MITIGADAPTSTRATEGGLOBCHANGE Microalgae

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/257622995
Microalgae: A promising tool for carbon sequestration
Article in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s11027-012-9393-3
CITATIONS READS
77 4,586
2 authors:
Uday Bhan Singh Amrik Singh Ahluwalia

Panjab University Panjab University
18 PUBLICATIONS 264 CITATIONS 84 PUBLICATIONS 717 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Cyanobacterial and Algal interactions influencing Blooom sequence in a fresh water body View project
allelopathic interactions among algae, Spirulina as nutraceutical and algae in bioremediation of wastewater/dye effluents. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Uday Bhan Singh on 08 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Microalgae: a promising tool for carbon
sequestration
Uday Bhan Singh & A. S. Ahluwalia
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

for Global Change
An International Journal Devoted to
Scientific, Engineering, Socio-Economic
and Policy Responses to Environmental
Change
ISSN 1381-2386
Volume 18
Number 1
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2013)

18:73-95
DOI 10.1007/s11027-012-9393-3
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2013) 18:73–95
DOI 10.1007/s11027-012-9393-3
Microalgae: a promising tool for carbon sequestration
Uday Bhan Singh & A. S. Ahluwalia
Received: 6 February 2012 / Accepted: 11 May 2012 / Published online: 1 June 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Increasing trends in global warming already evident, the likelihood of further rise
continuing, and their impacts give urgency to addressing carbon sequestration technologies
more coherently and effectively. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for over half the warming
potential of all greenhouse gases (GHG), due to the dependence of world economies on fossil
fuels. The processes involving CO2 capture and storage (CCS) are gaining attention as an
alternative for reducing CO2 concentration in the ambient air. However, these technologies are
considered as short-term solutions, as there are still concerns about the environmental sustain-
ability of these processes. A promising technology could be the biological capture of CO2 using
microalgae due to its unmatched advantages over higher plants and ocean fertilization.
Microalgae are phototrophic microorganisms with simple nutritional requirements, and com-
prising the major primary producers on this planet. Specific pathways include autotrophic
production via both open pond or closed photobioreactor (PBR) systems. Photosynthetic
efficiency of microalgae ranged from 10–20 % in comparison with 1–2 % of most terrestrial
plants. Some algal species, during their exponential growth, can double their biomass in periods
as short as 3.5 hours. Moreover, advantage of being tolerant of high concentration of CO2 (flue
gas), low light intensity requirements, environmentally sustainable, and co-producing added
value products put these as the favoured organisms. Advantages of microalgae in comparison
with other sequestration methodologies are discussed, which includes the cultivation systems,
the key process parameters, wastewater treatment, harvesting and the novel bio-products
produced by microalgal biomass.
Keywords Microalgae biomass . Global warming . Global carbon cycle . Carbon dioxide
sequestration . Algaculture . Photosynthetic efficiency . Kyoto protocol . Bioreactor .
Wastewater treatment
U. B. Singh : A. S. Ahluwalia (*)

Laboratory of Algal Biology and Diversity, Department of Botany, Panjab University,
Chandigarh 160 014, India
e-mail: ubsday@gmail.com
U. B. Singh
e-mail: ubsday@yahoo.co.in
74 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2013) 18:73–95
1 Introduction
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-eighteenth century, the release of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from anthropogenic activities has resulted in an increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from approximately 280 parts per million
(ppm) in 1750 to 390 ppm in 2010 (Kumar et al. 2011), with as much as 50 % of the increase
occurring in the last three decades, leading to global warming. While CO2 levels and global
temperatures were higher in the geological past, it is the current rate of change that will pose a
problem for biota. Keeling curve is graphical representation, showing seasonal and annual
changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in
Hawaii. It is thought to represent the first evidence of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The curve clearly shows that average concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have risen from about
316 ppm in 1959 to approximately 370 ppm in 2000 and 390 ppm in 2010. After 1970, the
curve shows increase by roughly 2 ppm per year, which is a matter of big concern. Keeling
curve clearly shows a progressively faster rise in the concentration of CO2 (Kumar et al. 2011).
A total global CO2 emission from all sources has already reached 48 Gigatons (Gt) in 2010. The
median level of emissions has to reduce to 44 Gt if we have to limit global warming to 2 °C
(Rogelj et al. 2011). It is estimated that natural processes remove only about 12 Gt of carbon.
This concern led to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol
(UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol) promotion with the objective of reducing GHGs by 5.2 % based on
the emissions in 1990 (Wang et al. 2008). Therefore, compatible mitigation strategies are
required to neutralize the excess CO2 (Bilanovic et al. 2009).
Unless future GHGs reduction efforts, under UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol, are much more
successful than they have been so far, additional action should become necessary to cool the
earth. Such action might involve geoengineering, which is defined as deliberate large-scale
engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in
atmospheric chemistry, in particular, to mediate the effects of elevated greenhouse gas,
especially CO2 concentrations. In contrast, mitigation refers to activities that reduce anthro-
pogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2). The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007a) concluded that geoengineering proposals are ‘largely
speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects’. There are several
mitigation strategies for capture and sequestration of CO2. Attempts have been made to
mitigate the GHGs emissions from anthropogenic activities, especially in the case of large
point source emissions, through various mechanisms and protocols. The strategies that have
been intensively studied are included in the carbon capture and storage (CCS) methodolo-
gies. CCS technologies form an integral part of these CO2 mitigation measures considering
their potential for GHGs emissions’ abatement (Gough 2008). CCS covers three steps: CO2
capture, its transportation and storage. The storage options comprise geological storage,
deep-ocean injection and mineralization. However, several technological, economic and
environmental issues, as well as safety problems, remain to be solved. These procedures
should only be considered as short-term solutions.
As an alternative, photosynthesis has long been recognized as a means to sequester CO2
(Jeong et al. 2003). The use of biomass for sequestration is not normally regarded as carbon
sequestration (IPCC 2005; Royal Society 2008); rather it is considered to be a means of reducing
emissions. Biological CO2 capture can be performed through enhancement of natural sinks: (i)
forestation (terrestrial); (ii) ocean fertilization; and (iii) microalgal cultures (Berberoglu et al.
2009). Benemann (1997) and Hase et al. (2000) have worked out the usefulness of photosyn-
thetic organisms in CO2 bio-mitigation. Microalgae are unicellular and simple multicellular
photosynthetic microorganisms, be they eukaryotes (for instance, green algae) or prokaryotes
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2013) 18:73–95 75
(Cyanobacteria) (Li et al. 2008). Over the past few years, several studies have highlighted the
need to determine the potential of microalgae cultivation systems to reduce CO2 emissions
(Herzog and Drake 1996; Stewart and Hessami 2005; Wang et al. 2008). It has been estimated
that microalgae produce approximately half of the atmospheric oxygen and simultaneously use
CO2 to grow photoautotrophically (Tabatabaei et al. 2011). Microalgae have much higher
growth rates and CO2 fixation compared to conventional forestry, agricultural, and aquatic
plants (Li et al. 2008) and this make them suitable candidates for removing CO2. These
microorganisms have the ability to fix CO2 using solar energy with efficiency 10 times greater
than that of terrestrial plants due to their energy conserving structures. The phototropic micro-
algae are most commonly grown in open ponds and photobioreactors (Patil et al. 2005). The
continuous cultivation of algae would not only help in bio-fixation of CO2, but also yield value-
added products from biomass such as proteins, fatty acids, vitamin A, minerals, pigments,
dietary supplements for human, animals and aquaculture and other bio-compounds (Lopez et al.
2009). Microalgae-mediated CO2 fixation can be rendered more sustainable by coupling micro-
algal biomass production with existing power generation and wastewater treatment infrastruc-
ture (Kumar et al. 2010).
The current paper aims to present the current scenario about the microalgal CO2 fixation,
their cultivation, processing and applications to be economically competitive with other bio-
mitigation and CCS methodologies. Major objective of this paper is to provide sufficient
information about the role of microalgal organisms in sequestering CO2 more efficiently
compared to higher plants and other means available, in addition, possibilities and potential
in utilizing flue gas and effluents for their nourishment and CO2 sequestration.
2 International response to climate change
International response to climate change was the signing of UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol in 1997,
which assigned legally-binding emission reduction commitments to developed countries. The
hallmark of the protocol is market-based instruments, which can earn carbon credits and sell
them in the free market. One of the instruments relevant here is the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), which allows industrialized countries with a GHGs reduction commitment
to invest in emission reducing projects in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable
certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one ton of CO2. Since 2006, the
mechanism has already registered more than 1,650 projects and is anticipated to produce CER
amounting to more than 2.9 Gt of CO2 equivalents in the first commitment period of 2008–2012.
The algal dry biomass composition contains up to 46 % Carbon (C), 10 % Nitrogen (N) and 1 %
Phosphates (P) and 1 kg of dry algal biomass utilize up to 1.7 kg CO2 (Hu et al. 2008). So, the
microalgal sequestration projects can qualify as Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects
and bring in additional income through the sale of Certified Emission Reductions (CER).
The UN FCCC Cancun Agreements formalized the commitment made by developed
countries in Copenhagen Denmark to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the
mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. Importantly, the Cancun Confer-
ence decided to establish a “Green Climate Fund” (World Bank Report 2011).
3 Why carbon sequestration is necessary
According to the growing population rate and standard of living worldwide, the need for carbon
sequestration can be explained through Kaya Equation popularized by Professor Yoichi Kaya
from the University of Tokyo (Kaya 1989). This equation expresses CO2 emissions as follows:
NETðCO2 Þ ¼ ðPOPÞ ½GDP=POP ½E=GDP ½CO2 =E S

