ALGAL-00080; No of Pages 7

Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple

pathway evaluation
Jason C. Quinn a,⁎, T. Gordon Smith b, Cara Meghan Downes c, Casey Quinn b
a
Utah State University, United States
b
Colorado State University, United States
c
New Mexico State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A variety of researchers have constructed and presented lifecycle assessments of the microalgae-to-biofuel pro-
Received 3 April 2013 cess, however, inconsistencies in system boundary definitions and high-level process modeling have led to a
Received in revised form 19 September 2013 wide range of results. This study integrates engineering process models validated through experimental and
Accepted 6 November 2013
modeling research to perform an environmental assessment of four microalgae-to-biofuel production scenarios
Available online xxxx
leveraging the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model. The baseline scenario consists of a down flow open
Keywords:
pond growth system, three phase de-watering step (settling, dissolved air flotation, and a centrifuge), hexane ex-
Lifecycle assessment traction and nutrient recovery using anaerobic digestion. The net energy ratio (NER), defined as energy con-
Microalgae sumed over the produced energy, and greenhouse gases (GHG) for the baseline scenario are 0.7 MJ MJ−1 and
Model −41.7 g CO2-eq MJ−1 respectively. Three alternative scenarios are also evaluated: 1) Improved microalgal pro-
Greenhouse gases ductivity, 2) supercritical CO2 extraction, and 3) no nutrient recycle. This research shows that supercritical CO2
Net energy ratio extraction is neither currently energetically- nor environmentally favorable and that nutrient recycle plays an in-
Anaerobic digestion tegral role in achieving favorable NER and GHGs. The study highlights on the systems level, two findings related
to the NER; 1) the NER is minimally impacted with increased productivity and 2) increasing microalgae lipid
content detrimentally affects the NER which is attributed to the reduction in the total energy that can be captured
by the anaerobic digester.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The next generation of biofuel feedstock processes must be critically
analyzed to quantify the potential scalability and corresponding envi-
ronmental impact. Compared to first-generation biofuel feedstocks,
microalgae are characterized by higher solar energy yield, year-round
cultivation, the use of lower quality or brackish water, and the use of
less- and lower-quality land [1–6]. The theoretical maximum production
of oil from microalgae has been calculated at 350,000 L·ha−1·yr−1
(38,000 gal·acre − 1 ·yr − 1 ) and is dramatically larger than that of
traditional terrestrial crops [7]. Scalable experimental data have
shown a near term realizable production of 46,000 L·ha − 1 ·yr − 1
(5000 gal·acre− 1·yr−1), compared to 2500 L·ha− 1·yr− 1 (270 gal·
acre − 1·yr− 1 ) of ethanol from corn or 580 L·ha − 1 ·yr − 1 (60 gal·
acre− 1·yr− 1) of biodiesel from soybeans [8–12]. Researchers have
shown that microalgae feedstock cultivation can be coupled with
Abbreviations: CO2-eq, carbon dioxide equivalent; DW, dry weight; GHG, greenhouse
gas; LCA, lifecycle assessment; LEA, lipid extracted algae; NER, net energy ratio; SC-CO2,
supercritical carbon dioxide; T&D, transportation and distribution; VS, volatile solids;
IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change.
⁎ Corresponding author at: 4130 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, United States. Tel.: +1
435 797 0341.
E-mail address: Jason.Quinn@usu.edu (J.C. Quinn).
combustion energy plants or other CO2 sources and has the potential
to utilize nutrients from wastewater treatment plants [3]. These advan-
tages have led to a continuing interest in microalgae as an alternative
feedstock for biofuel production.
Lifecycle assessment (LCA) has emerged as the fundamental tool to
evaluate the sustainability of next generation biofuels. The LCA litera-
ture makes use of the metrics of net energy ratio (NER, defined here
as the ratio of energy consumed to fuel energy produced) and green-
house gas (GHG) emissions per unit of energy produced as the function-
al units. The results from LCA are highly sensitive to definitions of
system boundaries, lifecycle inventories, process efficiencies, and func-
tional units [10,13,14]. A variety of researchers have constructed and
presented LCAs of the microalgae-to-biofuel process, however, inconsis-
tencies in system boundaries and high-level process modeling with
large uncertainties in sub-process modeling have led to a wide range
of results [15–41]. A survey of the literature shows the NER for
microalgae biofuel production at scale ranges from a low value of 0.2
(comparable to petroleum) reported by Luo et al. [31] to 7.8 reported
by Brentner et al. [19] with an extreme value of 1086 reported by Beal
et al. [18] based on the extrapolation of small-scale laboratory data.
The GHG results from the surveyed literature range between −75.29 g-
CO2-eq MJ−1 reported by Batan et al. [17] and 534 g-CO2-eq MJ−1 report-
ed by Brentner et al. [19] with other studies reporting values between

