Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Microalgae based biorefinery promoting circular bioeconomy-techno T

economic and life-cycle analysis
⁎
J. Rajesh Banua, Preethia, S. Kavithaa, M. Gunasekaranb, Gopalakrishnan Kumarc,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University Regional Campus, Tirunelveli, India
b
Department of Physics, Anna University Regional Campus, Tirunelveli, India
c
Green Processing, Bioremediation and Alternative Energies Research Group, Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet
Nam

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Microalgae are source of third generation biofuel having the key advantage of high lipid productivity. In recent
Algal biorefinery times, biorefinery is seen as promising option to further reduce the production cost of microalgae biofuel.
Bio-fuels However, exact energy balance analysis has not been performed on important biorefinery routes. In this aspect,
Lipid three biorefinery routes, all based on lipid based biorefinery route are evaluated for economical production of
Pigment
microalgal biofuel and valorised products. Biorefinery route 1 involves production of biodiesel, pigments, and
Techno economic assessment
animal feed. Biorefinery route 2 involves biogas and pigments production and two stage fermentation, and third
biorefinery route involves bio-hydrogen and pigments production. Finally, the technoeconomic assessment of
three biorefinery routes were reviewed, net energy savings, and life-cycle costing approaches to economize
microalgal biorefinery are suggested.

1. Introduction possible biorefinery due to following advantages: increased fixation of

In recent years, microalgae have been considered as a noteworthy
alternate resource for renewable fuels. The exploration for renewable
fuel has increased the concern due to elevated energy demand and
global level rising population. Microalgae being the potential substrate
for biofuel and value added products has extended its attention towards
carbondioxide; elevated biomass growth rate; ability of storing carbon
in both carbohydrate and lipid (50%) forms for biofuel (biomethane,
biohydrogen, biodiesel and bioethanol) and value added products
(polysaccharide, biopeptides, biopolymers, antioxidants and pigments)
recovery (Suali and Sarbatly, 2012). In addition, the microalgal bio-
mass can be used as food and animal feed because of its high protein

