The biomass production and productivity was represented by g kg−1 and g kg−1 day−1, respectively, as follows:
$${\text{Biomass production}} = {{\left[ {W_{\rm b}^{{}} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left[ {W_{\rm b}^{{}} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} {0.001W_{\rm t} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {0.001W_{\rm t} }}$$
$${\text{Biomass productivity}} = {{\left[ {W_{\rm b}^{{}} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left[ {W_{\rm b}^{{}} - \left( {1 - \alpha } \right)W_{\rm t} } \right]} {\left( {0.001t * W_{\rm t} } \right)}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\left( {0.001t * W_{\rm t} } \right)}}$$
The saturated moisture contents (%) of the lignocellulosic materials were calculated using Eq. (7):
$${\text{Saturated moisture content}} = \left[ {{{\left( {W_{\rm t}^{'} - W_{\rm t} } \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {W_{\rm t}^{'} - W_{\rm t} } \right)} {W_{\rm t}^{'} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {W_{\rm t}^{'} }}} \right] \times 100\%,$$
where \(W_{\rm t}^{'}\) is the weight of the harvested material from Experiment 4. In addition, the liquid-holding capacity (g/g) of the lignocellulosic materials (the mass of medium held by unit weight of tested material) was defined as follows:
$${\text{Liquid-holding capacity}} = {{\left( {W_{\rm t}^{'} - W_{\rm t} } \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {W_{\rm t}^{'} - W_{\rm t} } \right)} {W_{\rm t} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {W_{\rm t} }}$$
Environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM)
Environmental scanning electron microscopy images of the 1-day-old biofilm with PW, SB and PMMA as carriers were obtained by an environmental scanning electron microscope (QUANTA 200, FEI, Holland). First, samples were fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde for 4 h and then gently washed with phosphate buffer solution (137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4, 2 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.4) for three times. Second, 30, 50, 70, 85, and 100% (v/v) ethanol was used to sequentially dehydrate the fixed samples for 15 min. Third, ethanol inside the dehydrated samples was exchanged by isoamyl acetate within 20 min for twice. After these processes, samples were frozen at −20, −40, −80 °C for 4 h, respectively, and then freeze-dried for 12 h. Finally, the dried samples were sputter coated with a thin gold layer for the observation of surface morphology.
Chemical composition of the harvested biomass
Biofilm blend was first stirred with 200 mL sterilized BG 11 medium at 2000 rpm/min for 10 min and then sonicated in an ultrasonication bath (KQ-100DB, KUNSHAN, China) for 40 min, and thus cells were resuspended. Suspended biomass was harvested through centrifugation, then freeze-dried and stored in a −20 °C freezer for further analysis. After washed out by deionized water in the ultrasonication bath for another 30 min, the dissociated lignocellulosic carriers were collected and oven dried at 105 °C for 24 h. Then, the ultimate analysis of grinded lignocellulosic samples before and after utilization as carriers was conducted by an elemental analyzer (Vario Micro cube, Elementar, Germany). Algal biomass samples used for chemical composition analysis were grinded and sieved to gain a particle size below 74 μm. The total lipid content was determined, following the method by Atta et al. [18]. The crude proteins content was estimated by measuring the total Kjeldahl nitrogen following the ASTM E778 and multiplying by the conversion factor of 6.25 [3]. The ash content was quantified according to Gross et al. [3]. The carbohydrate content was achieved by subtracting the total lipid, crude protein, and ash contents from the total weight of the freeze-dried sample.
Surface characterization of the substrata
Surface physical properties of the materials were determined as dry basis by a confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (VK-X100 K/X200 K, KEYENCE, Japan). Three-dimensional (3-D) images of the material surface morphology were taken by a charge-coupled device camera with standard lens (CF IC EPI Plan 20X, Nikon, Japan) under the measurement mode with a scanning area of 705.1 × 500.0 μm2. Each type of material was tested eight times with eight randomly selected samples. The images were performed by the software VK-analyzer (VK-H1XAC, KEYENCE, Japan). Wenzel's roughness factor [19] \(r\) was tested through the obtained pictures and calculated, according to Eq. (9):
$$r = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {{\raise0.7ex\hbox{${A_{i} }$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{A_{i} } {A_{0} }}}\right.\kern-0pt} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${A_{0} }$}}}$$
where \(r\) is the Wenzel's roughness factor; \(A_{i}\) is the tested material surface area of sample \(i\); and \(A_{0}\) is the geometrically projected area of sample \(i\) and equal to 705.1 × 500.0 μm2. Afterwards, the images were smoothed and tilt corrected, and then the 3-D surface roughness was determined with the whole scanning area following the ISO 25178. The average surface roughness was defined as Eq. (10):
$$S_{\rm a} = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {S_{{\rm a}i} }$$
\(S_{{\rm a}i}\) is the 3-D surface roughness of the sample \(i\), while \(S_{\rm a}\) is the average 3-D surface roughness of the tested material. As RH has two completely different surfaces, the outer roughness surface and the inner smoothness surface, roughness factor, and average surface roughness of this material are the average value of the two surfaces.
Furthermore, images were applied to test the line roughness of the materials following the ISO 4287-1997 with at least 20 cross-sectional curves for each sample. All the curves were vertical to the orientation of the groove and set with a gap of 20 μm between each other. The average groove depth and the average maximum groove depth were obtained via the software VK-analyzer and defined as follows:
$$R_{c} = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {\left( {\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N} {R_{{c_{i,j} }} } } \right)}$$
$$R_{z} = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {\left( {\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N} {R_{{z_{i,j} }} } } \right)}$$
\(R_{{c_{i,j} }}\) and \(R_{{z_{i,j} }}\) are the average height and the maximum height of the \(i\) th sample \(j\) th cross-sectional curve, respectively, and they are defined as the average groove depth and the maximum groove depth separately for \(i\) th sample \(j\) th test and \(N \ge 20\). \(R_{c}\) and \(R_{z}\) are the average groove depth and the average maximum groove depth of the tested materials.
