CARBON CAPTURE WITH ALGAE: A REVIEW

By

Akintunde Aboaba Izijesu Osiki

M.Sc. Graduate Student
Department of Industrial Systems Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
University of Regina
3737 Wascana Parkway
Regina, SK S4S 0A2
Canada
Email: aboaba2a@uregina.ca
M.Eng. Graduate Student
Department of Process Systems Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
University of Regina
3737 Wascana Parkway
Regina, SK S4S 0A2
Canada
Email: osiki20i@uregina.ca

Submitted To: Dr. Amr Henni

ENIN 831: Industrial Gas Processing

December 2015.
Table of Content

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................4
OVERVIEW OF MICROALGAE SPECIES ...........................................................................................................8
CULTIVATION OF MICROALGAE SPECIES .....................................................................................................8
Open System ............................................................................................................................................................9
Closed System ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
Effect of Cultivation System on the removal percentage of CO2 ...................................................................... 15
CO2 CAPTURE VIA MICROALGAE ................................................................................................................... 16
Photosynthesis ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Source ............................................................................................................................... 22
ACIDIC GASES IN COMBUSTED FLUE GAS .................................................................................................... 23
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Carbon Fixation ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
Enhancements and Application of the CO2 Fixation Process ............................................................................. 26
Comparing the removal of CO2 in different species of Microalgae .................................................................. 27
HARVESTING BIOMASS PRODUCED BY MICROALGAE ............................................................................ 28
AREAS OF RESEARCH IN RECENT TIMES AND RESEARCH GROUP ..................................................... 32
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 33
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 35

2
List of Figures

Figure 1: An integration of microalgae cultivation with CO2 utilization. .................................................... 7

Figure 2: Cultivation systems: (a) unstirred pond, (b) raceway pond, (c) circular pond (Chen et al., 2009),
(d) tubular photo bioreactor (Carvalho et al., 2006), (e) plastic bag photo bioreactor (Richmond, 2008), (f)
air-lift loop reactor (Barbosa et al., 2003) ................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Effect of cultivation system on the removal percentage of CO2 using the Chlorella sp. Micro
algae species................................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 4: flow chart depicting the capture and sequestration of CO2 for biomass production using
microalgae (Wai Yan, C., et al, 2015). ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5: Relationship between Biomass yield and CO2 removal rate for different species of Microalgae
.................................................................................................................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of microalgae species in closed photo bioreactor cultivation systems. (Source:
Klinthong et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 712–742, 2015) .................................................. 14
Table 2: Comparison of Algae-based Carbon Capture and Geological Sequestration Technology ........... 17
Table 3: Pathway for inorganic carbon assimilation for microalgae (+, present; -, absent; n/a, not
available). .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 4: A Comparison of microalgae harvesting and drying methods (Taher et al., 2011; Zhang et al.,
2014) ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 5: Research areas in CO2 Capture with microalgae (Wai Yan, C., et al, 2015) ............................... 32

3
ABSTRACT
It is not new that reduction of emissions by greenhouse gases is been adopted by many countries
worldwide as sustainability is becoming a key principle in any natural resource management
concept. Particularly, more commercialized countries are pushing for reduction through research
focused on reducing or converting these gases and interestingly, CO2 capture and sequestration is
gaining new ground in this regard. There are invariably a number of proposed methods for the
capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from flue gases, however biological techniques
mostly with algae is fast gaining ground mostly because of their energy efficiency. This work
reviews the technology for the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide using micro algae.
Algae being autotrophic micro-organisms are capable of converting CO₂ into carbohydrates and
lipids in the presence of light mostly from the sun by a process known as photosynthesis. Many
studies have been carried out in the area of CO₂ sequestration using algae, and most recent
findings have been reviewed in this work. Thus, it is assumed that the net CO2 emission is zero if
CO2 removed from flue gas by microalgae to produce biomass can be recycled and reused, for
the cultivation of microalgae. Due to this fact, these benefits and possibilities make microalgae
an ideal candidate for reducing CO2 emissions and energy issues.
Key words: CO₂ sequestration, Micro algae, Sustainability and biomass.

INTRODUCTION
Fossil fuels are burnt to produce energy but each time fossil fuels such as gas, coal, or oil are
burnt, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. This is quickly increasing global warming
and leading to unpredictable changes in climate such as flooding, draught and heat waves.
Reducing the amount of fossil fuel is the likely solution but this has proven unproductive
because of the increasing need for energy. To this end research has focused on ways to reduce
carbon foot prints by carbon capture and sequestration. Replacing fossil fuel involves various
biomass feedstock, including both terrestrial plants and aquatic algae, which have been
discovered to generate renewable sources of fuels (Bahadar and Khan, 2013). Aquatic
microalgae have been found to be utile for producing fuels owing to their rapid growth, high
biomass yield, and accessibility due largely to simplistic means of harvesting from cultivation
systems including, ponds or closed bioreactors thus, allowing them to be applicable as
sustainable environmentally friendly fuel sources (Gao et al., 2012; Sing et al., 2013).

4
Microalgae are microscopic aquatic organisms lacking true stems and roots and that typically
grow suspended in water and are driven by the same photosynthetic process as that of higher
plants (Hanelt et al., 2007). Microalgae are made up of bacteria (cyanobacteria), diatoms
(Chromalveolata), other protists (Chromista), and unicellular plants (Chlorophyta) (Bahadar and
Khan, 2013). However, unlike higher plants, microalgae do not require a vascular system for
nutrient transport since they lack stems, roots and leaves as mentioned previously, and every cell
is photoautotrophic with directly absorbing nutrients.
Microalgal cells are believed to be sunlight-driven cell factories that can convert carbon dioxide
(CO2) into raw materials necessary for producing biofuels (biohydrogen, biodiesel, and
bioethanol), animal food chemical feedstocks and high-value bioactive compounds
(Docosahexaenoic acid) (Spolaore et al., 2006; Milledge, 2011; Razzak et al., 2013). In
particular, the ability of these cells to absorb CO2 suggests microalgae cultivation may indeed be
an attractive alternative for CO2 sequestration that can be applied to fossil fuel power plant gas
effluents to facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in years to come (Yun et al.,
1997).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) fixation via microalgae is believed to be a potential and promising method
for CO2 capture and storage (Masakazu and Masahiro, 1997; Naoto and Masahiro, 1997; Razzak
et al., 2013; Zhao and Su, 2014). CO2 fixation and storage via microalgae is fundamentally
photosynthetic in nature, where water and CO2 are transformed to organic compounds without
extra energy addition or consumption and devoid of secondary pollution. Compared to other
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) methods, CO2 fixation via microalgae offers many
benefits, including a high photosynthetic rate (6.9 × 104 cells/mL/h (Suali and Sarbatly, 2012)), a
rapid growth rate (0.7–3.2 day–1 (Maeda et al., 1995; Ryu et al., 2009)), good environmental
adaptability, believed sustainability and low cost of operation. One important reward of this
system is that, the biomass product from microalgae is provided after CO2 capture from a source.
A number of conditions of the cultivation system for microalgae’s dictate the performance of
CO2 fixation via microalgae and subsequent biomass production depends on these conditions
(temperature, light, pH, and nutrient availability), species of microalgae, CO2 concentration and
toxic pollutants in the flue gas (Zhao and Su, 2014).

