Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Analysis of direct and indirect quantification methods of CO2 fixation via

microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors: A critical review
Yi An Lim a, Meng Nan Chong a, Su Chern Foo b, **, I.M.S.K. Ilankoon a, *
a
Discipline of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, 47500,
Malaysia
b
School of Science, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, 47500, Malaysia

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

Keywords: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main contributors to climate change. Among the various efforts to reduce
Carbon fixation atmospheric CO2 levels, cultivation of microalgae is the most promising approach owing to its high photosyn­
Carbon quantification thetic rates and CO2 fixation efficiencies than terrestrial counterparts. However, the accurate quantification
CO2 sequestration
method of CO2 fixation during the cultivation of microalgae in photobioreactors (PBRs) is lacking. Present
Microalgae
Photobioreactors
methods for the determination of CO2 fixation during microalgae cultivation include direct and indirect methods,
Sustainability where 79% of direct method studies of the bibliometric analysis compared to 21% of indirect method studies.
Direct methods evaluate the carbon content in microalgae biomass using assumptive values, though it results in
significant errors as high as 50% in quantifying the CO2 fixation. This can be improved by measuring the carbon
contents using elemental and total organic carbon analysis. On the other hand, indirect methods quantify CO2
concentration at inlet and outlet of PBRs by using gas chromatography or infrared sensors. It is rather difficult to
validate the accuracy of direct and indirect methods due to the lack of comparative works and analysis among the
methods. Additionally, there are no current studies that provide in-depth discussion and perspectives on the CO2
fixation methods. Therefore, the main aim of this critical review is to analyse, contrast and discuss the differences
as well as inaccuracies of direct and indirect microalgae CO2 fixation quantifications in PBRs. This is followed by
the recommendations for further improvements, and standard guidance for future studies in applying appro­
priate CO2 fixation quantification methods.

1. Introduction
In this anthropogenic age, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) are the main contributors to climate change [1,2].
Among them, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
reported that CO2 makes up more than 50% of GHG emissions, and has
been increasing at a rate of 2.2% per year over the last 10 years (Fig. 1)
[3]. A total of 33.1 GT of CO2 was emitted in 2018 merely from the
combustion of fossil fuels [4]. The rise in global atmospheric CO2 levels
was also evidently proven and well correlated to the increase of atmo­
spheric CO2 concentration from 340 ppm in 1980 to 412.3 ppm in 2020
[5]. Rising sea levels, food security risks, species extinction and threats
to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are among the adverse im­
pacts of increasing CO2 levels. Collective efforts in the form of policy
making have been devised to regulate the global spike in CO2 concen­
tration. In 2015, UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change) initiated the Paris Agreement with 186 countries and it
is expected to maintain the global temperature rise well below 2 ◦ C and
limit the increase to 1.5 ◦ C through the enforcement of country specific
legislative frameworks [6]. In the same year, the United Nations also
adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sus­
tainable Development Goals (SDGs) where one of the goals (SGD 13 –
climate action) focuses on climate change [7]. In line with the policy
changes to regulate and contain climate change issues, carbon capture
and sequestration (CCS) is a promising approach for carbon mitigation
[8].
CCS is a two-stage process where carbon is first captured by carbon
sinking medium (i.e. medium that absorbs carbon), followed by a long-
term storage in the form of solid or liquid. Natural sequestration has

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: foo.suchern@monash.edu (S.C. Foo), saman.ilankoon@monash.edu (I.M.S.K. Ilankoon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110579
Received 28 April 2020; Received in revised form 14 August 2020; Accepted 17 November 2020
Available online 15 December 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.A. Lim et al.
been occurring by nature’s carbon sinks (e.g. ocean, soil, terrestrial
plants and trees) for millions of years in maintaining the global carbon
balance. However, natural carbon sequestration has been insufficient to
accommodate the rising global CO2 levels due to increasing human ac­
tivities, such as deforestation, industrialisation and energy develop­
ment. Increasing levels of global atmospheric CO2 are shown in Fig. 1.
Both insufficient natural carbon sequestration (e.g. reduced global forest
coverage) and excessive anthropogenic carbon emissions by human
activities have thus resulted in ever increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (i.
e. CO2 abatement is smaller than CO2 emission). Environmental impacts,
such as global warming, melting of ice polar ice caps, extinction of flora
and fauna justify that natural carbon sequestration is insufficient to
accommodate the raising global CO2 levels.
Hence, as a solution, carbon sequestration utilising microalgae has
been frequently highlighted in recent years, and even named as the most
effective CO2 reutilisation technique [9–11]. Microalgae have been
proven to thrive and grow in CO2 concentrations as high as 100% v/v
and even with industrial flue gas, making microalgae a suitable candi­
date for carbon capturing [11,12]. Microalgae, a photosynthetic
microorganism, converts CO2 gas, along with sunlight and water into
organic carbon and stored in the microalgae cells. This conversion
process is known as carbon fixation. It is worth noting that carbon or
CO2 fixation is a method for carbon capture, where carbon sequestration
is the combination of carbon capture and long-term storage.
The rapid growth rate of microalgae where cells can double every
24–48 h, confers a competitive advantage and thus making microalgae
10–50 times more efficient in fixating carbon as compared to terrestrial
plants [13,14]. Moreover, microalgae biomass that is harvested from
microalgae cultures contains high amount of primary metabolites (i.e.
carbohydrates, lipids, proteins), and secondary metabolites (i.e. carot­
enoids and phenolic acids). These metabolites are useful feedstock for
food, feed, energy and high value products sector. Microalgae cultiva­
tion (i.e. cultivation of microalgae, either in flasks or photobioreactors
(PBRs) is the first step towards carbon mitigation and biomass valori­
zation [15]. For example, addition of CO2 to the cultivation of micro­
algae species, Scenedesmus almeriensis reported an enhancement of lutein
production, which is a highly valuable carotenoid that is widely used as
an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory in the pharmaceutical industry
[16]. Hence, microalgae cultivations are not only environmentally
efficient for mass carbon fixation, but also technically viable and
economically beneficial.
Microalgae cultivation is generally performed in either open or
closed systems [17]. Open system microalgae cultivation is usually in
cultivation ponds, with the most common being the raceway ponds [18].
Fig. 1. CO2 emissions based on energy sources (data: [4]).
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
The open concept allows a large surface area for CO2 fixation, and these
ponds are usually agitated by paddlewheels. With access to direct sun­
light and minimal maintenance required, raceway ponds are excellent
for large-scale cultivation and typically achieve a higher cost saving than
the closed systems. Even so, the major setback of open systems is the
inability to achieve a monoculture condition (i.e. single species culture)
if desired, as its direct exposure towards the open air increases the
chances of cross contamination [19]. Monocultures are important in
microalgae cultivation as they affect the biomass productivity and cre­
ates complication in separating the microalgae species during the har­
vesting stage of mass cultures [20]. Consequently, closed system
cultivations via PBRs were proven to achieve a higher biomass and
volumetric productivity [21]. PBRs are bioreactors that enhance
microalgae growth by artificially promoting light irradiation to achieve
a higher photosynthetic rate and these are typically suitable for a single
species microalgae cultivation.
In order to improve microalgae CO2 fixation in PBRs, it is also
important to explicitly determine and quantify microalgae CO2 fixation.
Hence, CO2 fixation in PBR microalgae cultivation is frequently quan­
tified based on the amount of carbon in microalgae biomass [22].
However, it does not fully quantify the total carbon content in micro­
algae as there are other carbon transformation routes (e.g. carbonates,
volatile organic compounds or VOCs) [23]. Another way to determine
CO2 fixation is by measuring the concentration differences of CO2 at
inlet and outlet gas streams of PBRs. The determination of carbon or CO2
concentration was performed with analytical equipment, such as
elemental analysers, total organic carbon analysers, gas chromatograph
and infrared sensors. Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidential
support to validate the accuracy of different CO2 fixation methods and
standardised methods and protocols have not been proposed for PBRs.
The investigations on microalgae CO2 fixation via PBRs were mostly
performed in lab scale, and not in industrial scale. Assumptive values of
carbon content have also been utilised in the past studies to quantify CO2
fixation in PBR microalgae cultivation. However, explicit statements for
the applied assumptive values were rarely discussed. Currently, there
are no literature studies providing relevant guidance and descriptions
for microalgae based CO2 fixation quantification methods in PBRs. Even
though there are review papers [13,24,25] and textbooks [23] in the
literature that provide some insights regarding the determination
methods for CO2 fixation, descriptive comparisons of all the methods are
still lacking. This review paper thus focuses on providing guidance to­
wards the selection of CO2 fixation quantification methods, by providing
an extensive analysis and breakdown of the various quantification
methods for the use during the microalgae cultivation in PBRs. The
Y.A. Lim et al.
differences, advantages and limitations of the direct methods (i.e.
assumptive carbon content values, elemental analysis and TOC analysis)
and indirect methods (i.e. gas chromatography and infrared sensors) are
critically evaluated and compared to provide comprehensive under­
standing towards CO2 fixation quantifications in PBRs. The lack of
standardisation and comparability, the requirement of accuracy vali­
dation, carbon content origination for assumptive values and quantifi­
cation are also discussed. Recommendations are provided to improve
microalgae based CO2 fixation in PBRs. The limitations addressed in this
work could further improve the future works of microalgae based CO2
fixation in PBRs.
2. Methods
In this study, publications indexed from year 1900–2020 were
extracted from the databases, namely, Web of Science (Science Citation
Index Expanded) and Scopus. Keywords such as, microalgae, carbon,
CO2, fixation and photobioreactor were applied to titles and abstracts.
Fig. 2 illustrates the analysis resulted in from the publication search and
a total of 349 publications were obtained, including 191 from the Web of
Science and 158 from the Scopus. Among these publications, 299 were
research articles, 31 were review articles and the remaining were either
book chapters or conference papers. After cross referencing the extrac­
ted publications, it was found that 68 publications were overlapping (i.e.
appeared in both databases). Hence, 281 unique publications were
critically appraised and analysed in this work.
These publications were then evaluated and categorised based on the
type of CO2 fixation quantification methods. It is worth noting that only
research articles and conference papers were evaluated for CO2 fixation
quantification methods. This is due to the fact that only research articles
and conference papers typically contain specifications of microalgae
cultivation parameters, such as PBR type, PBR volume and cultivation
modes. It was found that only 30% of the publications highlighted the
methods of CO2 fixation quantification for microalgae cultivation in
PBRs and those plus additional relevant articles cited in the original
articles were listed in Table 1. The remaining 70% of the articles were
not included in Table 1, due to the absence of CO2 fixation quantification
methods.
Table 1 highlights the types of CO2 fixation quantification methods
from analysed publications, along with microalgae cultivation parame­
ters in PBRs, such as microalgae species, PBR volume, PBR cultivation
Fig. 2. Bibliometric analysis of CO2 fixation by microalgae publications from Web of Science and Scopus.
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
mode, percentage of CO2 introduced during microalgae cultivation (%),
CO2 fixation rate (gCO2 L− 1 d− 1) and efficiency (%), and biomass pro­
ductivity (gbiomass L− 1 d− 1).
3. Carbon capture using photobioreactors
Since CO2 acts as a nutrient for microalgae growth, gaseous CO2 are
generally introduced to the microalgae via gas bubbling or sparging. The
ability of microalgae to uptake CO2 in both gaseous and soluble forms
for fixation is one of its biggest advantage for CCS [26]. The strategy to
enhance carbon fixation is to optimise microalgae growth [27]. It was
found that PBRs are the preferred systems due to their ability to achieve
a higher biomass productivity, photosynthetic efficiency, CO2 fixation
ability and less cross contamination [28].
In terms of carbon capture, a variety of PBRs were used for micro­
algae cultivations (Table 1). The common designs of PBRs include
tubular, flat plate, airlift, and bubble column [29]. Each PBR is designed
based on the consideration of parameters, such as mixing mechanism,
light intensity, CO2 mass transfer, scalability, pH, temperature, nutrient
medium, and microalgae species [31,32]. Tubular PBRs are tube shaped
PBRs, which are most suitable for outdoor cultivation, and they are
usually constructed with transparent materials, such as glass or plastic
[32]. The orientation of the tubes in this PBR can be vertical or hori­
zontal. Its biggest limitation is the scalability, and scaling up can only be
done by multiplying the number of tubular PBRs but it requires a larger
physical space [13]. Additionally, the tubular design encourages the
accumulation of O2, which decelerates microalgae growth [33]. To
counter this limitation, flat plate PBRs are employed, and those yield a
higher productivity in comparison to tubular PBRs [34]. Flat plate PBRs
are made of transparent panels that can have a smaller thickness of
reactor walls than tubular PBRs because of its design. This leads to a
higher surface to volume ratio, and hence a better light penetration is
achieved. In addition, it is the easiest design to scale up among all the
other PBRs [29]. Agitation in PBRs is important during the microalgae
cultivation to achieve homogeneity in mixing. It also avoids the accu­
mulation of O2 and enhances CO2 mass transfer rate, which is a crucial
step to speed up CO2 fixation [35]. Bubble column PBRs are simple PBRs
with air bubbles sparging from the bottom to provide the required
mixing for microalgae cultivation. Airlift PBRs are similar to bubble
column PBRs with the addition of baffles or draft tubes creating two
interconnected zones (i.e. riser and down comer zones). It was found
 Table 1

Y.A. Lim et al.

