Next Article in Journal
Predicting the Microbiome and Metabolome Dynamics of Natural Apple Fermentation Towards the Development of Enhanced Functional Vinegar
Previous Article in Journal
Three-Stage Solid-State Fermentation Technology for Distillers’ Grain Feed Protein Based on Different Microorganisms Considering Oxygen Requirements
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems as an Alternative for Biogas Upgrading: A Review

by
Martín Barragán-Trinidad
1,
Laura Vargas-Estrada
2,3,
S. Torres-Arellano
4,
Dulce M. Arias
1 and
P. J. Sebastian
1,*
1
Instituto de Energías Renovables-UNAM, Privada Xochicalco, Temixco 62580, Mexico
2
Institute of Sustainable Processes, University of Valladolid, Dr. Mergelina s/n., 47011 Valladolid, Spain
3
Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Technology, University of Valladolid, Dr. Mergelina s/n., 47011 Valladolid, Spain
4
Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Escolar, Ciudad Universitaria, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2024, 10(11), 551; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110551
Submission received: 26 September 2024 / Revised: 18 October 2024 / Accepted: 25 October 2024 / Published: 27 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Bioprocesses for Waste Valorization)

Abstract

:
Anaerobic digestion is a well-established technology for the sustainable production of biogas. However, to be used as a substitute for natural gas or as vehicle fuel, it is necessary to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) and other contaminants from biogas that can compromise the useful life of combustion engines. Upgraded biogas is known as biomethane (>95% methane content). This work reviews the different technologies used for upgrading biogas, emphasizing microalgae–nanoparticle systems, representing a more sustainable and environmentally friendly system. Parameters affecting these systems performance are discussed, and the trends and areas of opportunity for subsequent work are evaluated through a bibliometric analysis.

1. Introduction

The lack of fossil fuels, climate change and environmental deterioration have driven the search, development and implementation of cleaner technologies for energy production. Biogas produced by the anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste and wastewater provides an alternative for producing clean energy in a profitable and eco-friendly way [1,2]. Biogas has a high calorific value (35–44 kJ/g), similar to diesel, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas. Typically, biogas is composed of 50–70% methane (CH4), 30–50% carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.005–2% hydrogen sulfide (H2S), < 2% nitrogen (N2), < 0.6% carbon monoxide (CO), <1% ammonia (NH3), 0–1% oxygen (O2), 5–10% water (H2O), and traces of other gases such as hydrogen, siloxanes and halogenated compounds. However, for its final use and to meet the quality required by most international legislation, biogas must meet the following requirements: CH4 > 95%, CO2 < 2%, O2 < 0.3% [3]. In this sense, it is necessary to carry out conditioning to improve biogas to eliminate components that reduce its calorific value (such as CO2, CO, O2 and water), as well as components that are corrosive and reduce the useful life of combustion engines and power generators (as is the case of H2S). The resulting clean and improved biogas is known as biomethane [4,5].
There are already various physicochemical technologies to simultaneously eliminate the CO2 and H2S contained in biogas (such as chemical washing with alkaline aqueous solutions); however, the operating costs and environmental impact of these technologies limit their application [3]. In this sense, processes based on microalgae offer a competitive and eco-friendly alternative for the simultaneous removal of CO2 and H2S contained in biogas. The upgrading of biogas is based on the simultaneous fixation of CO2 by the action of photosynthetic microorganisms (microalgae) and the oxidation of H2S to sulfate (SO42−) by sulfur-oxidizing bacteria using the oxygen produced during photosynthesis [6,7]. Furthermore, the effluents generated in the anaerobic digestion process (digestates) can be used as a source of nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) for the growth of microalgal biomass, reducing operating costs and the potential for the eutrophication of the digestates [6,8]. Finally, the microalgae–bacteria biomass can be harvested and valorized to obtain other value-added products, improving the economics of the process [9].
A limitation of upgrading biogas using microalgae–bacteria consortia is the mass transfer of CO2 from the biogas to the washing liquid phase. In this sense, recent research on microalgae–bacteria systems applied to upgrading biogas has focused on increasing the mass transport of CO2 from biogas to microalgae cultivation [7,10]. Recent studies have used nanomaterials to overcome this limitation, which presents advantages such as a high surface-to-volume ratio, abundant active sites, high reactivity and a high absorption capacity [11,12]. Recent studies demonstrate that metal and carbon nanoparticles improve gas–liquid CO2 mass transfer [13,14,15,16], which translates into an improvement in the methane content in the biogas. To date, the number of published works has increased almost exponentially (Figure 1), which shows the great interest that biogas upgrading using combined systems of microalgae–bacteria and nanoparticle consortia has aroused in recent years. However, the addition of nanoparticles to a microalgae system is a controversial issue, since nanoparticles could inhibit the growth of the microalgae–bacteria consortium, thus decreasing the photosynthetic upgrading of biogas [17].
To date, the use of microalgae–bacteria consortia with nanoparticles has focused on producing microalgae biomass and its intracellular constituents. A current review suggests that nanoparticles improve the growth rate of algal biomass (due to the increase in CO2 fixation and light conversion) and facilitate the harvest of the biomass; it also discusses the inhibitory effect that they may have on the microalgae cultivation [17]. However, the effect that nanoparticles have on the photosynthetic upgrading of biogas has been little addressed and is a topic of great interest. In this sense, the present work discusses the different technologies applied to the upgrading of biogas, emphasizing microalgae–nanoparticle systems and the parameters that affect the efficiency of these systems and must be considered for the scaling of the process.

2. Biogas: Composition, Characteristics and Applications

2.1. Composition and Characteristics

Raw biogas can be obtained from the anaerobic digestion of various substrates: agricultural biomass (by-products, agricultural waste and animal waste), agroindustrial waste (waste from the transformation of the food chain), or the organic fraction of urban solid waste [18,19,20,21]. The composition of biogas varies depending on the nature of the substrate and operating conditions (Table 1). The typical heating value of biogas is 22 MJ/m3 and depends on the concentration of CH4 (Table 2).

2.2. Typical Contaminants in Biogas

2.2.1. Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is a crucial component in biogas; although its presence does not reduce the useful life of combustion engines, it must be eliminated from biogas to increase its calorific value [24,25]. In this sense, most biogas-upgrading technologies described focus on removing this contaminant.

2.2.2. Sulfur Gases

Biogas produced through anaerobic digestion contains many sulfur compounds, such as sulfides, disulfides, and thiols, which must be eliminated before use. H2S (the main sulfur compound in biogas) is reactive with most metals, and its reactivity increases with concentration, system pressure, water presence, and elevated temperatures. When burned, H2S can cause emissions of SO2, SO3 or H2SO4. Combined with humidity, these components are corrosive to combustion engines and their components, reducing their useful life [26,27,28].

2.2.3. Halogenated Compounds

Halogenated compounds are frequently found in landfill biogas and oxidized during the combustion process, and in the presence of water, they are corrosive, damaging pipes and equipment.

2.2.4. Siloxanes

Siloxanes are a group of silicones that contain Si-O bonds with organic roots. Many siloxanes are used in cosmetics, food and plastic additives, which are eliminated through wastewater or urban solid waste. So, when biogas is obtained through these wastes, siloxanes are incorporated into the gas stream, given their low boiling point [29,30].
When siloxanes are exposed to high temperatures in an engine or boiler, they leave inorganic silicon residues (hard deposits) on the piston and valves, which causes extensive damage due to erosion or blockage, compromising engine performance and its useful life [31,32,33].

2.2.5. Ammonia

Generally, up to 100 ppm of this contaminant is accepted. Ammonia is very corrosive in the presence of water, and its combustion causes the formation of nitrous oxide (NOx), which causes environmental problems [34].

2.3. Biogas Applications

Among the different applications of biogas are the following: (1) boilers, for heat generation; (2) reciprocating engines, microturbines or gas turbines, to obtain electricity and heat; (3) fuel cells, to generate electricity; and (4) injection into gas pipelines, for use as vehicle fuel. CO2, H2S and water vapor are the primary pollutants of biogas that are important for use in boilers, cogeneration, vehicle engines, and the natural gas network, so they must be removed from biogas before use [2,3,4].
No international technical standard exists for injecting biogas into the natural gas network. However, the European Union and the United States have adopted recommendations on the minimum quality requirements for biogas before it is injected into the natural gas network (Table 3). However, not all applications require the same quality of biogas (Table 4). So, raw biogas must undergo one or more treatments before its use, based on the requirements for using the biogas.

3. Biogas-Upgrading Technologies

Raw biogas must be enriched and purified to reach natural gas standards through physical, chemical, or biological methods. The selection of the technology used will depend on the final use of the biogas, the efficiency of the process, and the associated costs. Established biogas-upgrading technologies are derived from the natural gas purification industry, which is grouped into two broad categories: (1) physicochemical methods (water scrubbing, physical scrubbing, chemical scrubbing, adsorption processes, cryogenic separation and membrane separation) and (2) biological methods (chemoautotrophic or photoautotrophic methods) [37].

3.1. Physicochemical Methods

These technologies are the oldest used in the removal of contaminants from biogas. The most commonly used methods are absorption processes, which take advantage of the difference in solubility of the contaminants present in biogas (CO2 and H2S) and CH4 in different solvents. When water is used, the solubility of CO2 and H2S is 26 and 73 times greater than that of CH4 (at 25 °C) [37,38]. This difference can be further increased if other solvents are used, such as polyethylene glycol ethers, which have an affinity five times greater for CO2 than water, thus minimizing the amount of solvent required and the size of the equipment. In both absorption processes, the solvent can be regenerated by means of post-treatment [39,40].
Chemical scrubbing involves a chemical reaction between gases and solvent (usually primary, secondary or tertiary amines, sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate). This method is highly selective and therefore CH4 losses are minimal; however, solvent regeneration is very energy-intensive [41,42]. On the other hand, adsorption processes are based on the selective separation of biogas components on a solid surface (adsorbent) by means of van der Waals forces. The most commonly used adsorbents are zeolites, activated carbon and silica gel, due to their high porosity and low cost; however, it is necessary to remove H2S from the biogas beforehand, since it binds irreversibly to the adsorbent [43,44].
The difference in liquefaction temperatures between CO2 (−78 °C) and CH4 (−160 °C) makes it possible to upgrade biogas by cryogenic separation. H2S and siloxanes can also be separated by this method; however, their corrosive nature makes it necessary to remove them first. The main advantage of this technology is that it does not require the addition of chemicals, and CO2 is obtained as a commercial by-product; however, high costs limit its application on a large scale [3,5,45].
Membrane separation is based on the selective permeability of membranes (inorganic, polymeric or mixed), which retain CH4 while allowing the passage of CO2, water vapor or H2 through the membrane. This technology is attractive because it does not require the addition of chemicals and has high efficiency and a compact design; however, the high costs of the membrane and its degradation over time compromise its application on a large scale [46,47].
Physicochemical methods are generally low in cost, but post-processing is required to recover contaminants or regenerate sorbents. Table 5 presents a comparative analysis of physicochemical methods. A more detailed discussion of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper; however, there are exceptional works on this subject, such as the reviews by Khan et al. [37], Ahmed et al. [48], Sahota et al. [49], Muñoz et al. [3] and Gkotsis et al. [38], to mention a few.

3.2. Biological Methods

Biological biogas-upgrading technologies can be classified as chemotrophic and photoautotrophic (photosynthetic). The main advantage of these methods is that they allow the conversion of CO2 into an energy vector (CH4) under mild reaction conditions (atmospheric pressure and moderate temperature).