Where,
POP Population that demands and consumes energy.
GDP/POP Per-capita gross domestic product
(aggregate measure of standard of living).
E/GDP Energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product
(aggregate measure of energy intensity of the economy).
CO2/E Amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed
(aggregate measure of the carbon intensity).
S Induced sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Continued growth implies that population (POP), and the standards of living (GDP/POP)
continue to rise. Therefore, one or more of the remaining three terms in Kaya Equation must
change for the economy to grow while carbon emissions decrease. These important param-
eters are energy intensity, carbon intensity and induced carbon sequestration. Finally, carbon
sequestration can be developed to reduce CO2 emissions while at the same time, enabling the
continued use of fossil fuels for energy.
4 Global carbon cycle
Units used:
1 Pgð1 PetagramÞ ¼ 1 billion metric ton ¼ 1015 grams ¼ 1 Gt ðgiga tonÞ
¼ 109 Mtðmetric tonsÞ
The carbon cycle is a complex series of processes through which all the carbon atoms on
earth recycle. The carbon cycle is of major interest in basic and applied ecology (Chapin et
al. 2002). Most biological and human activities are powered by biochemical transformations
of carbon, CO2 uptake and energy fixation in organic compounds through photosynthesis,
subsequent oxidation of organic compounds and release of energy, and CO2 through
respiration and fossil fuels combustion. Carbon sequestration is intimately tied to two carbon
cycles the natural and the fossil fuel cycle. Understanding aspects of both cycles provides a
context for developing carbon sequestration options.
Although natural transfer of CO2 is approximately 20 times greater than those due to human
activity, they are normally in a near balance position. The additional carbon resulting from
anthropogenic activities-primarily the burning of fossil fuels, industrial processes and land-use
changes-have led to emissions of various GHG and have altered the global carbon cycle (IPCC
2007b). Folger (2009) highlighted that nearly 7.2 GtC/year is added to the atmosphere through
fossil fuels combustion, while land and ocean vegetation (including microalgae) sequester
about 2.8 GtC/year, thus leaving a major share of carbon in the atmosphere.
Parties to the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol have accepted a 2 °C temperature increase above
pre-industrial levels as a maximum tolerable limit for global warming. An exceedance proba-
bility of below 20 percent for this limit implies an emission budget of less than 250 Gt from
2000 until 2049, of which more than one third has already been emitted by now. Extrapolating
the current global CO2 emissions, this budget will last until 2024 (Meinshausen et al. 2009).
These numbers emphasize that all options, including geoengineering options, need to be consid-
ered to mitigate climate change (Buesseler et al. 2008). Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate
large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system in order to moderate global warming and
eventually stabilize the temperature at a lower level than would otherwise be attained. Many
experts prefer the term “climate engineering” (CE) as more accurately describing the most widely
discussed current concepts of modifying the climate to curtail harmful effects of global warming.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques of geoengineering address the root cause of
climate change by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere whereas solar radiation
management (SRM) techniques attempt to offset effects of increased GHGs concentrations by
causing the earth to absorb less solar radiation. Changing global temperatures without lowering
the level of GHGs concentrations is a source of much of the concern about SRM (Lenton and
Vaughan 2009). One possible risk is the lessening of rainfall, weakening of the Indian or
African monsoons is a particular worry. In most respects, CDR methods would be preferable to
SRM methods because they effectively return the climate system to closer to its natural state,
and so involve fewer uncertainties and risks (Royal Society 2009). Pielke (2009) described a
number of possible air capture technologies and noted, “The most straightforward means of air
capture is simply through photosynthesis.” Thus, biomass could fuel power plants operating
with carbon capture and storage systems. Similar concepts involve fertilizing the ocean using
nitrogen, iron, or phosphorous as a route to increasing carbon storage in deep-ocean sinks.
5 Different approaches to sequester carbon
The idea of sequestering carbon mainly includes two approaches (Fig. 1). First approach
involves capturing carbon from the fossil fuels use before it reaches the atmosphere. The
captured CO2 could be concentrated into a liquid or gas stream that could be transported and
injected into the ocean or deep underground geological formations such as oil and gas
reservoirs. Biological and chemical processes may convert captured CO2 directly into stable
products. In second approach, carbon can also be captured and sequestered by enhancing the
ability of terrestrial or ocean ecosystems to absorb it naturally and store it in a stable form.
5.1 Terrestrial carbon sequestration
Terrestrial ecosystems are made up of vegetation and soils containing microbial and inver-
tebrate communities. Such ecosystems sequester CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The
terrestrial ecosystem is essentially a huge natural biological scrubber for CO2 from fossil
fuels emission sources. Computer models indicate that terrestrial ecosystems (forests, soils,
farm crops, pastures, tundras and wetlands) have a net carbon accumulation of about one-
fourth of the total emissions released into the atmosphere by fossil fuels combustion and
land-use changes. Enhanced terrestrial uptake of CO2 over the next 50–100 years has been
suggested as a way to reclaim the 150 or more Pg carbon lost to the atmosphere from
vegetation and soil since 1850 as a consequence of land-use change (Lal et al. 1998). There
is a strong inter-dependence between climate and soil quality (Jenny 1980).
There are two fundamental approaches to sequestering carbon in terrestrial ecosystems: (i)
protection of ecosystem that store carbon so that sequestration can be maintained and; (ii)
manipulation of ecosystems to remove and sequester more carbon from the atmosphere. The
sequestered carbon can be maintained by improving agricultural cultivation practices to reduce
oxidation of soil carbon through enhancing soil texture and by protecting wetlands. The
terrestrial biosphere is a large and accessible reservoir for sequestering atmospheric CO2.
Fig. 1 Various steps in production of carbon dioxide (CO2), its release in the atmosphere and sequestration
possibilities
5.2 Ocean carbon sequestration
The ocean contains the largest carbon pool. For instance, photosynthesis occurring in the oceans
is responsible for approximately 40 % of the overall amount of carbon annually fixed on the
planet (Jacob-Lopes et al. 2008). The oceans have absorbed nearly a third of the anthropogenic
carbon emissions released so far (Feely et al. 2009). The idea is to increase the ocean carbon
sequestration by enhancing the growth rate of oceanic plant life, such as phytoplankton and
algae. Applying nutrients and fertilizers to the ocean is one method of promoting algal growth.
5.3 Deep ocean injection
The direct injection of CO2 into the ocean requires starting with a fairly concentrated stream
of CO2 and delivering it to locations in the oceans where it will be effectively sequestered
over hundreds of years. Physical capture of CO2 in the deep ocean was first proposed by
Marchetti (1977). In the United States, preliminary studies were conducted at Brookhaven
National Laboratory (Steinberg 1984). However, it was not until 1990 that planned research
efforts were undertaken in this field.
A limitation of direct CO2 injection is that depths of greater than 1000 m are necessary for
facilitating the storage of liquefied CO2. A little is known about optimizing injection strategies and
technologies to monitor the injection site and surrounding area (Herzog et al. 1997). Furthermore,
there are concerns about the effect of carbon dioxide on the acidity of oceanic water.
5.4 Geological carbon sequestration
Geologic formations are likely to provide the first large-scale opportunity for injection of
concentrated CO2. There are a variety of potential geologic carbon sequestration options for
long-term storage (Herzog et al. 1997). This is not really a new concept. For example, CO2 is
currently injected into more than 70 operating oilfields to enhance oil production. The first
commercial CO2 capture and sequestration facility began in September 1996, when Statoil
of Norway began storing CO2 from the Sleipner West gas field in a sandstone formation
1,000 m beneath the North Sea. Three principal types of geologic formations have the
potential to store a large amount of CO2: Active and depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal-bed
methane formations, and deep aquifers.
6 Ocean fertilization
Carbon dioxide released either naturally or by the human activities, undergoes a regular
cycle between the atmosphere, land, ocean, and biological organisms. Of the carbon that
readily exchanges between oceans and atmosphere and land vegetation, the great majority is
in the deep ocean (about 35,000 Gt) compared with about 750 Gt in the atmosphere. Carbon
dioxide in the surface ocean rapidly exchanges with the atmosphere, while the transfer of
CO2 into the deep sea is much slower. Carbon dioxide is fixed from surface waters by
photosynthesizers—mostly through microscopic plants (algae).
The ability of the biological pump to draw carbon down into deeper waters is limited by the
supply of nutrients available that allow net algal growth in the surface layer. Methods have been
proposed to add otherwise limiting nutrients to the surface waters, and so promote algal growth,
and enhance the biological pump. This would remove CO2 faster from the surface layer of the
ocean, and thereby; it is assumed (sometimes incorrectly), from the atmosphere. Over the
majority of the open oceans the ‘limiting nutrient’ is thought to be (N). One suggestion,
therefore, has been to add a source of fixed (N) such as urea as an ocean fertilizer. Phosphate
(P) is also close to limiting over much of the ocean. Finally, some important regions, such as the
Equatorial Pacific and Southern Ocean, have abundant N and P, but have been shown to be
limited by the lack of iron (Fe). These are the ‘High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll’, or HNLC
regions. Additions of these nutrients have been suggested as a possible means of enhancing the
biological pump in deep waters (Lampitt et al. 2008; Smetacek and Naqvi 2008).
The quantity of nutrients needed to affect the carbon cycle depends on the relative amounts
of elements which algae use in building their organic tissue. The Redfield ratios of the nutrient
elements to carbon in algal tissues for (C) carbon:N:P:Fe are typically quoted as 106:16:1:0.001
(Sarmiento and Gruber 2006). Fertilization with N, if fully effective, might therefore, lock up in
the order of six carbon atoms for each atom of N added. One atom of P might sequester about
100 atoms of carbon whereas one atom of Fe could theoretically stimulate production of
100,000 organic carbon atoms. Hence most attention has been paid to Fe fertilization, since
the quantity of material required is relatively very small.
Iron fertilization is by far the best studied artificial ocean fertilization technique. Begin-
ning with the experimental work of Martin and Fitzwater (1988), (Fe) has been recognized
for more than two decades as important micronutrient regulating marine productivity and
associated biogeochemistry over large ocean areas. This insight immediately led Gribbin
(1988) to the suggestion that adding (Fe) compounds to the ocean might present a practi-
cable “technological fix” to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, a
number of in-situ ocean iron fertilization (OIF) experiments have confirmed that phyto-
plankton growth is limited by iron in the three major High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll
(HNLC) regions, i.e., the Southern Ocean (Boyd et al. 2000), the eastern equatorial Pacific
(Martin et al. 1994), and the subarctic North Pacific (Tsuda et al. 2003).
The potential of OIF to enhance the oceanic carbon sink is questioned, in particular, due
to its uncertain efficacy and side effects. It is argued that fertilization could directly affect the
atmosphere–ocean system, resulting in changes to ocean circulation, modified surface water