2211-9264/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002

Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002
2 J.C. Quinn et al. / Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
these extremes [16–22,28,30,31,33,38,40]. The large variability in the NER
and GHGs in previous LCA studies is due to the wide range of
processes investigated as well as the assumptions made with regard
system boundaries, key parameter values, sources of fossil energy, and
co-product allocation, which all complicate comparison of results
among studies [10,13,14,42–44]. The majority of the studies surveyed
now integrates anaerobic digestion as a way to effectively recover nutri-
ents and generate on-site heat and energy from the lipid extracted algae
(LEA) [20,21,23–25,30,32,37–40]. In the meta-analysis of Liu et al. [30]
an anaerobic digester was added to studies that excluded it in an effort
to harmonize a baseline scenario and compare results from various re-
searchers. The integration of the anaerobic digestion system has been
shown to favorably impact the NER and GHGs.
This study focuses on a LCA founded on the integration of a systems
engineering model informed by experimental and modeling research to-
gether with the Argonne National Laboratory's Greenhouse Gases, Regu-
lated Emissions, and Energy USE in Transportation (GREET) model to
directly compare multiple process paths [25,45]. The boundary for the
analysis is such that a comparison to literature and soy-based biofuel
can be transparently performed. The work focuses on the evaluation of
alternative process scenarios to determine process tradeoffs on a systems
level. The discussion focuses on the environmental impact of changes in
the process parameters on system results, the environmental implica-
tions of the integration of an anaerobic digestion system, and comparison
of results from this study to previous environmental impact assessments.
2. Methods
The systems engineering process model serves as the foundation for
the assessment of the various scenarios in terms of environmental im-
pact and sustainability. Confidence in the results from these assess-
ments is directly related to the validity of the foundational modeling.
For this reason care has been taken to ensure that each process model
is independently validated and seamlessly integrated into the systems
modeling. Validation and proper function were assessed through the in-
tegration of experimental and literature data and the use of sub-system
sensitivity analysis.
The modularity of the systems engineering model facilitates the
evaluation of a variety of alternative processing scenarios for a
microalgae-to-biofuel process. Systems engineering models were inte-
grated with the ANL GREET model to evaluate each process in terms
of the NER and environmental impact. This research focused on three
Fig. 1. Simulation architecture for the integration of systems engineering model and lifecycle modeling, red dotted line represents system boundary of the study and is representative of
well-to-pump. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002
of the main process steps to produce biofuel from microalgae;
microalgae production, lipid extraction, and end-use of LEA. The follow-
ing section details the production system and the various assumptions
for the LCA. Specifically, four scenarios are evaluated; 1) Baseline,
2) Improved production, 3) Supercritical CO2 extraction, and 4) No
nutrient recycle, where the LEA is used directly (un-dried) as cattle
feed. In addition, the baseline scenario (50% lipids) is compared to the
ANL base case (25% lipids) to reveal the effect of lipid concentration
on the NER. The baseline system is modeled to represent a near-term
large-scale production facility. The simulation architecture is presented
in Fig. 1. The modular construction of the systems engineering model
facilitates the evaluation of alternative processes on a systems level.
2.1. Microalgae production
A three stage bioreactor system for both growing Nannochloropsis
salina and increasing the lipid content is used for the production of
lipid rich biomass. Stage I is a low volume, closed bioreactor maintained
with sufficient levels of all nutrients and is intended to supply a contin-
uous clean inoculum for the large-scale facility. Stage II is a high volume
open raceway design optimized for algal growth. The open raceway
section includes staggered down-flow U-tube configurations placed
around the pond that incorporate the principles of airlift reactors to
move the culture and supply CO2 (details presented in the Supplemen-
tary material). Stage III takes the outflow of stage II and imposes the
physical–chemical conditions needed to induce lipid accumulation.
The system outlined is designed to achieve high biomass productivities
and lipid concentrations with improved passive thermal control [46].
2.2. LCA scenario assumptions
The following sections detail the differences between the four LCA
scenarios with a summary of the GREET inputs for the various cases
presented in Table 1. A majority of the assumptions for the baseline sce-
nario are translated to the other three scenarios in an effort to directly
compare the results of major process changes on a systems level.
2.2.1. Scenario 1: Baseline
2.2.1.1. Growth system. As mentioned above, the production system
modeled is based on a 3 stage bioreactor system. The energy required
to move the culture between bioreactors and processing facilities is
 J.C. Quinn et al. / Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Detailed inputs to LCA for the four scenarios simulated.

Scenario Baseline IP SC-CO2 No AD Units

Growth
Whole microalgae biomass 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1 MJ kg−1
Lipid-extracted biomass 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 MJ kg−1
Oil 50 50 50 50 %
Productivity 25 50 25 25 g m−2 d−1
Circulation energy 38 38 38 38 kWh ha−1 d−1
Nutrients
Urea 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.1 kg kg-algae−1
Diammonium phosphate 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.053 kg kg-algae−1

De-water
Dissolved air flotation
Energy consumption 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 kWh kg−1
Coagulant used 10 10 10 10 g kg-algae−1
Centrifuge
Energy 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 kWh m−3
Recovery efficiency 95 95 95 95 %