Finally, the software VK-viewer (VK-H1XVC, KEYENCE, Japan) was used to determine the width of the groove existed on the material surface. 3-D images were first divided into 8 × 10 parts with grid, and then the distance between two adjacent peaks in each part was measured and defined as groove width. Therefore, the mean, minimum as well as maximum groove width on the surface of the materials were accordingly calculated via Eqs. (13, 14 and 15):
$$\overline{D} = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {\left( {\frac{1}{80}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{80} {D_{i,j} } } \right)}$$
$$D_{{\rm min} } = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {\left( {{\rm min} D_{i,j} } \right)} ,\quad j \in \left[ {1,80} \right]$$
$$D_{{\rm max} } = \frac{1}{8}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{8} {\left( {{\rm max} D_{i,j} } \right)} ,\quad j \in \left[ {1,80} \right]$$
\(D_{i,j}\) is the tested groove width of the \(i\) th sample \(j\) th part. \(\overline{D}\), \(D_{{\rm min} }\) and \(D_{{\rm max} }\) represent the mean, minimum as well as maximum groove width of the materials. For RH, the outer roughness surface was used to test \(R_{c}\), \(R_{z}\), \(\overline{D}\), \(D_{{\rm min} }\) and \(D_{{\rm max} }\).
Experiments were conducted in duplicate or triplicate, and average values were reported. Results were performed with EXCEL 2013 (Microsoft Office Enterprise, USA) and OriginPro 8.0 (OriginLab, USA). One way ANOVA analysis was carried out wherever applicable.
Results and discussions
Biomass production
After inoculation for 3 days, a thin layer of bottle green biofilm occurred, proliferated inside the culture channels and covered all of the lignocellulosic materials particles. Algal cells bonded tightly with the carriers and biofilm blends could be harvested very easily as shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1.
Algal biofilm productivity with different materials as substrata is shown in Fig. 2a and b. The small standard deviations demonstrated a good stability and reproducibility of this FPBR system. Different materials as carriers generated significantly different biomass production (P < 0.05). After 16 or 20 days' cultivation, the biofilm production and productivity ranged from 117.21 to 175.96 g m−2 and from 7.32 to 10.92 g m−2 day−1, respectively. In particular, PW showed the greatest productivity of 10.92 g m−2 day−1 after 16 days' culturing, followed by SB, OW, and RH in the order of 9.54 > 8.07 > 7.32 g m−2 day−1. In addition, the production for SB as carrier increased from 152.68 to 175.96 g m−2 from 16 to 20 days, while the productivity decreased with the increase of culturing time. Such decrease is consistent with the findings of other reports [3, 14]. According to Fig. 2a and b, all the lignocellulosic materials had better biomass production performances compared to PMMA which had the productivity of only 4.01 g m−2 day−1. Besides, for the suspended culture, the biomass production and productivity of 2.15 g L−1 and 0.13 g L−1 day−1 were just, respectively, obtained after 16 days under same culture conditions with the biofilm.
The performance of the biofilm with different materials as carriers and the suspended culture as for biomass production (mean ± SD). a Algal biomass and total lipid production calculated as dry weight per growth surface area. b Algal biomass and total lipid productivity calculated as dry weight per growth surface area per unit of time. c Algal biomass and total lipid production calculated as dry weight per carrier dry weight. d Algal biomass and total lipid productivity calculated as dry weight per carrier dry weight per unit of time. *Biofilm growth for 20 days, **suspended culture
To evaluate the potential of a unit weight of materials for algal biomass production, the algal biomass production by g kg−1 and productivity by g kg−1 day−1 were calculated, and are shown in Fig. 2c and d, respectively. The variation trends of the production by g kg−1 and productivity by g kg−1 day−1 were similar to those by g m−2 and g m−2 day−1. However, the productivity difference between the four lignocellulosic materials was enlarged by their bulk density. OW and RH with higher bulk density showed lower productivity when compared with PW and SB with lower bulk density. Therefore, for this new technology, biomass productivity depicted by g kg−1 day−1 might be an important factor that could give a direct guideline for the selection of the excellent material which could generate more algal biomass comparing with other carriers with the same amount used. According to the results of this study, PW was found to be the best carrier to support the algal biofilm growth with a productivity of 47.52 g kg−1 day−1 (10.92 g m−2 day−1) corresponding to a production of 760.37 g kg−1 (174.71 g m−2) after a period of 16 days culture. The performances of SB (40.16 g kg−1 day−1), OW (20.63 g kg−1 day−1), and RH (20.47 g kg−1 day−1) followed that of PW.
Various types of materials had been used as carriers for the algal biofilm cultivation by researchers. Christenson and Sims [15] tested eight substrata for the ability to support algal attachment and found that cotton rope showed the best performance. While Gross et al. [3] examined more than 16 materials for their capability of supporting algal growth, and cotton duct was proved to offer the highest biomass productivity. Filter paper can also be used as support substrata for algal growth vertically [20]. It is worth noting that these materials were all lignocellulosic-based materials and similar to the tested lignocellulosic materials in this study. They were generally characterized by high surface energy and achieved greater attachment than synthetic polymers which just had low surface energy [15]. Moreover, lignocellulosic materials mainly composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignose were hydrophilic natural polymers and had good liquid-holding capacity [21]. As shown in Additional file 1: Table S1, all the four types of the tested lignocellulosic materials had saturated moisture content larger than 82%, with PW and SB reaching over 90%. Meanwhile, the liquid-holding capacity of the four materials varied similarly to the biofilm productivity. PW (12.49 g/g) and SB (11.49 g/g) had good liquid-holding capacity compared to OW (4.72 g/g) and RH (7.04 g/g). The hydrophilic material with good liquid-holding capacity can be preferable for the attachment cultivation [22]. Many algal species such as Chlorella, Chroococcus, Chlorosarcinopsis, Synechococcus, and Scenedesmus could be immobilized by hydrophilic polymers [23]. Additionally, few filamentous microorganisms had occurred onside the surface of algal biofilm (not for PMMA as carrier) (Fig. 1a; Additional file 1: Figure S2). Unsterilization of the materials before utilized as carriers probably led to the occurrence of those microorganisms. As a kind of lignocellulosic material, the tested carrier could be degraded by a wide range of microorganism including bacteria and fungi with anaerobic and aerobic habit [24]. However, the positively charged hyphae that fungi had could interact with the negatively charged algal cell surface and cause flocculation [7]. Therefore, co-culture with filamentous fungi could form co-pellets where algae cells were entrapped inside the fungal mycelia and attached on the fungal cell surface [4], as it can be seen from Additional file 1: Figure S3. In addition, co-culture with filamentous fungi could also enhance the algal biomass and lipid production [7]. So the occurrence of filamentous microorganisms could be considered as a beneficial factor for algal biofilm cultivation. These microorganisms might promote the algal cell attachment by retaining the cells onside the substrate layer. Meanwhile, algal productivity could be enhanced by respiration of the microorganism which could provide CO2 and decrease O2 inhibition for algal growth [25]. Moreover, these microorganisms also produced large amount of extracellular polymeric substances (as shown in Fig. 5), which could bind cells together, solid materials, and form a microenvironment matrix to protect cells from environmental stress [2]. Thus, one or several above reasons led to the better biomass production performance of lignocellulosic carriers compared to the PMMA, which is a hydrophobic material with low surface energy and poor liquid-holding capacity. In addition, many microorganisms like fungi species, similar to algal cells, had high content of lipid [4]. The composition of the microorganisms could contribute to total lipid production of the biofilm, and facilitate the oil extraction of the algal biomass by partially breaking down the algal cell walls [4].
