Algal Research 7 (2015) 86–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Algal Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/algal

High-rate biomethane production from microalgal biomass in a

UASB reactor
Boris Tartakovsky ⁎, Frederique Matteau Lebrun, Serge R. Guiot
National Research Council of Canada, 6100 Royalmount Ave., Montreal, QC H4P 2R2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biomethane production from the microalga Scenedesmus sp. AMDD was demonstrated in an upflow anaerobic
Received 8 August 2014 sludge bed (UASB) reactor. A full factorial design experiment was used to identify the effect of organic loading
Received in revised form 25 November 2014 rate (OLR) of algal biomass and hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the volumetric rate of methane production.
Accepted 2 December 2014
At an HRT of 4 days and an OLR of 3.23 gTVS L−1R d
−1
corresponding to an influent microalgae concentration of
Available online xxxx
12 g total volatile solids (TVS) L−1, the volumetric rate of CH4 production reached 0.6 LSTP L−1R d−1. A methane
Keywords:
yield of 0.18–0.2 L per gTVS of fed microalgae was estimated. A stable performance was observed throughout 3
Microalgae months of UASB reactor operation. Due to the short HRT and the good performance of UASB reactor, operated
Anaerobic digestion at influent microalgae concentrations in a range of 4–12 gTVS L−1, this reactor type is suitable for coupling with
Biomethane photobioreactors equipped with gravitational settlers.
UASB reactor Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Anaerobic digestion of microalgae was extensively analyzed and
concluded to represent an essential step in the development of an
integrated and cost-efficient microalgae-based process of CO2 capturing
and methane production [1–3]. Algal biomass can contain varying
concentrations of lipids with lipid accumulation associated with
nitrogen stress. Although nitrogen stress can be controlled to achieve
balanced growth and lipid production [4], even moderate nitrogen
limitation may lead to a decreased volumetric rate of CO2 consumption.
At the same time, protein content increases in fast-growing cultures,
which can be successfully used for biomethane production [5]. Overall,
algae cultivation under N non-limiting conditions followed by the
anaerobic digestion process offers the advantage of a high-rate CO2
sequestration process combined with the production of a renewable
energy source, such as methane. Furthermore, the anaerobic digestate
could be further utilized, e.g. as a fertilizer or for animal bedding.
Former studies related to CH4 production from whole algae were
mostly concerned with estimating the CH4 yield from different (micro)
algal strains in bottle tests but several studies have demonstrated CH4
production in continuously stirred tank reactors, CSTRs [6–8]. It was
demonstrated that CH4 production in a CSTR with a degradation efficien-
cy of 40–50% requires the reactor to be operated at a hydraulic retention
time (HRT) of 15–30 days [6,8]. The long retention times and high
concentration of microalgae feed needed are a result of the slow algae hy-
drolysis, which leads to ammonium-related toxicity [6]. Also, H2S-related
inhibition of methanogenesis was observed [8]. A much shorter retention
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Boris.Tartakovsky@cnrc-nrc.gc.ca (B. Tartakovsky).
time of 2.2 days was reported for biomethanization tests performed in an
upflow anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) reactor [9]. However, UASB reactors
are typically used to treat wastewater rather than solid organic wastes,
since the accumulation of solids in the sludge bed might lead to reactor
failure.
In this work we investigate CH4 production in a UASB reactor from
microalgal biomass (Scenedesmus sp. AMDD) with the objective of
optimizing key operating parameters such as upflow velocity, influent
algae concentration and hydraulic retention time.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Analytical methods
The volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations were analyzed in an
Agilent 6890 gas chromatograph (Wilmington, DE, USA) equipped
with a flame ionization detector. The method details are provided in
Tartakovsky et al. [10]. Analytical measurements of total suspended
solids (TSS), suspended solids (SS), total volatile solids (TVS), and vola-
tile suspended solids (VSS) were carried out according to Standard
Methods (APHA, [11]). The pH of the reactor effluent was measured
using a standard pH probe and a pH meter (Accumet AB15, Fisher
Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA).
O2, N2, CH4, and CO2 concentrations in the biogas were determined
by a gas chromatograph (Agilent technologies 7820A GC system,
Wilmington, DE, USA) coupled to a thermal conductivity detector,
with argon as the carrier gas. The gas-phase concentration of H2S was
also measured by a gas chromatograph (Photovac Voyager, Perkin
Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) equipped with a PID detector (Column C).
The column temperature was 60 °C and the carrier gas was air. The

