# Growth and fatty acid profiles of microalgae species isolated from the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico.

Crecimiento y perfiles de acidos grasos de especies de microalgas aisladas de la Peninsula de Baja California, MexicoINTRODUCTION

Microalgae are used as live food in the early stages (larval and juvenile) of most cultured aquatic species (Renaud et al., 1994; Brown, 2002). These microalgae must be supplied at the appropriate quantity, have the proper quality, shape, and size, and be non-toxic to the target organism (Hemaiswarya et al., 2011).

One fundamental aspect in nutrition of marine organisms is the proximate composition and quantity of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) of microalgae (Xu et al., 2008; Guedes et al., 2011). Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA: 20:5n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA: 22:6n-3), members of the PUFA family (n-3) are essential for marine organisms because they promote growth and high survival rates and are also components of membranes and storage organelles (Cardozo et al., 2007; Guedes et al., 2011).

Close to 5000 species of microalgae have been isolated worldwide, but only 50 or 60 are used commercially as live food for aquaculture (Kyle, 1989; Parvin et al., 2007). In the Baja California Peninsula there are few data on fatty acid profile of the endemic microalgae that are used as live food for aquaculture (Mercado et al., 2004; Correa-Reyes et al., 2009). Additionally, the native microalgae strains are acclimated to local environmental conditions and avoid the introduction of allochthonous species (Hemaiswarya et al., 2011; Ratha et al., 2012). Thus, the aim of this study was to isolate and characterize the growth, fatty acid content and toxicity of native microalgae species from Baja California Peninsula, Mexico, to evaluate their potential to be used as food for marine organisms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sampling sites

The microalgae strains were isolated from the coastal waters of Ensenada and San Quintin (Baja California), and Mulege (Baja California Sur), Mexico (Fig. 1). The water samples collected from 2010 to 2012 were used for the isolation of microalgae cells (Throndsen, 1978; Aranguren et al., 2002; Andersen & Kawachi, 2005).

Isolation technique

Strains were isolated by serial dilution using a micropipette and agar streaking in tubes with 10 mL of "f' medium (Guillard & Ryther, 1962) with 2% agar. The species were identified based on their morphological characteristics, using a compound microscope (Olympus CX31) and taxonomic keys (Round et al., 1990; Moreno et al., 1996; Tomas, 1997; Siqueiros-Beltrones, 2002; Wehr & Sheath, 2003; Komarek & Anagnostidis, 2005; Arora et al., 2013), and classified according to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).

Culture conditions

The isolated strains were transferred from 10 mL tubes to 250 mL flasks and grown as non-axenic and monospecific batch cultures (Stein, 1973) "f" medium (100 mL). The cultures were maintained in duplicate in a climatic chamber at 20 [+ or -] 1[degrees]C (temperature of most shrimp farms in Mexico range from 20 to 22[degrees]C as has been described by Lopez-Elias et al., 2004), continuous light at 100 [micro]E [m.sup.-2] [s.sup.-1] was provided by a cool white fluorescent light.

Growth rate and cell concentration

The cell concentration of each strain was quantified by direct cell count every 48 h during 10 days, using a hematocytometer (0.1 mm depth), and a compound microscope. The benthic diatoms samples were sonicated (3-6 min at 50 Hz) prior to the cell count. Cell concentration of filamentous cyanophytes was obtained based on the total filament count and the xanthophytes was estimated based on cluster counts of each colony, using a Fuchs Rosenthal chamber (0.2 mm depth) (Huarachi et al., 2013; Moheimani et al., 2013). These data were used to generate growth curves and calculate the growth rate ([mu]), by the following equation (Fogg & Thake, 1987):

[mu] [log.sub.2] ([N.sub.2]) - [log.sub.2]([N.sub.1])/[t.sub.2] - [t.sub.1]

where [N.sub.1] and [N.sub.2] are the cell concentrations at initial day ([t.sub.1]) and final day ([t.sub.2]) respectively, measured during the exponential growth.

Dry weight

Total dry weight, organic dry weight, and ash content were measured as described by Sorokin (1973). Samples of each culture were collected at day 5 and passed through 47 mm glass fiber filters (Whatman GF/C). The filters were washed with 5 mL ammonium formate (3%) to remove salt residues, and oven-dried at 60[degrees]C until constant weight. Ash content was obtained by incineration at 490[degrees]C with a muffle furnace.

Fatty acid analysis

The isolated microalgae strains were cultured as nonaxenic and monospecific maintained in 1-L Erlenmeyer flasks with 700 mL "f" medium and 100 mL of inoculum of each strain under the same culture conditions as for the growth assay. The cells were collected at day 5 and concentrated by centrifugation at 4000 rpm and freeze-dried at -50[degrees]C and 0.110 bar with a lyophilizer (Labconco Freezone 2.5).

The total lipid content from lyophilized samples (50 mg) of each microalgae strain was extracted according to Folch et al. (1957). Fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) were measured following to Metcalfe et al. (1966) and analyzed by a gas chromatograph (GC Agilent Technologies 7890A) with a 30 m length, 0.320 mm inner diameter, 0.25 pm film thickness capillary column (Agilent J&W, 123-3232 DB-FFAp), and flame ionization detector. Hydrogen was used as the carrier gas. The injection volume was 1 pL, and the initial temperature was 120[degrees]C, which was increased to 230[degrees]C and maintained for 4 min more.

FAMEs were identified, based on a comparison of their retention times with those of a commercial standard (37 Component Supelco FAME Mix Sigma). The concentration of each fatty acid was calculated using ChemStation, B.04.01 software (Agilent, USA).

Aqueous extract and test toxicity test

To determine what microalga has potential as food in aquaculture, its toxicity to the organism for which it will be used as food must be measured. To this end, monospecific cultures of the isolated microalgae were maintained in duplicate 15 mL test tubes with 10 mL of "f" medium using the same culture conditions as described above. The cultures were harvested at stationary growth phase (day 12), to collect the extracellular products that accumulated and were passed through 47 mm glass fiber filters (Whatman GF/C) to obtain the cell-free liquid fraction (residual medium).

The toxicity of each microalgal strain was estimated by bioassay using Artemia franciscana nauplii (Vanhaecke et al, 1980) (Argentemia Golden, Grade 1). Nauplii were obtained, by cyst inducing of hatching and eliminating the alveolar layer (lipoproteins, chitin and haematin) by oxidation with 6% sodium hypochlorite bath for 5 min and rinsed with freshwater to remove the hypochlorite. The cysts were placed inside of a hatching cone with seawater (22%o) at 28[degrees]C and constant aeration until hatching (22 h). Nauplii were collected by positive phototropism.

The toxicity assay was performed by quadruplicate for each aqueous extract using a 96 well plate with a lid. We placed 7 to 10 nauplii in each well in a final volume of 200 [micro]L of each aqueous extract. Two controls (filtered seawater and "f" medium) were also established. All treatments were maintained for 24 h at 20[degrees]C under continuous light (100 [micro]E [m.sup.-2] [s.sup.-1]) without the addition of food. The initial and final number of the nauplii were used in each treatment to determine survival rate.

Statistical analysis

Differences in growth rate ([mu]), dry weight and fatty acids among microalgae species were examined by one-way analysis of variance (Zar, 1984). When significant differences were obtained a Tukey a posteriori test was used. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica[R], version 10.0 (Stat Soft Inc., 2011), and the level of significance was set to P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Isolation of strains

One-hundred and fifteen water samples were collected, and then 36 microalgae strains from Ensenada and San Quintin, Baja California, and Mulege, Baja California Sur, Mexico were initially isolated, from which 21 microalgae strains were finally chosen for this work, i.e., those that grow in "f' medium, under the culture conditions previously described. The highest number of isolated species (11) was obtained from Ensenada samples (Table 1). The isolated species had various shapes and sizes and belonged to Cyanophyceae, Chlorodendrophyceae, Xanthophyceae, and Bacillariophyceae (Table 1). Most isolated species were Bacillariophyceae (16) (Table 1). The cell size of the isolated microalgae species ranged from 0.75 to 193.13 pm (Table 2). The cyanophytes had a cell size that ranged from 0.75 to 2.26 pm, the chlorophyte Tetraselmis suecica showed a cell size of 6.90 pm wide and 10.80 pm long, while the xanthophyte Heterococcus sp. had cell size of 13.14 pm wide and 193.13 pm long. The cell size among diatoms ranged from 2.80 to 13.64 pm wide and 3.65 to 16.85 pm long (Table 2).