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gopalakrishnankumar@tdtu.edu.vn (G. Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122822
Received 27 November 2019; Received in revised form 12 January 2020; Accepted 13 January 2020
Available online 21 January 2020
0960-8524/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of different microalgal biorefinery routes.
content (Ozcimen et al., 2016). The main shortcoming of generating
microlagal based biofuels and value added products are its elevated
production cost and is not viable in the current stage as it demands
higher energy (Barros et al., 2014). Greater energy is needed for biofuel
production particularly for cultivation, harvesting and drying of mi-
croalgal biomass (Show et al., 2015). Hence, highly cutting-edge pho-
tobioreactors and less expensive downstream approaches are required
to accomplish a highly viable microalgae based biofuel generation.
Biorefinery is one such alternative approach where the biogenic ma-
terial used as a staple for the production of biofuels in commercial scale
(Clark and Deswarte, 2015). In this perspective, microalgae based
biorefinery has developed as a possible alternate for petroleum related
refinery. Numerous studies have magnificently used microalgal biomass
for value added products recovery. The two major phases in microalgal
biorefinery are upstream and downstream approaches. The potential of
upstream approach depends mainly on 4 parameters such as strains
selection, carbondioxide quantity, light and nutrients source. Some
methodologies have been recommended for the utilization of micro-
algae for biofuel and value added products recovery that would
broaden the market openings for products recovered from microalgae
and cut through advanced options of integrating microalgae cultiva-
tion, generation of biofuels and value added products recovery (López
Barreiro et al., 2014). Currently, the circular bioeconomy concept has
been rising as an essential component of green based technologies
(Bugge et al., 2016; Haarich et al., 2017). Microalgae from different
regions can be able to produce effective chemicals whereas the eco-
nomical feasibility is not satisfactory due to the cost incurred in growth
of algae, its harvesting and dewatering. The algal biorefinery gives the
better solution for reducing cost with maximum recovery (Chisti,
2010). The biorefinery of microalgae is a promising approach to
achieve the sustainable economics. Evaluation of life-cycle which in-
cludes life-cycle energy analysis, life-cycle analysis of carbondioxide
emission, and life-cycle analysis of cost is a set of approaches which
often employed in biofuel production to help decision makers and to
assess the system sustainability (Mälkki and Alanne, 2017). Many life-
2
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
cycle investigations have been performed on biofuel production in-
tegrated with additional by products recovery. On the other hand, many
studies did not deliver inclusive inventory results concerning energy,
economic and environmental evaluation for approaching outlook. This
review describes the circular bioeconomy of the biorefinery approaches
for the production of biofuels from microalgae. The environmental and
economic impacts were assessed by comparing different biorefinery
routes of algal-biofuels and value added products pathway. The dif-
ferent case studies were referred for different processing technologies
and the life-cycle analysis of the maximum oil yield from optimum
production chain were analysed by life-cycle inventories. The urbani-
sation and industrialisation became a major barrier between the quality
of human life and natural resources (Clark and Deswarte, 2008). The
qualities of human life are greatly affected due to the CO2 emission,
climate change and the resource depletion (Pyka, 2017). It is now in
need to replace the traditional fossil fuel with the sustainable resources
which have greater potential of energy production.
2. Framework outline of microalgal biorefinery
The microalgal biorefinery concept helps to assess and compare
different studies. The methodology assesses the organisation of various
routes of microalgal biorefineries. The framework explains the techno
economic analyses described in various studies as described by Van
Dael et al., 2014a,b). The framework consists of following three major
steps (Van Dael et al., 2014a):
2.1. Market analysis
A detailed market analysis is considered to be the initial step and it
determines the market outlooks and the factors affecting the commer-
cialisation of products. The commercialisation of microalgae started in
1960 s in Japan as food additives and in 1980 s it reached to other
countries like USA, India and Australia. About 7000 tonnes of micro-
algal dry mass were produced per year by 2004 (Spolaore et al., 2006).
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
The market price for biodiesel production from microalgae provided by
Subhadra and Edwards (2011) in their study was reported to be 0.73
USD/L. The market value of microalgae derived products was are stu-
died by Vigani et al. (2015) and the market cost of pigment, Beta-
Carotene was reported to be 285 USD. In a study by Pacheco et al.
(2015), the market price of pigment astaxanthin was estimated to 5113
€ per kg.
2.2. The process flow diagram
It is a backbone of techno economic assessment and the analyses.
Fig. 1 shows the process flow diagram for whole system of microalgal
biorefinery. The process flow diagram illustrates a process and ad-
vanced it to design a new process. The process flow diagram shows
different biorefinery routes and the integration of different routes to
obtain multiple products.
2.3. Cost assessment
Based on the integrated technological approach, the feasibility of
implementing the process can be determined by calculating economic
investment in terms of net present value. It is estimated that the price
for 10,000 tonnes of microalgae with 30% lipid is about $2.80/litre,
which include conversion, tax and marketing cost. When the nutrient
from anaerobic digestion is recycled, the cost of biomass is related with
waster cost (Davis et al., 2011). The biodiesel production were max-
imised by reducing the fatty acid concentration and the estimated cost
of biodiesel were $ 4.34/ gallon. Economic profitability will be higher
when the process was used as an integrated biorefinery. The outputs of
mass and energy balance were used to calculate the operating and ca-
pital cost in order to analyse the total cost of production. The en-
gineering estimates are the estimated capital cost for microalgal oil
production (Dean et al., 2010). The direct and indirect cost were in-
cluded in equipment cost and its installation cost were based on ven-
dors price. For installation, 10% of site preparation cost is added to the
total installation cost. The total equipment cost was calculated based on
several literatures (Davis et al., 2011; Lundquist et al., 2010). In the
estimation of fixed capital investment and total direct cost, the over-
head cost factor is also included. As per the study of Rogers et al.
(2014), the cost incurred towards pumping requirements in site was
estimated. The operational cost includes electricity cost, heating cost,
water, nutrients, hexane and personnel cost. Labour cost were esti-
mated based on the calculation of Davis et al. (2014a). The economic
factors like tax rate, depreciation model for model validation were ac-
counted by Davis et al. (2014a,2014b). As all the pigments does not
established market costs, an average theoretical value of 450€/kg was
taken for oil containing figments from market price (Ferreira et al.,
2013). Some of the following key assumptions are considered (Davis
et al., 2014a,2014b).
Fixed operating costs
All other labour costs = based on NREL’s Aden et al. ethanol model
Overhead = 90% of labour
Maintenance = 3% of cost of installed equipment.
Insurance and taxes = 0.7% of total installed cost
Indirect capital costs = based on NREL’s Aden et al. ethanol model
Contingency = 10% of total direct cost
Working capital = 5% of operating costs
Internal rate of return = 10%
Plant life = 30 year
Tax rate = 35%
MACRS (Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System) = 7-year
depreciation schedule.
2.3.1. Economic aspects of biofuel production from microalgae
In current years, requirement of fuel is elevating owing to the in-
tense increment in the conveyance vehicles and the energy utilization
3
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
in the conveyance division is probably to elevate by 1.4 percent till
2040. Biodiesel which can be generated from microalgae take part a
significant role in fuel market because of its exceptional features.
Microalgae can increase the biomass and oil yield by utilizing solar
energy at an elevated rate in comparison with plant biomass. On the
other hand, the important problem related with microalgae based
biofuels is not cheaper in comparison with petroleum related fuels. The
cost of 10,000 tonnes of microalgal biomass containing 30 percent lipid
is calculated as 2.80 USD/L. This covers biomass conversion, tariff and
market price. When comparing with petroleum costs (1.10 USD/L) in
united states, the microalgae based biofuels is greater. Therefore, in-
novative profitable treatments for effective microalgae based biofuel
generation are essential to replace natural resources with renewable
energy. The important parameters that are taken into account to attain
profitable biofuel generation from microalgal biomass are substrate
availability, extraction and biofuel quality to meet the typical fuel
standards. Various expansions are done to elevate the capability of
microlagal based biofuel in the recent markets. For example, suitable
design of a fermentor for scalability would minimize the costs asso-
ciated with production. Fermentors are normally more costly since they
need appropriate regulating systems to screen the biomass growth.
Thus, optimizing the parameters is the essential step to elevate the
process proficiency. The recent energy cost is comparatively cost ef-
fective and the economic values for the carbondioxide emissions are
underestimated that change the process unattractive.
3. Microalgal biorefinery & different routes
Techno economic analysis has been investigated for integrated
biorefinery of microalgae and this has been done based on three bior-
efinery routes, namely, Biorefinery route 1, Biorefinery route 2 and
Biorefinery route 3. Three routes have been investigated for the in-
tegrated biorefinery: Biorefinery route 1implicates the microalgal cul-
tivation, harvesting, lipid production, Transesterification, pigment
production and animal feed. Biorefinery route 2 involves the produc-
tion of bio-gas; and two stage fermentation and Biorefinery route 3
involves the biohydrogen production.
3.1. Biorefinery route 1
3.1.1. Microalgal cultivation and harvesting
A higher level of lipid accumulation was found in some microalgae
such as Prymnesiophytes, Chlorophyceae, Cyanophyceae and
Chrysophyceae. Microalgal lipids can be used as human food sub-
stituting the vegetable oil. The cultivation condition is one of the major
factors which affect the quantity of lipid production (Mei, et al., 2008).
The carbon- nitrogen ratio and other nutrients are necessary during the
stage of microalgal cell proliferation and lipid accumulation. The cell
growth is enhanced by lower carbon–nitrogen ratio whereas during
lipid production stage, the carbon–nitrogen ratio has been increased for
efficient accumulation (Illman, et al., 2000). The light and temperature
are also responsible for the growth of microalgae and for the effective
accumulation of lipid (Takagi, et al., 2006). The cultivation of micro-
algae is carried out by three different ways: autotrophic cultivation,
heterotrophic cultivation and mixotrophic cultivation. Autrotrophic
cultivation was done by using the closed photobioreactor and open
pond (Li et al., 2010). The heterotrophic cultivation was done by using
fermentor and the mixotrophic cultivation obtains energy by photo-
synthesis. The operating factors for all the cultivation system calcula-
tion were done based on the study of Jorquera et al. (2010)
V
PA = PV
A (1)
PV = μ X (2)
2
Where PA is the areal productivity (kg/m .d), PV is the volumetric
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
productivity (kg/m3∙d); V is volume (m3); μ is the specific growth rate/
dilution rate (d−1); X is the biomass concentration (kg/m3).
The electrical consumption for pumping operation during cultiva-
tion period (Epump) were calculated as (Marsullo et al., 2015)
E pump = Ppump·tpump (3)
Ppump is the power of the pump and tpump is the time required.
ρgQh
Where, Ppump =
η (4)
where ρ is the density of water (kg/m ), g is the acceleration due to
3
gravity (m/s2), Q is the discharge (m3/s), η is the efficiency of the pump
and h is the height difference between the two tanks before and after
the pump (m).
For open pond cultivation, the mixing can be done by paddle mixer
and the power required were calculated as (Chisti, 2016)
1.59Aρgfm2 u3
P=
edh0.33 (5)
2wh
dh =
w+h (6)
where A is the surface area of the pond (m2), ρ is the culture medium
density (kg/m3), dh is the hydraulic diameter of the pipe, fm is the
Manning channel roughness factor, g is the gravitational acceleration
(m/s2), u is the liquid velocity (m/s), and e is the efficiency of the
motor, where w is the width of the pipe, and h is the average depth of
the liquid in the open pond.
The cost incurred for the harvesting is almost about 20–30% the
total production cost (Barros, et al., 2014; Rawat, et al., 2011). Due to