temperature and change in pH. This has led some authors to conclude that research and in
particular, large-scale experiments on ocean iron fertilization OIF should not be further
pursued (Strong et al. 2009). Public attitudes towards geoengineering, and public engage-
ment in the development of individual methods proposed, will have a critical bearing on its
future. Perception of the risks involved, levels of trust in those undertaking researches or
implementation, and the transparency of actions, purposes and vested interests, will deter-
mine the political feasibility of geoengineering.
7 Primary productivity
Primary productivity can be defined as the production of organic macromolecules from

atmospheric or aquatic CO2, principally through the process of photosynthesis. It can be
distinguished into net primary production (NPP) or gross primary production (GPP). GPP is
the total amount of energy fixed by primary producers in a given area or ecosystem. Small
fraction of this fixed energy is utilized by primary producers for their cellular respiration and
maintenance. The remaining fixed energy is referred to as NPP. NPP refers to the rate at
which new biomass accrues in an ecosystem. Therefore, NPP0GPP-R (Respiration), Auto-
trophic respiration<NPP, and Heterotrophic respiration>NPP. Both gross and net primary
productions are in units of mass/area/time. In terrestrial regions, primary producers are
mainly comprised of plants, while in aquatic ecosystems, microalgae are the principal
organisms. Various factors including local hydrology and temperature are significant for
terrestrial primary production (Clark et al. 2001). Terrestrial systems have high biomass, but
slow turnover of primary producers. In terrestrial ecosystems, NPP estimates based on biomass,
results in underestimation of NPP due to incomplete accounting of its components (Scurlock et
al. 2002). Oceans have low biomass but rapid turnover of primary producers compared to land
pattern where it is just the reverse. Algae contribute immensely to the primary productivity on
this planet (Hader and Figueroa 1997). Using satellite-derived estimates of the normalized
difference vegetation index for terrestrial habitats and sea-surface chlorophyll for the oceans, it
is estimated that the total photoautotrophic primary production for the Earth was 104.9 GtC/
year, of this, 56.4 GtC/year, was the product of terrestrial organisms, while the remaining 48.5
GtC/year, was accounted for by oceanic production (Field et al. 1998).
8 Algaculture
Algaculture is a form of aquaculture involving the farming of species of algae. The study of
these freshwater and marine algae has generated a wealth of information concerning their
physiology, biochemistry, and cultivation (Anderson 2005). Under natural growth condi-
tions, phototrophic algae absorb sunlight, and assimilate CO2 from the air and nutrients from
the aquatic habitats. Therefore, as far as possible, artificial production should attempt to
replicate and enhance the optimum natural growth conditions. The majority of algae that are
purposefully cultivated fall into the category of microalgae. Macroalgae, commonly known
as seaweed, also have various commercial and industrial uses, but due to their size and the
particular requirements of the environment in which they grow, they do not lend themselves
as readily to cultivation. The most relevant environmental factors that affect the growth of
microalgae include light, pH, temperature, salinity, nutrient profiles (mainly (C)>(N)>(P)),
and dissolved oxygen (DO), as well as biological factors such as predation, viruses and
competition (Kumar et al. 2010). Finally, operating conditions that might constrain micro-
algal growth rates include harvesting rates, gas transfer and mixing, because they affect CO2
availability, shear rates and light exposure.
Light is the basic energy source for phototrophic organisms such as microalgae and
higher plants. The intensity and utilization efficiency of the light supplied are thus of crucial
importance in microalgal culture. Light intensity decreases within the high-density cultures.
On the other hand, high light intensity periods may also decrease the algal productivity due
to excess production of DO (i.e. >35 mg/L).
Carbon is the most important element that is required for microalgal nutrition, followed
by (N) (Becker 1994). Since waste gases from combustion processes, typically contain
>15 % (v/v) CO2, these may provide a CO2-rich source for microalgal cultivation and a
potentially more efficient route for CO2 bio-fixation. Fast-growing microalgal species prefer
ammonium rather than nitrate as a primary (N) source. Phosphorus is the third most
important nutrient for microalgal growth, and should be supplied to significant excess as
phosphates because not all (P) compounds are bioavailable (Kumar et al. 2010). Becker
(1994) recommended the addition of trace elements and vitamins to the algal culture media
for effective cultivation.
pH is an important factor which significantly affects the growth of the algae (Li et al.
2003). Most microalgal species are favored by neutral pH, whereas some species are tolerant
to higher pH (e.g. Spirulina platensis at pH 9) or lower pH (e.g. Chlorococcum littorale at
pH 4) (Oilgae 2011). The variation in pH affects the solubility and availability of nutrients,
enzyme activity, and transport of substrates across plasma membrane and electron transport
in respiration and photosynthesis. Maeda et al. (1995) indicates that the negative effect of
SOx (Oxides of Sulphur e.g. SO2 or SO3) on the growth is, in certain limits mainly, due to
pH changes than sulphate concentrations in the medium, which can be prevented by
buffering or active pH control.
The selection of appropriate algal strain is an important factor in the overall success of
carbon sequestration by algae and in algaculture (Brennan and Owende 2010). The ideal algal
strain should have high CO2 tolerance and sinking capacity, be tolerant of a wide range in
temperatures resulting from the diurnal cycle and seasonal variations and have limited nutrient
requirements. In open pond production systems, alga should be able to dominate wild strains
and for photobioreactors cultivation it should be robust enough to survive the shear stresses
common in photobioreactors. Apart from this an idle strain should have a fast productivity
cycle, high photosynthetic efficiency and provide valuable co-products as well. At the moment,
no known algal strain is capable of meeting all these requirements concurrently.
8.1 Different cultivation methods: ponds and bioreactors
Enclosed bioreactors and open ponds are the two predominant methods for growing algae.
Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the major difference between the two is the
trade-off of cost versus control. Table 1. makes a comparison between the open and closed
bioreactors concerning the production of microalgae.
The traditional way to farm microalgae is in large, circulating ponds; however, a serious
drawback is the risk of contamination by other microbes or algal species (Benemann and
Oswald 1996). Thus, high production rates in open ponds are achieved with algal strains
resistant to severe culture environment; for example, the Dunaliella, Spirulina and Chlorella
sp. are cultivated in high salinity, alkalinity and nutrition, respectively (Harun et al. 2010).
Besides the technological simplicity, the production in open systems is not cheap due to the
downstream processing costs.
Table 1 Effects of various factors on microalgal cultivation in open and closed bioreactors
Factor Open systems (raceway ponds) Closed systems (photobioreactors)
Space required High Low

Evaporation High No evaporation
Water loss Very high Low
CO2-loss High Low
Temperature Highly variable Required cooling
Light utilization efficiency Low Moderate-high
Weather dependence High Low
Process control Difficult Easy
Shear Low High
Cleaning No issue Required
Contamination High None
Algal species Restricted Flexible
Start-up 6–8 weeks 2–4 weeks
Biomass quality Variable Reproducible
Population density Low High
Harvesting efficiency Low High
Harvesting cost High Lower
Light utilization efficiency Poor Good
Most costly parameters Mixing Oxygen and temperature control
Capital investments Low High
(Grobbelaar 2009; Harun et al. 2010; Pires et al. 2012)
Alternatively, closed photoreactors provide sterility and allow for much greater control
over culture parameters such as light intensity, carbon dioxide, nutrient levels, and temper-
ature (Miron et al. 1999) and thus higher biomass productivities can be reached (Harun et al.
2010; Pires et al. 2012). Some designs included solar concentrators and fibre-optic delivery
of light to different parts of the photobioreactor and showed very high productivity (Packer
2009). However, cooling and heating systems are required to control the cultivation tem-
perature. Kumar et al. (2011) has proposed hybrid types of reactors (integrated two reactors)
for overcoming the bottlenecks of a single photobioreactor. Davis et al. (2011) concluded a
steady state algae cell density of 0.5 g/L for the ponds and 4 g/L for the PBR, a self-limiting
value where cell shading impedes further growth. Besides the many advantages associated
with closed systems, for large- scale cultivation, microalgae are usually produced in open
ponds due to the lower investment and production costs. Despite several years of research,
the major part of the microalgal world production is performed in open ponds (Posten 2009).
8.2 Harvesting processes
The harvesting process is the main constraint to microalgal production, representing more
than 20 % of the total production cost (Danquah et al. 2009). The very large volumes from
which the algae biomass has to be separated, the low biomass density (~0.2–2 gL−1) and the
small size of the algae cells (usually between 10 and 30 μm) present a significant challenge
to harvesting (Borowitzka and Moheimani 2010). The methods for harvesting either used
independently or in combination. However, most of these methods still involve economic or
technological drawbacks, such as a high-energy cost (centrifugation), algal biomass con-