5
Flue gases and waste water from other industrial processes supply the required carbon dioxide
and nutrients necessary for the cultivation of microalgae, thus providing ecological advantages
while decreasing the biomass production cost. Microalgae have several applications, such as
their use as bioremediation agents to remove inorganic nutrients from wastewaters where cost of
wastewater treatment is about 0.15–6.0 USD/m3 (Fu et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2010) and to
improve water quality due to their high capacity for nutrient uptake (Razzak et al., 2013).
Microalgae that are cultivated for use in the bioremediation of waste are further processed into a
wider ambit of fuel products that includes, hydrogen (H2) via direct and indirect biophotolysis;
biodiesel via transesterification; bio-methane via anaerobic digestion; bioethanol and biobutanol
via fermentation; bio-oil via thermochemical conversion and; green diesel and gasoline through
direct catalytic hydrothermal liquefaction (Demirbas, 2009a, b; Damartzis and Zabaniotou, 2011;
Nigam and Singh, 2011; Huang and Tan, 2014). Figure 1 shows a schematic of a technique that
integrates microalgae cultivation with usage of carbon dioxide as wel as its application to
produce biomass. It follows from figure 1 that, micro algae develop and grow by consumption of
nutrients dissolved in for instance, waste water as well as carbon dioxide obtained from air of
flue gases with adequate supply of thermal solar energy from the sun. The microalgae biomass is
produced, with oxygen, O2 released into the atmosphere. Finally, the biomass can then be
converted into energy and food supplementation for humans and animals through a process that
includes extraction (organic solvent extraction, supercritical fluid (SCF) extraction),
fermentation, transesterification, etc. from this one concludes that, the cultivation of microalgae
can yield three important benefits, including the ability to capture CO2 from a fossil fuel-based
power plant, possibility of an efficient wastewater treatment and, renewable energy source
(Razzak et al., 2013).

6
 Energy

Post-
Nutrients from combustion
waste water

Microalgal Processing
Sunlight culture

Microalgal
biomass Oxygen

Figure 1: An integration of microalgae cultivation with CO2 utilization.

In Recent times, models are being developed to institute processes and technologies for
application of microalgae at the industrial scale. However, the transitioning from pilot scale to
industrial-scale operations is believed to lead to exposure of microalgae cells to hostile
circumstances that result in reduced product yields. The recovery of microalgae from highly
dilute suspensions often requires steps to that reduce the extract yield. This has made the
integration of the best microalgae cells and bioprocessing engineering methods to ensure
economic and environmental feasibility and to minimize the number of full-scale tails a
challenge that is currently under investigation across the globe. It is believed that conditions for
technically and economically viable biofuel resources be competitive or attractive in terms of
cost, i.e. cost less than petroleum fuels, have little to no additional land use, ensure air quality
improvement (through CO2 sequestration), and have minimal water use (Bahadar and Khan,
2013). Although microalgae produced fuels offer quite a lot of advantages over petroleum fuels,
their production costs is one factor that has been a major drawback in their commercialisation as
biomass to produce biofuels and associated products.
This report is a review of microalgae cultivation as a sequestration technique for carbon
dioxide produced from flue gases and air. It also highlights technologies related to the production
of biofuels from microalgae and the idea of the commercialization of microalgae-based biofuels
to demonstrate the potential of microalgae following usage of CO2 from aforementioned sources.
In this respect, a number of relevant topics are addressed: the nature of microalgae (species and

7
composition); CO2 capture via microalgae; the techniques for microalgae cultivation, harvesting
and pre-treatment; and the techniques for lipid extraction and biofuel production. The strategies
for biofuel commercialization are proposed as well. Finally, a comprehensive list of present
research work in the field of microalgae cultivation as a CO2 sequestration technique is
presented with a summary of findings.

OVERVIEW OF MICROALGAE SPECIES

Microalgae are made up of cells with ‘good’ or membrane-bound nuclei and these cells consist
of cell wall, plasmatic membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus and organelles, such as mitochondria,
lysosomes and golgi (Taher et al., 2011). Also present in Microalgae is the plastids, which are
bodies with chlorophyll that aid the accomplishment of photosynthesis. Furthermore, microalgae
have various strains with different combinations of chlorophyll molecules - some have only
Chlorophyll A, some a combination of A and B, while others have a combination of the A and C
strain (Um and Kim, 2009). The biomass of microalgae contains three main components:
proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. The biomass composition of various algae has been reported
elsewhere (Um and Kim, 2009; Sydney et al. 2010; Singh et al., 2012) and provides information
regarding the distribution of the aforementioned components in different microalgae specie.
Thus, it is of essence that attention be paid to the selection of suitable species to achieve utmost
benefits from the cultivation of microalgae. Microalgae cultivation is largely composed of a
single specific strain that is incisively selected for producing the desired product where the
outcome of the cultivation system is of benefit. The conditions for successful cultivation,
incudes, water media with adequate pH and temperature; Necessary contained nutrients and;
controlled CO2 dose in the presence of sunlight, also make up the requirements for microalgae
cultivation.

CULTIVATION OF MICROALGAE SPECIES

An abundance of different cultivation techniques for microalgae species has been widely by a
number of authors and is available in literature (Wang et al., 2008; Suali and Sarbatly, 2012;
Bahadar and Khan, 2013; Zhao and Su, 2014). The types of cultivation techniques depend on a
number of factors including but not limited to the following;
i. The investment cost,

8
 ii. The source of nutrients
iii. The desired products,
iv. CO2 capture requirements.

The different cultivation systems have been categorized into open and closed systems. Open
systems are located or suited for facilities pertaining to outdoor settings that consists of ponds,
lagoons, deep channels, shallow circulating units and others. Dissimilarly, the closed systems are
vessels or tubes with walls that are made of transparent materials, located in outdoors under
sunlight irradiation or artificial irradiation (Razzak et al., 2013).

Open System
These types of systems are simple to construct and operate and as such have been used in large
scale cultivation of microalgae species. Open systems usually have a width of 0.25m and an area
of 0.2 – 0.5 ha, known also for its high surface area per volume ratio which makes it very
applicable for a flue gas CO2 supply. These systems have been classified as
1. Artificial water systems (artificial pond, tanks, and container)
2. Natural waters (lakes, lagoons, ponds)
The applications of open systems are dependent on their shapes, sizes and types (agitated,
inclined). There are various types of ponds, including unstirred, raceway and circular ponds.
Unstirred ponds are the most economical due to their simple management and construction.
Unstirred ponds for commercial use are built in natural water ponds of less than half a meter in
depth, for microalgae species, such as Dunaliella salina (Borowitzka and Borowitzka, 1990).
However, open pond systems are very limited in their applications, given that microalgae are not
able to grow under frequently poor growth conditions and competitive growth with
contaminating protozoa, bacteria and viruses (Chaumont, 1993). Also, open systems requires
significant land area, and the culture may be subject to contamination, predators and losses due
to evaporation of water (Zhao and Su, 2014).