Growth rate and cell concentration

Komvophoron sp. had the highest growth rate (p) (2.98 divisions [day-.sup.1]) (P < 0.05), while the diatom Grammatophora angulosa had the slowest growth (0.58 divisions day-1) (Table 2, Fig. 2). The cyanophyte Aphanocapsa marina had the highest final cell concentration (11.92x[10.sup.6] cell [mL.sup.-1]) (P < 0.05), while the diatom Navicula sp. (strain 1) had the slowest cell concentration (0.13x[10.sup.6] cell [mL.sup.-1]) (Table 2, Fig. 2).

Dry weight

The total dry weight (P < 0.05), organic dry weight (P < 0.05) and ash content (P < 0.05) were significantly different among strains (Table 3). The diatom Amphora sp. (strain 5) had the highest values of total dry weight (395.6 pg [cell.sup.-1]), organic dry weight (156.3 pg [cell.sup.-1]) and ash content (239.3 pg [cell.sup.-1]) (Table 3). The cyanophyte Aphanocapsa marina had the lowest values of total dry weight (1.6 pg [cell.sup.-1]), organic dry weight (1.2 pg [cell.sup.-1]) and ash content (0.4 pg [cell.sup.-1]) (Table 3).

Fatty acid analysis

Among cyanophytes, which had higher percentages of saturated fatty acids, Phormidium sp. had a significantly higher (P < 0.05) percentage of 16:0 (47.8%), whereas Aphanocapsa marina contained the highest levels of 14:0 (29.5%) (P < 0.05) (Table 4). In the chlorophyte Tetraselmis suecica the higher percentages of fatty acids were 16:0 (30.3%), 18:3n-3 (24.1%), and 20:5n-3 (13.8%) (Table 4). The xanthophyte Heterococcus sp. had the following fatty acids as the most abundant: 16:0 (23.3%), 18:3n-3 (42.4%), 20:4n-6 (3.2%) (Table 4).

From all the diatoms, Amphora sp. (strain 4) had the highest (P < 0.05) 16:0 saturated fatty acid content (30.0%). The highest monounsaturated fatty acid levels (P < 0.05) were found in Navicula sp. (strain 4) in the form of 16:1n7 cis (46.8%). The principal polyunsaturated fatty acid (P < 0.05) was 20:5n-3 (39.6%) in Amphora sp. (strain 5) (Table 4).

The n-3 and n-6 PUFAs levels were elevated among the diatoms (23.4% to 60.7%). Synedra sp. had a high DHA: EPA ratio (0.2) and Tetraselmis suecica had a high EPA: ARA ratio (5.2) (Table 4).

Toxicity

The survival rate of Artemia nauplii in the residual media of all of the microalgae strains exceeded 94% (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

Growth rate and cell concentration

Brown (2002) recommended that microalgae cell size used as live food should be from 1 to 100 pm; therefore, the cell sizes of the isolated strains (except for Heterococcus sp.) were adequate for ingestion by filter feeders, fish and crustacean larvae. The isolated cyanobacteria Aphanocapsa marina, might be used to feed shrimp larvae of Litopenaeus vannamei as the cyanobacteria Synechococus elongatus, which forms chains of cells, that previously was used with this purpose (Moreno-Perez & Sanchez-Saavedra, 2009), or to feed zooplankton like Brachionus plicatilis, that typically is fed with the Eustigmatophyceae Nannochloropsis oculata (Campa-Avila & Sanchez-Saavedra, 2002).

The filaments of Komvophoron sp. consisted of small cells (1.29 pm by 2.26 [micro]m), they had the highest growth rate (2.98 divisions [day.sup.-1]) among the 21 microalgae isolated strains. The growth rate of Komvophoron sp. was higher compared with Spirulinaplatensis (0.11 to 0.92 divisions [day.sup.-1]), which is a cyanobacteria that is commonly used in aquaculture, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industries (Mexia-Bernal, 2011; Borowitzka, 2013).

The highest cell concentration (11.92x[10.sup.6] cell [mL.sup.-1]) measured for the cyanophyte Aphanocapsa marina can be attributed to its cell size (0.75 pm of diameter). Reynolds (2006) proposed that cell concentration and growth rate depend on cell size and shape, i.e., small cells have high surface: volume ratio and less complex structure, therefore do not need to invest resources in producing organelles, which allows them to have high rates of specific biomass production. Komvophoron sp. showed the highest growth rate (2.98 divisions [day.sup.-1]), but not the highest cell concentration. That was because Komvophoron sp. was counted as the number of filaments grown, instead of the individual cells (1.60 pm long and 1.62 [micro]m wide) by filaments (58.00 [micro]m long).

Dry weight

The highest values of total dry weight, organic dry weight and ash content corresponded to Amphora sp. (strain 5), which is attributed to their silica cell walls. The lowest values of dry weight obtained for Aphanocapsa marina were attributed to the small cell size of this strain (0.75 [micro]m of diameter).

The ash content of the some isolated species was higher than that reported in other studies for species that belong to the same taxonomic group (Lynn et al, 2000; Courtois de Vicose et al., 2012a, 2012b). Two reasons could account for this: i) some authors indicated that certain microalgae accumulated minerals because of specific requirements (such as Cd, Cr, Cu and Fe), causing an increased ash content (31% to 71%) (Roger et al., 1986; Roger, 2005; Vonshak, 1986) and, 2) the salts from the culture medium accumulated in the cells that were not removed by the ammonium formate solution (Zhu & Lee, 1997).

Fatty acid content

The fatty acid content varied among taxonomic groups, even within the same genus, such in the 7 species of Amphora, which had different fatty acids profiles. This can be attributed to species"specific responses to culture conditions, as previously described for other microalgae strains (Ying & Kangsen, 2005; Lang et al., 2011; Chen, 2012).

The palmitic acid (16:0) is one of the first fatty acids that are synthesized by microalgae during the early stationary phase, in which the synthesis of reserve metabolites, such as lipids, begins (Go et al., 2012). In our study all isolated strains showed high palmitic acid content (5.8 to 45.4%) at early stationary phase.

The fatty acid profile in cyanophytes -high 16:0, 16:1n-7 cis, and 18:3n-3 content- was similar to that previously reported (Guedes et al., 2011; Lang et al., 2011; Scholz & Liebezeit, 2013). Fatty acid content differed between cyanophyte groups -the filamentous group had high a-linolenic acid content (13.4 to 37.5%), consistent with other studies (Zepka et al., 2007; Sharathchandra & Rajashekhar, 2011; Opris et al., 2013). Whereas Aphanocapsa marina (colonies of spherical cells) had a high percentage of palmitoleic acid (44.1%), this might be linked to their membrane lipid composition (Tedesco & Duerr, 1989; Sato & Wada, 2009).

The filamentous cyanobacteria had high content (30.9 to 43.9%) of polyunsaturated fatty acids, therefore this group can be used as food for juvenile shrimp such as Penaeus monodon, which has been previously fed with Phormidium sp., another filamentous cyanobacteria, that increased the growth rate and survivability of Penaeus monodon (Sivakumar et al., 2011). Additionally, the isolated strains of cyanobacteria could be used to obtain pigments, antioxidant compounds, and animal food supplements (Belay et al., 1996; Abed et al., 2009; Varshney et al., 2015).

The chlorophyte Tetraselmis suecica had a high level of palmitic acid (16:0), a-linolenic acid (ALA) (18:3n-3), and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5n-3), which are essential for nutrition of animals and humans (Brown, 2002; Patil et al., 2007; Guedes et al., 2011). In our study, the EPA content in Tetraselmis suecica was higher (13.8%) than that reported by Lourenco et al. (2002) for Tetraselmis gracilis (10.7%) during early stationary growth phase, which makes it a good source of EPA.

The xanthophyte Heterococcus sp. had a fatty acid profile similar to that observed in other xanthophytes by Patil et al. (2007) and Lang et al. (2011). Heterococcus sp. contained a low percentage of EPA (1.5%) and ARA (3.2%), and high levels of ALA (42.4%). ALA is important for animal nutrition, because it is a structural component of membrane lipids (Cardozo et al., 2007; Guedes et al., 2011). There are few studies on fatty acids in xanthophytes group, making difficult the comparison of our results.