the complex nature, microalgae cannot be easily separated and the
physical or chemical treatments were done prior to separation (Sun,
et al., 2013). The flocculation and dissolved air flotation methods are
widely used due to low cost. The flocculation method using potassium
sulphate as coagulant shows the harvesting efficiency of 82.10% which
then followed by natural settling (Sharma et al., 2016). Centrifugation
is more energy intensive method and it is done only for extracting high-
value products (Barros, et al., 2014). Ultrafiltration is not widely used
for large scale harvest due to the higher cost of membrane. The de-
watered and dried slurry gives the biomass efficiency of 85% and the
suspended solids are calculated as
MTSS = Eharvesting x Cmicroalgae x QTSS (7)
where MTSS is the mass of total suspended solids (kg/batch), E harvesting
is the harvesting efficiency, C microalgae is the concentration of micro-
algae (kg/m3) and, QTSS is the flow rate of the microalgae culture (m3/
batch).
3.1.2. Lipid production
The lipid extraction can be done mainly by solvent extraction, su-
percritical fluid extraction and thermal cracking (Zhang et al., 2012).
Even after the dewatering of microalgal biomass, its water content may
varies between 67 and 95.5%. The microalgal cell density is less than
10 g/L in large scale species. The energy input for drying of microalgal
biomass is more than the energy output of product (Liu et al., 2015). In
order to decrease the energy usage in this process, the wet algae are
highly recommended. Lipid extraction was done widely by using sol-
vent extraction process using hexane:methanol mixtue of 2:3 v/v
(Caporgno et al., 2016). The lipid yield was almost 95% with 2.4 g/
kgdry biomass of solvent loss (Xu et al., 2011).
The heat energy required for the drying and lipid extraction of
microalgae can be calculated as follows (Lam and Lee, 2014).
Q= (∑ mi Cpi ) ΔT
(8)
where Q is the thermal energy (KJ), mi is the weight of solvent and
reactant (kg), Cpi is the specific heat capacity of solvent and reactant
4
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
KJ/(kg. °C), and ΔT is change in temperature (°C). The lipid yield was
given as
Lipid extract weight
Lipid yield = × 100
total biomass weight (9)
In economic analysis of lipid extraction method, the cost of solvents
and volume used in extraction will be taken into account whereas costs
of microalgal cultivation are not accounted. The utility costs such as
electric energy, water, heating and cooling energy were calculated with
10% depreciation on equipment and other materials (Ángel and
Viatcheslav, 2012).
m m
⎡ ⎤
Cmet = ⎢∑ Vsolv . Csolv + ∑ [Cutilities .Uutilities ]. 1.1⎥
⎣ 1 1 ⎦ (10)
where Cmet is the cost of application of different methods, Csolv is the
cost of a specific solvent per volume units, Vsolv: Volume of solvent
used.
Energy incurred for the extraction were given as (Ángel and
Viatcheslav, 2012)
n
Emet = ∑ Peq t eq
1 (11)
Emet is the energy requirements of an extraction method, Peq is the
nominal electric power of equipment, teq is the time of use of equipment
3.1.3. Transesterification and biodiesel production
Transesterification process is the widely used method for biodiesel
production from microalgal lipids, where the methanol reacts with the
triglycerides i.e. the natural lipids. This process reduces the molecular
weight and thus increases the viscosity to 8 times which thereby im-
proves its volatile nature.. It is estimated that 1 g of lipids of algal
biomass can produce 1 g of biodiesel (Ehimen et al., 2009). The energy
output calculation in cultivation of microalgae for biodiesel production
is given by Islam et al. (2013)
Eoutput = m Ec (12)
where m is the weight of the biodiesel in grams (g), and Ec is energy
content of biodiesel (38.1 MJ/kg).
Net energy ratio (NER) decides the sustainability of biodiesel pro-
duction from algal biomass, it occurs when the net energy gain in
complete process is greater than 1. The energy ratio of microalgal
biorefinery given in various literature is depicted in Fig. 2. Energy ratio
greater than 1 was reported by many researchers (Batan et al., 2010;
Passell et al., 2013; Sander and Murthy, 2010; Delrue et al., 2010;
Stephenson et al., 2010). These authors have attained positive net en-
ergy production due to higher net energy ratio greater than 1.
Output energy
The NER can be calculated as NER (%) =
Input energy (13)
The net energy value (NEV) is calculated as
NEV = Σ produced energy − Σ used energy
The energy intensiveness equation is given as
Σinput energy
Energy intensiveness =
Σcost incurred throughout the process (14)
It was estimated that the microalgal biodiesel cost may ranges be-
tween 5$/gal to 30$/gal.
3.1.4. Pigment production
Many microalgae have the tendency to produce pigments in higher
rate. The microalgal species such as Dunaliella salina, Hematococcus
pluvialis have the tendency to produce β-carotene (Liu, et al., 2018) and
Muriellopsis spp. can produce fucoxanthin (Shukla and Kumar 2018),
Zeaxanthin by Dunaliella salina, (Kim et al., 2017), phycoerythrin by
Porphyridium spp. (Thoisen et al., 2017). Chlorella vulgaris have higher
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
Fig. 2. Net energy ratio of microalgal biorefinery in various published works; Production and biorefinery cost of microalgaL biorefinery system (RP- Raceway ponds;
TPB- Tubular photobioreactor; FPPB- Flat panel photobioreactor; VAP- Value added products; CB- Complete biorefinery) in various countries.
carotenoid content and it approximately weighs about 75 μg/g of dry
biomass (Gille et al., 2016). It is fat soluble and gives colours to the
plant parts, so it is considered as accessory pigment (Chen et al., 2016).
β-Carotene have higher selling price of € 1370 per kg. Astaxanthin is a
pigment which can be produced by Hematococcus pluvialis and was sold
at 2500 $/kg (sathasivam et al., 2017). Presently, because of its oxidant
properties the astaxanthin has the market potential of $ 200 million
(Koller et al., 2014). The commonly used extraction methods for car-
otenoid are the solvent extraction and supercritical fluid extraction. The
chemical method for cell disruption of microalgae for carotenoid shows
30 folds higher yield and mechanical method i.e. ultrasonication shows
40 times higher yield (Singh et al., 2013). In case of β- carotene pig-
ment, the extraction efficiency was seen to be 95% at 60 min (Hu et al.
2008). The energy consumption during extraction was almost same as
that of cultivation and harvesting stage. The supercritical carbon di-
oxide extraction method can be used without any toxic compounds
since CO2 is safe to recycle whereas the operating and capital cost is
high, so it is not widely considered (Hernández et al., 2014). The cost
incurred during extraction process will be reduced by selecting the
suitable methods. The economic feasibility is maintained when 21% of
pigments were sold as natural (Jesus et al., 2016).
3.1.5. Animal feed
Protein being the main constituents accounts about 50–70% of
microalgal composition. It is mainly used as a human nutrition or an-
imal feed (Templeton and Laurens, 2015). The commercialisation of
microalgal product was needed to be tested for its nutritional source to
use as animal feed (Drewery et al., 2014). Astaxanthin is esterified with
fatty acid to protein. Prawns and chickens are beneficial for the sup-
plementing enough protein in diet (Del Campo et al., 2007). The rev-
enue will increase when the dried protein meal can be used as feed and
thus decreases the fuel cost. The feed market issues like nutritional
value and the customer adoption are some of the major causes (Davis
et al., 2011). The algal biomass can be used as livestock feed which
consists of 7–20% of composition based on the species (Sprague et al.,
2016; Stokes et al., 2015). Some microalgae have higher nutritional
quality compared to other sources. The lipid extracted microalgae as an
animal feed can help to overcome the digestibility issues and higher
protein access to cell walls (Lodge-ivey et al., 2014). The animal feed
has a standard price of 0.31 $/ kg (Adewale et al., 2018).
5
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
3.2. Biorefinery route 2
3.2.1. Biogas production
The biogas productions from microalgae were used for the com-
bined heat and power production. The external power demand was
reduced upto 40% by the combustion of biogas (Shuping et al., 2010).
The process integration for microalgal biofuel production has higher
efficiency and sustainability of biofuel production. The major limita-
tions in biogas production from algal biomass are: higher biomass
production cost, slow biological conversion, higher methanogenic
sensitivity. In a study by Harun et al. (2013), the biomethane produc-
tion from leftover biomass shows the methane yield of 0.3 g/L with
30% of electricity generation efficiency. Carlos et al. (2011) studied the
potential of microalgae for the production of methane by anaerobic
digestion. The 75% of fermented biomass were converted to methane
and the high rate anaerobic digester reached 10–20 kg COD m 3/d. The
economic analysis reveals that the levelized cost of energy was
€0.087–0.170 kW/h with carbon credit of €30 ton-1 CO2 (eq) and
biomass cost of €86-124 per tonne. The energy balance for the methane
production from microalgae as performed by Milledge and Heaven
(2017) for the heat generation from combustion of biogas via combined
heat and power production. The lifecycle assessment of biogas pro-
duction from Chlorella vulgaris were assessed by Collet et al. (2011). The
authors found that there is a strong correlation between the biogas
production and electricity usage .The anaerobic digestion efficiency
have a major impact on the reduction of overall cost, mixing and
heating cost at all stages.
3.2.2. Two stage fermentation
Meyer and Weiss (2014) underwent a two stage fermentation for the
production of hydrogen and biogas from microalgae from a biogas plant
in Germany. The economic analysis included all the phases of produc-
tion. The cultivation phase is the major cost demanding process in
microalgal production. The photolysis reactor of microalgal cultivation
incur a cost of 50% , covering 16% for its installation. The combined
hydrogen and methane production plant have the higher annual cost as
compared to biogas plant. In overall process, the cost incurred for both
plants exceeds the market price. In another study by Mussgnug et al.
(2010), the hydrogen by anaerobic fermentation followed by methane
production from left over biomass of Chlorella reinhardtii shows that
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
there is an increase in methane generation to 123% as compared to
fresh biomass of algae.
Claude et al. (2007) analysed the two stage and one stage cultiva-
tion of microalgae Haematococcus pluvialis to analyse the efficiency of
astaxanthin pigment and found that the astaxanthin production in-
creased in two stage cultivation with productivity of 11.5 mg/L/d and
fit for the scaling up of process to industrial level. In another study by
Di Caprio et al. (2016) analysed the two stage process for bioethanol
and pigment production from Scenedesmus sp and found that the lipid
and starch during first cultivation stage were in balanced level and the
increase in carbohydrate content was observed during second stage of
cultivation. Astanxanthin pigments were extracted by solvent method
and obtained a content of about 0.2 mg/g biomass.
3.3. Biorefinery route 3
3.3.1. Biohydrogen production
The sustainability in processes and the economic efficiency are
needed to scale up the hydrogen production from microalgae to com-
mercial level. The economic analysis of biohydrogen production con-
siders the land area, operating facility, light, stability, construction
materials and maintenance (Show et al., 2012). A study by Kruse and
Hankamer (2010), shows that the genetically engineered microalgal
species C. reinhardtii can produce hydrogen to about 5 times the actual
strain by biophotolysis of water. The total hydrogen production costs
are drastically reduced as compared to dark and photo fermentation.
The biophotolysis of hydrogen production using microalgae with 10%
photon transformation efficiency is considered as a cost competing
hydrogen production from algae (Nagarajan et al., 2013). Nagarajan
et al. (2013) suggested that the photon conversion efficiency of 5% will
be viable if the steam generated in process was further utilized for the
production of co-products. The bioengineered algal species have eco-
nomical advantages in direct photolysis as compared to other methods
(Parvathy and Geetha, 2015). Pacheco et al. (2015) studied the eco-
nomic potential, energy and emission balances of pigment and hy-
drogen production from spirogyra microalgal species for its feasibility
in biorefinery system. The pigment production accounts in small
quantity with higher economic output. The market price of as-
tanxanthin is 5112.78 €/kg and β-carotene ranges 1095.41 €/kg. The
hydrogen content was 10% of the total biogas and it mainly depends on
the sugar content of algal biomass. The results shows that the bior-
efinery approaches can be efficiently adopted by increasing the sugar
content for hydrogen production, reducing the energy requirements
during harvesting and dewatering and by adopting the alternative
methods for pigment extraction. Nobre et al. (2013) derived the oil and
pigment from Nannochloropsis sp and the residual biomass were used for
biohydrogen production. The pigment production due to cold extrac-
tion were increased to 38% of hot extraction method, due to which the
energy and economic value increases. The major carotenoid were found
