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

net/publication/334291264

Recent trends and challenges of algal biofuel conversion technologies

Chapter · June 2019

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102791-2.00007-6

CITATIONS READS

35 1,240

2 authors:

Pobitra Halder Kalam Azad

Deakin University Central Queensland University
85 PUBLICATIONS   1,484 CITATIONS    119 PUBLICATIONS   3,459 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research View project

Performance of Biodiesel from Mustard Oil as an Alternative Fuel for Diesel Engine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pobitra Halder on 13 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 C H A P T E R

7
Recent trends and challenges of algal biofuel
conversion technologies
Pobitra Halder1,2, A.K. Azad3
1
Chemical and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;
2
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Jessore University of Science and Technology, Jessore, Bangladesh;
3
School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

O U T L I N E

7.1 Introduction 167 7.5 Engine performance and emission characteristics

using algal biofuel 174
7.2 Potential feedstock and their characteristics 169
7.6 Global algal biofuel activities 175
7.3 Cultivation and harvesting of algal biomass 169
7.7 Challenges of biofuel production from algal
7.4 Algae biofuels and conversion process 171 biomass 175
7.4.1 Thermochemical conversion 172
7.4.2 Biochemical conversion 7.8 Conclusion 176
173
7.4.3 Chemical reaction 174 References 176

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The need for clean energy as an alternative to fossil
fuels throughout the world is necessary for the rapid
population growth and technological development
[1,2]. Currently, approximately 38% of the world’s total
population (2.8 billion) have no clean cooking facilities
and 14% of them (1.06 billion) have no electricity access
[3]. It is also estimated that global energy needs are ex-
pected to increase by 44% from the year 2006e2030 [4].
The world’s primary energy consumption increased to
13511.2 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in the year
2017 with a growth rate of 2.2% over the previous year
[5]. In the year 2017, the global carbon dioxide (CO2)
emission increased by 1.6% over the previous year
(33017.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) because of
the high energy consumption rate. The transportation
sector alone accounts for almost 15% of the world’s
total greenhouse gas emissions [6]. Therefore, the fast
depletion rate of fossil fuels, as well as their high envi-
ronmental emissions associated with climate change, is
forcing the scientific community and policymakers to
search for alternative and sustainable options. In
this case, renewable energy can contribute to the miti-
gation of climate change as well as enhance future en-
ergy security, sustainability, and socioeconomic
development.
Over a period of time, a number of alternative energy
resources have been explored to meet the increasing en-
ergy scarcity and environmental emissions. For instance,
solar energy (i.e., photovoltaic solar cells and solar heat
collectors), wind energy, hydropower, biomass, and
geothermal resources have gained remarkable attention
in recent years [7]. According to the report of the
“Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Cen-
tury” (REN21), renewable energy contributes almost