The high content of 14:0, 16:0, 16:1n-7, 20:4n-6, and 20:5n-3 fatty acids observed in diatoms is consistent with those reported for the diatom group during early stationary growth (Ying & Kangsen, 2005; Chen, 2012).

Diatoms had a high percentage of PUFAs (n-3 and n-6), particularly Amphora sp. (strain 5) had high levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (39.6%), which were higher than the percentages obtained by Correa-Reyes et al. (2009) for various benthic diatoms that were used to feed red abalone postlarvae. The PUFA content varied among species, possibly because of differences in the distributions and accumulation of lipid classes in their intracellular structures (Ying & Kangsen, 2005; Lv et al., 2010; Chen, 2012).

Toxicity

Because of their easy hatching from dry cysts and their year-round availability, nauplii of the brine shrimp Artemia salina are the most convenient organisms for toxicity testing (Sorgeloos et al., 1978), therefore these organisms were used in this work. The residual media used from each strain evaluated here, did not contain toxic or inhibitory compounds for Artemia nauplii, thus none of the isolated microalgae residual media were considered toxic.

The production of toxic compounds depends on the taxonomic group (Ortega et al., 2007; Van Apeldoorn et al., 2007). In our study, we isolated cyanobacteria species that can produce toxins, but the toxicity tests performed on Artemia nauplii, showed that none of the isolated species were toxic. The production of toxic compounds from microalgae also depends on environmental factors such as temperature, pH, salinity, light intensity, and nutrient concentrations (Carballo et al., 2003; Scholz & Liebezeit, 2012). Ross et al. (2006) reported that the toxicity of Microcystis aeruginosa incremented to 90% when the cyanophyte was stressed as the salinity increased. However, the culture conditions that were used to grow the isolated microalgae strains were the standard used for the production of microalgae cultures under controlled environments, as described by Andersen (2005).

Therefore, the growing conditions were adequate, since did not stress the microalgae isolates, and did not promote production of toxic compounds. In addition to the fatty acid profiles and high growth rates reported here, these microalgae can be easily grown, making them good candidates for applications in aquaculture from an economic perspective.

Aquaculture applications

The isolated strains obtained on this work offer to local aquaculture farms the possibility to use native microalgae strains with potential to be used as food alone or in mixed diets for the farmed organisms. The isolated strains are acclimated to the local environmental conditions of Baja California and therefore offer the opportunity of avoiding the introduction of allochthons strains.

In general, the fatty acids profiles in the isolated microalgae strains were similar to what has been reported in previous studies (Lourenco, 2002; CorreaReyes et al., 2009; Guedes et al, 2011). All isolated strains had a high content of PUFAs, which are essential for zooplankton, fish larvae, and crustaceans (Stottrup & Lesley, 2003; Patil et al., 2007; Guedes et al., 2011; Hemaiswarya et al., 2011).

Data reported here is a preliminary study for the selection of microalgae species, and to evaluate their potential uses in aquaculture. The nutritional value of microalgae isolated and ingested by the organisms under culture, needs to be considered in a second part of the work.

In conclusion, the growth of the microalgae strains that we isolated differed among species in the same taxonomic class, based on their capacity to adapt to the culture conditions and the culture medium. The differences in fatty acid composition among species were affected by species-specific responses to the culture conditions and the type of lipid in their structure. Most of the isolated microalgae strains had proper DHA, ARA and EPA levels, which are important to the aquaculture of marine organism, thus the microalgae isolated and partially characterized in this work, can be used alone or as part of a mixed diet to feed invertebrate larvae or mollusk.

DOI: 10.3856/vol44-issue4-fulltext-4

Received: 7 February 2016; Accepted: 24 May 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Francisco Javier Ponce Isguerra for the elaboration of Ensenada map and Anely FernandezRobledo, Norberto Flores-Acevedo and Fernando Marquez-Rodriguez that helped collect the samples of water. This work was supported by Centro de Investigacion Cientifica y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada (CICESE, Project 623108) and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia de Mexico (CONACyT, Project 130074 SEP-CONACyT). We thank A.B. Castro-Cesena for their valuable comments to improve this manuscript. English language was edited by Blue Pencil Science and A.B. Castro-Cesena.

REFERENCES

Abed, R.M.M., S. Dobretsov & K. Sudesh. 2009. Applications of cyanobacteria in biotechnology. J. Appl. Microbiol., 106(1): 1-12.

Andersen, R.A. 2005. Algal culturing techniques. Phycological Society. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, 578 pp.

Andersen, R.A. & M. Kawachi 2005. Traditional microalgae isolation techniques. In: R.A. Andersen (ed.). Algal culturing techniques. Phycological Society. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp. 83-100.

Aranguren, N., A. Bolivar, A. Canosa, G. Galvis, J.I. Mojica, J.C. Donato, G. Rueda-Delgado, E. Ruiz & U. Schmidt-Mumm. 2002. Manual de metodos en limnologia. Asociacion Colombiana de Limnologia, Bogota, pp. 123.

Arora, M., A.C.H. Anil, F. Leliaert, J. Delany & E. Mesbahi. 2013. Tetraselmis indica (Chlorodendrophyceae, Chlorophyta), a new species isolated from salt pans in Goa, India. Eur. J. Phycol., 48(1): 61-78. Belay, A., T. Kato & Y. Ota. 1996. Spirulina (Arthrospira): potential application as an animal feed supplement. J. Appl. Phycol., 8: 303-311.

Borowitzka, M.A. 2013. Species and strain selection. In: M.A. Borowitzka & N.R. Moheimani (eds.). Algae for biofuels and energy. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 77-89. Brown, M.R. 2002. Nutritional value of microalgae for aquaculture. In: L.E. Cruz-Suarez, D. Ricque-Marie,

M. Tapia-Salazar, M.G. Gaxiola-Cortez & N. Simoes (eds.). Avances en nutricion acuicola. VI Simposium Internacional de Nutricion Acuicola, 3-6 de septiembre. Cancun Quintana Roo, pp. 281-292.

Campa-Avila, M.A. & M.P. Sanchez-Saavedra. 2002. Valor nutricional del rotifero Brachionus plicatilis alimentado con una cianobacteria Synechococcus sp. Book of Abstracts. VI Simposium Internacional en Nutricion Acuicola. Aquamar Internacional and 6th Latin American Conference and Exposition. 3-6 de Septiembre, Cancun, Quintana Roo, 73 pp.

Carballo, O.H., G. Arencibia-Carballo, M.M. Isla, C. Gonzalez, T. Gonzalez & N.G. Mantilla. 2003. Bioensayo de toxicidad con Artemia franciscana (Crustacea-Branchiopoda) en extractos de sedimento superficial del golfo de Guacanayabo, Cuba. Rev. Toxicol., 38: 32-50.

Cardozo, K.H.M., T. Guaratini, M.P. Barros, V.R. Falcao, A.P. Tonon, N.P. Lopes, S. Campos, M.A. Torres, A.O. Souza, P. Colepicolo & E. Pinto. 2007. Metabolites from algae with economic impact. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 146: 60-78.

Chen, Y.C. 2012. The biomass and total lipid content and composition of twelve species of marine diatoms cultured under various environments. Food. Chem., 131: 211-219.

Correa-Reyes, G., M.P. Sanchez-Saavedra, M.T. Viana, N. Flores-Acevedo & C. Vazquez-Pelaez. 2009. Effect of eight benthic diatoms as feed on the growth of red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) postlarvae. J. Appl. Phycol., 21: 387-393.

Courtois de Vicose, G.C., A. Porta, M.P. Viera, H. Fernandez-Palacios & M.S. Izquierdo. 2012a. Effects of density on growth rates of four benthic diatoms and variations in biochemical composition associated with growth phase. J. Appl. Phycol., 24: 1427-1437.

Courtois de Vicose, G.C., M.P. Viera, S. Huchette & M.S. Izquierdo. 2012b. Improving nursery performances of Haliotis tuberculata coccinea: nutritional value of four species of benthic diatoms and green macroalgae germlings. Aquaculture, 334: 124-131.

Fogg, G.E. & B.J. Thake. 1987. Algal cultures and phytoplankton ecology. University of Wisconsin Press, London, 126 pp.

