Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review article

Software tools for microalgae biorefineries: Cultivation, separation,

conversion process integration, modeling, and optimization
Alei Ahmadi Kasani a, Amin Esmaeili b, Abooali Golzary c, *
a
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 191 Auditorium Road, Unit 3222, Storrs, CT 06269-3222, USA
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering Technology and Industrial Trades, College of the North Atlantic-Qatar, 24449 Arab League St, P.O. Box
24449, Doha, Qatar
c
School of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 14155-6135, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the operation of biorefineries, performing a quantitative, economic, and environmental assessment of process
Biorefinery equipment design without the use of related software, is time-consuming, difficult, and sometimes impossible
Microalgae due to the complexity and high volume of calculations. The wrong choice of software in simulation and modeling
Software tools
can cause a lot of damages and lead to inaccurate results. Therefore, choosing an integrated system and
Process integration
Modeling
specialized software can be the most important tool to achieve the planned goals. This study is aimed to
Optimization investigate how and when to make the right software choice to enhance the performance and profits and
diminish the risks, operating costs, and environmental impacts. The software used in the stages of cultivation,
harvesting, conversion of microalgae, process optimization, and environmental impact assessment of bio­
refineries are introduced in various sections of this study, and the advantages and disadvantages of each of them
are given along with some practical examples. The software tools investigated in this study include Aspen plus,
SuperPro Designer, BioSTEAM, IPSEpro, WinGEMS, Unisim Design, Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery (VSB)
modeling software, Simapro, OpenLCA, and, etc., which can be used according to feed and process conditions
and products. To our knowledge, we did not encounter any similar reviews or reports, and this review is the first
of its kind on this topic.

1. Introduction
Biorefineries are those novel and state-of-the-art technologies where
several products are made out of renewable feedstock. There are several
available resources to be used as the biorefineries feedstock such as
devoted energy crops, agricultural crop, forestry and wood processing
residues, and municipal waste and wet waste that are generally
considered as biomass residues. on the other hand, the use of biomass
residues for commercial productions can be unpleasant since it might
lead to reduction in soil fertility as a result of carbon and nutrient
depletion [1]. Microalgae are, in effect, small sunlight-driven cell fac­
tories that can convert CO2 in chemicals to biofuels, food, and high-
value products. These small photosynthetic organisms possess several
unique advantages such as having high productivity, ability to grow on
degraded and marginal lands, under seawater and wastewater, ability to
to be converted to a large variety of valuable products, high aerial
biomass productivity, and high CO2 fixation capacity. The properties
give microalgae an advantage over other biomass feedstock so that the
production of high value-added products from microalgae can be
economically viable and is aligned with the path towards progressive
decarbonization worldwide. Microalgae are emerging as a potential
feedstock for biorefineries since it doesn't impact soil fertility [2].
Despite the large R&D investments and extensive research works for
algal biorefineries, many challenges and limitations have prevented
their production and utilization at a commercial scale. These limitations
include microalgae composition; photosynthetic efficiencies; intensive
net energy consumption; absence of commercial-scale plants; usability
of flue gases; technological challenges (e.g., species cultivation, evapo­
ration reduction, and CO2 diffusion losses); and unsolved problems
related to the cultural strategy for the accumulation of different products
and the dilute nature of the microalgal culture [3].
The combination of the abovementioned predominantly technolog­
ical challenges has resulted in high production costs, negative energy,
and CO2 balances, and reduced downstream efficiency for microalgae