tamination (chemical flocculation), or non-feasibility of scaling-up (Oh et al. 2001; Pires et
al. 2012). Besides the operational cost, concerning selection of the adequate harvesting
method, several aspects should be considered: (i) harvesting speed; (ii) harvesting efficiency;
and (iii) density and quality of biomass in the resultant concentrate (Heasman et al. 2000).
After harvesting, the microalgal biomass is dried using one of the following processes: sun
or spray-drier for further desired applications.
9 Advantages of algae over higher plants
The cultivation of photosynthetic microorganisms such as algae and Cyanobacteria has been
proposed as an alternative for carbon sequestration due to their unique features (Herzog and
Drake 1996). They comprise a large and diverse group of photosynthetic organisms that
exhibit a variety of habitats in temperate, tropical and polar regions. Most commonly, these
organisms flourish in aquatic habitats (Sidhu and Ahluwalia 2011). However, they can also
grow in soil, deserts, oil-fields, bare rocks, hot springs, etc. (Dhingra and Ahluwalia 2007).
Algae are primitive plants (thallophytes), i.e. lacking roots, stems and leaves, have no sterile
covering of cells around the reproductive cells. Algae shapes are primarily for energy
conversion without any evolvement beyond cells, and their simple development permits
them to adapt to prevailing environmental conditions and thrive in the long term (Falkowski
and Raven 1997).
Light intensity requirements of typical microalgae are relatively low compared with those
of higher plants, as an example, the saturating light intensity of Chlorella and Scenedesmus
sp. is of the order of 200 μmol m−2 s−1 (Hanagata et al. 1992). Moreover, algae have a very
high aerial productivity compared to other photosynthetic organisms such as trees, which
make them attractive organisms for carbon sequestration (Richmond and Zou 1999).
One major advantage of algae cultivation over crops and agriculture in general, is the
ability of many algae to tolerate saline water. Fresh water is scarce in many parts of the
world, and agriculture uses approximately 70 % of the total global fresh water consumption.
This characteristic of algae allows a much greater area to be potentially utilized for
algaculture. Microalgae are capable of all year round production. Unlike crops, algae
cultivation does not require herbicides or pesticides’ applications (Rodolfi et al. 2008).
Moreover, current studies showed that the additional N2O (Nitrous Oxide) entering the
atmosphere as a consequence of using (N) fertilizers to produce crops for biomass and
biofuels, when calculated in “CO2-equivalent” global warming terms and compared with the
quasi-cooling effect of “saving” emissions of fossil fuel derived CO2, could add as much or
more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings (Crutzen et al.
2007). These serious concerns may be addressed by using fast-growing microalgal species
for carbon sequestration.
9.1 Biomass productivity
Many algal sp. have an exponential growth rate, can double their biomass in periods as short
as 3.5 h (Chisti 2007; Spolaore et al. 2006). Conventional terrestrial plants are not so much
efficient in capturing solar energy. Lewis and Nocera (2006) estimated that even switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum L.), the fastest-growing terrestrial crop, convert solar energy to biomass
energy at a yearly rate of less than 1 W/m2 (Watt/square meter), which is approximately less
than 0.5 % of the total solar energy received at a typical mid-latitude region. Li et al. (2008)
even estimated that the biomass productivity of selected microalgae could be 50 times more
than that of switchgrass, which is the fastest growing terrestrial plant.
The best algae production rates (averaged over a whole year) in raceway ponds achieved so
far are about 20–22 g dry weight/m2/day1 (Moheimani and Borowitzka 2006). Growth rates
greater than 30 g dry weight/m2/day1 can be achieved for short periods under optimum growth
conditions, but are not achievable over the whole year, mainly because of the reduced irradiance
and day length in winter (Borowitzka and Moheimani 2010). Microalgae grow in suitable
culture vessels (photobioreactors) throughout the year with higher annual biomass productivity
on an area basis. The microalgae with the shortest doubling times, like Chlorella and Synecho-
coccus lividus, generally show higher productivity than other strains (Oilgae 2011).
9.2 Photosynthetic efficiency
Photosynthetic efficiency (PE) is the most important parameter to evaluate yields of biomass
production. Photosynthetic efficiency of photoautotrophic growth is defined as the energy
stored as new biomass per unit of the incident light energy (QPAR) (Akkerman et al. 2002).
Only photosynthetic active radiation (QPAR) of wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm,
representing 42.3 % of the total energy from the light spectrum is captured. A number of
processes (e.g. reflection and absorption by the cell wall) considerably decrease the incident
light energy QPAR to the absorbed energy (Qphar) by the algal cells. Even though the
extracellular losses are very variable and species-specific, they are often assumed to be
25 %. Furthermore, many different radiation and energy losses take place within the cells
and are typically related to Qphar. The captured energy is used in the Calvin cycle to produce
carbohydrates by utilizing CO2 and H2O. The loss processes within the cells are again very
variable, species-specific and additionally depend on the photo acclimation status of the
cells. A minimum of eight light photons (quanta) is required to generate one mole of base
carbohydrate (CH2O), one Oxygen (O2) molecule and one Hydrogen (H2) (Bolton and Hall
1991). Given that one mole of CH2O has a heating value of 468 kJ and that the mean energy
of a mole of QPAR photons is 217.4 kJ, and then the maximum theoretical conversion
efficiency of QPAR energy into carbohydrates is:
468 kJ=ð8 217:4 kJÞ ¼ 27%
However, since the QPAR utilized during a photosynthesis process can only be (42.3 %) of
total solar energy, that means maximum PE can be 27 % of QPAR (42.3 %), so maximum PE is
estimated around 11.4 % of total solar energy. Bolton and Hall (1991) calculated a theoretical
maximum PE of 13 % for a green-type plant in bright sunlight. This estimated value is the
theoretical “upper limit” of PE, as it does not account for other factors that could decrease
efficiency and conversion (e.g. photo-saturation, photorespiration, and poor light absorption)
and significantly reduce PE. Due to such impacting factors, most terrestrial plants attain PE
levels far below the theoretical estimates, with global averages typically between 1 % and 2 %
(Vasudevan and Briggs 2008). On the other hand, studies have shown the photosynthetic
efficiency of microalge could well be in the range of 10–20 % or higher (Huntley and Redalje
2007). Simple structure of algae allows them to achieve substantially higher PE values
compared to terrestrial plants. PE of different microalgal species has been given in (Table 2).
Pirt et al. (1980) have suggested that even higher levels of PE can be attained by microalgae.
They questioned the current model of photosynthesis, which predicts that the maximum PE
with absorbed light (efficiency of conversion to chemical energy) of mean wavelength 575 nm
should not exceed 29 % and the minimum quantum demand, n08. He reported a conversion
efficiency of QPAR to cell mass up to 47 %. Such high efficiency is impossible if the minimal
Table 2 Photosynthetic efficiency (PE) values of various microalgal species
Alga PE value Reference
Chlorella sp. 20 % Tamiya 1957

Tetraselmis suecica 9–19 % Laws and Berning 1991
Phaeodactylum tricornutum 21.6 % Fernández et al. 1998
Chlorella sp. 6.56 %. Hase et al. 2000
Chlorella sorokiniana 8.66 % Morita et al. 2002
Synechococcus sp. 2–4 % Xia and Gao 2003
Phaeodactylum tricornutum 15 % Hall et al. 2003
Chlorella sp. 6.48–7.05 % Doucha and Lívanský 2009
quantum demand is, n08, so therefore alternate routes must exist at low incident light (Pirt
1983). Overall, the outlined evidence suggests that microalgae could be the most efficient
biomass for carbon sequestration.
9.3 Carbon dioxide tolerant microalgae
Microalgae are fast growing systems that can consume high quantity of CO2 to produce
different types of biomass. Microalgae possess a greater ability to fix CO2 than carried out
by higher plants (Chisti 2007; Li et al. 2008). Usual sources of CO2 include: (i) atmospheric
CO2; (ii) industrial exhaust gases (e.g. flue gas); and (iii) soluble carbonates (e.g. NaHCO3
and Na2CO3). The efficiency of microalgae is highly related to the concentration of CO2 in
the growth atmosphere and higher the concentration of CO2 the better is the growth and as a
result higher productivity. The selection of suitable microalgae strains for CO2 bio-
mitigation has a significant effect on efficacy and cost competitiveness of the bio-
mitigation process (Brennan and Owende 2010). According to previous studies, the supply
of carbon to microalgal mass culture systems is one of the principal difficulties and
limitations that must be solved (Tapie and Bernard 1988). The desirable attributes for high
CO2 fixation include: high growth and CO2 utilization rates; high tolerance to CO2 concen-
trations and trace constituents of flue gases such as SOx and NOx (nitrogen oxides) refers
specifically (NO and NO2). The maximum CO2 tolerance capacity of various microalgae is
variable (Table 3) (Ono and Cuello 2003). CO2 supply contributes to control the pH of the
culture (Brown 1996). The species that survive best in acidic conditions are generally more
tolerant of high CO2 concentrations, since CO2 lowers the pH of a solution. Some species of
algae prefer more acidic cultures are Galderia and Viridella sp. (Oilgae 2011).
Maximum CO2 tolerance and CO2 concentration required for optimum algal growth differ
significantly. Always value of CO2 concentration required for best algal is less in comparison to
value of maximum CO2 tolerance. For example, Euglena gracilis is tolerant of CO2 up to 45 %,
but the best growth was observed with 5 % CO2 concentration (Nakano et al. 1996). According
to Maeda et al. (1995), maximum growth rate of Chlorella sp. T-1 occurred under 10 %
concentration, while Hanagata et al. (1992) observed CO2 concentrations of 10–20 % for
maximum cell mass for Scenedesmus sp.
9.4 Direct utilization of flue gas
Atmospheric CO2 levels [0.0387 % (v/v)] are not sufficient to support the high micro-
algal growth rates and productivities due to mass transfer limitation (Kumar et al. 2010).
Table 3 Range of significant attributes (CO2 and temperature tolerance capacity) of commonly used
microalgae
Alga CO2 tolerance Temperature Reference