Extraction
Pressure homogenization
Efficiency 90 90 – 90 %
Energy consumption 0.183 0.183 – 0.183 kWh kg-dry−1
Hexane
Efficiency 0.95 0.95 – 0.95
Hexane consumption 5.3 5.3 – 5.3 g kg-oil−1
Heat required 4.95 4.95 – 4.95 MJ kg-oil−1
Electricity required 1.94 1.94 – 1.94 MJ kg-oil−1

Nutrient recovery
Methane yield 0.33 0.33 0.33 – m3 kg-VS−1
Biogas CH4 fraction 0.67 0.67 0.67 – Volume basis
Energy required 2.45 2.45 2.45 – MJ kg-digested−1

assumed to be 4.8 × 10−5 kWh L−1 and the energy to mix the reactors
is 38 kWh ha−1 d−1, approximately 25% less than the energy required
for a traditional paddlewheel raceway pond [25]. The productivity of the
system is assumed to be 25 g m− 2 d−1 with a lipid content of 50%
based on the systems assumed to be commercially operating [47–51].
2.2.1.2. Nutrients. Microalgae cultivation requires a variety of nutrients
including but not limited to nitrogen, phosphorous, CO2, water, and
sunlight. Nitrogen in the form of urea and phosphorous in the form of
ammonium hydrogen phosphate are supplied to the culture based on
the Redfield ratio of C:N:P of 103:9.8:1 [52]. It is assumed that the
microalgae are comprised of 50% carbon [53]. The CO2 supplied to the
system was assumed to be co-located with flue gas containing 15%
CO2 [54,55]. It is assumed that the CO2 is transported via low pressure
pipeline to the facility. Transmission of carbon from the flue gas to the
culture is assumed to be done with an efficiency of 85%. A sump depth
of 1.5 m provides the mechanism for culture movement and the deliv-
ery of a 2% CO2 stream with details presented in the Supplementary ma-
terial [47,56].
2.2.1.3. De-water. The de-water system includes three de-watering
steps: settling (bioflocculation), dissolved air flotation, and a centri-
fuge. Upon harvest, it is assumed that the microalgae are passively
settled to a density of 10 g L− 1 [57]. The slurry is then concentrated
to 10% solids, consuming 1.33 × 10− 4 kWh g− 1
DW via dissolved air flo-
tation with a retention efficiency of 90% [58]. The slurry is then trans-
ferred to a centrifuge and concentrated to 20% solids consuming
3.29 × 10 − 3 kWh kg-effluent− 1 [59]. It is assumed that the dis-
solved air flotation process retains 90% of the microalgae solids and
the centrifuge process retains 95%.
2.2.1.4. Extraction. The system uses a two-step extraction process;
pressure homogenization and hexane extraction. The pressure
homogenization is assumed to be 90% efficient and consumes
1.83 × 10−4 kWh g−1 DW [48]. This process is followed by a 95% efficient
wet hexane extraction. The process includes solvent recovery with a
loss of 0.0053 g-solvent g-oil−1 and requires 5.4 × 10−4 kWh g-oil−1
[29,39,44,50].
2.2.1.5. Nutrient recovery. The baseline system used an anaerobic digester
to recover nutrients and generate electricity and heat. The following as-
sumptions are used, a mass ratio of 0.9 volatile solids (VS) to total solids,
methane yield of 0.33 L g-VS−1at a methane fraction of 67%, required
heat of 5.4 × 10−4 kWh g-digested−1, 1.4 × 10−4 kWh g-digested−1
of electricity, and 2% methane loss [60–64]. Details on the selected
assumptions are presented in the Supplementary material.
2.2.1.6. Displacement credits. The lipid extracted microalgae can be uti-
lized in several ways; through digestion for production of heat and en-
ergy, as fertilizer, or as cattle feed. Each involves its own particular
energy or GHG credits. The digested solids from the anaerobic digester
are assumed to replace purchased fertilizer with energy and environ-
mental credits based on the ANL GREET model [45].
2.2.2. Scenario 2: Improved production (IP)
This scenario is based on improved biomass production. The biomass
productivity was increased to 50 g m−2 d−1 with the lipid percentage
of the baseline scenario maintained, 50%. It is assumed that no addition-
al energy is required for improved growth relative to Scenario 1. It is
noted that Scenario 2 is feasible but in general not a realistic growth
scenario based on the literature and current experimental data
[7,53,65,66], however, continued improvements in traditional terrestri-
al crop yields indicate this level of production is not unreasonable in the
future and does not exceed theoretical limits [7,66]. All other assump-
tions with regard to the growth process are kept the same. The input
assumptions for Scenario 2 are presented in Table 1.
2.2.3. Scenario 3: Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction (SC-CO2)
Supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) extraction has been used to
extract lipids from microalgae at the laboratory scale [67]. Experimental

Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002
4 J.C. Quinn et al. / Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. ASPEN Plus model of supercritical CO2 extraction.