3.2.1. Chemolithotrophy

This method is based on the conversion of CO2 to CH4 by the action of CO2-reducing methanogenic archaea (hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis), according to the following chemical reaction:
4 H 2 + C O 2 C H 4 + 2 H 2 O       ( G = 130.7   k J / m o l )
Methanogenic archaea that are frequently reported in anaerobic digesters for the conversion of CO2 to CH4 belong to the genera Methanobacterium, Methanospirillum, Methanothermobacter, Methanobrevibacter, and Methanococcus [50]. Previous studies have shown that a continuous supply of H2 to the system results in improved biogas with at least 95% CH4. However, this technology is limited by the poor gas–liquid mass transfer of anaerobic digester [48,50]. It is important to stress that to make this technology techno-economically attractive, the H2 must come from a renewable source, such as the electrolysis of water using excess electricity, where H2 is produced as a by-product [51], or from residual electricity from windmills or solar panels [4]. This process can occur under in situ, ex situ, and hybrid configurations.

3.2.2. Photoautotrophy

Photosynthetic biogas upgrading takes advantage of the ability of microalgae to capture CO2 and obtain a gas rich in CH4. This process is carried out by photoautotrophic microorganisms such as prokaryotic algae (cyanobacteria) or eukaryotes (green algae), which fix CO2 in the presence of light [4,52]. Typically, microalgae coexist with bacterial cultures, which oxidize H2S (using the O2 supplied by the microalgae), allowing for the simultaneous removal of CO2 and H2S, with CH4 contents up to 97% in the upgraded biomethane [53].
Approximately 1.8 g of CO2 is necessary to produce 1 g of microalgae. However, CO2 concentrations > 5% can inhibit the growth of microalgae. This way, high-CO2-tolerant microalgae species are necessary for upgrading biogas [54]. This technology can be carried out in both closed (tubular) and open photoreactors (high-rate algal ponds (HRAPs) or raceways). Closed reactors are more efficient in biogas upgrading and require less space and water; however, energy requirements are a limitation for real-scale processes.
On the other hand, open reactors have a lower energy demand and lower construction and operation costs [4,55]. The raw biogas is injected directly into the photobioreactor or a column external to the main tank. In this way, microalgae, in the presence of light and nutrients, fix CO2 and produce biomass, oxygen, and heat. A biomethane that complies with international regulations and biomass that can be used commercially to obtain value-added products (biodiesel and pigments, among others) are obtained [56,57,58,59]. The microalgae species most frequently used in the biogas-upgrading process include the genera Chlorella, Arhtrospira, and Spirulina [3], since they tolerate high concentrations of CO2 and pH (Table 6). However, using axenic cultures is a limitation for practical applications, and the use of microalgae–bacteria consortia (sulfur-oxidizing) implies a simultaneous removal of CO2 and H2S, preventing high O2 content in the biogas and minimizing the toxic effect of H2S on microalgae [4,60]. In this sense, it is necessary to establish the design and operating conditions (type of reactor, type of light, hydraulic retention times, etc.) that allow for the long-term stability of the process.

4. Hybrid Systems (of Microalgae and Nanoparticles) in Biogas Upgrading

4.1. Nanoparticles in Biogas Upgrading

Nanotechnology is increasingly focusing on ecologically sustainable development in environmental sciences. Nanotechnology also offers ways to obtain biofuels such as biodiesel, bioethanol and biogas.
Nanoparticles (NPs) have offered new environmental and engineering opportunities, such as increasing biogas production and removing contaminants from wastewater. NPs have a favorable impact that increases the rate of CH4 production, along with the stability of the anaerobic digestion process [65].
Recently, magnetite has been successfully used to improve biogas production. However, other materials, such as ZnO, CuO, Mn2O3, and Al2O3 [66], have shown the opposite effect when used as additives during anaerobic digestion. In this context, an adequate evaluation of the physicochemical characteristics of NPs and operational conditions, such as substrate type, particle size, temperature, pH, carbon/nitrogen ratio (C/N), concentration of volatile fatty acids (VFA), total alkalinity (TA), degradation of total solids (TS) and volatile solids (SV) and the concentration of the inoculum, are mandatory [67]. The NPs that have shown better performance during anaerobic digestion are granular activated carbon (GAC) and metal-based NPs, more specifically iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs) in three forms Zero-Valent Iron (Fe0), hematite (Fe2O3) and magnetite (Fe3O4). The authors report that applying Fe0 results in better CH4 yield [68,69] mainly because of their magnetic properties and strong chemical stability, significantly improving electron transfer during anaerobic digestion. In this way, interspecies electron flow is achieved by directly transmitting electrons produced by electron-donating bacteria (EDB) to acceptors. Thus, methanogenic archaea convert CO2 to CH4 using the electrons supplied from the EDB through conductive materials. Iron oxides function as electron-conducting nanowires and accelerate their flow between species without mediating molecules, such as hydrogen or formate [69].
In previous studies where iron NPs were used, the production of CH4 was demonstrated by the release of two electrons as a result of Fe0 oxidation to Fe+2 under anaerobic conditions. In this way, inorganic CO2 can uptake these electrons, accelerating the hydrogenation process and production of CH4. Furthermore, these NPs act as catalysts for the dehydrogenation of formic acid, obtaining CO2 and H2 as products, which react to generate more CH4 [70]. Nickel (Ni) is used by bacteria for the anaerobic digestion process, making it essential for methanogenic archaea and acidogenic bacteria. Nickel (Ni) potentially forms soluble organic complexes with specific amino acids [71]. Cobalt (Co) is an important trace element for the growth of methanogenic archaea during digestion. Cobalt is necessary for methanogenic archaea that break down methanol. Indeed, Co is considered a key component in the oxidation of acetate to CO2 and H2, leading to the hydrogenotrophic methanogenic process [72].
The optimal concentrations of Fe (5, 10, 15 mg/L), Ni (1–4 mg/L), and Co (1 mg/L) NPs for treating livestock manure and improving both the production and quality of biogas are shown in Table 7. However, more studies are required on mixtures of NPs (and their interactions) or other substrates other than livestock manure for biogas production. Moreover, it is widely known that methane yield depends on the type of substrate and is limited by the hydrolysis step. Thus, using NPs as additives to improve the hydrolysis rate in the anaerobic digestion process has been encouraged [73]. In other words, adding NP mixtures can increase the effectiveness of CH4 production. For instance, NPs that have beneficial effects on the anaerobic digestion process, i.e., Fe, Ni and Co NPs, could be combined to improve the methane yield in substrates such as cattle manure [65]. For instance, the electrons released by Fe0 can be consumed by inorganic CO2 and thus increase the yield of CH4. At the same time, Ni (nickel) is a constituent of the cofactor F430, which is the prosthetic group of the methyl coenzyme M reductase complex. This enzyme catalyzes the last step of the CH4 formation pathway. Co is also a cofactor of methyltransferases and carbon monoxide dehydrogenase (CODH)—the latter is a key enzyme for both the production and consumption of acetate and is present in both acetogenic bacteria and methanogens [65]. In this way, metal NPs and metal oxides are suitable materials to improve the methane content in biogas. However, special attention is required since they can inhibit the process (decreasing methane yield or productivity) if not used in optimal doses [74].

4.2. Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems in Biogas Upgrading

Biological methods for biogas upgrading based on photosynthetic microorganisms, i.e., microalgae are considered a cost-effective technology since they do not require intense energy and/or chemicals. Additionally, using microalgae to upgrade biogas can pave the way to a photobiorefinery concept if centrate is used as a culture media and the produced microalgal biomass is used for producing high-added-value products.
Biogas upgrading via microalgae cultures is a technology that has been widely studied at the laboratory and pilot scales [82,83] in systems composed of open high-rate algal ponds (HRAPs) interconnected, employing a settler, with a purification column (PC), where the biogas is sparged to be upgraded to biomethane. The microalgal broth from the PC is returned to the HRAP, and the biomass from the settler is recirculated to the HRAP to prevent its fermentation (Figure 2). This specific system setting has demonstrated high robustness, and CO2 removals of up to 99% have been reached [8,84]. It is important to highlight that these high CO2 removals have been recorded under high-alkalinity environments where typically the IC concentration ranges between 1000 and 2000 mg/L and the pH is >9 (Table 8). Indeed, the quality of the upgraded biomethane is governed by environmental parameters, such as the IC concentration, pH, and L/G ratio.
For instance, Rodero et al. [84] demonstrated that the IC concentration significantly influenced the CO2 removal from biogas. As the IC concentration increased from 100 to 1500 mg/L, CO2 removal increased from 72% to 99% in an indoor system configuration. Similar results were reported by Posadas et al. [7] in a similar experimental setting under outdoor conditions. The authors reported that when the IC concentration was 500 mg/L, CO2 removals ranging from 65 to 87% were recorded, while when the IC concentration was increased to 2000 mg/L, CO2 removals ranging from 87 to 97% were reached. In this context, it can be stated that high-alkalinity and -pH environments are mandatory for successful CO2 gas–liquid transfer in the photosynthetic biogas-upgrading process. In this sense, the CO2 transfer is governed by Equations (2)–(4):
C O 2 + H 2 O + C O 3 2 2 H C O 3
H C O 3 C O 2 + O H
H C O 3 + O H C O 3 2 + H 2 O
On the other hand, photosynthetic biogas-upgrading technology has also been demonstrated to remove H2S efficiently by two pathways—(1) via the symbiosis created by the microalgae–bacteria consortium, where the O2 produced by microalgae is used by oxidizing bacteria to oxidize H2S to SO42− [94], and (2) via chemical oxidation by the O2 produced by microalgae (when bacteria is not present)—and is governed by Equations (5) and (6):
H 2 S + 0.5 O 2 S + H 2 O
H 2 S + 2 O 2 S O 4 2 + 2 H +
Even if photosynthetic biogas upgrading has been demonstrated to be a promising technology, the process still presents some drawbacks that need to be overcome before taking this platform to an industrial scale. For instance, the limited CO2 mass transfer to the liquid broth, the high-alkalinity environments, the L/G ratio, and the limited photosynthetic activity of microalgae have been listed as the most relevant parameters that governed the quality of the upgraded biomethane. Adding carbonate/bicarbonate salts has become a simple strategy to reach IC concentrations between 1000 and 1500 mg/L. However, a significantly higher IC concentration does not necessarily mean a higher biomass concentration. For instance, Franco-Morgado et al. [8] and Marín et al. [10,93] reported biomass concentrations < 1 g/L when the IC concentration in the culture broth was ≤1500 mg/L. Interestingly, Marín et al. [93] reported that when the IC concentration of the system increased from 1500 to 2100 mg/L, the biomass concentration decreased from 0.53 to 0.31 g/L. Thus, it could be stated that IC concentrations > 1500 mg/L entailed CO2 removals > 90%, but the biomass concentration could be decreased or limited. In this sense, special attention is required to enhance the photosynthetic activity of microalgae to improve the biomass concentration before up-scaling the process.
Recently, nanoparticles (NPs) have caught the attention of researchers of microalgae cultures since it has been demonstrated that some metal-oxide NPs can boost the metabolism of some microalgae strains [17]. Even if the interaction mechanisms between NPs and microalgae are not yet well understood, they are believed to interact indirectly or directly with microalgae. Indirectly, NPs can act as CO2 adsorbents, enhancing the gas–liquid mass transfer and resulting in the improved CO2 fixation by microalgae. Studies have demonstrated that adding Fe2O3 NPs to the surface of polymeric nanofibers significantly improved the CO2 fixation and microalgae metabolism of Chlorella fusca LEB 111 [13,16,95]. Moreover, SiO2 NPs have also been demonstrated to enhance the gas–liquid mass transfer of CO2 to microalgae broths. Interestingly, SiO2 and SiO2-CH3 NPs increased the volumetric mass transfer coefficient by 31 and 145% when they were added to C. vulgaris cultures. Additionally, the biomass and fatty acid productivity were boosted. On the other hand, NPs can directly interact with microalgae since they can permeate to microalgae cells and interfere with metabolic pathways. In this way, NPs composed of essential ions, such as Fe3+, Mg2+, Ca2+, and Cu2+, could benefit microalgae metabolism [17]. Fe NPs have been reported to have beneficial effects on microalgae cultures. For instance, Fe2O3 NPs enhanced the biomass concentration and the lipid production of Scenedesmus obliquus when concentrations < 20 mg/L were added to the cultures [96]. Similarly, Rana et al. [97] observed that adding 20 mg/L Fe2O3 to Chlorella pyrenoidosa cultures increased the biomass and lipid concentration to 34 and 17%, respectively. On the other hand, adding Fe2O3 at 50 and 100 mg/L has been reported to increase the lipid content to 40 and 25% in C. vulgaris cultures, respectively [98]. The addition of MgSO4 NPs resulted in similar findings. Sarma et al. [99] reported that adding 1 g/L of MgSO4 NPs to C. vulgaris cultures increased lipid production by 118%. Therefore, adding NPs to microalgae cultures is a promising technique to increase the value of microalgal biomass, which could significantly enhance the cost-effectiveness of the photosynthetic biogas-upgrading process.
In this context, the addition of NPs to microalgae cultures intended for biogas-upgrading processes was recently investigated. First, Vargas-Estrada et al. [100] studied the effect of iron-based mesoporous NPs on C. sorokiniana cultures. Three iron-based NPs were used: Fe2O3 and carbon-coated zero-valent iron NPs with different physicochemical properties at different concentrations, under visible light and UV + visible light. The authors concluded that the porosity and pore size of the NPs affected CO2 availability in C. sorokiniana cultures differently, and that NPs with higher porosity increased CO2 availability in C. sorokiniana. Thus, the carbon-coated zero-valent iron NPs, better known as CALPECH NPs, increased biomass productivity when added at a concentration of 70 mg/L. The boosting effect of the CALPECH NPs was also confirmed in a mixed microalgae–bacteria consortium [101]. The authors studied the effect of different NPs—SiO2, Fe2O3 and CALPECH NPs—at different concentrations under different light sources (visible and visible + UV). The addition of 70 mg/L CALPECH NPs significantly increased the biomass concentration and carbohydrate production of the mixed consortium. Subsequently, the effect of CALPECH NPs was validated in a 180 L laboratory-scale continuous system for biogas upgrading [100]. CALPECH NPs were added at a concentration of 70 mg/L and added daily to the centrate to maintain the concentration in the system. After adding the CALEPCH NPs, the authors reported an increase in biomass concentration in the HRAP from 1.56 to 3.26 g VSS/L. This intense microalgal activity increased CO2 removal with a CO2 concentration of 3.2% in the upgraded biomethane. It is important to highlight that the IC concentration of the system was around 600 mg/L, and the intense microalgal activity reduced the buffering capacity of the system, resulting in a concentration of 437 mg IC/L, which caused the CO2 removal performance of the system. In this context, Hoyos et al. [102] studied the effect of CALPECH NPs in a similar configuration. The authors tested higher concentrations of 70, 140 and 280 mg/L of NPs and found that 140 mg/L was the optimal concentration to improve system performance. The authors reported an increase in the biomass concentration, and to prevent biomass buildup, biomass productivity was increased from 22.5 to 48.2 g m−2d−1. In addition, 95% CO2 removal was observed when 140 mg/L of the CALPECH NPs was added. It is important to highlight that to prevent the loss of buffering capacity, the authors added 1.7 g/L of Na2CO3 to the system and maintained a pH between 9.0 and 9.53. Finally, a subsequent study evaluated the effect of adding liquid CALPECH NPs to a similarly configured system [103]. In this case, it was reported that the addition of liquid NPs significantly increased the pH from 8.6 to 9.3, which mediated an increased buffering capacity that enhanced CO2 mass transfer into the liquid broth, resulting in an increased biomass concentration from 1.2 to 3.5 g/L. Furthermore, the addition of liquid NPs significantly increased the IC concentration in the HRAP, from 22 mg/L to 700 mg/L. This significant increase in IC concentration in the HRAP mediated a CO2 removal of 94.2%, resulting in an upgraded biomethane with a concentration of 2.2% CO2.
In this context, adding NPs to microalgae cultures devoted to biogas upgrading is a promising technique to improve the quality of the upgraded biomethane and the biomass productivity of the systems. The significantly increased biomass productivity could enhance the techno-economic feasibility of the process by producing high-added-value products or biofuels. Thus, even if this approach still needs more research to optimize the process, the results obtained so far suggest that the produced biomass could be valorized to create a photobiorefinery concept, which will pave the way to a circular economy.