9
Figure 2: Cultivation systems: (a) unstirred pond, (b) raceway pond, (c) circular pond
(Chen et al., 2009), (d) tubular photo bioreactor (Carvalho et al., 2006), (e) plastic bag
photo bioreactor (Richmond, 2008), (f) air-lift loop reactor (Barbosa et al., 2003)

Raceway is an artificial channel used to culture aquatic organisms in aquaculture and consisting
of rectangular basins constructed with concrete and equipped with an inlet and outlet. The most
famous open system in use today are the Raceway ponds (or stirred paddle wheel open ponds).
These ponds are usually shallow, between 15 and 25 cm in depth, and are normally constructed
as either a single channel or groups of channels built by connecting individual raceway ponds. It
is reported that productivity of the biomass in the raceway pond is usually about 60–100 mg dry
weight/L/day (Razzak et al., 2013). These ponds are mostly used for the commercial culturing of
four known species of microalgae: Chlorella sp., Spirulina platensis, Haematococcus sp. And

10
Dunaliella salina (Moheimani and Borowitzka, 2006). Also, the dissemination of the cultivation
media in the raceway pond is induced by paddle which is achieved by continuous stirring.
Brindley et al., (2002) report that, optimal circulation velocity is required for water flow without
the deposition of sedimentation or the aggregation of cells. However, problems with deposition
of solids in stagnant areas are difficult to overcome.

Circular ponds also known as central pivot (Fig. 2(c)) are amongst the oldest large-scale algae-
cultivation open ponds available today, having a depth of approximately 25–30 cm. Microalgae
are can be grown in concrete circular ponds of up to 45 m in diameter with continuous agitation
by rotating paddles. Usually, 20-to-30-cm-thick layer of inorganic nutrient solution with algae is
exposed to sunlight and CO2 bubbled followed by continuous stirring of the paddle wheels (Lee,
2001).
Although there are a number of advantages associated with open systems, as described
previously, there are also a few limitations associated with these systems including: (1) poor
light consumption by cells, (2) evaporative losses, (3) diffusion limitation of CO2 from the
atmosphere, (4) large land area requirement and (5) easy contamination by mould and bacteria
(Razzak et al., 2013).
These limitations may be overcome using translucent plastic covers or erecting greenhouses over
the open ponds. However, these options may inherently not solve the contamination issues, also,
the high capital cost, maintenance and overheating make open ponds that are covered by
translucent plastics impractical due to the large land area required for the pond.

Closed System
Following the limitations of the open systems, it became of necessity that a new, perhaps better
culture system be conceived. Hence, the closed systems have become the focus of recent work,
and attention is now geared towards developing a more sophisticated culture system. It is now
possible for microalgae to be grown in a closed system under controlled conditions, such as light
utilization, the area required and percentage of carbon dioxide. The closed system as mentioned
previously addresses a lot of the known problems associated with open systems. Examples of
closed pond systems used for micro algae cultivation include photo bioreactors that can be
characterised by exposure of large illuminated surfaces. These types of systems can reduce

11
contamination risk from unwanted algae, mould, and bacteria, as well as control temperature,
minimize water evaporation and remove carbon dioxide losses. However, it has been reported
that, although photobioreactors may significantly reduce the growth of competitive algal weeds,
they cannot eliminate the growth of contaminants. Two disfavours with this system include
difficulty in construction and operation and as well as its cost. There are various known patterns
of photobioreactors some of which include a flat plate, tubular, etc. (Borowitzka, 2007).
Tubular Photobioreactors as shown in Fig. 2(d), are made of transparent materials and are often
placed in outdoor facilities where there is sufficient sunlight irradiation. Their design includes
gas exchange vessels that supply CO2, air and nutrients and also remove O2 are connected to the
primary reactor (Richmond, 2004; Chisti, 2007). Importantly, For the efficient design of these
cultivation vessels, it is necessary to have a large surface area per unit volume to maximize the
exposure of microalgae to sunlight. The tube sizes are often less than 10 cm in diameter to ensure
sufficient sunlight penetration. Generally, in tubular microalgae cultivation system, the medium
is circulated through the tubes, where it is exposed to sunlight for photosynthesis. This medium
is then re-circulated back to a reservoir using preferably an airlift pump. The pump helps to
maintain a highly turbulent flow within the reactor, such that flocculation of Microalgal biomass
can be avoided (Christi, 2007). Although, tubular photobioreactors are still studied in laboratory
scale and may still be impractical, the system may be operated continuously because it is
possible to harvest a fraction of the microalgae after it circulates through the solar collector tube.

Also, these types of reactors are suitable for the cultivation of microalgae species because of the
presence of sunlight. It is also possible for artificial light to sometimes replace natural light to
enhance the growth of the microalgae. However, this will be in no small way increase investment
costs that have ultimately led to the helical tubular photobioreactors being perceived as the most
suitable for the manufacture of high-value-added products (Morita et al., 2001; Briassoulisa et
al., 2010).

Microalgae may be cultivated in transparent polyethylene bags, commonly referred to as plastic

bag photobioreactors as shown in Fig. 2(e). The bags are often hung in a cage where there is
adequate sunlight irradiation, and allowing the microalgae to be mixed with air at the bottom of
the bags (Razzak et al., 2013; Xia et al., 2013). Cell setting can be prevented by using

12
transparent polyethylene sleeves that are often sealed in a coniferous shape at the bottom of the
bags.

Airlift photobioreactor is another type of a photobioreactor and is shown in Fig 2(f). These types
of reactors are simple to design and are cost-effective for the mass cultivation of various kinds of
microalgae. In fact, Acrylic glass is often used as a material to construct airlift photobioreactors
because it is inexpensive and readily available. Interestingly, two zones exist in airlift
photobioreactors, the dark (referred to as rinser) and irradiated regions. These photobioreactors
are believed to meet the desired criteria for the new generation photobioreactors, having
excessive sunlight penetration and increased biomass production, ease of maintenance, and
minimal contamination (Barbosa et al., 2003). However, large scale production in this type of
reactors may be difficult owing mainly to their flow pattern that is quite complex (Mirón et al.,
2000). To this end, vertical bubble columns and airlift cylinders can be used to attain a
substantially increased radial movement of fluid, with a high cycling of the medium between the
irradiated and dark zones. Overly, there are some advantages this team offers including, high
mass transfer rate, good mixing with low shear stress, lower consumption of energy, relatively
easy operation under sterile conditions, useful for the immobilization of algae on moving
particles and has reduced photoinhibition and oxidation. The system is also not without its
limitations such as high manufacturing and maintenance costs, light irradiation per unit surface
area, more sophisticated construction materials required, higher shear stress on microalgae
cultivations, and the large number of units needed to construct a commercially viable plant
(Razzak et al., 2013).

