Next Article in Journal
Optimal Design of a Multi-Carrier Microgrid (MCMG) Considering Net Zero Emission
Previous Article in Journal
Bioethanol Production from Cachaza as Hydrogen Feedstock: Effect of Ammonium Sulfate during Fermentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/en10122110
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Utilization of Microalgal Biofractions for Bioethanol, Higher Alcohols, and Biodiesel Production: A Review

by
Marwa M. El-Dalatony
1,
El-Sayed Salama
1,
Mayur B. Kurade
1,
Sedky H. A. Hassan
2,
Sang-Eun Oh
3,
Sunjoon Kim
1 and
Byong-Hun Jeon
1,*
1
Department of Earth Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
2
Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, New Valley Branch, El-Kharga 72511, Egypt
3
Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon-si 24341, Gangwon-do, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2017, 10(12), 2110; https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122110
Submission received: 27 October 2017 / Revised: 7 December 2017 / Accepted: 8 December 2017 / Published: 12 December 2017
(This article belongs to the Section I: Energy Fundamentals and Conversion)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biomass is a crucial energy resource used for the generation of electricity and transportation fuels. Microalgae exhibit a high content of biocomponents which makes them a potential feedstock for the generation of ecofriendly biofuels. Biofuels derived from microalgae are suitable carbon-neutral replacements for petroleum. Fermentation is the major process for metabolic conversion of microalgal biocompounds into biofuels such as bioethanol and higher alcohols. In this review, we explored the use of all three major biocomponents of microalgal biomass including carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids for maximum biofuel generation. Application of several pretreatment methods for enhancement the bioavailability of substrates (simple sugar, amino acid, and fatty acid) was discussed. This review goes one step further to discuss how to direct these biocomponents for the generation of various biofuels (bioethanol, higher alcohol, and biodiesel) through fermentation and transesterification processes. Such an approach would result in the maximum utilization of biomasses for economically feasible biofuel production.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Concerns related to climatic changes, rising energy demands due to depletion of fossil fuels, and the fluctuating economics of crude oil generation are gradually emphasizing the need of other alternatives to fulfil the growing energy requirements [1,2]. International Energy Outlook 2016 predicted that the world energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will be increased by 10% in 2020 and 34% by the end of 2040 [3]. Emissions of CO2 result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels. The ignition of fossil fuels is estimated to release about six gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere (in the form of CO2) per year [4]. As a result of human activities, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by ~25% over the past 150 years [5]. Increasing the energy demand and environmental pollution (Figure 1a) are thus two major challenges that threaten the world [6,7,8]. In this context, a higher supply of food (70%), fuel (50%), and water (50%) will be required by 2050, in addition to a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions to maintain social, political, and climate security [9]. Thus, it is immensely important to develop new technologies in order to reduce the CO2 emissions. Increases in the use of renewable and nuclear energy will reduce the share of fossil fuels to 78% [10].
The development of sustainable water-use practices and production methods for food and energy is required to prevent the use of all available land resources for agricultural purposes. Replacement sources of energy are necessary to substitute for the shortfall in fossil fuels, and bioenergy is one such suitable source to supplement the limited fossil-fuel reserves [11]. Bioenergy is vital for the socio-economic development of a nation [12]. Depending on the type of feedstock used, bioenergy production from sugar/starch feedstocks are stated as the first-generation biofuels, whereas bioethanol generated from lignocellulosic-waste biomass is referred to a second-generation biofuel. Lignocellulosic biomass and waste materials (i.e., grasses, sawdust, livestock manure, wood chips, crop residues, and sludge) are alternative economical feedstocks, which can be hydrolyzed by enzymes to simple sugars (monosaccharides) for subsequent production of biofuel [13]. The use of reducing sugars as feedstock for the generation of biofuels has limited feasibility because of the low product yield and excessive cost of the hydrolysis process. The main shortcomings of first and second generation biofuels can be solved to a great extent by third generation biofuels (Figure 1b) [14].
One concern associated with substantially increasing biofuels production is the limited availability or competition for suitable land. In particular, the GHG (greenhouse gases) mitigation benefits of biofuels can be negated if land with high carbon intensity is cleared for the production of biofuel feedstocks. Biofuels which could be generated without increases in arable land or reductions in tropical rainforests remain attractive.
Algal biomass-based-routes to biofuels have potential in this context [15]. Microalgae consume 1.83 tons of CO2 to produce 1.0 ton of biomass. Moreover, studies conducted on the ability of microalgae to fix flue gas CO2 showed an overall 90% reduction in CO2 emissions [16]. This capacity to sequester CO2 makes microalgae an ideal candidate for CO2 mitigation and biofuel production. The major compounds of microalgae used for biofuel production are carbohydrates in the form of reducing sugars, proteins as various amino acids, and lipids in the form of fatty acids (Table 1). Most of previous reviews focused on conversion of a specific component of the biomass (carbohydrates, proteins, or lipids) into biofuel while considering the other portions of the biomass to be a waste, which might be the main cause for the economic infeasibility of microalgal biofuels [17,18,19,20]. In this review, we explored the use of all three major biocomponents of microalgal biomass including carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids for maximum biofuel generation. Application of different pretreatment approaches for improvement the bioavailability of substrates (simple sugar, amino acid, and fatty acid) was discussed. This review goes one step further to discuss how to direct these biocompounds for the generation of various biofuels (bioethanol, higher alcohol, and biodiesel) through fermentation and transesterification processes. Such approach would result in the maximum utilization of biomasses for economically feasible biofuel production.

Microalgal Biomass as a Potential Source for Biofuel Generation

Microalgae has gained considerable attention as an alternative biofuel feedstock, as recent studies have indicated that most of microalgal biomass is exceedingly rich in carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins [26]. Biofuels from microalgae have promise as carbon-neutral replacements for petroleum, and these are referred to as third generation biofuels [27]. The values of microalgae biocompounds from many previous works fall in the following range: carbohydrates (10–40%), lipids (20–80%), and proteins (10–50%) [28]. These percentages vary with the type of microalgae, cultivation method and condition. Carbohydrates derived from microalgal biomass can be easily saccharified, and the microalgal biomass requires relatively minimal pretreatment, making it a highly competitive feedstock for biofuel production compared to lignocellulosic materials [29]. Understanding the basics of carbohydrate metabolism in microalgae is necessary for developing effective approaches to increase the carbohydrate productivity [30]. Carbohydrates derived from the process of photosynthesis and CO2 fixation. The intrinsic carbohydrate contents of selected microalgae along with the carbohydrate contents under specific cultivation and environmental conditions are listed in Table 2. Carbohydrates can be fermented to produce bioethanol. Bioethanol from microalgae can be produced by dark fermentation or yeast fermentation. Microalgal lipids are mainly composed of unsaturated fatty acids and some saturated fatty acids [31,32]. The lipid is extracted using organic solvent and is then transesterified to biodiesel in the presence of base or acid catalysts [33].
Microalgae are the source of a wide range of value-added products, including nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals, pigments, fertilizers, and feed for livestock. Microalgae contain proportions of biocompounds similar to those of human food sources [39]. Microalgal proteins are mixtures of amino acids and peptides, and they can be converted to higher alcohols [40]. Studies on transforming amino acids to biobutanol have recently been conducted (Figure 2). A few studies have suggested the utilization of biomass (containing carbohydrates, and protein fractions) left after fatty acid extraction for bioethanol, biobutanol, and biohydrogen production [41,42]. Various conversion methods are used for the generation of different forms of biofuels for example, bioethanol, biodiesel, bio-oil, and methane from microalgal biomass components (Figure 3).
In the following subsections, we briefly discuss different products obtainable from microalgae. A significant amount of research and development (R and D) work is being conducted to make microalgal biofuels production a cost-effective process at a commercial scale. Some of the biggest challenges in this area are associated with finding economical and sustainable ways to cultivate, harvest, extract, and convert useful components into biofuels. The complete utilization of microalgal biomass should be considered to produce several biofuels and value-added products, and to improve the economic feasibility of microalgae.