to be vaucheriaxanthin (30%) followed by astaxanthin (19%) and
zeaxanthin (18%). The supercritical fluid CO2 extraction along with
ethanol shows the higher lipid concentration and recover about 70% of
pigments. The biohydrogen yield of 60.6 mL/ g dry biomass were ob-
tained by dark fermentation.
3.4. Techno-economic assessment of microalgal biorefineries
The techno economic assessment of the three biorefinery routes
were essential in order to know the economic viability in these bior-
efinery approaches. (Van Dael et al., 2014a; Van Dael et al., 2014b).
The biorefinery route 1 includes the cultivation, harvesting, lipid pro-
duction and biodiesel production of microalgae. The algae production
cost may vary based on the assumptions and the techniques adopted
and it ranges between 150 and 6000 $/tonne (Ribeiro et al., 2015;
Hoffman et al., 2017; Dutta et al., 2016; Batan et al., 2016). In mi-
croalgae cultivation, the major technologies used were open pond
6
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
system (OP), flat panel photobioreactors, vertical photobioreactors and
horizontal photobioreactors. The closed system demands higher oper-
ating cost as compared to open system (Pulz, 2001). In open pond and
photobioreactors, the 10% rate of return was achieved by the selling
price of $8.52 and $18.10/gal of triglycerides. The low biomass pro-
ductivity of bubble column PBRs is considered as the expensive biofuel
production system with project cost approximately RM 324.53 million
and it accounts for 81.17% of total cost of production. The tubular PBRs
system have higher biomass with lower cost and thus decreases the raw
material required and number of reactors. The open pond cultivation
system were less expensive for mass production whereas the biomass
productivity is lesser with higher demand of water and thereby in-
creasing the operating cost (Faried et al., 2017; Katiyar et al., 2018).
The dewatering stage for open pond system have higher operating cost
since the water is discharged in large amount. The open pond with low
biomass productivity shows about 45.73% of the total cost. The open
system shows higher profit than photobioreactors, since the cost of
investment for photobioreactors were four times the open system
(Thomassen et al., 2016).
The microalgae were harvested when the lipid content reaches to its
maximum concentration and the harvesting accounts 20–30% of the
production cost. Centrifugation method for harvesting of algal biomass
needs higher energy and capital cost. The flocculation is considered to
be an efficient method with lesser energy consumption and less capital
cost of $ 2000 hm−2. The filtration method is applicable for filtering
the pollutants with $ 9884 hm−2 with higher efficiency and medium
cost (Jason et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015). The biomass productivity with
higher lipid content shows the positive impacts on final biofuel cost
(Yang et al., 2018).
About 10,000 tonnes of microalgae with 30% lipids were estimated
to be $2.80/L with inclusion of taxes and it is higher compared to
petroleum which costs $1.10/L. The biofuels can be made efficient by
introducing new technologies and by avoiding the depletion of re-
sources. The capable microalgae strain with high lipid contents and
high biomass growth were found to improve the cost of lipid produc-
tion. In case of open pond and PBR cultivation method, the oil pro-
duction costs about $8.52/galand$18.10/gal and its upgrading to bio-
diesel costs around $9.84 and $20.53/gal of diesel (Davis et al., 2011).
The lipid production of about 50% by weight was obtained in Nanno-
chloris sp., Dunaliella sp. and Chlorella sp (Mata et al., 2010). The co-
cultivation of microalgae species simultaneously reduce the production
cost and improves the production of lipid (Kouzuma and Watanabe,
2015). According to Davis et al. (2011,2014b), the cost for biodiesel
production ranges between $9.8–20.5 Gal−1 with minimum selling
price from $5 Gal−1 to $22 Gal−1. The values reported by Sun et al.
(2012) for biodiesel production were between 0.9 and 43 Gal−1. The
open pond cultivation of Dunaliella salina were economically feasible
for the production of β- carotene as compared to the PBRs whereas in
case of PBR cultivation of Haematococcus pluvialis the extraction of
pigment, astaxanthin makes the process viable due to higher market
price of astaxanthin. The productions of carotenoids in biorefinery
approaches are costly and it can be covered by obtaining higher re-
covery (Thomassen et al., 2016). The animal feed cost ranges between
$1384–5066/MT.
In the biorefinery route 2, the biogas production and two stage
fermentation (coupled biohydrogen and biomethane production from
microalgae) were analysed. The major energy consumed in anaerobic
digestion is the heat energy and electricity and almost 2.5 MJ/ kg DM of
heat energy and 0.39 MJ/ kgDM as reported by Mu et al. (2017). The
variation in composition of species and biodegradation ability assess
the potential of methane production and it may vary from 0.16 to 0.80
CH4/kg DM (Togarcheti et al., 2017; Brentner et al., 2011). In two stage
fermentation, the life-cycle costing of hydrogen is about 12–15 times
the cost of biogas produced at same energy (Meyer and Weiss, 2014).
The methane yield is 22% higher in two stage fermentation than one
stage fermentation (Zhiman et al., 2011).
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
In the biorefinery route 3, the pigment production from spirogyra
species were found to be 0.12 g per 100 g of algal biomass by using
15 MJ/gmicroalgae and emitted 13 gCO2eq/gmicroalgae. The compositions
of the different pigments were of 56% of astaxanthin, 16% of beta-
carotene and 5% of lutein and canthaxanthin. The major operational
cost considered in this route was the consumption of electricity which
accounts about 0.0269 €/ MJ. The total benefits and the operational
cost are directly proportional and it has large impacts on the production
of pigments and hydrogen (Pacheco et al., 2015). The market costs of
hydrogen production were 0.30USD per kg according to International
energy agency. The biohydrogen cost was about 4 times the cost of
natural gas (Kumar et al., 2019). The commercialization of the micro-
algal products were not much profitable since the cost of the products in
market is low and the profit generated is not balancing the production
costs. In future, the advancement in cultivation techniques may de-
crease the cost of cultivation to 0.5 €/ kg, thereby making the bior-
efinery feasible (Jesus et al., 2016). The economic feasibility and sus-
tainability of value added products depends on the technologies used.
The success in deriving these products needs large development of in-
dustries and innovation in techniques. The market potential of all the
derived products is enhanced by integrating the production process for
commercial use and making it economically viable by practical im-
plementation. The integration of biofuel production with value added
products reduces the capital and operating cost, thereby making it
economically viable and sustainable (Richa et al., 2017).
3.5. Life-cycle assessment (LCA)
The LCA is the tool to calculate the feasibility of biofuel production
from microalgae and the environmental impacts during the entire
process. It analyse the different processing technologies for biofuel
production with economical feasibility (Quinn and Davis, 2015). The
different cultivation technologies were applied to analyse the feasibility
of biorefinery system to commercial use. If the oil free biomass and the
lipids were converted to biogas and biodiesel, then the non-renewable
energy to the green house gas emission (GHG) emissions ratio will be
higher (Posada et al., 2016). In order to improve the sustainability of
the process, the optimisation of growth conditions, extraction techni-
ques improvement and co-product reuse is necessary. Table 1 shows the
life-cycle analysis and the different environmental impacts for algae
based biorefinery. The economic analysis of biodiesel production from
Tetraselmis chui were about two times the amount incurred for pyrolysis
process (Scott et al., 2013). The dewatering and lipid production ac-
counts for about 39–57% of total energy (Yaleeni et al., 2019) For
biohydrogen production, about 90% of energy were reduced by elec-
trocoagulation and solar drying process (Pacheco et al., 2015). The
ultrasound assisted extraction process exhibit higher pigment produc-
tion in Dunaliella salina (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2015). Smritikana et al.
(2016) analysed the two biofuel production technologies with con-
ventional and integrated approaches from microalgae and compared its
environmental impact with well to wheel system boundary. The GHG
emissions of the whole process by different technologies were analysed
and modelling were done by SimaPro software. The integrated ap-
proaches shows lower GHG emission and a growth phase of algae shows
0.03 GHG (kg CO2 eq /MJ) and contribute 50% of total emission. The
conventional extraction pathways have the GHG emission of 94% and
fossil consumption of 84% and it needs the up gradation of extraction
process. Howard et al. (2013) analysed the pond to wheel boundary of
microalgal production by the base case using commercial data and the
future case by estimation of data for large scale production compared
with soy and petroleum biodiesel. The base case shows higher magni-
tude of impacts as compared to soy biodiesel and the future case shows
more efficiency with lesser impacts and the results are closer to the soy
and petroleum. Fig. 3 shows the complete life-cycle analysis of micro-
algal biorefinery. The life cycle starts with the cultivation of micro-
algae, dewatering of microalgae, lipid extraction, oil conversion and
7
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
ends with the final product and co-product recovery. The raw materials
and the emission caused by the production were taken into considera-
tion.
3.6. Life-cycle costing (LCC)
LCC is done to assess the sensitivity and feasibility (El-Galad et al.,
2015) of microalgal biorefinery. It the aggregation of energy, installa-
tion, down streaming, operating, maintenance, environmental and de-
commissioning costs over the complete lifetime of product (Strazza
et al., 2015). The LCC model is executed based on operating cost (OC),
salvage value (SV), maintenance cost (MC), and capital cost (CC) (Hanif
et al., 2016). Table 2 shows the economic analysis of microalgal bior-
efinery. The capital expense is the cost of equipment, instrumentation
and piping. The total capital cost for microalgal cultivation, harvesting,
dewatering and drying are calculated based on the equation by Zhu
et al. (2014)
20
x
Ctotal = ∑ (1 + r n )
n=1 (15)
where Ctotal is the total capital cost, x is the annual capital cost, and
r is the 5% discount rate for 20 years utilization. Operating cost or
product cost are evaluated based on fixed cost and variable cost i.e
labor cost, maintenance, laboratory cost, insurance, plant overheads,
license fees. Due to the insufficient data for labor cost, only the cost for
utilities and raw materials are considered (Eggeman and Elander,
2005). The total operating cost of microalgal biodiesel production using
present value is estimated as (Yaleeni et al., 2019)
n
AOCmicrolagae / biodiesel
OCmicroalgae/biodiesel = ∑ (1 + r )i
i=1 (16)
The maintenance cost for 20 years using present value is estimated
as (Yaleeni et al., 2019)
n
MRmicroalgae / biodiesel × CCmicroalgae / biodiesel
MCmicroalgae/biodiesel = ∑ (1 + r )i
i=1 (17)
where MC is the total maintenance cost, MR is the maintenance rate
and CC is the capital cost.
The total LCC, profit and distribution cost are the total cost of
biofuel. The addition of profit and distribution cost are 10% of the
production cost of biofuels (Yaleeni et al., 2019).
3.7. Commercialization of microalgae based biorefinery
The cost incurred in commercialization of microalgal products were
assessed by combining the cost for cultivation and biorefineries. The
microalgal production and biorefinery cost of raceway ponds and dif-
ferent types of photobioreactors in various countries and market selling
price of microalgal biorefinery are also depicted in Fig. 2. Commer-
cialization of microalgal biorefinery is not economically feasible till
now. The market selling price of biofuels and other value added pro-
ducts s is low (Fig. 2) and profits did not counterbalance present pro-
duction costs (Fig. 2). In the coming years, research and development
will fetch enhancements in the biorefinery that may perhaps will
change this tendency. In future, If anticipated enhancements are done,
then the cost microalgal cultivation could reduced to 0.5 euro /kg. This
attainment will make the system viable in the present biorefinery route
itself.The lipid production of about 50% was found in Nannochloropsis
sp which can be able to tolerate high temperature and toxic impurities
(Zhu et al., 2014). The biogas production from mutant Chlorella sp. in
swine farm shows that it contains higher methane and carbon dioxide
with 22.8–25.7% of lipid content (Kao et al., 2012). The closed mi-
croalgae cultivation is widely used for high productivity with integrated
approaches like carbon capture (Chen et al., 2015; Vadiveloo et al.,
2016). The CO2 were used as aeration in this cultivation system. The
 Table 1
Life - cycle analysis and different environmental impacts for algae based biorefinery.
S .No Microalgal species Functional unit System Environmental impact Impact assessment Findings By product References
boundaries
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.

