Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Life cycle assessment, energy balance and sensitivity analysis of bioethanol T

production from microalgae in a tropical country
Nazia Hossaina,b,∗, Juliana Zainib, Teuku Meurah Indra Mahliac
a
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
b
Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Jalan Tungku Link, Gadong, BE, 1410, Brunei Darussalam
c
School of Information, Systems and Modelling, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Overuse of petroleum and ongoing carbon-di-oxide (CO2) rise in the air of Brunei Darussalam has been emerged
Life cycle assessment as a major environmental concern in this country. To resolve this issue, a comprehensive life cycle assessment
CO2 emission (LCA) of alternative biofuel, bioethanol production from microalgae was demanded for realistic implementation.
Microalgae Therefore, LCA of bioethanol production from microalgae in terms of CO2 emission and energy balance was
Bioethanol
investigated based on the scenario of industrial-scale in Brunei Darussalam. This study demonstrated that 220
Energy balance
Water footprint
tons microalgae biomass was cultivated on 6 ha offshore lands for commercial bioethanol generation. The annual
outcome of this commercial bioethanol plant has revealed net CO2 balance 218.86 ton. From the energy per-
spective, this study manifested itself as favourable with net energy ratio, 0.45 and net energy balance,
−2749.6 GJ y−1. Apart from CO2 balance and energy generation aspect, the project demanded low water and
land footprints. For photobioreactor cultivation, water and land footprints were 2 m3 GJ−1 and 2 m2 GJ−1, re-
spectively as well as for open pond approach, they were 87 m3 GJ−1 and 13 m2 GJ−1, respectively. The project
also presented microalgae growth supplements (phosphorus and nitrogen) accumulation possibilities from
wastewater of manure and industries which is another positive aspect for benign environment. Overall, the
commercial plant presented low CO2 emission, low land and water demand for microalgae cultivation, alter-
native eco-friendly and cheaper nutrients sources, quite high energy generation with main product and by-
products. Thus, this study projected positive impact on energy and environmental aspects of microalgae-to-
bioethanol conversion.

1. Introduction
Biofuel production from miscellaneous biomass sources has led to
the rapid intensity of renewable energy generation in high demand of
worldwide energy [1–3]. Among biofuels, bioethanol highlighted itself
due to clean combustion and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)
especially CO2 emission to nature [4]. Bioethanol is being preferred
because of lower CO2 emission than conventional fossil fuel, oxygen
release to the environment as well as absorption of substantial portion
of CO2 emission by the energy crops and feedstock [5]; Usually fossil
fuels contain finite sources and it is being depleted gradually. In this
case, bioethanol has been appeared as hope in energy domain since it is
renewable, can be utilized by blending with fossil fuels with 5%–20%
(E5-E20) through new car models. Additionally, flexible fuel vehicles or
dual-fuel vehicles can utilize bioethanol up to 85% besides petroleum.
Hence it helps slowing down the fossil fuel depletion speed and
minimizes CO2 in environment [6–10]. From few decades ago, various
biomass feedstock were being implemented as 1st and 2nd generation
bioethanol sources since most of them interrupted human or animal
food-chain [7,11,12]. 1st generation bioethanol is extracted from food
substances e.g. palm oil, soybean oil, sorghum, sweet potato, sugarcane
and others. In the eve of enormous food scarcity in current world, 1st
generation bioethanol could not be stable in fuel market as it inter-
rupted human food chain. 2nd generation bioethanol sources are agri-
cultural residues, husk, straw, switchgrass, willow, sugarcane baggage
and others. They lost popularity due to high land area, water utilization
for ploughing energy crops for bioethanol instead of food crops and
high pre-treatment cost. With these scenarios, 3rd generation bioe-
thanol grabbed strong appeal in the biofuel market due to enormous
bioethanol yield and positive environmental perspective [5,13,14].
Among 3rd generation biomass for biofuels, microalgae, nitrite-oxi-
dizing bacteria(NOB)-intensified biomass are being considered as new

∗
Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
E-mail address: bristy808.nh@gmail.com (N. Hossain).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109371
Received 29 April 2019; Received in revised form 28 August 2019; Accepted 31 August 2019
Available online 10 September 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

Nomenclatures LF Land Footprint, m2GJ−1

MW Molecular weight, kg
Symbols n Project life-time, year
NEB Net Energy Balance, GJ
BtOH Bioethanol, gallon NEin Net Energy input, GJ
Ein Energy input, MJ NER Net Energy Ratio,
Eout Energy out, MJ NPOP Net Primary O2 Productivity, kg
ED Electricity for Drying, MJ kg−1 OP Open Pond,
EE Electricity for Extraction, MJ kg−1 PBR Photobioreactor,
EO Energy for Others, MJ kg−1 RB Residual By-product, gallon
FDI Foreign Direct Investments, - SC Slurry Cake, kg
GHG Green House Gas, kg TCO2 Total CO2, kg
HD Heat for Drying, MJ kg−1 TN Total Nitrogen g
HE Heat for Extraction, MJ kg−1 TP Total Phosphorus, g
i, Project year, year WF Water Footprint, m3GJ−1
LCA Life Cycle Assessment, -

set of feedstock for carbon capturing from the environment as well as
potential raw material for biofuel production [15,16]. With this cir-
cumstance, microalgae are considered as the most prominent feedstock
for 3rd generation bioethanol by rendering higher cellular carbohy-
drate content as well as not disturbing food or feed chain. Apart from
these, other merit of microalgae is that they are immune to every
weather and diverse water sources such as freshwater, seawater, was-
tewater) in traditional: open pond (OP) system and technologically
advanced: photobioreactor (PBR) system with minimum water and land
utilization [17–19]. Moreover, microalgae have been chosen for bioe-
thanol over other biomass in Brunei Darussalam due to the faster
growth and higher amount of cellular carbohydrate. On the other hand,
abundance of agricultural residues or other biomass for biofuel is also
not available in the country. Recently some research are ongoing on
hardwood, Acacia species and other forms of bioenergy but still not in
scalable form [20–22].
Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuel is being considered as an
integral conceptual issue prior to industrialization attempt due to se-
vere atmospheric pollution. LCA is to asses a product from raw material
processing to product utilization through all technological junctures
based on environmental and energy aspects [23]. With the current
study, the LCA of bioethanol commenced with raw material, main-
tained microalgae processing and concluded with energy manufacture
[18,24–28]. Since carbohydrate plays key vehicle role for bioethanol
production, it is vital to map carbohydrate enriched microalgae species
such as Chlorella vulgaris (55%) for this LCA designed project. Chlorella
vulgaris is spherical shaped, single cellular (with nucleus) microalgae,
contains cellulose and hemicelluloses (carbohydrate components) in
cell wall and starch is the main carbohydrate storage product. Chlorella
vulgaris utilizes sunlight, atmospheric CO2/wastewater CO2, H2O and

Rc.1. CO2-O2 balance in the microalgal-included environment. Where, RuBP=Ribulose 1,5-biphosphate, ATP= Adenosine Triphosphate, NADPH= Nicotinamide
Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate, NADP+= Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate coenzyme as universal electron carrier, ADP= Adenosine Diphosphate,
Pi= inorganic phosphate, PS-I= Photosystem-1, PS-II= Photosystem-II.