Flat plate photobioreactors as in Fig. 2(g) have been reported widely as very efficient for the
cultivation of biomass from microalgae. This is because these types of photobioreactors provide
a high surface area to volume ratio for the required illumination and has a well suited modular
design for scale-up (Barbosa et al., 2005).
The productivity of biomass from microalgae rapidly increases the rate of agitation, which often
provides a sufficient amount of CO2 to the cultivation system while removing excess oxygen and
increasing the flashing effect. Furthermore, Flat plate photobioreactors are suitable for both
outdoor and indoor cultivations, which is good for algae immobilization, and are relatively cheap

13
and easy to clean and maintain (Ugwu et al., 2008). An example of a fully modular
photobioreactor unit is the vertical flat plates, which can be accommodated in 1000–2000 L
volume capacity units that have been successfully operated for an extended period (Richmond,
2004). The ideal strain, advantages and disadvantages of each discussed photo bioreactor that has
been used to cultivate microalgae till date can be summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of microalgae species in closed photobioreactor cultivation systems.

(Source: Klinthong et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 712–742, 2015)

Reactor Micro algae Biomass Advantage Disadvantage Reference

Type Strain concentration
Tubular Phaeodactylum 1.19 g/L 1. Very Fouling with Acien
tri cornu tum efficient light some growth Fernández et
use. along walls. al., 2001.
Phaeodactylum 1.38 g/L 2. Excellent Hall et al.,
tri cornu tum temperature 2003.
control,
Spirulina 0.62 g/L Huntley and
platesnsis Redalje,
2007
Spirulina sp. 0.01 g/L/g Chiu et al.,
2008
Airlift Botryococcus 2.31 g/m3/d 1. Good light 1. Low Avila et al.,
branuii use, hydrodynamic 2001
stress on
algae,
Chaetoceros sp. 0.80 g/L 2. High 2. Hard to Krichnavaruk
temperature scale up. et al., 2007.
Haematococcus 4.09 g/L Kaewpintong
Pluvialis et al., 2007.
Bubble Aphanothece 0.77 g/L/d 1. Scalable; Increased Jacob-Lopes
column microscopic homogeneous shear stress et al., 2009.
Chaetoceceros 3.31 g/L culture by pumps Krichnavaruk
sp. environment, limiting et al., 2007.
Chlorella 1.41 g/L 2. Moderate biomass de Morais
Vulgaris cooling productivity and Costa,
2007b.
Cyanobium sp. 0.071 g/L requirement Henrard et
al., 2011.
Phaeoductylum n/a 3. Effective Brindley et
sp. light use. al., 2002.
Monodus sp. 0.03–0.20 Bosma et al.,
g/L 2007.

14
 Scenedesmus 2.12 g/L de Morais
obliquus and Costa,
2007b
Spirulina sp. 4.13 g/L de Morais
and Costa,
2007b
Flat plate Chlorella 0.027–0.045 1. Excellent Hard to scale Satoh et al.,
Vulgaris g/L/h light use and up. 2001.
Dunaliella sp. 1.5 g/L temperature Barbosa et
control, al., 2005
Dunaliella 3.42 g/d 2. Moderate Chang and
tertiolecta cooling Yang, 2003.
Nannochloropsi 0.225 g/L requirement, Richmond
s sp. and Wu,
2001.
Nannochloropsi 0.27 g/L 3. High gas Richmond
s sp. transfer and Wu,
coefficient 2001.
Phaeodactylum 1.38 g/L Meiser et al.,
sp. 2004
Plastic bag Tetraselmis sp. 20–30 Trotta, 1981
g/m3/d

Effect of Cultivation System on the removal percentage of CO2

Recent trends (Pires, J.C.M., et al., 2012) in the development of microalgae species show that the
cultivation environment or system is capable of affecting the amount of CO2 removed from the
flue gases. In fact results have shown that though the similar microalgae species may have
similar necessary adaptation to tolerance, their growth conditions such as is dependent on
different cultivation systems differ. These cultivation systems determine the efficiency in carbon
dioxide bio-conversion for biomass production. Figure 3 shows how the removal percentage of
carbon dioxide is affected by the cultivation environment/system (Wai Yan, C., et al., 2015).

15
 Effect of Cultivation System
90
80

CO2 removal (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 3: Effect of cultivation system on the removal percentage of CO2 using the Chlorella
sp. Microalgae species.

CO2 CAPTURE VIA MICROALGAE

The capture of carbon dioxide via microalgae is largely a sequestration technique that like many
other techniques widely known strives to reduce the carbon impact on the ecosystem. One of the
most common methods for carbon dioxide sequestration is geological storage. The process
involves sending drilled pipes of carbon dioxide through deep underground formations and
allowing the CO2 to dissolve in the natural formation fluids, where some then react chemically
to form constituents of solid matrixes. Although, this method of sequestration can be recognized
and accepted, it does not offer some the advantages the sequestration via microalgae proposes as
summarised in Table 2.

Figure 4 summarizes the process for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration via microalgae.
The schematic shows a power plant where CO2 from the flue gas can be trapped and sent to the
flue gas desulfurized (FGD) which is custom designed system that selectively removes sulphur
from the flue gas using a variety of reagents. The purified gas can then sent to the dryer where a
portion of water vapour content is extracted. The cooling media ensures that any excess water

16
vapour in the CO2 rich flue gas is removed, and any resulting water vapour that condenses is
then eliminated in a gas-liquid separator.

Table 2: Comparison of Algae-based Carbon Capture and Geological Sequestration

Technology

Algae-based Technology Geological Sequestration Technology

It is a Sustainable process Social process arises frequently

Safe Untested on large scale

No need to transport to CO2 Need to Transport CO2 to sequestration site

Generates biomass No additional revenue

Coupled with wastewater treatment Combined with Oil Recovery

$ = Carbon + Nutrient credit + biomass $ = Carbon credit

Aeration allows for the addition of oxygen to maintain a sufficient level of dissolved oxygen for
enhanced algal growth in the photobioreactor, where light preferably from the sun is used to
cultivate phototrophic microorganisms for high biomass yield. This is then collected in the
dewatering and harvesting unit, sent to the drying unit and results in the production of the algae
biomass that can then be processed as fuel, feed, fertilizer or chemicals as the case may be.

17
Figure 4: flow chart depicting the capture and sequestration of CO2 for biomass
production using microalgae (Wai Yan, C., et al., 2015).

Biotechnological methods used for Carbon assimilation is designed to reduce CO2 emission in
the environment. The procedure for this technique has to do with the use of reactors to initiate
photosynthetic reactions whereby microalgae can function as biocatalysts in a succession of
biochemical reactions that convert Carbon dioxide into metabolic products of photosynthesis.
(Jacob-Lopes et al., 2010). According to the research work of Mirón et al., 2003, Microalgae
biomass is believed to have approximately 50% carbon by weight. The carbon present in
biomass is from carbon dioxide. Approximately, 100 tonnes of microalgae can consume 183
tonnes of CO2 to produce Biomass in the presence of essential nutrients. (Huang and Tan, 2014).

18
Microalgae can react with inorganic carbon in three various ways:

1. Direct carbon dioxide fixation with a plasmatic membrane.

2. By applying a bicarbonate to influence the enzyme carbonic anhydrase, which reacts with
Bicarbonate (HCO3-) to produce CO2.
3. The linear movement of bicarbonate through a plasmatic membrane. One thing to
remember is that there is a vast difference between inorganic carbon fixations for various
microalgae as demonstrated in Table 3.