Table 1 shows the ultimate analysis results of the tested lignocellulosic materials before and after algal biofilm cultivation process. As it can be seen from Table 1, no significant difference of element contents existed between the samples before and after utilized as biofilm carriers. Besides, only 1–6.5% (Additional file 1: Table S1) of material mass loss was found for different tested lignocellulosic carriers after 16 or 20 days' biofilm cultivation process. This indicated that the tested lignocellulosic materials only acted as carriers for algal biofilm development and thus was durable during the biofilm cultivation process. Slight increase of C, H, and N and decrease of O could mainly attribute to the degradation effect of the occurred fungi and the solubilization of light organic compounds from the materials.
Table 1 Ultimate analysis of the tested lignocellulosic materials before and after algal biofilm cultivation process (mean ± SD)
Total lipid content and productivity
Figure 3 shows the chemical contents of the algal biomass. The crude proteins contents of the harvested biomass (all excess 30%) were found to be significantly higher than contents of the total lipid and carbohydrate (P < 0.05). High crude proteins content indicated that the harvested biomass could be a suitable feed for animals and aquaculture. However, the total lipid concentrations of biofilm with different lignocellulosic materials as carriers did not vary remarkably (20.10–23.20%), and they were lower than those of PMMA (24.52%) and the suspended culture (28.87%). Their carbohydrate contents were higher than that of PMMA except for PW. Compared to the biofilm, the suspended culture had the maximum crude proteins content (40.07%) and the minimum carbohydrate content (14.85%). Biofilm with lignocellulosic materials as carriers had formed thicker biofilm (see Fig. 1d), which resulted from the already existed thickness of the carriers layer and larger biomass production, leading more cells in the dim light or dark and with lower lipid content. Higher light intensity generally promotes lipid accumulation [26]. Furthermore, the composition of the indigenous microorganisms (see Figs. 1a, 6) inside the biofilm might also contribute to this lower lipid content because of the lower lipid content of indigenous microorganisms compared to the algal cells [8, 27].
The total lipid, crude proteins, and carbohydrate contents of the harvest algal biomass from the FPBR with different materials as biofilm carriers and the suspended culture (mean ± SD). *Biofilm growth for 20 days, **suspended culture
Figure 2 illustrates that the total lipid production of the biofilm with different carriers ranged from 15.74 to 40.53 g m−2 in the following relationship: PW (40.53) > SB (34.62) > OW (28.42) > RH (23.56) > PMMA (15.74) after 16 days' cultivation. This indicated that carriers' difference significantly affected the total lipid production of the biofilm (P < 0.05). Moreover, as the culture time increased from 16 to 20 days, the total lipid production increased, reaching to 37.18 g m−2 for SB. The production and productivity of crude proteins and carbohydrate were also calculated and are shown in Fig. 4. Combining Fig. 2 with Fig. 4, it was not difficult to find that the highest total lipid and crude proteins productivities occurred in the treatment with PW as carriers, reaching 2.53 and 4.01 g m−2 day−1, respectively. Meanwhile, SB as carrier induced the greatest carbohydrate productivity of 2.28 g m−2 day−1, while the lowest yields of chemicals appeared in the treatment using PMMA as carriers, with total lipid productivity of 0.98 g m−2 day−1, crude proteins productivity of 1.41 g m−2 day−1, and carbohydrate productivity of 0.88 g m−2 day−1, respectively. Apart from that, crude proteins productivities of 2.53, 2.78, and 3.01 g m−2 day−1 were achieved using RH, OW, and SB as biofilm carriers, respectively. The productivities of biofilm chemicals among all carriers were significantly (P < 0.05) different, accordingly to statistical analysis. Such differences mainly resulted from the difference in the corresponding biomass productivities, since the deviations in the contents of total lipid, crude proteins and carbohydrate within different treatments were not large in contrast. The crude proteins and total lipid contents of biofilm with PW as carrier were high, and its biomass productivity was also the maximum, resulting in relatively high crude proteins and total lipid productivities. In addition, chemicals productions and productivities calculated as g kg−1 and g kg−1 day−1 varied similarly to those of g m−2 and g m−2 day−1, as depicted in Figs. 2 and 4, and differences among different carriers were enlarged by the corresponding biomass production (g kg−1) and productivity (g kg−1 day−1). Moreover, for the suspended culture, the biomass total lipid, crude proteins, and carbohydrate productivity of only 0.04, 0.05, and 0.02 g L−1 day−1 was just obtained, respectively, after 16 days under the same culture conditions with the biofilm.