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abooaligolzary@ut.ac.ir (A. Golzary).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102597
Received 19 August 2021; Received in revised form 10 December 2021; Accepted 11 December 2021
Available online 28 December 2021
2211-9264/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.A. Kasani et al.
Fig. 1. General software tools for microalgae biorefinery processes and their applications.
biorefineries and biofuels production [4,5]. Most of the current and past
research studies on microalgae has focused on general energy applica­
tions, while the microalgae cultivation is too costly in terms of both
construction and operation that still prevent the introduction of micro­
algae biofuels to the market beside the lack of realiabe consensus over
their potential environmental impact [6–8].
Recently, microalgae biorefinery gradually has become substantial
as a substitute for petroleum refineries. The concept of microalgae
biorefinery is comparable to those old-fashioned petroleum refineries, in
which the biomass is transformed into commercial compounds, oils, and
products. The main discrepancy between a biorefinery and a petroleum
refinery is in the feedstock composition and the engaged pieces of ma­
chinery. The exploration of biodegradable products has attracted more
consideration towards biorefineries due to the greater energy demand
and swelling environmental pollutions over the years. Some methodol­
ogies have already been proposed for the usage of microalgae biomass in
liquefaction as well as in the extraction of valuable compounds that may
extend the market popularity of microalgae products. The proposed
methodologies will also expose additional potentials of combined pro­
duction of algae for biofuels and high-value compounds such as proteins,
Astaxanthin, beta-carotene, glycerol, biofuels, various drugs along with
desirable chemicals [9–13].
Moreover, there have been modern industrial attentions towards the
consumption of microalgae in several areas such as dietary supplements,
cosmetics, and medications. In a typical biorefinery plant, the produc­
tion of a wide range of energy carriers such as electricity, heat, biofuels
2
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
as well as a wide range of by-products inclduing various chemicals and
animal feed is possible. In setting up bio-refineries, the use of new
software and software systems is one of the most important success
factors in the formulated strategies. To the extent that choosing an in­
tegrated system and specialized software can be the most important tool
to achieve the planned goals. However, the question is how and when to
make this choice to create a positive return on investment, reduce risks,
and increase profits from economic activities, and reduce the operating
costs while maintaining the environment. Any incorrect choice of soft­
ware in simulation and modeling can cause several operational damages
in the long run and most activities in the short term, damages that are
sometimes very difficult to compensate for. In this study, several soft­
ware tools in different parts of biorefineries are described and their
applications are investigated. To our knowledge, we did not encounter
any similar reviews or reports, according to our search, reviews about
this subject are usually about the process methodologies and not the
software tools. Thus, this review is the first of its kind on this topic.
2. Software tools for microalgae biorefinery
Nowadays, planning and designing a more viable process is one of
the fundamental challenges in the development of greener productions.
On the other hand, this goal can only be touched with a combination of
economic, technical, and environmental principles, through a simula­
tion perspective. This idea also needs to be applied to the biorefineries
since this type of manufacturing provides eco-friendly fuels and
A.A. Kasani et al.
Fig. 2. Aspen flowsheet of the hydrothermal process of microalgae [31].
chemicals and it appears to be the most favorable alternative to continue
a more sustainable development. However, the simulation of a system
based on raw mathematical formulas and unprocessed data is usually
complex and time-consuming. The software tools can significantly
reduce the complexity of modeling and simulation of a prospective plant
due to their unique databases and organized calculations. Several
accompanying software tools have been technologically advanced for
biosystems so far as explained in the next sections. Software tools such as
Aspen plus [14,15], SuperPro Designer 9.5 [16,17], BioSTEAM [18],
IPSEpro [19], WinGEMS [20], self-developed software [21], Unisim
design [22], Virtual Sugar cane Biorefinery (VSB) modeling software
[23], etc., which can be used according to feed and process conditions
and products.
Due to the existence of different technologies in various stages of
biorefineries that includes cultivation, harvesting, and conversion into
valuable materials, the use of the right software to solve complex process
problems, to optimize the process, to select the methods, and to increase
the efficiency and productivity are very necessary and crucial. The
various stages of biorefineries and their respective technologies for
establishing biorefinery from microalgae feedstock include [24,25]:
(1) Cultivation: Open and closed photobioreactors; The involved
parameters include: temperature control, contamination, light
utilization, water loss, construction cost, biomass concentration,
species control, CO2 loss to atmosphere, typical growth rate (g/
m2-day), etc.
(2) Harvesting: agglomeration, centrifugation, filtration, floccula­
tion, and bioflocculation; The involved parameters include: time,
temperature, pH, cell density, etc.
Fig. 3. Aspen flowsheet of the biodiesel process of microalgae [31].
3
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
(3) Pretreatment for Cell disruption, drying, particulate size-
reduction: ultrasonication, high-pressure homogenization,
french pressing, bead milling, microwave treatment, acids and
enzymes lysis, osmotic shock; The involved parameters included:
time, temperature, pH, pressure, frequency, etc.
(4) Conversion: thermochemical including gasification, hydrother­
mal liquefaction, pyrolysis, direct combustion. and biochemical
including aerobic and anaerobic digestion, alcoholic digestion,
photobiological hydrogen production, etc. The involved param­
eters include; time, temperature, pressure, flow rate, etc.
In this research work, various software tools that are already applied
or have the potential to be used in different stages of bio-refineries have
been studied in more detail and the advantages, disadvantages, and
capabilities of each of these tools have been presented. The software
used for microalgae biorefinery processes development step and their
applications are summarized in Fig. 1.
The software and tools mentioned in Fig. 1 are described below.
2.1. Aspen plus
Aspen Plus was first founded as one of the methods for drawing
flowsheets that were previously being utilized by chemical engineers for
decades. However, in the beginning, computer assistance was only
considered in designing a single unit. The answer of the most lucid flow
sheets despite the recycle streams needed an expert to figure out equa­
tions for each unit separately and to include the answer quantities of a
formerly calculated stage into the equations of the following stages in
the flowsheet by hand. Then, subsequently, it was essential to include a
A.A. Kasani et al.
Fig. 4. The general concept of VSB. Adopted from: [11].
recycle stream, the solving initiated through a presumption of the
recycle quantities, and solving was completed once the answers formed
by the late stage in the loop accorded the presumptions. The above­
mentioned procedure usually includes abundant tiresome efforts while
the convergences of the models were not constantly successful. In 1974,
the software of Monsanto Corporation's Flowtran mixed all those
consecutive stages under a united platform based on the assembly of
operational models of each unit. Later, the software became the foun­
dation of the Aspen Plus software [26,27]. Today, this extensive simu­
lation software has been broadly used in the design and optimization of
biochemical processes operational units such as pyrolysis, hydro-
treatment, distillation, and economic and technical assessments in bio­
refinery processes. Under this platform, the optimization of a biorefinery
process is comparatively easy in some way via using several provided
analysis tools (case study, sensitivity analysis, design constraints, etc.)
and is possible to minimize the expenses of the whole process besides
recovering excessive heat and evading harmful effects on the ecosystem
[17,28–30]. A shematic of the flowsheet structure prepared by Johnson
[31] for simulating a hydrothermal process and biodiesel process of
microalgae is shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively.
Klein et al. used Aspen Plus® software (version 8.6, AspenTech,
Bedford, MA, USA) to simulate an integrated sugarcane-microalgae
biorefinery process operating in steady-state mode. The modeling of
the ethanol distilleries was carried out by adapting a pre-existing
simulation of sugarcane mills performed in a VSB framework. The
microalgae plant was modeled and simulated jointly in the Aspen Plus®
software and electronic spreadsheets. They reported that the cost of the
ethanol produced in this novel biorefinery was in the range of US$
0.36–0.42/L that is below the average market price of US$ 0.51/L.
Moreover, they showed that integrating a sugarcane mill with a
microalgae facility can improve the sustainability production of anhy­
drous ethanol with a reduction of 15% in GHG emissions compared to
conventional sugarcane-based ethanol production. However, they
pointed out that an integrated sugarcane-microalgae biorefinery is
economically feasible as long as the carbon price is below US$ 10/t
CO2eq [7]. Magdeldin et al. [32] designed a consecutive flow sheet via
Aspen Plus software which provides initial treatment, liquefaction stage,
portable hydrogen production, and as a final point, fuel enhancing. They
showed that the procued fuels contain bio-gasoline, bio-diesel, and
heavy hydrocarbon with concentration of 74.6, 71.5, and 34.5 g/kg of
4
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
mass input, respectively. They also reported the overall biomass-to-
liquid efficiency and thermal efficiency of the process to be about 38%
and 44%, respectively.
In a study by West et al., a continuous biodiesel processes were
designed and simulated by using waste vegetable oil as the feedstock.
AspenHYSYS as a process simulation tool for both its simulation capa­
bilities and incorporate calculations was selected. The preliminary cost
estimations of the processes were transferred to ICARUS Process Eval­
uator (IPE) [33]. In another study by Sengupta et al., an economic
analysis was also conducted in ICARUS for fermentation of biomass to
ethanol. The main three design sections were a pre-treatment section, a
fermentation section, and a purification section. The total plant capital
cost, the yearly operating and raw material cost were estimated to be
about $20, $81, and $54 million, respectively. The minimum ethanol
selling price calculated from the operating cost was set at $1.52/gal
[34].
2.2. SuperPro designer
SuperPro Designer has features similar to Aspen Plus though it
contains specific unit operations for biological processes (e.g., fermen­
tors and strainers) that Aspen lacks. However, SuperPro Designer has
significantly less thermodynamic packages and components databases.
SuperPro Designer provide the user with an easier and more user-
friendly approach compared to Aspen Plus [35]. However, much more
care is required from the userside to successfully converge a simulation
in SuperPro Designer since it can often give physically impossible re­
sults. SuperPro Designer also includes a cost analyzing feature that
certain versions of Aspen Plus lack [36]. SuperPro Designer can also
provide sophisticated modeling for bioprocessing in both batch and
continuous manners. As conclusion, the main advantages of SuperPro
Designer is the large database of specific compounds and unit opera­
tions, and the ability to evaluate the economical and ecological process
performance indexes [37].
It is an appropriate tool for planners and researchers in designing
biorefinery processes, separation units, and techno-economic analyses.
It is also an advantageous tool for designers dealing with biorefinery
units such as chemical flocculation, filter press, and hydrolysis of lipids.
SuperPro Designers provide many handy simulation features such as oil
separators, biological digesters, sludge dryers, and packaging machinery
A.A. Kasani et al.
[17,38,39].
Slegers et al. performed the calculations for designing each pro­
cessing model at an commercial-scale algal biorefinery with the capacity
of treating 10 kton microalgal dry weight with the aid of the SuperPro
Designer v10.0b3® software (Intelligen, Inc.) to recognize various sce­
narios for the most reliable microalgal biorefinery, yields, techno-
economic performance, and the biological characteristics of algae spe­
cies. They investigated the development, value creation, and validation
of several new processing routes with applications in food, aquafeeds,
and non-food products. They reported that a biorefinery approach can
remarkably increase the potential of using biomass to produce market­
able products from 7 to 28% to more than 97% [40].
Alnur Auli et al. [41] also simulated the biological conversion of
hemicellulosic biomass to produce xylitol in commercial scale by using
Aspen Plus, HYSYS and SuperPro Designer®. SuperPro Designer® is
windows-based software that can simoulaneously design and evaluate
manufacturing of the product and choose the treatment methods, select
pollution prevention and waste minimization approaches. Application
of SuperPro Designer® to simulation the production of xylitol, pyruvic
acid, fuel ethanol, and biodiesel, and to monitor the biopharmaceutical
facility and cost analysis has been reported by several researchers [41].
2.3. Virtual sugar cane biorefinery (VSB)
The Virtual Sugar Cane Biorefinery (VSB) is a simulation tool
developed to evaluate the progress of new processes and novelties in a
biorefinery complex. The VSB has the potential for processing simula­
tion sheets with economic, social, and ecological assessment tools to
estimate all aspects of a biorefinery plant. This simulation tool can
benefit those users who need to choose between various policies and
approaches, plus to discover the methods and constraints presenting key
financial, social, and ecological effects, with the aim of helping the
arrangement of the preferred policies for each possible scenario [42,43].
The overall concept of a VSB simulation is displayed in Fig. 4.
Klein et al. evaluated various scenarios for commercial-scale inte­
grated sugarcane-microalgae biorefineries focusing on their techno-
economic and environmental feasibility. The process integration was
conducted based on various energy and material routes obtained from a
sugarcane mill, the use of vinasse as carbon sources for microalgae
growth, and fermentation-derived CO2 [7]. They applied the VSB
framework by integrating a computer simulation platform with sus­
tainability evaluation of different biorefinery process paths and by
combining all the steps of the biomass chain. Their findings indicate that
the co-location of sugarcane mills with microalgae production can result
in verticalized biorefineries with an increase in both fixed and opera­
tional costs which is currently undesirable in economic performance
compared to conventional sugarcane mills [7].
2.4. Unisim
The Unisim simulation tool is a handy and user-friendly process
design software that is developed based on the legendary Hyprotech
Hysys software and has a very similar interface to the Aspen Plus. This
tool can give the designers an opportunity to generate both steady-state
and dynamic simulations, yield estimation, optimization, financial
planning, and cost administration. It also provides researchers with
many useful components such as flow sheeting, heat and mass balance,
V-L-E diagrams, heat exchangers, kinetics, and thermodynamics
[44–46].
Niño-Villalobos et al. applied the biorefinery approach for producing
biodiesel from a combined biomass biorefinery using jatropha and palm
oils in order to make it environmentally and economically competitive.
They aimed to utilize residual biomass as the feedstock for obtaining
hydrogen via steam reforming of glycerol and a gasification step. They
used UniSim software to simulate the linear chains for hydrogen and
diesel. They found that the acidification potential highly contributed to
5
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
the environmental impacts attributed to the use of fossil fuels for heating
requirements. The economic indicators including the net present value
(NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) were calculated to be about
8,450,000 $USD and 33%, respectively. Their results revealed that the
proposed combined biomass biorefinery is feasible to be scaled up
without causing significant negative impacts on the environment [47] .
2.5. IPSEpro
The IPSEpro is a valuable platform for modeling, simulation, anal­
ysis, and design of different stages and processes in a biorefinery system.
IPSEpro contains a model development kit (MDK) for defining new units
and revising present modules developed in the C++ programming lan­
guage. The MDK includes a model description platform and a compiler.
Furthermore, a genetic optimization tool is available in IPSEpro that an
engineer has wide-ranging options to elect variables and develop the
operational functions [48]. In a biorefinery plant, IPSEpro can be an
effective tool in processes such as gasification and separation units.
Lassmann et al. simulated two different distillation processes for an
annual production rate of 100 ktons of ethanol from wheat straw. They
applied IPSEpro as an equation-oriented flow sheet simulation program
for modeling the overall production process (background process) and