CO2 has all the necessary key ingredients that will encourage algae growth during daylight
hours. The amount of CO2 feeding can be carefully monitored using pH measurements to
eliminate any loss of CO2. In summary, CO2 assimilation using microalgae can lower the amount
of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels. This innovation has
produced desirable results and made positive impacts on the environment. (Inoue et al., 1995;
Yun et al., 1997; Abu-Khader, 2006; Brennan and Owende, 2010).

Table 3: Pathway for inorganic carbon assimilation for microalgae (+, present; -, absent;
n/a, not available).
Species CO2(pathway (1)) Carbonic anhydrase HCO3-(pathway(3)) Reference
(Pathway (2))
Chlamydomonas + + + Sültemeyer et al.,
reinhardtii 1989.
Dunaliella + + + Amoroso et al.,
terteolecta 1998.
Scenedesmus + + + Palmqvist et al.,
obliquus 1994
Chlorella + + + Rotatore and
saccharophila Colman, 1991
Chlorella + - + Rotatore and
ellipsoidea Colman, 1991.
Chlorella kesslerii + - + Bozzo et al., 2000

Navicula pelliculosa + - + Rotatore and

Colman, 1992
Phaeodactylum + + + Colman and
tricornutum Rotatore, 1995
Cyclotella sp. + + + Rotatore et al.,
1995.
Ditylum brightwellii + - + Korb et al., 1997

Skeletonema + - + Korb et al., 1997

costatum

19
 Chaetoceros + - + Korb et al., 1997
calcitrans
Thalassiosira + - n/a Elzenga et al., 2000.
punctigera
Thalassiosira n/a - + Elzenga et al., 2000.
pseudonanna
Porphyridium + + + Colman and Gehl,
cruentum 1983.
Emiliania huxleyi + + n/a Elzenga et al., 2000.

Dicrateria inornata + + + Colman et al., 2002.

Isochrysis galbana + + + Colman et al., 2002.

Phaeocystis globosa + + n/a Elzenga et al., 2000.

Vischeria stellata + - + Huertas et al., 2002

Eremosphaera + - - Rotatore et al.,

viridis 1992.
Nannochloris + - - Huertas et al., 2002
atomus
Nannochloris + - - Huertas et al.,
maculata 2000a.

Amphidinium + - - Huertas et al.,

carterae 2000a.

Heterocapsa + - - Colman et al., 2002.

oceanica
Nannochloropsis - - + Huertas et al., 2002
gaditana
Nannochloropsis - - + Huertas et al., 2002
oculata
Monodus + - - Huertas et al., 2002
subterraneus

Photosynthesis
An efficient way of capturing CO2 in the form of microalgae biomass is through biological
processes called photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, oxygen is released into Microalgae and
can be termed “oxygenic photosynthesis”. CO2 transforms into lipids and other hydrocarbons
during this photosynthetic process, which clearly explains the CO2 fixation process. In oxygenic
photosynthesis, the electron is supplied by oxygen during the reaction and oxygen is produced
after hydrolysis. The equation for the photosynthetic reaction can be written as follows:

H2O + CO2 + Photons (light) → [CH2O] n + O2 (1)

20
In the above reaction, the standard free energy for the synthesis of glucose is 2,870 kJ/mol (Zhao
and Su, 2014). The overall reaction can be categorized into two processes:

1. Light-dependent reaction and

2. Dark or light-independent reaction.

The portion of the reaction that depends on light involves both photochemical and redox reaction
phases. The overall equation for the phase that requires light for the reaction to occur is as
follows:

2H2O + 2NADP+ + 3ADP + 3P + light → 2NADPH + 2H+ + 3ATP + O2 (2)

Where: ADP = Adenosine diphosphate

P = Phosphate

NADP = Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate.

Light energy is used to incorporate ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and NADPH (nicotinamide
adenine dinucleotide phosphate) which are molecules for storing energy.

At the other phase of the reaction which can commence with or without the presence of
light, the enzyme ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) removes CO2 from
the environment. According to Peter et al., 2010, this reaction process involves the newly formed
NADPH, called the Calvin-Benson Cycle. In summary, carbon fixation yields an intermediate
product that transforms into final carbohydrate products. The carbon skeletons created through
photosynthesis can be put to use in various subsequent processes, which creates other organic
compounds. A good example is a cellulose that is a precursor for lipid and amino acid
biosynthesis or is an essential ingredient for respiration. The overall equation for the light-
independent reaction is as follows (Razzak et al., 2013):

3CO2 + 9ATP + 6NADPH + 6H+ → C3H6O3-phosphate + 9ADP + 8P + 6NADP+ + 3H2O (3)

The assimilation or reduction of CO2 occurs when combining CO2 with a five-carbon sugar,
ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate (Ru5BP), creäting two molecules of a three-carbon compound,

21
glycerate 3-phosphate (GP), also called 3- phosphoglycerate (PGA). In the presence of ATP and
NADPH (from the light-dependent process), GP undergoes reduction to produce glyceraldehyde
3-phosphate (G3P). The final product from the reduction process can be referred to as 3-
phosphoglyceraldehyde (PGAL) or called triose phosphate. Most of the glyceraldehyde 3-
phosphate created is used to restore Ru5BP so that the process can advance. A molecule from the
six molecules of triose phosphates was not used but recycled back into the system to condense to
produce hexose phosphate, which produces sucrose, starch and cellulose. Sugars produced
during carbon metabolism can be utilized for other metabolic reactions, such as the production of
amino acids and lipids (Razzak et al., 2013).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) Source

CO2 provides the carbon needed by Microalgae to grow and cultivate in the presence of Water,
carbon dioxide, minerals and light. A limited supply of Carbon dioxide is every so often a
limiting factor for microalgae photosynthesis. Microalgae presents huge benefits to humans
because it removes atmospheric CO2 from the environment through a process known as
microalgal photosynthesis. This procedure is considered safe and beneficial for the human
ecosystem (Mukherjee and Moroney, 2011).

The growth rate of some microalgae, an example, is Chlorella sp. can be retarded by the presence
of CO2 at a concentration that exceeds level in volume/volume percent (of v/v =5 %). (Silva and
Pirt, 1984; Lee and Tay, 1991; Cheng et al., 2006). However, some microalgae can cultivate
under high concentrations of CO2 in flue gas ranging between (v/v =10–15%), but the carbon
assimilation and biomass production rates can be reduced under lower CO2 concentration levels.
Only a few microalgae species can withstand extremely high CO2 levels up to 70% (some of
these species include Chlorella sp. KR-1 and Chlorella sp. ZY-1) and CO2 concentrations up to
100% (can be handled by Chlorella sp. T-1). The ideal CO2 level that most microalgal species
can tolerate is recommended to be in the 0.038–10% range. Maximum biomass production is
seen at CO2 concentration of 2.5% for microalgae Chlorella sp. (Chiu et al., 2008) and at 6% for
Scenedesmus obliquus and Chlorella kessleri (de Morais and Costa, 2007b).

22
ACIDIC GASES IN COMBUSTED FLUE GAS
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
The presence of SO2 in flue gas actively disrupts microalgae growth when the resulting gas
comes in contact with Microalgae. When the concentration of SO2 in the flue gas exceeds 100
ppm, it becomes extremely difficult to grow most microalgae (Hauck et al., 1996). There are a
few species of microalgae that can grow with difficulty under conditions of high SO2
concentration; however, they have an extended lag phase compared to that which has an absence
of SO2.

