Biofuels

ISSN: 1759-7269 (Print) 1759-7277 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbfu20

Multi-criteria analysis of microalgae production in

Iran

Mohammad Hadi Katooli, Alireza Aslani, Fatemeh Razi Astaraee, Tania

Mazzuca Sobczuk & Asieh Bakhtiar

To cite this article: Mohammad Hadi Katooli, Alireza Aslani, Fatemeh Razi Astaraee, Tania
Mazzuca Sobczuk & Asieh Bakhtiar (2019): Multi-criteria analysis of microalgae production in Iran,
Biofuels, DOI: 10.1080/17597269.2018.1542566

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2018.1542566

Published online: 19 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbfu20
BIOFUELS
https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2018.1542566

Multi-criteria analysis of microalgae production in Iran

Mohammad Hadi Katoolia, Alireza Aslania, Fatemeh Razi Astaraeea, Tania Mazzuca Sobczukb and
Asieh Bakhtiarc
a
Department of Renewable Energy and Environment Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Iran; bDepartment
of Chemical Engineering, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (CeiA3), University of Almerıa, Almerıa, Spain; cDepartment of
Technology Management Faculty of Management, Shaid Beheshti University, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

With deployment of renewable energy utilization, biofuels have an important role in government Received 13 April 2018
policies. Microalgae is an important and promising biofuel source that has high potential for pro- Revised 16 August 2018
duction in some areas such as Iran. Studies show that Iran’s climate is suitable for cultivation of Accepted 20 September 2018
microalgae. The aim of the current work is to first identify the most important criteria for produc-
KEYWORDS
tion of microalgae. Then, the best areas for cultivation of microalgae are ranked based on the Microalgae; biofuels; Iran;
identified criteria and expert opinions using the analytic hierarchy process method. The main crite- analytic hierarchy process
ria identified are land, climate, water and nutrients, and the existing infrastructure needed to culti-
vate algae. The main contributors for selecting the best areas for algae production are climate,
and water and natural resources. The overall results show that the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf
are the best candidates for algae production. A comparison is also carried out between the present
study and the previous study by the authors to explain more about the role of criteria in the
site selection.

Introduction helpful in order to make biofuels competitive with fos-

The increasing need of the world economy to provide
energy for transportation, lighting and warming has
increased the use of fuel. Biofuels are promising fuels that
can meet the needs for energy production. Development
in industry and population growth in recent years are other
factors that have affected the use of these fuels. Limitation
of fossil fuels and increase in greenhouse gases, especially
CO2 in the atmosphere, and climate change have increased
the need to find new sources of renewable energies to
produce energy. Biofuels are one of the promising fuels,
and algae have high potential to produce biofuels. Special
features of algae include its fast ability to grow, ability to
grow in non-agricultural areas, ability to grow in salty
water and wastewater, the fact that it does not have a
negative effect on water resources, the high amount of fat
in its cell structure, the possibility to make genetic changes
in order to produce a greater amount of food, its compati-
bility with the environment and the fact that it can help
reduce air pollution.
For example, Li et al. [1] considered the effects of land,
climate and water and nutrients. In another study, by
Quinn et al. [2], the effects of land are considered along
with the effects of climate. In another study, Quinn et al.
[3] considered the effects of land, climate, CO2, water and
nutrition as factors in the production of algae.
Biofuels can be a suitable alternative for fossil fuels, but
first some problems must be addressed. One of the most
important problems is the competition in the world fuel
market. For this problem, finding cost-effective and suitable
kinds of algae with high amounts of fat is very important.
Also, paying attention to cultivation factors would be very
sil fuels.
Many studies have investigated the high potential for
growing algae in Iran and the ideal features of this country
for producing microalgae. For example, Najafi et al. [4]
studied the prospect of producing biodiesel in Iran. They
concluded that Iran has many good candidates for algae
cultivation with enough land that does not compete with
food production. Dalgleish [5] investigated suitable loca-
tions for microalgae production plants for biofuel produc-
tion. Among the candidates is Iran’s saltwater Lake Urmia
which has high potential for microalgae production.
Mohseni et al. [6] studied the design and optimization
of a microalgae-based biofuel supply chain to produce
microalgae in Iran. They suggested different strategies to
reduce the production cost of biofuel.
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a method for making
complex decisions based on a mathematical process. Many
studies have investigated the benefits and high potential
of microalgae cultivation in Iran. However, using the AHP
method to identify the best candidates for microalgae pro-
duction in Iran is a novel work. The purpose of this paper
is to identify the best locations to cultivate microalgae in
Iran using the AHP method. This method is effective
because it considers many parameters in order to make
the best decision. First, characteristics of microalgae are
explained. Then, the main criteria for microalgae cultivation
are identified based on a literature study. After that, suit-
able locations in Iran for microalgae production are dis-
cussed. Based on the identified criteria, the priority of the
identified criteria is ranked. Finally, a sensitivity analysis of
the criteria in ranking is discussed.