Folch, J., M. Lee & G.H. Sloane-Stanley. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissue. J. Biol. Chem., 22: 477-509.

Go, S., S.J. Lee, G.T. Jeong & S.K. Kim. 2012. Factors affecting the growth and the oil accumulation of marine microalgae, Tetraselmis suecica. Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng., 35(1): 145-150.

Guedes, C.A., H.M. Amaro, C.R. Barbosa, R.D. Pereira & F.X. Malcata. 2011. Fatty acid composition of several wild microalgae and cyanobacteria, with a focus on eicosapentaenoic, docosahexaenoic and [alpha]-linolenic acids for eventual dietary uses. Food Res. Int., 44: 2721-2729.

Guillard, R.R.L. & J.H. Ryther. 1962. Studies of marine planktonic diatoms: I. Cyclotella nana Hustedt, and Detonula confervacea (Cleve) Gran. Can. J. Microbiol., 8(2): 229-239.

Hemaiswarya, S., R. Raja, R.R. Kumar, V. Ganesan & C. Anbazhagan. 2011. Microalgae: a sustainable feed source for aquaculture. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 27: 1737-1746.

Huarachi, R.O., U. Yapo, A. Duenas, J. Soto & R. Gonzalez. 2013. Production of Spirulina platensis (Cyanophyta) in conical photobioreactor tubules under laboratory conditions. The Biologist Lima, 11(27): 217-227.

Kyle, D. 1989. Market applications for microalgae. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 66(5): 648-658.

Komarek, J. & K. Anagnostidis. 2005. Cyanoprokaryota. 2. Teil/2nd Part: Oscillatoriales. Elsevier, Italy, 759 pp.

Lang, I., L. Hodac, T. Friedl & I. Feussner. 2011. Fatty acid profiles and their distribution patterns in microalgae: a comprehensive analysis of more than 2000 strains from the SAG culture collection. BMC Plant Biol., 11: 124-140.

Lopez-Elias, J.A., D. Voltolina, M. Nieves-Soto & I. Figueroa-Ortiz. 2004. Produccion y composicion de microalgas en laboratorios comerciales del noroeste de Mexico. In: L.E. Cruz-Suarez, D. Ricque-Marie, M.G Nieto-Lopez, D. Villareal, U. Scholz & M. Gonzalez (eds.). Avances en nutricion acuicola. Memorias del VII Simposium Internacional de Nutricion Acuicola. Hermosillo, Sonora, pp. 636-649.

Lourenco, S.O., E. Barbarino, J. Mancini-Filho, K.P. Schinke & E. Aidar. 2002. Effects of different nitrogen sources on the growth and biochemical profile of 10 marine microalgae in batch culture: an evaluation for aquaculture. Phycologia, 4(2): 158-168.

Lv, X., L. Zou, B. Sun, J. Wang & M.Y. Sun. 2010. Variations in lipid yields and compositions of marine microalgae during cell growth and respiration, and within intracellular structures. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 39: 173-183.

Lynn, S.G., S.S. Kilham, D.A. Kreeger & S.J. Interlandi. 2000. Effect of nutrient availability on the biochemical and elemental stoichiometry in the freshwater diatom Stephanodiscus minutulus (Bacillariophyceae). J. Phycol., 36: 510-522.

Mercado, J.M., M.P. Sanchez-Saavedra, G. Correa-Reyes, L. Lubian, O. Montero & F.L. Figueroa. 2004. Blue light effect in growth, light absorption characteristics and photosynthesis of five benthic diatom strains. Aquat. Bot., 78: 265-277.

Metcalfe, L.D., A.A. Schmitz & J.R. Pelka. 1966. Rapid preparation of fatty acid esters from lipids for gas chromatographic analysis. Analyt. Chem., 38: 514-515.

Mexia-Bernal, K.H. 2011. Efecto de la salinidad e irradiancia en el crecimiento, fotosintesis y composicion de Spirulina maxima para su utilizacion en la acuicultura. Bachelor Thesis, Universidad de Occidente, Sinaloa, 96 pp.

Moheimani, N.R., M.A. Borowitzka, A. Isdepsky & S. Fon-Sing. 2013. Standard methods for measuring growth of algae and their composition. In: M.A. Borowitzka & N.R. Moheimani (eds.). Algae for biofuels and energy. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 265-284.

Moreno-Perez, M.P.A. & M.P. Sanchez-Saavedra. 2009. Effect of monospecies and mixed diets on the growth and survival of shrimp larvae Litopenaeus vannamei (Bonne, 1931). Book of abstracts. World Aquaculture, 25 al 29 de Septiembre. Veracruz, 93 pp.

Moreno, J.L., S. Licea & H. Santoyo. 1996. Diatomeas del Golfo de California. Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur, Secretaria de Educacion PublicaFondo de Modernizacion para Educacion Superior, Promarco, Mexico, 272 pp.

Opris, S., C. Sicora, T. Rusu & M. Miclean. 2013. Identification and quantification of fatty acids in cyanobacteria cells. ProEnvironment, 6: 402-406.

Ortega, J.R., L. Rivas, L. Jonte, R. Mora & E. Morales. 2007. Evaluacion de la toxicidad de cianofitas sobre el microcrustaceo Artemia. Rev. Fac. Agron. Univ. Zulia, 24(1): 238-243.

Parvin, M., M.N. Zannat & M.A.B Habib. 2007. Two important techniques for isolation of microalgae. Asian Fish. Sci., 20: 117-124.

Patil, V., T. Kallqvist, E. Olsen, G. Vogt & H.R. Gislerod. 2007. Fatty acid composition of 12 microalgae for possible use in aquaculture feed. Aquacult. Int., 15: 19.

Ratha, S.K., R. Prasanna, V. Gupta, D. Dhar & A.K. Saxena. 2012. Bioprospecting and indexing the microalgal diversity of different ecological habitats of India. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 28: 1657-1667.

Renaud, S.M., D.L. Parry & T. Loung-Van. 1994. Microalgae for use in tropical aquaculture I: gross chemical and fatty acid composition of twelve species of microalgae from the northern Territory. Aust. J. Appl. Phycol., 6: 337-345.

Reynolds, C.S. 2006. The ecology of phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, New York, 535 pp.

Roger, P.A. 2005. N2-fixing cyanobacteria as biofertilizers in rice fields. In: A. Richmond (ed.). Handbook of microalgal culture. Biotechnology and applied phycology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 392402.

Roger, P.A., A. Tirol, S. Santiago-Ardales & I. Watanabe. 1986. Chemical composition of cultures and natural samples of N2-fixing blue-green algae from rice fields. Biol. Fert. Soils, 2: 131-146.

Ross, C., L. Santiago-Vazquez & V. Paul. 2006. Toxin release in response to oxidative stress and programmed cell death in the cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa. Aquat. Toxicol, 78: 66-73.

Round, F.E., R.M. Crawford & D.G. Mann. 1990. The diatoms, biology and morphology of the genera. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 747 pp.

Sato, N. & H. Wada. 2009. Lipid biosynthesis and its regulation in cyanobacteria. In: H. Wada & N. Murata (eds.). Lipids in photosynthesis: essential and regulatory functions. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 157-177.

Scholz, B. & G. Liebezeit. 2012. Screening for biological activities and toxicological effects of 63 phytoplankton species isolated from freshwater, marine and brackish water habitats. Harmful Algae, 20: 58-70.

Scholz, B. & G. Liebezeit. 2013. Biochemical composition, biological activities and toxicological effects of two non-nodularin producing strains of Nodularia spumigena Mertens and Jurgens. J. Appl. Phycol., 25: 643-660.

Sharathchandra, K. & M. Rajashekhar. 2011. Total lipid and fatty acid composition in some freshwater cyanobacteria. J. Algal Biomass Utln., 2(2): 83-97.

Siqueiros-Beltrones, D.A. 2002. Diatomeas bentonicas de la Peninsula de Baja California; diversidad y potencial ecologico. Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur, Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas (CICIMAR), Mexico, 102 pp.

Sivakumar, N., M. Sundararaman & G. Salvakumar. 2011. Efficacy of micro algae and cyanobacteria as live feed for juveniles of shrimp Penaeus nomodon. J. Biotechnol., 10(55): 11594-11599.

