Journal Pre-proof

Microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors: Sustainable solutions for a greener future

Shaikh Abdur Razzak, Khairul Bahar, K.M. Oajedul Islam, Abdul Khaleel Haniffa,
Mohammed Omar Faruque, S.M. Zakir Hossain, Mohammad M. Hossain

PII: S2666-9528(23)00058-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gce.2023.10.004
Reference: GCE 195

To appear in: Green Chemical Engineering

Received Date: 16 August 2023

Revised Date: 29 September 2023
Accepted Date: 20 October 2023

Please cite this article as: S. Abdur Razzak, K. Bahar, K.M.O. Islam, A.K. Haniffa, M.O. Faruque, S.M.Z.
Hossain, M.M. Hossain, Microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors: Sustainable solutions for a greener
future, Green Chemical Engineering (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gce.2023.10.004.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publishing services by Elsevier
B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communication Co. Ltd.
 GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 1 Microalgae Cultivation in Photobioreactors: Sustainable Solutions for
2 a Greener Future
3
4 Shaikh Abdur Razzak1,2*, Khairul Bahar1, K. M. Oajedul Islam1, Abdul Khaleel Haniffa1,
5 Mohammed Omar Faruque1, S. M. Zakir Hossain3, Mohammad M. Hossain1,2
6
1
7 Chemical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi
8 Arabia
2
9 Center for Refining and Advanced Chemicals, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran,
10 Saudi Arabia
3
11 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bahrain, Zallaq, Kingdom of Bahrain

of
12

ro
-p
13 Corresponding Author
re
14
lP

15 *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

na

16 Shaikh Abdur Razzak, PhD, PEng

17 Professor
ur

18 Chemical Engineering Department

19 King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Jo

20 E-mail: srazzak@kfupm.edu.sa
21 Phone:+966138607460
22

1
23 ABSTRACT

24 Microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors has emerged as a promising and sustainable approach to

25 address various environmental and energy challenges, offering a multitude of benefits across diverse
26 applications. Recent developments in microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors have contributed
27 substantially to the development and optimization of sustainable bioprocesses. This manuscript
28 presents a comprehensive analysis of recent innovations and breakthroughs in the field of microalgae
29 cultivation, with a specific focus on their application in photobioreactors, aimed at paving the way
30 for a greener future. This in-depth analysis examines the advantages of microalgae cultivation in
31 photobioreactors, concentrating on its effectiveness in wastewater treatment, CO2 bioremediation,
32 and the production of biofuels and high-value products. The manuscript evaluates the effects of light,
33 solar irradiation, temperature, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in culture media, CO2

of
34 concentrations, and pH on microalgae growth performance, including specific growth and biomass
35 productivity. The study also examines open systems like unstirred ponds, raceway ponds, and circular

ro
36 ponds and closed systems like horizontal tubular, vertical bubble-column, airlift, flat panel, and

-p
37 plastic-bag photobioreactors, comparing their pros and cons. To optimize microalgae cultivation, key
38 factors in photobioreactor design, including photosynthetic efficiencies, light-dark (L-D) cycles, CO2
re
39 concentrations, mass transfer, hydrodynamics behavior, and pH, are extensively investigated. In
40 addition, the manuscript outlines recent developments in large-scale photobioreactors and highlights
lP

41 the challenges and opportunities associated with photobioreactor scale-up and design parameter
42 optimization, including genetic engineering and economic feasibility. This article is a vital resource
na

43 for researchers, engineers, and industry professionals seeking sustainable bioprocesses and the
44 application of microalgae-based technologies.
ur

45 Keywords: Microalgae biomass; CO2 biofixation; Wastewater treatment; Biofuel; Photobioreactors

Jo

46

2
47 Table of Contents

48 Contents

49 Corresponding Author ...................................................................................................................... 1

50 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 2
51 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
52 2. Advantages of microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors ............................................................ 8
53 2.1 Nutrient Recycling and Wastewater Treatment .................................................................... 8

of
54 2.2 CO2 Biofixation and Capture ................................................................................................10

ro
55 2.3 Production of Biofuel & high-value products ......................................................................12
3. Parameters affecting the growth performance ............................................................................. 15

-p
56
57 3.1 Effect of light and solar Irradiation ......................................................................................17
re
58 3.2 Effect of Temperature ..........................................................................................................19
lP

59 3.3 Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentration ..............................................................21

60 3.4 Effect of CO2 Concentrations ...............................................................................................23
na

61 3.5 Effect of pH ..........................................................................................................................24

ur

62 4. Photobioreactor Technologies ....................................................................................................... 30

4.1 Open System ........................................................................................................................30
Jo

63
64 4.1.1 Unstirred Ponds ................................................................................................................. 32
65 4.1.2 Raceway Pond.................................................................................................................... 32
66 4.1.3 Circular Pond...................................................................................................................... 33
67 4.1.4 Constraints of open-water systems ................................................................................... 34
68 4.2 Closed System ......................................................................................................................34
69 4.2.1 Horizontal Tubular ............................................................................................................. 36
70 4.2.2 Vertical Bubble-column Tubular ........................................................................................ 37
71 4.2.3 Airlift .................................................................................................................................. 38
72 4.2.4 Flat panel ........................................................................................................................... 38
73 4.2.5 Plastic-bag ......................................................................................................................... 39
74 5. Principal factors in photobioreactor design .................................................................................. 39

3
75 5.1 Photosynthetic Efficiencies and Light Irradiance .................................................................41
76 5.2 Light-dark (L-D) Cycles .........................................................................................................48
77 5.3 Mass Transfer & Hydrodynamics .........................................................................................50
78 6. Recent Development, Future Aspects, Opportunities, and Challenges ........................................ 53
79 6.1 Recent development of Large-Scale Photobioreactors .......................................................53
80 6.2 Photobioreactor Scale-up and design Parameters Optimization ........................................54
81 6.5 Oher Challenges ...................................................................................................................63
82 7. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 69
83 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ 70

of
84 Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................... 70

ro
85 References ......................................................................................................................................... 72

-p
86 re
87
lP

88
na

89
ur
Jo

4
 90 1. Introduction

91 Fossil fuels have become a crucial part of modern life, powering energy and electricity production

92 and improving living standards. However, their combustion releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the

93 atmosphere, causing global climate change [1]. Saudi Arabia is a significant CO2 emitter, with

94 industries, electricity, transportation, and households being the major contributors [2]. Energy alone

95 is responsible for over 90% of Saudi Arabia's national CO2 emissions from fossil fuels [3]. Globally,

of
96 power generation from fossil fuels accounts for one-third of all CO2 emissions [3]. Therefore,

ro
97 scientists worldwide are working to mitigate CO2 emissions and combat global warming [4].

98
-p
As cities grow and industries expand, the amount of wastewater they generate is increasing rapidly.
re
99 Treating this wastewater is essential for protecting the environment, as excessive nutrients like
lP

100 nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to eutrophication and harm ecosystems [5]. Removing these
na

101 nutrients from tertiary wastewater is crucial to reduce oxygen requirements in water bodies, protect

102 aquatic life, and maintain human health. There are several methods available for nutrient removal,
ur

103 including filtration, membrane technology, precipitation, advanced oxidation, and biological nutrient
Jo

104 removal. However, these methods can be costly and produce hazardous waste sludge [6]. One

105 significant challenge is removing nitrogen and phosphorus simultaneously from tertiary wastewater

106 [7].

107 Microalgae are unicellular organisms that can convert solar energy into chemical energy through

108 photosynthesis, using CO2 as a carbon source [8]. They are more efficient at converting light into

109 energy than other plants. Microalgae can be grown in a photoautotrophic mode, where light is the

110 primary energy source and CO2 is the carbon source [9,10]. They are capable of producing lipids,

111 nitrogen, and phosphorus from media and converting them into valuable food additives and bioactive

5
112 compounds [11,12]. Using wastewater as a growth medium can provide additional benefits, such as

113 removing nitrates, phosphates, and heavy metals [13]. It is used in the food industry, pharmaceuticals,

114 cosmetics, and even cancer treatment [14]. Microalgae are used in various industries, including food,

115 pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and bio-refinery [15,16].

116 In a photosynthesis process, microalgae cultivation with wastewater offers many advantages to lessen

117 the aforesaid problems, including the following: i) the economic value of the tertiary wastewater

118 effluent in terms of water and nutrient recovery ii) nitrogen and phosphorus are removed from

of
119 wastewater simultaneously iii) microalgae can grow much faster, about 10-50 times higher than

ro
120 terrestrial plant resulting in a CO2 conversion efficiency into organic compound iv) generation of

121 -p
large volumes of water that are suitable for recycling on-site and off-site or safe to discharge to surface
re
122 water bodies v) production of algae biomass that is suitable for bioenergy generation [17–19]. A
lP

123 photobioreactor is the place where these algal species can be cultivated and harvested with control to
na

124 achieve the desired output. Mass transfer, the impact of light, and pH are the three major parameters
ur

125 that allow controlling eventually desired output. Scaling up the laboratory scale to industrial is very
Jo

126 much necessary to open the door to the microalgal economy. Much effort is necessary to know the

127 behaviors and upgrade to an industrial scale.

128 Advancements in microalgae engineering signify progress, innovations, and developments in the

129 application of engineering principles and techniques for the manipulation and utilization of

130 microalgae [20]. In simpler terms, it involves the pursuit of more efficient methods to harness the

131 capabilities of these minuscule algae across diverse applications. These strides encompass a spectrum

132 of crucial enhancements. Scientists and researchers are dedicated to breeding microalgae strains

133 characterized by accelerated growth rates, heightened production of valuable compounds such as

134 lipids and proteins, and resilience in the face of varying environmental conditions [21].

6
135 Simultaneously, they are refining the design and functionality of cultivation equipment and systems

136 to create optimal growth environments for microalgae, thereby ensuring efficient nutrient utilization

137 and biomass production [22]. This optimization extends to the entire microalgae production process,

138 from cultivation to harvesting and downstream processing, with the aim of maximizing yields while

139 minimizing resource consumption[23]. Genetic engineering techniques are being employed to

140 manipulate the genetic makeup of microalgae, enhancing their capacity to produce biofuels or engage

141 in bioremediation, contributing to sustainable environmental practices[24]. Additionally, researchers

of
142 are developing strategies for recycling and repurposing resources like carbon dioxide and wastewater

ro
143 within the microalgae cultivation process, a sustainable practice that reduces resource expenditure

144 and economic costs [25].

-p
re
145 Most of the parameters align with suitable photobioreactor cultivation and its characteristics. Some
lP

146 parameters such as light irradiance, construction material, and temperature, can be directly related to
na

147 the design and mode of the photobioreactor. This review discusses different types of photobioreactors
ur

148 currently used for microalgae (open & closed systems), features, advantages, and disadvantages of
Jo

149 control systems. Design components, construction and materials, growth parameters, and controls of

150 photobioreactors are key parameters that affect microalgae cultivation. Hydrodynamics and mass

151 transfer studies for photobioreactors are also discussed with other key parameters. Finally, a

152 comparison is made to discuss photobioreactors according to the most influencing parameters in

153 operation, issues, and challenges that need to be explored in the future. Laboratory-based analysis is

154 highly important to understand to grow suitable microalgae species in normal to harsh environments.

155 A significant challenge for the outdoor mass cultivation that supports the microalgal economy is the

156 transition from laboratory to industrial scale. To understand the behaviors and upgrade to an industrial

157 scale, much effort is required.

7
158 2. Advantages of microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors

159 Microalgae are highly efficient in photosynthesis and have a much faster growth rate than land-based

160 plants. Some species of microalgae can even be harvested twice a day [26], and their annual yield can

161 be several times that of traditional food crops [27]. Microalgae can capture more CO2 from industrial

162 flue gases than conventional crops, making them attractive for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

163 [28,29]. Microalgae can be harvested for biodiesel, food, animal feed, biogas, and fertilizer, providing

of
164 additional revenue and attracting investment [20,30]. Microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors

ro
165 offers numerous advantages that make it a promising and sustainable approach for various

-p
166 applications. The following are some of the main advantages of microalgae cultivations.
re
167 2.1 Nutrient Recycling and Wastewater Treatment
lP
na

168 There is an incredible requirement to expand the most consistent knowledge for the treatment of

169 household wastewater in many developing countries. This type of treatment method ought to achieve
ur

170 numerous conditions, like easy design, utilization of non-modern equipment, good removal
Jo

171 efficiency, and minimum capital expenses. Moreover, the regular growth of the population, the rapid

172 rise in urbanization, the expense, and ease of use of land are pivotal factors when selecting a

173 wastewater treatment system [31]. Appropriate wastewater treatment techniques are generally

174 categorized into three major types—physical, chemical, and biological. These processes might be

175 applied independently or in the arrangement based on the scope and nature of contamination.

176 Phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon are nutrients that are essential to aquatic life. However, excess of

177 these nutrients in the water body may cause eutrophication and toxicity in water body.

8
178 In water treatment process industries, secondary effluent primarily consists of nitrogen and

179 phosphate, which require extensive tertiary treatment. This treatment units are mainly biological

180 treatment types, where nitrate and phosphate are mostly treated. Phytoremediation indicates the

181 bioremediation or elimination of wastes from the environment utilizing microalgae, and it enjoys

182 many returns over other conventional remediation practices that are expensive, absorb enormous

183 energy, and make a substantial quantity of waste. Microalgae cells might be efficiently applied for

184 wastewater treatment as they possess an inherent character of nutrient, metal, and organic components

of
185 elimination from the wastewater [32]. The utilization of microalgae for wastewater treatment in

ro
186 conjunction with energy production is very promising. A variety of non- pathogenic species,

187
-p
Chlorella, Scenedesmus, Spirulina, Chlamydomonas, are applied for the goals of Phycoremediation
re
188 [33]. Currently, tertiary wastewater treatment using microalgae is fairly recognized [1]. Microalgae
lP

189 have the ability to eliminate nitrogen and phosphorus from tertiary wastewater simultaneously in both
na

190 open and closed photobioreactor systems [34]. Microalgae are considered prokaryotic or eukaryotic

191 photosynthetic microorganisms that can grow up swiftly and reside in insensitive environmental
ur

192 situations due to their unicellular or straightforward multicellular form. Microalgae can be
Jo

193 autotrophic, heterotrophic, or mixotrophic. Autotrophic algae use photosynthesis to convert water,

194 carbon dioxide, light, and other minerals into oxygen and biomass. All microalgae are obtainable in

195 earth ecosystems, not just water but also terrestrial, presenting a wide range of species residing in

196 various environmental settings. An innovative photobioreactor known as the Sequential Flow Baffled

197 Microalgal-Bacterial (SFB-AlgalBac) system to facilitate the synergistic interactions between

198 microalgal and bacterial communities. The combination of microalgae and bacteria cultivated in

199 municipal wastewater yielded greater biomass and lipid production compared to their counterparts in

200 a synthetic wastewater environment.

9
201 This superior performance was attributed to the presence of trace elements such as iron and copper

202 in the municipal wastewater, which significantly boosted biomass production and consequently led

203 to higher lipid yields. Notably, both microbial cultures in the synthetic and municipal wastewater

204 media exhibited similar total nitrogen removal efficiencies, exceeding 97% [35].The primary

205 objective was to enhance the absorption of nitrogen into microalgal biomass when treating nutrient-

206 rich wastewater. The SFB-AlgalBac photobioreactor exhibited its best performance when operated

207 at an influent flow rate of 5.0 L/d, which corresponds to a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 20 days.

of
208 During this flow rate, we observed the highest rate of microalgal nitrogen assimilation (0.0271 /d)

ro
209 and the greatest biomass productivity (1350 mg/d) [36].

-p
re
210 2.2 CO2 Biofixation and Capture
lP

211 As a response to the problem of global warming, people all over the globe are searching for viable
na

212 solutions. People are attempting to capture carbon dioxide from large point sources in order to prevent
ur

213 further emissions of the vast quantities of CO2 production [25]. These large CO2 point sources may
Jo

214 include fossil fuel, natural gas combustion, other synthetic fuel plants, and fossil fuel-based hydrogen

215 production plants [37]. A method that has gained attention is the use of photosynthetic CO2

216 biofixation, which is considered environmentally friendly and energy efficient. While traditional

217 terrestrial plants can capture CO2, their slow growth rates limit their effectiveness to only 3-6% of

218 fossil fuel emissions [38,39]. On the other hand, microalgae offer a faster growth rate and can be used

219 for in-situ CO2 bioremediation, making them a promising technique for CO2 capture and storage

220 [18,40]. In fact, microalgae have been found to have the potential to capture up to 1.83 kg of CO2 per

221 kilogram, making them a valuable tool in the fight against global warming.

10
222 Microalgae are tiny photosynthetic organisms that live in water and can capture CO2 through

223 photosynthesis. This process converts CO2 and sunlight into carbohydrates and releases oxygen (Fig.

224 1.). Microalgae are especially efficient at this process, which is known as "oxygenic photosynthesis".

225 CO2 is converted into lipids and hydrocarbons, making it a form of "CO2 fixation". Water is used as

226 the electron donor and releases oxygen. The general equation for photosynthesis is::

227 𝐻2 𝑂 + 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 → [𝐶𝐻2 𝑂]𝑛 + 𝑂2

228

of
229 This reaction converts the energy of light to chemical energy (ATP, NADPH). Then, by using this

ro
230 chemical energy, organic carbon is synthesized from inorganic carbon [41].

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

231

11
232 Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the photosynthesis process for microalgae cultivation

233

234 2.3 Production of Biofuel & high-value products

235 The production of biofuels and high-value products from microalgae is one of the key drivers for the

236 growing interest in microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors. Microalgae offer a sustainable and

of
237 renewable source for the generation of biofuels and a wide range of valuable compounds with various

ro
238 industrial applications. Microalgae offer significant potential for biofuel production, encompassing

-p
239 biodiesel, bioethanol, and biogas [42]. With their high lipid content, microalgae can be efficiently
re
240 converted into biodiesel through transesterification, presenting an advantage of increased
lP

241 productivity and reduced competition with food crops compared to conventional biodiesel sources.

242 Additionally, certain microalgae species produce carbohydrates that can be converted into bioethanol
na

243 through fermentation, though further optimization is still underway to enhance its efficiency.
ur

244 Furthermore, anaerobic digestion of microalgae biomass yields biogas, primarily composed of
Jo

245 methane, which can be harnessed for electricity generation or as a renewable substitute for natural

246 gas, contributing to sustainable energy solutions [43]. Presently, countries such as the USA, Canada,

247 and Brazil produce biofuel from food sources and biomass. But this food-based biofuel is criticized

248 as it is competing with the demands of food for humen. As an alternative, agricultural wastes,

249 municipal wastes, microalgae, and other microbial sources are used as non-food biofuel sources [44].

250 Nowadays, Microalgal-based renewable fuels are gaining increased attention because they have great

251 potential to replace petroleum-based fuels (Razzak et al., 2022).

12
252 Microalgae offer a diverse range of high-value products that hold significant potential for various

253 industries. Certain microalgae species, such as Nannochloropsis and Schizochytrium, are abundant

254 sources of omega-3 fatty acids, including docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid

255 (EPA), which play essential roles in human health and are widely used in dietary supplements and

256 functional foods [45]. Additionally, microalgae produce various pigments like chlorophyll,

257 carotenoids, and phycobiliproteins, finding applications in food coloring, cosmetics, and

258 pharmaceuticals due to their natural and safe characteristics [46]. Microalgae, such as astaxanthin

of
259 and spirulina, are rich sources of antioxidants, which have potential health benefits and are commonly

ro
260 used in dietary supplements and beauty products [47,48]. Furthermore, microalgae-based bioplastics

261
-p
are being explored as sustainable alternatives to conventional petroleum-based plastics, offering the
re
262 advantage of biodegradability and reduced environmental impact [49]. Lastly, the rich nutritional
lP

263 content of microalgae has led to investigations into their potential as nutraceuticals, addressing
na

264 various health concerns and promoting overall well-being [50]. These findings underline the

265 significant value of microalgae in the development of innovative and sustainable high-value products,
ur

266 contributing to various industries and enhancing human health and environmental sustainability.
Jo

267 Bioactive compounds, including carotenoids, phycobilins, polysaccharides, omega-3 fatty acids, and

268 phenolics, have been identified and isolated from microalgae [51].