performing the pinch analysis. Moreover, they used the simulation re­
sults for the upstream process obtained by IPSEpro as the basis for
further simulation conducted by ASPEN Plus®. To conclude, they re­
ported that the overall efficiency of the process can be improved by
reducing the energy consumption in the distillation section [49].
2.6. COPABI
COPABI (Computational Platform for the Access of Biological In­
formation) is a computational platform for automating the genome-scale
metabolic model reconstruction. The rebuilding of metabolic models in
genome-scale is a manual and interactive procedure focused on decision
making. This extensive process typically needs a full year of one person's
effort in order to agreeably gather, examine, and validate the list of all
metabolic reactions existing in a particular organism. COPABI is a
computational platform that helps to generate the models from the
probabilistic algorithms that have been established previously, in a
shorter period.
Reyes et al. presented the mechanism of a methodology for the
rebuilding of genome-scale metabolic models for any organism. They
implemented the steps for the reconstruction in the COPABI platform
that uses the developed probabilistic algorithms to generates the models
[65,66].
The rebuilding and applications of genome-scale metabolic models
represent a great advantage of systems biology. Triana et al. have suc­
cessfully rebuilt the first genome-scale metabolic network for Synecho­
coccus elongatus PCC7942, called iSyf715. They used the COPABI
platform to build an up-to-date database and to automatically generate
the metabolic model [67].
2.7. Windows General Energy and Material balance System (WINGEMS)
WINGEMS is the main simulator in the pulp and paper industry,
which has been known in the pulp and paper industry for more than a
decade [50]. The WINGEMS software is a valuable tool in flow sheeting,
mathematical modeling, and separation design of biochemical pro­
cesses. This could be practical to simulate different units of a biorefinery
plant, especially those which are also common in the paper industry
[51,52]. WINGEMS is a powerful tool in the conversion of biomass to
long fiber and structural products which can be an alternative to plastic-
made products. Huang et al. [53] performed a detailed process modeling
by combining Aspen Plus®, WinGEMS®, and Microsoft Excel® to
simulate the entire biorefinery in detail and developed a comprehensive
communication interface among the three simulations. Their goal was to
A.A. Kasani et al.
better comprehend the overall process, technical, economic, and envi­
ronmental performance of the whole integrated forest biorefinery. They
reported a simple case study of an integrated biorefinery and the higher
feasibility of their approach.
2.8. DAYCENT
DayCent is a worthwhile biogeochemical simulation tool for
analyzing carbon, fertilizer, and greenhouse gas (GHG) cycles in
microalgae, grassland, forest, and even savanna ecosystems. The simu­
lation starts by providing soil information and hydraulic data, current
and tranditional land use, vegetation cover, minimum and maximum
daily temperature, and daily rainfall. This software provides daily and
monthly planning of running events and determines vegetation yield in a
daily time frame. The capability of the tool to analyze plant revenues,
soil carbon content, N2O emissions, and NO3 discharge is powerful in
using data as of various watered and rained vegetation systems. DayCent
has also been used to calculate the N2O emissions from reaped and
scraped soils for the U.S. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory and to
execute the life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in biofuel
production assemblies [54].
2.9. COMSOL
COMSOL Multiphysics® is a multi-purpose simulation software for
modeling and simulating and process designing in most fields of engi­
neering, industrial, and laboratory research. For multiphysics modeling
in biorefinery projects, COMSOL can also turn the models into simula­
tion applications and digital illustrations to be used by other design
teams, manufacturing departments, test laboratories, clients, and more.
The flow field in a continuous Pulsed Electric Field (PEF) processing and
its key factors were analyzed by Buchmann et al. as an innovative
nonthermal technique with potential applications in commercial
microalgae biorefineries. To conduct the simulations of the flow field in
PEF treatment chambers, they used COMSOL multiphysics® software
(version 5.3, Comsol Inc., Burlington MA, USA). Their results showed
that the PEF processing can demonstrate appropriate applications in
microalgae valorization; however, the reproducibility of results was not
acceptable [55].
2.10. AIMMS
AIMMS is a cutting-edge simulation software for creating integrated
processes study and uses an unconventional managing system. It is used
by leading companies of biorefinery industries, in aspects such as supply
chain management, industrial planning, logistics, cultivation planning
and risk, and revenue and asset management. A superstructure frame­
work for the techno-economic optimization of an integrated algae bio­
refinery is developed by Galanopoulos et al. and implemented in the
Advanced Interactive Multidimensional Modeling (AIMMS) software
(version 4.21.5.583, 64-bit) to minimize the total biodiesel production
costs. Their developed model is a useful tool to find optimal processing
pathways that can minimize the required costs for producing biodiesel
from algae. The minimal biodiesel costs achieved were 4.02 $/l with a
biodiesel output of 2.4 Ml/y (2.1 kt/y). Their results show that the in­
tegrated concept leads to economic advantages over a stand-alone algae
biorefinery with a reduction in the biodiesel production costs up to 80%
[56].
2.11. LabVIEW
LabVIEW is a simulation software applied in testing, measurement,
and control applications that require rapid access to hardware and data
insights. Mayol et al. proposed wet processing of biomass to avoid the
expensive drying steps that include harvesting, cell disruption, and
fractionation of the target compounds. They designed and fabricated the
6
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
experimental system to collect the required data and the experimental
setup was monitored by the acquisition software LabVIEW [57,58].
Paladino & Neviani proposed a procedure to perform the scale-up of
photobioreactors based on Buckingham π-theorem. The photo­
bioreactors was used to cultivate Chlorella Vulgaris fed by CO2 and a
glycerol rich wastewater. They designed and carried out an experi­
mental campaign at three levels to evaluate the characteristic dimen­
sionless numbers individuated by the theoretical formulation. The
cultivation test lasted 90 days, and the automatic management of all the
operations was performed by the self-built control tool developed on
Labview 12 for the PXI National Instruments PXI system [59].
Paladino & Neviani set up the operating conditions of a battery of
airlift photo-bioreactors for Chlorella Vulgaris cultivation integrated into
a pilot-scale Biowaste-to-Biofuels production plant to produce both
biodiesels by transesterification of waste frying oils and syngas by wood
chips gasification. They used the National Instruments PXI system and
Labview software to automatically control the feeding, extraction, and
sampling operations [60].
2.12. STELLA
STELLA (Systems Thinking Experimental Learning Laboratory with
Animation) is a graphical platform for dynamic modeling officially
created by Barry Richmond in 1985. STELLA provides an environment to
run models manufactured as visual exemplifications of a system. STELLA
has broadly been employed by scholars as a teaching tool and has
similarly been used in a range of studies and industrial applications. The
software package has received positive feedback, being recommended
specifically for being user-friendly and most importantly the low cost
[61,62]. In 2012, two academics released StellaR, a software that can
convert STELLA models into the R programming language [63].
Calicioglu et al. conducted a comprehensive study to identify chal­
lenges and opportunities for largescale wastewater-derived duckweed
biorefineries as a way to promote a circular bioeconomy. They used
Stella Architect (version 1.1.2) to simulate the duckweed growth dy­
namics by considering the mat density as a variable for the intrinsic
growth rate. By conducting a techno-economic analysis (TEA) they ob­
tained a minimum duckweed selling price of $7.69 Mg− 1 dry matter and
a minimum ethanol selling price of $2.17/L. The largest share of capital
cost (55.6%) and operating cost (90.4%) was accounted for duckweed
pond construction and duckweed harvesting, respectively [64].
3. Biorefinery process simulation
The process design of a sustainable biorefinery structure in view of
the complicated and ambiguous nature of most of the technologies is one
of the major biorefinery challenges and it should be reviewed meticu­
lously. Many practices about microalgae biorefinery process simulation
have been reported in recent years. For instance, Frias et al. [61] con­
ducted a topological analysis of microalgae during the stages of a bio­
refinery. The analysis was founded on process simulation with the
SuperPro Designer software for simulation of the process through stages
such as chemical flocculation and filter press, hydrolysis of lipids, and
pigment extraction with a solvent. They even went further and analyzed
the transformation of lipids into biodiesel. Moreover, considering the
energy integration principle with the Aspen Energy Analyzer software, it
was possible to minimize the energy cost with the purpose of improving
the topology planned.
Aspen Plus is suitable for assessing the wide-ranging mass and energy
balances. Penloglou et al. [36] used the Aspen Plus simulation platform
to develop a mathematical model to evaluate the comprehensive mass
and energy balances, the machinery sizing, and the consumption of the
services. Then, the cost of each process unit and the stage was calculated
ensuring the total capital investment (I), the annual manufacturing cost
(CTW), and the annual manufacturing cost per manufactured biomass
(CTW). Hernández-Pérez et al. [63] used Aspen plus and demonstrated a
A.A. Kasani et al.
useful calculation system using metaheuristic methods to optimize an
interconnected biodiesel manufacturing process from microalgae
biomass. Ten environmental variables were studied and improved
counting temperatures and pressures of the five bioreactors and the
quantity of stages plus the feed stage of the three studied distillation
units. The model could cover both economic and environmental objec­
tives. The economic objective was designed at taking full advantage of
the net annual income. The objective related to the environmental ef­
fects was to reduce the exhausted greenhouse gases (GHG). In addition,
they practiced the free software of Symyx Draw for the formation of all
the compounds that were not avaialble in the Aspen Plus database.
Covering all the procedure in a single simulation app can conserve
time and cost. Asiedu et al. [8] studied process simulation and techno-
economic assessment of a rich protein quintessence (free amino acids
and water-soluble peptides) extracted from microalgae. The simulation
was performed using SuperPro Designer v9.0. The analyses covered all
procedures such as biomass cultivation, reaping, lipid extraction, and
spray drying. In addition, a water-based Flash Hydrolysis (FH) proced­
ure was practiced in building the pilot-scale continuous-flow reactor for
protein extraction from microalgae discharge. The protein minimum
selling price of 4.31 $/kg was then calculated based on the simulation
data. Li et al. [68] introduced the usage of CFD simulation by combining
the laminar fizzy stream of air bubbles with microalgae mass transfer
equations and boundary conditions. The simulations were initially
established hypothetically for finding the most favorable alignment of
the 2-panel photo bioreactor and its operational parameters in providing
a sufficient dark-light cycle. Finally, they compared prototype experi­
ments on microalgae cultivation with the simulated model data and
realized that the suggested CFD simulation was appropriately valid and
useful.
Aspen Hysys can be used for developing new designs. Piemonte et al.
[69] developed a novel microalgae biorefinery design with ionic liquid
extraction using Aspen Hysys V7.3®. The selected ionic liquid was
Butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride, which is an eco-friendly solvent;
since it is not a conventional compound and is not available under Aspen
Hysys's database, a technique to calculate its thermodynamic and
transport properties through a thermodynamic model was suggested.
Moreover, a complete flowchart has been arranged and simulated,
including a reactor for extraction of the bio-oil via ionic fluid, and a
three-phase separator with recycled streams, and few heat exchangers
devices for recovery of the energy. In addition, they carried out mass and
energy balances and the key finding allowed them to calculate the
amount of extracted bio-oil as a function of the ionic liquid to dry
microalgae mass ratio. It was reported the bio-oil recovery progression,
improved by decreasing the temperature.
MATLAB software is valuable for modeling in open ponds. Albarelli
et al. [70] used MATLAB software for developing a mathematical model
for the cultivation of the microalgae in an open pond. The cultivation
systems used for growing algal biomass were open ponds and closed
photobioreactors (PBR); each of these systems has its own advantages
and disadvantages. The photobioreactors include bubble column, airlift
reactor, flat-plate reactor, horizontal or helical tubular reactor, and
fermenter-type reactors. The efficiency of PBR depends on various pa­
rameters; but the focus of this work was on gas-liquid mass transfer rate
which depends on several factors. CO2 concentration and flow rate are
some of these factors that significantly affect biomass production, bub­
ble behavior, etc. The volumetric mass transfer coefficient (KLa) and gas
hold up (εg) are parameters that affect the mass transfer rate. By
changing the physical characteristics of the PBR such as spurge design or
changing the operating conditions, KLa and εg are changed dramatically
and are changing the mass transfer rate ultimately [71,72]. The micro­
algae cultivation model is developed considering an open pool system in
which the water-air interface is wide-open to solar light using an
equation-oriented modeling methodology. In this cultivation model, the
open pool is supplied with water, the CO2-rich gas flow, and fertilizer.
The carbon consumption rate is controlled by the microalgae growth
7
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
rate and the CO2-rich flow dose is decreased in order to localize the CO2
balance. Their model is governed by different parameters such as the
surface area of the water-air interface, water depth, the basic microalgae
dosage, and the algae features. Besides, Gomez et al. [73] used a fast and
reliable MATLAB code called DFBA lab for dynamic flux balance anal­
ysis of Bioprocess systems.
Process balancing and flow sheeting is the usage of computer assis­
tance to execute steady-state mass and energy balancing and price cal­
culations for a biorefinery plant. It is a critical and fundamental element
of a biorefinery process design. Many processes, balancing, and flow
sheeting associated software have been used in the bio-systems so far.
For instance, Pujan et al. [74] studied higher possible blending ratios or
better fuel qualities of aviation biofuels generated from Fluidized-bed
catalytic cracking (FCC) of algae oil. They applied Aspen Plus for
flowsheeting as well as finding mass and heat balances to evaluate the
efficiency of the process. They found that the simulation software covers
all relevant conversion and separation steps as well as the secondary
components such as a steam reformer and furnace. They correspond­
ingly proposed that the established simulation model can act as a con­
ceptual design for the implementation of future experimental results and
perceptions with an energy efficacy of 95% and an aviation biofuel yield
of 41%.
SuperPro Designer® software is a great pilot-scale designing soft­
ware tool. Inca et al. [75] developed a pilot-scale CO2 capture system
based on microalgae to produce high-quality biodiesel. The process
flowsheet for the CO2 bio-absorption system from vent air, progression,
and extraction of biomass as well as bio-oil separation is executed in
SuperPro Designer® v8.5 software. Practical data allowed them to
format flowsheets, unit operations, and unit process material balance.
They considered the semi-batch process, and calculated feedstock
quantity/flow rate and treating times. The process simulation predicted
that about 1400 kg CO2/yr bio-capture with about 45% yield, and
approximately 200 kg bio-oil/yr can be produced in the plant.
3.1. Tools for the cultivation step
One of the main concerns in the cultivation of microalgae on a large
scale is the design and construction of systems and methods of cultiva­
tion and identification of several species that have the capability to in­
crease efficiency with the use of solar energy and carbon dioxide.
Despite numerous studies on increasing efficiency, so far no fully opti­
mized bioreactor has been introduced that can achieve maximum pro­
duction with minimum cost [76–78]. Although all efforts are currently
being made to produce and cultivate microalgae in closed systems, most
commercial systems are in the form of open lake cultivation. This is due
to economic issues as well as the cheapness of this system compared to
closed systems [79,80].
Photobioreactors are classified based on shape (tubular and flat),
their slope respecting the ground (horizontal, vertical, angled, and spi­
ral), how the material is mixed and moved (by pump or air), single-
phase or two-phase, and material of construction (glass or plastic).
The principle of these reactors is to reduce the thickness of the photo­
bioreactor and thus increase the amount of light available to each cell