2. Various Pretreatment Methods for the Extraction of Microalgal Biofractions

Several pretreatment methods such as physical, chemical, and biological pretreatments can be used for the hydrolysis of feedstock. Microalgae (such as Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus sp., and Chlamydomonas sp.) have an abundance of carbohydrates (cellulose) and proteins that can be converted to bioalcohol under specific fermentation conditions [44,45,46]. Biomass pretreatment enhances the hydrolysis rate of substrate as it enhances the solubility of sugar, increases surface area, improves the digestibility of substrate by weakening the cell wall, making enzymes more accessible [47]. There are four major operations required for biofuel production: pretreatment, hydrolysis, fermentation and distillation (recovery of the product) [48]. Pretreatment of biomass is usually a costly step in bioethanol production; thus, an economical pretreatment method should be applied to make bioethanol generation economically attractive process [49]. An effective pretreatment should be cost effective, energy efficient, simple to apply, and should not convert the fermentable sugars into an unusable form. Biomass can be pretreated using physical, chemical, and biological methods (Figure 4a).

2.1. Physical Pretreatment

Physical pretreatment normally uses combination of mechanical and heat treatment to reduce the particle sizes of the microalgal biomass and increase the specific surface area by reducing the cellulose crystallinity. Pyrolysis is widely used as a physical pretreatment in which a high temperature is applied on the biomass for short time duration. However, the cost associated with its high energy consumption restricts its implementation at a commercial scale production [50]. Ultrasonication is a developing technology with the potential to decrease chemical loading and reaction time. It effectively modifies the surface structure of biomass which lead to enhanced saccharification [45,51]. It has been widely used for homogenization and disruption of the rigid cell wall of microalgae. Pretreatment using sonication under optimum conditions of 2.2 Kw, 40 kHz, for 15 min at 50 °C released 74 mg g−1 of total reducing sugars (TRS) based on the dry cell weight [25]. Other physical methods including steam explosion and autoclaving, rupture the microalgal cell wall, resulting in the release and recovery of biocomponents. The steam explosion method provides accessibility to the degradation of cellulose. Steam explosion is increasingly considered to be one of the most efficient, eco-friendly and cost-effective processes for commercial application and thus, it has been widely tested at the pilot scale for various biomasses [52]. This method consists of heat treatment (160–270 °C) to biomass under high-pressure steam (20–50 bar) for a short duration (a few minutes); then, the reaction is stopped when the pressure conditions reach atmospheric conditions.

2.2. Chemical Pretreatment

The chemicals that are usually used for the pretreatment procedures are either acids or alkaline. These are industrial chemicals with minimal toxicity in their applied concentrations. The chemical pretreatment of microalgal biomass improved effective extraction of intracellular lipids, carbohydrates and proteins. Acid pretreatments are preferable over alkali treatments, as they provide higher convertibility of cellulosic materials into reducing sugars [53]. During the acid pretreatment, several parameters such as acid concentration, treatment time, temperature, and amount of substrate loading influence the process efficiency. Microalgal polysaccharides are encapsulated in the cell wall [54], which must be released from the cell well and hydrolyzed into simple sugars so that microorganisms can ferment it to bioethanol.
Maximizing the bioavailability of fermentable biomass components is a key challenge in biomass pretreatment due to the loss of sugars during conventional pretreatment approaches [55]. Pretreatment of fruit peels and wastes (FPWs) with dilute acetic acid helped maximize sugar recovery (99.9%) under the optimized conditions (0.2 M acetic acid, 100 °C, 1 h) at 10% substrate loading [56]. Nguyen et al. [57] documented that pretreatment of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii biomass with 3% sulfuric acid for 15–20 min at 110 °C released up to 58 wt. % glucose and yielded ∼29 wt. % (g ethanol g−1 microalgae) ethanol. This demonstrates the possibility of applying acid pretreatment to microalgal biomass.
Alkali has also been used for pretreatment of macroalgae. Harun et al. [58], applied alkali treatment (120 °C, 30 min, 0.75% NaOH) to recover the carbohydrate portion from Chlorococum infusionum with a maximum glucose yield of 0.35 g sugar g−1 algal biomass. To commercialize the process of bioethanol production from microalgal biomass, in-depth investigations on pretreatment processes, mostly focusing on the optimization of the process parameters are essential.

2.3. Biological Pretreatment

Biological pretreatment utilizes microbes and enzymes to disintegrate the biomass and release the simple sugars for the subsequent fermentation (Figure 4b). This approach is the most environmentally friendly method since it avoids using chemical regents, consumes less energy, does not require specific vessels that are resistant to rust and pressure, and forms few inhibitors [48]. However, biological pretreatment is associated with a slow hydrolysis rate, which prolongs this processing step. The algal cell wall contains cellulose and other nutrients that support the growth of hydrolytic microorganisms for biofuel production. Hydrolytic aerobic bacteria have been used for degrading the algal cell wall [59]. Moreover, anaerobic bacteria could be used for pretreatment of microalgal cells for anaerobic digestion and biofuel production.
Microbial enzymes for the pretreatment convert the complex compounds in the algal cells into simple soluble sugars. Enzymatic hydrolysis is an efficient process for the hydrolysis of the microalgal biofractions [60,61]. This strategy has advantages over chemical hydrolysis due to its high selectivity and generation of low toxic hydrolysates as compared to acid/alkali hydrolysis. Commercial enzymes under anaerobic digestion were investigated for the pretreatment of Rhizoclonium biomass to improve biomethane production [62]. Because of the complexity of the algal cell wall, enzyme cocktail is recommended for pretreatment instead of using a single enzyme. Various enzymes have been applied for the hydrolysis of microalgae biomass for increasing the total reducing sugar production (Table 3).
Carbohydrases are used for the disintegration of cell wall and retrieval of proteins at neutral pH [63]. Carbohydrases attack the carbohydrates in the cell wall, leading to destruction of cell wall and which subsequently increases the release of intracellular protein pool. Enzymatic hydrolysis treatment under the optimum conditions of 50 °C, pH 5 and enzyme [E]: to substrate [S] ratio of [1]:[5] enhanced the TRS yield by four-fold (2814.9 mg g−1) [25]. Combined pretreatment approaches such as integrated sonication with enzymatic treatment improved the soluble proteins content up to 27.1 mg g−1 biomass [21]. Once the microalgal biomass is pretreated by different methods, it can be used for lipid extraction (for biodiesel), releasing simple sugars (for bioethanol) through fermentation or biomethane production through anaerobic digestion.

Bio-Pretreatment: A New Approach to Economic Pretreatment for the Extraction of Microalgal Bioblocks

Biopretreatment is a new terminology that reflects the extraction of proteins during the fermentation of sugars. Fermentation of carbohydrate fraction from microalgal biomass for generation of bioethanol led to the concurrent release of 56% protein fraction under the combined treatment containing of sonication and hydrolysis [25]. Proteins extracted from this process are a feasible feedstock for the production of higher alcohols. Such approach will make the overall process cost effective by enhancing the biofuels yield from algal biomass.