269 Microalgae cultivation can be integrated with other industries, such as wastewater treatment plants

270 and power stations, where microalgae can utilize CO2 and nutrients from effluents or flue gases,

271 contributing to biofuel and high-value product production while helping in environmental

272 remediation. The integrated CO2 capture and wastewater treatment of microalgae cultures in a

273 photobioreactor are shown in Fig. 2.. And finally, cultivated biomass gives value-added biofuel and

274 non-biofuel high-value products. This system requires three main feeds: (i) CO2 from the flue gas

13
275 stream from power plants or other stationary sources, (ii) Culture media (tertiary wastewater reach

276 with nitrate, phosphate, etc.), and (iii) light. The culture mainly progresses in the presence of natural

277 sunlight or other sources. The cultured microalgae can be further processed into the downstream

278 system. In this process, the microalgae are harvested and dried as collected biomass for further

279 products. Microalgae biomass can be used for further applications such as biofuel production,

280 fertilizer, food, etc. Thus, microalgae cultivation provides advantages: CO2 capture, Treatment of

281 wastewater, and Producing biofuel and non-biofuel high-value products.

of
282

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

283

284 Fig. 2. Schematic flow diagram of an integrated system for CO2 capture, biomass separation, and fuel
285 and non-fuel production using the microalgae cultivation inside the photobioreactor by
286 photosynthesis process.

287

14
288 3. Parameters affecting the growth performance

289 Microalgae, in general, unicellular phototrophs, are fast-growing microorganisms or, to be more

290 precise, they are fast-duplicating organisms with a great potential to generate biomass at a high rate

291 compared to other higher photosynthetic biomass sources like plants. The major advantage of

292 microalgae cultivation in photobioreactors is their reproduction time (properly duplication time) is

293 short; therefore, their growth rate is high with higher photosynthetic efficiency. But this limited light

of
294 cultivation in photobioreactors, biomass growth rate is the function of light and solar irradiation,

ro
295 temperature, nutrient availabilities, CO2 concentration, and pH in culture media. These parameters

-p
296 are major components and must be considered in the mass-scale cultivation and design of
re
297 photobioreactors. In general, the basic concept of biomass growth calculation is based on the

following equations of specific growth rate and biomass productivity.The specific growth rate, μg,
lP

298

299 described as the growth of the dry biomass weight per day, was computed using the following
na

300 equation [52,53]:

ur

𝑋2
ln( )
Jo

𝑋1
301 𝜇𝑔 = (1)
𝑡2 −𝑡1

302 where, 𝑋1 and 𝑋2 is the dry biomass weight at time 𝑡1 and 𝑡2 , respectively, of the exponential

303 growth phase. The effect of limiting nutrient (nitrate) on the growth of microalgae was described by

304 the Monod model as shown in the equation [54].

𝑆
305 𝜇 = 𝑓(𝑆) = 𝜇̂ [ ] (2)
𝐾𝑆 +𝑆

306 where, 𝜇= specific growth rate, day-1; 𝜇̂ = maximum specific growth rate, day-1; 𝑆= limiting nutrient

307 concentration, mg/L; 𝐾𝑆 = half saturation coefficient, mg/L.

15
308

of
ro
-p
re
309
lP

310 Fig. 3. Typical parameters that impact the growth of microalgae during the cultivation inside the
311 photobioreactor.
na

312
ur

313 The biomass productivity (Pb), which is also described as the rate of biomass production, was
Jo

314 computed using the following equation [55–57]:

𝑋𝑡 −𝑋0
315 𝑃𝑏 = (3)
𝑡𝑡 −𝑡0

316 where, 𝑋0 and 𝑋𝑡 are the dry biomass weight at the beginning, at the time 𝑡0, and at the end of the

317 cultivation (growth phase), at time 𝑡𝑡, respectively. Fig. 3. listed typical parameters that impact

318 microalgae growth during the cultivation inside photobioreactors. Several microalgae species with

319 different growth metabolisms are used in the experiments. The factors that influence the biomass

320 productivity and microalgae growth rate are listed below.

16
321 3.1 Effect of light and solar Irradiation

322 Light is a fundamental driver of photosynthesis, the process by which microalgae convert light energy

323 into chemical energy, leading to their growth and biomass production. The intensity, duration, and

324 quality of light significantly impact microalgae growth performance. Adequate light exposure

325 promotes photosynthetic activity, while excessive or insufficient light levels can lead to

326 photoinhibition or limited growth, respectively. The amount of photons reaching the culture's surface

327 (µmol photons m-2s-1) enables the determination of incoming light intensity as a function of photon

of
328 flux density (PFD). How much PFD can be absorbed by cells is dependent on cell density, cell optical

ro
329 properties, culture mixing, and light penetration in the reactor; the remaining photons are either

330 -p
reflected or transformed to heat. Light-driven growth follows saturation kinetics, in which growth is
re
331 accelerated, and maximal efficiency is observed after a threshold of light intensity is exceeded [58].
lP

332 As the intensity of light increases, saturation is reached, and growth remains constant; further
na

333 increases may harm or kill the cells (e.g., photoinhibition) [59].
ur

334 Increased light intensity can boost microalgae growth, up to a certain point that varies depending on
Jo

335 the species. But excessive light can lead to photo-inhibition. Light is a critical factor for microalgae

336 growth since it serves as their energy source when they grow as phototrophic organisms [60].

337 However, only around 10% of the light is converted to chemical energy while the rest is dissipated

338 as heat. Some studies suggest that the conversion rate may be as low as 2% [61]. Microalgae use light

339 to produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is essential for cell maintenance and synthesis.

340 However, intense light can also impede the photosynthetic process [62].

17
341 The kinetics related to light have been analyzed by Schediwy et al. (2019) [63]. All the experiments

342 were done in a small diameter PBR to visualize the effect of light. Light kinetics can be represented

343 as a correlation of light intensity, average specific growth, and photon availability,

344

1 𝐷𝑅
𝑟𝑋,𝑎𝑣 (𝐼ℎ𝑣,0 ) = 𝑟𝑋 ( ∫ 𝐼ℎ𝑣 (𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ ). 𝑑𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ ) (4)
𝐷𝑅 0

345

of
1 𝐷𝑅
𝑟𝑋,𝑎𝑣,𝜇 (𝐼ℎ𝑣,0 ) = ( ∫ 𝑟𝑋 (𝐼ℎ𝑣 (𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ )) . 𝑑𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ ) (5)

ro
𝐷𝑅 0

346
-p
here, 𝑟𝑋,𝑎𝑣 indicates the average value for the specific growth rate with respect to the mean light
re
347 intensity (𝐼ℎ𝑣,0 ). 𝐷𝑅 is the PBR diameter. 𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ indicates the distance in the reactor that is crossed by
lP

348 light.
na

349 The following equation can represent the CO2 transfer rate (CTR)

𝑀𝐶𝑂2
ur

𝐶𝑇𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛 = .𝑟 .𝑐 .𝑒 (6)
𝑀𝑐 𝑥 𝑥 𝐶,𝑥
Jo

350 here 𝑒𝐶,𝑥 is the carbon content of the cells/nutrients. Here c as a subscription mode indicates carbon.

351

352 Monod saturation function was used to correlate the light intensity with the specific growth rate in

353 the exponential phase (𝜇)

𝐼
354 𝜇 = 𝑓(𝐼) = 𝜇̂ [ ] (7)
𝐾𝑆 +𝐼

355 where, 𝜇= specific growth rate, day-1; 𝜇̂ = maximum specific growth rate, day-1; 𝐼 is the light

356 irradiance µmol photons m-2 s-1. ; 𝐾𝑆 = half saturation coefficient, mg/L. Not only the intensity of light

357 but quality also plays an important role in growth rate and microalgae biomass production.

18
358 Light-driven growth follows saturation kinetics where growth is accelerated after a threshold of

359 intensity is passed, and maximal efficiency is observed. As light increases its intensity, saturation is

360 achieved, and growth becomes steady; further increases might damage the cells (e.g., photoinhibition)

361 or even kill them [59]. In order to replicate their natural environments, microalgae are typically

362 cultivated in dim light (60 to 400 µmol m−2 s−1) [64]. At a light intensity of 80 µmol m−2 s−1, the

363 highest growth of Chlorella vuygaris was observed [65]. A light intensity of 50 µmol m−2 s−1 of light

364 intensity is insufficient for microalgae growth, while 110 µmol m−2 s−1 of light intensity causes photo-

of
365 inhibition [66]. For maximum lipid production, distinct microalgae species and strains require

ro
366 lighting intensities ranging from 60 to 700 µmol m−2 s−1. Strong light increases the triacylglycerol

367
-p
content disproportionately. The light intensity regulates the synthesis of fatty acids, carotenoids,
re
368 including -carotene, lutein, and astaxanthin [67].
lP

3.2 Effect of Temperature

na

369
ur

370 Temperature plays a crucial role in regulating microalgae growth rates and influencing biochemical
Jo

371 pathways within cells. Different microalgae species have distinct temperature optima for growth, and

372 deviations from these optima can impact physiological processes and alter biomass productivity. The

373 maximum specific growth rate (𝜇̂ ), which appears in the Monod model, depends on temperature and

374 light intensity rather than the limiting nutrient content. Since the amount of light was supposed to be

375 constant, the maximal specific growth rate can only be a function of temperature, and the Arrhenius

376 equation can adequately represent it [54].

377 𝜇̂ = 𝐴𝑒 −𝐸/𝑅𝑇 (8)

19
378 Where, 𝐴= constant, day-1; 𝐸= Activation energy, cal/mol; 𝑅= Universal gas constant, cal/K/mol;

379 𝑇= Temperature, K.

380 The growth of microalgae as a function of temperature and limiting nutrient concentration. The

381 specific growth rate in the Mondo model can be written as:

𝑆
382 𝜇 = 𝐴𝑒 −𝐸/𝑅𝑇 [ ] (9)
𝐾𝑆 (𝑇)+𝑆

383 The growth rate of microalgae is significantly influenced by temperature. In order for microalgae to

of
384 grow well, the proper temperature must be provided. Extremely low or high temperatures could stunt

ro
385 the growth of microalgae. Algal growth can be accelerated by raising the temperature until it reaches

386
-p
the ideal level. The ideal temperature for growing algae is between 25°C and 30°C [68].
re
387
lP

388 The environment has a cooling impact on the culture media in an open system, keeping it below 400
na

389 degrees Celsius, which is an advantage of this method of cultivation. The chemical equilibrium, pH
ur

390 levels, and gas solubility in a system are all affected by temperature. The below-mentioned equation
Jo

391 describes the Cardinal model, which can be used to illustrate the impact of temperature on microalgal

392 growth. The model provides insight into the range of possible values and their optimality for different

393 types of microalgae [69].

(𝑇−𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 )(𝑇−𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 )2
394 𝜇 (𝑇 ) = (10)
(𝑇𝑜𝑝𝑡 −𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 )[(𝑇𝑜𝑝𝑡 −𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 )(𝑇−𝑇𝑜𝑝𝑡 )−(𝑇𝑜𝑝𝑡 −𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 )(𝑇𝑜𝑝𝑡 +𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 −2𝑇)]

395

20
396 3.3 Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentration

397 Microalgae require essential nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus for growth and biomass

398 accumulation. Impact of total nitrogen (TN) in the form of N-NO3 – and total phosphorus (TP) in the

399 form of PO43- concentration in the culture medium is very important for microalgae cultivation in

400 photobioreactors. Optimal nutrient concentrations are necessary to avoid nutrient limitation or excess,

401 which can affect cell division rates and overall productivity. These two parameters have a major

402 impact on biomass growth at the same time, the removal of these two substrates re the prime concern

of
403 of wastewater treatment. There is an adequate growth model by which experimental behavior can be

ro
404 predicted. The Monod model is mostly used for measurement purposes in the nutrient media

405 described as: -p

re
𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 .𝑆
lP

406 𝜇= (11)
𝐾𝑠 +𝑆
na

407 where, the 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 indicates the maximum growth rate of the microalgae/biomass. S is the concentration
ur

408 of the substrate and 𝐾𝑠 embodies the half-saturation constant of the biomass in respect to the substrate.
Jo

409 But, in this model there is no inhibition term.

410 Andrews-Haldane proposed a new model for substrate inhibition

𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 .𝑆
411 𝜇= 𝑆2
− 𝜇𝑚 (12)
𝐾1 +𝑆+
𝐾2

412 where, 𝐾1 is the limiting constant, 𝐾2 is the inhibition constant; both have the unit of g/l. here, 𝜇𝑚

413 term liable for maintenance like respiration [41].

414 In batch kinetics experiments, the percentage rate of TN and TP removal was calculated using the

415 following equation:

21
 𝑆0 −𝑆𝑡
416 % 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑙 = × 100 (13)
𝑆0

417 where 𝑆0 and 𝑆𝑡 are the substrate concentrations at the beginning, time 𝑡0, and at the end of the

418 cultivation period, time 𝑡𝑡, correspondingly.

419 Phosphorus also is an important nutrient after nitrogen. It is an essential nutrient component that

420 contains 1% of the cell’s dry weight [70]. The ideal N:P ratio is between 5:1 and 10:1 for microalgae

421 growth. Lipids accumulation is advanced with decreasing N and P concentrations in microalgae [71].

of
422 However, biomass growth is reduced by reducing N and P concentrations. Table 1 has reported some

ro
423 comparison analyses of such species used for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. This table

-p
424 summarizes the impact of temperature, light irradiance, CO2 concentrations on some reported work
re
425 on TN, TP removal, and biomass productivity. It is evident that some values of TN, TP removal, and
lP

426 maximum biomass production of microalgae species are comparable, higher, or less than those of

427 some reports. The difference can be explained because the strain type, growth conditions (e.g., growth
na

428 media, photo period, photo intensity, temperature, pH, culture time, % of CO2, Nitrogen-phosphorus
ur

429 ratio, initial nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations), photo-reactor type, process type (e.g., batch or
Jo

430 continuous). The nitrogen removal rates determined in all studies under all experimental conditions

431 are higher than those of phosphorus, as expected by the chemical composition of microalgae cell.

432 Due to the phenomenon of higher NP ratio requirement could reasonably associated with causing a

433 high inner PO43- pool. In some cases, Phosphate removal rate is higher due to initial concentration

434 remain same and nitrogen phosphorus ratio is higher. Different nitrogen to phosphorus ratio studies

435 are valid due to the tertiary wastewater and dairy wastewater also varies.

22
436 3.4 Effect of CO2 Concentrations

437 CO2 is a critical substrate for photosynthesis, and its availability can directly impact microalgae

438 growth rates. Elevated CO2 levels can enhance photosynthetic efficiency and, consequently, biomass

439 productivity. Determining the total carbon content of microalgae allowed us to calculate the bio-

440 fixation rate of CO2, RCO2. The following equation was used to determine the total quantity of carbon

441 in the microalgal biomass:

𝑇𝑂𝐶𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠

of
442 %𝐶 = × 100 (14)
𝑋

ro
-p
443 where, TOCbiomass is the total organic carbon concentration of microalgal biomass (mg/L), X is the
re
444 biomass concentration (mg/L) on a given day, and % C represents the percent carbon content in dry
lP

445 biomass.
na

446 According to De Morais and Costa, the following equation can be used to determine the rate of carbon

447 dioxide biofixation (𝑅𝐶𝑂2 ) [72]:

ur

𝑀𝑊𝐶𝑂2
Jo

448 𝑅𝐶𝑂2 = %𝐶𝑃𝐵 ( ) (15)

𝑀𝑊𝐶

449 where, 𝑃𝐵 is the biomass productivity, 𝑀𝑊𝐶𝑂2 is the molecular weight CO2, and 𝑀𝑊𝐶 is the atomic

450 weight of carbon.

451 Gas mixture bubbling by spargers from the bottom of the photobioreactor can facilitate the mass

452 transfer of CO2 from gas to liquid [73,74]. CO2 concentration between 2%-4% gives the maximum

453 biomass productivity, specific growth rate, CO2 uptake for C. vulgaris [73,74]. For mixotrophic

454 growth of Nannochloropsis oculata 2% CO2 concentration gives both high growth of biomass and

455 lipid [75], while 8% CO2 can also provide high growth with good consumption of Nitrogen based

456 nutrients[76]. It depends on the purpose whether to produce lipids or CO2 capture the concentration

23
457 of CO2. It should be kept in mind that gas holdup controls overall mass transfer in the photobioreactor.

458 Optimization of the pH is important not only for algal survive but also for reducing production costs.

459 Moraes et al. (2020) deployed a bioprocess methodology to increase biomass productivity and CO2

460 usage efficiencies in N. gaditana cultures under outdoor circumstances by adjusting pH and setting

461 control of this parameter in a tubular PBR . This allowed for lower carbon losses to the atmosphere

462 and overall process costs. In this context, CO2 on-demand pH control, in addition to encouraging pH

463 control, also adds to the carbon supply by the cultures. Under outdoor circumstances, N. gaditana

of
464 cultures in tubular photobioreactors had the maximum biomass output (0.16 g L-1 d-1), CO2 usage

ro
465 efficiency (74.6 percent w/w), and RCO2/biomass (2.42 gCO2 gbiomass1 at pH 8.0.)

-p
re
466 3.5 Effect of pH
lP

467 pH directly influences various physiological and biochemical processes in microalgae. Maintaining
na

468 an optimal pH range is essential for cell growth, enzyme activity, and nutrient uptake[78]. pH should
ur

469 be an appropriate range for the functioning of microalgal growth. A neutral pH range is favorable for
Jo

470 ideal growth of most microalgae species. Also, acidic conditions are suitable for some species. pH

471 can be raised due to higher photosynthetic activity. The supplementation of CO2 can control

472 increasing pH. Neutral pH is beneficial, but pH as high as 10 and as low as 4 are acceptable by some

473 species [79,80]. Besides, pH can play an important role in the biochemical composition of

474 wastewater. For instance, Hodaifa et al. (2009) observed that pH greatly affects the growth and

475 biomass composition of microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus [81].

476 Since CO2 solubility and accessibility are influenced by pH, it is one of the major environmental

477 aspects that affect microalgae's growth and metabolism [76]. The pH is the most important element

478 in determining the relative concentrations of carbonaceous species in water [5]. Fig. 4. illustrates the

24
479 different inorganic carbon species with respect to mole fractions at different media pH [5]. Maximum

480 algal growth happens in the area of neutral pH (6.1-10) where CO2 in water could also be in the form

481 of CO2+H2 = H+ + HCO3- [68]. The synergic effect of pH with CO2 is very keen, and several works

482 have been done [82–84]. Higher CO2 concentrations could increase productivity, but pH will be

483 decreased, and physiology will be affected [74] By adjusting the balance, microalgae's uptake of CO2

484 from water reduces carbonate and bicarbonate while the excretion of OH- raises the pH. pH is mainly

485 the result of the equilibrium between highly soluble CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate equilibrium.

of
486 Algal species like to take bicarbonate from water instead of taking direct CO2 from the water. The

ro
487 cardinal model like the temperature effect also helps in determining the optimal pH value for

488
-p
microalgae growth. Most microalgae strains prefer to be cultivated in the culture media close to the
re
489 neutral pH [85].
lP

(𝑝𝐻−𝑝𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥 )(𝑝𝐻−𝑝𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛 )2
490 𝜇(𝑝𝐻 ) =
na

(𝑝𝐻𝑜𝑝𝑡 −𝑝𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛 )[(𝑝𝐻𝑜𝑝𝑡 −𝑝𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛 )(𝑝𝐻−𝑝𝐻𝑜𝑝𝑡 )−(𝑝𝐻𝑜𝑝𝑡 −𝑝𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥 )(𝑝𝐻𝑜𝑝𝑡 +𝑝𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛 −2𝑝𝐻)]

491 (16)
ur
Jo

25
 of
ro
-p
re
lP

492
na

493 Fig. 4. Carbon mole fractions of several inorganic substances at varying medium pH.
494
ur

495 The above-mentioned characteristics affect the specific growth rates or biomass productivities
Jo

496 of various types of microalgae species. The overall effects of temperature, light irradiance,

497 CO2 concentrations, TP removal from the medium, and biomass productivity of certain

498 microalgae species are summarized in Table 1. The table presents a comprehensive overview

499 of various microalgae species cultivated in different types of wastewater media, along with

500 key growth parameters and nutrient removal efficiency. In these studies, researchers

501 investigated the performance of microalgae under varying conditions to explore their

502 potential for wastewater treatment and biomass production.