capacity (%) tolerance (°C)
Cyanidium caldarium 100 60 Seckbach et al. 1971

Eudorina sp. K17 20 30 Hanagata et al. 1992
Chlorella sp. K35 50 45 Hanagata et al. 1992
Scenedesmus sp. K34 80 30 Hanagata et al. 1992
Chlamydomonas sp. MGA 161 15 35 Miura et al. 1993
Nannochloropsis salina NANNP-2 10 25 Hamasaki et al. 1994
Chlorella sp. T-1 100 35 Maeda et al. 1995
Synechococcus elongatus 60 60 Miyairi 1995
Monoraphidium minutum 13.6 25 Zeiler et al. 1995
Chlorella sp. 40 42 Sakai et al. 1995
Chlorella sp. UK001 40 45 Hirata et al. 1996
Euglena gracilis 45 – Nakano et al. 1996
Chlorella vulgaris 15 27 Yun et al. 1997
Dunaliella tertiolecta 15 – Nagase et al. 1998
Cyanidium sp. 100 – Graham and Wilcox 2000
Chlorella sp.ZY-1 70 – Yue and Chen 2005
Spirulina sp. 12 30 de Morais and Costa 2007a
Scenedesmus obliquus 18 30 de Morais and Costa 2007a
Chlorella kessleri 18 30 de Morais and Costa 2007b
Chlorococcum littorale 70 – Ota et al. 2009
Chlorella minutissima 15 – Sankar et al. 2011
Desmodemus sp. 100 – Kativu et al. 2011
On the other hand, industrial exhaust gases such as flue gas contain up to 15 % (v/v)
CO2 (Maeda et al. 1995), therefore, it would be beneficial if microalgae are tolerant of
elevated CO2 level should they be used for CO2 fixation from flue gases. Flue gases
from power plants are responsible for more than 7 % of the total world CO2 emissions
(Sakai et al. 1995). Carbon dioxide in flue gas is available at little or no cost and rather
one can secure carbon credits. The benefit of utilizing flue gas directly is the significant
reduction of the cost of separating CO2 gas. Matsumoto et al. (1997) indicated that high
levels of CO2 were tolerated by many microalgal species, and that moderate levels of Sox
and NOx (up to 150 ppm) were also well-tolerated. Since the temperature of waste gases
from thermal power plants is around 1200 C, the uses of high temperature tolerant
(thermophilic) algae are also being considered (Bayless et al. 2001). An obvious advan-
tage of the use of thermophilies for CO2 sequestration is for reduced cooling costs. In
addition, some thermophiles produce valuable secondary metabolites, which may reduce
overall costs for CO2 sequestration. The principal point of all considerations relating to
the CO2 budget is that, on the one hand, CO2 must not reach the upper concentration that
produces inhibition and, on the other hand, must never fall below the minimum concen-
tration that limits growth (Rados et al. 1975). These maximum (inhibition) and minimum
(limitation) concentrations vary from one species to another and are not yet adequately
known.
9.5 Use of wastewater
Algae culture, irrespective of whether it is using open ponds or ‘closed’ photobioreactors

(Grobbelaar 2009), requires large amounts of water. Since freshwater is limited, one of the
main advantages of using algae is their ability to thrive in water unsuitable for human use.
Nutrients present in wastewater are directly responsible for eutrophication of rivers, lakes,
and seas. Microalgae utilize (N), (P) and minor nutrients from a variety of wastewater
sources (e.g. concentrated animal feed operations, municipal sewage, agricultural run-off,
and industrial wastewaters), providing the additional benefit of wastewater bioremediation
(Wang et al. 2010). Table 4 indicates wastewater utilization by various algal species.
Furthermore, since microalgae are negatively charged on their surface, so they may be used
to remove heavy metals from wastewaters as well (Munoz and Guieysse 2006).
9.6 Biomass applications
Algae, once harvested from a cultivated pond or photo bioreactor, can be transformed into a
useful product to offset capital costs for operation and maintenance. Commercial large-scale
culture of microalgae started in 1964 with the cultivation of the green alga Chlorella by
Taiwan Chlorella Manufacturing Company. Since then, the microalgal biotechnology indus-
try has grown and diversified significantly. Nowadays, the microalgal biomass market
produces about 5,000 metric tons of dry matter per year and generates a turnover of approx-
imately US $ 1.25x109 per year (Spolaore et al. 2006). Table 5 shows the products synthesized
by some microalgae.
Considering the chemical composition of microalgae, their biomass could have several
applications such as nutritional supplements, antioxidants, cosmetics, fertilizers, biomole-
cules for specific applications, biofuels, natural dyes and colorants, pharmaceuticals and
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (Spolaore et al. 2006).
9.7 Algal biorefinery concept
A biorefinery is a facility that integrates biomass conversion processes and equipment to

produce fuel, power, and value-added chemicals from biomass, a concept analogous to
today’s petroleum refineries, which produce a range of products from crude petroleum
(Taylor 2008). This can help in decreasing the overall cost of the system, and the profit
made from the biomass increase. These processes can ensure maximum utilization of
biomass. Integrated biorefineries are already being operated in Canada, United States, and
Table 4 Potential of some microalgae in treatment of a variety of effluents
Algae Wastewater source Reference
Chlorella vulgaris Steel making plant Yun et al. 1997

Consortium (algae+bacteria) Industrial black oil Safonova et al. 2004
Mixotrophic algal strainsa Carpet industry Chinnasamy et al. 2010
Consortium (algae+bacteria) Hazardous wastewater Munoz and Guieysse 2006
Aphanothece microscopica Refinery Jacob-Lopes et al. 2010
Chlorella species Municipal treatment plant Wang et al. 2010
a
Consortium of Chlamydomonas globosa, Chlorella minutissima and Scenedesmus bijuga.
Table 5 Major products derived from microalgae: their relative value and market potential
Algae Product Value Market
Dunaliella salina β - Carotene High Feed industry, functional