3. Fermentation of Carbohydrates from Microalgae for Production of Bioethanol

Advanced biotechnology is vital for developing and deploying solutions for biomass conversion. Fermentation is the major process for the metabolic conversion of microalgal biocompounds into biofuel.

3.1. Metabolic Pathways

The most commonly used microbial species for commercial production of bioethanol is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which has proved to be robust and well suited to the fermentation of cellulosic, hemicellulosic and lignocellulosic hydrolysates (Figure 5a). Saccharomyces cerevisiae is particularly safe and convenient. S. cerevisiae is nonpathogenic, classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), and has been used to produce consumables like ethanol. Thus, the fermentation and processing technology for large-scale production is well established in S. cerevisiae [68]. Renewable feedstocks (such as microalgae) are promising for the use with yeast for ethanol and higher alcohol production, as it is composed of cellulose and other carbohydrates. Yeast converts most of the glucose they uptake into pyruvate thorough the glycolytic pathway, where glucose is oxidized to 2 pyruvate molecules (which release CO2), then, 2 acetaldehyde molecules are reduced to 2 ethanol molecules (Figure 5b). A S. cerevisiae strain with high glucose consumption rate was developed via multi-copy integration using metabolic engineering. Among 350 screened metabolically engineered strains, YPH499/dPdA3-34 showed the highest glucose consumption rate and 1.3-fold higher cell growth rate than the wild (control) strain [69].

3.2. Saccharification and Fermentation Strategies

Microalgae-rich carbohydrates have high reducing sugars, thus their saccharification is much easier, making algae a sustainable feedstock for bioethanol production. The pretreatment is followed by hydrolysis and fermentation. Both these steps can be conducted either separately or simultaneously. Enzymatic treatment catalyze by amylases, cellulases, and glucoamylases to hydrolyze microalgal biomass to obtain simple sugars, and the fermentation is performed by yeast or bacteria [71]. Some microalgae can participate in self-fermentation (SF) processes to produce bioethanol. For example, Chlorococcum littorale managed to produce 450 mmol (ethanol) g−1 at 30 °C via dark fermentation [29].
Most explored cellulase systems were isolated from fungi such as Fusarium solani, Trichoderma viride and T. reesei [72]. Pretreatment of Chlorococum humicola (macroalgae) by enzymes (from T. reesei) resulted in 64.2% (W W−1) saccharification yield [73]. The efficiency of enzymes depends both on the appropriate proportional ratio of the various components and on the presence of all cellulose components. Several process combinations are possible if enzymatic hydrolysis is applied: separate (or sequential) hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF), consolidated bioprocessing (CBP) and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) (Figure 6a). During SHF, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation are carried out separately in two different vessels in a subsequent process at optimum process conditions. One problem can be a negative aspect of SHF is accumulation of glucose and cellobiose in the hydrolysis step inhibit the activity of the cellulases.
In SSF, the hydrolysis process carried out by the enzymes and the subsequent fermentative process are performed in the same reactor; therefore, glucose released due to cellulases activity is directly converted to ethanol by fermentative microorganism. Thus, SSF provides a benefit over SHF, as continuous utilization of glucose in the reactor decreases the end-product inhibition of enzymes [64]. Moreover, the presence of ethanol in the medium prevents the contamination by unnecessary microorganisms. Such benefits resulted in an enhanced saccharification rate and higher total ethanol yield compared to SHF. The SSCF is carried out by combining the cellulose hydrolysis step with co-fermentation of pentose and hexose sugars in a single reactor (Figure 6b). This make the process simpler and reduces the number of reactors involved and problem of product inhibition associated with enzymes.

3.3. Long-Term and Continuous Production of Bioethanol through Repeated Batch Fermentation

Repeated or continuous batch fermentation is a sophisticated process for improving bioethanol production, and this process has numerous benefits such as reduced operating cost, its simplicity, and increased productivity [74]. The major purpose of repeated batch process is to enhance the productivity by achieving a high cell density in the bioreactor. However, it is unbearable to accumulate cells when starchy substrates are used in the repeated batch process without eliminating suspended solids. As demonstrated by several studies, ‘cell immobilization’ is arguably the most effective way to minimize the inhibition caused by high concentrations of substrate and product, and to enhance the ethanol production with low costs investments. Immobilization systems are attractive and promising as the bioethanol yields are higher than that observed for free cells [75]. The enhanced stability of the immobilized yeast cells along with high ethanol production has been observed during a five-cycle repeated batch fermentation [64].
The procedure of immobilization in alginate beads is simple to carry out and inexpensive, thus there is a high potential for its use in industrial applications [76]. Calcium alginate beads are one of the most frequently used supports for the immobilization. They offer several advantages as a support, such as easy availability, good biocompatibility, low cost and ease of preparation. However, there are some drawbacks associated with their applications including loss of integrity, matrix degradation, severe mass transfer limitations, large pore sizes and low mechanical strength (which results in cells being released from the support) [76]. Most of the cell immobilization methods are either adsorption or entrapment. They usually have problems associated with the matrix degradation and mass transfer limitations related to oxygen, nutrient and metabolites are the highlighted problems of gel entrapment methods. On the other hand, an inexpensive and simple procedure (natural adsorption) was used for cell immobilization [75].
Some of the novel strategies can be applied to increase the ability to reusability of alginate beads. Regeneration of yeast cells in a nutrient medium after each cycle is one approach that can help to regenerate the yeast cells in terms of their cellular integrity and catalytic efficiency [64]. In addition, amendment of such micro-elements/nutrients and vitamins in fermentation media may improve and maintain the cellular activity of the yeast cells for several repeated batches. The recovery of the immobilized beads and/or end products from the fermentation broth during regeneration process is required because, the accumulation of a high concentration of bioethanol in the suspension has harmful effects on immobilized beads and yeast cells [77]. Such practices might prevent degeneration of the beads and improve their efficiency. This may be the focus of future studies on enhancing bioethanol generation in continuous bioenergy production.