Advanced Biofuels
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102791-2.00007-6 167 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
168 7. RECENT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ALGAL BIOFUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
18.2% of the global total energy consumption in the year
2016 [3]. This includes 10.4% new renewables which are
mainly used for electricity generation while the remain-
ing 7.8% is for traditional uses, for instance, cooking and
heating in developing countries of the biomass. Biomass
is considered as a carbon-neutral resource found abun-
dantly on the earth, which can be converted to useful
forms of energy (such as liquid, gaseous, and solid)
with minimal SOx and NOx emissions compared to con-
ventional fossil fuels. Bioenergy accounted for about
13% of the world’s total energy requirement in the
year 2016 [3]. Biofuels contribute approximately 90%
of the total share of renewable energy in the transporta-
tion sector. In the year 2015, biofuel production for trans-
portation was about 2.7% of global transportation fuel
and is expected to increase to 28% by the year 2050 [8].
Biofuels are found to be the most promising alternative
because of the variability in forms of energy, abundance,
and mitigation of environmental degradation. This has
mainly triggered the urgency of searching different bio-
energy feedstocks. The bioenergy feedstocks so far iden-
tified are classified into four groups, for example, first
generation (1G), second generation (2G), third genera-
tion (3G), and fourth generation (4G) [9,10]. Fig. 7.1
shows the biofuel production outline of four generation
feedstocks.
Algal biomass (i.e., microalgae and macroalgae) is
considered as the 3G biofuel feedstock which has
gained substantial attention in recent times to over-
come the challenges associated with 1G and 2G feed-
stocks [12]. Algal biomass has promising potential in
the production of liquid fuels, various high-value
1G feedstocks
Major features
● Low production cost
● Developed technology
● Competition with food
● Geographical limitations
Sugarcane, corn etc.
3G feedstocks
Major features
● Can be produced anywhere
● High production cost
● Technology not fully developed CO2
● High capital cost
● No competition with food
Microalgae and
macroalgae
FIGURE 7.1 Features of the biofuel production from various biomass resources [11].
II. PRODUCTION
chemicals, animal feeds, fertilizers, as well as biogas
from the residual biomass. Alternatively, algal biofuels
provide a number of benefits, for example, (1) ability to
grow in high CO2 concentrated environment
throughout the year, (2) higher oil yield compared to
other feedstocks, (3) less water consumption for
growth, (4) ability to grow in wastewater and under
harsh conditions, (5) no competition with cultivable
land and food crops, and (6) lower recalcitrance
compared to cellulosic feedstocks [13,14]. In the late
1950s, algal biomass was first used for converting its
carbohydrate fraction into biogas through the anaer-
obic digestion process [15]. Later in the year 1978, Ben-
emann et al. conducted the detailed engineering and
technoeconomic analyses and suggested that produc-
tion of biogas from algae can be competitive to fossil
fuels from the economical point of view [16]. At the
same time, the US Department of Energy explored the
potential of biodiesel production from the lipid fraction
of algae [13]. In the early 1980s, the emphasis was laid
on the production of hydrogen fuel as well as biodiesel
from algal biomass. During the last 10 years, significant
advancements have been made in the cultivation of
algal biomass; isolation and characterization of algal
strain; and process development for future biofuel pro-
duction. However, algal biofuel production is not still
feasible in commercial scale, and it requires further
improvement in cultivation and harvesting techniques,
reactor design and process control, and genetic engi-
neering [17]. Moreover, the algal biorefinery requires
the integration of all the processes for producing fuels,
chemicals, and other valuable products.
2G feedstocks
Major features
● No competition with food
● Low geographical limitations
● High capital cost
● High recalcitrance
● Recently developed technology
Lignocellulosic
biomass
4G feedstocks
Major features
● Low environmental impact
● High capital cost
● Emergent technology
Bioethanol
Industrial waste CO2
 7.3 CULTIVATION AND HARVESTING OF ALGAL BIOMASS
This chapter summarizes the current status, future
potential, and challenges of algal biomassebased bio-
fuel production. Section 7.2 discusses the algal biomass
potential, followed by biofuel conversion routes in
Section 7.3, current global status and future trends in
Section 7.4, and the challenges associated with the exist-
ing technologies and scale-up process development in
Sections 7.5e7.7. Section 7.8 concludes the chapter
with a summary.
7.2 POTENTIAL FEEDSTOCK AND THEIR
CHARACTERISTICS
Up to date, more than 50,000 microalgae species have
been identified and out of them 30,000 species have been
investigated for potential applications [18]. Microalgae
contain about 20%e50% oil content and in some cases,
it exceeds 80%. Unlike lignocellulosic biomass which
consists of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, microal-
gae mainly contain three major constituents such as car-
bohydrates in the cell wall or starch in the plastids,
lipids, and proteins with a small quantity of ashes and
acids. Carbohydrates and lipids can be converted to a
wide variety of high energy content fuels, for example,
syngas, methane, bioethanol, biodiesel, biobutanol, bio-
gasoline, aviation biofuel, and solid biochar. In contrast,
some algal biomass, for instance, red algae and certain
green algae contain lignin in the cell wall [19,20].
Table 7.1 presents the percentage composition of various
algal biomass species. Elementally, microalgae consist of
elemental carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulfur
(S), and oxygen (O).
• Carbohydrate: Carbohydrate mostly consists of
cellulose and soluble polysaccharides in the cell wall
of the algal biomass. The microalgae cell wall consists
of two-wall layer, namely, the inner cell wall layer and
an outer cell wall layer [21]. The inner cell wall layer
usually contains cellulose and hemicellulose.
Typically, carbohydrate is produced from
photosynthesis and carbon fixation metabolism of the
microalgae [22].
Fig. 7.2 illustrates the carbon fixation metabolism
for carbohydrate accumulation and compositional
structure of algal biomass. However, in the previous
study, the researchers observed a competition
between the accumulation of carbohydrate and lipids
in microalgae biomass [38]. The percentage of the
carbohydrate in microalgae varies from species to
species; some microalgae contain carbohydrates to a
large extent [38]. For instance, Chlorella vulgaris has
51% carbohydrate, Spirogyra sp. contains 33%e64%
carbohydrate, Porphyridium cruentum comprises of
40%e57% carbohydrate, and Dunaliella salina can
II. PRODUCTION
169
accumulate 85.58% carbohydrate. Therefore, the large
content of carbohydrate materials can be effectively
converted into fermentable sugars during bioethanol
production.
• Lipids: Microalgae contains a substantial amount of
intracellular lipids ranging from 20% to 60% on the
dry matter basis [31,38]. Typically, two large groups of
lipids, namely polar and nonpolar are found in
microalgae biomass, which are different in their
chemical properties. However, majority of the lipids
are nonpolar in nature, which are similar to aliphatic
compounds [39]. The polar lipids contain
phosphatidyl inositol and phosphatidyl
ethanolamine, glycolipids, and glycolipids ethers of
fatty acids and glycerol, while, mono-, di-,
triglycerides and isoprene lipids are the examples of
the nonpolar lipids. Generally, the fats are insoluble
in solvents; however, the polarity of the fats gradually
increases with the increase of temperature. At
subcritical conditions, the solvents increase the
miscibility, which enhances the formation of glycerol
during biodiesel production [40].
• Proteins: The protein content in microalgae biomass
largely depends on the conditions of their growth and
the culture medium of the microorganism cultivation
[41]. Typically, the protein concentration in
microalgae ranges from 20% to 50%; however, some
species contain more than 50% protein. For example,
Chlorella vulgaris residue contains 61.24% protein;
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii has 64.70% protein on dry
matter basis. The protein consists of various chains of
peptide which are heterogeneous and complex in
nature.
7.3 CULTIVATION AND HARVESTING
OF ALGAL BIOMASS
The efficient biofuel production from algal biomass
consists of three major process steps namely, (1) algae
cultivation, (2) biomass harvesting and dewatering,
and (3) cell wall disruption for fractionation and
conversion into biofuels and valuable products. So
far, open ponds/raceway ponds, flat-plate photobior-
eactor, inclined tubular photobioreactor, and horizon-
tal/continuous photobioreactor have been used for
the cultivation of microalgae as shown in Fig. 7.3
[42]. The reactors produce dilute solution of microalgae
ranging from 0.05% to 0.075% for raceway ponds and
0.3%e0.4% for closed photobioreactor [43]. The race-
way ponds reactor is simple, easy to maintain, and
has a low production cost compared to closed photo-
bioreactor; however, the production rate is very
low compared to closed photobioreactor [44]. For the
development of efficient biofuel process, the cultivation
170 7. RECENT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ALGAL BIOFUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE 7.1 Elemental and compositional analysis of algal biomass.

Elemental analysis (%) Compositional analysis (%)

Algal biomass C H N O S Carbohydrate Lipid Protein HCV (MJ/kg) References

Chlorella vulgaris 45.80 5.60 4.60 38.70 19.70 49.50 29.00 18.40 [23]

Chlorella vulgaris 53.80 7.72 1.10 37.00 51.00 43.00 6.00 24.00 [23]
Chlorella vulgaris 42.51 6.77 6.64 27.95 20.99 15.67 41.51 16.80 [24]
Chlorella vulgaris 45.04 6.88 9.79 29.42 20.34 5.71 61.24 19.44 [24]
residue
Chlorella vulgaris 43.90 6.20 6.70 43.30 15.50 54.90 18.00 [25]
Chlamydomonas 52.00 7.40 10.70 29.80 18.10 47.40 23.00 [25]
reinhardtii (wild)
Chlamydomonas 50.20 7.30 11.10 31.40 22.40 45.70 22.00 [25]
reinhardtii CW15þ
Dunaliella tertiolecta 39.00 5.37 1.99 53.20 0.62 21.69 2.87 61.32 14.24 [26]
Nannochloropsis oculata 39.90 5.50 6.20 17.00 20.00 39.00 16.80 [27]
Nannochloropsis oceanica 50.06 7.46 7.54 34.47 0.47 22.70 24.80 19.10 21.46 [28]
Spirulina platensis 46.16 7.14 10.56 35.44 0.74 30.21 13.30 48.36 20.52 [29]

Scenedesmus 37.37 5.80 6.82 50.02 13.41 4.66 30.38 16.10 [30]
obliquus CNWeN
Chlorella 35.67 9.90 18.81 20.24 [31]
sorokiniana CY1 residue
Chlamydomonas sp. JSC4 35.70 6.85 12.18 17.41 [31]
residue
Spirulina platensis 30.21 48.36 13.30 [32]
Dunaliella salina 32.00 9.00 57.00 [33]

Scenedesmus dimorphus 21e52 16e40 8e18 [33]

Chlamydomonas 22.60 12.60 64.70 [34]
reinhardtii

Spirogyra sp. 33e64 11e21 6e20 [35]

Porphyridium cruentum 40e57 9e14 28e39 [35]
Dunaliella salina 85.58 11.47 8.46 [36]
Anabaena cylindrica 25e30 4e7 43e56 [37]
Synechococcus sp. 15 11 63 [37]
Spirulina maxima 13e16 6e7 60e71 [37]

Scenedesmus obliquus 10e17 12e14 50e56 [37]