Crude proteins and carbohydrate production of the biofilm with different materials as carriers and the suspended culture (mean ± SD). a Crude proteins and carbohydrate production calculated as dry weight per growth surface area. b Crude proteins and carbohydrate productivity calculated as dry weight per growth surface area per unit of time. c Crude proteins and carbohydrate production calculated as dry weight per carrier dry weight. d Crude proteins and carbohydrate productivity calculated as dry weight per carrier dry weight per unit of time. *Biofilm growth for 20 days, **suspended culture
Effect of surface property on biomass productivity
Confocal laser-scanning microscopy technology was used to determine the surface morphology of the lignocellulosic materials (Figs. 5, 7). As shown in Figs. 5 and 7, surface properties varied significantly among different carriers (P < 0.05). For instance, Fig. 5a illustrates a positive correlation (R 2 = 0.96) between algal biofilm productivity and carriers surface roughness. In addition, the biofilm productivity was found to be increased with the increase of materials surface roughness (P < 0.05). Similar trend commonly existed in many reports [16, 28]. Figure 5b demonstrates a reasonable correlation between the material Wenzel's roughness factor and algal biofilm productivity (R 2 = 0.96). Materials with larger roughness factor tended to have larger biomass productivity (P < 0.05). This indicated that material with relatively bigger surface area would achieve the higher biomass productivity. Cao et al. [29] confirmed that corrosion-resistant steel sheets with micro-dimple surface features could significantly enhance the attachment of algal cells to the substrata, compared to a surface without micro-dimple features. Furthermore, positive correlations between attached pathogenic bacteria (E. coli, Legionella pneumophila) number and material surface roughness had also been reported in many studies [30, 31]. ESEM images (Fig. 6) and CLSM figures (Fig. 7) demonstrate that all tested lignocellulosic materials had rough surfaces, and were abundant in regular and well-distributed grooves and ridges. However, PMMA surface was much smoother than the tested lignocellulosic materials. The observed grooves and ridges could be formed during particle formation processes by the function of mechanical energy from crashers, pressers, and saws. Among the tested materials, PW (surface roughness 18.98 μm) had the most complicate surface topography with various grooves, similar to the manmade V-groove patterns [19, 32]. Then, the OW and SB had surface roughness of 11.29 and 11.25 μm, respectively. RH had a mean surface roughness of 10.01 μm, the least value among the four materials, but was still larger than that of PMMA (surface roughness of 0.07 μm).
Effect of materials surface physics properties on the algal biofilm productivity (mean ± SD). a The relationship between algal biofilm productivity and the surface roughness. b The relationship between algal biofilm productivity and the roughness factor
ESEM images of the 1-day-old biofilms with different materials as carriers. a Biofilm with PW as carriers. b Biofilm with SB as carriers. c Biofilm with PMMA as carriers
3-D images of the surface topography of the tested five different materials obtained through CLSM technology, RH has two kinds of surfaces with completely different roughness, (RH) the rough outer surface, (RH-1) the smooth inner surface
Furthermore, cell attachment had a strong relationship with the size of the grooves [19]. Table 2 lists the message of the grooves on the surface of the substrata. RH had the widest mean size of the grooves, reaching 47.85 μm (the rough surface), followed by SB (26.00 μm), PW (20.44 μm), and OW (15.48 μm). However, PW (49.33 μm) and OW (39.31 μm) had deeper grooves than RH (29.29 μm) and SB (16.68 μm). These features could also be observed in the 3-D images shown in Fig. 7. To a certain extent, the change of groove depth of the tested lignocellulosic materials had the similar trend to biofilm productivity, surface roughness and Wenzel's roughness factor. Material with rougher surface tends to have a relatively larger surface area, deeper grooves, and a bigger biofilm productivity. Taking these factors into consideration, conclusion can be drawn that surface roughness of material significantly affects biomass productivity mainly through the size of surface morphology and the area of surface.
Table 2 The measurements of the grooves on the surface of the tested lignocellulosic materials (mean ± SD)
From the ESEM images (Fig. 6), after 1-day inoculation period and 1-day cultivation, algal cells of Scenedesmus sp., Chlorella sp., or Oscillatoria tenuis preferred to inhabit in the grooves. For PMMA as carrier, however, only few cells existed. Sathananthan et al. [32] patterned the substrata surface with 20 μm V-groove patterns and got an algal productivity double of that smooth surface through 10 days' mixed culture. Surface micro-topographies which are slightly larger than the size of algal cells would promote attachment, and deeper grooves always achieve more cells attached [19]. In this study, the size of all tested algal species was slightly smaller than the mean depth and the mean width of the observed grooves. Since equal amount of algal inoculum was evenly distributed onside the substrate layers during the seeding process, cells preferred to inhabit into the grooves. Algal cells can be protected from the fluid shear stress through inhibiting into the grooves during the early times. Meanwhile, the formation of the cell clusters and then early biofilm were also protected and promoted by the grooves. But for PMMA with smoothness surface, algal cells inoculated onside it were more easily washed away due to lack of protection that lead to less algal inoculum left. Furthermore, surface with deeper grooves might have recruited more algal cells on the material surface during the seeding process. Therefore, larger amount of inoculum was guaranteed and shorter colonization time was needed [27], and then higher biomass productivity was obtained [19]. Additionally, larger surface for algal cell attachment was provided due to the relatively larger surface area. And materials with rougher surface tended to have higher biofilm adhesion strength, which will then strengthen the resistibility of shear stress [2]. These reasons might together contribute to the fluctuation of the algal biomass productivity with different materials as carriers.
Comparison with other technologies
Both the new technology and a variety of biofilm technologies are listed in Table 3 with their algal productivities, lipid contents, and culture conditions. It should be noted that the calculation of biomass productivity (g m−2 day−1) is largely relied on the based surface area, the biofilm growth surface area (S g), or the footprints area of the reactors (S f). Higher ratio of S g/S f will tend to generate significantly higher biomass productivities that are calculated based on S f, if the biomass productivities of different biofilm reactors calculated based on S g are the same. Lower biomass productivity with PW as carriers in this study which calculated based on S f was mainly due to the lower ratio of S g/S f compared to other technologies. S g/S f of this study was close to 1, which is much smaller than those from Gross et al. [3], Christenson and Sims [15], Liu et al. [14], and Schultze et al. [33]. Amazingly, biomass productivity calculated based on S g with PW as carriers was higher than most of the technologies listed above. High contents of total lipid and crude proteins with lignocellulosic materials as carriers were also achieved, and produced biomass could be suitable for energy conversion and animal feed. Most importantly, the high biomass productivities achieved by all the above researchers were coupled with varieties of high-quality materials which were expensive, undurable, or difficult to be obtained, unsuitable for the commercialization of algal biofilm technology.