CONTACT Alireza Aslani alireza.aslani@ut.ac.ir

ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. H. KATOLY ET AL.
Figure 1. The analytic hierarchy process decision structure to assess potential sites for the cultivation of microalgae.
Characteristics of microalgae
Microalgae are currently being promoted as an ideal third-
generation biofuel feedstock because of their biological and
technical characteristics. Algae are more efficient in absorption
and use of sunlight than land plants [7]. They consume harm-
ful pollutants and Algae need fewer sources to grow. Algae
do not compete with human food sources and their use in
the production of biofuels will not have any adverse effect on
food supplies. The growth rate of algae is high and almost 10
to 50 grams of algae is extracted per square meter every day
[8]. Algae have a much shorter growing period compared
with first-generation resources such as corn and soybeans, as
they reach their maximum growth rate after 24 hours and
double every 3.5 hours [9].
Table 1 shows the amount of oil extracted and the
amount of arable land required for the growth of algae and
plant sources such as corn and soybeans are compared.
Material and methods
The selection of a particular algae species is one of the
most important parts of growing algae [10]. After that, it is
very important to select the right place for algae cultiva-
tion. The main criteria in selecting a place to produce and
cultivate algae are land, climate, water and nutrients, and
the existing infrastructure needed to cultivate algae.
Land
The land criterion consists of the following sub-criteria: use
of land, slope, size of land to build a place to produce
algae, land ownership, land price and soil features [11]. The
use of land and the slope are the most important criteria.
Bravo-Fritzet al. [12] considered the best place for algae
farming in Chile to be locations with a slope of less than
5%. National reserves, protected areas and wetlands are
also excluded from algae cultivation sites [12, 13].
Suitable sites for algae production are located within
10 km of coasts. It is recommended to use otherwise use-
less lands to minimize the cost. It is also recommended to
make a trade-off between availability of land and other
resources such as water and CO2, and other criteria [14].
The features of soil are also important for choosing the site