26
503 For instance, Nayak et al. (2016) cultivated Scenedesmus sp. in domestic wastewater at a

504 temperature of 25°C, with a 12/12-hour light/day cycle and a light irradiance of 60 μmol m-

505 2 s-1. The microalgae achieved a maximum biomass concentration of 430 mg L-1 and

506 exhibited significant nutrient removal efficiency, with TN (Total Nitrogen) removal reaching

507 61.1% and TP (Total Phosphorus) removal at 81.9% [38]. In another study by Ji et al. (2013),

508 Scenedesmus obliquus was cultivated in tertiary treated wastewater at the same temperature

509 and a higher CO2 concentration of 15%. The cultivation period lasted 7 days, with a light

of
irradiance of 45 μmol m-2 s-1. The microalgae achieved a biomass concentration of 310 mg L-

ro
510

-p
1
511 and displayed remarkable nutrient removal efficiency, with TN and TP removal both
re
512 reaching 99% [86].
lP

513 Furthermore, the table includes research on synthetic wastewater and modified media.
na

514 Álvarez-Díaz et al. (2017) investigated Chlorella Kessleri's growth in synthetic wastewater,
ur

515 achieving a maximum biomass concentration of 580 mg L-1 with almost complete nutrient
Jo

516 removal (TN and TP both at 99%) [7]. Xin et al. (2010) explored Scenedesmus sp. growth in

517 wastewater and reported a biomass concentration of 120 mg L-1, with TN removal at 99% and

518 TP removal at 98% [87]. Lastly, two studies by Gao et al. (2019) and Hossain et al. (2022)

519 investigated Chlorella Kessleri's growth in modified BBM media. While Gao et al. (2019) did

520 not report nutrient removal data, Hossain et al. (2022) achieved impressive nutrient removal

521 efficiency, with TN removal ranging from 92% to 99% and TP removal from 19% to 88%

522 under different temperature and CO2 conditions [88,89].

27
523 Table 1: Impact of temperature, light Irradiance, CO2 concentrations on TN, TP removal, biomass productivities

Wastewater Microalgae species Temp CO2 Light/Day Light Cultivati Max. Initial Nutrient Reference

media/media (0C) Cycle irradiance on biomass Nutrient removal

(%)
(μmol m-2 s- period conc. (mg L-1) (%)
1)
(day) (mg L-1)

f
oo
Domestic 0.03 TN=41 TN=61.1

r
Scenedesmus sp. 25 12/12 60 7 430 [38]

-p
wastewater (air) TP= 53 TP= 81.9

re
lP
Tertiary treated TN=8.7 TN=99
Scenedesmus obliquus 25 15 45 7 310 [86]

na
wastewater ur TP= 1.7 TP= 99
Jo

Synthetic TN=20 TN=99

Chlorella Kessleri 20 0 16/8 143 25 580 [7]
wastewater TP= 1.7 TP= 99

TN=15.5 TN=99
Wastewater Scenedesmus sp. 25 - 55-60 15 120 [90]
TP= 0.5 TP= 98

28
 Phosphate

(TAP) with N Chlorella Kessleri 25 12/12 55 7 [88]

rich

Modified BBM TN=48 TN=92

Chlorella Kessleri 20 6 12/12 54 9 484 [91]
Media TP= 9 TP= 88

f
oo
Modified BBM TN=48 TN=99

r
-p
Chlorella Kessleri 30 2 12/12 54 9 524 [91]
Media TP= 18 TP= 19

re
lP
524

na
ur
Jo

29
525 4. Photobioreactor Technologies

526 Photobioreactors are mostly used to produce algal biomass, pigments, and bioactive molecules [1].

527 Photobioreactors also have been designed for life support in outer space, removal of various

528 compounds from water, production of gas vesicles in cyanobacteria, CO2 removal, hydrogen

529 production, and macroalgal production. They are classified as closed or open-system

530 photobioreactors [92]. The photoautotrophic mode of microalgal culture, which uses light sources as

of
531 the main source of energy and CO2 as the inorganic carbon source, is the most common cultivation

ro
532 method [9]. In the scientific literature, microalgae cultivation systems mainly depend on: a) the cost,

-p
533 b) local environment such as sunlight availability, local temperature, c) the source of nutrients, and
re
534 d) the CO2 availability.
lP

535 In open ponds, high biomass productivity can be achieved with microalgae strains that are resistant
na

536 to harsh culture environments, but contamination can be a major drawback [93]. However, open
ur

537 ponds have a simple technology but may not be economically viable due to the higher cost of
Jo

538 downstream processing [94]. The choice of microalgae cultivation system should consider several

539 parameters such as the biological nature of the microalgae species, the cost of land and energy,

540 availability of nutrients and water for cultivation, local environment and climate conditions, and the

541 desired purpose of cultivation.

542 4.1 Open System

543 One of the most traditional and simple techniques for mass-producing microalgae is open pond

544 cultivation. Open ponds are a common option in the sector due to the costs involved in its

545 construction, maintenance, and operation [95]. Additional benefits of open pond systems include easy

30
546 operation and maintenance, minimal energy demand, and scalability. Typically, paddle wheels and

547 baffles are installed in open pond systems to provide enough mixing, just as they would be in raceway

548 ponds. Fig. 6. illustrates examples of an open photobioreactor system (raceway pond) schematically.

549 As for open ponds, they are the cheapest system for microalgae cultivation than closed ones [27], but

550 they have some serious technical issues in addition to economic drawbacks. Open ponds subjected to

551 environmental conditions are difficult to control the light, temperature, and evaporation [96].

552 Although the pond produces big biomass, it needs a big area to grow and culture. Therefore, ponds

of
553 will be exposed to contamination. In addition, the low percentage of CO2 in the, approximately 0.03-

ro
554 0.06% , leads to limitation in mass transfer and thus lowers the microalgae growth [8]. For

555
-p
commercial production of microalgae, the open systems (ponds) are the most convenient [97], where
re
556 the open system is easy to clean after culture and very good for mass culture of algae. In addition, the
lP

557 culture of an open system has many advantages, as it is cheap to build and has high productivity[12].
na

558 Open-air farming systems are commonly used for microalgae biomass production, and they include
ur

559 natural and synthetic ponds, raceway-type ponds, and inclined outward systems driven by paddle
Jo

560 wheels. These systems are relatively simple to design and operate, but they have certain challenges

561 and drawbacks that have been identified over the past fifty years of study. Some of these challenges

562 and drawbacks include limited success with only a few species of microalgae, presence of predator

563 species, water supply issues due to evaporation loss, inefficient utilization of CO2, large area

564 requirements that can only make use of waste land, lower biomass productivity compared to closed

565 systems, and high cost of microalgae harvesting. Despite these challenges, open culture systems are

566 still being used for microalgae biomass production, and efforts are being made to improve their

567 efficiency and overcome their drawbacks [98].

31
568 4.1.1 Unstirred Ponds

569 An unstirred open pond (Figure 5a) is a simple and commercially used system for cultivating some

570 microalgae species, as it is easy to construct [99]. However, due to the lack of mixing, it may not be

571 suitable for large-scale cultivation. One example of commercial-scale cultivation using this method

572 is with Dunaliella salina [100]. The ponds are typically shallow, around 50 cm in depth, with a

573 plastic film covering at the bottom [101]. The depth is kept less than 1 m to ensure sufficient light

574 penetration. Transparent plastic covering can be used to mitigate contamination issues. In Southeast

of
575 Asia, over 30 tons per year of dried microalgae biomass have been harvested from unstirred natural

ro
576 lakes [102].

-p
re
577 4.1.2 Raceway Pond
lP

578 The "stirred paddle wheel open pond" or "raceway pond" is the most commonly used open culture
na

579 system (Fig. 5b.), accounting for almost 95% of global algal production [103]. These ponds are
ur

580 shallow, usually between 15 to 25 cm in depth, and constructed as a single channel or groups of
Jo

581 channels. Paddlewheels are used for mixing, and the culture is exposed to the open atmosphere to

582 regulate temperature through evaporation. These ponds are suitable for commercial scale production

583 of microalgae biomass and cyanobacteria [104]. The depth of the pond is optimized to provide enough

584 light and prevent evaporation while allowing proper mixing [105]. Raceway ponds are highly

585 productive, with biomass yields ranging from 60-100 mg dry weight L-1d-1, and are primarily used

586 for the culturing of Chlorella sp., Spiriluna platensis, Hematococcus sp. and Dunaliella salina [106].

587 Various commercial designs of raceway ponds have been used over the past three decades,

588 particularly the paddle wheel mixed type. The paddle wheel helps to circulate the cultured media in

589 the raceway pond loop, generating the required water velocity to prevent the settling of cells or the

32
590 aggregation of cells via flocculation. A liquid velocity of more than 30 cm/s is commonly maintained

591 in many ponds [107].

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na

592
ur
Jo

593 Fig. 5. Open Cultivation Systems: a) Solix Biofuel's open, undisturbed pond for growing chlorella in

594 Colorado, USA; b) Carbon Corporation's paddle wheel racing pond in California, USA. c) Taiwan's Circular

595 Ponds (BEAM).

596

597 4.1.3 Circular Pond

598 Circular ponds (Fig. 5c.) have been primarily used for large-scale cultivation in South East Asia for

599 the culture of Chlorella sp. [108]. These are the oldest large-scale algae cultivation open-ponds with

600 a depth of about 30-70 cm. Microalgae are grown in concrete circular ponds up to 45 m in diameter,

601 with agitation by a rotating arm that moves a 20-30 cm thick layer of inorganic nutrient solution with

33
602 algae. These systems have limitations such as less control on temperature, high capital and operational

603 costs, and higher contamination risks. Contamination risks are sometimes reduced by covering these

604 ponds with a greenhouse, which also increases biomass yield [109].

605 4.1.4 Constraints of open-water systems

606 The challenges associated with open systems for microalgal production are numerous. These include

607 poor light utilization by cells, significant evaporative losses, limited diffusion of CO2 from the

of
608 atmosphere, and the need for large land areas [108]. Additionally, open systems are prone to

ro
609 contamination by unwanted biological agents such as algae, mold, fungi, yeast, and bacteria [110].

610
-p
Various methods have been proposed to mitigate these issues, including the use of plastic covers or
re
611 greenhouses over open ponds to improve biomass productivity and extend the growing period [111].
lP

612 However, contamination issues still persist, and capital costs, maintenance, and overheating can make
na

613 these solutions impractical for large-scale operations.[112].

ur

614 Commercially successful microalgal species that thrive in open ponds are those that can withstand
Jo

615 harsh environments and competition. Examples of such species are Dunaliella, Spirulina, and

616 Chlorella, which can grow in high saline water, alkaline environments, and nutrient-rich water,

617 respectively. Evaporative water loss is a significant challenge that affects the success of open pond

618 systems [113]. However, the main drawback of these systems is the lack of sufficient control

619 mechanisms to optimize the growth of microalgal cultures [114].

620 4.2 Closed System

621 Open pond systems have reached their maximum productivity, and it is not economically feasible to

622 enhance their output. Therefore, many researchers have suggested the need for closed reactor systems

34
623 for future large-scale biomass production. Over time, the cost of closed reactors is expected to

624 decrease, making them the most popular microalgae culturing systems. Various designs of closed

625 photo-bioreactors have been developed to achieve better growth control and operating parameters.

626 The three most common types for larger-scale cultivation systems are horizontal tubular reactors,

627 vertical column reactors, and flat plate or panel (FP) type photo-bioreactors [114]. Fig. 6. shows the

628 schematic diagram of the closed photobioreactors.

629 To overcome the limitations of open systems, closed systems were developed. The closed system's

of
630 primary objective is to provide an environment for cultivating a monoculture of microalgae with very

ro
631 low contamination to produce high-value and biochemical metabolites. The basic structure of the

632
-p
reactor comprises a closed vessel in which the microalgae are cultivated by using artificial
re
633 illumination or by using direct sunlight. Due to a high surface area to volume ratio, closed
lP

634 photobioreactors are multiple times more efficient than the open system, but the process isn’t
na

635 economical [115]. The closed-system photobioreactors are classified based on the geometric
ur

636 configuration, which are discussed in detail below. Though the closed system yields higher biomass
Jo

637 concentration with better quality, it is also expensive. To evaluate, the advantages and disadvantages

638 of these systems are illustrated [116].

639 A closed system has many advantages, such as controlling the microalgae growth, preventing

640 contamination, limiting the transfer of gasses or bacteria between inside and outside, manipulating

641 the system, and optimizing the system [18]. In addition, closed (PBRS) is preferred when the slow-

642 growing is required for microalgae because they allow controlling microalgae species [117]. Close

643 photobioreactor has high efficiency in photosynthesis and very good control [118]. It can be bulk

644 vertical instead of horizontal to reduce the required area and decrease water loss via evaporation [119]

645 and to decrease the water loss via evaporation [120]. However, this type of reactor has many

35
646 drawbacks, such as the high cost of building and operating, oxygen accumulation, difficulty in scaling

647 up, and the cells being subjected to death because of the material structure used in the photo process

648 [118].

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

649

650 Fig. 6. Closed Cultivation System: a) Horizontal Tubular b) Bubble column c) Airlift tubular; d) Flat
651 panel, and e) Large-scale plastic-bag photobioreactors.

652 4.2.1 Horizontal Tubular

653 Horizontal tubular photobioreactors are constructed with transparent materials and placed in outdoor

654 facilities under sunlight irradiation (as shown in Fig. 6a.). These cultivation vessel designs have a

655 large surface area per unit volume to maximize exposure of microalgae to sunlight. The tube sizes

36
656 are generally less than 10 centimeters in diameter to ensure sunlight penetration. In a typical tubular

657 microalgae culture system, the medium is circulated through the tubes, which are exposed to sunlight

658 for photosynthesis. The medium is then circulated back to a reservoir with the help of a mechanical

659 or airlift pump, which maintains a highly turbulent flow within the reactor to prevent algal biomass

660 from settling. A fraction of the algae is usually harvested after it circulates through the solar collection

661 tubes, making the system a continuous operation. However, most tubular photobioreactors studied in

662 the presence of artificial light have been developed at a small/laboratory scale (0-20 L capacities),

of
663 and there are limited studies reporting data for large-scale closed photobioreactors. James and Al-

ro
664 Khars (1990) studied the growth and productivity of Chlorella and Nannochloropsis in a translucent

665
-p
vertical airlift photobioreactor, and they obtained productivities between 109 and 264 g m-3 d -1 for
re
666 Nannochlropsis and between 32.5 and 95.3 g m-3 d -1 for the Chlorella strain [121].
lP

4.2.2 Vertical Bubble-column Tubular

na

667
ur

668 Bubble column vertical tubular reactors (Fig. 6b.) are designed with double height to its diameter,
Jo

669 giving high surface-to-volume ratio with optimal heat & mass transfer along the reactor [122].

670 Internal illumination setup is much preferred as it enhances the energy required for photosynthesis.

671 The gas flow rate and the light/dark cycles are crucial factors for biomass yield and efficiency of

672 photosynthesis [123]. A vertical glass tube measuring 5 cm in diameter and 2.3 m in height (4.5 L)

673 was utilized by Miyamoto et al. (1988) [124] . he bubble column unit lets in plenty of light. It is yet

674 unclear how feasible it will be to deploy on a commercial basis. Production rates of 23 g m- 3 d- 1 of

675 monoraphidium in such a reactor have been reported.

37
676 4.2.3 Airlift

677 Airlift photobioreactors (Fig. 6c.) use a baffle or a draft tube to divide the vessel's fluid volume into

678 two interconnected zones, creating large circulatory currents. While these reactors have advantages

679 such as high mass transfer, good mixing with low shear stress, low energy consumption, and easy

680 operation under sterile conditions, they are difficult to scale up due to their complex flow pattern

681 [125]. Cycling effects occurring between lighter and darker zones in these reactors make them

682 suitable for both pure algae culture and algae wastewater co-cultivation, and they have a high surface

of
683 area to volume ratio and cell density. Agitation is achieved through air bubbling or mechanical motor

ro
684 rotation through the perforated tube, which helps with mixing, optimal nutrient transfer, light

685 -p
distribution, and preventing the accumulation of oxygen.
re
lP

686 4.2.4 Flat panel

na

687 Vertical flat panel photobioreactors (Fig. 6d.) mixed with air bubbling are considered superior to
ur

688 bubble columns in terms of productivity and ease of operation. They offer a large irradiated surface
Jo

689 area, are suitable for outdoor cultures, and are good for algae immobilization, allowing for good

690 biomass productivity [126]. They are relatively inexpensive and easy to clean. These

691 photobioreactors can be accommodated in 1000-2000 L volume capacity units and have been

692 successfully operated for several days [112]. Closed flat panels with bubbling air can achieve high

693 ground-aerial productivity in volume cultivation. A 500 L unit with 440 L culture volume capacity

694 was able to achieve 0.27 gL-1d-1 using a flat plate glass photobioreactor [127]. However, there are

695 limitations to flat panel bioreactors, such as difficulty in controlling culture temperature, a limited

696 degree of growth at the near-wall region, and the possibility of hydrodynamic stress [126,127].

697 Although they have some limitations, such as difficulty in controlling culture temperature and

38
698 hydrodynamic stress, flat panel bioreactors have minimal risk of oxygen accumulation with high

699 photosynthetic efficiency compared to other photobioreactors [128].

700 Flat plate photobioreactors are recommended for mass production of microalgae in both indoor and

701 outdoor culture systems due to their high irradiation of plate surface, small accumulation of dissolved

702 oxygen, and convenient modular design for scale-up. Pulzl et al. (1995) optimized a large-scale flat

703 plate photobioreactor module of 6000L, with one layer for the circulation of the culture and the other

704 for the circulation of temperature-controlled water [129]. High productivity was obtained, given the

of
705 high surface/volume ratio. However, photo-inhibition and temperature control issues could limit

ro
706 biomass output.

-p
re
707 4.2.5 Plastic-bag
lP

708 Microalgae can be produced in transparent polyethylene bags (Fig. 6d.) through sunlight irradiation,
na

709 with air mixing at the bottom of the bags [130]. These bags can be hung or placed in a cage for
ur

710 cultivation, and transparent polyethylene sleeves are also commonly used to prevent cell settling.
Jo

711 Turbidostats using 50 liters of polyethylene bag cultures have been successfully operated. However,

712 careful consideration should be given to potential issues with photo-inhibition and cell settling.

713 5. Principal factors in photobioreactor design

714 Photobioreactor design for microalgae cultivation must take into account various parameters,

715 including the surface area to volume ratio, mixing of the culture media, illumination, supply of CO2

716 or air, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. A good photobioreactor should have an effective

717 illumination area, optimal gas-liquid transfer rate, ease of operation, low potential for contamination,

718 low capital and production costs, and minimal land area requirements [61]. The design and selection

39
719 of photobioreactors for microalgae production depend on various factors such as surface area to

720 volume ratio, media mixing, illumination, CO2 or air supply, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.

721 Bioreactors can be open or closed, with closed systems offering better control of operational

722 variables. However, closed photobioreactors are more expensive and complicated to operate

723 compared to open systems, which use direct sunlight but are affected by weather fluctuations.

724 Therefore, open cultivation is recommended only in regions with high solar radiation [131]. Closed

725 photobioreactors are now considered a useful method for algal mass culture, with some research

of
726 suggesting they are the most feasible option for CO2 removal and treatment. Operational difficulties

ro
727 with open ponds make them less preferable, as the production process depends primarily on local

728
-p
climatic conditions. Table 2 compares the production of microalgae in open and closed
re
729 photobioreactors.
lP

730
na

731 Table 2: Comparative study between open and closed photobioreactors system regarding the

732 microalgae cultivation

ur

Open Closed References

Jo

Factors
Photobioreactors photobioreactors

Space requirement 10,000 m2 100 m2 [132]

Evaporation rate High No evaporation [107]

Water losses Very high Low [133]

CO2-losses Higher Lower

Biomass concentration 0.5-1 kg/m3 5 kg/m3 [134]

Photoconversion efficiency ±1.5% ±5% [134]

40
 Energy (power and heat) requirement ±57 MJ m-2 y-1 ±207 MJ m-2 y-1 [134]

Volumetric algal productivities 0.12–0.48 gL-1d-1 0.2–3.8 gL-1d-1 [135]

Temperature Variable Cooling is required [24]

Weather dependency High Low [133]

Process-control Difficult Easy [133]

Shear Lower Higher [133]

Cleaning No need Required [136]

of
Contamination Higher None [136]

ro
Quality of biomass Variable Reproducible [136]

Harvesting efficiency Lower -p Higher [136]

re
lP

Harvesting cost Higher Lower [136]

Light-efficiency Poor Good [136]

na

Most expensive parameters Mixing temperature control [136]

ur

Cost of algal biomass 2.66 $Kg-1 2.66 $Kg-1 [132]

Jo

733 5.1 Photosynthetic Efficiencies and Light Irradiance

734 Photosynthetic efficiency refers to the amount of light energy that can convert atmospheric carbon

735 dioxide by microalgae into chemical energy through photosynthesis. Higher light irradiance has a

736 higher chance of accumulating more carbohydrates, lipids, and biomass productivities. In addition

737 to light intensity, it is also essential to understand that the irradiance is not homogenous, especially

738 in the dense culture where the light penetration is relatively low[137]. Furthermore, CO2

739 concentration should also be considered as it is a major source of carbon in most the reactor set-up,

41
740 and additionally, it helps in maintaining the optimal pH for the medium. The below model shows the

741 effect of growth considering the light intensity and CO2 concentration. In some cases, CO2 may also

742 lead to substrate inhibition, which is regarded as in the model [138].