Table 3 Comparison of biomass productivity and total lipid content with different materials as algal biofilm carriers
Taking this issue into account, this study explored the feasibility of using lignocellulosic materials as biofilm carriers, which had similar chemical composition to algal cell wall. In addition, PW as carriers achieved high biomass productivity (10.92 g m−2 day−1). Using this new technology for algal biofilm cultivation, seasonal change of the production of the material can be well handled by just in turning utilization of the PW, OW, SB, RH, and other lignocellulosic materials which have not been studied yet in this study. Hence, this new technology with lignocellulosic materials as biofilm carriers has a great potential for the production of algal biomass.
Using lignocellulosic materials as carriers for algal biofilm growth achieved a productivity ranging from 7.32 to 10.92 g m−2 day−1, with PW being the maximum value. Total lipid contents of the biofilm with different materials as carriers were less fluctuated (20.10–23.20%), while crude proteins content and carbohydrate content varied significantly with the variation of materials. Total lipid productivity increased significantly as the increase of productivity, and PW gained a maximum value of 2.53 g m−2 day−1, followed by SB (2.16 g m−2 day−1), OW (1.78 g m−2 day−1), and RH (1.47 g m−2 day−1). Additionally, biomass productivity had a linear relationship with both the surface roughness (R 2 = 0.96) and roughness factor (R 2 = 0.96) of the materials. Future work is needed to improve the performance of this technology through optimizing culture conditions and development of newly efficient algal biofilm reactors with high growth surface area-to-footprints area ratio.
BG 11 medium:
synthetic medium for blue green algae growth
OD685 :
optical density at wavelength of 685 nm
pine sawdust
OW:
oak sawdust
SB:
FPBR:
flat plate algal biofilm photo-bioreactor
PMMA:
poly methyl methacrylate
ESEM:
environmental scanning electron microscopy
\(W_{\rm b}\) :
the weight of the harvested and oven dried biofilm blend
\(W_{\rm t}\) :
the weight of the tested carriers before cultivation
\(\alpha\) :
the material mass loss rate (1–6.5%)
\(t\) :
the culture period
\(W_{\rm s}\) :
the weight of the harvested and freeze-dried suspended algal
\(r\) :
Wenzel's roughness factor
\(A_{i}\) :
the tested material surface area of sample \(i\)
\(A_{0}\) :
the geometrically projected area of sample \(i\) and equal to 705.1 × 500.0 μm2
CLSM:
confocal laser-scanning microscopy
3-D:
\(S_{{\rm a}i}\) :
the 3-D surface roughness of the sample \(i\)
\(S_{\rm a}\) :
the average 3-D surface roughness of the tested material
\(R_{{c_{i,j} }}\) :
the average groove depth for \(i\) th sample \(j\) th test
\(R_{{z_{i,j} }}\) :
the maximum groove depth for \(i\) th sample \(j\) th test
\(R_{c}\) :
the average groove depth of the tested materials
\(R_{z}\) :
the average maximum groove depth of the tested materials
\(D_{i,j}\) :
the tested groove width of the \(i\) th sample \(j\) th part
\(\overline{D}\), \(D_{\hbox{min} }\) and \(D_{\hbox{max} }\) :
the meaning, minimum and maximum groove width of the materials, respectively
S g :
the biofilm growth surface area
S f :
the footprints area of the reactors
Gross M, Zhao X, Mascarenhas V, Wen Z. Effects of the surface physico–chemical properties and the surface textures on the initial colonization and the attached growth in algal biofilm. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2016;9:1–14.
Schnurr PJ, Allen DG. Factors affecting algae biofilm growth and lipid production: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;52:418–29.
Gross M, Henry W, Michael C, Wen Z. Development of a rotating algal biofilm growth system for attached microalgae growth with in situ biomass harvest. Bioresour Technol. 2013;150:195–201.
Zhang J, Hu B. A novel method to harvest microalgae via co-culture of filamentous fungi to form cell pellets. Bioresour Technol. 2012;114:529–35.
Brennan L, Owende P. Biofuels from microalgae—A review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co–products. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2010;14:557–77.
Zhang D, Fung KY, Ng KM. Novel filtration photobioreactor for efficient biomass production. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2014;53:12927–34.
Alam MA, Vandamme D, Chun W, Zhao X, Foubert I, Wang Z, et al. Bioflocculation as an innovative harvesting strategy for microalgae. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2016;15:1–11.
Schnurr PJ, Espie GS, Allen DG. Algae biofilm growth and the potential to stimulate lipid accumulation through nutrient starvation. Bioresour Technol. 2013;136:337–44.
Xie S, Sun S, Dai SY, Yuan JS. Efficient coagulation of microalgae in cultures with filamentous fungi. Algal Res. 2013;2:28–33.
Zhou W, Min M, Hu B, Ma X, Liu Y, Wang Q, et al. Filamentous fungi assisted bio-flocculation: a novel alternative technique for harvesting heterotrophic and autotrophic microalgal cells. Sep Purif Technol. 2013;107:158–65.
Alam MA, Wan C, Guo SL, Zhao XQ, Huang ZY, Yang YL, et al. Characterization of the flocculating agent from the spontaneously flocculating microalga Chlorella vulgaris JSC-7. J Biosci Bioeng. 2014;118:29–33.
Ozkan A, Kinney K, Katz L, Berberoglu H. Reduction of water and energy requirement of algae cultivation using an algae biofilm photobioreactor. Bioresour Technol. 2012;114:542–8.