Table 1. Comparison between the amount of oil and land necessary for harvesting algae and
conventional raw materials [9].
Primary material Oil (gallons per acre per year)
Corn 18
Soybean 48
Canola 127
Oil palm 635
Microalgae (10% oil) 1200
Microalgae (50% oil) 10000
Table 2. Main criteria weight of each candidate in Iran.
Main criteria Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Maharlu Lake
Land 0.314
Climate 0.251
Infrastructure 0.422
Water and natural resources 0.448
Total 0.326
to cultivate algae. Soils that have large amounts of sand
are unsuitable because of high rates of percolation [15].
Climate
Two important climatic factors that affect growing algae
are temperature and solar radiation, which were found to
be important in all studies. Sites that are suitable to culti-
vate algae must have enough sunlight because it is a major
factor directly affecting the production of algae [16, 17].
Iran has a high radiation rate [18]. This feature makes Iran
a very good country to produce microalgae.
A warmer climate is more suitable for algae cultivation
than a cold climate [19]. Hourly data on temperature, wind
speed, evaporation of pan, precipitation and solar radiation
are important algae cultivation parameters [15]. A climate
for suitable algae production has high annual solar radi-
ation and an optimum temperature range [20].
Algae biodiesel production is highly dependent on cli-
mate conditions which control the efficiency of biodiesel
production. Cold intolerance of algae is likely to produce
low biomass or low amounts of lipid [21], which results in
low efficiency of resource use.
Water and nutrients
The present technology consumes a considerable amount
of water in order to produce biodiesel [22]. Therefore, find-
ing a way to produce biodiesel with a low amount of fresh
water or even by using saline water is important.
A continual supply of water is very important for pro-
ducing algae, and efficient recycling of water is also
important [13]. Algae cultivation requires a high amount of
water along with different nutrients, which is one of the
reasons for algae’s high production costs [23]. Algae can
grow in fresh water, saline water, seawater, and also waste-
water [24, 25]. Transporting wastewater over long distances
is not recommended [26].
In addition to geography, selection of species and con-
verting technology will influence the usage of water
strongly. Wastewater, for example from municipal, indus-
trial and agricultural sources, is projected to be an excel-
lent source for cultivating algae [14], because it contains
nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen.
BIOFUELS 3
Necessary land (million acres)
2222
832
315
63
33
4
Urmia Lake Qom Lake Zagros Mountain Total
0.114 0.227 0.128 0.217 0.048
0.194 0.130 0.321 0.104 0.559
0.133 0.096 0.199 0.150 0.116
0.124 0.080 0.280 0.068 0.227
0.165 0.112 0.292 0.105
Infrastructure and other criteria
Infrastructure is a crucial resource for cultivating algae to
supply nutrients. Suitable sites for cultivating algae should
have proper access to infrastructure such as streets, rails,
lines for transportation and electric lines [13, 24, 27].
Transportation costs will also affect the final cost of pro-
duced biodiesel. The farther algae cultivation sites are from
pipelines or wastewater facilities, the higher are the final
costs of the produced biodiesel. Labor force for work is
another important criterion for algae production.
Case study
Iran presents five main candidates for cultivating microalgae,
which have been chosen based on several papers [4, 5].
These areas are: Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea; Maharlu Lake
in Fars province; Urmia Lake in west Azarbaijan province;
Qom Lake; and Zagros Mountain (Aleshtar in Lorestan prov-
ince). The aim of this paper is to use the AHP method to
choose the best potential regions in Iran to cultivate microal-
gae. The main criteria for assessing each place are: climate,
infrastructure, land, and water and natural resources. Different
criteria affect microalgae site selection. The main criteria in
this paper were chosen based on the criteria discussed in
similar papers [28, 29]. These criteria are subdivided into sub-
criteria for further definition. Climate is subdivided into tem-
perature ( C), solar radiation (kWh/m2), precipitation, wind
speed and cloud cover. High potential of solar radiation in
Iran [30] is a promising factor in miroalgae cultivation in Iran.
Land is subdivided into slope, land use, elevation, land area,
soil characteristics and land cost. Infrastructure is subdivided
into distance to power plant (km), distance to fresh water
source (km), distance to saline water source (km), distance to
road (km) and production type. Water and natural resources
are subdivided into facilities producing CO2, water source,
wastewater and brackish water. An AHP decision chart is
shown in Figure 1 for choosing a suitable site for algae bio-
diesel production. The main criteria analysis scenario for rating
each main criterion is described as follows: climate was given
significantly more weight compared with all of the other
main criteria. Water and natural resources was given more
weight compared with infrastructure, water and natural
resources was given more weight than land, and infrastruc-
ture was given more weight than land. The method used for
solving this scenario is the eigenvector method proposed by
4 M. H. KATOLY ET AL.

Table 3. Land sub-criteria weight of each candidate in Iran.

Land Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Maharlu Lake Urmia Lake Qom Lake Zagros Mountain Total
Slope 0.081 0.156 0.263 0.452 0.048 0.144
Land use 0.476 0.073 0.051 0.264 0.137 0.424
Elevation 0.47 0.051 0.082 0.248 0.149 0.088
Land area 0.47 0.081 0.146 0.047 0.255 0.032
Soil characteristics 0.479 0.138 0.091 0.241 0.050 0.042
Land cost 0.090 0.231 0.141 0.049 0.489 0.271
Total 0.314 0.128 0.114 0.227 0.217

Table 4. Climate sub-criteria weight of each candidate in Iran.

