Del, Chlorella was used because it was easiest to manipulate in a spectrometer in 1960, and that 12% is an illustration of the Emerson effect at far-red wavelengths. The pages of Hall and Rao you want are page 108:
Lastly, we can discuss the quantum efficiency of CO2 fixation. Each mole quantum of red light at 680 nm contains 17.61 * 10^4 J of energy. Thus, at least three (48 * 10^4 / 17.6 * 10^4 = 2.7) mole quanta of 680 nm light will be required for one CO2 molecule to be fixed. However, experimentall, it is found that 8-10 quanta of absorbed light are required for each molecule of CO2 fixed or O2 evolved. From our knowledge of non-cyclic photosynthetic phosphorylation we deduce that there are two different light reactions required to reduce NADP with the electrons from H2O:
Thus we need at least 8 quanta (4 quanta per 4e (1 O2 molecule) * 2 light reactions) to reduce NADP and produce the necessary ATP at the time.
Nevertheless, photosynthetic CO2 fixation itself is only about 30% efficient (2.7 quanta / 8-10 quanta) as we can measure it. Taken in conjunction with an average efficiency of less than 1% for whole plants capturing and utilizing photosynthetically active sunlight (see Chapter 1), this reinforces the concept that these energy exchanges are necessary but wasteful and could be improved in artificial photosynthetic systems.
and page 4:
Energy losses:
47% loss due to solar photons outside the photosynthetically active region (400-700 nm) [the remainder is in the lower energy IR]
30% loss due to incomplete absorption or absorption by components other than the chloroplast
24% loss due to degradation of absorbed photons to excitation energy at 700 nm
68% loss due to conversion of excitation energy at 700 nm to chemical energy of D-glucose
35-45% loss due to dark and photorespiration
These are cumulative, multiplicative losses. About half is simply because the photons are not energetic enough to make the reaction go (the energy = h * frequency thing I alluded to before). After that, the coupling from the reaction center to carbon fixation. The confusion RuBisCO makes between CO2 and O2 is due to the similar charge and size of the two molecules, and is largely insuperable.
8% efficiency, incidentally, is the maximum rate for sugarcane under cultivation. For its full life-cycle, it's more like 4%.
no subject
and page 4:
These are cumulative, multiplicative losses. About half is simply because the photons are not energetic enough to make the reaction go (the energy = h * frequency thing I alluded to before). After that, the coupling from the reaction center to carbon fixation. The confusion RuBisCO makes between CO2 and O2 is due to the similar charge and size of the two molecules, and is largely insuperable.
8% efficiency, incidentally, is the maximum rate for sugarcane under cultivation. For its full life-cycle, it's more like 4%.
Carlos