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.12.004
2211-9264/Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 B. Tartakovsky et al. / Algal Research 7 (2015) 86–91 87

biogas flow was measured by a MilliGasCounter (Ritter Apparatebau 2:1 was used based on a TVS concentration of the seed sludge and
GmbH, Germany) with a measuring resolution of 1 mL. algae in order to ensure sufficient biomass for proper degradation.
The destruction of whole algal cells in the anaerobic reactor was The same granular seed sludge used in the reactor was also used for
evaluated using the cell count technique. The reactor influent and efflu- the bottle tests. Each 500 mL test bottle contained 20 g of seed sludge,
ent samples were periodically collected and examined microscopically 2 mL of phosphate buffer and defined media, and 0.5 ml Na2S (1.25%).
for the presence of whole (undamaged) algal cells. The samples were Liquid volume was completed to 100 mL with either distilled water or
diluted between 10 and 100 times in order to obtain an appropriate num- a combination of water and algal feed or reactor effluent, both solutions
ber of cells for viewing. A Leitz Laborlux S microscope (Leitz Wetzlar, having a TVS value of approximately 16 g L−1. Recipes for the different
Germany) with a 400× magnification was used for this analysis, paired solutions can be found in Frigon et al. [15]. All bottles were flushed with
with a Petroff-Hausser counting chamber slide. N2/CO2 gas during preparation and then capped and sealed to insure an
anaerobic environment. Bottles were then placed in an incubator/shak-
er (Excella E24 model, New Brunswick Scientific, Enfield, CT, USA) at 35
2.2. Anaerobic activity tests
°C and 100 rpm for the length of the test; usually around 35 days, or
until methane production stopped.
The specific substrate activities were determined in a series of bottle
tests by measuring the depletion of a non-limiting concentration of a
2.4. UASB reactor setup and operation
single substrate over time by the seed sludge or the sludge aliquot
sampled from the reactor. The specific activity is used as an indicator
Reactor experiments were carried out in a 3.5 L upflow anaerobic
of the relative content of target trophic group within the biomass. The
sludge bed (UASB) reactor with an external recirculation loop. Reactor
target trophic group is defined by the substrate used in the test (e.g.
temperature was maintained at 35 °C using a water jacket with an
glucose for acidogens, acetate for acetotrophic methanogens, hydrogen
adjustable temperature. The reactor was inoculated with anaerobic
for hydrogenotrophic methanogens, and sulfate for sulfate-reducing
granular sludge (Lassonde Inc., Rougemont, QC, Canada) to obtain an
bacteria). Sludge samples were strained of any liquid and then added
initial VSS concentration of about 40 g L−1. For the duplicate test, the
to the assay bottles to obtain an initial concentration of 5 g VSS L− 1,
reactor was emptied of anaerobic sludge, washed with water and
except for H2 activity tests, where an initial concentration of 2 g VSS
re-inoculated using the same quantity of the anaerobic granular sludge
L−1 was used.
as in the initial inoculation procedure.
All activity tests were conducted in triplicate using 120 mL serum
During reactor tests, the reactor was continuously fed with algal feed
bottles. At the startup, each bottle contained anaerobic biomass and
and bicarbonate buffer solutions, except for the first two weeks of
0.5 mL of cysteine-sulfide reducing solution (1.25%). The bottles were
reactor operation, when a synthetic wastewater solution containing
then topped up to 20 mL with 0.05 M phosphate buffer and flushed
(in g L−1) pepticase 25; (NH4)2CO3, 2.5; urea, 2; NaCl, 1.75; CaCl2·2H2O,
with an 80% N2/20% CO2 gas mixture and placed in an incubator/shaker
1; K2HPO4, 1; MgSO4·4H2O 0.3, was used. During the duplicate test the
(Excella E24 model, New Brunswick Scientific, Enfield, CT,USA) at 35 °C
reactor was fed with the same algal feed and bicarbonate solutions as in
and at 100 rpm (except for the H2 assay, which was conducted at
the first test. The bicarbonate buffer contained 2.72 g L−1 of NaHCO3
400 rpm to avoid mass transfer limitations). The tests were initiated
and 3.47 g L−1 of KHCO3. At high organic loads the buffer strength
by injecting acetate (3 g L−1), glucose (2 g L−1), or H2 (239 kPa, 80%
was increased to 5.44 g L−1 of NaHCO3 and 6.94 g L−1 of KHCO3 to
H2, 20% CO2) for acetoclastic methanogenic, fermentative, or
maintain the pH between 7.0 and 7.5. Algal feed was prepared using a
hydrogenotrophic activity tests, respectively. For the sulfate-reducing
concentrated Scenedesmus AMDD paste containing 22–24% TVS, which
test, apart from a nutrients solution, which contained sulfate, a 1.6 M
was diluted to obtain the target influent concentration of algae. The hy-
solution of lactate was added as a carbon source. Also, the bottles
draulic retention time was controlled by adjusting the bicarbonate flow
were supplemented with iron as well as sodium ascorbate and sodium
rate. The upflow velocity was controlled by adjusting the flow rate in
thioglycollate solutions [12]. Specific activity was estimated by dividing
the external recirculation loop. Table 1 describes all the tested combina-
the substrate consumption rate by the amount of VSS in the bottle. More
tions of influent algae concentration, HRT, and upflow velocity.
details on the specific activity determination can be found in Arcand
et al. [13].
3. Results and discussion