Climate Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Maharlu Lake Urmia Lake Qom Lake Zagros Mountain Total
Temperature 0.430 0.071 0.147 0.318 0.035 0.280
Solar radiation 0.043 0.319 0.126 0.425 0.087 0.483
Precipitation 0.529 0.070 0.137 0.041 0.223 0.119
Wind speed 0.469 0.044 0.75 0.125 0.287 0.074
Cloud cover 0.529 0.070 0.137 0.041 0.223 0.043
Total 0.430 0.071 0.147 0.318 0.035

Table 5. Water and natural resources sub-criteria weight of each candidate in Iran.
Water and natural resources Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Maharlu Lake Urmia Lake Qom Lake Zagros Mountain Total
CO2 resources 0.387 0.134 0.081 0.349 0.050 0.221
Water source 0.511 0.13 0.057 0.216 0.085 0.540
Wastewater 0.483 0.123 0.084 0.261 0.049 0.138
Brackish water 0.271 0.075 0.173 0.423 0.58 0.100
Total 0.448 0.124 0.080 0.280 0.068

Table 6. Infrastructure sub-criteria weight of each candidate in Iran.

Infrastructure Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Maharlu Lake Urmia Lake Qom Lake Zagros Mountain Total
Distance to power plant 0.470 0.144 0.079 0.262 0.45 0.166
Distance to fresh water source 0.461 0.133 0.074 0.044 0.289 0.430
Distance to saline water source 0.124 0.071 0.272 0.493 0.039 0.096
Distance to road 0.291 0.137 0.087 0.445 0.040 0.070
Production type 0.473 0.148 0.084 0.251 0.045 0.239
Total 0.422 0.133 0.096 0.199 0.150

provides decision makers with a structure to use to organ-

Figure 2. Preferred algae cultivation sites for biofuel production in Iran
based on the analytic hierarchy process method.
Saaty [31]. This method can be explained by numbering each
criterion according to its weight.
Research method
AHP is a multi-criterion decision analysis (MCDA) tool for
making complex decisions based on math. This method
ize and evaluate the objectives. AHP consists of three main
parts. First, the main goal of the problem, main criteria,
sub-criteria and candidates must be identified and organ-
ized into a hierarchy. Second, a pairwise comparison
between the elements must be made. Finally, solution
results of the AHP method are concluded. For determining
the best candidate among other candidates, a scale of 1 to
9 is assigned to each array of the matrix which is formed
for pairwise comparison. Then, the eigenvector of the
matrix must be computed and the normalized weight Wi is
computed. A higher normalized weight indicates a better
choice whereas a lower normalized weight indicates a can-
didate with low preference.
The problem of microalgae site selection is solved based
on the AHP method using Expert Choice software v. 11,
which is a multi-objective decision tool based on AHP
method. Expert Choice combines priorities to obtain the
overall priorities of the candidates. It is also possible to
modify judgments until the model incorporates our intu-
ition. This software is useful for forecasting and assessing
uncertainty and risk, and deriving probability distributions.
Results and discussion
Normalized weights of the main criteria for the candidates
of algae cultivation sites are shown in Table 2. As men-
tioned before, the weight of each criterion is given based
on the results of expert research and published papers.
 BIOFUELS 5

Table 7. Weight of criteria and sub-criteria in both studies.

Previous study Present study
Criteria Sub-criteria Weight Criteria Sub-criteria Weight
Land Land price 0.344 Land Slope 0.144
Being close to the place 0.050 Land use 0.424
of consumption
Recycling 0.048 Elevation 0.088
Population 0.052 Land area 0.032
No threat to agriculture 0.334 Soil characteristics 0.042
Land cost 0.271
Foundation 0.128 Water and natural CO2 resources 0.221
Workforce 0.047 resources Water source 0.540
Carbon dioxide (supply) The ocean 0.030 Wastewater 0.138
Geology 0.085 Brackish water 0.100
Transmission with tube 0.116 Infrastructure Distance to power plant 0.166
Liquidation 0.150 Distance to fresh water source 0.430
industrial 0.214 Distance to saline water source 0.096
Fossil power plant 0.252 Distance to road 0.070
Other cycles 0.153 Production type 0.239
Climate Water 0.542 Climate Temperature 0.280
Sunlight 0.288 Solar radiation 0.483
Evaporation 0.032 Precipitation 0.119
Moisture 0.072 Wind speed 0.074
Weather conditions 0.065 Cloud cover 0.043
Alternative energy resources Hydropower 0.414
Wind 0.260
Sun 0.288
Geothermal energy 0.038
Nutrients Nitrogen 0.500
Phosphorus 0.500
Process technology Harvesting 0.523
Removal and drying 0.116
Extraction and separation 0.361

Table 8. Main criteria weight of each candidate in both studies.