CO2 quantification methods and equations, including fixation rate, efficiency and biomass productivity of microalgae cultivated in PBRs.
1
Methods Microalgae Species CO2 input CO2 fixation rate (gCO2 L− CO2 fixation efficiency (%) Biomass Productivity PBR Volume PBR Design Cultivation Reference
(%) d− 1) and Equation and Equation (gbiomass L− 1 d− 1) (L) Mode

Direct

Assumptive Values
Carbon content = Chlorella fusca LEB 111 – 0.23a,i Eqn 1 35.7%Eqn 2 0.12a – vertical tubular fed-batch [44]
50%
a a
Chlorella fusca LEB 111 – 0.28 Eqn 1 43.8%Eqn 2 0.15 1.5 vertical tubular fed-batch [42]
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 10% 0.25 Eqn 1 95.1% Eqn 9 – 1.8 tubular – [45]
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 100% – 50% Eqn 2 0.11 – raceway pond – [46]
Chlorella sorokiniana 5% 1.21 Eqn 1 – 0.31b – bubble column batch [47]
Chlorella sp. 5% 0.29a Eqn 1 – 0.31 0.5 bubble column batch [48]
Chlorella sp. AT1 2% 0.57c Eqn 1 64% Eqn 2 0.24 528 raceway circulating (PsRC) batch [49]
system
Chlorella vulgaris 15% – 56% Eqn 2 0.35 12 closed raceway pond batch [50]
Chlorella vulgaris 10% 0.12 Eqn 1 95.3% Eqn 9 – 1.8 tubular – [45]
Desmodesmus abundans 25% 0.42 Eqn 1 – 0.23 1 – – [51]
Nannochloropsis salina 1% 0.19c Eqn 1 – 0.10 18 internally illuminated fed-batch [52]
Nannochloropsis sp – – 90% Eqn 5 – – solvent-membrane- batch [53]
contactor
Scenedesmus dimorphus 10% 0.20 Eqn 1 94.6% Eqn 9 – 1.8 tubular – [45]
Scenedesmus obliquus 10% 0.27 Eqn 1 94.7% Eqn 9 – 1.8 tubular – [45]
Scenedesmus obliquus 100% 0.36 Eqn 1 – – 900 column – [54]
Scenedesmus sp. 4% 0.73c Eqn 1 – 0.40 18 internally illuminated fed-batch [52]
Scenedesmus sp. 0.25% 0.16 Eqn 1 33% Eqn 2 0.08 23 airlift-driven raceway batch [55]
Spirulina sp 10% 0.18a Eqn 1 21.8% Eqn 2 0.10 1.8 tubular – [56]
Spirulina sp. 99% 164.42d Eqn 1 – – 2×105e raceway pond – [57]
Synechococcus elongates 10% 2.08 Eqn 1 4.3% Eqn 9 0.35d – Hydrophilized semi- [58]
4

polypropylene membrane continuous

Carbon content = Chlamydomonas sp. JSC4 2% 0.75a Eqn 1 – 0.40a – tubular batch [59]
51.39%
Chlorella sp. Cv 10% 1.20 Eqn 1 – 0.64 0.3 tubular batch [60]
Chlorella sp. HS2 1% 1.02a Eqn 1 – 0.54a 2 flat panel batch [61]
Chlorella vulgaris 4% 1.40 Eqn 1 – 0.77 15 tubular batch [43]
Chlorella vulgaris 0.03% 0.09h Eqn 1 – – 10 fractal tree-like system – [62]
Chlorella vulgaris 28% 6.20 × 10− 4aEqn 1 – 3.30 × 10− 4a
0.5 bubble column – [63]
Scenedesmus accuminatus AG10316 5% 1.02a Eqn 1 – 0.56a 1 tubular batch [64]
Scenedesmus dimorphus 2% 0.80 Eqn 1 – 0.44 4.3 airlift – [65]
Scenedesmus obliquus 15% 0.77 Eqn 1 0.70 5 tubular batch [66]

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579

–
Scenedesmus obliquus 10% 0.53 Eqn 1 – 0.28 1 bubble column – [67]
Scenedesmus obliquus SA1 (KC733762) 15% 0.10a Eqn 1 – 0.16a 5 open culture vessel batch [68]
Scenedesmus obliquus SA1 (KC733762) 15% 1.04a Eqn 1 10.3% Eqn 2 0.55a – cylindrical batch [69]
Scenedesmus sp. 3% 0.35a Eqn 1 – 0.19a 0.5 column batch [70]
Scenedesmus sp. 2.50% 0.37 Eqn 1a – 0.20a 0.5 bubble column batch [71]
Spirulina platensis – 0.81 Eqn 1 – 1.00 5 bubble column batch [72]
Thermosynechococcus elongatus 20% 0.17a,e Eqn 1 – 0.09a,e 2.7 – – [73]
Carbon content = Chlorella vulgaris 2.50% 3.51 Eqn 1 – 1.86 0.5 bubble column batch [74]
51%
Scenedesmus sp. 15% 0.54a Eqn 1 – 0.29a 1 tubular – [75]
Carbon content = Synechocystis aquatilis SI-2 5% 0.59d Eqn 1 – 0.36d 45 flat plate – [76]
45%
Synechocystis aquatilis SI-2 10% 0.72d Eqn 1 – 0.43d 72 flat plate semi-batch [77]
Synechocystis aquatilis SI-2 10% 0.17d Eqn 1 – 0.10d 192 flat plate batch [78]
Synechocystis aquatilis SI-2 10% – 12%h Eqn 2 – – flat plate – [79]
Spirulina sp. 0.03% – 30.6% - Eqn 2 0.12 50 flat plate – [37]
Carbon content = Chlorella sp. 5% 1.65a,e Eqn 1 28% – 4 bubble column batch [80]
49%
(continued on next page)
 Table 1 (continued )

Y.A. Lim et al.

1
Methods Microalgae Species CO2 input CO2 fixation rate (gCO2 L− CO2 fixation efficiency (%) Biomass Productivity PBR Volume PBR Design Cultivation Reference
(%) d− 1) and Equation and Equation (gbiomass L− 1 d− 1) (L) Mode

Direct

Carbon content = Botryococcus braunii 1% 0.83 Eqn 1 – 0.36a 30 flat plate batch [81]
63%
Elemental analysis Acutodesmus sp. 30% 0.19 Eqn 1 – 0.10 2 low density poly ethylene batch [82]
sleeves
Anabaena siamensis 10% 0.11 Eqn 1 – 0.06 2 rocking WAVE batch [83]
Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 5% 0.64 Eqn 1 – 0.23c 1.4 airlift batch [36]
Aphanothece microscopica Nägeli 15% 1.44 Eqn 1 – 0.77 3 bubble column batch [84]
Aphanothece microscopica Nägeli 15% 1.10a,f Eqn 1 – – 3 bubble column batch [85]
Chlamydomonas sp. 1% 0.37 Eqn 1 – – 0.1 culture flask batch [86]
Chlamydomonas sp. BTA 9032 15% 0.03 Eqn 1 – 0.02 1 – batch [87]
Chlorella ellipsoidea – 2.18 Eqn 1 – – 800 open – [88]
Chlorella fusca 10% 0.26a Eqn 1 63.40% Eqn 2 0.14 1.8 tubular – [89]
Chlorella fusca LEB 111 10–12% 0.36a Eqn 4 68.6% Eqn 4 0.08 1.8 erlenmeyer flask-type batch [90]
Chlorella JPR-1 10% 1.84 Eqn 1 – – 400 raceway – [91]
Chlorella kessleri 6% – 5.5% Eqn 4 – 2 vertical tubular batch [92]
Chlorella vulgaris 10% 0.61a Eqn 1 – –0.32a 0.5 bubble column batch [93]
Chlorella protothecoides 20% 0.37 Eqn 1 – 0.19 5 tubular semi- [94]
continuous
Chlorella protothecoides 1% 0.29a Eqn 1 – 0.23f 5 tubular – [95]
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 10% 0.26 Eqn 1 – 0.15 3 bubble column – [96]
Chlorella PY-ZU1 15% 1.12 Eqn 1 – – – Tangential Spiral-Flow – [97]
Column
Chlorella sorokiniana BTA 031 5% 0.18 Eqn 1 – 0.05 1 – batch [87]
Chlorella sp. 15% 0.35 Eqn 1 – 0.19 1 bubble column batch [98]
Chlorella sp. 3% 0.07 Eqn 1 – – 0.1 culture flask batch [86]
5

Chlorella sp. 0.03% 1.38 Eqn 1 – 0.75 1 bubble column – [99]

Chlorella sp. 5% 0.19a Eqn 1 – 0.21a 0.5 bubble column batch [100]
Chlorella sp. BTA 9037 15% 0.04 Eqn 1 – 0.26 1 – batch [87]
Chlorella sp. IMMTCC-2 – 0.16a,f Eqn 1 – 0.04 12 – batch [101]
Chlorella sp. S30 10% 0.51 Eqn 1 – – 0.3 tube batch [102]
Chlorella vulgaris 6% – 6.3% Eqn 4 – 2 vertical tubular batch [92]
Chlorella vulgaris 5% 1.28 Eqn 1 12%h Eqn 5 0.36c 5 sequential batch [103]
Chlorella vulgaris 4% 0.71 Eqn 1 – 0.77 15 tubular batch [43]
Chlorella vulgaris 5% 0.34a Eqn 1 – 0.30a – bubble column batch [104]
Chlorella vulgaris 0.03% 0.04a Eqn 1 71.8% Eqn 5 0.02a 100 sequential baffled column semi-batch [105]
Chlorella vulgaris 4% 4.50 Eqn 1 3.41 7.5 bubble column batch [106]

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579

–
Chlorella vulgaris 13% 0.98a Eqn 1 – 0.46c 2.4 bubble column batch [107]
Chlorella vulgaris 10% 0.89a Eqn 1 – – – airlift – [108]
Chlorella vulgaris 2% 0.45 Eqn 1 – 0.21 3 – batch [109]
Chlorella vulgaris 0.05% 0.51 Eqn 1 – 0.24 5 bubble column – [110]
Chlorella vulgaris 6% 0.45 Eqn 1 – – 1 bubble column – [111]
Chlorella vulgaris 15% 0.09a Eqn 1 – – – cylindrical batch [112]
Chlorella vulgaris (ESP-6) 10% 0.89a Eqn 1 – 0.48a 0.5 air-lift-type carbon capture batch [113]
cell
Chlorella vulgaris AC 149 5% 0.45 Eqn 1 – 0.27 9.6 bubble column batch [114]
Chlorella vulgaris ATCC 13482 5% 0.14a Eqn 1 – 0.09a 7 bubble column batch [115]
Chlorella vulgaris ESP-31 2% 0.43 Eqn 1 – 0.20b 1 vertical tubular – [116]
Chlorella vulgaris FACHB-31 5% 0.46 -Eqn 1 – – 2 membrane batch [117]
Chlorella vulgaris NIOCCV 10% 0.43a Eqn 1 – 0.26a 13 tubular batch [41]
Chlorella vulgaris P12 7% 2.22 Eqn 1 – 1.33 0.1 bubble column batch [118]
Chlorella vulgaris UTEX 259 15% 0.62e,f Eqn 1 – – – – batch [119]
Chlorella ZY-1 10% – 0.6% Eqn 5 1.10 – – batch [120]
Chlorococcum sp. 5% 0.09a Eqn 1 – 0.11a 0.5 bubble column batch [100]
Chroococcus sp. 3% 0.13 Eqn 1 – – 0.1 culture flask batch [86]
(continued on next page)
 Table 1 (continued )

Y.A. Lim et al.

1
Methods Microalgae Species CO2 input CO2 fixation rate (gCO2 L− CO2 fixation efficiency (%) Biomass Productivity PBR Volume PBR Design Cultivation Reference
(%) d− 1) and Equation and Equation (gbiomass L− 1 d− 1) (L) Mode

Direct

Desmodesmus sp. 30% 0.21 Eqn 1 – 0.11 2 low density poly ethylene batch [82]
sleeves
Isochrysis sp. 15% 0.19 Eqn 1 – 0.11 1 bubble column batch [98]
Kirchneriella sp. 30% 0.20 Eqn 1 – 0.11 2 low density poly ethylene batch [82]
sleeves
Microalgal consortium 30% 0.03 Eqn 1 – 0.02 – – batch [121]
Mixed indigenous microalgae (MIMA) 10% 1.08 Eqn 1 – 0.95 250 column continuous [122]
Nannochloropsis gaditana 8% 1.77 Eqn 1 – 1.10 1.5 tubular batch [43]
Scenedesmus armatus 2% 0.17a Eqn 1 – 0.09a 100 airlift batch [123]
Scenedesmus dimorphus 15% 0.64a Eqn 1 – – 2 bag batch [124]
Scenedesmus dimorphus 15% 0.17 Eqn 1 – 0.08 1.5 – – [125]
Scenedesmus obliquus 6% – 5.9% Eqn 4 – 4 vertical tubular batch [92]
Scenedesmus obliquus 6% – 13.5% Eqn 4 0.10 2 three-stage serial tubular batch [126]
Scenedesmus obliquus 5% 0.70 Eqn 1 – 0.36 4.50 flat plate continuous [38]
Scenedesmus obliquus 1% 1.81 Eqn 1 – – 0.1 culture flask batch [86]
Scenedesmus obliquus 10% 0.97e Eqn 1 – 0.52e 3 bubble column batch [127]
Scenedesmus obliquus 0.35% 0.55a Eqn 1 – 0.36a 2.8 vertical batch [128]
Scenedesmus obliquus & Candida – 0.56a Eqn 1 – 0.30a 1 tubular – [129]
tropicalis
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW–N 3% 0.74a Eqn 1 – 0.44a 1 – batch [130]
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW–N 3% 1.19a Eqn 1 – 0.68a 1 – batch [131]
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW–N 3% 1.78a Eqn 1 – 1.03a 1 tubular semi-batch [132]
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW–N 2.50% 1.55a Eqn 1 0.88a 1 vertical tubular semi- [133]
continuous
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW–N, 2.50% 0.43a Eqn 1 0.25a 60 tubular batch [134]
6

Scenedesmus obliquus FACHB 417 5% 0.13a Eqn 1 – 0.09a 7 bubble column batch [115]
Scenedesmus obtusus XJ-1 1% 0.17a Eqn 1 0.09a 140 airlift batch [135]
Scenedesmus sp. 5% 0.12 Eqn 4 0.06b 1 vertical tubular – [136]
Spirulina platensis 6% 0.68 -Eqn 1 – 1.03 2.3 tubular – [137]
Spirulina sp. 6% – 9.30% Eqn 4 – 2 vertical tubular batch [92]
Spirulina sp. 6% – 37.9% Eqn 4 0.22 1 three-stage serial tubular batch [126]
Spirulina sp. – 0.23a Eqn 1 0.13a 1.7 tubular – [138]
Spirulina sp. LEB 18 – 0.10a Eqn 1 15.8% Eqn 2 0.06a 2 vertical tubular semi- [139]
continuous
a
Spirulina sp. LEB 18 10% 1.35 Eqn 4 26.2% Eqn 4 0.15 1.8 erlenmeyer flask-type batch [90]
Spirulina sp. LEB 18 12% 0.20a Eqn 1 0.11 2 vertical fed-batch [140]

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579

–
Thermosynechococcus CL-1 (TCL-1) 0.03% 4.08a,f Eqn 1 – 2.78a,f 100 flat plate continuous [141]
TOC analysis Chlorella sp. AG10002 5% 0.55c Eqn 1 0.2%h Eqn 2 0.33 0.6 vertical tubular batch [142]
Chlorella vulgaris 4% 0.13 Eqn 1 – 0.08 – vertical bubble column semi-batch [143]
tubular
Chlorella vulgaris 4% 0.14a Eqn 1 – 0.15a 0.5 – batch [144]
Chlorella vulgaris 3% 0.07 Eqn 1 – 0.09 – tubular – [145]
Chlorella vulgaris 4% 0.25a Eqn 1 – 0.09a 1 – batch [146]
Chlorella vulgaris FACHB-31 15% 0.04a Eqn 1 – 0.37b – flat plate batch [147]
Chloroccocum sp. – 0.77 Eqn 1 – 0.38 2 bubble column continuous [148]
Neochloris oleoabundans 6% 0.15a Eqn 1 – 0.09a 1.5 – batch [149]
Scenedesmus vacuolatus – 0.88 Eqn 1 – 0.49 2 bubble column continuous [148]
Synechocystis sp. 10% 2.07 Eqn 1 – – 1 bubble column semi- [150]
continuous
Indirect
Gas Chromatography
Aphanothece microscopica Nageli 15% 26.93a,f Eqn 1 – – 2 bubble column batch [151]
Aphanothece microscopica Nageli 15% 32.99a,f Eqn 1 31.1% Eqn 9 – 2 bubble column – [152]
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 3% – 17.2% Eqn 9 0.61 0.4 airlift – [40]
(continued on next page)
 Table 1 (continued )

Y.A. Lim et al.