2
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

nutrients from growth medium and exhaled O2 to the environment. microalgae in order to clarify the net GHG minimization at the atmo-
Rc.1 presented the overall CO2–O2 balance via biofixation photo- sphere; to elucidate water footprint by microalgae cultivation in terms
synthesis process. Later on, microalgae accumulate carbohydrate due to of energy in order to lessen water contamination and pollution and
CO2 fixation during photosynthesis process shown in Rc.2. To enhance subside depletion of water sources; to measure the land footprint for the
bioethanol production from carbohydrate-based microalgae, it is im- sake of reducing of land usages by biofuel sector and expand space for
perative to outline the intracellular biological process, photosynthesis food crops for managing and maintenance of human and animal food
and manipulate the natural metabolisms to attain higher amount of chain; to distinguish the gross bulk of nutrients demanded for micro-
biomass via strategy like extra nutrient addition (Rc.2) [29]. algae cultivation, management of nutrients by utilizing diverse waste
sources instead of market supplementation that pinpoints economic
6CO2 + 12H2 O + Light + Nutrients C6 H12 O6 + 6O2 + 6H2 O (2) feasibility, soil and water amelioration and waste management; to
scrutinize the sensitivity of the key hypotheses for the process such as
In the raw material processing stage, microalgae maintain high CO2
the microalgae growth rate, CO2 and all other nutrient uptake as well as
uptake for carbohydrate production and liberate O2 free to the en-
O2 exhalation rate to figure the probable alternations.
vironment and in product life stage, bioethanol produces energy and
The aim of this study was to assess the potential environmental
sets CO2 free to the environment. Hence, via initial-to-final phases, CO2
footprints of microalgae bioethanol (alganol) production, evaluate en-
can be biologically recycled by the microalgae and that leads to CO2
ergy incorporation and elucidate the environmental and energetic
reduction in environment. Along with that, microalgae also contained
consequences by determining the suitable strategies from microalgae
large amount of carbohydrate for favourable bioethanol extraction.
cultivation to commercial bioethanol production associated with was-
Therefore, many countries (e.g. USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Italy,
tewater utilization, barren offshore land and marine water use. Due to
Canada, China, Thailand, Japan and others) worldwide established
the favourable geographical location, plenty of seawater, adequate
mercantile microalgal bioethanol production plants [30]. Fig. 1 mapped
rainfall and sunlight all over the year in Brunei Darussalam, this re-
the industrialized regions for scaled-up bioethanol production. A study
search sought for the positive environmental and energetic attributes
revealed that USA, Brazil, European Union countries, China produce
for commercial bioethanol generation from mass microalgae cultiva-
14806, 7093, 1387, 813 million gallons, respectively in 2015 [30]. As a
tion. Therefore, this project aims to clarify the prospective environ-
result, the LCA configuration for bioethanol from microalgae was ap-
mental and energetic merits by implementing this approach in Brunei
peared as a crucial topic to be researched for the sake of healthy en-
Darussalam and other tropical regions.
vironment and eco-system. Hence, this environmental study was en-
The main scope of this research includes an alternative potential
tailed to design and inspect the environmental and energy impacts for
biofuel in the fuel market in Brunei Darussalam, useful utilization of the
projected plant venture [31–33].
offshore land and seawater as well as industrial wastewater accumu-
The objectives for this project include: to determine comprehensive
lation. Brunei Darussalam is one of the blessed countries for natural oil
technical-functional constituents of the bioethanol plant outline, assess
and gas resources worldwide. The use of petroleum and amount of CO2
the precise energy inputs and outputs, compute energy balance and
in environment is rocketing day by day and it has been appeared a
interpret the energy balance for this project was favourable or not to set
threat to the environment [34,35]. If this study can be conducted
up; to calculate GHG (CO2) emission by the product, CO2 uptake by

Fig. 1. Commercialization of bioethanol generation from microalgae worldwide.

3
N. Hossain, et al.
successfully in this country, fossil fuel can be blended with biofuel in
mercantile approach that can be a new revolution for fuel market. In
addition, the land beside sea in this country is either empty or full of
invasive plants and industrialization is not much established there yet.
This environment-friendly biofuel processing technology may en-
courage industrialization without damaging flora and fauna. On the
other hand, if the use of wastewater from industries and manure can
contribute for biofuel production besides reduction of environmental
pollution, a new door will open for sustainable livestock farming in
large scale and industries by maintaining healthy eco-system.
The current study on life cycle assessment of microalgae-bioethanol
is a novel research study. To the author’ best knowledge, no research or
design study has been conducted yet on life cycle assessment of bioe-
thanol from microalgae biomass so far. The closest related study was
life cycle assessments of biofuels in China where status and challenges
of biofuels especially biodiesel have been reviewed, energy and GHG
emission profile has been demonstrated. Besides, this study is a review
study and datasets from various research outcomes have been analysed
[36]. Compared to that, the current study is a simulation-based research
study where large-scale plant set up has been designed with compre-
hensive details of inventory, carbon emission, water and land footprints
and energy balance. Moreover, several life cycle assessments have been
performed on various culture methods of microalgae and extraction of
value-added products such as vitamins (e.g. β-carotene), proteins, bio-
oils and other biofuels (e.g. bio-diesel, biohydrogen, biomethane, bio-
char) [37–40].
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The potential microalgae candidate for this LCA study was Chlorella
vulgaris. These microalgae species contain carbohydrate content: 55%
and mainly consisted of two major components: celluloses in cell wall
and starch in plastid. Cellulose and starch play as carbon sources during
hydrolysis and fermentation for bioethanol production [41]. Previous
studies have shown that Chlorella vulgaris contained 31.25% starch,
46.92% (w/w) cellulose and with simultaneous saccharification to
fermentation process, Chlorella vulgaris yielded 92.3% bioethanol [42].
The main benefit of microalgae conversion to bioethanol is that the
process can be approached with simultaneous saccharification (fer-
mentable sugar conversion) and fermentation (bioethanol production)
due to high cellulose and starch as well as zero lignin and low hemi-
celluloses containment [15,41].
2.2. Experimental methods
Life cycle assessment from raw material to the market product of
this study consists of five major stages: microalgae cultivation and
harvesting, biomass pretreatment, extraction and fermentation, bioe-
thanol separation and bioethanol purification. Microalgae cell culturing
from laboratory to plant scale, cell growth factors such as pH, culture
period, temperature, mixing, gaseous transfer monitoring, water, light,
carbon sources and nutrient supply are conducted in cultivation and
harvesting stage. After certain culture period, settling biomass, shifting
biomass from ponds/PBR from pre-treatment, wet pre-treatment, cell
disruption and others are handled in pre-treatment stage. The main
phase of bioethanol production starts at extraction and fermentation
stage where biomass extraction, hydrolysis with the presence of en-
zymes and supplements, fermentation in anaerobic condition take place
and raw bioethanol generates via this process. Microalgae extraction
can be performed via various techniques such as ultra-sonication as-
sisted, microwave assisted, solvent extraction, supercritical CO2, wet
extraction and others. Microwave assisted extraction has been projected
to be implemented in this study due to very less extraction time,
minimum solvent usage, high extraction yield, positive environmental
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371
and economic attributes. Then a plant scale beer column separates
bioethanol, other liquid residual and slurry cake. Subsequently, pure
bioethanol was recovered by dehydration through rectifier [30,43].
2.3. Data collection
Data collection is deemed as one of the most significant factors for
LCA. In this study, the input data, LCA planning and design were based
on both national and international data resources of commercial mi-
croalgae cultivation and bioethanol production companies’ database
and reports, related journal articles and technical datasheets, up-to-date
websites and articles for greenhouse gas emissions, total water and land
needed, nutrients uptake as well as researchers and experts on this
particular field. The operations and technologies in current process