[81,82].
The actual length and height of flat panel photobioreactors are
determined by the mixing of the environment inside. The dimensions of
these systems should be designed in such a way that a proper mixing
pattern is established in the reactor so that the nutrients and microalgae
themselves have a balanced distribution [83]. These photobioreactors
are designed based on the high surface-to-mass ratio (S/V), which will
increase the photosynthetic efficiency [84,85].
The main inputs of closed systems include algae, light, water, carbon
dioxide, and sources of nitrogen and phosphorus. The type of equipment
used to agitate and circulate the medium is important in the design of a
photobioreactor. The efficiency and cost of making a photobioreactor
depend on the choice of the agitator system to set up a suitable mixing
A.A. Kasani et al.
pattern [86]. Proper mixing will prevent cell deposition in the photo­
bioreactor, provide a proper distribution of nutrients, removal of oxygen
produced from photosynthesis, a proper supply and distribution of
carbon dioxide, and an increase of light in the photobioreactor. Never­
theless, excessive agitation can lead to cell damage and eventually cell
death [86,87]. Therefore, the choice of mixing system and its intensity
should be done by considering the characteristics of the microorganism
used. In recent years, major efforts have been made to increase the
photosynthetic efficiency of microalgae under high light (normal con­
ditions on a sunny day). An important strategy for this is to increase the
amount of light at the reactor surface, which will be possible by stacking
the photobioreactor units vertically [88,89].
The complex nature and potential of microalgae to be used as one of
the main sources of food, feedstock, or even fuel in various sectors in a
biorefinery concept emphasizes the necessity for a very good insight into
microbial systems and their quality control. Podevin et al. [90] have
extensively reviewed various on-line and in-line monitoring techniques
of macromolecules including lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and pig­
ments along with the advancement in their corresponding software to
move microalgae production towards process automation via multi­
variate process control (MVPC) and software sensors trained on “big
data”. In their review paper, Podevin et al. [90] have focused mainly on
the current and future advancement of on-line and in-line process
analytical technology (PAT) and software, intending to maintain prod­
uct quality and productivity, and improve process automation and
control of a microalgal biorefinery.
Nocentini et al. [91] applied DayCent software for an evaluation of
the biomass feedstock production and soil greenhouse gas emissions in
the cultivation process of switchgrass and giant reed plants in the U.S.
southeast region when converting different previous land-living usages.
This is an important job because based on the type of land available for
the cultivation of crops, various greenhouse gas effects will be produced
based on land-use conversion. They concluded that Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and South Carolina were those States with the top accessi­
bility of land, consequently the uppermost possibility for biofuel
manufacture. Moreover, Nocentini et al. [92] used the DayCent software
to evaluate the planting possibility of switchgrass as a bio-ethanol crop
to store soil carbon in Europe. They simulated two scenarios: (i) culti­
vation only of meadows (1.76 Mha) and (ii) cultivation on Meadowlands
plus 5% of cultivatable areas presently used for cereals (2.97 Mha in
total).
Leow et al. [93] provided a dynamic biological cultivation model
integrated with thermochemical/biological unit process components for
the benefit of downstream biorefineries via Monte Carlo simulation.
Practically, their study determines a strong necessity to influence inte­
grated modeling platforms to improve microalgae biofuel systems as a
whole, and precise recommendations are provided for organizing the
academic and industrial corridors to attain cost-effective biofuel
manufacture from microalgae.
Seghetta et al. [94] have applied STELLA software to design models
for carbon stocks and flows in various systems such as dynamic models
of growth of brown seaweed. In one of their recent publications,
Seghetta et al. [94] have presented a dynamic model of the carbon cycle
and the flow of biogenic carbon specifically developed for microalgae-
based biorefinery systems in order to support cradle-to-cradle LCA of a
macroalgal biorefinery, quantifying the reduction in atmospheric car­
bon dioxide (CO2), in terms of carbon. Their objective of designing such
a model was to develop a reproducible model that can be used world­
wide, by adapting the key parameters. Moreover, the usage of various
software such as Pathway Tools and COPABI are reported to build spe­
cific databases of genes, proteins, enzymes, and metabolites [67].
3.2. Tools for the separation step
The economics and cost-effectiveness of biofuel production from
microalgae require solving some of their current problems, one of the
8
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
keys and costly parts of which is the separation of microalgae from the
culture medium, which accounts for about 20–30% of the total cost, and
as a limiting factor for the conversion of this biomass into biofuels
[95–97]. Cultivated algae usually contain large amounts of water, which
must be properly harvested to remove this amount of water and operate
on large volumes of its biomass. These methods may include several
steps involving physical, chemical, and biological methods to achieve
proper solid-liquid separation. Experience has shown that there is still
no comprehensive method for harvesting and this field is still active for
research to obtain a suitable and economical collection system for
different species of algae. Since the cells typically carry a negative
charge and allogeneic organic matter (AOM), they remain stable in so­
lution [98,99]. This, along with the low weight of algae in the culture
medium, causes a high cost of algae harvesting. The most common
harvesting methods include gravitational deposition, centrifugation,
filtration and microblogging, ultrafiltration, flotation, sometimes with
an additional flocculation step or a flocculation-flotation combination,
and electrophoresis techniques. The choice of separation method de­
pends on the properties of microalgae such as density, size, and value of
the products [100–103].
3.3. Tools for conversion process
The production of renewable and environmentally friendly energy
from available raw materials has become a goal. Accordingly, various
methods for energy production from biomass have been proposed. In
general, these processes are divided into three categories: biochemical,
chemical, and thermochemical processes [104,105]. Each part of this
classification includes several different methods. Biomass conversion
obtained from microalgae can be accomplished through anaerobic
decomposition, fermentation, and photobiological methods. In these
methods, microorganisms and enzymes are mainly applied to convert
biomass into biofuels [106]. Although these methods are environmen­
tally friendly, due to their time consuming, low conversion, and high
cost required, they are not of interest from an industrial point of view.
The process of ester exchange or esterification of triglycerides in
biomass by methanol has been one of the preferred chemical methods
for biodiesel production. Thermal decomposition of organic matter in
biomass and its conversion into biofuels occurs during thermochemical
processes [107].
Gasification, melting, direct combustion, and pyrolysis are such
processes. During the process, the biomass is heated by air, oxygen, or
steam to produce the desired products [108]. The industrial method for
producing biofuels from microalgae is to extract triglycerides from algal
biomass and subsequent conversions (such as transesterification) to
biodiesel fuel. This method requires dewatering of microalgae, drying,
and dewatering of biomass paste, and using a solvent to extract tri­
glycerides from dry biomass. These procedures and steps are costly and
require organic solvents. An alternative approach that requires neither
drying nor organic solvent is the hydrothermal liquefaction method.
This method converts microalgae with high moisture content into the
water at a certain temperature and pressure. Under these conditions,
macromolecules in microalgae are broken down into bio-oil and gases
[107,109]. Pardo-Planas et al. [110] applied Aspen Plus to simulate a
biorefinery plant founded on a hybrid technology for the production of
anhydrous ethanol by converting 1200 tons of switchgrass per day.
Their simulation model contains three conversion components:
fermentation, gasification, and ethanol recapture. Their study discov­
ered the potential manufacture of nearly 36.5 million gallons of bio-fuel
ethanol per year. Barrera et al. [111] used SuperPro Designer software
for investigating the potential of converting Sugarcane and blue agave
bagasse to bioethanol as the alternative feeds in a biorefinery system. In
this work, they designed a thorough simulation process via SuperPro
Designer® software considering the upstream components of fermen­
tation for the efficiency evaluation of bioethanol production in their
design. The simulation was prepared at various efficiency levels to
A.A. Kasani et al.
analyze ethanol production in terms of the complete replacement of
oxygenates in gasoline sold in Mexico. The results showed that the
ethanol manufacturing cost is 1.34 and 1.46 USD/gal and potential
production is 40.13 and 1380 MM gallon/year using blue agave bagasse
and sugarcane bagasse, respectively.
Carmona-Garcia et al. [112] applied commercial software such as
Aspen Plus for simulating the conversion of Coffee Cut Stems (CCS) as a
raw material to Acetone–Butanol–Ethanol (ABE) and to perform the
mass and energy balances. This simulation involved the components of
biomass excess that was obtained by practice. First, the entire produced
sludge in the acid pretreatment unit was transferred to enzymatic
saccharification. Second, the liquid portion that was rich in pentoses and
hexoses was used for the fermentation step as a carbon supply. The
procedure was planned in this mode to control the inhibitors effect in the
yield of ABE fermentation through the comparison with other steps that
include the decontamination stage. The efficiency of the process was
reported to be the production of 140 kg of ABE per each ton of CCS. A
Minimum Processing Scale for Economic Feasibility (MPSEF) of 64.6
ton/h of CCS was also demonstrated by the simulation.
Pessoa et al. [113] also used the commercial CFD software ANSYS
FLUENT® 16.0 to simulate a pilot-scale biomass conversion packed-bed
bioreactor their focus was on solving the main challenge of Solid-State
Fermentation (SSF) which has presented a considerable potential for
the advancing of biorefineries and bio-chemicals. SSF includes the
growth of microorganisms within a surface of humidified solid units
infused by the constant gas flow and the slightest of noticeable water.
SSF provides possible benefits over the submerged method. Since the
concentrations of outcomes are usually greater, minor bioreactors can
be applied to lead to a decrease in functioning expenses. Nevertheless,
there is a big challenge in calculating sufficient heat transfer when this
conversion method is used at large scales. As a final point, their simu­
lation successfully calculated the heat transfer with an average tem­
perature difference of 0.07 ◦ C between the experimental and predicted
values. The scent of tea is an important factor in the tea industry which is
affected by the conversion stage in tea preparation and an electronic
nose is used for measuring this factor. Tozlu et al. [114] used LabVIEW
simulation software for simulating Fermentation bands of a tea factory
in Turkey by using real odor data obtained in the plant via the electronic
nose. This piece of research should be executed in the simulation setting
due to the great cost of the physical system setup. By the process offered
in this research, tea factories would be capable to raise their
manufacturing capability with better odor and overall quality.
Another case of using simulation software for determining the
feedback of a process in the conversion stage and reducing experimental
charges is explained as follows. Rahimi et al. [115] simulated the per­
formance of the sensor-sensing silicone to detect methane-soluble in the
conversion step. Chromatography is used for measuring the methane
content in the fermentation process; nevertheless, the usage of off-line
mass spectrometry needs the sampling and upkeep of the sample. Sili­
con sensors are fabricated and applied to sense methane based on this
principle. The sensor was simulated using COMSOL Multiphysics (CM)
5.2 computational software. The three different flowrates of helium was
injected at 40, 50, and 60 ml/min. The slightest feedback interval from
the sensor simulation was 10% regarding the data of the experiments at
1.6 min.
4. Biorefinery process optimization
Third-generation biorefineries are considered complex systems
mainly due to the complicated conversion paths that yield multiple bio-
products, such as bio-oils and building block chemicals. On the other
hand, market uncertainties such as the real market demand and prices as
well as the high capital costs prevent the development of such produc­
tion systems in an economically sustainable and viable manner. There­
fore, developing a strong optimization model can be helpful to overcome
such barriers and can be considered a decision-making tool for investing
9
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
in these new emerging technologies.
Panteli et al. [116], developed a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming
(MILP) model for the integration of a technology superstructure with a
spatially explicit, multi-period and multi-feedstock, and lignocellulosic
biomass to bio-based products supply chain network. The developed
model was solved using GAMS® software by the CPLEX solver. They
further performed optimization work to identify the profit-based
optimal configurations of the overall biorefining network that satisfy a
deterministic bio-based market demand over a long-term planning
prospect.
In addition, they run a European case study of the South-West of
Hungary to validate the applicability of the developed model along with
its usefulness in driving decision-making regarding the strategic design
of advanced future biorefining systems. They have reported that the
performance of sensitivity analyses, as well as the inclusion of technical
or economic uncertainty metrics into the mathematical framework, is of
great importance to identify the major cost drivers along with the design
and planning of robust bio-based supply chains [116].
AIMMS software is a good choice for engineers in the optimization
process. Galanopoulos et al. [56] applied the AIMMS software for the
optimization of an integrated algae biorefinery. The integration idea is
defined by the usage of the wastewater and CO2 discharges from a wheat
straw biorefinery plant as an input to the microalgae biorefinery and the
subsequent algae residues are recycled back to the wheat straw bio­
refinery to produce more valuable compounds. Their results showed that
the integrated idea creates an economic advantage above a separate
algae biorefinery for the reason that there can be up to 80% cost saving
in biodiesel production. Geraili et al. [117] also used MATLAB and
Aspen plus and provided a multiobjective optimization framework for
the process design of integrated biorefineries with uncertainties. They
tested this optimization framework on an integrated multiproduct bio­
refinery plant producing boosted biofuels (ethanol) and bio-based
chemicals (succinic acid) and demonstrated the capabilities of the
offered methodology.
Nan et al. studied the biodiesel production by transesterification of
microalgae oil in a methanol and ethanol media at supercritical and non-
catalytic conditions. To optimize the operating conditions of the process,
a Response Surface Methodology (RSM) combined with a Central
Composite Design (CCD) was employed. They used Design Expert
version 8.05 software (STAT-EASE Inc.) to analyze and predict the
experiment data and optimal conditions. The results showed that the
model could predicts the experimental data with an acceptable accu­
racy. The optimal values for the biodiesel yield obtained with methanol
and ethanol medium in their work were about 91% and 88%, respec­
tively. These results obtained by Nan et al. are significant in terms of
optimizing the costs associated with the anhydrous alcohol and water
removal of feedstocks, preheating the reactants, and the purification of
the products [118].
Banerjee et al. investigated the production of bioethanol from
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii through a biorefinery approach. The pro­
ductivity of biomass and carbohydrate was enhanced by optimizing the
physicochemical parameters. A depigmented and defatted algal biomass
was used as a substrate to assess the feasibility of bioethanol fermen­
tation. To improve the biomass and carbohydrate concentration of
C. reinhardtii, several physico-chemical parameters were augmented.
Several characteristics of the TAP+ media including the initial pH,
cultivation temperature, and acetate and ammonium chloride concen­
tration were optimized using the Minitab18 software by modifying one
variable at a time, followed by investigating the interaction of the
optimized variables with each other. It was observed that after emend­
ing the physico-chemical variables with concomitant, the CO2 seques­
tration was shown to be beneficial for the improvement of biomass and
metabolite concentration of C. reinhardtii [119].
A novel multi-objective optimization model was developed by Solis
et al. by focusing on algal biorefinery application to simultaneously
optimize its cost and environmental impact with the objectives of
A.A. Kasani et al. Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597