2.3. Biological methane potential UASB reactors are typically used for biomethane production from
wastewaters with low content of organic solids, while continuously
The assay performed was based on a standard wastewater BMP stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) are preferred for biomethanization of
assay found in Cornacchio et al. [14]. An inoculum to substrate ratio of organic wastes with large solid content. Accumulation of non-degradable

Table 1
Operating conditions during upflow velocity and full factorial design tests.

Test # Test description Upflow HRT Influent OLR

m h−1 Day gTVS L−1 gTVS L−1
R d
−1

UV 2 2 m h−1 upflow velocity 2 1.82 2.0 1.04

UV 3 3 m h−1 upflow velocity 3 1.82 2.1 1.05
UV 1 1 m h−1 upflow velocity 1 1.82 2.2 1.05
UV 2R 2 m h−1 upflow velocity (repeat) 2 1.82 1.9 1.05
FD 4 Factorial design #4 2 1.81 1.8 1.12
FD 3 Factorial design #3 2 1.85 4.0 2.24
FD 1 Factorial design #1 2 3.67 8.8 2.25
FD 2 Factorial design #2 2 3.67 4.0 1.12
FD 5 Factorial design #5 2 2.77 5.1 1.80
FD 6(1R) Factorial design #6 (repeat) 2 3.91 8.7 2.20
FD 7 Optimization step #1 2 4.07 12.0 3.23
FD 8 Optimization step #2 2 7.29 26.0 3.57
REP Startup repeat 2 3.0 7.0 2.19
88 B. Tartakovsky et al. / Algal Research 7 (2015) 86–91

1.E+11
solids in the sludge bed of a UASB reactor, which features a solid
retention time that is much longer than its hydraulic retention time,