Caspian Sea and Maharlu Urmia Qom Zagros
Main criteria Persian Gulf Lake Lake Lake Mountain Total
Current study Land 0.314 0.114 0.227 0.128 0.217 0.048
Climate 0.251 0.194 0.130 0.321 0.104 0.559
Infrastructure 0.422 0.133 0.096 0.199 0.150 0.116
Water and natural resources 0.448 0.124 0.080 0.280 0.068 0.227
Total 0.326 0.165 0.112 0.292 0.105
Main criteria Caspian Sea Maharlu Urmia Qom Persian Zagros south and Total
Salt Lake Salt Lake Lake Gulf Mountain north
Previous study Process technology 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.1
Nutrient 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.23 0.18 0.21 0.06 0.03
Energy resources 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.3 0.19 0.14 0.1 0.11
Climate 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.16 0.28 0.23 0.05 0.25
Carbon dioxide (supply) 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.7 0.15
Land 0.03 0.1 0.07 0.16 0.29 0.17 0.18 0.35
Compound weights 7% 11% 10% 18% 24% 17% 11%

The overall results of the current study show that the
Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf ire the best potential cultiva-
tion sites, with a total weight of 0.326 with respect to the
main goal. The other candidates in order of importance
are: Qom Lake with a weight of 0.292, Maharlu Lake with a
weight of 0.165, Urmia Lake with a weight of 0.112 and
Zagros Mountain with a weight of 0.105. Caspian Sea and
Persian Gulf have large amounts of water available. Also,
there are major power plants in these areas which contrib-
ute to the selection of these places for algae production.
The main contributors to selecting the best areas for
algae production are climate and water and natural resour-
ces, which means that more weight is given to these crite-
ria compared with other criteria.
Table 3 shows land sub-criteria weight. The sub-criteria
consist of: slope, land use, elevation, land area, soil charac-
teristics and land cost. Land use is given more weight
because of its importance, with a total weight of 0.424
with respect to other land sub-criteria. The Caspian Sea
and Persian Gulf is the best candidate in terms of land
sub-criteria with a total weight of 0.314.
Table 4 shows climate sub-criteria weight. The sub-crite-
ria consist of: temperature, solar radiation, precipitation,
wind speed and cloud cover. Solar radiation is given more
weight because of its importance, with a total weight of
0.483 with respect to other climate sub-criteria. The
Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf is the best candidate in terms
of climate sub-criteria with a total weight of 0.430.
Table 5 shows water and natural resources sub-criteria
weight. The sub-criteria consist of: CO2 resources, water
source, wastewater and brackish water. Water source is
given more weight because of its importance, with a total
weight of 0.540 with respect to other water and natural
resources sub-criteria. The Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf is
the best candidate in terms of water and natural resources
sub-criteria with a total weight of 0.448.
Table 6 shows infrastructure sub-criteria weight. The
sub-criteria consist of: distance to power plant, distance to
6 M. H. KATOLY ET AL.
fresh water source, distance to saline water source, dis-
tance to road and production type. Distance to fresh water
source is given more weight because of its importance,
with a total weight of 0.430 with respect to other infra-
structure sub-criteria. The Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf is
the best candidate in terms of infrastructure sub-criteria
with a total weight of 0.422. Normalized weights for all of
the candidates are shown in Table 6.
A graphical summary is shown in Figure 2 for the best
algae cultivation sites in Iran in order to produce biofuel.
Darker areas in this figure show more suitable places to
produce algae for biofuel production, while lighter areas in
this figure show relatively less suitable places.
Sensitivity analysis
According to Aslani et al. [32], other criteria and sub-criteria
for determining the best place for microalgae production
have been evaluated in the Middle East. While this earlier
study examined six criteria including land, carbon dioxide
(supply), climate, alternative energy resources, nutrients
and process technology, in this study we have investigated
criteria such as land, climate, type of water and nutrients
and infrastructure to find the best place. The climate and
land criteria are the same in both studies.
For example, in the land criterion in the present study, we
have considered sub-criteria such as the use of land, slope,
and size of land to build a place to produce algae, land own-
ership, the price of land and soil characteristics. In the previ-
ous research, the factors that were considered in the land
criteria are: the land price, being close to the place of con-