modelling was adopted by model microalgae cultivation design from
the previous case study and cultivation technical set up in Brunei as
well as integration with the microalgal biomass cultivation design and
bioethanol production in Tuscany, Italy. The summary of microalgae-
bioethanol life cycle inventory for this study has been demonstrated in
Table 1 [44,45].
2.4. Selection of plant location
The LCA modelling was projected for Brunei Darussalam on the
island of Borneo in Southeast Asia. The coastal area of Brunei
Darussalam was preferred as plant location since the cultivation water
will be submerged from the sea. Besides that, coastal area also main-
tains suitable climatic condition and cheaper land. Brunei Darussalam
was in outlook for the bioethanol plant modelling from microalgae for
several aspects [45–48]. The reasons behind it were:
(i) The tropical climate that is perfectly favourable for high rate of
microalgal growth
(ii) Huge domain of coastal territory which is commendatory for
marine algae cultivation
(iii) Bringing down the threatening intensity of CO2 from the en-
vironment
(iv) Plenty of barren inexpensive coastal area to establish bioethanol
plant
(v) The handiness of marine water
(vi) Direct sunlight throughout the whole year.
A survey in Brunei reefs clarified that Brunei currently is experi-
encing a high rate of microalgal growth in coastal as well as escalating
CO2 emission in the environment by highly fossil fuel usages
[47,49,50]. To diminish CO2 and induce bioenergy simultaneously,
wide-ranging bioethanol promotion plant from microalgae schemed in
Brunei Darussalam aspect.
Table 1
List of microalgae-bioethanol life-cycle inventory.
Items Number of Items
Ponds 5
Photobioreactors (PBRs) 4
Mixers 9
Pumps (water, biomass collector, nutrients dosage, CO2 33
dosage, sludge cake collector)
Sensors (level, flow, temperature, pH, light, time) 54
Extractor 1
Fermenter 1
Rectifier 1
Beer Column 1
Evaporator 1
Hydrolysis Tank 1
Scrubber 1
N. Hossain, et al.
2.5. Assumptions
LCA estimation was considered as one of the most significant re-
search areas to minimize CO2 GHGs from the environment before en-
hancing bioethanol commercialization in Brunei Darussalam since the
country is well concerned about the green environment and balanced
eco-system. The comprehensive set of key estimations for this LCA
project substantiated in Table 2. For this project, two types of cultiva-
tion process were applied: photobioreactors and open ponds system
where PBR represented closed and monitored cultivation approach and
OP rendered the conventional microalgae culture. Both approaches
were handled concurrently, and biomass production rate is expected
220 tons y−1 overall.
2.6. Flow-sheeting for LCA approach and plant set-up
An engineering system modelling of life cycle assessment of bioe-
thanol from microalgae in Brunei was implemented in this study in
terms of detailed energy balance, CO2–O2 balance, light and nutrients
(TN & TP) utilization, water footprint and land-usage. The compre-
hensive process flow-sheeting has been diagrammed at Fig. 2. Fig. 2
presented the overall process modelling incorporated the detailed en-
ergy input-output through the process such as microalgae cultivation:
open pond (OP) and photobioreactor (PBR), drying, extraction, hy-
drolysis, fermentation, separation (among product, by-products) and
purification (e.g. dehydration, evaporation) [11,30,31,33,51]. The
whole microalgae to bioethanol plant set up was planned to perform as
multi-functional system which included main product: bioethanol
generation and purification both as well as it separated residual bio-
mass (liquid) and slurry cake. The plant design comprised of four main
sectors: (i) microalgae cultivation, (ii) microalgae-bioethanol conver-
sion, (iii) bioethanol purification and (iv) separation between residual
biomass (liquid) and slurry cake. Microalgae cultivation sector con-
tained 2 different approaches: open pond and photobioreactor. The
microalgae-bioethanol conversion was consisted of several steps such as
biomass drying, extracting the metabolites from cells, simultaneous
saccharification (hydrolysis) and fermentation through enzymatic re-
actions and separation. While microalgae biomass was processed
through saccharification, total carbohydrate content (total sugar) was
divided into two types of sugars: fermentable and unfermentable su-
gars. Fermentable sugars were fermented and bioethanol has been
produced as main product of the project where unfermented sugars
remained as by-product [52]. Apart from unfermentable sugars, other
cellular contents such as lipid, protein and other metabolites were left
as residual by-products (liquid). Fig. 2 diagrammed conversion process
from microalgae to products and by-products in brief. Separation pro-
cess of bioethanol has been designed through beer column, type of
rectifier column that separated bioethanol, residual by-products (li-
quid) and slurry cake. The system only maintained saccharification and
fermentation before separation between products and by-products.
Thus no interruption has been occurred to produce bioethanol with fast
process. The residual by-product usually contains cellular lipid, protein
and other metabolites and this residual by-product can be source of
other biofuels raw material in further such as biodiesel (methyl ester),
biomethane, biohydrogen, glycerol carbonate and others with different
Table 2
Key estimations for microalgae cultivation and bioethanol production [44,45,91,92].
Key Items Photobioreactors (PBR)
−1 −1
Microalgal Biomass Productivity 56 tons ha y 28 tons ha−1 y−1
Total Biomass Production 110 tons y−1 or 100, 000 kg y−1
Cultivation Area (ha) 2 ha
Cultivation system geometry (Single Unit) 130 aligned tube/per unit, 75 tubes, tube diameter 0.05 m
Bioethanol yield 58.90 m3 ha−1 y−1
Total Bioethanol Production 31, 119.49 gallons y−1
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371
treatments [52–54]. For this project, the liquid output excluding bioe-
thanol was considered as by-product for other biofuels raw material.
The last segment of the plant was bioethanol purification through de-
hydration process.
2.7. LCA system boundary and limitations
A streamlined LCA was conducted following ISO 14044 guidelines
[23]. Fig. 3 encompassed the LCA system boundary for this study. In
Fig. 3, plain lined boxes represented all the inputs and outputs from
microalgae to the final product and dashed lined boxes presented the
processing systems. LCA system boundary was emphasized on the
overall carbon footprint (CO2 inhalation and O2 exhalation) through
the whole system from biomass cultivation to product utilization. It
aimed to simulate the exact impact of this project on the existing en-
vironment. Moreover, other LCA driving factors such as water footprint
and land utilization were being concurrently focused on the project
system modelling since reduction of water and land use for microalgae
would play important role for greener environment besides minimizing
greenhouse gas and energy balance [51]. The balancing simulations in
this project were constructed theoretically due to the precise and well-
established process view of CO2 capture from environment, CO2 uptake
to cultivate microalgae biomass and O2 give off to the environment.
Therefore, it was expected that the system model can be projected by
the balances shown in Fig. 3. Despite the overall process understanding,
still little variation might occur due to some factors like the overall
cultivation environment, the growth rate of microalgae, nutrients, light
and CO2 utilization efficiency by microalgae species [18,55–57].
The aim of this project was to evaluate environmental impacts of
microalgae-bioethanol production in Brunei Darussalam in terms of
carbon, water and land footprint as well as nutrients uptake for 20 years
life-time. Other specifications of the overall project from plant set-up to
marketing and life cycle cost analysis have been demonstrated elabo-
rately in Part-1 of this project and published as journal article named
‘Techno-economic and sensitivity analysis of microalgae as commercial
feedstock for bioethanol production’. According to the techno-economic
analysis of the study, commercial bioethanol production from micro-
algae in Brunei Darussalam was successful and favourable economically
[30]. Hence, this LCA system boundary excluded those materials and
technical attributes what have been discussed comprehensively in
techno-economic analysis.
This LCA system boundary excluded:
- Technological simulations and advancements (e.g. recycling system
of water and nutrients)
- The total number of specific equipment such as reactor, pumps,
sensors and others, equipment specifications and microalgae-culti-
vation system elaboration.
- The logistics and transportation systems related plant equipment
and plant set-up tools to the specific plant location, raw materials,
nutrients (TP, TN) for microalgae growth and harvesting, the final
product (bioethanol) and co-products were not discussed in this
study.
- Capital investment details such as purchased and delivered equip-
ments and installation, instrumentation controls, piping, electrical
Ponds
110 tons y−1 or 100,000 kg y−1
3.94 ha
975 m2 per ponds, width 10 m, length 85 m, depth 0.30 m
24.94 m3 ha−1 y−1
25, 968.13 gallons y−1
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