5. Factors Affecting Biogas Upgrading in Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems

5.1. Selection of the Microalgal Species

Microalgae species that grow under mixotrophy conditions offer an advantage, especially when biogas upgrading is coupled with wastewater or digestate treatment. Some aptitudes to consider for the selection of the microalgae species are high growth rates, high cell productivity, resistance to polluting agents and fluctuations in the environment, high tolerance to CO2, H2S and mixotrophic metabolism (to maintain cell density even in the dark phase), and accumulating lipids and other value-added products [55,59]. Unfortunately, few species of microalgae meet these requirements, so most of those reported in the literature correspond to the genera Chlorella and Scenedesmus. It has been described that S. obliquus has a higher cell productivity, specific growth rate, CO2 fixation rate, and cell density than C. vulgaris and C. kessleri, both in real and synthetic wastewater. On the other hand, microalgae–bacteria consortia present certain advantages since the bacteria can oxidize the H2S contained in the biogas, avoiding the toxic effects of this component on the microalgae (and decreasing the O2 content in the upgraded biogas), so wastewater treatment and biogas upgrading are carried out simultaneously [104]. Recently, it has been reported that the microalgae C. vulgaris can carry out wastewater treatment (COD and nutrient removal) in a continuous system, both in the light and dark phases (16 h day/8 h night), manipulating the dilution rate. The authors conclude that continuous wastewater treatment for 24 h is possible by applying the recycling and storage of carbohydrate-rich biomass, producing valuable protein-rich biomass at the end of the dark phase [105].

5.1.1. CO2 Tolerance

CO2 is the second major component in biogas, generally ranging between 20 and 55% (v/v) [2,3,4]. In this sense, a species of microalgae with a high tolerance to CO2 is desirable. Due to the limited contact time, the microalgae’s tolerance to high CO2 concentrations constitutes a limiting factor. It has been reported that the cyanobacteria Spirulina, Anabaena, and Synechococcus tolerate atmospheres with up to 100% CO2 without pH control [106,107]. Similarly, it has been reported that Chlorella species tolerate CO2 in a typical range of 40–70% CO2 [108,109,110], while S. ubliquus tolerates up to 80% CO2 [111]. Various studies show that increasing the concentration of CO2 in biogas increases the accumulation of lipids and polyunsaturated fatty acids [112], which implies a more promising biomass for obtaining biofuels at a later stage, promoting the process economy.

5.1.2. H2S Tolerance

Another important contaminant in raw biogas is H2S, typically present in 0 to 10,000 ppm concentrations, depending on the substrate and inoculum used. H2S is acidic in nature, facilitating its elimination using an alkaline solution, similar to the case of CO2. At the typical pH that microalgae systems operate (between 7 and 9), and in the presence of oxygen (a product of photosynthetic activity), sulfate is quickly produced, which precipitates, even in the absence of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria [113]. This also avoids the toxic effect of H2S on microalgae growth [113,114].
According to Equation (7), sulfate precipitation will also remove a fraction of oxygen. In this sense, the fraction of H2S in raw biogas plays an important role in the quality of biogas regarding oxygen content [6]. Different microalgae have been used for biogas desulfurization, and it was found that C. vulgaris, C. sorokiniana, and a consortium dominated by Scenedesmus sp. tolerated concentrations of 200, 3500 and 3000 ppm of H2S [6,113,115].
H 2 S + 2 O 2 2 H + + S O 4 2
Although aerobic processes are the most-used for biogas desulfurization, anoxic processes have also been used successfully. These processes use nitrates as electron acceptors according to Equation (8). The most representative species in these processes belong to Thiobacillus, Thialkali, and Acidithiobacillus genera. These bacteria are mesophyllous, can use both molecular oxygen and nitrates as electron acceptors, and can grow in acidic to neutral pH ranges, except for Thioalkalli vibrio (Table 9) [3,114]. However, it is often preferable to use alkaline sulfide-oxidizing bacteria capable of growing in a pH range between 10 and 12, since under these conditions, high H2S loads can be treated, or the size of the desulfurization columns can be minimized in comparison with acid or neutral desulfurization technologies [116].
3 H 2 S + 4 N O 3 3 S O 4 2 + 2 N 2 + 6 H +

5.1.3. pH Tolerance

The pH of the culture medium is a crucial parameter for the biogas-upgrading process. CO2 dissolves in water and can be available mainly as carbonic acid (pH < 6.1), bicarbonate (6.1 < pH < 10.3), or carbonate (10.3 < pH), depending on the pH of the medium. As the pH of the culture medium increases, the solubility of CO2 is greater, mainly as bicarbonate (or carbonate, depending on the pH)—a chemical species that microalgae efficiently assimilate. Moderately alkalophilic cyanobacteria (pH 8.5–9.4) associated with the genera Pleurocapsa, Synechococcus, and Anabaena have been reported, as well as some highly alkalophilic cyanobacteria (pH > 9.5) associated with the genera Arthrospira and Euhalothece [121,122], which are promising for biogas-upgrading processes.

5.2. Light Intensity

Microalgae use light as an energy source; therefore, it is a crucial factor that needs to be optimized in microalgae cultivation. Most microalgae use light in the range of 400–700 nm, though the optimal wavelength and intensity will depend on the species. High light intensity inhibits the consumption and assimilation of organic carbon in microalgae with a heterotrophic metabolism.
Chlorophytes are the most-studied microalgae species that simultaneously undergo biogas upgrading and wastewater (or digestate) treatment. In this sense, Zhao et al. [123] reported that red light with an intensity between 1200 and 1600 μmol/m2/s was the most suitable for this purpose, using Chlorella sp. However, years later, Ouyang et al. [124] found that moderate light intensities (150–170 μmol/m2/s1) are the most suitable for this purpose in a study that included the strains S. ubliquus, Selenastrum bibraianum, and Chlorella sp. The authors concluded that S. obliquus had the best efficiencies. One year later, Yan et al. [125] reported that red light and moderate intensities (400–1000 μmol/m2/s) were more suitable for biogas enhancement and the growth of Chlorella sp. However, a combination of red and blue light in a 5:5 ratio is preferred for this purpose [62,126,127].
Another critical aspect, in addition to light intensity, is the photoperiod. Yan et al. [126] reported that low intensities (300 μmol/m2/s) are more suitable for long photoperiods (16 h light: 8 h dark) for cultures of 0–48 h; moderate intensities (600 μmol/m2/s) are more effective in intermediate photoperiods (14 h light: 10 h dark) for 48–96 h cultures; and high intensities (900 μmol/m2/s1) are best for short photoperiods (12 h light; 12 h dark) for 96–144 h cultures.
On the other hand, Wang et al. [128] studied five strains to carry out biogas upgrading, and these were C. vulgaris, S. obliquus, Selenastrum capricornutum, Nitzschia palea, and Anabaena spiroides. All strains were grown in mono- and co-cultures with activated sludge or fungi. The authors found that co-cultures had better efficiencies in methane upgrading and microalgal biomass production; S. obliquus was the microalgae with the best efficiencies.