1
Methods Microalgae Species CO2 input CO2 fixation rate (gCO2 L− CO2 fixation efficiency (%) Biomass Productivity PBR Volume PBR Design Cultivation Reference
(%) d− 1) and Equation and Equation (gbiomass L− 1 d− 1) (L) Mode

Direct

Chlorella pyrenoidosa (NCIM 2738) 10% 0.07g Eqn 8 – 0.12a, f 0.2 tubular batch [153]
Chlorella sp. 1% 0.04a Eqn 7 – 0.28 12 tubular batch [154]
Chlorella vulgaris 1% 1.92f Eqn 7 15%h Eqn 9 – 10 cylindrical batch [155]
Chlorella vulgaris 6% 4.32f,h Eqn 7 13%h Eqn 9 – 5 cylindrical batch [156]
Chlorella vulgaris – 345.60e,f Eqn 7 – – 0.6 bubble column – [157]
Chlorella vulgaris – 6.24a,f Eqn 7 – – 10 membrane – [158]
Coelastrum sp. 12% 7.25f Eqn 7 59.8% Eqn 9 0.27 3.3 airlift batch [159]
Dunaliella salina DCCBC2 3% 0.09a Eqn 7 – 0.54 12 tubular batch [154]
Dunaliella sp. 1% 0.05a Eqn 7 – 0.30 12 tubular batch [154]
Scenedesmus abundans (NCIM 2897) 10% 0.03g Eqn 8 – 0.06a, f 0.2 tubular batch [153]
Scenedesmus obliquus CPCC05 15% 45.32a,e – 0.57a, e 1.5 hybrid batch [160]
Scenedesmus obliquus FACHB-13 10% – 65.1% Eqn 9 0.01d 1.8 gas-permeable membrane continuous [161]
Spirulina platensis 15% 1.44e,f Eqn 7 85% Eqn 9 0.43e,f 0.5 membrane batch [162]
Tetraselmis chuii & Nanochloropsis 24% – 76% Eqn 9 – 1.2 tubular continuous [163]
gaditana
Infrared Sensors
Botryococcus braunii SAG-30.81 5% 0.50a,i – – 11 fermentor batch [22]
Chlorella sp. 10% – 63% Eqn 9 0.34b 4 column semi- [164]
continuous
Scenedesmus sp. 6% – 24% Eqn 9 0.20a – – – [165]
Chlorella sp. 38% – 57.3% Eqn 9 – 40 polyethylene bag batch [166]
Chlorella sp. MT-15 5% 9.23c,fEqn 7 – – 4 bubble column continuous [167]
Chlorella sp. MT-7 5% 7.61c,f – – 4 bubble column continuous [167]
Chlorella sp. MB-9 20% – 86.3% Eqn 9 0.32 50 column batch [168]
Chlorella vulgaris 2% – 80% Eqn 9 – 20 airlift batch [169]
7

Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus obliquus & 5% 2430.96f Eqn 7 49.02% Eqn 9 – 8 vertical – [170]
Ankistrodesmus sp.
Chlorella vulgaris – 1.53e,f 74% – 2 cylindrical – [171]
Chlorella sp. 8% – 39%h Eqn 9 0.89 1 column batch [172]
4a 4a
Chlorella vulgaris 28% 6.20 × 10− Eqn 1 84.48% Eqn 9 3.30 × 10− 0.5 bubble column – [63]
Chlorella vulgaris LEB-104 5% 0.25a,i – – 11 fermentor batch [22]
Scenedesmus obliquus 12% – 67% Eqn 9 – 100 airlift semi- [173]
continuous
Tetraselmis sp. CTP4 60–75% – 65% Eqn 9 – 1 × 105 tubular semi- [27]
continuous
Scenedesmus dimorphus 2% 0.80 Eqn 1 63.40% Eqn 9 0.44 4.27 airlift [65]

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579

–
Chlorella vulgaris 2% – 62.8% Eqn 9 0.35 16.8 cylindrical batch [174]
Chlorella sp. MTF-7 25% – 60% Eqn 9 0.52 50 cylindrical batch [175]
Spirulina platensis LEB-52 5% 0.32a,i – – 11 fermentor batch [22]
Chlorella sp. 15% – 16% Eqn 9 0.01b 0.8 cylindrical semi- [176]
continuous

Unit conversions
- not specified
a
unit conversion of mass (mg or g)
b
divided by cultivation time (d)
c
divided by PBR volume (L)
d
divided by installation area (m2), multiplied by PBR volume (L)
e
unit conversion of volume (m3 or L or ml)
f
unit conversion of time (h or min or d)
g
unit conversion (moles to g L− 1 d− 1)
h
data extracted from graphical representation
i
Integration method
Y.A. Lim et al.
that airlift PBRs achieve higher CO2 fixation rates (e.g. 30%) than
bubble column PBRs [36]. Even though airlift PBRs can provide a better
mixing mechanism, it imposes high shear on microalgae cells when
being scaled up [13]. Often times, tubular and flat PBRs implements the
concepts of bubble columns and airlift PBRs with air bubble sparging as
the mixing mechanism [30,37,38].
Besides PBR types, there are also other cultivation parameters that
would require attention during microalgae cultivations. These parame­
ters include microalgae species, PBR volume, PBR cultivation mode,
percentage of CO2 introduced to microalgae during cultivation (%). The
volume of PBR highly depends on the design of microalgae cultivation.
For instance, raceway ponds tend to possess higher volume due to its
design nature as compared to a lab scale PBR. From Table 1, PBR vol­
umes are found to vary from 0.1 L up to 800 L. It was evidently proven
that the investigations on microalgae carbon capture are still in lab
scale, since majority of the PBRs listed in Table 1 have capacities less
than 10 L. In addition, the most common cultivation mode in PBRs (e.g.
batch, continuous) was the batch mode. Microalgae cultivations are
generally performed under CO2 levels of 0.03%–100% (Table 1).
Microalgae species are closely related to the CO2 levels (%) introduced
during cultivation because CO2 tolerance of microalgae depends on the
type of species. It can be concluded from Table 1 that microalgae spe­
cies, Chlorella (Chlorella species include Chlorella vulgaris and Chlorella
sp.) are the most commonly applied species for carbon capture. This is
because Chlorella is one of the most versatile microalgae species with a
high CO2 tolerance [18].
4. CO2 fixation determination methods
Microalgae carbon capture is usually expressed in terms of CO2 fix­
ation rate (Table 1). It can also be expressed in terms of CO2 fixation
efficiency (%). Fig. 3a shows an illustration of the CO2 fixation quanti­
fication methods adopted in microalgae cultivation via PBRs. There are
two major pathways to determine CO2 fixation, namely, direct methods
and indirect methods. For direct methods, CO2 fixation is determined
with the quantification of CO2 in the microalgae biomass. On the other
hand, indirect methods quantify CO2 concentration at the inlet and
outlet gas streams of PBRs. Direct methods are more common than in­
direct methods and about 79% of the studies in the literature (based on
Table 1) preferred direct methods (Fig. 3b). Analytical equipment, such
as elemental and TOC (total organic carbon) analysis (i.e. direct
methods) are used to accurately quantify the carbon content in micro­
algae with 45% of the studies in the literature (based on Table 1) applied
elemental analysis (Fig. 3b). It was suggested that direct methods would
only be suitable for photoautotrophic microalgae cultivation, where CO2
was the only source of carbon nutrient [24,39]. Often, the preparation of
Fig. 3. Flow chart of CO2 fixation quantification methods (a) and the summary of CO2 fixation quantification methods based on the past studies reported in
Table 1 (b).
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
samples for analytical instruments is time consuming. Nonetheless, the
application of assumptive values of carbon content that was determined
from the past studies is considered as one of the direct methods.
Approximately 28% of the previous studies (based on Table 1) employed
assumptive carbon contents from the literature for the rough estimation
of CO2 fixation (Fig. 3b). The usage of assumptive values frequently (e.g.
Ref. [40–42]) could be due to either lack of analytical instruments or
only rough estimations were required for CO2 fixation. Even though the
assumptive values provide the easiest estimations of CO2 fixation, it
results in significant errors because microalgae vary in carbon content
due to growth conditions and type of species. Adamczyk et al. [43]
showed that the CO2 fixation by assumptive carbon content values re­
sults in significant errors as high as 50% by comparing the CO2 fixation
rates calculated using elemental analysis.
Using gas chromatography and infrared sensors, the concentration
differences of CO2 at the inlet and outlet gas streams of PBRs were
determined, and those values were used to ascertain the CO2 fixation.
These were considered as indirect methods since CO2 fixation was
indirectly quantified based on CO2 gas concentrations of PBRs (while
direct methods quantify based on microalgae biomass). In past studies
(based on Table 1), 10% utilised gas chromatograph, while 11%
employed infrared sensors (Fig. 3b). Indirect methods possess an
advantage over direct methods, and the equipment for indirect methods
provide a real time online monitoring of carbon contents or CO2 con­
centrations. Even so, it is unable to distinguish CO2 concentrations
detected at the PBR outlet gas stream would entirely represent the CO2
fixation due to potential CO2 fixation overestimations caused by CO2 gas
bubbles bursting at the surface of the culture. Therefore, critical eval­
uation of all the methods needs to be performed in order to validate CO2
fixation methods and improve the accuracy of each method.
5. Direct methods
5.1. Adopting assumptive values
Adopting assumptive values is most useful when rough and rapid
CO2 fixation quantifications are required with minimal accuracy. For
this direct method, the carbon contents reported from the past studies
were adopted and applied to quantify CO2 fixation. The most cited
carbon content of microalgae was 50%, and this implied that 50% of the
microalgae biomass in dry weight was equivalent to carbon
(1 kg microalgae = 0.50 kg carbon) [177]. This assumption value has
been applied in numerous published research articles, including review
articles (e.g. Refs. [18,51,53]). To determine the CO2 fixation rate, the
first step is to convert carbon content to CO2 content, where the mo­
lecular weight of the carbon (molar mass ≈ 12 g mol− 1) and CO2 (molar
Y.A. Lim et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579

mass ≈ 44 g mol− 1) are used. This results in the correlation of 1 kg
microalgae biomass = 1.83 kg CO2 (i.e. 0.5 × 44/12). Then, the CO2
content (C ×
MCO2
MC ) is multiplied by the biomass productivity of the
microalgae during cultivation in PBRs (Equation (1)), and it is expressed
as CO2 fixation rate (gCO2 L− 1d− 1).
CO2 ​ fixation ​ rate = P × C ×
MCO2
. (1)
MC
where, C = carbon content (w/w); P = biomass productivity (gbiomass L− 1
d− 1); M = molar mass (g mol− 1).
Another representation of CO2 fixation rate is in terms of percentage.
Equation (2) is an improvisation of Equation (1), and it is commonly
used to estimate the CO2 utilisation efficiency. It is started with the
multiplication of PBR working volume and followed by division of flow
rate of CO2 gas input.
C×P×
MCO2
×V
(2)
MC
CO2 ​ fixation ​ efficiency ​ (%) = × 100
ṁ
where, C = carbon content (w/w); P = biomass productivity (gbiomass
L− 1d− 1); M = molar mass (g mol− 1); V= PBR working volume (L); ṁ =
CO2 flow rate (gd− 1).
For instance, with the assumption of C = 50% (or 0.5), Kumar et al.
[47] obtained a CO2 fixation rate of 1.21 gCO2L− 1d− 1 in a bubble column
PBR using Equation (1) culturing Chlorella sorokiniana with 5% CO2
input. Pegallapati et al. [52] achieved CO2 fixation rates of 0.73
gCO2L− 1d− 1 and 0.19 gCO2L− 1d− 1 for Scenedesmus sp. and Nanno­
chloropsis salina, respectively.
Although the carbon content of 50% is a common assumptive value
for CO2 quantification, the origin of this assumption was never discussed
in the PBR literature. It was found that the carbon content of 50%
originated from Chisti [177]. Chisti [177] approximated the 50% value
from an experiment using Phaeodactylum tricornutum and determined
the carbon content with an elemental analyser [178]. In this study, the
reported carbon content was 49.2% for Phaeodactylum tricornutum. In
reality, Phaeodactylum tricornutum is a marine microalgae, while other
species (e.g. Chlorella sorokiniana, Scenedesmus sp., Nannochloropsis sal­
ina) are freshwater microalgae. Table 2 shows that the average carbon
content for microalgae ranges around 50%, although their carbon con­
tents can vary due to environmental and culture conditions [98,104].
For example, Nannochloropsis sp. has a carbon content of 43.3%, but
instead 50% carbon content was used for the determination of CO2
fixation rate, and the percentage difference was approximately 7% [53,
179]. Additionally, each Chlorella species differ among themselves in
carbon content (e.g. Chlorella sp. BTA 9031 = 34.7%; Chlorella ZY-1 =
51.0%) owing to their different carbon capturing abilities. This is
explicitly presented in Table 2, which illustrates the different carbon
contents for various microalgae species. Similarly, in a 18 L internally
illuminated photobioreactor (IIPBR), the cultivation of Scenedesmus sp.
was performed and the CO2 fixation rate and biomass productivity of
13.2 gd-1 (0.73 gCO2L− 1d− 1) and 0.4 gbiomassL− 1d− 1 were yielded,
respectively (Table 1) [52]. The assumptive carbon content was (C =
50% or 0.5) used in this particular study, however, a carbon content of
Scenedesmus sp. of 52% was ascertained using elemental analysis
(Table 2). If C = 52% were used in Equation (1), the resultant CO2 fix­
( )
ation rate could have been 13.8 gd-1 0.52 × 0.4 × 44 12 . The assumed
carbon content (i.e. C = 50%) for Scenedesmus sp. only differs by 2%
from the analytically determined carbon content (i.e. C = 52%) in this
work and thus only resulted in a relatively small difference of 4.3% in
the CO2 fixation rate. However, much significant errors were observed
in other studies. For example, Chlorella vulgaris was reported to contain
45% of carbon in biomass (Table 2), but C = 50% was utilised in
Equation (1) [50]. This could greatly overestimate the efficiency of PBRs
in the case of scaling up of PBRs with the basis of CO2 fixation for mass
cultivation of microalgae.
The assumption of 1 kg microalgae = 1.88 kg CO2 was also used
extensively in the past studies, and this value was also originated from
Chisti [177], who derived it from the approximate molecular formula of
microalgae biomass, CO0.48H1.83N0.11P0.01. Based on the general chem­
ical equation of photosynthesis of microalgae, 4CO2 + nutrient + H2 +
light → 4CO0.48 H1.83 N0.11P0.01 + 3.5 O2, the molar ratio of CO2 and
microalgae biomass is 1:1, and using the molar mass conversion (CO2 =
44 g mol− 1; CO0.48 H1.83 N0.11P0.01 = 23.39 g mol− 1), the equivalent of 1
kg microalgae = 1.88 kg CO2 was derived (i.e. 44/23.39) [180]. It is
worth mentioning that 1.88 kg of CO2 is also equivalent to 51.39% (C =
0.5139) of carbon in microalgae biomass (0.5139 × 44/12 = 1.88) [69].
Using Equation (1), Basu et al. [68] calculated a CO2 fixation rate of 0.10
gCO2L− 1d− 1 after batch culturing of Scenedesmus obliquus. Similarly,
Adamczyk et al. [43], Hariz et al. [180] and Cheng et al. [60] obtained
CO2 fixation rates of 1.40 gCO2L− 1d− 1, 0.83 gCO2L− 1d− 1, and 1.20
gCO2L− 1d− 1, respectively, using Equation (1).
There were other assumptive values, for example, Zhang et al.
[76–79] used a carbon content of 45% in a flat plate PBR for culturing
Synechocystis aquatilis. This assumptive value was also employed by
Reyna-Velarde et al. [37], for the cultivation of Spirulina sp. Further­
more, Bui et al. [80] utilised C = 49% for Chlorella sp. and this was
obtained from the elemental analysis of Aphanothece microscopica Nägeli
[85].
The assumptive values for carbon contents are either over- or under-
estimating the CO2 fixation rate. Significant differences between − 1.1%
and 10.4% were reported by Arbib et al. [183] by comparing the
assumptive values against elemental analysis. Despite that, the direct
method involving assumptive value has still been feasible for simple CO2
fixation rate calculations, but the origins of carbon contents used as
assumptive values for the intended microalgae species should be verified
prior to the CO2 fixation rate calculations.