Sorgeloos, P.A., C. Remiche-Van Der Wielen & G. Persoone. 1978. The use of Artemia nauplii for toxicity tests-a critical analysis. Ecotox. Environ. Safe., 2(3-4): 249-255.

Sorokin, C. 1973. Dry weight, packed cell volume and optical density. In: J.R. Stein (ed.). Handbook of phycological methods. Culture methods and growth measurements. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 321-344.

StatSoft Inc. 2011. Statistica for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa.

Stein, J.R. 1973. Handbook of phycological methods. Culture methods and growth measurement. Cambridge University Press, New York, 448 pp.

Stottrup, J.G. & L.M. Lesley. 2003. Live feeds in marine aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing Company, Oxford, 318 pp.

Tedesco, MA & E.O. Duerr. 1989. Light, temperature and nitrogen starvation effects on the total lipid and fatty acid content and composition of Spirulina platensis Utex, 1928. J. Appl. Phycol., 1: 201-209.

Throndsen, J. 1978. Isolation of single cells. In: A. Sournia (ed.). Phytoplankton manual. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organizational, Paris, pp. 132-135.

Tomas, C.R. 1997. Identifying marine phytoplankton. Academic Press, San Diego, 598 pp.

Van Apeldoorn, M.E., H.P. Van Egmond, G.J.A. Speijers & G.J.I. Bakker. 2007. Toxins of cyanobacteria. Mol. Nutr. Food Res., 51: 7-60.

Vanhaecke, P., G. Persoone, C. Claus & P. Sorgeloos. 1980. Research on the development of a short term standard toxicity test with Artemia nauplii. In: G. Persoone, P. Sorgeloos, O. Roels & E. Jaspers (eds.). The brine shrime Artemia. Morphology, genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. Universa Press, Wetteren, pp. 263-285.

Varshney, P., P. Mikulic, A. Vonshak, J. Beardall & P.P Wangikar. 2015. Extremophilic micro-algae and their potential contribution in biotechnology. Bioresour. Technol., 184: 363-372.

Vonshak, A. 1986. Laboratory techniques for the cultivation of microalgae. In: D.A. Richmond (ed.). CRC Handbook of microalgal mass culture. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp. 117-145.

Wehr, J.D. & R.G. Sheath. 2003. Freshwater algae of North America. Ecology and classification. Academic Press, San Diego, 917 pp.

Xu, Z., X. Yan, L. Pei & L. Qijun. 2008. Changes in fatty acids and sterols during batch growth of Pavlova viridis in photobioreactor. J. Appl. Phycol., 20: 237-243.

Ying, L. & M. Kangsen. 2005. Effect of growth phase on the fatty acid compositions of four species of marine diatoms. J. Ocean. Univ. China, 4(2): 157-162.

Zar, J.H. 1984. Bioestatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Yersey, 718 pp.

Zepka, L.Q., E. Jacob-Lopes & M.I. Queiroz. 2007. Efecto del procesamiento termico sobre el perfil de acidos grasos de la microalga Aphanothece microscopica Nageli. Cienc. Tecnol. Aliment., 5(5): 368-371.

Zhu, C.J. & Y.K. Lee. 1997. Determination of biomass dry weight of marine microalgae. J. Appl. Phycol., 9:189-194.

Socorro Jimenez-Valera (1) & M. del Pilar Sanchez-Saavedra (1)

(1) Departamento de Acuicultura, Centro de Investigacion Cientifica y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada Ensenada Baja California, Mexico

Corresponding author: M. del Pilar Sanchez-Saavedra (psanchez@cicese.mx)

Corresponding editor: Cesar Lodeiros

Caption: Figure 1. Map of sampling sites in Baja California (BC) and Baja California Sur (BCS), Mexico.

Caption: Figure 2. Mean values and standard deviation of cell concentration (logio) of isolated microalgae maintained in batch cultures.