𝐼𝑎𝑣
𝐼𝑎𝑣 (1− ) 𝑝𝐶𝑂2
𝐼𝑜𝑝𝑡
743 𝜇 = 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ ∗𝑒 ∗( 𝑝𝐶𝑂2 ) (17)
𝐼𝑜𝑝𝑡 𝐾𝑆 +𝑝𝐶𝑂2 +
𝐾𝐼

744 where 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 - maximum specific growth rate, 𝐼𝑎𝑣 – intensity of light, 𝐼𝑜𝑝𝑡 – intensity of light when

of
745 𝜇 = 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑝𝐶𝑂2 – partial pressure of CO2, 𝐾𝑆 – Saturation constant of substrate and 𝐾𝐼 – constant

ro
746 for inhibition. The parameter that characterizes the radiation of light absorbed by the microalgae

747
-p
during production is known as the light regime. Appropriate light intensity, wavelength, and duration
re
748 are essential for optimal growth rate. As discussed earlier, the photosynthesis mechanism is triggered
lP

749 by the light photons acting as the energy source. The light which passes through the photobioreactor
na

750 is used for producing chemical energy, and the Lambert-Beer law is used for describing the light

751 absorption phenomena [139]:

ur
Jo

752 I(𝑍) = I0 𝑒 −𝛼𝑋𝑧 (18)

753 where z is the flat plat depth in the photobioreactor, α is the absorption coefficient, Io is the irradiance

754 of light source and I(z) is the irradiance at the length z. It is important that the microalgae get imposed

755 with sufficient light to saturate the active sites during the passage of photons, and simultaneously

756 photoinhibition need to be prevented. Having said that, the irradiance at a particular depth is difficult

757 to find out, in order to overcome this problem, the average radiation intensity shall be considered

758 [140].

I0
759 Iav = (1 − 𝑒 −𝛼𝑋𝑧 ) (19)
𝛼𝑋𝑧

42
760 This model is relatively simple as it considers only light transfer to the photobioreactor, and the light

761 scattering is not considered.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na

762
ur

763 Fig. 7.: Photobioreactor Illumination Zones. The growth rate is maximum near the illuminated wall,
Jo

764 known as the light saturation zone (or, alternatively, photoinhibition). Illuminance between Is and Im:
765 μ is linear on I. I < Im: the culture declines.

766 Fig. 7. presents the Illuminance profile as it decreases exponentially from the illuminated face of the

767 reactor. To keep it simple, one-dimensional geometry has been considered. The space coordinate here

768 is z, which denotes the distance from the light source. This figure further illustrates the specific

769 growth rate (μ) of these microalgae. There are three different illumination zones in the

770 photobioreactor, which represent different growth regimes. The first zone is the light-saturated zone

771 where the growth rate is maximum which spreads from the illuminated wall to the point where the

772 illuminance reaches Is. Any value of I more than Is will not increase the biomass growth rate rather it

43
773 may result in a decrease in the growth rate if photoinhibition occurs. Additionally, in the zone which

774 spreads between Is and Im, there is a linear relationship between growth rate and irradiance. Irradiance

775 represented by Im does not result in any distinct photosynthetic growth, but it is just for maintenance

776 in which the biomass is continuously consumed. For I < Im, the concentration of biomass may

777 decrease as the growth rate is below the rate of consumption by maintenance. By considering a

778 photobioreactor where the distance from the light source to every biomass cell remains constant, the

779 integration of the rates over the whole volume of the photobioreactor for a steady-state situation shall

of
780 results in the average biomass growth rate:

ro
1
781 𝜇𝑎𝑣 = ∫ 𝜇(I(𝑧))𝑑𝑧 (20)

-p
𝑧𝑓 re
782 where 𝑧 is the distance from the light source, I is the illuminance local value, 𝑧𝑓 is the reference
lP

783 distance, and I is related to z via the optical decay equation appropriate to the system, I(𝑧) [141].
na

784 Optimum illumination is an important parameter to produce microalgae. The amount of light varies
ur

785 from species to species. Various light/dark ratio gives different production rate. Many literatures
Jo

786 cared about different light/ dark cycles to experience the best biomass production rate.

787 Table 3 shows the photosynthetic efficiency, biomass productivity and light intensity of various algal

788 cultivation systems. For example, a new ultra-flat panel developed by Gifuni et al. (2018) with a

789 thickness of 3 mm was fabricated to increase biomass productivity. Cell growth, biochemical

790 composition, and photosynthesis rate were investigated in different light irradiance ranges of 50-1000

791 µmol m-2 s-1 of Chlorella sorokiniana [142]. Reports the effect of light irradiance in the following

792 range 0-1000 µmol m-2 s-1 upon the growth rate, biomass concentration, and productivity. It is found

793 from their study that high irradiance results in higher superficial productivity (3.45 g/m2.h) and

794 maximum biomass concentration (24 g/L). For the growth rate, the scenario is a little bit different.

44
795 The maximum growth rate was found at 0.17 h-1 with 300 µmol m-2 s-1. Some biological or physical

796 constraints limit the further increase of the selected variables.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

45
797 Table 3. Photosynthetic efficiency, biomass productivity and light intensity of various algal cultivation systems.

Photobioreactor Volm Location light Biomass PE Microalgae Illuminated Light Light intensity References

(L) path productivity (%) sp. surface system (μmol·photons·m−2·s−1)

(cm) g·L−1·d−1 area (m2)

f
oo
LED
Chlorella
Ultra Flat Pannel 0.3 Indoor - 0.50 3-5 floodlight 50-1000 [142]

r
sorokiniana

-p
lamps

re
2.3– Nannochloropsis

lP
Horizontal tubular 98 Outdoor 4.3 0.51–0.76 – Sunlight 857 [143]
3.5 sp.

na
Tetraselmis
Airlift column 120 Outdoor 40 0.42 9.3 5.3 Sunlight 900 [144]
ur
suecica
Jo

2.4– Nannochloropsis
Vertical tubular 1060 Outdoor 4.6 0.31–0.71 31.0 Sunlight – [145]
4.2 sp.

0.97–
Raceway pond 100 Outdoor 30 0.04 Muriellopsis sp. – Sunlight 1449 [146]
0.69

Nannochloropsis
Raceway pond 7500 Outdoor 15 0.02 1 50 Sunlight 490 [147]
salina

46
 Artificial
Vertical Tubular 2 Indoor 5 0.7 7 C. reinhardtii 0.1 200 [148]
light

Thin-layer inclined
2200 Outdoor 0.6 1.9 4 Chlorella spp. 224 Sunlight 540 [149]
cascades

Stichococcus Artificial
Bubble column 1.7 Indoor 4 0.3 7 0.002 300 [150]
bacillaris light

f
oo
Scenedesmus
Flat panel 45 Outdoor 2.1 20 14 2 Sunlight 1656 [151]

r
-p
obliquus

re
Combined

lP
natural
Nannochloropsis

na
Helical tubular 588 Outdoor 9.7 1.8 8 20.8 and 700 [152]
sp.
artificial
ur
light
Jo

798

47
799 5.2 Light-dark (L-D) Cycles

800 Light is one of the most important factors for photosynthesis and affects photosynthesis directly. As

801 a result, PBR should have the capacity to be exposed and transfer as much light as possible. For this

802 reason, PBRs are commonly constructed with highly transparent materials with minimum reflection

803 along with very high surface area to volume ratio. Defining light regimes is very crucial for

804 PBRs.[153]. Light intensity and the light/dark (L/D) cycle is a methods to control light [154]. To

805 control the light intensity lux meter and light: dark period alteration can be used in vertical PBRs for

of
806 better control. Batch and fed-batch cultivation can also be another addition. Rattanapoltee et al.

ro
807 (2021) cultivated Scenedesmus incrassulatus in a vertical tubular photobioreactor under batch/fed-

808 -p
batch modes and concluded fed-batch cultivation has higher biomass and lipid (in it) production.
re
809 Gonçalves et al. (2019) introduced a spiral LED strip in the inner portion of the PVC pipe while the
lP

810 vertical PBR inside of that spiral infrastructure to cultivate Tetradesmus sp.
na

811 The light/dark (L/D) cycle is critical for growth and biomolecule production. The impact of the L/D
ur

812 ratio on the growth and other parameters of C. thermophilla was studied by Sarkar et al. (2021). In
Jo

813 contrast, 4500 lx and 24:0 L/D, 4500 lx and 14:10 L/D, the latter of which includes a dark time, were

814 shown to have the maximum biomass and chlorophyll content. It was discovered that the varying

815 intensity of 0~4500 lx with 14:10 L/D produced the most proteins. Alternatively, under 4500 lx with

816 24:0 L/D, carbohydrate and carotenoid buildup increased. 4500 lx with 14:10 L/D had the highest

817 productivity in all circumstances due to larger cellular accumulation. A number of studies have shown

818 that every parameter that increases microalgal biomass production also increases nutrient absorption

819 (e.g., N and P). For example, in the development of a treatment of WWT with C. vulgaris, Azizi et

820 al. [157] found increasing the light irradiation from 100 to 300 µmol m-2 s-1 and extending the light

821 duration from 12 to 16 and 16 to 24 hours resulted in a noticeable improvement in biomass

48
822 productivity and nutrient assimilation. Furthermore, the highest biomass production and nitrate and

823 phosphate removal were achieved in the 300 µmol m-2 s-1 and 24–0 L/D regimes. As the L/D ratio

824 influence the growth, other factors may be affected by this. For example, in the case of membrane

825 PBR 16:8 L/D gives the fastest fouling of membrane while working with C. vulgaris while 24: 0

826 shows moderate fouling [158].

827 The introduction of various intensities of lights can be a good procedure to stimulate production in

828 the photobioreactor. For example, Gonçalves et al. worked with different spectral combinations and

of
829 intensities within a 24:00 h light: dark period, which showed the variation in biomass production,

ro
830 carotenoids, and chlorophylls for Ttradesmus sp. The LEDs emitting light with white; red; yellow;

831
-p
green, and blue spectrum were used alone and/or combined, with intensities varying from 13 to 190
re
832 μmolm−2 s−1, and found to have a high growth rate in the highest energy light blue in all cases. A
lP

833 combination of different types of light indicates visible light with green light, giving the highest
na

834 biomass concentration, while the red-green combination provides the highest biopigments in that case
ur

835 [155]. It has also been seen earlier depending on the product of interest, the light regime can affect
Jo

836 differently. As for thermophilic Synechococcus sp. production of thermostable C-phycocyanin (PC)

837 in tubular PBRs was achieved maximum under 16:8 L/D ratio while the constant illumination of red

838 light gives the maximum SGR ( 1.918 d-1) and biomass concentration (5.11 g/L) [159]. N. gaditana

839 metabolome and transcriptome modifications were considerable after exposure to narrow red

840 light.[160] N. gaditana metabolome and transcriptome modifications were considerable after

841 exposure to narrow red light.[160] The light color greatly impacts growth depending on the species.

842 Using white LED in conjunction with a typical fluorescent lamp (12 h:12 h) may effectively replace

843 24 h light with a fluorescent lamp[161].

49
844 5.3 Mass Transfer & Hydrodynamics

845 Mass transfer and hydrodynamics are crucial factors in the design and operation of photobioreactors

846 for microalgae cultivation, having a substantial effect on system performance and yield. Mass transfer

847 is the exchange of gases (e.g., CO2 and O2) and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) between the

848 microalgae culture and its surrounding environment. Mass transfer is essential for supplying

849 microalgae cells with adequate nutrients and CO2 and removing waste products such as oxygen from

850 the culture medium. Poor mass transfer can hinder the development of microalgae and reduce biomass

of
851 production. The rate of CO2 supply to the photobioreactor, light intensity influencing the rate of

ro
852 photosynthesis, and the diffusivity and solubility of gases and nutrients in the medium are all factors

853 -p
that influence mass transfer. Hydrodynamics, on the other hand, refers to the fluid flow behavior
re
854 within the photobioreactor, which ensures uniform distribution of microalgae and nutrients, prevents
lP

855 settling, and minimizes detrimental shear stress on delicate microalgae cells. The selection of an
na

856 appropriate flow regime (laminar, transitional, or turbulent), impeller design to influence flow
ur

857 patterns and shear stress, and adequate aeration to maintain dissolved oxygen concentration for
Jo

858 respiration are important factors in hydrodynamics. Achieving a balance between mass transfer and

859 hydrodynamics is essential for optimizing the growth and productivity of microalgae in

860 photobioreactors, facilitating the design of efficient and scalable systems through continuous research

861 and optimization. This facilitates the cultivation of microalgae for applications such as biofuel

862 production and the synthesis of high-value products in a sustainable manner.

863 Turbulent mixing properties and better mass transfer are desired for good biomass production. Gas-

864 liquid two-phase flow serves better in this respect when compared to single-phase flow. This system

865 can also be considered a three-phase system where the concentration of supplied CO2 decreases

866 gradually [162]. However, vigorous mixing has several advantages, including uniform distribution of

50
867 nutrients, good biomass production, taking away generated O2 and heat, keeping pH and temperature

868 uniform, proper light achievement by every microorganism without settling down at the bottom of

869 the reactor, etc. But with high velocity, the microalgae are susceptible to cell wall damage resulting

870 in cell death [163–165]. Experiment and numerical simulation studies have been used extensively

871 over the last decade to validate the features of gas-liquid flow and mass transfer in various types of

872 PBRs [166–168]. Because of the complexity of the integrated system numerical and CFD modeling

873 has the huge potential to resolve this problem. The existence of cells affects the overall volumetric

of
874 mass transfer coefficient, kLa [s−1 or h−1], but the gas-liquid mass transfer rate is closely linked to the

ro
875 growth rate[169].

876
-p
The growth kinetics of the photobioreactor is to evaluate the mass transfer of carbon dioxide entering
re
877 the system and the transfer of oxygen to the culture media as a product gas. The mass transfer aspect
lP

878 can be improved by the use of aeration and a good mixing hydrodynamics behavior. Studying the
na

879 mass transfer aids in assessing the operation hydrodynamic variables such as gas power, agitation,
ur

880 gas flow, and the average bubble diameter. Each of these variables is designed to ensure efficient
Jo

881 mass transfer between the liquid and gas [170]. The equation commonly used to represent the mass

882 transfer phenomena is given below, which gives the expression of NCO2 the mole flux transferred

883 from gas to liquid.

∗
884 𝑁𝐶𝑂2 = 𝐾𝐿 𝑎(𝐶𝐶𝑂2
− 𝐶𝐶𝑂2 ) (21)

∗
885 𝐶𝐶𝑂2
is the concentration at equilibrium which is 0.1525 g/L according to the Henry’s law at 25 C.

886 The volume of gas in the reactor is estimated by the gas flow and gas hold-up (ε).

𝑉𝑔
887 𝜀= (22)
𝑉𝑔 +𝑉

51
888 The expression that relates the gas hold-up and the gas flow is illustrated below which is characterized

889 based on flat plate unit.

𝑃𝑔 0.97
890 𝜀 = 3.32 × 10−4 ( ) (23)
𝑉

𝑉
891 𝑃𝑔 = 𝜌𝐿 𝐹𝑔 √ (24)
𝐿

892 𝜌𝐿 is the liquid density. To evaluate the mass transfer coefficient, the Hunghmark equation for

of
893 individual bubbles is used for the microalgae production using bubbled photobioreactor and the

ro
894 results are quite accurate when the bubble diameter is more than 2.5mm [171].

-p
re
0.0546 0.116
𝐷𝐶𝑂2 𝜇𝐿 𝑑𝐵 𝑔0.33
895 𝐾𝐿 𝑎 = 28.38 [2 + 0.061(𝑅𝑒𝐵 )0.779 ( ) ( ) ] (25)
𝑑𝐵 𝜌𝐿 𝐷𝐶𝑂2 𝐷𝐶𝑂2 0.66
lP
na

𝑑𝐵 𝑉𝐿 𝜌𝐿
896 𝑅𝑒𝐵 = (26)
𝜇𝐿
ur

897 where, 𝐷𝐶𝑂2 - Diffusivity of Carbon dioxide, 𝑅𝑒𝐵 - Reynolds Number, 𝜇𝐿 - Viscosity of liquid
Jo

898 media, 𝑑𝐵 - Bubble diameter, g- gravity, 𝐾𝐿 - Mass transfer coefficient and 𝑉𝐿 - Velocity of the

899 liquid. The dependence of the bubble diameter is on the area between the phases, whereas the

900 dependence of the mass transfer coefficient shows the opposite trend. The bubble size, the pressure

901 of carbon dioxide, and the gas flow rate need to be considered based on the specific culture.

902 A vertical photobioreactor with good control over the concentration of CO2 was used to investigate

903 the effects of various CO2 concentrations in CO2 bioconversion by the cultivation of microalga

904 Chlorella vulgaris [73]. The vertical PBR having a height of 1 m and 0.105 m in diameter, mixed the

905 filtered air with pure CO2 to control the concentration of CO2 from 2% to 10% to provide the desired

52
906 concentration of CO2. The high efficiency of Vertical PBR of CO2 with additional controlled CO2

907 concentration is a better way to control biomass production. Gas mixture bubbling by spargers from

908 the bottom facilitates the mass transfer of CO2 from gas to liquid [73,74]. Gas holdups increases as

909 the superficial velocity of gas increases or that of liquid decreases [170]. Another way of increasing

910 mass transfer is optimizing the gas distributor. For example, recently, Y. Huang et al. (2017) modified

911 the gas distributor and aeration parameters based on bubble-rising behavior to increase microalgae

912 growth. For Chlorella pyrenoidosa, an improved round gas distributor with holes with an inner

of
913 diameter of 0.5 mm and spacing of 1.5 mm results in a maximum bio-mass concentration of 83.44

ro
914 percent greater compared to the commercial micro bubbles aerator.

-p
re
915 6. Recent Development, Future Aspects, Opportunities, and Challenges
lP

916 6.1 Recent development of Large-Scale Photobioreactors

na

917 Integrated processes for algae production with other processes may have many advantages and can
ur

918 be beneficial for both. For example, Romagnoli and Ievina, (2020) designed a Novel Stacked
Jo

919 Modular Open Raceway Ponds (SMORP) in a corporation with a biogas plant, and a model was built

920 with the help of Beer’s Lamberts law to predict the potential microalgae strains suitable for open

921 raceway ponds. This type of concept resolves the issue of the cost of bioreactor and waste

922 management of biogas plants simultaneously. Literature favors the use of Chlorella vulgris in this

923 case but uses the kinetic model, and intensive studies should be carried out to validate the model

924 further so that it can be used.

925 As nitrogen is to be eliminated primarily, a mixed population of Scenedesmus and Chlorella sp. has

926 a high potential. This idea has been implemented in another study of a bubble column reactor used

53
927 for microalgae biomass production to use in agriculture with the integration of WWTP as a sidestream

928 process to treat wastewater. This research focuses on integrating a microalgal culturing unit within

929 the conventional scheme of a medium-large wastewater treatment plant [173]. This work gives the

930 advantage to WWT and fertilizer production for agriculture simultaneously, which can reduce the

931 cost and make some money from fertilizer. Domestic, piggery, and slaughterhouse wastewaters, as

932 well as municipal centrate, have enormous potential among WW sources.

933 6.2 Photobioreactor Scale-up and design Parameters Optimization

of
ro
934 The scale-up procedure of the photobioreactor is the most challenging part of implementing biomass

935
-p
production technology on an industrial scale. Scaling up depends mainly on the type of the reactor
re
936 and its geometry. The mode of operation also affects the scaling up. The difficulty of optimizing the
lP

937 process of creating a sufficient number of inoculums for big-volume open ponds or photobioreactors
na

938 is one of the main difficulties that need to be solved. Table 4 includes several photobioreactors with

939 scale-up conditions, species names, and production rates. Borowiak et al., (2020) developed an
ur

940 automated station for preparing microalgae inoculation material for inoculating six 90 dm3
Jo

941 photobioreactors [174]. They employed eight 12 dm3 airlift photobioreactors, each with its

942 temperature and pH monitoring system, mixing system, and LED illumination. This approach can

943 enhance the last stage of inoculation, and biomanipulation of critical process parameters, which may

944 increase efficiency when scaling up the bioprocesses.