Table 2
5.2. Elemental analysis
Carbon content of various microalgae species determined with analytical
equipment.
Generally, elemental analysers or also known as CHNS/O analysers
Microalgae species Carbon content Reference
are used for the quantification of elemental carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen
Botryococcus braunii SAG-30.81 58% [22] and/or sulfur contents. In the case of microalgae carbon capture in PBRs,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa SJTU-2 51.3% [181] only the carbon content would be useful. Elemental analysis has been
Chlorella sp. BTA 9031 34.7% [87]
Chlorella sp 50.1% [98]
the most common method (i.e. 45%, Fig. 3b) for the quantification of
Chlorella vulgaris ATCC 13482 50% [115] CO2 fixation when compared to the other methods summarised in
Chlorella vulgaris LEB-104 45% [22] Table 1 based on the past studies. Proper justifications of the selection of
Chlorella vulgaris P12 45.6% [118] this analyser has never been made, though it is supposed that elemental
Chlorella ZY-1 51% [120]
analysers are common in laboratories due to its operation simplicity,
Desmodesmus sp. 43.8% [82]
Dunaliella tertiolecta SAG-13.86 36% [22] minimal labour requirements, high accuracy and short sampling time
Scenedesmus obliquus FACHB 417 50.1% [115] [184].
Scenedesmus obliquus SJTU-3 49.5% [181] Dry samples of microalgae biomass, either dried through centrifu­
Scenedesmus sp. 52% [182] gation, oven drying or freeze drying, are introduced into the elemental
Spirulina platensis LEB-52 50% [22]
analysers. Through high combustion heat, the samples are oxidised and