data to model the energy requirements for the process at large-scale is and well-to-pump (WTP) greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). For this
currently unavailable. An ASPEN Plus model was developed to model study, the NER is defined as the ratio of the net amount of energy
the energy and efficiency of a SC-CO2 extraction process. The process in- used to produce biofuel to the total energy contained in the biofuel,
cludes compressing CO2 to high pressure in order to effectively dissolve thus a NER of less than unity is desirable. The WTP boundary is defined
the lipids. The process flow simulated in ASPEN Plus is presented in as the portion of the overall pathway that includes all the steps starting
Fig. 2. A detailed schematic and description of the process including with microalgae growth through delivery of fuel to the filling station.
pressures and temperatures of each stage is presented in the Supple- The remainder of the pathway involves using the fuel in a vehicle and
mentary material. is defined as pump-to-wheels (PTW). For comparison to other studies,
The assumptions for Scenario 3 are based on a dry supercritical CO2 the consumption of the fuel in a compression ignition direct injection
extraction process since a wet process is unlikely to work because of engine (PTW) generates approximately 72.0 g-CO2-eq MJ−1 (calcula-
complications arising due to high water concentrations [68,69]. It is as- tion and assumptions are presented in the Supplementary material).
sumed that the CO2 is compressed from atmospheric pressure and tem- Well-to-wheel results are the combination of WTP and PTW.
perature to 7000 kPa and 300 K at a flow rate of 10 kg h−1. The
required energy for the extraction of lipids using SC-CO2 includes 3.1. Net energy ratio (NER)
both the energy to dry the microalgae and to compress the CO2,
0.03 kWh g-oil−1. The extraction efficiency of the process is assumed The GREET results for the four scenarios and the baseline results
to be 90%. It is important to note that the effect of using a dry feedstock from Frank et al. [25] are presented on the metric of the NER in
as feed for the AD is not included in this analysis, i.e., for nutrient recov- Table 2. For comparison purposes, the NER for the production of diesel
ery, it is assumed that the required water to rehydrate the LEA for suffi- from conventional petroleum is 0.2 [72].
cient digestibility will be recovered from the biomass drying stage. The From a technoeconomic standpoint, higher lipid content is desirable
ANL GREET inputs for Scenario 3 are presented in Table 1. as it reduces equipment cost and footprint proportionately. For this rea-
son, the baseline of this study assumes a lipid percentage of 50% com-
2.2.4. Scenario 4: No nutrient recycle (no AD) pared to the baseline of Frank et al. [25] of 25%, resulting in the
Scenarios 1–3 utilize an anaerobic digester to not only recover nutri- baseline of this study producing more lipids which is desirable for a bio-
ents but also supply on-site electricity and heat. The no nutrient recycle fuel product. Comparing the baseline process to that of Frank et al. [25],
scenario assumes that the wet lipid extracted microalgae is used to dis- the increase in lipid content increases the NER of the system by 20% due
place a current product such as cattle feed [70,71]. The input assump- to a decrease in the amount of mass going to the anaerobic digester.
tions for Scenario 4 are presented in Table 1. This in turn decreases the waste heat and electricity generated as co-
products in the co-located downstream processing digester, which
3. Results and discussion actually leads to an undesirable increase in the NER. This is a critical in-
sight regarding the NER portion of the LCA, namely, that for achieving a
The results for the four scenarios and the baseline results from lower NER, the most important design consideration is having an overall
Frank et al. [25] are presented in two metrics, net energy ratio (NER) process that captures as much of the energy content as possible that is
contained in both the lipids and the LEA rather than focusing only on
Table 2 lipid content. Unfortunately, using this approach to lower the NER is
Net energy ratio (NER) results for the four scenarios of this study as compared to baseline likely to have a negative effect on process economics, related to
results of Frank et al. [25]. NER is defined here as the energy to produce the fuel over the the lower lipid content of the algae. Doubling the productivity
energy contained in the fuel. (Scenario 2) has a positive effect on the NER but only decreases the
Stage Baseline IP SC- No AD Frank et al. [25] NER by 5% as compared to the Baseline scenario. This illustrates that
CO2 increasing the biomass yield has minimal impacts on the NER.
Growth and first de-water 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.23 The high energy consumption centered on the SC-CO2 extraction il-
Remaining de-water 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 lustrates the impracticality of an extraction system that consumes
Lipid extraction 0.20 0.20 2.61 0.23 0.24 0.03 kWh g-oil−1. The majority of the energy required in this scenario
Anaerobic digester 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.29
is involved in the drying of the biomass prior to extraction. A variety
CO2 delivery 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Anaerobic digester credit −0.33 −0.33 −0.36 0.00 −0.84 of researchers have confirmed the need to develop wet extraction
Conversion 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 technologies in order for the process to be environmentally and
Transportation and distribution 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 economically favorable [17,25,30].
Feedstock input 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 The elimination of the anaerobic digester illustrates the impact of
Total 0.68 0.65 3.07 1.03 0.56
on-site heat and energy production and nutrient recycle from the LEA

Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002
 J.C. Quinn et al. / Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

on the NER. In this scenario, the NER is double that of the baseline and
these results confirm the importance and need to fully understand the
performance of an anaerobic system operated on LEA. In terms of ener-
gy analysis, the performance of this sub-system is as important as un-
derstanding the growth performance of the microalgae-to-biofuel
process in terms of quantifying the energy consumption and environ-
mental impact on a systems level.
3.2. Greenhouse gas emissions
The GHG results for the various scenarios are presented in Table 3 in
units of net grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) per mega joule
of biofuel produced (MJ). Carbon dioxide equivalent includes carbon di-
oxide emissions, methane emissions based on an Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) standard 100 year impact of 25, and ni-
trous oxide emissions based on an IPCC standard 100 year impact of 298
[73]. The GHG results presented are for a WTP boundary as illustrated in
Table 3 and it includes transportation and distribution (T&D) of fuel to
the pump.
The impact of the anaerobic digester is also illustrated by the GHG re-
sults. The baseline, improved growth, and Frank et al. [25] all take advan-
tage of a large credit for biogas generation and combustion from the
anaerobic digester for onsite heat and energy combined with nutrient re-
cycle. Focusing on the credit that is associated with the anaerobic digest-
er, an improved growth configuration where lipid percentage in the
biomass is increased will decrease the amount of biomass fed to the an-
aerobic digester and in turn decreases the amount of onsite heat and en-
ergy that can be generated. This corresponds to a smaller GHG credit due
to a decrease in biogas production leading to an increase in electrical con-
sumption. Scenario 4 which does not utilize the anaerobic digester, the
GHG emissions are close to the breakeven point illustrating the integral
part the anaerobic digester has on the overall environmental impact.
In addition to the “strain-to-pump” analysis designed to be equiva-
lent to the well-to-pump boundary, the results from this study can be
expanded to include the combustion of the fuel for a “strain-to-wheel”
LCA boundary, which is equivalent to the traditional well-to-wheel for
conventional diesel. The “strain-to-wheel” analysis includes all stages
of “strain-to-pump” as well as the combustion of fuel in transportation
vehicles. For this expanded analysis it is assumed that soybean-
derived and microalgae-based diesel fuels are used in 100% pure form
in compression–ignition, direct-injection (CIDI) engine vehicles. Due
to the lack of emissions data from the combustion of microalgae-
based biofuel, it was assumed that the fuel economy and emissions
from soy- and microalgae-based biofuels in CIDI vehicles are the same.
The emissions associated with the combustion of the fuel were deter-
mined to be 72.0 g CO2-eq MJ−1, making the baseline pump-to-wheel
GHG emissions to 31.3 g CO2-eq MJ−1 (details on calculations are pre-
sented in the Supplementary material). This result is 3 times lower
than conventional diesel, 93.08 g CO2-eq MJ−1.
3.3. Comparison to literature
A variety of literature LCAs have been performed with the NER re-
sults ranging from microalgae-based biofuels being comparable to tra-
ditional fuels to worse by two orders of magnitude. Recent meta-
analysis has made efforts to decrease the variability by using modeling
techniques that harmonize boundaries and processes. The baseline pro-
cess model for the recent meta-analysis included the integration of an
anaerobic digestion unit [30]. A survey of the literature shows that the
integration of an anaerobic digestion unit positively impacts the NER
of the microalgae-to-biofuel process, Fig. 3. The NERs presented in
Fig. 3 are limited to the baseline or low values of the literature surveyed
due to the majority of the articles reporting a range of the NER due to
process sensitivity. The NER for systems that do not include an anaero-
bic digester can have favorable energy results, however only one of the
studies surveyed that integrate an anaerobic digester exceeds a NER of
1. The results from the literature are consistent with the results from
this study; integration of an anaerobic digester positively impacts the
NER of the microalgae-to-biofuel system.
This study through the integration of engineering process models
validated through experimental and modeling research illustrates the
systems level effects of an anaerobic digester on the overall energy
balance and GHGs for a microalgae-to-biofuel process. The process
sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of a wet extraction
process and the need to effectively recycle LEA. The study shows that
higher lipid content in the biomass is detrimental to the NER due to a
reduction in the total energy that can be captured by the anaerobic di-
gester. Systems level assessments show the interconnection between

Table 3
GHG emissions for the 4 scenarios compared to Frank et al. [25]. Results are presented in
g CO2-eq MJ−1.

Stage Baseline IP SC-CO2 No AD Frank

et al.

Algae growth and 1st 13.9 10.3 21.7 32.6 30.8

de-watering
Remaining de-watering 5.2 5.0 8.4 8.1 9.4
Transport of algae biomass to 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
extraction
Oil extraction 20.6 20.0 542.6 29.0 25.6
Anaerobic digester 13.1 12.9 18.7 0.0 36.0
Biogas clean-up and recovery 2.1 2.0 3.4 0.0 4.8
CO2 transfer to pond
Biomass and biogas combustion −24.7 −24.7 −26.8 0.0 −63.6
Soil application of AD residue 3.0 3.0 3.1 0.0 5.7
Displacement credit for AD −3.6 −3.6 −3.8 0.0 −7.2
residue as fertilizer
Biodiesel transportation and 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
distribution
Feedstock 2.1 2.0 2.8 3.4 3.6
Biofuel transport 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Fig. 3. Net energy ratio (NER) for previous literature studies and this study highlighting
CO2 growth credit −75.8 −75.8 −75.8 −75.8 −75.8
the effects of the integration of anaerobic digestion (AD). NER is defined here as the energy
Total −41.7 −46.5 496.7 −0.3 −28.4
over the produced energy, NER b 1 is desirable.

Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002
6 J.C. Quinn et al. / Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
process steps which can dramatically impact the environmental impact
of the system.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the De-
partment of Defense Air Force Research Laboratory, FA-8650-11-c-2127.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material to this article can be found online at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002.
References
[1] G.C. Dismukes, D. Carrieri, N. Bennette, G.M. Ananyev, M.C. Posewitz, Aquatic
phototrophs: efficient alternatives to land-based crops for biofuels, Curr. Opin.
Biotechnol. 19 (2008) 235–240.
[2] L.M. Brown, K.G. Zeiler, Aquatic biomass and carbon-dioxide trapping, Energy
Convers. Manag. 34 (1993) 1005–1013.
[3] Y. Li, M. Horsman, N. Wu, C.Q. Lan, N. Dubois-Calero, Biofuels from microalgae,
Biotechnol. Prog. 24 (2008) 815–820.
[4] R. Raja, S. Hemaiswarya, N.A. Kumar, S. Sridhar, R. Rengasamy, A perspective on the
biotechnological potential of microalgae, Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 34 (2008) 77–88.
[5] C. Posten, G. Schaub, Microalgae and terrestrial biomass as source for fuels — a
process view, J. Biotechnol. 142 (2009) 64–69.
[6] P.R.D. Williams, D. Inman, A. Aden, G.A. Heath, Environmental and sustainability fac-
tors associated with next-generation biofuels in the US: what do we really know?
Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 4763–4775.
[7] K.M. Weyer, D.R. Bush, A. Darzins, B.D. Willson, Theoretical maximum algal oil
production, Bioenergy Res. 3 (2009) 204–213.
[8] I. Ahmed, D. Morris, J. Decker, How Much Energy Does it Take to Make a Gallon of
Soydiesel? Inst. for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC, 1994.
[9] Y. Chisti, Biodiesel from microalgae, Biotechnol. Adv. 25 (2007) 294–306.
[10] D. Pimentel, T.W. Patzek, Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood;
biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower, Nat. Resour. Res. 14 (2005)
65–76.
[11] A. Pradhan, D.S. Shrestha, J. Van Gerpen, J. Duffield, The energy balance of soybean
oil biodiesel production: a review of past studies, Trans. ASABE 51 (2008) 185–194.
[12] K. Yeang, Biofuel from algae, Archit. Des. 78 (2008) 118–119.
[13] J. Hill, E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, D. Tiffany, Environmental, economic, and ener-
getic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
103 (2006) 11206–11210.
[14] A.E. Farrell, R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O'Hare, D.M. Kammen, Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals, Science 311 (2006) 506–508.
[15] M. Aresta, A. Dibenedetto, G. Barberio, Utilization of macro-algae for enhanced CO2
fixation and biofuels production: development of a computing software for an LCA
study, Fuel Process. Technol. (2005) 1679–1693.
[16] R. Baliga, S.E. Powers, Sustainable algae biodiesel production in cold climates, Int.
J. Chem. Eng. 4 (2010) 1–13.
[17] L. Batan, J. Quinn, B. Willson, T. Bradley, Net energy and greenhouse gas emission
evaluation of biodiesel derived from microalgae, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010)
7975–7980.
[18] C.M. Beal, R.E. Hebner, M.E. Webber, R.S. Ruoff, A.F. Seibert, The energy return on in-
vestment for algal biocrude: results for a research production facility, Bioenergy Res.
5 (2012) 341–362.
[19] L.B. Brentner, M.J. Eckelman, J.B. Zimmerman, Combinatorial life cycle assessment to
inform process design of industrial production of algal biodiesel, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45 (2011) 7060–7067.
[20] P.K. Campbell, T. Beer, D. Batten, Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from
microalgae in ponds, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 50–56.
[21] A.F. Clarens, H. Nassau, E.P. Resurreccion, M.A. White, L.M. Colosi, Environmental
impacts of algae-derived biodiesel and bioelectricity for transportation, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 7554–7560.
[22] A.F. Clarens, E.P. Resurreccion, M.A. White, L.M. Colosi, Environmental life cycle
comparison of algae to other bioenergy feedstocks, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44
(2010) 1813–1819.
[23] P. Collet, A. Helias, L. Lardon, M. Ras, R.A. Goy, J.P. Steyer, Life-cycle assessment of
microalgae culture coupled to biogas production, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011)
207–214.
[24] M.J. Cooney, G. Young, R. Pate, Bio-oil from photosynthetic microalgae: case study,
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 166–177.
[25] E.D. Frank, J. Han, I. Palou-Rivera, A. Elgowainy, M.Q. Wang, Life-cycle Analysis of
Algal Lipid Fuels with the GREET Model, Center for Transportation Research, Energy
Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2011.
[26] A. Hirano, K. Hon-Nami, S. Kunito, M. Hada, Y. Ogushi, Temperature effect on contin-
uous gasification of microalgal biomass: theoretical yield of methanol production
and its energy balance, Catal. Today 45 (1998) 399–404.
[27] O. Jorquera, A. Kiperstok, E.A. Sales, M. Embirucu, M.L. Ghirardi, Comparative energy
life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds and
photobioreactors, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 1406–1413.
Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002
[28] H.H. Khoo, P.N. Sharratt, P. Das, R.K. Balasubramanian, P.K. Naraharisetti, S. Shaik,
Life cycle energy and CO2 analysis of microalgae-to-biodiesel: preliminary results
and comparisons, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 5800–5807.
[29] L. Lardon, A. Helias, B. Sialve, J.P. Stayer, O. Bernard, Life-cycle assessment of biodie-
sel production from microalgae, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 6475–6481.
