New indices to evaluate different types of LED and fluorescent light in phytoplankton culture used in bivalve mollusc hatcheries

Authors

Miguel Lastres Instituto Galego de Formación en Acuicultura (IGAFA) Consellería do Mar. Xunta de Galicia. C/ Niño do Corvo, s/n. Illa de Arousa. 36626 Pontevedra. Galicia. España http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5642-2160
Fix Da Costa Centro de Investigación Marina (CIM) - Universidade de Vigo. Illa de Toralla, Coruxo 36631 Vigo. Galicia. España
Alfonso N. Maeda-Martínez Unidad Nayarit del Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S.C. 62173 Tepic, Nayarit, México.
Isabel Figueira Instituto Galego de Formación en Acuicultura (IGAFA) Consellería do Mar. Xunta de Galicia. C/ Niño do Corvo, s/n. Illa de Arousa. 36626 Pontevedra. Galicia. España
Elena Casais Instituto Galego de Formación en Acuicultura (IGAFA) Consellería do Mar. Xunta de Galicia. C/ Niño do Corvo, s/n. Illa de Arousa. 36626 Pontevedra. Galicia. España

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33936/at.v2i3.3092

Keywords:

Index, Comparison, LED, Fluorescent Light, Microalgae

Abstract

To facilitate decision-making in cultures of photoautotrophic organisms, different indices are proposed that allow to effectively evaluate the productivity of the systems when using different types of light. The first index defined was the light cost per cell produced, using the Cellular Light Consumption (CLC) indicator. The performance of each light source was addressed using the Maximum Density per Installed Power (DMPI) and a Production Comparison Factor (FCP) was calculated, which indicates the cells obtained for each type of lighting, taking into account the installed power and the cultivation time. Finally, the Light Choice Factor (FEL) was described, which expresses the cell cost per W used, taking into account the cell productivity obtained as well as the service life and the purchase price of each type of lamp. To test the effectiveness of this type of indices, 3 different commercial lighting references were tested (2 LED lights, and one fluorescent light) used for the cultivation of 4 species of microalgae (Tetraselmis suecica, Isochrysis galbana, Diacronema lutheri, and Skeletonema costatum), frequently used in bivalve mollusc hatcheries. The results showed that with cell counts and applying the indices presented in this publication it is possible to determine the efficiency of the type of light used in industrial facilities where phytoplankton production is carried out with artificial lighting.

References

Bouman, H.A.; Platt, T., Doblin, M.; Figueras, F.G. & Sathyendranath, S., (2018). Photosynthesis-irradiance parameters ofr marine phytoplankton: synthesis of a global data set. Earth System Science Data,10:251-266.

Charalampous, E., Matthiessen B. & Sommer U., (2018). Light effects on phytoplankton prophometric traits influence nutrient utilization ability. Journal of Plankton Research, 40(5): 568-579.

Coutteau, P., & Sorgeloos, P., (1992). The use of algal substitutes and the requirement for live algae in the hatchery and nursery rearing of bivalve molluscs: an international survey. Journal of Shellfish Research, 11: 467-467.

Edwards, K., Thomas, M.K., Klausmeier, C.A. and Litchman, E., (2016). Phytoplankton growth and the interaction of light and temperature: a synthesis at the species and community level. Limnology and Oceanography, 61: 1232-1244.

Helm, M.M.; Bourne, N.; Lovatelli, A. (comp./ed.), (2006). Cultivo de bivalvos en criadero. Un manual práctico. FAO Documento Técnico de Pesca. Nº. 471. Roma, FAO.

Kim, Se-kwon., (2015). Handbook of marine microalgae biotechnolgie advances. Edit. Academic Press.

Lastres, M; Andrés, M.C.; Rosende, A.; Villar, V.; Blanquet, I.; Alexandre, J. & Forte, S., (2009). Manual de Aquacultura Interfor 2 CD Multimedia. Programa Interreg III A. Edit. Forpescas, Lisboa.

Lavens, P; Sorgeloos, P. (eds.), (1996). Manual on the production and use of live food for aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 361. Rome, FAO.

Meseck, S.; Alix J.H. & Wikfors, G.H., (2005). Photoperiod and light intensity effects on growth and utilization of nutrients by the aquaculture feed microalga, Tetraselmis chui (PLY429). Aquaculture 246: 393-404.

Robert R, & Trintignac P., (1997). Substitutes for live microalgae in mariculture. Limnology and Oceanography, 57(2): 541-553.

Shatwell R, Nicklish A. & Khöler J., (2012). Temperature and photoperiod effects on phytoplankton growing under simulated mixed layer light fluctuations. Aquatic Living Resources 10: 315-327.

Vásquez-Villalobos, V.; Artega, P.; Chanamé, K.; Esquivel, A., (2013). Modelamiento matemático y por redes neuronales artificiales del crecimiento de Spirulina sp. en fotobiorreactor con fuente de luz fluorescente e iluminación en estado sólido. Sientia Agropecuaria. (PE) 4: 199-209.

Yang, X.; Liu, L.; Yin, Z.;Wang X.; Wang, S. & Ye Z., (2020). Quantifying photosynthetic performance of phytoplankton based on photosynthesis-irradiance response models. Environmental Sciences Europe. (2020) 32:24.