Shi J, Podola B, Melkonian M. Application of a prototype-scale Twin-Layer photobioreactor for effective N and P removal from different process stages of municipal wastewater by immobilized microalgae. Bioresour Technol. 2014;154:260–6.
Liu T, Wang J, Hu Q, Cheng P, Ji B, Liu J, et al. Attached cultivation technology of microalgae for efficient biomass feedstock production. Bioresour Technol. 2013;127:216–22.
Christenson LB, Sims RC. Rotating algal biofilm reactor and spool harvester for wastewater treatment with biofuels by-products. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2012;109:1674–84.
Blanken W, Janssen M, Cuaresma M, Libor Z, Bhaiji T, Wijffels RH. Biofilm growth of Chlorella sorokiniana in a rotating biological contactor based photobioreactor. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111:2436–45.
Jain N, Bhatia A, Pathak H. Emission of air pollutants from crop residue burning in India. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2014;14:422–30.
Atta M, Idris A, Bukhari A, Wahidin S. Intensity of blue LED light: a potential stimulus for biomass and lipid content in fresh water microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. Bioresour Technol. 2013;148:373–8.
Cui Y, Yuan WQ, Cao J. Effect of surface texturing on microalgal cell attachment to solid carriers. Int J Agr Biol Eng. 2013;6:44–54.
Naumann T, Çebi Z, Podola B, Melkonian M. Growing microalgae as aquaculture feeds on twin-layers: a novel solid-state photobioreactor. J Appl Phycol. 2013;25:1413–20.
Moliner C, Bosio B, Arato E, Ribes A. Thermal and thermo-oxidative characterisation of rice straw for its use in energy valorisation processes. Fuel. 2016;180:71–9.
Lanlan Z, Lin C, Junfeng W, Yu C, Xin G, Zhaohui Z, et al. Attached cultivation for improving the biomass productivity of Spirulina platensis. Bioresour Technol. 2015;181:136–42.
Zeng X, Guo X, Su G, Danquah MK, Zhang S, Lu Y, et al. Bioprocess considerations for microalgal-based wastewater treatment and biomass production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;42:1385–92.
Lynd LR, Weimer PJ, Van Zyl WH, Pretorius IS. Microbial cellulose utilization: fundamentals and biotechnology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002;66:506–77.
Bai X, Lant P, Pratt S. The contribution of bacteria to algal growth by carbon cycling. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015;112:688–95.
Feng P, Deng Z, Hu Z, Fan L. Lipid accumulation and growth of Chlorella zofingiensis in flat plate photobioreactors outdoors. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102:10577–84.
Genin SN, Stewart Aitchison J, Grant Allen D. Design of algal film photobioreactors: material surface energy effects on algal film productivity, colonization and lipid content. Bioresour Technol. 2014;155:136–43.
Sekar R, Venugopalan VP, Satpathy KK, Nair KVK, Rao VNR. Laboratory studies on adhesion of microalgae to hard substrates. Hydrobiologia. 2004;512:109–16.
Cao J, Yuan W, Pei ZJ, Davis T, Cui Y, Beltran M. A preliminary study of the effect of surface texture on algae cell attachment for a mechanical-biological energy manufacturing system. J Manuf Sci Eng. 2009;131:064505.
Shen Y, Monroy GL, Derlon N, Janjaroen D, Huang C, Morgenroth E, et al. Role of biofilm roughness and hydrodynamic conditions in Legionella pneumophila adhesion to and detachment from simulated drinking water biofilms. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:4274–82.
Janjaroen D, Ling F, Monroy G, Derlon N, Mogenroth E, Boppart SA, et al. Roles of ionic strength and biofilm roughness on adhesion kinetics of Escherichia coli onto groundwater biofilm grown on PVC surfaces. Water Res. 2013;47:2531–42.
Sathananthan S, Genin SN, Aitchison JS, Allen DG. Micro-structured surfaces for algal biofilm growth. Micro/Nano Mater Devices Syst. 2013;8923:892350.
Schultze LKP, Simon M, Li T, Langenbach D, Podola B, Melkonian M. High light and carbon dioxide optimize surface productivity in a Twin-Layer biofilm photobioreactor. Algal Res. 2015;8:37–44.
Johnson MB, Wen Z. Development of an attached microalgal growth system for biofuel production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;85:525–34.
QZ designed the experiments, conducted the study, performed the statistics analysis and drafted the manuscript. CXL, YBL, ZGY, and ZHC helped to revise the manuscript. TY and XW participated in ESEM analysis. SPJ, BX, SML, and ZQH participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors would like to thank the Analytical and Testing Center of Huazhong University of Science and Technology for carrying out the analysis of the biofilm and lignocellulosic materials samples.
Availability of supporting data
The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article was included within the article.
This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Support Program of China (No. 2015BAD21B05) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 0118120122).
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China
Qi Zhang & Shiping Jin
School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, 450007, China
Cuixia Liu
School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, 430070, China
Yubiao Li
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Zhigang Yu
School of Environment, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, 453007, China
Zhihua Chen
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China
Ting Ye, Xun Wang, Zhiquan Hu, Shiming Liu & Bo Xiao
Qi Zhang
Ting Ye
Xun Wang
Zhiquan Hu
Shiming Liu
Bo Xiao
Shiping Jin
Correspondence to Shiping Jin.
Particle size, bulk density, liquid holding capacity and mass loss rate (\(\alpha\)) of the tested lignocellulosic materials. Table S2. Settings of the experiments performed inside the flat plate algal biofilm photo-bioreactor with material species, dosage, culture time and number of the involved channel. Figure S1. Biofilm using sugarcane bagasse as carrier after 16 days' cultivation. Figure S2. Biofilm with filamentous microorganisms using pine sawdust as carrier after 16 days' cultivation. Red arrow points to the visible filamentous microorganisms. Figure S3. ESEM images of the visible filamentous microorganisms described in Figure S2.
Zhang, Q., Liu, C., Li, Y. et al. Cultivation of algal biofilm using different lignocellulosic materials as carriers. Biotechnol Biofuels 10, 115 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0799-8
Lignocellulosic materials
Algal biofilm
Photo-bioreactor


text:
Al Sears fue un saxofonista y compositor de jazz, nacido en Macomb, Illinois, el 22 de febrero de 1910, y fallecido en Nueva York, el 23 de marzo de 1990.