Fig. 5. The basic schematic of a software tool used for Total Chain Integration (TCI) of biorefinery systems. Adopted from: [121].

maximizing profit and minimizing the environmental impact. An algal
biorefinery with several end-products such as biodiesel, glycerol, bio­
char, and fertilizer was used as a case study to prove the optimization
model. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was applied to
obtain measures for the environmental impact of the process. After
assessing the life cycle inventory, the researchers determined the overall
impact of the system using the SimaPro software. For the optimization
purpose, a mathematical optimization model was developed and vali­
dated with the use of MATLAB R2020a software along with the Cplex
optimization solver. Their results showed that the fluctuations in de­
mand and the efficiencies of process unit have a significant effect on the
optimal results. Moreover, it was seen when profit maximization is
prioritized, the resulting environmental impact increases, which is un­
favorable due to the harm it will cause to the environment. On the other
hand, when the environmental impact is minimized, the algal bio­
refinery obtains a net loss since the generated revenue is not enough to
cover the overall production expenses [120].
4.1. Process integration
A number of software tools are also developed for integration of
biorefinery systems the so-called Total Chain Integration (TCI). TCI may
be conducted by numerical methodologies in the form of software tools.
It can provide technological, economic, environmental, and societal
results and is very useful tool for business and policy-making decisions.
The outcomes of TCI can be further interpreted into the specific spatial
configurations of biorefinery systems and enable the designers to decide
on optimized technological biorefining options and feedstock.
Most present-day integration software tools require a large number
of input parameters that is usually very hard to collect. Moreover, a
comprehensive knowledge in this field is needed to use most of these
tools. All these drawback limit the practical application of the available
integration tools. So far, there are no sophisticated tools capable of
carrying out the total chain integration of biorefinery systems. Budzia­
nowski and Postawa [121], have performed an extensive literature re­
view and analyses on the state-of-the-art software tools that might
potentially be applicable for TCI of biorefinery systems (Fig. 5).
They have reported that in order to develop an economically viable
and sustainable biorefinery system, a truly solid integration is manda­
tory. Various integration approaches, including the integration of plat­
forms, exchanging wastes and products with other industrial sectors,
using more efficient conversion paths, providing ecosystem and social
services, and optimizing biomass are essential to meet this goal.
Mountraki et al. [122] and Kokossis and Yang [123] have conducted
detailed designs and mathematical models of first- and second-
generation ethanol production using Aspen Plus® and GAMS® and
validated their designs by the industrial partner (CIMV Process™). They
have applied the grassroots integration methodology to the second
generation and the retrofit integration on the first-generation technol­
ogy along with a transshipment analysis and indicated a significant
potential saving both in operating and capital cost.
5. Economic analysis
Moncada et al. [15], have investigated the possibilities of integrating
biorefineries operating with various generations of feedstock, micro­
algae oil extraction, and its transformation into biodiesel. They analyzed
the potential of CO2-rich streams for microalgae biomass cultivation and
harvesting. They conducted a techno-economic and environmental
analysis of various biorefinery scenarios using the Aspen Economic
Analyzer v8.0 software. They estimated the capital and operating costs
of the process units and other valuable data, by taking advantage of the
design parameters provided by Aspen Plus software, as well as the data
entered by the user for specific operating conditions.
Posada et al. studied several design aspects of integrated microalgae
biorefineries by using the flue gas produced by CO2-intensive industries.
The design aspects include the screening of technologies, analysis of
processing variables, the combination of final products, and assessment
of thr sustainability criteria. They assembled a comprehensive Life Cycle
Inventory (LCI) and LCA for each processing option. The NREU and GHG
emissions were compared among the different developed biorefinery
configurations. The LCA was assembled using a spreadsheet model and
SimaPro software. The results showed that the biorefinery systems with
the best economic and environmental performances are those in which
the microalgae oil-free cake is used as a nutrient for substitution of
animal feed and lipids are used for substitution of vegetable oils,
respectively. They reported that overall, the microalgae-based bio­
refineries appear to have an acceptable balance between high-demand
energy-oriented and low-demand material-oriented products for the
development of future multiproduct biorefineries [4].
Thomassen et al. performed an Environmental Techno-Economic
Assessment (ETEA) for multiple microalgae biorefinery concepts at
different locations (Belgium and India). They proposed an ETEA meth­
odology by integrating several aspects of the techno-economic assess­
ment (TEA) and LCA methodologies and developed a clear framework
for the integrated assessment model. They also identified the underlying
variable for the economic and environmental indicators. They per­
formed first a contribution analysis to evaluate which production pro­
cess has the highest impact to the output indicators. In the second step,
they conducted a sensitivity analysis by a Monte Carlo analysis using the
Oracle Crystal Ball software in order to identify which underlying var­
iables have the highest contribution on the output indicators. They re­
ported that the scenario in India showed a higher profitability with an
NPV of €40 million over a period of 10 years, while the environmental