cell count, cell g-1 TVS

eventually leads to a reduced performance and reactor failure. For this
reason, CSTRs are considered more suitable for the biomethanization 1.E+10
of whole algal biomass. Nevertheless, it can be hypothesized that
owing to the small size of microalgae, accumulation of undigested solids
in the sludge bed of a UASB reactor could be avoided by maintaining a
1.E+09
sufficiently high upflow velocity to washout the undigested algal
biomass. This approach was verified by UASB reactor operation at
three progressively increasing upflow velocities, as shown in Table 1.
In each test, the algae accumulation in the sludge bed was estimated 1.E+08
by comparing the influent, sludge bed, and effluent counts of whole feed reactor reactor effluent effluent
(undigested) algal cells. (UV2) (UV3) (UV2) (UV3)
Table 2 gives biogas production rates and methane yields for each
Fig. 1. Cell counts of reactor influent, reactor sludge and effluent.
upflow velocity test described in Table 1. The corresponding cell counts
are shown in Fig. 1. Overall, no significant changes in biogas production
were observed at the three tested upflow velocities. Cell counts at the Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) as described in Table 1. Each operating
end of each test showed no accumulation of undigested algae. These point described in this table was maintained for at least 6 HRTs to
measurements were in agreement with the observed stable CH4 ensure steady-state conditions at the end of the test. The results of the
production. Sludge bed contained 2%–9% of whole microalgae cells, full factorial design tests are given in Table 2 and Fig. 2. Based on these
while the effluent contained 25%–30% of whole cells, as compared to results the following regression models were obtained to describe CH4
the influent counts. Algae cell counts in the sludge bed declined when flow (FCH4, in LSTP L− 1R d− 1) and CH4 yield (YCH4, in LSTP g− 1
TVS fed)
the upflow velocity was increased to 3 m h−1. Nevertheless, cell counts dependence on HRT and OLR.
remained low at all tested upflow velocities, at less than 10% of the
influent value. Considering that an excessive upflow velocity might  
2
lead to the washout of active anaerobic granular biomass, while at low FCH4 ¼ 0:043 þ 0:052 X1 X2 R ¼ 0:91 ð1Þ
upflow velocities biogas production decreases due to poor mixing, an
upflow velocity of 2 m h−1 was chosen for the following experiments.  
2
This value is common in UASB reactor operation [13]. YCH4 ¼ −0:069 þ 0:045 X1 X2 R ¼ 0:92 ð2Þ
Interestingly, cell counts showed that the effluent contained not
more than 30% of undigested whole algal cells, while a comparison of where X1 is the hydraulic retention time (days) and X2 is the organic
TVS values in the influent and effluent streams suggested that on load (g d−1).
average only 50% of the algal biomass fed to the reactor was digested. The methane flow response surface corresponding to Eq. (1) is
This implies that although anaerobic digestion is capable of initiating shown in Fig. 3A. It suggests that an increase in both organic load (i.e.
the breakdown of microalgal cells, not all of the cell components were
easily digested. In particular, algae cell walls contain complex polymers, 0.7

which could be poorly hydrolysable under anaerobic conditions [16]. In

addition, microscopic examination of the influent samples showed that
0.6 A
methane flow, L LR-1 d-1

algal cells were intact. The feed solution was prepared by diluting an 0.5
algal paste, which contained 22–24% TVS. The paste was prepared by
centrifuging the photobioreactor effluent. Apparently, this procedure 0.4
did not result in significant cell wall damage. It can be hypothesized
that the UASB reactor operation using fresh algae, e.g. after a gravita- 0.3

tional settler, might lead to similar performance.

0.2
Following initial tests aimed at selecting an acceptable upflow
velocity for UASB operation, the impact of two key process parameters, 0.1
HRT and organic load (i.e. influent concentration of algae) on
biomethane production was studied. A full factorial design experiment 0.0
was planned at two levels (Statistics Toolbox of Matlab R2010a, UpV 2 Upv 3 UPV 1 UpV 2 FD 4 FD 3 FD 1 FD 2 FD 5 FD 6 FD 7 FD 8

0.25

Table 2
Biogas production and CH4 yields.
B
methane yield, L g-1 TVS fed

0.20
Test # CH4 flow CH4 Effluent tCOD CH4 yield
LSTP L−1R d−1 % g L−1 L g−1
TVS fed
0.15
UV 2 0.10 ± 0.020 80.0 0.20 0.09 ± 0.02
UV 3 0.146 ± 0.006 80.0 1.76 0.12 ± 0.01
UV 1 0.166 ± 0.006 78.3 1.72 0.14 ± 0.01 0.10
UV 2R 0.140 ± 0.006 77.5 1.67 0.15 ± 0.02
FD 4 0.086 ± 0.003 78.3 1.23 0.08 ± 0.02
FD 3 0.289 ± 0.003 70.2 0.92 0.13 ± 0.02 0.05
FD 1 0.540 ± 0.009 63.5 2.16 0.22 ± 0.01
FD 2 0.163 ± 0.03 69.2 4.72 0.15 ± 0.01
FD 5 0.274 ± 0.037 74.6 5.12 0.15 ± 0.03 0.00
FD 6 0.374 ± 0.017 70.1 5.15 0.18 ± 0.01 UpV 2 Upv 3 UPV 1 UpV 2 FD 4 FD 3 FD 1 FD 2 FD 5 FD 6 FD 7 FD 8
FD 7 0.580 ± 0.043 67.1 8.12 0.18 ± 0.02
FD 8 0.626 ± 0.003 65.6 10.24 0.17 ± 0.01
Fig. 2. Steady-state values of methane production (A) and methane yield (B) in upflow ve-
REP 0.337 ± 0.014 73.1 n/a 0.14 ± 0.01
locity and factorial design experiments.
 B. Tartakovsky et al. / Algal Research 7 (2015) 86–91 89

