Green Photosynthetic Microalgae from Low pH Environments Associated with Mining as a Potential Source of Antioxidants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A potential commercial market for microalgal-produced antioxidants is a natural alternative to synthetic compounds that are possible carcinogens. Further, utilizing microalgae for carbon (CO2) capture from industrial off-gas could be environmentally beneficial for their mass production, but due to an increase in acidity of the growing media caused by acid gasses, microalgae able to survive at pH 3.0–4.0 while still producing antioxidant metabolites are needed. Two strains of green microalgae were bioprospected from acid mine drainage impacted water bodies (pH 2.9) in Canada. These and a culture collection strain Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (pH 7.0) were investigated for their antioxidant capacity and chlorophyll content while growing under low pH conditions. The isolates were identified as Coccomyxa sp. and Chlamydomonas sp. based on ITS sequences. The microalgae were grown at pH 3.0 and unregulated pH media for 28 d and their antioxidant potential evaluated with three complimentary assays. The results showed that C. reinhardtii did not grow at pH 3.0, and that Coccomyxa sp. had significantly higher antioxidant potential than Chlamydomonas sp. Both species also showed significantly higher antioxidant potential than C. reinhardtii when it was grown at pH 7.0.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".