5.3. Temperature

Temperature is an important factor to consider regarding the photosynthetic activity of algae. Previous studies show that the effect of temperature (between 12 and 35 °C) is negligible in upgrading biogas when a microalgae–bacteria consortium is cultivated in centrate, especially in cultures with high alkalinity (up to 1500 mg/L of inorganic carbon) [84]. On the other hand, Choix et al. [129] and Bose et al. [130] reached the same conclusion, employing temperature ranges of 12–35 °C and 18–37 °C, using the microalgae Leptolyngbya sp. CChF1 and Arthrospira platensis (Spirulina). However, using a lower temperature for growing microalgae implies less water loss through evaporation and greater CO2 solubility, especially in cultures with low alkalinity (around 500 mg/L of inorganic carbon) [84].

5.4. Reactor Type

The photosynthetic upgrading of biogas using an external bubble column coupled to an HRAP is the most-used configuration for this purpose, since this is a low-cost technology that is easy to operate and highly effective for large-scale microalgae cultivation [7,55,64,88,91,131].
Co-current feeding for both the biogas and the microalgae culture that enter the bubble column is preferred; it avoids the operational problems of countercurrent feeding, such as obstructions at the top of the column due to sulfur precipitation, pH drops along the bubble column, and the increased removal of dissolved oxygen in the upgraded biogas. Another important factor is the ratio of liquid to gas flows (L/G). However, the results are not conclusive: while some authors suggest that an L/G ratio < 1 allows for obtaining biomethane of the quality required for injection into the natural gas grid [64,131], Rodero et al. [92] reported CO2 concentrations of up to 12% in upgraded biogas using an L/G ratio of 0.8. However, regardless of the L/G ratio, the removal of CO2 (and H2S) from biogas greater than 95% is obtained when using cultures with a pH > 9 [64,88,91].
On the other hand, when the pH of the culture is less than 9, the L/G ratio must increase to guarantee the removal of CO2. In this sense, Serejo et al. [61] reported that to achieve CO2 removals greater than 80% using a culture at pH 7.3, it was necessary to use an L/G ratio of 10. Furthermore, although a more-alkaline pH favors the removal of CO2, it can also increase the extraction of O2 into the biogas. Likewise, the concentration of microalgae in the absorption column could improve mass transfer in the column, which would translate into better CO2 removal; however, it was recently reported that increasing the concentration of microalgae in the bubble column did not produce significant differences in CO2 removal [89]. In addition to this, the photosynthetic activity of microalgae could increase the O2 content in the improved biogas, compromising its quality.

5.5. Type and Concentration of Nanoparticles

The use of nanomaterials has aroused great interest in recent years since it has been shown that some nanoparticles (NPs) improve the growth (and harvest) of microalgae and/or the accumulation of intracellular compounds, which can be used to obtain biofuels in a later stage [17]. It has been shown that the addition of Fe2O3 and SiO2 NPs (in the range of 100–500 ppm) to the culture medium improves CO2 fixation by Chlorella fusca LEB 111 [13,16,95], as a consequence of an improvement in mass transfer. On the other hand, Ag, Co, and ZnO NPs have been described as having a negative effect when added to microalgae cultures, even at concentrations lower than 1 ppm [132,133,134]. Furthermore, it has been described that NPs have a hormesis effect in the cultivation of microalgae, so the thresholds of microalgae to NPs are challenging to establish and depend on many factors, such as the species of microalgae, the type and concentration of NPs, the pH of the culture medium, alkalinity, light intensity, etc. [17]. Therefore, it should always be finished experimentally. Recent studies have shown that zero-valent iron NPs coated with carbon improved the productivity of algal biomass and allowed biomethane that could be injected into the natural gas network to be obtained [100,102]. These studies were carried out under controlled lighting conditions—that is, indoors. Therefore, tests abroad must be conducted outdoors to evaluate a more accurate scenario.

6. Perspectives and Challenges

Upgraded biogas is known as biomethane, and there are already established technologies to obtain it; however, operating costs and environmental implications limit its application, so it is necessary to implement more economical and environmentally friendly strategies. One of them is the upgrading of biogas by biological methods, specifically using microalgal cultures, which have already been shown to allow for the upgrading of biogas, achieving biomethane that complies with international regulations.
An option to further improve the efficiency of the biogas-upgrading process is the addition of nanoparticles to the microalgae culture, which also allows for the more significant removal of CO2 (and H2S), resulting from an increase in mass transfer, and an improvement in the productivity of algae biomass, which can be used to recover biofuels in a later stage, promoting the circular economy of the process. In this sense, carbohydrates, proteins and lipids are the three main nutritional components of microalgal biomass. Proteins can be used as a nutritional supplement [135]. Lipids are useful for biodiesel production [136], while carbohydrates can be used to obtain alcohols (ethanol and/or butanol) by fermentation [137]. Equally, the entirety of the biomass can be used for biogas production [138]. Although it is true that microalgae can accumulate compounds with very high added value, such as pigments (carotenoids, lutein and others) [139], widely used in cosmetics and pharmacy, more research is needed on the safe application of pigments obtained from microalgae cultivated in wastewater. Therefore, the recovery of energy vectors would be a more attractive option, especially from the point of view of a biorefinery, to make more comprehensive use of microalgal biomass [140], which would also minimize the production of secondary pollutants. However, studies based on lifecycle analysis are needed for these processes, in order to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with obtaining biofuels. In recent years, the use of microalgal biomass as a biofertilizer or biostimulant for plant growth has attracted great interest. Based on a techno-economic and lifecycle analysis, recent studies show that the production of biofertilizers is more feasible than the production of hydrochar [141] or biogas [142] from microalgae, especially when these systems are implemented in regions with warm climates. However, nanoparticles can have an inhibitory effect on the growth of algal biomass, impacting the quality of the biogas. Therefore, it is necessary to experimentally establish, for each microalgae culture, the threshold concentration of the nanoparticle in question they can tolerate.
Figure 3 shows the analysis of co-occurrences based on a bibliometric analysis carried out in VOSviewer 1.6.20 software, from 2000 to date. Seven clusters were identified: cluster 1 (red)—18 items; cluster 2 (green)—13 items; cluster 3 (navy blue)—9 items; cluster 4 (yellow)—8 items; cluster 5 (violet)—7 items; cluster 6 (sky blue)—6 items; and cluster 7 (orange)—2 items. Studies based on “biogas upgrading” are closely related to the topics “microalgae”, “biogas”, and “anaerobic digestion”, since the proximity between the circles, as well as their size, defines the relationship between the keywords. However, the keywords “nanotechnology” and “nanoparticles” show a weaker relationship. To date, few studies have evaluated the use of microalgal–nanoparticle systems for biogas upgrading. In addition, most of the works that use these systems focus on the study of operational parameters that affect the upgrading of biogas, such as pH, alkalinity, L/G ratio, and photoperiod, among others [64,84,88,127,128], and there is little information on the analysis of microbiomes using next-generation high-throughput sequencing technologies, metabolomic analysis, proteomic analysis, and other omics technologies. This would allow us to understand the changes in the microbial community (microalgal and bacterial) and establish the possible interactions between the different species when nanoparticles are added to these systems. Few works exist that study the population dynamics of microalgae present in crops that are used in the biogas-upgrading process. In addition, identification is carried out based on the morphology of the microalgae, which requires highly experienced personnel, since many of the microalgae present polymorphisms. In this sense, molecular techniques represent a more reliable tool for identifying both microalgae and bacteria.
On the other hand, Figure 4 shows the trend in the study of biogas upgrading based on microalgae–nanoparticle systems. In recent years, there has been a trend in topics related to the “circular bioeconomy” or “environmental impacts”, which means that the need arises to carry out the lifecycle analysis of these systems in order to evaluate these processes more comprehensively, to study the economic, environmental and social impacts. To date, several studies have demonstrated the impact of NPs in improving microalgae growth, as well as in their harvest [143]. However, a techno-economic and environ-mental impact analysis of these systems is still lacking, since the repercussions that the accumulation of NPs may have on the environment are unknown. Another option would be to implement a strategy to recover and reuse them in order to minimize their incorporation into the environment. Recent studies have experimentally demonstrated that, at low concentrations, nanoparticles are capable of improving the physiological processes of plants [144,145]. However, the physicochemical properties (metal used, shape, size and surface chemistry) of NPs will be decisive for their safe use as fertilizers. Previous studies have reported that the addition of ZnO NPs (1000 mg/kg) improves corn growth. It has been reported that TiO2 NPs in the range 1–100 mg/kg do not inhibit the growth of the soil bacterial community, while Ag and CuO NPs are toxic to the soil bacterial community in comparable concentrations [146], compromising plant growth. However, the doses used vary greatly depending on the type of NP, the type of plant, the application mode and environmental conditions.
The magnetic flocculation of microalgae using magnetic NPs (magnetite (Fe3O4) and maghemite (γ-Fe2O3)) has been reported as a fast, simple and potentially sustainable harvesting method [147]. However, NP production and functionalization account for the majority of material costs, i.e., bare iron oxides cost approximately USD 50–200/g. However, large-scale in-house synthesis can dramatically reduce this price to USD 0-1-0.30/g [143,148], which would be even more attractive if NP synthesis was performed using green chemistry. This involves using aqueous extracts based on plants, algae or microorganisms for the reduction and/or stabilization of nanoparticles from a precursor. This prevents the use of toxic reagents used in the chemical synthesis of nanoparticles, allowing the revaluation of waste and improving the economy of the process. Considering the costs of the microalgae harvesting stage, it is estimated that magnetic separation would cost 0.07–0.16 USD/kg of algae, which is competitive with other harvesting methods such as centrifugation, filtration and flocculation [148]. In addition to this, the magnetic characteristics of some NPs facilitate their recovery and reuse, further reducing costs and promoting a more economical and friendly process. However, since these systems (of microalgae and nanoparticles) are emerging technologies for biogas upgrading, to date, there are no techno-economic and lifecycle studies that support the feasibility of these systems, which represents an area of opportunity.

7. Conclusions

Biogas upgrading using a microalgae–nanoparticle system is a more sustainable process than conventional technologies since it simultaneously allows for biogas upgrading and the production of biomass, which can be used to obtain biofuels, improving the economy of the process. However, it is necessary to implement molecular techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, to study the microbiome of these systems further. In addition, incorporating other study tools, such as lifecycle analysis, is essential to evaluate these upgrading processes from a more comprehensive point of view.