9
Y.A. Lim et al.
transported by a carrier gas to a thermal conductivity probe, which
detects the elemental composition of carbon in comparison to a cali­
bration standard [38,103,141,185]. Typically, these standards are sul­
phanilic acid, acetanilide, sulfanilamide or cysteine [82,86,92,126,
186]. For CO2 fixation rate and efficiency determination, the carbon
content measured by the elemental analysis is substituted as the
parameter C in Equations (1) and (2), respectively. Most of the past
studies summarised in Table 1 employed Equation (1). For example,
Almomani et al. [122] reported a CO2 fixation rate of 1.08 gCO2L− 1d− 1
for the cultivation of a mixture of indigenous microalgae in a 250 L
column PBR. Toledo-Cervantes et al. [127] also obtained a maximum
CO2 fixation rate of 0.97 gCO2L− 1d− 1 with Scenedesmus obtusiusculus in a
bubble column PBR determined by using Equation (1).
Besides expressing the CO2 fixation rates in gCO2L− 1d− 1, there are
other calculation methods that expressed fixation as CO2 fixed per CO2
injected per day (g g− 1 d− 1). Equation (3) ascertains the accumulation of
fixed CO2 (FA), while daily CO2 fixation rate is given by Equation (4). De
Morais et al. [92,126] employed this equation and it was further
adopted by Duarte et al. [90] and Radmann et al. [187]. Despite having
a daily CO2 fixation rate expressed in g g− 1 d− 1, CO2 fixation was also
expressed in terms of a maximum daily CO2 fixation percentage. For
instance, De Morais et al. [92] reported a maximum daily CO2 fixation of
5.5% for the cultivation of Chlorella kessleri in a vertical tubular PBR
(Table 1). However, the steps based calculations of Equation (4) for
obtaining the maximum daily CO2 fixation percentage were not clearly
discussed. In addition, the significance of CO2 fixation expression in
terms of g g− 1 d− 1 was also unknown, and the accuracy of CO2 fixation
determined using Equations (3) and (4) would be difficult to verify.
Despite that, Equations (3) and (4) seemed to be valuable for CO2 fix­
ation determination during continuous cultivation in PBRs of a series
[126,187].
MCO2
Accumulation of ​ fixed ​ CO2 , FA(g) = C × (Xt − X0 ) × ×V (3)
MC
FAt+1 − FAt
CO2 ​ fixation ​ rate = (4)
m
where, FAt+1 = accumulation of fixed CO2 per time t+1 (gd− 1); FAt =
accumulation of fixed CO2 per time t (gd− 1); m = mass of CO2 injected
(g)
total ​ CO2 ​ fixed
CO2 ​ fixation ​ efficiency ​ (%) = × 100 (5)
total ​ CO2 ​ input
The determination of CO2 fixation is crucial to justify the suitability
of carbon fixation by microalgae [41]. Besides using Equation (2), CO2
fixation efficiency can be calculated using Equation (5) [53,103,105].
CO2 fixation efficiency is also known as removal, utilisation, bio­
utilisation, biofixation or consumption efficiency. By using Equation (5),
Lam et al. [105] reported an efficiency of 71.8% for the cultivation of
Chlorella vulgaris in a sequential baffled column PBR. Comparing to
Equation (2), Equation (5) provides flexibilities in the method of
determining the total CO2 fixed and providing a quick estimation. For
example, the amount of CO2 fixed can be determined by using Equation
MCO2
(1) (C × MC
) and the value can be used in Equation (5). In fact, Equation
(5) can be utilised in both the direct and indirect methods. However,
Equation (5) was only employed with elemental analysis in the past
studies. The representation of CO2 fixation in terms of fixation rates
were more favourable over efficiency for direct methods (Table 1).
Typically, the carbon content in microalgae biomass samples is
analysed at the end of cultivation process, after the harvesting process (i.
e. freeze drying). It would be relevant to quantify the total amount of
carbon fixed from microalgae biomass. Among the past studies listed in
Table 1 that applied elemental analysis, about 61% employed single
measurements of carbon content at the end of microalgae cultivation
period, about 19% employed daily measurements throughout the
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
cultivation period, while the remaining studies did not specify the
elemental analysis measurements. In a study of Chlorella sp., the carbon
contents before and after the CO2 treatment were measured and re­
ported a significant increase of approximately 68% in carbon content
[87]. It can be concluded that single measurement of carbon content at
the end of the cultivation might be inadequate as the initial carbon
content in the biomass prior to CO2 fixation was also considered to avoid
the overestimation of CO2 fixation rates. As a remedial action, the car­
bon content of microalgae biomass at the start of the cultivation should
also be quantified and the difference between the carbon contents before
and after the cultivation should be used for the determination of CO2
fixation. On the other hand, daily measurements could reduce the errors
in carbon content quantification as close monitoring of the carbon
content is assured. Nonetheless, it would not be economically feasible
for cases where elemental analysers are not available.
5.3. TOC analysis
Unlike elemental analysis, TOC analysis can only detect one element,
which is carbon. One of the advantages of TOC analysers over elemental
analysers is the ability to differentiate inorganic and organic carbon.
TOC analysers employ high temperature combustion to detect total
inorganic carbon (TIC) and total organic carbon (TOC), and thus the
total carbon content (TC) is the sum of inorganic and organic carbon
contents (TC = TIC + TOC). When CO2 dissolves in liquid, it exists in
four different forms of inorganic carbons, namely carbonate ion (CO2− 3 ),
bicarbonate ion (HCO−3 ), carbonic acid (H2CO3) and dissolved CO2 [9,
188,189]. These forms are interchangable between each other based on
the pH of microalgae culture [190]. Generally, microalgae go through
the Calvin Cycle, where inorganic carbon in the form of either HCO−3 or
dissolved CO2 diffuses into the microalgae cells for CO2 fixation [191,
192]. In comparison, CO2 that underwent fixation will be transformed as
organic carbon in microalgae biomass. Even though the use of TOC
analysers is not as common as compared to elemental analysis (i.e. 6% in
the past studies listed in Table 1, Fig. 3b), the carbon content determined
with TOC analysers was applied to Equation (1) as well. Ryu et al. [142]
measured a TC of 0.57 for Chlorella sp. using a TOC analyser and a CO2
fixation rate of 0.55 gCO2L− 1d− 1 was obtained (Equation (1)) during the
cultivation in a vertical tubular PBR with 5% CO2 (Table 1). On the other
hand, the TOC content was applied instead of the TC in another study,
which reported a CO2 fixation rate 0.04 gCO2L− 1d− 1 with Chlorella vul­
garis (Table 1) [147]. Similarly, the use of the TOC content was reported
for CO2 fixation rate calculation in López et al. [193]. Since CO2 con­
sumption during photosynthesis produces organic carbon in the form of
microalgae biomass, the use of the TOC content to determine CO2 fix­
ation is justified. In addition, it was found that the TC content in
microalgae cultivation consists of approximately 50% of TOC and 50%
of TIC [194]. The use of only the TOC for CO2 fixation determination
might underestimate it as only 50% of the TC is accounted.
Since TOC analysers have the ability to determine both TIC and TOC,
the application of mass balance to determine CO2 fixation is typically
linked with TOC analysis. For example, Equation (6) represents the
carbon mass balance equation applied for the cultivation of Haemato­
coccus pluvialis in a tubular PBR [195]. In Equation (6), CO2 fixation was
represented as the summation of microalgae biomass carbon content
(Cbiomass) and the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) (Cbiomass + DIC)
[195]. The determination of the dissolved carbon in microalgae cultures
is sometimes important because fixed carbon may be lost to the sur­
rounding culture medium through passive diffusion that might be
caused by stress factors on microalgae cells during agitation or bubble
coalescence [196]. Since Cbiomass represents the TOC content, and in
other definitions the TC also can be expressed as TC = TOC + DIC, it can
be concluded that the carbon content applied for CO2 fixation expressed
in Equation (6) was the TC content [195,197]. In comparison, another
study also applied the carbon mass balance approach by expressing CO2
fixation as the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) plus the particulate
Y.A. Lim et al.
organic carbon (POC). Since TOC = DOC + POC, in this case the TOC
content was chosen to obtain CO2 fixation [198,199]. There are other
scenarios for CO2 fixation determination using carbon mass balance
approach, but the expression for CO2 fixation in terms of carbon content
was not specified [200–206]. In addition, carbon mass balance equa­
tions vary significantly in different PBRs and microalgae cultivation
conditions, and, hence this method was not included in Table 1.
Regardless of the CO2 fixation calculation equations used with TOC
analysis, the uncertainty on the use of the TC or TOC content for CO2
fixation determination still exists for both Equation (1) and Equation (6).
It can only be verified through experimental work and comparative
results.
( ) ( [ ])
d[Cbiomass ] d[DIC] d Cheadspace
Cin − Cout = VL MC + + Vg MC (6)
dt dt dt
where Cin/out = mass flow rate of carbon in and out of PBR (gd− 1); VL =
culture volume (L); Vg = volume of headspace (L); MC = molecular
weight of carbon (gmol− 1); d[Cbiomass ]
dt = rate of change of carbon concen­
tration in microalgae biomass (mol L− 1d− 1); d[DIC]
dt = rate of change of
dissolved inorganic carbon concentration (mol L d ); dt − 1 − 1 d[Cheadspace ]
= rate
of change of carbon concentration in PBR headspace (mol L− 1d− 1).
Since CO2 supplied to microalgae cultivation can be transformed to
other forms than microalgae biomass, carbon mass balances are
important to clearly identify the transformation routes of carbon. For
example, Equation (6) assumes that CO2 will be transformed into
microalgae biomass, DIC and gaseous CO2 in the headspace of PBR
[195]. The headspace in PBRs is the empty space between the micro­
algae culture surface and the top of a PBR. The differences of Cin and Cout
should always be kept minimum to avoid excessive CO2 loss to the at­
mosphere. However, Equation (6) is only suitable for cultivations where
CO2 is supplied as the sole carbon source. In another scenario, carbon
mass balance was performed for a bubble column PBR for the cultivation
of Aphanothece microscopica Nageli. It was reported that only 3.64% of
the supplied CO2 were converted into microalgae biomass [152]. In
addition, 92% of the CO2 supplied were converted into gaseous organic
carbon, identified as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Similarly,
Deprá et al. [160] also reported a low biomass conversion of 1.28% and
a high percentage of VOCs being converted at 82.75%. VOCs are gaseous
organic carbon compounds, such as alcohols, ketones and esters [207].
VOCs have been identified as highly valuable in food and pharmaceu­
tical sector as cheaper alternatives for fragrances and aromas [208]. For
example, Chlorella vulgaris can produce β-cyclocitral and benzaldehyde
that are useful components for fragrance and food flavouring [207].
Therefore, the accuracy of CO2 fixation determined merely based on
microalgae biomass would be questionable due to high percentages of
VOCs instead of microalgae biomass. Further investigations on carbon
transformation routes in microalgae should be carried out in order to
improve the accuracy of CO2 fixation determination for microalgae
cultivation.
6. Indirect methods
21% of the past studies listed in Table 1 applied indirect methods
(Fig. 3b) for CO2 fixation determination. Indirect methods are typically
less complex than direct methods and mostly focus on quantifying the
CO2 concentrations in the gas stream of PBRs.
6.1. Gas chromatography
10% of the past studies listed in Table 1 applied gas chromatography
(Fig. 3b) method for the determination of CO2 fixation. Gas chroma­
tography is a widely applied analytical equipment known for its high
sensitivity and accuracy. It is made up of an injector, packed column and
a thermal conductivity detector, where carrier gas (H2/Ar/N2)
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
transports the gas samples to the detector [153,154,193]. Samples of the
inlet and outlet gas streams of PBRs are captured, collected and intro­
duced into a gas chromatograph to determine the CO2 concentration.
Gas sampling collections were usually performed manually either with
gas tight syringes or Tedlar gas sampling bags [153,154,193]. Typically,
CO2 concentration readings will be taken at fixed time intervals
throughout the microalgae cultivation, providing a CO2 concentration
timeline for the PBR gas inlet and outlet [156,160,163]. Automated
sampling, where gas chromatograph is directly attached to the outlet gas
stream of PBR would bring more convenient analysis compared to
manual sampling as it is less labour intensive. In addition, it performs
real time monitoring of CO2 concentration. External disturbances from
the surrounding environment that might affect the microalgae culture
during the manual sampling should be avoided. Decreasing the reading
time intervals may increase the accuracy of CO2 fixation determination,
however, this has to be discussed and verified in the literature. Using the
CO2 concentration timeline, graphical representation of the CO2 fixation
timeline can be obtained, including maximum, minimum and average
CO2 fixation rates to improve the accuracy of measurements [151].
Equation (7) is a common equation associated with the application of
gas chromatography to calculate CO2 fixation rate (Table 1) [99,101].
Even though it has not been explicitly mentioned in the literature,
Equation (7) can be assumed to be derived from the ideal gas law (PV =
nRT) since the ideal gas constant (8.314 J mol− 1 K-1) is applied in
Equation (7). It was reported that Equation (7) can be broken down into
the multiplication, CO2 fixation rate = ΔyCO2 αCO2, where ΔyCO2 = yCO2,
in - yCO2, out and αCO2 = PTFMCO2/RPT [157,170]. However, this
breakdown does not explain the origin of Equation (7) in relation to the
ideal gas law. αCO2 represents a constant for CO2, with the involvement
of the ideal gas constant, R. Typically, R represents the ideal gas con­
stant, but the Rydberg constant was applied instead in Rinanti et al.
[170]. Unfortunately, no justifications were made regarding the signif­
icance of the ideal gas constant and Rydberg constant in the study.
Despite that, the ideal gas assumption might introduce errors for CO2
fixation rate as realistically the cultivation was performed in a non-ideal
state, yet this has not been investigated in the case of microalgae
cultivation in PBRs. Using Equation (7), Lv et al. [156] managed to
obtain a CO2 fixation rate of 4.32 gCO2 L− 1d− 1 for Chlorella vulgaris
(Table 1).
[ ]
(P0 + ρgh)yCO2 ,inlet − P0 yCO2 ,outlet FMCO2
CO2 ​ fixation ​ rate = (7)
8.314 TV
where, P0 = atmospheric pressure (Pa); ρ = density (g L− 1); h = height of
the culture medium (m); yCO2 = CO2 molar fraction; F = gas flow rate
(m3h− 1); M = molar mass (gmol− 1); T = temperature (K); V = culture
volume (L).
In addition, a novel integration method was employed to express CO2
fixation in terms of moles (Equation (8)), instead of gCO2 L− 1d− 1. This
method was also based on the ideal gas law. Kargupta et al. [153] re­
ported 0.093 mol of fixed CO2 during the cultivation of Chlorella pyr­
enoidosa (Table 1). Nonetheless, the significance of this novel
integration method is still unknown in terms of improving the accuracy
of CO2 fixation.
∫t
⎛ ⎞
moles ​ of ​ CO2 = ⎝Fin − Fout ⎠dt (8)
t0
where, t = time (h); Fin/out = inlet and outlet molar flow rate (molh− 1)
6.2. Infrared sensors
Infrared sensors are optical sensors that are similar to gas detectors
[209]. Inside an infrared sensor, gas samples will be exposed to an
infrared light at a specific wavelength (preferably 4.24 μm). Signals
picked up by the detector are compared with a reference signal and the
Y.A. Lim et al.
difference between these two signals represent the CO2 concentration
[210]. The output data from infrared sensors are typically expressed in
ppm (parts per million). Infrared sensors can be gas analysers, CO2
monitors and CO2 meters, in the form of benchtop or handheld equip­
ment [27,168,169]. These sensors are widely known for their accuracy
and long-term stability, and often used in real time monitoring of CO2
gases in the industrial sector [209]. The CO2 concentration can be
detected either at the headspace of PBR (space between microalgae
culture and the top of a PBR), or the PBR inlet and outlet gas streams.
The usage of infrared sensors was 11% (Fig. 3b) among the past studies
listed in Table 1 (i.e. 1% higher than gas chromatograph). Compared to
gas chromatography, infrared sensors, especially handheld infrared
sensors, are more convenient for performing measurements during the
mass cultivation of microalgae. Immediate quantification of the CO2
concentration can be assured to determine CO2 fixation. Benchtop
infrared sensors do not require manual gas sampling, and the gas
streams of a PBR can be directly connected to the sensor for continuous
monitoring purpose.
Equation (7) was used with infrared sensors based studies in addition
to its application in gas chromatography. For example, Ong et al. [167]
reported a CO2 fixation rate of 9.23 gCO2 L− 1d− 1 for Chlorella sp. in a 4 L
bubble column using Equation (7). Similarly, Farrelly et al. [211] uti­
lised Equation (7) but the CO2 concentration was recorded daily in a 10
min timestep using an infrared gas analyser.
In the context of indirect methods, it was preferable to express CO2