sumption, recycling, population, no threat to agriculture,
foundation and workforce. Also, in terms of climate condi-
tions in this paper, temperature, solar radiation, precipita-
tion, wind speed, and cloud cover are investigated. In the
previous paper, climate sub-criteria such as water, sunlight,
evaporation and humidity of weather were studied.
By analyzing the results of both studies and examining
the criteria considered in each of these papers, it is con-
cluded that in the present article the most important crite-
ria are climate (0.559), water and nutrients (0.227),
infrastructure (0.116) and land (0.048); this is different from
the results of the previous study. Land (0.35), ability to
access carbon dioxide supply (0.15), climate (0.25), alterna-
tive energy source (0.11), nutrients (0.03) and process tech-
nology (0.1) were the most important criteria in the
previous study. The different results arise from differences
in investigated standards and criteria.
Also, according to the weight obtained for each candi-
date, Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf (0.326) followed by
Qom Lake (0.292), Maharlu Lake (0.165), Urmia Lake (0.112)
and Zagros Mountain (0.105) are the best places to pro-
duce algae in Iran, which is different from the findings of
the previous study. The results of the previous study show
that the Persian Gulf with a weight of 24%, Qom Lake with
a weight of 18% and Zagros Mountain with a weight of
17% are the best candidates for microalgae production. As
a result, we can conclude that in both studies the Persian
Gulf and Qom Lake are the best places to produce microal-
gae in Iran.
Table 7 and Table 8 show the weight of each criterion
and sub-criterion of the current and the previous study, as
well as the weight associated with microalgae produc-
tion areas.
Conclusion
The AHP method was used in this paper for algae site
selection in Iran to produce biofuel. Four main criteria were
chosen for this research: land, climate, infrastructure, and
water and nutrients. Candidates for site selection in Iran
are: Maharlu Lake, Qom Lake, Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf,
Urmia Lake and Zagros Mountain.
The overall results show that according to the main cri-
teria, the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf is the best candi-
date for algae production, with a total weight of 0.326 with
respect to the main goal. The other candidates in order of
importance are: Qom Lake with a weight of 0.292, Maharlu
Lake with a weight of 0.165, Urmia with a weight of 0.112
and Zagros Mountain with a weight of 0.105. Climate and
water and natural resources were given more weight for
algae site selection because of their importance in Iran.
The results of this research can help policymakers and
scientists with better site selection in Iran in order to pro-
duce as much algae as possible.
Acknowledgment
This work has been developed in the Energy Policy and Modeling
Laboratory at the University of Tehran.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
[1] Li Y, Horsman M, Wu N, et al. Biofuels from microalgae.
Biotechnol Prog. 2008;24:815–820.
[2] Quinn J, De Winter L, Bradley T. Microalgae bulk growth model
with application to industrial scale systems. Bioresour Technol..
2011;102:5083–5092.
[3] Quinn JC, Catton KB, Johnson S, et al. Geographical assessment
of microalgae biofuels potential incorporating resource avail-
ability. Bioenerg Res. 2013;6:591–600.
[4] Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Yusaf TF. Algae as a sustainable energy
source for biofuel production in Iran: a case study. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15:3870–3876.
[5] Dalgleish P. Sustainability Research Project: Research of
Suitable Locations, Design and Operation of Microalgae
Production Plants for Biofuel’s. NR. 2017;08:671.
[6] Mohseni S, Pishvaee MS. A robust programming approach
towards design and optimization of microalgae-based biofuel
supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2016;100:
58–71.
[7] Aslani A. Mazzuca-Sobczuk, T. Eivazi, S. Bekhrad, K. Analysis of
bioenergy technologies development based on life cycle and
adaptation trends. Renewable Energy. 2018;127:1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.035
[8] Dragone G, Fernandes BD, Vicente AA, et al. Third generation
biofuels from microalgae. Current Research, Technology and
Education Topics in Applied Microbiology and Microbial
Biotechnology. 2010;2:1355–1366.
[9] Wen Z, Johnson MB. Microalgae as a Feedstock for Biofuel
Production. Published by Virginia cooperative extension. 2009.
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/422/442-886/
442-886_pdf.pdf
[10] Mata TM, Martins AA, Caetano NS. Microalgae for biodiesel pro-
duction and other applications: a review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14:217–232.

