<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>30(6)</volume><submitter>Xi Y</submitter><pubmed_abstract>Bicarbonate has been considered as a better approach for supplying CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> to microalgae cells microenvironments than gas bubbling owing t°Cost-effectiveness and easy operation. However, the β-carotene production was too low in &lt;i>Dunaliella salina&lt;/i> cultivated with bicarbonate in previous studies. Also, the difference in photosynthetic efficiency between these tw°Carbon sources (bicarbonate and CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>) has seldom been discussed. In this study, the culture conditions, including NaHCO&lt;sub>3&lt;/sub>, Ca&lt;sup>2+&lt;/sup>, Mg&lt;sup>2+&lt;/sup> and microelement concentrations, were optimized when bicarbonate was used as carbon source. Under optimized condition, a maximum biomass concentration of 0.71 g/l and corresponding β-carotene content of 4.76% were obtained, with β-carotene yield of 32.0 mg/l, much higher than previous studies with NaHCO&lt;sub>3&lt;/sub>. Finally, these optimized conditions with bicarbonate were compared with CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> bubbling by online monitoring. There was a notable difference in &lt;i&gt;F&lt;sub>v&lt;/sub>/F&lt;sub>m&lt;/sub>&lt;/i> value between cultivations with bicarbonate and CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>, but there was no difference in the &lt;i>F&lt;sub>v&lt;/sub>/F&lt;sub>m&lt;/sub>&lt;/i> periodic changing patterns. This indicates that the high concentration of NaHCO&lt;sub>3&lt;/sub> used in this study served as a stress factor for β-carotene accumulation, although high productivity of biomass was still obtained.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of microbiology and biotechnology</journal><pagination>868-877</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9728381</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>β-Carotene Production from &lt;i>Dunaliella salina&lt;/i> Cultivated with Bicarbonate as Carbon Source.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9728381</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Xi Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xue S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chi Z</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>β-Carotene Production from &lt;i>Dunaliella salina&lt;/i> Cultivated with Bicarbonate as Carbon Source.</name><description>Bicarbonate has been considered as a better approach for supplying CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> to microalgae cells microenvironments than gas bubbling owing t°Cost-effectiveness and easy operation. However, the β-carotene production was too low in &lt;i>Dunaliella salina&lt;/i> cultivated with bicarbonate in previous studies. Also, the difference in photosynthetic efficiency between these tw°Carbon sources (bicarbonate and CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>) has seldom been discussed. In this study, the culture conditions, including NaHCO&lt;sub>3&lt;/sub>, Ca&lt;sup>2+&lt;/sup>, Mg&lt;sup>2+&lt;/sup> and microelement concentrations, were optimized when bicarbonate was used as carbon source. Under optimized condition, a maximum biomass concentration of 0.71 g/l and corresponding β-carotene content of 4.76% were obtained, with β-carotene yield of 32.0 mg/l, much higher than previous studies with NaHCO&lt;sub>3&lt;/sub>. Finally, these optimized conditions with bicarbonate were compared with CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> bubbling by online monitoring. There was a notable difference in &lt;i&gt;F&lt;sub>v&lt;/sub>/F&lt;sub>m&lt;/sub>&lt;/i> value between cultivations with bicarbonate and CO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>, but there was no difference in the &lt;i>F&lt;sub>v&lt;/sub>/F&lt;sub>m&lt;/sub>&lt;/i> periodic changing patterns. This indicates that the high concentration of NaHCO&lt;sub>3&lt;/sub> used in this study served as a stress factor for β-carotene accumulation, although high productivity of biomass was still obtained.</description><dates><release>2020-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2020 Jun</publication><modification>2025-05-29T16:30:11.536Z</modification><creation>2025-05-29T16:30:11.536Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9728381</accession><cross_references><pubmed>32238762</pubmed><doi>10.4014/jmb.1910.10035</doi></cross_references></HashMap>