4. Conversions of Proteins into Higher Alcohol

Proteins derived from biomass are not well-established feedstocks for the synthesis of fuels because of the difficulties with deaminating protein hydrolysates. Deamination is a critical step toward the formation of keto acids (the precursors for higher alcohol generation) [78]. Considering the huge volumes of biomass that could be processed in biofuel refineries, the amount of protein waste product is likely to be substantial [79,80,81]. Recent technologies such as hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) involve the conversion of whole microalgal bio-compounds (lipids, carbohydrates, and protein) into different biofuels. Biochemical and HTL conversion of algal biomass to carbohydrate and protein fractions were reported for ethanol and isobutanol [82].
The conversion of the carbohydrate fraction into bioethanol is metabolically achieved via glycolysis and fermentation, which leads to the production of bioethanol along with the accumulation of bioavailable protein by-products. These protein by-products can be used for the production of higher alcohols (C3–C5) through biological regulation of fermentative microbes [83]. Several yeast strains tend to consume the available substrates (such as amino acids) when the reducing sugars are exhausted during carbohydrate fermentation [84]. Such selective yeast species can be used to convert the protein residues left after carbohydrate fermentation into higher alcohols (Figure 7).
Higher alcohols (e.g., fusel oil) are alcohols that have more than two carbons and thus have a higher molecular weight and a higher boiling point. A higher alcohol is related to the amino acid from which it is formed; for examples: leucine to 3-methylbutanol, isoleucine to 2-methylbutanol, valine to 2-methylpropanol, threonine to propanol and phenylalanine to 2-phenylethanol. Production of a variety of higher alcohols from algal proteins, including isopropanol, phenyl alcohol, isobutanol, amyl alcohol, butanediol, tert-butyl alcohol, and sesquiterpene could enhance the economic sustainability of algal biofuel production [82]. The amount of higher alcohols produced from fermentation is dependent on the genus, species and strain of yeast and the specific nutrient status (amino acids and nitrogen). Amino acids are absorbed by yeast through a number of transporters set in the cell membrane. Ehrlich pathway is the associated with the assimilation of amino acids [86], which are then transaminated using aminotransferases located in mitochondria and cytosol [87]. The resulting α-keto acid is decarboxylated to produce an aldehyde and then reduced to the corresponding higher alcohol (Figure 8a). Three exogenous transamination and deamination cycles provides an irreversible metabolic force that make sure the completion of deamination reactions (Figure 8b). Carboxylic acid derivatives may be produced instead of alcohols which strictly dependent upon the redox state of the cells.
In previous studies [78,88,89], metabolic engineering was applied to develop Escherichia coli that is able to deaminate protein hydrolysates, facilitating the conversion of proteins to C4, C5 alcohols at 56% of the theoretical yield [44]. Bacillus subtilis, E. coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and microalgae was used as protein sources, which yielded up to 4,035 mg L−1 of alcohols from biomass containing ~22 g L−1 of amino acids [44]. These results showed the viability of using proteins for biorefineries, for which high-protein microalgae could be used as a feedstock with the possibility of maximizing algal growth and total CO2 fixation.
Utilizing microalgal biomass for fuel production from carbohydrate and lipid-rich biomass and from proteins (amino acids) is a novel concept for maximizing the energy recovery. An unpublished recent study by our team showed that a wild type of fermentative microbe (Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288C) could be used for the conversion of leftover amino acids into higher alcohols. The primary carbohydrate fermentation enhanced the release of embedded proteins to the aqueous phase (soluble), which improved the hydrolysis rate of those proteins into amino acids. Distillation made the deamination of hydrolyzed amino acids bioaccessible for utilization by yeast and conversion into higher alcohols. Such cost-effective approaches are needed to minimize waste and produce highly sustainable biofuel. Changes in the fusel alcohol production could be associated with variations in the intracellular pools of the substrates and intermediate compounds involved in their synthesis [90].

5. Conversion of Microalgal Lipid Fraction into Biodiesel and Glycerol

Some microalgal species can yield up to 60% of their weight in the form of lipids, which can be converted to biodiesel (Table 1). Microalgae can accumulate substantial amounts of lipids under various nutrient-deficient conditions, which makes them one of the most promising feedstocks for biofuel generation. Strategies involving nutrient-deficiency such as nitrogen, phosphorus and iron were applied to activate lipid accumulation in microalgae [91]. Microalgae produce a diverse range of lipids which are a suitable feedstock for biofuel production and value added products which can be used in pharmaceutical, cosmetics and food industry [92]. Microalgae are capable of producing biodiesel 200 times more efficiently than traditional crops [93]. Lipid biosynthesis performed through a complex pathway where synthesis initiates with the formation of acetyl Coenzyme A (CoA) through acetyl CoA carboxylation by the acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) gene [94]. Several microalgal species are well-adapted to environmental stress conditions which affect the cellular activities, including lipid metabolism [95]. Various sources and concentrations of carbon affect the overall composition of microalgal lipids. Alterations in carbon dioxide levels have prompted the accumulation of unsaturated and saturated fatty acids (FAs), respectively [96]. Besides carbon dioxide, several mixotrophic microalgae use carbon from other organic sources for the production of macromolecules under heterotrophic conditions.
Fatty acids with a chain length of C14–C18 carbons are preferable for biodiesel production. The compositions of fatty acids (saturated and unsaturated fatty acids) vary with different species and strains [97]. Saturated fatty acids especially C14, C16, and C18, and unsaturated fatty acids including C16:1, C16:2, C18:1, and C18:2 are vital for producing high quality biodiesel. This is due to the other unsaturated fatty acids with three or four double bonds which have reduced stability in storage [98]. The microalgal conversion pathways typically consist of a series of steps that include the concentration of harvested biomass from the cultures and lipid extraction. After this, the options are numerous for converting the residual (oil extracted) biomass to additional bio-products, which include converting the spent algal biomass to biogas using anaerobic digestion (AD) [15] or using as biofertilizer. Biodiesel produced from microalgal biomass does not produce sulfur oxide and reduces the soot particulate by >75% compared to the existing petroleum. Such environmental benefits make biodiesel a suitable alternative for conventional fuels. In the present scenario, biodiesel has been produced through transesterification process using vegetable oil. However, the need of such catalysts along with high energy requirements are the major drawbacks of such chemical processes [99].
The transesterification uses alcohol to displace the ester group and is widely used to significantly reduce the viscosity of the triglycerides. Several factors such as temperature, incubation time, molar ratio of oil to alcohol, purity of reactants, types of alcohol and catalyst could influence the transesterification reaction [95]. The Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuel which was produced from syngas showed similar properties to the biodiesel. The properties of biodiesel, blend with conventional diesel and diesel like fuels are presented in Table 4. The physico-chemical properties of microalgal biodiesel are similar to that of oil crop based biodiesel and petroleum diesel [93]. The microalgal biodiesel is characterized of having high cetane number, low sulfur and oxygen [100]. Because of high boiling point and stability, the biodiesel could avoid vaporization in the combustion chamber. Its low specific gravity enables it to get upgraded to low value and high-density refinery stream.

6. Fermentation of by-Product Glycerol into Butanol

The first attempt of glycerol fermentation was described way back in 1983, where glycerol produced from halophilic algae was fermented by Clostridium pasteurianum [101]. The major products retrieved from this process were ethanol, n-butanol, 1,3-propanediol and acetic acid. Heyndrickx et al. [102] re-demonstrated similar experiments in continuous cultures to extract the same products, and concluded that hydrogen is evolved corresponding to the acetyl CoA formed. Clostridium pasteurianum CH4 has been utilized to produce butanol from glycerol. The addition of butyrate (6 g L−1) as a precursor increased the butanol yield from 0.24 to 0.34 mol butanol (mol glycerol)−1. It was believed that butyrate addition triggered the metabolic pathway toward butanol production. One more reason for this improved performance was the in situ butanol removal using vacuum membrane distillation (VMD) which avoided the inhibition caused due to a high butanol concentration in the fermentation broth. Similar observations of enhanced butanol titer and butanol yield due to addition of butyrate and in situ butanol removal [99]. The VMD-based practices decreases the negative impact caused by the inhibitory effects of butanol. In addition, it improves the the butanol yield, making downstream processing more cost-effective and easier. Clostridium pasteurianum, produces acetic acid, butyric acid and 1,3-propanediol; moreover, it is also capable to convert glycerol not only to butanol but also to ethanol. The factors that lead these anaerobes to use one or the other metabolic routes are not sufficiently understood. The glycerol fermentation by C. pasteurianum is influenced by the culture conditions [103]. Overall, the fermentations were described by a certain variability in product formation under apparently equal or slightly diverse conditions.

7. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The current microalgal derived-biofuel schemes have limited efficiency and economic viability, and these are influenced by the selection of microalgal strains, pretreatment and conversion pathways. In this review, we covered appropriate solutions to overcome the current limitations. The biochemical content of different microalgal strains that tend to be converted into specific biofuel was thoroughly discussed. The biochemical properties of microalgal biocompounds affect their processing for bioenergy production and are strongly involved in enhancing the characteristics of the processed fuel. Various approaches for the conversion of all microalgal biocompounds into biofuel have been reported for the first time. Conversion of carbohydrate and protein waste through fermentation is a feasible option. Establishment serial processes for maximum utilization of microalgal biocomponents will enhance the production of valuable chemicals such as sustainable fuels and reduce waste. To make microalgae biofuel a practical reality, future research should focus on genetic improvements, biorefineries, higher alcohols from microalgae and large-scale production of higher alcohol and other biofuels. The economic feasibility of microalgal based biofuels should be assessed.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (No. 2017R1A2B2004143) and a Korea Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the South Korean government (MSIP) (No. KETEP-20163010092250).

Author Contributions

M.M.E.-D. & B.-H.J. designed the content of the manuscript; M.M.E.-D. wrote sections #1, 3, and 4; E.-S.S. wrote sections #5 and 6; M.B.K. wrote sections #2 and 7; S.H.A.H., S.-E.O., S.K., and B.-H.J. revised the manuscript; M.M.E.-D., E.-S.S., and M.B.K. improved the presentation of Figures and Tables; B.-H.J. conceived and majorly coordinated the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rutz, D.; Janssen, R. Socio-Economic Impacts of Bioenergy Production; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 26–297. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kruyt, B.; van Vuuren, D.P.; De Vries, H.; Groenenberg, H. Indicators for energy security. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2166–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ning, Y.; Zhang, B.; Ding, T.; Zhang, M. Analysis of regional decoupling relationship between energy-related CO2 emission and economic growth in China. Nat. Hazards 2017, 87, 867–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. O’Reilly, J.; Oreskes, N.; Oppenheimer, M. The rapid disintegration of projections: The West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2012, 42, 709–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Atsumi, S.; Higashide, W.; Liao, J.C. Direct photosynthetic recycling of carbon dioxide to isobutyraldehyde. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 1177–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dong, Y.; Feng, Y.; Qu, Y.; Du, Y.; Zhou, X.; Liu, J. A combined system of microbial fuel cell and intermittently aerated biological filter for energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nakata, T. Energy-economic models and the environment. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2004, 30, 417–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Seebens, H.; Essl, F.; Dawson, W.; Fuentes, N.; Moser, D.; Pergl, J.; Pysek, P.; van Kleunen, M.; Weber, E.; Winter, M.; et al. Global trade will accelerate plant invasions in emerging economies under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 4128–4140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Godfray, H.C.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Obama, B. The irreversible momentum of clean energy. Science 2017, 355, 126–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. DeLong, J.P.; Burger, O. Socio-Economic Instability and the Scaling of Energy Use with Population Size. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. John, R.P.; Anisha, G.S.; Nampoothiri, K.M.; Pandey, A. Micro and macroalgal biomass: A renewable source for bioethanol. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chisti, Y. Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Vadenbo, C.; Tonini, D.; Astrup, T.F. Environmental Multiobjective Optimization of the Use of Biomass Resources for Energy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 3575–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rosenberg, J.N.; Mathias, A.; Korth, K.; Betenbaugh, M.J.; Oyler, G.A. Microalgal biomass production and carbon dioxide sequestration from an integrated ethanol biorefinery in Iowa: A technical appraisal and economic feasibility evaluation. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3865–3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hariskos, I.; Posten, C. Biorefinery of microalgae—Opportunities and constraints for different production scenarios. Biotechnol. J. 2014, 9, 739–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lammers, P.J.; Huesemann, M.; Boeing, W.; Anderson, D.B.; Arnold, R.G.; Bai, X.; Bhole, M.; Brhanavan, Y.; Brown, L.; Brown, J. Review of the cultivation program within the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts. Algal Res. 2017, 22, 166–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Juneja, A.; Ceballos, R.M.; Murthy, G.S. Effects of Environmental Factors and Nutrient Availability on the Biochemical Composition of Algae for Biofuels Production: A Review. Energies 2013, 6, 4607–4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ghasemi, Y.; Rasoul-Amini, S.; Naseri, A.T.; Montazeri-Najafabady, N.; Mobasher, M.A.; Dabbagh, F. Microalgae biofuel potentials (Review). Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2012, 48, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kebelmann, K.; Hornung, A.; Karsten, U.; Griffiths, G. Intermediate pyrolysis and product identification by TGA and Py-GC/MS of green microalgae and their extracted protein and lipid components. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 49, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sheehan, J.D.; Savage, P.E. Modeling the effects of microalga biochemical content on the kinetics and biocrude yields from hydrothermal liquefaction. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 239, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Shakya, R.; Adhikari, S.; Mahadevan, R.; Shanmugam, S.R.; Nam, H.; Dempster, T.A. Influence of biochemical composition during hydrothermal liquefaction of algae on product yields and fuel properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 243, 1112–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Biller, P.; Ross, A. Potential yields and properties of oil from the hydrothermal liquefaction of microalgae with different biochemical content. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Eldalatony, M.M.; Kabra, A.N.; Hwang, J.H.; Govindwar, S.P.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, H.; Jeon, B.H. Pretreatment of microalgal biomass for enhanced recovery/extraction of reducing sugars and proteins. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 39, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Halim, R.; Danquah, M.K.; Webley, P.A. Extraction of oil from microalgae for biodiesel production: A review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 709–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Georgianna, D.R.; Mayfield, S.P. Exploiting diversity and synthetic biology for the production of algal biofuels. Nature 2012, 488, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Suganya, T.; Varman, M.; Masjuki, H.; Renganathan, S. Macroalgae and microalgae as a potential source for commercial applications along with biofuels production: A biorefinery approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 909–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, C.-Y.; Zhao, X.-Q.; Yen, H.-W.; Ho, S.-H.; Cheng, C.-L.; Lee, D.-J.; Bai, F.-W.; Chang, J.-S. Microalgae-based carbohydrates for biofuel production. Biochem. Eng. J. 2013, 78, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tandon, P.; Jin, Q. Microalgae culture enhancement through key microbial approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 1089–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gouveia, L.; Marques, A.E.; da Silva, T.L.; Reis, A. Neochloris oleabundans UTEX #1185: A suitable renewable lipid source for biofuel production. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 36, 821–826. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Meng, X.; Yang, J.; Xu, X.; Zhang, L.; Nie, Q.; Xian, M. Biodiesel production from oleaginous microorganisms. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, X.; Ruan, R.; Du, Z.; Liu, Y. Current status and prospects of biodiesel production from microalgae. Energies 2012, 5, 2667–2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dragone, G.; Fernandes, B.D.; Abreu, A.P.; Vicente, A.A.; Teixeira, J.A. Nutrient limitation as a strategy for increasing starch accumulation in microalgae. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 3331–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Brányiková, I.; Maršálková, B.; Doucha, J.; Brányik, T.; Bišová, K.; Zachleder, V.; Vítová, M. Microalgae—Novel highly efficient starch producers. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Liang, Y.; Sarkany, N.; Cui, Y. Biomass and lipid productivities of Chlorella vulgaris under autotrophic, heterotrophic and mixotrophic growth conditions. Biotechnol. Lett. 2009, 31, 1043–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sassano, C.; Gioielli, L.; Ferreira, L.; Rodrigues, M.; Sato, S.; Converti, A.; Carvalho, J. Evaluation of the composition of continuously-cultivated Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis using ammonium chloride as nitrogen source. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 1732–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Carrieri, D.; Momot, D.; Brasg, I.A.; Ananyev, G.; Lenz, O.; Bryant, D.A.; Dismukes, G.C. Boosting autofermentation rates and product yields with sodium stress cycling: Application to production of renewable fuels by cyanobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 6455–6462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Becker, E.W. Micro-algae as a source of protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 2007, 25, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Coppola, F.; Simonciniand, E.; Pulselli, R. Bioethanol potentials from marine residual biomass: An energy evaluation. Energy Environ. 2009, 122, 379–387. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lai, Y.S.; Parameswaran, P.; Li, A.; Aguinaga, A.; Rittmann, B.E. Selective fermentation of carbohydrate and protein fractions of Scenedesmus, and biohydrogenation of its lipid fraction for enhanced recovery of saturated fatty acids. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2016, 113, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lai, Y.S.; McCaw, A.; Ontiveros-Valencia, A.; Shi, Y.; Parameswaran, P.; Rittmann, B.E. Multiple synergistic benefits of selective fermentation of Scenedesmus biomass for fuel recovery via wet-biomass extraction. Algal Res. 2016, 17, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, O.K.; Seong, D.H.; Lee, C.G.; Lee, E.Y. Sustainable production of liquid biofuels from renewable microalgae biomass. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 29, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huo, Y.X.; Cho, K.M.; Rivera, J.G.L.; Monte, E.; Shen, C.R.; Yan, Y.J.; Liao, J.C. Conversion of proteins into biofuels by engineering nitrogen flux. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Choi, J.-A.; Hwang, J.-H.; Dempsey, B.A.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.I.; Min, B.; Song, H.; Lee, D.S.; Kim, J.R.; Cho, Y.; Hong, S.; et al. Enhancement of fermentative bioenergy (ethanol/hydrogen) production using ultrasonication of Scenedesmus obliquus YSW15 cultivated in swine wastewater effluent. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Williams, P.J.; Laurens, L.M. Microalgae as biodiesel & biomass feedstocks: Review & analysis of the biochemistry, energetics & economics. Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3, 554–590. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hwang, J.-H.; Kabra, A.N.; Ji, M.-K.; Choi, J.; El-Dalatony, M.M.; Jeon, B.-H. Enhancement of continuous fermentative bioethanol production using combined treatment of mixed microalgal biomass. Algal Res. 2016, 17, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nguyen, M.A.; Hoang, A.L. A Review on Microalgae and Cyanobacteria in Biofuel Production; USTH: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Millett, M.A.; Baker, A.J.; Satter, L.D. Physical and chemical pretreatments for enhancing cellulose saccharification. Biotechnol. Bioeng. Symp. 1976, 6, 125–153. [Google Scholar]
  50. Harun, R.; Danquah, M.K. Influence of acid pre-treatment on microalgal biomass for bioethanol production. Process Biochem. 2011, 46, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jeon, B.-H.; Choi, J.A.; Kim, H.C.; Hwang, J.H.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.; Dempsey, B.A.; Regan, J.M.; Kim, J.R. Ultrasonic disintegration of microalgal biomass and consequent improvement of bioaccessibility/ bioavailability in microbial fermentation. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2013, 6, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Auxenfans, T.; Crônier, D.; Chabbert, B.; Paës, G. Understanding the structural and chemical changes of plant biomass following steam explosion pretreatment. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rabelo, S.C.; Maciel Filho, R.; Costa, A.C. Lime pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for bioethanol production. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009, 153, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nguyen, M.T.; Choi, S.P.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.H.; Sim, S.J. Hydrothermal acid pretreatment of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii biomass for ethanol production. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 19, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  55. Salama, E.-S.; Kurade, M.B.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.; El-Dalatony, M.M.; Yang, I.-S.; Min, B.; Jeon, B.-H. Recent progress in microalgal biomass production coupled with wastewater treatment for biofuel generation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 1189–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saha, S.; Kurade, M.B.; El-Dalatony, M.M.; Chatterjee, P.K.; Lee, D.S.; Jeon, B.-H. Improving bioavailability of fruit wastes using organic acid: An exploratory study of biomass pretreatment for fermentation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 127, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nguyen, C.M.; Nguyen, T.N.; Choi, G.J.; Choi, Y.H.; Jang, K.S.; Park, Y.J.; Kim, J.C. Acid hydrolysis of Curcuma longa residue for ethanol and lactic acid fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 151, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Harun, R.; Danquah, M.K.; Forde, G.M. Microalgal biomass as a fermentation feedstock for bioethanol production. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alzate, M.; Muñoz, R.; Rogalla, F.; Fdz-Polanco, F.; Pérez-Elvira, S. Biochemical methane potential of microalgae: Influence of substrate to inoculum ratio, biomass concentration and pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 123, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kalyani, D.; Tiwari, M.K.; Li, J.; Kim, S.C.; Kalia, V.C.; Kang, Y.C.; Lee, J.-K. A highly efficient recombinant laccase from the yeast Yarrowia lipolytica and its application in the hydrolysis of biomass. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Tan, L.P.; Wang, M.M.; Li, X.Z.; Li, H.X.; Zhao, J.; Qu, Y.B.; Choo, Y.M.; Loh, S.K. Fractionation of oil palm empty fruit bunch by bisulfite pretreatment for the production of bioethanol and high value products. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 572–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ehimen, E.A.; Holm-Nielsen, J.-B.; Poulsen, M.; Boelsmand, J. Influence of different pre-treatment routes on the anaerobic digestion of a filamentous algae. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 476–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jodayree, S.; Smith, J.C.; Tsopmo, A. Use of carbohydrase to enhance protein extraction efficiency and antioxidative properties of oat bran protein hydrolysates. Food Res. Int. 2012, 46, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. El-Dalatony, M.M.; Kurade, M.B.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.I.; Kim, H.; Salama, E.-S.; Jeon, B.-H. Long-term production of bioethanol in repeated-batch fermentation of microalgal biomass using immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 219, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lee, O.K.; Kim, A.L.; Seong, D.H.; Lee, C.G.; Jung, Y.T.; Lee, J.W.; Lee, E.Y. Chemo-enzymatic saccharification and bioethanol fermentation of lipid-extracted residual biomass of the microalga, Dunaliella tertiolecta. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 132, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Choi, S.P.; Nguyen, M.T.; Sim, S.J. Enzymatic pretreatment of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii biomass for ethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5330–5336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Harun, R.; Jason, W.; Cherrington, T.; Danquah, M.K. Exploring alkaline pre-treatment of microalgal biomass for bioethanol production. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 3464–3467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ostergaard, S.; Olsson, L.; Nielsen, J. Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2000, 64, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Yamada, R.; Wakita, K.; Ogino, H. Global Metabolic Engineering of Glycolytic Pathway via Multicopy Integration in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. ACS Synth. Biol. 2017, 6, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Wei, N.; Oh, E.J.; Million, G.; Cate, J.H.; Jin, Y.-S. Simultaneous utilization of cellobiose, xylose, and acetic acid from lignocellulosic biomass for biofuel production by an engineered yeast platform. ACS Synth. Biol. 2015, 4, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ojeda, K.; Sánchez, E.; El-Halwagi, M.; Kafarov, V. Exergy analysis and process integration of bioethanol production from acid pre-treated biomass: Comparison of SHF, SSF and SSCF pathways. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 176–177, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gan, Q.; Allen, S.; Taylor, G. Kinetic dynamics in heterogeneous enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose: An overview, an experimental study and mathematical modelling. Process Biochem. 2003, 38, 1003–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Harun, R.; Danquah, M.K.; Thiruvenkadam, S. Particulate size of microalgal biomass affects hydrolysate properties and bioethanol concentration. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 435631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Marwa, M.; Salama, E.-S.; Jeon, B.-H. Repeated-Batch Fermentation of Microalgal Biomass Utilizing Immobilized Yeast Cells for Bioethanol Production. In Proceedings of the 13th U.S.-Korea Forum on Nanotechnology, Seoul, Korea, 26–27 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. Rattanapan, A.; Limtong, S.; Phisalaphong, M. Ethanol production by repeated batch and continuous fermentations of blackstrap molasses using immobilized yeast cells on thin-shell silk cocoons. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 4400–4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Duarte, J.C.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Moran, P.J.; Valenca, G.P.; Nunhez, J.R. Effect of immobilized cells in calcium alginate beads in alcoholic fermentation. AMB Express 2013, 3, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Lin, Y.; Tanaka, S. Ethanol fermentation from biomass resources: Current state and prospects. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 69, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Huo, Y.X.; Wernick, D.G.; Liao, J.C. Toward nitrogen neutral biofuel production. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Liao, J.C.; Mi, L.; Pontrelli, S.; Luo, S. Fuelling the future: Microbial engineering for the production of sustainable biofuels. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Li, T.; Yan, Y.; He, J. Enhanced direct fermentation of cassava to butanol by Clostridium species strain BOH3 in cofactor-mediated medium. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2015, 8, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Chiappe, C.; Mezzetta, A.; Pomelli, C.S.; Masciocchi, B.; Gentile, A.; Iaquaniello, G. Development of cost-effective biodiesel from microalgae using protic ionic liquids. Green Chem. 2016, 18, 4982–4989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pate, R.; Wu, B.; Davis, R.; Land, T.; George, A.; Horvath, S.; Adey, W.; Calahan, D.; Zivojnovich, M.; Quinn, J. Algal Turf to Fuel (ATF): System overview and preliminary assessment of the production of biofuels from chemical, biochemical, and thermochemical processing and conversion of benthic polyculture biomass produced by algal turf cultivation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Algae Biomass Summit, San Diego, CA, USA, 29 September–2 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  83. Huo, Y.X.; Cho, K.M.; Liao, J.C. Conversion of proteins into biofuels: Toward nitrogen neutral biofuel production. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 243, 4712–4716. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wernick, D.G.; Liao, J.C. Protein-based biorefining: Metabolic engineering for production of chemicals and fuel with regeneration of nitrogen fertilizers. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 1397–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Swiegers, J.; Bartowsky, E.; Henschke, P.; Pretorius, I. Yeast and bacterial modulation of wine aroma and flavour. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 139–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hazelwood, L.A.; Daran, J.M.; van Maris, A.J.; Pronk, J.T.; Dickinson, J.R. The Ehrlich pathway for fusel alcohol production: A century of research on Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolism. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 2259–2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Eden, A.; Van Nedervelde, L.; Drukker, M.; Benvenisty, N.; Debourg, A. Involvement of branched-chain amino acid aminotransferases in the production of fusel alcohols during fermentation in yeast. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 55, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Lan, E.I.; Liao, J.C. Microbial synthesis of n-butanol, isobutanol, and other higher alcohols from diverse resources. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 135, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Shi, S.; Si, T.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Ang, E.L.; Zhao, H. Metabolic engineering of a synergistic pathway for n-butanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Procopio, S.; Sprung, P.; Becker, T. Effect of amino acid supply on the transcription of flavour-related genes and aroma compound production during lager yeast fermentation. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 63, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fan, J.; Cui, Y.; Wan, M.; Wang, W.; Li, Y. Lipid accumulation and biosynthesis genes response of the oleaginous Chlorella pyrenoidosa under three nutrition stressors. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2014, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Huerlimann, R.; De Nys, R.; Heimann, K. Growth, lipid content, productivity, and fatty acid composition of tropical microalgae for scale-up production. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2010, 107, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Singh, A.; Nigam, P.S.; Murphy, J.D. Mechanism and challenges in commercialisation of algal biofuels. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Dunahay, T.G.; Jarvis, E.E.; Dais, S.S.; Roessler, P.G. Manipulation of microalgal lipid production using genetic engineering. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1996, 57, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Olofsson, M.; Lamela, T.; Nilsson, E.; Bergé, J.P.; Del Pino, V.; Uronen, P.; Legrand, C. Seasonal variation of lipids and fatty acids of the microalgae Nannochloropsis oculata grown in outdoor large-scale photobioreactors. Energies 2012, 5, 1577–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sharma, K.K.; Schuhmann, H.; Schenk, P.M. High Lipid Induction in Microalgae for Biodiesel Production. Energies 2012, 5, 1532–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Salama, E.-S.; Kim, H.C.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.; Ji, M.K.; Oh, Y.K.; Kim, S.H.; Jeon, B.-H. Biomass, lipid content, and fatty acid composition of freshwater Chlamydomonas mexicana and Scenedesmus obliquus grown under salt stress. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2013, 36, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Knothe, G. Analysis of oxidized biodiesel by 1H-NMR and effect of contact area with air. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2006, 108, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Guan, Q.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Shi, Y.; Gu, J.; Li, B.; Miao, R.; Chen, Q.; Ning, P. Sulfonated multi-walled carbon nanotubes for biodiesel production through triglycerides transesterification. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 7250–7258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lapuerta, M.; Armas, O.; Hernández, J.J.; Tsolakis, A. Potential for reducing emissions in a diesel engine by fuelling with conventional biodiesel and Fischer—Tropsch diesel. Fuel 2010, 89, 3106–3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nakas, J.; Schaedle, M.; Parkinson, C.; Coonley, C.; Tanenbaum, S. System development for linked-fermentation production of solvents from algal biomass. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1983, 46, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  102. Heyndrickx, M.; Vos, P.D.; Vancanneyt, M.; Ley, J.D. The fermentation of glycerol by Clostridium butyricum LMG 1212t2 and 1213t1 and C. pasteurianum LMG 3285. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1991, 34, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Biebl, H. Fermentation of glycerol by Clostridium pasteurianum—Batch and continuous culture studies. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 27, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 10 02110 g001 550
