• Open Access

Growth of Chlorella vulgaris and associated bacteria in photobioreactors

Authors

  • Aino-Maija Lakaniemi,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Chemistry and Bioengineering, Tampere University of Technology, PO Box 541, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Veera M. Intihar,

    1. Department of Chemistry and Bioengineering, Tampere University of Technology, PO Box 541, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Olli H. Tuovinen,

    1. Department of Chemistry and Bioengineering, Tampere University of Technology, PO Box 541, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
    2. Department of Microbiology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jaakko A. Puhakka

    1. Department of Chemistry and Bioengineering, Tampere University of Technology, PO Box 541, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
    Search for more papers by this author

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Growth of Chlorella vulgaris and associated bacteria in photobioreactors Volume 5, Issue 1, 69–78, Article first published online: 21 September 2011

E-mail aino-maija.lakaniemi@tut.fi; Tel. (+358) 40 198 1103; Fax (+358) 3 3115 2869.

The article ‘Growth of Chlorella vulgaris and associated bacteria in photobioreactors’ (Lakaniemi et al., 2012) contains the following errors.

On page 71 right column, the sentence below:

Eukaryotic 1/CT correlated moderately with OD (r 0.90) and VSS (r 0.85), while chlorophyll a correlated poorly with both OD (r 0.30) and VSS (r 0.40).

should read:

Eukaryotic 1/CT correlated moderately with logarithms of OD (r 0.89) and VSS (r 0.90), while chlorophyll a correlated poorly with both OD (r 0.30) and VSS (r 0.40).

On page 71 right column, the sentence below:

DOC correlated well also with eukaryotic 1/CT in the NM (r = 0.93) and in the PM (r = 0.91), but not in the CM (r = 0.43).

should read:

Logarithms of DOC correlated well also with eukaryotic 1/CT in the NM (r = 0.97) and in the PM (r = 0.95), but not in the CM (r = 0.60).

On page 71 right column, the sentence below:

The HPC results and bacterial 1/CT values did not correlate well (overall r = 0.54).

should read:

The logarithms of HPC results correlated moderately with 1/CT values (r = 0.85).

The authors apologize for these errors.

Ancillary