945 Biomass growth and secondary metabolite accumulation in microalgae production depend on various

946 process parameters, such as the time profile of light intensity, culture agitation time profile, aeration

947 rate, nitrogen and carbon dioxide availability, and temperature. To achieve optimal results, these

948 parameters and the culture's physiological condition need to be adjusted over time [175]. Diaz et al.

54
949 (2021a) provide guidelines for optimal design of tubular photobioreactors, which include vertical

950 orientation, reduced mixing time, and turbulent mixing, uniform culture illumination, low dark-to-

951 illuminated culture volume ratio, low O2 partial pressure, and a high illuminated surface-to-volume

952 ratio (St/V) [176]. Using these principles, they scaled up a 1250 L Fibonacci-type photobioreactor

953 that can utilize more solar energy. Maintaining geometrical, kinetic, and dynamic similitude and

954 similar L/D cycles and light intensity is crucial for large-scale industrial applications [177]. The mean

955 integral photon flux density can be employed to convey light-dependent growth kinetics in different

of
956 photobioreactor designs [178]. For instance, comparable growth rates can be achieved when scaling

ro
957 up from flat-plate gas-lift photobioreactors (0.09 m2) to thin-layer cascade photobioreactors (8 m2)

958 [179].
-p
re
959 Modeling and optimization can be valuable tools for scaling up and predicting reactor behaviors in
lP

960 alternative situations, reducing the need for extensive laboratory trials and saving on labor and
na

961 resources. Response surface methodology (RSM) has emerged as a promising approach in this regard,
ur

962 exploring relationships between explanatory variables and one or more response variables. RSM is
Jo

963 typically categorized into two types: Central Composite Design (CCD) and Box Behnken Design

964 (BBD), both of which have been extensively discussed in the literature [180–184]. As shown in Fig.

965 8a. below, CCD estimates second-order polynomial equations on a wider range of design space,

966 processing input data to identify interactions between response and process variables. BBD, on the

967 other hand, is a spherical, rotatable, or nearly rotatable second-order design represented as a three-

968 level incomplete factorial design with the center point and middle points along the edges of a cube

969 (Fig. 8b.). It is a more cost-effective and practical tool, requiring fewer experimental runs to generate

970 a design matrix.

55
971 Modeling and optimization have many advantages, like scaleup and predicting behaviors of reactors

972 in alternative situations. Our research group recently reported several articles on modeling and

973 optimization-related microalgae research using both CCD and BBD. The effects of different CO2

974 concentrations on CO2 bioconversion by the culture of microalga Chlorella vulgaris are examined in

975 a vertical tubular photobioreactor [4,34].

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

56
976

977 Table 4: Detailed scale up condition, species name, production rate from different literature

production
Species Reactor Culture condition Scale up condition Comments Reference
rate
T range 23-25 0C
Solar radiation: 1752
This inoculated

f
𝜇E/m2s

oo
Airlift Bold’s Basal Medium materials was
Eight glass air-lift
Haematococcus photobiorea (BBM) used for six 90
bioreactors [174]

r
pluvialis ctor made pH= 7.00 dm3

-p
12 dm3 each
with glass 8 days photobioreactor
Tube surface exposed to
.

re
LED light
1:10 times scaling, 4 times

lP
No cooling was
required.

na
Maximum CO2
Initial cell density: 0.3 T range: -5-40 ℃ Biomass
utilization.
g/L Solar radiation: 1752 conc =0.96
ur
avoid excessive
Nitrogen was supplied 𝜇E/m2s g/L
Tubular dissolved O2
Jo
for microalgal growth Reactor surface/ volume Biomass
(Fibonacci- accumulation.
(S/V): 50 /m productivity
type) capture 1.6
Dunaliella salin KSP (potassium nitrate Tube surface exposed to = 0.12 g/L. [176]
times more
+ super phosphate) gave light/volume: 77 /m day
photobiorea solar radiation
the maximum conc. Of Volume= 1250 L (max) Maximum
ctor compared to
biomass spiral surface was specific
horizontal
among the four sets of developed to decrease the growth rate
surface
batch reactor photon flow. = 0.17 /day
can be scaled
up easily

57
 As light-
Flat-plate
dependent
gas-lift
Nannochloropsis growth kinetics
photobioreact Thin-layer cascade T range: 25-40 ℃
salina & mean integral
ors photobioreactors Solar radiation: 1260 𝜇E/m2s [179]
Nannochloropsis photon flux
(8 m2) Reactor volume: 8 m2
gaditana density is used
photobioreact
for scaling up.
or
CO2 was injected
in an automated
A cone manner to

f
bottom and maintain the pH

oo
polyethylene as given in the
T= 29.5 ± 2.38 °C
tank was condition.

r
pH was 7.56 ± 0.87
developed Microalgae inoculum was When the

-p
Optimal harvest time was
Tetraselmis chuii with cultured in Yield 1700 L number of the [29]
after 300 h
internally a 20L bubble column lamps were

re
1200 cells/𝜇l/ m2 illuminated
attached and decreased, the
surface area

lP
submersed production rate
fluorescent and biomass
light concentration

na
was decreased as
well.
ur
Total inner dimension Biomass 16.4
Jo
Blue Green -11 broth 100×100×5 cm3 mg/L.day
Operations were
Pilot scale medium was used for Bioreactor controller unit was proteins 10.5
performed in
flat microalgal culture. attached to mg/L.day
Chlorella three different
photobioreact T=28 C control the air supply, pH, carbohydrate [156]
thermophila lighting patterns
or pH=7.4 temperature, dissolved 4.03 mg/L.day
to get
(50 L) filtered air supply rate =35 oxygen. chlorophylls
the effect of light
ml/min Fixed 4500 lux intensity with 0.76 mg/L.day
light /dark ratio = 14:10 carotenoids 0.6
mg/L.day
Inocula were prepared in a Three identical raceway 25.1.g/ m2.day Experiments
Pilot-scale 5L reactors were used to maximum were run
Scenedesmus sp. raceway photobioreactor. under the same nitrogen throughout the
[185]
photobioreact Commercial solid mixture environmental condition. removal rate whole
ors of Operating volume= 11.8 4286.6 year emphasizing
micronutrients were used m3(each reactor) mg/⋅m2⋅day1( the effect of four

58
 surface area=80 m2 during seasons.
culture depth =0.135 m summer) Four dilution rate
0.1, 0.2, 0.3 day-
1 were
observed
Three parts:
a tubular PBR, O2 stripping Biomass
Waste water
Algae cell was cultivated system production of
came from food
in 250 mL and dynamic system 1.83-2.10 g/L
Pilot scale processing
conical flasks. length of each tube 2.5 m specific
Chlorella tubular plant was used
It was placed in a light total 56 tubes growth rate of [186]
pyrenoidosa photobioreact for algae

f
incubator and External Tube diameter 94 0.73-1.59 /day

oo
or cultivation
light intensity = mm Lipids content:
waste water was
127𝜇mol/m2.s Internal Tube diameter 90 8.1-15.3% of

r
processed
mm dried weight

-p
re
978

lP
na
ur
Jo

59
 of
ro
979

-p
re
980 Fig. 8. The structural difference between CCD (a) and BBD (b) for optimizing three independent
981 variables. Here, factorial/axial points are symbolized as ( ● ), and central points are represented as
( ○ ).
lP

982
na

983 The main response parameters that were calculated as specific growth rate µ (d-1), biomass

984 productivity, P (gL-1d-1), and CO2 biofixation or uptake rate, RCO2 (gL-1d-1), and the reported models
ur

985 were displayed below:

Jo

986 µ = 0.6407 – 0.1324x1 + 0.0126x2 + 0.1625x3 - 0.2945x12 -0.0820x22 - 0.0537x32 + 0.1021x1x2 –

987 0.1925x1x3 + 0.0100x2x3 (27)

988 P = 0.1473 – 0.0023x1 – 0.0023x2 + 0.0065x3 - 0.0900x12 -0.0504x22 - 0.0229x32 + 0.054x1x2 –

989 0.0150x1x3 + 0.0015x2x3 (28)

990 RCO2 = 0.1367 – 0.0029x1 + 0.0091x2 + 0.0368x3 - 0.0871x12 -0.0270x22 - 0.0163x32 - 0.0100x1x2 –

991 0.0102x1x3 + 0.0083x2x3 (29)

60
 992 where, x1 , x2 and x3 are the coded values of the temperature, NP ratio, and LD cycle. When

993 comparing the model with experimental data, it gave less than 6% error at an optimized condition

994 where the highest SGR, CO2 biofixation rate, and biomass productivity were determined to be 2.23

995 d–1, 0.065 gL-1d-1, and 0.092 gL-1d-1 at an optimal setting of 3 percent CO2 with 7 days of culture,

996 respectively. Further improvement was made by Kazeem et al. also used CCD to develop a quadratic

997 model for C. vulgaris where the effects of CO2 concentration, NP ratio, and culture temperature were

998 used to find SGR, BP, and CO2 uptake rate. The predicted value matched well with the experimental

of
999 value, while all the optimal sets gave errors of less than 15.6%. S. M. Zakir Hossain et al., (2018)

ro
1000 used BBD approach to model and calculated the effect of temperature, NP ratio, and LD cycle on

1001
-p
SGR, BP, and CO2 uptake rate for C. vulgaris. The optimal set was 30ºC, 3:1 NP ratio, and 16:8 L/D
re
1002 ratio. The maximum SGR, BP, and CO2 biofixation rate for this set are calculated to be 0.66 d-1, 147.6
lP

1003 mgL-1d-1, and 141.7 mgL-1d-1, respectively, which is a good match with the experimental data.
na

1004 Chen et al., (2016) developed a model of CO2 mass transfer for flat-plate airlift photobioreactor and
ur

1005 validated it with experimental data. After investigating four structural parameters of baffle by
Jo

1006 numerical approach, the authors concluded mass transfer in flat-airlift photobioreactor mainly

1007 depends on the downcomer to riser cross-sectional area ratio. The impact of wave number and

1008 amplitude is negligible, while baffle number has an irregular pattern of effects. The key equations for

1009 this modeling are as follows [187]:

𝑑𝐶𝑇
1010 = 𝐾𝐿 𝑎(𝐶𝑇∗ − 𝐶𝑇 ) (30)
𝑑𝑡

𝐷𝐿 𝜌𝐿 𝜀 0.25
1011 𝐾𝐿 = 2√ ( ) (31)
𝜋 𝜇𝐿

61
 6𝜀𝑔
1012 𝑎= (32)
𝑑𝐵 (1−𝜀𝑔 )

1013 where units of the parameters are as conventional as inorganic carbon concentration, 𝐶𝑇 (mol/m3),

1014 overall mass transfer, 𝐾𝐿 (m/s), specific interfacial area per volume, 𝑎 (m2/m3).

1015 In the context of scaling up and understanding the effect of various vital factors on PBRs, CFD

1016 modeling can be a very useful tool. Like gas-liquid mass transfer, an airlift PBR emphasizes two

important parameters, i.e., CO2 mass transfer and 𝐾𝐿 𝑎). Ndiaye et al. (2018) constructed a CFD

of
1017

ro
1018 model considering the cultivation of C. vulgaris. It is reasonably satisfactory to find 𝐾𝐿 𝑎 from O2

1019
-p
gas in-out but in case of CO2 transfer it needs to give more attention as CO2 is soluble in water, and
re
1020 as it rises, the mass transfer becomes more complicated. The value of 𝐾𝐿 𝑎 may not be so unpromising
lP

1021 for small scale or O2 transfer but for large scale CO2 transfer estimation certainly requires more
na

1022 concern Ndiaye et al. (2018).

ur

1023 An alternative approach for CO2 mass transfer is to study the pH behavior depending on that modeling
Jo

1024 and scaling up. Using the measurement of pH profiles, a CO2 mass transfer model was built and tested

1025 in connected cultivation systems by [189] along with some kinetics. The simulation allowed

1026 researchers to learn more about CO2 mass transfer, including inorganic carbon concentration

1027 fluctuations in culture medium, 𝐾𝐿 𝑎 , and other microalgal biofilm kinetics characteristics. Higher

1028 aerated gas CO2 concentration led to decreased 𝐾𝐿 𝑎 , and the aeration rate and medium circulation

1029 rate had a somewhat favorable effect on CO2 mass transfer in the linked cultivation system.

1030 Field synergy theory can be applied to design Tubular microalgae PBRs. A model developed by Cui

1031 et al. concluded that the light/dark cycle frequency and the light-time ratio of the tangent double-tube

62
1032 photobioreactor rose by 78.2 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively, as compared to the concentric

1033 double-tube photobioreactor, reaching 1.8 Hz and 47.8 percent. The most conducive to improving the

1034 mixing performance of the innovative PBR was a downwards aeration direction of 30°, aeration rate

1035 of 0.7 vvm, and the average turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) increased by 48.1 percent, from 54 to

1036 80cm2s2 [122]. Another research investigated the hydrodynamics of a hybrid horizontal tubular

1037 photobioreactor intended for microalgae production and wastewater treatment using CFD [190].

1038 Some factors were evaluated for relationships by Zavřel et al., (2021)with growth rate or productivity

of
1039 in Synechocystis sp. Photosynthesis, respiration rates, and ratios had the strongest connections,

ro
1040 whereas additional fitness proxies included qE and Zn content in the culture medium [191]. Many

1041
-p
other modelings have been done in recent years. The main challenges are maintaining similitude and
re
1042 understanding the most dominating parameter in a particular algae photobioreactor system. The
lP

1043 optimization of models is very necessary. Implementation of machine learning is another option.
na

1044 Another challenge of modeling is the computational limitation or complexity and cost along with a
ur

1045 good understanding of the process. In the near future, the existing technique would surely offer
Jo

1046 cutting-edge possibilities for algae cultivation in a low-cost medium for maximal biomass output and

1047 a sustainable economy. To determine feasibility, a techno-economic evaluation of energy, water use,

1048 and staff should be examined.

1049 6.5 Oher Challenges & Resolutions

1050 It can be argued that it can meet the needs of the present without comprising the future, especially

1051 considering the inputs during its cultivation process. These inputs are sewage water and carbon

1052 dioxide, whose reuse is extremely important especially owing to the issues of climate change and

1053 waste disposal during this day and age. Millions of carbon dioxide are emitted into the environment

63
1054 while a large amount of money is spent on sewage water treatment. Hence, using microalgae biomass

1055 as a feedstock will solve both these problems while producing green energy to replace fossil fuels.

1056 Secondly, the sustainability of microalgae biomass has been highly appreciated, especially recently,

1057 considering the high yield of proteins and fats from these microorganisms [192]. It is argued that

1058 these yields are both cost-effective and meet the world's energy demands, especially to curb and

1059 eventually eliminate fossil fuel use [193].

1060 However, it can be argued that microalgae biomass is not currently a sustainable feedstock

of
1061 considering the high costs involved in its production due to the lack of quality information concerning

ro
1062 the process of producing it. Furthermore, the inputs, despite being carbon dioxide and sewage water,

1063
-p
also increase their cost. This is because the carbon dioxide must be piped into the algal from nearby
re
1064 factories while the sewage water must be transported. Thereby further increasing both the
lP

1065 complication and the cost of the process. To increase the productivity of microalgae biomass to be
na

1066 used in producing renewable energy, treating wastewater, and mitigating carbon from the atmosphere,
ur

1067 a lot of challenges can be faced for the enhancement of the microorganisms, the enhancement of the
Jo

1068 system designing, and the scaling up process [194]. Stimulation means can aid in predicting the

1069 quantitative performance measure of the bioreactor and hence aid in improving its design and

1070 enhancing the scale-up. Being dependent on light, temperature, nutrients, and strains makes the

1071 chemical reactors better than the photoreactors in stimulation. The opportunity to find a bioreactor

1072 that is good for design and scale-up is very low [1].

1073 Many challenges still exist in the path to full-scale production of biofuels with the help of microalgae

1074 biomass. Firstly, the experiments carried out on photobioreactors are still preliminary. Microalgae

1075 biomass is a recent technology, unlike crops that are also used to produce biofuels. Few studies exist

1076 regarding microalgae biomass growth compared to crops that centuries of knowledge support.

64
1077 Secondly, microalgae biomass is produced commercially as a biofuel only in open systems due to

1078 less energy consumption. However, the cost-effectiveness of these systems is low, considering that it

1079 is still a huge challenge to control environmental factors such as temperature, pH, and so on. Thirdly,

1080 many parasites are also growing in mass cultures; it will initially be a challenge to these parasites.

1081 Furthermore, it is also generally difficult to eliminate parasites; therefore, at least a balance should

1082 be found between the loss due to the parasite and the output from the microalgae biomass [195].

1083 Fourthly, the energy consumption in closed systems is very high; this high level of energy

of
1084 consumption hinders the commercial production of biofuel from microalgae biomass due to a lack of

ro
1085 profitability. Furthermore, several other factors also negatively impact the profitability of the process

1086
-p
[196]. Hence, the fifth challenge is cost-effectiveness. Achieving cost-effectiveness at this early stage
re
1087 will be almost impossible especially due to the lack of knowledge. It will therefore take a few years
lP

1088 to achieve cost-effectiveness and ensure profitability. Furthermore, the sixth challenge is reaching
na

1089 the price level of fossil fuels to become a strong competitor and eventually replace it as the main

1090 energy source [197].

ur
Jo

1091 The acceptable price of biomass should be equal to or lesser than the diesel price per barrel. However,

1092 reaching profitability and matching the diesel price will also not solve all the challenges. This is

1093 because another challenge for the use of biofuel is that most of the cars or means of transportation

1094 are not currently compatible with this source of energy. Therefore, there is a long list of challenges

1095 that are a hindrance to not only the production of biofuels from microalgae but also its use as the

1096 main energy source. Nonetheless, these challenges must be overcome especially considering the

1097 benefits of using microalgae biomass as the main source of energy that would replace fossil fuels

1098 [198]. Furthermore, the challenges are only one side of the coin, as there are several opportunities for

1099 both the use and the production of microalgae biomass. These are discussed in the next subsection.

65
1100 Ocean has a huge potential to produce microalgae with the reduction in cost as it has a large cultivable

1101 area and mixing energy from waves. In this regard, Kim et al., (2016)made progress by developing a

1102 prototype floating PBR for microalgae growing in the ocean. He also suggested that installing a

1103 partition is beneficiary as it increases mass transfer and mixing property to yield higher biomass

1104 production. Further scale-up with modified partition is in progress [130]. The research and

1105 deployment of sustainable radiation sources of light are still required for microalgae scale-up

1106 production [1]. Continuous analysis and optimization of the culture cycle in terms of microalgae

of
1107 growth rate and biomolecule production rate are required for efficient scaling up from the laboratory

ro
1108 to pilot size and, eventually, to industrial-scale photo-bioreactor units from the aspect of performing

1109
-p
culture and from the standpoint of station ergonomics.
re
1110 Microalgae biomass production is one of the widely studied topics, yet many areas need improvement
lP

1111 and development for global needs. Solar Photobioreactor with greenhouse construction is being
na

1112 investigated, but the problem in this design is to handle the climatic changes and availability of
ur

1113 sunlight throughout the year. Integration of various processes, such as bioremediation, wastewater
Jo

1114 treatment, and bioenergy production, can be considered for future research. The shape of the

1115 photobioreactor can be studied further, as space limitation is one of the challenges. Artificial

1116 intelligence (AI) can be applied to develop numerous techniques for tracking algal density and cell

1117 growth. In this regard, it is necessary to include all the growth parameters, such as pH, light intensity,

1118 dissolved oxygen, carbon, and temperature. AI technique shall help in developing optimal cultivation

1119 methods without many laboratory trials with minimum resources.

1120 The challenges outlined in the passage can be met with the following solutions:

66
1121 1. Efficient Resource Utilization: To address resource cost challenges, it is essential to

1122 optimize resource usage during microalgae cultivation. This entails enhancing the efficiency

1123 of carbon dioxide capture and delivery systems and streamlining the transportation and

1124 treatment of sewage water. Implementing closed-loop resource recycling systems can

1125 simultaneously reduce costs and environmental impact.

1126 2. Boosting Productivity: Improving the productivity of microalgae biomass production

1127 requires a multi-faceted approach. Research should prioritize the development of enhanced

of
1128 microorganism strains and improved cultivation systems to maximize biomass yields.

ro
1129 Exploring the use of chemical reactors, which are less reliant on external factors like light and

1130
-p
temperature, alongside photoreactors can enhance overall efficiency.
re
1131 3. Scaling Up with Precision: Overcoming the complexities of scaling up microalgae biomass
lP

1132 production demands systematic research and development efforts. Continuous

na

1133 experimentation and refinement of photobioreactor design, including factors such as mass

1134 transfer, pH regulation, and hydrodynamics, are critical for successful upscaling from
ur

1135 laboratory to industrial-scale operations.