10
A.A. Kasani et al.
Fig. 6. GHG emission for the conversion of microalgae to biofuels by WTP system boundary conditions taken from previous studies compared with the results of this
research for industrial-scale modeling. [128–142].
impact for the scenario in Belgium was lower. They also showed that the
inclusion of a medium recycling step provides the best scenario from
both economic and environmental perspectives and the crucial param­
eters for feasibility were the upstream environmental impact of elec­
tricity and the maximum concentration of biomass during cultivation
[6].
Tejada Carbajal et al. proposed five biorefinery scenarios for the
production of five different end-products mainly for biodiesel produc­
tion from Scenedesmus dimorphus microalgae biomass and glycerol
valorization. They used Aspen Plus® V.10.0 software to simulate a
reactive distillation column (RD) and continuously stirred tank reactor
(CSTR) for the microalgae oil transesterification stage. The equipment
and its installation costs were estimated using the Aspen Process Eco­
nomic Analyzer (APEA) software. Their results showed that the bio­
refinery integrated RD and glycerol valorization processes have the best
economic performance and can achieve an internal rate of return (IRR)
of 19.8% [8].
6. Life cycle assessment of biorefinery
Algal biorefineries are expected to impose less environmental im­
pacts if the proposed framework can be coupled to the LCA methodol­
ogy. To achieve this goal in practice, the state-of-the-art process
optimization techniques should be developed for both environmental
and economic aspects. The eco-indicator 99 developed based on the
endpoint category, is one the most popular database and SimaPro® is
the most used software for this purpose. Overall, two systematic
analytical approaches by LCA and TEA are used to quantify the eco­
nomic and environmental benefits of Algal biorefineries [124].
The environmental impacts of biorefineries are some quantities that
cannot be measured directly but can be evalauted from various.
measurable indicators. Moncada et al. [15] applied the waste
reduction algorithm (WAR), developed by the National Risk Manage­
ment Research Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), to calculate the potential environmental impact (PEI) biorefinery
systems. The PEI for a given mass or energy quantity can be defined as
their (energy or mass) effects on the environment if they were dis­
charged arbitrarily. They used the WARGUI software to incorporate the
Waste Reduction Algorithm for measuring various categories of envi­
ronmental indicators such as human toxicity by ingestion (HTPI),
human toxicity by dermal exposition or inhalation (HTPE), terrestrial
toxicity potential (TTP), aquatic toxicity potential (ATP), global warm­
ing (GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxidation
potential (PCOP), and acidification potential (AP) [15].
11
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
Albarelli et al. conducted a thermo-economic and environmental
assessment for the extraction of lipids and proteins from wet microalgal
biomass in a third-generation (3G) biorefinery by using both Super­
critical Fluid Extraction (SFE) and low-Pressure Solvent Extraction
(LPSE) technologies. The used Aspen Plus v.8.4 (Aspen Technology Inc.,
USA) to simulate the ethanol production process for both first-
generation (1G) ethanol from sugarcane juice and second-generation
(2G) ethanol from bagasse in a sugarcane biorefinery. A mathematical
model developed in MATLAB software (MathWorks Inc., USA) was also
used to simulate the cultivation of microalgae in an open pond. They
showed that when the SFE process is considered, the overall process heat
demand increases 3.2 times compared to the heat demand of the sug­
arcane biorefinery without microalgal growth and processing. On the
other hand, the heat demand of the proposed biorefinery with LPSE was
increased by only 87.8%. They reported that the SFE for wet microalgae
processing can increase the total investment by 71% and is not
economically attractive [125].
There have been many studies on the types of biofuels. In the last
decade, many studies have been conducted on the evaluation of the life
cycle of refineries, especially the production of bioethanol and biodiesel
from different methods and different generations of these fuels to reveal
the advantages and disadvantages of different methods compared to
each other and compare to fossil fuels. In life cycle evaluation studies,
several scenarios are usually considered and the most optimal scenario is
finally selected. In this section, we review a number of previous studies
on biofuels [126,127]. Figs. 6, show the common methods of converting
microalgae into biofuels obtained from various studies and also the
extent of their emissions.
Several models are suggested based on the proposed methods for
evaluating the life cycle of energy, economy, environment, etc. In
addition, some of these models range from a broad variety of fuels to
forestry and agriculture products. If the data required to calculate the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of bio-oil
production from microalgae are not available, the amount of pollut­
ants can be estimated by simulation with proposed models [143].
6.1. Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)
BEES was developed by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
This model measures the environmental efficiency of construction
products using an LCA approach based on ISO standards (14,040 series).
All stages of a product's life are evaluated, including raw material pro­
duction, transportation, installation, consumption, recycling, and waste
management [144].
A.A. Kasani et al. Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Software used for commercial Life Cycle Assessment. Software Advantages Disadvantages Data bank
Software Advantages Disadvantages Data bank name
name
• Easy to edit inputs
Simapro • Being global o Lack of support for - US LCI US to model different
• Easy modeling non-Windows - ELCD countries
• Systematic and operating systems - Ecoinvent • Alternative fuels
transparent analysis o Requires high hard - LCAfood LEM • Estimates energy o Limited to air - US LCI US
of cycles drive space - IVAM use, criteria emissions - ELCD
• Ability to calculate o Complicated pollutant emissions - Ecoinvent
the carbon footprint • Estimates CO2-
• Ability to determine equivalent
the potential greenhouse-gas
environmental emissions
impact GREET • Fuel-cycle (or well- o Favorable to fuel - US LCI US
• A high precision to-wheels, WTW) systems - ELCD
system modeling of - Ecoinvent
Gabi • Help to reduce o Requires - Ecoinvent vehicle/fuel
greenhouse gas independent - Dedicated systems
emissions and download and database with • Vehicle-cycle
waste update of the 4500 data sets modeling for light-
• Ability to quickly program duty vehicles
review mass flows, o Heavy software BEES • Having economic o The predominant - US LCI US
energy, and costs and use of old analysis focus is on - EPA
codebases • Extent of assessed evaluating the - Ecoinvent
Umberto • Easy to use context o Lack of support for - Ecoinvent environmental product life cycle - LCAfood
• Use of modern non-Windows - Gabi data parameters such as o It does not make
graphical user operating systems water consumption, sense to perform
interface smoke, indoor air other life cycle
• Imaging in the form quality, habitat analyzes with this
of a blacklist of change software.
input and output GHGenius • Transportation o Limitated to - IPCC
data or fuels Transportation - EPA
synchronous Fuels - Ecoinvent
diagrams GEMIS • Database for cost o Not user friendly - IPCC
• Evaluate the • Environmental data o Complex nature - EPA
betrayal cycle for life cycle requires multiple - Ecoinvent
following ISO systems Analyze for inputs that are ELCD
standard different system difficult and time
Quantis • Can be used by non- o Upgrading to a - Ecoinvent boundaries consuming to
SUITE experts more advanced - ADEME bilan • Give GHG source
• Reliable and version require - Carbon breakdowns
powerful results extra charge - DEFRA • Evaluate for
• Ability to auto- multiple objectives
update and simple • Optimize for certain
monitoring features
EarthSmart • Provides o Failure to provide - Ecoinvent
multifunctional network diagrams - Us -EI
functionality for 4 o Lack of imagery of - Australian 6.2. GaBi
different types of the model LCI
users o Lack of calculation
Gabi is LCA economic software distributed by the German interna­
• Upload data and o Uncertainty
methods from tional company PE. Gabi provides tools to create ISO 14040/44-
Simapro after initial compliant lifecycle reviews. Gabi has numerous databases for creating
payment lifecycle models [145,146].
• Web based
Sustainable • Perform LCA in o Limited capacity to - EPA
Minds product design and add parameters - NIST 6.3. GEMIS
production
• Use of cloud space
Gemis is LCA software that contains the energy database of various
technology
Enviance • Suitable for o Requires high - Provided with materials and transportation systems. This software includes the com­
System evaluating a large internet speed an advanced plete life cycle and the effects of its emissions. The Gemis database
number of products life cycle provides information on fuels (fossils, renewables, nuclear, biomass, and
• Ability to store on assessment hydrogen); Electrical and thermal processes (various power stations,
low space hardware database
OpenLCA • Manage GIS o Non-free data bank - US LCI US
generators, and fuel cells); Supplies raw materials and transportation
information within - ELCD (planes, buses, cars, pipelines, vessels, trains, and trailers). Gemis can
the software - Ecoinvent perform complete life cycle calculations of emissions of various pollut­
• Ability to analyze - LCAfood ants (greenhouse gases, air pollutants, debris, and wastewater) and en­
life cycle costs - IVAM
ergy consumption along with cost estimates [147,148].
Biograce • Presents breakdown o Assumptions need - JEC E3
of GHG data at each to be made in data - ecoinvent
point collection process 6.4. GHGenius
• User friendly o Manure
management
o GHG credit applied This model focuses on the life cycle of current and future fuels in
transportation. This software is available for free. GHGenius has data for
Canada, the United States, Mexico, and India at various stages of the fuel

12
A.A. Kasani et al. Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597

process. This model can implement LCA locally and regionally [7].

Acidification
All steps in the life cycle from raw material supply to final con­
sumption are covered by this model. GHG Genius has the ability to assess
the emission of conventional fuel pollutants and alternative fuels to

×
×

×
×
×
×
×
internal combustion engines. This model focuses on three categories of

–
–

–
life cycle emission effects: primary greenhouse gases (including CO2,

warming
CH4, and N2O), pollution criteria (including CO, NOX, SOX, and all

Global
particulate matter) from fuel sources, and energy consumption

×
×
×

×
×
×
×

–
–

–
(including all or fossil energy consumed per unit of energy produced at
all stages of fuel production) [149].

Resource
GHGenius generally provides two statistical tools: sensitivity anal­
ysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity analysis allows the user to

×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
–

–
modify the data of different input cells and determine its effect on the
output cells of the model. The performed Monte Carlo simulation allows

Ecotoxicity
up to five input cells for varying according to user-selected distributions
and the effect can be determined on up to 18 output cells and the results

×
×
×
×

×
×
×
–

–
–
can be displayed graphically. GHG can predict the emissions of past,
present, and future gases using past data or correlations of energy and

Energy consumption
process change parameters with time stored in the model [150].

6.5. GREET

This model evaluates the complete life cycle from the well to the

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
pump and pumps to the cycles, including the production of raw mate­
rials and transportation, fuel production and transportation, and refu­

Eutrophication
eling of vehicles. For the given fuel system and vehicle, the Greet model
performs calculations separately: total energy consumption, fossil fuels,
oil, coal, and natural gas, emission of pollutants (equivalent to CO2, CH4,
and N2O gas), emission of standard emissions gases (compounds)

×
×

×
×
×
×
×
–
–

–
Organic volatility, CO, NOX, fine matter, and SOX). The Greet trajectory

toxicity
Human
of production of more than 100 types of fuel has more than 75 vehicle/
fuel systems. Greet has a biofuel production trajectory from soy. In 2013,

×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
–

–
the algae production trajectory and related pollutants were added to the
Greet Database [151–153].
Ionizing

Obnamia et al., investigated of Comparison of Corn Ethanol Path­ ×

×
×
×
×
ways in GREET and GHGenius. Compared to GREET, the GHGenius

–
–
–

–
model applies very similar coproduct credits to the life cycle emissions
Land use

of corn ethanol using the displacement method. The allocation method

can be changed, for example, to also enable energy allocation. GHGenius
×

×
×
×
×
–
–
–

is set up to potentially document credit for carbon recovery from

fermentation CO2 (and sequestration from fossil CO2). The energy con­
odor

sumption value in GHGenius for average US corn ethanol is consistent

×

–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

with GREET [150].

depletion
Ozone

6.6. LEM
×
×
×
×

×
×
×

–
–

This model estimates energy consumption, air pollutant emissions,

smog

and CO2 equivalent emissions throughout the life cycle of fuels and
×

×
×
×
×
×

materials for a wide range of modes of transportation, vehicles, and

–
–
–
–

fuels. This model includes a wide range of types of passenger and freight
Photochemical oxidation

transport, electricity generation, heat, and so on. It estimates the emis­

sions of each individual pollutant and also converts all of those pollut­
ants into carbon dioxide emissions. This model uses the equivalent
carbon dioxide index (CEFS), which converts all emission weights except
carbon dioxide to the weight of carbon dioxide with equal effects on the
LCIA methods and impact categories.

global climate. CEFS are similar to GWP S used by IPCC, but not
×
×

×
×
×
×
×

necessarily the same [154–156].