With an increase in the concentration of SO2, the inhibiting effect of the acidic gas is enhanced,
which causes a sharp reduction in carbon fixation and biomass production. The impeding effects
of SO2 on microalgae growth can connect to its high acidity. The Hydrogen ion released during
the hydrolysis of SO2 creates some level of acidity in the cultivation medium (Du et al., 2010).
When the pH of the cultivation medium drops below 3.0, the microalgae cells are destroyed
(Maeda et al., 1995). Nevertheless, if the pH of the cultivation medium is kept constant by the
neutralization method, the microalgae growth process remains the same even without the
presence of SO2 (Zhao and Su, 2014). These test results demonstrate that effects of SO2 on
microalgae, which is as a result of pH values in the batch medium. Other research activities have
confirmed the effect of SO2 on microalgae, which is not only related to pH values but also to
SO42– and HSO4– produced during the hydrolysis of SO2. SO42– and HSO4– also have inhibiting
effects on microalgae growth (Chiu et al., 2011).

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

When fossil fuel is burnt, and flue gas is released into the environment, the NOx emission level
ranges from several hundred to several thousand ppm with a little over 90–95% NO and 5–10%
NO2. After flue gas undergoes a DeNOx processes, nitrogen oxide is transformed into harmless
nitrogen and water. It is a bit of a challenge for NO to impact greatly the growth of microalgae
through acidic pH values in the cultivation medium. The NO concentration usually has a double-
sided effect on the growth of microalgae. An incredibly low concentration of NO might even be
taken in by the cultivation medium and transformed into NO2- as the source of nitrogen nutrition
for microalgae when using inorganic forms (Zhao and Su, 2014). On the other hand, this positive
effect is very limited because the increased NO concentration creates a decreased growth rate of

23
microalgae for most species of microalgae. Higher ppm values of NO around 300 ppm can retard
microalgae growth (Chaumont, 1993)

The acidic gases, SOx and NOx present in flue gas can be treated individually by flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) processes respectively, or
concurrently by a shared treatment systems right before the treated gas stream flows into a
microalgae reactor. The FGD uses an alkaline salt like limestone (CaCO3) to remove SO2 in a
reaction to form CaSO4. The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) utilizes ammonia or urea in the
presence of a catalyst like titanium oxide, silico-alumino-phosphate, zeolite, Al2O3, etc. to
decompose NOx into N2 and H2O in an oxidizing atmosphere. (Jin et al., 2005; Hende et al.,
2012).

A good example of a combined treatment system is the DeSoNox or SNOX process, where a
catalytic reduction of NOx is combined with a catalytic oxidation of SO2 (Trozzi et al., 2010).

Carbon Fixation
Microalgae can convert inorganic carbon (Carbon dioxide) instantaneously, just the way it takes
place in most plants, even though the net CO2 uptake remains positive. The CO2 fixation rate can
be related to the light utilization efficiency and the cell density of microalgae. Microalgae CO2
fixation has to do with photoautotrophic growth in which Anthropogenic carbon dioxide
produced from human activities can be used as a carbon source. Consequently, biomass amounts
and the growth rate estimates remain critical to assessing future microalgae cultivation system
for direct CO2 removal (Costa et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2006). The rate of CO2 removal in a
photo bioreactor can be improved with microalgae cultivation, of which the removal efficiency
can be determined by the difference in the CO2 concentration of the incoming and outgoing
emissions.

According to (Chiu et al., 2009): The formula for calculating CO2 removal efficiency (%) is
provided below.

(4)

24
The rate of CO2 removal from a closed cultivation system depends on the following

1. The type of Microalgae species presents in the system

2. The concentration of CO2 in the system
3. The photobioreactor design
4. The operating conditions of the cultivation system

A type of Microalgae known as Chlorella Vulgaris has an optimum CO2 removal efficiency of
55.3% at 0.15% CO2 in a membrane photobioreactor. Other species of Microalgae like Spirulina
sp. and Scenedesmus obliquus hold an optimum CO2 removal efficiency of 27–38% and 7–13%,
respectively, in a three tubular photobioreactor arranged in series (Cheng et al., 2006), however
the rate of CO2 fixation is reduced to 7–17% and 4–9% respectively under 12% CO2 aeration (de
Morais and Costa, 2007). In the other words, the effectiveness of the CO2 removal and fixation
depends solely on the kind of species of microalgae as a result of the physiological conditions of
microalgae, such as the potential for cell development and CO2 metabolism.

The CO2 fixation efficiency can be determined from the carbon content of the microalgae cell
(Yun et al., 1997). The growth rate of microalgae can be estimated through the linear growth
regime.

The fixation rate can be determined as follows:

(5)

In the equation above, the parameters are defined as follows:

RCO2 = Fixation rate of Carbon dioxide (measured as gCO2/m3 h)

µL = The volumetric growth rate (g dry weight/m3 h)

MCO2 = Molecular weight of CO2

MC = Molecular weights elemental C

CC = Average carbon content as measured by elemental analysis.

25
Because of climate, land and water limitations, there are numerous challenges faced when
accumulating and making use of microalgae directly on the site. On the other hand, the
economics of utilizing microalgae can be improved using a two-stage process. During this
process, the CO2 produced from a power plant or other carbon sources is first scrubbed (e.g.,
amine scrubber) and its concentration is increased with a conventional process (Rochelle, 2009;
Yu et al., 2012). The total CO2 is transported through a pipeline to a suitable facility for
microalgae production. This process can be likened to the economics of similar conventional
CO2 processes where CO2 capture involves a separation process that is followed by transporting
and finally disposing of it in deep oceans and running down a gas well (Razzak et al., 2013). One
should remember that certain microalgae species can handle relatively high temperatures (close
to and over 30°C). This category of microalgae can be cultivated with high-temperature flue
gases from industrial facilities in the neighboring area (Wang et al., 2008). This temperature-
tolerant strain can simplify the control of Microalgae species, as the optimal growth temperature
of most microalgae species falls in the range of 20–30°C. A number of unicellular microalgae
strains, an example is Chlorella sp., which increases in growth at temperatures of up to 42°C, and
its tolerance to both elevated temperatures and an increased CO2 content makes them suitable
microbial cells for photobioreactors that are involved in CO2 capture for flue gases (Wang et al.,
2008).

Enhancements and Application of the CO2 Fixation Process

Till this modern era, CO2 fixation by microalgae, biomass production and energy consumption
have experienced enormous advancement in both laboratory-scale scientific research and pilot-
scale applications (Chisti, 2010; Chi et al., 2011; Chisti and Yan, 2011). Process improvement as
a middle measurement technique used to quantify accurately the efficiency of CO2 fixation and
biomass production. Whether research activities in laboratory-scale research or pilot-scale level,
the performance of CO2 fixation and biomass production depend vitally on the process
conditions and parameters. For laboratory-scale research, when selecting the microalgae to
cultivate and promote to acquire high performance of microalgae species may be significant
factors. The estimation of microalgae performance under thorough process and environmental
conditions like high CO2 concentration, high temperature and presence of toxic pollutants in the

26
flue gas, are also essential. In pilot-scale applications, microalgae cultivation is often disturbed
by the temperature of cultivation, exposure to light and hydrodynamic conditions. Open
cultivation is greatly influenced by outdoor temperatures, outdoor illumination and seasonal
conditions (unfavourably influencing microalgae growth) compared to closed cultivation (Zhao
and Su, 2014).