Table 1. Distribution of isolated microalgae species by taxonomic class. Class Species Isolation site Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa marina Ensenada Hansgirg, 1890 Cyanophyceae Komvophoron sp. Anagnostidis Ensenada and Komarek, 1988 Cyanophyceae Phormidium sp. Kutzing Ensenada ex Gomont, 1892 Chlorodendrophyceae Tetraselmis suecica Ensenada (Kylin) Butcher, 1959 Xanthophyceae Heterococcus sp. Ensenada Chodat, 1908 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 1) Mulege Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 2) Mulege Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 3) Mulege Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 4) Mulege Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 5) Ensenada Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 6) Mulege Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 7) Ensenada Ehrenberg ex Kutzing, 1844 Bacillariophyceae Cymbella sp. (strain 1) Mulege C. Agardh, 1830 Bacillariophyceae Cymbella sp. (strain 2) Mulege C. Agardh, 1830 Bacillariophyceae Navicula sp. (strain 1) Bory Ensenada de Saint-Vicent, 1822 Bacillariophyceae Navicula sp. (strain 2) Bory Mulege de Saint-Vicent, 1822 Bacillariophyceae Navicula sp. (strain 3) Bory San Quintin de Saint-Vicent, 1822 Bacillariophyceae Navicula sp. (strain 4) Bory Ensenada de Saint-Vicent, 1822 Bacillariophyceae Diploneis sp. Ehrenberg Ensenada ex Cleve, 1894 Bacillariophyceae Grammatophora Ensenada angulosa Ehrenberg, 1841 Bacillariophyceae Synedra sp. Ehrenberg, 1830 San Quintin Table 2. Cell size ([micro]m), growth rate ([mu]: divisions [day.sup.-1]), days in exponential growth (ED), and cell concentration (1x[10.sup.6] cell [mL.sup.-1]) of isolated microalgae maintained in batch cultures. Class and Cell size ([micro]m) Cell concentration species Lenght Width Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa marina Komvophoron sp. 1.60 [+ or -] 0.37 1.62 [+ or -] 0.33 Phormidium sp. 1.27 [+ or -] 0.29 2.26 [+ or -] 0.39 Chlorodendrophyceae Tetraselmis 10.80 [+ or -] 0.88 6.90 [+ or -] 0.82 suecica Xanthophyceae Ileterococcus 193.13 [+ or -] 41.69 13.14 [+ or -] 1.40 sp. Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. 14.37 [+ or -] 1.42 5.69 [+ or -] 1.17 (strain 1) Amphora sp. 14.36 [+ or -] 0.68 5.56 [+ or -] 1.11 (strain 2) Amphora sp. 3.65 [+ or -] 0.20 2.84 [+ or -] 0.27 (strain 3) Amphora sp. 14.94 [+ or -] 1.22 5.58 [+ or -]0.59 (strain 4) Amphora sp. 15.55 [+ or -] 1.62 6.69 [+ or -] 1.60 (strain 5) Amphora sp. 5.70 [+ or -] 1.03 3.68 [+ or -] 0.39 (strain 6) Amphora sp. 13.83 [+ or -]0.67 3.99 [+ or -] 0.58 (strain 7) Cymbella sp. 6.48 [+ or -] 0.45 3.00 [+ or -] 0.45 (strain 1) Cymbella sp. 12.59 [+ or -] 1.37 2.95 [+ or -] 0.67 (strain 2) Navicula sp. 6.77 [+ or -] 0.42 3.56 [+ or -] 0.54 (strain 1) Navicula sp. 6.69 [+ or -] 0.74 2.80 [+ or -] 0.41 (strain 2) Navicula sp. 6.61 [+ or -] 0.78 3.73 [+ or -] 0.40 (strain 3) Navicula sp. 16.85 [+ or -] 1.64 4.93 [+ or -] 0.76 (strain 4) Diploneis sp. 10.21 [+ or -] 0.72 4.90 [+ or -] 0.37 Grammatophora 14.92 [+ or -] 2.76 13.64 [+ or -] 2.21 angulosa Synedra sp. 14.94 [+ or -] 1.22 5.58 [+ or -]0.59 Class and Cell size ([micro]m) species Diameter Total length Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa 0.75 [+ or -]0.11 marina Komvophoron sp. 58.00 [+ or -] 13.51 Phormidium sp. 42.50 [+ or -] 20.98 Chlorodendrophyceae Tetraselmis suecica Xanthophyceae Ileterococcus sp. Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 1) Amphora sp. (strain 2) Amphora sp. (strain 3) Amphora sp. (strain 4) Amphora sp. (strain 5) Amphora sp. (strain 6) Amphora sp. (strain 7) Cymbella sp. (strain 1) Cymbella sp. (strain 2) Navicula sp. (strain 1) Navicula sp. (strain 2) Navicula sp. (strain 3) Navicula sp. (strain 4) Diploneis sp. Grammatophora angulosa Synedra sp. Class and [mu] ED species Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa 0.83 [+ or -] 0.19 b 0-6 marina Komvophoron sp. 2.98 [+ or -] 0.30 a 0-2 Phormidium sp. 2.32 [+ or -] 0.73 ab 0-2 Chlorodendrophyceae Tetraselmis 0.59 [+ or -] 0.05 b 0-6 suecica Xanthophyceae Ileterococcus 0.67 [+ or -] 0.13 b 0-6 sp. Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. 0.66 [+ or -] 0.02 b 0-2 (strain 1) Amphora sp. 0.88 [+ or -] 0.10 b 0-2 (strain 2) Amphora sp. 1.65 [+ or -] 0.09 ab 0-2 (strain 3) Amphora sp. 1.18 [+ or -] 0.03 ab 0-2 (strain 4) Amphora sp. 0.63 [+ or -] 0.04 b 0-6 (strain 5) Amphora sp. 0.68 [+ or -] 0.24 b 0-2 (strain 6) Amphora sp. 2.04 [+ or -] 1.11 ab 0-2 (strain 7) Cymbella sp. 0.98 [+ or -] 0.06 ab 0-4 (strain 1) Cymbella sp. 0.74 [+ or -] 0.13 b 0-2 (strain 2) Navicula sp. 2.16 [+ or -] 1.24 ab 0-2 (strain 1) Navicula sp. 1.10 [+ or -] 0.04 ab 0-6 (strain 2) Navicula sp. 0.79 [+ or -] 0.13 b 0-4 (strain 3) Navicula sp. 0.85 [+ or -] 0.21 b 0-4 (strain 4) Diploneis sp. 1.79 [+ or -] 1.38 ab 0-2 Grammatophora 0.58 [+ or -] 0.04 b 0-4 angulosa Synedra sp. 1.02 [+ or -] 0.21 ab 0-4 Class and Cell concentration species Initial Final Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa 1.03 [+ or -]0.34 11.92 [+ or -] 0.91a marina Komvophoron sp. 0.06 [+ or -] 0.02 1.16 [+ or -] 0.50def Phormidium sp. 0.01 [+ or -] 0.00 0.18 [+ or -] 0.02f Chlorodendrophyceae Tetraselmis 0.07 [+ or -]0.01 3.37 [+ or -] 0.40c suecica Xanthophyceae Ileterococcus 0.05 [+ or -]0.01 0.16 [+ or -] 0.04f sp. Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. 0.04 [+ or -]0.01 1.00 [+ or -] 0.09dcf (strain 1) Amphora sp. 0.02 [+ or -]0.01 0.73 [+ or -] 0.15ef (strain 2) Amphora sp. 0.01 [+ or -]0.00 0.50 [+ or -] 0.03ef (strain 3) Amphora sp. 0.07 [+ or -]0.01 1.20 [+ or -] 0.24def (strain 4) Amphora sp. 0.01 [+ or -]0.00 1.10 [+ or -] 0.19def (strain 5) Amphora sp. 0.04 [+ or -] 0.03 1.55 [+ or -] 0.04dc (strain 6) Amphora sp. 0.01 [+ or -]0.00 0.77 [+ or -] 0.1 Oef (strain 7) Cymbella sp. 0.05 [+ or -] 0.00 4.67 [+ or -] 0.29bc (strain 1) Cymbella sp. 0.07 [+ or -] 0.03 5.00 [+ or -] 0.68b (strain 2) Navicula sp. 0.01 [+ or -] 0.00 0.13 [+ or -] 0.07f (strain 1) Navicula sp. 0.10 [+ or -] 0.01 1.17 [+ or -] 0.13def (strain 2) Navicula sp. 0.15 [+ or -] 0.05 2.14 [+ or -] 0.17cd (strain 3) Navicula sp. 0.01 [+ or -] 0.00 1.17 [+ or -] 0.07dcf (strain 4) Diploneis sp. 0.01 [+ or -] 0.01 0.46 [+ or -] 0.19ef Grammatophora 0.02 [+ or -] 0.00 0.20 [+ or -] 0.00f angulosa Synedra sp. 0.05 [+ or -] 0.00 1.69 [+ or -] 0.46de Table 3. Total dry weight, organic dry weight (pg [cell.sup.