Figure 1. Resources, food demand, economic development and environmental pollution in the world as the main reasons for energy concerns (a). The use of microalgae cells as a factory for the production of various biofuels and value-added products (b), adapted from [12].
Figure 1. Resources, food demand, economic development and environmental pollution in the world as the main reasons for energy concerns (a). The use of microalgae cells as a factory for the production of various biofuels and value-added products (b), adapted from [12].
Energies 10 02110 g001
Energies 10 02110 g002 550
Figure 2. Microalgal technology for biofuel production through serial processes of cultivation, pretreatment, and conversion of each biocompounds.
Figure 2. Microalgal technology for biofuel production through serial processes of cultivation, pretreatment, and conversion of each biocompounds.
Energies 10 02110 g002
Energies 10 02110 g003 550
Figure 3. Several thermochemical and biochemical practices for the generation of biofuels from microalgal biomass, adapted from [43].
Figure 3. Several thermochemical and biochemical practices for the generation of biofuels from microalgal biomass, adapted from [43].
Energies 10 02110 g003
Energies 10 02110 g004 550
Figure 4. Physical, chemical, and biological pretreatment methods: pretreatment of biomass showing the structure of cellulose and hemicellulose (a) and their hydrolysis to glucose and xylose (b).
Figure 4. Physical, chemical, and biological pretreatment methods: pretreatment of biomass showing the structure of cellulose and hemicellulose (a) and their hydrolysis to glucose and xylose (b).
Energies 10 02110 g004
Energies 10 02110 g005 550
Figure 5. Schematic overview of bioethanol production through utilization of cellobiose, xylose and acetic acid from biomass by yeast (a) and the metabolic pathways (glycolysis and fermentation) (b), adapted from [70].
Figure 5. Schematic overview of bioethanol production through utilization of cellobiose, xylose and acetic acid from biomass by yeast (a) and the metabolic pathways (glycolysis and fermentation) (b), adapted from [70].
Energies 10 02110 g005
Energies 10 02110 g006 550
Figure 6. Process flow of separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) (a) and simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) (b).
Figure 6. Process flow of separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF), simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) (a) and simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF) (b).
Energies 10 02110 g006
Energies 10 02110 g007 550
Figure 7. A schematic representation of the derivation and synthesis of flavor-active compounds from sugar, amino acids and sulfur metabolism by wine yeast, adapted from [85].
Figure 7. A schematic representation of the derivation and synthesis of flavor-active compounds from sugar, amino acids and sulfur metabolism by wine yeast, adapted from [85].
Energies 10 02110 g007
Energies 10 02110 g008 550
Figure 8. The Ehrlich pathway. Catabolism of branched-chain amino acids (leucine, valine and isoleucine), aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan), and sulfur-containing amino acid (methionine) leads to the formation of fusel acids and fusel alcohols (a). The metabolic networks for biofuel production from amino acids (b), adapted from [44,85].
Figure 8. The Ehrlich pathway. Catabolism of branched-chain amino acids (leucine, valine and isoleucine), aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan), and sulfur-containing amino acid (methionine) leads to the formation of fusel acids and fusel alcohols (a). The metabolic networks for biofuel production from amino acids (b), adapted from [44,85].
Energies 10 02110 g008
Table
Table 1. Biochemical composition (wt. %, dry-basis) of various microalgae strains, adapted from [21,22,23,24,25].
Table 1. Biochemical composition (wt. %, dry-basis) of various microalgae strains, adapted from [21,22,23,24,25].
Microalgae strainsCarbohydratesProteinsLipids
Scenedesmus (S-2)54.230.117.8
Scenedesmus (S-1)50.47.1535.7
Chlamydomonas mexicana52.637.010.4
Chlorella (C-2)49.714.630.3
Nannochloropsis (N-4)8.9262.818.1
Nannochloropsis oculata8.0057.032.0
Nannochloropsis sp.21.056.09.00
Chlorella vulgaris9.1054.915.5
Scenedesmus sp.31.050.08.00
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii15.147.418.1
Pavlova (P-1)28.046.913.9
Chlorella (C-1)16.146.815.8
Nannochloropsis (N-3)9.2146.620.1
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii CW15+11.545.722.4
Porphyridium cruentum40.043.08.00
Aurantiochytrium sp. KRS1015.8030.057.5
Nannochloropsis (N-1)12.912.955.4
Chlorella protothecoides29.011.053.0
Nannochloropsis (N-2)15.918.249.3
Table
Table 2. Intrinsic and enhanced carbohydrates biomass content after use of a cultivation technique.
Table 2. Intrinsic and enhanced carbohydrates biomass content after use of a cultivation technique.
MicroalgaeIntrinsic Carbohydrate, %Enhanced Carbohydrate, %Carbohydrates Productivity, mg L−1 d−1Biomass Concentration, g L−1TechniqueReference
Chlorella vulgaris12–1741199-Nitrogen starvation[34]
55-~0.6Phosphorus starvation[35]
38-~0.2Nitrogen starvation
60-~1.0Sulfur starvation
4466–112-Grow on glucose[36]
2318–20-Grow on acetate
29–3426–35-Grow on glycerol
Spirulina platensis8–1455–65-0.15–0.52Nitrogen starvation[37]
631700.94Phosphorus starvation
502901.6Light intensity and nitrate supply
Spirulina maxima13–1634-~1.3Light intensity[38]
60–70-~1.3Nitrogen starvation
50-~1.2Salt stress
Table
Table 3. Comparison of the results documented in earlier studies for total reducing sugar (TRS) release from microalgae using enzymatic treatment and subsequent bioethanol production.
Table 3. Comparison of the results documented in earlier studies for total reducing sugar (TRS) release from microalgae using enzymatic treatment and subsequent bioethanol production.
EnzymepHTemp., °CSubstrateTotal Reducing Sugar YieldEthanol ConcentrationReference
Cellulase (≥1 U mg−1)550Chlamydomonas mexicana445.5 mg (g biomass)−110.5 g L−1[64]
(Celluclast 1.5L, Novoprime B957), + Amyloglucosidase (300 L),5.555Dunaliella tertiolecta LB99942.0% (w w−1)14%[65]
α-amylase 0.2 (%, v w−1)4.555Chlamydomonas reinhardtii UTEX 9043.6% (w w−1)11.73 g L−1[66]
NaOH (0.75 w v−1)-120Chlorococcum infusionum350.13 mg (g biomass)−126.13%[67]
Sulfuric acid (3% v v−1)-160Chlorococcum humicola43.6% (w w−1)6.47 g L−1[50]
Table
Table 4. Properties of different diesel-like fuels obtained through several techniques.
Table 4. Properties of different diesel-like fuels obtained through several techniques.
PropertyDiesel FuelBiodieselBlend a
Cetane number5370–9057.8
Sulfur content (mg L−1)<10<14.7
Distillation (°C)180–360265–320249–341
Lower heating value (MJ kg−1)35.74436.5
Cloud point (°C)−5−20−4.1
StabilityBaselineBaselineBaseline
Specific gravity (kg m−3)835780827
a Effluent coming from the hydrodesulfurization (HDS) unit when co-feeding vacuum gas oil (VGO) and palm oil (10 wt. %).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

El-Dalatony, M.M.; Salama, E.-S.; Kurade, M.B.; Hassan, S.H.A.; Oh, S.-E.; Kim, S.; Jeon, B.-H. Utilization of Microalgal Biofractions for Bioethanol, Higher Alcohols, and Biodiesel Production: A Review. Energies 2017, 10, 2110. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122110

AMA Style

El-Dalatony MM, Salama E-S, Kurade MB, Hassan SHA, Oh S-E, Kim S, Jeon B-H. Utilization of Microalgal Biofractions for Bioethanol, Higher Alcohols, and Biodiesel Production: A Review. Energies. 2017; 10(12):2110. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122110

Chicago/Turabian Style

El-Dalatony, Marwa M., El-Sayed Salama, Mayur B. Kurade, Sedky H. A. Hassan, Sang-Eun Oh, Sunjoon Kim, and Byong-Hun Jeon. 2017. "Utilization of Microalgal Biofractions for Bioethanol, Higher Alcohols, and Biodiesel Production: A Review" Energies 10, no. 12: 2110. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122110

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop