Here the oxygen flow rate is a measure of the culture's photosynthetic rate. Higher rates of photosynthesis, and hence carbon fixation, translate to higher growth rates. This means the user can compare oxygen flow rates between different treatments and operational days as a proxy for growth. Briefly, the gas sensor works by trapping and releasing gas bubbles in a dual-chamber measurement cell (Figure 4B). Gas bubbles from the inlet at the base of the sensor travel up through the packing liquid. Bubbles accumulate in one chamber of the measurement cell to a volume of ~3.2 mL. Once this threshold is reached the measurement cell tips. This releases the gas and resets the system. Each tip is recorded by the data acquisition software.
In the example data, the growth rate of three treatments with varying daytime light intensities and initial biomass concentrations (IBCs) were compared. These treatments were chosen arbitrarily for demonstrative purposes. They were (A) 300 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and 0.03 gAFDW L-1, (B) 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and 0.13 gAFDW L-1, and (C) 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and 0.40 gAFDW L-1. These irradiances were measured with a spherical probe in the center of the PVC pipe before bottles were placed on the platforms. Culture depth and density affect light attenuation. Hence the actual light intensity experienced by microalgae can vary from those reported. Each treatment was performed in triplicate—within one PBR containing three bottles.
Here, a successful experiment was characterized by closely replicated diurnal patterns of gas production (Figure 7A–C). During illuminated hours (day), gas production steadily increased, and over non-illuminated hours (night), gas production stopped (Figure 7A–C). Two gases are produced by microalgae, oxygen from photosynthesis and carbon dioxide from respiration28. Photosynthesis is restricted to illuminated hours, whereas respiration occurs continuously but is most active at night28. Photosynthesis builds, whereas respiration catabolizes biomass28. Initially, the composition of headspace gas is identical to that of the atmosphere. With each flip of the measurement cell, O2 displaces atmospheric gas. Therefore, gas sensor readings were attributed to the production of O2 even if the outgoing gas was not pure O2. The minimum gas inlet pressure for the gas sensor is extremely low, 8–9 mbar, rendering bottle headspace pressure only slightly over atmospheric (1.01 bar at sea level). Hence, gas sensor readings commence shortly after O2 bubbles leave the medium.
CO2 released from respiration does not contribute to gas sensor readings for two reasons. Firstly, in the alkaline medium, CO2 reacts to bicarbonate, decreasing the pH (Figure 8). Secondly, if CO2 does escape, the gas sensor packing liquid, Silox, dissolves CO2 bubbles before they can reach the measurement cell, outgassing CO2 at the liquid surface29. This is supported by the lack of overnight gas sensor readings. Those that did occur were recorded shortly after lights were turned off, indicating that readings represented residual daytime oxygen release (Figure 7).
In the experimental setup (using local temperature and pressure data), an 80 mL headspace at ambient pressure required 340 mL of exsolved O2 to establish an O2 partial pressure of 99%. Here, the total volume of oxygen produced over 4 days ranged from 316 (SEM ± 11) mL in treatment A to 902 (SEM ± 51) mL in treatment C (Table 1). Therefore, by the end of the experiment, the headspace of all bottles would have contained primarily O2. The increased concentration of headspace O2, and thus decreased concentration of N2, would have impacted these gases' partial pressure and saturation. With a 99% O2 headspace, a 5x increase in DO was calculated. For the 1.1 L cultures, this translated to an additional 23 mL of DO. Conversely, it was estimated that the shift to a 1% N2 headspace would have caused 15 mL of N2 to exsolve. This means that under a near pure oxygen headspace, more O2 dissolved than N2 was displaced. Thus, because more O2 remains in the medium, this effect would have led to slight underestimations in the amount of photosynthetic oxygen produced.
The principal challenge of this method arose when cultures became dense. With more biomass, and hence more respiration, the demand for O2 increased. Nighttime O2 consumption generated a headspace under-pressure. This caused gas sensor packing liquid to travel up through the gas line. When O2 production resumed, packing liquid had to be driven back into the gas sensors. This caused a delay in the first gas sensor reading. However, on the fourth night, the magnitude of this under-pressure caused packing liquid to reach and drip into two of the three replicates of treatment B, generating a surface oil slick. Due to the reduced packing liquid level, the gas sensors short-circuited, releasing unmeasured O2 directly to the atmosphere. This caused data collection to flatline (Figure 7B).
Under-pressure can also be caused by a temperature-induced contraction of headspace volume. However, the effect here was minimal. Heat sink channels and airflow adequately dissipated excess heat. Of the two light regimes trialed, the maximum temperature change reduced the headspace volume by 1% or less, equivalent to an 800 µL packing liquid displacement in an 80 mL headspace. The maximum diurnal temperature swing was 1.4 °C for the 300 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 regimes (Figure 6) and 3.2 °C for the 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 regimes. The average daytime temperature rise for the 300 and 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 regimes was 0.7 and 1.8 °C, respectively. Culture temperatures returned to baseline overnight (Figure 6).
High-resolution growth rate data can reveal trends that otherwise may go unnoticed. Consider treatments B and C. Despite their differing IBCs, both generated the same amount of total biomass (gAFDW), which caused an identical shift in medium pH (Table 1). Given only starting and final data points, an individual may rightly assume no difference in the average growth rate between the two treatments (Table 1). However, online oxygen flow rate data revealed that each treatment had varying daily growth rates. These variations were also reflected in twice-daily pH measurements (Figure 8). On day one, treatment B's growth rate was lower than that of treatment C. By day three, this reversed with treatment B's growth rate surpassing that of treatment C (Figure 7B,C). Oxygen flow rate data indicated that the highest growth rate occurred on day three in treatment B (Figure 7B).
The total volume of oxygen generated by each bottle in the three treatments was used to estimate their respective change in total biomass (gAFDW). This was achieved using a generic equation for photosynthetic biomass synthesis: CO2 + 0.2 NH3 + 0.6 H2O = CH1.8 O0.5 N0.2 + 1.05 O2. The increase in headspace O2 partial pressure and subsequent rise in DO saturation was expected to cause a slight underestimation of biomass growth. This was true for five out of seven examples (Table 2). On average, estimated biomass growth was within 10% of measured biomass growth. Some estimates differed by only 1–3 mg from measured growth. Two examples overestimated growth, i.e., more oxygen was produced than biomass growth could account for. Any O2 consumed by respiration overnight should be reflected in the lag in O2 production the following day. Here, experiments were terminated at night's end. In this way, overnight biomass catabolism during the final 8 h of each experiment goes unmeasured. This may cause overestimations of biomass growth, especially in dense cultures. As such, it is recommended that experiments are terminated at the end of illuminated hours.

Figure 1: Reactor stand base. (A) Dimensions of base components in mm. (B) Orientation of metal corner gussets that secure the two vertical supports. (C) One of four short steel lengths connects the back half of the PVC pipe to the reactor stand. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Electrical components. (A) Rearview of the PBR showing top cross beam and configuration of electrical components. (B) Front view of PBR after light installation. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Bottle platform details. (A) Dimensions of top and bottom layer in mm. (B) Recessing bolt heads into both layers. (C) Braces connect the bottom layer directly to the rear half of the PVC pipe. (D) Five short pieces of rigid tubing fitted over narrow bolts hold the top and bottom layers apart. (E) When the bottle platform is complete, the surface should be flush. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Gas line and optional sampling port. (A) Gas lines connect each bottle headspace to exterior gas sensors. If the sampling port is required, gas lines should include a one-way valve immediately downstream of the needle. (B) Volumetric gas sensor. The liquid packing level should touch the tracing screw. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Standard curve relating LED control software settings to internal light intensity. White circles and gray triangles each represent an individual PBR. For each light setting, all four fixtures were set to an identical value. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Culture temperature change for the 300 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 light regimes. During the 24 h, 16:8-h diurnal program, LEDs increased the daytime culture temperature. The blue arrow indicates the difference between the minimum and maximum temperature. A light program error caused the temperature dip before dusk; this was corrected before the experiment commenced. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Oxygen production for three unique experimental conditions. Each reactor received a different combination of light intensity and initial biomass concentration (IBC); (A) 300 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and IBC 0.03 gAFDW L-1, (B) 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and IBC 0.13 gAFDW L-1, (C) 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and IBC 0.40 gAFDW L-1. Top graphs display cumulative oxygen production (mL) and the gas flow rate (mL/h). Solid black lines, dashed blue lines, and dotted red lines are replicates. The runtime for each experiment was 104 h, which included four complete 16:8 h day-night cycles. Dark orange shading represents nighttime hours and light orange daytime hours. Note that in treatment B, oxygen production flatlines on day 4 for two of the three replicates. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: pH response. Each reactor received a different combination of light intensity and IBC;(green diamonds) 300 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and IBC 0.03 gAFDW L-1, (red triangles) 600 µmolphotons m2 s-1 and IBC 0.13 gAFDW L-1, (purple circles) 600 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and IBC 0.40 gAFDW L-1. Dark orange shading represents nighttime hours and light orange daytime hours. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Treatment | Light Intensity (µmol photons m-2 s-1) | IBC (gAFDW L-1) | Δ total biomass (gAFDW) | Δ pH | Total oxygen produced (mL) |
| A | 300 | 0.031 | 0.289 (± 0.01) | 0.15 (± 0.01) | 316.2 (±11.4) |
| B | 600 | 0.130 | 0.674 (± 0.02) | 0.52 (± 0.27) | 834.6* |
| C | 600 | 0.400 | 0.675 (± 0.02) | 0.55 (± 0.03) | 902.2 (±50.5) |
| * Only one of the three replicates was successful | | |
Table 1: Growth metric shift from hour 0 to 104. Brackets represent the standard error of the mean.
| Treatment | Light Intensity (µmolphotons m-2 s-1) | IBC (gAFDW L-1) | Biomass growth measured (gAFDW) | Biomass growth predicted (gAFDW) | Underestimate (%) |
| A | 300 | 0.031 | 0.289 | 0.288 | 0.5 |
| A | 300 | 0.031 | 0.311 | 0.270 | 13.1 |
| A | 300 | 0.031 | 0.268 | 0.247 | 7.9 |
| B | 600 | 0.13 | 0.708 | 0.705 | 0.4 |
| C | 600 | 0.4 | 0.718 | 0.796 | -10.9 |
| C | 600 | 0.4 | 0.640 | 0.830 | -29.7 |
| C | 600 | 0.4 | 0.668 | 0.659 | 1.3 |
Table 2: Growth estimates based on total measured oxygen. Only one replicate from the 300 µmolphotons m-2 s-1 and IBC = 0.13 gAFDW L-1 treatment ran to completion.
Supplementary Figure 1: Screenshot from LED control software. Each of the four light fixtures can be controlled independently by sliding the dimmer buttons or entering a numerical value into the text box. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Figure 2: Screenshot of the data acquisition software configuration window. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Figure 3: Screenshot of the data acquisition software logging window. Bright green rectangles indicate online gas sensors. Data is displayed in real-time. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Table 1: Example 24 h light regime. For a 16:8 h diurnal program, there are 48 sets of 30 min each. Asterisks indicate suggested sampling times. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 2: High alkalinity high pH medium composition. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 3: Trace element solution. Add to a final concentration of 1 mL/L to the base medium. Please click here to download this Table.