Jo

1136 4. Environmental Control and Parasite Management: Controlling environmental factors,

1137 particularly in open systems, necessitates innovative solutions. Research should focus on

1138 advanced automation and monitoring systems to maintain optimal growth conditions for

1139 microalgae. Balancing parasite control with biomass output is a key consideration.

1140 5. Energy Efficiency: Reducing energy consumption in closed systems can be achieved through

1141 the development of energy-efficient technologies and practices. Innovations in energy-saving

1142 photobioreactor designs and the incorporation of renewable energy sources, such as solar

1143 power, can significantly cut operational costs.

67
1144 6. Cost Optimization: While achieving cost-effectiveness may take time, it can be expedited

1145 through knowledge expansion and process optimization. Collaboration, knowledge-sharing,

1146 and technological advancements can enhance the economic viability of microalgae-based

1147 biofuels and products.

1148 7. Competing in the Market: To compete with conventional fossil fuels, microalgae-based

1149 biofuels should aim for cost parity or superiority. Continued research and development efforts

1150 should concentrate on cost reduction in production while improving the efficiency of

of
1151 microalgae-based biofuel processes.

ro
1152 8. Infrastructure Adaptation: Adapting existing infrastructure for biofuel use should be

1153
-p
aligned with biofuel production efforts. Research and development can explore strategies to
re
1154 make vehicles and transportation systems more compatible with microalgae-derived biofuels.
lP

1155 9. Ocean Cultivation Potential: Exploring ocean-based microalgae cultivation can expand
na

1156 capacity and reduce costs. Research into sustainable ocean-based photobioreactor systems,

1157 including innovative designs and partition installations, should be pursued.

ur

1158 10. Leveraging Advanced Technologies: Integrating advanced technologies, such as artificial
Jo

1159 intelligence (AI), can optimize microalgae cultivation. AI can enhance monitoring and control

1160 of growth parameters, thereby improving overall cultivation efficiency while minimizing

1161 resource consumption.

1162 11. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Encouraging interdisciplinary research that integrates

1163 bioremediation, wastewater treatment, and bioenergy production can lead to comprehensive

1164 and efficient solutions. Collaborative efforts across various fields can address multiple

1165 challenges simultaneously.

68
1166 12. Innovative Photobioreactor Design: Further research into photobioreactor shape and design

1167 can overcome space limitations and enhance efficiency. Exploring innovative designs that

1168 maximize sunlight exposure and space utilization should be pursued.

1169 In conclusion, addressing these challenges necessitates a multidisciplinary approach, continuous

1170 research, and innovation. Systematically tackling these issues will unlock the full potential of

1171 microalgae biomass production for sustainable energy, environmental remediation, and biofuel

1172 applications.

of
ro
1173

-p
re
1174 7. Conclusions
lP

1175 In conclusion, the cultivation of microalgae in photobioreactors holds great promise for the future of
na

1176 sustainable industrial-scale production. Understanding the various physical and biological parameters

1177 that influence microalgae growth and biomass yield is crucial in the design and operation of
ur

1178 photobioreactors. This review has provided a comprehensive overview of the different types of
Jo

1179 photobioreactors and the important parameters to consider in scaling up from laboratory to industrial-

1180 scale production. By optimizing the various operating parameters and controlling the growth

1181 conditions, microalgae can be grown efficiently in large-scale photobioreactors for various

1182 applications such as biofuel production, wastewater treatment, and food supplements. With further

1183 research and development, photobioreactor technology will continue to advance, making it an even

1184 more attractive option for sustainable and environmentally-friendly production.

1185 Scaling up photobioreactors for industrial production requires careful consideration of several

1186 important parameters. Light intensity and regime, hydrodynamics, mass transfer of CO2, temperature,

69
1187 pH, and nutrient concentration (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) all play a critical role in designing

1188 large-scale photobioreactors. To optimize performance and control criteria, multiple operating

1189 parameters such as light period, light/dark cycle, light intensity, color, and variation must be carefully

1190 considered. The supply of CO2 concentration in the gas phase is also crucial for increasing mass

1191 transfer, and various mechanical methods can be used to optimize gas distribution and separation.

1192 Proper maintenance of nutrient ratios is important as well, as starving algae of nitrogen and

1193 phosphorus at high temperatures can lead to high lipid formation, which may be desirable for some

of
1194 industrial applications. Recent advances in photobioreactor design have helped to overcome some of

ro
1195 the challenges associated with scaling up, and continued research and development in this area will

1196
-p
be important for meeting the growing demand for sustainable industrial production.
re
lP

1197 Acknowledgements
na

1198 Authors would like to acknowledge the support received from Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Refining
ur

1199 and Advanced Chemicals, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia with
Jo

1200 funding grant and financial support for this work through project No. INRC2318.

1201 Nomenclature

1202 OD Optical Density

1203 𝜇𝑔 Specific Growth Rate
1204 𝑃𝐵 Biomass Productivity (mg L-1 d-1)
1205 𝑋1 and 𝑋2 Biomass weight (mg/L) at the time 𝑡1 and 𝑡2
1206 𝑋0 and𝑋𝑡 Biomass weight (mg/L) at the initial time, 𝑡0 and at the end of the cultivation
1207 period 𝑡𝑡
1208 𝑅𝐶𝑂2 CO2 biofixation rate (mg L-1 d-1)
1209 𝐶𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 Carbon Content
1210 𝑀𝐶𝑂2 Molecular weight of CO2

70
1211 𝑀𝑐 Atomic weight of carbon
1212 d day
1213 𝐷𝐶𝑂2 Diffusivity of Carbon dioxide

1214 𝑅𝑒𝐵 Reynolds Number

1215 𝜇𝐿 Viscosity of liquid media

1216 𝑑𝐵 Bubble diameter

1217 g gravity

1218 𝐾𝐿 Mass transfer coefficient

of
1219 𝑉𝐿 Velocity of the liquid

ro
1220 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum Specific growth rate

𝐼𝑎𝑣

-p
1221 Intensity of Light

1222 𝐼𝑜𝑝𝑡 Intensity of light when 𝜇 = 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥

re
1223 𝑝𝐶𝑂2 partial pressure of CO2
lP

1224 𝐾𝑆 Saturation constant of substrate

na

1225 𝐾𝐼 Constant for Inhibition.

ur

1226
Jo

1227

71
1228 References

1229 [1] S.A. Razzak, S.A.M. Ali, M.M. Hossain, H. deLasa, Biological CO2 fixation with
1230 production of microalgae in wastewater – A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76 (2017)
1231 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.038.
1232 [2] S.M. Rahman, F.S. Al-Ismail, M.E. Haque, M. Shafiullah, M.R. Islam, M.T. Chowdhury,
1233 M.S. Alam, S.A. Razzak, A. Ali, Z.A. Khan, Electricity generation in Saudi Arabia: Tracing
1234 opportunities and challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, IEEE Access. (2021).
1235 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3105378.
1236 [3] A.N. Khondaker, S.M. Rahman, K. Malik, N. Hossain, S. Abdur Razzak, R.A. Khan,
1237 Dynamics of energy sector and GHG emissions in Saudi Arabia, Clim. Policy. 15 (2015)

of
1238 517–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.937387.

ro
1239 [4] S.M.Z. Hossain, M.M. Hossain, S.A. Razzak, Optimization of CO2 Biofixation by Chlorella
1240 vulgaris Using a Tubular Photobioreactor, Chem. Eng. Technol. 41 (2018) 1313–1323.

-p
1241 https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201700210.
re
1242 [5] V.C. Eze, S.B. Velasquez-Orta, A. Hernández-García, I. Monje-Ramírez, M.T. Orta-
1243 Ledesma, Kinetic modelling of microalgae cultivation for wastewater treatment and carbon
lP

1244 dioxide sequestration, Algal Res. 32 (2018) 131–141.

1245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.03.015.
na

1246 [6] M. Li, G. Nakhla, J. Zhu, Simultaneous carbon and nitrogen removal with enhanced
1247 bioparticle circulation in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor, Chem. Eng. J. 181–
1248 182 (2012) 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.12.073.
ur

1249 [7] P.D. Álvarez-Díaz, J. Ruiz, Z. Arbib, J. Barragán, M.C. Garrido-Pérez, J.A. Perales,
Jo

1250 Freshwater microalgae selection for simultaneous wastewater nutrient removal and lipid
1251 production, Algal Res. 24 (2017) 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.02.006.
1252 [8] T.M. Mata, A. a. Martins, N.S. Caetano, Microalgae for biodiesel production and other
1253 applications: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 217–232.
1254 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.020.
1255 [9] S.F. Mohsenpour, N. Willoughby, Luminescent photobioreactor design for improved algal
1256 growth and photosynthetic pigment production through spectral conversion of light.,
1257 Bioresour. Technol. 142 (2013) 147–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.024.
1258 [10] G. Huang, F. Chen, D. Wei, X. Zhang, G. Chen, Biodiesel production by microalgal
1259 biotechnology, Appl. Energy. 87 (2010) 38–46.
1260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.06.016.
1261 [11] S.A. Razzak, Biomass and Lipid Productivity of Neochloris oleoabundans for CO 2
1262 Biofixation and Biodiesel Application, Chem. Eng. Technol. 41 (2018) 2177–2185.
1263 https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800330.

72
1264 [12] S.A. Razzak, In situ biological CO2 fixation and wastewater nutrient removal with
1265 Neochloris oleoabundans in batch photobioreactor, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 42 (2019) 93–
1266 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-2017-x.
1267 [13] S.F. Mohsenpour, S. Hennige, N. Willoughby, A. Adeloye, T. Gutierrez, Integrating micro-
1268 algae into wastewater treatment: A review, Sci. Total Environ. 752 (2021) 142168.
1269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142168.
1270 [14] X. Lu, Y. Cui, Y. Chen, Y. Xiao, X. Song, F. Gao, Y. Xiang, C. Hou, J. Wang, Q. Gan, X.
1271 Zheng, Y. Lu, Sustainable development of microalgal biotechnology in coastal zone for
1272 aquaculture and food, Sci. Total Environ. 780 (2021).
1273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146369.
1274 [15] T.T. Nguyen, X.T. Bui, H.H. Ngo, T.T.D. Nguyen, K.Q. Nguyen, H.H. Nguyen, K.P.H.
1275 Huynh, J. Némery, T. Fujioka, C.H. Duong, B.T. Dang, S. Varjani, Nutrient recovery and

of
1276 microalgae biomass production from urine by membrane photobioreactor at low biomass

ro
1277 retention times, Sci. Total Environ. 785 (2021).
1278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147423.
1279
1280 -p
[16] B.R. Kumar, T. Mathimani, M.P. Sudhakar, K. Rajendran, A.S. Nizami, K. Brindhadevi, A.
Pugazhendhi, A state of the art review on the cultivation of algae for energy and other
re
1281 valuable products: Application, challenges, and opportunities, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
1282 138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110649.
lP

1283 [17] S.A. Razzak, In situ biological CO 2 fixation and wastewater nutrient removal with
1284 Neochloris oleoabundans in batch photobioreactor, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 42 (2019) 93–
na

1285 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-018-2017-x.

ur

1286 [18] S.A. Razzak, M.M. Hossain, R.A. Lucky, A.S. Bassi, H. De Lasa, Integrated CO2 capture,
1287 wastewater treatment and biofuel production by microalgae culturing - A review, Renew.
Jo

1288 Sustain. Energy Rev. 27 (2013) 622–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.063.

1289 [19] S.M.Z. Hossain, S.A. Razzak, A.F. Al Shater, M. Moniruzzaman, M.M. Hossain, Recent
1290 advances in enzymatic conversion of microalgal lipids into biodiesel, Energy & Fuels.
1291 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c01064.
1292 [20] R. Dineshkumar, R. Sen, A sustainable perspective of microalgal biorefinery for co-
1293 production and recovery of high-value carotenoid and biofuel with CO2 valorization,
1294 Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2107.
1295 [21] M. Shafiquzzaman, M.M. Hasan, H. Haider, A.T. Ahmed, S.A. Razzak, Comparative
1296 evaluation of low-cost ceramic membrane and polymeric micro membrane in algal
1297 membrane photobioreactor for wastewater treatment, J. Environ. Manage. 345 (2023)
1298 118894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118894.
1299 [22] M.O. Faruque, M.M. Hossain, W. Farooq, S.A. Razzak, Phototrophic Bioremediation of
1300 Municipal Tertiary Wastewater Coupling with Lipid Biosynthesis Using Scenedesmus
1301 dimorphus: Effect of Nitrogen to Phosphorous Ratio with/without CO2 Supplementation,
1302 Sustainability. 15 (2023) 1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021409.

73
1303 [23] A. Altriki, I. Ali, S.A. Razzak, I. Ahmad, W. Farooq, Assessment of CO2 biofixation and
1304 bioenergy potential of microalga Gonium pectorale through its biomass pyrolysis, and
1305 elucidation of pyrolysis reaction via kinetics modeling and artificial neural network, Front.
1306 Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.925391.
1307 [24] H. Razzak, Shaikh A. Lucky, Rahima A. Hossain, Mohammad M. deLasa, Valorization of
1308 Microalgae Biomass to Biofuel Production: A review, Energy Nexus. (2022).
1309 [25] M.A. Kazeem, S.M.Z. Hossain, M.M. Hossain, S.A. Razzak, Application of Central
1310 Composite Design to Optimize Culture Conditions of Chlorella vulgaris in a Batch
1311 Photobioreactor: An Efficient Modeling Approach, Chem. Prod. Process Model. (2018).
1312 https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2017-0082.
1313 [26] C.Y. Chen, K.L. Yeh, R. Aisyah, D.J. Lee, J.S. Chang, Cultivation, photobioreactor design
1314 and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: A critical review, Bioresour. Technol.

of
1315 102 (2011) 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.159.

ro
1316 [27] Y. Chisti, Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol., Trends Biotechnol. 26 (2008) 126–
1317 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.12.002.
1318
-p
[28] J. Lorenzen, N. Igl, M. Tippelt, A. Stege, F. Qoura, U. Sohling, T. Brück, Extraction of
re
1319 microalgae derived lipids with supercritical carbon dioxide in an industrial relevant pilot
1320 plant, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 40 (2017) 911–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-017-
lP

1321 1755-5.
1322 [29] P. Erbland, S. Caron, M. Peterson, A. Alyokhin, Design and performance of a low-cost,
na

1323 automated, large-scale photobioreactor for microalgae production, Aquac. Eng. 90 (2020).
1324 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2020.102103.
ur

1325 [30] F. Rezvani, M.H. Sarrafzadeh, S. Ebrahimi, H.M. Oh, Nitrate removal from drinking water
1326 with a focus on biological methods: a review, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (2019) 1124–
Jo

1327 1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9185-0.

1328 [31] M. Wang, H. Yang, S.J. Ergas, P. van der Steen, A novel shortcut nitrogen removal process
1329 using an algal-bacterial consortium in a photo-sequencing batch reactor (PSBR), Water Res.
1330 87 (2015) 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.016.
1331 [32] L.M.L. Laurens, M. Chen-Glasser, J.D. McMillan, A perspective on renewable bioenergy
1332 from photosynthetic algae as feedstock for biofuels and bioproducts, Algal Res. 24 (2017)
1333 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.04.002.
1334 [33] A. Brar, M. Kumar, V. Vivekanand, N. Pareek, Photoautotrophic microorganisms and
1335 bioremediation of industrial effluents: current status and future prospects, 3 Biotech. 7
1336 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-017-0600-5.
1337 [34] T. Cai, S.Y. Park, Y. Li, Nutrient recovery from wastewater streams by microalgae: Status
1338 and prospects, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19 (2013) 360–369.
1339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.030.
1340 [35] W.H. Leong, K. Kiatkittipong, W. Kiatkittipong, Y.W. Cheng, M.K. Lam, R. Shamsuddin,

74
1341 M. Mohamad, J.W. Lim, Comparative performances of microalgal-bacterial co-cultivation to
1342 bioremediate synthetic and municipal wastewaters whilst producing biodiesel sustainably,
1343 Processes. 8 (2020) 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8111427.
1344 [36] W.H. Leong, J.W. Lim, M.K. Lam, S.M. Lam, J.C. Sin, A. Samson, Novel sequential flow
1345 baffled microalgal-bacterial photobioreactor for enhancing nitrogen assimilation into
1346 microalgal biomass whilst bioremediating nutrient-rich wastewater simultaneously, J.
1347 Hazard. Mater. 409 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124455.
1348 [37] P.L. Gorry, L. Sánchez, M. Morales, Microalgae Biorefineries for Energy and Coproduct
1349 Production, Green Energy Technol. (2018) 89–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
1350 69093-3_5.
1351 [38] M. Nayak, A. Karemore, R. Sen, Performance evaluation of microalgae for concomitant
1352 wastewater bioremediation, CO2 biofixation and lipid biosynthesis for biodiesel application,

of
1353 Algal Res. 16 (2016) 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.03.020.

ro
1354 [39] N. Tasnim Sahrin, K. Shiong Khoo, J. Wei Lim, R. Shamsuddin, F. Musa Ardo, H.
1355 Rawindran, M. Hassan, W. Kiatkittipong, E. Alaaeldin Abdelfattah, W. Da Oh, C. Kui
1356
1357 -p
Cheng, Current perspectives, future challenges and key technologies of biohydrogen
production for building a carbon–neutral future: A review, Bioresour. Technol. 364 (2022).
re
1358 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128088.
lP

1359 [40] B. Zhao, Y. Su, Process effect of microalgal-carbon dioxide fixation and biomass production:
1360 A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31 (2014) 121–132.
1361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.054.
na

1362 [41] J. Legrand, A. Artu, J. Pruvost, A review on photobioreactor design and modelling for
ur

1363 microalgae production, React. Chem. Eng. 6 (2021) 1134–1151.

1364 https://doi.org/10.1039/d0re00450b.
Jo

1365 [42] V. Balan, B. Maddi, Microbial Lipid Production Methods and Protocols, Microb. Lipid Prod.
1366 1995 (2019) 91–101. http://www.springer.com/series/7651.
1367 [43] Y. Zhou, L. Liu, M. Li, C. Hu, Algal biomass valorisation to high-value chemicals and
1368 bioproducts: Recent advances, opportunities and challenges, Bioresour. Technol. 344 (2022).
1369 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126371.
1370 [44] J. Hur, S. Rezania, B. Oryani, J. Park, B. Hashemi, K.K. Yadav, E.E. Kwon, J. Cho, Review
1371 on transesterification of non-edible sources for biodiesel production with a focus on
1372 economic aspects, fuel properties and by-product applications, Energy Convers. Manag.
1373 (2019).
1374 [45] M. Plaza, A. Cifuentes, E. Ibáñez, In the search of new functional food ingredients from
1375 algae, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19 (2008) 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2007.07.012.
1376 [46] L. Novoveská, M.E. Ross, M.S. Stanley, R. Pradelles, V. Wasiolek, J.F. Sassi, Microalgal
1377 carotenoids: A review of production, current markets, regulations, and future direction, Mar.
1378 Drugs. 17 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/md17110640.