[30] X. Liu, A.F. Clarens, L.M. Colosi, Algae biodiesel has potential despite inconclusive
results to date, Bioresour. Technol. 104 (2012) 803–806.
[31] D. Luo, Z. Hu, D.G. Choi, V.M. Thomas, M.J. Realff, R.R. Chance, Life cycle energy and
greenhouse gas emissions for an ethanol production process based on blue-green
algae, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2011) 8670–8677.
[32] E. Menger-Krug, J. Niederste-Hollenberg, T. Hillenbrand, H. Hiessl, Integration of
microalgae systems at municipal wastewater treatment plants: implications for
energy and emission balances, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 11505–11514.
[33] C.F. Murphy, D.T. Allen, Energy–water nexus for mass cultivation of algae, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 5861–5868.
[34] L.F. Razon, R.R. Tan, Net energy analysis of the production of biodiesel and biogas
from the microalgae: Haematococcus pluvialis and Nannochloropsis, Appl. Energy
88 (2011) 3507–3514.
[35] K. Sander, G.S. Murthy, Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
15 (2010) 704–714.
[36] E. Sevigné Itoiz, C. Fuentes-Grünewald, C.M. Gasol, E. Garcés, E. Alacid, S. Rossi, et al.,
Energy balance and environmental impact analysis of marine microalgal biomass
production for biodiesel generation in a photobioreactor pilot plant, Biomass
Bioenergy 39 (2012) 324–335.
[37] T. Shirvani, X. Yan, O.R. Inderwildi, P.P. Edwards, D.A. King, Life cycle energy and
greenhouse gas analysis for algae-derived biodiesel, Energy Environ. Sci. 4 (2011)
3773–3778.
[38] D.L. Sills, V. Paramita, M.J. Franke, M.C. Johnson, T.M. Akabas, C.H. Greene, et al.,
Quantitative uncertainty analysis of life cycle assessment for algal biofuel produc-
tion, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 687–694.
[39] A.L. Stephenson, E. Kazamia, J.S. Dennis, C.J. Howe, S.A. Scott, A.G. Smith, Life-cycle
assessment of potential algal biodiesel production in the United Kingdom: a compar-
ison of raceways and air-lift tubular bioreactors, Energy Fuels 24 (2010) 4062–4077.
[40] V. Vasudevan, R.W. Stratton, M.N. Pearlson, G.R. Jersey, A.G. Beyene, J.C. Weissman,
et al., Environmental performance of algal biofuel technology options, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46 (2012) 2451–2459.
[41] L.X. Xu, D.W.F. Brilman, J.A.M. Withag, G. Brem, S. Kersten, Assessment of a dry and a
wet route for the production of biofuels from microalgae: energy balance analysis,
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 5113–5122.
[42] S.C. Davis, K.J. Anderson-Teixeira, E.H. DeLucia, Life-cycle analysis and the ecology of
biofuels, Trends Plant Sci. 14 (2009) 140–146.
[43] S. Kim, B.E. Dale, Allocation procedure in ethanol production system from corn grain
— I. System expansion, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7 (2002) 237–243.
[44] J. Sheehan, V. Camobreco, J. Duffield, M.a. Graboski, H. Shapouri, An Overview of
Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO, 1998.
[45] M. Wang, A. Elgowainy, Operating Manual for GREET: Version 1.7, Center for
Transportation Research, 2005.
[46] B. Ketheesan, N. Nirmalakhandan, Modeling microalgal growth in an airlift-driven
raceway reactor, Bioresour. Technol. 136 (2013) 689–696.
[47] J.R. Benemann, W.J. Oswald, Systems and economic analysis of microalgae ponds for
conversion of CO2 to biomass, Final Report1996. (March 1996).
[48] R. Davis, A. Aden, P.T. Pienkos, Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae
for fuel production, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 3524–3531.
[49] R. Davis, D. Fishman, E.D. Frank, M.S. Wigmosta, A. Aden, A.M. Coleman, et al.,
Renewable diesel from algal lipids: an integrated baseline for cost, emissions, and
resource potential from a harmonized model, US Department of Energy Biomass
Program2012. June.
[50] T.J. Lundquist, I.C. Woertz, N.W.T. Quinn, J.R. Benemann, A Realistic Technology and
Engineering Assessment of Algae Biofuel Production, Energy Biosciences Institute,
Berkeley, CA, 2010.
[51] A. Sun, R. Davis, M. Starbuck, A. Ben-Amotz, R. Pate, P.T. Pienkos, Comparative cost
analysis of algal oil production for biofuels, Energy 36 (2011) 5169–5179.
[52] A.C. Redfield, The biological control of chemical factors in the environment, Am. Sci.
46 (1958) 205–221.
[53] J. Quinn, L. de Winter, T. Bradley, Microalgae bulk growth model with application to
industrial scale systems, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 5083–5092.
[54] K.L. Kadam, Power plant flue gas as a source of CO2 for microalgae cultivation:
economic impact of different process options, Energy Convers. Manag. 38 (1997)
S505–S510(Supplement).
[55] J.C. Quinn, K.B. Catton, S. Johnson, H.B. Thomas, Geographical assessment of
microalgae biofuels potential incorporating resource availability, Bioenergy Res. 6
(2012) 591–600.
[56] J.C. Quinn, T. Yates, N. Douglas, K. Weyer, J. Butler, T.H. Bradley, et al.,
Nannochloropsis production metrics in a scalable outdoor photobioreactor for
commercial applications, Bioresour. Technol. 117 (2012) 164–171.
[57] J. Sheehan, T. Dunahay, J. Benemann, P. Roessler, A look back at the US Department
of Energy's aquatic species program: biodiesel from algae, NREL Report1998.
(TP-580-24190).
[58] R.W. Harris, J. Cullinane, P.T. Sun, U.S.A.E.W.E. Station, U.S.E.P. Agency, Process
Design and Cost Estimating Algorithms for the Computer Assisted Procedure for De-
sign and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET), Environmental
Engineering Division, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, 1982.
[59] V. Yanovsky, Westfalia Separator Food Tec, in: V. Yanovsky (Ed.), GEA, Oelde,
Germany, 2009.
 J.C. Quinn et al. / Algal Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