Fig. 2. Process flow of overall LCA methodology.

system, buildings and service facilities, engineering and supervision,
operation and maintenance.
- Life cycle cost analysis including plant establishment and service,
raw material production cost, selling prices of products and by-
products.
2.8. Calculating methods
2.8.1. Net primary O2 productivity (NPOP) and CO2 balance
NPOP in this study was computed theoretically through dividing
molecular weight of O2 (32 g) by the molecular weight of CO2 (44 g)

6
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

Fig. 3. LCA system boundary of microalgae-to-bioethanol.

7
N. Hossain, et al.
and later multiplying the ratio with total CO2 consumption during
microalgae cultivation period (Eq. (1)). NPOP rate is directly correlated
with CO2 uptake by algal biomass. NPOP is important to be calculated
for determining O2–CO2 balance by the photosynthesis system of mi-
croalgae (Rc. 2.) since CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and emits
radiation within the thermal infrared range in atmosphere where O2
does not absorb and emit radiation as well as its essential gas element
for the existence of human, animal and other living beings [58]. The
NPOP and CO2 balancing of this study was calculated based on the
method of net primary productivity (NPP) and carbon storage data
analysis [59]. Data for CO2 consumption during microalgae cultivation
(per kg dry biomass) and CO2 emission by bioethanol (per gallon) were
calculated based on different industrial survey reports and previous
research findings associated with carbon stock studies, total CO2 con-
sumption by annual biomass production and CO2 emission by bioe-
thanol from this project.
MW of O2
NPOP = × Total CO2 consumption
MW of CO2 (1)
2.8.2. Energy balance methods
Energy balance drives the most significant role in the modular
system engineering of industrial scale to regulate the LCA of the project
[60]. In this study, input and output energy investment were identified
based on heat and electricity demand and manufacture. Energy input
defined the total energy through electricity and heat for drying mi-
croalgae biomass, extraction of biomass and other distributed energy
throughout the whole system from cultivation to bioethanol purifica-
tion [55]. Output energy was mainly calculated as energy produced by
the main product, bioethanol. Net energy input consists of energy
(excluded energy credits) generated from by-products. Net energy
balance equated the energy balance between net energy input and total
energy output. Net energy ratio scaled energy impact on process system
which is the ratio of net energy input and total energy output. Ac-
cording to previous LCA analyses, lesser number of ratio indicated the
greater energy effectiveness on the process [6,51,61]. Eqs. (2)–(6) were
driven to assess the energy input, energy output, net energy input, net
energy balance, net energy ratio of this project, respectively.
n
Ein = EED + EHD + EHE + EEE + EEO
i=1 (2)
Eout = EBtOH (3)
n n n might not be precise for different scenarios, so sensitivity analysis has
NEin = Ein ERB ESC
i=1 i=1 i=1 (4)
n n
NEB = NEin Eout
i=1 i=1 (5)
NEin
NER =
Eout (6)
where, Ein = Energy input (MJ), EED = Energy consumed by Electricity
for Drying (MJ kg−1), EHD = Energy consumed by Heat for Drying (MJ
kg−1), EHE = Energy consumed by Heat for Extraction (MJ kg−1),
EEE = Energy consumed by Electricity for Extraction (MJ kg−1),
EEO = Energy consumed by Others (MJ kg−1), Eout = Energy out (MJ),
EBtOH = Energy generated by Bioethanol (MJ), NEin = Net Energy
input, ERB = Energy generated by Residual By-product (liquid) (MJ),
ESC = Energy generated by Slurry Cake (MJ), NEB= Net Energy Bal-
ance, Eout = Energy Output (MJ), NER=Net Energy Ratio.
2.8.3. Water footprint, land footprint and total nutrients
Water footprint was assessed in this study to determine the water
consumption for bioethanol production from microalgae in terms of
heat and electrical conversion efficiency [26,62]. The water and land
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371
footprints of this study were calculated based on the well-established
footprint methods of crops and derived crop products conducted by
Mekonnen and Hoekstra [63]. Eqs. (7) and (8) were used to clarify
water footprint for both PBR and OP system. Harvesting index in Eq. (7)
presented the ratio of total microalgae production yield (with water) by
total microalgae dry biomass yield. The weight fraction of microalgae
residue (Eq. (8)) rendered the ratio of bioethanol output to total output
products. Thermal and electrical efficiency is usually conditional on the
system. With most of industrial scale scenarios, the conversion effi-
ciency is similar [64].
WFTotal Biomass Yield = WFBiomass Yield per unit × Harvesting Index (7)
WFEnergy
WFTotal Biomass Yield × Weight fraction of microalgae residue × 1000
=
High Heating value of bioethanol, ( 29.7MJ
kg ) × Thermal &
Electrical conversion efficiency
(8)
3 −1
where, WF= Water Footprint (m GJ ).
Land footprint or land usage for bioethanol production from mi-
croalgae depicted the required land or areas to cultivate microalgae
biomass for the generation of the projected amount of bioethanol in
terms of energy [65,66]. Eq. (9) illustrated the land footprint de-
termination method [67].
Total Microalgal Biomass Production
LFEnergy =
Biomass yield × Required energy for conversion process (9)
where, LF = Land Footprint (m2 GJ−1).
The most prior nutrients at the cultivation stage for the microalgae
life cycle assessment were total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen
(TN) [26]. TN and TP per unit biomass data were gathered from pre-
vious industrial approaches and the annum and project life-time nu-
trient requirements were simulated. Other major nutrient requirement
was light where sunlight and UV light (generated by using electricity
which was included in energy balance) were the light sources for OP
and PBR, respectively [26,68].
2.9. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was conducted for this project to identify the
influential variability. Since in industrial scale, theoretical calculations
been performed. The projection may vary and for such case, sensitivity
analysis usually determines the most probable possibilities
[30,51,69,70]. For this study, the sensitivity factors included micro-
algae growth rate, carbohydrate content (key vehicle to produce bioe-
thanol from microalgae), nutrients (TP, TN), water, total carbon-di-
oxide (TCO2) and NPOP. The analysis data were simulated from the
study and compared with the previous industrial application-based
framework. Two different datasets were used for uncertain scenarios
and they were compared with the studied scenario. Microsoft excel has
been used to demonstrate the comparison with uncertainties and the
outcome has been showcased in graphical representation.
3. Results and discussion
The detailed cultivation system geometry for each unit was designed
and bioethanol yield over the year was schemed based on previous
research studies in Table 2. To attain similar biomass amount from both
OP and PBR strategies, OP required double cultivation area compared
to PBR because PBR maintained controlled growth rate that ensure
consistent and large amount of cell density in smaller cultivation area
while OP has uncontrolled growth rate. Therefore, PBR maintained
gross biomass productivity, 58.90 m3 ha−1 y−1 that depicts twice
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

higher yield than OP, 24.94 m3 ha−1 y−1, yet OP was mapped to ex- as well as diminish atmospheric GHG [73,76,77].
periment due to reducing the cost for PBR set up and maintenance
expenses. The schematic of microalgal growth vs bioethanol production 3.3. CO2 balance and net primary O2 productivity
for both OP and PBR has been diagrammed at Fig. 4. Techno-economic
analysis of this study presented that PBR and OP construction expense The relationship between CO2 gas emission by bioethanol and GHG
was 102,000 US$ and 20,000 US$, respectively. That revealed PBR consumption by microalgae is a consequential factor for LCA [78].
demands approximately five times higher expense than OP set up [30]. Table 6 reported that 1 kg microalgae dry biomass consumed 1.83 kg
Table 3 demonstrated the yearly gross output rate. CO2 where 1 gallon bioethanol produced 2.59 kg CO2. As a result, net
CO2 balance was 218.86 tons per year. In comparison with conven-
3.1. Water and land footprint tional fossil fuel, net CO2 production from this project was much lesser.
For instance, 1 gallon pure ethanol produces 5.77 kg CO2 that is 3.18 kg
According to the water footprint concept of Hoekstra, water foot- higher than CO2 emitted from bioethanol combustion. Additionally,
print is a signal for water use in relation to consumer products such as conventional fuels such as 10% fuel ethanol (E10), pure gasoline (fossil
agricultural, industrial products. Like other footprints (e.g. carbon, fuel) and diesel (fossil fuel) produce 8.01 kg, 8.90 kg and 10.15 kg CO2,
energy footprint), water footprint is one of the crucial aspects behind respectively. Therefore, these outcomes proved that bioethanol emitted
benign environment [71]. Table 4 demonstrated that the WF for bioe- the minimum GHG gas to the environment. Furthermore, in comparison
thanol production from microalgae was 2 m3 GJ−1 and 87 m3 GJ−1 for with other biofuels such as 100% biodiesel (B100), bioethanol pro-
PBR and OP approach, respectively. Microalgae demanded very lower duced almost 4 times lower CO2 gas since B100 emitted 9.42 kg CO2
WF via both cultivation strategies in comparison with other energy [79]. These findings determined that bioethanol caused the least CO2
crops such as sugarcane, cassava, sorghum biomass shown in Fig. 5. WF emission and even the conventional fuel blended with bioethanol re-
associated with OP cultivation was still premier than PBR since the OP duced the CO2 emission. Bioethanol generation and its’ application in
system with traditional pond culture in an open environment sustaining energy sectors are much more favourable than fossil fuels even other
natural microalgal growth and water surface suspension, unlike PBR. biofuels [6,11]. Other than CO2 emission minimization, microalgae
Moreover, WF study by Hoekstra also demonstrated that crop produc- produced high amount of O2, 1.33 kg O2 kg−1 dry biomass which is
tion consumed the largest global water footprint where green (rain- beneficial for the survival of human, animal and other living beings
water), blue (surface water), grey water (wastewater) have been used except plants, as well as O2, does not act as greenhouse gas by emitting
with 5771 Gm3/y, 899 Gm3/y and 733 Gm3/y, respectively. The ad- or absorbing radiation from atmosphere [11].
vantage of microalgae production is that microalgae biomass can be
cultivated with any these 3 types of water. Usage of greywater for this
3.4. Energy balance analysis
purpose may save more green and blue water for other crop cultivation
which is needed to stabilize food and feed chain [72]. Along with that,
Another crucial component of this project was energy balance
one of the vital facts of WF consumed by microalgae is to re-use the
analysis. In this study, Table 7 and Table 8 delineated energy input-
water for next batch of microalgae cultivation or other essential needs.
output per unit, energy balances for the bioethanol production from
WF is a significant concept for this LCA study in Brunei Darussalam
microalgae on an annual basis and project-lifetime, respectively. In
since the total WF in this country is already high and it is in range with
both of these tables, overall energy input-output was showcased instead
2000–2500 m3/y per capita based on Hoekstra WF analysis [72]. Be-
of different cultivation system basis. Cultivation system demands
sides low WF, microalgae simultaneously proved low LF or land utili-
comparatively less energy investment than drying and extraction pro-
zation and it was only 2 m2 GJ−1 and 13 m2 GJ−1 for PBR and OP
cesses. PBR cultivation requires much more energy consumption than
system, respectively. LF for microalgae appeared as the least among
OP system due to the extra-demand of artificial light (UV light) and
most popular energy crops such as corn grain, sugarcane, cassava,
heat in closed system. Both processes have energy dependency for
sorghum, and jatropa [26,33,64,67,73].
running mixers, pumps and sensors for water and nutrients supply,
mixing and gaseous transfer during cultivation [30]. Based on the da-
3.2. Total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) utilization
taset, required energy for both of these cultivations was approximately
0.7 kg−1 which was expressed as required energy for others. According
Nutrients play a remarkable role in enhancing microalgal growth.
to Table 7, among input energy investment, biomass drying by heat
Nitrogen and phosphorus were listed on top as macronutrients de-
contained the highest energy requirement, 16.48 MJ kg−1 [55,56].
manded rapid growth kinetics. Potassium, magnesium, sulphur and
Usually well-dried biomass is capable of producing more purified and
others were implemented in minor amounts as micronutrients [26]. For
higher quality of biofuel products. The alternative process to dry the
this study, 52.5 g nitrogen and 18.9 g phosphorus were used shown at
biomass can be solar drying which is well-established approach among
Table 5 to produce 1 kg microalgae dry biomass [55,74]. Based on an
experimental study, whole harvesting water was recycled to be utilized
for microalgal growth of next batch and a significant amount of nu-
trients was recovered from recycled this water which was equal to 55%
of total nutrients for next batch microalgae harvesting [26]. Therefore,
application of recycled water for microalgal growth medium is pro-
jected to minimize additional investment for nutrients. Moreover, if the
wastewater from animal farming or industries can be integrated with
the microalgae production plant, the investment of added nutrients
could be eliminated thoroughly [75]. Fig. 6 illustrated the nutrients
utilization (TN and TP) by microalgae from waste while Fig. 6(a) and
(b) represented for manure and industrial wastewater, respectively.
Wastewater is enriched with heterogeneous organic and inorganic nu-
trients (including TN and TP) to stimulate the microalgal growth ki-
netics. Wastewater application as growth supplements influenced the
plant design in two important prospective: economic and environ- Fig. 4. Schematic of microalgal growth vs bioethanol yield for both cultivation
mental by using the inorganic waste to produce value-added products systems.