Author Contributions

M.B.-T.: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft. L.V.-E.: Writing—original draft. S.T.-A.: Writing—original draft. D.M.A.: Investigation. P.J.S.: Writing—review and editing, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Figure 1: data were obtained from the period between 1999 and 2024 (https://www.sciencedirect.com; accessed on 10 May 2024). Figure 3 and Figure 4: data were obtained from https://www.scopus.com; accessed on 17 May 2024.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the UNAM Postdoctoral Program (POSDOC) and DGAPA-UNAM through the project IN108922. Torres-Arellano (619727) thanks CONAHCYT for the post-doctoral fellowship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Al-Wahaibi, A.; Osman, A.I.; Al-Muhtaseb, A.H.; Alqaisi, O.; Baawain, M.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W. Techno-Economic Evaluation of Biogas Production from Food Waste via Anaerobic Digestion. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dalpaz, R.; Konrad, O.; Cândido da Silva Cyrne, C.; Panis Barzotto, H.; Hasan, C.; Guerini Filho, M. Using Biogas for Energy Cogeneration: An Analysis of Electric and Thermal Energy Generation from Agro-Industrial Waste. Sustain. Energy Technol. Asses. 2020, 40, 100774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Muñoz, R.; Meier, L.; Diaz, I.; Jeison, D. A Review on the State-of-the-Art of Physical/Chemical and Biological Technologies for Biogas Upgrading. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 727–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Angelidaki, I.; Treu, L.; Tsapekos, P.; Luo, G.; Campanaro, S.; Wenzel, H.; Kougias, P.G. Biogas Upgrading and Utilization: Current Status and Perspectives. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 452–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ullah Khan, I.; Hafiz Dzarfan Othman, M.; Hashim, H.; Matsuura, T.; Ismail, A.F.; Rezaei-DashtArzhandi, M.; Wan Azelee, I. Biogas as a Renewable Energy Fuel—A Review of Biogas Upgrading, Utilisation and Storage. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 150, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bahr, M.; Díaz, I.; Dominguez, A.; González Sánchez, A.; Muñoz, R. Microalgal-Biotechnology As a Platform for an Integral Biogas Upgrading and Nutrient Removal from Anaerobic Effluents. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Posadas, E.; Marín, D.; Blanco, S.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Simultaneous Biogas Upgrading and Centrate Treatment in an Outdoors Pilot Scale High Rate Algal Pond. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 232, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Franco-Morgado, M.; Toledo-Cervantes, A.; González-Sánchez, A.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Integral (VOCs, CO2, Mercaptans and H2S) Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading Using Innovative Biogas and Digestate Supply Strategies. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 354, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ye, W.; Xia, A.; Chen, C.; Liao, Q.; Huang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, X. Sustainable Carbon Capture via Halophilic and Alkaliphilic Cyanobacteria: The Role of Light and Bicarbonate. Biofuel Res. J. 2020, 7, 1195–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marín, D.; Carmona-Martínez, A.A.; Blanco, S.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Innovative Operational Strategies in Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading in an Outdoors Pilot Scale Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactor. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anwar, M.N.; Fayyaz, A.; Sohail, N.F.; Khokhar, M.F.; Baqar, M.; Khan, W.D.; Rasool, K.; Rehan, M.; Nizami, A.S. CO2 Capture and Storage: A Way Forward for Sustainable Environment. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 226, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kumar, R.; Mangalapuri, R.; Ahmadi, M.H.; Vo, D.-V.N.; Solanki, R.; Kumar, P. The Role of Nanotechnology on Post-Combustion CO2 Absorption in Process Industries. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2020, 15, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. da Silva Vaz, B.; Alberto Vieira Costa, J.; Greque de Morais, M. Physical and Biological Fixation of CO2 with Polymeric Nanofibers in Outdoor Cultivations of Chlorella fusca LEB 111. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 151, 1332–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jeon, H.-S.; Park, S.E.; Ahn, B.; Kim, Y.-K. Enhancement of Biodiesel Production in Chlorella vulgaris Cultivation Using Silica Nanoparticles. Biotechnol. Bioproc. Eng. 2017, 22, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kluytmans, J.H.J.; van Wachem, B.G.M.; Kuster, B.F.M.; Schouten, J.C. Mass Transfer in Sparged and Stirred Reactors: Influence of Carbon Particles and Electrolyte. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2003, 58, 4719–4728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. da Silva Vaz, B.; Costa, J.A.V.; de Morais, M.G. Innovative Nanofiber Technology to Improve Carbon Dioxide Biofixation in Microalgae Cultivation. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 273, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vargas-Estrada, L.; Torres-Arellano, S.; Longoria, A.; Arias, D.M.; Okoye, P.U.; Sebastian, P.J. Role of Nanoparticles on Microalgal Cultivation: A Review. Fuel 2020, 280, 118598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Atelge, M.R.; Atabani, A.E.; Banu, J.R.; Krisa, D.; Kaya, M.; Eskicioglu, C.; Kumar, G.; Lee, C.; Yildiz, Y.Ş.; Unalan, S.; et al. A Critical Review of Pretreatment Technologies to Enhance Anaerobic Digestion and Energy Recovery. Fuel 2020, 270, 117494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Atelge, M.R.; Krisa, D.; Kumar, G.; Eskicioglu, C.; Nguyen, D.D.; Chang, S.W.; Atabani, A.E.; Al-Muhtaseb, A.H.; Unalan, S. Biogas Production from Organic Waste: Recent Progress and Perspectives. Waste Biomass Valor. 2020, 11, 1019–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chhetri, R.K.; Aryal, N.; Kharel, S.; Chandra Poudel, R.; Pant, D. Chapter 5—Agro-Based Industrial Wastes as Potent Sources of Alternative Energy and Organic Fertilizers. In Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Kataki, R., Pandey, A., Khanal, S.K., Pant, D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 121–136. ISBN 978-0-444-64309-4. [Google Scholar]
  21. Keerthana Devi, M.; Manikandan, S.; Oviyapriya, M.; Selvaraj, M.; Assiri, M.A.; Vickram, S.; Subbaiya, R.; Karmegam, N.; Ravindran, B.; Chang, S.W.; et al. Recent Advances in Biogas Production Using Agro-Industrial Waste: A Comprehensive Review Outlook of Techno-Economic Analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 363, 127871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huertas, J.I.; Giraldo, N.; Izquierdo, S. Removal of H2S and CO2 from Biogas by Amine Absorption. In Mass Transfer in Chemical Engineering Processes; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-953-307-619-5. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kabeyi, M.J.B.; Olanrewaju, O.A. Biogas Production and Applications in the Sustainable Energy Transition. J. Energy 2022, 2022, 8750221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Muntaha, N.; Rain, M.I.; Goni, L.K.M.O.; Shaikh, M.A.A.; Jamal, M.S.; Hossain, M. A Review on Carbon Dioxide Minimization in Biogas Upgradation Technology by Chemical Absorption Processes. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 33680–33698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rusanowska, P.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M. Removal of CO2 from Biogas during Mineral Carbonation with Waste Materials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vu, H.P.; Nguyen, L.N.; Wang, Q.; Ngo, H.H.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Nghiem, L.D. Hydrogen Sulphide Management in Anaerobic Digestion: A Critical Review on Input Control, Process Regulation, and Post-Treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Awe, O.W.; Zhao, Y.; Nzihou, A.; Minh, D.P.; Lyczko, N. A Review of Biogas Utilisation, Purification and Upgrading Technologies. Waste Biomass Valor. 2017, 8, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahmad, W.; Sethupathi, S.; Kanadasan, G.; Lau, L.C.; Kanthasamy, R. A Review on the Removal of Hydrogen Sulfide from Biogas by Adsorption Using Sorbents Derived from Waste. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2021, 37, 407–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rücker, C.; Kümmerer, K. Environmental Chemistry of Organosiloxanes. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 466–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tansel, B.; Surita, S.C. Managing Siloxanes in Biogas-to-Energy Facilities: Economic Comparison of Pre- vs Post-Combustion Practices. Waste Manag. 2019, 96, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Álvarez-Flórez, J.; Egusquiza, E. Analysis of Damage Caused by Siloxanes in Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Operating with Landfill Gas. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 50, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mendiara, T.; Cabello, A.; Izquierdo, M.T.; Abad, A.; Mattisson, T.; Adánez, J. Effect of the Presence of Siloxanes in Biogas Chemical Looping Combustion. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 14984–14994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Eichler, C.M.A.; Wu, Y.; Cox, S.S.; Klaus, S.; Boardman, G.D. Evaluation of Sampling Techniques for Gas-Phase Siloxanes in Biogas. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 108, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sun, Q.; Li, H.; Yan, J.; Liu, L.; Yu, Z.; Yu, X. Selection of Appropriate Biogas Upgrading Technology-a Review of Biogas Cleaning, Upgrading and Utilisation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Audrey Renewable Natural Gas Quality Specifications in North America; Biogas World: Québec City, QC, Canada, 2019.
  36. Petersson, A.; Wellinger, A. Biogas Upgrading Technologies e Developments and Innovations; IEA Bioenergy: Paris, France, 2009; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  37. Khan, M.U.; Lee, J.T.E.; Bashir, M.A.; Dissanayake, P.D.; Ok, Y.S.; Tong, Y.W.; Shariati, M.A.; Wu, S.; Ahring, B.K. Current Status of Biogas Upgrading for Direct Biomethane Use: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 149, 111343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gkotsis, P.; Kougias, P.; Mitrakas, M.; Zouboulis, A. Biogas Upgrading Technologies—Recent Advances in Membrane-Based Processes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 3965–3993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aghel, B.; Maleki, M.; Sahraie, S.; Heidaryan, E. Desorption of Carbon Dioxide from a Mixture of Monoethanolamine with Alcoholic Solvents in a Microreactor. Fuel 2021, 306, 121636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carranza-Abaid, A.; Wanderley, R.R.; Knuutila, H.K.; Jakobsen, J.P. Analysis and Selection of Optimal Solvent-Based Technologies for Biogas Upgrading. Fuel 2021, 303, 121327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aghel, B.; Sahraie, S.; Heidaryan, E.; Varmira, K. Experimental Study of Carbon Dioxide Absorption by Mixed Aqueous Solutions of Methyl Diethanolamine (MDEA) and Piperazine (PZ) in a Microreactor. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 131, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leonzio, G. Upgrading of Biogas to Bio-Methane with Chemical Absorption Process: Simulation and Environmental Impact. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hosseini, S.S.; Denayer, J.F.M. Biogas Upgrading by Adsorption Processes: Mathematical Modeling, Simulation and Optimization Approach—A Review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pudi, A.; Rezaei, M.; Signorini, V.; Andersson, M.P.; Baschetti, M.G.; Mansouri, S.S. Hydrogen Sulfide Capture and Removal Technologies: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Developments and Emerging Trends. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 298, 121448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yousef, A.M.; El-Maghlany, W.M.; Eldrainy, Y.A.; Attia, A. Upgrading Biogas to Biomethane and Liquid CO2: A Novel Cryogenic Process. Fuel 2019, 251, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Scholz, M.; Melin, T.; Wessling, M. Transforming Biogas into Biomethane Using Membrane Technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 17, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xie, K.; Fu, Q.; Xu, C.; Lu, H.; Zhao, Q.; Curtain, R.; Gu, D.; Webley, P.A.; Qiao, G.G. Continuous Assembly of a Polymer on a Metal–Organic Framework (CAP on MOF): A 30 Nm Thick Polymeric Gas Separation Membrane. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 544–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ahmed, S.F.; Mofijur, M.; Tarannum, K.; Chowdhury, A.T.; Rafa, N.; Nuzhat, S.; Kumar, P.S.; Vo, D.-V.N.; Lichtfouse, E.