1 Tetraselmis chui MJ of pyrolysis

2 Nannochloris sp. &
Nannochloropsissp.,
3 Chlorellavulgaris
• 1biogas
combusted for
electricity
of pyrolysis bio
• 1oilMJcombusted
for
electricity
MJ of pyrolysis
• 1biochar
combusted for
electricity
t of pyrolysis biochar
• 1applied to soil as
conditioner
1 MJ of energy by
combusting the fuel in
acompression-ignition
direct-injection passenger
car
100,000 kg of dry algae
biomass for 340 days
ofyearly operation.
Cradle to GWP, ADP, Land transformation • Environmental impacts combined
grave and use, Water resource depletion, to single eco-point by BPIC LCIA
EP, ACP, E-toxicity, H-toxicity, method.
Photochemical smog, OD, Ionising • The higher price of biochar have
radiation, Respiratory effects lesser impact on GHG emission,
compared to biodiesel.
• The energy intensity is high in
cultivation and drying process.
Pond to GWP,PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and • SimaPro software were used for
wheel SOx.POP data modelling.
• Base case shows negative results for
all the impacts due to the
comparison with small scale
industries
future case i.e. scaling up
• Inprocess,
the GWP reduced from 2.9
to 0.18 kg CO2– equivalent
Cradle to CO2 emission • The net energy value is negative in • The dewatering and lipid
gate all scenarios during cultivation
process.
• The lipid for biodiesel production Bio oil, Biogas, Scott et al., 2013
followed by pyrolysis of residue Biochar, Biodiesel
for electricity generation.
• The economic analysis reveals that
the biodiesel production is twice
the times of income of the
pyrolysis process.
• The net energy ratio were higher Biodiesel Howard et al.,
compared to the present algal 2013
biodiesel studies in base case.
• In future case, the increase in oil
yield of 0.75 kg oil/ kg dry
biomass decreases the net energy
ration to 0.64.
Biodiesel, Yaleeni et al., 2019
extraction contributes 21 to 30% bioethanol
and 39–57% of total energy.