For closed systems, to improve process parameters for CO2 fixation and biomass production, it
merely requires making changes to physiochemical factors, which includes exposure to a light
source, nutritional conditions and hydrodynamic parameters, such as mixing and mass transfer
rates by improving the gas-liquid contact area and time of retaining, even though the economy
and practical use are controversial for their scale-up (Mirón et al., 1999). The rate of CO2
fixation and biomass production can be enhanced using improved aeration to accomplish
turbulence mixing, a high Carbon dioxide mass transfer rate and high removal rates for excess
oxygen in the cultivation medium (Sierra et al., 2008). However, great stress on microalgae cells
and huge operating costs are still significant challenges faced with this technology (Zhao and Su,
2014).

It is important to know that CO2 fixation through microalgae and biomass production that is in
use today can be influenced by numerous factors, such as the type of microalgae species as well
as physicochemical and hydrodynamic conditions. To improve the rate of CO2 fixation and
biomass production, the synergistic results and optimization process parameters should be of
great concern and must to be solved when utilizing microalgae for CO2 fixation and mass
producing it on an industrial scale.

Comparing the removal of CO2 in different species of Microalgae

Numerous species of microalgae are in existence, and recently, some research activities have
reported some discoveries on CO2 removal and its conversion to biomass.

Figure 5 shows the carbon dioxide removal from flue gas and the amount of biomass yield for
diverse species of microalgae. Results from the research activities show that even if the removal
of CO2 is reduced for some microalgae species, they produce a higher overall yield of biomass.
Another microalgae that has very good CO2 removal efficiency is Chlorella Vulgaris who

27
removal rating is 92.2% with a corresponding biomass yield of 0.315 g/L, whereas another algae
species Spirulina Sp., has a CO2 removal rate of 45.61 in percentage with 3.50g/L biomass yield
(Wai Yan, C., et al, 2015).

92.2
100
80 60 61.8
60 40.2 63.1
40 45.61
20 0.315 0.4 28.08
0.653 0.948
0 3.5 1.58 5.8

CO2 removal (%) Biomass yield(g/L)

Figure 5: Relationship between Biomass yield and CO2 removal rate for different species
of Microalgae
The data presented in the chart above offers a promising solution to reducing carbon footprint in
the environment while utilizing it to make a variety of biomass products. On the other hand, a lot
of work is required to harness fully the potentials of microalgae species in removing CO2 from
the environment while yielding higher biomass that can be processed further to get fertilizers,
biofuels, chemicals and feed (Man, K.L., et al., 2012).

HARVESTING BIOMASS PRODUCED BY MICROALGAE

Harvesting is a cost-intensive and challenging part of any industrial production of microalgae
biomass due to microalgae having a low cell density, being usually in the range of 0.3–0.5 g/L,
with unique cases where it reaches 5 g/L. Though, the capital requirement for the industrial scale
is a cell sludge having at least 300-400 g/L. Hence, it is necessary for the effluent microalgae

28
suspension to be at least 100 times concentrated, which is an energy-intensive process (Wang et
al., 2008).

When microalgae cultivation has extended to the stationary phase, it is separated from water and
the biomass obtained for downstream processes. Another challenge presented in the harvest of
microalgae is its size. This can present a problem because microalgae have a micron size (1–20
µm) and remains suspended in liquid.

Presently, there are numerous ways that microalgae can be harvested.

1. Bulk harvesting involves filtering out microalgae from a suspension, with the help of
natural gravity like sedimentation, flocculation and flotation, which produces a
concentration factor of 100–800 times.
2. Using Centrifugation and filtration techniques to thicken the slurry after bulk harvesting
so as to concentrate the microalgae to a concentration factor of 30 times.

Flocculation and flotation are techniques commonly used in the bulk collection of Microalgae.
The flocculation mechanism is designed to neutralize and lower the ion charge on the microalgae
principal surface so as to gather cells in suspension, which can be collected by the addition of
flocculants such as multivalent cations and cationic polymers (Molina et al., 2003). Flocculation
can be achieved by modifying the pH of the cultivation chamber to a value between 10 and 10.6
using Sodium hydroxide, which neutralizes the negative ion charge on the cell surface, and the
non-ionic polymer by adding Magnafloc LT-25. The resulting flocculate is collected and
neutralized to achieve a final concentration between 200- and 800-fold.

The current state of performing flocculation of Microalgae requires significant breakthroughs in

emerging polymeric flocculants through intensive research studies to further support the
potential use of flocculation in the harvesting process of this living organism (Lam and Lee,
2012). Flotation has to do with trapping cells that are dispersed by micro-air bubbles without the
addition of any chemical reagent. Flotation can capture particles with a diameter lower than 500
mm through the collision between a bubble and a particle that has subsequent adhesion with a
bubble of the particle.

29
The flotation process in which microalgae rises to the surface of the medium can harvest
microalgae in large amounts and has been used for specific strain, such as Spirulina platensis
(Zhang et al., 2014). The resulting sludge is usually clean. However, the floating method
presents an array of challenges when microalgae need to be harvested on a large scale. (Wang et
al., 2008). Centrifugation, on the other hand, is an efficient but energy-intensive technique
(Molina et al., 2003). The effectiveness of centrifugation is often influenced by the settling
characteristics of the cells, the residence time of the cell slurry, and the settling depth. The
settling depth can be kept small through the design of the centrifuge, and the flow rate can
measure the resident time of the slurry. The centrifugal recovery of biomass is achievable for
high-value products because it can process high volumes quickly, and the biomass remains fully
confined during recovery (Heasman et al., 2000). Filtration, which functions under high pressure
or vacuum, is by far the best method for harvesting enormous amounts of filamentous
microalgae; however, the small cells of microalgae are not ideal, whereas membrane
microfiltration and ultrafiltration could be suitable options. This present day, large-scale
microalgae biomass production facilities do not utilize membrane filtration because it is
expensive to maintain due to frequent membrane replacement and service of the pumping
equipment (Hung and Liu, 2006). Furthermore, microfiltration is inexpensive when compared to
centrifugation (Molina et al., 2003). As an approach to lower biomass-harvesting costs, utilizing
an easy-to-harvest microalgae technique for CO2 fixation and biomass production should be
selected (Wang et al., 2008).