2.0 100
influent algae concentration) and HRT, increases the volumetric CH4

Biogas production, L d-1

production, as can be also seen from Eq. (1). The CH4 yield regression

CH4 concentration, %
model suggested a similar dependence (Eq. (2)), although the optimal 80
1.5
operating point might not be necessarily the same. Following these
tests, a gradient ascend method was used to maximize CH4 production. 60
Two additional experiments were performed. These experiments are 1.0
described in Table 1 as tests FD7 and FD8 with corresponding results biogas
40
included in Fig. 3B. The tests confirmed that in order to maximize concentration
biogas production while maintaining an acceptable CH4 yield (e.g. 0.5
20
0.18–0.2 L g− 1COD fed), the HRT should be increased whenever the
influent algae concentration is increased. At the highest tested influent algal feed starts
algae concentration of 26 gTVS L− 1 the methane production reached 0.0 0
0.63 LSTP L−1R d−1, although HRT had to be increased to 8 days. With 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time, days
this respect, the optimal operating point corresponded to an HRT of
4 days and an influent concentration of 12 gTVS L− 1 (FD7 in Tables 1 Fig. 4. CH4 production and CH4 concentration during the reproducibility test carried out at
and 2). CH4 yield corresponding to this operating point (0.18 ± an HRT of 3.5 days and an OLR of 2.2 gTVS L−1R d−1.
0.02 L g− 1 −1
TVS fed) was slightly lower than in FD1 (0.22 ± 0.01 L gTVS
fed). Also, this operating point was in agreement with the correspond-
ing regression model (Eq. (1)) value, while the second optimization L−1R d− 1 was observed at an HRT of 16 days and an influent algae
step resulted in lower than expected biogas production. Further concentration of 11.4 gTVS L−1 [8], the UASB reactor operation resulted
optimization of the operating conditions can be pursued by carrying out in a 9 fold improvement in terms of volumetric performance. The CH4
a three level design experiment centered at FD7 to obtain a quadratic yield was similar in both reactor types, with an average yield of
regression model. In the same way, methane yield optimization can be 0.19 L g− 1COD fed. A similar methane yield of 0.15–0.24 gTVS L− 1
achieved by a factorial design experiment centered at FD1. corresponding to a 50% conversion efficiency was observed by Ras
When compared with CH4 production from the same strain of et al. [7] in a CSTR fed with Chlorella vulgaris biomass and operated at
microalgae in a CSTR, where the highest CH4 production rate of 0.07 L an HRT of 16–28 days. Also, an UASB reactor fed with Scenedesmus
obliquus and operated at an HRT of 2.2 days showed close to 50% conver-
sion efficiency [9]. In this case a CH4 production rate of 0.3 L L−1R d−1
5.0 A was observed under mesophilic conditions.
Overall, the UASB reactor was operated on microalgal feed for a total
4.0 of 140 days with a stable CH4 production at all tested operating modes.
methane flow, L d -1

Nevertheless, the reproducibility of CH4 production from microalgal

3.0 biomass was confirmed by re-inoculating and restarting reactor opera-
tion. Upon reactor re-inoculation, it was operated at an influent concen-
2.0 tration of 7.0 g L−1 and an HRT of 3 days, which is close to the operating
conditions during the FD5 test (Table 1). Fig. 4 shows the observed
dynamics of biogas production and CH4 concentration in the biogas
1.0
OLR, g LR-1 d-1

during reactor startup. Stable CH4 production was achieved after 2

2.84 weeks of operation, which was similar to the startup period during
0.0
1.92 the first reactor experiment. Also, the biogas production observed in
1.85 2.71
3.57 4.43 1.12 the replicate test was similar to that obtained in test FD5, which
5.29 6.14 was carried out at a slightly shorter HRT (0.34 LSTP L− 1R d− 1 vs
7.00
HRT, day

400
1.12
Factorial design
Cumulative CH4 production (mL gTVS-1)

3.3Gradient ascend 350 effluent

2.5 B
300 feed
2.0
methane flow, L d -1

250
1.5
200
1.0
150
0.5
3.3 100
2.25
0.0 1.8
50
1.85 2.77 1.12
3.67 4.07 7.29 0
HRT, day 0 10 20 30 40
Time, days
Fig. 3. (A) Response surface of the biogas flow rate model Eq. (1) and (B) experimental
values of biogas flow obtained in the full factorial design experiment and during the Fig. 5. Cumulative CH4 production from whole algae and UASB reactor effluent in BMP
gradient ascend optimization steps. tests.
90 B. Tartakovsky et al. / Algal Research 7 (2015) 86–91