8
4 Spirogyra sp
5 ChlorellaVulgaris
6 Chlorellavulgaris
1 g of dry microalga
1 ton of biodiesel
produced
1 kg biodiesel
• Bioethanol as coproducts generate • About 47–87% of production cost
revenues, but CO emission leads to
2 is used as capital investment and it
negative impacts to the shows poor economic
environment performance.
• The production of biofuel from
microalgae have negative CO2
balance.
Cradle to GHG emission • Ecoinvent 2.0 database were used • Pigment production were less in Biohydrogen, Pacheco et al.,
gate to model water, energy and GHG quantity whereas the economic pigments 2015
emissions. share is large.
• The harvesting using centrifugation • Electrocoagulation and solar
and heating of fermentation unit drying process reduces the energy
were the major contributor of to about 90%.
energy consumption and CO2
emission.
• Pigment extraction energy demands
about 62% of total energy
Cradle to GWP, FER, water footprint • The microalgal cultivation and • The mixotrophic cultivation Biodiesel Victoria et al.,
gate drying contributes 84% of total system have more than 75% of 2014
impact GWP and FER savings.
• Biodiesel production gives higher cultivation stage, the electricity
GHG savings with lower GWP and
• Indemands for 62% of total GWP.
FER
• The GWP and FER reduces to 22%
and 29% based on water
requirements for biodiesel
production
Well to CO2 emission, Biodiesel, protein, Gnansounou &
wheel succinic acid Kenthorai, 2016
(continued on next page)
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
 Table 1 (continued)

S .No Microalgal species Functional unit System Environmental impact Impact assessment Findings By product References
boundaries

7.3.3 were used to model biofuel system uses less than

J. Rajesh Banu, et al.

7 Scenedesmus dimorphus
8 Nannochloropsis sp.
1 MJ of algal biodiesel
1 MJ of biodiesel
• Simapro
the impact and then assessed by
• Algal
95% of land as compared to fossil
Recipe midpoint methodology. system.
• Base case i.e biodiesel and protein • The succinic acid production have
production have less CO emission,
2 less consumption of fossil oil and
land usage and higher fossil oil thereby decreases the impacts .
consumption compared to
biodiesel, protein and succinic acid.
Cradle to GHG emission • Low nitrogen cultivation condition • The production system does not Biodiesel Yuan et al., 2014
gate is efficient in terms of GHG produce more energy compared to
emission due to the higher yield of the consumed energy.
biodiesel • The carbon concentration is not
• Algal cultivation contributes 86% much reduced in biodiesel
of primary energy required and the production pathway of algae.
extraction of oil contributes 88% of • The commercial system may
total GHG emission. achieve gain in efficiency with
• The overall GHG emission after higher potential to production
recovery of energy accounts about system.
75%.
Well to tank GWP, non renewable energy • IMPACT 2002 + with midpoint • Higher energy demand and GHG Biodiesel, biogas Monari et al., 2016
consumption approach is used as LCIA method. emission is shown in algal
• Non renewable energy biodiesel pathway.
consumption and GHG emission is • Industrial scale of production
higher in cultivation of algae (92%) needs further improvements.
followed by drying, harvesting and algae cultivation in waste

9
9 Chlorella vulgaris &
Arthrospira platensis
10 Dunaliella salina
biomass
• 11 kgkg ofof algal proteins
• 1 kg of bulk
• Food andoilfeed supply
• with specific amount
of protein
1 kg of β-carotene extract
recovered
Cradle to non-renewable energy
gate consumption, GWP, respiratory
inorganics emissions
Cradle to ADP, GWP , ODP, H-toxicity, ACP ,
grave EP, POP, E-toxicity MAEP, FWAEP.
extraction
• The
water reduces the energy demand
and GHG emission drastically.
• SimaPro 8 and ecoinvent 3.1 were • The autrotrophic and Food and animal Smetana et al.,
used for modelling LCA with heterotrophic cultivation system feed 2017
ReCiPe V1.08 and IMPACT shows higher environmental
2002 + for impact assessment. impacts compared to conventional
Four scenarios for cultivation show one.
• highest impacts.
• The intake of CO2 shows some • The microalgal species exhibit β-carotene Kyriakopoulou
benefit towards GWP, whereas the higher pigment production by et al., 2015
energy demand will be more in using UAE with lower impacts.
harvesting and cultivation phase. • The energy for pumping and
dewatering leads to higher overall
impact.

GWP: global warming potential; FER: fossil energy requirement; GHG: greenhouse gas emission; ADP: abiotic depletion; EP: eutrophication potential; E-toxicity: ecotoxicity; H-toxicity: human toxicity; OD: ozone
depletion; POP: photochemical oxidation potential; ACP: Acidification Potential; MAEP: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential; FWAEP: Fresh Water Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential; UAE: ultrasound assisted extraction
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
Fig 3. Complete life cycle analysis of microalgal biorefinery.
major barriers in commercialisation of algal biofuel are the operating
cost, energy need, land requirement and lower cell density. It was re-
ported that the cultivation cost is about 65% the total biofuel produc-
tion cost which shows that the efficient cultivation method can improve
the biodiesel production and sold it to market in lower price (Iancu,
et al., 2012). Some of the industries which produces microalgal biofuels
are: Sapphire Energy Inc., Cellana Inc., TerraVia Inc. (formerly Sola-
zyme), Algenol Biotech LLC, Joule Unlimited Inc., and Synthetic
Genomics Inc. The Sapphire energy Inc and Cellana Inc produces bio-
fuel in commercial scale and also produces the animal feed (Cellana Inc.
2015; Sapphire Energy Inc 2016). Algenol Biotech LLC, a company in
Florida can produce bioethanol for $1.30/gal (Algenol Biotech LLC,
2019). The genetic engineering has been applied by Synthetic Genomics
Inc to improve the secretion of lipids (Schmidt, 2010). Various com-
panies to produce algae based biofuels and value added products in
commercial scale are shown in Table 3.
The commercial scale requirements for biofuel production of mi-
croalgae are:
• Identification of high lipid accumulating microalgae strain
• Effective genetic engineering methods to alter the strain with high
tolerance to extreme environment.
• Engineering strategies for higher biomass and lipid production.
• Economically feasible reactor design for large scale biofuel pro-
duction.
• Efficient harvesting and lipid extraction methods and inexpensive
without any toxic chemicals.
• The techno-economic support from government for setting up bio-
fuel industries.
The cost of microalgae cultivation are drastically reduced by in-
tegration with wastewater treatment and carbon capture (Gendy and
El-Temtamy, 2013). The calculation of profitability were carried out for
the production of biogas from microalgae and it is considered as ef-
fective method for different energetic exploitation (Harun et al., 2011).
The major limitation in industrial scale microalgal production is the
inefficiency in maintaining the cell density in higher level due to
10
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
problems in scaling up in commercial level. The commercialisation of
hydrogen production technology from microalgae needs verification for
the feasibility in according to economic return and to reduce the GHG
emissions. The closed photo bioreactor can be able to avoid these issues
at extreme geographical locations (Oey et al., 2015).
3.8. Microalgal biorefinery as a circular bioeconomy approach
In microalgae based biorefinery, the biofuel and value added pro-
ducts recovery could be improved via process integration. The frame-
work design will be moulded base on the subsequent characteristics
namely, type of microalgal strain, process flow, side stream products
and main output products obtained. A new focus of interest has been
renewed with the intention to minimize the eco foot print and to obtain
a highly secured renewable feedstocks supply. The integrated valor-
ization of microalgal biomass improves its biorefinery on the verge to
develop the bioeconomy. For instance, the generation of biodiesel from
microalgae oil (from extracted lipid) can decrease the emission of
carbondioxide to nearly 78 percent. The lipid extracted biomass residue
can be used as feed biomass or can be utilized as feedstock for bio-
methane production. The recovered biomethane can be utilized to
generate the electricity needed to operate the biodiesel facility. In
certain circumstances, surplus power can be recovered and this could
be traded to cover the production cost of biodiesel. This implies that
microalgal biorefinery can be employed as successful route to recover
biofuel and multiple products.
The microalgal biorefinery can be procured as a route for biofuel
and multiple products recovery which are presently obtained from
petrochemical industry. Finally, it has been stressed that biofuels and
value added products recovery are not technology based processes, and
these processes are highly essential zones for technical investigation in
the bioeconomy viewpoint. Similar routes/ processes can be connected
together to valorize a biorefinery approach.
4. Conclusion
The microalgae are one of the prospective species which meets the
 Table 2
Economic analysis of microalgal biorefinery.
S. No Microalgal species Type of product Yield/ productivity Bioreactor Outlay cost Operational cost Amount gain References

1 Dunaliella salina β-carotene and fertilizer 141 tonnes β-carotene, 1476 tonnes of fertilizer. open paddlewheel ponds 11,223,432 € 13,340,596€ 16,746,464 € Thomassen et al., 2016
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.

2 Dunaliella salina β-carotene and fertilizer 141 tonnes β-carotene, 1476 tonnes of fertilizer. open paddlewheel ponds 10,748,522€/yr 7,936,666€/yr 16,746,464€/yr Thomassen et al., 2016
3 Dunaliella salina β-carotene and fertilizer 141 tonnes β-carotene, 1476 tonnes of fertilizer. PBR 43,139,268€/yr 13,256,184€/yr 16,746,464€/yr Thomassen et al., 2016
4 Haematococcuspluvialis Astaxanthin and fertiliser 43 tonnes astanxanthin, 1583 tonnes of fertilizer. PBR 46,146,384€/yr 13,733,012€/yr 22,119,970€/yr Thomassen et al., 2016
5 Chlorella vulgaris β-carotene 6 tonne/yr PBR 1,736,614 € 504,710 €/yr 4,270,500 €/yr Didem et al., 2018
6 Autrophic mixed culture Biodiesel 9.3 MM gal/yr Open pond $390 $37 $9.84/gal Davis et al., 2011
7 Autrophic mixed culture Biodiesel 9.3 MM gal/yr PBR $990 $55 $20.53/gal Davis et al., 2011
8 Chlorella vulgaris Biodiesel 12 tonne/yr PBR 1,766,909€ 501,277€/yr 11,698€/yr Didem et al., 2018
9 Mixed microalgal culture Biogas 65 m3 biogas ha−1 d-1 Open raceway pond 14,713, 974 € ha−1 3, 023, 830€ ha−1 y 3, 441, 278€ ha−1 y Carlos et al., 2011
10 Mixed microalgal culture Biogas 83 m3 biogas ha−1 d-1 Open raceway pond 14,713, 974€ ha−1 3, 225, 467€ ha-1y 5, 424, 838€ ha−1 y Carlos et al., 2011
11 Mixed microalgal culture Biogas 102 m3 biogas ha-1d-1 Open raceway pond 14,713, 974€ ha−1 3, 427, 105€ ha-1y 7, 408, 398€ ha−1 y Carlos et al., 2011

11
Table 3
Various companies to produce algae based biofuels and value added products in commercial scale.
Company Country Bioreactor type Scale of production Products Revenue References

