Talk:Botryococcus braunii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Botryococcus braunii is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Read this before making edits!

I was the founder of this article, and while I am not a professional biochemist, I do make great efforts to be accurate and complete in my presentation of information. Too many times, others have come in and made changes to this page without discussing the issue here first. Do Not Do This! - If you think something is incorrect, ask here in Talk first, and we'll try to straighten it out. Also, make sure that both during edits you are signed into your Wikipedia account and during chat you sign your comments with four tildes.

Edits that do not follow these guidelines will, from now, on, be reverted before further discussion! Bobkeyes (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] biodiesel vs. diesel

Bobkeyes 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Waitak, thanks your your encouragement and cleanup. However, your changes in the first paragraph makes the article incorrect. Botryococcus braunii oil is not cracked to biodiesel, but rather to diesel, gasoline, and kerosene. It is important to distinguish between origin (fossil or biological) and chemical makeup. The end-product of Botryococcus oil hydrocracking would chemically be indistinguishable from these fuels of fossil origin. This is one of the reasons why this algae has such great possibilities, as engines and processes currently using petroleum-derived fuels would not have to be modified. This is also one of the drawbacks, as the pollution caused by the burning of these petroleum-based fuels will still be present. I'll address this point in the article as it develops.

Perhaps I need to change the wording, to show that the chemicals produced are not biodiesel, but biologically derived exact replacements for petroleum fuels.

[edit] Seperate hydrocracking

Hydrocracking of the pufa's from botyrococcus braunii does not have anything to do with the species itself. I'm taking it out of the introduction and starting a new section. I don't care about deriving biofuels from this species of algae, my interest is in the biotechnical aspect of producing Omega 3 linolenic acids for pharmecuticals. The introduction should just describe the species itself, and not its potential uses.

Bobkeyes writes: Please identify yourself when making changes. From your IP address, it appears you are associated with Grand Valley State University in Michigan. Until you identify yourself, I will refer to you as GVSU. Also, I disagree with at least one of the changes you have made. In the introduction, you claim that Bb oils are not as useful in biofuel applications. Which oils are you comparing it to? Bb oil is indeed useful in fuel applications and this is well supported in research. However I do not know how well it is suited for trans-esterification. Additionally, you claim that Bb has a thick cell wall. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it is immaterial, as the major portion of the oil is extracellular. I think that your changes should be proposed here in the 'talk' section before you apply them. GVSU, please don't take offense at my comments - I hope we can agree on the structure of this article and I look forward to seeing anything you can add regarding pharmaceutical use of Bb.

[edit] Light intensity

It's strange to specify the light intensity for growing in W/m2 since that is ambiguous regarding spectrum and whether it is true irradiated intensity or rather electricity consumption. I searched a bit, and it appears that numbers of 30-60 W/m2 are often mentioned, but without access to most full-text articles I can't judge how those numbers are defined. I found one reference [1] mentioning 1200 lux/m2. Han-Kwang 12:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transesterifying Botryococcus braunii oils

Somehow I had not noticed what appears to be a glaring error. I do not believe that these oils can be transesterified the same way other algal oils often can be. Will the person that made this change (apparently from Grand Valley State University) please cite your source. Otherwise I am going to remove it, as it goes against everything I've ever read. Bobkeyes 04:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, without any defense of the claim that Bb oils can be transesterified to produce biodiesel, and much evidence to the contrary, I have removed this claim from the page. Bobkeyes 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this "much evidence to the contrary"? I think that any type of vegetable oil can be transesterified to make biodiesel and any type of vegetable oil can be feedstock for hydrocracking to make fuels. Which ones would make economic sense and how much of which products you get will change with the variety. Vincecate 11:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The claim that oil from this algae is special is not true. All vegetable oil is triglycerides which is glyceride in which the glycerol is esterified with three fatty acids. Any of these can be used as feedstock for hydrocracking or conversion to biodiesel. Some would not make economic sense though. Vincecate 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite some authoritative sources Vincecate? I'll do some more research and see if you might be right. I'll be sure to cite sources regardless of the outcome. Bobkeyes (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the wikipedia entry for vegetable oil it says they are triglycerides. Vincecate (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, look at Vegetable oil refining and follow links and you can see all kinds of vegetable oil can be used for hydrocracking. Vincecate (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
OK I did some research and have found information Botryococcenes are triterpenoids rather than triclygerides. See http://biochemistry.tamu.edu/?ch=faculty&sec=name&pp=devarenne source is Timothy P. Devarenne, Assistant Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University. So it appears I am correct. If you have sources that say botryococcenes are other than triterpenoids, please cite them and we'll try to sort it all out. Bobkeyes (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That may just be between the cells. Vincecate (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It does not say they are no triglycerides. (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the Botryococcene oil of Botryococcus braunii is not a typical vegetable oil, thus causing you (and others) to make invalid assumptions that they can be transesterified. From my recent email conversation with Professor Devarenne: "B. braunii does not make large amounts of fatty acids and thus fatty acids from B. braunii are not used for biofuel production. The oil from B. braunii, liquid hydrocarbons (botryococcenes), can not be esterified. they do not have a free oxygen group for esterification." Bobkeyes (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, seems so. Vincecate (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I now think the problem may be that triterpenoids are not vegetable oil at all. Do you have any source saying this is an oil? Vincecate (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So I checked with Timothy P. Devarenne and he said, "No, botryococcene triterpenes can not count as "vegetable oil". Vegetable oils are composed of fatty acids in the form of triglycerides. Botryococcenes are not fatty acids. They are hydrocarbon oils made from the isoprenoid pathway." Vincecate (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the Botryococcenes table - reverting revision

69.110.29.204 had made a change, because there are two entries for C36H62, incorrectly guessing (apparently) that the figures had been incorrectly copied from the cited work and referred to a different botryococcene. This edit was done without consulting the cited work, which was probably because the link to it no longer functions. I have a PDF scan of the original, cited work and checked it - my transcription is correct. I wonder if there are two different isomers here that are being referred to? I think this needs to be reviewed by a chemist more qualified than myself, but I am reverting the changes to reflect the cited source in the meantime. 69.110.29.204 is a pacbell DSL line - will the person behind this IP address please create a wikipedia account and sign in when making changes, and remember to use the four tildes when posting comments? Thanks. Bobkeyes (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have received verification from a respected professional biochemist (Prof. Timothy Devarenne) that my table is correct, and that I am correct in saying these represent two isomers. I have added a note to this effect to the page. Bobkeyes (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any more information regarding the strand cultivated by Berkeley? why was it no ever used for commercial purposes?

Mr 74.69.121.84, you forgot to sign your question. But i'll answer that i don't now if anything happened with it, i suspect not, and probably because it wasn't really that much better of a performer than that which was already available. however, i wish ucBerkeley would make it available, now that the patent has expired. Perhaps someone should talk to them about it. Bobkeyes (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found another patent-pending strain from the same scientist, and have added references to that section. But Dr. Nonomura and his company are an enigma, with no web presence I was able to find. Bobkeyes (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)