-1]), and ash content of isolated microalgae species maintained in batch cultures. Letters indicate significant differences among strains (Tukey a posteriori test, [alpha] = 0.05: a>b>c>d>e). Class and species Total dry weight Organic dry weight Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa 1.6 [+ or -] 0.1 d 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 e marina Komvophoron sp. 39.8 [+ or -] 5.9 bcd 17.9 [+ or -] 6.6 e Phormidum sp. 64.6 [+ or -] 34.3 bcd 31.0 [+ or -] 19.8 de Chloroden -drophyceae Tetraselmis 23.0 [+ or -] 0.7 cd 15.9 [+ or -] 0.7 e suecica Xanthophyceae Heterococcus sp. 121.3 [+ or -] 26.5 bcd 90.2 [+ or -] 26.2 abcde Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. 13.8 [+ or -] 0.4 cd 8.7 [+ or -] 1.8 e (strain 1) Amphora sp. 56.4 [+ or -] 13.1 bcd 34.6 [+ or -] 6.5 de (strain 2) Amphora sp. 185.6 [+ or -] 142.1 b 112.8 [+ or -] 94.2 abc (strain 3) Amphora sp. 14.7 [+ or -] 0.4 cd 4.5 [+ or -] 0.1 e (strain 4) Amphora sp. 395.6 [+ or -] 19.6 a 156.3 [+ or -] 13.4 ac (strain 5) Amphora sp. 163.4 [+ or -] 7.5 bc 131.9 [+ or -] 6.0 bc (strain 6) Amphora sp. 48.9 [+ or -] 20.3 bcd 29.6 [+ or -] 12.6 de (strain 7) Cymbella sp. 18.1 [+ or -] 11.0 cd 7.0 [+ or -] 4.2 e (strain 1) Cymbella sp. 21.1 [+ or -] 10.6 cd 12.1 [+ or -] 4.6 c (strain 2) Navicula sp. 102.5 [+ or -] 37.1 bcd 47.9 [+ or -] 17.3 bcde (strain 1) Navicula sp. 84.2 [+ or -] 45.4 bcd 33.8 [+ or -] 6.7 de (strain 2) Navicula sp. 27.0 [+ or -] 15.2 cd 10.8 [+ or -] 5.2 e (strain 3) Navicula sp. 70.7 [+ or -] 20.6 bcd 37.1 [+ or -] 2.4 de (strain 4) Diploneis sp. 361.8 [+ or -] 57.2 b 138.1 [+ or -] 2.2 ab Grammathophora 79.9 [+ or -] 6.4 bcd 43.4 [+ or -] 2.7 ce angulosa Synedra sp. 101.6 [+ or -] 37.2 bcd 23.5 [+ or -] 8.8 de Class and species Ash content Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa 0.4 [+ or -] 0.1 b marina Komvophoron sp. 21.9 [+ or -] 0.7 b Phormidum sp. 33.6 [+ or -] 14.4 b Chloroden -drophyceae Tetraselmis 7.1 [+ or -] 0.0 b suecica Xanthophyceae Heterococcus sp. 30.4 [+ or -] 0.2 b Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. 5.2 [+ or -] 2.3 b (strain 1) Amphora sp. 21.8 [+ or -] 6.6 b (strain 2) Amphora sp. 72.7 [+ or -] 48.0 b (strain 3) Amphora sp. 10.2 [+ or -] 0.5 b (strain 4) Amphora sp. 293.3 [+ or -] 6.2 a (strain 5) Amphora sp. 31.5 [+ or -] 1.4 b (strain 6) Amphora sp. 19.3 [+ or -] 7.7 b (strain 7) Cymbella sp. 11.1 [+ or -] 6.8 b (strain 1) Cymbella sp. 9.0 [+ or -] 6.0 cd (strain 2) Navicula sp. 54.6 [+ or -] 19.8 b (strain 1) Navicula sp. 50.4 [+ or -] 38.7 b (strain 2) Navicula sp. 16.2 [+ or -] 10.0 b (strain 3) Navicula sp. 33.6 [+ or -] 18.2 b (strain 4) Diploneis sp. 223.7 [+ or -] 59.4 a Grammathophora 36.5 [+ or -] 3.7 b angulosa Synedra sp. 78.2 [+ or -] 28.4 b Table 4. Fatty acid composition (as percentage of total fatty acids) found in isolated microalgae maintained in batch cultures. Letters indicate significant differences among species by fatty acid ([alpha] = 0.05, Tukey test: a>b>c>d>e>f>g>h>i>j). Fatty acids Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa marina Komvophoron sp. Saturated 14:0 29.5 [+ or -] 0.2 a 15:0 16:0 21.5 [+ or -] 0.2 fg 32.0 [+ or -] 0.4 b 18:0 2.0 [+ or -] 0.1 e 3.8 [+ or -] 0.1 b 24:0 Sum 53.0 35.8 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 1.5 [+ or -] 0.1 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 44.1 [+ or -] 0.1 a 15.3 [+ or -] 0.1 gh 18:1n-9 1.4 [+ or -] 0.1 j 4.9 [+ or -] 0.1 cd 22:1n-9 Sum 47.0 20.3 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 6.4 [+ or -] 0.1 c 18:3n-6 18:3n-3 (ALA) 37.5 [+ or -] 0.4 a 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 20:5n-3 (EPA) 22:6n-3 (DHA) Sum 43.9 Sum n-3 PUFA 37.5 Sum n-6 PUFA 6.4 Total 100 DHA:EPA EPA:ARA Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. Amphora sp. (strain 1) (strain 2) Saturated 14:0 9.6 [+ or -] 0.3 f 10.3 [+ or -] 0.2 f 15:0 8.5 [+ or -] 0.1 a 9.5 [+ or -] 0.2 a 16:0 23.0 [+ or -] 0.1 efg 22.3 [+ or -] 0.4 fg 18:0 24:0 Sum 41.0 42.1 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 2.1 [+ or -] 0.1 bc 2.6 [+ or -] 0.1 ab 16:1n-7 cis 22.3 [+ or -] 0.1 def 22.0 [+ or -] 0.4 defg 18:1n-9 4.3 [+ or -] 0.1 ce 3.6 [+ or -] 0.1 ef 22:1n-9 Sum 28.6 28.1 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 1.7 [+ or -] 0.1 de 1.9 [+ or -] 0.1 d 18:3n-6 1.6 [+ or -] 0.1 bc 1.4 [+ or -] 0.1 bc 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 5.7 [+ or -] 0.1 gh 6.0 [+ or -] 0.2 gh 20:5n-3 (EPA) 20.3 [+ or -] 0.2 df 19.5 [+ or -] 0.6 df 22:6n-3 (DHA) 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 d 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 d Sum 30.3 29.7 Sum n-3 PUFA 21.3 20.4 Sum n-6 PUFA 9.0 9.3 Total 100 100 DHA:EPA 0.1 EPA:ARA 3.5 3.3 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. Amphora sp. (strain 6) (strain 7) Saturated 14:0 7.0 [+ or -] 0.7 g 12.4 [+ or -] 0.8 e 15:0 9.0 [+ or -] 0.7 a 1.1 [+ or -] 0.1 c 16:0 20.0 [+ or -] 0.9 gh 14.3 [+ or -] 0.3 i 18:0 1.1 [+ or -] 0.1 i 1.7 [+ or -] 0.1 f 24:0 Sum 37.1 29.5 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 2.1 [+ or -] 0.2 bc 16:1n-7 cis 18.6 [+ or -] 1.5 fg 25.8 [+ or -] 1.0 cdef 18:1n-9 5.0 [+ or -] 0.2 cd 4.5 [+ or -] 0.1 ce 22:1n-9 Sum 25.7 30.3 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 1.7 [+ or -] 0.1 de 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 f 18:3n-6 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 c 1.8 [+ or -] 0.1 b 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 6.9 [+ or -] 1.0 fgh 13.0 [+ or -] 0.7 bc 20:5n-3 (EPA) 25.8 [+ or -] 3.9 bd 24.2 [+ or -] 1.3 bde 22:6n-3 (DHA) 1.5 [+ or -] 0.2 c Sum 37.1 40.2 Sum n-3 PUFA 27.3 24.2 Sum n-6 PUFA 9.8 16.0 Total 100 100 DHA:EPA 0.1 EPA:ARA 3.7 1.9 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Navicula sp. Navicula sp. (strain 3) (strain 3) Saturated 14:0 4.0 [+ or -] 0.2 h 7.1 [+ or -] 0.1 g 15:0 16:0 26.1 [+ or -] 1.0 de 17.5 [+ or -] 0.3 h 18:0 2.2 [+ or -] 0.1 de 2.1 [+ or -] 0.1 de 24:0 5.3 [+ or -] 0.7 a Sum 37.7 26.6 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 29.5 [+ or -] 1.1 bd 46.8 [+ or -] 1.1 a 18:1n-9 2.5 [+ or -] 0.3 gh 1.4 [+ or -] 0.1 j 22:1n-9 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 Sum 32.0 49.2 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 18:3n-6 18:3n-3 (ALA) 3.3 [+ or -] 0.1 d 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 20:5n-3 (EPA) 27.0 [+ or -] 1.3 bd 24.2 [+ or -] 0.8 22:6n-3 (DHA) Sum 30.3 24.2 Sum n-3 PUFA 30.3 24.2 Sum n-6 PUFA Total 100 100 DHA:EPA EPA:ARA Fatty acids Cyanophyceae Chlorodendrophyceae Phormidum sp. Tetraselmis suecica Saturated 14:0 1.2 [+ or -] 0.0 i 15:0 16:0 47.8 [+ or -] 2.0 a 30.3 [+ or -] 1.0 bc 18:0 2.3 [+ or -] 0.1 d 3.3 [+ or -] 0.1 c 24:0 Sum 50.1 34.8 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 5.8 [+ or -] 0.1 ij 9.7 [+ or -] 0.2 hi 18:1n-9 13.2 [+ or -] 0.6 a 7.5 [+ or -] 0.2 b 22:1n-9 Sum 19.0 17.2 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 17.5 [+ or -] 0.6 a 6.4 [+ or -] 0.2 c 18:3n-6 18:3n-3 (ALA) 13.4 [+ or -] 0.5 c 24.1 [+ or -] 0.5 b 20:2n-6 1.1 [+ or -] 0.0 20:4n-6 (ARA) 2.6 [+ or -] 0.1 i 20:5n-3 (EPA) 13.8 [+ or -] 0.4 fg 22:6n-3 (DHA) Sum 30.9 48.0 Sum n-3 PUFA 13.4 37.9 Sum n-6 PUFA 17.5 10.1 Total 100 100 DHA:EPA EPA:ARA 5.2 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. Amphora sp. (strain 3) (strain 4) Saturated 14:0 5.7 [+ or -] 0.5 g 6.4 [+ or -] 0.1 g 15:0 4.4 [+ or -] 0.1 b 16:0 27.0 [+ or -] 1.0 cd 30.0 [+ or -] 0.2 bc 18:0 4.3 [+ or -] 0.3 a 1.5 [+ or -] 0.1 fg 24:0 6.4 [+ or -] 0.1 a Sum 43.5 42.3 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 20.3 [+ or -] 0.4 efg 30.4 [+ or -] 0.2 bc 18:1n-9 5.2 [+ or -] 0.4 c 3.9 [+ or -] 0.1 def 22:1n-9 Sum 25.5 34.4 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 2.0 [+ or -] 0.1 d 18:3n-6 1.4 [+ or -] 0.1 bc 18:3n-3 (ALA) 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 d 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 5.1 [+ or -] 0.1 h 20:5n-3 (EPA) 29.9 [+ or -] 0.5 b 14.8 [+ or -] 0.2 fg 22:6n-3 (DHA) Sum 31.1 23.4 Sum n-3 PUFA 31.1 14.8 Sum n-6 PUFA 8.6 Total 100 100 DHA:EPA EPA:ARA 2.9 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Cymbella sp. Cymbella sp. (strain 1) (strain 2) Saturated 14:0 23.1 [+ or -] 1.4 b 15.6 [+ or -] 0.1 cd 15:0 4.3 [+ or -] 0.7 b 4.6 [+ or -] 0.1 b 16:0 5.8 [+ or -] 0.9 j 7.2 [+ or -] 0.1 j 18:0 1.3 [+ or -] 0.1 gh 1.6 [+ or -] 0.1 f 24:0 Sum 34.6 29.1 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 2.9 [+ or -] 0.5 a 1.5 [+ or -] 0.1 c 16:1n-7 cis 24.8 [+ or -] 2.7 cdef 20.6 [+ or -] 0.1 efg 18:1n-9 1.6 [+ or -] 0.1 ij 2.4 [+ or -] 0.1 gi 22:1n-9 Sum 29.3 24.5 [+ or -] 0.1 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 f 18:3n-6 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 7.5 [+ or -] 1.6 eg 11.2 [+ or -] 0.1 cd 20:5n-3 (EPA) 28.6 [+ or -] 6.7 bc 31.8 [+ or -] 0.2 ab 22:6n-3 (DHA) 2.3 [+ or -] 0.1 b Sum 36.1 46.4 Sum n-3 PUFA 28.6 34.1 Sum n-6 PUFA 7.5 12.3 Total 100 100 DHA:EPA 0.1 EPA:ARA 3.8 2.8 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Diploneis sp. Grammathophora angulosa Saturated 14:0 15.1 [+ or -] 0.1 cd 17.1 [+ or -] 0.6 c 15:0 4.2 [+ or -] 0.1 b 16:0 13.3 [+ or -] 0.1 i 20.7 [+ or -] 1.1 fg 18:0 3.2 [+ or -] 0.1 c 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 hi 24:0 Sum 35.8 38.9 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 20.2 [+ or -] 0.1 efg 9.6 [+ or -] 0.5 hi 18:1n-9 5.0 [+ or -] 0.1 cd 11.5 [+ or -] 0.7 a 22:1n-9 Sum 25.2 21.1 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 1.3 [+ or -] 0.1 ef 9.1 [+ or -] 0.6 b 18:3n-6 4.4 [+ or -] 0.3 a 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 14.1 [+ or -] 0.1 ab 14.6 [+ or -] 0.3 ab 20:5n-3 (EPA) 21.9 [+ or -] 0.1 cde 11.9 [+ or -] 0.2 g 22:6n-3 (DHA) 1.6 [+ or -] 0.1 c Sum 39.0 39.9 Sum n-3 PUFA 23.6 11.9 Sum n-6 PUFA 15.4 28.1 Total 100 100 DHA:EPA 0.1 EPA:ARA 1.6 0.8 Fatty acids Xanthophyceae Heterococcus sp. Saturated 14:0 6.7 [+ or -] 0.4 g 15:0 1.1 [+ or -] 0.1 c 16:0 23.3 [+ or -] 1.5 ef 18:0 24:0 2.9 [+ or -] 0.3 b Sum 34.1 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 4.3 [+ or -] 3.4 j 18:1n-9 3.2 [+ or -] 0.6 fg 22:1n-9 Sum 7.4 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 9.9 [+ or -] 0.6 b 18:3n-6 1.4 [+ or -] 0.2 bc 18:3n-3 (ALA) 42.4 [+ or -] 6.3 a 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 3.2 [+ or -] 0.1 i 20:5n-3 (EPA) 1.5 [+ or -] 0.4 h 22:6n-3 (DHA) Sum 58.5 Sum n-3 PUFA 43.9 Sum n-6 PUFA 14.5 Total 100 DHA:EPA EPA:ARA 0.5 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp. (strain 5) Saturated 14:0 13.9 [+ or -] 0.1 de 15:0 1.1 [+ or -] 0.1 c 16:0 13.7 [+ or -] 0.1 i 18:0 1.1 [+ or -] 0.1 i 24:0 Sum 29.8 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 5.7 [+ or -] 0.1 ij 18:1n-9 3.7 [+ or -] 0.1 ef 22:1n-9 Sum 9.4 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 f 18:3n-6 1.7 [+ or -] 0.1 b 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 16.4 [+ or -] 0.1 a 20:5n-3 (EPA) 39.6 [+ or -] 0.1 a 22:6n-3 (DHA) 1.8 [+ or -] 0.1 bc Sum 60.7 Sum n-3 PUFA 41.4 Sum n-6 PUFA 19.3 Total 100 DHA:EPA EPA:ARA 2.4 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Navicula sp. (strain 2) Saturated 14:0 5.8 [+ or -] 0.4 g 15:0 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 c 16:0 20.2 [+ or -] 0.1 gh 18:0 2.1 [+ or -] 0.1 de 24:0 5.9 [+ or -] 0.3 a Sum 35.1 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 1.9 [+ or -] 0.1bc 16:1n-7 cis 25.8 [+ or -] 0.1 cde 18:1n-9 2.2 [+ or -] 0.5 hi 22:1n-9 Sum 29.9 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 18:3n-6 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 8.4 [+ or -] 0.2 ef 20:5n-3 (EPA) 24.6 [+ or -] 0.9 bde 22:6n-3 (DHA) 2.1 [+ or -] 0.2 b Sum 35.0 Sum n-3 PUFA 26.7 Sum n-6 PUFA 8.4 Total 100 DHA:EPA 0.1 EPA:ARA 2.9 Fatty acids Bacillariophyceae Synedra sp. Saturated 14:0 4.0 [+ or -] 0.2 h 15:0 16:0 22.2 [+ or -] 0.3 fg 18:0 1.4 [+ or -] 0.1 gh 24:0 2.6 [+ or -] 0.1 b Sum 30.2 Monounsaturated 14:1n-5 cis 15:1n-5 cis 16:1n-7 cis 34.5 [+ or -] 0.6 b 18:1n-9 3.5 [+ or -] 0.1 ef 22:1n-9 Sum 38.0 Polyunsaturated 18:2n-6 tra 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 f 18:3n-6 18:3n-3 (ALA) 20:2n-6 20:4n-6 (ARA) 9.6 [+ or -] 0.2 de 20:5n-3 (EPA) 18.0 [+ or -] 0.4 efg 22:6n-3 (DHA) 3.0 [+ or -] 0.3 a Sum 31.8 Sum n-3 PUFA 20.9 Sum n-6 PUFA 10.9 Total 100 DHA:EPA 0.2 EPA:ARA 1.9 Table 5. Survival of Artemia franciscana nauplii after toxicity test and cells concentration of species of microalgae used for aqueous extracts. Strains and Cell Survival treatments concentration (%) x[10.sup.5] by mL Medium "f" 100 Sea water 97 Cyanophyceae Aphanocapsa marina 147.38 100 Komvophoron sp. 9.13 100 Phormidium sp. 0.49 94 Chlorodendrophyceae Tetraselmis suecica 18.44 100 Xanthophyceae Heterococcus sp. 2.51 100 Bacillariophyceae Amphora sp.(strain 1) 9.38 100 Amphora sp. (strain 2) 6.13 100 Amphora sp. (strain 3) 0.69 100 Amphora sp. (strain 4) 6.00 100 Amphora sp. (strain 5) 2.75 100 Amphora sp. (strain 6) 11.06 100 Amphora sp. (strain 7) 153.06 100 Cymbella sp. (strain 1) 0.79 100 Cymbella sp.(strain 2) 8.94 100 Navicula sp. (strain 1) 0.30 100 Navicula sp. (strain 2) 3.19 95 Navicula sp. (strain 3) 3.63 97 Navicula sp. (strain 4) 2.63 100 Diploneis sp. 2.50 97 Grammatophora angulosa 1.70 97 Synedra sp. 6.03 100

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |

Title Annotation: | Research Article |
---|---|

Author: | Jimenez-Valera, Socorro; Sanchez-Saavedra, M. del Pilar |

Publication: | Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research |

Article Type: | Ensayo |

Date: | Sep 1, 2016 |

Words: | 9759 |

Previous Article: | Alkali process for chitin extraction and chitosan production from Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) scales. |

Next Article: | Impact of the clam Arca zebra artisanal fishery upon the population of the neogastropod Voluta musica in eastern Venezuela. |

Topics: |