75
1379 [47] H. Nazih, J.M. Bard, Microalgae in human health: Interest as a functional food, Microalgae
1380 Heal. Dis. Prev. (2018) 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811405-6.00010-4.
1381 [48] M.A. Borowitzka, High-value products from microalgae-their development and
1382 commercialisation, J. Appl. Phycol. 25 (2013) 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-
1383 9983-9.
1384 [49] M. Koller, A. Muhr, G. Braunegg, Microalgae as versatile cellular factories for valued
1385 products, Algal Res. 6 (2014) 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.09.002.
1386 [50] A.J. Meléndez-Martínez, C.M. Stinco, P. Mapelli-Brahm, Skin carotenoids in public health
1387 and nutricosmetics: The emerging roles and applications of the UV radiation-absorbing
1388 colourless carotenoids phytoene and phytofluene, Nutrients. 11 (2019).
1389 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051093.

of
1390 [51] I. Barkia, N. Saari, S.R. Manning, Microalgae for high-value products towards human health
1391 and nutrition, Mar. Drugs. 17 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/md17050304.

ro
1392 [52] P. Das, W. Lei, S.S. Aziz, J.P. Obbard, Enhanced algae growth in both phototrophic and

-p
1393 mixotrophic culture under blue light, Bioresour. Technol. (2011).
1394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.102.
re
1395 [53] A.P. Abreu, B. Fernandes, A.A. Vicente, J. Teixeira, G. Dragone, Mixotrophic cultivation of
lP

1396 Chlorella vulgaris using industrial dairy waste as organic carbon source, Bioresour. Technol.
1397 118 (2012) 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.055.
na

1398 [54] S.M.Z. Hossain, N. Al-Bastaki, A.M.A. Alnoaimi, H. Ezuber, S.A. Razzak, M.M. Hossain,
1399 Mathematical Modeling of Temperature Effect on Algal Growth for Biodiesel Application,
1400 (2020) 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18488-9_41.
ur

1401 [55] D. Tang, W. Han, P. Li, X. Miao, J. Zhong, CO2 biofixation and fatty acid composition of
Jo

1402 Scenedesmus obliquus and Chlorella pyrenoidosa in response to different CO2 levels,
1403 Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 3071–3076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.047.
1404 [56] S.F. Mohsenpour, B. Richards, N. Willoughby, Spectral conversion of light for enhanced
1405 microalgae growth rates and photosynthetic pigment production, Bioresour. Technol. (2012).
1406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.072.
1407 [57] V. Andruleviciute, V. Makareviciene, V. Skorupskaite, M. Gumbyte, Biomass and oil
1408 content of Chlorella sp., Haematococcus sp., Nannochloris sp. and Scenedesmus sp. under
1409 mixotrophic growth conditions in the presence of technical glycerol, J. Appl. Phycol. (2014).
1410 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-0048-x.
1411 [58] S.P. Singh, P. Singh, Effect of temperature and light on the growth of algae species: A
1412 review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015) 431–444.
1413 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.024.
1414 [59] Y. Xu, I.M. Ibrahim, P.J. Harvey, The influence of photoperiod and light intensity on the
1415 growth and photosynthesis of Dunaliella salina (chlorophyta) CCAP 19/30, Plant Physiol.
1416 Biochem. 106 (2016) 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.05.021.

76
1417 [60] O. Tricolici, C. Bumbac, C. Postolache, Microalgae-bacteria system for biological
1418 wastewater treatment, J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 15 (2014) 268–276.
1419 [61] Q. Huang, F. Jiang, L. Wang, C. Yang, Design of Photobioreactors for Mass Cultivation of
1420 Photosynthetic Organisms, Engineering. 3 (2017) 318–329.
1421 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2017.03.020.
1422 [62] H.-W. Kim, S. Park, B.E. Rittmann, Multi-component kinetics for the growth of the
1423 cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC6803, Environ. Eng. Res. 20 (2015) 347–355.
1424 https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2015.033.
1425 [63] K. Schediwy, A. Trautmann, C. Steinweg, C. Posten, Microalgal kinetics — a guideline for
1426 photobioreactor design and process development, Eng. Life Sci. 19 (2019) 830–843.
1427 https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201900107.

of
1428 [64] Y. Maltsev, K. Maltseva, M. Kulikovskiy, S. Maltseva, Influence of light conditions on
1429 microalgae growth and content of lipids, carotenoids, and fatty acid composition, Biology

ro
1430 (Basel). 10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10101060.

-p
1431 [65] M.N. Metsoviti, G. Papapolymerou, I.T. Karapanagiotidis, N. Katsoulas, Effect of light
1432 intensity and quality on growth rate and composition of Chlorella vulgaris, Plants. 9 (2020).
re
1433 https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9010031.
lP

1434 [66] A. Khalili, G.D. Najafpour, G. Amini, F. Samkhaniyani, Influence of nutrients and LED light
1435 intensities on biomass production of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris, Biotechnol. Bioprocess
1436 Eng. 20 (2015) 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-013-0845-8.
na

1437 [67] X. Wan, X.R. Zhou, G. Moncalian, L. Su, W.C. Chen, H.Z. Zhu, D. Chen, Y.M. Gong, F.H.
1438 Huang, Q.C. Deng, Reprogramming microorganisms for the biosynthesis of astaxanthin via
ur

1439 metabolic engineering, Prog. Lipid Res. 81 (2021).

1440 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plipres.2020.101083.
Jo

1441 [68] K.J. Chavan, S. Chouhan, S. Jain, P. Singh, M. Yadav, A. Tiwari, Environmental Factors
1442 Influencing Algal Biodiesel Production, Environ. Eng. Sci. 31 (2014) 602–611.
1443 https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2014.0219.
1444 [69] O. Bernard, B. Rémond, Validation of a simple model accounting for light and temperature
1445 effect on microalgal growth, Bioresour. Technol. 123 (2012) 520–527.
1446 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.022.
1447 [70] N. Brown, A. Shilton, Luxury uptake of phosphorus by microalgae in waste stabilisation
1448 ponds: Current understanding and future direction, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 13 (2014)
1449 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-014-9337-3.
1450 [71] K. Liang, Q. Zhang, M. Gu, W. Cong, Effect of phosphorus on lipid accumulation in
1451 freshwater microalga Chlorella sp., J. Appl. Phycol. 25 (2013) 311–318.
1452 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-012-9865-6.
1453 [72] M.G. de Morais, J.A.V. Costa, Isolation and selection of microalgae from coal fired
1454 thermoelectric power plant for biofixation of carbon dioxide, Energy Convers. Manag. 48

77
1455 (2007) 2169–2173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2006.12.011.
1456 [73] S.M.Z. Hossain, M.M. Hossain, S.A. Razzak, Optimization of CO 2 Biofixation by Chlorella
1457 vulgaris Using a Tubular Photobioreactor, Chem. Eng. Technol. 41 (2018) 1313–1323.
1458 https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201700210.
1459 [74] S.A. Razzak, S.A.M. Ali, M.M. Hossain, A.N. Mouanda, Biological CO2 fixation using
1460 Chlorella vulgaris and its thermal characteristics through thermogravimetric analysis,
1461 Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 39 (2016) 1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-016-1640-7.
1462 [75] S.Y. Chiu, C.Y. Kao, M.T. Tsai, S.C. Ong, C.H. Chen, C.S. Lin, Lipid accumulation and
1463 CO2 utilization of Nannochloropsis oculata in response to CO2 aeration, Bioresour. Technol.
1464 100 (2009) 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.06.061.
1465 [76] S.A. Razzak, M. Ilyas, S.A.M. Ali, M.M. Hossain, Effects of CO2 Concentration and pH on

of
1466 Mixotrophic Growth of Nannochloropsis oculata, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 176 (2015)
1467 1290–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1646-7.

ro
1468 [77] L. Moraes, G.M. Rosa, I.M. Cara, L.O. Santos, M.G. Morais, E.M. Grima, J.A.V. Costa,

-p
1469 F.G.A. Fernández, Bioprocess strategies for enhancing the outdoor production of
1470 Nannochloropsis gaditana: an evaluation of the effects of pH on culture performance in
re
1471 tubular photobioreactors, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 43 (2020) 1823–1832.
1472 https://doi.org/10.1007/S00449-020-02373-X/FIGURES/4.
lP

1473 [78] S. Abinandan, K. Venkateswarlu, M. Megharaj, Phenotypic changes in microalgae at acidic

1474 pH mediate their tolerance to higher concentrations of transition metals, Curr. Res. Microb.
na

1475 Sci. 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100081.

1476 [79] N. Reza, M. Bsc, THE CULTURE OF COCCOLITHOPHORID ALGAE FOR CARBON
ur

1477 DIOXIDE BIOREMEDIATION, 2005.

Jo

1478 [80] S. Abinandan, S.R. Subashchandrabose, N. Cole, R. Dharmarajan, K. Venkateswarlu, M.

1479 Megharaj, Sustainable production of biomass and biodiesel by acclimation of non-
1480 acidophilic microalgae to acidic conditions, Bioresour. Technol. 271 (2019) 316–324.
1481 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.140.
1482 [81] G. Hodaifa, M.E. Martínez, S. Sánchez, Influence of pH on the culture of Scenedesmus
1483 obliquus in olive-mill wastewater, Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 14 (2009) 854–860.
1484 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-009-0119-7.
1485 [82] B. Palabhanvi, M. Muthuraj, M. Mukherjee, V. Kumar, D. Das, Process engineering strategy
1486 for high cell density-lipid rich cultivation of Chlorella sp. FC2 IITG via model guided
1487 feeding recipe and substrate driven pH control, Algal Res. 16 (2016) 317–329.
1488 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.03.024.
1489 [83] N.R. Moheimani, Inorganic carbon and pH effect on growth and lipid productivity of
1490 Tetraselmis suecica and Chlorella sp (Chlorophyta) grown outdoors in bag photobioreactors,
1491 J. Appl. Phycol. 25 (2013) 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10811-012-9873-6/TABLES/3.
1492 [84] E. Bardone, A. Brucato, T. Keshavarz, G. Olivieri, I. Gargano, R. Andreozzi, R. Marotta, A.

78
1493 Marzocchella, G. Pinto, A. Pollio, Effects of CO 2 and pH on Stichococcus bacillaris in
1494 Laboratory Scale Photobioreactors, 27 (2012).
1495 [85] D. Ippoliti, C. Gómez, M. del Mar Morales-Amaral, R. Pistocchi, J.M. Fernández-Sevilla,
1496 F.G. Acién, Modeling of photosynthesis and respiration rate for Isochrysis galbana (T-Iso)
1497 and its influence on the production of this strain, Bioresour. Technol. 203 (2016) 71–79.
1498 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.12.050.
1499 [86] M.K. Ji, R.A.I. Abou-Shanab, S.H. Kim, E.S. Salama, S.H. Lee, A.N. Kabra, Y.S. Lee, S.
1500 Hong, B.H. Jeon, Cultivation of microalgae species in tertiary municipal wastewater
1501 supplemented with CO2 for nutrient removal and biomass production, Ecol. Eng. 58 (2013)
1502 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.06.020.
1503 [87] L. Xin, H. Hong-ying, G. Ke, Y. Jia, Growth and nutrient removal properties of a freshwater
1504 microalga Scenedesmus sp. LX1 under different kinds of nitrogen sources, Ecol. Eng.

of
1505 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.11.003.

ro
1506 [88] Y. Gao, J. Feng, J. Lv, Q. Liu, F. Nan, X. Liu, S. Xie, Physiological changes of parachlorella
1507 kessleri ty02 in lipid accumulation under nitrogen stress, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.
1508
-p
16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071188.
re
1509 [89] S.M.Z. Hossain, N. Sultana, M.F. Irfan, S.M. Haque, N. Nasr, S.A. Razzak, Artificial
1510 intelligence-based super learner approach for prediction and optimization of biodiesel
lP

1511 synthesis—A case of waste utilization, Int. J. Energy Res. (2022).

1512 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7764.
na

1513 [90] L. Xin, H. Hong-ying, Y. Jia, Lipid accumulation and nutrient removal properties of a newly
1514 isolated freshwater microalga, Scenedesmus sp. LX1, growing in secondary effluent, N.
ur

1515 Biotechnol. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2009.11.006.

1516 [91] S.M.Z. Hossain, N. Sultana, M.S. Jassim, G. Coskuner, L.M. Hazin, S.A. Razzak, M.M.
Jo

1517 Hossain, Soft-computing modeling and multiresponse optimization for nutrient removal
1518 process from municipal wastewater using microalgae, J. Water Process Eng. 45 (2022).
1519 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102490.
1520 [92] P.J. McGinn, K.E. Dickinson, S. Bhatti, J.C. Frigon, S.R. Guiot, S.J.B. O’Leary, Integration
1521 of microalgae cultivation with industrial waste remediation for biofuel and bioenergy
1522 production: Opportunities and limitations, Photosynth. Res. 109 (2011) 231–247.
1523 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-011-9638-0.
1524 [93] A.M. Silva Benavides, G. Torzillo, J. Kopecký, J. Masojídek, Productivity and biochemical
1525 composition of Phaeodactylum tricornutum (Bacillariophyceae) cultures grown outdoors in
1526 tubular photobioreactors and open ponds, Biomass and Bioenergy. 54 (2013) 115–122.
1527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.03.016.
1528 [94] R. Harun, M. Singh, G.M. Forde, M.K. Danquah, Bioprocess engineering of microalgae to
1529 produce a variety of consumer products, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 1037–1047.
1530 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.004.

79
1531 [95] J. Sen Tan, S. Ying Lee, K. Wayne Chew, M. Kee Lam, J. Wei Lim, S.-H. Ho, P. Loke
1532 Show, A review on microalgae cultivation and harvesting, and their biomass extraction
1533 processing using ionic liquids, Bioengineered. (2020).
1534 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6999644/.
1535 [96] A. Neori, P.S.M. Celis-pl, K. Ranglov, M. Caporgno, G. Torzillo, R. Abdala, G. Cintia, A.
1536 Margarita, S. Benavides, P.J. Ralph, F. Thaís, R. Atzmüller, J. Vega, P. Ch, A new approach
1537 for cultivating the cyanobacterium Nostoc calcicola ( MACC-612 ) to produce biomass and
1538 bioactive compounds using a thin-layer raceway pond o, 59 (2021).
1539 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102421.
1540 [97] S. Koley, T. Mathimani, S.K. Bagchi, S. Sonkar, N. Mallick, Biomass and Bioenergy
1541 Microalgal biodiesel production at outdoor open and polyhouse raceway pond cultivations :
1542 A case study with Scenedesmus accuminatus using low-cost farm fertilizer medium, Biomass

of
1543 and Bioenergy. 120 (2019) 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.002.

ro
1544 [98] L. Xu, P.J. Weathers, X.-R. Xiong, C.-Z. Liu, Microalgal bioreactors: Challenges and
1545 opportunities, Eng. Life Sci. 9 (2009) 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.200800111.
1546
1547 -p
[99] S. Mehariya, R.K. Goswami, P. Verma, R. Lavecchia, A. Zuorro, Integrated approach for
wastewater treatment and biofuel production in microalgae biorefineries, Energies. 14
re
1548 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082282.
lP

1549 [100] J. Oleszkiewicz, D.J. Kruk, T. Devlin, M. Lashkarizadeh, Q. Yuan, Options for Improved
1550 Nutrient Removal and Recovery from Municipal Wastewater in the Canadian Context,
1551 Environ. Technol. 20(7) (2015) 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/8/12/318.
na

1552 [101] H. Ting, L. Haifeng, M. Shanshan, Y. Zhang, L. Zhidan, D. Na, Progress in microalgae
ur

1553 cultivation photobioreactors and applications in wastewater treatment: A review, Int. J.

1554 Agric. Biol. Eng. 10 (2017) 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20171001.2705.
Jo

1555 [102] L. Yuan-Kun, Commercial production of microalgae in the Asia-Pacific rim, J. Appl. Phycol.
1556 9 (1997) 403–411.
1557 [103] J.L. Mendoza, M.R. Granados, I. de Godos, F.G. Acién, E. Molina, S. Heaven, C.J. Banks,
1558 Oxygen transfer and evolution in microalgal culture in open raceways, Bioresour. Technol.
1559 137 (2013) 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.127.
1560 [104] F. Romagnoli, B. Ievina, Novel Stacked Modular Open Raceway Ponds for Microalgae
1561 Biomass Cultivation in Biogas Plants : Preliminary Design and Modelling, 24 (2020) 1–19.
1562 [105] Q. Lu, Y. Xiao, F. Chen, Application of microalgae biotechnology for the sustainable
1563 development of aquaculture, Adv. Bioenergy. 6 (2021) 117–163.
1564 https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aibe.2021.06.001.
1565 [106] N.R. Moheimani, M.A. Borowitzka, The long-term culture of the coccolithophore
1566 Pleurochrysis carterae (Haptophyta) in outdoor raceway ponds, J. Appl. Phycol. 18 (2006)
1567 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-006-9075-1.
1568 [107] K. Kumar, S.K. Mishra, A. Shrivastav, M.S. Park, J.W. Yang, Recent trends in the mass

80
1569 cultivation of algae in raceway ponds, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015) 875–885.
1570 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.033.
1571 [108] Y. Lee, Microalgal mass culture systems and methods: their limitation and potential, J. Appl.
1572 Phycol. (2001) 307–315.
1573 [109] X.B. Tan, M.K. Lam, Y. Uemura, J.W. Lim, C.Y. Wong, K.T. Lee, Cultivation of
1574 microalgae for biodiesel production: A review on upstream and downstream processing,
1575 Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 26 (2018) 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2017.08.010.
1576 [110] D. Pal, I. Khozin-Goldberg, Z. Cohen, S. Boussiba, The effect of light, salinity, and nitrogen
1577 availability on lipid production by Nannochloropsis sp., Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 90
1578 (2011) 1429–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3170-1.
1579 [111] T.L. Walker, C. Collet, S. Purton, Algal transgenics in the genomic era, J. Phycol. 41 (2005)

of
1580 1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00133.x.

ro
1581 [112] A. Richmond, Principles for attaining maximal microalgal productivity in photobioreactors:
1582 An overview, Hydrobiologia. 512 (2004) 33–37.

-p
1583 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000020365.06145.36.
re
1584 [113] L. Brennan, P. Owende, Biofuels from microalgae-A review of technologies for production,
1585 processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14
lP

1586 (2010) 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.009.

1587 [114] A.M. Kunjapur, R.B. Eldridge, Photobioreactor Design for Commercial Biofuel Production
na

1588 from Microalgae, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 (2010) 3516–3526.

1589 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie901459u.
ur

1590 [115] S. Öncel, A. Köse, D. Öncel, Façade integrated photobioreactors for building energy
1591 efficiency, Start-Up Creat. Smart Eco-Efficient Built Environ. (2016) 237–299.
Jo

1592 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100546-0.00011-X.
1593 [116] Z. Yin, L. Zhu, S. Li, T. Hu, R. Chu, F. Mo, D. Hu, C. Liu, B. Li, A comprehensive review
1594 on cultivation and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: Environmental
1595 pollution control and future directions, Bioresour. Technol. 301 (2020).
1596 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122804.
1597 [117] L. Rodolfi, G. Chini Zittelli, N. Bassi, G. Padovani, N. Biondi, G. Bonini, M.R. Tredici,
1598 Microalgae for oil: strain selection, induction of lipid synthesis and outdoor mass cultivation
1599 in a low-cost photobioreactor., Biotechnol. Bioeng. 102 (2009) 100–12.
1600 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22033.
1601 [118] S.M.Z. Hossain, A. Alnoaimi, S.A. Razzak, H. Ezuber, N. Al-Bastaki, M. Safdar, S. Alkaabi,
1602 M.M. Hossain, Multiobjective optimization of microalgae ( Chlorella sp .) growth in a
1603 photobioreactor using Box-Behnken design approach, Can. J. Chem. Eng. (2018).
1604 https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.23168.
1605 [119] A. Niccolai, G. Chini Zittelli, L. Rodolfi, N. Biondi, M.R. Tredici, Microalgae of interest as
1606 food source: Biochemical composition and digestibility, Algal Res. 42 (2019).

81
1607 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101617.
1608 [120] O. Pulz, W. Gross, Valuable products from biotechnology of microalgae., Appl. Microbiol.
1609 Biotechnol. 65 (2004) 635–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-004-1647-x.
1610 [121] C.M. James, A.M. Al-Khars, An intensive continuous culture system using tubular
1611 photobioreactors for producing microalgae, Aquaculture. 87 (1990) 381–393.
1612 https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(90)90075-X.
1613 [122] X. Cui, J. Yang, Y. Feng, W. Zhang, Simulation of a Novel Tubular Microalgae
1614 Photobioreactor with Aerated Tangent Inner Tubes: Improvements in Mixing Performance
1615 and Flashing-Light Effects, Archaea. 2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8815263.
1616 [123] K.M. Deamici, B.B. Cardias, J.A.V. Costa, L.O. Santos, Static magnetic fields in culture of
1617 Chlorella fusca: Bioeffects on growth and biomass composition, Process Biochem. 51 (2016)

of
1618 912–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2016.04.005.

ro
1619 [124] K. Miyamoto, O. Wable, J.R. Benemann, Vertical tubular reactor for microalgae cultivation,
1620 Biotechnol. Lett. 10 (1988) 703–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01025286.
1621
-p
[125] A. Sánchez-Mirón, F. García Camacho, A. Contreras Gómez, E. Molina Grima, Y. Chisti,
re
1622 Bubble-Column and airlift photobioreactors for algal culture, AIChE J. 46 (1999) 1872–
1623 1887.
lP

1624 [126] C.U. Ugwu, H. Aoyagi, H. Uchiyama, Photobioreactors for mass cultivation of algae.,
1625 Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 4021–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.046.
na

1626 [127] A. Richmond, Z. Cheng-Wu, Optimization of a flat plate glass reactor for mass production of
1627 Nannochloropsis sp. outdoors, J. Biotechnol. 85 (2001) 259–269.
ur

1628 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00353-9.
Jo

1629 [128] I. Ahmad, N. Abdullah, I. Koji, A. Yuzir, S. Eva Muhammad, Evolution of Photobioreactors:
1630 A Review based on Microalgal Perspective, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1142 (2021)
1631 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1142/1/012004.
1632 [129] O. Pulzl, N. Gerbsch, R. Buchholz, Light energy supply in plate-type and light diffusing
1633 optical fiber bioreactors, J. Appl. Phycol. 7 (1995) 145–149.
1634 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00693061.
1635 [130] Z.H. Kim, H. Park, S.J. Hong, S.M. Lim, C.G. Lee, Development of a floating
1636 photobioreactor with internal partitions for efficient utilization of ocean wave into improved
1637 mass transfer and algal culture mixing, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 39 (2016) 713–723.
1638 https://doi.org/10.1007/S00449-016-1552-6/TABLES/2.
1639 [131] L. Brennan, P. Owende, Biofuels from microalgae—a review of technologies for production,
1640 processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
1641 (2010).
1642 [132] D. Klein-Marcuschamer, Y. Chisti, J.R. Benemann, D. Lewis, A matter of detail: Assessing
1643 the true potential of microalgal biofuels, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 110 (2013) 2317–2322.