foods, color additive
Haematococcus pluvialis Astaxanthin High Feed industry, functional
foods nutraceutical
industry, color additive
Spirulina, Porphyridium Phycobiliproteins High Biomedical research,
cosmetics
Crypthecodinium, Schizochytrium, Polyunsaturated High Nutritional food industry
Nannochloropsis, Phaeodactylum, fatty acids
Spirulina, Porphyridium
Odontella aurita, Isochrysis galbana, Fatty acids Moderate Feed industry, cosmetics
Phaedactylum tricornutum
Porphyridium cruentum, Polysaccharides Moderate Food, cosmetics,
Chlamydomonas mexicana Pharmaceutical industry
Lyngbya majuscule Immune modulators High Pharmaceutical and
Nutritional food industry
Botryococcus, Dunaliella, Chlorella, Biofuels High Transportation industry
Neochloris, Scenedesmus
Biodiesel producing algae Glycerin Low Food and personal care
products
Tetraselmis, Nannochloropsis, Whole-cell Moderate Feed industry (poultry, fish,
Isochrysis, Nitzschia, Phormidium, (aquaculture feed) shrimp and swine feeds)
valderianum, Haematococcus,
Chlorella
Spirulina, Chlorella, Aphanizomenon Whole-cell Moderate Health foods industry
flos-aquae, Chlamydomonas (dietary supplements)
Muriellopsis sp., Spirulina platensis, Carotenoids High Feed industry, functional
Botryococcus braunii foods nutraceutical
industry, color additive
Nostoc, Anabaena Phytohormones Moderate Biofertilizer industry
Euglena α-Tocopherol High Pharmaceutical and
nutritional industry
(Borowitzka 1992; Apt and Behrens 1999; Kusmic et al. 1999; Grima et al. 2003; Becker 2004; Pulz and Gross
2004; Singh et al. 2005; Thajuddin and Subramanian 2005; Spolaore et al. 2006; Del Campo et al. 2007; Wijffels
2007; Raja et al. 2008; USDOE 2009; Subhadra 2010; Brennan and Owende 2010; Milledge 2011)
Germany for producing biofuels and other products from crops such as corn (Zea mays L.)
and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (Chisti 2007).
Efficiency in the biorefinery processes is key and, by integrating the stakeholders
involved at all levels, new synergies, cost efficiencies and improved methods can be
achieved. In addition to oils, microalgal biomass contains significant quantities of carbohy-
drates, proteins and other nutrients. Therefore, the residual algal biomass can be used
potentially as animal and fisheries feed and after anaerobic digestion may be used to produce
methane, which can be used to supplement the energy requirements of the algae plant. An
alternative strategy could be to use the residual algae biomass as fertilizers in the form of
compost (Mulbry et al. 2005) for improving soil quality. . Steps towards achieving algal
biorefinery have already been taken by U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). On December
4, 2009, USDOE announced nearly $100 million grant to three algae-based integrated
biorefinery projects viz. Sapphire Energy, Inc.; Columbus, New Mexico (U.S.DOE grant:
$50,000,000), Solazyme, Inc.: Riverside, Pennsylvania (U.S.DOE grant: $21,765,738) and
Algenol Biofuels, Inc., Freeport, Texas (U.S.DOE grant: $25,000,000) to accelerate the
construction and operation of pilot, demonstration, and commercial-scale facilities. It is
evident that a new industrial process is in its start up stage which, if successful, can pave the
way for development of bio-based eco-friendly technology and industry.
10 Caveats and limitations
Probably, the most important caveat to microalgal production is the harvesting process,
which contributes to 20–30 % of the total cost of microalgal biomass production. The dilute
nature of microalgal culture contributes to the increase of energy demand for dewatering
process, especially for industrial scale. Additionally, freshwater is limited, it is essential that
saline waters and other waste water sources are used to culture the algae. Studies might also
be required to discern whether microalgal biomass production using wastewater produces
sufficient-quality effluent for discharge into the environment, or even eventual reuse.
The problems associated with the biological use of CO2 are the high temperature of flue
gases and the presence of NOx, SOx and other impurities of the fossil fuels used. The pH of
the culture medium can be dropped by dissolving CO2 and SOx from the flue gas. On the
other hand, high-temperature accounts for additional cooling costs. Another concern is that
the quality of the flue gas might hamper specific applications of biomass in the medical and
food industry.
Another key issue in microalgal culture is extremely low absorption of CO2. The main
reason for the extremely low utilization of CO2 during cultivation of microalgae in an open
pond is the short gas–liquid contact time caused by the shallow culture solution, therefore,
the CO2 gas overflows without being absorbed sufficiently.
Open ponds have restricted range of algal species for cultivation. Till date, outdoor
culture of few algal species is possible e.g. Dunaliella, Spirulina and Chlorella sp. Optimum
light intensity is necessary for the CO2 fixation and biomass production. Light intensity
decrease with depth, especially in high-density cultures is a matter to be looked into. Below
the optimum light intensity, light becomes the limiting factor for the microalgal productivity.
Furthermore, the maximum productivity of algal cultures is constrained by the available
irradiance and the photosynthetic efficiency because of the reduced irradiance and day
length in winter.
The dissolved oxygen (DO) produced by photosynthesis and when present in high
concentrations (i.e. >35 mg/L) inhibits the microalgal growth, due to a low-mass transfer
coefficient. A common solution to reduce this negative effect is to supply the gas with high-
flow rates or working in a turbulent regime. This procedure enhances the mass transfer and
homogenizes the medium. However, the high turbulence can damage cells due to the shear
stress and increase power consumption.
Lack of relevant expertise as algal industry is very young. The main constraint is that the
studies reported to date are based on only some set of laboratory and pilot scale experiments.
Algal biorefinery infrastructure is not ready yet, it’s a challenge. Till now a fraction of the
total biomass is converted into higher-value chemical products, thus increasing the cost for
algal sequestration programmes.
In planning future development of algal-based CO2 sequestration programmes, it will be
important to take into account the potential impacts of climate change on growth and
production of the microalgae to be used. It is expected that climate change will affect both
algal distribution and biodiversity, but also on their physiology and photosynthetic perfor-
mance. That, in turn, can change their capacity to sequester CO2.
11 Conclusions
CO2 capture using microalgae is a promising technology to solve the environmental problem
concerning the increase of GHGs concentrations in the atmosphere in a sustainable manner. The
initial task of research in this area of carbon sequestration is to identify the algal species, strains
and specific growth conditions (e.g. temperature, light intensity, nutrient concentration, water
quality, and physico-chemical analysis of water) that maximize microalgal growth rates. The
integration of CO2 fixation from flue gas, nutrient removal from wastewater and biomass
production may provide a very promising alternative to current CO2 capture strategies to make
it economically competitive with CCS methodologies. An intensive research is needed to
reduce the costs associated with all high-energy requirement processes, for instance, harvesting
and dewatering. Research efforts should be focused to achieve high cell densities of microalgae.
Some designs, for instance, solar concentrators and fibre optics may be the solution to delivery
of light in different parts of the PBR and therefore increased productivity. On the other hand,
improved hybrid bioreactors may be designed for overcoming the production bottlenecks.
Apart from the advances in photobioreactor engineering, the application of the biorefinery
concept (to exploit the full potential of commercial products derived from microalgal biomass)
can make this CO2 capture process economically feasible. The idea is to make it a stand-alone,
commercially viable project so that we don’t even need the monetary benefit of UNFCCC
Kyoto’s market instruments.
To conclude, microalgae can safely be termed as the favorable system for CO2 seques-
tration compared to forests and other vegetation. These should be preferred over others due
to their potential of faster growth, high photosynthetic efficiency, environment friendly
utilization of effluent nutrients and flue gas, and providing a spectrum of value added
commercial products with no waste byproducts. Continued development of technologies
to optimize the microalgae production, wastewater treatment, and biomass processing has
the capacity to make significant contributions towards this goal.
Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the Chairperson, Department of Botany, Panjab University,
Chandigarh for providing necessary research facilities, University Grants Commission, New Delhi for SAP-
DRS-II grants and to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi (U. B. Singh) for providing
financial assistance in the form of Junior Research Fellowship and Senior Research Fellowship.
References
Akkerman I, Janssen M, Rocha J, Wijffels RH (2002) Photobiological hydrogen production: photochemical

efficiency and bioreactor design. Int J Hydrogen Energ 27(11):1195–1208
Anderson RA (2005) Algal cultural techniques. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam
Apt KE, Behrens PW (1999) Commercial developments in microalgal biotechnology. J Phycol 35:215–226
Bayless DJ, Kremer GG, Prudich ME, Stuart BJ, Vis-Chiasson ML, Cooksey K, Muhs J (2001) Enhanced
practical photosynthetic CO2 mitigation. Proceedings of the first national conference on carbon seques-
tration 5A4:1–14
Becker EW (ed) (1994) Microalgae biotechnology and microbiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Becker EW (2004) Microalgae in human and animal nutrition. In: Richmond A (ed) Handbook of microalgal
culture. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 312–351
Benemann J (1997) CO2 mitigation with microalgal systems. Energ Convers Manage 38:475–479
Benemann JR, Oswald WJ (1996) Systems and economics analysis of microalgae ponds for conversion of
CO2 to biomass. US Department of Energy, Pittsburg, pp 42–65
Berberoglu H, Gomez PS, Pilon L (2009) Radiation characteristics of Botryococcus braunii, Chlorococcum
littorale, and Chlorella sp. used for CO2 fixation and biofuel production. J Quant Spectrosc 110:1879–93
Bilanovic D, Andargatchew A, Kroeger T, Shelef G (2009) Freshwater and marine microalgae sequestering of
CO2 at different C and N concentrations-response surface methodology analysis. Energ Convers Manag
50(2):262–267
Bolton JR, Hall DO (1991) The maximum efficiency of photosynthesis. Photochem Photobiol 53:545–548
Borowitzka MA (1992) Algal biotechnology products and processes-matching science and economics. J Appl
Phycol 4:267–279
Borowitzka MA, Moheimani NR (2010) Sustainable biofuels from algae. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change.
doi:10.1007/s11027-010-9271-9
Boyd PW et al (2000) A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern Ocean stimulated by iron
fertilization. Nature 407:695–702
Brennan L, Owende P (2010) Biofuels from microalgae-A review of technologies for production, processing,
and extraction of biofuels and co-products. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:557–577
Brown LM (1996) Uptake of carbon dioxide from flue gas by microalgae. Energ Convers Manage 37(6–
8):1363–1367
Buesseler KO, Doney SC, Karl DM et al (2008) Ocean iron fertilization moving forward in a sea of
uncertainty. Science 319:162–163
Chapin FS, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of ecosystems of ecology. Springer, New York
Chinnasamy S, Bhatnagar A, Claxton R, Das KC (2010) Biomass and bioenergy production potential of
microalgae consortium in open and closed bioreactors using untreated carpet industry effluent as growth
medium. Bioresour Technol 101:6751–60
Chisti Y (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 25:294–306
Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter DW, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J (2001) Measuring net primary
production in forests: concepts and field methods. Ecol Appl 11:356–370
Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W (2007) N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates
global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 7:11191–11205
Danquah MK, Gladman B, Moheimani N, Forde GM (2009) Microalgal growth characteristics and subse-
quent influence on dewatering efficiency. Chem Eng J 151:73–78
Davis R, Aden A, Pienkos PT (2011) Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae for fuel produc-
tion. Appl Energ 88:3524–3531
de Morais MG, Costa JAV (2007a) Biofixation of carbon dioxide by Spirulina sp. And Scenedesmus obliquus
cultivated in a three-stage serial tubular photobioreactor. J Biotechnol 129:439–445
de Morais MG, Costa JAV (2007b) Isolation and selection of microalgae from coal fired thermoelectric power
plant for biofixation of carbon dioxide. Energ Convers Manage 48(7):2169–2173
Del Campo JA, Garcia-Gonzales M, Guerrero MG (2007) Outdoor cultivation of microalgae for carotenoid
production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 74:1163–117
Dhingra R, Ahluwalia AS (2007) Genus Phormidium kutzing ex Gomont (Cyanoprokaryote) from diverse
habitats of Punjab. J Indian Bot Soc 86(3&4):86–94
Doucha J, Lívanský K (2009) Outdoor open thin-layer microalgal photobioreactor: potential productivity. J
Appl Phycol 21(1):111–117
Falkowski PG, Raven JA (1997) Aquatic photosynthesis. Blackwater Science, London, p 375
Feely RA, Orr JC, Fabry VJ, Kleypas JA, Sabine CL, Landgon C (2009) Present and future changes in
seawater chemistry due to ocean acidification. In: Mcpherson BJ, Sundquist ET (eds) AGU Monograph
on carbon sequestration and its role in the global carbon cycle
Fernández FGA, Camacho FG, Pérez JAS, Sevilla JMF, Grima EM (1998) Modeling of biomass productivity
in tubular photobioreactors for microalgal cultures: effects of dilution rate, tube diameter, and solar
irradiance. Biotechnol Bioeng 58(6):605–616
Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski P (1998) Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating
terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281:237–240
Folger P (2009) The carbon cycle: Implications for climate change and congress. Congressional Research
Service Report RL34059, pp. 7–57
Gough C (2008) State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: an experts’ review. Int J
Greenhouse Gas Control 2:155–168
Graham LE, Wilcox LW (2000) Algae. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River
Gribbin J (1988) Any old iron? Nature 331:570