220

CH4 production (mg gVSS-1 d-1)

B 200 A
120

H2 consumption (mg gVSS-1 d-1)

180
160
140
80
120
100
80
40
60
40
20
0
0
whole sludge seed sludge whole sludge seed sludge

1250
glucose consumption (mg gVSS-1 d-1)

500

SO4 consumption (mg gVSS-1 d-1)

C
D
1000 400

750 300

500 200

250 100

0 0
whole sludge seed sludge whole sludge seed sludge

Fig. 6. Hydrogenotrophic (A), acetoclastic methanogenic (B), fermentative (C), and sulfate-reducing (D) metabolic activities observed in batch activity tests.

0.27 LSTP L−1R d−1 in REP and FD5 tests, respectively, Table 2). Further- concentration of 3.7–12 g gTVS L − 1 . A factorial design experiment
more, methane production in the replicate test was in a reasonable was used to identify the effect of OLR and HRT on the CH4 production
agreement with the regression model (Eq. (1)) prediction of rate and to increase the rate of methane production. A volumetric
0.38 LSTP L−1R d−1 for this set of operating conditions. production rate of 0.57 L STP L − 1 R d − 1 was obtained at an HRT of
In addition to the reactor experiments described above, sludge 4 days and an influent concentration of 12 gTVS L− 1, corresponding
samples withdrawn at the end of the first reactor test were used to to an OLR of 3.23 gTVS L − R
1
d− 1 . This compares favorably with
carry out the biochemical methane potential (BMP) and batch activity previously reported volumetric rate of CH 4 production of
tests. In particular, the BMP test was performed to evaluate the com- 0.07 L STP L − 1 R d− 1 observed in a CSTR reactor operated at an HRT
pleteness of algal biomass digestion in the UASB reactor. Consequently, of 16 days and fed with the same microalgal biomass. The accumula-
CH4 production from fresh algal feed and the UASB reactor effluent were tion of undigested algal biomass was not observed after 140 days of
compared. Fig. 5 shows that after 35 days of incubation CH4 production UASB reactor operation. Also, batch activity tests demonstrated the
in the bottles containing the reactor effluent was four times lower than presence of a robust anaerobic microbial consortium in the sludge
in the bottles containing fresh algal feed. This implies that the UASB bed. Owing to the relatively low influent concentration of microalgal
reactor with a retention time of only 4–8 days achieved close to 80% biomass, ammonium accumulation was avoided and the H2S concen-
conversion efficiency. tration in the biogas remained relatively low. Overall, a CH4 yield of
Batch activity tests were carried out using reactor sludge samples 0.18–0.2 L g− 1
TVS fed and the degradation efficiency close to 50% were
withdrawn on day 140 of reactor operation. These tests were aimed at estimated.
comparing initial trophic activities with the activities established in UASB reactor operation at a relatively low influent concentration
the reactor fed with microalgae for a prolonged period of time. As of micro-algae enables the use of a gravitational settler after the
compared to the inoculum sludge, acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic photobioreactor. A regression model of biomethane production
methanogenic activities slightly decreased (Fig. 6A,B). Most changes suggested that the HRT should be increased proportionally to the
were observed in the fermentative (glucose consumption) activity, influent microalgae concentration, in order to maintain optimal reactor
which considerably decreased (Fig. 6C), and in sulfate-reducing activity, performance. This regression model could be used for process design
which increased several folds (Fig. 6D). A significant increase of the optimization and for controlling the reactor HRT in case of influent com-
sulfate-reducing activity and elevated (above 1000 ppm) levels of H2S position variations. While the current study demonstrated high-rate
in the biogas were previously observed in the CSTR fed with the same biogas production from whole microalgae, biogas production from