Table 4: A Comparison of microalgae harvesting and drying methods (Taher et al., 2011;
Zhang et al., 2014)

Method Advantage Disadvantage

Harvesting Flocculation 1) Full range of 1) Chemical

flocculants contamination
available
2) Ease of use 2) Removal of
flocculants
3) Highly sensitive
to pH level

Floatation 1) Prone to harvest in 1) Challenging at a large

mass culture scale

30
 Sedimentation 1) Low power 1) Slow sedimentation
consumption rates
2) Little requirement for 2) Low cell recovery
skilled operators
3) Useful as a pre-
concentration step

Centrifugation 1) High harvesting 1) High capital and

efficiency operational costs
2) Rapid separation 2) Cell damage
process
3) Easy to operate 3) Careful bulk harvest

Filtration 1) Water and nutrient 1) Fouling

reuse
2) Wide variety of filter 2) Slow process
and membrane types
3) Suitable for large
microalgal cell

Drying Sun drying 1) Cheap (no running 1) Difficult

cost, low capital cost)

2) Slow

3) Weather dependent

4) Large area requirement

5) Easy contamination

Spray drying 1) Fast 1) Cost intensive

2) Continuous 2) Species deterioration

(i.e., pigments)

3) Efficient

Drum drying 1) Fast 1) Cost intensive

2) Efficient 2) Species deterioration

3) High-temperature
sterilization

Oven drying 1) Fast 1) Cost intensive

2) Efficient 2) Species deterioration

31
 3) High-temperature
sterilization
4) Batch or continuous
Freeze drying 1) Gentle
2) Low species
deterioration
AREAS OF RESEARCH IN RECENT TIMES AND RESEARCH GROUP
Table 5: Research areas in CO2 Capture with microalgae (Wai Yan, C., et al., 2015)
Research group (Authors) Research Area (Topic)
Mariana Anjos, Bruno D. Fernandes, Optimization of CO2 bio-mitigation by
António A. Vicente, José A. Teixeira, Giuliano Chlorella Vulgaris
Dragone. (2013)
Jun Cheng , Yun Huang, Jia Feng, Jing Sun, Improving CO2 fixation efficiency by
Junhu Zhou, Kefa Cen. (2013) optimizing Chlorella PY-ZU1 culture
conditions in sequential bioreactors
I. de Godos, J.L. Mendoza, F.G. Acién, E. Evaluation of carbon dioxide mass
Molina, C.J. Banks, S. Heaven , F. Rogalla. transfer in raceway reactors for
microalgae culture using flue gases
(2014)
Utilization of carbon dioxide in
industrial flue gases for the
Chien-Ya Kao, Tsai-Yu Chen, Yu-Bin Chang,
cultivation of microalga Chlorella sp.
Tzai-Wen Chiu, Hsiun-Yu Lin, Chun-Da Chen,
Jo-Shu Chang, Chih-Sheng Lin. (2014)
1) Slow process
2) Cost intensive
Findings/Summary
With a maximum of 6.5%
CO2 concentration, studies
confirm a promising
strategy for maximizing
CO2 bio-mitigation.
Multistage sequential bio-
reactor improved the CO2
fixation peak efficiency
and subsequent increase in
biomass.
About 66% of carbon from
the CO2 supply was
incorporated successfully
into biomass with only a
6% loss due to outgassing
Results show that, the
algae can in fact
sufficiently utilize CO2
from flue gas for
biomass cultivation and
that growth is
dependent on flue gas
composition.
32
SUMMARY
Microalgae have of late received increased attention due to its intended use for CO2 capture and
application of renewable energy technologies. This living organism presents huge benefits when
compared to the use of other plant feedstock which includes:
1. High rate of photosynthetic transformation
2. Rapid production
3. Extraordinary capabilities in producing a broad range of biofuel feedstock
4. The immense ability for use in environmental bioremediation. An example is CO2
fixation from the atmosphere/flue gas and also for purifying water.
5. It is not competing for land with crops and food.

In conclusion, it is assumed that the net CO2 emission is zero if CO2 removed from flue gas by
microalgae to produce biofuel can be recycled and reused, for the cultivation of microalgae. Due
to this fact, these benefits and possibilities make microalgae an ideal candidate for resolving CO2
reduction and energy issues. When Microalgae needs to be cultivated, some critical questions
still arise which is a primary concern, and they include: the cultivation conditions of the living
organism, having a water media at the appropriate pH and temperature condition, nutrients and
CO2 dosed in the right amounts in the presence of sunlight, etc. Cultivating Microalgae in a
closed photobioreactor chamber is more favourable when compared to growing in open ponds or
raceways for meeting the need of biofuel industries (Worasaung et.al., 2015)

At this time, there are some examples of long-term continuous production of biomass and carbon
capture systems that utilize Microalgae (Jeong et al. 2003, Doucha et al. 2005). Nonetheless,
laboratory and pilot plant studies recommend that capturing CO2 with algae is a potentially
feasible approach for reducing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere that was produced by human
activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. The long-term prospects for large-scale carbon
capture with microalgae will depend on the passage of a regulation that encourages carbon-
capture technologies and the economics of algal pond systems. It is important to know that life-
cycle studies show that the costs of capturing carbon and producing liquid biofuels from

33
microalgae will approach the costs of producing petroleum-based products in the next 5 to 10
years (Schenk et al. 2008, Lardon et al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2010).

34
REFERENCES

Bahadar, A., & Khan, M. (2013). Progress in Energy from Microalgae. A Review. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Reviews. Volume 27, 128–148.

Gao, Y., Gregor, C., Liang, Y. T., & Tweed, C. (2012). Algae biodiesel - A Feasibility report.
Chemistry Central Journal, 1–16.

Hanelt, D., Bischof, K., & Dunton, K. (2007). Life strategy, ecophysiology and ecology of
seaweeds in polar waters. Amsterdam Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Man, K. L., Keat, T. L., and A. R, Mohamed. (2012). Current Status and Challenges on
Microalgae-based Carbon Capture. Inter. J. Greenhouse gas control. vol. 10. pp. 456-469

Pires, J. C. M., Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M., Martins, F. G., and M. Simoes. (2012). Carbon Dioxide
Capture from Flue Gases using Microalgae: Engineering Aspects and Biorefinery Concept.
Renew. Sust. Energy reviews. vol.16 (5). pp. 3043-3053

Spolaore, P., Joannis-Cassan, C., Duran, E., & Isambert, A. (2006). Commercial applications of
microalgae. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering Volume 101, Issue 2, pp. 87–96.

Taher, H., Al-Zuhair, S., Al-Marzouqui, A., & Haik, Y. (2011). A review of enzymatic
transesterification of microalgal oil-based biodiesel using supercritical technology.
Enzyme Research Volume 2011, pp.1-25.

Wai Yan. C., Pau, L. K., Jo-Shu, C., Tau, C. L., and J. C. Juan. (2015). Bio-sequestration of
Atmospheric CO2 and Flue Gas-Containing CO2 by microalgae. J. Bior. Tech. vol. 184. pp. 190-
201.

Worasaung, K., Yang, Y.-H., Huang, C.-H., & Tan, C.-S. (2015). A Review: Microalgae and
Their Applications in CO2 Capture and Renewable. Aerosol and Air Quality Research,
Volume 15, 712–742.

Yun, Y. L. (1997). Carbon Dioxide Fixation by Algae Cultivation Using Wastewater Nutrient.
Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology Volume 69, pp. 451–455.

Zhang, X., Rong, J., Chen, H., He, C., & Wang, Q. (2014). Current status and outlook in the
application of microalgae in biodiesel production and environmental protection. Frontiers
in Energy Research - Bioenergy and Biofuels, pp.1–15.

35