Grima EM, Belarbi EH, Fernandez FGA, Medina AR, Chisti Y (2003) Recovery of microalgal biomass and
metabolites: process options and economics. Biotechnol Adv 20:491–515
Grobbelaar JU (2009) Factors governing algal growth in photobioreactors: the open versus closed debate. J
Appl Phycol 21:489–492
Hader DP, Figueroa FL (1997) Photophysiology of marine microalgae. J Photochem Photobiol 66:1–14
Hall DO, Fernández AFG, Guerrero CE, Rao KK, Grima ME (2003) Outdoor helical tubular photobioreactors
for microalgal production: modeling of fluid-dynamics and mass transfer and assessment of biomass
productivity. Biotechnol Bioeng 82(1):62–73
Hamasaki A, Shioji N, Ikuta Y, Hukuda Y, Makita T, Hirayama K, Matuzaki H, Tukamoto T, Sasaki S (1994)
Carbon dioxide fixation by microalgal photosynthesis using actual flue gas from a power plant. Appl
Biochem Biotechnol 45–46:799–809
Hanagata N, Takeuchi T, Fukuju Y, Barnes DJ, Karube I (1992) Tolerance of microalgae to high CO2 and high
temperature. Phytochem 31(10):3345–3348
Harun R, Singh M, Forde GM, Danquah MK (2010) Bioprocess engineering of microalgae to produce a
variety of consumer products. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:1037–47
Hase R, Oikawa H, Sasso C, Morito M, Watabe Y (2000) Photosynthetic production of microalgal biomass in
a race way system under greenhouse conditions in Sendi City. J Biosci Bioeng 89:157–163
Heasman M, Diemar J, O’Connor W, Sushames T, Foulkes L (2000) Development of extended shelf-life
microalgae concentrate diets harvested by centrifugation for bivalve molluscs—a summary. Aquacult Res
31:637–659
Herzog HJ, Drake EM (1996) Carbon dioxide recovery and disposal from large energy systems. Annu Rev
Energ Env 21:145–166
Herzog H, Drake E, Adams E (1997) CO2 Capture, re-use and storage technologies for mitigating global
climate change. White paper final report, Public Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, US Department of Energy Order No: DE-AF22-96PC01257
Hirata S, Hayashitani M, Taya M, Tone S (1996) Carbon dioxide fixation in batch culture of Chlorella sp.
using a photobioreactor with a sunlight collection device. J ferment bioeng 81(5):470–472
Huntley ME, Redalje DG (2007) CO2 mitigation and renewable oil from photosynthetic microbes: a new
appraisal. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 12(4):573–608
Hu Q, Sommerfeld M, Jarvis E, Ghiradi M, Posewitz M, Seibert M, Darzins A (2008) Microalgal triacylgly-
cerols as feedstocks for biofuel production: perspectives and advances. Plant J 54:621–639
IPCC (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ,
Nouger M, van der Linden PJ, Xiaosu D (eds) Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC (2007a) Mitigation of climate change. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds)
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC (2007b) The physical science basis. In: Solomon SD, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquie M, Averyt
KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Forth assessment report of the
IPCC on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jacob-Lopes E, Scoparo CHG, Franco TT (2008) Rates of CO2 removal by a Aphanothece microscopica
Nageli in tubular photobioreactors. Chem Eng Process 47:1371–9
Jacob-Lopes E, Scoparo CHG, Queiroz MI, Franco TT (2010) Biotransformations of carbon dioxide in
photobioreactors. Energy Convers Manage 51:894–900
Jenny H (1980) The soil resource: origin and behaviour. Springer, New York
Jeong MJ, Gillis JM, Hwang JY (2003) Carbon dioxide mitigation by microalgal photosynthesis. Bull Korean
Chem Soc 24(12):1763–1766
Kativu E, Hildebrandt D, Matambo T, Glasser D (2011) Fresh water microalgae growth. Environ Prog Sustain
Energy. doi:10.1002/ep.10600
Kaya Y (1989) A grand strategy for global warming. Paper presented at Tokyo Conference on global
environment, Tokyo, Japan, 11–13 September 1989
Kumar A, Ergas S, Yuan X, Sahu A et al (2010) Enhanced CO2 fixation and biofuel production via
microalgae: recent developments and future directions. Trends Biotechnol 28:371–380
Kumar K, Dasgupta CN, Nayak B, Lindblad P, Das D (2011) Development of suitable photobioreactor for
CO2 sequestration addressing global warming using green algae and cyanobacteria. Bioresour Technol
102:4945–4953
Kusmic C, Barsacchi R, Barsanti L, Gualteri P, Passarelli V (1999) Euglena gracilis as a source of the
antioxidant vitamin E. Effects of culture conditions in the wild strain and in the natural mutant WZSL. J
Appl Phycol 10:555–559
Lal R, Kimble J, Follett R (1998) Land use and soil carbon pools in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Lal R, Kimble J,
Follett RF, Stewart BA (eds) Management of carbon sequestration in soil. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton
Lampitt RS, Achterberg EP, Anderson TR, Hughes JA, Iglesias-Rodriguez MD, Kelly-Gerreyn BA, Lucas M,
Popova EE, Sanders R, Shepherd JG, Smythe-Wright D, Yool A (2008) Ocean fertilization: a potential
means of geoengineering? Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 366(1882):3919–3945
Laws EA, Berning JL (1991) A study of the energetics and economics of microalgal mass culture with the
marine chlorophyte Tetraselmis suecica: implications for use of power plant stack gases. Biotechnol
bioeng 37(10):936–947
Lenton TM, Vaughan NE (2009) The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options.
Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 9:2559–2608
Lewis NS, Nocera DG (2006) Powering the planet: chemical challenges in solar energy utilization. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 103:15729–15735
Li J, Xu SN, Su WW (2003) Online estimation of stirred-tank microalgal photobioreactor cultures based on
dissolved oxygen measurement. Biochem Eng J 14(1):51–65
Li Y, Horsman M, Wu N, Lan CQ, Dubois-Calero N (2008) Biofuels from microalgae. Biotechnol Prog
24:815–820
Lopez CVG, Fernandez FGA, Sevilla JMF, Fernandez JFS, Garcia MCC, Grima EM (2009) Utilization of the
cyanobacteria Anabaena sp. ATCC 33047 in carbon dioxide removal processes. Bioresour Technol
100:5904–5910
Maeda K, Owada M, Kimura N, Omata K, Karube I (1995) CO2 fixation from the flue gas on coal-fired
thermal power plant by microalgae. Energ Convers Manage 36:717–720
Marchetti E (1977) On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Climate Change 1(1):59–68
Martin JH, Coale KH, Johnson KS, Fitzwater SE, Gordon RM et al (1994) Testing the iron hypothesis in
ecosystems of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature 371:123–129
Martin JH, Fitzwater SE (1988) Iron deficiency limits phytoplankton growth in the north-east Pacific
subarctic. Nature 331:341–343
Matsumoto H, Hamasaki A, Sioji N, Ikuta Y (1997) Influence of CO2, SO2 and NO in flue gas on microalgae
productivity. J Chem Eng Jpn 30:620–624
Meinshausen MN, Hare MW, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse-gas
emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1162
Milledge JJ (2011) Commercial application of microalgae other than as biofuels: a brief review. Rev Environ
Sci Biotechnol 10:31–41
Miron AS, Gomez AC, Camacho FG, Grima EM, Chisti Y (1999) Comparative evaluation of compact
photobioreactors for large-scale monoculture of microalgae. J Biotechnol 70:249–270
Miura Y, Yamada W, Hirata K, Miyamoto K, Kiyohara M (1993) Stimulation of hydrogen production in algal cells
grown under high CO2 concentration and low temperature. Appl biochem biotechnol 39(40):753–761
Miyairi S (1995) CO2 assimilation in a thermophilic cyanobacterium. Energy convers manage 36(6–9):763–766
Moheimani NR, Borowitzka MA (2006) The long-term culture of the coccolithophore Pleurochrysis carterae
(Haptophyta) in outdoor raceway ponds. J Appl Phycol 18:703–712
Morita M, Watanabe Y, Saiki H (2002) Photosynthetic productivity of conical helical tubular photobioreactor
incorporating Chlorella sorokiniana under field conditions. Biotechnol Bioeng 77(2):155–162
Mulbry W, Westhead EK, Pizarro C, Sikora L (2005) Recycling of manure nutrients: use of algal biomass
from dairy manure treatment as a slow release fertilizer. Biores Technol 96:451–458
Munoz R, Guieysse B (2006) Algal-bacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous contaminants: a review.
Water Res 40:2799–2815
Nagase H, Eguchi K, Yoshihara K, Hirata K, Miyamoto K (1998) Improvement of microalgal NOx removal in
bubble column and airlift reactors. J ferment bioeng 86(4):421–423
Nakano Y, Miyatake K, Okuno H, Hamazaki K et al (1996) Growth of photosynthetic algae Euglena in high
CO2 conditions and its photosynthetic characteristics. Acta Horticulturae 440(9):49–54
Oh HM, Lee SJ, Park MH, Kim HS, Kim HC, Yoon JH et al (2001) Harvesting of Chlorella vulgaris using a
bioflocculant from Paenibacillus sp. AM49. Biotechnol Lett 23:1229–1234
Oilgae (2011). Oilgae report. The comprehensive guide for algae-based Carbon Capture. http://www.oilgae.com/
ref/report/download.php?name0The_Comprehensive_Guide_for_Algae-based_Carbon_Capture.pdf. Cited
21 Mar 2012
Ono E, Cuello JL (2003) Selection of optimal microalgae species for CO2 sequestration. In: proceedings of the
2nd annual conference on carbon sequestration, alexandria, pp 1–7
Ota M, Kato Y, Watanabe H, Watanabe M, Sato Y, Smith RL Jr, Inomata H (2009) Effect of inorganic carbon
on photoautotrophic growth of microalga Chlorococcum littorale. Biotechnol Prog 25(2):492–498
Packer M (2009) Algal capture of carbon dioxide; biomass generation as a tool for greenhouse gas mitigation
with reference to New Zealand energy strategy and policy. Energ Policy 37:3428–3437
Patil V, Reitan KI, Knudsen G, Mortensen L, Kallqvist T, Olsen E, Vogt G, Gislerod HR (2005) Microalgae as
source of polyunsaturated fatty acids for aquaculture. Curr Topics Plant Biol 6:57–65
Pielke JRA (2009) An idealized assessment of the economics of air capture of carbon dioxide in mitigation
policy. Environmental Science & Policy 12(3):216–225
Pires JCM, Alvim-Ferraz MCM, Martins FG, Simoes M (2012) Carbon dioxide capture from flue gases using
microalgae: engineering aspects and biorefinery concept. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:3043–3053
Pirt SJ (1983) Maximum photosynthetic efficiency: a problem to be resolved. Biotechnol Bioeng 24:1915–
1922
Pirt SJ, Lee YK, Richmond A, Pirt MW (1980) The photosynthetic efficiency of Chlorella biomass growth
with reference to solar energy utilization. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 30:25–34
Posten C (2009) Design principles of photo-bioreactors for cultivation of microalgae. Eng Life Sci 9:165–77
Pulz O, Gross W (2004) Valuable products from biotechnology of microalgae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
65:635–648
Rados S, Vaclav B, Frantisek D (1975) CO2 balance in industrial cultivation of algae. Arch Hydrobiol 46
(12):297–310
Raja R, Hemaiswarya S, Kumar AN, Sridhar S, Rengasamy R (2008) A perspective on biotechnological
potential of microalgae. Crit Rev Microbiol 34:34–77
Richmond A, Zou N (1999) Efficient utilization of high photon irradiance for mass production of photo
autotrophic micro-organisms. J Appl Phycol 11:123–127
Rodolfi L, Zittelli GC, Bassi N, Padovani G, Biondi N, Bonini G et al (2008) Microalgae for oil: strain
selection, induction of lipid synthesis and outdoor mass cultivation in a low-cost photobioreactor.
Biotechnol Bioeng 102(1):100–112
Rogelj J, Hare W, van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Matthews B, Hanoaka T, Jiang K, Meinshausen M (2011)
Emission pathways consistent with a 2°C global temperature limit. Nature Climate Change 1:413–418
Royal Society (2008) Sustainable biofuels: Prospects and challenges. Policy document 01/08, 978 0 85403
662 2
Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. Report 10/09, 978 0
85403 773 5
Safonova E, Kvitko KV, Iankevitch MI et al (2004) Biotreatment of industrial wastewater by selected algal-
bacterial consortia. Eng Life Sci 4:347–353
Sakai N, Sakamoto Y, Kishimoto N, Chihara M, Karube I (1995) Chlorella strains from hot springs tolerant to
high temperature and high CO2. Energ Convers Manage 36:693–696
Sankar V, David K, Krastanov A (2011) Carbon dioxide fixation by Chlorella minutissima batch cultures in a
stirred tank bioreactor. Biotechnol Biotechnol Eq 25(3):2468–2476
Sarmiento JL, Gruber N (2006) Ocean biogeochemical dynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Scurlock JMO, Johnson K, Olson RJ (2002) Estimating net primary productivity from grassland biomass
dynamics measurement. Global Change Biol 8:736
Seckbach J, Gross H, Nathan MB (1971) Growth and Photosynthesis of Cyanidium caldarium cultured under
pure CO2. Israel J Bot 20:84–90
Sidhu MA, Ahluwalia AS (2011) Water quality & cyanobacterial diversity in lower western Himachal lakes.
Vegetos 24(2):165–170
Singh S, Kate BN, Banerjee UC (2005) Bioactive compounds from cyanobacteria and microalgae: an
overview. Crit Rev Biotechnol 25:73–95
Smetacek V, Naqvi SWA (2008) The next generation of iron fertilization experiments in the Southern Ocean.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 366(1882):3947–3967
Spolaore P, Joannis-Cassan C, Duran E, Isambert A (2006) Commercial applications of microalgae- review. J
Biosci Bioeng 101:87–96
Steinberg M (1984) An analysis of concepts for controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide, Report DOE/CH/
00016-1. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven
Stewart C, Hessami MA (2005) A study of methods of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration-the
sustainability of a photosynthetic bioreactor approach. Energy Convers Manage 46:403–20
Strong AS, Miller CC, Cullen J (2009) Ocean fertilization: time to move on. Nature 461(17):347–348
Subhadra BG (2010) Sustainability of algal biofuel production using integrated renewable energy park (IREP)
and algal biorefinery approach. Energ Policy 38:5892–5901
Tabatabaei M, Tohidfar M, Jouzani GS, Safarnejad M, Pazouki M (2011) Biodiesel production from
genetically engineered microalgae: future of bioenergy in iran. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:1918–1927
Tamiya H (1957) Mass culture of algae. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 8:309–333
Tapie P, Bernard A (1988) Microalgae production technical and economic evaluations. Biotechnol Bioeng 32
(7):873–885
Taylor G (2008) Biofuels and biorefinery concept. Energ Policy 36:4406–4409
Thajuddin N, Subramanian G (2005) Cyanobacterial biodiversity and potential applications in biotechnology.