fixation as an efficiency rather than a CO2 fixation rate (Table 1).
Equation (9) is employed to provide a quick estimation of CO2 fixation
efficiency, and it is determined by measuring the concentration differ­
ences of CO2 at the inlet and outlet gas streams. It was reported that an
efficiency of 80% was obtained using Equation (9) during the cultivation
of Chlorella vulgaris (Table 1) [169]. Similarly, the cultivation of Chlor­
ella sp. obtained an efficiency of 39% in a PBR column using Equation (9)
[172].
CO2 in − CO2 out
CO2 ​ fixation ​ efficiency ​ (%) = × 100 (9)
CO2in
where, CO2 in/out = CO2 concentrations of the PBR inlet and outlet gas
streams.
Other than that, CO2 fixation can also be determined with an inte­
gration method [22]. CO2 concentration of the gas outlet stream was
quantified every 15 min throughout the microalgae cultivation. With
this, a graph of CO2 concentration was plotted with time, along with a
CO2 base line. By applying mathematical integration methods like the
trapezoidal method, the area between the CO2 base line and CO2 con­
centration can be determined, which represents the CO2 fixation rate
[22]. CO2 fixation of 0.32 gCO2 L− 1d− 1 was obtained for Spirulina pla­
tensis with the integration method [22]. This integration method was
able to provide a CO2 concentration timeline for microalgae cultivation,
and other advantages are continuous monitoring of the photosynthetic
activity and CO2 fixation rates throughout the cultivation period.
However, the accuracy of the CO2 fixation determined from this inte­
gration method has not been assessed due to the minimal application in
the literature.
One of the biggest setbacks of indirect methods in CO2 fixation
determination is that the CO2 concentration determined from the PBR
outlet gas stream might not represent the CO2 fixation. This is because,
bursting of CO2 enriched bubbles at the surface of the culture release
CO2 gas and that may increase the CO2 concentration detected at the
outlet gas stream. In addition, it was proven that more than 80% of the
carbon supplied to microalgae cultures are released as VOCs [152,160].
Hence, the CO2 gas detected at the outlet of a PBR does not accurately
represent the CO2 consumption by microalgae CO2 fixation. Unfortu­
nately, this has yet to be addressed in detail in future studies to improve
the accuracy of indirect methods.
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
7. Practical implications of CO2 fixation quantification methods
The quantification of CO2 fixation by microalgae cultivation in PBRs
is typically carried out using either direct or indirect methods, or both.
In most cases, selection of CO2 fixation quantification methods depends
on the availability of analytical equipment. In the absence of analytical
equipment, assumptive values for microalgae carbon content can be
applied to estimate the CO2 fixation, though it should be closely related
to the taxonomy of the targeted species. If elemental or TOC analysers
are available, direct methods can be applied to determine the carbon
content of the target species and therefore this value will be more
favourable than the assumptive values. To improve CO2 fixation accu­
racy in PBRs, the carbon contents at the beginning and end of the
microalgae cultivations should be determined, where the difference is
the amount of carbon fixed. Daily analysis of the carbon content
throughout the microalgae cultivation period could also improve CO2
fixation accuracy. Once gas chromatography or infrared sensors are
available, indirect methods can be applied to determine the inlet and
outlet CO2 concentrations of PBRs for CO2 fixation quantifications.
It was found that direct and indirect methods are difficult to compare
with each other due to the lack of verification methods and experimental
results. Thus, it would be ideal to combine several methods (e.g.
assumption values vs elemental analysis) in a single study in order to
validate the accuracy of each method. Swarnalatha et al. [82] utilised
both gas chromatography and elemental analysis and gas chromatog­
raphy was employed to ascertain the CO2 concentration in the head­
space of the PBR, while elemental analysis was used for the carbon
content quantifications of the microalgae cells. Increase of the carbon
content in the biomass as well as decrease of CO2 concentration in the
headspace indicates CO2 fixation. In addition, there were scenarios
where more than one method was employed for CO2 fixation experi­
ment, though, one method was employed for CO2 fixation calculations
[64,203]. For example, Huang et al. [186] studied the carbon content
with elemental analysis and TOC analysis, but only the elemental
analysis results were taken into consideration for the CO2 fixation rates.
Furthermore, Guo et al. [106] used gas chromatography to determine
the CO2 content at the inlet and outlet of a 7.5 L bubble column PBR, but
CO2 fixation rate was determined by the elemental analysis results.
Hence, further studies involving multiple quantification methods, which
are both direct and indirect, are recommended to improve the accuracy
of CO2 fixation quantification methods.
8. Limitations, challenges and recommendations
Direct and indirect methods for the determination of CO2 fixation in
microalgae cultivations, specifically in PBRs, have their own advantages
and disadvantages. Direct methods focus on quantifying carbon content
via microalgae biomass, and thus those have been highly recommended
and widely applied in the past studies (Fig. 3b). With the use of high
accuracy analytical equipment (e.g. elemental analysers and TOC ana­
lysers) microalgae biomass carbon content can be easily determined.
However, the preparation of biomass samples for the equipment is
rather time consuming as the samples need to be centrifuged and freeze
dried before analysis. The harvesting process (e.g. centrifugation) of
microalgae could also cause cell rupture (i.e. physical stress from
centrifuge) and release the DOC to the supernatant. Typically, the su­
pernatant is discarded after harvesting, which can cause carbon content
underestimations during the analysis. This problem can be solved by
TOC analysers, which quantify the TIC, TOC, DIC and DOC of microalgae
samples from the cultivation without any harvesting process re­
quirements. Unfortunately, the accuracy of CO2 fixation using either the
TC or the TOC content for microalgae is still unknown. Direct methods
can still be applied in the absence of analytical equipment. Assumptive
values from the past studies applying either the commonly cited carbon
content (e.g. 1 kg microalgae = 0.5 kg carbon) or a previously quantified
carbon content with the same microalgae species can be employed to
Y.A. Lim et al.
determine CO2 fixation. However, even for the same microalgae species,
any deviations of microalgae strains or cultivation conditions will result
in the change of microalgae biomass carbon content that could reduce
the accuracy of the determined CO2 fixation value.
On the other hand, indirect methods provide a faster and simpler
way to quantify the amount of carbon fixated by microalgae. The dif­
ferences of CO2 concentrations at the inlet and outlet gas streams of a
PBR determines the CO2 fixation by microalgae, and this is quantified by
gas chromatography and infrared sensors. Gas chromatographs gener­
ally possess higher accuracy than infrared sensors, but manual collection
of gas samples with syringes is required, which can be labour intensive.
Even though infrared sensors are able to provide real time monitoring by
directly connecting the PBR gas streams to the sensor, it is unknown
whether the CO2 gas detected during the microalgae cultivation was
entirely from the CO2 fixation since the overestimations could be
induced from the release of CO2 gas during bubble bursting and coa­
lescence at the surface of the culture. As a recommendation, adjustments
should be made to the photoperiod during microalgae cultivation (e.g.
12 h light period; 12 h dark period). For example, sampling should be
done only after several hours of down time (i.e. without CO2 sparging) to
avoid any disturbances on CO2 readings. However, CO2 measurements
taken during the dark phase could result in higher readings due to the
released CO2 by microalgae respiration. Considering this, it is recom­
mended to carry out continuous monitoring of CO2 concentrations at the
PBR gas outlet stream and measurements of dissolved CO2 in the
microalgae culture. Trend plots of outlet CO2 concentrations and dis­
solved CO2 would be helpful to detect any anomalies or errors during the
cultivation and can further improve the accuracy of CO2 fixation with
the help of carbon mass balance. Continuous monitoring can be applied
for direct methods as well to reduce the errors incurred for single
measurement of microalgae carbon content. However, it would not be
economically feasible as elemental and TOC analysis can be costly in the
long run. Since continuous monitoring has not been applied yet and
more studies should be carried out to verify the accuracy and suitability
of these recommendations.
9. Conclusions
Microalgae possess great potential not only to reduce the CO2 levels
in the atmosphere, but it’s biomass are also useful in applications, from
high value products like food ingredients, pharmaceutical, cosmeceut­
icals to feed and even energy. CO2 fixation quantification methods have
not been critically analysed and explicitly discussed in the literature.
Accurate determination of CO2 fixation is crucial to provide reliable
baseline on the carbon capture abilities of microalgae. The lack of crit­
ical discussion and investigation on of the accuracy of direct and indirect
methods impedes advancement. The authors believe that more experi­
mental studies and analysis need to be performed to verify the errors in
each quantification method. This includes but not limited to the appli­
cation of multiple quantification methods to cross check the accuracy of
CO2 fixation results. This work serves as an antecedent for methods for
CO2 fixation quantification methods seeking the development of
microalgae for CCS and climate change mitigation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the Monash University Malaysia Sus­
tainable Community Grant Scheme (SDG-2018-04-SCI).
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
References
[1] Chong MN, Ho AN, Gardner T, Sharma AK, Hood B. Assessing decentralised
wastewater treatment technologies: correlating technology selection to system
robustness, energy consumption and GHG emission. Journal of water and climate
change 2013;4:338–47.
[2] Prentice IC, Farquhar G, Fasham M, Goulden M, Heimann M, Jaramillo V, et al.
The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Cambridge University Press;
2001.
[3] Climate change 2014: synthesis report Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR,
Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, et al. Contribution of working groups I, II and III
to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Ipcc; 2014.
[4] Global IEA. Energy & CO2 status report 2018. International Energy Agency;
2018.
[5] Dlugokencky E, Tans P. Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration/Earth System Research Laboratory; 2019.
[6] UN. Paris Agreement [cited 2019 3 October]; Available from: https://treaties.un.
org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapte
r=27&clang=_en; 2019.
[7] UN. Sustainable Development Goals [cited 2019 3 October]; Available from: https
://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/; 2019.
[8] Metz B, Davidson O, De Coninck H. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: special
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University
Press; 2005.
[9] Maroto-Valer MM. Developments and innovation in carbon dioxide (CO2)
capture and storage technology: carbon dioxide (CO2) storage and utilisation.
Elsevier; 2010.
[10] Singh UB, Ahluwalia A. Microalgae: a promising tool for carbon sequestration.
Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 2013;18:73–95.
[11] Yen HW, Ho SH, Chen CY, Chang JS. CO2, NOx and SOx removal from flue gas via
microalgae cultivation: a critical review. Biotechnol J 2015;10:829–39.
[12] Concas A, Lutzu GA, Pisu M, Cao G. Experimental analysis and novel modeling of
semi-batch photobioreactors operated with Chlorella vulgaris and fed with 100%
(v/v) CO2. Chem Eng J 2012;213:203–13.
[13] Cheah WY, Show PL, Chang J-S, Ling TC, Juan JC. Biosequestration of
atmospheric CO2 and flue gas-containing CO2 by microalgae. Bioresour Technol
2015;184:190–201.
[14] Subhash GV, Rajvanshi M, Kumar BN, Govindachary S, Prasad V, Dasgupta S.
Carbon streaming in microalgae: extraction and analysis methods for high value
compounds. Bioresour Technol 2017;244:1304–16.
[15] Kothari R, Pandey A, Ahmad S, Kumar A, Pathak VV, Tyagi V. Microalgal
cultivation for value-added products: a critical enviro-economical assessment. 3
Biotech 2017;7:243.
[16] Molino A, Mehariya S, Karatza D, Chianese S, Iovine A, Casella P, et al. Bench-
scale cultivation of microalgae Scenedesmus almeriensis for CO2 capture and
lutein production. Energies 2019;12:2806.
[17] Xu X, Gu X, Wang Z, Shatner W, Wang Z. Progress, challenges and solutions of
research on photosynthetic carbon sequestration efficiency of microalgae. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2019;110:65–82.
[18] Zhou W, Wang J, Chen P, Ji C, Kang Q, Lu B, et al. Bio-mitigation of carbon
dioxide using microalgal systems: advances and perspectives. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;76:1163–75.
[19] Ugwu C, Aoyagi H, Uchiyama H. Photobioreactors for mass cultivation of algae.
Bioresour Technol 2008;99:4021–8.
[20] Vu CHT, Lee H-G, Chang YK, Oh H-M. Axenic cultures for microalgal
biotechnology: establishment, assessment, maintenance, and applications.
Biotechnol Adv 2018;36:380–96.
[21] Jorquera O, Kiperstok A, Sales EA, Embirucu M, Ghirardi ML. Comparative
energy life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds and
photobioreactors. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:1406–13.
[22] Sydney EB, Sturm W, de Carvalho JC, Thomaz-Soccol V, Larroche C, Pandey A,
et al. Potential carbon dioxide fixation by industrially important microalgae.
Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5892–6.
[23] Pandey A, Lee D-J, Chisti Y, Soccol CR. Biofuels from algae. Newnes; 2013.
[24] Choi HI, Hwang S-W, Sim SJ. Comprehensive approach to improving life-cycle
CO2 reduction efficiency of microalgal biorefineries: a review. Bioresource
technology; 2019. p. 121879.
[25] Razzak SA, Hossain MM, Lucky RA, Bassi AS, de Lasa H. Integrated CO2 capture,
wastewater treatment and biofuel production by microalgae culturing—a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:622–53.
[26] Bhola V, Swalaha F, Kumar RR, Singh M, Bux F. Overview of the potential of
microalgae for CO 2 sequestration. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2014;11:2103–18.
[27] Pereira H, Páramo J, Silva J, Marques A, Barros A, Maurício D, Santos T,
Schulze P, Barros R, Gouveia L. Scale-up and large-scale production of
Tetraselmis sp. CTP4 (Chlorophyta) for CO 2 mitigation: from an agar plate to
100-m 3 industrial photobioreactors. Sci Rep 2018;8:5112.
[28] Ho S-H, Chen C-Y, Lee D-J, Chang J-S. Perspectives on microalgal CO2-emission
mitigation systems—a review. Biotechnol Adv 2011;29:189–98.
[29] Xu L, Weathers PJ, Xiong XR, Liu CZ. Microalgal bioreactors: challenges and
opportunities. Eng Life Sci 2009;9:178–89.
[30] Kumar K, Dasgupta CN, Nayak B, Lindblad P, Das D. Development of suitable
photobioreactors for CO2 sequestration addressing global warming using green
algae and cyanobacteria. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:4945–53.
[31] Posten C. Design principles of photo-bioreactors for cultivation of microalgae.
Eng Life Sci 2009;9:165–77.
Y.A. Lim et al.
[32] Vasumathi K, Premalatha M, Subramanian P. Parameters influencing the design
of photobioreactor for the growth of microalgae. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:5443–50.
[33] Gupta PL, Lee S-M, Choi H-J. A mini review: photobioreactors for large scale algal
cultivation. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2015;31:1409–17.
[34] Tredici MR, Zittelli GC. Efficiency of sunlight utilization: tubular versus flat
photobioreactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998;57:187–97.
[35] Fu J, Huang Y, Liao Q, Xia A, Fu Q, Zhu X. Photo-bioreactor design for
microalgae: a review from the aspect of CO2 transfer and conversion. Bioresource
technology; 2019. p. 121947.
[36] Nayak BK, Das D. Improvement of carbon dioxide biofixation in a
photobioreactor using Anabaena sp. PCC 7120. Process Biochem 2013;48:
1126–32.
[37] Reyna-Velarde R, Cristiani-Urbina E, Hernández-Melchor DJ, Thalasso F,
Cañizares-Villanueva RO. Hydrodynamic and mass transfer characterization of a
flat-panel airlift photobioreactor with high light path. Chem Eng Process: Process
Intensification 2010;49:97–103.
[38] Ruiz J, Álvarez-Díaz P, Arbib Z, Garrido-Pérez C, Barragán J, Perales J.
Performance of a flat panel reactor in the continuous culture of microalgae in
urban wastewater: prediction from a batch experiment. Bioresour Technol 2013;
127:456–63.
[39] Razzak SA, Ali SAM, Hossain MM, deLasa H. Biological CO2 fixation with
production of microalgae in wastewater–a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;76:379–90.
[40] Huang Y, Zhao S, Ding Y-d, Liao Q, Huang Y, Zhu X. Optimizing the gas
distributor based on CO2 bubble dynamic behaviors to improve microalgal
biomass production in an air-lift photo-bioreactor. Bioresour Technol 2017;233:
84–91.
[41] Jain D, Ghonse SS, Trivedi T, Fernandes GL, Menezes LD, Damare SR, Mamatha S,