Sapphire energy Inc United states Open pond, photosynthetic 1600 tons of biomass per year High value oils, aquaculture and animal feed $37.6 million Sapphire Energy Inc (2016), http://www.
growth system sapphireenergy.com/.
Cellana Inc United states PRB with open pond 20 tons of algae Omega 3 oils, biofuels, animal feed, pigments $ 4.8 million Cellana Inc (2018), http://www.cellana.com.
TerraVia Inc United states Dark fermenters, heterotrophic 100,000–300,000 metric tons per Edible food oil, biofuel $12.1 million Terravia Inc (2018), http://www.terravia.com.
algae year
Algenol Biotech LLC United states PRB 8000 gallons of liquid fuel per acre Bioethanol, gasoline, jet fuel, biodiesel $ 3.1 million Algenol Biotech LLC (2019), www.algenol.com
per year
SyntheticGenomics Inc United states PRB 1600 gallons per acre per year of Ethanol, biodiesel, jet fuel $ 16.8 Synthetic Genomics Inc. (2015),
lipid million www.SyntheticGenomics.com
Algatech Israel PRB 2–3 million ton per year Astaxanthin, fish feed, fucoxanthin $ 7.7 million Algae.tec (2018), www.algatech.com/
Solix Biofuels United states Closed growth PRB 3000 gallons of biofuel Biodiesel, green diesel, jet fuel, omega 3, β- $ 4 million Solix biofuels (2014), www.solixbiofuels.com
carotene, astaxanthin, animal feed
Seambiotic Israel Open pond 100 to 200 gallons of biofuel Biofuel, bioethanol $ 10 million Seambiotic (2011), www.seambiotic.com
Algae. Tec Australia PRB 10,000 ton per annum Biofuel, animal feed, animal feed, aquaculture $ 93 K Algatech (2019), www.algae-tec.com
feed
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
market demand for sustainable energy production. This study analysed
the economical assessment of three biorefinery routes of microalgal
species. The modern extraction process have higher yield with higher
economic value. The integrated biorefinery route which involves bio-
fuel and value added products recovery have higher feasibility in terms
of profit. Industries imparts a major part in the continuous expansion of
microalgae schemes, in which subsidy can be delivered to aid the
foundation of bioeconomy. The bioeconomy scheme would create more
green jobs and ecological improvement to obtain energy security.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
J. Rajesh Banu: Supervision, Methodology. Preethi: Writing -
original draft. S. Kavitha: Conceptualization, Writing - review &
editing, Data curation. M. Gunasekaran: Resources. Gopalakrishnan
Kumar: Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Adewale, Giwa, Idowu, Adeyemi, Abdallah, Dindi, García-Baños, Lopez Celia, Giovanna,
Lopresto Catia, Stefano, Curcio, Sudip, Chakraborty, 2018. Techno-economic as-
sessment of the sustainability of an integrated biorefinery from microalgae and
Jatropha: A review and case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 88, 239–257.
Algae.tec., 2018. AboutAlga.tec www.algae-tec.com. Accessed on 21 October 2019.
Algatech., 2019. About Algatech. www.algatech.com. Accessed on 22 May 2019.
Algenol Biotech LLC., 2019. About Algenol. http://www.algenol.com/. Accessed 15
November 2019.
Angel, Dario González-Delgado, Viatcheslav, Kafarov, 2012. Microalgae based bior-
efinery: evaluation of oil extraction methods in terms of efficiency, costs, toxicity and
energy in lab-scale. Rev. Ion. 25 (2), 27–39.
Barros, A.I., Gonçalves, A.L., Simões, M., Pires, J.C.M., 2014. Harvesting techniques ap-
plied to microalgae: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 41, 1489–1500.
Batan, L.Y., Graff, G.D., Bradley, T.H., 2016. Techno-economic and Monte Carlo prob-
abilistic analysis of microalgae biofuel production system. Bioresour. Technol. 219,
45–52.
Batan, L., Quinn, J., Willson, B., Bradley, T., 2010. Net energy and greenhouse gas
emission evaluation of biodiesel derived from microalgae. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44,
7975–7980.
Brentner, L.B., Eckelman, M.J., Zimmerman, J.B., 2011. Combinatorial life-cycle assess-
ment to inform process design of industrial production of algal biodiesel. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 45, 7060–7067.
Bugge, M.M., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A., 2016. What is the bioeconomy? A review of the
literature. Sustainability. 8 (7), 69.
Caporgno, M.P., Olkiewicz, M., Fortuny, A., Stüber, F., Fabregat, A., Font, J., Pruvost, J.,
Lepine, O., Legrand, J., Bengoa, C., 2016. Evaluation of different strategies to pro-
duce biofuels from Nannochloropsis oculata and Chlorella vulgaris. Fuel Process.
Technol. 144, 132–138.
Carlos, Zamalloa, Elien, Vulsteke, Johan, Albrecht, Willy, Verstraete, 2011. The techno-
economic potential of renewable energy through the anaerobic digestion of micro-
algae. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 1149–1158.
Cellana Inc., 2018. http://www.cellana.com/. Accessed 8 Oct 2019.
Chen, C.Y., Lee, P.J., Tan, C.H., Lo, Y.C., Huang, C.C., Show, P.L., Lin, C.H., Chang, J.S.,
2015. Improving protein production of indigenous microalgae Chlorella vulgaris FSP-E
by photobioreactor design and cultivation strategies. Biotechnol. J. 10, 905–914.
Chen, C.Y., Jesisca Hsieh, C., Lee, D.J., Chang, C.H., Chang, J.S., 2016. Production, ex-
traction and stabilization of lutein from microalga Chlorella sorokiniana MB-1.
Bioresour. Technol. 200, 500–505.
Chisti, Y., 2010. A bioeconomy vision of sustainability. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 4 (4),
359–361.
Chisti, Y., 2016. Large-scale production of algal biomass: Raceway ponds. Algae
Biotechnology. Springer, pp. 21–40.
Clark, J.H., Deswarte, F.E., 2008. The Biorefinery Concept-An Integrated Approach. John
Wiley & Sons, Chic ester, UK.
Clark, J.H., Deswarte, F., 2015. Introduction to Chemicals from Biomass. John Wiley &
Sons.
Claude, Aflalo, Meshulam, Yuval, Aliza, Zarka, Sammy, Boussiba, 2007. On the Relative
Efficiency of Two- vs. One-stage Production of Astaxanthin by the Green Alga
Haematococcus pluvialis. Biotechnol. Bioeng. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.21391.
Collet, P., Helias, A., Lardon, L., Ras, M., Goy, R.A., Steyer, J.P., 2011. Life-cycle as-
sessment of microalgae culture coupled to biogas production. Bioresource Technol.
102 (1), 207–214.
Davis, R., Aden, A., Pienkos, P.T., 2011. Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic
12
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
microalgae for fuel production. Appl Energy 88, 3524–3531.
Davis, R.E., Fishman, D.B., Frank, E.D., Johnson, M.C., Jones, S.B., Kinchin, C.M., Skaggs,
R.L., Venteris, E.R., Wigmosta, M.S., 2014b. Integrated evaluation of cost, emissions,
and resource potential for algal biofuels at the national scale. Environ. Sci. Technol.
48, 6035–6042.
Davis, R., Kinchin, C., Markham, J., Tan, E.C.D., Laurens, L.M.L., Sexton, D., Knorr, D.,
Schoen, P., Lukas, J., 2014a. Process design and economics for the conversion of algal
biomass to biofuels: Algal biomass fractionation to lipid- and carbohydrate-derived
fuel products. Technical Report NREL/TP-5100-62368. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO (USA).
Dean, J., Braun, R., Munoz, D., Penev, M., Kinchin, C., 2010. Analysis of hybrid hydrogen
systems: final report. NREL technical report. NREL/TP-560- 46934. < http://www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46934.pdf > [accessed September 2010].
Del Campo, J.A., Garcıa-Gonzalez, M., Guerrero, M.G., 2007. Outdoor cultivation of
microalgae for carotenoid production: current state and perspectives. Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 74, 1163–1174.
Di Caprio, F., Visca, A., Altimari, P., Toro, L., Masciocchi, B., Iaquaniello, G., Pagnanelli,
F., 2016. Two-stage process of microalgae cultivation for starch and carotenoid
production. Chem. Eng. Trans. 49, 415–420.
Didem Ozcimen., Benan Inan., Anıl Tevfik Koçer., 2018. Bioeconomic Assessment of
Microalgal Production. Doi: 10.5772/intechopen.73702.
Drewery, M.L., Sawyer, J.E., Pinchak, W.E., Wickersham, T.A., 2014. Effect of increasing
amounts of post-extraction algal residue on straw utilization in steers. J. Anim. Sci.
92, 4642–4649.
Dutta, S., Neto, F., Coelho, M.C., 2016. Microalgae biofuels: A comparative study on
techno-economic analysis & life-cycle assessment. Algal Research. 20, 44–52.
Eggeman, T., Elander, R.T., 2005. Process and economic analysis of pretreatment tech-
nologies. Bioresour. Technol. 96 (18), 2019–2025.
Ehimen, E.A., Connaughton, S., Sun, Z., Carrington, G.C., 2009. Energy recovery from
lipid extracted, transesterified and glycerol codigested microalgae biomass. GCB
Bioenergy 1, 371–381.
El-Galad, M.I., El-Khatib, K.M., Zaher, F.A., 2015. Economic feasibility study of biodiesel
production by direct esterification of fatty acids from the oil and soap industrial
sector. Egypt. J. Pet. 24, 455–460.
Faried, M., Samer, M., Abdelsalam, E., Yousef, R.S., Attia, Y.A., Ali, A.S., 2017. Biodiesel
production from microalgae: processes, technologies and recent advancements.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 79, 893–913.
Ferreira, A.F., Ribeiro, L.A., Batista, A.P., Marques, P.A.S., Nobre, B.P., Palavra, A.M.F.,
Silva, C.P.D., Gouveia, L., Silva, C., 2013. A Biorefinery from Nannochloropsis sp.
microalga – Energy and CO2 emission and economic analyses. Bioresour. Technol.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.168.
Gendy, T.S., El-Temtamy, S.A., 2013. Commercialization potential aspects of microalgae
for biofuel production: An overview. Egypt. J. Petrol. 22, 43–51.
Gille, A., Trautmann, A., Posten, C., Briviba, K., 2016. Bioaccessibility of carotenoids from
Chlorella vulgaris and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 67 (5),
507–513.
Haarich, S., Kirchmayr-Novak, S., Fontenla, A., Toptsidou, M., Hans S., 2017. Bioeconomy
development in EU regions. Mapping of EU Member States’/regions’ Research and
Innovation plans & Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) on Bioeconomy. Final
Report; Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Hanif, M., Mahlia, T.M.I., Aditiya, H.B., Chong, W.T., Nasruddin, 2016. Techno-economic
and environmental assessment of bioethanol production from high starch and root
yield Sri kanji 1 cassava in Malaysia. Energy Rep. 2, 246–253.
Harun, R., Davidson, M., Doyle, M., Gopiraj, R., Danquah, M., Forde, G., 2011.
Technoeconomic analysis of an integrated microalgae photobioreactor, biodiesel and
biogas production facility. Biomass Bioenergy. 35, 741–747.
Harun, R., Doyle, M., Gopiraj, R., Davidson, M., Forde, G.M., Danquah, M.K., 2013.
Process economics and greenhouse gas audit for microalgal biodiesel production. In:
advanced biofuels and bioproducts. Springer, New York, pp. 709–744.
Hernández, D., Solana, M., Riaño, B., García-González, M.C., Bertucco, A., 2014. Biofuels
from microalgae: lipid extraction and methane production from the residual biomass
in a biorefinery approach. Bioresour. Technol. 170, 370–378.
Hoffman, J., Pate, R.C., Drennen, T., Quinn, J.C., 2017. Techno-economic assessment of
open microalgae production systems. Algal Research. 23, 51–57.
Howard, Passell, Harnoor, Dhaliwal, Reno Marissa, Wu, Ben, Amotz Ami, Ben, Ivry Etai,
Marcus, Gay, Tom, Czartoski, Lise, Laurin, Nathan, Ayer, 2013. Algae biodiesel life-
cycle assessment using current commercial data. J. Environ. Manage. 129, 103–111.
Hu, C.C., Lin, J.T., Lu, F.J., Chou, F.P., Yang, D.J., 2008. Determination of carotenoids in
Dunaliella salina cultivated in Taiwan and antioxidant capacity of the algal carotenoid
extract. Food Chem. 109, 439–446.
Iancu, P., Plesu, V., Velea, S., 2012. Flue gas CO2 capture by microalgae in photo-
bioreactor: a sustainable technology. Chem Eng Trans. 29, 799–804.
Illman, A., Scragg, A., Shales, S., 2000. Increase in Chlorella strains calorific values when
grown in low nitrogen medium. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 27 (8), 631–635.
Islam, M.A., Magnusson, M., Brown, R.J., Ayoko, G.A., Nabi, M.N., Heimann, K., 2013.
Microalgal species selection for biodiesel production based on fuel properties derived
from fatty acid profiles. Energies 6, 5676–5702.
Jason, C. Quinn, Gordon, T. Smith, Cara Meghan, Downes, 2014. Microalgae to biofuels
lifecycle assessment-multiple pathway evaluation. Algal Res. 4 (4), 116–122.
Jesus, Ruiz, Giuseppe, Olivieri, Jeroen de, Vree, Rouke, Bosma, Philippe, Willems, Hans
Reith, J., Michel, H.M. Eppink, Dorinde, M.M. Kleinegris, Rene, H. Wijffels, Maria, J.
Barbosa, 2016. Towards industrial products from microalgae. Energy Environ. Sci. 9,
3036.
Jorquera, O., Kiperstok, A., Sales, E.A., Embirucu, M., Ghirardi, M.L., 2010. Comparative
energy life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds and
photobioreactors. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 1406–1413.
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
Kao, C.Y., Chiu, S.Y., Huang, T.T., Dai, L., Hsu, L.K., Lin, C.S., 2012. Ability of a mutant
strain of the microalgae Chlorella sp. to capture carbon dioxide for biogas upgrading.
Appl. Energy 93, 176–183.
Katiyar, R., Bharti, R.K., Gurjar, B.R., Kumar, A., Biswas, S., Pruthi, V., 2018. Utilization
of deoiled algal biomass for enhancing vehicular quality biodiesel production from
Chlorella sp. in mixotrophic cultivation systems. Renew. Energy 122, 80–88.
Kim, M., Ahn, J., Jeon, H., Jin, E., 2017. Development of a Dunaliella tertiolecta strain with
increased zeaxanthin content using random mutagenesis. Mar. Drugs 15 (6), 189.
Koller, M., Muhr, A., Braunegg, G., 2014. Microalgae as versatile cellular factories for
valued products. Algal Res. 6, 52–63.
Kouzuma, A., Watanabe, K., 2015. Exploring the potential of algae/bacteria interactions.
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 33, 125–129.
Kruse, O., Hankamer, B., 2010. Microalgal hydrogen production. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.
21, 238–243.
Kumar, M., Oyedun, A.O., Kumar, A., 2019. A comparative analysis of hydrogen pro-
duction from the thermochemical conversion of algal biomass. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy. 44 (21), 10384–10397.
Kyriakopoulou, K., Papadaki, S., Krokida, M., 2015. Life-cycle analysis of β-carotene
extraction techniques. J. Food Eng. 167, 51–58.
Lam, M.K., Lee, K.T., 2014. Cultivation of Chlorella vulgaris in a pilot-scale sequential
baffled column photobioreactor for biomass and biodiesel production. Energy
Convers. Manag. 88, 399–410.
Li, Fei, Bai, Jing, Chang, Chun, Fang, Shu-qi, Li, Hong-liang, Chen, Jun-ying, Han, Xiu-li,
2015. Developments of cost control technologies to produce biodiesel from micro-