–
–
–
–
Cumulative Energy Demand

6.7. SimaPro
ILCA 2011, midpoint
ILCA 2011, endpoint

SIMAPRO is economic software provided by the consultants of the

CML (non-baseline)

Eco-scarecity 2006

ReCiPe, midpoint
ReCiPe, endpoint

Dutch company Pre. The software provides professional tools for col­
Ecoindicator 99
CML (baseline)

lecting, evaluating, and monitoring the environmental performance of

TRACI 2.1

products, processes, and services. This software includes an unlimited

methods

USEtox
Table 2

range of abundant, transparent, and high-quality data from the most

commonly used cases and their processes. Databases of this software

13
A.A. Kasani et al.
Fig. 7. Summary of the software used in each step of the microalgae biorefinery process.
include the famous Equinont Switzerland Database, United States Input
and Output Database, Denmark Input and Output Database, Industry
Data, LCA Food Database, 250 Buawl, 2001 IDEMAT, United States
Franklin LCI Database, Archive Data, and so on. Ecoinvent includes a
multipurpose database of over 2700 processes [124,157,158].
6.8. Biograce
Biograce is a model for calculating greenhouse gas emissions based
on the EU Renewable Energy Guide. This model is presented in the form
of spreadsheets and has separate plates for calculating greenhouse gas
emissions from the production stage to the consumption of various types
of biofuels. In this model, greenhouse gases from the combustion of
fossil and non-fossil fuels, electricity, as well as various inputs from the
agricultural sector, including fertilizers are available. It is also possible
to add new inputs and change the amount of these inputs for new pro­
jects [7,159].
6.9. OpenLCA
OpenLCA is one of the newest and one of the most popular programs
because of its free access and ease of modeling. This software is con­
nected to 14 databases and despite the general perception, it is only free
for some databases and its main databases such as ecoinvent come with
certain charges. The software is available in 11 different languages
worldwide. One of its important advantages is the ability to manage GIS
information within the software. This feature allows the user to import
location-dependent effects and thus makes it possible to evaluate
14
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
regional effects. The software also has the ability to analyze life cycle
costs, so that the cost of each change in the process can be calculated
separately. In the new version of the software, social indicators are also
provided; one example is the PSILCA which is a new database containing
information on more than 15,000 industrial sectors and their social
impacts over their life cycle [160–163].
The most popular business lifecycle assessment software tools and
their advantages and disadvantages are summarized in Table 1.
The most critical phase in an LCA study is the Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA). In LCIA phase, the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) results
for the target substances related to the study of a specific system are
converted into understandable impact categories that represent the
impact on the environment. Several LCIA methodologies have so far
been developed with different approaches towards dealing with
modeling the emissions effect on the environment.
The selection of LCIA methods is based on the two main criteria as
follows: (i) the method is available in commercial software, such as
SimaPro or GaBi; (ii) the method includes multiple impact categories
that are selected mainly based on their availability in the selected LCIA
methods. In this work, most of the impact categories available in the
LCIA methods are investigated and summarized in Table 2.
7. Summary
As a summary, the process development step is shortened by appli­
cation of software tools including process simulation, economic analysis,
life cycle analysis and optimization. A summary of all the software used
in various steps of microalgae biorefineries is shown in Fig. 7.
A.A. Kasani et al.
8. Conclusion
The main obstacle to the widespread use of algae is their high pro­
duction cost and low productivity since the cultivation, harvesting,
separation, and processing of algae-based fuels are very expensive and
consequently, the production of this type of fuel requires extra initial
investment. In addition, the exact amount of algae that can be grown,
harvested, and processed in a sustainable manner is usually hard to es­
timate. Choosing the right software and having enough insight about
them can significantly help in solving problems related to biorefineries
and can lead to achieving high efficiency. Therefore, to achieve the set
goal, the right software must be known and selected according to its
advantages and disadvantages. The criteria to select the right software
including but not limited to Problem-solving ability; Ease of use, having
auxiliary menus, troubleshooting tools, model preparation, solution al­
gorithm setting, presentation of results, having a solid database of
chemicals, easy change of input, and output unit system, thermody­
namic expert system, mass, and energy balance, providing comprehen­
sive environmental effects, the calculation for equipment such as design
and sizing (e.g., tower, reactor, converter, dryer, filter, etc.), economic
estimation including equipment price, the possibility of upgrading,
ability to implement optimization programs, ability to connect to other
programs such as MATLAB, MS Excel, HTRI, HTFS, being user-friendly,
the ability to accept prefabricated files from inputs, and the ability to
communicate with programming languages such as Fortran, Visual
Basic, C ++. Moreover, besides the described software in this study,
there are several other software such as BioSTEAM, CHEMPRO, CADSIM
Plus, and EMSO used by researchers in the field of the biorefinery pro­
cess that will be discussed in our future publications.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Alei Ahmadi Kasani; Conceptualization, methodology, reviewing
software, information validation, acquisition, analysis and interpreta­
tion of information, writing review and editing.
Amin Esmaeili; Conceptualization, methodology, reviewing soft­
ware, information validation, analysis and interpretation of informa­
tion, writing review and editing.
Abooali Golzary; Conceptualization, methodology, finding re­
sources, interpretation of information, supervised the research, writing
review and editing.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Human and Animal Rights Statement
No conflicts, informed consent, or human or animal rights are
applicable to this study.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgments
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] M.K. Shahid, A. Batool, A. Kashif, M.H. Nawaz, M. Aslam, N. Iqbal, Y. Choi,
Biofuels and biorefineries: development, application and future perspectives
emphasizing the environmental and economic aspects, J. Environ. Manag. 297
(2021), 113268.
[2] Y.K. Leong, K.W. Chew, W.-H. Chen, J.-S. Chang, P.L. Show, Reuniting the
biogeochemistry of algae for a low-carbon circular bioeconomy, Trends Plant Sci.
26 (2021) 729–740.
15
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
[3] S.Y.A. Siddiki, M. Mofijur, P.S. Kumar, S.F. Ahmed, A. Inayat, F. Kusumo, I.
A. Badruddin, T.Y. Khan, L. Nghiem, H.C. Ong, Microalgae biomass as a
sustainable source for biofuel, biochemical and biobased value-added products:
an integrated biorefinery concept, Fuel 307 (2022), 121782.
[4] J.A. Posada, L.B. Brentner, A. Ramirez, M.K. Patel, Conceptual design of
sustainable integrated microalgae biorefineries: parametric analysis of energy
use, greenhouse gas emissions and techno-economics, Algal Res. 17 (2016)
113–131.
[5] I. Gifuni, A. Pollio, C. Safi, A. Marzocchella, G. Olivieri, Current bottlenecks and
challenges of the microalgal biorefinery, Trends Biotechnol. 37 (2019) 242–252.
[6] G. Thomassen, M. Van Dael, S. Van Passel, The potential of microalgae
biorefineries in Belgium and India: an environmental techno-economic
assessment, Bioresour. Technol. 267 (2018) 271–280.
[7] B.C. Klein, M.F. Chagas, M.D.B. Watanabe, A. Bonomi, R. Maciel Filho, Low
carbon biofuels and the New Brazilian National Biofuel Policy (RenovaBio): a
case study for sugarcane mills and integrated sugarcane-microalgae biorefineries,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 115 (2019), 109365.
[8] E.M.T. Carbajal, E.M. Hernández, L.F. Linares, E.N. Maldonado, R.L. Ballesteros,
Techno-economic analysis of Scenedesmus dimorphus microalgae biorefinery
scenarios for biodiesel production and glycerol valorization, Bioresour. Technol.
Rep. 12 (2020), 100605.
[9] G. Markou, E. Nerantzis, Microalgae for high-value compounds and biofuels
production: a review with focus on cultivation under stress conditions,
Biotechnol. Adv. 31 (2013) 1532–1542.
[10] Y. Torres-Tiji, F.J. Fields, S.P. Mayfield, Microalgae as a future food source,
Biotechnol. Adv. 41 (2020), 107536.
[11] R. Ganesan, S. Manigandan, M.S. Samuel, R. Shanmuganathan, K. Brindhadevi, N.
T.L. Chi, P.A. Duc, A. Pugazhendhi, A review on prospective production of biofuel
from microalgae, Biotechnol. Rep. 27 (2020) 509–515.
[12] H.M. Zabed, S. Akter, J. Yun, G. Zhang, Y. Zhang, X. Qi, Biogas from microalgae:
technologies, challenges and opportunities, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 117 (2020),
109503.
[13] F. Manzoor, A. Karbassi, A. Golzary, Removal of heavy metal contaminants from
wastewater by using Chlorella vulgaris beijerinck: a review, Curr. Environ.
Manag. 6 (2019) 174–187.
[14] D.L. Restrepo-Serna, J.A. Martínez-Ruano, C.A. Cardona-Alzate, Energy efficiency
of biorefinery schemes using sugarcane bagasse as raw material, Energies 11
(2018) 3474.
[15] J. Moncada, J.A. Tamayo, C.A. Cardona, Integrating first, second, and third
generation biorefineries: incorporating microalgae into the sugarcane biorefinery,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 118 (2014) 126–140.
[16] S. Raposo, A. Constantino, F. Rodrigues, B. Rodrigues, M. Lima-Costa, Nitrogen
sources screening for ethanol production using carob industrial wastes, Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 181 (2017) 827–843.
[17] R. Rodríguez, J. Espada, J. Moreno, G. Vicente, L. Bautista, V. Morales,
A. Sánchez-Bayo, J. Dufour, Environmental analysis of Spirulina cultivation and
biogas production using experimental and simulation approach, Renew. Energy
129 (2018) 724–732.
[18] Y. Cortes-Peña, D. Kumar, V. Singh, J.S. Guest, BioSTEAM: a fast and flexible
platform for the design, simulation, and techno-economic analysis of biorefineries
under uncertainty, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8 (2020) 3302–3310.
[19] B. Rehling, H. Hofbauer, R. Rauch, C. Aichernig, BioSNG—process simulation and
comparison with first results from a 1-MW demonstration plant, Biomass Convers.
Biorefinery 1 (2011) 111–119.
[20] J. Kautto, K. Henricson, H. Sixta, M. Trogen, R. Alén, Effects of integrating a
bioethanol production process to a Kraft pulp mill, Nordic Pulp Paper Res. J. 25
(2010) 233–242.
[21] C. Narayanan, T. De, Studies on synthesis of biodiesel from microalgae oil in
immobilized lipase fluidized bed bioreactor, Biomass Conv. Biorefinery 5 (2015)
33–42.
[22] A. Niño-Villalobos, J. Puello-Yarce, K. Ojeda, E. Sánchez-Tuirán, A.n.D. González-
Delgado, Biodiesel and hydrogen production in a combined palm and jatropha
biomass biorefinery: simulation, techno-economic, and environmental
evaluation, ACS Omega 5 (2020) 7074–7084.
[23] D.A. Rueda-Ordóñez, M.R.L. Leal, A. Bonomi, L.A.B. Cortez, O. Cavalett, J.
M. Rincón, Simulating scenarios for compost and vinasse use to improve the
economics and environmental aspects of representative Colombian sugarcane
production systems, Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 35 (2020) 579–593.
[24] L.M. García, Y. Gariépy, S. Barnabé, V. Raghavan, Biorefinery of microalgae
biomass cultivated in wastewaters, in: Refining Biomass Residues for Sustainable
Energy and Bioproducts, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 149–180.
[25] A. Aslam, T. Fazal, A. Shan, F. Rehman, J. Iqbal, N. Rashid, M.S.U. Rehman, Q. uz
Zaman, in: Biorefinery of Microalgae for Nonfuel Products, Microalgae
Cultivation for Biofuels Production, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 197–209.
[26] R. Schefflan, Teach yourself the basics of Aspen Plus, Wiley Online Library, 2011.
[27] K.I. Al-Malah, Aspen plus, Wiley Online Library, 2016.
[28] Z. Yang, K. Qian, X. Zhang, H. Lei, C. Xin, Y. Zhang, M. Qian, E. Villota, Process
design and economics for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into jet fuel
range cycloalkanes, Energy 154 (2018) 289–297.
[29] J.F. Peters, S.W. Banks, A.V. Bridgwater, J. Dufour, A kinetic reaction model for
biomass pyrolysis processes in Aspen plus, Appl. Energy 188 (2017) 595–603.
[30] X. Ma, S. Pang, R. Zhang, Q. Xu, Process simulation and economic evaluation of
bio-oil two-stage hydrogenation production, Appl. Sci. 9 (2019) 693.
[31] M.C. Johnson, Hydrothermal processing of high-lipid biomass to fuels,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.
A.A. Kasani et al.
[32] M. Magdeldin, T. Kohl, M. Järvinen, Techno-economic assessment of the by-
products contribution from non-catalytic hydrothermal liquefaction of
lignocellulose residues, Energy 137 (2017) 679–695.
[33] A.H. West, D. Posarac, N. Ellis, Assessment of four biodiesel production processes
using HYSYS, Plant. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 6587–6601.
[34] D. Sengupta, R.W. Pike, Chemicals from biomass: integrating bioprocesses into
chemical production complexes for sustainable development, CRC Press, 2012.
[35] A. Biwer, E. Heinzle, Process modeling and simulation can guide process
development: case study α-cyclodextrin, Enzym. Microb. Technol. 34 (2004)
642–650.
[36] E. Bowen, S. Kennedy, K. Miranda, Ethanol from sugar beets: a process and
economic analysis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2010.
[37] S. Taras, A. Woinaroschy, Simulation and multi-objective optimization of
bioprocesses with Matlab and SuperPro designer using a client–server interface,
Chem. Eng. Trans. 25 (2011) 207–212.
[38] A. Asiedu, S. Ben, E. Resurreccion, S. Kumar, Techno-economic analysis of protein
concentrate produced by flash hydrolysis of microalgae, Environ. Prog. Sustain.
Energy 37 (2018) 881–890.
[39] K. Atsonios, M.A. Kougioumtzis, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras, Process integration of
a polygeneration plant with biomass/coal co-pyrolysis, Energy Fuel 31 (2017)
14408–14422.
[40] P.M. Slegers, G. Olivieri, E. Breitmayer, L. Sijtsma, M.H. Eppink, R.H. Wijffels, J.
H. Reith, Design of value chains for microalgal biorefinery at industrial scale:
process integration and techno-economic analysis, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8
(2020) 1048.
[41] A. Alnur, M. Sakinah, A.-B. Mustafa, H. Kamarudin, M. Norazian, Simulation of
xylitol production: a review, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7 (2013) 366–372.
[42] T.L. Junqueira, O. Cavalett, A. Bonomi, The virtual sugarcane biorefinery—a
simulation tool to support public policies formulation in bioenergy, Ind.
Biotechnol. 12 (2016) 62–67.
[43] A. Bonomi, O. Cavalett, M.P. da Cunha, M.A. Lima, in: The Virtual Sugarcane
Biorefinery Concept, Springer, Virtual Biorefinery, 2016, pp. 5–11.
[44] D. August, J. Chang, S. Girbal, D. Gracia-Perez, G. Mouchard, D.A. Penry,
O. Temam, N. Vachharajani, Unisim: an open simulation environment and library
for complex architecture design and collaborative development, IEEE Comput.
Archit. Lett. 6 (2007) 45–48.
[45] J.-S. Monteiro, P.A. Silva, O.Q. Araújo, J. Medeiros, Pareto optimization of an
industrial ecosystem: sustainability maximization, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 27 (2010)
429–440.
[46] S. Moran, An applied guide to process and plant design, Elsevier, 2019.
[47] A. Niño-Villalobos, J. Puello-Yarce, Á.D. González-Delgado, K. Ojeda, E. Sánchez-
Tuirán, Biodiesel and hydrogen production in a combined palm and jatropha
biomass biorefinery: simulation, techno-economic, and environmental
evaluation, ACS Omega 5 (2020) 7074–7084.
[48] D. Häggståhl, E. Dahlquist, Evaluation of prosim and ipsepro, two heat and mass
balance simulation softwares, in: Conference Proceedings of SIMS, Citeseer,
Citeseer, 2003, pp. 18–19.
[49] T. Lassmann, P. Kravanja, A. Friedl, Simulation of the downstream processing in
the ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass with ASPEN Plus® and
IPSEpro, Energy Sustain. Soc. 4 (2014) 1–7.
[50] L.P. Christopher, BIOT 422-Bioprocessing potential of integrated forest products
biorefineries, in: Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, Amer
Chemical Soc, 1155 16TH ST, NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA, 2009.
[51] T. Măluțan, C. Măluțan, Simulation of processes in papermaking by WinGEMS
software, Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 12 (2013) 1645–1647.
[52] M.J. Atkins, A.S. Morrison, M.R. Walmsley, J. Riley, WinGEMS modelling and
pinch analysis of a paper machine for utility reduction, 2010.
[53] H.-J. Huang, W. Lin, S. Ramaswamy, U. Tschirner, Process modeling of
comprehensive integrated forest biorefinery—an integrated approach, Appl.
Biochem. Biotechnol. 154 (2009) 26–37.
[54] S.J. Del Grosso, W.J. Parton, P.R. Adler, S.C. Davis, C. Keough, E. Marx, DayCent
model simulations for estimating soil carbon dynamics and greenhouse gas fluxes
from agricultural production systems, in: Managing agricultural greenhouse
gases: coordinated agricultural research through GRACEnet to address our
changing climate, 2012, pp. 241–250.
[55] L. Buchmann, W. Frey, C. Gusbeth, P.S. Ravaynia, A. Mathys, Effect of
nanosecond pulsed electric field treatment on cell proliferation of microalgae,
Bioresour. Technol. 271 (2019) 402–408.
[56] C. Galanopoulos, P. Kenkel, E. Zondervan, Superstructure optimization of an
integrated algae biorefinery, Comput. Chem. Eng. 130 (2019), 106530.
[57] A.P. Mayol, A.T. Ubando, E. Mandia, D.M.M. Mendoza, E. Sybingco, A.B. Culaba,
E. Dadios, Development of a microalgal automated cultivation system on
Tetradesmus obliquus, J. Comput. Innov. Eng. Applic. 2 (2017) 27–32.
[58] V. Montalescot, T. Rinaldi, R. Touchard, S. Jubeau, M. Frappart, P. Jaouen,
P. Bourseau, L. Marchal, Optimization of bead milling parameters for the cell
disruption of microalgae: process modeling and application to Porphyridium
cruentum and nannochloropsis oculata, Bioresour. Technol. 196 (2015) 339–346.
[59] O. Paladino, M. Neviani, Scale-up of photo-bioreactors for microalgae cultivation
by π-theorem, Biochem. Eng. J. 153 (2020), 107398.
[60] O. Paladino, M. Neviani, Airlift photo-bioreactors for Chlorella vulgaris
cultivation in closed-loop zero waste biorefineries, Biomass Bioenergy 144
(2021), 105926.
[61] A.P. Frias, A. Gonzalez-Delgado, V. Kafarov, Simulation and energy integration
for a biorefinery of valuable substances and biofuel from microalgae biomass,
chemical, Eng. Trans. 45 (2015) 1819–1824.
16
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
[62] G. Penloglou, C. Chatzidoukas, C. Kiparissides, A microalgae-based biorefinery
plant for the production of valuable biochemicals: design and economics, in:
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 1731–1736.
[63] M.K. Thakur, V.K. Thakur, R.K. Gupta, A. Pappu, Synthesis and applications of
biodegradable soy based graft copolymers: a review, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4
(2016) 1–17.
[64] O. Calicioglu, P.V. Femeena, C.L. Mutel, D.L. Sills, T.L. Richard, R.A. Brennan,
Techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment of an integrated wastewater-
derived duckweed biorefinery, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021) 9395–9408.
[65] R. Reyes, D. Gamermann, A. Montagud, D. Fuente, J. Triana, J. Urchueguia, P.
F. de Córdoba, Automation on the generation of genome-scale metabolic models,
J. Comput. Biol. 19 (2012) 1295–1306.
[66] M. Fondi, I. Maida, E. Perrin, A. Mellera, S. Mocali, E. Parrilli, M.L. Tutino, P. Liò,
R. Fani, Genome-scale metabolic reconstruction and constraint-based modelling