strain of microalgae [8]. However, H2S levels in the UASB reactor biogas defatted algae might also be possible and might contribute to process
remained below 50 ppm, apparently due to lower influent concentra- feasibility [1].
tion of algal feed and, accordingly, lower sulfate concentration in the
reactor liquid.
Acknowledgment
4. Conclusions
We would like to thank Crystal Whitney, Scott MacQuarrie, and
Whole microalgae biomethanization was demonstrated in a UASB Patrick McGinn (NRC-Halifax) for providing Scenedesmus sp. AMDD
reactor operated with an HRT of 4–8 days and an influent microalgae biomass.
 B. Tartakovsky et al. / Algal Research 7 (2015) 86–91
References
[1] B. Sialve, N. Bernet, O. Bernard, Anaerobic digestion of microalgae as a necessary
step to make microalgal biodiesel sustainable, Biotechnol. Adv. 27 (2009) 409–416.
[2] P.E. Wiley, J.E. Campbell, B. McKuin, Production of biodiesel and biogas from algae: a
review of process train options, Water Environ. Res. 83 (2011) 326–338.
[3] C. Zamalloa, E. Vulsteke, J. Albrecht, W. Verstraete, The techno-economic potential of
renewable energy through the anaerobic digestion of microalgae, Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (2011) 1149–1158.
[4] C. Adams, V. Godfrey, B. Wahlen, L. Seefeldt, B. Bugbee, Understanding precision ni-
trogen stress to optimize the growth and lipid content tradeoff in oleaginous green
microalgae, Bioresour. Technol. 131 (2013) 188–194.
[5] P.J. McGinn, K.E. Dickinson, K.C. Park, C.G. Whitney, S.P. MacQuarrie, F.J. Black, J.-C.
Frigon, S.R. Guiot, S.J.B. O'Leary, Assessment of the bioenergy and bioremediation
potentials of the microalga Scenedesmu ssp. AMDD cultivated in municipal
wastewater effluent in batch and continuous mode, Algal Res. 1 (2012) 155–165.
[6] G. Jard, D. Jackowiak, H. Carrère, J.P. Delgenes, M. Torrijos, J.P. Steyer, C. Dumas,
Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of Palmaria palmata: comparison
with Saccharina latissima and inhibition studies, Chem. Eng. 209 (2012) 513–519.
[7] M. Ras, L. Lardon, S. Bruno, N. Bernet, J.P. Steyer, Experimental study on a coupled
process of production and anaerobic digestion of Chlorella vulgaris, Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (2011) 200–206.
[8] B. Tartakovsky, F. Matteau Lebrun, P.J. McGinn, S.J.B. O'Leary, S. Guiot, Methane
production from the microalga Scenedesmus sp. AMDD in a continuous anaerobic
reactor, Algal Res. 2 (2013) 394–400.
91
[9] C. Zamalloa, N. Boon, W. Verstraete, Anaerobic digestibility of Scenedesmus obliquus
and Phaeodactylum tricornutum under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions,
Appl. Energy 92 (2012) 733–738.
[10] B. Tartakovsky, M.F. Manuel, V. Neburchilov, H. Wang, S.R. Guiot, Biocatalyzed
hydrogen production in a continuous flow microbial fuel cell with a gas phase
cathode, J. Power Sources 182 (2008) 291–297.
[11] APHA, AWWA, WEF, Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater,
19th edn American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/
Water Environment Federation, Washington, 1995.
[12] S.R. Guiot, B. Darrah, J. Hawari, Hydrogen sulfide removal by anaerobic/aerobic
coupling, in: T. Noike (Ed.)8th Int Conf on Anaerobic Digestion, Sendai, Japan,
1997, pp. 4–71.
[13] Y. Arcand, S.R. Guiot, M. Desrochers, C. Chavarie, Impact of the reactor hydrodynamics
and organic loading on the size and activity of anaerobic granules, Chem. Eng. 56
(1994) B23–B35.
[14] L. Cornacchio, E.R. Hall, J.T. Trevors, Modified serum bottle testing procedures for
industrial wastewaters, Technology Transfer Workshop on Laboratory Scale
Anaerobic Treatability Testing Technique, Wastewater Technology Center, 1986.
[15] J.-C. Frigon, P. Mehta, S.R. Guiot, Impact of mechanical, chemical and enzymatic
pre-treatments on the methane yield from the anaerobic digestion of switchgrass,
Biomass Bioenergy 36 (2012) 1–11.
[16] J. Burczyk, J. Dworzanski, Comparison of sporopollenin-like algal resistant polymer
from cell wall of Botryococcus, Scenedesmus and Lycopodium clavatium by
GC-pyrolysis, Phytochemistry 27 (1988) 2151–2153.