Kumar S, Gupta V. CO2 fixation and production of biodiesel by Chlorella vulgaris
NIOCCV under mixotrophic cultivation. Bioresour Technol 2019;273:672–6.
[42] Rosa G, Morais M, Costa J. Fed-batch cultivation with CO2 and
monoethanolamine: influence on Chlorella fusca LEB 111 cultivation, carbon
biofixation and biomolecules production. Bioresour Technol 2019;273:627–33.
[43] Adamczyk M, Lasek J, Skawińska A. CO 2 biofixation and growth kinetics of
Chlorella vulgaris and Nannochloropsis gaditana. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2016;
179:1248–61.
[44] Rosa GM, de Morais MG, Costa JAV. Green alga cultivation with
monoethanolamine: evaluation of CO2 fixation and macromolecule production.
Bioresour Technol 2018;261:206–12.
[45] Liu X, Chen G, Tao Y, Wang J. Application of effluent from WWTP in cultivation
of four microalgae for nutrients removal and lipid production under the supply of
CO2. Renew Energy 2020;149:708–15.
[46] Zhang C-D, Li W, Shi Y-H, Li Y-G, Huang J-K, Li H-X. A new technology of CO2
supplementary for microalgae cultivation on large scale–A spraying absorption
tower coupled with an outdoor open runway pond. Bioresour Technol 2016;209:
351–9.
[47] Kumar K, Das D. Growth characteristics of Chlorella sorokiniana in airlift and
bubble column photobioreactors. Bioresour Technol 2012;116:307–13.
[48] Yadav G, Karemore A, Dash SK, Sen R. Performance evaluation of a green process
for microalgal CO2 sequestration in closed photobioreactor using flue gas
generated in-situ. Bioresour Technol 2015;191:399–406.
[49] Kuo C-M, Jian J-F, Sun Y-L, Lin T-H, Yang Y-C, Zhang W-X, Chang H-F, Lai J-T,
Chang J-S, Lin C-S. An efficient Photobioreactors/Raceway circulating system
combined with alkaline-CO2 capturing medium for microalgal cultivation.
Bioresour Technol 2018;266:398–406.
[50] Li S, Luo S, Guo R. Efficiency of CO2 fixation by microalgae in a closed raceway
pond. Bioresour Technol 2013;136:267–72.
[51] Lara-Gil JA, Senés-Guerrero C, Pacheco A. Cement flue gas as a potential source of
nutrients during CO2 mitigation by microalgae. Algal Research 2016;17:285–92.
[52] Pegallapati AK, Nirmalakhandan N. Internally illuminated photobioreactor for
algal cultivation under carbon dioxide-supplementation: performance evaluation.
Renew Energy 2013;56:129–35.
[53] Xu X, Martin GJ, Kentish SE. Enhanced CO2 bio-utilization with a liquid–liquid
membrane contactor in a bench-scale microalgae raceway pond. Journal of CO2
Utilization 2019;34:207–14.
[54] Ye Q, Cheng J, Liu S, Qiu Y, Zhang Z, Guo W, An Y. Improving light distribution
and light/dark cycle of 900 L tangential spiral− flow column photobioreactors to
promote CO2 fixation with Arthrospira sp. cells. Sci Total Environ 2020;720:
137611.
[55] Ketheesan B, Nirmalakhandan N. Feasibility of microalgal cultivation in a pilot-
scale airlift-driven raceway reactor. Bioresour Technol 2012;108:196–202.
[56] Duarte JH, Fanka LS, Costa JAV. CO 2 biofixation via Spirulina sp. cultures:
evaluation of initial biomass concentration in tubular and raceway
photobioreactors. BioEnergy Research 2020:1–5.
[57] Cheng J, Guo W, Ali KA, Ye Q, Jin G, Qiao Z. Promoting helix pitch and trichome
length to improve biomass harvesting efficiency and carbon dioxide fixation rate
by Spirulina sp. in 660 m2 raceway ponds under purified carbon dioxide from a
coal chemical flue gas. Bioresour Technol 2018;261:76–85.
[58] Mortezaeikia V, Tavakoli O, Yegani R, Faramarzi M. Cyanobacterial CO2
biofixation in batch and semi-continuous cultivation, using hydrophobic and
hydrophilic hollow fiber membrane photobioreactors. Greenhouse Gases: Sci
Technol 2016;6:218–31.
[59] Ho S-H, Nakanishi A, Ye X, Chang J-S, Chen C-Y, Hasunuma T, Kondo A. Dynamic
metabolic profiling of the marine microalga Chlamydomonas sp. JSC4 and
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
enhancing its oil production by optimizing light intensity. Biotechnol Biofuels
2015;8:48.
[60] Cheng D, Li X, Yuan Y, Yang C, Tang T, Zhao Q, Sun Y. Adaptive evolution and
carbon dioxide fixation of Chlorella sp. in simulated flue gas. Sci Total Environ
2019;650:2931–8.
[61] Nayak M, Suh WI, Lee B, Chang YK. Enhanced carbon utilization efficiency and
FAME production of Chlorella sp. HS2 through combined supplementation of
bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. Energy Convers Manag 2018;156:45–52.
[62] Zhao L, Zeng G, Gu Y, Tang Z, Wang G, Tang T, Shan Y, Sun Y. Nature inspired
fractal tree-like photobioreactor via 3D printing for CO2 capture by microaglae.
Chem Eng Sci 2019;193:6–14.
[63] Jaikua M, Thongsan S, Chaijamrus S. Development of a microalgae based system
for biogas upgrading and oil production from waste biomass. Int Energy J 2018;
18.
[64] Kim G, Choi W, Lee C-H, Lee K. Enhancement of dissolved inorganic carbon and
carbon fixation by green alga Scenedesmus sp. in the presence of alkanolamine
CO2 absorbents. Biochem Eng J 2013;78:18–23.
[65] Arroyo CA, Contreras JL, Zeifert B, Ramírez CC. CO2 capture of the gas emission,
using a catalytic converter and airlift bioreactors with the microalga Scenedesmus
dimorphus. Appl Sci 2019;9:3212.
[66] Bagchi SK, Mallick N. Carbon dioxide biofixation and lipid accumulation
potential of an indigenous microalga Scenedesmus obliquus (Turpin) Kützing GA
45 for biodiesel production. RSC Adv 2016;6:29889–98.
[67] Assunção J, Batista AP, Manoel J, da Silva TL, Marques P, Reis A, Gouveia L. CO2
utilization in the production of biomass and biocompounds by three different
microalgae. Eng Life Sci 2017;17:1126–35.
[68] Basu S, Roy AS, Mohanty K, Ghoshal AK. CO2 biofixation and carbonic anhydrase
activity in Scenedesmus obliquus SA1 cultivated in large scale open system.
Bioresour Technol 2014;164:323–30.
[69] Basu S, Roy AS, Ghoshal AK, Mohanty K. Operational strategies for maximizing
CO2 utilization efficiency by the novel microalga Scenedesmus obliquus SA1
cultivated in lab scale photobioreactor. Algal research 2015;12:249–57.
[70] Nayak M, Karemore A, Sen R. Sustainable valorization of flue gas CO 2 and
wastewater for the production of microalgal biomass as a biofuel feedstock in
closed and open reactor systems. RSC Adv 2016;6:91111–20.
[71] Nayak M, Karemore A, Sen R. Performance evaluation of microalgae for
concomitant wastewater bioremediation, CO2 biofixation and lipid biosynthesis
for biodiesel application. Algal Research 2016;16:216–23.
[72] Zhu C, Zhai X, Xi Y, Wang J, Kong F, Zhao Y, Chi Z. Efficient CO2 capture from
the air for high microalgal biomass production by a bicarbonate Pool. Journal of
CO2 Utilization 2020;37:320–7.
[73] Eberly JO, Ely RL. Photosynthetic accumulation of carbon storage compounds
under CO 2 enrichment by the thermophilic cyanobacterium
Thermosynechococcus elongatus. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2012;39:843–50.
[74] Fu W, Gudmundsson S, Wichuk K, Palsson S, Palsson BO, Salehi-Ashtiani K,
Brynjólfsson S. Sugar-stimulated CO2 sequestration by the green microalga
Chlorella vulgaris. Sci Total Environ 2019;654:275–83.
[75] Choi W, Kim G, Lee K. Influence of the CO2 absorbent monoethanolamine on
growth and carbon fixation by the green alga Scenedesmus sp. Bioresour Technol
2012;120:295–9.
[76] Zhang K, Kurano N, Miyachi S. Outdoor culture of a cyanobacterium with a
vertical flat-plate photobioreactor: effects on productivity of the reactor
orientation, distance setting between the plates, and culture temperature. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 1999;52:781–6.
[77] Zhang K, Miyachi S, Kurano N. Photosynthetic performance of a cyanobacterium
in a vertical flat-plate photobioreactor for outdoor microalgal production and
fixation of CO2. Biotechnol Lett 2001;23:21–6.
[78] Zhang K, Miyachi S, Kurano N. Evaluation of a vertical flat-plate photobioreactor
for outdoor biomass production and carbon dioxide bio-fixation: effects of reactor
dimensions, irradiation and cell concentration on the biomass productivity and
irradiation utilization efficiency. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001;55:428–33.
[79] Zhang K, Kurano N, Miyachi S. Optimized aeration by carbon dioxide gas for
microalgal production and mass transfer characterization in a vertical flat-plate
photobioreactor. Bioproc Biosyst Eng 2002;25:97–101.
[80] Bui X-T, Nguyen T-T, Nguyen DD, Dao T-S. Effects of nutrient ratios and carbon
dioxide bio-sequestration on biomass growth of Chlorella sp. in bubble column
photobioreactor. J Environ Manag 2018;219:1–8.
[81] Khichi SS, Anis A, Ghosh S. Mathematical modeling of light energy flux balance in
flat panel photobioreactor for Botryococcus braunii growth, CO2 biofixation and
lipid production under varying light regimes. Biochem Eng J 2018;134:44–56.
[82] Swarnalatha G, Hegde NS, Chauhan VS, Sarada R. The effect of carbon dioxide
rich environment on carbonic anhydrase activity, growth and metabolite
production in indigenous freshwater microalgae. Algal research 2015;9:151–9.
[83] Cirés S, Alvarez-Roa C, Heimann K. First use of the WAVE™ disposable rocking
bioreactor for enhanced bioproduct synthesis by N2-fixing cyanobacteria.
Biotechnol Bioeng 2015;112:621–6.
[84] Jacob-Lopes E, Scoparo CHG, Lacerda LMCF, Franco TT. Effect of light cycles
(night/day) on CO2 fixation and biomass production by microalgae in
photobioreactors. Chem Eng Process: Process Intensification 2009;48:306–10.
[85] Jacob-Lopes E, Lacerda LMCF, Franco TT. Biomass production and carbon dioxide
fixation by Aphanothece microscopica Nägeli in a bubble column
photobioreactor. Biochem Eng J 2008;40:27–34.
[86] Fulke AB, Krishnamurthi K, Giripunje MD, Devi SS, Chakrabarti T.
Biosequestration of carbon dioxide, biomass, calorific value and biodiesel
precursors production using a novel flask culture photobioreactor. Biomass
Bioenergy 2015;72:136–42.
Y.A. Lim et al.
[87] Mondal M, Ghosh A, Gayen K, Halder G, Tiwari O. Carbon dioxide bio-fixation by
Chlorella sp. BTA 9031 towards biomass and lipid production: optimization using
Central Composite Design approach. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2017;22:317–29.
[88] Satpati GG, Gorain PC, Paul I, Pal R. An integrated salinity-driven workflow for
rapid lipid enhancement in green microalgae for biodiesel application. RSC Adv
2016;6:112340–55.
[89] Duarte JH, Fanka LS, Costa JAV. Utilization of simulated flue gas containing CO2,
SO2, NO and ash for Chlorella fusca cultivation. Bioresour Technol 2016;214:
159–65.
[90] Duarte JH, de Morais EG, Radmann EM, Costa JAV. Biological CO2 mitigation
from coal power plant by Chlorella fusca and Spirulina sp. Bioresour Technol
2017;234:472–5.
[91] Kumoro AC, Susanto H. Impact of hazardous components on CO2 biofixation
from synthetic flue gas using Chlorella sp. JPR-1 in a raceway pond
photobioreactor. Songklanakarin J ournal of Science andTechnology 2013;35:
563–8.
[92] De Morais MG, Costa JAV. Carbon dioxide fixation by Chlorella kessleri, C.
vulgaris, Scenedesmus obliquus and Spirulina sp. cultivated in flasks and vertical
tubular photobioreactors. Biotechnol Lett 2007;29:1349–52.
[93] Li M, Zhou M, Luo J, Tan C, Tian X, Su P, Gu T. Carbon dioxide sequestration
accompanied by bioenergy generation using a bubbling-type photosynthetic algae
microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol 2019;280:95–103.
[94] Liu S, Elvira P, Wang Y, Wang W. Growth and nutrient utilization of green algae
in batch and semicontinuous autotrophic cultivation under high CO 2
concentration. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2019;188:836–53.
[95] Binnal P, Babu PN. Statistical optimization of parameters affecting lipid
productivity of microalga Chlorella protothecoides cultivated in photobioreactor
under nitrogen starvation. S Afr J Chem Eng 2017;23:26–37.
[96] Nair AT, Senthilnathan J, Nagendra SS. Application of the phycoremediation
process for tertiary treatment of landfill leachate and carbon dioxide mitigation.
Journal of Water Process Engineering 2019;28:322–30.
[97] Ye Q, Cheng J, Lai X, An Y, Chu F, Zhou J, Cen K. Promoting photochemical
efficiency of Chlorella PY-ZU1 with enhanced velocity field and turbulent kinetics
in a novel tangential spiral-flow column photobioreactor. ACS Sustainable Chem
Eng 2018;7:384–93.
[98] Zhao B, Su Y, Zhang Y, Cui G. Carbon dioxide fixation and biomass production
from combustion flue gas using energy microalgae. Energy 2015;89:347–57.
[99] Zhao B, Zhang Y, Xiong K, Zhang Z, Hao X, Liu T. Effect of cultivation mode on
microalgal growth and CO2 fixation. Chem Eng Res Des 2011;89:1758–62.
[100] Yadav G, Dash SK, Sen R. A biorefinery for valorization of industrial waste-water
and flue gas by microalgae for waste mitigation, carbon-dioxide sequestration and
algal biomass production. Sci Total Environ 2019;688:129–35.
[101] Aishvarya V, Pradhan N, Nayak R, Sukla L, Mishra B. Enhanced inorganic carbon
uptake by Chlorella sp. IMMTCC-2 under autotrophic conditions for lipid
production and CO 2 sequestration. J Appl Phycol 2012;24:1455–63.
[102] Li X, Yuan Y, Cheng D, Gao J, Kong L, Zhao Q, Wei W, Sun Y. Exploring stress
tolerance mechanism of evolved freshwater strain Chlorella sp. S30 under 30 g/L
salt. Bioresour Technol 2018;250:495–504.
[103] Lam MK, Lee KT. Effect of carbon source towards the growth of Chlorella vulgaris
for CO2 bio-mitigation and biodiesel production. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 2013;14:169–76.
[104] Mohsenpour SF, Willoughby N. Effect of CO2 aeration on cultivation of
microalgae in luminescent photobioreactors. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;85:168–77.
[105] Lam MK, Lee KT. Cultivation of Chlorella vulgaris in a pilot-scale sequential-
baffled column photobioreactor for biomass and biodiesel production. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;88:399–410.
[106] Guo Z, Phooi WBA, Lim ZJ, Tong YW. Control of CO2 input conditions during
outdoor culture of Chlorella vulgaris in bubble column photobioreactors.
Bioresour Technol 2015;186:238–45.
[107] Clément-Larosière B, Lopes F, Gonçalves A, Taidi B, Benedetti M, Minier M,
Pareau D. Carbon dioxide biofixation by Chlorella vulgaris at different CO2
concentrations and light intensities. Eng Life Sci 2014;14:509–19.
[108] Hu X, Liu B, Deng Y, Bao X, Yang A, Zhou J. A novel two-stage culture strategy
used to cultivate Chlorella vulgaris for increasing the lipid productivity. Separ
Purif Technol 2019;211:816–22.
[109] Naderi G, Tade MO, Znad H. Modified photobioreactor for biofixation of carbon
dioxide by Chlorella vulgaris at different light intensities. Chem Eng Technol
2015;38:1371–9.
[110] Peng H, Wei D, Chen F, Chen G. Regulation of carbon metabolic fluxes in response
to CO 2 supplementation in phototrophic Chlorella vulgaris: a cytomic and
biochemical study. J Appl Phycol 2016;28:737–45.
[111] Azari A, Tavakoli H, Barkdoll BD, Haddad OB. Predictive model of algal biofuel
production based on experimental data. Algal Research 2020;47:101843.
[112] Sivasangari S, Vel Rajan T, Nandhini J. Aspects of photobioreactor and algadisk in
CO2 sequestration and biomass production. Energy sources, Part A: recovery,
utilization, and environmental effects. 2019. p. 1–8.
[113] Hu X, Liu B, Zhou J, Jin R, Qiao S, Liu G. CO2 fixation, lipid production, and
power generation by a novel air-lift-type microbial carbon capture cell system.
Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:10710–7.
[114] Tebbani S, Lopes F, Filali R, Dumur D, Pareau D. Nonlinear predictive control for
maximization of CO 2 bio-fixation by microalgae in a photobioreactor. Bioproc
Biosyst Eng 2014;37:83–97.
[115] Chaudhary R, Dikshit AK, Tong YW. Carbon-dioxide biofixation and
phycoremediation of municipal wastewater using Chlorella vulgaris and
Scenedesmus obliquus. Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser 2018;25:20399–406.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
[116] Yeh KL, Chang JS. Nitrogen starvation strategies and photobioreactor design for
enhancing lipid content and lipid production of a newly isolated microalga
Chlorella vulgaris ESP-31: implications for biofuels. Biotechnol J 2011;6:
1358–66.
[117] Chang H, Quan X, Zhong N, Zhang Z, Lu C, Li G, Cheng Z, Yang L. High-efficiency
nutrients reclamation from landfill leachate by microalgae Chlorella vulgaris in
membrane photobioreactor for bio-lipid production. Bioresour Technol 2018;266:
374–81.
[118] Anjos M, Fernandes BD, Vicente AA, Teixeira JA, Dragone G. Optimization of CO2
bio-mitigation by Chlorella vulgaris. Bioresour Technol 2013;139:149–54.
[119] Yun YS, Lee SB, Park JM, Lee CI, Yang JW. Carbon dioxide fixation by algal
cultivation using wastewater nutrients. J Chem Technol Biotechnol: International
Research in Process, Environmental AND Clean Technology 1997;69:451–5.
[120] Yue L, Chen W. Isolation and determination of cultural characteristics of a new
highly CO2 tolerant fresh water microalgae. Energy Convers Manag 2005;46:
1868–76.
[121] Boonma S, Chaiklangmuang S, Chaiwongsar S, Pekkoh J, Pumas C,
Ungsethaphand T, Tongsiri S, Peerapornpisal Y. Enhanced carbon dioxide fixation
and bio-oil production of a microalgal consortium. Clean 2015;43:761–6.
[122] Almomani F, Al Ketife A, Judd S, Shurair M, Bhosale RR, Znad H, Tawalbeh M.
Impact of CO2 concentration and ambient conditions on microalgal growth and
nutrient removal from wastewater by a photobioreactor. Sci Total Environ 2019;
662:662–71.
[123] Ritcharoen W, Powtongsook S, Kangvansaichol K, Pavasant P. Effect of daytime
CO2 supplement on productivity and biochemical composition of Scenedesmus
armatus under outdoor cultivation. Prep Biochem Biotechnol 2016;46:267–73.
[124] Xu X, Shen Y, Chen J. Cultivation of Scenedesmus dimorphus for C/N/P removal
and lipid production. Electron J Biotechnol 2015;18:46–50.
[125] Vidyashankar S, Deviprasad K, Chauhan V, Ravishankar G, Sarada R. Selection
and evaluation of CO2 tolerant indigenous microalga Scenedesmus dimorphus for
unsaturated fatty acid rich lipid production under different culture conditions.
Bioresour Technol 2013;144:28–37.
[126] De Morais MG, Costa JAV. Biofixation of carbon dioxide by Spirulina sp. and
Scenedesmus obliquus cultivated in a three-stage serial tubular photobioreactor.
J Biotechnol 2007;129:439–45.
[127] Toledo-Cervantes A, Morales M, Novelo E, Revah S. Carbon dioxide fixation and
lipid storage by Scenedesmus obtusiusculus. Bioresour Technol 2013;130:652–8.
[128] de Mendonça HV, Ometto JPHB, Otenio MH, Marques IPR, dos Reis AJD.
Microalgae-mediated bioremediation and valorization of cattle wastewater
previously digested in a hybrid anaerobic reactor using a photobioreactor:
comparison between batch and continuous operation. Sci Total Environ 2018;
633:1–11.
[129] Wang R, Tian Y, Xue S, Zhang D, Zhang Q, Wu X, Kong D, Cong W. Enhanced
microalgal biomass and lipid production via co-culture of Scenedesmus obliquus
and Candida tropicalis in an autotrophic system. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2016;91:1387–96.
[130] Ho S-H, Chen C-Y, Chang J-S. Effect of light intensity and nitrogen starvation on
CO2 fixation and lipid/carbohydrate production of an indigenous microalga
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N. Bioresour Technol 2012;113:244–52.
[131] Ho S-H, Li P-J, Liu C-C, Chang J-S. Bioprocess development on microalgae-based
CO2 fixation and bioethanol production using Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N.
Bioresour Technol 2013;145:142–9.
[132] Ho S-H, Lu W-B, Chang J-S. Photobioreactor strategies for improving the CO2
fixation efficiency of indigenous Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N: statistical
optimization of CO2 feeding, illumination, and operation mode. Bioresour
Technol 2012;105:106–13.
[133] Ho S-H, Kondo A, Hasunuma T, Chang J-S. Engineering strategies for improving
the CO2 fixation and carbohydrate productivity of Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N
used for bioethanol fermentation. Bioresour Technol 2013;143:163–71.
[134] Ho S-H, Chen Y-D, Chang C-Y, Lai Y-Y, Chen C-Y, Kondo A, Ren N-Q, Chang J-S.
Feasibility of CO 2 mitigation and carbohydrate production by microalga
Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N used for bioethanol fermentation under outdoor
conditions: effects of seasonal changes. Biotechnol Biofuels 2017;10:27.
[135] Xia L, Ge H, Zhou X, Zhang D, Hu C. Photoautotrophic outdoor two-stage
cultivation for oleaginous microalgae Scenedesmus obtusus XJ-15. Bioresour
Technol 2013;144:261–7.
[136] Huo S, Zhou W, Wang Z, Zhu S, Dong L, Huang W, Yuan Z, Dong R. Biomass
measurement of microalgae cultivated under photoautotrophic conditions for
biofuels. Energy Sources, Part A Recovery, Util Environ Eff 2015;37:1447–54.
[137] Singh SK, Rahman A, Dixit K, Nath A, Sundaram S. Evaluation of promising algal
strains for sustainable exploitation coupled with CO2 fixation. Environ Technol
2016;37:613–22.
[138] Moraes L, da Rosa GM, Santos LO, Costa JA. Innovative development of
membrane sparger for carbon dioxide supply in microalgae cultures. Biotechnol
Prog 2020:e2987.
[139] da Rosa GM, Moraes L, Cardias BB, Costa JAV. Chemical absorption and CO2
biofixation via the cultivation of Spirulina in semicontinuous mode with nutrient
recycle. Bioresour Technol 2015;192:321–7.
[140] Moraes L, Rosa GMD, Souza Mdrazd, Costa JAV. Carbon dioxide biofixation and
production of Spirulina sp. LEB 18 biomass with different concentrations of
NaNO3 and NaCl. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology; 2018. p. 61.
[141] Su CM, Hsueh HT, Li TY, Huang LC, Chu YL, Tseng CM, Chu H. Effects of light
availability on the biomass production, CO2 fixation, and bioethanol production
potential of Thermosynechococcus CL-1. Bioresour Technol 2013;145:162–5.
Y.A. Lim et al.
[142] Ryu HJ, Oh KK, Kim YS. Optimization of the influential factors for the
improvement of CO2 utilization efficiency and CO2 mass transfer rate. J Ind Eng
Chem 2009;15:471–5.
[143] Razzak SA, Ali SAM, Hossain MM, Mouanda AN. Biological CO 2 fixation using
Chlorella vulgaris and its thermal characteristics through thermogravimetric
analysis. Bioproc Biosyst Eng 2016;39:1651–8.
[144] Hossain SZ, Alnoaimi A, Razzak SA, Ezuber H, Al-Bastaki N, Safdar M, Alkaabi S,
Hossain MM. Multiobjective optimization of microalgae (Chlorella sp.) growth in
a photobioreactor using Box-Behnken design approach. Can J Chem Eng 2018;96:
1903–10.
[145] Hossain SMZ, Hossain MM, Razzak SA. Optimization of CO2 biofixation by
Chlorella vulgaris using a tubular photobioreactor. Chem Eng Technol 2018;41:
1313–23.
[146] Kazeem M, Hossain S, Hossain M, Razzak S. Application of central composite
design to optimize culture conditions of Chlorella vulgaris in a batch
photobioreactor: an efficient modeling approach. Chem Prod Process Model 2018;
13.
[147] Xia A, Hu Z, Liao Q, Huang Y, Zhu X, Ye W, Sun Y. Enhancement of CO2 transfer
and microalgae growth by perforated inverted arc trough internals in a flat-plate
photobioreactor. Bioresour Technol 2018;269:292–9.
[148] García-Cubero R, Moreno-Fernández J, García-González M. Modelling growth and
CO2 fixation by Scenedesmus vacuolatus in continuous culture. Algal Research
2017;24:333–9.
[149] Razzak S. In situ biological CO 2 fixation and wastewater nutrient removal with
Neochloris oleoabundans in batch photobioreactor. Bioproc Biosyst Eng 2019;42:
93–105.
[150] Martínez L, Redondas V, García AI, Morán A. Optimization of growth operational
conditions for CO2 biofixation by native Synechocystis sp. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 2011;86:681–90.
[151] Jacob-Lopes E, Scoparo CHG, Queiroz MI, Franco TT. Biotransformations of
carbon dioxide in photobioreactors. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:894–900.
[152] Jacob-Lopes E, Franco TT. From oil refinery to microalgal biorefinery. Journal of
CO2 utilization 2013;2:1–7.
[153] Kargupta W, Ganesh A, Mukherji S. Estimation of carbon dioxide sequestration
potential of microalgae grown in a batch photobioreactor. Bioresour Technol
2015;180:370–5.
[154] Kim W, Park JM, Gim GH, Jeong S-H, Kang CM, Kim D-J, Kim SW. Optimization
of culture conditions and comparison of biomass productivity of three green
algae. Bioproc Biosyst Eng 2012;35:19–27.
[155] Cheng L, Zhang L, Chen H, Gao C. Carbon dioxide removal from air by microalgae
cultured in a membrane-photobioreactor. Separ Purif Technol 2006;50:324–9.
[156] Lv J-M, Cheng L-H, Xu X-H, Zhang L, Chen H-L. Enhanced lipid production of
Chlorella vulgaris by adjustment of cultivation conditions. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:6797–804.
[157] Wijanarko A, Sendjaya AY, Hermansyah H, Witarto AB, Gozan M, Sofyan BT,
Asami K, Ohtaguchi K, Soemantojo RW, Song SK. Enhanced Chlorella vulgaris
Buitenzorg growth by photon flux density alteration in serial photobioreactors.
Biotechnol Bioproc Eng 2008;13:476.
[158] Cheng L, Cheng G, Zhang L, Chen H, Gao C. Simulation of membrane-
photobioreactor for carbon dioxide removal by microalgal photosynthesis. SAE
Technical Paper; 2006.
[159] Mousavi S, Najafpour GD, Mohammadi M. CO 2 bio-fixation and biofuel
production in an airlift photobioreactor by an isolated strain of microalgae
Coelastrum sp. SM under high CO 2 concentrations. Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser
2018;25:30139–50.
[160] Deprá MC, Mérida LG, de Menezes CR, Zepka LQ, Jacob-Lopes E. A new hybrid
photobioreactor design for microalgae culture. Chem Eng Res Des 2019;144:1–10.
[161] Guo C, Duan D, Sun Y, Han Y, Zhao S. Enhancing Scenedesmus obliquus biofilm
growth and CO2 fixation in a gas-permeable membrane photobioreactor
integrated with additional rough surface. Algal Research 2019;43:101620.
[162] Kumar A, Yuan X, Sahu AK, Dewulf J, Ergas SJ, Van Langenhove H. A hollow fiber
membrane photo-bioreactor for CO2 sequestration from combustion gas coupled
with wastewater treatment: a process engineering approach. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 2010;85:387–94.
[163] Anbalagan A, Toledo-Cervantes A, Posadas E, Rojo EM, Lebrero R, González-
Sánchez A, Nehrenheim E, Muñoz R. Continuous photosynthetic abatement of
CO2 and volatile organic compounds from exhaust gas coupled to wastewater
treatment: evaluation of tubular algal-bacterial photobioreactor. Journal of CO2
Utilization 2017;21:353–9.
[164] Chiu SY, Tsai MT, Kao CY, Ong SC, Lin CS. The air-lift photobioreactors with flow
patterning for high-density cultures of microalgae and carbon dioxide removal.
Engineering in life sciences 2009;9:254–60.
[165] Yoo C, Jun S-Y, Lee J-Y, Ahn C-Y, Oh H-M. Selection of microalgae for lipid
production under high levels carbon dioxide. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:S71–4.
[166] Yan C, Zhang Q, Xue S, Sun Z, Wu X, Wang Z, Lu Y, Cong W. A novel low-cost
thin-film flat plate photobioreactor for microalgae cultivation. Biotechnol Bioproc
Eng 2016;21:103–9.
[167] Ong S-C, Kao C-Y, Chiu S-Y, Tsai M-T, Lin C-S. Characterization of the thermal-
tolerant mutants of Chlorella sp. with high growth rate and application in outdoor
photobioreactor cultivation. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:2880–3.
[168] Kao C-Y, Chiu S-Y, Huang T-T, Dai L, Hsu L-K, Lin C-S. Ability of a mutant strain
of the microalga Chlorella sp. to capture carbon dioxide for biogas upgrading.
Appl Energy 2012;93:176–83.
[169] Sadeghizadeh A, Moghaddasi L, Rahimi R. CO2 capture from air by Chlorella
vulgaris microalgae in an airlift photobioreactor. Bioresour Technol 2017;243:
441–7.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
[170] Rinanti A, Kardena E, Astuti D, Dewi K. Improvement of carbon dioxide removal
through artificial light intensity and temperature by constructed green microalgae
consortium in a vertical bubble column photobioreactor. Malaysian Journal of
Microbiology 2014;10:29–37.
[171] Keffer J, Kleinheinz G. Use of Chlorella vulgaris for CO 2 mitigation in a
photobioreactor. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2002;29:275–80.
[172] Kuo C-M, Jian J-F, Lin T-H, Chang Y-B, Wan X-H, Lai J-T, Chang J-S, Lin C-S.
Simultaneous microalgal biomass production and CO2 fixation by cultivating
Chlorella sp. GD with aquaculture wastewater and boiler flue gas. Bioresour
Technol 2016;221:241–50.
[173] Li F-F, Yang Z-H, Zeng R, Yang G, Chang X, Yan J-B, Hou Y-L. Microalgae capture
of CO2 from actual flue gas discharged from a combustion chamber. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2011;50:6496–502.
[174] Guo P, Zhang Y, Zhao Y. Biocapture of CO2 by different microalgal-based
technologies for biogas upgrading and simultaneous biogas slurry purification
under various light intensities and photoperiods. Int J Environ Res Publ Health
2018;15:528.
[175] Chiu S-Y, Kao C-Y, Huang T-T, Lin C-J, Ong S-C, Chen C-D, Chang J-S, Lin C-S.
Microalgal biomass production and on-site bioremediation of carbon dioxide,
nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide from flue gas using Chlorella sp. cultures.
Bioresour Technol 2011;102:9135–42.
[176] Chiu S-Y, Kao C-Y, Chen C-H, Kuan T-C, Ong S-C, Lin C-S. Reduction of CO2 by a
high-density culture of Chlorella sp. in a semicontinuous photobioreactor.
Bioresour Technol 2008;99:3389–96.
[177] Chisti Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 2007;25:294–306.
[178] Mirón AS, Garcıa MCC, Gómez AC, Camacho FG, Grima EM, Chisti Y. Shear stress
tolerance and biochemical characterization of Phaeodactylum tricornutum in
quasi steady-state continuous culture in outdoor photobioreactors. Biochem Eng J
2003;16:287–97.
[179] Brown TM, Duan P, Savage PE. Hydrothermal liquefaction and gasification of
Nannochloropsis sp. Energy Fuels 2010;24:3639–46.
[180] Hariz HB, Takriff MS, Yasin NHM, Ba-Abbad MM, Hakimi NINM. Potential of the
microalgae-based integrated wastewater treatment and CO2 fixation system to
treat Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) by indigenous microalgae; Scenedesmus sp.
and Chlorella sp. Journal of Water Process Engineering 2019;32:100907.
[181] Tang D, Han W, Li P, Miao X, Zhong J. CO2 biofixation and fatty acid composition
of Scenedesmus obliquus and Chlorella pyrenoidosa in response to different CO2
levels. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:3071–6.
[182] Garcia-Moscoso JL, Obeid W, Kumar S, Hatcher PG. Flash hydrolysis of
microalgae (Scenedesmus sp.) for protein extraction and production of biofuels
intermediates. J Supercrit Fluids 2013;82:183–90.
[183] Arbib Z, Ruiz J, Álvarez-Díaz P, Garrido-Pérez C, Perales JA. Capability of
different microalgae species for phytoremediation processes: wastewater tertiary
treatment, CO2 bio-fixation and low cost biofuels production. Water Res 2014;49:
465–74.
[184] Kirmse W. Organic elemental analysis: ultramicro, micro, and trace methods.
Elsevier; 2012.
[185] Gonçalves AL, Rodrigues CM, Pires JC, Simões M. The effect of increasing CO2
concentrations on its capture, biomass production and wastewater
bioremediation by microalgae and cyanobacteria. Algal research 2016;14:
127–36.
[186] Huang Y, Luo L, Xu K, Wang XC. Characteristics of external carbon uptake by
microalgae growth and associated effects on algal biomass composition. Bioresour
Technol 2019;292:121887.
[187] Radmann EM, Camerini FV, Santos TD, Costa JAV. Isolation and application of
SOX and NOX resistant microalgae in biofixation of CO2 from thermoelectricity
plants. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:3132–6.
[188] Hester RE, Harrison RM. Carbon capture: sequestration and storage. Royal Society
of Chemistry; 2010.
[189] Surampalli RY, Zhang TC, Tyagi RD, Naidu R, Gurjar BR, Ojha CSP, Yan S,
Brar SK, Ramakrishnan A, Kao C. Carbon capture and storage: physical, chemical,
and biological methods. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2015.
[190] Slocombe SP, Benemann JR. Microalgal production for biomass and high-value
products. CRC Press; 2016.
[191] Borowitzka MA, Beardall J, Raven JA. The physiology of microalgae. Springer;
2016.
[192] Lam MK, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. Current status and challenges on microalgae-
based carbon capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2012;10:
456–69.
[193] López CG, Fernández FA, Sevilla JF, Fernández JS, García MC, Grima EM.
Utilization of the cyanobacteria Anabaena sp. ATCC 33047 in CO2 removal
processes. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5904–10.
[194] Eloka-Eboka AC, Inambao FL. Effects of CO2 sequestration on lipid and biomass
productivity in microalgal biomass production. Appl Energy 2017;195:1100–11.
[195] Lee JY, Hong M-E, Chang WS, Sim SJ. Enhanced carbon dioxide fixation of
Haematococcus pluvialis using sequential operating system in tubular
photobioreactors. Process Biochem 2015;50:1091–6.
[196] Hulatt CJ, Thomas DN. Productivity, carbon dioxide uptake and net energy return
of microalgal bubble column photobioreactors. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:
5775–87.
[197] Mopper K, Qian J. Water analysis: organic carbon determinations. Encyclopedia
of analytical chemistry: applications. Theory and Instrumentation; 2006.
[198] Bisutti I, Hilke I, Raessler M. Determination of total organic carbon–an overview
of current methods. Trac Trends Anal Chem 2004;23:716–26.
Y.A. Lim et al.
[199] Kishi M, Yamada Y, Katayama T, Matsuyama T, Toda T. Carbon mass balance in
arthrospira platensis culture with medium recycle and high CO2 supply. Appl Sci
2020;10:228.
[200] Bhakta JN, Lahiri S, Pittman JK, Jana BB. Carbon dioxide sequestration in
wastewater by a consortium of elevated carbon dioxide-tolerant microalgae.
Journal of CO2 Utilization 2015;10:105–12.
[201] Cabello J, Morales M, Revah S. Carbon dioxide consumption of the microalga
Scenedesmus obtusiusculus under transient inlet CO2 concentration variations.
Sci Total Environ 2017;584:1310–6.
[202] Harter T, Bossier P, Verreth J, Bodé S, Van der Ha D, Debeer A-E, Boon N,
Boeckx P, Vyverman W, Nevejan N. Carbon and nitrogen mass balance during flue
gas treatment with Dunaliella salina cultures. J Appl Phycol 2013;25:359–68.
[203] Honda R, Boonnorat J, Chiemchaisri C, Chiemchaisri W, Yamamoto K. Carbon
dioxide capture and nutrients removal utilizing treated sewage by concentrated
microalgae cultivation in a membrane photobioreactor. Bioresour Technol 2012;
125:59–64.
[204] Meier L, Pérez R, Azócar L, Rivas M, Jeison D. Photosynthetic CO2 uptake by
microalgae: an attractive tool for biogas upgrading. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;73:
102–9.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110579
[205] Ramaraj R, Tsai DD-W, Chen PH. Freshwater microalgae niche of air carbon
dioxide mitigation. Ecol Eng 2014;68:47–52.
[206] Tsai DD-W, Ramaraj R, Chen PH. Growth condition study of algae function in
ecosystem for CO2 bio-fixation. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 2012;107:27–34.
[207] Severo IA, Pinheiro PN, Vieira KR, Zepka LQ, Jacob-Lopes E. Biological
conversion of carbon dioxide into volatile organic compounds. Conversion of
carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons, 2 Technology. Springer; 2020. p. 45–73.
[208] Santos AB, Fernandes AS, Wagner R, Jacob-Lopes E, Zepka LQ. Biogeneration of
volatile organic compounds produced by Phormidium autumnale in heterotrophic
bioreactor. J Appl Phycol 2016;28:1561–70.
[209] Gibson D, MacGregor C. A novel solid state non-dispersive infrared CO2 gas
sensor compatible with wireless and portable deployment. Sensors 2013;13:
7079–103.
[210] Gerlach G, Guth U. Carbon dioxide sensing. Wiley Online Library; 2015.
[211] Farrelly DJ, Brennan L, Everard CD, McDonnell KP. Carbon dioxide utilisation of
Dunaliella tertiolecta for carbon bio-mitigation in a semicontinuous
photobioreactor. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;98:3157–64.