Debutó en 1927, entrando muy pronto a trabajar en la big band de Chick Webb (1928-1930). A comienzos de los años 1930, dirige diversos pequeños combos, aunque abandona la música durante un tiempo. Ya en la década de 1940, volverá a la escena, con Andy Kirk y Lionel Hampton, así como al frente de una banda que incluía a Lester Young. En 1944 entra en la orquesta de Duke Ellington, sustituyendo a Ben Webster, permaneciendo con él hasta 1949, cuando realiza varias grabaciones con Johnny Hodges. Ya en los años 1950, tocará en bandas de rhythm and blues y dirigirá una empresa de ediciones musicales, junto a Budd Johnson.

Referencias
 Joachim E. Berendt: El Jazz: Origen y desarrollo (Fondo de Cultura Económica. Madrid, 1986. ISBN 84-375-0260-8)
 CARLES, Phillipe; CLERGEAT, André & COMOLLI, Jean-Louis: Dictionaire du jazz . Robert Laffont Edt, París, 1988. ISBN 2-221-04516-5

Saxofonistas de jazz de Estados Unidos
Saxos tenores
Músicos de swing


Take this quiz to find out if you're in a healthy relationship or not.
1. How do you decide on your nightly plans?
We both decide together in a fair way.
It's based on who wants to do something more.
I decide what we do.
My partner decides what we do.
My partner sees this friend as little as possible.
My partner refuses to see this friend.
My partner forbids me from seeing this friend.
4. Is honesty an important part of your relationship?
Yes, we are open and forthright with each other.
I do my best to be honest, but not all of the time.
I tell my partner what he or she wants to hear.
We aren't open with each other. What he or she doesn't know won't hurt him or her.
Sometimes our arguments can get heated, but they're never physical.
Once he or she was physically abusive toward me, but he or she profusely apologized afterwards.
He or she is repeatedly physically and emotionally abusive.
Never. I won't stand for that.
I drop hints for him or her to seek help, but sometimes I turn a blind eye.
I sometimes facilitate in order to appease him or her.
I frequently facilitate—I'm a classic enabler.
What's happening in my life overall.
What's happening in my life, but especially in my relationship.
Solely what's happening in my relationship.
Solely what's happening in my partner's life.
I don't remember the last time.
You got: Yes... Very Healthy!
Congratulations! You're in a very healthy relationship, and you should feel excited about the future. It's clear that both and your partner treat each other with respect and compassion, and you make each other stronger. Plus, your ability to be open and honest with each other is another sign of a healthy relationship. In fact, your connection with your partner is that much more significant because you are able to be your authentic selves when you're together. There's no faking, no role-playing, and no enabling—your connection is rooted in trust.
Going forward, it's imperative that you continue to keep lines of communication open and that you let your partner in even more. Remember, he or she wants to be there for you as a sounding board and support system, and you shouldn't be afraid to reciprocate when your partner is the one who needs guidance, or perhaps a shoulder to cry on. When you and your partner treat each other as equals, you are in a truly healthy relationship.
There are many indicators that you're in a healthy relationship, and the good news is that there are even more ways for you to create a healthier connection with your partner. Fortunately, you have put in place the proper groundwork on which your relationship can grow and thrive. Namely, feeling hopeful about the future, enjoying your time with your partner and having control over your own life are important components of a healthy relationship.
There are certain changes that you can make to take the health of your relationship to new heights. First, you should try to be as forthright with your partner as possible. Even if it's hard for you to feel vulnerable, challenge yourself to open up more, and don't be afraid to let your partner in. Next, make sure that you continue to push the envelope in other parts of your life. Your connection with your partner will be healthier when your outlook is shaped by your life as a whole and not solely by what's happening in your relationship.
There are many signs that you're in an unhealthy and potentially harmful relationship. In addition to your partner's attempts to try and control you, engage in destructive behaviors around you as well as his or her inability to be forthright, your feelings of apathy, indifference and hopelessness about your future together are also clear markers of an unhealthy relationship. Further, if your partner was abusive toward you, even if it was only once, there's a greater chance that this will continue in the future. In fact, the best predictor of future behavior is the behavior that he or she has exhibited in the past. In a word, even if happened only once, it may happen again.
Now that you're more aware of the signs that your relationship is not a healthy one, you should seriously consider ending it. The future doesn't have to be bleak and dreary. Your overall worth doesn't t have to be undermined. You have the power to change your current circumstances and live the life you deserve.
Unfortunately, you are in an unhealthy and potentially dangerous relationship, and it's time for you to end it. It's not surprising that you may feel stuck and hopeless, as your "partner" is clearly trying to control you and undermine your self-worth. (He or she isn't really a partner at all.) To that end, if this person has physically or emotionally abused you or if you find yourself placating his or her destructive behaviors, it's time to get out of this relationship. If you need help cutting the cord, there are certain hotlines, trained professionals as well as local authorities who can assist you, as well as friends and family. You're not alone.
While your partner may have tried to diminish your feelings and make you feel small, he or she didn't succeed. You're a resilient individual who brings value to the lives of those around you. You don't need a negative person like your partner in your life. You have the power to break up, break free and live the happy life that you deserve.


text:
Entertainment > Music > Musical instruments & instrumental ensembles > Wind instruments
Entertainment > Music > Musical styles & genres > Jazz
Sittin' in with Chris Griffin: A Reminiscence of Radio and Recording's Golden Years - Studies in Jazz (Paperback)
Warren W. Vach (author)
This authentic account of the Big Band Era and the Age of Swing is alive with firsthand dialogue by Chris Griffin. Vache traces the events spanning Griffin's career from his time in the Benny Goodman band with Harry James and Ziggy Elman in what Duke Ellington dubbed the best brass section of its day through his freelance years in radio, television and records where he recorded with legendary musicians such as Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Tony Bennett, and Frank Sinatra. Griffin's honesty and humor shine through the text as he recalls a time when talent and dedication to quality were supreme. Seventeen photographs and an excellent discography provided by Ed Berger further the understanding of Griffin as a man and an artist. This book is ideal for music lovers, especially those with a keen interest in the big bands of the 1930s and the lives of the era's most memorable musicians.