Curr Sci 89:47–57
Tsuda A et al (2003) A mesoscale iron enrichment in the western subarctiv Pacific induces a large centric
diatom bloom. Science 300:958–961
USDOE (2009) National Algal Biofuel Technology Roadmap. Biomass Program/https://ecenter.doe.gov/iips/
faopor.nsf/UNID/79E3ABCACC9AC14A852575CA00799D99/$file/AlgalBiofuels_Roadmap_7.pdfS.
Cited 12 Feb 2010
Vasudevan P, Briggs M (2008) Biodiesel production-current state of the art and challenges. J Ind Microbiol
Biotechnol 35(5):421–430
Wang B, Li YQ, Wu N, Lan CQ (2008) CO2 bio-mitigation using microalgae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
79:707–18
Wang LA, Min M, Li YC, Chen P, Chen YF, Liu YH et al (2010) Cultivation of green algae Chlorella sp. in
different wastewaters from municipal wastewater treatment plant. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 162:1174–86
Wijffels RH (2007) Potential of sponges and microalgae for marine biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol 26
(1):26–31
WorldBankReport (2011) State and trends of the carbon market 2010. Washington DC, p 16
Xia J, Gao K (2003) Effects of doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration on the photosynthesis and growth of
Chlorella pyrenoidosa cultured at varied levels of light. Fisheries Sci 69(4):767–771
Yue L, Chen W (2005) Isolation and determination of cultural characteristics of a new highly CO2 tolerant
fresh water microalgae. Energ Convers Manage 46:1868–1876
Yun YS, Lee SB, Park JM, Lee C, Yang JW (1997) Carbon dioxide fixation by algal cultivation using
wastewater nutrients. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 69:451–455
Zeiler KG, Heacox DA, Toon ST, Kadam KL, Brown LM (1995) The use of microalgae for assimilation and
utilization of carbon dioxide from fossil fuelfired power plant flue gas. Energy Convers Mgmt 36(6–
9):707–712
View publication stats

MITIGADAPTSTRATEGGLOBCHANGE Microalgae

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MITIGADAPTSTRATEGGLOBCHANGE Microalgae

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Microalgae: A promising tool for carbon sequestration

Article in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · January 2013

Uday Bhan Singh Amrik Singh Ahluwalia

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Uday Bhan Singh & A. S. Ahluwalia

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2013)

Microalgae: a promising tool for carbon sequestration

Uday Bhan Singh & A. S. Ahluwalia

U. B. Singh : A. S. Ahluwalia (*)

2 International response to climate change

3 Why carbon sequestration is necessary

NETðCO2 Þ ¼ ðPOPÞ ½GDP=POP ½E=GDP ½CO2 =E S

4 Global carbon cycle

¼ 109 Mtðmetric tonsÞ

5 Different approaches to sequester carbon

5.1 Terrestrial carbon sequestration

5.2 Ocean carbon sequestration

5.3 Deep ocean injection

5.4 Geological carbon sequestration

atmosphere–ocean system, resulting in changes to ocean circulation, modified surface water

Primary productivity can be defined as the production of organic macromolecules from

8.1 Different cultivation methods: ponds and bioreactors

Factor Open systems (raceway ponds) Closed systems (photobioreactors)

Space required High Low

(Grobbelaar 2009; Harun et al. 2010; Pires et al. 2012)

8.2 Harvesting processes

technological drawbacks, such as a high-energy cost (centrifugation), algal biomass con-

9 Advantages of algae over higher plants

9.1 Biomass productivity

9.2 Photosynthetic efficiency

Table 2 Photosynthetic efficiency (PE) values of various microalgal species

Alga PE value Reference

Chlorella sp. 20 % Tamiya 1957

9.3 Carbon dioxide tolerant microalgae

9.4 Direct utilization of flue gas

Alga CO2 tolerance Temperature Reference

Cyanidium caldarium 100 60 Seckbach et al. 1971

9.5 Use of wastewater

Algae culture, irrespective of whether it is using open ponds or ‘closed’ photobioreactors

9.6 Biomass applications

9.7 Algal biorefinery concept

A biorefinery is a facility that integrates biomass conversion processes and equipment to

Table 4 Potential of some microalgae in treatment of a variety of effluents

Algae Wastewater source Reference

Chlorella vulgaris Steel making plant Yun et al. 1997

Algae Product Value Market

Dunaliella salina β - Carotene High Feed industry, functional

10 Caveats and limitations

Akkerman I, Janssen M, Rocha J, Wijffels RH (2002) Photobiological hydrogen production: photochemical

Gribbin J (1988) Any old iron? Nature 331:570

Thajuddin N, Subramanian G (2005) Cyanobacterial biodiversity and potential applications in biotechnology.

View publication stats

You might also like