algae. Modern Chemical Industry. 35 (5), 16–20.
Li, Daoyi, Li, Shujun, Liu, Tianshu, Zhao, Fengmin, Yang, Juntai, Li, Dong, 2010.
Technology of Microalgae Bioenergy Industrialization. Journal of Agricultural
Machinery. 41 (S1), 160–166.
Liu, Tian-zhong, Wang, Jun-feng, Chen, Lin, 2015. Status and trends of energy microalgae
and their biorefinery. Biobusiness. 4, 31–39.
Liu, Z.W., Zeng, X.A., Cheng, J.H., Liu, D.B., Aadil, R.M., 2018. The efficiency and
comparison of novel techniques for cell wall disruption in astaxanthin extraction
from Haematococcus pluvialis. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53, 2012–2019.
Lodge-Ivey, S.L., Tracey, L.N., Salazar, A., 2014. The utility of lipid extract algae as a
protein source in forage or starch-based ruminant diets. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 1331–1342.
López Barreiro, D., Samorì, C., Terranella, G., Hornung, U., Kruse, A., Prins, W., 2014.
Assessing microalgae biorefinery routes for the production of biofuels via hydro-
thermal liquefaction. Bioresour. Technol. 174, 256–265.
Lundquist, T.J., Woertz, I.C., Quinn, N., Benemann, J.R., 2010. A realistic technology and
engineering assessment of algal biofuel production. Energy Biosciences Institute,
Berkeley, CA (USA).
Mälkki, H., Alanne, K., 2017. An overview of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and research-
based teaching in renewable and sustainable energy education. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 69, 218–231.
Marsullo, M., Mian, A., Ensinas, A.V., Manente, G., Lazzaretto, A., Marechal, F., 2015.
Dynamic modeling of the microalgae cultivation phase for energy production in open
raceway ponds and flat panel photobioreactors. Front. Energy Res. 3, 41.
Mata, T.M., Martins, A.A., Caetano, N.S., 2010. Microalgae for biodiesel production and
other applications: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 217–232.
Mei, Hong, Zhang, Cheng-wu, Yin, Da-cong, Gen, Ya-hong, Ouyang, Zheng-rong, Li, Ye-
Guang, 2008. Survey of studies on renewable energy production by microalgae. J.
Wuhan Bot. Res. 26 (6), 650–660.
Meyer, M.A., Weiss, A., 2014. Life-cycle cost for optimized production of hydrogen and
biogas from microalgae. Energy 78, 84–93.
Milledge, J.J., Heaven, S., 2017. Energy balance of biogas production from microalgae:
effect of harvesting method, multiple raceways, scale of plant and combined heat and
power generation. Journal of marine science and engineering. 5 (1), 9.
Monari, C., Righi, S., Olsen, S.I., 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance of
biodiesel production from microalgae cultivated in photobioreactors in Denmark: a
life-cycle modeling. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 4084–4092.
Mu, D., Ruan, R., Addy, M., Mack, S., Chen, P., Zhou, Y., 2017. Life-cycle assessment and
nutrient analysis of various processing pathways in algal biofuel production.
Bioresour. Technol. 230, 33–42.
Mussgnug, J.H., Klassen, V., Schlüter, A., Kruse, O., 2010. Microalgae as substrates for
fermentative biogas production in a combined biorefinery concept. J Biotechnol 150,
51–56.
Nagarajan, S., Chou, S.K., Cao, S., Wu, C., Zhou, Z., 2013. An updated comprehensive
techno-economic analysis of algae biodiesel. Bioresour. Technol. 145, 150–156.
Nobre, B.P., Villalobos, F., Barragán, B.E., Oliveira, A.C., Batista, A.P., Marques, P.A.S.S.,
Mendes, R.L., Sovova, H., Palavra, A.F., Gouveia, L., 2013. A biorefinery from
Nannochloropsis sp. microalga – Extraction of oils and pigments. Production of bio-
hydrogen from the leftover biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 135, 128–136.
Oey, M., Sawyer, A.L., Ross, I.L., Hankamer, B., 2015. Challenges and opportunities for
hydrogen production from microalgae. Plant Biotechnol. J. 14, 1487–1499.
Ozcimen, D., Inan, B., Kocer, A.T., Reyimu, Z., 2016. Sustainable design and synthesis of
algal biorefinery for biofuel production. In: Singh, R.S., Pandey, A., Gnansounou, E.
(Eds.), Biofuels: Production and Future Perspectives. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis,
Boca Raton, pp. 431–460.
Pacheco, R., Ferreira, A.F., Pinto, T., Nobre, B.P., Loureiro, D., Moura, P., Gouveia, L.,
Silva, C.M., 2015. The production of pigments & hydrogen through a Spirogyra sp.
biorefinery. Energy Convers. Manage. 89, 789–797.
Parvathy, Sathyaprakasan, Geetha, Kannan, 2015. Economics of Bio-Hydrogen
Production. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2015 (6), 352–356.
Passell, H., Dhaliwal, H., Reno, M., Wu, B., Ben Amotz, A., Ivry, E., Gay, M., Czartoski, T.,
Laurin, L., Ayer, N., 2013. Algae biodiesel life-cycle assessment using current com-
mercial data. J. Environ. Manag. 129, 103–111.
13
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
Posada, J.A., Brentner, L.B., Ramirez, A., Patel, M.K., 2016. Conceptual design of sus-
tainable integrated microalgae biorefineries: parametric analysis of energy use,
greenhouse gas emissions and techno-economics. Algal Res. 17, 113–131.
Pulz, O., 2001. Photobioreactors: Production systems for phototrophic microorganisms.
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 57 (3), 287–293.
Pyka, A., 2017. Transformation of economic systems: The bio-economy case. In:
Knowledge-Driven Developments in the Bioeconomy. Springer, Cham, pp. 3–16.
Quinn, J.C., Davis, R., 2015. The potentials and challenges of algae based biofuels: a
review of the techno-economic, life cycle, and resource assessment modeling.
Bioresour. Technol. 184, 444–452.
Rawat, I., Ranjith Kumar, R., Mutanda, T., Bux, F., 2011. Dual role of microalgae: phy-
coremediation of domestic wastewater and biomass production for sustainable bio-
fuels production. Appl. Energy 88 (10), 3411–3424.
Ribeiro, L.A., da Silva, P.P., Mata, T.M., Martins, A.A., 2015. Prospects of using micro-
algae for biofuels production: Results of a Delphi study. Renewable Energy 75,
799–804.
Richa, Kothari, Arya, Pandey, Shamshad, Ahmad, Ashwani, Kumar, Vinayak, V. Pathak,
Tyagi, V.V., 2017. Microalgal cultivation for value-added products: a critical enviro-
economical assessment. Biotech 7, 243.
Rogers, J.N., Rosenberg, J.N., Guzman, B.J., Oh, V.H., Mimbela, L.E., Ghassemi, A.,
Betenbaugh, M.J., Oyler, G.A., Donohue, M.D., 2014. A critical analysis of paddle-
wheel-driven raceway ponds for algal biofuel production at commercial scales. Algal
Research. 4, 76–88.
Sander, K., Murthy, G.S., 2010. Life-cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. Int J life-cycle Assess
15, 704–714.
Sapphire Energy Inc., 2016. Sapphire energy. http://www.sapphireenergy.com/.
Accessed 1 June 2016.
Sathasivam, R., Radhakrishnan, R., Hashem, A., AbduAllah, E.F., 2017. Microalgae me-
tabolites: a rich source for food and medicine. Saudi. J Biol Sci.
Schmidt, C.W., 2010. Synthetic biology: environmental health implications of a new field.
Environ Health Perspect. 118, A118–A123.
Scott, Grierson, Vladimir, Strezov, Jonas, Bengtsson, 2013. Life-cycle assessment of a
microalgae biomass cultivation, bio-oil extraction and pyrolysis processing regime.
Algal Res. 2, 299–311.
Seambiotic., 2011. About Seambiotic www.seambiotic.com/. Accessed on 25 October
2019.
Sharma, A.K., Sahoo, P.K., Singhal, S., Joshi, G., 2016. Exploration of upstream and
downstream process for microwave assisted sustainable biodiesel production from
microalgae Chlorella vulgaris. Bioresour. Technol. 216, 793–800.
Show, K.Y., Lee, D.J., Tay, J.Y., Lin, C.Y., Chang, J.S., 2012. Biohydrogen pro-
duction:current perspectives and the way forward. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37,
15616–15631.
Show, K.Y., Lee, D.J., Tay, J.H., Lee, T.M., Chang, J.S., 2015. Microalgal drying and cell
disruption – Recent advances. Bioresour. Technol. 184, 258–266.
Shukla, M., Kumar, S., 2018. Algal biorefineries for biofuels and other value-added pro-
ducts. In Biorefining of biomass to biofuels. Springer, Cham, pp. 305–341.
Shuping, Z., Yulong, W., Mingde, Y., Kaleem, I., Chun, L., Tong, J., 2010. Production and
characterization of bio-oil from hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae Dunaliella
tertiolecta cake. Energy. 35, 5406–5411.
Singh, D., Puri, M., Wilkens, S., Mathur, A.S., Tuli, D.K., Barrow, C.J., 2013.
Characterization of a new zeaxanthin producing strain of Chlorella saccharophila
isolated from New Zealand marine waters. Bioresour. Technol. 143, 308–314.
Smetana, S., Sandmann, M., Rohn, S., Pleissner, D., Heinz, V., 2017. Autotrophic and
heterotrophic microalgae and cyanobacteria cultivation for food and feed: life-cycle
assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 245, 162–170.
Smritikana, Dutta, Fernando, Neto, Margarida, C. Coelho, 2016. Microalgae biofuels: A
comparative study on techno-economic analysis & life-cycle assessment. Algal Res.
20, 44–52.
Solix biofuels., 2014. www.solixbiofuels.com. Accessed on 16 October 2019.
Spolaore, P., Joannis-Cassan, C., Duran, E., Isambert, A., 2006. Commercial applications
of microalgae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 101, 87–96.
Sprague, M., Dick, J.R., Tocher, D.R., 2016. Impact of sustainable feeds on omega-3 long-
chain fatty acid levels in farmed Atlantic salmon, 2006–2015. Sci. Rep. 6, 21892.
Stephenson, A.L., Kazamia, E., Dennis, J.S., Howe, C.J., Scott, S.A., Smith, A.G., 2010.
Life-cycle assessment of potential algal biodiesel production in the United Kingdom: a
comparison of raceways and air-lift tubular bioreactors. Energy Fuel 24 (7),
4062–4077.
Stokes, R.S., Van Emon, M.L., Loy, D.D., Hansen, S.L., 2015. Assessment of algae meal as
ruminant feedstuff: Nutrient digestibility in sheep as a model species. J. Anim. Sci.
93, 5386–5394.
Strazza, C., Del Borghi, A., Costamagna, P., Gallo, M., Brignole, E., Girdinio, P., 2015.
Life-cycle assessment and life-cycle costing of a SOFC system for distributed power
generation. Energy Convers. Manag. 100, 64–77.
Suali, E., Sarbatly, R., 2012. Conversion of microalgae to biofuel. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 16, 4316–4342.
Subhadra, B.G., Edwards, M., 2011. Coproduct market analysis and water footprint of
simulated commercial algal biorefineries. Appl. Energy. 88, 3515–3523.
Sun, Li-ying, He, Hao, Tian, Yi-shui, Qi, Pan-lun, Zhao, Li-xin, 2012. Key issues discussion
of large-scale production of microalgae. Renewable Energy Resour. 30 (9), 70–74.
Synthetic Genomics Inc., 2015. About Synthetic Genomics. www.SyntheticGenomics.
com. Accessed on 11 November 2019.
Takagi, M. Karseno, Yoshida, T.M., 2006. Effect of salt concentration on intra-cellular
accumulation of lipids and triacylglyceride in marine microalgae Dunaliella cells. J.
Biosci. Bioeng. 101 (3), 223–226.
Templeton, D.W., Laurens, L.M.L., 2015. Nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors revisited
for applications of microalgal biomass conversion to food, feed and fuel. Algal Res.
J. Rajesh Banu, et al.
11, 359–367.
Terravia Inc., 2018. About Terravia. http://www.terravia.com/. Accessed on 12 October
2019.
Thoisen, C., Hansen, B.W., Nielsen, S.L., 2017. A simple and fast method for extraction
and quantification of cryptophytes phycoerythrin. MethodsX. 4, 209–213.
Thomassen, G., Vila, U.E., Van Dael, M., Lemmens, B., Van Passel, S., 2016. A techno-
economic assessment of an algal-based biorefinery. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 18
(6), 1849–1862.
Togarcheti, S., Mediboyina, M., Chauhan, V., Mukherji, S., Ravi, S., Mudliar, S., 2017.
Life-cycle assessment of microalgae based biofuel production to evaluate the impact
of biomass productivity and energy source. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, 286–294.
Vadiveloo, A., Moheimani, N., Alghamedi, R., Cosgrove, J.J., Alameh, K., Parlevliet, D.,
2016. Sustainable cultivation of microalgae by an insulated glazed glass plate pho-
tobioreactor. Biotechnology Journal. Biotechnol. J. 11, 363–374.
Van Dael, M., Kuppens, T., Lizin, S., Van Passel, S., 2014a. Techno-economic assessment
of ultrasonic production of biofuels. In: Fang, Z., Richard, L., Smith, J., Qi, X. (Eds.),
Production of Biofuels and Chemicals with Ultrasound. Biofuels and Biorefineries,
Springer Book Series, Dordrecht, pp. 317–345.
Van Dael, M., Marquez, N., Reumerman, P., Pelkmans, L., Kuppens, T., Van Passel, S.,
2014b. Development and techno-economic evaluation of a biorefinery based on
biomass (waste) streams—case study in the Netherlands. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin.
8, 635–644.
Victoria, O. Adesanya, Erasmo, Cadena, Stuart, A. Scott, Alison, G. Smith, 2014. Life-cycle
assessment on microalgal biodiesel production using a hybrid cultivation system.
Bioresour. Technol. 163, 343–355.
14
Bioresource Technology 302 (2020) 122822
Vigani, M., Parisi, C., Rodríguez-Cerezo, E., Barbosa, M.J., Sijtsma, L., Ploeg, M., Enzing,
C., 2015. Food and feed products from micro-algae: Market opportunities and chal-
lenges for the EU. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 42 (1), 81–92.
Xu, L., Brilman, D.W.F., Withag, J.A.M., Brem, G., Kersten, S., 2011. Assessment of a dry
and a wet route for the production of biofuels from microalgae: energy balance
analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 5113–5122.
Yaleeni, Kanna Dasan, Man, Kee Lam, Suzana, Yusup, JunWei, Lim, Keat, Teong, 2019.
Life-cycle evaluation of microalgae biofuels production: Effect of cultivation system
on energy, carbon emission and cost balance analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 688,
112–128.
Yang, H., He, Q., Hu, C., 2018. Feasibility of biodiesel production and CO(2) emission
reduction by Monoraphidium dybowskii LB50 under semi-continuous culture with
open raceway ponds in the desert area. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 11, (82).
Yuan, J., Kendall, A., Zhang, Y., 2014. Mass balance and life-cycle assessment of biodiesel
from microalgae incorporated with nutrient recycling options and technology un-
certainties. GCB Bioenergy 7 (6), 1245–1259.
Zhang, Fang, Cheng, Li-hua, Xin-hua, Xu, Zhang, Lin, Chen, Huan-lin, 2012. Technologies
of Microalgal Harvesting and Lipid Extraction. Progress in Chemistry 24 (10),
2062–2072.
Zhiman, Yang, Rongbo, Guo, Xu, Xiaohui, Xiaolei, Fan, Shengjun, Luo, 2011. Hydrogen
and methane production from lipid-extracted microalgal biomass residues. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 36, 3465–3470.
Zhu, B., Sun, F., Yang, M., Lu, L., Yang, G., Pan, K., 2014. Large-scale biodiesel production
using flue gas from coal-fired power plants with Nannochloropsis microalgal biomass
in open raceway ponds. Bioresource. Technoogyl. 174, 53–59.