of the Antarctic bacterium P seudoalteromonas haloplanktis TAC 125, Environ.
Microbiol. 17 (2015) 751–766.
[67] J. Triana, A. Montagud, M. Siurana, A. Urchueguía, D. Gamermann, J. Torres,
J. Tena, P.F. De Córdoba, J.F. Urchueguía, Generation and evaluation of a
genome-scale metabolic network model of Synechococcus elongatus PCC7942,
Metabolites 4 (2014) 680–698.
[68] M. Li, D. Hu, H. Liu, Photobioreactor with ideal light–dark cycle designed and
built from mathematical modeling and CFD simulation, Ecol. Eng. 73 (2014)
162–167.
[69] V. Piemonte, L. Di Paola, G. Iaquaniello, M. Prisciandaro, Biodiesel production
from microalgae: ionic liquid process simulation, J. Clean. Prod. 111 (2016)
62–68.
[70] J.Q. Albarelli, D.T. Santos, A.V. Ensinas, F. Marechal, M.J. Cocero, M.A.
A. Meireles, Product diversification in the sugarcane biorefinery through algae
growth and supercritical CO2 extraction: thermal and economic analysis, Renew.
Energy 129 (2018) 776–785.
[71] K. Kumar, A. Sirasale, D. Das, Use of image analysis tool for the development of
light distribution pattern inside the photobioreactor for the algal cultivation,
Bioresour. Technol. 143 (2013) 88–95.
[72] J.C. Quinn, K. Catton, N. Wagner, T.H. Bradley, Current large-scale US biofuel
potential from microalgae cultivated in photobioreactors, BioEnergy Res. 5
(2012) 49–60.
[73] J.A. Gomez, K. Höffner, P.I. Barton, DFBAlab: a fast and reliable MATLAB code
for dynamic flux balance analysis, BMC Bioinformatics 15 (2014) 409.
[74] R. Pujan, S. Hauschild, A. Groengroeft, Process simulation of a fluidized-bed
catalytic cracking process for the conversion of algae oil to biokerosene, Fuel
Process. Technol. 167 (2017) 582–607.
[75] P. Iancu, V. Pleşu, S. Velea, Flue gas CO2 capture by microalgae in
photobioreactor: a sustainable technology, in: 15th Conference on Process
Integration, Modelling and Optimization for Energy Saving and Pollution
Reduction, Prague, 2012.
[76] M. Saber, A. Golzary, M. Hosseinpour, F. Takahashi, K. Yoshikawa, Catalytic
hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae using nanocatalyst, Appl. Energy 183
(2016) 566–576.
[77] N.S.M. Aron, K.S. Khoo, K.W. Chew, A. Veeramuthu, J.-S. Chang, P.L. Show,
Microalgae cultivation in wastewater and potential processing strategies using
solvent and membrane separation technologies, J. WaterProcess. Eng. 39 (2020)
101–107.
[78] F. Manzoor, A. Karbassi, A. Golzary, A theoretical and experimental study on
removal of nickel, lead, and zinc metals from wastewater using Chlorella vulgaris
microalgae, Int.J. Environ. Eng. 10 (2020) 350–373.
[79] S. Schade, T. Meier, Distinct microalgae species for food—part 1: a
methodological (top-down) approach for the life cycle assessment of microalgae
cultivation in tubular photobioreactors, J. Appl. Phycol. 32 (2020) 2977–2995.
[80] C.-Y. Chen, K.-L. Yeh, R. Aisyah, D.-J. Lee, J.-S. Chang, Cultivation,
photobioreactor design and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: a
critical review, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 71–81.
[81] C. Ugwu, H. Aoyagi, H. Uchiyama, Photobioreactors for mass cultivation of algae,
Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 4021–4028.
[82] H. Tang, M. Chen, K. Simon Ng, S.O. Salley, Continuous microalgae cultivation in
a photobioreactor, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 109 (2012) 2468–2474.
[83] C. Ji, J. Wang, R. Li, T. Liu, Modeling of carbon dioxide mass transfer behavior in
attached cultivation photobioreactor using the analysis of the pH profiles,
Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 40 (2017) 1079–1090.
[84] S.K. Wang, A.R. Stiles, C. Guo, C.Z. Liu, Microalgae cultivation in
photobioreactors: an overview of light characteristics, Eng. Life Sci. 14 (2014)
550–559.
[85] S. Banerjee, S. Ramaswamy, Dynamic process model and economic analysis of
microalgae cultivation in flat panel photobioreactors, Algal Res. 39 (2019),
101445.
[86] C. Zhu, X. Zhai, Y. Xi, J. Wang, F. Kong, Y. Zhao, Z. Chi, Progress on the
development of floating photobioreactor for microalgae cultivation and its
application potential, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35 (2019) 190.
[87] M.C. Deprá, L.G. Mérida, C.R. de Menezes, L.Q. Zepka, E. Jacob-Lopes, A new
hybrid photobioreactor design for microalgae culture, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 144
(2019) 1–10.
[88] V.R. Naira, D. Das, S.K. Maiti, Real time light intensity based carbon dioxide
feeding for high cell-density microalgae cultivation and biodiesel production in a
bubble column photobioreactor under outdoor natural sunlight, Bioresour.
Technol. 284 (2019) 43–55.
A.A. Kasani et al.
[89] C. Hou, S. Qiao, Y. Yang, J. Zhou, A novel sequence batch membrane carbonation
photobioreactor developed for microalgae cultivation, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.
13 (2019) 92.
[90] M. Podevin, I.A. Fotidis, I. Angelidaki, Microalgal process-monitoring based on
high-selectivity spectroscopy tools: status and future perspectives, Crit. Rev.
Biotechnol. 38 (2018) 704–718.
[91] A. Nocentini, J. Field, A. Monti, K. Paustian, Biofuel production and soil GHG
emissions after land-use change to switchgrass and giant reed in the US southeast,
Food Energy Secur. 7 (2018), e00125.
[92] A. Nocentini, N. Di Virgilio, A. Monti, Model simulation of cumulative carbon
sequestration by switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) in the Mediterranean area
using the DAYCENT model, BioEnergy Res. 8 (2015) 1512–1522.
[93] S. Leow, B.D. Shoener, Y. Li, J.L. DeBellis, J. Markham, R. Davis, L.M. Laurens, P.
T. Pienkos, S.M. Cook, T.J. Strathmann, A unified modeling framework to
advance biofuel production from microalgae, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018)
13591–13599.
[94] M. Seghetta, M. Marchi, M. Thomsen, A.-B. Bjerre, S. Bastianoni, Modelling
biogenic carbon flow in a macroalgal biorefinery system, Algal Res. 18 (2016)
144–155.
[95] A. Golzary, S. Imanian, M.A. Abdoli, A. Khodadadi, A. Karbassi, A cost-effective
strategy for marine microalgae separation by electro-coagulation–flotation
process aimed at bio-crude oil production: optimization and evaluation study,
Sep. Purif. Technol. 147 (2015) 156–165.
[96] S. Dalirynezhad, A. Hallajisani, H. Nouri, A. Golzary, Effects of environmental
factors on chlorella sp. Microalgae for biodiesel production purpose: enhanced
lipid and biomass productivity, Recent Innov. Chem. Eng. 10 (2017) 119–126.
[97] T.D.P. Nguyen, T.V.A. Le, P.L. Show, T.T. Nguyen, M.H. Tran, T.N.T. Tran, S.
Y. Lee, Bioflocculation formation of microalgae-bacteria in enhancing microalgae
harvesting and nutrient removal from wastewater effluent, Bioresour. Technol.
272 (2019) 34–39.
[98] G. Singh, S. Patidar, Microalgae harvesting techniques: a review, J. Environ.
Manag. 217 (2018) 499–508.
[99] F. Fasaei, J. Bitter, P. Slegers, A. Van Boxtel, Techno-economic evaluation of
microalgae harvesting and dewatering systems, Algal Res. 31 (2018) 347–362.
[100] M.T. Nazari, J.F. Freitag, V.A.F. Cavanhi, L.M. Colla, Microalgae harvesting by
fungal-assisted bioflocculation, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. (2020) 1–20.
[101] L. de Souza Leite, P.R. Dos Santos, L.A. Daniel, Microalgae harvesting from
wastewater by pH modulation and flotation: assessing and optimizing operational
parameters, J. Environ. Manag. 254 (2020), 109825.
[102] A. Ahmad, N.M. Yasin, C. Derek, J. Lim, Optimization of microalgae coagulation
process using chitosan, Chem. Eng. J. 173 (2011) 879–882.
[103] M. Collotta, P. Champagne, W. Mabee, G. Tomasoni, G.B. Leite, L. Busi,
M. Alberti, Comparative LCA of flocculation for the harvesting of microalgae for
biofuels production, Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 756–760.
[104] K.W. Chew, J.Y. Yap, P.L. Show, N.H. Suan, J.C. Juan, T.C. Ling, D.-J. Lee, J.-
S. Chang, Microalgae biorefinery: high value products perspectives, Bioresour.
Technol. 229 (2017) 53–62.
[105] E. Suali, R. Sarbatly, Conversion of microalgae to biofuel, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 16 (2012) 4316–4342.
[106] G. Kumar, S. Shobana, W.-H. Chen, Q.-V. Bach, S.-H. Kim, A. Atabani, J.-S. Chang,
A review of thermochemical conversion of microalgal biomass for biofuels:
chemistry and processes, Green Chem. 19 (2017) 44–67.
[107] H.-Y. Wang, D. Bluck, B.J. Van Wie, Conversion of microalgae to jet fuel: process
design and simulation, Bioresour. Technol. 167 (2014) 349–357.
[108] L. Garcia Alba, C. Torri, C. Samorì, J. van der Spek, D. Fabbri, S.R. Kersten, D.
W. Brilman, Hydrothermal treatment (HTT) of microalgae: evaluation of the
process as conversion method in an algae biorefinery concept, Energy Fuel 26
(2012) 642–657.
[109] S. Dutta, F. Neto, M.C. Coelho, Microalgae biofuels: a comparative study on
techno-economic analysis & life-cycle assessment, Algal Res. 20 (2016) 44–52.
[110] O. Pardo-Planas, H.K. Atiyeh, J.R. Phillips, C.P. Aichele, S. Mohammad, Process
simulation of ethanol production from biomass gasification and syngas
fermentation, Bioresour. Technol. 245 (2017) 925–932.
[111] I. Barrera, M.A. Amezcua-Allieri, L. Estupiñan, T. Martínez, J. Aburto, Technical
and economical evaluation of bioethanol production from lignocellulosic residues
in Mexico: case of sugarcane and blue agave bagasses, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 107
(2016) 91–101.
[112] E. Carmona-Garcia, M. Ortiz-Sánchez, C.A.C. Alzate, Analysis of the coffee cut
stems as raw material for the production of sugars for acetone–butanol–ethanol
(ABE) fermentation: techno-economic analysis, Waste Biomass Valoriz. 10 (2019)
3793–3808.
[113] D.R. Pessoa, A.T.J. Finkler, A.V.L. Machado, D.A. Mitchell, L.F. de Lima Luz Jr.,
CFD simulation of a packed-bed solid-state fermentation bioreactor 70 (2019)
439–458.
[114] B.H. Tozlu, H.İ. Okumuş, in: A new approach to automation of black tea
fermentation process with electronic nose, Automatika: časopis za automatiku,
mjerenje, elektroniku, računarstvo i komunikacije 59, 2018, pp. 373–381.
[115] F. Rahnama, E. Vasheghani-Farahani, F. Yazdian, S.A. Shojaosadati, PHB
production by Methylocystis hirsuta from natural gas in a bubble column and a
vertical loop bioreactor, Biochem. Eng. J. 65 (2012) 51–56.
[116] P. Iancu, V. Pleşu, S. Velea, Biobased supply chain optimisation model under
uncertainties, in: Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Elsevier, 2017,
pp. 961–966.
[117] A. Geraili, J.A. Romagnoli, A multiobjective optimization framework for design of
integrated biorefineries under uncertainty, AIChE J. 61 (2015) 3208–3222.
17
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
[118] Y. Nan, J. Liu, R. Lin, L.L. Tavlarides, Production of biodiesel from microalgae oil
(Chlorella protothecoides) by non-catalytic transesterification in supercritical
methanol and ethanol: process optimization, J. Supercrit. Fluids 97 (2015)
174–182.
[119] S. Banerjee, A. Ray, D. Das, Optimization of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
cultivation with simultaneous CO2 sequestration and biofuels production in a
biorefinery framework, Sci. Total Environ. 762 (2021), 143080.
[120] C.M.A. Solis, J.L.G. San Juan, A.P. Mayol, C.L. Sy, A.T. Ubando, A.B. Culaba,
A multi-objective life cycle optimization model of an integrated algal biorefinery
toward a sustainable circular bioeconomy considering resource recirculation,
Energies 14 (2021) 1416.
[121] W.M. Budzianowski, K. Postawa, Total chain integration of sustainable
biorefinery systems, Appl. Energy 184 (2016) 1432–1446.
[122] A.D. Mountraki, B.B. Mlayah, A.C. Kokossis, A study on the endogenous symbiosis
of first and second generation biorefineries: towards a systematic methodology,
in: Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 2181–2186.
[123] A.C. Kokossis, A. Yang, On the use of systems technologies and a systematic
approach for the synthesis and the design of future biorefineries, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 34 (2010) 1397–1405.
[124] W. Wu, J.-S. Chang, Integrated algal biorefineries from process systems
engineering aspects: a review, Bioresour. Technol. 291 (2019), 121939.
[125] J.Q. Albarelli, D.T. Santos, M.A.A. Meireles, Thermo-economic evaluation of a
new approach to extract sugarcane wax integrated to a first and second
generation biorefinery, Biomass Bioenergy 119 (2018) 69–74.
[126] L. Lardon, A. Hélias, B. Sialve, J.-P. Steyer, O. Bernard, Life-cycle assessment of
biodiesel production from microalgae, ACS Publications, 2009.
[127] P.K. Campbell, T. Beer, D. Batten, Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production
from microalgae in ponds, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 50–56.
[128] E.D. Frank, A. Elgowainy, J. Han, Z. Wang, Life cycle comparison of hydrothermal
liquefaction and lipid extraction pathways to renewable diesel from algae, Mitig.
Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 18 (2013) 137–158.
[129] J.C. Quinn, T.G. Smith, C.M. Downes, C. Quinn, Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle
assessment—multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. 4 (2014) 116–122.
[130] V. Vasudevan, R.W. Stratton, M.N. Pearlson, G.R. Jersey, A.G. Beyene, J.
C. Weissman, M. Rubino, J.I. Hileman, Environmental performance of algal
biofuel technology options, Environmental science & technology 46 (2012)
2451–2459.
[131] P. Collet, L. Lardon, A. Hélias, S. Bricout, I. Lombaert-Valot, B. Perrier, O. Lépine,
J.-P. Steyer, O. Bernard, Biodiesel from microalgae–Life cycle assessment and
recommendations for potential improvements, Renew. Energy 71 (2014)
525–533.
[132] P. Azadi, G. Brownbridge, S. Mosbach, A. Smallbone, A. Bhave, O. Inderwildi,
M. Kraft, The carbon footprint and non-renewable energy demand of algae-
derived biodiesel, Appl. Energy 113 (2014) 1632–1644.
[133] I.C. Woertz, J.R. Benemann, N. Du, S. Unnasch, D. Mendola, B.G. Mitchell, T.
J. Lundquist, Life cycle GHG emissions from microalgal biodiesel–a CA-GREET
model, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (2014) 6060–6068.
[134] X. Liu, B. Saydah, P. Eranki, L.M. Colosi, B.G. Mitchell, J. Rhodes, A.F. Clarens,
Pilot-scale data provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions
profile of algae biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction, Bioresour.
Technol. 148 (2013) 163–171.
[135] D.L. Sills, V. Paramita, M.J. Franke, M.C. Johnson, T.M. Akabas, C.H. Greene, J.
W. Tester, Quantitative uncertainty analysis of life cycle assessment for algal
biofuel production, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 687–694.
[136] M.-O.P. Fortier, G.W. Roberts, S.M. Stagg-Williams, B.S. Sturm, Life cycle
assessment of bio-jet fuel from hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae, Appl.
Energy 122 (2014) 73–82.
[137] V.O. Adesanya, E. Cadena, S.A. Scott, A.G. Smith, Life cycle assessment on
microalgal biodiesel production using a hybrid cultivation system, Bioresour.
Technol. 163 (2014) 343–355.
[138] L. Soh, M. Montazeri, B.Z. Haznedaroglu, C. Kelly, J. Peccia, M.J. Eckelman, J.
B. Zimmerman, Evaluating microalgal integrated biorefinery schemes: empirical
controlled growth studies and life cycle assessment, Bioresour. Technol. 151
(2014) 19–27.
[139] H. Passell, H. Dhaliwal, M. Reno, B. Wu, A.B. Amotz, E. Ivry, M. Gay, T. Czartoski,
L. Laurin, N. Ayer, Algae biodiesel life cycle assessment using current commercial
data, J. Environ. Manag. 129 (2013) 103–111.
[140] S. Grierson, V. Strezov, J. Bengtsson, Life cycle assessment of a microalgae
biomass cultivation, bio-oil extraction and pyrolysis processing regime, Algal Res.
2 (2013) 299–311.
[141] E.P. Bennion, D.M. Ginosar, J. Moses, F. Agblevor, J.C. Quinn, Lifecycle
assessment of microalgae to biofuel: comparison of thermochemical processing
pathways, Appl. Energy 154 (2015) 1062–1071.
[142] S. Ponnusamy, H.K. Reddy, T. Muppaneni, C.M. Downes, S. Deng, Life cycle
assessment of biodiesel production from algal bio-crude oils extracted under
subcritical water conditions, Bioresour. Technol. 170 (2014) 454–461.
[143] B. Wang, B.H. Gebreslassie, F. You, Sustainable design and synthesis of
hydrocarbon biorefinery via gasification pathway: Integrated life cycle
assessment and technoeconomic analysis with multiobjective superstructure
optimization, Comput. Chem. Eng. 52 (2013) 55–76.
[144] B. Lippiat, A. Boyles, Building for environmental and economic sustainability
(BEES): Software for selecting cost-effective green building products, in: Proc.,
International Council for Innovation and Research in Building and Construction
(CIB) World Building Congress, 2001, pp. 2–6.
[145] D. Maga, Life cycle assessment of biomethane produced from microalgae grown in
municipal waste water, Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 7 (2017) 1–10.
A.A. Kasani et al.
[146] S.N. Joglekar, P.D. Pathak, S.A. Mandavgane, B.D. Kulkarni, Process of fruit peel
waste biorefinery: a case study of citrus waste biorefinery, its environmental
impacts and recommendations, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (2019)
34713–34722.
[147] S. Bezergianni, L.P. Chrysikou, Application of life-cycle assessment in
biorefineries, in: Waste Biorefinery, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 455–480.
[148] N.I.H.A. Aziz, M.M. Hanafiah, S.H. Gheewala, A review on life cycle assessment of
biogas production: challenges and future perspectives in Malaysia, Biomass
Bioenergy 122 (2019) 361–374.
[149] R. Davis, A. Aden, P.T. Pienkos, Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic
microalgae for fuel production, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 3524–3531.
[150] J.A. Obnamia, G.M. Dias, H.L. MacLean, B.A. Saville, Comparison of US Midwest
corn stover ethanol greenhouse gas emissions from GREET and GHGenius, Appl.
Energy 235 (2019) 591–601.
[151] R.J. Plevin, Modeling corn ethanol and climate: a critical comparison of the BESS
and GREET models, J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2009) 495–507.
[152] J.A. Schaidle, C.J. Moline, P.E. Savage, Biorefinery sustainability assessment,
Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 30 (2011) 743–753.
[153] J. Barlow, R.C. Sims, J.C. Quinn, Techno-economic and life-cycle assessment of an
attached growth algal biorefinery, Bioresour. Technol. 220 (2016) 360–368.
[154] F. Cherubini, G. Jungmeier, LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol,
bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (2010)
53–66.
[155] F. Cherubini, S. Ulgiati, Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems–a
LCA case study, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 47–57.
18
Algal Research 61 (2022) 102597
[156] L. Zhu, E. Hiltunen, E. Antila, J. Zhong, Z. Yuan, Z. Wang, Microalgal biofuels:
flexible bioenergies for sustainable development, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 30
(2014) 1035–1046.
[157] A. Giwa, Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of biogas production
from marine algae and cattle manure biorefineries, Bioresour. Technol. 244
(2017) 1470–1479.
[158] E. Gnansounou, J.K. Raman, Life cycle assessment of algae biodiesel and its co-
products, Appl. Energy 161 (2016) 300–308.
[159] A.B. Saraiva, System boundary setting in life cycle assessment of biorefineries: a
review, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14 (2017) 435–452.
[160] K. Rajendran, G.S. Murthy, How does technology pathway choice influence
economic viability and environmental impacts of lignocellulosic biorefineries?
Biotechnol. Biofuels 10 (2017) 268.
[161] A. Chamkalani, S. Zendehboudi, N. Rezaei, K. Hawboldt, A critical review on life
cycle analysis of algae biodiesel: current challenges and future prospects, Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 134 (2020), 110143.
[162] D. Yue, F. You, S.W. Snyder, Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain
optimization: overview, key issues and challenges, Comput. Chem. Eng. 66 (2014)
36–56.
[163] G. Croxatto Vega, J. Sohn, S. Bruun, S.I. Olsen, M. Birkved, Maximizing
environmental impact savings potential through innovative biorefinery
alternatives: An application of the TM-LCA framework for regional scale impact
assessment, Sustainability 11 (2019) 3836.