Chlorella vulgaris 12e17 14e22 51e58 [37]

methods should have high productivity, low produc-
tion and maintenance cost, simplicity in design and
parameters control, and reliability [45]. Besides, the
growth of microalgae is also dependent on the
light, CO2, temperature, and pH [42]. The generalized
conditions for algae cultivation are temperature
16
Ce27
C, salinity 12e40 g/L, light intensity
1000e10,000 lux, and pH 7e9. The main purpose of
the harvesting process is to concentrate the microalgae
solution which can increase the solid matter in the solu-
tion up to 10%e25% [46]. Microalgae harvesting in-
cludes mechanical, chemical, biological, and
electrical-based methods. The harvesting mainly com-
prises two process steps, namely thickening steps (floc-
culation, floatation, and sedimentation) and
dewatering steps (centrifugation, pressure filtration,

II. PRODUCTION
 7.4 ALGAE BIOFUELS AND CONVERSION PROCESS 171

O
Sunlight CH
OH
P, N , S O P O R

CO2 H2O Lipids

O2
H O H O OH
H
OH H OH
OH O

H OH OH H

Carbohydrates

Protein

FIGURE 7.2 Structure of algal biomass.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

FIGURE 7.3 Microalgae cultivation methods (a) open pond, (b) flat-plate photobioreactor, (c) inclined tubular photobioreactor, and
(d) horizontal continuing photobioreactor [42].

vacuum filtration, and membrane filtration) [22,43].
Mechanical methods are the most widely implemented
algal harvesting methods [44]. Biological methods are
an emergent technology that can reduce the operating
cost. Moreover, combining multiple operations can
also lower the harvesting cost.
7.4 ALGAE BIOFUELS AND CONVERSION
PROCESS
Algal biomass has a wide range of applications
including food nutrients, pharmaceuticals, chemicals,
and different forms of renewable energy. Fig. 7.4 depicts