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Biogas Upgrading, Economy and Utilization: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 4137–4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sahota, S.; Shah, G.; Ghosh, P.; Kapoor, R.; Sengupta, S.; Singh, P.; Vijay, V.; Sahay, A.; Vijay, V.K.; Thakur, I.S. Review of Trends in Biogas Upgradation Technologies and Future Perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2018, 1, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zabranska, J.; Pokorna, D. Bioconversion of Carbon Dioxide to Methane Using Hydrogen and Hydrogenotrophic Methanogens. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 707–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhuang, R.; Wang, X.; Guo, M.; Zhao, Y.; El-Farra, N.H.; Palazoglu, A. Waste-to-Hydrogen: Recycling HCl to Produce H2 and Cl2. Appl. Energy 2020, 259, 114184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. López, A.; Lago Rodríguez, T.; Faraji Abdolmaleki, S.; Galera Martínez, M.; Bello Bugallo, P.M. From Biogas to Biomethane: An In-Depth Review of Upgrading Technologies That Enhance Sustainability and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Toledo-Cervantes, A.; Serejo, M.L.; Blanco, S.; Pérez, R.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading to Bio-Methane: Boosting Nutrient Recovery via Biomass Productivity Control. Algal Res. 2016, 17, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zabed, H.M.; Akter, S.; Yun, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, X. Biogas from Microalgae: Technologies, Challenges and Opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bose, A.; Lin, R.; Rajendran, K.; O’Shea, R.; Xia, A.; Murphy, J.D. How to Optimise Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading: A Perspective on System Design and Microalgae Selection. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 107444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Alcántara, C.; García-Encina, P.A.; Muñoz, R. Evaluation of Mass and Energy Balances in the Integrated Microalgae Growth-Anaerobic Digestion Process. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 221, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mussgnug, J.H.; Klassen, V.; Schlüter, A.; Kruse, O. Microalgae as Substrates for Fermentative Biogas Production in a Combined Biorefinery Concept. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 150, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nagarajan, D.; Lee, D.-J.; Chang, J.-S. Integration of Anaerobic Digestion and Microalgal Cultivation for Digestate Bioremediation and Biogas Upgrading. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 290, 121804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, W.; Li, S.; Qv, M.; Dai, D.; Liu, D.; Wang, W.; Tang, C.; Zhu, L. Microalgal Cultivation for the Upgraded Biogas by Removing CO2, Coupled with the Treatment of Slurry from Anaerobic Digestion: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 364, 128118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Meier, L.; Pérez, R.; Azócar, L.; Rivas, M.; Jeison, D. Photosynthetic CO2 Uptake by Microalgae: An Attractive Tool for Biogas Upgrading. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 73, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Serejo, M.L.; Posadas, E.; Boncz, M.A.; Blanco, S.; García-Encina, P.; Muñoz, R. Influence of Biogas Flow Rate on Biomass Composition During the Optimization of Biogas Upgrading in Microalgal-Bacterial Processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3228–3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, Y.; Sun, S.; Hu, C.; Zhang, H.; Xu, J.; Ping, L. Performance of Three Microalgal Strains in Biogas Slurry Purification and Biogas Upgrade in Response to Various Mixed Light-Emitting Diode Light Wavelengths. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 187, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Prandini, J.M.; da Silva, M.L.B.; Mezzari, M.P.; Pirolli, M.; Michelon, W.; Soares, H.M. Enhancement of Nutrient Removal from Swine Wastewater Digestate Coupled to Biogas Purification by Microalgae Scenedesmus spp. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 202, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Toledo-Cervantes, A.; Madrid-Chirinos, C.; Cantera, S.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Influence of the Gas-Liquid Flow Configuration in the Absorption Column on Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading in Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 225, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abdelwahab, T.A.M.; Mohanty, M.K.; Sahoo, P.K.; Behera, D. Metal Nanoparticle Mixtures to Improve the Biogas Yield of Cattle Manure. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2023, 13, 2243–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ganzoury, M.A.; Allam, N.K. Impact of Nanotechnology on Biogas Production: A Mini-Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 1392–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. da Cruz Ferraz Dutra, J.; Passos, M.F.; García, G.J.Y.; Gomes, R.F.; Magalhães, T.A.; dos Santos Freitas, A.; Laguna, J.G.; da Costa, F.M.R.; da Silva, T.F.; Rodrigues, L.S.; et al. Anaerobic Digestion Using Cocoa Residues as Substrate: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2023, 72, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, S.; Ren, Y.; Ma, X.; Guan, W.; Gao, M.; Li, Y.-Y.; Wang, Q.; Wu, C. Effect of Zero-Valent Iron Addition on the Biogas Fermentation of Food Waste after Anaerobic Preservation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 106013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Al Bkoor Alrawashdeh, K.; Al-Zboon, K.K.; Rabadi, S.A.; Gul, E.; AL-Samrraie, L.A.; Ali, R.; Al-Tabbal, J.A. Impact of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles on Sustainable Production of Biogas through Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Chicken Waste and Wastewater. Front. Chem. Eng. 2022, 4, 974546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Joo, S.H.; Delicio, L.; Muniz, J.; Baek, S. Perspective: Catalytic Increase of Biogas Production in an Anaerobic Co-Digestion System. Int. J. Nanoparticles Nanotech. 2018, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ko, J.H.; Wang, N.; Yuan, T.; Lü, F.; He, P.; Xu, Q. Effect of Nickel-Containing Activated Carbon on Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 266, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zaidi, A.A.; RuiZhe, F.; Shi, Y.; Khan, S.Z.; Mushtaq, K. Nanoparticles Augmentation on Biogas Yield from Microalgal Biomass Anaerobic Digestion. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 14202–14213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. François, M.; Lin, K.-S.; Rachmadona, N.; Khoo, K.S. Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Biogas Production and Contaminant Removal: A Review. Fuel 2023, 340, 127470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Juntupally, S.; Begum, S.; Arelli, V.; Mamindlapelli, N.K.; Srinivasan, S.; Anupoju, G.R. Evaluating the Impact of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles (IO-NPs) and IO-NPs Doped Granular Activated Carbon on the Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste at Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperature. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Abdelsalam, E.; Samer, M.; Attia, Y.A.; Abdel-Hadi, M.A.; Hassan, H.E.; Badr, Y. Effects of Co and Ni Nanoparticles on Biogas and Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Slurry. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 141, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Farghali, M.; Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.; Ahmed, M.M.; Kotb, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Iwasaki, M.; Yamashiro, T.; Umetsu, K. Prospects for Biogas Production and H2S Control from the Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure: The Influence of Microscale Waste Iron Powder and Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Waste Manag. 2020, 101, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Abdelwahab, T.A.M.; Mohanty, M.K.; Sahoo, P.K.; Behera, D. Impact of Iron Nanoparticles on Biogas Production and Effluent Chemical Composition from Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2022, 12, 5583–5595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hassanein, A.; Lansing, S.; Tikekar, R. Impact of Metal Nanoparticles on Biogas Production from Poultry Litter. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 275, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Abdelwahab, T.A.M.; Mohanty, M.K.; Sahoo, P.K.; Behera, D. Impact of Nickel Nanoparticles on Biogas Production from Cattle Manure. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2023, 13, 5205–5218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. He, C.-S.; Ding, R.-R.; Wang, Y.-R.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y.-X.; Mu, Y. Insights into Short- and Long-Term Effects of Loading Nickel Nanoparticles on Anaerobic Digestion with Flocculent Sludge. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 6, 2820–2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Farghali, M.; Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.; Ahmed, M.M.; Kotb, S.; Yamashiro, T.; Iwasaki, M.; Umetsu, K. Impacts of Iron Oxide and Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles on Biogas Production: Hydrogen Sulfide Mitigation, Process Stability, and Prospective Challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 240, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Méndez, L.; García, D.; Perez, E.; Blanco, S.; Muñoz, R. Photosynthetic Upgrading of Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion of Mixed Sludge in an Outdoors Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactor at Pilot Scale. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 48, 102891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rodero, M.D.R.; Lebrero, R.; Serrano, E.; Lara, E.; Arbib, Z.; García-Encina, P.A.; Muñoz, R. Technology Validation of Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading in a Semi-Industrial Scale Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 279, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rodero, M.D.R.; Posadas, E.; Toledo-Cervantes, A.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Influence of Alkalinity and Temperature on Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading Efficiency in High Rate Algal Ponds. Algal Res. 2018, 33, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rodero, M.D.R.; Carvajal, A.; Castro, V.; Navia, D.; de Prada, C.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Development of a Control Strategy to Cope with Biogas Flowrate Variations during Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 131, 105414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ángeles, R.; Arnaiz, E.; Gutiérrez, J.; Sepúlveda-Muñoz, C.A.; Fernández-Ramos, O.; Muñoz, R.; Lebrero, R. Optimization of Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading in Closed Photobioreactors Combined with Algal Biomass Production. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 38, 101554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Guenka Scarcelli, P.; Ruas, G.; Lopez-Serna, R.; Leite Serejo, M.; Blanco, S.; Árpád Boncz, M.; Muñoz, R. Integration of Algae-Based Sewage Treatment with Anaerobic Digestion of the Bacterial-Algal Biomass and Biogas Upgrading. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 340, 125552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Franco-Morgado, M.; Alcántara, C.; Noyola, A.; Muñoz, R.; González-Sánchez, A. A Study of Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading Based on a High Rate Algal Pond under Alkaline Conditions: Influence of the Illumination Regime. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 592, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rodero, M.D.R.; Severi, C.A.; Rocher-Rivas, R.; Quijano, G.; Muñoz, R. Long-Term Influence of High Alkalinity on the Performance of Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading. Fuel 2020, 281, 118804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Marín, D.; Posadas, E.; Cano, P.; Pérez, V.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Influence of the Seasonal Variation of Environmental Conditions on Biogas Upgrading in an Outdoors Pilot Scale High Rate Algal Pond. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 255, 354–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Marín, D.; Posadas, E.; Cano, P.; Pérez, V.; Blanco, S.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Seasonal Variation of Biogas Upgrading Coupled with Digestate Treatment in an Outdoors Pilot Scale Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 263, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rodero, M.D.R.; Carvajal, A.; Arbib, Z.; Lara, E.; de Prada, C.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Performance Evaluation of a Control Strategy for Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading in a Semi-Industrial Scale Photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 307, 123207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Marín, D.; Méndez, L.; Suero, I.; Díaz, I.; Blanco, S.; Fdz-Polanco, M.; Muñoz, R. Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste Coupled with Biogas Upgrading in an Outdoors Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactor at Pilot Scale. Fuel 2022, 324, 124554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ángeles, R.; Vega-Quiel, M.J.; Batista, A.; Fernández-Ramos, O.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Influence of Biogas Supply Regime on Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading Performance in an Enclosed Algal-Bacterial Photobioreactor. Algal Res. 2021, 57, 102350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. da Silva Vaz, B.; Mastrantonio, D.J.D.S.; Costa, J.A.V.; de Morais, M.G. Green Alga Cultivation with Nanofibers as Physical Adsorbents of Carbon Dioxide: Evaluation of Gas Biofixation and Macromolecule Production. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 287, 121406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. He, M.; Yan, Y.; Pei, F.; Wu, M.; Gebreluel, T.; Zou, S.; Wang, C. Improvement on Lipid Production by Scenedesmus Obliquus Triggered by Low Dose Exposure to Nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Rana, M.S.; Bhushan, S.; Sudhakar, D.R.; Prajapati, S.K. Effect of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles on Growth and Biofuel Potential of Chlorella spp. Algal Res. 2020, 49, 101942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bibi, M.; Zhu, X.; Munir, M.; Angelidaki, I. Bioavailability and Effect of α-Fe2O3 Nanoparticles on Growth, Fatty Acid Composition and Morphological Indices of Chlorella vulgaris. Chemosphere 2021, 282, 131044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sarma, S.J.; Das, R.K.; Brar, S.K.; Le Bihan, Y.; Buelna, G.; Verma, M.; Soccol, C.R. Application of Magnesium Sulfate and Its Nanoparticles for Enhanced Lipid Production by Mixotrophic Cultivation of Algae Using Biodiesel Waste. Energy 2014, 78, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vargas-Estrada, L.; Hoyos, E.G.; Méndez, L.; Sebastian, P.J.; Muñoz, R. Boosting Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading via Carbon-Coated Zero-Valent Iron Nanoparticle Addition: A Pilot Proof of Concept Study. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 31, 100952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Vargas-Estrada, L.; Hoyos, E.G.; Sebastian, P.J.; Muñoz, R. Elucidating the Role of Nanoparticles on Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading: Influence of Biogas Type, Nanoparticle Concentration and Light Source. Algal Res. 2022, 68, 102899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hoyos, E.G.; Amo-Duodu, G.; Gulsum Kiral, U.; Vargas-Estrada, L.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz, R. Influence of Carbon-Coated Zero-Valent Iron-Based Nanoparticle Concentration on Continuous Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading. Fuel 2024, 356, 129610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hoyos, E.G.; Kuri, R.; Toda, T.; Muñoz, R. Innovative Design and Operational Strategies to Improve CO2 Mass Transfer during Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading. Bioresour. Technol. 2024, 391, 129955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kong, W.; Kong, J.; Feng, S.; Yang, T.; Xu, L.; Shen, B.; Bi, Y.; Lyu, H. Cultivation of Microalgae–Bacteria Consortium by Waste Gas–Waste Water to Achieve CO2 Fixation, Wastewater Purification and Bioproducts Production. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2024, 17, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ortiz Tena, F.; Bickel, V.; Steinweg, C.; Posten, C. Continuous Microalgae Cultivation for Wastewater Treatment—Development of a Process Strategy during Day and Night. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kumari, A.; Kumar, A.; Pathak, A.K.; Guria, C. Carbon Dioxide Assisted Spirulina Platensis Cultivation Using NPK-10:26:26 Complex Fertilizer in Sintered Disk Chromatographic Glass Bubble Column. J. CO2 Util. 2014, 8, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Thomas, D.J.; Sullivan, S.L.; Price, A.L.; Zimmerman, S.M. Common Freshwater Cyanobacteria Grow in 100% CO2. Astrobiology 2005, 5, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lam, M.K.; Lee, K.T. Effect of Carbon Source towards the Growth of Chlorella vulgaris for CO2 Bio-Mitigation and Biodiesel Production. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 14, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Solovchenko, A.; Khozin-Goldberg, I. High-CO2 Tolerance in Microalgae: Possible Mechanisms and Implications for Biotechnology and Bioremediation. Biotechnol. Lett. 2013, 35, 1745–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yue, L.; Chen, W. Isolation and Determination of Cultural Characteristics of a New Highly CO2 Tolerant Fresh Water Microalgae. Energy Convers. Manag. 2005, 46, 1868–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. de Morais, M.G.; Costa, J.A.V. Carbon Dioxide Fixation by Chlorella kessleri, C. vulgaris, Scenedesmus obliquus and Spirulina sp. Cultivated in Flasks and Vertical Tubular Photobioreactors. Biotechnol. Lett. 2007, 29, 1349–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Tang, D.; Han, W.; Li, P.; Miao, X.; Zhong, J. CO2 Biofixation and Fatty Acid Composition of Scenedesmus obliquus and Chlorella pyrenoidosa in Response to Different CO2 Levels. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3071–3076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Meier, L.; Stará, D.; Bartacek, J.; Jeison, D. Removal of H2S by a Continuous Microalgae-Based Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading Process. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 119, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cattaneo, C.R.; Muñoz, R.; Korshin, G.V.; Naddeo, V.; Belgiorno, V.; Zarra, T. Biological Desulfurization of Biogas: A Comprehensive Review on Sulfide Microbial Metabolism and Treatment Biotechnologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 893, 164689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. González-Sánchez, A.; Posten, C. Fate of H2S during the Cultivation of Chlorella sp. Deployed for Biogas Upgrading. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 191, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Torres, R.; Marín, D.; Rodero, M.D.R.; Pascual, C.; González-Sanchez, A.; de Godos Crespo, I.; Lebrero, R.; Muñoz Torre, R. Biogas Treatment for H2S, CO2, and Other Contaminants Removal. In From Biofiltration to Promising Options in Gaseous Fluxes Biotreatment; Soreanu, G., Dumont, É., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 153–176. ISBN 978-0-12-819064-7. [Google Scholar]
  117. Pepper, I.L.; Gerba, C.P.; Brendecke, J.W. Environmental Microbiology: A Laboratory Manual; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  118. Starr, M.P.; Stolp, H.; Trüper, H.G.; Balows, A.; Schlegel, H.G. The Prokaryotes: A Handbook on Habitats, Isolation and Identification of Bacteria; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  119. Janssen, A.J.H.; Lens, P.N.L.; Stams, A.J.M.; Plugge, C.M.; Sorokin, D.Y.; Muyzer, G.; Dijkman, H.; Van Zessen, E.; Luimes, P.; Buisman, C.J.N. Application of Bacteria Involved in the Biological Sulfur Cycle for Paper Mill Effluent Purification. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 1333–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Zhang, S.; Yan, L.; Xing, W.; Chen, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W. Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Its Potential Application. Extremophiles 2018, 22, 563–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Kishi, M.; Toda, T. Carbon Fixation Properties of Three Alkalihalophilic Microalgal Strains under High Alkalinity. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Klanchui, A.; Cheevadhanarak, S.; Prommeenate, P.; Meechai, A. Exploring Components of the CO2-Concentrating Mechanism in Alkaliphilic Cyanobacteria Through Genome-Based Analysis. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zhao, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Yan, C.; Zhang, Y. Effects of Various LED Light Wavelengths and Intensities on Microalgae-Based Simultaneous Biogas Upgrading and Digestate Nutrient Reduction Process. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 136, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ouyang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, S.; Hu, C.; Ping, L. Effect of Light Intensity on the Capability of Different Microalgae Species for Simultaneous Biogas Upgrading and Biogas Slurry Nutrient Reduction. Int. Biodeter. Biodegr. 2015, 104, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yan, C.; Muñoz, R.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Y. The Effects of Various LED (Light Emitting Diode) Lighting Strategies on Simultaneous Biogas Upgrading and Biogas Slurry Nutrient Reduction by Using of Microalgae Chlorella sp. Energy 2016, 106, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yan, C.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Y. Photosynthetic CO2 Uptake by Microalgae for Biogas Upgrading and Simultaneously Biogas Slurry Decontamination by Using of Microalgae Photobioreactor under Various Light Wavelengths, Light Intensities, and Photoperiods. Appl. Energy 2016, 178, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hang, Y.; Bao, K.; Wang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, C. Performance of Mixed LED Light Wavelengths on Nutrient Removal and Biogas Upgrading by Different Microalgal-Based Treatment Technologies. Energy 2017, 130, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, X.; Bao, K.; Cao, W.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, C.W. Screening of Microalgae for Integral Biogas Slurry Nutrient Removal and Biogas Upgrading by Different Microalgae Cultivation Technology. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Choix, F.J.; Snell-Castro, R.; Arreola-Vargas, J.; Carbajal-López, A.; Méndez-Acosta, H.O. CO2 Removal from Biogas by Cyanobacterium Leptolyngbya sp. CChF1 Isolated from the Lake Chapala, Mexico: Optimization of the Temperature and Light Intensity. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 183, 1304–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Bose, A.; O’Shea, R.; Lin, R.; Murphy, J.D. A Comparative Evaluation of Design Factors on Bubble Column Operation in Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading. Biofuel Res. J. 2021, 8, 1351–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Bose, A.; O’Shea, R.; Lin, R.; Murphy, J.D. Design, Commissioning, and Performance Assessment of a Lab-Scale Bubble Column Reactor for Photosynthetic Biogas Upgrading with Spirulina platensis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 5688–5704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Chen, X.; Zhang, C.; Tan, L.; Wang, J. Toxicity of Co Nanoparticles on Three Species of Marine Microalgae. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Franklin, N.M.; Rogers, N.J.; Apte, S.C.; Batley, G.E.; Gadd, G.E.; Casey, P.S. Comparative Toxicity of Nanoparticulate ZnO, Bulk ZnO, and ZnCl2 to a Freshwater Microalga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata): The Importance of Particle Solubility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 8484–8490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Sendra, M.; Yeste, M.P.; Gatica, J.M.; Moreno-Garrido, I.; Blasco, J. Direct and Indirect Effects of Silver Nanoparticles on Freshwater and Marine Microalgae (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and Phaeodactylum tricornutum). Chemosphere 2017, 179, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wang, Y.; Tibbetts, S.M.; McGinn, P.J. Microalgae as Sources of High-Quality Protein for Human Food and Protein Supplements. Foods 2021, 10, 3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhang, S.; Zhang, L.; Xu, G.; Li, F.; Li, X. A Review on Biodiesel Production from Microalgae: Influencing Parameters and Recent Advanced Technologies. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 970028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Lakatos, G.E.; Ranglová, K.; Manoel, J.C.; Grivalský, T.; Kopecký, J.; Masojídek, J. Bioethanol Production from Microalgae Polysaccharides. Folia Microbiol. 2019, 64, 627–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Barragán-Trinidad, M.; Buitrón, G. Hydrogen and Methane Production from Microalgal Biomass Hydrolyzed in a Discontinuous Reactor Inoculated with Ruminal Microorganisms. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 143, 105825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ferreira, J.; Braga, M.Q.; da Gama, R.C.N.; Magalhães, I.B.; Marangon, B.B.; Castro, J.d.S.; Lorentz, J.F.; Henriques, B.S.; Pereira, A.S.A.d.P.; Assemany, P.P.; et al. Carotenoids from Wastewater-Grown Microalgae Biomass: Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economical Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 140526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Saravanan, A.; Senthil Kumar, P.; Badawi, M.; Mohanakrishna, G.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Valorization of Micro-Algae Biomass for the Development of Green Biorefinery: Perspectives on Techno-Economic Analysis and the Way towards Sustainability. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 453, 139754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Castro, J.S.; Ferreira, J.; Magalhães, I.B.; Jesus Junior, M.M.; Marangon, B.B.; Pereira, A.S.A.P.; Lorentz, J.F.; Gama, R.C.N.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Calijuri, M.L. Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis for Biofuel and Biofertilizer Recovery as by-Products from Microalgae. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 187, 113781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Arashiro, L.T.; Montero, N.; Ferrer, I.; Acién, F.G.; Gómez, C.; Garfí, M. Life Cycle Assessment of High Rate Algal Ponds for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622–623, 1118–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhu, J.; Wakisaka, M.; Omura, T.; Yang, Z.; Yin, Y.; Fang, W. Advances in Industrial Harvesting Techniques for Edible Microalgae: Recent Insights into Sustainable, Efficient Methods and Future Directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 436, 140626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Santás-Miguel, V.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Rodríguez-Seijo, A.; Arenas-Lago, D. Use of Metal Nanoparticles in Agriculture. A Review on the Effects on Plant Germination. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 334, 122222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Mgadi, K.; Ndaba, B.; Roopnarain, A.; Rama, H.; Adeleke, R. Nanoparticle Applications in Agriculture: Overview and Response of Plant-Associated Microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1354440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Asadishad, B.; Chahal, S.; Akbari, A.; Cianciarelli, V.; Azodi, M.; Ghoshal, S.; Tufenkji, N. Amendment of Agricultural Soil with Metal Nanoparticles: Effects on Soil Enzyme Activity and Microbial Community Composition. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1908–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wang, S.-K.; Stiles, A.R.; Guo, C.; Liu, C.-Z. Harvesting Microalgae by Magnetic Separation: A Review. Algal Res. 2015, 9, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Coons, J.E.; Kalb, D.M.; Dale, T.; Marrone, B.L. Getting to Low-Cost Algal Biofuels: A Monograph on Conventional and Cutting-Edge Harvesting and Extraction Technologies. Algal Res. 2014, 6, 250–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Evolution of the number of publications associated with the upgrading of biogas using microalgal systems with nanoparticles (https://www.sciencedirect.com; accessed on 10 May 2024).
Figure 1. Evolution of the number of publications associated with the upgrading of biogas using microalgal systems with nanoparticles (https://www.sciencedirect.com; accessed on 10 May 2024).
Fermentation 10 00551 g001
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the photosynthetic biogas-upgrading system.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the photosynthetic biogas-upgrading system.
Fermentation 10 00551 g002
Figure 3. Network visualization of co-occurrence of keywords (https://www.scopus.com; accessed on 17 May 2024).
Figure 3. Network visualization of co-occurrence of keywords (https://www.scopus.com; accessed on 17 May 2024).
Fermentation 10 00551 g003
Figure 4. Overlay visualization of co-occurrence of keywords plus (https://www.scopus.com; accessed on 17 May 2024).
Figure 4. Overlay visualization of co-occurrence of keywords plus (https://www.scopus.com; accessed on 17 May 2024).
Fermentation 10 00551 g004
Table 1. Composition of biogas from different substrates subjected to anaerobic digestion [22] (http://www.biogas-renewable-energy.info (accessed on 30 May 2024)).
Table 1. Composition of biogas from different substrates subjected to anaerobic digestion [22] (http://www.biogas-renewable-energy.info (accessed on 30 May 2024)).
ComponentAgricultural WasteLandfillsIndustrial WasteHousehold WasteWastewater Treatment Plant Sludge
CH4 (%)50–8050–8050–7050–6060–75
CO2 (%)30–5020–5030–5034–3819–33
H2S (%)0.70.100.80.01–0.090.10–0.40
H2 (%)0–20–50–2--
N2 (%)0–10–30–10–50–1
O2 (%)0–10–10–10–1<0.5
CO (%)0–10–10–1--
NH3 (%)TracesTracesTraces--
Siloxanes (%)TracesTracesTraces--
H2O (%)SaturationSaturationTraces6 (at 40 °C)6 (at 40 °C)
Table 2. Typical characteristics of raw biogas [23].
Table 2. Typical characteristics of raw biogas [23].
PropertyValue
Specific heat capacity2.165 kJ/kg K
Molar mass16.04 g/g-mol
Gas constant0.518 kJ/kg
Normal density1.2 g/L
Critical density320 g/L
Relative density (to air)0.83
Caloric value of biogas22.6 MJ/m3
Critical temperature−2.5 °C
Critical pressure7.3–8.9 MPa
Flammability limit content in air6–12% (v/v)
Ignition temperature650–750 °C
Table 3. General requirements for pipeline quality biomethane [3,35,36].
Table 3. General requirements for pipeline quality biomethane [3,35,36].
CompoundUnitUSAFranceGermanySwedenSwitzerlandAustriaThe Netherlands
CH4% (v/v) 95–99>96 >80
CO2% (v/v)<2<2<6 <6<2
O2% (v/v)<0.4<0.01<3 <0.5<0.5<0.5
H2% (v/v) <6<5 <4 c<12
CO2 + O2 + N2% (v/v) <5<5
Relative humidity <60%
Sulfurppm <100 a
<75 b
<30<23<30<5<45
g/100 ft31
Total inert% (mol)5
Siloxanesppm1
a Maximum permitted; b Average content; c mole percentage.
Table 4. Requirements to remove gaseous components depending on the biogas utilization [37].
Table 4. Requirements to remove gaseous components depending on the biogas utilization [37].
TechnologyH2SCO2H2OSiloxanes
Boiler<1000 ppmNoNoNo
Stationary engine542–1742 ppmNoNo9–44 ppm
Kitchen stove<10 ppmNoNoNo
Vehicle fuel<5 ppmRecommendedYesNo
Natural gas grid<4 ppmYesYesYes
Table 5. Comparative analysis of physicochemical technologies applied to biogas upgrading [37,48,49].
Table 5. Comparative analysis of physicochemical technologies applied to biogas upgrading [37,48,49].
ParameterWater ScrubbingPhysical ScrubbingChemical ScrubbingPressure
Swing
Adsorption
Cryogenic
Separation
Membrane Separation
Basis of operationPhysical absorptionPhysical absorptionChemical absorptionAdsorptionMultistage
compression and
condensation
Permeation
Absorbent/adsorbentWaterOrganic solvents,
polyethylene glycol
Amines, Alkali
solutions
Molecular sievesNo requirementPolymeric membrane
CH4 recovery (%)>97>9999.5>9697–9896–98
CH4 losses (%)<2<2<0.1%<3,<2<1.5
Desulfurization requirementNoNoYesYesNoYes
H2S co-removalYesPossibleContaminantPossibleYesPossible
Energy consumption (kWh/Nm3)0.460.49–0.670.270.460.18–0.250.25–0.43
Cost investment (EUR)265,0001,000,000353,000680,000-233,000
Cost maintenance (EUR)15,00039,00059,00056,000-25,000
Advantages
-
Simple process.
-
No pre-cleaning required.
-
No chemical required.
-
Easy water regeneration
-
Simultaneous removal of H2S and NH3.
-
High methane purity.
-
Less methane loss.
-
Regenerative.
-
No corrosion problems.
-
Simultaneous removal of H2S, H2O and NH3.
-
Higher efficiency.
-
Less methane loss.
-
Faster process.
-
Complete H2S removal.
-
High CO2 removal.
-
Dry process.
-
No chemical usage.
-
No water demand.
-
Adsorption of N2 and O2.
-
Compact process.
-
Flexible.
-
Highest methane purity.
-
No chemicals required.
-
High methane purity.
-
Lower energy cost.
-
Easy scaling-up.
-
Dry process.
-
No chemicals.
-
Simple and compact process.
-
Low energy consumption.
-
Good selectivity.
-
Scale-up flexibility.
-
No hazardous emissions.
Disadvantages
-
Higher water requirement.
-
Lower efficiency.
-
Slow process.
-
Corrosion problem.
-
Wastewater disposal.
-
Solvent is expensive.
-
Expensive due to higher
-
maintenance cost.
-
Solvent is expensive.
-
Use of chemicals.
-
Higher investment cost.
-
Solvent is toxic for
-
humans and environment.
-
Biogas desulfurization is required.
-
Desulfurization is required.
-
Expensive process.
-
High methane losses.
-
High capital and operating cost.
-
Huge amount of energy required.
-
Efficiency of the process
-
is temperature-dependent.
-
Pre-treatment required.
-
Membranes are expensive.
-
High energy demand.
-
Degradation of membranes with time.
Table 6. Photosynthetic biogas upgrading using microalgae.
Table 6. Photosynthetic biogas upgrading using microalgae.
SystemSpeciesCO2 Removal (%)CH4 (%)Ref.
HRAPChlorella vulgaris80 [61]
Closed photobioreactor–bagsChlorella vulgaris43.21–55.3976.21–80.40[62]
Scenedesmus obliquus49.95–62.3178.53–82.79
Neochloris oleoabundans40.25–54.3975.19–80.06
Open photobioreactorNannochloropsis gaditana81 [60]
Closed photobioreactorScenedesmus spp.66.764.7 ± 6.9[63]
HRAPMychonastes homosphaera98.896.2[64]
HRAPGeitlerinema sp. (61.5%), Staurosira sp. (1.5%)
and Stigeoclonium tenue (37%)
98.897.2[53]
HRAPChlorella sp.9594[7]
Table 7. Use of NPs in biogas production to improve methane content.
Table 7. Use of NPs in biogas production to improve methane content.
NPsSize (nm)NPs ConcentrationSubstrateHRT (Days)Temperature (°C)ObservationsRef.
Co
Ni
1 mg/L
2 mg/L
Cattle manure5037NPs significantly increased the biogas volume (p < 0.05) by 1.64 and 1.74 times[75]
Fe3O420–40100 mg/LCattle manure303819.74% increase in methane yield.[76]
Fe435.115–60 mg/LCattle manure3037Increase in specific methane production (118.8%) with 30 mg/L of NPs. Additionally, it decreased the H2S production rate by 93%.[77]
Ni30–8012 mg/LPoultry litter69-The addition of Ni increased methane production by 38.4%.[78]
Ni65–1141–4 mg/LCattle manure3037The methane yield increased (70.46%) and the H2S production decreased up to 90.47%.[79]
Co-200 mg/g-SSTSynthetic wastewater1235CH4 production decreased.[80]
Co70–1041–3 mg/LCattle manure3037It improved the hydrolysis rate from 66.66 to 144%.[79]
Fe2O3
TiO2
25100 mg/L
+ 500 mg/L
Cattle manure3038Biogas and CH4 production were 1.13 and 1.15 times higher than control.
H2S reduction by 62%.
[81]
Fe
Ni
Co
200 mg/L Fe + 24 mg/L Ni + 10.8 mg/L CoPoultry litter7937Increases specific methane production by 8.6%.[78]
Fe
Ni
Co
103–116
65–114
70–104
30 mg/L +
2 mg/L +
1 mg/L
Cattle manure1537NPs increased CH4 production by 19.30%. H2S production decreased by 35.10%[65]
Table 8. Influence of IC concentration, pH and L/G ratio on the CO2 and H2S removals, biomass concentration and biomass productivity. Note: rows marked in gray refer to outdoor conditions.
Table 8. Influence of IC concentration, pH and L/G ratio on the CO2 and H2S removals, biomass concentration and biomass productivity. Note: rows marked in gray refer to outdoor conditions.
HRAP Volume (L)IC (mg/L)pH HRAPL/G Ratio in PCCO2 Removal (%)H2S Removal (%)Biomass Concentration (g/L)Biomass Productivity (g/m2/d)Ref.
180150010.2199-2.615[64]
18015008.4–9.60.59499NANA[85]
500 0.59496NANA
100 0.59293NANA
1801500NA0.597–9899–100NA14[86]
9.2NA9.5974991.422.8[87]
NA9.6960801.118.6
NA9.4942791.324.1
2512009.5589-1.23-[84,88]
10009.7–9.4594-0.23-
1801500110.599990.437.5[84]
150010.50.598990.547.5
50010.50.573990.447.5
5009.70.575990.457.5
1007.20.567990.25–7
1007.50.571990.185–7
180143010.60.599 1.2115[8]
143010.10.597 0.8215
143010.60.599-0.678.3
18012009.70.593–97-0.815[89]
24009.80.598–99-0.415
24009.70.598–99-1.380
1805008.30.565–87-0.6615[7]
20009.90.587–92-1.0715
20009.4195–97-0.6615
20009.6295–97-0.6615
20009.8595–97-0.6615
18016639.2–9.4183–96-0.31–0.050[90]
22389.3–9.6189–98-0.587.5
27799.4–9.5197–98-0.51–0.5715
NA9.6–9.8197–99-0.51–0.6222.5
41389.6197–98-0.4215
18012009.10.595-NANA[91]
12009.1195-NANA
12009.1298-NANA
96,0005007.31.27591–960.33NA[83]
2.184–8595–98 NA
3.59199 NA
5007.11.278–81990.37NA
2.187–9099 NA
3.594- NA
5008.91.297–9898–990.56NA
2.197–98- NA
3.599- NA
96,00019079.51.396-NA30[92]
19009.31.793-NA30
19009.22.186-NA30
190092.482-NA30
18013329.1193–97-0.14–0.530[10]
13329.1191–96-0.37.5
16399.9197–99-0.837.5
19529.9199-1.3415
22369.8199-1.2515
18016009–8.3293-1.3922.5[82]
6007.1290-1.5822.5
10009.3–8.7296-1.822.5
10009.2297-1.1322.5
1806728.6276–80-0.55–0.6822.5[93]
6588.9280-0.60–0.4822.5
5218.4591-0.39–0.4922.5
15009.6293–99-0.5315
21009.5290–99-0.310
Table 9. Sulfide-oxidizing bacteria in anoxic processes.
Table 9. Sulfide-oxidizing bacteria in anoxic processes.
SpeciepHReference
Thiobacillus denitrificans6–8[117,118]
Thiobacillus ferroxidans2–6[117,118]
Thioalkali vibrio7.5–10.5[119]
Acidothiobacillus ferroxidans1.6–6[120]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barragán-Trinidad, M.; Vargas-Estrada, L.; Torres-Arellano, S.; Arias, D.M.; Sebastian, P.J. Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems as an Alternative for Biogas Upgrading: A Review. Fermentation 2024, 10, 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110551

AMA Style

Barragán-Trinidad M, Vargas-Estrada L, Torres-Arellano S, Arias DM, Sebastian PJ. Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems as an Alternative for Biogas Upgrading: A Review. Fermentation. 2024; 10(11):551. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110551

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barragán-Trinidad, Martín, Laura Vargas-Estrada, S. Torres-Arellano, Dulce M. Arias, and P. J. Sebastian. 2024. "Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems as an Alternative for Biogas Upgrading: A Review" Fermentation 10, no. 11: 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110551

APA Style

Barragán-Trinidad, M., Vargas-Estrada, L., Torres-Arellano, S., Arias, D. M., & Sebastian, P. J. (2024). Microalgae–Nanoparticle Systems as an Alternative for Biogas Upgrading: A Review. Fermentation, 10(11), 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110551

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