9
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

Table 3
Output items with simulated gross production rate.
Output Items Simulated Gross Production

Main Product, Bioethanol 57087.5805 gallons y−1

Residual By-product (liquid) for other biofuel raw 10000 gallons y−1
material
By-product, Slurry Cake 8000 kg y−1

Table 4
Water footprint and land footprint of different bioethanol sources.
Energy Crops/Sources Water Footprint (m3 GJ−1) Land Footprint (m2 GJ−1)

Microalgae (PBR) 2 2
Microalgae (OP) 87 13

Fig. 6. (a). Nutrient utilization by microalgae from manure (animal hus-

bandry). (b). Nutrient utilization by microalgae from industrial wastewater
[76,77].

Fig. 5. Microalgae water and land footprint comparison with other popular
energy crops for bioethanol production [14,96]. 3.5. Sensitivity analysis

In this project, a sensitivity analysis was performed based on the key

Asian countries to process microalgae for food-quality and agricultural
assumptions of nutrients input for microalgae growth, growth rate,
purpose. Albeit, sun-drying process cannot be optimized for commercial
carbohydrate enrichment and CO2–O2 balance. Previously different
application since sunlight is nature-regulated approach and cannot be
research studies presented different nutrients input, growth rate of
controlled per demand especially in cold weather [80]. Consequently,
microalgae biomass, carbohydrate amount (main component for bioe-
energy produced by electricity and heat were applied on the current
thanol) and GHG (CO2) generation [24–26,41,55,81–83]. This study
study to dry the biomass, extract bioethanol and other value-added
conducted sensitivity analysis by considering the previous results from
products as well as run the operating systems from cultivation to pur-
minimum to maximum range for each factor to project the highest to
ification of the product [56].
lowest outcome of this plant design. The all key parameters in this
Table 8 outlined the energy balances of the overall project based on
sensitivity analysis were compared with the average inputs and outputs
year and project lifetime. Net energy input covered the energy input of
of both PBR and OP system of the microalgae bioethanol plant.
the project (excluding energy credits) by by-products. The negative
Table 9 mentioned the specific numbers of the key factors used for
number of the net energy balance manifested that the energy produc-
the current study as well as different uncertain scenarios experimented
tion from the project was superior than the energy investment and that
on commercial applications worldwide [55,75]. Sensitivity analysis in
meant absolute favour for the project scheme [6,11]. Net energy ratio
Fig. 8 was projected on the basis of some parameters related to mi-
reflects an energetic impact barometer on the overall process energy
croalgae culture, nutrient consumption variation, CO2 utilization dif-
input. NER less than 1 is desirable for any system to be optimized.
ference, lack of stability in growth rate and intracellular conversion
Table 8 reported that NER for this study is 0.45, thereby it can be
process, the variation of carbohydrate containment what might cause
summarized that energy effectiveness was appropriately fitted for this
uncertainty on the project outcome [84]. The maximum and minimum
project [51]. Net energy input and output scenario were diagrammed in
range of total CO2 and NPOP in this sensitivity analysis did not vary
Fig. 7.
much while a little high variation was shown with Chlorella vulgaris
microalgae growth rate, water and nutrients (TP and TN) and

Table 5
TN and TP assessment.
Nutrient Consumption Amount (g) required to produce per kg microalgae dry Amount required per year (ton Amount required for project life-span (ton
biomass y−1) life-span−1)

TN 52.5 11.58 231.48

TP 18.9 4.17 83.34

10
N. Hossain, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371

Table 6
Life cycle assessment (LCA) simulations on environmental factor CO2 (GHG) and NPOP.
CO2 Usage CO2 Amount(kg) References

CO2 consumption for microalgae dry biomass production per kg 1.83333 [73,75,93]
CO2 consumption for annual biomass production (200000 kg) 366666 (366.666 ton) Calculated
CO2 emission by bioethanol per gallon 2.59 [93,94]
CO2 emission by annual bioethanol produced by the plant (57087.58 gallon) 147800 (147.800 ton) Calculated
Annual Net CO2 Balance 218866 (218.866 ton) Calculated
Net CO2 Balance through plant life-span (20 years) 4377320 (4377.32 ton) Calculated
NPOP per kg microalgae biomass 1.33 Calculated
NPOP for annual biomass (200,000 kg) 266660 (266.660 ton) Calculated
NPOP for plant life-span (20 years) 5333200 (5333.2 ton) Calculated

Table 7 3.5.1. Limitations of sensitivity analysis

Energy input-output per unit. The current sensitivity analysis shown in Fig. 8 was performed
Energy items MJ References
based on the previous experimental dataset. The uncertainties of mi-
croalgal growth rate and carbohydrate content may influence the
Required Electricity for Drying (ERD) 1.23 kg−1 [55] amount of desired bioethanol as well as net bioethanol production per
Required Heat for Drying (EHD) 16.48 kg−1 [55] year. Uncertainties of water consumption for microalgae cultivation
Required Heat for Extraction (EHE) 0.04 kg−1 [55]
Required Electricity for Extraction (EEE) 0.66 kg−1 [55]
may affect the water footprint and energy balance involved with the
Required Energy for Others (EEO) 0.7 kg−1 [55,80] pumping system. Variation in total phosphorus and total nitrogen
Generated energy by main Bioethanol (EBtOH) 89 gallon−1 [95] usages may have impact on both economic and environmental aspects
Generated energy by Residual By-product (liquid), 129 gallon−1 [95] since this study suggested manure and wastewater utilization for mi-
(ERB)
croalgae cultivation. Additional demand of nutrients may cause new
Generated energy by by-product, Slurry Cake (ESC) 25.1 kg−1 [61]
investment in purchasing extra TP and TN. Differences in total CO2
accumulation and net primary O2 productivity can impact on en-
Table 8 vironmental CO2–O2 balance. To demonstrate this point of view, if this
Energy balance calculations. process accumulates less amount of CO2 than expected, the projected
years for CO2 reduction will be prolonged. Another major constraint of
Energy Items GJ y−1 GJ life-time−1
this study was that the sensitivity analysis was not conducted separately
Total Energy Input (Ein) 3822 76440 for OP and PBR cultivation approaches. Moreover, due to the priority of
Energy generation by Residual By-product (liquid), 1290 25800 environmental issues, only microalgae biomass production was em-
(ERB) phasized for this sensitivity analysis while uncertainties related to pre-
Energy generation by by-product, Slurry Cake (ESC) 200.8 4016
treatment methods and conversion technologies were not considered.
Total Energy Output (Eout) 5080.78 101616
Net Energy Input (NEin) 2331.2 46624
Net Energy Balance (NEB) −2749.6 −54992
Net Energy Ratio (NER) 0.45 0.45 3.6. Practical implications, policy, challenges and recommendations

According to the report of MC Biotech, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi

carbohydrate contents. Chlorella vulgaris growth rate maintained var-
iation due to the different cultivation location and growth conditions
that drives the difference on water and nutrient demand and results
different carbohydrate content for different studies [83].
Corporation and Nissui, Brunei Darussalam has a very favourable en-
vironment, air quality and water quality for commercial microalgae
production in large scale. Due to these facilities, MC Biotech has been
officially launched by the Ministry of Energy and Industry in colla-
boration with Japan at Bio-innovation Corridor in Kampong Tungku at
2016. Total 20 million Brunei Dollar has been invested in this industrial

Fig. 7. Energy balance scenario of bioethanol production from microalgae.

11
N. Hossain, et al.
Table 9
Key parameters for sensitivity analysis and different scenarios related to microalgae cultivation (per kg).
Key Parameters for Sensitivity Analysis Current Study
−1
TCO2 content (kg biomass ) 1.83
NPOP (kg biomass−1) 1.33
TN content (g kg biomass−1) 52.5
TP content (g kg biomass−1) 18.9
Make-up water (L kg biomass−1) 373
Carbohydrate Content (% w/w) 41
Growth rate (g m−2 d−1) 25
microalgae production plant and the yearly biomass output 18 metric
ton as raw material for astaxanthin (β-carotene), a dietary supplement
production [85]. The government of Brunei Darussalam also exempted
income tax for 11 years for the commercial biotech company as well as
import duties which causes plenty of costs. Besides that, ministry of
energy and industry also invited foreign direct investments (FDIs)
stating that “What we really need are FDIs, which are able to create
value-added products and services in Brunei Darussalam, and to colla-
borate together with the government agencies and local micro, small
and medium enterprises (MSMEs). We invite FDIs from across the
supply chain to allow the development of robust in-country value
chains and industrial ecosystems. We need FDIs to be able to work
further downstream to ensure that most of the bioprocessing is carried
out in Brunei Darussalam. This can, in turn, create and generate capital,
spin-offs in the local market, employment opportunities, and ulti-
mately, diversify and boost the Brunei economy” [86]. Therefore, the
application of current study is being encouraged to be implemented
with any non-government or individual organization with the colla-
boration of government agencies.
Another recent news of 2018 presented that the first milestone set
by Government of Brunei Darussalam to diversify its power generation
mix with renewable energies. The aim is to produce 954 GW of re-
newable energy or 10% of total energy for power generation mix by
2035. Commercial bioethanol production from microalgae could be a
remarkable option for this agenda. According to the International
Energy Agency, in 2014, Brunei Darussalam initiated national policy
‘Energy White Paper’ declared power generation from renewables with
both small and large scale. This policy prioritized lower CO2 emission
and turning down of environment temperature, renewable energy
policy and regulatory frameworks, scale-up market deployment, raise
awareness and promote human capacity development, support re-
search, development, demonstration and technology transfer [87,88].
This policy encouraged our study to be implemented as a real appli-
cation in Brunei Darussalam.
Techno-economical assessment (TEA) of bioethanol commerciali-
zation from Chlorella vulgaris in Brunei Darussalam indicated profitable
Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis for microalgae biomass production [24–26,41,55,81–83].
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371
Uncertain Scenario 1 (Minimum values) Uncertain Scenario 2 (Maximum values)
1.63 1.96
1.18 1.42
17.5 72.5
12.9 22.7
239 413
35 52
16 36
outlook while the total production cost was US$ 2.22 million per
annum, total bioethanol selling price was US$ 2.87 million/annum and
total by-product selling cost was US$1.6 million/annum. Even with the
sensitivity analysis based on various growth rate, water demand, total
nutrients utilization, CO2 production of similar ranges with this study,
TEA simulation still presented a positive impact economically [30].
Therefore, this LCA has been conducted to evaluate the environmental
attributes for realistic justification of commercial microalgae-bioe-
thanol plant establishment in the country.
Among main sectors of the total system: (i) microalgae cultivation,
(ii) microalgae-bioethanol conversion and (iii) bioethanol purification,
bioethanol purification is the hotspot of the process since purified
bioethanol is the main product to be generated as the alternative fuel
source which is considered as major contributor to green energy.
Bioethanol applications as transportation fuel not only contributed to
the energy sector but also minimized the greenhouse gas emission.
Besides, the cultivation process also played important role to impact
positively on environment by absorbing CO2 for biomass growth and
produce O2. Apart from the CO2 mitigation, microalgae cultivation used
comparatively low amount of water and land than other terrestrial
crops for biofuel purposes as well as microalgae accumulated pollu-
tants: nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater for nutritional demand
— this application purified wastewater which is also environmentally
benign.
Though the first part of this project presented economically benefits
and current study manifested environmental merits, the study still
contains some challenges and that is to be researched further:
- This study considered the energy involvement and environmental
impacts of the initial plant set up with regular biomass productivity
of Chlorella vulgaris species. To achieve higher cell densities, addi-
tional CO2 requirement, CO2 sources, required energy for that's,
further CO2 emission profile impact have not analysed in this study.
Industrial emission of CO2 utilization in algae cultivation is re-
commended to be analysed further.
- For higher microalgae biomass yield besides wastewater
12
N. Hossain, et al.
management, this study emphasized on manure and industrial
wastewater application during cultivation and harvesting stage.
Wastewater contains various nutrients that help cell growth and
minimizes the cost of extra supplements (chemicals). Besides, mi-
croalgae can survive in polluted even toxic environment [89]. Since
this study was projected for mercantile microalgae cultivation for
bioethanol, initial treatment of implemented wastewater will be
required for micro-pollutant removal in order to ensure microalgae
growth consistency. The wastewater treatment approaches, required
energy and cost have not been outlined in this study.
- The environment of Brunei Darussalam is troubled with the in-
creasing rate of CO2. A study mentioned that this country's air
contains 19.5 Mt/person CO2 in 2013 and continuously increasing
afterward. Therefore, minimizing CO2 was the major concern of this
study and only CO2 was emphasized as the main GHG while other
GHGs were not outlined.
Based on the study outcomes, some potential steps will be re-
commended to improve the energy and environmental positivity impact
further in the future and they are:
- Ensure the purity of CO2 from other GHGs needed for the microalgae
cultivation, probably can be connected to the CO2 producing in-
dustries.
- Apply genetically modified microalgae species what might improve
the average biomass productivity precisely 25 g m−2 d−1. Previous
studies presented nano-additive applications with microalgae cul-
ture, extraction and bioethanol production enhanced both biomass
and bioethanol production simultaneously [90]. Therefore, appli-
cation of nano-additives with microalgae-bioethanol is re-
commended for future research.
- Recycle the whole water amount after producing every batch of
microalgae to minimize the nutrient requirement.
- Integration of a low-cost electricity production plant from bioe-
thanol with the projected plant is recommended so that the required
heat and electricity for technological stages can be used without
importing energy from other sources. In line with that, integration
of a solar energy capture system with the plant can contribute
greatly in the climate scenario of Brunei Darussalam to control the
heat and temperature during microalgae cultivation, harvesting and
drying the wet biomass.
4. Conclusions
This current LCA study not only analysed the greenhouse gas but
also simulated the exact energy input, output and balance. NER less
than 0.5 represented the precise energetic effectiveness of this process.
Bioethanol generated very low amount of CO2 from 2.59 kg gallon−1
bioethanol. Thus, the LCA of microalgae-bioethanol proved itself as
energy-saving approach even in large scale application. Since renew-
able energy has appeared as quite new energy concept in Brunei
Darussalam and no commercial plant set up has been performed in this
country yet, these practical and positive implications on environmental
aspect can drag the attraction of government fuel policy for further
implementation. Besides the government funding, this study may en-
courage the fuel industries to commercialize microalgae-bioethanol
plant along with wastewater treatments and CO2 sequestration. For this
mercantile approach implementation, challenges of this study are en-
couraged to overcome with further research and development.
Acknowledgment
The award of Brunei Darussalam Govt. Scholarship to Nazia Hossain
and the Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei
Darussalam are gratefully acknowledged.
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109371.
References
[1] Hossain N, Jalil R. Analyses of bio-energy properties from Malaysian local plants:
Sentang and Sesendok. Asian Pac J Energy Enviro 2015;2:141–4.
[2] Hossain N, Jalil R, Mahlia TMI, Zaini J. Calorific value analysis of Azadirachta ex-
celsa and Endospermum malaccense as potential solid fuels feedstock. Int J Technol
2017;8:634–43.
[3] Silitonga AS, Atabani AE, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Badruddin IA, Mekhilef S. A
review on prospect of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel in Indonesia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15:3733–56.
[4] Hossain N, Zaini JH, Mahlia TMI. A review of bioethanol production from plant-
based waste biomass by yeast fermentation. Int J Technol 2017;8:5–18.
[5] Ho SH, Chen YD, Chang CY, Lai YY, Chen CY, Kondo A, et al. Feasibility of CO2
mitigation and carbohydrate production by microalga Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-
N used for bioethanol fermentation under outdoor conditions: effects of seasonal
changes. Biotechnol Biofuels 2017;10:27.
[6] Jahandideh A, Johnson TJ, Esmaeili N, Johnson MD, Richardson JW,
Muthukumarappan K, et al. Life cycle analysis of a large-scale limonene production
facility utilizing filamentous N2-fixing cyanobacteria. Algal Res 2017;23:1–11.
[7] Hossain N, Jalil R. Sugar and bioethanol production from oil palm trunk(OPT). Asia
Pac J Energy Environ 2015;2:81–4.
[8] Dharma S, Masjuki HH, Ong HC, Sebayang AH, Silitonga AS, Kusumo F, et al.
Optimization of biodiesel production process for mixed Jatropha curcas-Ceiba
pentandra biodiesel using response surface methodology. Energy Convers Manag
2016;115:178–90.
[9] Silitonga A, Mahlia TMI, Kusumo F, Dharma S, Sebayang A, Sembiring RW, et al.
Intensification of Reutealis trisperma biodiesel production using infrared radiation:
simulation, optimisation and validation. Renew Energy 2018;133.
[10] Silitonga AS, Masjuki HH, Ong HC, Sebayang AH, Dharma S, Kusumo F, et al.
Evaluation of the engine performance and exhaust emissions of biodiesel-bioe-
thanol-diesel blends using kernel-based extreme learning machine. Energy
2018;159:1075–87.
[11] von Blottnitz H, Curran MA. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a
transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle
perspective. J Clean Prod 2007;15:607–19.
[12] Milano J, Ong HC, Masjuki HH, Silitonga, Chen W-H, Kusumo F, et al. Optimization
of biodiesel production by microwave irradiation-assisted transesterification for
waste cooking oil-Calophyllum inophyllum oil via response surface methodology.
2018.
[13] Larkum AWD, Ross IL, Kruse O, Hankamer B. Selection, breeding and engineering
of microalgae for bioenergy and biofuel production. Trends Biotechnol
2011;30(4):198–205.
[14] Singh A, Nigam PS, Murphy JD. Renewable fuels from algae: an answer to debatable
land based fuels. Bioresour Technol 2010;102:10–6.
[15] Hossain N, Mahlia TMI. Progress in physicochemical parameters of microalgae
cultivation for biofuel production. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2019;39:835–59.
[16] Sepehri A, Sarrafzadeh M-H. Activity enhancement of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria
and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in activated sludge process: metabolite reduction and
CO2 mitigation intensification process. Appl Water Sci 2019;9:131.
[17] Mohsenpour SF, Willoughby N. Effect of CO2 aeration on cultivation of microalgae
in luminescent photobioreactors. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;85:168–77.
[18] Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from
microalgae in ponds. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:50–6.
[19] Goh B. Sustainability of direct biodiesel synthesis from microalgae biomass: a cri-
tical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;107.
[20] Ahmed A, Abu Bakar MS, Azad AK, Sukri RS, Mahlia TMI. Potential thermochemical
conversion of bioenergy from Acacia species in Brunei Darussalam: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:3060–76.
[21] Ahmed A, Abu Bakar MS, Azad AK, Sukri RS, Phusunti N. Intermediate pyrolysis of
Acacia cincinnata and Acacia holosericea species for bio-oil and biochar production.
Energy Convers Manag 2018;176:393–408.
[22] Iqbal M, Khan FU. Hybrid vibration and wind energy harvesting using combined
piezoelectric and electromagnetic conversion for bridge health monitoring appli-
cations. Energy Convers Manag 2018;172:611–8.
[23] Standardization IOf. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management -Life cycle as-
sessment -Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for
Standardization; 2006. p. 46.
[24] Collet P, Spinelli D, Lardon L, Helias A, Steyer JP, Bernard O. Life-cycle assessment
of microalgal-based biofuels. Biofuels Algae 2013:287–312.
[25] Lardon L, Helias A, Sialve B, Steyer JP, Bernard O. Life-cycle assessment of biodiesel
production from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:6475–81.
[26] Yang J, Xu M, Zhang X, Hu Q, Sommerfeld M, Chen Y. Life-cycle analysis on bio-
diesel production from microalgae: water footprint and nutrients balance. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:159–65.
[27] Black MJ. Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability calculations for biofuel supply
chains. Greenhouse Gas emissions from biofuels and bioenergy. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Imperial College London.
[28] Voet E, Huppes G. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of bioethanol from
sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:43–56.
N. Hossain, et al.
[29] Davis U. Sacramento river: feather river watershed report card. California, USA:
Information Centre for the Environment; 2002.
[30] Hossain N, Mahlia TMI, Zaini J, Saidur R. Techno-economics and sensitivity ana-
lysis of microalgae as commercial feedstock for bioethanol production. Environ
Prog Sustain Energy 2019:1–14.
[31] Luo D, Hu Z, Choi DJ, Thomas VM, Realff MJ, Chance RR. Life cycle energy and
greenhouse gas emissions for an ethanol production process based on blue-green
algae. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:8670–7.
[32] Merchant SS, Prochnik SE, Vallon O, Harris EH, Karpowicz SJ, Witman GB, et al.
The Chlamydomonas genome reveals the evolution of key animal and plant func-
tions. Science 2007;318:245–50.
[33] Mayers JJ, Ekman Nilsson A, Svensson E, Albers E. Integrating microalgal pro-
duction with industrial outputs—reducing process inputs and quantifying the
benefits. Ind Biotechnol 2016;12:219–34.
[34] Ong HC, Masjuki HH, Mahlia TMI, Silitonga AS, Chong WT, Leong KY. Optimization
of biodiesel production and engine performance from high free fatty acid
Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag
2014;81:30–40.
[35] Hossain N, Zaini J, Mahlia TMI. Experimental investigation of energy properties for
Stigonematales sp. microalgae as potential biofuel feedstock. Int J Sustain Eng
2018;12:123–30.
[36] Liu H, Huang Y, Yuan H, Yin X, Wu C. Life cycle assessment of biofuels in China:
status and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;97:301–22.
[37] Sun C, Xia A, Liao Q, Fu Q, Huang Y, Zhu X. Life-cycle assessment of biohythane
production via two-stage anaerobic fermentation from microalgae and food waste.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;112:395–410.
[38] Grierson S, Strezov V, Bengtsson J. Life cycle assessment of a microalgae biomass
cultivation, bio-oil extraction and pyrolysis processing regime. Algal Res
2013;2:299–311.
[39] Ye C, Mu D, Horowitz N, Xue Z, Chen J, Xue M, et al. Life cycle assessment of
industrial scale production of spirulina tablets. Algal Res 2018;34:154–63.
[40] Uddin MN, Techato K, Taweekun J, Rahman MM, Rasul MG, Mahlia TMI, et al. An
overview of recent developments in biomass pyrolysis technologies. Energies
2018;11.
[41] Chen C-Y, Zhao X-Q, Yen H-W, Ho S-H, Cheng C-L, Lee D-J, et al. Microalgae-based
carbohydrates for biofuel production. Biochem Eng J 2013;78:1–10.
[42] Simas-Rodrigues C, Villela HDM, Martins AP, Marques LG, Colepicolo P, Tonon AP.
Microalgae for economic applications: advantages and perspectives for bioethanol.
J Exp Bot 2015;66:4097–108.
[43] Mofijur M, Rasul MG, Hassan NMS, Nabi MN. Recent development in the produc-
tion of third generation biodiesel from microalgae. Energy Procedia 2019;156:53–8.
[44] Franceschina G, Sudiroa M, Ingramb T, Smirnovab I, Brunnerb G, Bertuccoa A.
Conversion of rye straw into fuel and xylitol: a technical and economical assessment
based on experimental data. Chem Eng Res Des 2011;89:631–40.
[45] Tredici MR, Rodolfi L, Biondi N, Bassi N, Sampietro G. Techno-economic analysis of
microalgal biomass production in a 1-ha Green Wall Panel (GWP®) plant. Algal Res
2016;19:253–63.
[46] Goh CS, Lee KT. A visionary and conceptual macroalgae-based third-generation
bioethanol (TGB) biorefinery in Sabah, Malaysia as an underlay for renewable and
sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:842–8.
[47] Algaetech international to commence work on Brunei astaxanthin production fa-
cility by year-end. Oilgae; 2016.
[48] Hossain N, Zaini J, Mahlia TMI, Azad AK. Elemental, morphological and thermal
analysis of mixed microalgae species from drain water. Renew Energy
2019;131:617–24.
[49] Xinhua. Algae taking over Brunei's reefs: marine biologist. Asia and Pacific Edition
2016.
[50] APEC. APEC Energy demand and supply outlook-5th edition Brunei Darussalam. 5
ed. Brunei Darussalam: Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre; 2009. p. 11–20.
[51] Bennion EP, Ginosar DM, Moses J, Agblevor F, Quinn JC. Lifecycle assessment of
microalgae to biofuel: comparison of thermochemical processing pathways. Appl
Energy 2015;154:1062–71.
[52] Hossain N, Zaini J, Jalil R, Mahlia TMI. The efficacy of the period of saccharification
on oil palm (elaeis guineensis) trunk sap hydrolysis. Int J Technol 2018;9:652–62.
[53] Gendy TS, El-Temtamy SA. Commercialization potential aspects of microalgae for
biofuel production: an overview. Egypt J Petrol 2013;22:43–51.
[54] Sivaramakrishnan R, Incharoensakdi A. Utilization of microalgae feedstock for
concomitant production of bioethanol and biodiesel. Fuel 2018;217:458–66.
[55] Yuan J, Kendall A, Zhang Y. Mass balance and life cycle assessment of biodiesel
from microalgae incorporated with nutrient recycling options and technology un-
certainties. GCB Bioenergy 2015;7:1245–59.
[56] Ntihuga J, Senn T, Gschwind P, Kohlus R. Estimating energy- and eco-balances for
continuous bio-ethanol production using a Blenke Cascade system. Energies
2013;6:2065–83.
[57] Norhasyima RS, Mahlia TMI. Advances in CO₂ utilization technology: a patent
landscape review. J CO2 Util 2018;26:323–35.
[58] Hershey D. Botany. MadSci Network; 2006.
[59] Calculating Net Primary Productivity. Globe carbon cycle. Durham, New
Hampshire: University of New Hampshire; 2012.
[60] Shafie SM, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH. Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing
with coal power generation in Malaysia. Energy 2013;57:284–94.
[61] Beal CM, Gerber LN, Sills DL, Huntley ME, Machesky SC, Walsh MJ, et al. Algal
biofuel production for fuels and feed in a 100-ha facility: a comprehensive techno-
economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Algal Res 2015;10:266–79.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019) 109371
[62] Chaudhary L, Pradhan P, Soni N. Algae as a feedstock for bioethanol production:
new entrance in biofuel world. Int J ChemTech Res 2014;6:1381–9.
[63] Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and
derived crop products. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2011;15:1577–600.
[64] Mathioudakis V, Gerbens-Leenes PW, Van der Meer TH, Hoekstra AY. The water
footprint of second-generation bioenergy: a comparison of biomass feedstocks and
conversion techniques. J Clean Prod 2017;148:571–82.
[65] Giljum S, Lutter S, Bruckner M, Aparcana S. State-of-play OF national consumption
based indicators: a review and evaluation of available methods and data to calcu-
late footprint-type (consumption-based) indicators for materials, water, land and
carbon. Vienna, Austria: Sustainable Europe Research Institute; 2013. p. 1–37.
[66] Nassar AM, Harfuch L, Bachion LC, Moreira MR. Biofuels and land-use changes:
searching for the top model. Interface focus 2011;1:224–32.
[67] De Schutter L, Giljum S. A calculation of the EU Bioenergy land footprint. Vienna,
Austria: Institute for the Environment and Regional Development, Vienna
University of Economics and Business (WU); 2014. p. 23.
[68] Ghosh A, Vijay Anand KG, Seth A. Life cycle impact assessment of seaweed based
biostimulant production from onshore cultivated Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty)
Doty ex Silva—is it environmentally sustainable? Algal Res 2015;12:513–21.
[69] Hoffman J, Pate RC, Drennen T, Quinn JC. Techno-economic assessment of open
microalgae production systems. Algal Res 2017;23:51–7.
[70] Ong HC, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Honnery D. Life cycle cost and sensitivity ana-
lysis of palm biodiesel production. Fuel 2012;98:131–9.
[71] Hoekstra A. The water footprint: the relation between human consumption and
water use. 2015. p. 35–48.
[72] Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM. The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci
2012;109:3232.
[73] Slade R, Bauen A. Micro-algae cultivation for biofuels: cost, energy balance, en-
vironmental impacts and future prospects. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;53:29–38.
[74] Current environmental issues and challenges. Springer Science & Business; 2014.
[75] Handler RM, Shonnard DR, Kalnes TN, Lupton FS. Life cycle assessment of algal
biofuels: influence of feedstock cultivation systems and conversion platforms. Algal
Res 2014;4:105–15.
[76] Umamaheswari J, Shanthakumar S. Efficacy of microalgae for industrial waste-
water treatment: a review on operating conditions, treatment efficiency and bio-
mass productivity. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2016;15:265–84.
[77] Fenton O, hUallacháin DO. Agricultural nutrient surpluses as potential input
sources to grow third generation biomass (microalgae): a review. Algal Res
2012;1:49–56.
[78] Dutta S, Neto F, Coelho MC. Microalgae biofuels: a comparative study on techno-
economic analysis & life-cycle assessment. Algal Res 2016;20:44–52.
[79] Energy USDoeditor. How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and
diesel fuel? Washington, DC 20585, U.S.: U.S. Energy Information Administration;
2016.
[80] Sander K, Murthy GS. Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2010;15:704–14.
[81] Chisti Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 2007;25:294–306.
[82] Matos ÂP, Torres RCdO, Morioka LRI, Moecke EHS, França KB, Sant'Anna ES.
GrowingChlorella vulgarisin photobioreactor by continuous process using con-
centrated desalination: effect of dilution rate on biochemical composition. Int J
Chem Eng 2014;2014:1–6.
[83] Ho SH, Huang SW, Chen CY, Hasunuma T, Kondo A, Chang JS. Bioethanol pro-
duction using carbohydrate-rich microalgae biomass as feedstock. Bioresour
Technol 2013;135:191–8.
[84] Hirano A, Ueda R, Hirayama S, Ogushi Y. CO2 fixation and ethanol production with
microalgal photosynthesis and intracellular anaerobic fermentation. Energy
1997;22:137–42.
[85] Kaneda Y. Why MC biotech chose Brunei. 2016 ed. Brunei: The Worldfolio; 2016.
[86] Brunei Kon J. Minister launches country's 1st commercial biotech facility. Brunei:
Halal Focus; 2016.
[87] Gnanasagaran A. Brunei's shift towards renewables. The Asean Post. Digital Media
Nusantara; 2018.
[88] Department E, editor. Energy white paper. Brunei prime minister's office Brunei
Darussalam; 2013. p. 1–84.
[89] Lavrinovičs A, Juhna T. Review on challenges and limitations for algae-based
wastewater treatment. 2017.
[90] Hossain N, Mahlia TMI, Saidur R. Latest development in microalgae-biofuel pro-
duction with nano-additives. Biotechnol Biofuels 2019;12:125.
[91] Richardson JW, Johnson MD, Zhang X, Zemke P, Chen W, Hu Q. A financial as-
sessment of two alternative cultivation systems and their contributions to algae
biofuel economic viability. Algal Res 2014;4:96–104.
[92] Richardson JW, Outlaw JL, Allison M. The economics of microalgae oil.
AgBioforum 2010;13:119–30.
[93] Menetrez MY. An overview of algae biofuel production and potential environmental
impact. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:7073–85.
[94] Zhao L, Zhang X, Xu J, Ou X, Chang S, Wu M. Techno-economic analysis of bioe-
thanol production from lignocellulosic biomass in China: dilute-acid pretreatment
and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Energies 2015;8:4096–117.
[95] Energy in natural processes and human consumption - some numbers. 2005.
Washington DC., US.
[96] Usher PK, Ross AB, Camargo-Valero MA, Tomlin AS, Gale WF. An overview of the
potential environmental impacts of large scale microalgae cultivation. Biofuels
2014;5:331–49.