II. PRODUCTION
172 7. RECENT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ALGAL BIOFUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
Processes
Thermochemical
conversion
Algal biomass
Biochemical
conversion
Chemical
reaction
FIGURE 7.4 Algal biomass conversion routes for biofuels [47].
the possible routes of algal biomass conversion into
fuels, heat, and power for establishing algal biorefinery
concepts. The main components (carbohydrates, lipids,
and proteins) of microalgae can be converted into bio-
ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, biohydrogen, syngas through
the biochemical, chemical, thermochemical, and direct
combustion routes.
7.4.1 Thermochemical conversion
Thermochemical conversion refers to the decomposition
of organic matter of the algal biomass for the production
of biofuels including liquid, gaseous, and solid fuels.
Thermochemical conversion can be classified as pyroly-
sis, liquefaction, gasification, and direct combustion
based on their temperature, pressure, and duration of
heating [48]. Thermochemical conversion is considered
as the simplest route for microalgae conversion into bio-
fuel when compared to chemical and biochemical pro-
cess. In pyrolysis of microalgae, the biomass sample is
heated at 400
C to 600
C with a pressure of 0.1 MPa
for 30e60 min in the absence of oxygen which mainly
produces liquid oil, gas, and solid char. So far a wide
number of studies investigated the slow and fast pyrol-
ysis behavior of microalgae with or without catalyst and
reported promising results [49e52]. The biooils pro-
duced from the pyrolysis of microalgae have a higher
heating value of 31e42 MJ/kg with a viscosity of
0.060 Pa s and mainly contains hydrocarbons from
lipids and nitrogenous compounds from protein
[50,52]. More importantly, algal biooils are more stable
compared to biooils produced from lignocellulosic
biomass pyrolysis which is favorable for future applica-
tions [53]. The conversion rate of microalgae and the
quality of biooils produced by the pyrolysis are
II. PRODUCTION
Conversion methods Products/ applications
Pyrolysis Liquid fuels
Methanol
Ethanol
Liquefaction
Butanol
Bio-oil
Gassification Biodiesel
Syndiesel
Direct combustion
Gaseous fuels
Methanol
Anaerobic digestion Ethanol
Butanol
Bio-oil
Fermentation Biodiesel
Syndiesel
Photo-biological
Heat and power
electricity
Solid fuel
Transesterification
Bio-char
influenced by temperature, pressure, holding time,
type of pyrolysis, and catalytic effects [54,55]. Miao
et al. investigated the fast pyrolysis microalgae and
lignocellulosic biomass and summarized that biooil
from microalgae had low oxygen content with high calo-
rific value compared to lignocellulosic biomass [52]. Pan
et al. studied the catalytic pyrolysis of Nannochloropsis
sp. and found that incorporation of catalyst lowered
the oxygen content in biooils to 19 wt% from 30 wt%
and increased the heating value to 32.5 MJ/kg from
24.6 MJ/kg [55]. Moreover, the microwave assisted py-
rolysis of microalgae was found to be favorable in
upgrading the biooils’ quality in terms of lower oxygen
content and higher calorific value [56].
Liquefaction of microalgae is carried out at lower
temperatures (300
Ce350
C) and high pressure
(5e20 MPa) for 5e60 min in the presence of catalyst
and solvent for converting the microalgae mostly into
liquid fuels [57]. The microalgae biomass contains
approximately 80%e90% moisture content [58] which
is suitable feedstock for liquefaction conversion process
as the feed materials used in reactor are mainly in
slurry form. However, the reactor used in the liquefac-
tion process is complex and costly [59]. Previous
studies reported the successful liquefaction of microal-
gae for biofuels production. For instance, Dote et al. liq-
uefied wet Botryococcus braunii at 300
C and achieved
64% biooil with a higher heating value of 45.8%
MJ/kg [59]. Matsui et al. explored the catalytic effect
of iron in the liquefaction of protein-rich Spirulina sp.
at 350
C for 60 min under 5 MPa [59]. They found the
biooil yield increased to 66.9 wt% from 52.3 wt% in
the presence of Fe(CO)5eS catalyst. The biooil con-
tained high carbon content and lower oxygen content
with a heating value of 32e33 MJ/kg. Typically,
 7.4 ALGAE BIOFUELS AND CONVERSION PROCESS
gasification converts the carbonaceous materials in
microalgae into clean fuel gas (H2, CO, CH4) at a high
temperature ranging between 800
C and 1000
C in
the presence of insufficient oxygen [59]. The conven-
tional gasification of microalgae occurs in four stages
such as drying, pyrolysis, combustion, and reduction.
Hirano et al. investigated the effect of temperature on
the gasification of Spirulina sp. and observed the in-
crease in H2 content and decrease in CO2, CO, and
CH4 content with the increase in temperature [60]. Be-
sides, some researchers focused on the cogasification
of microalgae with lignocellulosic biomass or low-
rank coal in bubbling fluidized bed reactor and fluid-
ized bed reactor, respectively [61,62]. However, because
of the high moisture content in microalgae, the drying
stage of conventional gasification consumes lot of heat-
ing energy. Therefore, supercritical water gasification
has gained attention recently which completely avoids
the drying stage [63]. Typically supercritical water gasi-
fication is carried out beyond the critical point of water
(374
C and 22.1 MPa). Haiduc et al. studied the super-
critical water gasification of microalgae and found that
the process was able to avoid the formation of tar and
char [64]. Guan et al. observed that the yields of H2
and CH4 from supercritical water gasification of Nanno-
chloropsis sp. increased drastically in the presence of
NaOH and KOH [65].
In the direct combustion of microalgae, the biomass is
burnt around 1000
C in a furnace, boiler, or steam tur-
bine in the presence of excess air to produce mainly
heat energy [66]. The direct combustion accepts the
microalgae only with less than 50% moisture content
[59]. Therefore, drying and grinding of microalgae
required for efficient combustion increase the energy de-
mand and additional cost for the process [57]. However,
the effective utilization of heat produced from the direct
combustion of microalgae can reduce the additional cost
required for drying and grinding [67]. Kadam suggested
that the coal with algae cofiring can lower the emissions
of greenhouse gases [68]. So far the studies related to the
direct combustion of microalgae are very limited in the
literature, which needs further investigation.
7.4.2 Biochemical conversion
The biochemical conversion process of microalgae
includes anaerobic digestion, fermentation, and photo-
biological technique. The conversion rate of these pro-
cesses is low and requires long reaction time. In these
conversion technologies, the microalgae are converted
into biofuels through the microorganisms and enzy-
matic processes [69]. Recently, production of biogas
from anaerobic digestion of microalgae has gained sig-
nificant attention for a number of reasons. For instance,
the process is appropriate for microalgae containing
II. PRODUCTION
173
around 80%e90% moisture content and microalgae
contain high polysaccharides with no lignin [59]. How-
ever, the conversion of microalgae into biogas through
anaerobic digestion is affected by a numbers of factors,
for example, the recalcitrance of cell wall, carbon-
nitrogen ratio (C/N), and high protein content. It has
been observed that the effective pretreatment before
anaerobic digestion significantly enhances the biogas
production [70]. Microalgae with high protein content
result in low C/N ratio which is not favorable for
anaerobic digestion of microalgae. However, codiges-
tion of waste paper with algal biomass can substan-
tially increase the biogas production [66,71]. With 50/
50 blending of waste paper and microalgae, Yen and
Brune were able to produce two times the biogas pro-
duced from only microalgae digestion [71]. In addition,
high protein content increases the ammonium produc-
tion which impedes anaerobic microorganisms; howev-
er, salt-adapted microorganisms can be a feasible
solution for this issue [67].
The bioethanol production process includes pretreat-
ment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis and then
fermentation. Microalgae are considered as superior
feedstock for enzymatic hydrolysis because of the
absence of lignin in the cell wall which reduces the recal-
citrance compared to lignocellulosic biomass. However,
microalgae with low carbohydrate content are not suit-
able for bioethanol production. So far, many pretreat-
ment methods including mechanical techniques,
physical techniques, thermal pretreatment techniques,
chemical techniques, and combined techniques have
been investigated for the disruption of the cell wall
and to remove lipids which favors the enzymatic hydro-
lysis route and bioethanol production [72]. Harun et al.
studied the fermentation of Chlorococcum sp. and found
60% more ethanol from the lipids extracted from micro-
algae when compared with untreated intact microalgae
[73]. This result indicates that lipids extraction for bio-
diesel with fermentation of leftover carbohydrate for
bioethanol production can be a favorable route for algal
biofuels. Hirano et al. identified C. vulgaris microalgae as
a promising feedstock for bioethanol production with a
conversion of 65% [74].
Hydrogen (H2) is the clean and efficient energy car-
rier that can be produced from microalgae through
oxygenic photosynthesis which involves the utilization
of hydrogenase or nitrogenase enzyme [74]. During the
photosynthesis process, the water molecule of microal-
gae is converted into protons, electrons, and oxygen; a
proton is then subsequently converted into H2 by hy-
drogenase enzymes [75]. However, the generation of ox-
ygen inhibits the hydrogenase enzyme which mainly
impedes the H2 production. This issue can be resolved
through the proper separation of the oxygen produced
during the photosynthesis processes.
174 7. RECENT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ALGAL BIOFUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
7.4.3 Chemical reaction
The chemical process of algal biofuel production in-
cludes the extraction of lipids from the microalgae and
then conversion of lipids into biodiesel through trans-
esterification. In this process, the transesterification re-
action occurs between triglyceride (lipids) and alcohol
in the presence of an appropriate catalyst which is
acidic, alkaline, or enzyme-based to produce fatty
acid methyl ester (FAME) and glycerol [66,67] as shown
in Fig. 7.5. The byproduct glycerol can be used for phar-
maceuticals and cosmetics [66]. Milano et al. obtained
up to 90% FAME conversion from two different micro-
algae species such as Spirogyra and Oedigonium using
alkaline catalyst [35]. In the case of ex situ transesterifi-
cation, the pretreatment required for the lipids extrac-
tion is energy intensive and time-consuming, which
consumes almost 80% of the total material preparation
cost [76]. Jazzar et al. suggested that the in situ transes-
terification can overcome the pretreatment issue
required for ex-situ process and make the overall pro-
cess economically feasible [76]. However, Johnson and
Wen investigated both in situ and ex situ transesterifi-
cation for the production of biodiesel from Schizochy-
trium limacinum and found lower biodiesel yields in
the case of in situ transesterification compared ex situ
transesterification [77]. Salam et al. recommended that
the biogas production from the residual microalgae of
biodiesel production process can provide the energy
required for the cultivation or separation of microalgae
from dilute solution prior the in situ process [78]. Ehi-
men et al. reported that the effective stirring during
in situ transesterification can boost the biodiesel from
microalgae yields [79].
7.5 ENGINE PERFORMANCE AND
EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS USING
ALGAL BIOFUEL
The biofuels produced from microalgae can be used
as transportation fuel in replacement of petroleum
fuels. However, number of factors such as engine per-
formance (cylinder pressure, brake mean effective
pressure, frictional mean effective pressure, power,
CH2 OCOR1
CH OCOR2 + 3CH3OH
Catalyst
Methanol
CH2 OCOR3
Triglyceride (lipids)
FIGURE 7.5 Transesterification for biodiesel production.
II. PRODUCTION
torque, brake specific fuel combustion, brake thermal
efficiency) and emissions from microalgae-based fuels
(particulate matter emissions, CO, CO2, NO, NOx)
define the fuels’ characteristics and compatibility with
petroleum fuels [80]. Islam et al. noticed low cylinder
pressure at the early stage of the combustion and
high pressure in the later stage with pure microalgae
oil produced from Crypthecodinium cohnii [81]. Hariram
and Kumar compared the cylinder peak pressure for
both the pure petroleum diesel and the blends of algal
oil methyl ester and petroleum diesel (15:85) [82]. They
observed higher pressure at any load in the case of 15:
85 blends when compared to pure petroleum diesel.
The indicated mean effective pressure was observed
to be increased with 20% blending of algae biodiesel
compared to petroleum diesel [80]. Kumar et al. re-
ported that the microalgae biodiesel blend with butanol
and pure diesel decreases the brake power and torque
when compared to butanol and pure diesel as the
microalgae biodiesel contains higher oxygenate [83].
Makarevic et al. stated the higher brake specific fuel
combustion and lower brake thermal efficiency of algae
biodiesel blend compared to diesel oil attributed to the
lower calorific value of the blend [84]. In contrast, the
increase in brake thermal efficiency of algae biodiesel
blend was also reported when compared to pure diesel
[82,85]. Jayaprabakar and Karthikeyan reported the
higher NOx emissions of microalgae biodiesel
blend due to the high oxygen content [85], while Islam
et al. stated lower cetane number and ignition delay as
the reasons for the increase in NO and NOx [81]. In
contrast to these findings, Fisher et al. and Kumar
et al. recently described the decrease in NO and NOx
emissions of algae biodiesel when blended with
butanol or diesel [83,86]. Moreover, a number of re-
searchers investigated the CO and CO2 emission from
microalgae biodiesel. They revealed that CO emission
reduced significantly due to the conversion of CO
into CO2 in the presence of additional oxygen in
microalgae biodiesel when compared to petroleum
diesel [35,81,83,85,87]. Moreover, Rahman et al.
observed the increase in particle emissions from micro-
algae biodiesel due to the very low volatility, high
boiling point, high density, and viscosity of microalgae
biodiesel [88].
CH2 OH CH3 OCOR1
CH OH + CH3 OCOR2
CH2 OH CH3 OCOR3
Glycerol Methyl esters
 7.7 CHALLENGES OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION FROM ALGAL BIOMASS 175
7.6 GLOBAL ALGAL BIOFUEL 7.7 CHALLENGES OF BIOFUEL
ACTIVITIES PRODUCTION FROM ALGAL BIOMASS