Publisher: Scarecrow Press
...I'm delighted that one of the unsung heroes of the Swing Era is not forgotten... * The Jazz Rag *
This small book offers Griffin's affectionate tales of Goodman, Gleason, Charlie Barnet, Frank Sinatra and others. He comes across as a modest, witty raconteur and any new first-hand testimony about those long-gone days when, for a moment, jazz was American popular music, is worth having. * All About Jazz, March 2007 *
This biography of trumpet player Chris Griffin collects his reminiscences of playing with the Benny Goodman band and the Ed Sullivan Show band and working with Charlie Barnet, Ziggy Elman, Frank Sinatra, Mel Torme, Dinah Shore, and Tony Martin. Black and white photographs and a discography are provided. * Reference and Research Book News *
About a year ago Warren told me of his new and exciting project, the story of big band trumpeter Chris Griffin. I was so excited about the news as Mr. Griffin was a true giant of the golden age of the swing era, yet never really made the 'name status' of other trumpet stars that in many respects learned from Griffin, Ziggy Elman and Harry James included. Jazz fans every where rejoice in the idea that those who should be given their dues do in fact gain some of that in historical documentation such as Warren's book, released recordings or newly found concert performances. The fact that someone such as Warren was finally putting into print the story of Chris Griffin caused many to smile. And then there is the chance that people who never knew of his great sound could finally learn of it and in doing so keep it alive. This is perhaps why I write this review, because to me this book now serves as a tribute. On February 27, 2005 Murray Davison passed away, the same week his old army buddy Warren Vache passed. A few months later on June 18, 2005 Chris Griffin joined the two in a jazz reunion in the sky. This book therefore, is meaningful in several ways to those who knew the men behind this great story. -- Dan Del Fiorentino, NAMM, THE INTERNATIONAL MUSIC PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION
My First Recorder - Learn To Play
Ned Bennett
A Tune A Day For Trumpet Or Cornet Book One
C. Paul Herfurth
Red Hot Recorder Tutor 1
Saxophone Basics Pupil's book (with CD)
Andy Hampton
How To Play The Penny Whistle
Gina Landor
The Big Book Of Disney Songs - Alto Saxophone
Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation
The Big Book Of Disney Songs
Clarinet Basics Pupil's book
A Tune A Day For Flute
Shining Brass, Book 1
Razzmajazz Recorder: Bk. 1


text:
Juan Pablo Montoya (Juan Pablo Montoya)
( Multiple winner of various karting championships in Colombia.)
Comments for Juan Pablo Montoya (Juan Pablo Montoya)
Biography Juan Pablo Montoya (Juan Pablo Montoya)
Born September 20, 1975 in the city of Bogota (Colombia)
She lives in Monte Carlo (Monaco)
Marital status - single
Other: height 168 cm, weight 66 kg
Racing career to participate in Formula-1:
Karting. In 1990 and 1991. Mzhdunarodnogo became the winner of the Cup of karting Championships (World Karting Junior Cup)
. 1992
. This year, Huang graduated from the Skip Barber Racing School in the United States, and then took part in the Colombian championship Formula Renault "(Colombian Formula Renault Championship), 5 wins and 4 pole positions in 8 races.
. Member of the National Touring Car Championship, GTI (GTI National Championship Tournament), 7 wins and 7 pole positions in 10 races
. Served car VAZ-2108! (Lada Samara)
Took part in the races "Barber SAAB" (Barber SAAB Series), where, with 2 wins took the final 3 place. In the same year, spent five races in the Mexican Touring Car Championship, Class "N", 3 wins.
British Formula "Vauxhall" (British Formula Vauxhall Championship). Montoya played for the team, Paul Stewart (Paul Stewart Racing), and took up the season 3 place.
Primal part in the British Formula 3 Championship (British Formula 3 Championship), 3 wins. Took fourth place in the famous tournament pilots Formula 3 "Marlboro Masters". In the same year, Huang participated in the International Touring Car Championship ITC (International TouringCars Championship), replacing the team of Jan Magnussen Mercedes - the final 16 place.
International Formula 3000 Championship (International Formula 3000 Championship), with 3 victories became vice-champion, lost only Ricardo Zonta.
Again the international Formula 3000 Championship (International Formula 3000 Championship). At this time, Montoya became the champion, winning for the team "Super Nova" (Super Nova) 7 of 12 races. Test pilot of "Williams" (Williams)
. This year, the Colombian moved overseas in the place of a two-fold CART champion Alessandro Zanardi, where he waited for a resounding success: debutant series with 7 wins is the champion (team Chip Ganassi - Chip Ganassi Racing, Reynard Honda)
Continue in CART (ChampCars) for the team Chip Ganassi Racing (Lola Toyota): 9 final place with 3 wins. Winner of the legendary race Indy-500 (series IRL, team Chip Ganassi Racing).
Links by theme:
Duarte, Juan Pablo (Juan Pablo Duarte)
Juarez, Benito Pablo (Benito Pablo Juц?rez)
News by themeJuan Pablo Montoya (Juan Pablo Montoya):
Fernando Alonso won pole-position in China Grand Prix
Portrait of the wife of Picasso will be the top lot of the "impressionist" Christie's auction
In Argentina announced the discovery of a missing year ago submarines
In Argentina announced the discovery of a missing submarine
Russian specialists went to the search area of the submarine "San Juan"
Navy of Argentina has published a photo of the sunken submarine "San Juan"
The government of Chile recognized the possibility of killing Pablo Neruda
Argentina stops the operation to rescue the sailors of the missing submarine
Us intelligence has described the explosion that destroyed the submarine "San Juan"
The operation to rescue the crew of the submarine "San Juan" discontinued
Before becoming one of the biggest stars in the world, she was just another little girl growing up in the Big Apple. Guess who is she...