[60] E.A. Ehimen, Z.F. Sun, C.G. Carrington, E.J. Birch, J.J. Eaton-Rye, Anaerobic digestion of
microalgae residues resulting from the biodiesel production process, Appl. Energy
88 (2011) 3454–3463.
[61] M. Ras, L. Lardon, S. Bruno, N. Bernet, J.P. Steyer, Experimental study on a coupled
process of production and anaerobic digestion of Chlorella vulgaris, Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (2011) 200–206.
[62] R. Samson, A. Leduy, Biogas production from anaerobic-digestion of Spirulina maxi-
ma algal biomass, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 24 (1982) 1919–1924.
[63] B. Sialve, N. Bernet, O. Bernard, Anaerobic digestion of microalgae as a necessary
step to make microalgal biodiesel sustainable, Biotechnol. Adv. 27 (2009) 409–416.
[64] H.W. Yen, D.E. Brune, Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper to pro-
duce methane, Bioresour. Technol. 98 (2007) 130–134.
[65] J. Quinn, K. Catton, N. Wagner, T. Bradley, Current large-scale US biofuel potential
from microalgae cultivated in photobioreactors, Bioenergy Res. 5 (2012) 49–60.
[66] P.E. Zemke, B.D. Wood, D.J. Dye, Considerations for the maximum production rates
of triacylglycerol from microalgae, Biomass Bioenergy 34 (2010) 145–151.
[67] S. Grierson, V. Strezov, S. Bray, R. Mummacari, L.T. Danh, N. Fosters, Assessment of
bio-oil extraction from Tetraselmis chui microalgae comparing supercritical CO2,
solvent extraction, and thermal processing, Energy Fuels 26 (2012) 248–255.
[68] J.P. Friedrich, E.H. Pryde, Supercritical CO2 extraction of lipid-bearing materials and
characterization of the products, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 61 (1984) 223–228.
[69] R.L. Mendes, J.P. Coelho, H.L. Fernandes, I.J. Marrucho, J.M.S. Cabral, J.M. Novais, et al.,
Applications of supercritical CO2 extraction to microalgae and plants, J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 62 (1995) 53–59.
[70] M.M. Or-Rashid, J.K.G. Kramer, M.A. Wood, B.W. McBride, Supplemental algal meal
alters the ruminal trans-18:1 fatty acid and conjugated linoleic acid composition
in cattle, J. Anim. Sci. 86 (2008) 187–196.
[71] E.W. Becker, Micro-algae as a source of protein, Biotechnol. Adv. 25 (2007) 207–210.
[72] M. Wang, Estimation of energy efficiencies of US petroleum refineries, http://www.
transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/publications.html.
[73] IPCC., IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, National Green-
house Gas Inventories Programme, Japan, 2006..

Please cite this article as: J.C. Quinn, et al., Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment — Multiple pathway evaluation, Algal Res. (2013), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.002