Biofuels production from algal biomass started from The algal biomass provides several advantages for
the mid-19th century; since then so many efforts have the production of biofuels over the 1G and 2G biofuel
been made by the scientific community for the develop- feedstocks. So far, extensive research has been carried
ment of efficient and cost-effective algal biofuel technol- out and so many efforts have been made for the
ogies. In the year 1970s, utilization microalgae for improvement of algal biofuel including the cultivation,
biodiesel production gained special attention because harvesting, and biofuel production process integration.
of the scarcity of oil and gas supply [42]. The United However, the algal biofuel is still not fully developed
States, the largest algal biofuel producing country, has in large scale and yet to achieve feasibility from the tech-
been working on the research and development of noeconomic point of view and need to revisit for
algae-based biofuels. With the aim of producing bio- addressing the issues associated with the technology.
diesel from microalgal lipids, the US Department of En-
• Cultivation and harvesting: The higher cultivation
ergy (DOE) launched the “Aquatic Species Program”
cost of microalgae compared to other biofuel
from the year 1978e1996 [17]. From the year
feedstocks is one of the major challenges for algal
1968e1990, DOE supported another research project
biofuel production. Additionally, the harvesting and
entitled “Marine Biomass Program” for the investigation
dewatering of microalgae requires high energy inputs
of the technoeconomic feasibility of microalgae cultiva-
because of their small size and dilute concentration
tion and biofuel conversion routes primarily, anaerobic
leading to the increase in capital expenditure. It has
digestion for biogas production [89]. In the year 2009,
been estimated that only harvesting process
ExxonMobil Corporation invested US$600 million for
contributes almost 20%e30% of the total production
algae-based transportation fuels [90]. During the year
cost of algal biomass [47]. The harvesting methods so
1990e99, the Japanese government funded a project
far developed and investigated have some specific
named “Biological CO2 Fixation and Utilisation” mainly
weakness and none of them is feasible in terms of
for the research on the algal biofuel. However, the revo-
both efficiency and economic perspective. Therefore,
lutionary advancement on algal biofuel happened in the
a combination of multiple operation units can be an
year 2011 because of the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear
effective option for harvesting and dewatering.
power plant [91]. The United States financed number of
Preconcentration before dewatering of algal biomass
projects during the last few years. For instance, US$48.6
can lower the harvesting cost significantly [43].
million through National Alliance for Advanced Bio-
However, low cost and high efficient
fuels and Bioproducts consortium in the year 2010e13;
preconcentration methods are yet to be developed
US$11 million through Consortium for Algal Biofuels
and the growth kinetics of cocultivation flocculants
Commercialization in the year 2011e15 for the produc-
and microalgae are yet to be explored extensively.
tion of biofuels and other valuable products. Addition-
• Microalgae compositional characteristics: The
ally, China, South Korea, the UK, Italy, the Philippines,
production of biofuel from algal biomass is largely
and Nigeria have also developed their plans and started
dependent on the amount of carbohydrates, lipids,
to finance in research and development for algal bio-
and proteins accumulated in the biomass. For
fuels. Fig. 7.6 presents the current technological status
example, microalgae biodiesel production requires a
of four generation biofuel production.
high content of lipids. These compounds are

Fourth
generation
High cost Third
generation
Second
generation

Low cost First

generation

Research Development Demostration Mature technology

FIGURE 7.6 Biofuel productiondtechnological status.

II. PRODUCTION
176 7. RECENT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ALGAL BIOFUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
accumulated through the photosynthesis and carbon
fixation metabolism, and the content varies based on
the conditions applied. For instance, the microalgae
cultured at limited nitrogen conditions contain high
carbohydrates and lipids compared to nitrogen-based
compounds [11]. The carbohydrate metabolisms are
in its infant stage and currently genetic engineering
has been employed for the manipulation of the
carbohydrate metabolisms [92]. Therefore, indepth
investigation is required on the metabolism
mechanism for the development the regulatory
networks for estimating the carbohydrates and lipids
accumulation.
• Pretreatment for fractionation: The rigidity of algal
biomass cell wall is another bottleneck for the
industrial process efficiency of algal biofuel
production. Pretreatment of microalgae is a key step
for the production of algal bioethanol from
carbohydrate compounds as the process increases the
accessibility to microbial fermentation [41]. On the
other hand, lipids need to be separated from the algal
biomass structure for the production of biodiesel. The
pretreatment methods used for the cell wall
disruption and lipids extraction have some
limitations including (i) high energy consumption,
(ii) high cost, and (iii) high time requirement.
Therefore, extensive research is required for the
pretreatment process optimization to develop a cost-
effective pretreatment method which can increase the
biofuel production as well as minimize the energy
consumption during cell disruption.
• Conversion technology and integrated biorefinery
approach: As discussed earlier, each of the conversion
technologies is different in process chemistry and
produces different forms of biofuels from algal
biomass. Therefore, the selection of appropriate
conversion technology is necessary for the
establishment of economically feasible and
environment-friendly biofuel production routes from
algal biomass. A previous study stated that
thermochemical conversion process is more favorable
compared to biochemical conversion process for
many reasons, such as, no feedstock improvements
requirement for thermochemical conversion and the
low conversion efficiency of the biochemical process
[93]. Wiley et al. reported that production of algal
biogas through anaerobic digestion is more favorable
than algal biodiesel production as anaerobic
digestion requires no drying steps and consumes low
energy [13]. In addition, lipid extraction for biodiesel
production followed by biogas production from the
residual biomass through anaerobic digestion is also
found as feasible [94]. However, there is still no
existent comprehensive comparison analysis from the
technoeconomic point of view; therefore, further
II. PRODUCTION
detail investigations are required on the
technoeconomic assessment, biorefinery-based
production strategy, and photobioreactor design.
7.8 CONCLUSION
The study concluded that the microalgae would be
one of the potential feedstocks for energy extraction in
the future. The study identified some of the key reasons,
for example, this wet biomass consists of carbohydrates,
lipids, and proteins; however no lignin in the cell wall
which favours the conversion when compared with
lignocellulosic biomass conversion. Earlier, microalgae
were utilized for their nutritious and pharmaceutical
value. Recently, biofuels production from microalgae
has gained notable attention because of its various ben-
efits from the economic and environmental point of
view. However, largescale production still has some
challenges mainly, the high energy consumption and
high cost associated with microalgae cultivation, har-
vesting, and processing. Therefore, the study recom-
mended for extensive investigation for the
development of low-cost and high efficient cultivation
and harvesting methods. The study also suggested that
cultivation of algal biomass in wastewater as a culture
medium, low-cost harvesting-dewatering method,
cost-effective pretreatment technology for cell wall
disruption, and biorefinery-based production approach
need to be considered for the future development of
algal biofuel production routes.
References
[1] Halder PK, Paul N, Beg MRA. Prospect of Pongamia pinnata (Kar-
anja) in Bangladesh: a sustainable source of liquid fuel. J Renew
Energy 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/647324.
[2] Halder PK, Paul N, Joardder MUH, Khan MZH, Sarker M. Feasi-
bility analysis of implementing anaerobic digestion as a potential
energy source in Bangladesh. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.094.
[3] REN21 Renewables. Global status report 2018. 2018. www.ren21.
net.
[4] Cherubini F, Strømman AH. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy
systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:437e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.010.
[5] British Petroleum (BP). BP statistical review of world energy.
British: BP Plc; 2017.
[6] Soimakallio S, Koponen K. How to ensure greenhouse gas emission
reductions by increasing the use of biofuels? Suitability of the Euro-
pean Union sustainability criteria. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:
3504e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.041.
[7] Halder PK, Paul N, Joardder MUH, Sarker M. Energy scarcity and
potential of renewable energy in Bangladesh. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;51:1636e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.069.
[8] Randhawa KS, Relph LE, Armstrong MC, Sekhon K, Relph LE,
Armstrong MC, et al. Biofuel production: tapping into microalgae
despite challenges. Biofuels 2016:7269. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17597269.2016.1224290.
 REFERENCES
[9] Azad AK, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Sharma SC, Hazrat MA. Pros-
pect of biofuels as an alternative transport fuel in Australia.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:331e51. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.047.
[10] Azad AK, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Sharma SC, Bhuiya MMK,
Mofijur M. A review on socio-economic aspects of sustainable
biofuels. Int J Glob Warming 2016;10:32e54.
[11] de Farias Silva CE, Barbera E, Bertucco A. Biorefinery as a prom-
ising approach to promote ethanol industry from microalgae and
cyanobacteria. In: Ray R, Ramachandran S, editors. Bioethanol
production from food crops. Sustainable sources, interventions,
and challenges. Elsevier; 2019. p. 343e59.
[12] Halder P, Azad A, Shah S, Sarker E. Prospects and technological
advancement of lignocellulosic bioethanol eco-fuel production.
In: Azad A, editor. Adv. Eco-fuels a sustain. Environ. 1st ed. Elsev-
ier Inc.; 2018.
[13] Wiley PE, Campbell JE, Mckuin B. Production of biodiesel and
biogas from algae: a review of process train options. Water
Environ Res 2011;83:326e38. https://doi.org/10.2175/
106143010X12780288628615.
[14] Li Y, Horsman M, Wu N, Lan CQ, Dubois-Calero N. Biofuels from
microalgae. Biotechnol Prog 2008;24:815e20. https://doi.org/
10.1021/bp070371k.
[15] Oswald J, Golueke G. Biological transformation of solar energy.
Adv Appl Microbiol 1960;2:223e62.
[16] Benemann JR, Van Olst JC, Massingill MJ, Weissman JC,
Brune DE. The controlled eutrophication process: using microal-
gae for CO2 utilization and agricultural fertilizer recycling. In:
Greenh Gas Control Technol Int Conf; 2003. p. 1433e8.
[17] Wijffels RH, Barbosa MJ. An outlook on microalgal biofuels. Sci-
ence 2010;329:796e9.
[18] Rajkumar R, Yaakob Z, Takriff MS. Potential of the micro and
macro algae for biofuel. BioResources 2014;9:1606e33.
[19] Sørensen I, Pettolino FA, Bacic A, Ralph J, Lu F, Neill MAO, et al.
The charophycean green algae provide insights into the early or-
igins of plant cell walls. Plant J 2011;68:201e11. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04686.x.
[20] Estevez M, Martone PT, Lu F, Ruel K, Denny MW. Discovery of
lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall
architecture. Curr Biol 2009;19:169e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cub.2008.12.031.
[21] Yamada T, Sakaguchi K. Comparative studies on chlorella cell
walls: induction of protoplast formation. Arch Microbiol 1982;
132:10e3.
[22] Ho S, Chen C, Lee D, Chang J. Perspectives on microalgal CO2-
emission mitigation systems d a review. Biotechnol Adv 2011;
29:189e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.11.001.
[23] Xu L, Wim DWF, Withag JAM, Brem G, Kersten S. Assessment of a
dry and a wet route for the production of biofuels from microal-
gae: energy balance analysis. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:
5113e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.066.
[24] Wang K, Brown RC, Homsy S, Martinez L, Sidhu SS. Fast pyroly-
sis of microalgae remnants in a fluidized bed reactor for bio-oil
and biochar production. Bioresour Technol 2013;127:494e9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.016.
[25] Kebelmann K, Hornung A, Karsten U, Griffiths G. Intermediate
pyrolysis and product identification by TGA and Py-GC/MS of
green microalgae and their extracted protein and lipid
components. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;49:38e48. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.006.
[26] Shuping Z, Yulong W, Mingde Y, Chun L, Junmao T. Pyrolysis
characteristics and kinetics of the marine microalgae
Dunaliella tertiolecta using thermogravimetric analyzer. Bio-
resour Technol 2010;101:359e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2009.08.020.
II. PRODUCTION
177
[27] Du Z, Mohr M, Ma X, Cheng Y, Lin X, Liu Y, et al. Hydrothermal
pretreatment of microalgae for production of pyrolytic bio-oil
with a low nitrogen content. Bioresour Technol 2012;120:13e8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.007.
[28] Cheng J, Huang R, Yu T, Li T, Zhou J, Cen K. Biodiesel production
from lipids in wet microalgae with microwave irradiation and
bio-crude production from algal residue through hydrothermal
liquefaction. Bioresour Technol 2014;151:415e8. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.033.
[29] Jena U, Das KC. Comparative evaluation of thermochemical
liquefaction and pyrolysis for bio-oil production from
microalgae. Energy Fuels 2011;25:5472e82. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ef201373m.
[30] Chen W, Wu Z, Chang J. Isothermal and non-isothermal torrefac-
tion characteristics and kinetics of microalga Scenedesmus obli-
quus CNW-N. Bioresour Technol 2014;155:245e51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.116.
[31] Chen W, Huang M, Chang J, Chen C, Cy C. Thermal decomposi-
tion dynamics and severity of microalgae residues in torrefaction.
Bioresour Technol 2014;169:258e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2014.06.086.
[32] Jena U, Das KC, Kastner JR. Effect of operating conditions of ther-
mochemical liquefaction on biocrude production from Spirulina
platensis. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:6221e9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.057.
[33] Rendón Castrillón LJ, Ramı́rez Carmona ME, Velez Salazar Y.
Microalgae for the food industry. First. Universidad Pontificia
Bolivariana; 2013.
[34] Mahdy A, Mendez L, Ballesteros M, González-fernández C.
Enhanced methane production of Chlorella vulgaris and Chlamydo-
monas reinhardtii by hydrolytic enzymes addition. Energy Convers
Manag 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.097.
[35] Milano J, Chyuan H, Masjuki HH, Chong WT, Kee M. Microalgae
biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuel for power generation.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:180e97. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.150.
[36] Pirwitz K, Rihko-struckmann L, Sundmacher K. Valorization of
the aqueous phase obtained from hydrothermally treated Duna-
liella salina remnant biomass. Bioresour Technol 2016;219:64e71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.06.095.
[37] Wang J, Yin Y. Fermentative hydrogen production using pre-
treated microalgal biomass as feedstock. Microb Cell Factories
2018;17:1e16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-018-0871-5.
[38] Ho S, Chen C, Chang J. Effect of light intensity and nitrogen starva-
tion on CO2 fixation and lipid/carbohydrate production of an indig-
enous microalga Scenedesmus obliquus CNW-N. Bioresour Technol
2012;113:244e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.133.
[39] Bühler W, Dinjus E, Ederer HJ, Kruse A, Mas C. Ionic reactions
and pyrolysis of glycerol as competing reaction pathways
in near- and supercritical water. J Supercrit Fluids 2002;22:
37e53.
[40] Peterson A, Vogel F, Lachance R, Fröling M, Antal JM, Tester J.
Thermochemical biofuel production in hydrothermal media : a re-
view of sub- and supercritical water technologies. Energy Environ
Sci 2008;1:32e65. https://doi.org/10.1039/b810100k.
[41] Velazquez-lucio J, Rodrı́guez-jasso RM, Colla LM,
Sáenz-galindo A, Cervantes DE, Aguilar CN, et al. Microalgal
biomass pretreatment for bioethanol production: a review.
Biofuel Res J 2018;17:780e91. https://doi.org/10.18331/
BRJ2018.5.1.5.
[42] Bitog JP, Lee I, Lee C, Kim K, Hwang H, Hong S, et al. Application
of computational fluid dynamics for modeling and designing
photobioreactors for microalgae production : a review. Comput
Electron Agric 2011;76:131e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compag.2011.01.015.
178 7. RECENT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ALGAL BIOFUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
[43] Fasaei F, Bitter JH, Slegers PM, Van Boxtel AJB. Techno-economic
evaluation of microalgae harvesting and dewatering systems. Algal
Res 2018;31:347e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.11.038.
[44] Adeniyi OM, Azimov U, Burluka A. Algae biofuel: current status
and future applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:
316e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.067.
[45] Voloshin RA, Rodionova MV, Zharmukhamedov SK,
Veziroglu TN. Review: biofuel production from plant and algal
biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016:1e17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.084.
[46] Barros AI, Gonçalves AL, Simões M, Pires JCM. Harvesting tech-
niques applied to microalgae : a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;41:1489e500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.037.
[47] Raheem A, Azlina WAKGW, Tau YH, Danquah MK. Thermo-
chemical conversion of microalgal biomass for biofuel
production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:990e9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.186.
[48] Demirbas A. Use of algae as biofuel sources. Energy Convers
Manag 2010;51:2738e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2010.06.010.
[49] Babich IV, Van Der Hulst M, Lefferts L, Moulijn JA, Connor PO,
Seshan K. Catalytic pyrolysis of microalgae to high-quality
liquid. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:3199e207. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.043.
[50] Harman-Ware AE, Morgan T, Wilson M, Crocker M, Zhang J,
Liu K, et al. Microalgae as a renewable fuel source: fast pyrolysis
of Scenedesmus sp. Renew Energy 2013;60:625e32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.016.
[51] Grierson S, Strezov V, Ellem G, Mcgregor R, Herbertson J. Ther-
mal characterisation of microalgae under slow pyrolysis
conditions. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2009;85:118e23. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2008.10.003.
[52] Miao X, Wu Q. High yield bio-oil production from fast pyrolysis by
metabolic controlling of Chlorella protothecoides. J Biotechnol
2004;110:85e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2004.01.013.
[53] Suali E, Sarbatly R. Conversion of microalgae to biofuel. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:4316e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2012.03.047.
[54] Peng W, Wu Q, Tu P. Effects of temperature and holding time on
production of renewable fuels from pyrolysis of Chlorella
protothecoides. J Appl Phycol 2000;12:147e52. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1008115025002.
[55] Pan P, Hu C, Yang W, Li Y, Dong L, Zhu L, et al. The direct pyrol-
ysis and catalytic pyrolysis of Nannochloropsis sp. residue for
renewable bio-oils. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:4593e9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.070.
[56] Du Z, Li Y, Wang X, Wan Y, Chen Q, Wang C, et al. Microwave-
assisted pyrolysis of microalgae for biofuel production. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:4890e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2011.01.055.
[57] Goyal HB, Seal D, Saxena RC. Bio-fuels from thermochemical con-
version of renewable resources: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2008;12:504e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.07.014.
[58] Patil V, Tran K-Q, Giselrød HR. Towards sustainable production
of biofuels from microalgae. Int J Mol Sci 2008;9:1188e95.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms9071188.
[59] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 2): conver-
sion technologies. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:47e54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00119-5.
[60] Hirano A, Hon-Nami K, Kunito S, Hada M, Ogushi Y. Tempera-
ture effect on continuous gasification of microalgal biomass: theo-
retical yield of methanol production and its energy balance. Catal
Today 1998;45:399e404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5861(98)
00275-2.
II. PRODUCTION
[61] Yang KC, Wu KT, Hsieh MH, Hsu HT, Chen CS, Chen HW. Co-
gasification of woody biomass and microalgae in a fluidized
bed. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2013;44:1027e33. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jtice.2013.06.026.
[62] Alghurabie IK, Hasan BO, Jackson B, Kosminski A, Ashman PJ.
Fluidized bed gasification of Kingston coal and marine
microalgae in a spouted bed reactor. Chem Eng Res Des 2013;91:
1614e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.04.024.
[63] Amin S. Review on biofuel oil and gas production processes from
microalgae. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50:1834e40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.03.001.
[64] Haiduc AG, Brandenberger M, Suquet S, Vogel F, Bernier-
Latmani R, Ludwig C. SunCHem: an integrated process for the
hydrothermal production of methane from microalgae and CO2
mitigation. J Appl Phycol 2009;21:529e41. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10811-009-9403-3.
[65] Guan Q, Wei C, Ning P, tian S, Gu J. Catalytic gasification of algae
Nannochloropsis sp. in sub/supercritical water. Procedia
Environ Sci 2013;18:844e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.proenv.2013.04.113.
[66] Suganya T, Varman M, Masjuki HH, Renganathan S. Macroalgae
and microalgae as a potential source for commercial applications
along with biofuels production : a biorefinery approach. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55:909e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.11.026.
[67] Kandiyoti R, Herod A, Bartle K. Solid fuels and heavy hydrocar-
bon liquids: thermal characterization and analysis. 2nd ed. Ox-
ford, United Kingdom: Elsevier; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-044486-4.50001-5.
[68] Kadam KL. Environmental implications of power generation via
coal- microalgae cofiring. Energy 2002;27:905e22.
[69] Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK. Production of first and
second generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2010;14:578e97. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RSER.2009.10.003.
[70] Passos F, Uggetti E, Carrère H, Ferrer I. Pretreatment of microal-
gae to improve biogas production: a review. Bioresour Technol
2014;172:403e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.114.
[71] Yen H, Brune DE. Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and
waste paper to produce methane. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:
130e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.11.010.
[72] Onumaegbu C, Mooney J, Alaswad A, Olabi AG. Pre-treatment
methods for production of biofuel from microalgae biomass.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;93:16e26. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.015.
[73] Harun R, Danquah K, Forde GM. Microalgal biomass as a fermen-
tation feedstock for bioethanol production. J Chem Technol Bio-
technol 2010;85:199e203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2287.
[74] Hirano A, Ueda R, Hirayama S, Ogushi Y. CO2 fixation and
ethanol production with microalgal photosynthesis and intracel-
lular anaerobic fermentation. Energy 1997;22:137e42.
[75] Cantrell KB, Ducey T, Ro KS, Hunt PG. Livestock waste-to-bio-
energy generation opportunities. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:
7941e53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.061.
[76] Jazzar S, Quesada-medina J, Olivares-carrillo P, Néjib M,
Acién-fernández FG, Fernández-sevilla JM, et al. A whole bio-
diesel conversion process combining isolation, cultivation and
in situ supercritical methanol transesterification of native
microalgae. Bioresour Technol 2015;190:281e8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.097.
[77] Johnson MB, Wen Z. Production of biodiesel fuel from the micro-
alga Schizochytrium limacinum by direct transesterification of algal
biomass. Energy Fuels 2009;23:5179e83. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ef900704h.
 REFERENCES
[78] Salam KA, Velasquez-orta SB, Harvey AP. A sustainable inte-
grated in situ transesterification of microalgae for biodiesel pro-
duction and associated co-product-a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;65:1179e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.07.068.
[79] Ehimen EA, Sun ZF, Carrington CG. Variables affecting the in situ
transesterification of microalgae lipids. Fuel 2010;89:677e84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.10.011.
[80] Wahlen BD, Morgan MR, Mccurdy AT, Willis RM, Morgan MD,
Dye DJ, et al. Biodiesel from microalgae, yeast, and bacteria: en-
gine performance and exhaust emissions. Energy Fuels 2013;27:
220e8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef3012382.
[81] Islam AM, Rahman MM, Heimann K, Nabi N, Ristovski ZD,
Dowell A, et al. Combustion analysis of microalgae methyl ester
in a common rail direct injection diesel engine. Fuel 2015;143:
351e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.063.
[82] Hariram V, Kumar GM. Combustion analysis of algal oil methyl
ester in a direct injection compression ignition engine. J Eng Sci
Technol 2013;8:77e92.
[83] Kumar V, Nanda M, Joshi HC, Singh A, Sharma S. Production of
biodiesel and bioethanol using algal biomass harvested from fresh
water river. Renew Energy 2018;116:606e12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.016.
[84] Makarevic V, Lebedevas S, Rapalis P, Gumbyte M, Skorupskaite V.
Performance and emission characteristics of diesel fuel containing
microalgae oil methyl esters. Fuel 2014;120:233e9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.11.049.
[85] Jayaprabakar J, Karthikeyan A. Analysis on the performance ,
combustion and emission characteristics of a CI engine fuelled
with algae biodiesel. Appl Mech Mater 2014;591:33e7. https://
doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.591.33.
II. PRODUCTION
View publication stats
179
[86] Fisher B, Marchese A, Volckens J, Lee T, Collett JL. Measurement
of gaseous and particulate emissions from algae-based fatty acid
methyl esters. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2010;3:292e321. https://
doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-1523.
[87] Tüccar G, Özgür T, Aydin K. Effect of diesel-microalgae biodiesel-
butanol blends on performance and emissions of diesel engine.
Fuel 2014;132:47e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.074.
[88] Rahman MM, Stevanovic S, Islam MA, Heimann K, Nabi MN,
Thomas G, et al. Particle emissions from microalgae biodiesel
combustion and their relative oxidative potential. Environ Sci Pro-
cess Impacts 2015;17:1601e10. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c5em00125k.
[89] Bird KT, Benson PH. Seaweed cultivation for renewable resources.
Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 1987.
[90] Li Y, Navid RM, Schenk PM. Current research and perspective of
microalgal biofuels in Australia. Biofuels 2012;3:427e39. https://
doi.org/10.4155/bfs.12.32.
[91] Murakami M, Ikenouchi M. The biological CO2 fixation and utili-
zation project by rite (2)escreening and breeding of microalgae
with high capability in fixing CO2. Energy Convers Manag 1997;
38:493e7.
[92] Radakovits R, Jinkerson RE, Darzins A, Posewitz MC. Genetic en-
gineering of algae for enhanced biofuel production. Eukaryot Cell
2010;9:486e501. https://doi.org/10.1128/EC.00364-09.
[93] Sims REH, Mabee W, Saddler JN, Taylor M. An overview of sec-
ond generation biofuel technologies. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:
1570e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.046.
[94] Sialve B, Bernet N, Bernard O. Anaerobic digestion of microalgae
as a necessary step to make microalgal biodiesel sustainable. Bio-
technol Adv 2009;27:409e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biotechadv.2009.03.001.