[11] Borowitzka MA, Boruff BJ, Moheimani NR, et al. Identification of
the optimum sites for industrial-scale microalgae biofuel produc-
tion in WA using a GIS model. The Centre for Research into
Energy for Sustainable Transport, California: Murdoch University
& University of Western Australia. 2012.
[12] Bravo-Fritz CP, Saez-Navarrete CA, Zeppelin LAH, et al. Site
selection for microalgae farming on an industrial scale in Chile.
Algal Research. 2015;11:343–349.
[13] Lundquist TJ, Woertz IC, Quinn N, et al. A realistic technology
and engineering assessment of algae biofuel production.
California: Energy Biosciences Institute. 2010:1.
[14] Orfield ND, Keoleian GA, Love NG. A GIS based national assess-
ment of algal bio-oil production potential through flue gas and
wastewater co-utilization. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2014;63:
76–85.
[15] Sharma B, Brandes E, Khanchi A, et al. Evaluation of microalgae
biofuel production potential and cultivation sites using geo-
graphic information systems: a review. Bioenerg Res. 2015;8:
1714–1734.
[16] Sudhakar K, Premalatha M. Theoretical assessment of algal bio-
mass potential for carbon mitigation and biofuel production.
Iranica Journal of Energy and Environment. 2012;3:232–240.
[17] Cunningham M, Heim C, Rauchenwald V. Algae production in
wastewater treatment: prospects for Ballen. LoCal-RE Summer
Research Program. 2010;15. https://pire.soe.ucsc.edu/sites/
default/files/Algaefinal.pdf
[18] Hajinezhad A, Katooli MH. Thermodynamical analysis of dry
cooling tower and solar chimney power plant combination.
International Journal of Ambient Energy. 2018; 15:1–7.
[19] Roostaei J, Zhang Y. Spatially Explicit Life Cycle Assessment:
Opportunities and challenges of wastewater-based algal bio-
fuels in the United States. Algal Research. 2017;24:395–402.
[20] Boruff BJ, Moheimani NR, Borowitzka MA. Identifying locations
for large-scale microalgae cultivation in Western Australia: a
GIS approach. Appl Energy. 2015;149:379–391.
[21] Larkum A. Limitations and prospects of natural photosynthesis
for bioenergy production. Current Opinion in Biotechnology.
2010;21:271–276.
BIOFUELS 7
[22] Wigmosta MS, Coleman AM, Skaggs RJ, et al. National microal-
gae biofuel production potential and resource demand. Water
Resources Research. 2011;47:20–32.
[23] Chen G, Zhao L, Qi Y. Enhancing the productivity of microalgae
cultivated in wastewater toward biofuel production: a critical
review. Appl Energy. 2015;137:282–291.
[24] Venteris ER, McBride RC, Coleman AM, et al. Siting algae culti-
vation facilities for biofuel production in the United States:
trade-offs between growth rate, site constructability, water
availability, and infrastructure. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:
3559–3566.
[25] Venteris ER, Skaggs RL, Coleman AM, et al. A GIS cost model to
assess the availability of freshwater, seawater, and saline
groundwater for algal biofuel production in the United States.
Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:4840.
[26] Ferrell J, Sarisky-Reed V. National algal biofuels technology
roadmap. US department of energy, USA: EERE Publication and
Product Library; 2010.
[27] Davis RE, Fishman DB, Frank ED, et al. Integrated evaluation of
cost, emissions, and resource potential for algal biofuels at the
national scale. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:6035–6042.
[28] Ubando AT, Promentilla MAB, Culaba AB, et al. Application of
spatial analytic hierarchy process in the selection of algal cultiva-
tion site for biofuel production: A case study in the Philippines.
Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), 2015. USA: IEEE
Region 10: IEEE; 2015. p. 1–6.
[29] Zhu L. Sustainable biodiesel production from microalgae culti-
vated with piggery wastewater. Acta Wasaensia 292. Vaasa,
Finland. University of Vaasa. 2014:1–122.
[30] Yousefi H, Kasaeian A, Ranjbaran P, et al. A Review of the
Criteria for Locating of Solar Power Plants in Iran. GEJ. 2017;8
(2):25–38.
[31] Saaty TL. What is the analytic hierarchy process? Mathematical
models for decision support: Germany: Springer; 1988. p.
109–21.
[32] Aslani A, Mohammadi M, Gonzalez MJI, et al. Evaluation of the
potentials and feasibility of microalgae production in Iran.
Bioresource Technology Reports. 2018;1:24–30.