82
1644 https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.24967.
1645 [133] S. Paul, S. Bera, R. Dasgupta, S. Mondal, S. Roy, Review on the recent structural advances
1646 in open and closed systems for carbon capture through algae, Energy Nexus. 4 (2021)
1647 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2021.100032.
1648 [134] P. Schlagermann, G. Göttlicher, R. Dillschneider, R. Rosello-Sastre, C. Posten, Composition
1649 of algal oil and its potential as biofuel, J. Combust. 2012 (2012).
1650 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/285185.
1651 [135] B. Ketheesan, N. Nirmalakhandan, Feasibility of microalgal cultivation in a pilot-scale
1652 airlift-driven raceway reactor, Bioresour. Technol. 108 (2012) 196–202.
1653 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.12.146.
1654 [136] A.P. Carvalho, L. a Meireles, F.X. Malcata, Microalgal reactors: a review of enclosed system

of
1655 designs and performances., Biotechnol. Prog. 22 (2006) 1490–506.
1656 https://doi.org/10.1021/bp060065r.

ro
1657 [137] Q. Béchet, A. Shilton, B. Guieysse, Modeling the effects of light and temperature on algae

-p
1658 growth: State of the art and critical assessment for productivity prediction during outdoor
1659 cultivation, Biotechnol. Adv. 31 (2013) 1648–1663.
re
1660 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.08.014.
lP

1661 [138] J. Nielsen, Bioreaction Engineering Principles, Psychol. Sci. 25 (2014) 1682–1690.
1662 [139] E. Greenwald, J.M. Gordon, Y. Zarmi, Physics of ultra-high bioproductivity in algal
na

1663 photobioreactors, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3701168.

1664 [140] S. Vargas, C.A. Gómez-Pérez, J. Espinosa, A method for the design of a continuous
ur

1665 microalgae culture photobioreactor in series with recirculation system, CTyF - Ciencia,
1666 Tecnol. y Futur. 7 (2017) 101–116. https://doi.org/10.29047/01225383.68.
Jo

1667 [141] J.C. Merchuk, F. Garcia-Camacho, E. Molina-Grima, Photobioreactors - models of

1668 photosynthesis and related effects, Compr. Biotechnol. (2019) 320–360.
1669 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64046-8.00081-1.
1670 [142] I. Gifuni, A. Pollio, A. Marzocchella, G. Olivieri, New ultra-flat photobioreactor for
1671 intensive microalgal production: The effect of light irradiance, Algal Res. 34 (2018) 134–
1672 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.07.014.
1673 [143] G. Chini Zittelli, F. Lavista, A. Bastianini, L. Rodolfi, M. Vincenzini, M.R. Tredici,
1674 Production of eicosapentaenoic acid by Nannochloropsis sp. cultures in outdoor tubular
1675 photobioreactors, J. Biotechnol. 70 (1999) 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-
1676 1656(99)00082-6.
1677 [144] G. Chini Zittelli, L. Rodolfi, N. Biondi, M.R. Tredici, Productivity and photosynthetic
1678 efficiency of outdoor cultures of Tetraselmis suecica in annular columns, Aquaculture. 261
1679 (2006) 932–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.08.011.
1680 [145] J.H. De Vree, R. Bosma, M. Janssen, M.J. Barbosa, R.H. Wijffels, Comparison of four

83
1681 outdoor pilot-scale photobioreactors, Biotechnol. Biofuels. 8 (2015).
1682 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-015-0400-2.
1683 [146] A.M. Blanco, J. Moreno, J.A. Del Campo, J. Rivas, M.G. Guerrero, Outdoor cultivation of
1684 lutein-rich cells of Muriellopsis sp. in open ponds, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 73 (2007)
1685 1259–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0598-9.
1686 [147] B. Crowe, S. Attalah, S. Agrawal, P. Waller, R. Ryan, J. Van Wagenen, A. Chavis, J. Kyndt,
1687 M. Kacira, K.L. Ogden, M. Huesemann, A comparison of nannochloropsis salina growth
1688 performance in two outdoor pond designs: Conventional raceways versus the arid pond with
1689 superior temperature management, Int. J. Chem. Eng. (2012).
1690 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/920608.
1691 [148] A. Jacob, E.C. Bucharsky, K. GuenterSchell, The Application of Transparent Glass Sponge
1692 for Improvement of Light Distribution in Photobioreactors, J. Bioprocess. Biotech. 02

of
1693 (2012). https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9821.1000113.

ro
1694 [149] J. Masojídek, J. Kopecký, L. Giannelli, G. Torzillo, Productivity correlated to
1695 photobiochemical performance of Chlorella mass cultures grown outdoors in thin-layer
1696
1697 -p
cascades, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 38 (2011) 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-
010-0774-x.
re
1698 [150] G. Olivieri, I. Gargano, R. Andreozzi, R. Marotta, A. Marzocchella, G. Pinto, A. Pollio,
lP

1699 Effects of photobioreactors design and operating conditions on Stichococcus bacillaris

1700 biomass and biodiesel production, Biochem. Eng. J. 74 (2013) 8–14.
1701 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2013.02.006.
na

1702 [151] M. Leupold, S. Hindersin, G. Gust, M. Kerner, D. Hanelt, Influence of mixing and shear
ur

1703 stress on Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus obliquus, and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, J.

1704 Appl. Phycol. 25 (2013) 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-012-9882-5.
Jo

1705 [152] D. Briassoulis, P. Panagakis, M. Chionidis, D. Tzenos, A. Lalos, C. Tsinos, K. Berberidis, A.

1706 Jacobsen, An experimental helical-tubular photobioreactor for continuous production of
1707 Nannochloropsis sp., Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 6768–6777.
1708 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.103.
1709 [153] C. Brindley, F.G. Acién Fernández, J.M. Fernández-Sevilla, Analysis of light regime in
1710 continuous light distributions in photobioreactors, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 3138–
1711 3148. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2010.10.088.
1712 [154] P. Rattanapoltee, P. Dujjanutat, P. Muanruksa, P. Kaewkannetra, Biocircular platform for
1713 third generation biodiesel production: Batch/fed batch mixotrophic cultivations of
1714 microalgae using glycerol waste as a carbon source, Biochem. Eng. J. 175 (2021) 108128.
1715 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2021.108128.
1716 [155] V.D. Gonçalves, M.R. Fagundes-Klen, D.E.G. Trigueros, A.R. Schuelter, A.D. Kroumov,
1717 A.N. Módenes, Combination of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) for photostimulation of
1718 carotenoids and chlorophylls synthesis in Tetradesmus sp., Algal Res. 43 (2019) 101649.
1719 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101649.

84
1720 [156] S. Sarkar, M.S. Manna, T.K. Bhowmick, K. Gayen, Effect of different illumination patterns
1721 on the growth and biomolecular synthesis of isolated Chlorella Thermophila in a 50 L pilot-
1722 scale photobioreactor, Process Biochem. 109 (2021) 87–97.
1723 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCBIO.2021.07.007.
1724 [157] S. Azizi, B. Bayat, H. Tayebati, A. Hashemi, F. Pajoum Shariati, Nitrate and phosphate
1725 removal from treated wastewater by Chlorella vulgaris under various light regimes within
1726 membrane flat plate photobioreactor, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy. 40 (2021) e13519.
1727 https://doi.org/10.1002/EP.13519.
1728 [158] S. Azizi, A. Hashemi, F. Pajoum Shariati, B. Bonakdarpour, M. Safamirzaei, Fouling
1729 identification in reciprocal membrane photobioreactor (RMPBR) containing Chlorella
1730 vulgaris species: Hydraulic resistances assessment, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 96 (2021)
1731 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCTB.6552.

of
1732 [159] A. Klepacz-Smółka, D. Pietrzyk, R. Szeląg, P. Głuszcz, M. Daroch, J. Tang, S. Ledakowicz,

ro
1733 Effect of light colour and photoperiod on biomass growth and phycocyanin production by
1734 Synechococcus PCC 6715, Bioresour. Technol. 313 (2020) 123700.

-p
1735 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123700.
1736 [160] M. Patelou, C. Infante, F. Dardelle, D. Randewig, E.D. Kouri, M.K. Udvardi, E. Tsiplakou,
re
1737 L. Mantecón, E. Flemetakis, Transcriptomic and metabolomic adaptation of Nannochloropsis
1738 gaditana grown under different light regimes, Algal Res. 45 (2020) 101735.
lP

1739 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ALGAL.2019.101735.
1740 [161] I.A. Avila-León, M.C. Matsudo, L.S. Ferreira-Camargo, J.N. Rodrigues-Ract, J.C.M.
na

1741 Carvalho, Evaluation of Neochloris oleoabundans as sustainable source of oil-rich biomass,

1742 Brazilian J. Chem. Eng. 37 (2020) 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43153-020-00011-3.
ur

1743 [162] Q. Ye, J. Cheng, X. Lai, Y. An, F. Chu, J. Zhou, K. Cen, Promoting Photochemical
Jo

1744 Efficiency of Chlorella PY-ZU1 with Enhanced Velocity Field and Turbulent Kinetics in a
1745 Novel Tangential Spiral-Flow Column Photobioreactor, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7 (2019)
1746 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACSSUSCHEMENG.8B03718.
1747 [163] J.C.M. Pires, M.C.M. Alvim-Ferraz, F.G. Martins, Photobioreactor design for microalgae
1748 production through computational fluid dynamics: A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
1749 79 (2017) 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.064.
1750 [164] K. Kumar, C.N. Dasgupta, B. Nayak, P. Lindblad, D. Das, Development of suitable
1751 photobioreactors for CO2 sequestration addressing global warming using green algae and
1752 cyanobacteria, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 4945–4953.
1753 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.054.
1754 [165] A. Carvalho, L.M.-B. progress, undefined 2006, Microalgal reactors: a review of enclosed
1755 system designs and performances, Wiley Online Libr. 22 (2006) 1490–1506.
1756 https://doi.org/10.1021/bp060065r.
1757 [166] G. Acien, J.M. Fernandez-Sevilla, E. Molina-Grima, F.G. Acién Fernández, • J M Fernández
1758 Sevilla, • E Molina Grima, Photobioreactors for the production of microalgae, Elsevier.

85
1759 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9307-6.
1760 [167] K.E. McCloskey, Effects of shear stress on cells, in: Compr. Biotechnol., 2019: pp. 624–632.
1761 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64046-8.00037-9.
1762 [168] C.G. Khoo, M.K. Lam, K.T. Lee, Pilot-scale semi-continuous cultivation ofmicroalgae
1763 Chlorella vulgaris in bubble column photobioreactor (BC-PBR): Hydrodynamics and gas-
1764 liquid mass transfer study, Algal Res. 15 (2016) 65–76.
1765 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.02.001.
1766 [169] B. Le Gouic, H. Marec, J. Pruvost, J.F. Cornet, Investigation of growth limitation by CO2
1767 mass transfer and inorganic carbon source for the microalga Chlorella vulgaris in a dedicated
1768 photobioreactor, Chem. Eng. Sci. 233 (2021) 116388.
1769 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2020.116388.

of
1770 [170] S.A. Razzak, I. Al-Aslani, M.M. Hossain, Hydrodynamics and mass transfer of CO2 in water
1771 in a tubular photobioreactor, Eng. Life Sci. 16 (2016) 355–363.

ro
1772 https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201500063.

-p
1773 [171] A.P. Carvalho, F.X. Malcata, Effect of culture media on production of polyunsaturated fatty
1774 acids by Pavlova lutheri, Cryptogam. Algol. 21 (2000) 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0181-
re
1775 1568(00)00101-X.
lP

1776 [172] Y. Huang, S. Zhao, Y. dong Ding, Q. Liao, Y. Huang, X. Zhu, Optimizing the gas distributor
1777 based on CO2 bubble dynamic behaviors to improve microalgal biomass production in an
1778 air-lift photo-bioreactor, Bioresour. Technol. 233 (2017) 84–91.
na

1779 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2017.02.071.
1780 [173] F. Marazzi, M. Bellucci, S. Rossi, R. Fornaroli, E. Ficara, V. Mezzanotte, Outdoor pilot trial
ur

1781 integrating a sidestream microalgae process for the treatment of centrate under non optimal
1782 climate conditions, Algal Res. 39 (2019) 101430.
Jo

1783 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101430.
1784 [174] D. Borowiak, K. Pstrowska, M. Wiśniewski, M. Grzebyk, Propagation of Inoculum for
1785 Haematococcus pluvialis Microalgae Scale-Up Photobioreactor Cultivation System, Appl.
1786 Sci. 10 (2020) 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186283.
1787 [175] G. Penloglou, C. Chatzidoukas, C. Kiparissides, Scale-up and intensification of a microalgae
1788 cultivation process for the production of high-added value biochemicals, Mater. Today Proc.
1789 5 (2018) 27463–27471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.09.065.
1790 [176] J.P. Díaz, C. Inostroza, F.G. Acién, Scale-up of a Fibonacci-Type Photobioreactor for the
1791 Production of Dunaliella salina, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 193 (2021) 188–204.
1792 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-020-03410-x.
1793 [177] J.P. Díaz, C. Inostroza, F.G. Acién, Scale-up of a Fibonacci-Type Photobioreactor for the
1794 Production of Dunaliella salina, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 193 (2021) 188–204.
1795 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-020-03410-x.
1796 [178] L. Zhao, Y. Gu, C. Peng, Z. Tang, Scale-up of the cross-flow flat-plate airlift

86
1797 photobioreactor, Asia-Pacific J. Chem. Eng. 15 (2020) 1–12.
1798 https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2518.
1799 [179] C.E. Pfaffinger, T.S. Severin, A.C. Apel, J. Göbel, J. Sauter, D. Weuster-Botz, Light-
1800 dependent growth kinetics enable scale-up of well-mixed phototrophic bioprocesses in
1801 different types of photobioreactors, J. Biotechnol. 297 (2019) 41–48.
1802 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2019.03.003.
1803 [180] M. Anwar, M.G. Rasul, N. Ashwath, Production optimization and quality assessment of
1804 papaya (Carica papaya) biodiesel with response surface methodology, Energy Convers.
1805 Manag. 156 (2018) 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.11.004.
1806 [181] D.C. Montgomery, G.C. Runger, Applied Statistics and probability for engineers, 3rd ed.,
1807 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002.

of
1808 [182] D. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2001.

ro
1809 [183] G.E.P. Box, W.G. Hunter, J. S. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley & Sons,
1810 Ltd, New York, 1978.
1811
-p
[184] N. Aslan, Y. Cebeci, Application of Box-Behnken design and response surface methodology
re
1812 for modeling of some Turkish coals, Fuel. 86 (2007) 90–97.
1813 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.06.010.
lP

1814 [185] A. Morillas-España, T. Lafarga, A. Sánchez-Zurano, F.G. Acién-Fernández, E. Rodríguez-

1815 Miranda, C. Gómez-Serrano, C.V. González-López, Year-long evaluation of microalgae
na

1816 production in wastewater using pilot-scale raceway photobioreactors: Assessment of biomass

1817 productivity and nutrient recovery capacity, Algal Res. 60 (2021).
1818 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102500.
ur

1819 [186] X.B. Tan, X.P. Wan, L. Bin Yang, X. Wang, J. Meng, M.J. Jiang, H.J. Pi, Nutrients recycling
Jo

1820 and biomass production from Chlorella pyrenoidosa culture using anaerobic food processing
1821 wastewater in a pilot-scale tubular photobioreactor, Chemosphere. 270 (2021).
1822 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129459.
1823 [187] Z. Chen, Z. Jiang, X. Zhang, J. Zhang, Numerical and experimental study on the CO2 gas–
1824 liquid mass transfer in flat-plate airlift photobioreactor with different baffles, Biochem. Eng.
1825 J. 106 (2016) 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BEJ.2015.11.011.
1826 [188] M. Ndiaye, E. Gadoin, C. Gentric, CO2 gas–liquid mass transfer and kLa estimation:
1827 Numerical investigation in the context of airlift photobioreactor scale-up, Chem. Eng. Res.
1828 Des. 133 (2018) 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHERD.2018.03.001.
1829 [189] C. Ji, J. Wang, R. Li, T. Liu, Modeling of carbon dioxide mass transfer behavior in attached
1830 cultivation photobioreactor using the analysis of the pH profiles, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 40
1831 (2017) 1079–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00449-017-1770-6/TABLES/3.
1832 [190] V. Belohlav, E. Uggetti, J. García, T. Jirout, L. Kratky, R. Díez-Montero, Assessment of
1833 hydrodynamics based on Computational Fluid Dynamics to optimize the operation of hybrid
1834 tubular photobioreactors, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021) 105768.

87
1835 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECE.2021.105768.
1836 [191] T. Zavřel, H. Schoffman, M. Lukeš, J. Fedorko, N. Keren, J. Červený, Monitoring fitness and
1837 productivity in cyanobacteria batch cultures, Algal Res. 56 (2021) 102328.
1838 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ALGAL.2021.102328.
1839 [192] Y. Wang, S.M. Tibbetts, P.J. McGinn, Microalgae as sources of high-quality protein for
1840 human food and protein supplements, Foods. 10 (2021).
1841 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123002.
1842 [193] M.I. Khan, J.H. Shin, J.D. Kim, The promising future of microalgae: Current status,
1843 challenges, and optimization of a sustainable and renewable industry for biofuels, feed, and
1844 other products, Microb. Cell Fact. 17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-018-0879-x.
1845 [194] X. Gao, B. Kong, R.D. Vigil, Simulation of algal photobioreactors: recent developments and

of
1846 challenges, Biotechnol. Lett. 40 (2018) 1311–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-018-
1847 2595-3.

ro
1848 [195] S. Petrini, P. Foladori, L. Donati, G. Andreottola, Comprehensive respirometric approach to

-p
1849 assess photosynthetic, heterotrophic and nitrifying activity in microalgal-bacterial consortia
1850 treating real municipal wastewater, Biochem. Eng. J. 161 (2020).
re
1851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2020.107697.
lP

1852 [196] M.A. Alam, Z. Wang, Microalgae biotechnology for development of biofuel and wastewater
1853 treatment, Microalgae Biotechnol. Dev. Biofuel Wastewater Treat. (2019) 1–655.
1854 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2264-8.
na

1855 [197] F.G. Acién, E. Molina, A. Reis, G. Torzillo, G.C. Zittelli, C. Sepúlveda, J. Masojídek,
1856 Photobioreactors for the production of microalgae, Microalgae-Based Biofuels Bioprod.
ur

1857 From Feed. Cultiv. to End-Products. (2017) 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-

1858 101023-5.00001-7.
Jo

1859 [198] S.A. Razzak, S.A.M. Ali, M.M. Hossain, A.N. Mouanda, Biological CO2fixation using
1860 Chlorella vulgaris and its thermal characteristics through thermogravimetric analysis,
1861 Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 39 (2016) 1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-016-1640-7.
1862

88
Highlights:
Photobioreactors promise sustainable industrial-scale production in Saudi Arabia.

Photobioreactor design and operation depend on physical and biological characteristics.

Overview of photobioreactor types and scaling up from lab to industrial production

characteristics.

Optimize performance, control, and many operating parameters utilizing AI model.

Scaling up and industrial production have been eased by photobioreactor design

developments.

of
Finding the research gap and future perspectives for mass scale microalgae cultivation are

ro
recommended.

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo